FCC telecom decisions and 'choice'
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Saw a news update in USA Today that the FCC has decided that DSL will be treated in a special category that will effectively make it the same as hi-speed internet on cable. Rather than being a phone service, which would require DSL companies to share their lines and lease them over to competitors, the service will be categorized so that DSL (like cable) doesn't have to share the lines at all.
That effectively kills the policies of the last several years, and in doing so many small ISPs may wind up forced out of business.
I've argued with some friends and co-workers on this one. I think the FCC is dead wrong in their application of their rules to both cable and DSL. I know the old system (forced choice) was flawed, one of the biggest flaws in my mind being that no matter what the original telco or cable provider was getting paid for the service, and no matter what, you were always somewhat dependent upon that provider, even if you weren't their direct customer. In effect, even if you hated "ma bell," you were paying them some portion of your payment to say "competitor x" that advertised better service and lower prices.
I wanted to see the same forced competition for cable, and wanted it to stay on DSL services. Without doing so, the choices of ISPs and hi-speed providers is much more limited and the incentive to compete no where near as high. Now we'll see much less choice available. Instead of 40 providers over 2 - 4 mediums, there's going to be 4 providers (give or take) over the same mediums: hi-speed cable (if your area has coverage), DSL (again, if you have coverage), ISDN (if you have coverage) or perhaps fiber (if covered), and perhaps two-way satellite (if you have exposure to the south western skies). You may be lucky enough to have low-speed options available, but even those choices are drying up fast and customers move to hi-speed and the costs outweigh the potential profit returns for the low-speed providers.
I favor competition, and the more the merrier. I want to see prices for cable internet drop, as I happen to be a customer that has only limited choices at my own residence. I have friends in the same boat. In their case, DSL is their only option as the costs to string cable to their home was very prohibitive (and would have to be paid by them, rather than the cable co., as they are the only residence that would be served).
I hope that fiber to the home, internet over power lines and other choices spring up. I know there are others (wireless services over cellular type services and more), but to me, I want as many choices available as possible. Because of that, I am (as noted above) severely disappointed with the FCC's decisions in the telco choice areas -- apparently made thanks to heavy lobbying by both the cable providers and then later the telcos. Too bad their voices were more readily heard over those of the small providers that were operating during the time of "forced choices."
That effectively kills the policies of the last several years, and in doing so many small ISPs may wind up forced out of business.
I've argued with some friends and co-workers on this one. I think the FCC is dead wrong in their application of their rules to both cable and DSL. I know the old system (forced choice) was flawed, one of the biggest flaws in my mind being that no matter what the original telco or cable provider was getting paid for the service, and no matter what, you were always somewhat dependent upon that provider, even if you weren't their direct customer. In effect, even if you hated "ma bell," you were paying them some portion of your payment to say "competitor x" that advertised better service and lower prices.
I wanted to see the same forced competition for cable, and wanted it to stay on DSL services. Without doing so, the choices of ISPs and hi-speed providers is much more limited and the incentive to compete no where near as high. Now we'll see much less choice available. Instead of 40 providers over 2 - 4 mediums, there's going to be 4 providers (give or take) over the same mediums: hi-speed cable (if your area has coverage), DSL (again, if you have coverage), ISDN (if you have coverage) or perhaps fiber (if covered), and perhaps two-way satellite (if you have exposure to the south western skies). You may be lucky enough to have low-speed options available, but even those choices are drying up fast and customers move to hi-speed and the costs outweigh the potential profit returns for the low-speed providers.
I favor competition, and the more the merrier. I want to see prices for cable internet drop, as I happen to be a customer that has only limited choices at my own residence. I have friends in the same boat. In their case, DSL is their only option as the costs to string cable to their home was very prohibitive (and would have to be paid by them, rather than the cable co., as they are the only residence that would be served).
I hope that fiber to the home, internet over power lines and other choices spring up. I know there are others (wireless services over cellular type services and more), but to me, I want as many choices available as possible. Because of that, I am (as noted above) severely disappointed with the FCC's decisions in the telco choice areas -- apparently made thanks to heavy lobbying by both the cable providers and then later the telcos. Too bad their voices were more readily heard over those of the small providers that were operating during the time of "forced choices."