FCC Rules Telcos Need Not Provide Naked DSL 314
Devistater writes "Despite at least four states' laws to the contrary, the FCC has ruled that phone companies need not provide naked DSL service to customers, but can require bundling; for example: Voice and DSL.
FCC Commisioners Copps and Adelstein say in dissent 'In this decision, the Commission unwisely flashes the green light for broadband tying arrangements.' 'If it is [ok] to deny consumers DSL if they do not [have] analog voice service, what stops a carrier from denying broadband service to an end-user who has cut the cord and uses only a wireless phone? What prevents a carrier from refusing to provide DSL service to a savvy consumer who wants stand-alone broadband only for VoIP?'"
As a conservative... (Score:4, Insightful)
And, as a who-cares-about-my-politics... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd gladly dump my phone servive, and pay a fraction of the money I would save toward better bandwidth.
The only remaining advantage of POTs is that it has its own power (when we had the blackout here in NYC, the landlines kept working).
We paid for this infrastructure held by this monopoly (or, baby monopolies), and it seems only fair that we should get better service from it (or, them).
Re:And, as a who-cares-about-my-politics... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can only hope the UK don't follow suit - Currently I have a DSL line from BT which requires me to have a POTS line too. I understand that OfCom (the UK version of the FCC) was supposed to be forcing BT to supply naked DSL some time last year but I've heard nothing more about it... A real shame coz VoIP call charges are about the same as BT's but without the monthly subscription.
Re:As a conservative... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:As a conservative... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As a conservative... (Score:2, Informative)
Corporations are -for better or worse- "persons" under the law. As such, they have many* of the same rights as other sorts of "persons".
Where there are many sorts of person, it is inevitable that there will be situations where one sort is advantaged over another sort. Sooner or later, by strict interepretation of law, there will be cases in which Corporate persons have rights superior to those of Human persons. Since, as a class, corporations represent concentrations of money (and therefore
Re:As a conservative... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:As a conservative... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As a conservative... (Score:4, Informative)
IINAL, but I am a law student.
btw--the FCC rulemaking authority over this kind of market activity certainly derives at least from Congress' power to regulate Interstate Commerce. Might be a dumb decision, but, I doubt it's illegal. (There might be some antitrust issues if the DSL companies overreach, but since these telcos are usually regulated monopolies anyway, I doubt the antitrust rules apply in the usual way.)
Re:As a conservative... (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me about 90% of the Federal government is derived from stretching the Interstate Commerce Clause so far past logic that it comes out the other side.
Really, I don't even know why they pretend to justify their power grabs any more.
Corporations may be persons, but they get a hell of lot of more for their "votes" than I do.
As another conservative... (Score:3, Informative)
No, in fact they are not [thomhartmann.com]. They have been treated as "persons" for many years based on a mistaken reading of a 19th century court rulling that did not in fact decide the issue.
Of course, they're not going to tell you that, are they?
--MarkusQ
Re:As a conservative... (Score:5, Insightful)
The five FCC Commisioners are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for five year terms, although only three may be from the same party. It's very much a political office, and this decision was divided down party lines. Copps and Adelstein are the two Democrats.
Re:As a conservative... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:As a conservative... (Score:2, Insightful)
Bundling always seemed bad to me (Score:5, Interesting)
As for telephone service. I don't have a land line. I have a cell phone and internet from my cable provider. If my internet came from Verizon through DSL, I could be forced to buy a service just to have internet.
I don't know how much the government should regulate businesses like this, but if you only have one broadband provider in your area and they want to hit you up for more services than you want, there's not much you can do about it.
Re:Bundling always seemed bad to me (Score:2)
In the US we call that Satellite.
Re:Bundling always seemed bad to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, the point is that cable network bundling is a completely different ball of wax from the kind of service bundling mentioned in the article.
Re:Bundling always seemed bad to me (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the following question bears asking: Why should media companies be allowed to shift the burden of risk involved in starting a new channel from themselves to their customers? This seems like an economic distortion to me. It seems more reasonable that if the channel is really worth watching, the company launching it would put compelling content on it, then to drive up demand, it would launch a media marketing blitz.
There's no reason the public should have to subsidize others' risk taking.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bundling always seemed bad to me (Score:3, Informative)
Now with digital cable and the required decoder boxes, this reason probably isn't as valid any more, since theoretically they could program everyone's box
Re:Bundling always seemed bad to me (Score:5, Insightful)
The cable company doesn't bundle channels to get you to buy ones you don't want. They bundle channels to get a package to a price where they actually make money on the deal after all the infrastructure costs on just feeding you a fairly basic service.
If channels were pick-and-choose, for one, everyone now has to have a cable box (well, with digital, that may happen anyhow...), so zing, $5/mo/tv more, plus they have to make a certain amount of money off you, so the channels cost more-- think in terms of what the "premium" channels cost; the HBOs or Skinemaxes. Pretty much all channels would have to cost that much.
It's not so simple as "I get fifty channels for fifty bucks a month, so obviously each channel costs a buck!"
With DSL bundling, it works out similarly. There's an infrastructure cost in all the copper, and the intent was to sell it all as phone lines. I buy a phone line from Bellsloth, but I'm buying DSL from SpeedFactory. Now, if I could get unbundled DSL, then SpeedFactory would probably have to pay more to Bellsloth for the line (since Bellsloth has to recoup that cost somehow) and that comes back to me. But here's the real problem: Giving you voice communication service costs Bellsloth approximately _zero_. So if Bellsloth is going to recoup the investment on the lines they've run, they're going to have to charge Speedfactory just as much for the naked DSL line as they charge me for voice communications. And, as we know from economics, Speedfactory is going to pass that charge along to me, plus probably a small amount-- so I'm betting naked DSL would cost me _more_ than the setup I currently have.
And this way if the house burns down I can call 911...
-JDF
And in other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
announced that all is forgiven to AT&T (Ma Bell),
in keeping with the non-penalties involked against
MSFT in their anti-monopoly lawsuit.
The regional (baby) "Bell" telcos have just
announced a conference during which the telcos
are expected to plan their re-merger.
The FCC has just announced that the television
and radio media conglomerates will now be
permitted to own up to 100% of any given market.
The FCC and the FTC have just come out in a joint
declaration th
Re:Bundling always seemed bad to me (Score:3, Informative)
DSL is a god-send for me, not to mention that I refuse to go back to Comcast...which does charge you more if you just want internet service without the cable TV.
Do You Hear What I Hear? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now we see what the FCC is REALLY all about (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now we see what the FCC is REALLY all about (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's not even the top of the iceburg.
Re:Now we see what the FCC is REALLY all about (Score:5, Interesting)
Missing The Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing, that's the point.
'What prevents a carrier from refusing to provide DSL service to a savvy consumer who wants stand-alone broadband only for VoIP?'
Nothing, that's the point.
I swear, it's like you people have never even heard of monopolistic pricing and captive regulatory agencies.
Re:Missing The Point (Score:3, Informative)
Having DSL also disqualfies you from all the 'low user' rebates even though you never make calls or use the analogue line at all.
As far as 'cutting the cord' goes, that's not possible unless you're lucky enough to live in a cable area (cable is very
competition (Score:2, Insightful)
is CABLE. ain't competition great?
Re:competition (Score:2)
Because... (Score:2, Interesting)
In this particular case, a and b are services, and f is the cost function. Apply the result and you get your explanation.
Re:Because... (Score:3, Informative)
Right now my bill is something like $20 for a landline and $45 for DSL. If I didn't use the landline, should I still have to pay $65? Even $55 or $60 for DSL-only would be an improvment over the course of a year.
I'd be happy if they broke it down into some f(a+b+c), for some a (cost of running a line out) b (cost of providing voice over that line) and c (cost of providing high-speed data over that line.) Then I could pay f(a+c) and be perfectly hap
Re:support free developmen (Score:4, Insightful)
FCC is so messed up. It needs a overhaul. (Score:2, Insightful)
Call it what is is powell, bribed to do what the telcos want. loser
Re:FCC is so messed up. It needs a overhaul. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:FCC is so messed up. It needs a overhaul. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:FCC is so messed up. It needs a overhaul. (Score:2, Insightful)
So what happens if you already have it? (Score:2, Insightful)
who (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:who (Score:3, Interesting)
The FCC has nothing to do with the American consumer. They don't control the price of black eyed peas at the supermarket or get to set the prime lending rate.
They ruled based on law, they couldn't find anything in the law that would prevent the bundling of services.
Bitch to your congressman, support some consumer advocacy and awareness groups.
Spouting off about how 'evil' the FCC is, just makes you look like yet another asshat who slept
You have to remember... (Score:2)
Who pays for the copper? (Score:5, Interesting)
When ADSL first became popular, it was cheap for a very simple reason: Everybody already had a phone line, so the marginal cost of ADSL was merely the cost of the terminating equipment. The physical link was already being paid for out of the phone bill. Take away the landline phone service, and the ADSL cost jumps sharply, since it will now have to cover the formerly "free" copper wiring.
DSL simply doesn't make economic sense without attached landline phone service.
Re:Who pays for the copper? (Score:2)
That's funny because cable companies think otherwise. Did you know that cable companies actually have to put a physical device on the line to stop the analog cable TV signal from coming through when you have naked Broadband?
Seems like an especially steep cost to cable companies because the wiring is most definitely not there to begin with.
I wonder why it is good economic sense for a cable company but not for a phone compan
Re:Who pays for the copper? (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, in my experience the cable discount is $10-$15. While the total cost of a voice-line, even the absolute cheapest possible one, after all the fees, taxes and whatever else nickle-and-diming, is somewhere in the $25-$35 range.
So, telcos - sell us naked dsl, put a line-cost-recovery fee in ther
Re:Who pays for the copper? (Score:2)
Which explains why TW/RR in Columbus charges $X for broadband if you are already paying for cable TV and $X + $Y for broadband alone where $Y is the cost for basic cable TV. It is probably cheaper for TW to just charge you for the basic cable TV anyway rather than futz with installi
Re:Who pays for the copper? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Who pays for the copper?
Our tax dollars did when the govt gave the bells tons of money in exchange for keeping the lines a common carrier to share.
Tis a shame the phone co's never lived up to their end of the deal, and the govt backed down and let them.
Re:Who pays for the copper? (Score:3, Interesting)
If I go broadband cable and don't want TV service I get $10 ding on my bill for "cable access"
If I go DSL every provider in the area says no DSL w/o voice service unless you go for the business grade DSL that starts at $100/month.
What stops them from doing that? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What stops them from doing that? (Score:2)
competition? no way (Score:5, Insightful)
Both phone and cable companies need to get a 'leeway' to lay cable or overhead lines across everyone's property. This isn't taken lightly, and isn't done for every company that comes-along claiming they want to do it. Furthermore, both cable and phone are essential for emergencies, and thus must have universal coverage. The idea that this is (or should be) in any form a competitive marketplace is... well, misinformed. The bottom line is, it is most efficient to have a _single_ set of cables and wires, not N sets for various hodge-podge company policies.
The problem here is that a for-profit company owns these wires. It's a farce. Really, the local governments should own the wires and contract out the work and the companies that want to 'run' the services over the wires. To do this correctly, we need a completely different legal environment that recognizes natural monopolies and makes them not-profit and as _small_ as possible to enable the _greatest_ amount of competition for auxiliary services.
But, given the current setup, strict regulation is the only answer. Regulation is, BTW, what allowed the whole open-source movement to take-off; in the 70's Ma-Bell (AT&T) wasn't allowed to sell its software, so it gave away enormous IP to the public. This is how Unix came about. The regulation was proper back then, the government realized that the phone was a monopoly, and prevented the phone company from entering other markets (using its monopoly money to distort other market places). Unfortunately, that sensibility started to disappear with the so-called "pro-business" agenda in the 80's and 90's.
The FCC can't make law (Score:4, Insightful)
That is to say, write your congressman if you have a beef, don't sit around whining about how much of an asshole you think Powell is.
That's like bitching about the judge who sends you up the river for selling pot, or the cop who busted. They just interpret and enforce the law, they don't write it.
Re:The FCC can't make law (Score:3, Insightful)
The FCC absolutely can make law, when the ability to do so has been delegated to them by the Congress. If you break an FCC regulation that says "you cannot broadcast on this frequency," the fine you get is going to be just as enforceable as if Congress had said it itself.
Note that Congress can't just delegate naked power -- they have to give guidelines for doing so, and the agency cannot go beyond those guidelines. Effectively, Congress sets the policy and the FCC creates l
Re:The FCC can't make law (Score:2)
Guess it's time to.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Guess it's time to.... (Score:3, Informative)
Does not apply to CLECs (Score:5, Insightful)
But in the end I have all my services, including VOIP, through Speakeasy.net thanks to naked DSL.
Re:Does not apply to CLECs (Score:2)
Maybe you guys can't do it because you're incompetent.
At Brasil we have laws to protect us from this... (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, if you're going to open a bank account the bank can't say that aquiring a credit card is a pre-requisite. Or if you're going to buy a car the reseller can't say that buying the insurance from company X is a pre-requisite.
It's indeed a very nice law... when correctly enforced. Unfortunetely our major DSL provider (Telemar) couples the service to an account on a "internet provider". This is of course nonsense, since the real conectivity provider is Telemar itself... but yet they still require such account. The worst part is that NONE of the so called "internet providers" has full Linux-compatible media content...
What prevents the consumer? (Score:2)
What I mean to say is, for the most part, the open market will dicta
A short answer... (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing.
Why would you think that the FCC cares about the public interest anymore? That line of thought is so old school. Especially when there are corporate interests to protect. And I wouldn't expect the House or Senate leadership to help you out much here - last I heard Billy Tauzin's still cutting deals as a lobbyist for telecom interests on the side (when he's not carrying the bag for pharma or entertainment industries).
Way to uphold that 10th Amendment (Score:5, Funny)
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
>nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
>respectively, or to the people.
Fuck you.
Sincerely,
-FCC
No such thing as 'FCC' . Just politics. (Score:2)
Slashdot Readers Once Again Didn't RTFA!!! (Score:5, Informative)
If you bothered to read the ruling and not the opinion piece, you would know that the ruling merely tells the States to butt out and stop trying to enforce rules that conflict with existing FCC unbundling rules. This rules removes the conflict between FCC and State rules.
Under the existing FCC rules, the encumbant Telco is not required to offer DSL even if your lines are capable of providing it (they do it because its profitable). BellSouth had a policy of not offering DSL if the local loop was being used by a competitive telco to provide analog voice service. Probably due to techincal and billing issues. Some states were trying forcing BellSouth to provide DSL anyway. This was illegal.
This ruling does not automatically mean that the telco will refuse to provide DSL unless you buy voice service from them. In reality, what you'll probably see is the telco providing discounts for getting both DSL and voice service from them. Like Verizon offering cost saving bundles for home and wireless.
One theory behind the FCC action ... (Score:2)
In Canada... (Score:2)
This story actually shocked me that it's even an issue. In Canada it's pretty much a given that since your DSL comes over the phone line, you'd have to have an active phone line to get it.
Where I live (smaller area), there's two broadband providers. The phone company, SaskTel, who requires you to have a voice line, and Shaw, who requires you to have basic cable.
Propping up... (Score:4, Insightful)
If there's anything that governments are good at doing it's maintaining the status quo. Whether we're talking about an economy that relies too heavily on oil, or something as (seemingly) innocuous as telephone service, governments will always fight against fundamental change or market shifts because it will result in a period of instability.
There's a reason why the connectivity linking the telephone in my house to the telephone system is the same as it was five decades ago when my dad was born (hint - it has nothing to do with free-market or competition).
Dan East
The solution is wireless (Score:2)
Competetion wise... (Score:2, Informative)
Meanwhile I freely choose a
You can "freely choose" if you have $55/month (Score:2)
Why is it that muni wifi goes for next to nothing? Because the actual costs are not that graet to provide broadband.
And the politicians have been bought off by the telcos and cable cos.
I say they all need to get some time in jail.
CORPERATIONS WIN AGAIN! (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you expect the FCC to side on the position of the consumer, the tax payer? HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA SUCKER.
Damn it.. wheres that boat with the fucking tea on it... i know its around here somewhere.
Burn the FCC down.
Dont like it? Dont complain here (Score:3, Informative)
Next thing you know, they'll sue a certain aged (Score:3, Funny)
sometimes apples fall upwards from the tree, too (Score:2)
Re:This can go either way. (Score:3, Interesting)
Cable does already. Teleco's do already...
The FCC simply allowed them to continue their bullshit practices.
I dont want a fucking $50 verizon line just so i can have their FIBER SERVICE!!!!!!!!!!! FUCK OFF
The FCC is fucking crazy. They're in bed with big buisness. They lifted the consolidation restraints... they've CONSISTANTLY provided the corperations what they want at the expense of the user.
The FCC is fucking worthless. Mayb
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really, local phone are regulated monopolies. Back in the government (FCC) was supposed to ensure that they acted fairly and in the interest of consumers. Government regulations dictate, for example, that you get to pick your long distance carrier, as opposed to being required to use one selected by your local phone company. DSL should not work any differently.
--Jeff
Re:Wow (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
(example case: this one is about refusing to sell rights to one film unless rights to a whole set of films were bought simultaneously) [findlaw.com]
Excerpt: "The standard of illegality is that the seller must have "sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product...." [Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 6]. Market domin
Re:Let the market take care of it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Case in point, my house, I have a cable modem, and thankfully don't have cable as they don't offer HDTV channels in my market, and I'm not required to have cable to have the luxury of high speed internet.
DSL is unavailable to me currently, and
Re:Let the market take care of it. (Score:2)
Its cheaper to have comcast Internet + comcast cable TV than it is to have ala carte satellite + comcast internet.
Re:Let the market take care of it. (Score:2)
This is true. I priced it out and realized that between Comcast and Vonage, I can get broadband, VOIP, and cable TV for cheaper than I'm getting POTS service and DSL from SBC.
Goodbye SBC!
Re:Let the market take care of it. (Score:5, Informative)
--Jeff
Re:Let the market take care of it. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Let the market take care of it. (Score:5, Informative)
Um,no. Thanks for drinking the free market koolaid. In my town, there is one city granted monopoly cable provider, and one city granted monopoly telephone provider, whom are the ONLY options for broadband. What about "city granted monopoly" is congruent with free market again?
Re:Let the market take care of it. (Score:2)
Re:Let the market take care of it. (Score:2)
Re:Let the market take care of it. (Score:2)
Imagine that the water company requires that to get water service, you must also get gatorade, seltzer, and prune juice service. Its impossible to fight the monopoly in this situation, as they only need to wait you out for a couple of days (hopefully you can deal without a net connect
Re:Let the market take care of it. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Let the market take care of it. (Score:2)
Re:Let the market take care of it. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't be saying that the "free market works extraordinarily well" when there IS NO free market, and no real competition for broadband!
--jeff++
Re:Let the market take care of it. (Score:2)
What free market, sir? (Score:5, Insightful)
An extreme example: I, the federal government, make a ruling that only Dell is allowed to sell computers. Dell immediately octuples the prices of all new computers. Your free market argument fails to apply ("people will reject it and the plan will die on the vine") because businesses and people have no practical *CHOICE* but to use computers, a well established commodity (so the actual choice is maintain older computers or go out of business / stop using computers). However, in a free market Dell wouldn't be able to octuple their prices (and if they did, results predictable by the free market would ensue).
My point is, these companies are largely using land granted through government powers (sometimes emminent domain), with massive government loans and some other federal aid I forget about right now. It is not a free market. The competition that exists mostly does so because the government put regulations to better approximate a free market- but really it isn't one.
Re:Let the market take care of it. (Score:2)
I'd like to think this philosophy would work here, but it won't, because you already have regulated monopolies in place, and normal market forces are not at work that would cause the plan to die in favor of a competitor that did not bundle.
Perhaps if we'd followed the phisophy from the the get-go and not had regulated monopolies, the free market forces w
Re:buying government (Score:2)
Re:Telco's should do whatever they want. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Telco's should do whatever they want. (Score:2)
Re:Telco's should do whatever they want. (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't work that way with phone. The copper lines are regulated because at one time nearly every single phone system in the nation was owned by a single company which engaged in whatever practices it felt like such as telling you that you couldn't install or even buy your own phone much less do your own wiring. Imagine a mobo company telling you what peripherals and memory you were allowed to use or even requiring that you have it done by them and forbidding you from doing anything with it that they didn't like.
For this and many other reasons, Ma Bell was broken up into smaller companies, and they were regulated to the hilt. As it was fairly impossible given modern growth and other infrastructures accompanying the same to build out a parallel infrastructure by any given competitor who wanted to. IOW, running tens of hundreds of thousands of copper pairs per city on top of those already there was just not doable.
Therefore, the Regional Bell Operating Companies still held an essential monopoly for copper pair phone service.
Prior to this FCC mega-mistake of a decision, it was conceivable that you could get ILEC DSL and get phone from a CLEC just as easily as the other way around. Or do without it if you chose.
The point of the regulations was the copper was not easily overbuildable without burdensome effects on local infrastructure, quality of life, etc., and therefore a necessary national resource of sorts held by a company with a virtual monopoly on it. So they opened the lines to usage by competitors as long as certain fair fees were paid to the telcos for access and maintenance and co-locations and power and so forth.
This new rule basically encroaches on that competition regulation by saying that if one service on the pair is ordered then they can require other services with it or not give any service at all, thus essentially preventing their customers from choosing a competitor for one of those other services.
Should Video over DSL ever take off, will they get away with denying a VoDSL CLEC's services to their own telco DSL customers?
Publically Funded Wires, that's Why (Score:2)
Because WE PAYED FOR THAT LINE. Yes, that's right. Much of the infrastructure our phone companies use was publically funded, on the condition that phone companies (a) served some areas that might not otherwise have been profitable enough and (b) would allow competition/reselling over
Re:That's the end of the telcos (Score:3, Interesting)
This ruling isn't necessarily bad. The local cable company allows broadband without a cable subscription, but if you have a subscription, you get a large discount.
The same is/would be true for DSL if not required to be bundled. With such and such package, your DSL only costs $x amount. Without that package, it costs $xx. Most phone companies are already doing this, so this ruling is a non-is