American Broadband Sucks, we should have 10+ megabits by now if greedy telco's and cableco's were forced to actually compete like in other industry.

SBC promised 100 megabits by 2006, I'm not going to hold my breath.

We have a deluge of long distance carriers using those same telephone wires, and only a handful of them are owned by the Baby Bells. A federal court has already deregulated the old AT&T monopoly. I don't see how they can block competing DSL providers and not also deny access to the likes of NEXTEL and VERIZON long distance services.

Chalk up another inconsistent wishy-washy decision, from another corrupt agency which panders to lobbyists. The FCC throws ham radio hobbyists in jail for cussing on the air. Employers are fined if an idiot does the same thing on a commercial 50 KW station. A convicted felon cannot legally use a CB radio; but he can be employed by a CLEAR CHANNEL INC. and be on the air. Go Figure again...

being done down here in the south in the city of dallas....they do it the comp is s***)BC they wont let verzion lay down new lines for dsl in the city but they will let em have phones and tv and crap but when it comes to info data your choices in dallas r SBC ..comcast.and maybe if your luckey and live on the edge of another city ya might get offered verzion..but SBC affers a 15buck a month for 1 yr thier connection aint the best while comcast offers that 6meg down and about 2megs ups but at bout 120 a month

Why in the world would they do this? This is like a giant step backwards into time! Since DSL is a phone line based technology does this mean the phone company can also exclude third-party competitors in that area too? This is such a big thing that it's kinda surreal reading this.

This could be an Great thing (prices drop) or a VERY BAD thing (we pay 150/month for DSL). I guess we will have to wait and see.

They're hoping this will spur a quick wiring of the 'last mile'...
As the most advanced nation, we have done such a piss-poor job of delivering to the masses advanced cellular & broadband services: so many other countries have put us to shame-- & even worse, for so many years already. Examples like this one will do very little to sway towards personal liberty & free-market capitalism the draconian, bureaucratic socialist mindset in place im most other countries.

Please explain the scenario where it is possible for this to cause prices to drop. This eliminates 3rd party DSL providers, leaving less competition. How is there a way that could cause prices to drop?

Ummm...As a fellow American I would not consider America to be the most advanced nation, especially when it comes to technology.

As for this 'last mile' what exactly do you mean by this? This decision doesn't do anything but make the phone company god of their systems. God meaning they control what on it, who uses it, and how much it costs.

He means that instead of just having DSL in big cities (because it has to be very close, 25 miles or so, to a telco office), DSL companies will need to expand their service to more remote areas because they will not be getting that extra revenue from the resale of the lines. Therefore the DSL companies have to expand to generate more revenue. This will, in theory, cause all telco companies to expand their DSL networks, thus causing a price war (much like cell phone companies) and cause the price to drop. That is what the FCC is hoping for and why they passed this bill and that's what I am hoping for. I hope that answers your question.

This can't be the effect warranted for a move like this.

For one, when DSL became mainstream, the providers were not forced to share their lines. Big companies existed for a long time selling DSL to companies and people who REALLY wanted it for alot of money - they didn't see fit to 'expand' then and I'm wondering why exactly they would see fit to expand now. Even with a loss in revenue, all they have to do is go back to charging ridiculous prices and this will make up for the resale money they'll be losing (IF they choose to block). Furthermore, I don't see how a price war can occur unless one telco ventures into another one's 'area' and I'm not sure if you know this but companies like Bellsouth and Verizon own MASSIVE areas of service - so much so that I don't see one company going into the other one's area if it hasn't been done already.
I know the idea that you're looking at ------
what you haven't taken into account is that with a BLOCK permitted; they don't have any competition at all, meaning that they can drive prices back up. Our only real saving grace at this point is cable (which I use).

In theory, a monopolist is in the better position to have the lowest prices. In practice however, a monopolist abuses its position to inflate prices because it can.

The real shame is politicans on both sides of isle debate not about consumer choice (e.g. competition within a respective broadband technology), but about politician's choice of which monopoly they will buy into (e.g. cable vs. DSL).

The last mile is a niche market that will no doubt be serviced by somone if not the phone company. I question how much profit there is to justify investment in the last mile.

Where is the carrot and stick approach in this government sanctioned monopoly stemming from legalized bribery? If a phone a company doesn't invest in the last mile, so what? Monopolist still stands.

What Nation would you say is the most advanced Technologicly?

Actually, America has more dark Fiber than any other nation in the world. (Dark Fiber means fiber optic lines that arent being used if you have never heard the term.) The Cable co's and Telephone Co's didnt factor in the possibilty of better uses of fiber optics and as such they laid way too much line.

Currently the Phone companies are starting to get worried, because Cable companies are now offering all of the services the phone companies have, and are now offering bundles just like the phone companies.

Where I live in Toledo, Ohio we can get either Verizon or Buckeye Cable for phone, internet, long distance, and TV service (verizon bundles Direct TV into their packages.) However Verizon charges a LOT more, $45 for phone service, $29 for internet (like a 1.5), and $50 for direct TV. With the cable company, its 20$ for phone service, 19$ for a 3meg internet, and 39$ for cable with VOD and a DVR. Our cable company here is a Private company which only serves our area.. and they dont over charge because if they did they would have to open their lines because we have a goverment agency that watches them and ensures they dont.

As for America not being as advanced as other countries... that would more than likely be based on how BIG our country is. To lay lines in Europe and Japan they dont have the expansive wilderness and the urban sprawl we do and thus everyone could be connected. But also, Japan and Europe both have horrible power supplies and most countries cant even get a refrigorator like we have in our homes.

This desicion doesnt not allow the DSL companies to share their lines. It just doesnt FORCE them to. Many share lines because they have too much fiber and see revenue in selling it. MCI is big on doing this, too bad they are corrupt.

NOTE: In Ohio the entire Phone and Cable system is a regulated monopoly. You can only get ONE cable system and ONE phone system depending on which street and city you live.. almost every major company has their own territory. Not sure if thats the same or not in other states.

Vast rural areas are not an excuse: take Norway-- they've had 25/35/50mb broadband for years...contrast NYC where not everyone has access to dsl to this day, never mind the faster FIOS...while South Korea has had 3/5mb broadband since the days when here in NYC the fastest cable speed was 500/750kb...

Cellular: one standard predominates since many years ago-- folks have had for a long time faster, cheaper, more-features service than we did... take payment / infrared options utilizing the cell phone...etc.
Cable tv: ditto.

Abroad, individual governments, the European Union have had the presence of mind to do whatever it takes to fulfill the goal of fast broadband / latest technological advancements for ALL their citizens-- so they usually pick one standard & designate which companies have the privilege of offering it...in other words: they strongarm a system / mehodology & course of action to get there.

Here who we've had in charge is NO ONE looking out for common good & consumer-- either:
1. the WIntel duopoly force-feeding us inferior processors / OS / browsers / you name it- in order to line their pockets(don't forget the Risc fiasco in particular-- after the 486 chip we could've had workstation-class Risc processors, & instead got the Pentium 1. We'd all be running mini-supercomputers with either OS2, Unix, Mac OS, or Solaris instead of Windows 95...
2. Broadband & Cellular: more flavors of competing technologies than one can remember-- most purposely made/kept different to favor local monopolists...& lobby money insuring our bureaucrats would see to it that it stayed that way.