more on FCC to dress 'naked DSL'

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ 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/