| Catch 22 This is all a Catch 22 and this demand by SBC simply shows why they CAN'T be deregulated and must be forced to compete (share). They should be fined simply for making such an arrogant anticompetitive and anticonsumer statement.
Keep in mind that "Sharing" doesn't mean SBC just gives free lines away. If I read their public report right, they charge close to $24 per line now to companies that lease their lines. That is simply $3 less then what they make for a typical line and they don't have to deal with providing email and webspace to them. So really what is their complaint on that?
I would agree completely that a company that builds a network should not be required to share it IF the barrier of entry were not so great. The problem is, the barriers are too great and SBC (as any other incumbent) will in the interest of protecting market share and profits not share voluntarily. If they are the only network in town they will attempt to do it at such a rate that competitors could not compete. Now I agree every company has a right to protect market share and profits. However, when it is in a monopolistic way that is anticonsumer friendly, they lose the right to do it on their own and need to be regulated and if sharing is part of that regulation, so be it.
SBC knows that if they can FORCE the FCC to agree to this they can pretty much eliminate any competition in virtually every market they are in (outside of cable). There may be a couple companies that can survive in some cities, but most will not be able to deploy fiber to compete and they know this which is the #1 reason why they want to do it. So it will be mainly the cable and phone incumbents. I'm sure they will try to negotiate with smaller companies that can't possibly build their own network to offer lines for lease, but the rate those companies pay will be higher then it should be just as it is now. And the sad part is they are regulated and forced to share now.
As I have said numerous times...... I as a consumer do not want every person that wants to provide me a service laying fiber around my city or to my house. There is absolutely no reason it needs to be done that way and it would do nothing more then raise the cost of the services (as well as limit my choices). The entire US fiber network to every home and building should be owned and operated by one entity and then everyone that wants to provide a service can lease lines accordingly and can provide service to any person or place anywhere in the country.
Let's take that $15 billion (Bush administration) or the $30 billion (Kerry administration) wants to use for International AIDS help and use that to purchase the current fiber networks of both telcos and cable companies and get this US fiber optic network up and running! |
|
 antiphishingPhishing Scam TerminatorPremium
join:2004-06-09
Wilkes Barre, PA
kudos:2
 ·PenTeleData
 ·ProLog
| Re: fiber service quote:
25Mbps fiber service once neighborhoods are updated
I wish SBC would send some fiber cable my way because I'm sick of outdated internet infrastructure in North East Pa.
--
Dslreports.com Forum No-Spin zone starts here.
»www.antihotmail.com
spammers_are_scumbags@antihotmail.com |
|
| reply to Skippy25
Re: Catch 22 said by Skippy25:
Let's take that $15 billion (Bush administration) or the $30 billion (Kerry administration) wants to use for International AIDS help and use that to purchase the current fiber networks of both telcos and cable companies and get this US fiber optic network up and running!
Add another $60 billion and you will have enough to build FTTH in most of the U.S. |
|
 rec9140Provoice just DO it
join:2003-07-29
Mulberry, FL | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:
This is all a Catch 22 and this demand by SBC simply shows why they CAN'T be deregulated and must be forced to compete (share). They should be fined simply for making such an arrogant anticompetitive and anticonsumer statement.
I couldn't argree more! SBC & Verizon BOTH should be fined for their actions.
Its obviously time for another 1984 Breakup decision and break aprart the local network from the ILEC's.
said by Skippy25:
Keep in mind that "Sharing" doesn't mean SBC just gives free lines away. If I read their public report right, they charge close to $24 per line now to companies that lease their lines
This is simply corporate greed & profiteering. Most companies have lost their sense of corporate responsability to the PUBLIC & CONSUMERS to that of the "stockholders" & "market." Theres a reason that lawyers & stock brokers are the first to be killed in a coup.  There is a responsible way to make a profit and 99.999999% of companies today are not even close. I have no problem with a for profit company, its their actions to make a profit I take issue with.
said by Skippy25:
As I have said numerous times...... I as a consumer do not want every person that wants to provide me a service laying fiber around my city or to my house. There is absolutely no reason it needs to be done that way and it would do nothing more then raise
Unless something is done to split off the local network from the ILEC's I am afraid this is exactly wants going to have to happen to get fiber to homes. While I agree that it really doesn't need to be done 2-3-4-5 times over, if thats what it takes to get a competitive marketplace and fiber to homes so be it. When I was on the local cable board I wanted the township on the next franchise renewal to remove the exclusive/monopoly lanquage to allow for at the time, TCI, to come in and build a second system to compete against Adelphia. Areas with 2 cable companies have signifigantly better pricing and service than those with only 1 monopoly player.
As for the ILEC's I think its time for some REALLY SERIOUS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. Off with their heads! |
|
|
|
| reply to SRFireside
I was only speaking of getting the ball rolling as we have to start somewhere.
Once things start lighting up revenue from leasing the lines will be coming in and they can expand out from there. |
|
| reply to rec9140
said by rec9140:
Its obviously time for another 1984 Breakup decision and break aprart the local network from the ILEC's.
Ooh. I like that. Heavy handed? Yes. Impossible to get passed in legislation? Yes. But it would fix the current problem in competition with an infrastructure-based system. |
|
