[oclug] rogers EUA

[Brad Barnett]

On 20 Mar 2002 11:24:57 -0500
"Andrew J. Hutton" <ajh at steamballoon.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 11:20, Brad Barnett wrote:
> 

> 
> This is the state of ISP access in Canada currently.  It needs to be
> rectified and regulated more strongly than the phone service was.
> 
> > > No, phone providers had assured monopolies in exchange for
> > > submitting to regulation.  ISP have no such assurances and should
> > > not be regulated in the same manner.  
> > 
> > Not true.  The did have a monopoly, but it wasn't because they
> > submitted to regulation.  I think you need to take a look at the
> > history of telecommunication regulation in this country.  It started
> > with telegraph act, _before_ the phone even existed!  Bell Canada was
> > created by an act of Parliament, and was controlled from day one!
> 
> You are agreeing with me.  Bell has existed as a regulated monopoly in
> exchange for being a monopoly.

If you look at the context above, you _appear_ to be claiming that
regulation isn't fair for ISPs because they don't have a monopoly.  You
appear to claim that without a monopoly, regulation isn't fair.

I don't agree with you, and am pointing out that the telco's didn't trade
a free market for a monopoly and regulation.  Regulation always existed
before _any_ of the current phone companies did.  

>  
> > ISPs are no different, and any attempt to pretend that they aren't is
> > just strange.  After all, they act solely as a pipe, just like the
> > phone company does.
> 
> No they don't you're talking about infrastructure providers.  Service
> providers provide content services, access, as well as assistance and
> consulting services.  
> 

What blather ;)  ISPs are nothing more than a pipe.  The same goes for the
phone service.  If you want voice mail (read : email) you pay more for it
with a phone company.  Virtually everything that an ISP offers should be
in the form of add on services, with the pipe being the core, regulated
service.  This should be mandated, with limits on what the ISPs can charge
for.  For example, what services or things that you do with your internet
connection must NOT be controlled by your ISP, any more than a phone
company can tell you not to use a fax machine on your phone line. 
Naturally ISPs should be able to charge on connection time or bandwidth
usage, the more you use, the more you pay.


> 
> > This is precisely why they need to be regulated.  Through misleading
> > advertising and their sheer size, you need regulation to protect the
> > little guy.
> 
> No, people need to protect themselves.  Telco's are not commiting random
> acts of violence, they're conducting business.  The problem is the
> removal of this regulation from the infrastructure providers.
>

People are unable to protect themselves from virtual monopolies.  Between
Rogers and Bell, the market is almost cornered.. heck, they still get a
piece of almost any pie even if your local DSL or cable is through a
seperate ISP.

> > After all Andrew, most ISPs would be dead right now if the CRTC hasn't
> > ruled in their favour to allow DSL and cable access.  Of course, you
> > care to omit that when you argue against regulation.
> 
> Most ISPs are dead.
> 

Most have proven to be ill managed.  Many fell when DSL first came out,
and Bell wasn't forced to allow them DSL access.  

> The current state of infrastructure providers being allowed to provide
> end-user service by forming 'separate' companies like Sympatico to
> purchase $90/month service from Bell and re-sell it at a 60% loss to end
> users is disgraceful.  Bell should have to sell the service at a
> regulated rate, and sell the same service to resellers at 25% below the
> regulated rate.  This IS done in some Canadian markets and works very
> well.  Just not when Hell Canada is involved.
> 

Ah, a pro regulation argument.. good to see.  

> > 
> > Please think about this!
> > 
> 
> Do you honestly think I haven't spent hundreds of sleepless nights
> worrying about this?  I got into the ISP business because we needed
> ISP's not to 'make a killing' like some others, and seeing the market
> turn into one where the service is removed and you can't get what you
> need to do your serious work if you're a serious net-user is very
> troublesome.
> 

It doesn't have to be though.  Regulation can solve all of the above
issues.  It can force fair prices of DSL and Cable sellage to local ISPs. 
It can certainly fix many of the complaints people have with the big boys
as well.

A level playing field where the consumer's interests are protected is
essential.