🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <j.grout-2601990110570001@205-219-66-47.bayarea.net>, j.grout@computer.org (John R. Grout) wrote:

>Actually, one of the courses PacBell has been pursuing with the CPUC
>_would_ let them gain some influence... imposition of trunking
>fees on ISPs whose modem pools aren't in the same CO as the dialup
>customer, which biases choice toward large ISPs (or subcontractors
>of those ISPs), especially to Pac Bell Internet, who I am sure would
>get first-rate service on its requests to collocate modem pools at
>PacBell's central offices (or even inside PacBell's switches).

If Pacbell agreed to let its ISP affiliate collocate modem pools, it would 
surely be required to allow other ISPs to collocate as well.  Are you 
suggesting otherwise?

>That last resembles the kind of vertical integration cable companies
>are demanding in return for cable modem services, and I've heard even
>worse things anecdotally.  My local TCI rep told me that the company
>indefinitely postponed deployment in Sunnyvale and had scheduled a
>new pilot in Fremont because its new owner, AT&T, wasn't interested
>in upgrading older cable systems to provide cable modem service
>_UNLESS_ new pilots suggested they could forcibly bundle cable,
>data, local and long distance telephone service.  In plain English,
>AT&T sees the traditional "expanded basic" cable tier ripoff as
>an entry point for a cable, voice and data ripoff.  No wonder they
>paid so much for TCI.

Again, if AT&T / TCI is allowed to bundle Internet content service with 
Internet access, I don't see why telcos should be prohibited from doing 
the same.  I could agree with Philip for the sake of argument that perhaps 
cable cos. on their own might not be able to compete against telcos, but 
when combined with AT&T, I think they make a formidable competitor for the 
telco and need no special protections.