| Yay monopoly So how much longer before Verizon jacks up their dry-loop DSL offering to $50?
Bottom line.. Money is king.
It's quite pathetic. |
|
 MSaukMSaukPremium
join:2002-01-17
Sandy, UT | that whole FCC is a tool. |
|
| reply to Network Guy
Whenever I read an article about any kind of sharing I have to wonder why cable TV never had the same requirements. It was always the Telcos that had to open up their central offices, that to offer their POTS service to competitors at below cost rates and had to allow competitors to use their broadband services at below cost rates. Cable TV, for some reason, NEVER had any of those same requirements. And yet this article says the FCC gives the Telcos what they want. Hmmmmmmm, gotta wonder about that. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to Network Guy
said by Network Guy:So how much longer before Verizon jacks up their dry-loop DSL offering to $50? If they do, vote with your wallet and use the competition. That's the great thing about competition. You no longer are tied to your incumbent telecom provider  |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to skrupowies
said by skrupowies:Cable TV, for some reason, NEVER had any of those same requirements. And yet this article says the FCC gives the Telcos what they want. Hmmmmmmm, gotta wonder about that. Because they were smart enough to not want Congress to enact something similar to TA 1996.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
 extreme50Formerly TwoKDialupPremium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI | reply to skrupowies
said by skrupowies:... Cable TV, for some reason, NEVER had any of those same requirements. Did the cable industry build their plant/network with corporate welfare tax breaks, subsidies and Universal Slush Fund?
--
Meet Bill and Karolyn at www.theslowskys.com |
|
|
|
| reply to skrupowies
As twentyMbCabl alluded to, the reason that Cable never had those requirements was that they built the networks themselves. The phone companies took huge government subsidies to build those networks. The trade-off was supposed to be that they would allow competitors on the networks. Slowly, but surely, though, they are pushing competitors off and claiming sole ownership of the lines that were paid for with government money. And the government just sits back and nods their head in agreement. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | IMO, the telcos have more than paid for those subsidies that occurred decades ago. Time to move on. |
|
 KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | How have "the telcos have more than paid for those subsidies"?
In addition, the telcos lobbied for TA'96 and agreed to line-sharing as a condition...apparently something they intended to fight from the beginning. Pure manipulation and BS. "Give us this, we'll give you that... Thanks! Psych..."
KM |
|
| reply to openbox9
And your opinion would be 100% wrong. The network they built originally was funded by us. Even ignoring all the other breaks they still get, every single network built afterwards is a direct result of money they were able to make from that and thus directly tied to it. They could rip it out and rebuild all of it every year and it will still be based on the monopolistic profits given to them in the beginning and still given to them now. Regardless of that they continue to this day to receive "incentives" and other "breaks" to build out networks which in many cases aren't built but they pocket the money anyway.
You made the above claim that they were forced to share their lines at below cost but have absolutely no proof of them doing so and would not be able to prove it. It has been documented that AT&T alone has over $300 million in equipment that that they write off as "cost" of the network but can't account for a single piece of it.
Them wanting the competition off of the networks that WE built has nothing to do with it hurting their business model. It has everything to do with them eliminating competition. |
|
dak70
join:2007-05-01
Warminster, PA | reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:IMO, the telcos have more than paid for those subsidies that occurred decades ago. Time to move on. Yes lets move on. The Bell system was broken up in 1984. It's been almost 24 years.
I'm all for competition but look what the bell monopoly has provided, Universal phone service, solid state electronics, Unix, Queing theory, not to mention employing millions of Americans over the last 100 years.
Cable companies are worse than a government regulated monopoly. Take Comcast and it's monopoly like strangle hold on municipalities. What has Comcast provided for the greater good? Sky rocketing cable prices.
The government controlled the Bell system through regulation but, Comcast controls local government with kick backs, slush funds and campaign fund.
Which is worse? |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:And your opinion would be 100% wrong. And your opinion is 100% correct? Nope.said by Skippy25:The network they built originally was funded by us. Yep, and they were heavily regulated for it too.said by Skippy25:Them wanting the competition off of the networks that WE built has nothing to do with it hurting their business model. It has everything to do with them eliminating competition. And it has everything to do with starting down a road of fair competition. Time to move forward. Should I be allowed to jump on your business (even at "wholesale") that you've built over the years and then turn around and undercut your business because I don't have the same investment that you do? I'd say no if it's my business. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to KoolMoe
said by KoolMoe:How have "the telcos have more than paid for those subsidies"? Regulation. |
|
| reply to openbox9
Mine is not opinion it is economic fact.
They were regulated and arent regulated enough today.
The nature of the business prevents this and I personally do not want every provider out there that wants to service me or my neighbors running cables around my town and building a new network. I am sure you wouldn't want that running through you backyard either.
AT&T and the likes should be reduced to the dumbpipes they are. If they want to provide services on that pipe, let them spin off a separate company and compete fairly on that dumbpipe with the "competition" you claim is out there. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | said by Skippy25:Mine is not opinion it is economic fact. Really. Care to expound upon that?said by Skippy25:They were regulated and arent regulated enough today. Sounds like opinion, not fact.said by Skippy25:AT&T and the likes should be reduced to the dumbpipes they are. If they want to provide services on that pipe, let them spin off a separate company and compete fairly on that dumbpipe with the "competition" you claim is out there. How will the economics handle taking private property and turning it into a public entity? I assume the infrastructure to be private based on your statement about lacking regulation. |
|
 quetwoThat VoIP GuyPremium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI | reply to dak70
All the things you listed that the Bells provided, were provided before breakup. What have they given us since then? Call Waiting? Hah |
|
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:said by Network Guy:So how much longer before Verizon jacks up their dry-loop DSL offering to $50? If they do, vote with your wallet and use the competition. That's the great thing about competition. You no longer are tied to your incumbent telecom provider Ummm, isnt the problem that there is no other competition? I am in AT&T Territory. I do not want to do business with AT&T. AT&T wns the copper to my house. What is my alternative? I'd love to know what my other options are. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | said by T1 Rocky:I'd love to know what my other options are. I see Comcast listed in your profile We aren't in 1960 anymore. Competition does exist, whether it be copper, coax, fiber, terrestrial radio (WiFi, cellular, Wimax), shooting to satellites, etc. There are so many other options available to large swaths of population than the old two strands of copper that have been around for decades. |
|
KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | reply to openbox9
If you were able to 'jump on my business', you'd have to pay the rent I dictate, which I guarantee would ensure that you could not undercut my pricing.
However, you don't need to jump on my business because there is plenty of opportunity for you to compete with my services without needing my infrastructure. Not so for telcos.
Cable got a free ride. Lucky for them. IMO, last-mile should be owned by the county (like roads). This is the great hope for wireless, providing true competition. Sadly, the FCC will ensure the Telcos get all the good frequencies.
KM |
|
 sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to skrupowies
said by skrupowies:Whenever I read an article about any kind of sharing I have to wonder why cable TV never had the same requirements. For one thing, it's a totally different architecture. The telcos have copper that goes from the CO to the customer - it's not a shared infrastructure. You can't go to a cable headend and grab a physical wire that goes directly to a customer. With telco copper, you can. And no matter what you sell on that (dialtone, ADSL, SDSL, ADSL2, T1), you are not impacting other customers.
With cable's shared architecture, you can kill a node pretty easily if you come in and start selling "business" services or cater to other high-bandwidth usage... |
|
