Phone companies get favorable DSL ruling

[ConfuZed]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Verizon Communications and other U.S. local telephone companies will be freed from numerous regulations on their high-speed Internet services, the Federal Communications Commission decided Friday.

The agency unanimously agreed to treat the service, known as digital subscriber line (DSL), as an "information service," which insulates it from many traditional telephone rules, such as requirements to lease network access to competitors.

The designation would allow the big local telephone companies, called the Baby Bells, to cut off or potentially negotiate new terms for Internet service providers such as EarthLink Inc. (Research) to use their networks for broadband.

The United States has fallen to 16th in world rankings of broadband deployment per capita, leading Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to make rolling out high-speed Internet service to consumers a top priority.

Cable and telephone carriers are battling to provide customers with a suite of broadband services, like fast Internet access, video and voice service, already serving about 37.5 million customers.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/verizon_fcc.reut/

[GOTV]

1. And how will this help?

[don954]

2. it wont, it will drive out competition and drive up prices

[mbperrin]

3. OK, to increase access, decrease access.

Got it....

gotta take up drinking again, things like this made more sense then...

[ozymandius]

4. Man-oh-man. I didn't think things could get worse for Earthlink.

The cable internet service they provided has been pulled while they renegotiate with cable companies. Now the court has ruled against them on DSL.

[Mairead]

5. I haven't much sympathy for them -- their CS sucketh like a Vax

I had a Mindspring account years ago. Then Earthlink bought them out and they went right down the plughole. (I've never heard anyone say anything good about Earthlink, actually.)

Not that that makes this anti-competitive crap anything but anti-competitive crap. We should be able to get a T1 line from Verizon for what we're paying for ADSL.

[alfredo]

6. I've been on E-Link dial up for years. It's not

too bad. Every now and then there is some flaky connections, but overall it is stable.

[Mairead]

7. I'll swear that when they were first trying to peddle DSL they

intentionally degraded their dialup service. I went from a rather reliable 49-52K connect down to the 33-42K range with frequent 'bad modem' hits (doesn't answer the phone, drops the connect, etc) -- same modem pool I'd been dialing into for years.

[wli]

8. they've been deliberately degrading DSL service these days

I'm waiting for a class action lawsuit to sign up for.

[alfredo]

12. I was able to get 4 access numbers.

So if one is flaky, I switch to another.

I was waiting to see how this case came out before deciding on broadband.

[ikojo]

26. I left Earthlink last December because they

charged me $50 a month for DSL. My entire phone bill with SBC INCLUDING DSL is now only $58.

When I had a problem with Earthlink and called customer service I could barely understand "Brian" through his thick Indian accent. EL was charging ME $50 a month for DSL but contracting out for customer service?

[bemildred]

27. I'm now paying $40 for DSL, their "service" is indeed useless.

Although I did once get help with a difficult problem by being very persistent and threatening to quit.

[On the Road]

9. As a Verizon Employee, I'm Often in Opposition to

my own company's legal positions. In this case, however, there's a reasonable basis for the ruling.

Local phone companies are forced to share their networks with competitors. The basis for this is that they are a natural monopoly and the resale arrangement is the only means of generating competition.

In the case of broadband, however, cable companies are also natural monopolies. Unlike local telcos, they are relatively unregulated and are not forced to resell their broadband data capabilities. This is unequal treatment.

Either cable companies should be forced to resell broadband data or telcos should no longer be forced to. Without resale, you still have two major broadband sources plus other minor ones including satellite and CLECs with their own facilities.

As telcos lose their position as the only source for certain telecommunications services, it makes sense to de-escalate some of the regulation that is based on that market position.

[kevsand]

10. Your analysis is probably correct.

I just would have preferred that both telcos and cable be required to share access by reselling, rather than have neither. I want more choices overall, not fewer.

[Mairead]

11. Exactly. Reducing competition and choices is the wrong 'solution'. (nt)

[On the Road]

16. The Reselling Arrangement is Kind of Bizarre

It works better for regulatory bodies, but doesn't make sense to me from an economic point of view.

Resale prices are set as a percentage of retail. This gives no economic incentives to the telco, because if the company lowers retail prices, the costs to resellers go down too. I don't it's been an effective competitive tool. Ideally, resellers should be able to buy local loops on a cost basis, which would provide incentives to both parties to become more efficient. Problem is, that's too difficult to regulate -- a percentage of retail is much easier.

Broadband prices have been lowered more by competition with cable than by competition with resellers. Similar results might have been achieved, however, through mandated rates. But personally, I don't thank that would have been effective. Telcos are very good at justifying their cost structure. The only thing that stimulates real price reduction is fear of losing customers.

[kevsand]

17. You're right, that is strange.

But I also see why they do it that way. It's also easy to see why fear of losing market share is the real motivator.

At the same time, providers can compete on more than just price. Granted, a rock bottom price will always attract users. But everything else being equal (ie., with comparable price structures), features and service can be powerful distinctions for the consumer when choosing a provider.

[Rambis]

13. NOVAK!

No one wanted to put in the fiber optic lines in my small Iowa town so the local phone company did it themselves. They footed the bill and now they have to share their lines after they spent millions. I am sure Haliburton will deliver great DSL service to me at a fair price.

[Mairead]

31. They don't have to "share" their lines, they *rent out* access to them

That feels like an important distinction to me. They're not being forced to give anything away.

[anotherdrew]

14. cable was suposed to do the same thing untill the recent SC rule

"cable companies are also natural monopolies. Unlike local telcos, they are relatively unregulated and are not forced to resell their broadband data capabilities."

Cable should and would be so regulated if we had the governemnt that most people intended to vote for were in power.

[On the Road]

15. Cable Should Have Been Regulated for Years

It is just as much a natural monopoly as landline telephones. The argument that it's not a necessity is not a good one -- when any service has penetration as high as cable, it should not be an unregulated monopoly.

The results are predictable. My fist cable bill in the mid-80s was for $11.95. Now it's $57.95, without any movie channels, broadband, or pay-per-view. There are more channels, but it does not justify the increase.

As I understand it, the original reason for the increases was to service cable companies' debt. There was such consolidation in the late 80s that cable providers went into massive debt to acquire smaller companies, and their customers paid for it. In the past, there have been strict limits on how leveraged local telcos can be.

[CONN]

18. Wrong ruling -

here's an argument against - the local bell companies were to continue to be regulated after the 1984 break-up of 'Ma Bell'. The parent, AT&T, went the route of competition in long distance.
Seems to me that as a regulated utilities the local companies were able to go to the State Public Utility commission to get rate increases to cover costs and allow a generous return to investors. Also, there the use of public property for alll the poles and buried cable (I know the cable compaies get this) also.
So as semi-public utilities I think there networks should be open. I also think that cable should be open.
Perhaps the states should own transmission (like the raods).
Just a thought.

[Moderator]

19. kick

[Pryderi]

20. FCC ruling gives telecoms power over Internet access

FCC ruling gives telecoms power over Internet access

By Arshad Mohammed / The Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Communications Commission ruled Friday that big telephone companies no longer have to lease their high-speed Internet lines to competitors, giving the companies more power over the delivery of popular fast Internet services.

The new policy raises the possibility that America Online Inc., Earthlink Inc. and countless smaller providers that do not have their own networks could ultimately lose use of digital subscriber lines (DSL) or have to pay the telephone companies more to keep offering broadband Web access.

Combined with a recent Supreme Court decision that freed cable TV companies from having to share their networks with Internet providers, the FCC policy completes a rapid change in rules that have so far created a wide-open market with ever-shrinking prices for broadband services. The panel agreed to delay imposing the rule for a year to lessen the impact on Internet service providers and their customers.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said it was only fair to give telephone companies the same treatment won by cable companies in the Supreme Court's June 27 "Brand X" decision, and he argued that consumers have multiple choices for broadband access.

http://www.detnews.com/2005/technology/0508/06/tech-271560.htm

[Blue Gardener]

21. Oh great

Like I don't pay enough for DSL already. Looks like I may be going to cable internet.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Cable is no bargain either.

But that is not the worst of it. Lots of cities are looking into providing wifi service to the entire city - a metro area network open to anyone with a wifi enabled device - and the cable and phone companies are going apeshit trying to get washington to make this illegal.

[annabanana]

25. If we can make a big stink about limiting wifi..

and get them to back off, it would be a wonderful thing.

[bemildred]

22. Tsk, this is LBN, better fix the headline. nt

[Massacure]

24. I can see the point of view on this, but it is still stupid.

I would be pissed off if I spent billions of dollars laying cable and then had to share it with someone else. But laying more lines is a waste of time and money. This is why all the infrastructure needs to be owned by the government.

[dajoki]

28. "FCC ruling gives telecoms power over internet access"

detnews.com 8/6/05http://www.detnews.com/2005/technology/0508/06/tech-271560.htm

[NYCGirl]

29. Looks like prices may be going up. NT

[reprobate]

30. EVERY rule coming out of DC now favors some rich special interst....

....at the expense of you and I.

IMO our nation is descending into feudalism. Robert Reich said that we will soon face a 'snapping point'.

It is the nature of all these diverse wealthy special interest industries to want the most for themselves. They pay no attention to what is happening to the country as they all get what they want. I believe that there is a tension and anger building in the nation. The economic 'growth' the controlled media touts is only effecting the corporate bottom line and does not reach the people.

More and more, the people of this nation are getting by on less and less, fewer have medical coverage each day, and bankruptcy is no longer a way to escape indentured servitude to a corporation.

Meanwhile, the people are beginning to see that they no longer have any input into how their government is run. They see the government as owned by the corporations, with no connection to the citizen.

There are those on this board who argue for a new governance combining the old Marxism with American capitalism. I don't disagree. But the transition, I fear, will not be bloodless.

While I disagree with almost everything the NRA has done (having cut up my life membership card many years ago), one stand they made could well allow the removal of politically repugnant people no more than a finger crook away. I mean their stand opposing the ban on fifty caliber sniper rifles.

This weapon will make bodyguards, ever the SS obsolete. It lets a conspirator remove himself far from his target, where surveillance is thin, and reach out with accuracy. And our wonderful government, in its wisdom, has trained many of our citizens in its use.

It is not impossible to imagine some of those trained in its use, and angered at what their lives were used for in Iraq to talk together and decide that perhaps the founding fathers were right and it's time for another American revolution. Of course they could not last too long, but how long would coordinated attacks take to remove the hydra from control. A dozen or so govt heads and an equal number of corporate heads no longer there would, I think, result in chaos.

And that chaos I think will be the 'snapping point' that would set off the population. A population I might add that is better armed than any in history.

I want everyone who reads this to know that I do not advocate anything here said. I'm just noodling a possible future. And it's the theme of a story I've started.