On 05/06/2013 09:24 AM, Matthew Gillen wrote:
On 05/05/2013 07:36 PM, Richard Pieri wrote:
Randy Cole wrote:
Without competition or dpu regulation,
FiOS is regulated. It is regulated at the local level just like every
other cable TV service in the US.
But not in the same way copper POTS was in some very important
respects. First, access: Vz doesn't /have/ to provide third party
access (so for example there will never be another Speakeasy, or
10-10-220 if you remember that). Second, while Comcast is the vocal
leader on this, Vz is right behind them: they like to claim that since
it's not a POTS line any more that the provisions of common-carrier
status don't apply (Comcast has voiced this on a few occasions in
testimony to the FCC; Verizon for it's part took the FCC to court
about net neutrality last year, wherein they basically said the same
thing Comcast said ("common-carrier doesn't apply to us anymore"):
http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2012/balancing-interests-open-internet-verizon-challenges-fccs-net-neutrality-rules
The whole thing is very complicated because you have many new
technologies. In the POTS days, each town had its CO as well as one or
more "exchanges". Today, the exchanges are nearly meaningless and the
area codes are becoming that way especially when phones are going mostly
VOIP. IMHO, the carriers do need to be regulated. We essentially have a
small number of carriers now in the US. Your TV cable companies compete
with satellite and FIOS. Your phone provider competes with the cable tv,
providers as well as the several VOIP providers. So, essentially
Verizion, Comcast, Time-Warner, et. al provide essentially competing
services. The issue is that the governments have not yet caught up to
the industry.
--
Jerry Feldman <[email protected]>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id:3BC1EB90
PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66 C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
