more on any help -- FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:18:14 -0500
To: <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on any help -- FCC: we don't need no steenkin line
sharing

This is a simple commercial dispute: you don't like what Verizon has to
offer and they won't change it to suit you.  Does this mean you want the
government to intervene?  That's pretty outrageous.
 
How about the following example?  The movie theaters near my home in
southern Delaware usually carry only mainstream movies; it takes an age (if
at all) for Woody Allen movies to make it to us, for example.  Perhaps I
should request that the government intervene and force the movie theaters to
carry more non-mainstream movies?  I think most of us would accept that this
is the theater owners' commercial prerogative; we might think it's a dumb
decision, but that's their prerogative.  Eventually, someone will take
advantage of the market opportunity and launch a multiplex with more
interesting movies.
 
I think not offering various forms of DSL is pretty dumb of Verizon; any
good businessperson could figure out how to make money doing it.  But
requesting the government to intervene to force them to make a product
offering simply because you want it?  And if your justification for asking
the government to fix your problem is that the ILECs are a monopoly, just
re-read your own note: the ILECs aren't a monopoly any more, any more than
the theater owners in Delaware are a monopoly.
 
And just how big is your problem?  You have to pay Verizon $15/mo for their
most minimal voice service?  Somehow, I don't think this is going to break
you.  But when I have to travel to Philadelphia to see a good movie, well,
that's a real cost;-)
 
Prof. Gerald Faulhaber
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
>  
> From:  David Farber <mailto:dave () farber net>
>  
> To: Ip <mailto:ip () v2 listbox com>
>  
> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 1:28 PM
>  
> Subject: [IP] more on any help -- FCC: we  don't need no steenkin line sharing
>  
>
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Robert  Lee <robertslee () verizon net>
> Reply-To:  <robertslee () verizon net>
> Date:  Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:58:25 -0500
> To: <dave () farber net>
> Subject: RE:  [IP] more on any help -- FCC: we don't need no steenkin line
> sharing
>
> So why did the FCC not at the same  time come out and state their position on
> the issue, rather than the  jurisdiction. Why did they create a vacuum?
>  
> Also, I cannot where  I live get facilities based CLEC DSL.  I have to take
> the Bell DSL and am  forced to take the Bell traditional voice.  I still have
> my Vonage box,  but am forced to buy the needless Bell voice.  VZ tells me
> sweetly that I  can buy their VOIP rather than Vonage VOIP but their VOIP
> costs as much as  their traditional voice.  And for Covad to avail themselves
> of UNE-L,  buying to wholesale from VZ, costs more than VZ retail for dial
> tone.
>  
> The whole thing is so obviously (res ipso loquitur, as  lawyers love to say)
> rotten that it is simply unbelievable that someone,  anyone in government,
> does not blow the whistle.  How can wholesale  prices exceed retail?  How
> closely does one have to look to see the  pus?
>  
>
> Robert  Lee
>
> ------ End  of Forwarded Message
>  
>
>  You are subscribed as gerry-faulhaber () mchsi 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/