 
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
1 edit | Not just competitors, but also consumer groups... (I am a representative for New America Foundation in the No Choke Points coalition.)
Just a note that there are a number of Public Interest groups here, including NAF, Public Knowledge, Media Access Project, and US PIRG (and maybe others that I am forgetting).
The lack of competition in this space raises prices and/or eliminates access to those who can least manage it. The situation is one of a choke point, a geeky term for a bottleneck or a single point of failure.
Ironically, the problem isn't geeky at all, it is as simple as buying popcorn in a movie theater -- because you have no other choices than to do without, you'll pay $7 for the popcorn that costs less than $1 to make. Estimates are that the inflated Special Access prices are like the popcorn example, because 90% of the market is controlled by AT&T and Verizon and it is deregulated nearly everywhere.
You, the consumers, pay for this because the communications prices are inflated higher for stores, banks, and health-care providers. If you're a WISP customer, your network can be slower to build out. WISPs can only charge what consumers can bear and can't build out the network if all of the money goes to pay the backhaul bill. Plus the data commitment and early-termination conditions put on Special Access service are so crazy that it creates a high barrier to entry that the would-be last-mile providers just can't break ground.
While AT&T and Verizon do deserve a fair profit that encourages more growth, we've had years of non-regulation and inflated profits and little real growth. What we've seen is a choke point to our progess. AT&T and Verizon can and should be part of the solution and should be rewarded for doing so, but the current situation is choking off progress.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/ | |
|  | SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
3 edits | Re: Not just competitors, but also consumer groups... The so-called "consumer groups" that are lobbying on this issue are all, essentially, lobbying arms of Google. (One, the New America Foundation, is for all practical purposes owned by Google; it gave the group big money and installed its CEO as chairman.) They're not there to help consumers; they are there to get lower prices on bandwidth for Google. There is actually a serious issue here with regard to broadband deployment and competition, but those lobbying groups are involved for the wrong reason. | |
| | | bostonkarl1
join:2003-07-09
Arlington, VA
| Re: Not just competitors, but also consumer groups... So what. Politics make stange bed fellows.
Back in the day when Bell Atlantic (NYCE/Verizon) couldn't maintain DSL worth shit during the Boston rollout, Covad came to my rescue with rock stable service.
This is about maintaining meaningful competition, especially considering the copper was laid at taxpayer expense. | |
| | | | SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
1 edit | Re: Not just competitors, but also consumer groups... said by bostonkarl1  :So what. Politics make stange bed fellows. And if you get into bed with the wrong person, you may regret it for the rest of your (possibly drastically shortened) life. | |
| SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
1 edit | Finally It's interesting that the FCC first moved to regulate retail ISPs so that they could not ration expensive bandwidth, and only then thought, "Well, gee, maybe if bandwidth were not artificially expensive at wholesale there would be less need to ration."
Also, the FCC has announced its intent to issue a Notice of Proposed Rule Making to regulate Internet providers, but only issued a Notice of Inquiry (a request for information) about special access.
Ready, fire, aim? | |
| |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | Re: Finally As to the FCC mechanics, my understanding is that the FCC has a full record from previous looks into Special Access that it is debatable whether it needs another data refresh: not much has changed.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/ | |
| | | SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
3 edits | Re: Finally said by funchords :As to the FCC mechanics, my understanding is that the FCC has a full record from previous looks into Special Access that it is debatable whether it needs another data refresh: not much has changed. That is exactly the point. The FCC should have announced a Notice of Inquiry on the need (or not) for "network neutrality" regulation and a Notice of Proposed Rule Making on "special access." Instead, it did just the reverse.
The results could be devastating. The "network neutrality" regulations could mandate that small, competitive, and rural ISPs obtain more bandwidth before the "special access" proceeding makes sure that the bandwidth is available at a reasonable cost. This could be the "perfect storm" that will kill competitive providers. | |
| | | | jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA | Re: Finally That is scary. We need the small and rural ISPs. | |
| | | | | | | | | SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
4 edits | Re: Finally said by funchords :Brett, you and I have filed ad nauseum into the broadband practices record. Maybe you have filed something nauseating; I tried to file sensible and truthful testimony.
However, the record of that circus-like proceeding contains huge amounts of misinformation from Google lobbyists and is in fact mostly spam generated by them. (Less than 1% of the docket is anything other than spam.) The FCC needs to do fact finding of its own and root out the falsehoods.
The only reason to keep that going is to further delay any action at all.
There is no to keep the old, fatally flawed proceeding going. It is time to start with a clean slate and do a serious inquiry to find out the facts. The previous proceeding was tainted from the start by a Chairman who wanted an excuse to bash Comcast... so that he could leave the FCC -- as he has -- to be paid huge hourly rates by the telcos as a lawyer at a firm that works for them. And maybe even be tapped by them, one day, as an executive.
I'm still saying what I've said for over a year -- I want the rules to continue to be a one pager -- much like the policy statement is today.
In which case it would be unconstitutionally vague -- as the FCC's "four principles" document was -- and hence not even legal. (Note that if the "four principles" had been enacted as rules, they would be illegal for this reason and also for another: they exceed the FCC's statutory authority. Thanks to Comcast's challenge to the FCC order, expect to see a court ruling to this effect soon.) | |
| 
JKM
join:2009-06-08
Seymour, MO | A step in the right direction Finally, a small step in the right direction.
--
Begin with the end in mind! | |
| wildcat man
join:2007-11-03
Kansas City, MO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| A proposal Rather than investigate (which takes time), why not have the carriers state the following policy for broadband pricing (where they are the only wireline facility at the tower/ building):
1. We will price at competitive market rates for 10 years (2 five year terms). Competitive could be mileage based which means the rural areas would cost more and the wireless carriers could assess whether or not quality would suffer with microwave.
2. After 10 years of physical deployment, for that technology (meaning the underlying physical layer + the corresponding electronics), we will price at no higher than 50% above variable + depreciation/ amortization costs.
It's not the pricing for the initial service that's objectionable, but it's the pricing for the 3rd and 4th renewals when the cash has already been returned to the telco and their shareowners. If they started with copper that's 10 years old already (think about when networks started to be built), we could enjoy copper network pricing for 2-3 years until fiber was available.
Where does this argument break down? If not for their monopolistic tendencies, why would carriers not embrace a technology upgrade policy that reduces the excessive returns in the outer years of the plant's life? | |
| wildcat man
join:2007-11-03
Kansas City, MO
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Rather than investigate (which takes time), why not have the carriers state the following policy for broadband pricing (where they are the only wireline facility at the tower/ building):
1. We will price at competitive market rates for 10 years (2 five year terms). Competitive could be mileage based which means the rural areas would cost more and the wireless carriers could assess whether or not quality would suffer with microwave.
2. After 10 years of physical deployment, for that technology (meaning the underlying physical layer + the corresponding electronics), we will price at no higher than 50% above variable + depreciation/ amortization costs.
It's not the pricing for the initial service that's objectionable, but it's the pricing for the 3rd and 4th renewals when the cash has already been returned to the telco and their shareowners. If they started with copper that's 10 years old already (think about when networks started to be built), we could enjoy copper network pricing for 2-3 years until fiber was available.
Where does this argument break down? If not for their monopolistic tendencies, why would carriers not embrace a technology upgrade policy that reduces the excessive returns in the outer years of the plan't life? | |
| sides14
join:2007-11-29
Glendale, AZ | AT&T and Verizon do not control 90% of special access lines. Let's not forget that Qwest has a 13 state region. | |
| | vp71inet
join:2005-05-12
Englishtown, NJ
| Re: 90% of the market is controlled by AT&T and Verizon and it i said by sides14 :AT&T and Verizon do not control 90% of special access lines. Let's not forget that Qwest has a 13 state region. Well since you seem to know that for a fact why not contribute positively by enlightening the forum on the real figures. Failing that your post is meaningless and mischievous. | |
| | | sides14
join:2007-11-29
Glendale, AZ
| Re: 90% of the market is controlled by AT&T and Verizon and it i It's simple logic. To say that AT&T and Verizon control 90% of access lines would be to assume that they control all of the markets. This would be to say that Qwest, Cox, Comcast, Embarq and all of the other players do not have any presence in the reset of the country beyond 10%. Here in Arizona, I can chose between Qwest, Cox, Integra, Level 3, Time Warner Telecom, etc.
Anyone can throw out a number and claim it to be true, but 90% is a ridiculus number. People tend to believe numbers that are represented in articles (whether or not they are true). | |
| tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| Verizon and AT&T (collectively 75% of marketshare) are going against the grain in wireless because they want to stop the bleeding of value in per minute charges/billing. If there were robust competition rather than sit on the fence moves by both companies unlimited wireless would be in the $20-25 per month (unlimited calling) with the price per minute down to about $.02 per minute (depending upon up much you purchase at a time & the delivery terms) with maybe an extra cent for roaming. Verizon specifically also doesn't want to further cannibalize their dying POTS phone market.
We should also see some sexy new phones for prepaid carriers Net-10/Tracfone soon. Their prices per minute need to come DOWN for the new year.
BTW, google is NOT a significant wireless carrier. The main dispute is about VOIP over wireless broadband and/or WIFI of which they want a tightly locked gate on their phones so subscribers don't downgrade their hefty minute plans in favor of cheap internet calling or even texting. The major carriers want to stop the transitioning of cellular wireless into a wireless broadband business which could mirror wired broadband. In a similar dillema the cable companies have selling cable-tv to internet customers with 20+mbit broadband connections.. the same problems occur selling cellular minute plans if there is a cheaper or virutally free alternative available. I wish the FCC luck in trying to wage an anti-competitive battle with them as they will fight tooth & nail, and dirty to keep the status quo. | |
| | sides14
join:2007-11-29
Glendale, AZ
| Re: plain & simple, well at least partly. Verizon and AT&T do not have 75% of the wireless market (»www.circleid.com/posts/20091008_···rs_2009/). The article states that there are 276 million wireless subscribers in the United States. With AT&T and Verizon having roughly 160 million subscribers between them, that only equates to roughly 58%.
Until government officials are prevented from taking any lobbyist money, the American citizen (AKA the consumer) will always end up on the losing end of the equation.
The wireless carriers themselves are turning their situation into a wireless broadband business. Both LTE and WiMax do not have circuit switched networks. Everything will be VoIP.
I completely agree that the cost of wireless telephones should be cheaper. I currently pay $160 per month for 2100 minutes and unlimited texting with Verizon for a family plan (3 lines). If Metro PCS and Cricket can offer $45 unlimited market calling, national calling shouldn't be more than $50-$60 per month. | |
| | | |
|
|
FCC To Investigate Special Access Pricing