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
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
All of us independant isp guys are busy polishing up our resumes..
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
that which is set by the gov't rulings?
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
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
oligarchy! wait... no... uhm... it's that game with the cute littke dog
and car as pieces! I'd like to buy a hotel!
In that case look to Australia for precedent -- and don't hold your breath.
TV
phew! I know one happy phone company/ilec employee!
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.
Yes, it's called structural separation.
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
> 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
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.
I believe you've mispronounced:
municipalities.
Oh, wait: Congress wants to outlaw *that*, too.
Cheers,
-- jr 'Second American Revolution?' a
