pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| Organization
In France, is the phone infrastructure owned by a company that is separate from companies that offer phone service? If that's the case, then that's the most likely reason CLECs had a better rate of success there.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
 ·AT&T Southwest
3 edits | High Density
...because DSL competitors using incumbent DSL networks are strong enough now that they're all starting to build their own FTTH infrastructure. The article explains why...
The argument in the U.S. was always that if newcomers could piggyback on the networks of the incumbents, why would they ever bother to build their own? Iliad's Rosenfeld explains why the logic breaks down: "We have such a high density of subscribers in certain areas of the country that it makes sense to own the network and not to rely on local loop unbundling," he says. "Tomorrow we want to be totally independent." French consumers are the beneficiaries. America just isn't all that [densely] urban. Even worse, our dense urban areas are only just now being recycled along european "models" to reflect upscale ("good customer") demographics -- and not urban blight ("bad customers"). 'Top 3 urban areas excepted.
Thus unbundling really set us back in getting FTTH.
--
Instant bugging and GPS location info -- thanks to your cell phone and Bush's warrantless NSA! »news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6140191.html |
|
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Now is the Time....
for the Corporate Beholden to come to the Aid of their Masters.
Cue the Clown Music and watch...
as Data that shows Pro Consumer Regulation benefits Everybody...
is Spun beyond all recognition.
or just generally trashed if the right angle can't be found.
NV
--
The More Alike 2 Religions are, the Stronger the Hate between them. |
|
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to ronpin
All righty then
What we do is unbundle in the several hundred densely populated areas that we do have and see how that goes.
BTW. By your logic we can assume that there is no healthy deployment of FTTH in France?
NV
--
The More Alike 2 Religions are, the Stronger the Hate between them. |
|
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| reply to ronpin
Re: High Density
said by ronpin  :America just isn't all that [densely] urban. Even worse, our dense urban areas are just now being recycled along european "models" to reflect upscale ("good customer") demographics -- and not urban blight ("bad customers"). 'Top 3 urban areas excepted. Thus unbundling really set us back in getting FTTH. That's complete and utter bullshit.
The reason the 1996 law failed is because of ILEC greed and their lobbying efforts. Can't blame them really, legislators could be had at fire-sale prices under the Republican-controlled Congress under the guise of promoting a "free market"!
It has very little to do with density or other lies used by the ILECs.
Actually, there was a period of time after the law passed where the ILECs were looked to be on their death-bed. They were bleeding POTS subscribers who were fleeing in droves to companies who could offer better service and a better customer experience for a much cheaper price...all without the typical "we're The Phone Company, so F off" that was oh so hard to miss on you every contact with an ILEC.
During this time, the ILECs were caught with their hands inside their pants...not used to competing or providing what the customers need, no real strategy for broadband...hell they tried to kill DSL because they wanted to continue charging thousands on their T1 lines.
Regulatory pressure mounted...all ILECs paid record numbers and amounts of fines to state regulatory bodies. Bad management, a hallmark of Ma Bell and its children lead to good employees leaving or being let go, the network falling into disrepair...customers leaving. It was bad.
Late 2000, early 2001 it looked like the law had worked. There were facilities based carriers like XO, Covad, Mpower, McLeod.
Of course there were also the leaches who just resold ILEC services and pocketed the difference between wholesale and retail costs....but many companies genuinely tried to follow through the vision behind the telecom act...they tried to build out their own networks.
The CLECs and the lawmakers didn't anticipate a few things. Firstly, greed and how easily it is to manipulate the system for those with deep pockets like the ILECs. Second, the 1996 law didn't adequately address the last mile.
The ILECs stumbled but eventually got their act together.
They killed off their resellers by raising wholesale costs above or close to retail costs where these guys just couldn't be profitable. Fine...these were the companies that had no intentions of ever building out their own networks any way...although the way the ILECs went about it was grossly unethical.
Then they set their sights on the facilities-based CLECs. They delayed orders, neglected to fix problems in a timely manner, played musical chairs with trouble tickets opened by CLECs as the end user got pissed off at its provider for outages or delayed orders. Created fuzzy math to imply that they were being forced to sell the unbundled loop below cost.
I mean, how many of you remember trying to use Northpoint, or Rhythms or Covad ...the orders wouldn't complete on time because the ILEC wouldn't deliver the loop?...or your service would go out while your provider, just as helpless as you, played trouble ticket football with the ILEC?...you were lucky if you were a direct customer of a CLEC, if there was an ISP partner involved, you were really screwed!
How many of you remember being denied DSL from a CLEC because of loop issues at the ILEC and then got solicited for DSL directly by the ILEC...except this time, miraculously, there were no loop issues?
So, once the ILECs effectively neutered or killed off the real CLEC competition, they got to work in DC.
Decrying forced unbundling of the loop below cost, feigning concern for the customer, lying, cheating, twisting arms...dong anything it took to essentially dismantle the competition and the law that set it all in motion.
And this brings us here: We essentially have 3 ILECs left. T or VZ will eventually buy Qwest an we'll be down to 2.
Vodaphone is already rumored to be interested in buying VZ...but they just want the whole company so they can get full control of the wireless division. As soon as that happens, Vodaphone will keep wireless and try to dump the wireline business...and guess who is the perfect buyer?...you got it, Ma Bell...except this time the logo has AT&T in lower case 
Sure there is competition in the way of wireless, VoIP or cable telephony...but is that really competition? Cable is a monopoly in most municipalities...and hardly price-competitive. Wireless isn't the same as having POTS...and the big 3 wireless companies have, save for some nuances and gimmicks like "IN" or "Rollover", the same exact pricing on their plans!...and VoIP is too much of a threat to cable, ILEC and wireless...and will soon be killed off like the CLECs. See Sunrocket for a prime, and first, example.
Competition in telephony is a myth. If you want to get POTS today...real POTS...what are your options?
So, please, if you're going to advocate a position, have the decency to be truthful. |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | reply to Noah Vail
Re: All righty then
You will've needed to have seriously considered deploying your own FTTH network to see what happened with the former unbundling efforts in the USA. There simply was no incentive for the "majors" to do it. Even in France it only makes sense for CLEC-FTTH -- in special dense areas.
Unbundling would stop nobody from making money in Manhattan NY. It would stop anybody in Manhattan KS
--
Instant bugging and GPS location info -- thanks to your cell phone and Bush's warrantless NSA! »news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6140191.html |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to pnh102
Re: Organization
said by pnh102 :In France, is the phone infrastructure owned by a company that is separate from companies that offer phone service? If that's the case, then that's the most likely reason CLECs had a better rate of success there. no,
France's national telecom regulator forced former state-owned monopoly France Telecom (FTE) to open up its network to rival operators, a process known as "local loop unbundling."
in the U.S., the 1996 telecom act mandated unbundling, but it was never really enforced and the incumbents did everything they could to prevent CLECs from being successful. Apparently, in France, they took the law seriously and enforced it; also apparently, the political system was not bought and paid for the the incumbent operator, enabling the enforcement to occur. In contrast, for example, the then Bell Atlantic was fined something on the order of over $1B (yes, that a B for billion) for violations to the act - just a cost of doing business to prevent competition from occurring.
then, the FCC, as an excuse not to enforce unbundling decided the new mantra was "facilities based competition". New entrants would be required to build their own infrastructure, which of course either didn't happen at all or was only done by an extremely small number of competitors.
as a result, the U.S. is now trending back towards a monopoly with the resultant high prices and restricted availability, where in France competition has been so successful the CLECs are now able and willing to build their own infrastructure.
as a former FCC official is quoted in the story,
"the U.S. is living on borrowed time," |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to kapil
Re: High Density
You missed the point. How many CLEC buildouts (copper or fiber) can you recall during the unbundling period (1996-2003)??? That's the issue -- not poor unbundling conformance (to which we'll all agree)
--
Instant bugging and GPS location info -- thanks to your cell phone and Bush's warrantless NSA! »news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6140191.html |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to nasadude
Re: Organization
There has to be more to the story than this.
Unbundling was never going to work in the USA simply because the ILECs were not split among functional lines. That is, the company which owns and maintains the wires and facilities is a separate business from the companies that sell and support the actual service.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| reply to ronpin
Re: High Density
said by ronpin :How many CLEC buildouts (copper or fiber) can you recall during the unbundling period (1996-2003) You mean in the 2 years that Covad et al had to start a company, get funding, hire people, build a network, get ILECs to cooperate, get customers and become a going-concen? That would be zero.
I do think they had a pretty good start though...a fleet of local technicians, real switching equipment in the CO. What they didn't have and what eventually did them in was the ILEC control of the last mile.
The last mile isn't easy to build...there is local municipality-level red tape, right-of-way issues, cost etc. The ILECs, of course, know a little something about these troubles because they are having similar issues in their quest to offer TV....but they have the money to pay off our government and do-away with pesky things like oversight by the representatives of the people actually impacted by the corporate greed!
How many of you had community access channels on cable 10 years ago...complete with training for producers, equipment for creating programming and the works. How many of you have that today? ...and how many of you with fios tv or the non-existent att equivalent have that today?
But seeing as how Ma Bell has had over a hundred years and still can't seem to get DSL to anyone whose house isn't on the roof of the CO, or get a bill right to save their lives...I'd say that's not really a fair measure of a viable business plan.
For the CLECs to have come into their own...especially if you would have liked them to build their own last-mile plant, on a level playing field, it would have take a decade...and that's pretty ambitious.
The playing field is anything but level, the competition is like the wife-beating husband that tells the police he's sorry and he won't do it again but we all know how that works out. ...and the VCs are a fickle lot.
Had we let, say, Northpoint have a virtual monopoly over half the country and given it a free ride when it comes to tax liability with some additional subsidies, I think you would have found that their business model would have turned out to be just as viable as Ameritech's as the mayhem that is the internal workings of a telco is no better or no worse at either company when compared to the other. |
|
johnarama
join:2007-02-15
France
| Freebox sucks
I live in France, and just ordered my Freebox 2-3 months ago...and it looks like it's going to be another 2 months before those clowns delivered it. I ordered it not just for broadband access but because it will allow me to call the US for free, unlimited.
This is an oddity in France, as this is the most backwards-assed country I've ever seen. (as an example, banks here charge you to consult your account online; also, try buying something on Sunday, everything is closed on Sunday except for bars/restaurants/movies...ah but I still love it here!) |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to pnh102
Re: Organization
said by pnh102 :... Unbundling was never going to work in the USA simply because the ILECs were not split among functional lines. That is, the company which owns and maintains the wires and facilities is a separate business from the companies that sell and support the actual service. that's no excuse for unbundling not working in the U.S. - unbundling didn't work because the ILECs didn't want it to work and did everything they could to keep it from working, including doing illegal things for which they were fined. That, plus support from their congressional "helpers" and the FCC in preventing meaningful oversight and enforcement.
The U.S. passed a law to encourage competition in the telecom sector, the incumbents ignored the law and congress and the FCC refused to enforce the law. The U.S. telecom sector is now pretty much an unregulated monopoly.
France passed a similar type law to encourage competition and the government made sure the law was followed. France now has competition and along with it lower prices, faster speeds and more services.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the U.S. had the right idea, just not the willingness to follow thru. And that's why I think the U.S. is screwed in broadband for years to come - it will be nearly impossible to gather the political will to do what needs to be done: separate the transport structure from content delivery and enforce unbundling. |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| reply to ronpin
Re: All righty then
said by ronpin :...Even in France it only makes sense for CLEC-FTTH -- in special dense areas. Unbundling would stop nobody from making money in Manhattan NY. It would stop anybody in Manhattan KS... Isn't that 'cherry picking'? |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
| said by viperlmw :Isn't that 'cherry picking'? Only on a neighborhood basis -- not on a borough or 'burb basis. Only a monopoly can afford to ignore demographics -- if that's what you really want 
--
Instant bugging and GPS location info -- thanks to your cell phone and Bush's warrantless NSA! »news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6140191.html |
|
just visiting
@proxad.net
| reply to johnarama
Re: Freebox sucks
I live in France and I've been using a Freebox since early 2004, first a version 3 and now a Freebox HD + Freebox ADSL (the two are connected by WiFi, and both are included in the 30 euro per month price. This is the standard offer).
I experienced no delays in receiving either box, and I've had nothing but good luck with Free.
If you haven't done so already, you could try posting to one of the Free newsgroups, which is probably the best way to get information and a direct response from a company representative. I'd say try the following: proxad.free.adsl. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to johnarama
That because everyone goes on strike and burns half the countryside down if you try and change anything.
Which is also why France has an 8%+ unemployment rate, and is just happy to be out of double digits. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to pnh102
Re: Organization
said by pnh102 :Unbundling was never going to work in the USA ... simply because the ILEC's didn't want it to work as envisioned, did everything possible to block it, *and* were allowed to get away with it.
They succeeded, too. Heads, they win, tails, we lose.
--
"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!) |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by KrK :simply because the ILEC's didn't want it to work as envisioned, did everything possible to block it, *and* were allowed to get away with it. Well anyone could have predicted that. I remember living in Penna. in 1996 and seeing the Bell Atlantic ads claiming that they were "fostering competition" in the state. My first thought is... why would they want to shoot themselves in the foot?
As long as the same company that sells the service owns the infrastructure, you will never get line sharing to work, ever.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to ronpin
Re: High Density
said by ronpin :America just isn't all that [densely] urban. Neither is most of France. Some of the USA's urban densities are actually higher then France's large cities, and many other cities are comparable or close.
I've always felt the "defense" argument of population density or "Small vs Large Country" is largely a red herring or an excuse why progress here is slow or stopped while successful elsewhere. Obviously it applies to rural areas, but in cities and towns the argument breaks down.
--
"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!) |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to kapil
Kapil, your post is right on the money. This site was like a blow-by-blow of all of these issues playing out. I always loved how people talked about "CLEC's with bad business models" but the real fact is the business model was 100% sound based on the law. Too bad the ILEC's weren't held accountable and kept getting the rules changed. The laws now are gutted or wrecked so completely as they might have never well existed, and all the infrastructure built by CLEC investors was snapped up by the regional ILEC at firesale prices.
--
"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!) |
|
