 TXTigermanMonopolies Kill
join:2000-12-21
Beeville, TX | Yeah and.. They constantly tell me I can't have broadband because they are "losing money on it". If cable is hurting them so much and they are losing so much money on DSL, then how are they posting these huge numbers?
--
What's that? Project Pronto? 6 billion dollars? Nope, never seen it. Must be just another pack of lies from SBC.
|
|
| said by TXTigerman:
They constantly tell me I can't have broadband because they are "losing money on it". If cable is hurting them so much and they are losing so much money on DSL, then how are they posting these huge numbers?
Who told you that DSL in and of itself is a money loser? What you might be referring to is the fact that requiring RBOC's to invest huge amounts of money to "donate" the network elements to its competition makes DSL more costly to deploy than it's worth.
michael74 |
|
| It's worth it when they charge them for 2 man houjrs for every 1 actually worked. That's 1 for install hour and then the inevitable second hour to fix what the RBOC intentionally screwed up. The regulation we need is that RBOCs shouldn't be able to charge CLECs by the hour but instead by the service. Any screwups and repairs before the line is operational are on the RBOCs time and at the RBOCs expense, including vendor meets where the RBOC should have to pay for the CLECs technician instead of the reverse situation we have now.
Yeah, yeah, I know the CLECs have a bad business model and I know that the RTs and the expansion of DSL are expensive and somebody has to pay for it, but should be pay by the CLECs by the RBOCs overcharging them for simple line installs that are 2 months late? |
|
| said by 2farfromCO:
It's worth it when they charge them for 2 man houjrs for every 1 actually worked. That's 1 for install hour and then the inevitable second hour to fix what the RBOC intentionally screwed up. The regulation we need is that RBOCs shouldn't be able to charge CLECs by the hour but instead by the service. Any screwups and repairs before the line is operational are on the RBOCs time and at the RBOCs expense, including vendor meets where the RBOC should have to pay for the CLECs technician instead of the reverse situation we have now.
You have slowly drifted to the paranoid state on this one. The inevitable second hour to fix the "intentional screw up?". So by this statement you are insinuating that the RBOC's plan the demise of CLEC's by doing the provisioning of the local loop wrong intentionally?? Of course to support this, you would have to assume that the RBOC's technicians know that an order is for a CLEC's DSL vs the RBOC's DSL, AND that there is some conspiracy behind the whole thing to begin with- which is impossible because (I will use SBC for example) the orders are provisioned for the local loop by the local carrier, while the order adding the line sharing capabilities and DSLAM assignments are provisioned by ASI. In other words, the local carrier has NO IDEA whether ASI is completing the order for an SBC customer or a competitor- making your conspiracy concept impossible to carry out.
quote:
Yeah, yeah, I know the CLECs have a bad business model and I know that the RTs and the expansion of DSL are expensive and somebody has to pay for it, but should be pay by the CLECs by the RBOCs overcharging them for simple line installs that are 2 months late?
I would say that it should be paid for by the CLEC if it is the CLEC that is selling the product. My proposal to satisfy both sides of our disagreement is that CLEC's be forced to string out their own local loops and install their own RT's. If you want to open a restaurant, it makes no sense to force a successful restaurant to lease out the kitchen to you. You must spend money to make money. Apparently congress didn't catch on to that concept when they wrote the 1996 Telecom Act- because it makes no sense to rely on your competition for success.
Of course you have states like Illinois that are going backwards- now not only requiring Ameritech to offer unbundled access to ANY network element that a competitor doesn't want to pay to install, but forcing Ameritech to offer these UNE's at a HUGE loss. In other words, it would be easier to have Ameritech write a check to competitors and work around a whole bunch of work...
michael74 |
|
| said by michael74:
You have slowly drifted to the paranoid state on this one. The inevitable second hour to fix the "intentional screw up?". So by this statement you are insinuating that the RBOC's plan the demise of CLEC's by doing the provisioning of the local loop wrong intentionally?? Of course to support this, you would have to assume that the RBOC's technicians know that an order is for a CLEC's DSL vs the RBOC's DSL, AND that there is some conspiracy behind the whole thing to begin with- which is impossible because (I will use SBC for example) the orders are provisioned for the local loop by the local carrier, while the order adding the line sharing capabilities and DSLAM assignments are provisioned by ASI. In other words, the local carrier has NO IDEA whether ASI is completing the order for an SBC customer or a competitor- making your conspiracy concept impossible to carry out.
I would say that it should be paid for by the CLEC if it is the CLEC that is selling the product. My proposal to satisfy both sides of our disagreement is that CLEC's be forced to string out their own local loops and install their own RT's. If you want to open a restaurant, it makes no sense to force a successful restaurant to lease out the kitchen to you. You must spend money to make money. Apparently congress didn't catch on to that concept when they wrote the 1996 Telecom Act- because it makes no sense to rely on your competition for success.
Of course you have states like Illinois that are going backwards- now not only requiring Ameritech to offer unbundled access to ANY network element that a competitor doesn't want to pay to install, but forcing Ameritech to offer these UNE's at a HUGE loss. In other words, it would be easier to have Ameritech write a check to competitors and work around a whole bunch of work...
michael74
On this very forum we've had testitmonial after testimonial about how the ILEC took 2 months to install a simple line that would've taken 1 week if ordered by a consumer. We've also seen plenty of testimonials including my IDSL installation where the CLEC came to install the DSL modem only to find out that the ILEC technician did a shoty job on the line installl. Once the vendor meet takes place at the CLECs expense insuring that the CLEC will never make money on this line, it takes minutes to fix since the ILEC technician has the CLEC technician babysitting him. This is where the bulk of the CLECs losses come from. Is this playing by the rules? Should Covad and Rhythms expect this behavior? Do I have documented proof of such cases? No? What I can say is it happened to me. Why wouldn't it be fair for the CLEC to only have to pay one price per install whatever it takes. If it takes 2 trips from the ILEC, that's the ILECs time. What should the CLECs just disappear because their business model is bad? The only bad business model is the concept of the ILECs controlling both the infrastructure and the distribuition of telecom services. |
|
| quote:
What should the CLECs just disappear because their business model is bad? The only bad business model is the concept of the ILECs controlling both the infrastructure and the distribuition of telecom services.
The problem lying within this argument is that it relies on the assumption that the ILEC's were never in business selling the distribution of the telecom services until 1996.
The Telecom Act has many flaws- the largest of which requiring the RBOC's to offer wholesale any past, present and future services that it sells or sold retail. This makes things counterproductive, as it causes a large incentive to NOT be innovative- why spend money on R&D when you have to give the product to someone else without them spending a dime or an hour developing their business themselves??
I agree that RBOC's should charge for the service not the time- but I can't say that this isn't the case already. RBOC's already charge flat rate for deregulated T&M such as jack work anyways. Besides which, it is never to the RBOC's advantage to do a 2 trip job when it could have been done in one trip.
There really is no real answer until everything goes satellite- 1 2-way 18 inch dish for all telephone, tv, internet, etc. When you want to change companies- you point at a different "bird" in the sky. If you are low income, you point your dish at a government subsidized satellite. No wires, no copper or fiber infrastructure, no mess in "who's tech screwed up my order", etc. But this is just my dream.
michael74 |
|
| reply to TXTigerman
Project Pronto is out there. I see it coming, but fiber exhaustion is a problem and running more is a really big deal. Have you tried to dig up a couple of miles of street? Just try and convince the city to give you a permit..
Remember, Pronto is really about extending fiber deeper into the loop. And thats not easy, it usually results in traffic jams and bureaucracy log jams.. $6 Billion, a drop in the bucket.. |
|
|
|
TXTigermanMonopolies Kill
join:2000-12-21
Beeville, TX | Don't preach to me about Pronto. Project Pronto is a non-existant fantasy. I've already been told after months of asking SBC that an RT will not come until some far off date after the end of 2002. Pronto is a farce that only benefits SBC's top 1% of customers. Everyone else will be left in the stone age until aDSL is so obsolete they can serve us with second hand DSLAMS and dirt cheap provisioning. Here's hoping for 2025!!!!
--
What's that? Project Pronto? 6 billion dollars? Nope, never seen it. Must be just another pack of lies from SBC.
|
|
| I agree. Pronto is just bait they are using to hold over our heads and blackmail us with in order to get the legislation passed they want. "You won't pass Tauzin-Dingell? Then no more Project-Pronto" |
|
| reply to TXTigerman
I agree. Pronto is just bait they are using to hold over our heads and blackmail us with in order to get the legislation passed they want. "You won't pass Tauzin-Dingell? Then no more Project-Pronto" |
|
| reply to TXTigerman
What is the population of the city you live in? AND, how far are you from the CO? From what I've seen and heard, the fiber is pretty much laid, but the RT's need to be installed- which is a difficult task to get past local zoning boards that don't want to allow a new "commercial" type building in residential or industrial zoned areas.
Add to that the issue of requirements to upgrade the current network (especially in the summer months when technicians are working 60-70 hours plus just to install POTS line) means slower progress than you might think is possible or even acceptable.
DSL subscriber base growth and availability growth statistics (read the latest financials for 2Q for SBC) means that Pronto is going as fast as possible. You have to realize that it is only in year 2 of a 3 year plus plan.
I find it interesting that you interpreted "end of 2002" to mean 2025. Do you always add 23 years to numbers like that?
michael74 |
|
TXTigermanMonopolies Kill
join:2000-12-21
Beeville, TX | For starters, the town I live in is about 25,000 in population. I've seen pronto go in for communities much smaller than that. I'm also a little over 25,000 feet from the CO and I'm on pair gain-cable.
As far as all the SBC rhetoric about Pronto being stalled by lack of fiber etc. and it going as quickly as possible, that's horse****! SBC has made it a point to stonewall everywhere possible so they don't have to go anywhere they feel they will be made to play by the rules or will have to actually give a decent level of service to satisfy people.
If you read my previous post, I was told sometime after the end of 2002. With what I've seen that means it's pushed somewhere between hell freezing over and Ralph Nader being elected president. Therefore, 2025 seems right around the time SBC will get around to it.
Six Billion Dollars? It must've been blown in Vegas at a craps table, because I sure as hell haven't gained one advantage from this so called push to provide service.
--
What's that? Project Pronto? 6 billion dollars? Nope, never seen it. Must be just another pack of lies from SBC.
|
|
