Discover your moment on Lufthansa.
- Related Stories
-
FCC schizo on DSL, wiretapping
August 8, 2005 -
FCC changes DSL classification
August 5, 2005
In a ruling earlier this month, the agency reclassified DSL (digital subscriber line) service as an "information service." This is about a lot more than semantics, because it gives phone companies a legal right to deny requests from rival Internet service providers to rent their lines.
If you're keeping score, put this one in the victory column for the Verizons and the SBCs of the world.
Independent DSL carriers had been entitled to negotiate a rate with the big carriers based on the number of lines being used. But it was an arrangement that did not sit well with the telecommunications giants, which chafed under a regulation they contended was unfair, if not simply counterintuitive. After spending billions of dollars to build a nationwide network infrastructure, why share the fruits of their investment with competing Internet service providers?
On the surface, that's the kind of stuff sure to make libertarian hearts everywhere go pitter-patter. A very similar argument convinced the Supreme Court in its
I do hope he proves me wrong, but it's hard to understand how any of this will foster competition. Independent Internet service providers, which rely on other companies' infrastructures to provide services to customers, are already struggling. And after the expiration of a one-year transitional period, during which the phone companies still must offer network access to ISPs, all bets are off. My hunch is that the big guys will simply tell their former lease customers to take a hike--or pay through the nose to re-sign.
Like so many purchasing decisions, choosing an ISP often boils down to a single issue: price. For example, Verizon's 1.5mbps service is already 10 bucks cheaper than a corresponding plan from EarthLink. If those two offers were dropped on your desk, which one would you choose? I know what I'd select--and I'm afraid most of you would do just the same.
Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.
See more CNET content tagged:
SBC Communications Inc.,
Internet Service Provider,
EarthLink Inc.,
service provider,
cable company
By regulating radio and TV content so heavily, the FCC says that it needs to protect us from broadcasters, but who will protect us from phone and cable companies?
and cable companies. Neither can be FORCED to open their
network to competitors. But, any competitor can negotiate a
deal, which is exactly what Earthlink has done and will continue
to do. Maybe the price will go up, but it was too cheap in the
beginning.
The mom-and-pop ISp's may be in trouble, but that's
economics. Nobody cried when the mom-and-pop drug stores,
and grocery stores, and hardware stores, all lost out to Walmart,
et. al. That was life, and so is this.
As far as the forced access goes, I well remember MCI's use of
similar rules to develop it's phone system on the cheap using
AT&T and the local Bells essentially as subsidies. And we all
know what MCI turned out to be - major corporate fraud, at
more levels than the courts have seen so far.
So save the tears. The only real competitors are the telcos and
the cable companies, and they each have their own networks.
Already, I have seen that competition generate improved access
speeds, with more speed and maybe lower prices coming in a
month or two. The mom-and-pop ISp's have already been left in
the dust.
The US developed one hell of a fine telephone system with
essentially no competition at all (except via the local PSC). Cable
companies run in franchise zones without competition (except
from DirecTV). Both provide quite credible service for the most
part (Qwest may be an exception). And both services are
improving.
I'd say that an oppressive interpretation of laws has just been
eliminated by the FCC. It may not be a perfect decision, but it's a
long leap in the right direction.
Didn't you realize how silly that sounds after you wrote it? Next you'll be telling me that the Constitution guarantees us a right to privacy!
solution to a problem on its own (without government assistance). The companies with the righ solution (VOIP, Wi-fi, broadband over power lines, etc) will thrive. Competition from these new technologies will lower prices. The big Phone companies are very nervous about some of these technologies. They will spend a lot of money trying to keep up, if they are not force to give away thier network to competitos. This money goes to create new jobs at small companies with the right solutions. Look at the stock price of the telcom suppliers and manufaturers under the current line sharing rules (Lucent, Nortel, etc). Terrible! Nobody will invest in a network that they have to give away.
- What would Joe Consumer Say
-
by droy99
August 21, 2005 6:56 AM PDT
- Charlie:
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 29 Comments >>Since the cable companies are classified as an information service and don't have to share their lines, why should the phone companies? I have never thought this was a fair practice.