 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to IGoDwnTwn
Re: Big Bells are back!!! 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!) |
|
| 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 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. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to Skippy25
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!" |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to DaSneaky1D
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!" |
|
| reply to ross
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. |
|
| reply to BosstonesOwn
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. |
|
lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL | reply to DrTCP
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. |
|
