how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
244 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 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. | |
|  | | Re: Whatever And here I thought I needed an MBA to have a firmunderstanding of regulated business, but you just saved me 5-6 years of school. Thanks! | |
| | icp1Premium
join:2000-10-13
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Whatever said by ParanoiaInc:
And here I thought I needed an MBA to have a firmunderstanding of regulated business, but you just saved me 5-6 years of school. Thanks!
LOL it is a waste, trust me and I do have an MBA  | |
| | | | | Re: Whatever said by icp1:
said by ParanoiaInc:
And here I thought I needed an MBA to have a firmunderstanding of regulated business, but you just saved me 5-6 years of school. Thanks!
LOL it is a waste, trust me and I do have an MBA
Whether or not you value the material you were taught, you've got a nice resume enhancer, so you shouldn't think of it as a complete waste. | |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | I agree - what company (or person) would want to invest $$$ just to have a change in laws take it all away. The ground rules for a huge investment have to be made up front. As well, we also don't want to see another PA, where Verizon took cash, then walked away. | |
| cpal
join:2002-07-10
Herndon, VA | said by icp1:
No business likes to operate in regulatory uncertainty.
You simply cannot determine your ROI properly without knowing the ground rules. It's that simple.
It's not simple, it's simplistic. There is a difference.
I've watched this debate repeatedly on this site. It will never be resolved, just like Bush/Kerry, and even after Nov.2, the Bush/Kerry debate will continue just as this one will.
A couple things to remember:
1) Back in 1996, the Baby Bells were DYING to get into the long distance market. So they made the deal that they would sell various configurations of their facilities to competitors at a reduced rate. The idea was--if you want to compete in Long Distance, Baby Bell, then let someone compete with you locally. Just as you can't complete a Long Distance Call without an incumbent at the other end, local competitors can't provide a wired service because you have the monopoly on wire. Unfortunately, just like today, GREED blinded the incumbents, and they forgot to exclude future facilities from the quid pro quo arrangment. Tough. They signed it, now they should either live with it, or GET OUT of the long distance market.
2) Now can someone tell me how, when SBC puts up a fibre facility for their own purposes to provide whatever services they want on it, HOW it costs them money to sell UNUSED capacity at a discounted rate?? Nobody will force them to throw off paying customers of SBC to provide service to a competitor, so how does selling unused capacity cause them to lose money? Almost all "extra" work they say they must perform for a CLEC connection which increases costs is something they have to do ANYWAY to keep track of facilites if they were to use them themselves. Besides, don't we have computers to keep track of all that stuff, saving lots of money?
Everybody here seems to be missing the point of the SBC position. It's NOT because it costs them more to provide facilities to a competitor (even if it does.) It's because of the MONOPOLY they will have on ALL products and services that can be provided on that fibre.
If SBC gets its way, they will have NO competition. They will start to chop up the fibre bandwidth any way they want; they can use it for narrow-band voice service (64 kb/s) and replace a copper pair with it, or provide high bandwith data to whoever wants it. Eventually, they won't have to maintain their copper cable plant, (or at least the longest part of it from the Central Office to a local pedestal or pole) because, although the initial costs of fibre may be high, the long term maintenance of properly installed fiber is WAY lower than copper.
If the copper from the CO or co-location point is abandoned, what does a competitor use? If they are in SBC territory, it's going to be tough to get a signal over abandoned copper, so it's good bye CLEC. | |
| | icp1Premium
join:2000-10-13
Saint Louis, MO | Re: It's that simple if you're a greedy ILEC. CLECs are so 90's.
The competition for phone service is not CLECs - it never has been as you well know because they never could get a foothold in the market.
The competition is Wireless, Cable Phone, and VOIP.
For everyone who hates copper, why keep fighting to have dozens of companies sharing it? Just keep pushing the other firms (cable/voip) to steal customers. | |
| |  AlpinePremium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA | said by cpal:
Unfortunately, just like today, GREED blinded the incumbents...
I love comments like these. It's sheer "GREED" (in CAPS, no less!) that drives the ILECS. You know what? I can't argue. But what the hell is ANY company about? Surely not profits! Surely not success! That's just pure evil!
I would love to know where you can find companies in a capitalist society driven purely by love of their customers, by desire to make people happy, by the pretty flowers in the yard outside of their offices. To listen to people around this site, you'd think the CLECs were exactly that kind of company. It's laughable, as is the ridiculous bias of so many of the users here. Apparently all of you work for non-profit organizations and don't appreciate doing your best to make your company succeed.
If the CLECs, or any for-profit company for that matter, had the power the ILECs do, they'd use it in EXACTLY the same way.
Adam | |
| | | | | Re: It's that simple if you're a greedy ILEC.Excellent!
Can we also point out that consumers are NEVER greedy when they wish to keep more of their own money.
| |
| | | | | "If the CLECs, or any for-profit company for that matter, had the power the ILECs do, they'd use it in EXACTLY the same way."I guess that makes it OK then, huh? That's a pretty stupid way to look at it and even more stupid to support.
Many companies are started and are successful on the basis that it is customer satisfaction first. I own such a company and though I charge enough to survive off of, I am certainly not in the business to suck as much out of my customers as possible. | |
|
| |
|
