AT&T to FCC , we need the feds help to bring broadband to the masses

[Modelworks]

AT&T is telling the fcc that home phone usage is dropping and that it should set a date for requiring them to become obsolete.
Sounds okay at first, I mean people are using land lines a lot less, but you have to read the whole thing to understand what ATT really wants.

The Commission has been charged by Congress with formulating a National Broadband Plan that will result in broadband availability for 100% of the United States. That auspicious goal is within reach, but only if the Commission marshals its resources and those of other stakeholders to develop and execute a strategy that enables the deployment of the enormous amount of infrastructure necessary to reach it.

uhoh, I see trouble coming and it is wearing an ATT t-shirt.

While POTS revenues are plummeting, costs are not. Every time a household or
business cuts its landline, the fixed costs of providing POTS must be spread over a smaller
customer base, thus raising the average cost of serving the remaining customers. “Perhaps
more than any other business in the world, the wireline TelCo is a fixed cost business.”

According to one estimate, the average per-line cost of maintaining the legacy network has risen
from $43 per year in 2003 to $52 per year today .

So it cost them $52 a year to maintain my line , but they want to charge me $360 ($30 x 12) for local service ?
Even with the cost of the service itself that is one hell of a markup they got there.

No one prevented horse-drawn carriage manufacturers from switching to automobiles the moment it became clear that the antecedent technology was obsolete. But many network operators do not have this luxury. ILECs were
historically parties to a regulatory compact that involved exclusive franchises in exchange for a
commitment to offer service to all customers in a serving area at reasonable rates. That
commitment was codified in an overlapping regime of federal and state regulations, including
tariff requirements, obligation-to-serve rules, and carrier-of-last-resort obligations.

And, while the exclusive franchises that formed the quid of that regulatory quid pro quo have long since
vanished, the core obligations on ILECs largely remain in place and preclude service providers
from abandoning POTS in response to technological change and market demand.

They are really trying hard here to make it see like the poor telecoms just can't make it, please Mr. FCC don't punish us anymore. Lets break it down.

ILEC is independent local exchange carrier. Those exclusive franchises did not vanish, they bought them and the rules that came with them, the real issue here. When telephones were new the way you got service was from a local company , if your area was too small then sometimes a co-op was formed with several areas to share the cost. The cost to install was high so in return the fed gave local companies conditions which also allowed them to become a monopoly for that area since they would have exclusive rights to those homes.

To keep things in check they also made rules that controlled the operations. One of them was profit control. The companies were allowed to make a profit, but only up to 10-14% over cost. That was fine until 1993 when internet became a hot topic. The telecom saw their chance and went to the FCC. They told the FCC that they wanted to bring internet to every home in the country but they just couldn't do it with the current system. So they suggested to the FCC that if the FCC would drop the profit control and ease restrictions that the telecom could use that money to build out internet to homes everywhere. The idea was NOT popular with consumers. Telling a company that they can now charge you whatever they like when before you were guaranteed they could not is something I think most people would complain about. So what is the telecom to do , they start telling lies, they even testified before congress.

“We're prepared to install between 1.5 and 2 million fiber optic lines through
1996 to begin building our portion of the Information Superhighway.”

"First, we announced our intention to lead the country in the deployment of the
information highway.… We will spend $11 billion over the next five years to
rapidly build full-service networks capable of providing these services within the
Bell Atlantic Region."

"We expect Bell Atlantic's enhanced network will be ready to serve 8.75 million
homes by the end of the year 2000. By the end of 1998, we plan to wire the top 20
markets.... These investments will help establish Bell Atlantic as a world
leader…."

"In November 1993, Pacific Bell announced a capital investment plan totaling
$16 billion over the next seven years to upgrade core network infrastructure and
to begin building California's "Communications superhighway". This will be an
integrated telecommunications, information and entertainment network providing
advanced voice, data and video services.

“…The Ameritech Corporation said yesterday that it planned to spend an
additional $4.4 billion to take video conferencing and other video services to the
home, for a total expenditure of $29 billion in the next 15 years.”

“On January 13, 1994, the Telephone Company announced its intention to invest
$4.5 billion over the next 15 years to build a statewide information superhighway
("I-SNET"). I-SNET will be an interactive multimedia network capable of
delivering voice, video and a full range of information and interactive services.
The Telephone Company expects I-SNET will reach approximately 500,000
residences and businesses through 1997.”

“U.S. West will construct an advanced fiber-to-the-curb/coaxial cable network
capable of providing 77 channels of analog video and between 800 and 1000
channels of digital capacity.”

Sounded good to consumers, TV, high speed internet, phone service, and all the flashy ads talking about how great it will be. Consumer opposition disappeared and lobbyist to congress took care of the rest. Deregulation was approved and now the telecom could charge whatever they liked. So what happened to our fiber to curb for all homes by 2004 ? It wasn't built of course. So how does one testify to congress that you will do something, get the money for it, then spend the money however you like ? You dissolve the companies into larger companies, who are not bound by the obligations of the former. So profits got kept, rates increased , and the consumers got nothing in return.

So now ATT is back at the table, what do they want this time:

Commission should issue a Notice of Inquiry that explains the importance of a firm deadline for the phaseout of POTS service and the PSTN, and it should ask what that deadline should be.


After the transition, implicit subsidies that now enable widespread availability of POTS – while at the same time creating substantial opportunities for arbitrage and consuming resources of providers and regulators alike – will be replaced with explicit support mechanisms that ensure the widespread availability of broadband. The current intercarrier compensation regime – with all the arbitrage and inefficiencies associated with that regime – will be replaced with the unregulated IP-based model that currently characterizes the exchange of Internet traffic. And overlapping (and at times competing) jurisdictional domains will be replaced with coherent federal regulation that is consistent with the any-distance nature of communications today.

As AT&T and others have explained in detail, the historical jurisdictional division between state and federal jurisdiction is fundamentally incompatible with IP-based technology and the multiple, simultaneous communications that IP-based technology enables.

contribution mechanism for the federal Universal Service Fund is badly broken.transition universal service alongside the transition to a broadband telecommunications infrastructure – i.e., to make universal service policies “flexible enough to adjust to changes in technology and demand for broadband services.”


the Commission should make clear that it has statutory authority under 47 U.S.C.
§ 254 and/or Title I to begin an immediate transition of high-cost universal service support from POTS to broadband.

Commission should alter its methodology for distributing universal service funds to focus on broadband, thereby facilitating broadband deployment and in the process preparing stakeholders for a complete shift to broadband and away from the PSTN.

The Notice of Inquiry should seek comment on whether and the extent to which legacy state legal requirements are an obstacle to universal broadband access.

In AT&T’s view, the transition away from the PSTN to broadband and IP-based services cannot occur successfully without transitioning away from the legacy state regulatory requirements that force continued investment in and maintenance of the PSTN. That transition will require the elimination not only of all legacy state requirements that mandate the continued provision of POTS

AT&T’s view is that the assertion of federal jurisdiction over broadband and IP-based services is critical to the success of the transition, and that assertion will itself serve to eliminate certain vestigial aspects of federal and state telecommunications regulations (including, for example, separations-related requirements).

Now I get it. They first want the rules governing how the universal service fund money is spent changed to be 'more open' . Next do away with state rights to control telecom and make it all federal. I guess it is cheaper for them to pay off congress than it is to deal with individual states. This also gives them control over cities like wilson, NC that put in their own fiber network and were taken to court by telecom because they did.

Sadly this will probably happen and consumers will get shafted again. I don't see how anyone can take anything these companies say after they ripped off the consumer for $200 billion + since 1996 for services never delivered.



link to ATT filing:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020354032

 

[Lemon law]

I see Modelworks is bashing my #1 favorite company, AT&T.

Hit em again harder is all is all I say.

When I bought a house in 1993, I found AT&T was my monopoly phone line provider and I have not had decent phone service since.

What is worse, I can't even get an answer from them on when they will upgrade my lines to dsl capable. Tell me where this loose lips sinks ships secrecy is???????????

But Oh Wait, now we know that AT&T just plans to walk away from land line telephone service anyway. Maybe the Martians will maintain it.

Earth to the US Congress and the FCC, there is a great way to give such companies a dope slap, and that is to tax them and tax them until they straighten up their act and start act in the public interest.

And as AT&T has a super expensive 3G data network and a planned 4G data network, one way to force AT&T to act would be to have AT&T provide internet access at DSL prices to those users who have AT&T landlines phones that are not DSL capable. Chaching, that would give me broadband internet and make good on the word of AT&T.
But too many in non super high density areas would still be screwed because AT&T sucks for landlines and sucks in wireless.

As for AT&T as a company, their lower level employees try hard, but the its their damn top executives that make AT&T uniformly rotten at the top.

 

[Patranus]

Land line customers already get hit with how many "universal access" "frees" and "taxes"?

What is next, the Democrats making it illegal to NOT have a land line?

 

[Hacp]

Government backed monopoly at its finest.

 

[Modelworks]

And as AT&T has a super expensive 3G data network and a planned 4G data network, one way to force AT&T to act would be to have AT&T provide internet access at DSL prices to those users who have AT&T landlines phones that are not DSL capable. Chaching, that would give me broadband internet and make good on the word of AT&T.
But too many in non super high density areas would still be screwed because AT&T sucks for landlines and sucks in wireless.

There is another interesting story, wireless. When we did the change to DTV that freed up all that extra spectrum for wireless. To keep things competitive the FCC placed rules on bidding so that smaller companies would have equal chances as the larger companies in the auction, it wouldn't be just who had the most cash, but also would consider the size of the company and what the plans were.

Of course the big guys complained, but in the end the rules stood, small companies would get equal consideration when bidding. So how did they get around it ? They formed shell companies, companies like Verizon bought spectrum as small businesses. Someone should have caught that but conveniently there were no rules that the small businesses could not have larger parent companies. So after the auction, the new shell companies were merged back into the parents.

 

[MotF Bane]

The problems of government interfering with the market in the first place.

 

[WHAMPOM]

The problems of government interfering with the market in the first place.

Like a law forbidding a pickpocket from taking your wallet out of your panties?

 

[Lemon law]

Jeeezus, now nuts are complaining about the government intervention into free markets that got electricity and telephone out to the masses 80 years ago.

Sorry Charlie, the free markets are not even serving the big companies.

For example, AT&T got all kinds of greedy stars in their eyes in all the really really big cities, and spent a fortune stringing fiberoptic cable to every neighborhood so they could roll out a service called Uverse designed to drive cable out of business in all the cities. Instead cable fought back, modernized, meanwhile Verizon joined the fun with something called FIOS that requires even more Fiberoptic, and a ruinous price war began. Quite a few huge city residents benefited with faster and cheaper services, but all Verizon and AT&T did is to waste all their investment bucks as their investments did not pan out into profits, and now they have no investments bucks left to serve the other 90% of the country that is woefully under served.

The USA lags most of the world in the quality and pricing of internet services, and largely because the rest of the world tells their telco's they damn well operate in the public interests and extraneous games will not be tolerated.

And now as we transition into 4G wireless, and realize that no one network can cover the entire country, should we not think its stupid to permit three different wireless standards?

 

[Genx87]

Jeeezus, now nuts are complaining about the government intervention into free markets that got electricity and telephone out to the masses 80 years ago.

Sorry Charlie, the free markets are not even serving the big companies.

For example, AT&T got all kinds of greedy stars in their eyes in all the really really big cities, and spent a fortune stringing fiberoptic cable to every neighborhood so they could roll out a service called Uverse designed to drive cable out of business in all the cities. Instead cable fought back, modernized, meanwhile Verizon joined the fun with something called FIOS that requires even more Fiberoptic, and a ruinous price war began. Quite a few huge city residents benefited with faster and cheaper services, but all Verizon and AT&T did is to waste all their investment bucks as their investments did not pan out into profits, and now they have no investments bucks left to serve the other 90% of the country that is woefully under served.

The USA lags most of the world in the quality and pricing of internet services, and largely because the rest of the world tells their telco's they damn well operate in the public interests and extraneous games will not be tolerated.

And now as we transition into 4G wireless, and realize that no one network can cover the entire country, should we not think its stupid to permit three different wireless standards?

Your view of the situation is overly simplistic. Most places that are used as examples of the USA being behind the times are much smaller geographically, have higher population densities, and smaller systems to upgrade.

 

[Modelworks]

Your view of the situation is overly simplistic. Most places that are used as examples of the USA being behind the times are much smaller geographically, have higher population densities, and smaller systems to upgrade.

You left out the lack of competition. In the UK, 15 providers per home, Hong Kong 23, South Korea 26. I see people use the 'well the USA is much bigger' excuse all the time. Who wants to pay to install fiber to a small community if one company controls it ? The telecom didn't have a problem with distance, it was never mentioned , when they testified to congress all the wonders they would provide.


As long as telecom owns the last mile to your home, you will continue to be screwed. What they want now is the final step in total control of telecom by companies, they want to remove state and local rights so only the fed has control of who supplies service, easier to control that way. Crush the rebels who try to install their own service, like greenlight, before they get a foot hold.

 

[Genx87]

You left out the lack of competition. In the UK, 15 providers per home, Hong Kong 23, South Korea 26. I see people use the 'well the USA is much bigger' excuse all the time. Who wants to pay to install fiber to a small community if one company controls it ? The telecom didn't have a problem with distance, it was never mentioned , when they testified to congress all the wonders they would provide.


As long as telecom owns the last mile to your home, you will continue to be screwed. What they want now is the final step in total control of telecom by companies, they want to remove state and local rights so only the fed has control of who supplies service, easier to control that way. Crush the rebels who try to install their own service, like greenlight, before they get a foot hold.

You act as if I think our system is perfect. It isnt, there were definate measures the govt could had done but they didnt. This is what we are working with right now. It is expensive as hell to drop fiber to the home. I dont think a truely free market system would bring fiber to rural areas any faster or at all.

This is an article from last Spring that places the avg speed of broadband in the United States at 3.9 Mbps.
http://gigaom.com/2009/03/27/akamai-data-internet-broadband-still-going-growing/

This is from last Jan for the UK and its many last mile ISPs.
http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/8...average-broadband-speed-just-36MB-per-second/

3.6mbps

Clearly it doesnt really matter if there is a huge last mile free market. The costs are staggering and you wont get that fast of innovation.

In the original report you will note that not only is S Korea is mentioned, but within the United States the highest avg speed correlates with the part of the country with the highest population densities.

 

[Modelworks]

Y
Clearly it doesnt really matter if there is a huge last mile free market. The costs are staggering and you wont get that fast of innovation.


In the original report you will note that not only is S Korea is mentioned, but within the United States the highest avg speed correlates with the part of the country with the highest population densities.

$22 vs $55 for less service , last mile free market doesn't matter ?
The reason you have high speeds in high population is because the telecom spend as little as possible and unless they get a quick return do not invest in infrastructure. Also look at areas where companies like ATT are putting in Uverse, notice they have Verizion FIOS already in many, so why Uverse now ? High speed is already available to consumers, why spend all the expense to put in more to the same homes ? Because the density is so high they can get the profits back quick, it has nothing to do with what is best for consumers.

I know people that can't get access because they were told that 2 years was too long to recover cost. They cherry pick where the highest return is and screw the rest while keeping anyone else from competing. You cannot have someone like that looking out for the best interest of the consumer. It is like hiring bank robbers for security guards.

 

[Genx87]

$22 vs $55 for less service , last mile free market doesn't matter ?
The reason you have high speeds in high population is because the telecom spend as little as possible and unless they get a quick return do not invest in infrastructure. Also look at areas where companies like ATT are putting in Uverse, notice they have Verizion FIOS already in many, so why Uverse now ? High speed is already available to consumers, why spend all the expense to put in more to the same homes ? Because the density is so high they can get the profits back quick, it has nothing to do with what is best for consumers.

Of course they invest where they have the quickest return on their dollar. Would you run a company otherwise? Why would you invest in highspeed internet where it will take the longest to recoup project costs and turn a profit????? Why is ATT in the same location? I'd guess competition and the fact the population density is also favorable.

As for cost for the end user. It really is a lot of factors. I have been paying 24.99 for 4.5 years at my current location via charter for their highspeed internet. Since then my speed has gone from 3Mbps to 5Mbps to my current 10+mbps. My dad goes on and off Qwests DSL for 19.99 in 6 month increments. Deals are out there is one is willing to shop it. Of course I admit there are faults in the system. But I dont really know how else you do it if your goal is to cover the entire country in broadband.

I know people that can't get access because they were told that 2 years was too long to recover cost. They cherry pick where the highest return is and screw the rest while keeping anyone else from competing. You cannot have someone like that looking out for the best interest of the consumer. It is like hiring bank robbers for security guards.

And you believe a truely free market system would change this? How? I am a free market guy but realize the system we have now forces telcoms and cable companies to actually build in rural areas. A truely free market wouldnt touch those areas with a 10 foot pole. They'd be lucky to have a telegraph machine much less broadband or dial up to the home.

 

[Patranus]

So what AT&T is trying to do is use the government to help crush its competitor.

And the taxpayer/consumer loses again.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Land line customers already get hit with how many "universal access" "frees" and "taxes"?

What is next, the Democrats making it illegal to NOT have a land line?

Corrected for correctness....

1-- whats next?
2-- patranus saying something idiotic?
3-- yep!!
4-- The Democrats making it illegal to NOT have a land line?

 

[theeedude]

AT&T is a joke. I get 768 kbps tops on their so called broadband DSL, and 384kbps without errors, and this is in the heart of Silicon Valley, 5 blocks from Apple HQ.
You'd think they would be embarrassed enough to not try to peddle it as "broadband," but nope, they just hide behind the "up to" 1.5mbps disclaimer.
They have turned their obsolete copper lines into cash cow and stopped investing in broadband, at least in my area. The only thing they are good for is using their prices to negotiate Comcast's rates down.

 

[Nemesis 1]

The problems of government interfering with the market in the first place.

Good for you . Had At&T not been broken up I would have had fiber along time ago . I don't have AT&T now . We have quest. and TWM long distance . Since the break up Phone service went up 5x in price and no good service.

AT&T isn't even the same company just a name the company that bought them is using . The biggest rip off in american history . Sad the ignorant haven't a clue

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Proper broadband has become a part of free speech as it stands now.

Any proper government would argue that public access should be free, at least if you want your society to be regarded as a free society.

 

[Lemon law]

Genx 87 done let reality sail right over his head when he says, "Your view of the situation is overly simplistic. Most places that are used as examples of the USA being behind the times are much smaller geographically, have higher population densities, and smaller systems to upgrade."

Earth to genx------------when AT&T greed and ruinous investment went over like a lead balloon in the super highest populations densities imaginable because they could not be profitable in trying to eliminate the competition, please tell us again why that brilliant AT&T strategy will work better anywhere else.

Maybe in a neutron star or some place similar.

 

[Lemon law]

Good for you . Had At&T not been broken up I would have had fiber along time ago . I don't have AT&T now . We have quest. and TWM long distance . Since the break up Phone service went up 5x in price and no good service.

AT&T isn't even the same company just a name the company that bought them is using . The biggest rip off in american history . Sad the ignorant haven't a clue

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not exactly sure what you are saying, but my area has had AT&T like since forever, but only a clueless idiot would maintain that that AT&T has therefore brought Fiber optic to thus the ever faithful us.

In short Nemesis, do not try to sell me total BULLSHIT, my mere experience proves you are full of BULLSHIT. Face the facts the old old AT&T was dedicated to providing cheap local services to the masses while ripping anyone who wanted long distance off. Ain't progress grand, so many more turkeys to rip off now.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm sure I'll shock all the insane leftist kooks that haunt this place since I'm clearly a far-right-wing fascist, but...

1) Weren't several companies including AT&T already given billions of dollars to expand infrastructure that never happened?

2) There are good places for government, and one is anything that requires a easement to provide service. Government, be it city, county, state or national, should own the physical network. Let the free market actually compete and provide the service coming over the wire, but government should actually be tasked with installing and maintaining the physical network.

 

[drebo]

ILEC is independent local exchange carrier. Those exclusive franchises did not vanish, they bought them and the rules that came with them, the real issue here. When telephones were new the way you got service was from a local company , if your area was too small then sometimes a co-op was formed with several areas to share the cost. The cost to install was high so in return the fed gave local companies conditions which also allowed them to become a monopoly for that area since they would have exclusive rights to those homes.

I see where you're coming from, but you have this wrong.

ILEC is INCUMBENT Local Exchange Carrier. Basically, the ILECs are responsible for the "last mile". There are many CLECs (competitive local exchange carriers) which can provide services, but they do (for the most part) rely on the ILEC in order to actually DELIVER those services.

So, yes, the ILECs are still required to maintain the physical "last mile" infrastructure, which is a largely fixed cost. The difference here is that in times past, you either had analog phone service from the ILEC or you if you had a CLEC provide you with a digital line (T1, ISDN, etc). The CLEC paid the ILEC to lease the copper to your building, but was the one who actually provided the ports to provide you with service. This is how it used to be.

Now, ANYONE can come in and offer analog or digital phone service over VoIP. I can bypass the ILEC directly in some customers. This is what AT&T means when they say that the geographic monopoly they were guaranteed in exchange for providing low- or no-cost phone service and maintaining the physical copper infrastructure (including bringing it out to new developments at their own cost) is going away. When I can provide phone service to customers without AT&T/MCI/Sprint/Verizon being in the loop at all, the geographic monopoly has been compromised. Traditional CLECs cannot do this, as they still need the ILEC for "last mile" delivery. Modern CLECs can, as they can now use Cable internet to provide phone service. Meanwhile, AT&T is still bound by regulation to maintain copper to that, and every other, building.

This is a real problem. AT&T is attempting to mature with the times. They have already started offering various VoIP products, from integrated PRIs to flat out VoIP service. They seek to provide this across more of their footprint. For instance, for DSL customers, they can provide VoIP service instead of having the copper pairs tied to a physical port in a switch. This lowers their static costs tremendously.

VoIP is the future, and archaic regulations which hinder some companies from providing it or make it not feasible to provide are counterproductive.

 

[Nemesis 1]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not exactly sure what you are saying, but my area has had AT&T like since forever, but only a clueless idiot would maintain that that AT&T has therefore brought Fiber optic to thus the ever faithful us.

In short Nemesis, do not try to sell me total BULLSHIT, my mere experience proves you are full of BULLSHIT. Face the facts the old old AT&T was dedicated to providing cheap local services to the masses while ripping anyone who wanted long distance off. Ain't progress grand, so many more turkeys to rip off now.

You haven't a clue about the old AT&T It was the only provider. It had the muscle to upgrade . Why should AT&T spend the money now to upgrade to fiber . when all other carries would be allowed to use . My sister worked for old AT&T and many of my friends . They all thought it was great when broke up . They not lol anymore as they don't have jobs. My phone system is same as it was 50years ago LOL. Because the baby bells did nothing to improve in our area other than SOME underground wiring and that was after they could have installed fiber . As luck would have I do now have fiber available in my area . But ya know whats funny . My village population 131 has fiber the city 0 feet from our city limits can't get it because there one of the baby bells LOL. I am having installed in the spring as I wanted the new shop up and complet befor adding it . For $99 I get full service phone every TV channel available and 100mb internet service . Now thats a price I can live with . My children are big stock owners in that company as my mom left it to them when she died . As I didn't need or want it.

 

[Nemesis 1]

How old are you the break up was in 1974.

 

[Schadenfroh]

AT&T is a blight upon the populace. Typically, the only thing that works with their service is the billing and it works a bit too well. Their mobile business is supported by droves of Apple / Steve Jobs worshipers. Their landlines will fall upon your yard and they might even leave some equipment around on your property even though you do not have their home phone service. When you complain, they will say it is in the right-of-way when the measurements say otherwise. Hopefully sooner than later, cable companies will move in to finish that company off.