backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 66 comment(s) - last by murphyslabrat.. on Nov 1 at 1:52 PM
Appeals Court upholds decision to end required line-sharing

In a decision sure to have repercussions amongst independent DSL providers, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has decided to uphold the FCC’s decision to partially deregulate DSL-based internet services.

The FCC’s “Wireline Broadband Reclassification Order” – which was originally enacted in September of 2005 – categorizes DSL as a discrete “information service,” exempting it from the line-sharing and fair-competition provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, of which it was previously bound.

Previously, DSL internet service – and cable modem service before it – was classified as a functionally integrated component of enhanced “telecommunications service,” making it subject to regulations that attempted to ensure fair and open competition. Some of these rules require that the main telecom provider – owner of the physical lines and equipment, or “common carrier transmission facilities” – grant “unaffiliated ISPs” access to the telcos’ facilities for the purposes of reselling their “enhancements.”

The old rules gave rise to numerous independent, regional, and specialty DSL providers, including Speakeasy and Earthlink.

Under the new rules, independent ISPs aren’t completely shut out. There’s nothing stopping the facilities owner, known formally as the “local exchange carrier” (LEC), from continuing to resell their services. However, there’s also nothing legally compelling the LECs to continue providing resale services either. As a result, independent ISPs have far less leverage in their negotiations and may find themselves subjected to the whims and preferences of the LECs of the services they resell, which some predict will lead to higher costs and a lower quality of service.

One of the chief arguments that eventually led to appeals court was that the FCC’s order was inconsistent with its prior decisions. The appeals court found (PDF) this argument to be meritless and further determined that the FCC’s orders were consistent given prior context, and fully compliant with its duties as outlined in the Telecommunications Act.

Supporters of the decision called the regulations “outdated”, and claimed that they did not fit the demands of current technology, in addition to stifling investment and keeping costs prohibitively high.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
...
By BigToque on 10/30/2007 4:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
So what happens when these large companies are no longer forced to share their infastructure?

It's not like anyone (even if they had the money) would be able to just build their own networks and lay their own cable, etc.




RE: ...
By CascadingDarkness on 10/30/2007 5:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
True, there are often things (ordinances, codes and such) in place that limit how many connections like this can be run on current telephone poles. Only so many people can compete with physical wiring, if at all.


RE: ...
By Oregonian2 on 10/30/2007 5:14:29 PM , Rating: 2
Verizon is trying to get rid of their copper wiring and its upkeep. Perhaps those other companies might want to make an offer to them for it once they've got FiOS installed into an area and have it turned off anyway.


RE: ...
By grenableu on 10/30/2007 5:20:10 PM , Rating: 2
> " there are often things (ordinances, codes and such) in place that limit how many connections like this can be run on current telephone poles"

A) run it underground, or
B) run it wirelessly.

But honestly, you're blowing the pole limit out of perspective. If there are already 3 or 4 wires on that pole running data, do we really need any more competition?


RE: ...
By Runiteshark on 10/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By Ringold on 10/30/2007 7:32:05 PM , Rating: 4
Ever live in Florida?

They'll tear up any road, any where, then pave it back -- just to tear her up again less than a year later when some new problem arises or they realize they screwed something up the first time. New building going up? Tear up the road boys, need a new turn lane! Hey, lets make it 6 lanes while we're at it, and close it down to two while we're doing it!

For whatever it's worth, my little bungalow hidden in the mountains in Indiana, last time I was up there they were doing.. guess what? Tearing up the ground along the highway laying down something (I called and the customer no-service rep didn't know what) to bring high speed internet on down the road. All of 30 homes live there, with a very small town a few more miles down the road. Didn't seem to require much incentive to me.

Not sure how you think fios is getting deployed, either. Star Trek teleporters putting it right down in the road, perhaps?

It's not a totally dumb idea, as you'd suggest, to dare dig a little. Expensive as it may be, I've never seen it stop much down here. Partly because of hurricanes, and the resultant wind damage, there's a push to get as many power lines under ground as is reasonable. Almost every major artery in the Orlando metro area has been a massive construction site for some long period of time over the last two decades. I fail to see how a little bit more work would move the neddle much.

As for wireless, again I reference my home state of Florida, specifically, red-neck low-income Saint Cloud, known perhaps for rodeo's, a powerful desire to avoid the taint of Disney, and a strong proclivity towards flooding more than anything else. Last I heard, their deployment of municipal wifi was doing just fine. Of *course* it's not like a cable connection, but it's more than some of them had previously.

Oh, and I think the Lake Eola area (and the homes to the east) of Orlando has a muni wifi established as well, though if it wasn't successful it may be gone as it was characterized to me as a pilot program.

No need to be quite so rough on the OP. He's human, too, and not a communist, therefore.. human+.


RE: ...
By amdsupport on 10/30/2007 8:20:21 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
They'll tear up any road, any where, then pave it back


heh, when at&t laid fiber lines here in they didn't even have to dig up the street, they called in a directional bore company and laid fiber through at least 3 major intersections near where I live during rush hour traffic with no hiccups.

the day at&t offered their fiber services (Internet + TV) in my area the street literally was lined with at&t trucks hooking up the service to about 8 houses--and I know all the people around were former Comcast Internet+cable TV customers.

quote:
mountains in Indiana,

---> ? <----
only mountains I know of in Indiana are the ones that appear when it snows, lol


RE: ...
By euclidean on 10/31/2007 10:31:31 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
only mountains I know of in Indiana are the ones that appear when it snows, lol


That's exactly what I was thinking...I guess he's talking about the far south in IN? Northern IN doesn't have anything but rolling hills of corn...and beans...lol

O, and FIOS was ran the same way in Fort Wayne, IN. just got some company to run all the lines underground with those bore things...they were all over for awhile until they got most of it taken care of. good stuff!


RE: ...
By bigboxes on 10/30/2007 10:16:29 PM , Rating: 2
You can disagree and give supporting reference, but you don't need to be a dick.


RE: ...
By grenableu on 10/30/2007 10:23:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
you are a total incompetent idiot. I use both words, and I mean both of them. Incompetent in the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about, the implications and ramifications of doing it, and you are an idiot for trying to sound like you do. For underground, did even 3 synapses fire in your brain? Digging up streets in metro areas, or really any other are is INCREDIBLY difficult
I got a nice chuckle out of this. Do you have any idea how many cables, pipes and powerlines and other buried assets are ALREADY under your city streets? Do you think they were there when those streets were first built? Do you even realize how often cables are added underneath those streets WITHOUT having to dig up a single inch of soil? Preexisting conduit, access points, directional boring, etc-- there are a huge number of ways cables can be added without any digging at all.

And when all else fails-- you dig.. Have any how often we do that? I happen to work for a OC implementing the federally mandated call-before-you-dig program. Nationally, several hundred MILLION times a year, someone digs up a preexisting street or road somewhere in the country. A single one of those incidents might be for a small section of road, or it may span a 50+ mile stretch.

So its up to you, but before you call someone a "total incompetent idiot", you might want to have at least a tiny clue about your subject. You embarrass yourself a lot less that way.


RE: ...
By Runiteshark on 10/31/07, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By zsdersw on 10/31/2007 7:02:44 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I still say you are a total idiot.


.. says the pot to the kettle.


RE: ...
By SavagePotato on 10/31/2007 10:37:44 AM , Rating: 1
Picture it all in a southern accent coming from a some redneck tech wearing a wifebeater and it all comes into focus.


RE: ...
By lumbergeek on 10/31/07, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By sciencedr on 10/31/07, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By Runiteshark on 10/31/07, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By porkpie on 10/31/2007 2:07:44 PM , Rating: 2
EVERYONE refuted your points. You even refuted yourself, when you pointed out (belatedly, after 3 other ppl had said so) that conduit means you can lay fiber without tearing up streets. Not to mention all the other ways you can do it.

Your first post couldn't have been more wrong if you tried (and apparently you tried hard, by all evidence). In most every city in the country, companies are laying down tons of new fiber. Sometimes by digging, usually without. But in neither case is it anywhere near as impossible as you claimed.

You were wrong. Dead wrong. Deal with it and move it.


RE: ...
By Runiteshark on 10/31/07, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/31/2007 3:32:49 PM , Rating: 1
> "Guess who owns those conduits?"

Several hundred different companies. AT&T doesn't own even a fraction of the conduits it uses for metro fiber. A large percentage aren't even owned by telecomm companies; they're owned by municipalities, or those who have other underground assets, such as power or gas companies. In a dense area, conduits are already carring cables from several different providers.

And in the case where conduit space isn't available-- you simply bore. Entire downtown areas are being retrofitted with cable, without a single street being torn up.

Seriously, for you to believe its impossible to put new fiber in cities -- at a time when so many people are actually doing it -- is a bit ridiculous.


RE: ...
By Runiteshark on 10/31/07, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Oregonian2 on 10/31/2007 3:46:14 PM , Rating: 2
Digging up and putting in a whole new system physically is exactly what Verizon is doing now with FiOS (and their *new* conduits were just put underground in my neighborhood this past summer). They only need to open up a hole in the ground here and there and bore in between them. Technique should work fine in the middle of downtown too. Very little disruption (and they had fairly little problem getting permission from local governments, they liked seeing the local cable have competition).


RE: ...
By SavagePotato on 10/31/2007 2:31:41 PM , Rating: 1
Now I've seen it all, im making racial comments about something that doesn't define a race. The guy's tone matched that of someone who is extremely ignorant and confrontational. Exactly what one would define a redneck as.

How I can be biggoted and making racial comments against my own race I'm not entirely clear on. As a matter of fact I grew up in what could be called a very "redneck" rural area. I guess you better call your lawyer and get after that Jeff Foxworthy character, by your definition he is the antichrist.


RE: ...
By Runiteshark on 10/31/07, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By murphyslabrat on 11/1/2007 1:52:01 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, you have a talent for earning -1's. I was laughing the whole way through, as I all but two of your posts were labeled in red!


RE: ...
By SavagePotato on 10/30/2007 11:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
Wireless technologies may not match reliability or speed, however they are a viable solution in areas that simply will never be cabled. IE rural areas.

I work for a wireless ISP that covers a pretty good chunk of the province, speeds are about in line with regular dsl.

In terms of all out speed one of the fastest is dragonwave. Their top backhauling solutions are in the neighborhood of a gigabit. Of course they are imensely expensive, and being that they operate at something like as much as 34 ghz, they require a pristine line of sight im sure. Nonetheless quite a fast backhaul.


RE: ...
By brshoemak on 10/31/2007 12:17:51 AM , Rating: 3
Aerial Fiber: PITA, pole attachment rates ($10-$15 per pole you want to lease from established telco's), litigation from Tier 2 ISP's (Verizon, etc.) I have dealt with these personally in recent projects

Laying Fiber: the way to go IMO as long as people understand that the machine can't dig just straight down so setting it up on a metro sidewalk isn't an option but it doesn't require much room to maneuver.

Permits: always a nightmare but a necessary evil. you spend a good chunk of budgetary spending in legal and administrative costs alone.

Dark Fiber: all internet service is still at the mercy of those who installed the fiber. the problem is often the "last mile." also, if a large telco leases the line at too high a cost to a local telco it becomes pointless for a local telco to provide internet service across that line as the cost to the consumer becomes too high and you are screwed on ROI

Wireless: I have seen an ISP that leases bandwidth off an OC-192 use 100% wireless technology (for backhauls)to their customers and have great data rates across long distances so it is a viable option. no issues with reliability thus far. (i would prefer copper though)

Indiana: top half - flat, bottom half - fair amount of large hills (may be almost mountains in some outlying areas). lived there for 22 years so I have experience.


RE: ...
By AlvinCool on 10/31/07, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By lumbergeek on 10/31/2007 1:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'm 15 miles from my wireless ISP's tower. I had to do some logging to see it, and just barely do, but I've never had a dropped signal since installing it. Is it a screamer for speed? No - 1M down, 512k up, but when you choose to live in the country you take what you can get. 3.5GHz Wi-Max is alive and well. Oh, and I can easily VoIP over it. Again, never been dropped.

The only question for me is whether my ISP will ever offer me a speed bump. Hasn't happened yet, but you never know.


RE: ...
By SavagePotato on 11/1/2007 10:39:40 AM , Rating: 1
It has that kind of range now. What it all depends on however is line of sight. The company I currently work for uses motorola canopy equipment with shots as far as 40 miles for backhauls.

That doesn't mean you are going to connect a subscriber at 40 miles, you could, but it limits the bandwidth of the ap the higher you set the range. In this case, AP's are capped at 10 miles which gives them quite a good range and still quite good bandwidth.

I see the fellow above mention that he is getting a 15 mile shot. I don't know what kind of equipment they are using but the speeds are about in line for what you would end up with on a canopy system past 10 miles.


Oh !#$$.
By PandaBear on 10/30/2007 5:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
That's bad. I love my DSLExtreme service and their 5 dynamic IP without PPPoE crap that AT&T is forcing down our throat. They also don't oversell the bandwidth or crap out of their backbone like AT&T does (right when you need to send in homework they shut it down and you have to bring out your dial up modem from storage).

If they force my ISP out I will just share wifi with my neighbor and get someone else, and shut my landline along the way.




RE: Oh !#$$.
By TomZ on 10/30/2007 6:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
AT&T still has that crappy PPPoE sh!t? I can't believe it after all these years. They need to get a clue.


RE: Oh !#$$.
By TomCorelis (blog) on 10/31/2007 2:26:09 AM , Rating: 3
If your modem has PPPoE support built in you should be able to program it into the modem and forget about it. At least you can with the older SpeedStream model that I use for mine, and the newer 2Wire models that I've seen (that I'm using as a wireless AP right now :-D)

Also, I've been noticing that my stream speeds have become a little less predictable on my AT&T DSL. Use to get a guaranteed 300kbps on downloads, now I'm lucky to see that consistently. Glad I'm not the only one...


RE: Oh !#$$.
By Targon on 10/31/2007 7:01:33 AM , Rating: 3
PPPoE also wastes bandwidth, in addition to the initial setup issues.

As for this latest ruling, since the telcos got the kickbacks and subsidies from the government, I suspect that many of the rules for the lines going to/from the homes of customers are still going to be accessable to CLECs. This means that while the DSL companies may not be able to put their equipment in the telco facilities, they CAN set up their own buildings and hook them up to the lines to provide services. The only problem will be the bandwidth concerns since all these DSL companies have had access to the bandwidth provided by the telco.

This will bring us back to the days when ISPs were forced to set up their own facilities with their own equipment and provide their own bandwidth and connectivity to the Internet in order to provide service.


RE: Oh !#$$.
By geddarkstorm on 10/31/2007 12:01:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, regrettably. That's the service I've got right now at 3MB. Now I want to see how DSL would be without PPPoE. It's that much better?


I Don't Understand...
By clovell on 10/30/2007 5:53:35 PM , Rating: 2
Most complaints I've heard about ISPs are about Comcast's Internet Service. This ruling says that big DSL companies don't have to play by the same rules as Comcast, but... if the way I see it is any indication, those rules haven't done much to keep Comcast from being, well... Comspastic - so what's the real loss here?




RE: I Don't Understand...
By doctor sam adams on 10/31/2007 12:36:19 AM , Rating: 5
No, the point is that with this ruling, DSL line owners don't have to follow the rules which Comcast and other owners of cable lines have not had to follow for years.


RE: I Don't Understand...
By clovell on 10/31/2007 6:47:27 PM , Rating: 2
So... wouldn't this ruling level the playing field between Cable and DSL ISPs?


Level of service will change as opposed to price
By ninjit on 10/30/2007 6:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
Here in SoCal, AT&T tends to price it's DSL offerings to compete with cable (i.e. undercut them), they don't appear to be really concerned with the independent ISPs as much, who were often the ones who price matched with AT&T.

I used DSLextreme for a while, and their level of customer service was phenomenal (especially compared to AT&T), some people also claimed their network was better and less restrictive, but I can't say I noticed much difference between the two.

With this new ruling, DSL and cable pricing competition is unaffected (so consumers won't necessarily see price increases) - but if AT&T decides to lockout the independents like DSLextreme, they will pretty much be out of business.

That said, I really don't think the independents make up a significant share of the market - consumers tend to just get DSL from their TelCo because it's easy: they just sign up when they get a new telephone line, and they are charge for internet on the same single phone bill. The only reason I know of and found DSLextreme, was because I specifically looked for an independent ISP.




RE: Level of service will change as opposed to price
By Ringold on 10/30/2007 7:38:48 PM , Rating: 3
Clark Howard spun this entire thing differently, not just on his radio show but called in to my local station this morning raving about how it was going to help consumers as well.

According to him, a huge number of people across the country in apartments have to deal with monopoly providers through the owners of the complex. Prior to this ruling, these little guys would offer the complex owners a kickback for giving them exclusivity by charging extra, lowering service and splitting the booty. Some, a minority according to Howard, used these independent groups to offer below-market rates on internet as a marketing tool, but again a supposed minority.

Howard essentially sees it as eliminating this cozy relationship. I had a grandfather in an apartment complex here in Orlando that describes precisely the setup there, but asides from anecdotal evidence, I'm not convinced either way what the aggregate effect will be. I'll go with Howard's interpretation of positive for the consumer until I see otherwise at least.


By TomCorelis (blog) on 10/31/2007 2:22:07 AM , Rating: 2
My own experience with independent ISPs has been positive, and until Speakeasy was bought out by Best Buy I had heaps of respect for their attitude and friendliness to gamers (aka ping snobs) and techies. I'm personally of the belief that eliminating competition (by cutting off resellers and independents) -- even if the competition conducts itself in a manner worse than the oligopoly in question here -- will only create an environment more conducive to collusion and anti-consumerist behavior.

Yes, these regulations created a burden on the LECs, and yes it is probably cheaper for them to not have to worry about *having* to resell lines they could sell themselves, but if you look at the alternatives, it looks a lot like the current situation with Cable internet. And how many of us think that that situation is better?


By Screwballl on 10/31/2007 10:13:09 AM , Rating: 2
Telcos are wanting this to shut out competition that is required to allow usage of their lines. In my local area there are 2 providers: Cox Cable and Embarq (Sprint) DSL. The DSL completely sucks here so the only real option is Cable. the problem is that some of the 3rd party companies can actually keep the service up and running properly due to their own service switches. I suspect these companies will lose a good chunk of their business now that they are not required to be able to use those lines anymore.
We will see...


all i know is...
By inperfectdarkness on 10/31/2007 9:30:38 AM , Rating: 2
japan is buzzing along at 100Mbps. i don't care whether it takes more or less regulation to get us there, but dammit, that's what i should have available to me.




RE: all i know is...
By mal1 on 10/31/2007 11:38:03 AM , Rating: 2
Japan also has about 128 million people packed into a country smaller than Montana. That figures out to be about 10x the population density of the US (assuming that's where you're from). I'd like to have those speeds too, but I doubt it's going to happen in this decade, even in urban areas.


RE: all i know is...
By TomCorelis (blog) on 10/31/2007 11:53:41 AM , Rating: 2
Well, you can always move...


RE: all i know is...
By geddarkstorm on 10/31/2007 12:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
I hear the sake's good...


Why the US's Internet is stuck on the slow Lane...
By pugster on 10/31/2007 10:38:18 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21549824/

It reminds me of during the depression when the US government decided to build interstate highway system when most people don't have cars. Yet Americans and car makers benefited from what what they did 20 years later.

The government doesn't see that increasing internet speeds by regulating the telecom companies is important and how it can benefit Americans and our economy as a whole. Countries like Japan and Korea saw this 10 years ago and they are reaping the benefits already. Another reason why we are already behind in times of technology.




By frobizzle on 10/31/2007 1:20:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It reminds me of during the depression when the US government decided to build interstate highway system


Huh?? What are you talking about? It was Eisenhower that signed the legislation for the Interstate Highway system and that was in the 50s. The Great Depression started in 1929 and continued on to the 40s!

Please get your facts straight!


....
By orangeaids on 10/30/2007 4:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
Comcast?

Buying a bankrupt company and raising monthly fees isn't good service.




By wetwareinterface on 10/31/2007 7:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
the major fear seems to be at&t raising prices due to a lack of clec competition being forced on them. in actuality this ruling will make the big telcos' not have to spend money and waste resources with clec integration measures.

basically this will kill off all the lame reseller clecs. which is actually a good thing. at&t has to spend money on a department to handle clec requests and communicate with the clecs. they also have to share their network with a company who typically has no money or equipment or infastructure of their own and that sharing cuts down on their own profits. when profits are lower than they should be due to some lame company having federally mandated rights to use your equipment you can't compete as well as you could against your main competition cable internet. when the cable company can implement any service they want and price it without fear of having to worry about what they have to open to a third party they can make more money off their investment in infrastructure. telcos until now didn't have this level playing field.

and there are several people who had bad experiences with sbc/at&t internet service. i used to work for sbc doing dsl install provisioning so i know what a nightmare it can be to get dsl working. the problem is it wasn't at&t/sbc's fault. the fault was in the fcc ruling that the dsl division had to be a seperate company and follow all these lame contract rules from a clec agreement from 1986. basically the dsl division was completely cut off from the rest of sbc and if anything was wrong with the phone line too bad the customer had to pay to have a tech go out and fix the line. sbc couldn't just fix the line themselves unless it interfered with phone service as well as that was against the contract agreement. so the dsl division was powerless to fix anything other than on the customer side during a tech install at the home/business. all other dsl related issues went to a division of sbc on a customer pay per fix basis if it wasn't a phone service quality issue as well.

this ruling takes that b.s. out of the picture entirely and removes 75% of the problems from the picture. dsl installation should go back to the way it was before the original fcc ruling that splintered sbc's dsl division off and mean all in one house provisioning. problem with the line? they now can fix it without ever calling the customer unless it requires access to the premesis.

also should make dsl much cheaper to install as there won't be an extra portion of at&t needed to talk to a different part of at&t to fix an at&t problem.




Telecom Act Fails Again
By teckytech9 on 10/31/07, Rating: 0
Two views
By FITCamaro on 10/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: Two views
By soydeedo on 10/30/2007 4:53:10 PM , Rating: 3
If it weren't for their throttling tactics I would agree with Comcast being a top notch ISP. They even had a nifty little feature implemented that doubled burst transfer rates for reasonably sized files and I hardly ever experienced any downtime.


RE: Two views
By Samus on 10/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: Two views
By FITCamaro on 10/30/2007 7:12:59 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
e) cost 2-3x as much as comparable services (DSL)


I don't know where you live, but here, a 6Mbps DSL line, with phone service costs $60 a month. Comcast's price for 12Mbps cable service is $45 a month. The same in Florida with Bright House/Time Warner and a 10Mbps connection (same speed and price for DSL). In Milwaukee, WI I got an 8Mbps connection with Time Warner for $55 and DSL again was just as expensive and slower. Granted I was pissed at TW's price considering I moved from Florida where it was cheaper and faster. You can't compare a $15 512Kbps DSL connection to a $45 8-12Mbps connection.

quote:
then your heavily opinionated (this is how its spelled) statement might hold up here


My heavily opinionated statement? WTF does that even mean? I'm not biased towards any company. I take the fastest connection I can get in an area for the cheapest price, regardless of who its with. DSL has always been more expensive and slower in areas I lived in so I have a low opinion of it.

My statement hardly makes me a fanboy. I said Comcast because that's who I'd have if it weren't for this crappy local provider. Time Warner is also in the area and I'd use them too.

I'm not advocating the crap Comcast apparently is doing. I'm just saying they're better than the other alternatives around here. I've used people's Comcast connections and its always been better than mine. And every ISP throttles you to the speed they provide.


RE: Two views
By EarthsDM on 10/30/2007 4:58:39 PM , Rating: 3
If you can't get Comcast now, this decision will not magically change that (nor will it magically make Comcast decent). Your service if, as you said, there is only one provider in your area will get more expensive or become unavailable.

Some (not I) could argue that it will make things better in the super long term view because it could encourage investment a.k.a. this is what Reagan would say if he were alive:

1) Tele. Co.s get so excited about having no competition that they expand their lines to every part of your county, and the rest of the country. Note: they will not expand into the same areas, as that would be unprofitable.
2) Tele. Co.s recoop their investment in a very short time by charging huge fees, make their shareholders rich (which makes America strong, you know!)
3) Tele. Co.s look for more customers to screw, are disappointed to find that everyone already has service, decide to expand into other Tele. Co.'s territory.*
4) Eventually every house will have several Tele. Co.s to choose from, service begins a long climb towards 'acceptable' and prices begin a slow slide toward 'reasonable'.

*It is important to note that step three rarely, if ever, happens in a situation where there is a oligopoly (several large entities competing). It is more likely that things would advance to stage 5:

5) All the Tele. Co.s merge, their executive retire (rich) and the shareholders continue to make money from their investments, most of America is at least partially connected (see AT&T circa. 1980). The shareholders are happy as pie, but even they have to pay $1/kB when they go online to see how their stocks are doing.


RE: Two views
By grenableu on 10/30/2007 5:08:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you can't get Comcast now, this decision will not magically change that (nor will it magically make Comcast decent
If you can't get Comcast in your area, it has nothing to do with the telcos period, either before or after this decision.

quote:
Tele. Co.s recoop their investment in a very short time by charging huge fees
Most telcos never recouped the investment they made in fiber in the mid 1990s. That's why so many went out of business. Even the big guys took more than 10 years to make it back.

In my own area, DSL rates have DROPPED four times in the last five years. It's now barely more expensive than dialup.

> "All the Tele. Co.s merge, their executive retire (rich)..blah blah blah..."

Aren't you late for your local party meeting, Comrade?


RE: Two views
By nofranchise on 11/1/2007 8:36:06 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah -you tell em. All regulation is evil, communist and plain stupid. I've said it before and will say it again. Let the free market regulate itself and everything will be bliss. So what if the choices are reduced - hell if there was only one company, I wouldn't have to spend time deciding whether to shop at Wallmart or Target, use AT&T or Comcast! More time on my hands for jerkin' off, eating fries and hating the liberals and the unknown.

"It is un-American and un-patriotic to own a passport! Eat, drink, drive, sh*t,f*ck and live American!" - Slogan of the Republican Party Convention 2014 - (Predicted. Might be subject to lies, deception and betrayal.)


RE: Two views
By FITCamaro on 10/30/2007 7:15:23 PM , Rating: 2
Comcast is in the ground. Just where I happen to live, its not Comcast. 200 yards away, it is. I didn't know Comcast was around when I moved here. If I had, I'd have moved somewhere where Comcast or Time Warner was the service offered.


RE: Two views
By rcc on 11/1/2007 12:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
One of the first questions I ask when looking at a complex or neighborhood, "what options are available for TV and Internet". Then I check their plans and record, it's part of the selection process.


RE: Two views
By Jellodyne on 10/30/2007 4:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
Typically local cable companies own their own lines. This mostly affects people, like me, who get their dsl line from their phone company but get their actual ISP service from a third party. My ISP (visi.com) is so technically competent that half the time I call in the sales guy who answers the phone gets me sorted out without actually sending me to tech support. Plus they maintain 150% of their peak bandwidth to 3 sepearte backbone providers, meaning if one provider has a fiber cut or goes down for whatever reasno, they're still at 100% bandwidth. They're awesome. And if this ruling means that Qwest can force me to drop them for super crappy qwest.net service were the top level tech support doesn't have the fisrt clue then I'm an going to be furious.


RE: Two views
By Mitch101 on 10/30/2007 5:02:33 PM , Rating: 2
When SunRocket went chap 11 everyone thought I was nuts going with AT&T VOIP instead of someone like Packet8 or Vonage. Most VOIP services are generally $25.00 a month. AT&T VOIP cost me $29.00 a month and that includes all the little fees they throw in. But AT&T isnt going to be sued or cut off any time soon leaving me in limbo on my phone service. At the very least I am not supporting Verizon.

Of course nothing is preventing them from one day wiping out the small VOIP companies and raising prices someday.


RE: Two views
By FITCamaro on 10/30/2007 7:18:06 PM , Rating: 2
Uh Vonage just uses whatever internet connection you have. You can have AT&T DSL service and Vonage VIOP service and theres nothing they can do about it. The only thing they could possibly do is reduce priority on packets sent by Vonage. However I don't believe that is legal.


RE: Two views
By Mitch101 on 10/30/2007 9:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
Vonage was my first VOIP service and it was lousy. Problems accessing messages from the website, faxing never worked and I payed extra for that, voice quality was hit and miss sometimes, and Tivo never made a succesfull call on it. Could very well not be Vonages fault but Time Warner monopolizing people who use alternative services. I set the quality level to medium and high nothing made a difference until I switched to SunRocket and everything above worked and worked well I was even amazed that Tivo never had a connection problem and faxing worked without paying extra. I couldnt justify going back to Vonage especially seeing they lost the lawsuit to Verizon and AT&T started thier lawsuit on them. In addition having SunRocket Chap 11 on me while I was job searching and knowing full well that Vonage doesnt have a positive cash flow because of excessive advertising and lawsuits. They might be the largest alternative to VOIP but is they keep bleeding cash and getting sued for more they might just Chap 11 like SunRocket and I cant afford for that to happen again. I dont like making deals with Big Bell because of eventual high prices but they have all the patents and I need phone service.

I wouldnt put it past any of them to reduce packet priority to try and promote thier own services. Right now Time Warner/Road Runner is prioritizing certain packets on me now even though I am suppose to have a higher data rate. Sure they think about doing the same to VOIP carries that arent them either. Hard to trust any of the companies that offer internet connections today.

Good thing they cant knock Direct TV satelites out of the sky but Im sure they would if they could. They all have the biggest lying commercials I have ever seen.

In retrospect I think its more that Time Warner/Road Runner are freakin clueless when it comes to support. I have traced so many problems with thier e-mail systems its no wonder they are hiring here every other week in Charlotte.


RE: Two views
By FITCamaro on 10/30/2007 10:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hard to trust any of the companies that offer internet connections today.


I won't argue with you there.


this is horrible!
By ohm329 on 10/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: this is horrible!
By Ringold on 10/30/2007 7:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
What would stop them from raising subscription fees? I don't know -- competition?!

If two or three providers in an area raised prices independently but simultaneously that'd scream collusion, unless taxes or whatnot justified it. Collusion, being illegal and all, puts people in jail.

Meanwhile, if just one kept prices low, as the powerful incentive would be, they'd pick up the refugees from the others.

Since I've seen options increase and costs stay pretty steady (while quality of service has increased) I find it hard to be too paranoid.

If you think you see collusion in your local market, this being the United Litigators of America, you have a god-given right to file a lawsuit I suppose. Florida inparticular loves its price gouging witch hunts..


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki