Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

One question: One article I read when the ruling was announced (can't find it now, sorry) suggested that this only affected access to the ILEC DSLAMs, not the ILEC local loops. If that's the case, then Covad and company aren't totally out of business yet, as they can still demand access t

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 11:22:23AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: > Yes there is a major concern that the government has > just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted > to use another carriers dsl lines to provide > service's. > >>> will the ilec's start offering competitiv

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 10:20:19PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > Clearly this is a special situation where there is a natural monopoly > given to whomever runs the wires. Maybe what we need is a certain class of > company who will be responsible for running and maintaining the public >

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

>>From: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 11:22:23 -1000 >>To: "Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure >>and, for this morning's pop quiz,

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

I believe it is called facism. A big bald Italian mentioned something about trains running on time. Randy Bush wrote: From: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 11:22:23 -1000 To: "Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: fcc ruling on ds

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > The bottom line is that at a certain point there are a limited number > times you can put a wire to everyone's house into the ground. Cable modems > only make sense because the cable TV customer base to justify the build. > At some point in the f

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

On Sun, 2005-08-07 at 22:20 -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 02:21:59PM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote: > > The choice for broadband will be either the cable company or the phone > > company, in those areas with both. In other areas, it will be just the > > phone company.

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

From: "Joe McGuckin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure On 8/7/05 7:20 PM, "Richard A Steenbergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maybe what we need is a certain class of company who will be responsible f

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

On 8/7/05 7:20 PM, "Richard A Steenbergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe what we need is a certain class of > company who will be responsible for running and maintaining the public > data infrastructures. They could have lots of government regulations to > ensure that they are charging a "fa

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 02:21:59PM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote: > > On Sun, 2005-08-07 at 11:09 -1000, Randy Bush wrote: > > > > will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, > > > but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?) > > > > if their competition has been eliminated b

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Tom Vest wrote: > > > On Aug 7, 2005, at 5:18 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > > On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Randy Bush wrote: > > > Yes there is a major concern that the government has > just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted > to use another carrie

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

On Aug 7, 2005, at 5:18 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Randy Bush wrote: Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's. will the ilec's start offering c

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Randy Bush wrote: > Yes there is a major concern that the government has > just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted > to use another carriers dsl lines to provide > service's. > >>> will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw,

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's. >>> will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, >>> but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-use

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

On Sun, 2005-08-07 at 11:09 -1000, Randy Bush wrote: > > will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, > > but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?) > > if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what > does 'competitive' pricing mean? The choice for broadba

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Randy Bush wrote: > > >> Yes there is a major concern that the government has > >> just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted > >> to use another carriers dsl lines to provide > >> service's. > > will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, > > but n

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

>> Yes there is a major concern that the government has >> just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted >> to use another carriers dsl lines to provide >> service's. > will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, > but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?) if the

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Henry Linneweh wrote: > > Yes there is a major concern that the government has > just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted > to use another carriers dsl lines to provide > service's. will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

All of us independant isp guys are busy polishing up our resumes.. --- Andy > interesting that nanog is chattering so seriously about the calea > thing (which does concern me), but seems to be unconcerned about > another ruling that would seem to be a major anti-competitive > change threatening

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

> I mean is Joe Internet going to get all riled up when his ISP > he's had for 5 years sends him email telling him he's being moved > to Qwest or SBC without his consent? well, dunno about joe, but the jane to which i am married had a fit. "dealing with an isp was a known deal, these telco idiot

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: Does anyone else find it ironic that removing the requirement that allowed competition was done in order to promote competition? I feel boned, how about you? :) Welcome to the United Corporate States of America (if there was ever any doubt) I

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 11:48:08AM -0700, Henry Linneweh wrote: > > Yes there is a major concern that the government has > just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted > to use another carriers dsl lines to provide > service's. Does anyone else find it ironic that removing the requireme

Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's. -Henry --- Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > interesting that nanog is chattering so seriously > about the calea > thing (

fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure

interesting that nanog is chattering so seriously about the calea thing (which does concern me), but seems to be unconcerned about another ruling that would seem to be a major anti-competitive change threatening the businesses of a few hundred members of this list