how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to boogie74
Re: Yeah and.. 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 | |
|
