🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MPG.110e391f28217fd69897a3@ispnews.walltech.com>, 
For_Email@ddress.see.below_plea.se (Philip J. Koenig) wrote:

>I have heard the CLEC's (competitive telephone carriers) have to pay
>in some cases more each month just to lease the wire from companies
>like SBC than SBC is charging end-users for the entire retail DSL
>product *including ISP services*.  What's wrong with this picture?

Not pretty -- yet AT&T / TCI are under *no* obligation at all to allow other 
cable cos. access to their coax, nor are they under *any* obligation to allow 
other ISPs to be the user's primary service provider (as the telcos are 
required to do).

What's wrong with *that* picture?  My point is, if it's OK for AT&T / TCI to 
refuse to resell its coax to other cable cos., and even to refuse to allow its 
customers to choose their own ISP, why can't the telcos do the same?

>This particular announcement is an example of why companies like 
>SBC are doing their best to ensure the spirit of that law gets 
>twisted to their advantage.

Given the inherent advantages AT&T / TCI will enjoy, is SBC asking too much 
that it be allowed to play be exactly the same rules?