Ken & All: In the article, it states> "While vendors supporting digital subscriber line (DSL), ISDN, and cable modems are staying grounded in their efforts to provide high-speed access, the sky's the limit for this new group of broadband suppliers that promises speeds up to 64 Mbps downlink and 2 Mbps uplink.
That may be true to a point, but considering "an all out blitz" to the last mile, there's another front runner with the latest "notice of inquiry to the FCC".
It seems the notice 98-187 petition from the ILECs cries out "please help, I don't dominate as the Internet Service Providers do". This petition sets a stage for the ILECs to dominate in the xDSL arena. Since the ILECs are in essence the last mile, their lock-down on LADs and the petition are showing signs that this is a way to shoulder out local ISPs and capture the market for Internet access by providing a higher bandwidth connection that ISPs can't.
So I guess the wording "grounded in their efforts to provide high-speed access" takes on legal wrangling as the telco's try to delay/forstall the move from a monopoly to a competitive one.
Its a shame this is going on for the ISPs, when they could order a LAD from their facility to the CO, and the second from the CO to the customer, of course it needs to be less than 18k feet. But I think the shame lies from companies like US West which I think now has filed in all its 14 states to remove the tariffs on LAD circuits.
I guess when xDSL has this many complexities from high-powered ILECs, its not going to take hold in a diverse manner. Its going to have I think an ill-effect on ISPs when prices come down on xDSL at speeds 10 times that of the fastest ISP modem to date.
It seems stupid on the FCCs part to think the ILECs would open their market, if you consider that a xDSL modem at each end provides a high-speed connection at much lower cost than using the T1 tariff lines. The high speed channel as you all know ranges from 1.5 to 6.1 Mbps, while duplex rates range from 16 to 640 kbps. No wonder the ILECs are panicked about an open market.
On the VON thread, I put a news release up about T1 rates going up lately instead of down. What a crazy monopoly that needs direct attention now before the mom & pop ISP shops get left behind in the next few years.
Something I see going forward that does shed some light in this area is the fact that "if" the ILECs form a "affiliate" company to provide Internet access, the would be free from regulatory burdens. But why should they when the kicker is> "they would have to offer the same services to ALL ISPs at the same time they offered them to these affiliates. Not going to happen, way to much as stake.
So the idea for ISPs in this situation, is to offer a counter offer to the ILECs in exchange for service's. Some of these NexGenTelco's could possibly (with their international dial-up accounts / telephony service) offer partnerships "outside the US" with termination points country-to-country, excluding the US so as to stay legal.
An interesting filing in regards to the last mile was presented here>
fcc.gov
The 79th paragraph is the most compelling with posing questions to the FCC on how to handle this mess>
79. Also, most ISPs depend, for access to their retail customers, on the last mile facilities of others, especially LECs. There are thousands of ISPs, but only a few providers of last miles that have achieved mass acceptance -- in most places, the incumbent LEC and the cable television provider. Many of the latter have, or will have, their own internal ISP operations. Assuming that there will always be far more ISPs than there will be providers of last miles in an area, we ask for comment on whether interactions between ISPs and providers of last miles will require regulatory intervention. For example, is access by retail customers to thousands of ISPs in the public interest? Is an unregulated market likely to give the holders of last miles the ability and incentive to discriminate against all ISPs or in favor of their own ISP operations, to the detriment of consumers? If such conduct is likely, what is the appropriate regulatory remedy, if any? What can and should the Commission do to preserve efficient peering arrangements among Internet companies, especially in the face of consolidations of large proprietary gateways?
We ask for comment whether the Commission should monitor or have authority over peering arrangements to assure that the public interest is served.
There hasn't been enough "yelling & screaming" from the ISPs like there has from the Lords-of-Local-Access, we need more from an ISP-Consortium of sorts with a big, big MOUTH!! ggg
I hate thugs....!
Some have said, "we need to do away with the the FCC"
I say BS, if one didn't already exist, we'd have to invent one.
If xDSL lags from these complex legalities, that article may be right. Sounds to me the ILECs are using a little White-House-Spin>
delay-stall-confuse. ggg
sTempy |
