[IP] more on any help -- FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing
Title: more on any help -- FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing
------ Forwarded Message
From: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:18:14 -0500
To: <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Ip <mailto:ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: <robertslee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:58:25 -0500
To: <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxx 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=ipArchives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/