| 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" |
|
| 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? |
|
|
|
| Why are the Bells complaining about municipal broadband project deploying their own fiber? Can't have it both ways. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to IGoDwnTwn
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!) |
|
TheGhostPremium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL | reply to ParanoiaInc
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 |
|
| reply to KrK
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 |
|
 NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA
3 edits | reply to KrK
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. |
|
| reply to Tikker_LoS
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. |
|
 DrTCPYours trulyPremium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX | reply to Tikker_LoS
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. |
|
 DaSneaky1Done wall to block them allPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
 ·Charter
| reply to NPGMBR
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 :: [ |
|
| reply to TheGhost
No they can't copper still comes to your house. |
|
| reply to SRFireside
Why dig poles work fine for a lot of the cable companies area's. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to DaSneaky1D
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!" |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Tikker_LoS
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!) |
|
| 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) |
|
| That's a poor example considering there are virtually no barriers to you building your own building.
Nice try though.  |
|
| reply to BosstonesOwn
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. |
|
| reply to BosstonesOwn
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. |
|
DaSneaky1Done wall to block them allPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou Reviews:
·Charter
| reply to BosstonesOwn
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.
--
] :: my trivial ramblings :: [ |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to ross
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. |
|
