how-to block ads
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
 ·AT&T Southwest
3 edits | High Density ...because DSL competitors using incumbent DSL networks are strong enough now that they're all starting to build their own FTTH infrastructure. The article explains why...
The argument in the U.S. was always that if newcomers could piggyback on the networks of the incumbents, why would they ever bother to build their own? Iliad's Rosenfeld explains why the logic breaks down: "We have such a high density of subscribers in certain areas of the country that it makes sense to own the network and not to rely on local loop unbundling," he says. "Tomorrow we want to be totally independent." French consumers are the beneficiaries. America just isn't all that [densely] urban. Even worse, our dense urban areas are only just now being recycled along european "models" to reflect upscale ("good customer") demographics -- and not urban blight ("bad customers"). 'Top 3 urban areas excepted.
Thus unbundling really set us back in getting FTTH.
--
Instant bugging and GPS location info -- thanks to your cell phone and Bush's warrantless NSA! »news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6140191.html | |
|  
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| All righty then What we do is unbundle in the several hundred densely populated areas that we do have and see how that goes.
BTW. By your logic we can assume that there is no healthy deployment of FTTH in France?
NV
--
The More Alike 2 Religions are, the Stronger the Hate between them. | |
| |
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | Re: All righty then You will've needed to have seriously considered deploying your own FTTH network to see what happened with the former unbundling efforts in the USA. There simply was no incentive for the "majors" to do it. Even in France it only makes sense for CLEC-FTTH -- in special dense areas.
Unbundling would stop nobody from making money in Manhattan NY. It would stop anybody in Manhattan KS
--
Instant bugging and GPS location info -- thanks to your cell phone and Bush's warrantless NSA! »news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6140191.html | |
| | | viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| Re: All righty then said by ronpin  :...Even in France it only makes sense for CLEC-FTTH -- in special dense areas. Unbundling would stop nobody from making money in Manhattan NY. It would stop anybody in Manhattan KS... Isn't that 'cherry picking'? | |
| | | |
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: All righty then said by viperlmw :Isn't that 'cherry picking'? Only on a neighborhood basis -- not on a borough or 'burb basis. Only a monopoly can afford to ignore demographics -- if that's what you really want 
--
Instant bugging and GPS location info -- thanks to your cell phone and Bush's warrantless NSA! »news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6140191.html | |
| | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by ronpin :Unbundling would stop nobody from making money in Manhattan NY. It would stop anybody in Manhattan KS Well, that would be in line with my suggestion. Unbundle in the densest 500 cities. I don't know how big Manhattan KS is, but Overland Park KS would be big enough.
Even though Unbundling wouldn't hurt bottom lines in Manhattan NY, Big Internet is actively opposing it, which would put you and them on opposite sides of the issue.
NV
--
The More Alike 2 Religions are, the Stronger the Hate between them. | |
| 
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| Re: High Density said by ronpin :America just isn't all that [densely] urban. Even worse, our dense urban areas are just now being recycled along european "models" to reflect upscale ("good customer") demographics -- and not urban blight ("bad customers"). 'Top 3 urban areas excepted. Thus unbundling really set us back in getting FTTH. That's complete and utter bullshit.
The reason the 1996 law failed is because of ILEC greed and their lobbying efforts. Can't blame them really, legislators could be had at fire-sale prices under the Republican-controlled Congress under the guise of promoting a "free market"!
It has very little to do with density or other lies used by the ILECs.
Actually, there was a period of time after the law passed where the ILECs were looked to be on their death-bed. They were bleeding POTS subscribers who were fleeing in droves to companies who could offer better service and a better customer experience for a much cheaper price...all without the typical "we're The Phone Company, so F off" that was oh so hard to miss on you every contact with an ILEC.
During this time, the ILECs were caught with their hands inside their pants...not used to competing or providing what the customers need, no real strategy for broadband...hell they tried to kill DSL because they wanted to continue charging thousands on their T1 lines.
Regulatory pressure mounted...all ILECs paid record numbers and amounts of fines to state regulatory bodies. Bad management, a hallmark of Ma Bell and its children lead to good employees leaving or being let go, the network falling into disrepair...customers leaving. It was bad.
Late 2000, early 2001 it looked like the law had worked. There were facilities based carriers like XO, Covad, Mpower, McLeod.
Of course there were also the leaches who just resold ILEC services and pocketed the difference between wholesale and retail costs....but many companies genuinely tried to follow through the vision behind the telecom act...they tried to build out their own networks.
The CLECs and the lawmakers didn't anticipate a few things. Firstly, greed and how easily it is to manipulate the system for those with deep pockets like the ILECs. Second, the 1996 law didn't adequately address the last mile.
The ILECs stumbled but eventually got their act together.
They killed off their resellers by raising wholesale costs above or close to retail costs where these guys just couldn't be profitable. Fine...these were the companies that had no intentions of ever building out their own networks any way...although the way the ILECs went about it was grossly unethical.
Then they set their sights on the facilities-based CLECs. They delayed orders, neglected to fix problems in a timely manner, played musical chairs with trouble tickets opened by CLECs as the end user got pissed off at its provider for outages or delayed orders. Created fuzzy math to imply that they were being forced to sell the unbundled loop below cost.
I mean, how many of you remember trying to use Northpoint, or Rhythms or Covad ...the orders wouldn't complete on time because the ILEC wouldn't deliver the loop?...or your service would go out while your provider, just as helpless as you, played trouble ticket football with the ILEC?...you were lucky if you were a direct customer of a CLEC, if there was an ISP partner involved, you were really screwed!
How many of you remember being denied DSL from a CLEC because of loop issues at the ILEC and then got solicited for DSL directly by the ILEC...except this time, miraculously, there were no loop issues?
So, once the ILECs effectively neutered or killed off the real CLEC competition, they got to work in DC.
Decrying forced unbundling of the loop below cost, feigning concern for the customer, lying, cheating, twisting arms...dong anything it took to essentially dismantle the competition and the law that set it all in motion.
And this brings us here: We essentially have 3 ILECs left. T or VZ will eventually buy Qwest an we'll be down to 2.
Vodaphone is already rumored to be interested in buying VZ...but they just want the whole company so they can get full control of the wireless division. As soon as that happens, Vodaphone will keep wireless and try to dump the wireline business...and guess who is the perfect buyer?...you got it, Ma Bell...except this time the logo has AT&T in lower case 
Sure there is competition in the way of wireless, VoIP or cable telephony...but is that really competition? Cable is a monopoly in most municipalities...and hardly price-competitive. Wireless isn't the same as having POTS...and the big 3 wireless companies have, save for some nuances and gimmicks like "IN" or "Rollover", the same exact pricing on their plans!...and VoIP is too much of a threat to cable, ILEC and wireless...and will soon be killed off like the CLECs. See Sunrocket for a prime, and first, example.
Competition in telephony is a myth. If you want to get POTS today...real POTS...what are your options?
So, please, if you're going to advocate a position, have the decency to be truthful. | |
| |
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: High Density You missed the point. How many CLEC buildouts (copper or fiber) can you recall during the unbundling period (1996-2003)??? That's the issue -- not poor unbundling conformance (to which we'll all agree)
--
Instant bugging and GPS location info -- thanks to your cell phone and Bush's warrantless NSA! »news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6140191.html | |
| | |
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| Re: High Density said by ronpin :How many CLEC buildouts (copper or fiber) can you recall during the unbundling period (1996-2003) You mean in the 2 years that Covad et al had to start a company, get funding, hire people, build a network, get ILECs to cooperate, get customers and become a going-concen? That would be zero.
I do think they had a pretty good start though...a fleet of local technicians, real switching equipment in the CO. What they didn't have and what eventually did them in was the ILEC control of the last mile.
The last mile isn't easy to build...there is local municipality-level red tape, right-of-way issues, cost etc. The ILECs, of course, know a little something about these troubles because they are having similar issues in their quest to offer TV....but they have the money to pay off our government and do-away with pesky things like oversight by the representatives of the people actually impacted by the corporate greed!
How many of you had community access channels on cable 10 years ago...complete with training for producers, equipment for creating programming and the works. How many of you have that today? ...and how many of you with fios tv or the non-existent att equivalent have that today?
But seeing as how Ma Bell has had over a hundred years and still can't seem to get DSL to anyone whose house isn't on the roof of the CO, or get a bill right to save their lives...I'd say that's not really a fair measure of a viable business plan.
For the CLECs to have come into their own...especially if you would have liked them to build their own last-mile plant, on a level playing field, it would have take a decade...and that's pretty ambitious.
The playing field is anything but level, the competition is like the wife-beating husband that tells the police he's sorry and he won't do it again but we all know how that works out. ...and the VCs are a fickle lot.
Had we let, say, Northpoint have a virtual monopoly over half the country and given it a free ride when it comes to tax liability with some additional subsidies, I think you would have found that their business model would have turned out to be just as viable as Ameritech's as the mayhem that is the internal workings of a telco is no better or no worse at either company when compared to the other. | |
| | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Re: High Density I think if the CLECs merged they'd have a better chance of competing on a national level with the ILECs. Their own backbone, more $$$, and over all a better advantage by having the customer base behind them. | |
| | | | 
elvey
Spamassassin
join:2001-02-17
San Francisco, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
·Comcast
·SONIC.NET
| said by kapil :said by ronpin :Thus unbundling really set us back in getting FTTH. That's complete and utter bullshit. Actually, there was a period of time after the law passed where the ILECs were looked to be on their death-bed. They were bleeding POTS subscribers who were fleeing in droves to companies who could offer better service and a better customer experience for a much cheaper price...all without the typical "we're The Phone Company, so F off" that was oh so hard to miss on you every contact with an ILEC. I remember. During this time, the ILECs were caught with their hands inside their pants...not used to competing or providing what the customers need, no real strategy for broadband...hell they tried to kill DSL because they wanted to continue charging thousands on their T1 lines.
I remember. ...
Late 2000, early 2001 it looked like the law had worked. There were facilities based carriers like XO, Covad, Mpower, McLeod.
...
I remember. The CLECs and the lawmakers didn't anticipate a few things. Firstly, greed and how easily it is to manipulate the system for those with deep pockets like the ILECs. Second, the 1996 law didn't adequately address the last mile.
The ILECs stumbled but eventually got their act together.
They killed off their resellers by raising wholesale costs above or close to retail costs where these guys just couldn't be profitable. Fine...these were the companies that had no intentions of ever building out their own networks any way...although the way the ILECs went about it was grossly unethical.
I remember. I don't see what's wrong with having no intention of building the last mile ever. It makes sense to me; poles create a natural oligopoly.Then they set their sights on the facilities-based CLECs. They delayed orders, neglected to fix problems in a timely manner, played musical chairs with trouble tickets opened by CLECs as the end user got pissed off at its provider for outages or delayed orders. Created fuzzy math to imply that they were being forced to sell the unbundled loop below cost.
I remember. BOY, do I remember. I mean, how many of you remember trying to use Northpoint, or Rhythms or Covad ...the orders wouldn't complete on time because the ILEC wouldn't deliver the loop?...or your service would go out while your provider, just as helpless as you, played trouble ticket football with the ILEC?...you were lucky if you were a direct customer of a CLEC, if there was an ISP partner involved, you were really screwed!
Hell yeah, I remember. How many of you remember being denied DSL from a CLEC because of loop issues at the ILEC and then got solicited for DSL directly by the ILEC...except this time, miraculously, there were no loop issues?
Me me, me, me!
It's not unbundling that set us back in getting FTTH! It's the ILEC's spending all their energy fucking over the CLECs. They were being paid decent wholesale prices; their retail prices prove it. It was their choice to fuck over the CLECs; they had and have plenty of $ to do FTTH where it makes sense.
--
SBC is the world's second-largest SpamHaus and leads an Organized Crime Syndicate. Also see TURN.org or UCAN. | |
| | 
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000
| The email servers for the ILec's must be down because the fanboy alert email has not gone out. 
"How many of you remember being denied DSL from a CLEC because of loop issues at the ILEC and then got solicited for DSL directly by the ILEC...except this time, miraculously, there were no loop issues?"
I was a a customer's site one day where we had a trouble ticket in. I only told the BS tech that I was their computer guy when he showed up. He proceeded to tell me that the best fix for our problem was to switch to BS and that we would continue to see problems until we did. Then I handed him my business card. The look on his face was priceless. Supposedly he was removed from his position. I guess they promoted him as I really doubt they cared when I raised hell about it. | |
| | |
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| Re: High Density said by battleop :business card. Don't be a tease, do tell...why is your business card so special? | |
| | | |
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000
| Re: High Density Because when I handed my card to him I went from being the "Computer Guy" to someone who worked for the ISP he had been trashing for 30 minutes. He had been cough red handed going out for a service call we asked for supposedly working for us, instead he went out as a BS employee trying to win back that customer. | |
| | |
elvey
Spamassassin
join:2001-02-17
San Francisco, CA | Re: High Density France is way more densely populated! | |
| | | 
BigDyno
@xo.net
| Re: High Density Let's compare apples to apples shall we, and not include places like Alaska in the population density argument.
Population per sq. kilometer by state and of France
1 New Jersey 438.00
2 Rhode Island 387.35
3 Massachusetts 312.68
4 Connecticut 271.40
5 Maryland 209.23
6 New York 195.18
7 Delaware 154.87
8 Florida 114.43
France (Metropolitan) 110
Outside of the cities, France has huge tracts of green farmland and lots of mountainous terrain. It has a lower population density than the EU in aggregate.
Notice something else about that list?
In all but two of those states, who is the dominant ILEC?
I'll give you a hint, it starts with a 'V'.
Sources:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co···_density
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.···_density | |
| | | |
jnorthr
@wanadoo.fr
| Re: High Density Actually the numbers i've seen quote 238 sq.km and here where we live it IS closer to 110/sq.km. We live in the central part of Brittany, France and it is quite sparsely isolated. But when i chose Orange for our ISP i was given the choice of line speeds up to 24MB/sec. if my pockets were deep enough (they arn't) but the service is exceptional compared with what we had in london with pipex and demon.co.uk. i am siper impressed with the availability here in rural areas. Yes, we are in a small city with many schools so that may be the reason. i known several of our friends live just outside the borders of thsi town and they only have 56k dial-up service. Guess the telco. infra-structure has not caught up with them yet. But i bet it will soon. 8-) | |
| | | | | | |
elvey
Spamassassin
join:2001-02-17
San Francisco, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
·Comcast
·SONIC.NET
| Re: High Density said by KrK :You're overlooking where I said in cities and towns. France may have more population per landmass then the USA, but many cities in the USA exceed the population density of Cities in France or rival it, so the argument that it can't work here because of population density is a false statement. I wonder if it's the US' suburbia that's most expensive to serve.
P.S. GREAT TAGLINE!
--
SBC is the world's second-largest SpamHaus and leads an Organized Crime Syndicate. Also see TURN.org or UCAN. | |
| PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| said by ronpin :America just isn't all that [densely] urban. Neither is France, once you get outside of the greater Paris area. Take a look at the Tour de France coverage on Versus if you need confirmation.
I was staying in a little cabin up in the French Alps ten years ago, and even there I had ISDN. Not bad, and much better than I can get in the USA even today. It's just that the French not only have a policy that everyone should have advanced telecom services, like we do, but they actually go to the trouble of implementing it. | |
| | | |
|
