Fiber on a Stick > Big Bells are back!!!

reply to DaSneaky1D

Re: Big Bells are back!!!

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.

---

reply to BosstonesOwn

said by BosstonesOwn :

---

equipment to fire up a 10 gig run of fiber is very very expensive.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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
Go look at their income statement of 2003. They had NET INCOME of $8,500,000,000 (that's billions). Or $2.56 per share.

So don't come here crying their game to me. These greedy bastards aren't laying a single person off to "survive". They are doing it simply because they are nothing more then greedy bastards.

said by Skippy25:

---

Go look at their income statement of 2003. They had NET INCOME of $8,500,000,000 (that's billions). Or $2.56 per share.

So don't come here crying their game to me. These greedy bastards aren't laying a single person off to "survive". They are doing it simply because they are nothing more then greedy bastards.

---

So to please the stock holders we should simply allow a monopoly to become a bigger monopoly, reduce competition, raise rates, but earn $10 billion instead of only a measly $8.5 billion, right?

In the interest of this greed we should also make it so that every home has a separate fiber line ran to it from one phone company, one television service, one broadband provider, one security firm, a couple more for future services I am sure I simply am not thinking of or it hasn't been thought of yet. And when I switch any of those services to another company they can then run yet another line to my house. Because that is simply the best way to do it to protect that monopoly and those share holders, right?

Get real!

Your anti big business blinds your perception yet again.

If they want to provide a service to you they will buy a portion from verizon. That is it. They can not force them to share it just because you and people like you are anti big business and are against them.

Why not go buy a car and give me a set of keys so I can use it when ever I want. Oh yeah I will only pay for gas let's see how ya like it.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"

Im not anti big business, but I am anti monopoly and anti monopoly dangling a little carrot out there and making threats. I am also anti big business holding back technology because they arent happy making only $8.5 billion. Greed is greed regardless of their size and there is not a single good thing that comes from greed. And if you pull your head out of SBC's ass far enough you will realize that this industry is not like any other big business and it is regulated for a reason and needs to be so.

I am still trying to figure out how people like you actually think this will be a good thing. I am also trying to figure out what in the world makes you people think it is going to be so easy for other companies to actually be able to compete where this is allowed. So unless you can come up with a good answer to those 2 baffling things don't bother replying as I am done with your nonsense.

How do I think it would be a good thing ? I think with my brain sorry don't know about you.

Maybe you meant why do I think it's a good thing ? I think getting broadband at a decent speed to every one in this country is critical to getting us to the top of the ladder. India and China graduate more science based students then us now when we used to hold #1. Giving broadband to the masses with a world at their finger tips helps breed interest in areas some people may not have been given the advantage of studying before the invent of the internet. That is a good thing One of our best thinkers could be a farm boy right now who has no internet access even from his school.

What makes it easy for them to compete. Nothing. But this would set up this unbelievable new fang-led thing we call perks. If earthlink is able to sell bandwidth on their pipe fine. If the price and speed are close I am going to consider which one is a better buy. Maybe verizon has newsgroups but no spam blocking and the other company has the opposite then I make my choice.

Competition is fine over that pipe I don't care. But if I am a share holder in Verizon or any other company who does this why would I give my ok if there is nothing in it for me ? Because I wanna be a nice guy ? Doubt it.

What I am saying is if the isp wants to provide over their pipe like they do with dsl they pay the actual cost that verizon pays to help maintain and to pay for the bandwidth. I don't think the government should have a right to tell me what I can charge you to repair a PC. Same thing here for Verizon.

If the government would smarten up and stop hindering the roll outs of technology because they are in the pockets of the cable company (who is not regulated like this) then the problem would be gone. Cable is unregulated and hikes rates every 6 months.

Also if you look at Verizon plans they would lease the copper off to any one willing to purchase this means the return for Clecs to own the copper is still there and they would only be paying verizon to maintain it nothing else. I don't know sbc's stance on it but I would assume they would do the same.

Also on your greed point. Well I would hate to tell ya this but 2 things make the world go round money and sex. There is always greed. There is always sex. Neither of the 2 are disappearing anytime soon.

You say not a single good thing from greed ? How bout you having access to the internet. A company along the line figured they could make money giving you access. You working to feed your kids and wife/husband if you have a family is greed. It is all in how you interpret the word.

Would you say because I make 150 K a year and that is above what I need to survive I am greedy ? I bet not we all don't work for free. I feel at least on these points we can agree to disagree.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"

You are killing me!! Do you really have any clue what you are talking about? You say they shouldn't have to share yet make an argument using examples of other companies using their pipes. You even speak of competition over "that pipe", but not wanting it if you are a share holder. You then go on about the ISP using the pipe but paying the actual cost to help maintain and pay for the bandwidth. You are talking in circles here. Do you know that currently SBC offers DSL for $26.95 to customers, but charges a rate of around $23 for another company to "lease" their line (this pays for the "help maintain and cost of bandwidth you speak of)? If I understood their public documents correctly. How do you think this will be better later on when SBC doesn't have to charge them a set rate? At that point SBC will most likely raise their rates closer to cable and then charge competitors a rate very close to that like they do now. That is IF they decide to even lease their lines at all, which I doubt they will do. In the end you probably wont have a choice between ISP's unless it is cable vs dsl so the only perks you may get will be between the 2 of them.

2nd point.... Look at the history here and see what it is they are actually offering. Based on those things their #1 goal here is to eliminate competition, not make up loss revenues. If you truly think this is going to increase the speed fiber is deployed, the number of areas it is deployed to, or the perks offered you are naive.

Interpretation of the word Greed has nothing to do with it.
Greed - An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth. dictionary.com I think that is pretty cut and dry so me working to feed my family would not fit here. You making 150k even though you could easily live off of 50k doesn't fit either. However a company: doing everything they can to eliminate virtually all competition, laying off people when they have massive profits already, or holding back technology until they get "their way" (eliminate competition) does fit like a glove.

Broadband (like spandex) is a privilege, not a RIGHT. So government subsidized access for anyone (including your farm boy) like other public utilities is unwarranted. Though I do believe SBC or whoever should be required to get it to them at a reasonable cost if they want it. And again, you thinking SBC not having to share is going to increase the rate and depth this is deployed in the US you are naive.

This is my last post on this thread so do me a favor and do a little research and come here with solid information and some actual points to make for future readers if there are any.

You either fail to understand what I type or are just really not paying attention. I gave an example of how it would be if you got your way. dude read.

I have valid points it's you who just doesn't seam to understand. The point is years ago telephones and electricity were not considered needed and now they are. Think about your future and every one else.

I will try to make this so simple a child can understand it.
Verizon owns the fiber they paid to lay it. It's theres to do with what they please. If they want to sell the pipe off and let other companies use it fine by me. The government should not interfere. Verizon should not be forced to sell access to other groups for low prices. SBC makes $3 then per person what is wrong with that.

From above post because obviously you either didn't read it or maybe just don't understand.

:::What I am saying is if the isp wants to provide over their pipe like they do with dsl they pay the actual cost that verizon pays to help maintain and to pay for the bandwidth. I don't think the government should have a right to tell me what I can charge you to repair a PC. Same thing here for Verizon.::: their being the Ilec Pipe that they paid to lay.

If a 3rd party company comes and lays the pipe and maintains it. Lets say fiberco. They Sell the bandwidth off to other companies like Verizon or earthlink. Then verizon being a bigger company with bigger backbones will push all the little guys out of the arena. And leave only the big boys inside to compete. How does that leave competition?

And so what if they raise their rates like cable. Cable increases every 6 months and they are unregulated. You are so anti Ilec it isn't funny. Why should the cable cos be able to rape pillage and plunder but not the Ilec. That is just stupid, either none can rape or both just that simple.

Because you are one sided you can say all you want about not being solid information. You choose not to listen. And you choose to think about yourself and not the country and it's future.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"

Damn forgot to turn off the notify.

You just don't get it do you? I obviously don't understand you, Hell I doubt you understand yourself the way you contradict yourself in such a short post. Your statement about them being able to rape and pillage because cable does just simply shows your intelligence on this issue. How can you possibly make that statement and then speak of competition and the good of the future for the country?

Go look at the financial statements and look at the tax incentives that ILEC's receive from the government. You could say that goes to executive lunches if you want, but I prefer to say it goes to building their networks. So we (the American people) are helping to pay for this. I also still stand by the fact that ILEC's ARE (please make note of that as you appear to miss it) THEY ARE paid to help maintain and support bandwidth. The government does NOT (make note of that as well) THEY DO NOT make them give it away for free.

Take care!

reply to Skippy25

quote:

---

Do you know that currently SBC offers DSL for $26.95 to customers, but charges a rate of around $23 for another company to "lease" their line (this pays for the "help maintain and cost of bandwidth you speak of)? If I understood their public documents correctly.

---

When I worked for two ISP's the charges they incurred from SBC were more along the lines of $23-$25/mo per line for DSL. Maybe the $12.50 only refers to POTS for those CLEC's just offering phone service.

said by SRFireside:

---

When I worked for two ISP's the charges they incurred from SBC were more along the lines of $23-$25/mo per line for DSL. Maybe the $12.50 only refers to POTS for those CLEC's just offering phone service.

---