how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to lifer49
Re: Down with SBC! The ISP's aren't prevented from investing in their own DSLAM's and other network elements by anything but their own pocketbooks.
SBC is in business to make money. They shouldn't be forced to lose money so others can be more successful. If the ISP's feel they are overcharged, they can go to another CLEC for DSL access. If they don't like having to sign a contract with ASI, they can go to another CLEC for DSL access. They can invest in becoming their own CLEC for DSL access. No one prevents them from doing this.
Perhaps ISP sales for DSL isn't a profitable business to be in. Perhaps it is like bare bones residential POTS lines. Maybe CLEC's like Covad and Rythms et al wouldn't have gone bankrupt if they had sold direct ISP access to DSL retail instead of selling wholesale to ISP's trying to underprice ASI.
Perhaps they tried to grow too quickly. Perhaps if customers didn't jump ship when they heard a whisper that their CLEC is restructuring, the CLEC would still have revenue to operate.
Imagine what would happen if ALL of SBC's POTS, Centrex, PBX, DSL, DS1, DS3, etc customers jumped ship at once, AND all their investors sold ALL of the stock... SBC too would go down. That won't happen, because SBC has built a reputation that people trust- regardless of how many horror stories there are about bad service, rude tech support, etc (and I believe most all of them- as there are GOING TO BE BAD EMPLOYEES with any business) that doesn't mean that EVERYONE that subscribes to SBC for DSL service or even POTS or ISDN or whatever is totally unhappy.
Maybe SBC charges ISP's high DSL access fees because that is how SBC makes money... Should they lose money?
Boogie74 | | |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| said by boogie74:
The ISP's aren't prevented from investing in their own DSLAM's and other network elements by anything but their own pocketbooks.
Yeah, except even IF they did this, they still have to pay SBC for the line, so the rate of return on the investment becomes a lot harder to justify, they still have to cover the ILEC fees with higher prices then the ILEC DSL offerings, and thus, can't compete.
No one is asking SBC to lose money. They won't. It just needs to be even, and a fair price.
Or else, kick 'em to the curb... | |
| said by KrK:
said by boogie74:
The ISP's aren't prevented from investing in their own DSLAM's and other network elements by anything but their own pocketbooks.
Yeah, except even IF they did this, they still have to pay SBC for the line, so the rate of return on the investment becomes a lot harder to justify, they still have to cover the ILEC fees with higher prices then the ILEC DSL offerings, and thus, can't compete.
No one is asking SBC to lose money. They won't. It just needs to be even, and a fair price.
Or else, kick 'em to the curb...
Even money means unfair advantage to the ISP or CLEC as they have no incentive to build their business further than using the ILEC for everything and raking in profits. There really isn't an answer to this- except to allow RBOC's to re-align pricing between business and residential. Raising residential pricing for retail accounts provides an incentive for others to invest in their own networks, hence giving way to competition.
Of course the consumer world would hate this, as they are used to paying below cost prices for basic local loops, and won't find it fair to actually pay prices that would generate a profit.
Boogie74 | |
dbarc
join:2000-01-22
Fort Wayne, IN | said by boogie74:
There really isn't an answer to this- except to allow RBOC's to re-align pricing between business and residential. Raising residential pricing for retail accounts provides an incentive for others to invest in their own networks, hence giving way to competition.
Of course the consumer world would hate this, as they are used to paying below cost prices for basic local loops, and won't find it fair to actually pay prices that would generate a profit.
Boogie74
You're talking apples to oranges here. The 'basic local loop' is still provided for under the regulated business, a government enforced monopoly. The rates established, with our without the residential/business differential, provide a profit and a return on investment as set by the various utility commissions. That has nothing to do with the unregulated businesses. Removing the differential wouldn't do anything but increase residential rates and lower business rates. It couldn't be 'converted' to non-regulated businesses nor would it change SBC's interaction with the unregulated business, their own internal ISP' or those they are dealing with.
Since the loops WERE built and provided for by a regulated monopoly and guaranteed ROI, that means to provide a competitive environment, they must have a level playing field. That means they cannot use their own ISP to gain market share at a loss, subsidized by the regulated business, nor can they offer their own ISP different contractual arrangements for competitive services. Both should provide the regulated businesses, an equivalent return in investment. That's where they seem to be wavering, in forcing different contractual arrangements and their pricing structure. To then require ISP's pay for infrastructure that they will not be permitted to obtain ANY ROI (ie, SBC get's all benefit of future investment by their actions), then you have the ISP's subsidizing SBC. This doesn't work. period.
I'm as much as capitalist as anyone, probably more so. But if there's to be competition (which IS the capitalist structure...since the monopoly was built by guaranteed regulated monopoly NOT by competition), they all must be able to compete on an equal footing. This is not the apparent case with SBC's actions. I for one, feel the only way to truly allow competition is to require a split between the services and local loop infrastructures of the telco's. Trying otherwise would be like trying to have instilled competition in long distance while letting ATT keep both the RBOC's and long lines. IT didn't happen and wouldn't have happened until the split was required. IF we're going to have any monopoly, let it exist only with the loop and let the other services compete on their own merits. | |
Anon | reply to boogie74
In response to the post by boogie74:
You're right. ISPs aren't prevented from investing in DSLAMs. But you might be surprised at the barriers that incumbent phone companies like SBC can create to make sure that ISPs who install DSLAMs are given a competitive *disadvantage*. SBC does not want to cooperate with CLECs and, as the company who controls the infrastructure, SBC has the unique ability to make things miserable for anyone who is attempting to compete with them.
I am the owner of a small ISP in Los Angeles and we are partnered with SBC. Every day I see SBC use it's monopoly to create barriers against us. We react to this because we have been around for almost seven years and we don't want to loose our long-time customers to SBC.
But it's difficult going up against a company who has unfair advantage. As a government sanctioned monopoly, SBC are the legal owners of the physical copper that connects homes to the greater phone company infrastructure. They have right-of-way everywhere in their territory and no competitors are allowed to trench and lay their own cables.
Monopolies like this are illegal except in situations like the one SBC has inherited. As I understand it, the legal monopoly was granted back in the 1930s where, in the interest of communication, it was the only way to erect a nationwide telecommunications system. In response to the antiquated laws of the 1930s the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was created. It's purpose was to foster innovation by allowing (quote) "anyone [to] enter any communications business -- to let any communications business compete in any market against any other". But instead of modernizing the Telecom Act of 1934 the '96 Act has allowed incumbent phone companies to gain an unfair advantage over ISPs while maintaining their government granted monopoly.
Some phone companies *did* modify their operations to comply, not only with the laws, but with the spirit of competition that was proposed in the telecom act. our partnership with GTE has been successful for both ISP and phone company. We have many satisfied customers connected and have added five new high speed connections into the GTE network since we first partnered with them in 1999.
I have seen the operations of GTE California, a phone company who I believe embraced the spirit of competition, and I compare this to the operations of Pacific Bell. Pacfic Bell (wholly owned by SBC) found loopholes that would allow them to maintain monopoly control over services like DSL. Not coincidentally, independent companies who were dependent on Pac Bell like Flashcom, Zyan and Northpoint all went out of business leaving hundreds of thousands of Californians without Internet service.
I am not in love with GTE by any means. In fact, we have major problems with them too. But the unfortunate situation created by Pacific Bell eclipses any of the problems we have with Verizon (who owns GTE). As a result of our partnership with these two phone companies I am witness to the differences of an ethically operated phone company compared against those of a greedy desensitized company, whose only motivation seems to be domination of all Internet and telecom markets without regard to consumers time or inconvenience.
So, why did so many DSL service providers suddenly go out of business? How could Pacific Bell decimate all of its competition so effectively? Another ISP owner and CISPA board member answered these questions best when she said (quote): "Pacific Bell has mastered the art of strategic incompetence". Botched installations, mysteriously deleted orders and grossly incorrect billing are the weapons SBC uses against any competitors who dare to travel onto SBC turf.
To this day, my company, L A Bridge continues to provide DSL and Internet services. We didn't put all of our eggs in the DSL basket. Thanks to T-1s, Co-location and dial-up we continue to operate in the black. We encourage consumers to use independent, local ISPs who provide localized and individualized services. If you live in California then visit CISPA.org for a list of these indie providers. And if you have had an unfortunate experience with Pacific Bell then we ask you to contact the Public Utilities Commission and voice your opinion.
--Tony Cappelli
L A Bridge Internet & DSL | |
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to dbarc
Well said. That is one excellent post. I Salute thee!
Makes too much sense, therefore won't happen. (Darn it! The "realist" in me coming out again!!) | |
| reply to dbarc
Re: Down with SBC! quote:
IF we're going to have any monopoly, let it exist only with the loop and let the other services compete on their own merits.
And who draws the short straw for this money losing business? To make serious money (and keep money to invest and keep the network running) prices will HAVE to increase anyways.
My best suggestion still is that instead of relying of fiber and copper, give EVERYONE an 18 inch dish that sends and receives ALL TV, Telephone, Internet, ETC. There are already TONS of companies that make these. Then, all the providers that want in on selling content can fly a satellite in the sky. If you want to switch, you point your dish 4 degrees to the left and 18 degrees up. If people can't afford the bundled content package, they can subscribe to a government subsidized satellite.
This would be cheaper than relying on people not digging around in their backyards, having bad reception when it rains too hard, etc. No one would OWN the "local loop infrastructure" because it wouldn't be there.
Any takers?
Boogie74 | |
| said by Cappelli:
In response to the post by boogie74:
........Monopolies like this are illegal except in situations like the one SBC has inherited. As I understand it, the legal monopoly was granted back in the 1930s where, in the interest of communication, it was the only way to erect a nationwide telecommunications system.
No comment on the other stuff, but you're flunking history.SBC is not a monopoly,(cable competes) and competitors are not forbidden to lay cable, or the cable industry wouldn't exist. AT&T requested and was granted monopoly status in 1913-14, in exchange for allowing other phone companies (thousands of them)to inter-connect. AT&T lobbyists also conceived the regulatory framework, which brought AT&T phenomenal prosperity.Phones became ubiquitous as a result of a 1925 decision by AT&T's chairman to lower prices for higher volume profitability. He funded the expansion by selling IT&T and international rights. .
--
Pupowski
"Revolution is just evolution with more bandwidth" | |
Anon | reply to boogie74
slight problem... sattelite communications blow for home net connections in terms of latency. the only way to keep it down is to put the sats at a very low orbit but then it reduces their footprint which means cost goes up per area of coverage... i.e. not gonna happen... | |
| said by fromonkey:
slight problem... sattelite communications blow for home net connections in terms of latency. the only way to keep it down is to put the sats at a very low orbit but then it reduces their footprint which means cost goes up per area of coverage... i.e. not gonna happen...
Attitudes such as this caused people to doubt that a telephone would be invented, a radio invented, the lightbulb, refrigeration, high speed automobiles, airplanes, the space shuttle, etc... too expensive, not possible, no one will try it, etc. Besides which- you apparently aren't aware of how MUCH of our telephone and internet communications are already transmitted- There are LOTS of connections that rely on satellite technology as we speak.
Cost goes up per area of coverage?? And how much would it cost "per area", how big would the "area be", etc?? You have no idea how much it costs to lay copper and fiber now... how much a tech visit to diagnose your network DSL problem runs for the companies, how much the technology costs, etc.
Right now, cable connections blow in terms of latency too. Satellite blows for latency for 1 HUGE reason- people have to dial-up to upload. Slowing down the upload channel to a max of 33.6 Kbps (56K is only download max) causes big time problems when you are playing an online game for instance- you download what the other guy is doing to you REALLY fast, but you can't send a thing of what your doing to him.
I don't doubt that 2-way satellite will replace the outside copper completely- hell- put in all fiber optic cabling inside the home and hook it up to a satellite dish. It would be much more cost effective for installation, overhead, upkeep, etc- even if you had to pay $200 to $400 per month for all your telephone, internet and television combined (add $100 for phone now, $50-$60 for internet, and
$80 for tv as we are now and you total over $240 already) and many would buy it. Take away the cost of unbundling a network for competition, paying for tech visits to fix a copper short or pair crossing every time it rains or snows too hard, paying for emergency instances where trees knock down cables- take away ALL tech visits to install any of the services- as there would be no need to change a pair at a crossbox, or test the connection for DSL, or change a filter and program a converter for cable- I would think this would knock down MUCH of the current cost of doing business.
These are just ideas, IMHO of course. Please don't knock down those who dare to dream- attitudes such as expressed in your post above would have prevented you from talking on the phone- or defrosting the bagel your eating right this moment.
Boogie74 | |
 dru
join:2000-09-14
Corona, CA | said by boogie74:
Attitudes such as this caused people to doubt that a telephone would be invented, a radio invented, the lightbulb, refrigeration, high speed automobiles, airplanes, the space shuttle, etc...
Boogie74
Satellite "blows" because of a physical reality called "Speed of Light"; it takes too long to transmit packets up and back some 25,000 miles each way using geo-synchronous satellites, and adds up to serious latency that plagues its practical use for many internet applications. Both two-way and one-way satellite systems suffer from this limitation imposed by physics. Companies have focused on some clever software to mask the effects as much as possible, but in the end, satellite suffers significant technical and economic barriers here that are not likely to be solved any time soon.
If or when someone breaks the light-speed barrier, the breakthrough will be likely be far more significant to humankind and involved with a much loftier first application than just faster or cheaper internet access. Let's get real. In the mean time, "subspace" and "warp speed" and real-time communication over vast distances remains the fantasy of Star Trek fans.
Near Earth or low orbit satellites, as well as Angel planes, balloons, etc have been suggested to combat this problem, but for right now the current economic climate along with the failure of significant pioneers to date suggest that these designs and plans will sit on the shelf for a few years.
I'm all for pioneering spirit; throughout history, the more severe the challenge the more inventive the solution is that solve it. Unfortunately, you can also tell who the pioneers are by the arrows in their back. Iridium failed, wireless, satellite, and high-flying airplane initiatives are failing or running out of venture capital.
In the end, I suspect that existing ILEC and Cable companies will see evolutionary and economic changes in technology that make fiber to the home or business become practical before esoteric orbiting solutions become economically viable and developed to the point where they are serious alternatives. | |
|
