 | | Big Bells are back!!! Back to the days of the Big Bells.."I can do whatever i want..and the customer will pay for it" | |
|
 | | | Re: Big Bells are back!!! Why should the ILEC's share what they are 100% paying for? Why are you not complaining about the CLEC's not deploying $5 Billion in fiber optic in your area? | |
|
| | | | Re: Big Bells are back!!! Why are the Bells complaining about municipal broadband project deploying their own fiber? Can't have it both ways. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Big Bells are back!!! Seems fairly simple to me.
In Municipal Broadband the government steals my money for a government project to build something I don't want. Then since they don't have to make a profit they can charge what appears to be a very low rate for the service (even though I have already paid for it via taxes) and drive other broadband providers out of business. Now marginal ABC Telco (who is already over regulated by the government) has been forced into deploying infrastructure into no-profitable areas in the first place must compete with a government funded competitor who does not face the risks of running their own business.
I would be pissed if the government regulated me and then stole your money in order to compete with me. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Big Bells are back!!! Sigh...
Okay one more time. I am not saying municipal broadband is the answer. I am saying the one laying the fiber should only be a provisioner. When you have a company that controls the infrastructure and only leases the infrastructure to service providers THAT is when you will see a more level playing field in competition. The small and large companies both have to go through the same channels, which would just be the provisioning.
I don't think any ILEC should lay the fiber because they are service providers and they don't want to share the line. Thus zero competition. A municipal run infrastructure that is done like I mentioned would on the other hand work since it wouldn't compete. Municipal broadband that's going on now isn't what I'm talking about. Though I do see it helping out these communities.
Oh by the way... the municipalities vote on whether or not they go through with providing broadband services so if you don't want it you do at least have a say. Also many of them don't take a cent from the tax payers. | |
|
| | TheGhostPremium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL | Because the Bells have their monopoly profits to pay for it. There is a big difference. They were given a HUGE advantage when they built out their networks. They then have that to fall back on to prop up other efforts.
Plus, they are the incumbent (again, monopoly benefit). They only need to get someone to upgrade, vs. switching for the rest of the CLECs. They can lay fibre and have guaranteed customers for it, even if they just transition over old copper people.
Additionally, if they transfer customers to the fibre and are not forced to share, they can completely lock out any form of competition.
TheGhost | |
|
| | | | | Re: Big Bells are back!!! No they can't copper still comes to your house. | |
|
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| What sucks is they are REALLY saying "Grant us long-term monopoly control over our service areas. Garauntee to us that consumers won't have a choice and will have to pay what we say. Then we'll think about acting in people's best interests, but most importantly, for our own future greed."
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | | | Re: Big Bells are back!!! said by KrK:
What sucks is they are REALLY saying "Grant us long-term monopoly control over our service areas. Garauntee to us that consumers won't have a choice and will have to pay what we say. Then we'll think about acting in people's best interests, but most importantly, for our own future greed."
No
what they're saying is that if someone else wants to offer the same service, that company can plow their own fiber
then you can choose which one you'd like to use
What they're trying to avoid is investing $xxxxxx and then having someone force them to allow competitors to use the fiber at less than cost | |
|
| | | | | Re: Big Bells are back!!! To those of you who keep saying if competitors want fiber they should build their own. Tell me... how many times will you accept having your yard dug up for every competitor to lay that fiber? Tell me... how easy do you think it will be for competitors to get the same rights of way to even do the digging that the Bells have (that's a loaded question because the chances are VERY low on getting them).
ONE line dug once. LEASE the line to providers. DON'T own the line and be a provider as well (conflict of interest). That is the best option. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Big Bells are back!!! Why dig poles work fine for a lot of the cable companies area's. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Big Bells are back!!! said by BosstonesOwn:
Why dig poles work fine for a lot of the cable companies area's.
I don't think poles will work for a fiber line. Too many things can go wrong since fiber lines are much more fragile than cable. If hanging fiber was viable somebody would have been doing it by now. | |
|
| | | | | |  John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | Re: Big Bells are back!!! Fiber is hanging all over the place...it is really rather more robust than most people think.
It has come a long way from the fragile glass fibers of yesteryear.
It is really not an issue, as such. | |
|
| | | | | | | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Re: Big Bells are back!!! said by John Galt:
Fiber is hanging all over the place...it is really rather more robust than most people think.
It has come a long way from the fragile glass fibers of yesteryear.
It is really not an issue, as such.
Thanks for enforcing my point.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | |  DrTCPYours trulyPremium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX | said by Tikker_LoS:
what they're saying is that if someone else wants to offer the same service, that company can plow their own fiber
Bell's already have right of way to deploy their fiber while CLECs do not have that and obtaining right of way rights is not an easy task. This alone makes Bell's levereging their own incumbent position in monopolistic ways. The cost of deployment for CLECs will be higher so they cannot compete with ILEC in any viable way.
Besides, what sounds good on paper does not sound good in reality. There will be a huge amount of infrastructure wasted because a home will only use one of the two choices. | |
|
| | | | lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL | right of ways are not the issue REALLLLY have you ever heard of WI-MAX? there are lots of ways to deploy broadband solutions. you just have to be willing to spend your OWN money. | |
|
| | | | | DrTCPYours trulyPremium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX | Re: right of ways are not the issue said by lvas:
REALLLLY have you ever heard of WI-MAX? there are lots of ways to deploy broadband solutions. you just have to be willing to spend your OWN money.
First, WI-MAX is not out there yet. It is still on the drawing board and a lot of power point ware.
Secondly, we are talking about fiber (huge pipe). Wi-Max or any wireless technology is not capable of delivering what a fiber to the premise could do.
With fiber you will start to get HDTV and other high bandwdith video services delivered to your home in addition to mere internet connection.
It is not the same thing! | |
|
| | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by Tikker_LoS:
No
what they're saying is that if someone else wants to offer the same service, that company can plow their own fiber
That sounds great on paper--- or in this case, on text.... but how many other companies will have right of ways? Easements through private and public property? Special consideration? Nope. Therefore, it won't happen.
The Bells are keenly aware their only advantage over competition is leveraging their infrastructure. They want to make sure it stays that way. This is why they fight municipal broadband tooth and nail.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Big Bells are back!!! said by KrK:
said by Tikker_LoS:
No
what they're saying is that if someone else wants to offer the same service, that company can plow their own fiber
That sounds great on paper--- or in this case, on text.... but how many other companies will have right of ways? Easements through private and public property? Special consideration? Nope. Therefore, it won't happen.
The Bells are keenly aware their only advantage over competition is leveraging their infrastructure. They want to make sure it stays that way. This is why they fight municipal broadband tooth and nail.
Of course the infrastructure is their big advantage
It'd be like buying a lot, erecting a building and selling hamburgers
then having city council tell you that you have to allow a rival company counterspace in your building to sell their burgers (which are really your burgers, just with a different wrapper) | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Big Bells are back!!! That's a poor example considering there are virtually no barriers to you building your own building.
Nice try though.  | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Big Bells are back!!! said by Skippy25:
That's a poor example considering there are virtually no barriers to you building your own building.
Nice try though.
Sure there are. It's cost prohibitive if you don't own or have access to land. Also, there are zoning requirements that current restaurant owners already comply with that I would have to apply for and purchase licences for.
It's simply not possible for me- no money! But a business owner already has the cash for it- it's no fair! | |
|
| | | | | Correct, the Big Bells must pony up the cash for the upgrades and maintain the existing infrastructure at the same time. I can fully understand not wanting to be forced to lease the fiber at less than what it will cost to maintain it. Their investment must be protected otherwise why make the investment. | |
|
| |  NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA
3 edits | Whose to say a competitor can't build out their own network?
This is why the Bells are bitchin about this stuff. think of it this way ....... If you paved a portion of your yard to make a drive way would you think it was fair if you neighbor demanded use of it?
(Not quite a clear comparrison but you get the idea)
Simply put, if the bells use their money to build the network (Monopoly or not) they should not be forced to share it with a competitor.
The competitors should build their own. | |
|
| | |  DaSneaky1Done wall to block them allPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter
| Re: Big Bells are back!!! Imagine everyone in your neighborhood having no yard at all because your "neighbor" decided he wanted the right to park in anyone's driveway. Not a pretty sight, eah?
In a perfect world where every CLEC and ILEC had all the money they ever needed and could run wire everywhere they wanted, do you realize how much clutter there would be out there? Long haul transport towers COVERED with fiber from every "Anne" out there. Constant construction of roadways because everyone would be digging it up to lay their fiber.
If fiber can currently and easily push 10Gbps, do you really think the ILEC's are at a disadvantage if they lease off transport to competitors at the last mile? It's actually a win-win situation all over.
ILECs will always make their money back. CLECs could have a residential presense. Consumers would have competitive pricing from a choice of providers.
--
] :: my trivial ramblings :: [ | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Big Bells are back!!! But that is not what is going on in the real world.
What is happening is the states are telling them what to charge the ILECs and in many cases it is less then they care to admit and they take a beating on it.
equipment to fire up a 10 gig run of fiber is very very expensive. To say the ILECs should be able to use it for a loss to the incumbent is just plain ludicrous.
No one is stupid enough to put out billions to run fiber if they wont see any returns on the investment. If they sell the line for a loss to someone then they are not going to pay back the system as fast and it will make your and my bills rise to pay off the debt load.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Big Bells are back!!! Show some proof they lose any money on the lease. I for one think they over charge. If memory serves me correct, just 2 years ago it was shown that the are charging around $600 million in expenses that they can't account for to help justify this "oh poor us, it is less then we run it for".
And yes, they would be stupid not to do it regardless. Simply because if they don't cable will (more slowly of course, but they will) and then they will be wishing they had the revenue from leasing fiber to others. | |
|
| | | | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Big Bells are back!!! said by Skippy25:
Show some proof they lose any money on the lease. I for one think they over charge. If memory serves me correct, just 2 years ago it was shown that the are charging around $600 million in expenses that they can't account for to help justify this "oh poor us, it is less then we run it for".
And yes, they would be stupid not to do it regardless. Simply because if they don't cable will (more slowly of course, but they will) and then they will be wishing they had the revenue from leasing fiber to others.
And if they weren't loosing money and making it hand over fist like you all claim they wouldn't be canning people to make the stock holders happy. Accept the fact that people here are way biased when it comes to big companies.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: Big Bells are back!!! Go look at their income statement of 2003. They had NET INCOME of $8,500,000,000 (that's billions). Or $2.56 per share.
So don't come here crying their game to me. These greedy bastards aren't laying a single person off to "survive". They are doing it simply because they are nothing more then greedy bastards. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Big Bells are back!!! said by Skippy25:
Go look at their income statement of 2003. They had NET INCOME of $8,500,000,000 (that's billions). Or $2.56 per share.
So don't come here crying their game to me. These greedy bastards aren't laying a single person off to "survive". They are doing it simply because they are nothing more then greedy bastards.
Yes they are laying them off for greed the greed of stock holders. There is a fine line between all this. The problem is so many are anti big business. Well that is life the people who invest in them make them greedy. Maybe we should stop the stock market from functioning then.
Get over it they have to appease people like ourselves who invest or they loose that income as well.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Big Bells are back!!! So to please the stock holders we should simply allow a monopoly to become a bigger monopoly, reduce competition, raise rates, but earn $10 billion instead of only a measly $8.5 billion, right?
In the interest of this greed we should also make it so that every home has a separate fiber line ran to it from one phone company, one television service, one broadband provider, one security firm, a couple more for future services I am sure I simply am not thinking of or it hasn't been thought of yet. And when I switch any of those services to another company they can then run yet another line to my house. Because that is simply the best way to do it to protect that monopoly and those share holders, right?
Get real! | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Big Bells are back!!! Your anti big business blinds your perception yet again.
If they want to provide a service to you they will buy a portion from verizon. That is it. They can not force them to share it just because you and people like you are anti big business and are against them.
Why not go buy a car and give me a set of keys so I can use it when ever I want. Oh yeah I will only pay for gas let's see how ya like it.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
See 9 replies to this post |
| | | | | | | said by BosstonesOwn:
But that is not what is going on in the real world.
What is happening is the states are telling them what to charge the ILECs and in many cases it is less then they care to admit and they take a beating on it.
equipment to fire up a 10 gig run of fiber is very very expensive. To say the ILECs should be able to use it for a loss to the incumbent is just plain ludicrous.
No one is stupid enough to put out billions to run fiber if they wont see any returns on the investment. If they sell the line for a loss to someone then they are not going to pay back the system as fast and it will make your and my bills rise to pay off the debt load.
You can stop regurgitating the Bell line now that we see you don't know the difference between an ILEC and a CLEC, aren't aware that ILECs charge, and make a profit, for the use of their infrastructure by CLECs, that ILECs absolute goal is to return to total monopoly status, that your bill will be higher regardless, that the ILEC goal is to take control of all telecommunication delivery and content provision. | |
|
| | | | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Big Bells are back!!! said by ross:
said by BosstonesOwn:
But that is not what is going on in the real world.
What is happening is the states are telling them what to charge the ILECs and in many cases it is less then they care to admit and they take a beating on it.
equipment to fire up a 10 gig run of fiber is very very expensive. To say the ILECs should be able to use it for a loss to the incumbent is just plain ludicrous.
No one is stupid enough to put out billions to run fiber if they wont see any returns on the investment. If they sell the line for a loss to someone then they are not going to pay back the system as fast and it will make your and my bills rise to pay off the debt load.
You can stop regurgitating the Bell line now that we see you don't know the difference between an ILEC and a CLEC, aren't aware that ILECs charge, and make a profit, for the use of their infrastructure by CLECs, that ILECs absolute goal is to return to total monopoly status, that your bill will be higher regardless, that the ILEC goal is to take control of all telecommunication delivery and content provision.
Sue me for a typo. Made a mistake I am human.
You guys really don't understand the cost of equipment or the cost of people to fix and tweak the equipment.
As far as 10 gig most backbones are not at that carrier yet. Most of the backbone links are 1 gig except the heavy 10 gig
It is not just as simple as adding a card. Pay a guy to go out and add the card. pay the guy to purchase the card. There is a lot to the system you people think they can just plug stuff in like you can at home ? What happens if a router that is housing a 10 gig pipe drops during the install. You think they can just reroute 4 gig traffic down a 1 gig pipe ? No they take out the network trunk and are being screamed at by the fcc.
Until you have worked provisioning routers and such don't comment on just adding a card. Even in a data center environment it is expensive to add even a 1 gig add in because all fail safes must be in place. and it takes quite a while to set up fail safes. | |
|
| | | | | | | | ross hit the nail right on the head. the bells make money on every single copper line they lease to clecs.
i'm an ex vz employee central office equipment installer. i was also a dsl tech for vz vadi. alot of the work i did as an installer was building out vz network so clecs could access vz's local loop, copper.
i didn't read all the way thru this thread, but up to this point i didn't see any mention of the fact that the bells have to share access to their loops w/ clecs in order for the bells/ilecs to sell long distance.
the big question now w/ the fttp push by the bells is whether the bells will have to share the fiber w/ the clecs.
the fcc is supposed to make a statement about that next week. the fcc will probably change it's mind 5 or 6 times from now 'til the end of the year. as long as the bells are selling long distance, the clecs have to be allowed to have access to the bells local loop. unless, of course, the fcc
changes that part of the telecom act of '96. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Big Bells are back!!! said by DaSneaky1D:
said by BosstonesOwn  :
equipment to fire up a 10 gig run of fiber is very very expensive.
ISP's have the equipment to do that at present. All it would take is a blade addition to their present router.
10Gbps interface was just an example, though. I was merely trying to show that transport capacity exist for many providers to be able to reach the "last mile" without everyone needing to make the run themselves.
Take this into account for a second. Router is acting flaky in a region. Let's say new york. They have no spare slots in their router for a new add in or the back plane is already saturated now the guy goes looks and say s wow shit we got a problem we don't have the capacity room here. So instead the just pile on more subs.
Next week when another 10 k customers come on the load is bringing the router to it's knees the back plane is so saturated that the pings are shooting up into the 500 range.
So the router is already tanking and only thing you can do to relieve the stress is trunk a couple ports and slide in another router they now have to plan for the future of fiber and go sink 150 k into a router. 10 k into a decent card and they take the load off the first by splitting its cards with the ones below it. Fcc gets on them because a couple t3's go down.
Pay the fines. You now in the hole a couple grand. Plus you got the companies who line is down chasing you for money all because some one said hey let's just throw a card in and add capacity. The networking world just doesn't work on a whim. People called engineers go in and analyze the traffic to make sure they get the best bang for the buck. And those people don't work cheap. Add those guys into the fray and now your pipe is costing quite a bit of money to maintain.
Now ross Not to mention the fiber you have laid as a backbone is carrying competitors data for little to no profit. Why is this ILEC propaganda ? Because it doesn't match what you want to see ? Why don't you instead of putting on your anti big business hat go and read about other countries with a "monopoly" on the carriers. Japan had one for awhile, Korea, Sweden.. There is more. The governments in those cases helped feed the company money to roll out fiber this isn't the case in our country.
The CLECs are even shown in ILEC's tax pages as being little to no profit. Not enough to completely swap to and still maintain the network I believe was the phrase used. So why would I as a company want to lay fiber for $5 billion and let you come in and use it for $5 per month... Ohh wait yeah 500 years down the line it will be paid off your right it's a hell of a deal and the ILEC's are nuts for not jumping on the bandwagon and bending over for you to have competition.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | | | John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | Look at the old pictures of the early days of the telephone...the poles were just covered from top to bottom with pairs. | |
|
| | | said by IGoDwnTwn:
Back to the days of the Big Bells.."I can do whatever i want..and the customer will pay for it"
That's nice and such, but this thread is not about copper. This thread is about sharing a fiber infrastructure that the ILECs are spending their own money to build. Why as a business owner would I build a network, so that my competitors can compete against me? Don't give me this garbage about taxpayers have subsidized the ILEC. The network was paid for before there was an SBC, Verizon, Qwest, or Bellsouth. It was all AT&T before and AT&T the ILEC has been dead for 21 years. Companies built their own fiber networks in the 90's and they can do so now. Win first offered Fiber to the Premise before Verizon, so don't give me that garbage about how it's not possible. | |
|
vic102482Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| I agree with that As long as phone companies pay for it out of pocket they should be allowed to get it. The bell system/old copper system is a different story. Fiber deployed by phone companeis is no different from coax cable as far as regulations and taxes should be concerned.
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
|
|
See 14 replies to this post |
|
 icp1Premium
join:2000-10-13
Saint Louis, MO | Whatever No business likes to operate in regulatory uncertainty.
You simply cannot determine your ROI properly without knowing the ground rules. It's that simple. | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
 extreme50Formerly TwoKDialupPremium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI | And... if they don't deploy fiber, the telcos will have serious financial problems in 10 years!
Toot toot, the cable companies are coming!
--
The telcos make promises, Comcast delivers! | |
|
BBWEST
join:2004-09-05
Port Angeles, WA | NO Subsidy No Share.... If Fiber is laid through grants or RUS,USF subsidy it should be subject to unbundling however if it is laid strictly from corp cash it should be free from unbundling.
However if the RBOC's don't get off their lazy fat Azzes they are going to go down the Toilet anyway. | |
|
| | Government should back off. Actually gonna agree with the corporate view here. If I build a pool in my backyard, I CAN let the neighborhood enjoy it, but I dont HAVE to, and should not HAVE to. | |
|
| | | Re: Government should back off. But if the phone company wanted to lay a fiber optic cable under it you'd be forced to give them the right of way free of charge either way. | |
|
| | | The Bells agreed to it. Nobody is being forced into sharing here. | |
|
|
| | | Re: Is this about ADSL2+ or FTTH? actually it is becuae you dont understand how tv over IP or dsl works you only stream the channel your watching and the boxes only can do up to 3 tv's at the current box from motorola fyi and that isnt HD/... | |
|
| | | | Re: Is this about ADSL2+ or FTTH? You are right, it is not HD signal. I work for a telco offering DSL TV, and High speed. the TV requires 3mbps, and we offer 1.5 mbps internet. @ 25mbps, we could in theory run 7 TVs, and still give a 5mbps connection. The number of TV's drops when you add HD, as it obviously uses more bandwidth. | |
|
| | Can't blame them... Why should SBC want to spend BILLIONS on FTTH/FTTP if the Federal Government will step in and force them to resell it to CLECs/ISPs that can sell it for the same cost??
They got screwed before and don't want to that to happen again if they can help it.
If the Federal government cared so much, they'd step in and fiberize/build it themselves like they did the Internet. But it's so much easier to have someone else do it and then legislate them into sharing it.
Sucks. | |
|
| | | Re: Can't blame them... You got it all turned around. SBC and the other Bells AGREED to past regulation. They weren't forced to do anything. Also the Bells have yet to have gotten "screwed" on the deal either. They are still reporting much more profit than cost in spite of having to share their lines.
I would very much like the government to come in and "fiberize" the nation, then lease the lines to providers. The thing is SBC and the other Bells are very much against it... unless you haven't heard about all the municipal fiber cases that have been talked about on BBR.
The Bells thought they had a good deal sharing their lines and getting an advantage on long distance. What they didn't anticipate was broadband and DSL (this is in spite of them having the technology for about a decade and sitting on it). The Bells figured on milking ISDN and T1 for another decade or so but the CLEC's knew better and jumped on the DSL route. Now the Bells are crying foul because their master plan didn't go like they thought. Though.
The Bells made their bed. Let them lie in it. | |
|
|  DrewCapuGiant Diehard
join:2001-12-19
California | said by bodysurf:
If the Federal government cared so much, they'd step in and fiberize/build it themselves like they did the Internet.
Agreed.
Where's Al Gore these days? We've got a good job for him!
Tell him to find Ed's shovel and lift the dirt already.
| |
|
|  JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | said by bodysurf:
Why should SBC want to spend BILLIONS on FTTH/FTTP if the Federal Government will step in and force them to resell it to CLECs/ISPs that can sell it for the same cost??
They got screwed before and don't want to that to happen again if they can help it.
If the Federal government cared so much, they'd step in and fiberize/build it themselves like they did the Internet. But it's so much easier to have someone else do it and then legislate them into sharing it.
Sucks.
Ha. The bells never "got screwed". They just didn't want to play by the rules they agreed to. | |
|
 jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:1
1 edit | Simple solution After the ILECs lay the fiber, they don't have to share it - fair enough. But once it's lit up, they must share the copper that is being replaced and they cannot offer their own services on it. | |
|
|  GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | Re: Simple solution said by jjoshua:
After the CLECs lay the fiber, they don't have to share it - fair enough. But once it's lit up, they must share the copper that is being replaced and they cannot offer their own services on it.
You mean after the ILECS lay it, right? Or am I misunderstanding? | |
|
| | jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:1 | Re: Simple solution Yeah, that's what I said...
| |
|
 dslwanterIt's comingPremium
join:2002-12-16
Niles, OH | And... Lowellville, OH being so small will see it last. | |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
1 edit | Time to separate... The services group of the Telcos from the Physical Plant group...
The problem is that it is not economically feasible and highly inefficient for EVERY provider to build a fiber network. If you think the overbuild problem is bad now, watch what happens if every provider builds.
The most efficient and logical way to address the fiber problem is to have a single entity (private sector (preferrably) or otherwise) renting capacity on the fiber to whoever wants to sell services. ILECS, CLECS and what not all pay to have access to a network open to anyone who can buy capacity.
--
Victory Not Vengeance
Viva La Fee' Verte!
edit:spelling goof
| |
|
 intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | let them rot Let them drag out their plans as cable companies run them over. They can sit around and bitch, or they can do what is required to insure their future. | |
|
| ltt75
join:2001-01-22
Hollis, NH
1 edit | Re: let them rot The FCC's goal is to provide customers at least three viable choices for any service. In the broadband arena, there is DSL, cable, satellite, wireless, and FTTH. Out of these DSL (so-so), FTTH, and cable will has the scalability to compete at high speeds.
Grads to Verizon for stepping up to the plate, let them gain their returns as they're taking a risky $5Billion investment. | |
|
| | |
 CPMBroadband, DSL, cable
join:2001-08-24
Brooklyn, NY | Bells need to agree The bells need to agree on a mutual deployment of fiber. I think the government should fit the bill. Other wise this is going take 15 years to go national.
--
Broadwayman.com - Internet portal for Everything Broadway and New York. | |
|
| | Not fair If it goes like it did here in MO theyll lay the fiber then regulatory commission will come in and say its a monopoly.So the only way to end the monopoly is to share the fiber, But the regulatory commission is gonna set the price they can charge for upkeep and leasing of the fiber. Well then they set the price too low and MO loses another 350 jobs cause it is no longer profitable to offer service. Because they have to pick up what the leases arnt paying for and add it to there service. Im soo sick of the goverment stepping in on corporations once they set their market up after years of hard work getting a system up and running and saying thats not fair to your competition. BUt if the munis foot the bill then the munis shall be able to lease to whom ever they plz and charge "fairly" to all.
jmho | |
|
| | Catch 22 This is all a Catch 22 and this demand by SBC simply shows why they CAN'T be deregulated and must be forced to compete (share). They should be fined simply for making such an arrogant anticompetitive and anticonsumer statement.
Keep in mind that "Sharing" doesn't mean SBC just gives free lines away. If I read their public report right, they charge close to $24 per line now to companies that lease their lines. That is simply $3 less then what they make for a typical line and they don't have to deal with providing email and webspace to them. So really what is their complaint on that?
I would agree completely that a company that builds a network should not be required to share it IF the barrier of entry were not so great. The problem is, the barriers are too great and SBC (as any other incumbent) will in the interest of protecting market share and profits not share voluntarily. If they are the only network in town they will attempt to do it at such a rate that competitors could not compete. Now I agree every company has a right to protect market share and profits. However, when it is in a monopolistic way that is anticonsumer friendly, they lose the right to do it on their own and need to be regulated and if sharing is part of that regulation, so be it.
SBC knows that if they can FORCE the FCC to agree to this they can pretty much eliminate any competition in virtually every market they are in (outside of cable). There may be a couple companies that can survive in some cities, but most will not be able to deploy fiber to compete and they know this which is the #1 reason why they want to do it. So it will be mainly the cable and phone incumbents. I'm sure they will try to negotiate with smaller companies that can't possibly build their own network to offer lines for lease, but the rate those companies pay will be higher then it should be just as it is now. And the sad part is they are regulated and forced to share now.
As I have said numerous times...... I as a consumer do not want every person that wants to provide me a service laying fiber around my city or to my house. There is absolutely no reason it needs to be done that way and it would do nothing more then raise the cost of the services (as well as limit my choices). The entire US fiber network to every home and building should be owned and operated by one entity and then everyone that wants to provide a service can lease lines accordingly and can provide service to any person or place anywhere in the country.
Let's take that $15 billion (Bush administration) or the $30 billion (Kerry administration) wants to use for International AIDS help and use that to purchase the current fiber networks of both telcos and cable companies and get this US fiber optic network up and running! | |
|
| |
| | | Re: Catch 22 said by Skippy25:
Let's take that $15 billion (Bush administration) or the $30 billion (Kerry administration) wants to use for International AIDS help and use that to purchase the current fiber networks of both telcos and cable companies and get this US fiber optic network up and running!
Add another $60 billion and you will have enough to build FTTH in most of the U.S. | |
|
| | | | Re: Catch 22 I was only speaking of getting the ball rolling as we have to start somewhere.
Once things start lighting up revenue from leasing the lines will be coming in and they can expand out from there. | |
|
|  rec9140Provoice just DO it
join:2003-07-29
Mulberry, FL | said by Skippy25:
This is all a Catch 22 and this demand by SBC simply shows why they CAN'T be deregulated and must be forced to compete (share). They should be fined simply for making such an arrogant anticompetitive and anticonsumer statement.
I couldn't argree more! SBC & Verizon BOTH should be fined for their actions.
Its obviously time for another 1984 Breakup decision and break aprart the local network from the ILEC's.
said by Skippy25:
Keep in mind that "Sharing" doesn't mean SBC just gives free lines away. If I read their public report right, they charge close to $24 per line now to companies that lease their lines
This is simply corporate greed & profiteering. Most companies have lost their sense of corporate responsability to the PUBLIC & CONSUMERS to that of the "stockholders" & "market." Theres a reason that lawyers & stock brokers are the first to be killed in a coup.  There is a responsible way to make a profit and 99.999999% of companies today are not even close. I have no problem with a for profit company, its their actions to make a profit I take issue with.
said by Skippy25:
As I have said numerous times...... I as a consumer do not want every person that wants to provide me a service laying fiber around my city or to my house. There is absolutely no reason it needs to be done that way and it would do nothing more then raise
Unless something is done to split off the local network from the ILEC's I am afraid this is exactly wants going to have to happen to get fiber to homes. While I agree that it really doesn't need to be done 2-3-4-5 times over, if thats what it takes to get a competitive marketplace and fiber to homes so be it. When I was on the local cable board I wanted the township on the next franchise renewal to remove the exclusive/monopoly lanquage to allow for at the time, TCI, to come in and build a second system to compete against Adelphia. Areas with 2 cable companies have signifigantly better pricing and service than those with only 1 monopoly player.
As for the ILEC's I think its time for some REALLY SERIOUS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. Off with their heads! | |
|
| | | | Re: Catch 22 said by rec9140:
Its obviously time for another 1984 Breakup decision and break aprart the local network from the ILEC's.
Ooh. I like that. Heavy handed? Yes. Impossible to get passed in legislation? Yes. But it would fix the current problem in competition with an infrastructure-based system. | |
|
| | Listen Closely... DON'T BELIEVE A WORD OF IT | |
|
| | once again. once again, the companies are being greedy. "ooo wed rather set up for each person so well make more money than sharing" this is a buncha bs. telecommunications companies here should just disappear. | |
|
 JeffBPremium
join:2001-12-20
Somewhere | Not Holding My Breath Well, I for one will not be holding my breath for SBC to deploy fiber to MY neighborhood even though Verizon is just a block away installing fiber. Telecom companies are still a monopoly...they have exclusive rights in the areas in which they have physical lines. Verizon couldn't come into my neighborhood and lay fiber and SBC knows that. They'll do what they want to do in their own sweet time. | |
|
| | Getiting it clear Okay so then if a CLEC also wants the floor space in the bell office then is that okay? I know that they do it and it is forced by government. Now as far as leasing fiber to CLEC's don't agree with that either, let them build there own structure, where were they when the bells were building the structure and then wait bell's maintain it not the CLEC's so yes they shouldn't be forced to lease them to other at a reduced rate. Now as far as cable broadband there is another interesting bag of crap, there service is considered "entertainment" but bell is considered a communications medium and is held to a different set of rules. Now when I look at it seems if you send data both ways it becomes a communications medium and is not longer just entertainment and should be using the same rules such as leasing to other CLEC's to provides service? and they don't of course it would have to be at a reduced rate. | |
|
| | | Re: Getiting it clear said by brownsbranch:
Okay so then if a CLEC also wants the floor space in the bell office then is that okay? I know that they do it and it is forced by government.
And if the building is full the ILEC must build on to provide space for the CLEC that is wanting to co-locate. | |
|
| | JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: Getiting it clear said by Shadow01:
said by brownsbranch:
Okay so then if a CLEC also wants the floor space in the bell office then is that okay? I know that they do it and it is forced by government.
And if the building is full the ILEC must build on to provide space for the CLEC that is wanting to co-locate.
Do you have sources to back up your claim? | |
|
| | Should I feign surprise... that people have already forgotten about the arguments and results of the triennial review order last year.
People need to be aware of what is happening here.
This is another kind of bait and switch.
In the triennial review order it was decided that new fiber build to the premises would not have to be shared and would not be treated as copper is treated. Sbc/whitacre was arguing that this would motivate fiber build, that he couldn't build until he got regulatory certainty on this. Well he got it and within a few months was out shooting his mouth off about how there wasn't going to be fiber build. There wasn't a business case for it(we will ignore the fact that he knew this perfectly well while he and his lobbyists were out deceiving the government into believing they were going to move on fttp build.
Sbc has decided that they want to resurrect the pronto idea. Even whitacre has grasped the fact that they are going to have to have something beyond present dsl service if they want to be able to keep up with cable's rapid speed developments(cable has been spending the money to upgrade infrastructure in preparation). That is, they want to push fiber closer to the neighborhood so they can feed high speed dsl. This fiber to the node is what he is talking about when he talks about the 5-6 billion in spending. They will now try to argue that since fiber is being pushed closer to the home that it should be treated in the deregulated way that full fiber build out is treated under the triennial order.
from burstein's dslprime
" Whitacre's SUPERCOMM keynote called installing some DSLAMs "fiber to the neighborhood." He spoke of "up to $4-6B" in "incremental investment," but neither SBC nor Wall Street has raised capex estimates. This ordinary puffery became a pr coup for SBC, however, as most reporters echoed the company line. Key questions remain "Are you really increasing investment, now that you've won in D.C.?" and "When will SBC get to the 100% coverage Whitacre committed to for 2004-2005, and George Bush set as a national policy?"
note the line about no raised capital expenditure estimates.
"Ed Whitacre announced an "SBC strategy could result in an incremental investment of $4 billion to $6 billion over five years." That includes "deploying fiber deeper into neighborhoods," and "testing an IP-based switched television service based on the Microsoft TV IPTV platform." "Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) for new network builds, such as developing subdivisions," would represent a miniscule fraction of subscribers, which I would guess would be fewer than 10% after a decade. SBC's position is "the cost, deployment time and customer inconvenience required for FTTP deployment in existing neighborhoods makes widespread deployment impractical for SBC companies." The release speaks both of " nodes within 5,000 feet of homes and businesses" as well as "nodes that serve 300 to 500 homes," which generally would be much shorter distances. The current network planning at SBC is oriented to the former; if they were headed to the shorter distances of 300-500 homes, many locations would be VDSL, not ADSL.
Simplifying, SBC is putting inexpensive DSLAMs in the field, with fiber backhaul. They will use ADSL2+, the current generation, meaning many customers will get 15-20 mbps downstream, and one or two megabits upstream. This is less ambitious than Pronto, circa 1999, which deployed full DLC remote terminals, for voice, data, and even fiber. Pronto involved substantial new fiber builds, going to new locations. The new units will sometimes be closer to homes (5,000 foot goal), but will be far less expensive to deploy because they will predominantly use existing cross connect boxes and rights of way. "
" SBC will not be running fiber, except to a very limited number of new developments. Instead, they are betting ADSL2+ (15/2) will, per Chris Rice "'future-proof' our network and meet customers bandwidth needs for decades to come." Whitacre believes "In short, our network will be faster and more capable than any other," (quoted by Telephony's Donny Jackson.)"
This is, of course, not the fiber to the home that sbc claimed would be incentivized by the triennial review order.
There is always "just one more demand" with this guy.
The government should simply say to him "We are tired of your threats." "If you aren't ready to roll out, don't roll out. Goodbye." | |
|
| JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: Should I feign surprise... I expect Whitacre to fire another 4000 people in a temper tantrum if he doesn't get his way on this. | |
|
|
|
·
·
Re: let them rot
