[achtung]

Is it just me or is the supreme court just seeming more and more like a puppet for businesses these days

This story has to do with the regional Bells in particular.

Link

[Unknown Target]

How is this bad? Wouldn't it increase competition?

It'd be a pain in the ass ot get service though, seperate cable lines - ugh.

[achtung]

It would be much harder for other ISPs to "get in the game" so to speak.  And imagine if each company had to run their own lines it would be way to costly and would take up a lot of space.

[Taristin]

Eh? My cable company offers the best broadband you can get in your home, here. And by making their lines exclusive, I can only see them making the service even faster, to discourage people from ripping out the cable lines all together.

(Verizon is trying to get people to bundle telephone/dsl, and tv via satelite)

[achtung]

Well it's more of a thing if theres just one service in town they aren't going to worry about upgrading.  Sattelite services are still to expensive compared to cable and you can depend on the fact that cable is gonna take a long time to die.  It depends on the area I suppose though.

[EtherShock]

I agree with Swantz. Deregulation will only discourage competition. This is only encouraging an oligopoly.



Prices better not shoot up.

[Admiral LSD]

Swantz, Ethershock: Take a look at the broadband situation over here before condemning this move. Here, one telco controls most of the telecommunications infrastructure. As a result, end-user broadband charges are absolutely ridiculous due to obscene wholesale pricing.

Example: the ADSL plan we're on costs AUD$79.95 (~USD$61.43) a month. For that you get 512k/128k (down/up) with 30Gb/30Gb (peak/off-peak or 7AM to 7PM/7PM to 7AM) download limits. Admittedly, we're fairly heavy users and there are cheaper plans but these balance the price by reducing the download limit (virtually every ADSL supplier here as at least one <$30/mo plan but these almost all have pathetically small download allowances, like 300-500MB).

It's gotten to the point that, to avoid having to pay Telstras outrageous wholesale rates, the larger ISPs here have taken it upon themselves to install their own equipment in the exhanges. Having the freedom (though, I do wonder why it was necessary to go to court over this but then, this is the US we're talking about...)  to install their own infrastructure should ultimately bring prices down though increased competition.

edit: I'm always messing those symbols up...

[achtung]

Well you don't have the Bells to deal with...... or do you?

And do you live in a rural or urban area?

[SadisticSid]

I'm not sure about what the situation has been with cable companies in the US, as Americans have relied on them for TV for far longer than we have here in the UK. As far as I know, all the consumer cable that was put down in the UK has been a very recent, and ultimately private enterprise. So why should these companies be forced to open up their networks to competitors? Contrast this with BT, whose market position in telecoms was entirely granted by the state before it was privatised, and must now unbundle its exchanges to allow competitors access. That strikes me as fair, as it's state intervention which created the unhealthy monopoly in the first place.