FCC Screws Consumers

DIsagree...
You wrote: Had the FCC not ruled their way, the Telcos were just not going to put in anymore DSL capability anywhere because there was no profit in it.

In point of fact, the telcos are still not going to wire anymore of the US until they are free from providing access at regulated prices NOT ONLY for internet but also for local service. In other words, according to Bell execs, we're not doing anything until you hand us the whole ball of wax. The split decision leaves thngs in limbo -- perhaps the bells would build out the network if they had their way, but no competitiors would be able to price their networks competitively. If they had acted to keep regulated prices for internet as well, there would have been real price competition and the bell system would be treated like the common carrier it is. built largely through the monopoly gift the bells have enjoyed.

granting monopolies is obviously the govt's policy of choice -- not free markets. what is cable, a patchquilt of monopolies given to differnt cos none of whom have to compete with each other. broadband competition? in a very few places there is a choice between telco and cable. in MOST places, you sign up with whatever's available and are grateful for the chance.

what about the other way around?
Perhaps cable companies should instead be required to lease lines to offer their coax to competitors at regulated rates. A lot of cable companies in rural locations are clueless about internet service and could probably use the help.

Cable companies hold the majority of broadband connections because more often cable modems are faster than DSL in a given area. More than anything, I think the FCC descision ensures that DSL won't get as fast anytime soon.

DIsagree...
Cable and Telco have both invested billions of dollars to build their networks. The people who come in and demand these leases are big companies like Worldcom & AT&T and have plenty of money to build networks of their own. Also, you are leaving out the wireless Internet option available in a lot of areas too. The Telcos were simply not expanding their DSL lines to rural areas because of being forced to subsidize others companies. That made cable the only game in town in a lot of places. At least now maybe, the Telcos have an incentive to invest the money to get DSL to rural America. Had the FCC not ruled their way, the Telcos were just not going to put in anymore DSL capability anywhere because there was no profit in it. If that had happened, then no one would have won but the cable companies who hold the vast majority of broadband connections.