FCC Chair Martin Deregulates DSL

Forbes Online ^ | August 5, 2005 | David Ewalt

[BigSkyFreeper]

NEW YORK - The U.S. Federal Communications Commission announced on Friday that phone companies no longer have to share their Internet lines with rivals.

The decision is a big win for phone companies such as SBC (nyse: SBC - news - people ) and Verizon Communications (nyse: VZ - news - people ), which no longer have to provide deep discounts to competitors, but a major setback for independent ISPs like EarthLink (nasdaq: ELNK - news - people ). In the past, phone companies were required by law to provide competitors with access to their lines. That meant independent Internet service providers were able to buy access to those networks at wholesale prices, and resell high-speed digital subscriber lines (known as DSL) to their customers.

[JSteff]

"Something's gone awry! The page you requested could not be found"

[xmm0]

http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/08/05/fcc-dsl-internet-cx_de_0805autofacescan11.html

[BigSkyFreeper]

Apparently when I pasted the URL, it pasted twice, perhaps the mod can fix that please? TIA.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[DB]

No one should be forced by law to provide their privately owned resources to competitors against their will regardless of the "greater good".

[Truthsayer20]

This is example of a situation where "deregulation" actually decreases competition among service providers. Consumers will see higher prices because of the resulting de-facto monopolies.

[leprechaun9]

How about the 'eminent domain' taking of the U.S. Supreme Court?

[DB]

Is absolutely wrong.

[AHWilde]

"No one should be forced by law to provide their privately owned resources to competitors against their will regardless of the "greater good".

Your absolutely right. Why would anyone invest in DSL lines when you have to turn around and sell access at a cut rate to a competitor who invested in nothing. That kind of thinking is what has led to our power grids being in the shape they are in.

[Arkie2]

Lengthy discussion on this on FR yesterday:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1458288/posts

[AHWilde]

"It was the monopoly position of the Bell companies that allowed them to acquire all those local lines in the first place. This is another bad decision from our supreme lawyers and now the consumer will have to pay."

They did not "acquire," them they built them at great expense over many years. I never agreed with the monopoly but give credit where it is due they built the best system in the world.

[johncatl]

There's very little "private" about the phone companies or the cable companies. Both operate under a franchise awarded by a government entity, many of the 'regulations" are in fact anti-competitive and I'm not so sure that they don't have a "gentleman's agreement" between them. You don't see cable selling VOIP to business thus protecting the lucrative T1 business while the phone companies don't push multimedia down their broadband pipe into homes.

Calling this move "deregulation" is an oxymoron. Here's some more insight from Dvorak.http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1836829,00.asp

and another that's relevant. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1812887,00.asp

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

This is example of a situation where "deregulation" actually decreases competition among service providers.

A woman went into a butcher shop and asked the price for chicken. The butcher replied, "Two dollars a pound." The woman replied, "That's outrageous - down the block the price is only $1.50 a pound!"

The butcher replied, "Then I guess you'll be buying your chicken there." The woman replied, "They don't have any chicken, though." The butcher replied, "Oh, that's different - when we don't have any chicken, we only charge $1.00 a pound!"

There is only one legitimate way of driving down the price of a good - and that is to increase the supply of it. I fail to see how reducing the profitability of increasing the supply of anything is going to cause its supply to increase.

These "competitors" to whom the actual wirestringers like Verizon have been required to sell at a deep discount have the primary effect of reducing the profit of the telecoms attributable to DSL. If you buy DSL from a third party instead of Vorizon, Vorizon does all the work but gets less money for it than if you paid the same money to Verizon directly.

Maybe a given DSL line would be put in at the discounted price anyway - but also, maybe it wouldn't. It doesn't matter how low the price is if there is nothing on the shelf to buy.

[Paul C. Jesup]

your local, highly-regulated cable company, or your local, highly-regulated phone company.

Well there is a two-way satellite dish internet (phoneline not needed). Besides here in the southeast U.S., Bellsouth and Comcast has started to get into a price war, which is good for customers.

[Lead Moderator]

Fixed, thanks.

[engrpat]

Non tech question: What would be involved for the smaller ISPs putting up WiFi to cover a city? Wouldn't that be a way to compete with the big guys?