Appeals court rubber stamps FCC's DSL (de)regulation Living in America? If you get your access to the internet through an independent ISP over DSL, your service might become more expensive soon. Or slow. Or disappear entirely. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a ruling last week that approved the FCC's new order eliminating the requirement that large phone …
"Of course, they could also cement their regional monopolies, boot the smaller ISPs of the network entirely and finance their operations by raising the rates the end user pays. It's now entirely up to them, after all."
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
Wow - and just when AT&T was starting to give the pinch to Comcast (evil) in my local area, this comes along. This will, essentially, take the broadband competition in my area (a major metropolitan area in the central US) down to 2.
I'm sure that, with the playing field so limited, that they big two will, in a magical way that doesn't involve ANY collusion whatsoever (wink wink) start to leave each other alone.
(though, honestly, once the same rule wasn't applicable to cable, it was really only time until it was deemed fair that it didn't apply to telecom, either)
Ofcom would allow BT some freedom in the UK. I suppose only time will tell. If Ofcom are more leanient towards BT, they may consider forking out billions to upgrade the local loop, albeit charging higher prices to competitors to access the sparkly new network but hey, I don't care, I'd happily stay with BT.
So I'll be stuck with a choice of:
1) Qwest (shudder! ("US Worst. Now we're Qworst!"))
2) Comcast (shudder!)
3) Buying a microwave link to my current ISP for US$3K? Gack!
However I agree with @Anonymous Coward that it was inevitable. The AT&T Monopoly will rise again! IT IS ALIIIIIIVE!! Bwa-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah!
That's really the gist of the current American administration really. Those with the money get to make the rules. Those who make the rules do so in order to make more money. Period. End of statement.
All the organizations that were theoretically set up to protect the American consumer have been turned around into organizations that benefit their large corporations first. The FCC, showing its true colours with this latest ruling. Their FDA, allowing the companies seeking approval for their drugs to decide on the safety of those drugs.
Alternately, the USA citizenry could stand up for itself and force the gov't to set reasonable rules for this industry, or force the industry to behave better.
A lot of politicians would have you believe only they can protect you... they pay marketters to say it and pay psychologists to find more effective ways of saying it. It is almost always a snow job though - most issues are not so subtle that they can't talked about and decided by regular people.
It's been some time since I heard the word 'boycott' used. Boycotts were not uncommon in the '70s, they often worked too.
Voter revolt or tax revolt also works.
You have your separation of church and state, good idea. Perhaps it is time for a separation of media-relations and state. That might help clear the air.
The American public is the most propagandized group in the world, trained from birth to react appropriately to the message they get from their docile press. In other words, they'll do what they're damn well told to do.
Remember, 99% of news outlets in the USA are owned by the same people with major stakes in the affected companies. Note also that their constitution only covers freedom of the press with respect to the government, not with respect to the megacorps that are really running the show.
<insert black helicopter icon>
Ah... This would be the BT that have purposedly dragged its heals on every new technology that may dent some previous (already existing) cash cow? For example: leased lines, ISDN and dialups - all were, and still are to a large extent, serious cash cows for BT. For example, there's no way that BT is going to rush (S)DSL into place because it would remove the "justification" in charging utterly extortionate rates for leased lines.
They're not investing in any new infrastructure because they don't want to dent, in any way, their existing cash-cows and therefore effect their shareprice and dividends.
If it weren't for competition from the likes of cable companies, if BT had their way we'd all still have 512MB broadband (if we're lucky)
Instead, why don't they do something like what Google is talking about with the 700Mhz band, or the original telco setup: seperate local from long distance. In other words, you can pick any ISP you want, and you can pick any last mile provider you want, but regulate that each company cannot enter the others' market. Then people would have a real choice. Telling a company they have to sell to their competitors is a stupid idea anyway.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
