FCC to Freeze Out ISPs? Public Comments Due Today

Scott Mace writes: "Today is the final day to submit comments to the FCC about their Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which could rewrite how incumbent telephone companies (the Bells) are required to allow ISP access to the public phone network. They're considering doing away with the federal regulations (Computer II) that require independent ISPs to have access, and letting the Bells lock away the network for themselves. Deadline for comments is 7 p.m. EDT today. Here's a quick way to send your comment or concern to the FCC."

My letter to these scum! BE SURE to WRITE THEM!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bells are a horrible monopoly. I am very disappointed in the regulation of the little people, and everyone lets the big guys walk off with all of our rights, and our money. We need to crush the people. I depend on ISPs, and we need them. They are the only things worth paying for. They are trying to crush ISPs because of VOIP and other things that threaten their un-innovative monopoly/

I have been treated very poorly by my local monopoly, AT&T. They own the lines, they own the cable and they own the cable internet. They are rude and ineffective, they lie, the do no provide any service level agreements.

ISP need to be allowed to beat the phone companies around No more of this, I'll get around to installing that DSL circuit. ISPs need to be treated with more respect; they need to be able to control the phone company better. Its horrible, like Pac Bell/SBC here, they make life for COVAD so problematic, and they compete. So they guy who owns the lines also competes with the ISPs on these same lines. SBC puts in DSL for itself in minutes, and yet they pretend installing DSL is a big deal when a DSL provider asks for a circuit. The death of the small and mid business and Middle America is perpetrated by big monopolies making it impossible for little shops to be profitable in addition to unreasonable taxes (taxes that are collected whose burden should be shifted to some degree towards the big companies that leverage and abuse the public to make high profits).

I am downtrodden recently. The consumer in America has been criminalized. Due process is not for the free anymore, it's for the criminals. I have a huge sense of losing my rights. I think the public is owed a great debt by the phone companies! We solicited them, and if the phone companies ever got money from the government we paid that too. The people demand more competition! We demand fair treatment! I am so disappointed in SBC/PacBell, AT&T, everyone who calls themselves a phone company. And the little mom and pop ISPs who treated you properly are all dead.

And these companies grew so fast, too fast. They put in bandwidth that isn't needed. And they want us to pay for their mistakes.

Also, the last mile in America needs help! And the lat mile NEEDS competition! The last mile in the USA is the most pathetic thing. I am very upset with the line quality, and lack of choices. I should get cable, Ethernet, DSL, fiber and wireless. I should have people competing for my business. But it doesn't exist because of the same reason cars still run on gas. Huge monopolies prevent the advancement of the field so as to milk the old technology for what it was worth! And the government enables this.

American will be a better place without monopoly. People rise to the occasion! I owe a great debt of gratitude to big business and its trickle down effects, but the people have a right to defend themselves from monopolies.

Thomas Jefferson and Madison discussed monopoly - it is a form of tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), in his correspondence with James Madison (1751-1836) was initially hostile to the provision for copyright and patent law in the United States Constitution. On
Dec. 20, 1787, Jefferson wrote to Madison from France concerning the recently-drafted Constitution:

I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights
providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms
for freedom of religion, freedom of the press,
protection against standing armies, restriction
against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting
force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by
jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of
the land...

Note, here IMHO, TJ wants to along with our other inalienable rights, establish a freedom from Monopoly. These rights, not excluding freedom from monopoly, were to him as core as the rest of our bill of rights. He repeated this view in his letter to Madison dated July 31, 1788:

I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our
new constitution by nine states. It is a good
canvas, on which some strokes only want
re-touching. What these are, I think are sufficiently
manifested by the general voice from North to South,
which calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty
generally understood that this should go to juries,
habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion
and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty
in finding general modification of these suited to
the habits of all the states. But if such cannot
be found then it is better to establish trials by jury,
the right of Habeas corpus, freedom of the press
and freedom of religion in all cases, and to abolish
standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies, in
all cases, than not to do it in any... The saying
there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements
to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a
monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the
benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to
be opposed to that of their general suppression.

Madison, in a letter dated October 17, 1788, responded,

With regard to monopolies they are justly
classed among the greatest nuisances in government.
But is it clear that as encouragements to literary
works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too
valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not
suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public
to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified
in the grant of it? Is there not also infinitely
less danger of this abuse in our governments than in
most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many
to the few. Where the power is in the few it is
natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own
partialities and corruptions. Where the power, as
with us, is in the many not in the few, the danger
can not be very great that the few will be thus
favored. It is much more to be dreaded that the
few will be unnecessarily sacrificed to the many.

I hold the recent copyright extension as an example of what Madison though there was little danger of. There it was said, even by Madison, the proponent of the said directives, that there would likely be no "a sacrifice of the many to the "partialities and corruptions" of a powerful few."

Jefferson probably saw that there is some purpose in having intellectual property be protected in some fashion or more likely, IMHO, probably decided that he would rather be a part of creating the ground rules for this countries operations and decided to cut bait at this point. He subsequently said to Madison in a letter on August 28, 1789

I like the declaration of rights as far as it goes,
but I should have been for going further. For
instance, the following alterations and additions would
have pleased me... Article 9. Monopolies may be
allowed to persons for their own productions in literature,
and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not
exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no
other purpose.

Please, do everything in your power to destroy the tyrants and restore competition!

Is it just me

[datastew]

or does it seem like these public comment periods are only publicized on the day the comments are due?

I used to be an expert at just-in-time assignment production, but as I am getting older, I could use a little more time to formulate an intelligent comment.

Front Page?

[littlerubberfeet]

THis is obviously EXTREMELY important to the well-being of the consumer internet. Why isn't it on the front page where the Hundreds of Thousands of daily /. readers can see it?