how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to qworster
Re: when was the last increase? said by qworster:said by openbox9:Moving to fiber only serves to kill of the indies quicker. Yep, Because thanks to the FCC, the telcos don't even HAVE to provide fiber access to independents. Another UNREGULATED monopoly! And PLEEAZE, don't trot out that overused excuse that the indys could put up their own fiber if they wanted to. The fact is this: The poles are FILLED! Most telcos that are putting in fiber are taking down their older copper lines at the same time and replacing them with smaller guage wire. Why exactly should VZ allow ISP's to resell their fiber? VZ is investing $100 billion to implement FIOS.
And, if you must know, if the DSLAM is inside the CO, AT&T, et al doesn't have to "rent" DSL lines period.
The 1996 Telecom Act was meant for competition to USE RBOCs lines until they built their own. They were given time to do so then the FCC said enough of the UNE-P, UNE, etc. crap since nobody, including CLEC phone cos., were building their own networks.
The 1996 Telecom ACT just weakened the RBOCs. It was crap law in the first place. I don't think all these mergers should have happened, especially since Bellsouth was stronger financially than AT&T, but all the line-sharing should be profitable for the RBOCs. Failure to build their own networks is killing off indie ISPs and killed off most indie telcos.
Covad couldn't make it on lines being sold below cost by the RBOCs and filed bankruptcy. So, exactly who are people kidding about Indie ISPs ability to make it in a world where they have to pay the RBOCs what the DSL lines are worth?
GM has gotten billions and billions of tax breaks and doesn't have to let Toyota build cars on their lines so why should the RBOCs? Cable Cos. that offer telephone and HSI built out their networks and don't have to lease anything.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
Reviews:
 ·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
4 edits | said by supergirl:said by qworster:said by openbox9:Moving to fiber only serves to kill of the indies quicker. Yep, Because thanks to the FCC, the telcos don't even HAVE to provide fiber access to independents. Another UNREGULATED monopoly! And PLEEAZE, don't trot out that overused excuse that the indys could put up their own fiber if they wanted to. The fact is this: The poles are FILLED! Most telcos that are putting in fiber are taking down their older copper lines at the same time and replacing them with smaller guage wire. Why exactly should VZ allow ISP's to resell their fiber? VZ is investing $100 billion to implement FIOS. And, if you must know, if the DSLAM is inside the CO, AT&T, et al doesn't have to "rent" DSL lines period. The 1996 Telecom Act was meant for competition to USE RBOCs lines until they built their own. They were given time to do so then the FCC said enough of the UNE-P, UNE, etc. crap since nobody, including CLEC phone cos., were building their own networks. The 1996 Telecom ACT just weakened the RBOCs. It was crap law in the first place. I don't think all these mergers should have happened, especially since Bellsouth was stronger financially than AT&T, but all the line-sharing should be profitable for the RBOCs. Failure to build their own networks is killing off indie ISPs and killed off most indie telcos. Covad couldn't make it on lines being sold below cost by the RBOCs and filed bankruptcy. So, exactly who are people kidding about Indie ISPs ability to make it in a world where they have to pay the RBOCs what the DSL lines are worth? GM has gotten billions and billions of tax breaks and doesn't have to let Toyota build cars on their lines so why should the RBOCs? Cable Cos. that offer telephone and HSI built out their networks and don't have to lease anything. Why? because the Telecommunications Act of 1996 REQUIRED THEM TO!
Remember, the telcos WERE ALL FOR THE ACT! They got LOTS from it...including the right to enter the long distance market...and it set up the buying out of each other-which is why there's but two major players now (AT&T and Verizon).
Now we know why they were so supportive of it, because they knew that Bush was going to steal the election in 2000 and they would get an FCC Chairman that would GUT the act!
Which is exactly what happened.....
Why do the lot of you support corporate America so much? They're SCREWING YOU, yet your reply seems to be "Thank you Master, may I have another?" Are you all so masochistic that you like being screwed over and over by them? | |
 CoronaIt's cool, I'm takin it backPremium
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| You're way off base. supergirl  was right. The original intent of the TA'96 was to level the playing field while the competitors built out their OWN infrastructure.
Not a one of them did that, and that is why, subsequently it was gutted. | |
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by Corona:Not a one of them did that, and that is why, subsequently it was gutted. Revisionist history. Many of them were doing that, but then the rug was yanked out from under them and the rules changed. As a result, almost all of them have gone bankrupt or were bought up for pennies on the dollar by the incumbents.
If we had stayed the course on TA1996, we'd of been quite a bit closer to the Japanese model now, with many more choices.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| No we wouldn't have. Few of them did anything beyond falling into a comfortable rut of low expenses and high return. Then when the telecom market fell out from the internet bubble bursting a lot of poor planning on their part caused them to fold. | |
| reply to KrK
said by KrK:said by Corona:Not a one of them did that, and that is why, subsequently it was gutted. Revisionist history. Many of them were doing that, but then the rug was yanked out from under them and the rules changed. As a result, almost all of them have gone bankrupt or were bought up for pennies on the dollar by the incumbents. If we had stayed the course on TA1996, we'd of been quite a bit closer to the Japanese model now, with many more choices. Name several CLECs that were building their own networks. I know MCI wasn't. In fact, except a few local players that were aimed at business were, no one I know was. So, provide some examples? IDC sure wasn't. Even VZ tried to leech off of Bellsouth in S.Florida by reselling lines.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Companies like (and not limited too)
Allegiance
CTC
Choice One
Focal
Mpower
Net2000
NetworkPlus
USLEC
FiberNet
McLeodUSA
Metromedia Fiber
XO Communications
Teligent
Windstar
Covad
Network Access Solutions
Rythms
Williams Communications
etc etc
(Note some of these are still in business, but are still examples of CLEC's who were building out infrastructure...)
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| said by KrK:Companies like (and not limited too) Allegiance CTC Choice One Focal Mpower Net2000 NetworkPlus USLEC FiberNet McLeodUSA Metromedia Fiber XO Communications Teligent Windstar Covad Network Access Solutions Rythms Williams Communications etc etc (Note some of these are still in business, but are still examples of CLEC's who were building out infrastructure...) Heard of XO and Covad. Any links to this?
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | | |
|
|
