fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
interesting that nanog is chattering so seriously about the calea thing (which does concern me), but seems to be unconcerned about another ruling that would seem to be a major anti-competitive change threatening the businesses of a few hundred members of this list <http://news.com.com/2061-10785_3-5820294.html>. or maybe i am misreading the ruling. randy
Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's. -Henry --- Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
interesting that nanog is chattering so seriously about the calea thing (which does concern me), but seems to be unconcerned about another ruling that would seem to be a major anti-competitive change threatening the businesses of a few hundred members of this list <http://news.com.com/2061-10785_3-5820294.html>. or maybe i am misreading the ruling.
randy
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 11:48:08AM -0700, Henry Linneweh wrote:
Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's.
Does anyone else find it ironic that removing the requirement that allowed competition was done in order to promote competition? I feel boned, how about you? :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Does anyone else find it ironic that removing the requirement that allowed competition was done in order to promote competition? I feel boned, how about you? :)
Welcome to the United Corporate States of America (if there was ever any doubt) It must be nice to own a congresscritter or two (or two dozen) and the FCC board for good measure. We've always been at war with Middleastia, and our corporate patrons are working in your best interest. I would _love_ to see an accounting of all of the tax incentives, monetary perks, and business anti-trust exemptions that have been handed to the BOCs since AT&T split up. These companies have been given literally billions of dollars to build "next generation" networks, and have only ever made any moves in that direction when forced to compete. On my office wall I have a framed advert from Newsweek in 1982 advertising the low low rate of $1.35 a minute interstate long distance from the Bell System. Yet another reason to welcome you back to 1984. I do wonder what, if any, consumer reactions are going to guide the BOCs. I mean is Joe Internet going to get all riled up when his ISP he's had for 5 years sends him email telling him he's being moved to Qwest or SBC without his consent? Is SBC going to care? Is there going to be a business case for web and email hosting with someone other than your forced access provider? Is there any legal incentive for SBC/Qwest/Comcast to allow that access? -S
I mean is Joe Internet going to get all riled up when his ISP he's had for 5 years sends him email telling him he's being moved to Qwest or SBC without his consent?
well, dunno about joe, but the jane to which i am married had a fit. "dealing with an isp was a known deal, these telco idiots are sub-useless." after two months of trying, she cancelled the new forced rboc dsl service, and is thinking of cutting the telco line entirely and getting cable ip service and running her own voip over it (to my asterisk in colo). among other amazing silliness, the telco dsl uses a windoze app to 'log on'. randy
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Henry Linneweh wrote:
Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's.
will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?)
Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's. will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?)
if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what does 'competitive' pricing mean? randy
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's. will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?)
if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what does 'competitive' pricing mean?
that which is set by the gov't rulings? :)
Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's. will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?) if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what does 'competitive' pricing mean? that which is set by the gov't rulings? :)
and, for this morning's pop quiz, what is the classic term for an economy of private ownership and government control? randy
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's. will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?) if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what does 'competitive' pricing mean? that which is set by the gov't rulings? :)
and, for this morning's pop quiz, what is the classic term for an economy of private ownership and government control?
oligarchy! wait... no... uhm... it's that game with the cute littke dog and car as pieces! I'd like to buy a hotel!
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 11:22:23AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's. will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?) if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what does 'competitive' pricing mean? that which is set by the gov't rulings? :)
and, for this morning's pop quiz, what is the classic term for an economy of private ownership and government control?
"regulation", ISTM. Just like before the Big Bell Breakup. With govt- sanctioned virtual monopolies. Hmmm. Relevance to MS case? Except w/o any regulation, in that case. -- Joe Yao ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
One question: One article I read when the ruling was announced (can't find it now, sorry) suggested that this only affected access to the ILEC DSLAMs, not the ILEC local loops. If that's the case, then Covad and company aren't totally out of business yet, as they can still demand access to the copper plant. The question, then, is how quickly the ILECs replace copper with fiber, which they have exclusive access to per this ruling. Is that a correct understanding? -C On Aug 10, 2005, at 12:21 PM, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 11:22:23AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's.
will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?)
if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what does 'competitive' pricing mean?
that which is set by the gov't rulings? :)
and, for this morning's pop quiz, what is the classic term for an economy of private ownership and government control?
"regulation", ISTM. Just like before the Big Bell Breakup. With govt- sanctioned virtual monopolies. Hmmm. Relevance to MS case? Except w/o any regulation, in that case.
-- Joe Yao ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
On Aug 7, 2005, at 5:18 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's.
will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?)
if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what does 'competitive' pricing mean?
that which is set by the gov't rulings? :)
In that case look to Australia for precedent -- and don't hold your breath. TV
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Tom Vest wrote:
On Aug 7, 2005, at 5:18 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's.
will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?)
if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what does 'competitive' pricing mean?
that which is set by the gov't rulings? :)
In that case look to Australia for precedent -- and don't hold your breath.
phew! I know one happy phone company/ilec employee!
On Sun, 2005-08-07 at 11:09 -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?)
if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what does 'competitive' pricing mean?
The choice for broadband will be either the cable company or the phone company, in those areas with both. In other areas, it will be just the phone company. : ( -Doug
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 02:21:59PM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Sun, 2005-08-07 at 11:09 -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?)
if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what does 'competitive' pricing mean?
The choice for broadband will be either the cable company or the phone company, in those areas with both. In other areas, it will be just the phone company. : (
The bottom line is that at a certain point there are a limited number times you can put a wire to everyone's house into the ground. Cable modems only make sense because the cable TV customer base to justify the build. At some point in the future we might actually come up with a workable IP over powerline technology, but again that will only make sense because of the existing customer base that wants electricity. Clearly this is a special situation where there is a natural monopoly given to whomever runs the wires. Maybe what we need is a certain class of company who will be responsible for running and maintaining the public data infrastructures. They could have lots of government regulations to ensure that they are charging a "fair" price while still being guaranteed a profit, and they could provide the last mile service for all those ISPs out there who are the ones that can actually compete and innovate. We could call them telcos, and... oh wait, nevermind. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
On 8/7/05 7:20 PM, "Richard A Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net> wrote:
Maybe what we need is a certain class of company who will be responsible for running and maintaining the public data infrastructures. They could have lots of government regulations to ensure that they are charging a "fair" price while still being guaranteed a profit, and they could provide the last mile service for all those ISPs out there who are the ones that can actually compete and innovate.
Yes, it's called structural separation. -- Joe McGuckin ViaNet Communications 994 San Antonio Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: 650-213-1302 Cell: 650-207-0372 Fax: 650-969-2124
From: "Joe McGuckin" <joe@via.net> Subject: Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
On 8/7/05 7:20 PM, "Richard A Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net> wrote:
Maybe what we need is a certain class of company who will be responsible for running and maintaining the public data infrastructures. They could have lots of government regulations to ensure that they are charging a "fair" price while still being guaranteed a profit, and they could provide the last mile service for all those ISPs out there who are the ones that can actually compete and innovate.
Yes, it's called structural separation.
Curious what others might think about this, assuming it's not snake-oil: http://www.shorecliffcommunications.com/magazine/news.asp?news=4404 http://www.xgtechnology.com/plots.htm Very low power and could be deployed right now in the unused adjacent-channel NTSC VHF spectrum. VHF (and/or UHF) would seem to solve many of the problems with "wireless" --Michael
On Sun, 2005-08-07 at 22:20 -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 02:21:59PM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote:
The choice for broadband will be either the cable company or the phone company, in those areas with both. In other areas, it will be just the phone company. : (
...
Clearly this is a special situation where there is a natural monopoly given to whomever runs the wires.
When the government proves unwilling to ensure reasonable access to the central office, why assume loosing this option benefits consumers? Consumers will be facing either a phone monopoly or a phone/cable duopoly. The US lags behind many other countries in broadband access already, where this change inhibits establishment of other carriers, even assuming alternative last-mile technologies could prove viable in the future. There is now no intermediate step into this arena, unless you consider dial-up an entry point. -Doug
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
The bottom line is that at a certain point there are a limited number times you can put a wire to everyone's house into the ground. Cable modems only make sense because the cable TV customer base to justify the build. At some point in the future we might actually come up with a workable IP over powerline technology, but again that will only make sense because of the existing customer base that wants electricity.
802.16 is starting to sound promising -- the first certified "WiMAX" gear is starting to get rolled out right about now. Still a little bit of time away for general deployment, but certainly eliminates the wiring requirement. -- -- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com> <todd@vierling.name>
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 10:20:19PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Clearly this is a special situation where there is a natural monopoly given to whomever runs the wires. Maybe what we need is a certain class of company who will be responsible for running and maintaining the public data infrastructures. They could have lots of government regulations to ensure that they are charging a "fair" price while still being guaranteed a profit, and they could provide the last mile service for all those ISPs out there who are the ones that can actually compete and innovate. We could call them telcos, and... oh wait, nevermind.
I believe you've mispronounced: municipalities. Oh, wait: Congress wants to outlaw *that*, too. Cheers, -- jr 'Second American Revolution?' a -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Designer +-Internetworking------+----------+ RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates | Best Practices Wiki | | '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://bestpractices.wikicities.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
All of us independant isp guys are busy polishing up our resumes.. --- Andy
interesting that nanog is chattering so seriously about the calea thing (which does concern me), but seems to be unconcerned about another ruling that would seem to be a major anti-competitive change threatening the businesses of a few hundred members of this list <http://news.com.com/2061-10785_3-5820294.html>. or maybe i am misreading the ruling.
randy
participants (14)
-
Andy Johnson -
Christopher L. Morrow -
Christopher Woodfield -
Douglas Otis -
Henry Linneweh -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Joe McGuckin -
Joseph S D Yao -
Michael Painter -
Randy Bush -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Scott Call -
Todd Vierling -
Tom Vest