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!!!! |
|
|
|
 OrigZaphod042Didn't You Hear? I Come In Six Packs NowPremium
join:2001-07-22
Round Lake, IL | and now we go back to the debate.............
....
I agree, they should not be forced to share the NEWLY laid fiber unless they want to. This is not some infrastructure that was subsidised, this is New money spent by only them. If the Independants (Ilec is it?) want fiber they can 1, lease the lines from them at whatever rate they charge, or 2, if they dont like the pricing, Lay they own.
Yes I know then we the end users are stuck with one carrier for fiber,but that will change in time. We can complain all we want, but when it comes down to it, this is a Free Market soceity.....
--
RAM: Window's drug of choice since 1986
Forum Posts:(To many to Count, not enough to brag about) |
|
| I say Bell shouldn't be the ones to lay the fiber. They are service providers and when it comes to digging up the ground and dropping line that should be done by an impartial entity. Fiber lines should be laid out by a company (or whatever) that will only lease the line out to service providers. That's the only way to have a level playing field. |
|
TheGhostPremium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL | reply to OrigZaphod042
But it IS subsidized in that they have the monopoly profits from their copper business to prop up the fibre effort. Because of the monopoly component, the don't need the same type of ROI as the CLECs would need.
TheGhost |
|
 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to OrigZaphod042
said by OrigZaphod042:
I agree, they should not be forced to share the NEWLY laid fiber unless they want to. This is not some infrastructure that was subsidised, this is New money spent by only them. If the Independants (Ilec is it?) want fiber they can 1, lease the lines from them at whatever rate they charge, or 2, if they dont like the pricing, Lay they own
That might be a valid argument if the Bells didn't own the right of ways and central offices that would have to be used by the CLECs wanting to lay their own cables. Both the COs and rights of ways were granted/subsidized due to copper.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly a fan of nationalization. However, if the COs and rights of ways were owned by a neutral third party that simply saw to maintenance and technological upgrades and EVERYONE that wanted to play (Bells and the independents) in the subscriber provisioning market had to pay equally for access, it might be OK for the Bells to say, "I want to be the only one allowed to use my circuits."
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to SRFireside
Maybe level to you but not to the different companies and ma and pa isps. Verizon could put them under in a matter of months then reap the benefits of basically having all the fiber to themselves and making pure profit off it.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
 JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Tell that to the tax payers of PA, who by the way, subsidized Verizon to the tune of around $4 billion and got nothing in return. Does Verizon own the last mile in that case? Interesting question, wouldn't you say? |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by JakCrow:
Tell that to the tax payers of PA, who by the way, subsidized Verizon to the tune of around $4 billion and got nothing in return. Does Verizon own the last mile in that case? Interesting question, wouldn't you say?
Verizon was paid money to deliver a product and didn't, don't harp to me about the misfortunes of stupid government officials who worried about their pockets before the people's well being.
The tax payers of PA got screwed. Because their government allowed it.
What does a level playing field have to do with Verizon getting paid to deliver and not delivering ?
If verizon had used the money to lay fiber it was in the form of tax cuts and such. So the last mile would still be theirs to do with as they please they paid for most of it. And the profits off the taxes it brought in would have paid off the tax cuts easily. But the government in that state was not as sharp as Verizon and got screwed.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | You illustrate my point quite well. It's not all black and white regarding the ownership and right of way regarding telco industry, is it? If the bells own the last mile, it shouldn't be subsidized by the tax payers. Don't you agree? Or are you one of those people that actually think all the tax breaks to these companies actually get "re-invested" in the community? |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by JakCrow:
You illustrate my point quite well. It's not all black and white regarding the ownership and right of way regarding telco industry, is it? If the bells own the last mile, it shouldn't be subsidized by the tax payers. Don't you agree? Or are you one of those people that actually think all the tax breaks to these companies actually get "re-invested" in the community?
Ohh I whole heartedly agree. But to blame only verizon for Pa's mess up is akin to blaming a car manufacturer for a defect in their car and not blaming the designer as well.
Tax breaks usually never go into anything more then a paper book. But had the actual fiber been laid then I would say yes the last mile should have been Verizon. As long as they paid the taxes back to the state. Once the breaks were paid off then the tax to the state would have been profit. And the state would have been taking in more money then before.
However it didn't work out quite so nice for pa.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
| reply to BosstonesOwn
said by BosstonesOwn:
Maybe level to you but not to the different companies and ma and pa isps. Verizon could put them under in a matter of months then reap the benefits of basically having all the fiber to themselves and making pure profit off it.
I think you're missing the point. The one who lays the fiber doesn't go into business as a service provider. They would just lease the lines. Nothing more. That means EVERYBODY. Verizon, Covad, Ma and Ma Internet, you name it... would have access to it and nobody with a vested interest in who shares the line would be in control. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| Then verizon drops it's prices on it's bandwidth and cuts out the little guys still. Let me guess maybe the backbone would not be verizons ? Wrong verizon would pop it and the others would still have to pay higher rates for access to the pop. And if another backbone provider was to attach to it as well They would have to have an agreement with verizon for transport. Which would run up the bills for them too.
That is a major reason it don't work to do it that way. The people with the bigger pipe would offer faster speeds and cheaper prices. What can you do kick them off for undercutting every one ? Then your opened up for a lawsuit.
Wander into the real world of IT and not just the "ideals". These people will and do do this every day.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
| One more time. The one with the infrastructure only charges for leasing the line and rents cage space. They don't offer bandwidth. We're talking about the last mile here so backbone providers connecting shouldn't be a problem. At least it never has been a problem before (usually you WANT as many backbone providers connected to you as possible).
This is why I don't think any ILEC would be appropriate for what I am proposing because they will refuse to relinquish that much of their business (ISP, telco, etc.). Then again I never said an ILEC should. I know it's not as easy to accomplish as it sounds what with the Bells vying for control over the lines again, but my opinion is based on what I think would be best for the proliferation of fiber technology. Not what I think will happen. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| you misunderstood.
What I am saying is not every city has the ability to have the pops from different providers. That is just life. In these areas verizon would provide the bandwidth as an isp. And cut the prices down for their customers. Drowning out the competition.
While you might not understand what I mean I will make it real simple. Even if a company owns the fiber say fiberco. Fiberco has to sell access to every isp that wants a piece. ISP goes to fiberco and gets a pop to their backbone in to their fiber ring.
All good right ? wrong many isps pay to use anothers backbone.
So let's say fiberco lets every company place a pop at the end of the ring. Will never happen but let's say they do. Verizon and any Ilec owning the area around it can easily drop more money and have heavier bandwidth at the location. Any other backbone provider can't do it as easily. If the area maxes out the fiber link then verizon having the area in it's sleeve drops another link and no more congestion. The other backbone provider can not get it there as fast and lose to customers changing.
Now Let's also look at how this affects the prices. The Ilec providing 2x the bandwidth can say hmm ok you wanna lower your price so will we and we will open our links to speeds you physically can't afford to. So they open the pipe faster and cheaper the other backbone provider says ahh We can't pop that much cash here all we have for income is our backbone nothing else.
Sure maybe level3 or MCI could provide the link and try and battle but they will lose. If ma and pa isp needs to buy bandwidth to offer over the fiber ring fiberco can't sell them bandwidth they don't have any to sell. So mapaisp goes to verizon and gets a hefty tag per gig because they can verizon or the ilec owns the backbone and much of the capacity. mapaisp has to bow out because their customers are not paying a higher price for less bandwidth and go to the competitor.
As long as they are open an Ilec has access or if they ignore the Ilec the Ilec buries fiberco in lawsuits and delays the project until they themselves can build a ring. This happens a lot with big providers. It is better to let them build the ring and regulate the prices. So both they and us get what we want.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
| We're talking about the last mile here. Not the backbone. All the major Internet backbones are pretty much already established and just about every ISP (small and large) buy bandwidth from them, if not directly then by peering. The last mile is not controlled by any ILEC so that's a level playing field. The backbone providers will be doing the same thing they have been doing all this time. I don't see a problem.
As to who can pay for more bandwidth that still shouldn't be a problem since we are still talking about the last mile. Only so much bandwidth can be funnelled through an area like that. Since there will be different customers from different ISP's in each area that also hinders any ILEC's plan for "bandwidth choking". I just don't think it's viable that an ILEC can kill competition when the last mile is opened up. |
|
