quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI
| reply to openbox9
Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say
Take a look at the history books, and turn to the pages where in New York, each "CLEC" or competitive phone company ran their own wires. The poles were 3 stories tall, with gobs and gobs of wires. People saw this as an assult of their public right-of-way, so new laws were enacted.
Could you imaging every CLEC having to have their own pole space in each metro they serviced? Just in my area, there is : AT&T, Old AT&T, TDS, Metrolink, Telecom USA, CheckPhone, McCloud USA, ACD, Arialink, Comcast... Those are just the ones on the top of my head. And I don't live in a very dense area!
The goverment subsidized the build out of a SINGLE telecom network to remove the issue of having every C/LEC have its own wire in the ground.
The copper plant in the ground is a natural monopoly. The service running on it, is a commodity market. |
|
quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI | reply to openbox9
If it dosen't, then the the LECs are fools. The dry-run costs are to include the copper plant ONLY from the CLEC's cage to the customer's DMARC. This would include install + maintenance of the pair. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to openbox9
Unions? You're talking about items that drive up costs.. and I'm talking about an industry or corporation holding people to pay what ever they want.. two different things.
Cable TV, so you know, isn't regulated. The only thing that has a rule is on the lowest tier of service.
I'm sorry to say, but your last message really shows that you don't have much experience in the industry so we'll leave it at that and end this here.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to fiberguy
Telecom providers are regulated as well. So are cablecos. Router/Switch manufacturers have about as much serious competition on internet backbones as what your consumer broadband service providers do. Why are unions and wage earners non-starters? You can't seriously believe that unions don't drive up costs of products being sold can you? The "New AT&T" is not the same as the old AT&T and like I initially mentioned is still regulated. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to openbox9
Electricity providers are regulated. Router/Switch manufacturers have PLENTY of competition and those providers have choices, same with copper and fiber manufacturers. Unions and wage earners are a non-starter in this picture as well... but, something that is controlled and was once regulated and split up over this very issue has been allowed to reform and regroup and here we are...
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to fiberguy
Are we not talking about consumer service? Consumers are far removed from the backbone and I don't think your rules and prices are that relevant. If you really want to go to the level you're talking about, don't forget about the companies providing electricity, router/switch manufactures, copper/fiber manufactures, unions and wage earners, etc, all "controlling" costs to consumers way down the path. |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Vonage
| reply to openbox9
WHY?
Because the ILECs DIDN'T PAY FOR THEIR NETWORK!!!!!
WE DID!!!!!!!!!!
When the ILECs first existed, the government not only gave them substantial tax breaks and free access to PUBLIC rights of way, they GUARANTEED them HUGE RETURNS based upon the HUGE FEES THEY WERE ALLOWED TO CHARGE AS A MONOPOLY for over FIFTY YEARS!!!!!
THEN in the 1996 communications act, the ILECS were allowed into the long distance market IN RETURN FOR OPENING THEIR LAST MILE UP TO CLECS!! The ILECs GOT WHAT THEY WANTED, but NEVER FULFILLED THEIR PART OF THE BARGAIN!!!!!!
GET IT? |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to openbox9
Re: I'm shocked, just shocked I say
You said: "Fair enough...we'll agree to disagree because I'd say that the U.S broadband market is competitive."
The market is not really competitive when the majority of the data still travels over the same two or three people's lines, who in turn, make the rules and set the prices.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to fiberguy
I was commenting on your statement about telecoms owning and managing portions of the internet backbone. I didn't see the relevance. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | reply to openbox9
So.. what? Enlighten us on on your "so"... Don't know how to respond. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to fiberguy
So? |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to nasadude
Let's take this argument one step further... How much of the backbone ISN'T provided by AT&T, Qwest, or Verizon? At some point, even the cable companies were buying services from a telco provider. In the long run, part of the cable subscriber's money was winding up in the pockets of the bell.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude  :satellite and cellular are not substitutes for DSL and cable For a vast majority of consumers, they are substitutes. The biggest issue with satellite and cellular right now are cost...but then again you can say the same thing about DSL's dial tone requirement and cable's expensiveness.said by nasadude :I am in a monopoly area, you are basically in a duopoly area. At least you have one more choice than I do. I am not in a duopoly.said by nasadude :direct competition would be another wireline (or 700Mhz) competitor. Don't limit your options. Competition exists, and is growing. BTW, your 700 MHz isn't the panacea that everyone seems to think that it's going to be. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :said by nasadude :how many choices of broadband provider do you have? I live in southern Alabama the Florida Panhandle between Pensacola and Fort Walton Beach...definitely not a metropolis. For consumer broadband, I have cable, DSL, cellular (Verizon, Sprint, AT&T), WISP, and satellite. satellite and cellular are not substitutes for DSL and cable; WISP may be, depending on speeds and reliability.
I am in a monopoly area, you are basically in a duopoly area. At least you have one more choice than I do.
The FCC and the ILECs love for people to equate cellular broadband, BPL, satellite, etc. for direct competition with wireline broadband. They aren't; direct competition would be another wireline (or 700Mhz) competitor. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :how many choices of broadband provider do you have? I live in southern Alabama the Florida Panhandle between Pensacola and Fort Walton Beach...definitely not a metropolis. For consumer broadband, I have cable, DSL, cellular (Verizon, Sprint, AT&T), WISP, and satellite. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :Fair enough...we'll agree to disagree because I'd say that the U.S broadband market is competitive. how many choices of broadband provider do you have?
I have ONE choice, comcast. I live a few miles outside the DC metro beltway in Maryland, in a densely populated area.
FYI, Maryland population density was ranked 5th highest in the nation in 2006.
you obviously must have several choices of broadband provider. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to KoolMoe
That's fine and I would hope that the telcos aren't breaking even or losing money by selling access to CLECs. The root of the problem is still that the ILECs are forced to provide this access and I'm having a difficult time seeing benefits for anyone except for the poor CLECs who "can't afford to compete and need a handout to get into business". Here's an idea. If CLECs really want to provide service and can't afford to overbuild infrastructure, maybe they should look at buying the infrastructure from the ILEC. But then again, I'm sure they can't afford that option either. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :Ok, let's just cut to the chase. It looks like I'm not going to convince you and you certainly aren't going to convince me. The fact is, the U.S. broadband market IS NOT COMPETITIVE. Fair enough...we'll agree to disagree because I'd say that the U.S broadband market is competitive. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :Sounds like a double standard to me. Allow CLECs access to infrastructure so that they can compete with companies who O&M the network when there's already competition in a lot of markets that aren't being forced to provide similar access. Why should the ILECs be forced to allow CLECs to compete with them on their own network? I'm not seeing this great increase in competition or lower costs for consumers. What's the point beyond adding extra bureaucracy? Ok, let's just cut to the chase. It looks like I'm not going to convince you and you certainly aren't going to convince me.
The fact is, the U.S. broadband market IS NOT COMPETITIVE. You can say it is, Martin can say it is McDowell can say it is, Verizon can say it is, ATT can say it is, BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. The ILECs control last mile access and no other company is going to step up and make the investment (except perhaps in a very limited geographic area) needed to create a duplicate last mile infrastructure - it's stupid, it's wasteful and it's highly unlikely that company will succeed.
If competition in the U.S. depends on competitors to step up and create duplicate last mile infrastructure, the U.S. will never have a competitive broadband market.
The current situation may be good for the ILECs and their shareholders, but it's not good for consumers and it's not good for this country. |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :the major ILECs didn't pay for that infrastructure, consumers did through tax breaks, govt guaranteed rates of return and regulations controlling the market. There was no financial risk whatsoever to the ILECs when they did their buildout and they didn't have to worry about the "playing field" because they WERE the playing field. The telcos received subsidies, tax breaks, bailouts, etc that ultimately offset some of the cost. They way you have things worded it would appear to the uninformed that the telcos didn't pay a dime and it was completely tax payer funded which definitely wasn't the case.
As such, there was financial risk to the ILECs. Yes it was a reduced risk because of the financial help, but it also wasn't without risk either.
Not trying to take sides in the debase (although I lean towards the ILECs side) but just want to set the record straight. |
|
