<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

[IP] more on FCC to dress 'naked DSL'

Title: more on   FCC to dress 'naked DSL'

------ Forwarded Message
From: <EEkid@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:57:46 -0500 (EST)
To: <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
------  Forwarded Message
From: Dewayne Hendricks  <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To:  <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:19:45 -0800
To:  Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxx
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 roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/