Interesting People mailing list archives
more on FCC to dress 'naked DSL'
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:27:55 -0500
------ Forwarded Message From: <EEkid () aol com> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:57:46 -0500 (EST) To: <dave () farber net> Subject: Re: [IP] FCC to dress 'naked DSL' Use as you see fit. Verizon's Bizarre DSL Policy Mr. Farber, The Naked DSL article strikes home. At my previous address, I was a charter AOL DSL subscriber and only paid $19 per month for my DSL service. About three years ago, I moved to Millersville Maryland. My new address doesn't have cable access. Immediately we discovered that even though we were only 5 miles away of all of our family members, to the north and east, all of our phone calls were long distance. I asked Verizon if there was something that could be done to correct this. They said yes and issued a new "foreign" exchange. This allowed us to communicate with local family without having huge long distance bills. Our basic phone service jumped to $59 dollars per month. I contacted AOL to have the DSL switched over to our new address. We live less than a mile from the office so there's no problem with the cable run distance. When the DSL failed to be connected, AOL said Verizon wouldn't allow it. I contacted Verizon and a helpful customer service rep told me that there is no reason why we couldn't have DSL. So she made an inquiry into why we weren't being allowed to have DSL. A week later, I contacted Verizon again and was told that again there's no reason we can't have DSL. The rep then did a three way call with the Baltimore office. She explained that I had a foreign exchange and that I wanted DSL. The person in the Baltimore office said "we don't do that". She then said "But, the foreign exchange and the DSL come from the same office and it's only 2000 feet from his home. The company rep in Baltimore then shouted into the phone "WE DON'T DO THAT". So, we were not allowed to have DSL. We had to give up my charter DSL subscription with AOL and do without broadband. Then about 4 months ago, we saw an advertisement for COVAD DSL. We called COVAD and they promptly had DSL service connected to our home. I now pay $29 for 900k bps DSL. I would very much love to get rid of the $59 phone bill and replace it with VoIP. I spoke to a friend who works for Verizon. I explained that Verizon would not sell me DSL service but they will allow another company to sell me DSL service using Verizon's equipment. He laughed and said that he has seen the scenario before and that Verizon is losing a fortune in DSL sales because of this short sighted policy. Mr. Farber, this is bizarre. If at some point, legislation no longer requires Verizon to allow COVAD to sell me DSL via their system. I will have to do without broadband and the possibility of lowering my phone bill from $59 per month to $14. That is until I cut down enough trees to setup a satellite internet dish. Jerry In a message dated 3/21/2005 7:09:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, dave () farber net writes:
------ Forwarded Message From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com> Reply-To: <dewayne () warpspeed com> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:19:45 -0800 To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Source: FCC to dress 'naked DSL' Source: FCC to dress 'naked DSL' By Ben Charny <http://news.com.com/Source+FCC+to+dress+naked+DSL/2100-1037_3 -5627726.html> Story last modified Sun Mar 20 22:53:00 PST 2005 U.S. regulators are expected to suspend state public utility rules that force BellSouth to let customers buy its high-speed Internet service without having to also sign up for its local phone offering. As early as Monday, said a source familiar with the situation, the Federal Communications Commission could suspend public utility commission regulations in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, California and Louisiana that forced Bellsouth to sell DSL, or digital subscriber line, service separate from its local phone service. In the past, the two services had been inextricably linked. An FCC decision would send a strong message to other state utility commissions that might be considering a similar rule, the source said. The expected FCC decision would have a profound effect on the few thousand people in the four states who now get "naked DSL" from Bellsouth. It would also affect the millions of homeowners who would go with a separate DSL offering given the chance, insiders believe. The possible precedent for the Bells--Bellsouth and the nation's three other top phone and DSL providers--could even affect cable operators that sell broadband and telephony on fiber-optic networks, services that are much faster than the Bells' DSL. Among other things, Bellsouth and its supporters have warned of the possibility of slightly different naked DSL rules in all 50 states, which would slow broadband growth in the United States and undermine Bellsouth's incentive to invest in the service and the underlying network. Bellsouth also points out in FCC filings that some states have opposed naked DSL rules. Proponents of the state rule believe naked DSL keeps the Bells in check, competition thriving and broadband prices under control. Naked DSL "protects the ability of consumers to make choices about their local service provider," Alabama utility regulators wrote to the FCC, in support of the state rules. "Contrary to BellSouth's claim, the state commission orders are protecting their local customers' rights to choice among local voice carriers." A Bellsouth representative said any decision would affect the 8,000 people who have purchased naked DSL from Bellsouth since 2002, when the first of the naked DSL rules went into place. The representative offered no further comment on any possible decision. Of the four Bells, only Verizon Communications has said in the past that it intends to voluntarily sell a DSL-only service, but its self-imposed deadline has passed and there's still no offering. A Verizon representative had no comment Friday. In mid-2004, SBC Communications had been ordered to offer naked DSL by California utility regulators, but that order appears in doubt as well. In its ruling, the FCC is expected to claim sole jurisdiction over DSL, leaving state public utility commissions to fill the role of consumer advocate, the source said. The FCC is also expected to rule that Bellsouth isn't required to provide its competitors with wholesale or retail broadband services on a standalone basis, or as part of phone service the companies buy using FCC rules known as unbundled network elements, UNE. Under the UNE rules, The FCC, and not Bellsouth, sets the rates in order to keep the four Bells' networks open to competitors. [snip] Archives at: <http://Wireless.Com/Dewayne-Net> Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com> ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as EEkid () aol com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on FCC to dress 'naked DSL' David Farber (Mar 21)