Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

[Scott Call <scall () devolution com>]

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

> Does anyone else find it ironic that removing the requirement that allowed
> competition was done in order to promote competition? I feel boned, how
> about you? :)

Welcome to the United Corporate States of America (if there was ever any 
doubt)  It must be nice to own a congresscritter or two (or two dozen) and 
the FCC board for good measure.  We've always been at war with 
Middleastia, and our corporate patrons are working in your best interest.

I would _love_ to see an accounting of all of the tax incentives, monetary 
perks, and business anti-trust exemptions that have been handed to the 
BOCs since AT&T split up.  These companies have been given literally 
billions of dollars to build "next generation" networks, and have only 
ever made any moves in that direction when forced to compete.

On my office wall I have a framed advert from Newsweek in 1982 advertising 
the low low rate of $1.35 a minute interstate long distance from the Bell 
System.

Yet another reason to welcome you back to 1984.

I do wonder what, if any, consumer reactions are going to guide the BOCs. 
I mean is Joe Internet going to get all riled up when his ISP he's had for 
5 years sends him email telling him he's being moved to Qwest or SBC 
without his consent?  Is SBC going to care? Is there going to be a 
business case for web and email hosting with someone other than your 
forced access provider?  Is there any legal incentive for 
SBC/Qwest/Comcast to allow that access?

-S