how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
549 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 DrTCPYours trulyPremium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX | I bet CLECs will sue FCC It aint over until fat lady speaks... Oh, congress may step in as well. Rules do change. | |
|  AJ023
join:2001-12-25
Forest Hills, NY
2 edits | Re: I bet CLECs will sue FCC They can sue. Freedom, you gotta love it. But will they win? No.
Think about this : You spent your time and money and effort and you build out your own house. But the government forces you to share it with everyone. Is that fair? Same concept. The phone companies are spending their OWN MONEY on the fiber pipes. Its NEW BUILD.
Now if Verizon is too powerful and you feel it has monopolistic powers still, then that would have to be rectified in another manner, but not by forcing the sharing of lines. Let the marketplace decide.
No matter if your a democrat or republican I dont understand how anyone could argue that Fiber would have to be shared. The CLECs who want to share are like leeches who want to gain the fruits of the labor of the backs of others.
Argument that the CLECs use is that it entrenches the monopolistic powers. But we need to realize, there are multiple other players and line sharing doesnt work.
Forced sharing because of a monopoly is not the right approach. Other legal action can be appropriate, but the principle of forced sharing is not the right approach to the problem because if there were new entrants and no established players we would all agree on no line sharing because thats the correct approach.
FCC ruled correctly. | |
| | DrTCPYours trulyPremium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX | Re: I bet CLECs will sue FCC said by AJ023:
They can sue. Freedom, you gotta love it. But will they win? No.
They might. You never know. Don't be so sure.
quote:
Think about this : You spent your time and money and effort and you build out your own house. But the government forces you to share it with everyone. Is that fair? Same concept.
Not exactly. Buiding parallel telecom infrastructure is impractical and involves right of way decisions etc. Incumbents have inherent advantage...
quote:
The phone companies are spending their OWN MONEY on the fiber pipes. Its NEW BUILD.
Not exactly, they are getting a lot of subsidies and they do not have to pay right of way dues for every city/state again.
quote:
Now if Verizon is too powerful and you feel it has monopolistic powers still, then that would have to be rectified in another manner, but not by forcing the sharing of lines. Let the marketplace decide.
When there is only one player, there is no marketplace to decide. Consumer lose under such conditions as it was pre- Telecom Act of 1996.
quote:
Forced sharing because of a monopoly is not the right approach. Other legal action can be appropriate, but the principle of forced sharing is not the right approach to the problem because if there were new entrants and no established players we would all agree on no line sharing because thats the correct approach.
How do you realisticly expect competition will occur? Sharing does not mean CLEC will be getting access free. They will have to pay fees for those lines.
quote:
FCC ruled correctly.
It is a step back to pre-1996 where monopolies ruled and consumer lost. Choices were limited and expensive, there were no incentive to improve customer service, lower costs. | |
| | | public
join:2002-01-19
Santa Clara, CA | Re: I bet CLECs will sue FCC said by DrTCP:
said by AJ023:
They can sue. Freedom, you gotta love it. But will they win? No.
They might. You never know. Don't be so sure.
quote:
Think about this : You spent your time and money and effort and you build out your own house. But the government forces you to share it with everyone. Is that fair? Same concept.
Not exactly. Buiding parallel telecom infrastructure is impractical and involves right of way decisions etc. Incumbents have inherent advantage...
quote:
The phone companies are spending their OWN MONEY on the fiber pipes. Its NEW BUILD.
Not exactly, they are getting a lot of subsidies and they do not have to pay right of way dues for every city/state again.
quote:
Now if Verizon is too powerful and you feel it has monopolistic powers still, then that would have to be rectified in another manner, but not by forcing the sharing of lines. Let the marketplace decide.
When there is only one player, there is no marketplace to decide. Consumer lose under such conditions as it was pre- Telecom Act of 1996.
quote:
Forced sharing because of a monopoly is not the right approach. Other legal action can be appropriate, but the principle of forced sharing is not the right approach to the problem because if there were new entrants and no established players we would all agree on no line sharing because thats the correct approach.
How do you realisticly expect competition will occur? Sharing does not mean CLEC will be getting access free. They will have to pay fees for those lines.
quote:
FCC ruled correctly.
It is a step back to pre-1996 where monopolies ruled and consumer lost. Choices were limited and expensive, there were no incentive to improve customer service, lower costs.
All of these issues were already addressed during the electrification debates in the 30's. It is time to revisit those documents. | |
| | | | AJ023
join:2001-12-25
Forest Hills, NY | Re: I bet CLECs will sue FCC Quote #1 - "Not exactly. Buiding parallel telecom infrastructure is impractical and involves right of way decisions etc. Incumbents have inherent advantage..."
In NYC, wrong. Open Video System (OVS) providers have distinct advantages where they pay less in fees than the monopolies. Any player can build out such. In terms of right of way decisions, there are 4 franchised players right now with only 3 who have deployed. You have Verizon, Time Warner, RCN (Bankrupt but deployed), and Urban Transport Communications (not deployed). The city is more than willing to add multiple players for broadband services if they wish to provide service to residents. So where is the problem here in terms of right of way decisions and limit of choice?
Quote #2 Not exactly, they are getting a lot of subsidies and they do not have to pay right of way dues for every city/state again.
What does this have to do with the fact of line sharing? How is line sharing even relevant to this? If there are subsides and unfair right of way fees then you change the subsidies and rights of way fees. On right of way fees, I would be in favor of FEDERAL legislation where you standardized and cap right of way fees. You dont add line sharing which has nothing to do with the issues you mentioned. Im not disputing you of unfair subsidies at times or right of way due advantages. (in some areas) But this has to be rectified by changing the subsidies and the right of way fees because we both agree that is where the problem lies.
Quote #3 When there is only one player, there is no marketplace to decide. Consumer lose under such conditions as it was pre- Telecom Act of 1996.
So this means you can discriminate against areas like NYC which will eventually in time have 4 and additional players possible? Wrong. Now if line sharing in these situations is the only alternative and there is no way no matter what that you will have more than 1 player, then you add line sharing in only and only areas which have 1 player however I believe there are lots of ways right now to encourage multiple pipes so that may not even be needed. Alot of rural areas are deploying their own municipal or cooperatives for broadband because of limited options. Just look at how many OVS licenses that have been handed out in multiple towns across america. Companies/communities are overbuilding.
Quote #4 How do you realisticly expect competition will occur? Sharing does not mean CLEC will be getting access free. They will have to pay fees for those lines.
Competition is occuring with 3 competitors right now and eventually a 4th competitor which already has the franchise agreement if/when the 3rd competitor can become profitable and its shown that the model is financially sound in the big metro areas like mine. Believe me I dont want all decisions in the incumbents favor and I disagree with them on alot and believe that we should have tax incentives and limits on right of way fees and everything else to encourage new investment. But line sharing is not the answer as I hope I have proved with my statements. Line sharing is a carrier trying to leech off the fruits of someone elses labor when you adjust for all the laws/financial superiority that the incumbents have. And guess what? One carrier or more could decide that they want to have line sharing and have various companies market and resell the services over their line. The business model for this is the wireless carriers and even the fiber pipes that were built out over the oceans where many carriers shared the cost. Many carriers do not share lines, however Sprint resells its service to Virgin Mobile and to others as a virtual operators. You will have maybe not the exact same concept but something along these lines. Companies will gradually figure out how to work together in the free marketplace without being forced to so there may even be some partnerships and sharing at the companys own discretion for new builds. | |
| | | | | DrTCPYours trulyPremium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX | Re: I bet CLECs will sue FCC I do not know how much of NYC has access to multiple providers and how many neighborhoods are willing to have their streets digged multiple times for intrastructure work. I think what little you see in NYC is not going to happen in the vast majority of the country.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Only time will show if you or I am right. | |
| | | | | | AJ023
join:2001-12-25
Forest Hills, NY | Re: I bet CLECs will sue FCC WiMax cant even handle the channels on the HDTV band for local channels. We are not talking infinite bandwidth here. (In response to John Galt). Just having HDTV For the local channels alone is not possible with WiMax so it wont be a triple play option for us.
In terms of digging up the streets. You know how many times the streets are dug up in NYC? Its constantly, from Con Edison, Keyspan, RCN, sewer lines, u name it. If the carrier is willing to bear the expenses, there is no issue with them doing it and we know this because of the 4th non rolled out carrier which would have been also digging up the streets if it got funding if it needed to do such or maybe it could have trunked through existing conduit. In NYC we have 3 manholes for communications, Verizon, RCN now and Con Edison Communications on the main road but not by the residential areas Right now the roads are all marked up in NYC and you see patchwork for where the RCN cables were laid and they indeed have their own manholes. However, it was done and rolled out. Old gas lines are also used here to put fiber through as well. Whatever is the best and cheapest way the carriers will decide that to run the fiber.
I can not speak for other communities and their requirements and did not speak for them. But their are areas like mine which will have competition so from the line sharing prospective we shouldnt be discriminated against because we are ready to roll with competition with 3 players. | |
|
| |  93254336Weapons Of MasturbationPremium
join:2001-10-20
kudos:1 | said by DrTCP:
When there is only one player, there is no marketplace to decide. Consumer lose under such conditions as it was pre- Telecom Act of 1996.
There's more than one major player: the ILEC's competition is Cable.
- Dan
--
"Are you not aware that I get farty and bloated with a foamy latte?" | |
| | | | DrTCPYours trulyPremium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX | Re: I bet CLECs will sue FCC said by 93254336:
said by DrTCP:
When there is only one player, there is no marketplace to decide. Consumer lose under such conditions as it was pre- Telecom Act of 1996.
There's more than one major player: the ILEC's competition is Cable.
- Dan
Collusion of monopolies to create the illusion of free market and competition. I do not subscribe to that FCC argument. | |
| | | | |  AlpinePremium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA | Re: I bet CLECs will sue FCC Definitely true. CLECs aren't competition anymore. It's all cable and, in the future, wireless.
This decision doesn't mean that the ILECs will never share their lines. It just means that they won't be forced to do it at ridiculously low wholesale prices.
The ruling is correct...
Adam | |
| | | | | | AJ023
join:2001-12-25
Forest Hills, NY | Re: I bet CLECs will sue FCC Yep.. Whats done is done.. It was passed thank goodness and now the free marketplace is rolling fast.
Im hopefull RCN will be bought up by another player, someone with bucks who will get a bargain on the asset because of the deployment cost. Someone may even finish off that fiber to the last 900 feet to compete with Verizon.
Anyways, competition is here to stay and 2005 will be a winner for us. | |
| | | | | |  cob_1310nm Of GoodnessPremium
join:2003-07-08
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| I work for a CLEC and I agree that Bell should get to keep the fiber they're going to lay as their own. If CLECs want to compete, they need to lay their own physical media and bring it on. Currently, our focus is on corporate customers anyway; the RBOCs just can't beat us on that. | |
|
| |
|
