republican-creole
Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » Powell Interview » He's right about Brand X
Search Topic:
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
Upon further review ... »
« hypocrites  
AuthorAll Replies

fgoldstein

join:2003-01-21
Newton Highlands, MA
·RCN CABLE

reply to pnh102
Re: He's right about Brand X - agree!

said by pnh102 See Profile:

Again, this is simply an issue of private property. Brand X wants to force other companies to grant Brand X access to their private property. The government has no place doing this.
Well, I have not said that I favored Brand X's position, personally, in their case. I am very much on record as opposing the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers' petitions to be treated like cable companies, rather than as common carriers. Brand X argues that cable companies do what common carriers do and should be treated the same way. The ILECs agree, but in the opposite sense -- they want both to be NOT common carriers.

The public interest demands common carriage. It is highly unrealistic to grant "propertarian" rights to common carriers to control what they do with their property. If the ILECs were not regulated, there would be no Internet: It was regulation that forced Ma Bell to allow "foreign attachments", like modems. (Or would you rather be renting a Model 103 300-bps modem for $25/month?) It was regulation that forced Ma Bell to allow "sharing and resale" of its leased lines: Before that rule, they flat-out refused to run leased data circuits between two different corporations, because "private lines" could only be for the exclusive use of one company. Anything else had to go dial-up, paying toll.

Cable companies do pay a franchise fee -- yes, they're allowed to pass it along, which is rational since it's a cost of doing business -- which I suppose ostensibly covers the value of their rights of way. Telcos don't pay that, but do have an obligation of common carriage. Cable companies were not created to carry the Internet -- it's possible that if they were regulated as common carriers, they'd be much less interested in doing it. That's the legal situation in the USA. The Bells claim they need that incentive too, but that's absurd; they're the sole provider of wholesale access to ISPs, and have incredibly valuable plant. Canada, I will note, has different laws, and does impose something like common carriage (wholesale access at regulated rates for any ISP who wants in) on cable modems. If there were no common carriers, even this message board couldn't exist -- who would allow it on *their* wires?
Forums » Powell InterviewUpon further review ... »
« hypocrites  


Monday, 23-Nov 11:30:55 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [15] Frontier Increases Modem Rental Fee
· [11] Earthlink Suffers From Major E-mail Outage
· [5] Vivendi In Way Of Comcast's NBC Desires
· [2] Monday Morning Links
· [1] New AT&T Ad Campaign Hits Back At Verizon
Most people now reading
· Smoker's Applecare warranties may not be worth anything [All Things Macintosh]
· linux box alternative to NetEqualizer ? ? Does it exist? [Wireless Service Providers]
· Extra charge to use Master Card instead of Visa? [General Questions]
· Best Bluray player [General Questions]
· Rate my website [General Questions]
· IMG 1.7 (IMG Updates and Discussion) [Verizon FIOS TV]
· Bell's Network Management practices page [TekSavvy]
· [Free] Opera 10.10 Final [Software]
· Microsoft Security Bulletin Summary for October 13, 2009 [Security]
· MagicJack Error Broken Storage [MagicJack]