Skip to comments.
FCC Chair Martin Deregulates DSL
Forbes Online ^
| August 5, 2005
| David Ewalt
Posted on 08/07/2005 12:52:39 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 next last
To: BigSkyFreeper
"Something's gone awry! The page you requested could not be found"
2
posted on
08/07/2005 12:55:04 AM PDT
by
JSteff
To: BigSkyFreeper
3
posted on
08/07/2005 12:56:20 AM PDT
by
xmm0
(This post has been brought to you by the letters "U," "S," and "A" and Amendment number 1.)
To: JSteff; Lead Moderator
Apparently when I pasted the URL, it pasted twice, perhaps the mod can fix that please? TIA.
4
posted on
08/07/2005 12:57:31 AM PDT
by
BigSkyFreeper
(Liberalism is a form of insanity)
To: Abram; AlexandriaDuke; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; Bernard; BJClinton; BlackbirdSST; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
5
posted on
08/07/2005 1:09:07 AM PDT
by
freepatriot32
(Deep within every dilemma is a solution that involves explosives)
Comment #6 Removed by Moderator
To: dyeostyn
No one should be forced by law to provide their privately owned resources to competitors against their will regardless of the "greater good".
7
posted on
08/07/2005 2:34:28 AM PDT
by
DB
(©)
To: BigSkyFreeper
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.
To: DB
How about the 'eminent domain' taking of the U.S. Supreme Court?
To: leprechaun9
10
posted on
08/07/2005 3:13:10 AM PDT
by
DB
(©)
Comment #11 Removed by Moderator
To: DB
"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.
12
posted on
08/07/2005 3:29:25 AM PDT
by
AHWilde
To: BigSkyFreeper
13
posted on
08/07/2005 3:32:52 AM PDT
by
Arkie2
(No, I never voted for Bill Clinton. I don't plan on voting Republican again!)
To: willstayfree
"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.
14
posted on
08/07/2005 3:34:47 AM PDT
by
AHWilde
To: DB
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
15
posted on
08/07/2005 4:13:44 AM PDT
by
johncatl
To: Truthsayer20
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.
16
posted on
08/07/2005 5:04:00 AM PDT
by
conservatism_IS_compassion
(The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
To: dyeostyn
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.
Comment #18 Removed by Moderator
To: BigSkyFreeper
To: BigSkyFreeper
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?
20
posted on
08/07/2005 5:34:09 AM PDT
by
engrpat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson