Courts Overturn FCC - Return of the Monopoly? 218
An anonymous reader writes "The DC Circuit Court of Appeals today threw out FCC restrictions which previously forced large regional phone companies to allow companies such as AT&T and MCI the ability to offer local phone service. The court also upheld FCC rules that no longer require large phone companies to share their advanced broadband networks of the future with competitors. The USTA response:
'This is a decisive victory for consumers, for innovation and for free markets.' The AT&T response: 'At a time when consumers and small business owners are just beginning to realize the benefits of competition, the D.C. Circuit today held up a stop sign and halted eight years of progress.' Enough about the Baby Bells already -- how is this going to effect my VoIP phone from VoicePulse (similar to Vonage)? Did I switch to VoIP so I can pay $15/month for my phone bill, but will have to pay $80/month for FTTH or some other form of broadband?"
Wow... (Score:5, Interesting)
Am I the only one here old enough to remember when AT&T was a "large phone company"?
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Informative)
We've looked at quotes from AT&T on DS-1 and DS-3 types of bandwidth. They own their own nationwide backbone, and are a tier one provider.
Not to mention their long distance service, and many many payphones which now cost $0.50/call.
~Will
Re:Wow... (Score:2)
That's freakin' nuts.
Here in Canada, (in Ontario.. Bell Canada is the major telco here) payphone calls are CDN$0.25/call. Very cheap. There's no difference in cell phone penetration either, by the way -- it's much the same as in the States.
Parallels with the TCA act of 1996? (Score:5, Interesting)
The law also implemented a double standard: national companies like AT&T and MCI were able to get into the local phone business while regional Bell companies could not enter the long-distance business without going through a rigorous set of checks and requirements that take years to meet (I think BellSouth is only now getting into that market 8 years later...). Overall if AT&T and MCI have had to face even an inkling of the problems over broadband that the Bell telephone companies have had to over telephones, then the law ought well to get thrown out and rewritten, IMHO.
Govt telco monopolies are the go (Score:2)
Now no one wants a private monopoly that free to charge what they want, so the go is a govt telco monopoly - meaning
Re:Wow... (Score:2)
They actually own a couple of Class "A" Internet networks
AT&T was the long distance and miscelaneous pa (Score:2)
AT&T hasn't done much local phone service since the courts split them up.
AT&T was the part that got the nationwide long-distance network (along with the other miscelaneous stuff, like UNIX), going head-to-head with the upstarts like MCI and sprint. The part that did the local service was spun off as a double-handfull of regional "Baby Bell" local telephone companies.
It's only lately that AT&T has be
Re:Wow... (Score:2)
Re:Monopoly growing? (Score:2)
Re:Monopoly growing? (Score:2)
Is Microsoft a monopoly?
Badly Worded (Score:3, Informative)
I think they mean that large companies like AT&T and MCI were required to allow OTHER companies to offer local phone service.
Correctly Worded (Score:5, Informative)
Unless the local Bell-equivalents share their last-mile wiring with them, they cannot offer local phone service, because they have no physical connection to the customer.
Re:Correctly Worded (Score:2)
Re:Badly Worded (Score:5, Insightful)
AT&T and MCI are national companies. The large companies are large local (ie state-wide) companies which were forced by the federal government to allow other companies to use their lines to "enhance" competition. The other companies which were allowed in had very little presence in the local market (hence were "small" companies), even while they were giants in the national long distance markets.
Re:Badly Worded (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Badly Worded (Score:2)
Verizon sells DSL service for ~$35/month, and they wanted ~$32/month from the company my friend works for
Classic.
There is so much haggling between monopolies and their corresponding regulatory commissions (staffed by appointees from politicians taking donations from aforementioned monopolies) about what the right price is for competitors to be allowed access to the equipment in the central office. Sounds like the local carrier was more influential than your friends DSL startup company. Imagine that. Mon
Re:Badly Worded (Score:2, Insightful)
the big problem is that the local phone companies had to give the competition leases on the lines that could not even pay for the mantinence of the lines. what sucks is that I am on Talk America, so if this holds, I might lose my service and get stuck with SBC.,....on the upside, this ruling will give the baby bells incentive to start expanding their DSL networks again.
mci DID have local service (Score:2)
http://consumer.mci.com/res_hispeed.jsp
Correctly worded (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope, they got it right...
For example, look into MCI's "Neighborhood Complete" package, which I currently use. Rather than having Verizon for my local service and MCI for my LD carrier, this rule allowed me to use MCI as my local carrier as well - Meaning that I pay only one phone bill per month, for $15 more than I paid to just Verizon each month, and I get unlimited free LD as a bonus (along with voicemail, CID, CW, 3-way, and I think a few others).
I for one will feel VERY pissed off if I get a call in the next few days from Verizon, telling me that if I don't sign back on with them I will have no phone service. But that seems like precisely the implication of this ruling.
Whaddya know, for once I find myself on the same side of an issue as the FCC. Ah well, I suppose this will finally give me the incentive to switch to 100% cellular.
Re:Correctly worded (Score:2)
If Verizon is stupid enough to do this, it could very well be the death knell for POTS. Such a large regression in customer choice might be enough to push many people to going exclusively wireless for phone service (maybe broadband as well).
The telcos will adapt (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
If anyone thinks for a minute that the telco behemoth will lie down and let the "free" internet eat its lunch, you are mistaken.
Whoa whoa whoa...back up a second (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Whoa whoa whoa...back up a second (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The telcos will adapt (Score:2, Interesting)
Those of us who use their internet connections for other bandwidth hungry applications will have to look around for companies which provide un-metered service - which will further improve their bottom line by reducing their own bandwidth costs.
There's no such thing as 'free'. The o
Great (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Great (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Great (Score:2)
the PUC has set a minimum price anyone can charge for DSL. it's quite annoying!
Tell me what to think.. (Score:5, Funny)
Just watch your favorite Big Media (e.g. FOX) news (Score:2)
.
Re:Tell me what to think.. (Score:2)
80 for fiber? sign me up (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:80 for fiber? sign me up (Score:2)
Wow, you're a student who is willing to afford $1200 per year just for internet access on top of everything else (e.g., tuition, food). How big is your trust fund?
Do it for the children (of the phone company) (Score:5, Insightful)
How? How? Damn it. How?
Anyone want to take a shot at it, because I don't see it?
Re:Do it for the children (of the phone company) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Do it for the children (of the phone company) (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been a champion of the idea (not mine, but I forget where I read it) of seperating the part of the system that goes between the house and the central office. Which removes alot of the stupidity and weird legal areas from the equation. The CLEC and ILECs will then lease space in the CO and pay some amount of money per pair.
Re:Do it for the children (of the phone company) (Score:2)
This time around the judges' frustration at being ignored was palpable. Instead of remanding the issue back for yet another turn on the FCC's merry-go-round, the court vacated the rules after 60 days pending motions to reconsider. "This deadline is appropriate," said the court, "in light of the Commission's failure, after eight years, to develop lawful unbundling rules, and its
Re:Insightful? (Score:2)
Do too you're low user number I'm saprised you our asking that question.
The mods decide when too give points. Dont complain when you loose. </satire>
Re:Insightful? (Score:2)
Re:Insightful? (Score:2)
Why is the point of living?
What is beyond the universe?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:Insightful? (Score:2)
Re:Insightful? (Score:2)
Of course (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:2)
The thing that gets to me.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that this comprimise has been made, they want to not be required to open up their networks. But do they have to get out of the long distance business? Of course not.
Cake and eat it, anyone?
The real solution would be to have the phone companies divest the part of them that manages the wiring between your house and the CO.
This might be a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
You own WHAT? (Score:5, Insightful)
What precisely is it that you think you own? The wire you put under the street between CO's and people's houses? OK, maybe you own that. What about the street itself, and the tunnels under them? I don't know about the case where you're a municipality, but you certainly don't own the street if you're a regional phone company. And yet, you've been given some kind of monopoly access to under-street cable tunnels and for that matter, residential termination points. If you claim I'm wrong about that, well, say I run an ISP with a downtown office--I'd like to run my own fiber through your city's streets and then up your city's utility poles just like the phone companies do, so I can drop Ethernet cable to the homes of my subscribers, and give them moby bandwidth without having to pay an RBOC to transport data for me. Where do I sign up to do that? I can't? Didn't think so--there's a monopoly like I said.
Given that the RBOC's are getting exclusive access to a public resource, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't have to share that access for the public's benefit. If they want to own their own network, let them build their own streets to run the cables under. If they want exclusive rights to put cabling under public streets, they better be willing to give the public access to the bandwidth.
Maybe there's some part of this that I'm missing, since I generally assume that anything Michael Powell's FCC does is bad, and when the courts smack the FCC it's a good thing. But this seems to me like a case where if the FCC has mandated more access to last-mile wiring, it's done the right thing.
Re:You own WHAT? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You own WHAT? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:You own WHAT? (Score:2)
Re:You own WHAT? (Score:3, Informative)
The right to put stuff under the street isn't quite as exclusive as you think. In most municipalities, if you can convince the powers that be that the utility you want to put under the street is in the public interest, convenience or necessity (and you're willing to pay the appropriate fees) - then you can use the streets. I believe this is covered under franchise law
Enough about the Baby Bells already (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Enough about the Baby Bells already (Score:2)
Re:Enough about the Baby Bells already (Score:2)
Re:Enough about the Baby Bells already (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Enough about the Baby Bells already (Score:2)
Re:Enough about the Baby Bells already (Score:2)
Verizon explained (Score:2)
Re:Enough about the Baby Bells already (Score:2)
-SBC. Combination of Ameritech, Southwestern Bell, and PacBell, primarily.
-Verizon. Combination of Bell Atlantic, NYNEX, and GTE (who was not an RBOC).
-BellSouth.
-Qwest. Combination of US WEST and Qwest (who started in LD).
And let's not succumb to hyperbole: the 'four big companies controlling telecommunications nationwide'
Alternatives (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Alternatives (Score:2)
Anti-Trust or special FCC powers? (Score:3, Interesting)
If it was on Sherman anti-trust grounds, I can see why it went this way. The courts are very reluctant to apply such a devastating remedy, and tend to read down any application.
Interestingly/counter-intuitively, American regulators have effectively NO useful anti-monopoly or anti-abuse-of-market-position powers. Sherman Act gives only the financial equivalent of the nuclear bomb. Below that, there's essentially nothing: no system of graded fines or automatic restraint/requirement orders, no ability to remove company officers or investigate pricing, nothing.
The courts and regulators could do with a few more blackjacks, shillelaghs, and baseball bats, with some pointed sticks thrown in for more serious cases.
Then you'd be less likely to see such extremes of legal position. The regulators/courts could adopt middle grounds more reasonable to all parties.
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com [blogspot.com]
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com [blogspot.com]
Re:Anti-Trust or special FCC powers? (Score:2, Interesting)
The issue at hand (Score:2)
CNET News.com has good coverage [com.com] on the ruling. So far the feedback on the decision is that it is so unfounded and ridiculous, that it is almost certain to be overturned by th
No competition? Wrong. (Score:4, Interesting)
B: This will NOT destroy it.
You've got a number of local phone options:
1) your local provider
2) Cell phones.
3) Your cable company (though I could be wrong here, it's entirely possible that digital cable/phone will be torpedoed by this. Does anyone know?)
So that's at least two, possibly three seperate groups vying to give you local service.
I'm sure the cost will go up, and features may be cut. But I don't think this is some telco apocalypse.
didn't this same ruling (Score:2)
Re:didn't this same ruling (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe so.
and if that law has been repealed, doesn't that mean they can no longer be long distance carriers? as in- no more verizon long distance?
Nope.
1) It wasn't a "law". It was a regulation.
2) It wasn't "repealed". A part of it was "struck down" by the courts.
3) Only the part that required the baby bells to open their local lines at regulated cost was struck. The rest of the reg - letting them go into the long distance market - is still there.
It's a "victory for competition" only in the sense that it deregulates more of the market. Net result (if this holds) is that everybody is playing equally in the future.
Which means that the people with government-subsidized copper already in the ground and the people who have to bury new stuff and wire a city are "on an equal footing".
I guess some are more equal than others. B-(
Fortunately, if you have to dig up the streets to wire a town in order to reach your customers, you might as well wire it with glass fiber. B-)
Worried about DSL? (Score:4, Informative)
The court upheld other rules requiring the former Bell companies to allow providers of high-speed DSL Internet service to use their copper wires, but not upgraded fiber optic or fiber-copper lines. The FCC said requiring the companies to provide access to the upgraded lines would deter the former Bells from making better systems.
At least for now...
Re:Worried about DSL? (Score:2)
Just wrong. (Score:4, Interesting)
Someone in the FCC needs to sit down and figure out just how much we doled out to each company for their buildouts and then either offer the company ways to pay us back or force them to offer discounts to other people who wish to use their network until the discounted amount matches what we gave them (adjusted for inflation of course).
Why is it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is it... (Score:2, Informative)
Confused... (Score:2, Interesting)
The only argument I can think of against this is because of a monopoly. However, I don't see (in my limited view of the world) that there is a monopoly preventing people
Re:Confused... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should an infrastructure built by an illegal (well, eventually ruled illegal) monopoly be left completely in control of, in my case, Verizon?
Why shouldn't I be allowed to ask MCI to provide me service over 100-year-old copper?
Should MCI or AT&T ha
Re:Confused... (Score:2)
Second, you can charge for others to access the network so your investment in the infrastructure should bring returns regardless of who provides phone service.
Re:Confused... (Score:3, Interesting)
Because in many cases the local telco has a legal monopoly on those lines, granted as part of their agreement with the city/county/state. Anyone else could build lines, technically, but they may not run them on or through city property. It's considered unfair competition for them to be able to deny competitors access to their network when their network is the only way those competitors can legally reach customers. Even when that's not the case, the local telco was subsidized in building their network and ha
Re:Confused... (Score:5, Informative)
The issue is that the "Incumbent carriers" already have billions of bucks worth of copper wire (and miscelaneous other stuff) in the ground and strung on poles. That was all subsidized by government-enforced monopoly prices over decades. A new competitor would have to dig up cities (more expensive now than it was back then) and bury his own wires - then try to compete with somebody who already HAS the wires, pretty much already paid off by money extorted from customers while the government enforced the monopoly.
EVENTUALLY they'll have to go to an open market. Like when the already-buried wire is running out and new stuff will have to be installed no matter who is providing the service. (Even then an established company will be ahead, only having to do incremental upgrades.) But right now the incumbent players have a major edge - thanks to past government favors at the consumer's expense. The FCC is trying to level that playing field.
And the court is trying to keep the FCC within the law as written.
Fortunately, the FCC seems to be honestly working for the consumer's interest (as they perceive it) this time, rather than rubber-stamping the industry players' recommendations. And the court also seems to be trying to do that as well (as part of its job of interpreting the law). They just have this little difference of opinion about whether one of the regulations is legit.
Re:Confused... (Score:2)
That's what they say. Some would argue that the stuff that's already in place costs much less than the UNE price to simply turn on and maintain.
I don't think there's any argument that, if they are out of previously installed equipment and have to add more, the UNE price for the new stuff is less than it costs to install it. Which me
Your VOIP costs. (Score:2)
interesting quote (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder what "rates set by the market" means when you own the market?
More sides to this story... (Score:5, Interesting)
= 9J =
Re:More sides to this story... (Score:2)
No, I do not see how the FCC letting the individual states regulate this is anti-consumer. Each state is going to have a much better understanding of its own local market, than the FCC would of that same market. But the court has ruled that the FCC now has to come up with its
Re:More sides to this story... (Score:2)
= 9J =
Its no big deal (Score:2, Insightful)
Plus, if fiber isn't shared, then more will have to be put down (more for everyone). The largest problem I foresee is if is if the applies to power lines as well (which would kill many beneficial deregu
At SBC (Score:5, Interesting)
These regulations really were slowing the spread of broadband technologies. Of course, the question comes so how should it be priced? The government set prices will always be wrong. Making it either unprofitable for the regional telco or the CELC.
If the regional telco gets to set the prices, it will of course be way too high.
The only logical thing I can think of is to do exactly what the court did, throw out the regulations.
Luckily a host of new technologies should force the telcos to be competitive in the "Communications" space. We have two-way satellite, cell phone-based internet access, wi-fi internet access, broadband over power, and currently most importantly cable modems. In Chicago, my dad actually had a cable modem/VoIP thing sitting outside his house with a little UPS. He had no idea it wasn't using traditional phones lines. He just knew he only had one bill, from the cable company.
This kind of situation should bring about very low prices without the regulation side effects. Considering how easy it is to switch with number portability and all it should bring about some beautiful Bertend, Duopoly competition.
ILECs will still be required to provide loops (Score:2, Interesting)
1) The Telcom act requires the ILECs (incumbent carriers) to offer Unbundled Network Elements (UNEs) as part of the "deal" for being allowed back into long distance.
2) The FCC and State commissions set the rates for the UNEs. In most cases, this results in the CLECs getting UNEs for a price that is lower than it costs the ILEC to provice the service. This has the effect of effectively "charging" ILEC phone customers extra in order to
effect != affect (Score:2)
F the FCC (Score:3, Funny)
As unpopular an opinion as this may be, I am happy any time the authority of the FCC is challenged in any way.
The FCC is an unelected arm of the government that already has far too much control. We may applaud their efforts to limit the power of corporations, but how do we feel when they limit what we are allowed to see/hear/think? We can't have it both ways.
The next time you think it is a good idea to grant any power to the FCC at all, ask yourself how you would feel if you didn't have Howard Stern during your morning commute.
Re:F the FCC (Score:2)
Yeah sorry, I'm going to take the bait and disagree with you on that. The telecoms (wireline) bureau of the FCC is actually pretty good; having made reasonably sensible policy over time that has generally been in the consumers interest. These guys are pure economists that don't seem to get as much pressure to make political positions. This probably owes partly to the fact that phones aren't as public (if I swear or expose my breast over the phone, only the person on the other end--probably my mother--suf
Re:F the FCC (Score:2)
#2) Howard stern is an asshat, and not terribly entertaining. If I'm going to listen to people talk, I'd prefer to listen to something with intellegence, and perhaps wit; or maybe I'd just like to listen to music.
#3) Yes, the FCC has too much power, however it is nice that nearly everything I own is required to deal with interference.
corporate tri-uph (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like Verizon is paying off more than just Supremes Scalia and Rhenquist. What could possibly convince them that telcos charging markups and delays to carried competitors isn't a decisive advantage? And since the FCC delegated its tariffs to the states, wouldn't a more appropriate remedy be to force the FCC to merely use the state tariffs as the (determinant) basis for a federal tariff structure, tailored for different conditions regionally, rather than throw out any tariff or authority at all? This is a corporate coup that kills everyone but incumbent carriers and paid-off judges.
VoIP is the future anyway (Score:2)
The Golden Rule (Score:2, Insightful)
The USA applies the golden rule: He who has the gold rules.,/p>
Did you think I was going to say something about do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This country is headed to the corporatist state (and the ruling party doesn't matter -- they both give in to BIG business). This is just another step down that path.
I protest this article (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a return to Monopoly? Ridiculous. Verizon was being forced by the FCC to basically hand out cash to any telecom company that wanted it. This has obvious results, Verizon won't invest in those lines, since it is LOSING MONEY.
The only realm left to Verizon (other than wireless) is the broadband market. Verizon has invested billions of dollars in DSL and in fiber to expand the reach of broadband to 80% of the homes in the US. Now they are deploying FTTP which will give us data rates in the 100s of megabits.
So there are two options, either regulate them into non-existance and force them to sell bandwidth to competitors who have invested NOTHING, or to let them reap the rewards of the capital they have invested and to keep the muddling hands of the government out of broadband regulation.
Verizon/Ameritech/et.al. define their own strawmen (Score:2)
This assumes the local telco's claim as to cost is honest. A long and very checkered history suggests otherwise
This is a return to Monopoly? Ridiculous.
It is probably a return to local telco monopoly, and is a disservice to anyone who has ever been afflicted with the need to deal with the local Baby Bells. For the end user/customer, this is a very bad development at best. Som
Existing Agreements? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, I wanted to through my cents in. I don't know if anyone noticed, but this is not going to make much difference (if you look into my future glass ball). In a year or so, SBC or Bell South will buy MCI (after they come out of bankruptcy). AT&T will also be bought. There will be more steps taken towards the consolidation of the telecom industry. We will once again be back with 1 or 2 huge phone companies (providing both local and long distance services). They can bundle in dsl, they can add voip services, and might as well buy the local cable company or even better yet, merge with a national cable company. (Or a parternship ala time warner + MCI style). Whether the TCOM ACT of 1996 remains in effect or not, the telco's will once again be too huge for the little guy to survive.
Do not worry though, the telecom act of 2016 will break said companies back up again! (in the return of Judge Greene!)
Greatnews! (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad electronics? (Score:3, Funny)
That SUCKS! (Score:2)
This type of stuff really annoys me.
Re:Why is it that.. (Score:2, Insightful)