 
Shack
join:2002-01-17
Bloomington, IN | I am not surprised Bush is the most big business President ever, did you expect his FCC to do anything else? Why monoplies are allowed to keep out competition I will never understand, I would included Cable Internet in that as well. | |
|
 | 
ncredible
@rr.com
 from:
maxwell2112 
| Re: I am not surprised having seen what clinton did to all the businesses in America, I thank God for Bush and his common sense. Yet I don't think Bush had anything to do with this, I think it is right. Why? Simple, the states have no right to force companyies to do business a certain way, the states haveing overspent money are now trying everything they can do to slap us the taxpayers for anything they can, if they had gotten what they wanted we the end customers would have been paying a higher bill.
As for the we own it , ha, 75 years ago maybe, right now today, you are not forced to pay for a phone, your tax money does not go to the bells, stop trying to say we own it. We the tax payers might have helped in the deployment but that does not entitle ownership of the lines. The whole big business thing is so insane, anyone in this country can start any business, as long as the rules are followed. With more rules such as this are in place it is harder for the smaller start ups to get anywhere. | |
|
| | 
Pz_
join:2001-03-31
Brownsburg, IN
clubs: | Re: I am not surprised said by ncredible:
I thank God for Bush and his common sense.
I'm not a very political person, but I don't think I've ever seen the words bush and common sense in the same sentence. | |
|
| | | Gilitar
join:2000-11-20
Mobile, AL
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Re: I am not surprised I voted for Bush, but I don't like the way things are going with big business in this country. If the democrats would learn how to nominate a candidate worth a crap maybe we would have another choice. It's time for the governement to breakup the following: Wal-mart, telcos, and oil companies. Mergers + big business = consumers lose. | |
|
| | | | 
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: I am not surprised Breakup wall-mart? Under who's authority? For what reason? Wall-mart is not the product of any merger.
Wall-mart is simply the result of a savvy business strategy and excellent distribution systems.
As far as breaking up the telcos, the government did that once all ready, with very mixed (to be charitable) results. | |
|
| | | | | 
P Ness
You'Ve Forgotten 9-11 Already
Premium
join:2001-08-29
Cromwell, CT
clubs: 
| Re: I am not surprised said by N3OGH :Breakup wall-mart? Under who's authority? For what reason? Wall-mart is not the product of any merger. Wall-mart is simply the result of a savvy business strategy and excellent distribution systems. As far as breaking up the telcos, the government did that once all ready, with very mixed (to be charitable) results. Walmart was a result of alot of preditory pricing..they would come in undercut cost....or even sell below cost..run everyone out and then raise prices to make a margin that was acceptable...
not exactly the best way to conduct business
--
www.stopfcc.comI do not think the government needs to restrict free speech especially on a device that has an off knob. | |
|
| | | | | | 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Re: I am not surprised and then K Mart ran into the buzzsaw of Walmart:) | |
|
| | | | | | | 
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
1 edit | Re: I am not surprised Most of K-Mart's original undoing was due to management issues (not dissimilar to Enron or Adelphia) rather than the result of competitive pressure from Walmart. K-Mart II will continue to be profitable as long are there are buyers for the real estate obtained from the Sears acquisition. | |
|
| | | | | | rich_joy
Premium
join:2004-10-17
Rockford, IL | For all of the praise about Wall-Mart's business strategy, it has also been noted that for every job Wall-Mart creates, the community loses 1 1/2 Jobs. The other result is the end of local businesses. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Re: I am not surprised Most all of the crap your hear about Walmart is put out by the Unions would want to organise it. | |
|
| | | | | | | | 
Jon Geb
Wal-Mart Sucks
join:2001-01-09
Novi, MI | Re: I am not surprised I don't work for a union and I won't step foot in that dollar weakening, job destroying, sprawl producing crap hole. | |
|
| | | | | | | | 
SpitefulCrow
Insert Witty Tag Here
Premium
join:2003-06-04
Berkeley, CA
| said by Transmaster :Most all of the crap your hear about Walmart is put out by the Unions would want to organise it. And you think that letting the poor people working at Walmart shouldn't be allowed to unionize to get better working conditions and pay?  | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
 ·Dreamhost
 ·Armstrong Zoom In..
| I agree with you, they definitely need to increase competition. I don't really know where ncredible got his logic but it definitely was not from any of us.
If you give the telcos what they want, even when they promise faster speeds and lower prices, it will not work as we have already seen. Healthy competition is what drives down prices and increases service. Each company that competes wants to be the best, so services and products get better. In my case, there is SBC and a local cable company that offer broadband, thats it. They are both at a stalemate with speeds/pricing and not competing much at all. Monopolies could care less (case in point, Micro$oft). Now that their browser is finally threadened, they are JUST NOW makeing a new one. I hope Novell makes good with Linux next year and threatens Windows OS as well.
The point is, the FCC's decission is pretty much ensuring doom for any competion, and it will probably be a long time before most of us see any next-gen broadband.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| | | | | biochemistry
join:2003-05-09
92361 | Usually I don't comment on spelling, but "wall"-mart? I mean seriously, how many times have you passed by a Wal-Mart in your lifetime that you still think it's "Wall-Mart"? | |
|
| | | | | | jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH | Re: I am not surprised Wow, calm down, it was probably a simple spelling error, or
else he was implying that "wall-mart" was putting up a wall between itself and competition.
Lighten up.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| | | | |
SpitefulCrow
Insert Witty Tag Here
Premium
join:2003-06-04
Berkeley, CA | Wal-mart destroys local business and jobs and creates a bunch of underpaid jobs with no benefits or health insurance while at the same time providing horrible service and poor-quality products to the consumer. | |
|
| | | | | | 
one_bored_si
join:2003-03-10
Montebello, CA | Re: I am not surprised Welcome to the future of America, and it has already begun.  | |
|
| | | | | | valuepac0
join:2001-05-30
Santa Monica, CA
| said by SpitefulCrow :Wal-mart destroys local business and jobs and creates a bunch of underpaid jobs with no benefits or health insurance while at the same time providing horrible service and poor-quality products to the consumer. Im sorry but what jobs is wal-mart distroying? As far as im concern, target, wal-mart, kmart.. All pay just above minimum wage. Same with most department/ mall stores: gap, jcpenny, sears, Barnes and noble, borders, tower music... Same with most food establishments. Mc Donald's, subway, Panera, starbucks,..
Basically all these organization pay less than $10 an hour to the majority of their employees. So stop blaming Wal-mart.. the blame can be spread around to just about any organization operating in a strip-mall
| |
|
| | | | | | | 
mustang03282
join:2003-01-10
Bridgeton, NJ
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: I am not surprised said by valuepac0 :said by SpitefulCrow :Wal-mart destroys local business and jobs and creates a bunch of underpaid jobs with no benefits or health insurance while at the same time providing horrible service and poor-quality products to the consumer. Im sorry but what jobs is wal-mart distroying? As far as im concern, target, wal-mart, kmart.. All pay just above minimum wage. Same with most department/ mall stores: gap, jcpenny, sears, Barnes and noble, borders, tower music... Same with most food establishments. Mc Donald's, subway, Panera, starbucks,.. Basically all these organization pay less than $10 an hour to the majority of their employees. So stop blaming Wal-mart.. the blame can be spread around to just about any organization operating in a strip-mall do you work for walmart? My wife works at sams club every full time position is being replaced there with part times jobs. When she was hired she was told she could have steady days off now her days off seem to change every week. She paid for her dental plain for over 2 years before she finally got her dental card. If she isnt carefull because of her hire date being late in the year if she isnt carefull and gets dosnt get her vacation request in fast she gets screwed out of her vacation because the last quater of the year is blacked out. She was looking at transferring to wallmart because its alout closer to us. At wallmart the front end supervisers they call cos's dont evem get paid any more then regular cashiers. Now at sams club they are pulling this shit that if sh dont sign up x amount of people for a wallmart credit card he will be fired. She was hired as a cashier not to sign people up for credit. When will big companys understand that customers hate being hounded every time they shop to get a new credit card | |
|
| | | | 
Zverina
join:2004-07-12
Brooklyn, NY | If the democrats would learn how to nominate a candidate worth a crap maybe we would have another choice. we rather have a puppet for the corporate big-wigs as our president. i know, i know, it's all democrats fault. | |
|
| | | | | Gilitar
join:2000-11-20
Mobile, AL | Re: I am not surprised I'm not saying its the democrats fault. They just need to nominate a more moderate candidate. I for one would probably cross the party lines if they did. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | 
FTCXtreme
join:2005-03-14
New Braintree, MA
| Re: I am not surprised Hillary LMAO. John Kerry LMAO. John Edwards, is moderate he actualy knows what america needs. Bush= The biggest idiot but Kerry would suck worse. My only option= Nader 04 LMAO. Im thinking next election wil lbe Bob Doles fake ARM 08. JK. Mccain08!!!  | |
|
| | | | | | Blackened
Your Freedom Fries Are Stale
join:2003-09-29
| Re: I am not surprised said by FTCXtreme :Hillary LMAO. John Kerry LMAO. John Edwards, is moderate he actualy knows what america needs. Bush= The biggest idiot but Kerry would suck worse. My only option= Nader 04 LMAO. Im thinking next election wil lbe Bob Doles fake ARM 08. JK. Mccain08!!! You're actually cheering on politicians who plan on screwing you out of your rights and dollars? People try too hard these days to be posterchilds for the phrase "glutton for punishment". | |
|
| | | | | | timmylc
join:2005-01-15
Port Orchard, WA | danm........is this a politics discussion board?... | |
|
| | |
Zverina
join:2004-07-12
Brooklyn, NY | That's because Bush is a village idiot. | |
|
| | | | 
lm5449
Premium
join:2001-03-31
Knoxville, TN
·Comcast
| Re: I am not surprised said by Zverina :That's because Bush is a village idiot.
Not to the majority that voted for him.:) | |
|
| | | 
Kompressor
Premium
join:2002-02-12
Huntington Beach, CA
| said by Pz_ :said by ncredible:
I thank God for Bush and his common sense.
I'm not a very political person, but I don't think I've ever seen the words bush and common sense in the same sentence. When have you seen 'Clinton' and 'common sense' in the same sentence? | |
|
| | | | tbeckner
join:2004-03-20
Bend, OR
| Re: I am not surprised said by Kompressor :said by Pz_ :said by ncredible:
I thank God for Bush and his common sense.
I'm not a very political person, but I don't think I've ever seen the words bush and common sense in the same sentence. When have you seen 'Clinton' and 'common sense' in the same sentence? BUSH is the AntiChrist of Common Sense. | |
|
| | | | |
History-101
@pacbell.n
| Re: I am not surprised You are entitled to your stupidity. We heard the same leftist propaganda B.S. about Reagan in the 1980s..."He's stupid, a simpleton, not compassionate, a right wing fanatic, a cowboy, a fake, a war monger, calling the communist Soviet Union an "Evil Empire" would ruin our fragile relationship with them, he will worsen the Cold War with the Soviet Union by building up our military, telling Gorbachev to "Tear down the East Berlin Wall" was lunacy ...blah...blah...blah!" For you to post the same incorrect, boring, politically leftist mantra we have been hearing for 25 years reveals something about your I.Q. level. | |
|
| | | | | | tbeckner
join:2004-03-20
Bend, OR
3 edits | Re: I am not surprised said by History-101:
You are entitled to your stupidity. We heard the same leftist propaganda B.S. about Reagan in the 1980s..."He's stupid, a simpleton, not compassionate, a right wing fanatic, a cowboy, a fake, a war monger, calling the communist Soviet Union an "Evil Empire" would ruin our fragile relationship with them, he will worsen the Cold War with the Soviet Union by building up our military, telling Gorbachev to "Tear down the East Berlin Wall" was lunacy ...blah...blah...blah!" For you to post the same incorrect, boring, politically leftist mantra we have been hearing for 25 years reveals something about your I.Q. level. I am unsure who you are talking to, but it isn't me. I am not a PROGRESSIVE/LEFTIST. I am a moderate Republican, a Reagan Republican, a sad supported of Ross, and I am in Mensa, so I am not perfect, but not dumb either.
You might be getting a little too emotional to be responding. | |
|
| | | | | | |
History-101
@pacbell.n
| Re: I am not surprised I did not say "you" were stupid. I said that you are entitled to your "stupidity". It is my viewpoint that your statements regarding Bush are stupid and simply wrong. I correct my emotionally charged statement implying something about your I.Q. level by stating that I really cannot know your overall intelligence on other subjects. Neverless, although Bush bashing has become a popular sport among many people, I am offended when I hear the usual cheap shots against our popularly elected U.S. President. I also deserve a say in defending President Bush just as you have the right in this country to verbally bash him.
I am sorry if I offended you personally on a level outside this political topic. That was not my intent and I appreciate that you posted your views. It's just that that the hearing the same left wing crap for several decades and having that politically left mantra historically be wrong so many times has made some of us on the conservative side more than a little pissed off. | |
|
| | 
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ | Yesh, damn that Clinton for 8 years of a roaring economy, job creation and relative peace. Damn him, damn him, damn him.
 | |
|
| | |
See 11 replies to this post |
|
| |
zizis
@pacbell.n
| What a crock of .... The best economic times of the last 50 years were the Clinton years. Big and small business were happy as clams raking in the money.
But you can thank God all you want, although I doubt the big man in interested in our economy. | |
|
| | |
See 7 replies to this post |
|
| | 
JoeOnSunset
Doublethink Is Doubleplus Ungood.
Premium
join:2002-11-25
Ormond Beach, FL
| Actually, states DO have the right to force businesses to do business a certain way and do all the time. The FCC was specifically given the right to overrule state regulations on communication matters. If they weren't, the states rules would remain in place. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the states have the "right" to regulate businesses. | |
|
| | |
| | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| said by ncredible:
having seen what clinton did to all the businesses in America Yea, I saw what Clinton did .. he presided over the greatest ecomonic expansion in the history of the country. His advisors, like Bob Rubin, steered us clear of the Asian economic crisis. He eliminated the budget deficit. And lots and lots of people got rich.
From an economic perspective, I really, really miss Clinton. | |
|
| | |
History-101
@pacbell.n
| Re: I am not surprised I wouldn't call Clinton's Y2K technology bubble and year 2000 recession a success. It was Clinton's federal policies and his failed oversight and that gave rise to "era of the rich" that created the bubble of corrupt fake wealth companies like ENRON, MCI-WORLDCOM, etc. along with all those thousands internet start-ups that stole peoples investments. Much of that wealth in the late 1990s was built on lies and cooking financial books. Bush inherited Clinton's tech bubble recession and has been trying to put integrity back into the American big business investment since he took office in 2001. | |
|
| | DirtyMic
join:2003-11-19
Pompano Beach, FL | Yeah try to start a small company making an O/S for home PCs. Then tell me how the whole big business thing is insane. | |
|
| 
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
1 edit | my sig says it all
--Who do you want to pay off today? | |
|
|
damnthat
@optonline.net | Dam that Janet Jackson! She ruined DSL for all of us! | |
|
|
TheAutoDSL
@verizon.net
| I find it funny the quoted used Honda as an example.
YOU CAN NOT GET A HONDA WITH ALL THE TRIMMINGS OR MADE TO ORDER!
Honda forces items onto the consumer, ex. if you don't want a sunroof with your V6 and air bags TOO BAD. They don't even have packages.
Good for honda bad for the consumer! | |
|
Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI | Phone Co better offer it. Or they will be shooting themselves in the foot. Hell infact just spin of the local service and watch it die the slow painfull death. | |
|
| SanJoseNerd
Premium
join:2002-07-24
San Jose, CA
| Re: Phone Co better offer it. said by Freezone :
Phone Co better offer it or they will be shooting themselves in the foot.
They've had bulls-eyes painted on their feet for a long time now. We've seen many news articles about phone companies slowing or stopping deployments as a way to get legal or regulatory changes they want. But all they've accomplished is letting cable get farther ahead. They seem to believe that by withholding service and not giving the public what it wants, they'll win in the end. Makes you wonder just who is in charge of those companies, and whether they've ever heard of capitalism. | |
|
doppler
join:2003-03-31
Blue Point, NY | Another nail in DSL coffin What a dumb decision.
Plain DSL, and no voice pricing will save DSL
from cable. Plain and simple. | |
|
| damox
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Olympia, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Another nail in DSL coffin Why would that be a dumb decision? No the dumb decision is the decision by the Telco not to voluntarily offer "Naked DSL". If you owned a business (or maybe you do) would you like the government telling you what services you must offer? I know I certainly wouldn't.
--
DAMOX Proud to be a member of Team Discovery | |
|
| | KSC519
join:2002-03-14
Chicago, IL
·Lightning Bolt DSL
 ·Vonage
| Re: Another nail in DSL coffin The whole point is that they should give the consumers what they want. Its not an unreasonable request. But I'm hoping that at least one company will do the smart thing and dish out some dsl-only lines. Land-line phone service is ridiculously expensive. And its only a matter of time before it becomes a small blip on the map of available communications services. The phone companies need to move away from the 'screw the customer out of as much loot as possible' tactics that they've been employing for decades. Before I switched to VOIP, It was not uncommon for me to have a $130 monthly bill for calling places less than 20 miles away. I don't see any type of fair practices in that one. | |
|
| | | damox
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Olympia, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Another nail in DSL coffin said by KSC519 :The whole point is that they should give the consumers what they want. Its not an unreasonable request. I agree, but I don't agree that they should be forced by the government to do so!
said by KSC519 :But I'm hoping that at least one company will do the smart thing and dish out some dsl-only lines. Some Telcos already do; mine does.
said by KSC519 : Land-line phone service is ridiculously expensive. And its only a matter of time before it becomes a small blip on the map of available communications services. I have Qwest. I think my land line service is fairly reasonable.
said by KSC519 : The phone companies need to move away from the 'screw the customer out of as much loot as possible' tactics that they've been employing for decades. I totally agree. The Telcos that don't will eventually become non-existent, but unfortunately that may take some time in certain areas of the country. Everyone may not agree with this, but I believe Qwest has made good headway in this area.
--
DAMOX Proud to be a member of Team Discovery | |
|
lawj
Premium
join:2004-07-31
Truro, NS | Capitalism I don't see why a government should have the right to tell a private corporation how to sell it's products in a free-market economy. | |
|
|
See 14 replies to this post |
|
happyvalley
join:2005-03-21
| comparision obviously, now, cable is getting cheaper (adelphia 30/month), more people will disconnect their land phones, and choose the package (cable + IP phone)
see the comparsion
1. verizon phone 20$ + DSL 30$ = 50$ ==> highspeed and local call.
long distance is not included here.
2. cable 30$ + VOIP (for example, broadvoice, 10$ for unlimited in-state, 20$ for unlimited any long-distance including many international call) == 40-50$ ==> highspeed and unlimited in-state/nation long distance
if a family makes longdistance more than 20$/month, will be interested in switching to second plan.
so not providing naked DSL is not helping traditional phone companies like verizon. probably it is a wise marketing strategy to provide naked DSL. | |
|
| 
zoom314
Superman
Premium
join:2001-04-30
Yermo, CA
| Re: comparision said by happyvalley :obviously, now, cable is getting cheaper (adelphia $30/month), more people will disconnect their land phones, and choose the package (cable + IP phone) see the comparison 1. verizon phone $20 + DSL $30 = $50 ==> high speed and local call. long distance is not included here. 2. cable $30 + VOIP (for example, broadvoice, $10 for unlimited in-state, $20 for unlimited any long-distance including many international call) == $40-$50 ==> high speed and unlimited in-state/nation long distance if a family makes long distance more than $20/month, will be interested in switching to second plan. so not providing naked DSL is not helping traditional phone companies like verizon. probably it is a wise marketing strategy to provide naked DSL. Even though a lot of people would like Naked DSL or nearly naked DSL(w/email & newsgroups), Without Federal legislation I doubt It will happy anytime soon.
[Correction/Rant on]
Now the last time I looked when I was growing up the $ sign was supposed to go in front of the amount and not after It, Example: $50.00(The cent ¢ sign was supposed to go at the end of the amount of money), Unless You are advocating the abolition of the US Dollar which like abolishing the US Military will never happen as some dreamers would like.
[/Correction/Rant off]
--
Firefox forever!»mysite.verizon.net/zoom314/ | |
|
Plasticman
Will Work For Bandwidth
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Harrisville, RI
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| Thats Why Thats why I am glad I have a cable modem and for my phone service a cell phone. But if the cable line goes down, I can still access the internet as my cell phone is bluetooth and linked to my computer to also work as a dial up modem....
Plasticman
--
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill today because they pissed me off | |
|
ColdFiltered
join:2005-01-25
Atlanta, GA
| A phone line is a phone line, I guess. I suppose the FCC's interpretation of the infrastructure into the home and commonly known as the 'copper pair' is that it is a phone platform with additional services vs. a copper-pipe that can be used for more than just plain old telephone service.
To the benefit of the local PSCs and PUCs, this should insure protection in their getting tax revenue from POTS. I do not necessarily see them making more from tax revenue from broadband (or IPTV) than POTS within the next short-term period. | |
|
| 
justmesqui
Just-
Premium
join:2004-05-14
BH9 2RJ | Re: A phone line is a phone line, I guess. if they were the same thing they would be called the same thing
one thing is a phone line for voice
one thing is internet for data
this really sucks u need to have a phone line with the company to have dsl | |
|
| |
ColdFiltered
join:2005-01-25
Atlanta, GA
| Re: A phone line is a phone line, I guess. DSL is a technology that was created to ride 'phone lines'. Otherwise they would probably have used two-pairs (four wires) instead of a single-pair.
I agree, naked DSL should be offered. There is no technology limitation preventing this. Its a CEO decision that keeps it in-place. | |
|
| clecrupt9
join:2002-01-22
GA
2 edits | said by ColdFiltered :I suppose the FCC's interpretation of the infrastructure into the home and commonly known as the 'copper pair' is that it is a phone platform with additional services vs. a copper-pipe that can be used for more than just plain old telephone service. But here's the problem and why some people think the FCC is talking out of its ass...
BST phone service is defined and regulated by the FCC as "Telecommunications" service. But then, Bellsouth is asking that its DSL product be unregulated and classified as information service.
The FCC seems to be giving Bellsouth both ways on this situation. They seem to be saying DSL is telecom service, so you cant unbundle it, but it's also information service so it cant be regulated.
Of course, we all know the Telco's just want a level playing field- their fair minded folks. Another article posted over in the Bellsouth forum hits the nail on the head in a between the lines way.
One could presume based on whats happening, our Government is simply going to give the Telco's whatever they want in return for massive network build out. The people have been burned before by these companies where States have done this. I guess we'll see if the Feds do any better. | |
|
| |
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| Re: A phone line is a phone line, I guess. said by clecrupt9 :But then, Bellsouth is asking that its DSL product be unregulated and classified as information service. To a degree, why not? The FCC classified cable internet as an information service several years ago and the only significant difference between cable internet and DSL is the mode of transport over the "last mile". | |
|
| | | clecrupt9
join:2002-01-22
GA
| Re: A phone line is a phone line, I guess. Oh, dont get me wrong. From a straight business perspective, the Bells are terrific. But from a legal and ant-trust aspect, they seem to run right up on the line.
If DSL is not telecommunications service, then a telecommunications service should not be required to obtain service. In other words, I should not be forced into buying internet when I buy a phone line, nor a phone line when I buy Internet.
Just my thoughts. | |
|
VoxxitDesign
join:2003-07-26
Fort Lauderdale, FL | telcos and voip Why don't the telcos offer naked DSL, as well as a cheaper alternative to their landline phone service? That would create demand, and everyone would be happy. And we would finally have some nice competition. | |
|
|
ColdFiltered
join:2005-01-25
Atlanta, GA
| Re: telcos and voip Because, they are use to offering voice service with a CBR QoS. DSL is a UBR QoS. This means they would quickly get a reputation for having crappy (choppy) VoIP. Until everything is put into place that can offer CBR QoS over a broadband pipe without having to insure CBR on 100% of that pipe then its probably considered not worth it at this time.
But they are working toward this very conclusion. BST, or instance, does offer IP-phone, but they are on leased lines they provide with CBR, which incidentally insures clear voice. | |
|
|
VoxxitDesign
join:2003-07-26
Fort Lauderdale, FL | Why not just SIP? | |
|
| | 
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Hollywood, FL
clubs:
·VOIPo
| Re: telcos and voip SIP is just a protocol for phones, etc.. to find each other. Like HTTP is to web browsing. Just by saying, "Why not SIP?" shows your lack of knowledge.
You still have to have the underlying connection for the SIP to work on..
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
|
loadmaster
join:2001-01-10
San Jose, CA | Naked Cable Inernet Service? Can you get cable internet access without cable tv channels? If not then the status quo has been maintained. The ruling is typical but the playing field must be the same for all. | |
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
damox
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Olympia, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| That's Reasonable It seems reasonable enough to me. I do not believe that businesses should be forced to offer services that they have no desire to offer. On the other hand, if I were the CEO of a Telco, in light of the way the phone industry is changing, it would seem prudent to offer DSL to my customers without requiring them to have a telephone. In fact, it would seem prudent for Telcos to offer as many diversified services as they possibly can in order to stay competitive and survive. I believe that as the industry changes, those Telcos that refuse to change with it, will eventually cease to exist! I am a Qwest customer, and though I no longer subscribe to their DSL (because it's not competitive here in Washington, and because the idea of being forced to use MSN made me want to vomit), nevertheless, I believe Qwest has made great strides in the past few years in order to compete. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) Qwest may be the only major Telco voluntarily offering "Naked" DSL. As to whether this ruling will, “End Broadband as we know it”, I doubt that. In fact, eventually, as Telcos wake up and “smell the proverbial coffee”, Naked DSL should become common place. On the whole it's just a blip on the radar, although I'm sure it rankles those who had become benefactors in states that were forcing the issue.
--
DAMOX Proud to be a member of Team Discovery | |
|
| jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
·Dreamhost
·Armstrong Zoom In..
| Re: That's Reasonable And you think this will happen with little or no competition. The only competition I am seeing now is mainly in big cities. In smaller cities and towns (and where I live) there has not been any competition between the sole SBC and cable co. for a long time. They are not adement about offering new services if they do not have to.
Competition is a better way of forcing a company to do business in a certain way, weather they want to or not. I do agree that it does seem just like the government to control something but when there is a controlling monopoly involved I think the government needs to step in. In this case they were probably once again bought off by the major telcos.
The same will probably happen with the cable cos. case.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| | damox
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Olympia, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: That's Reasonable Eventually, it will come . . . but what you have to remember, is that Broadband internet access is not a GOD given right! Many people enjoy living in small towns, away from the hustle and bustle of life, and sometimes I long for that, but it comes with a price! 
People wonder why the US is so far behind countries like Korea and Japan when it comes to broadband, it's because here in the US, we still have wide open spaces! You won't find much of that in Japan or Korea, that's for sure.
--
DAMOX Proud to be a member of Team Discovery | |
|
| bbtech6650
Premium
join:2004-10-28
Pittsburgh, PA
·Verizon FIOS
| Thats why I would never get dsl service from an ILEC...I have SpeakEasy here, which sells "naked DSL" through Covad, and NeN. yes, their service is more costly, but I don't mind. Not having voice service just adds and extra $6 dollars and taxes to the cost of my data service.
And if it is a question of the gov't loosing tax revenue, that argument is absurd, because the taxes are added to the "dry loop" fee. | |
|
roamer1
sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
| Nonsensical... I'm not surprised that the Bells got their way again.
That said...IMO, ILECs like BellSouth that continue to refuse to sell naked DSL will be able to watch more and more of their residential business wither away as they continue to illogically price DSL out of the market for cord-cutters and those who want VoIP not because of price but for international calling, features, and so on.
Lemme see...here in Atlanta:
Comcast = $57.95 for 4/384 (with no cable TV service)
BellSouth = $90/mo or so for 3/384 ($55-60 for DSL + $33 or so for plain POTS line with no LD usage)
Qwest and Verizon see the future; BellSouth (not to mention SBC and others that won't sell naked DSL) doesn't.
-SC
--
"it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones" --a friend | |
|
| RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| Re: Nonsensical... said by roamer1 : ILECs like BellSouth that continue to refuse to sell naked DSL will be able to watch more and more of their residential business wither away as they continue to illogically price DSL out of the market for cord-cutters and those who want VoIP not because of price but for international calling, features, and so on. -SC A couple of questions for everyone.
1) Do you think Bells should be forced to offer naked DSL even if it's not profitable?
2) If the Bells thought it was a profitable line of business, don't you think they'd want to offer it?
Personally, I think the answer to #1 is no, and #2 is yes. Just my opinion.
RJ | |
|
| | clecrupt9
join:2002-01-22
GA
| Re: Nonsensical... 1) No one has seen real proof of what DSL actually costs. It may be that it isnt a money maker. But if thats the case, charging non POTS customers a premium on service covers the base. The ILEC's are responsible for much skepticism on what things really cost by their own actions IMO.
2) History would show that not to be the case. ISDN is the first example, not to mention how long it took DSL to even start deployment. The BOC's did not want to hurt existing business segments with new technologies, and their-in lies conflict of interest. | |
|
| | | RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN | Re: Nonsensical... Those are really "Yes or No" type questions, not essays. | |
|
| | |
| | | RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| Re: Nonsensical... said by qworster :Naked DSL IS PROFITABLE! THAT SAID.....DSL with dial tone is even MORE PROFITABLE!! GET IT???!!! The phone companies want to OWN THE DSL PORTION OF THE INTERNET! The FCC is likely going to allow them to do so! Capitalism states that competition = GOOD! BUSHism is that competition = BAD!!! (especially when you're the only game in town!). Ahhh, you can tell you're in for a nice, reasonable debate when a 7 sentence reply to a "Yes or No" question contains 0 facts, half CAPS, 13 exclamation points, 3 question marks, and 1 period. | |
|
ftodd
join:2001-04-11
Pittsburgh, PA
| disappointed I am disappointed with the FCC's ruling and I am a Bush supporter. I have VoIP service and a Cable modem. Was thinking about switching to VZ DSL if I could save a few bucks. With the requirement of purchasing dialtone service, that won't be likely now. | |
|
DSLTech
join:2000-12-30
San Jose, CA
| ILEC just want CLEC to go away Basically they don't want to have to provide service to the CLECs. At least not in a way that would give them the opportunity to compete on a level playing field, or provide services better than their own.
I mean, why would the phone company not want to provide naked dsl if a customer wanted it? Well, the only reason why would be because if they were required to make naked lines available to CLECs, the CLECs could undercut them and provide DSL with VoIP, or run LPV(Line-Powered Voice) over such lines, without any need whatsoever of voice services from the ILEC. Then the ILEC could be at a disadvantage, or be forced to compete.
This ruling allows the ILEC to continue to make their own voice services a requirement when in reality, if there were no CLECs, they would probably be happy to provide the service at whatever price they wanted, without fear of competition.
Just in case you're wondering about LPV .. the CLEC would have the box (dslam equipped with special cards) that generate actual tone towards the customer, just as the ILEC does, and then translate the tone into digital signals at the dslam and into voip through the network.
ILEC just dont want to allow people to use their copper pairs in whichever way they want. And since money talks, and money's what they have, crap like this gets passed through. | |
|
| GernBlanston
join:2005-01-08
51464
| Re: ILEC just want CLEC to go away quote:
Basically they don't want to have to provide service to the CLECs. At least not in a way that would give them the opportunity to compete on a level playing field, or provide services better than their own.
Gee imagine that. Not being forced by the government to lease your infrastructure at rates you yourself cannot make a profit on.
quote:
I mean, why would the phone company not want to provide naked dsl if a customer wanted it? Well, the only reason why would be because if they were required to make naked lines available to CLECs, the CLECs could undercut them and provide DSL with VoIP, or run LPV(Line-Powered Voice) over such lines, without any need whatsoever of voice services from the ILEC. Then the ILEC could be at a disadvantage, or be forced to compete.
Hate to break it to ya pal but every copper pair an ILEC leases out to a CLEC is a Naked pair.
quote:
This ruling allows the ILEC to continue to make their own voice services a requirement when in reality, if there were no CLECs, they would probably be happy to provide the service at whatever price they wanted, without fear of competition.
Insane circular logic.
quote:
ILEC just dont want to allow people to use their copper pairs in whichever way they want. And since money talks, and money's what they have, crap like this gets passed through.
Talk to the hand. Cable Co's operate without government intervention, and without being forced to operate as ILECs even though their copper is used for the Tripple Play.
Imagine that, Cable companies being forced to operate as ILECs. You'd be against that, I presume.
DOLT. | |
|
ebubman
join:2002-01-17
Enola, PA
·Comcast
·Vonage
| we don't need no stinking telco we have cable isp & have used our gsm shared national cell phones for all voice communications needs. we booted our verizon landline out the front door approx 24 mos ago; in a word then, in the past 24 mos i've sent verizon checks for exactly nothing. i'd consider naked dsl but will not under any circumstance pay for a landline that is neither needed nor wanted. if verizon wants to continue to get exactly nothing each month from me, then they can continue their current foolhardy tact. however, if they'd like me to even consider sending them moolah each month, then they'd better consider offering naked dsl. in the meantime, comcast gets my bucks. thanks for listening. bub | |
|
| terracell
join:2004-04-16
Livonia, MI |  Re: we don't need no stinking telco
| |
|
| | |
Matthew0079
join:2002-08-04
Brooklyn, NY
·Optimum Online
| Capitalism
But yes I still believe in Anti-Trust laws.
C'mon who hear wants to end up like the europeans? Buncha lazy crybaby cowards | |
|
|
|
|
FCC Officially Says No To Going Naked
