🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7827r4$i0h6_004@tri.sbc.com>, fgoodwin@eden.com writes...
> 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?
> 


Cable companies are in the rather unique position of having local 
monopolies yet are not regulated in the usual sense.

This is one reason why cable holdings were such a big deal for so long --
because the profit potential was virtually unlimited and they were making
money hand-over-fist.

Personally I'm not much a fan of the sweetheart-deal the cable companies
have enjoyed for so long.  Here in San Francisco, for example, the stupid
board of supervisors granted a contract to TCI over the previous provider
with nary a hint of public input.  And of course it means a virtual 
monopoly as well.. at least locally. 

The telephone services long ago were recognized as "essential" and 
for that reason and others they were regulated.  When it became clear 
that it was no longer necessary for technical reasons to have a single 
entity provide service, we started moving toward a competitive model.

Cable, on the other hand, has historically been considered mostly a 
luxury and therefore there was no great pressure to regulate it.  
Therefore the existing differences in how it is dealt with.

Since as we speak the ILECs still control the wires that provide
the primary communication link to almost every citizen's home, I 
think it is quite appropriate that they be regulated to ensure
the availability and quality of this highly important service.

Until such time as every household has guaranteed access to multiple
proven providers to provide them with telephone wiring and/or access,
this doesn't need to change.  On the other hand, value-added services
such as internet access, LD service which doesn't hinge specifically
on local infrastructure, and other communications services are 
increasingly viable services which can use the local wires.  

That the regulators are trying to create an environment where 
consumers can get competitive access to these value-added services 
through their regulated local loop I think is a good thing, personally.  
Because it will always be in the ILEC's interests to try to provide 
an advantage to their own home-grown services.  It certainly isn't
necessarily an advantage to the consumers however.



Phil


-- 
Philip J. Koenig         The Electric Kahuna Organization          [see below]
-----------------Computers & Communications for the New Millenium-------------
References to my email address in this message have been modified to foil
address-collection robots.  If you wish to send email, use the following 
address by removing numbers and spaces:  pjkunet64 @  ekahuna27 . c o m