FCC Reclassifies DSL, Drops Common Carrier Rules 310
Neil Wehneman writes "Via Media Law Prof Blog, it is reported that the FCC has reclassified broadband service as an "information service" instead of "telecommunications". This, among other things, gives the Baby Bells the same gift the cable companies got with Brand X : the right to stop opening their lines to competitors."
Re:Not a good thing (Score:2, Informative)
When people get their heads directly kicked in, they really can raise a ruckus.
You have a year to force this decision to be reversed.
Competition Shompetition: It's the Royal ROI (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the theory, in perfunctory fashion, because I don't buy it. Broadband uptake in the US is not going as quickly as somebody wants. Aha! the FCC reasons (helped by whispers in the ear), it must be because the owners of phone lines won't upgrade them unless they get the full return of their investment. So if the Baby Bells own and maintain the lines, the Baby Bells are granted full control over how much they charge other information service providers, and, in order to make negotiations between the Baby Bells and indy DSLs more equitable, the Baby Bells can now walk away and say no soup for you, More return on investment means more investment in infrastructure and more supply means more demand. Entry into the brand new beautiful broadband world accelerates.
And some folks at SBC and Verizon get together with their lobbyists and a few of their contacts in Congress and the Executive, and tilt many a glass in honor of these days in the new gilded age.
Re:Larry Magid (Score:5, Informative)
It makes no financial sense whatsoever to eliminate CLECs from the copper/fiber as they PAY the ILECs for the access/maintenance and always have. The majority of Speakeasy lines are through COVAD (properly capitalized, it is an acronym, COpper Value Added Distributor) if I am not mistaken. However, there really isn't a lot of money to be made at consumer DSL as a CLEC and acting as an ISP over ILEC DSL set-ups is more cost effective. This ruling eliminates the requirement that the ILECs open up their DSLAMs to other ISPs but it does not invalidate the existing contracts. Merely means that the ILECs will have supreme latitude in renegotiation at the contract's expiration. Don't like their terms? Tough.
But all those Speakeasy over COVAD lines aren't going anywhere. Most likely, they will have to do some hard thinking and probably look at partnering with CLECs.
BTW, DSLAM means DSL Access Multiplexor. These are where all the DSL lines terminate and aggregate first and then hand off usually via Fast Ethernet or DS-3 to a switch/router. CLECs may have one or several at a colocation. Some use multiple kinds and some use one kind. See Paradyne, Copper Mountain, Cisco, Lucent, Alcatel for DSLAM models availible.
Re:Why was the press's initial reaction so positiv (Score:4, Informative)
However, if you do it because you are a government-sanctioned monopoly with sole rights to do it (in some areas) and a government mandate to do it, and you do it partially with government money, partially with your monopoly status, then the situation changes. You can't maintain the 'privately-funded stuff' argument when your private corporation has had special legal status to be the only game in town for 100 years.
The phone companies are here to serve us. Not the other way around. The rules need to reflect that. Compare it to the power/water/sewer/postal monopolies and the government regulation needed to keep that common infrastructure working for us.
Re:Build more networks! (Score:3, Informative)
Telcos were legal monopolies for many years, in exchange for doing the work (NOT "taking the risk") to build out the infrastructure. The customers paid for that build-out with higher-than-necessary rates (had there been competition), all manner of rules about where you could get a telephone (from the phone company, only), how you could get a phone (rentals only, no purchases), and on and on.
During that period many miles of copper and fiber were rolled out, but also innovation was stymied (for example, ISDN was stifled in the US while Europe had it for ages as an everyday service), and all our grannies paid a big chunk of their social security money each month to rent that princess phone next to the bed (ac adapter and "night light" option extra).
So don't discuss "forcing a company to share" something that they didn't really build but by incentives granted by the same people who now want to use that which was built.
Re:no common carrier == censorship possible (Score:3, Informative)
The actual article (Score:2, Informative)
Word of PDF take your pick. Good thing OpenOffice opens docs.(another discussion alltogether)
Essentially this is going to screw us all and the FCC really pisses me off lately. I would like to know just who our government really represents because lately it sure as hell doesn't feel like the people.
So basically all us outlaw DSL users that don't opt for the telco sponsored service have a year, after which who knows what will happen. The actual release is very vague and uses lots of references to common and non-common carrier wording. This kind of crap is really getting out of hand with the FCC.
Check out the statements from the people that made the descision. I understand the logic but the implimentation seems backwards. Heres the basic gist, cable companies get protection from leasing thier lines(which is why my cable bill is 120 bucks with no premium channels) Telcos do not currently have the same luxury.
Some choice quotes: Kevin J Martin said: "I believe that, with the actions we take today, consumers will reap the benefits of increased Internet access competition and enjoy innovative high-speed services at lower prices. There is, however, more to do to stimulate infrastructure investment, broadband deployment, and competition in the broadband market. I intend to tackle these challenges in the upcoming months." Wow this guy makes some big claims....I wonder what those challenges are and how they intend to handle that.
Kathleen Q. Abernathy states:"And let there be no doubt: competition among broadband providers is flourishing. The Commission's most recent statistics show that over 80% of zip codes in America are served by two or more high-speed providers, about two-thirds are served by three or more, and over half are served by four or more." Idea for the next slashdot poll. How many broadband providers serve you? If I cut out thirdparty ISPs like Speakeasy I have Qwest and Comcast. Thats two services run by a bunch of monkeys charging whatever the hell they want for thier service.
all of the statements made by the people that made the decision are full of "facts and figures" with no references to sources. The real driving force behind this decision is those peer to peer music stealing communist evil pirates that are taking the food from artists childrens mouth. The short statement likes the use of "legal devices" what is a legal device to access the internet? Is that defined somewhere? Children like Jermajesty(no I am not kidding lookit up)! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! This goes hand in hand with CALEA which is cited in the release as well.
I would run away to another county but thats not much better
Speakasy reply (Score:1, Informative)
"... Speakeasy operates on a WHOLESALE model, where we buy essentially DSL physical layer (DSLAM) and add all of the IP services ourselves. The FCC ruling does not contemplate any changes to this regime, or to the massive unbundling ruling they issued in February. Covad and our other CLEC partners run exclusively on an unbundled network regime. We have direct commercial wholesale relationships with SBC and Qwest are for their wholesale products and the private commercial relationships are unaffected by the FCC ruling.
The FCC ruling will have no impact on our pricing."
Re:Uh oh (Score:3, Informative)
I have used cordless phones for many years. And for all of those years, I have always had ONE unpowered phone so I can call the power company when the power goes out. I have always lived in the country/outskirts of town, where power outages are more common, but this is common sense for anyone.
Unpowered phones are super cheap ($1-$3 at Goodwill or Salvation army if you are really cheap like me), *very* available, and you can just "Y" out of your wall into one and your cordless, and turn the ringer off on the unpowered one.
It is insane to not have ONE unpowered phone in your home. When the power goes out, often cell towerss are flooded, so you can't catch an outbound call if you wanted to. Probably from people who don't have a direct wired, unpowered phone.
Same reason I keep a couple days water and food stored: If power goes out (snow or rain storms, etc) I can get by just fine for a couple days. It takes so very little preparation, and the first time you are caught without it, you will never let it happen again.
Re:Maybe not in Texas (Score:3, Informative)
I am not arguing your point, but what you are proposing is actually illegal, at least in most places. Calling 911 *intentionally* for any reason other than an emergency is not a good idea. Telling them you are "testing them" is even worse.
You could just call the regular number and ask the emergency services what the procedure is in your state. This way you don't tie up an operator and delay a real emergency call.