openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to John Galt
Re: First place
You didn't like my first answer, so I attempted to give you a more "politically correct" one  |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
 ·CenturyLink
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9  :Ok, let me rephrase. I'm all for a common infrastructure for any and all providers to provide service, as long as it can be paid for without additional tax dollars. Is that better? What an "Election Day" answer...!
Are you runing for political offce perchance?? 
--
A is A |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to John Galt
Ok, let me rephrase. I'm all for a common infrastructure for any and all providers to provide service, as long as it can be paid for without additional tax dollars. Is that better? |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :Nobody (including me as a taxpayer) wants to pay for infrastructure that will be shared amongst multiple competitors. This is a ridiculous assertion. That is like saying that you want every trucking company to build their own roads for exclusively transporting their goods.
Perhaps you meant to say this:
Nobody (including me as a taxpayer) wants to pay for infrastructure that will NOT be shared amongst multiple competitors.
As other posters have pointed out, there is only so much ROW for these things...
--
A is A |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to CylonRed
Are you talking about the USF slush fund?
I'm with you on the ROI for rolling out new infrastructure. That's why I question why some people expect companies that make that investment to open their lines to competitors when the cost to deploy and support the infrastructure is so large in the first place.
You said it earlier, but there is no easy answer for this. Nobody (including me as a taxpayer) wants to pay for infrastructure that will be shared amongst multiple competitors. Other options have less popularity, so the question becomes, do we need additional providers in the market, or are we currently heading in the right direction? |
|
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
| reply to openbox9
Up till last year they were still collecting the tax for those build outs and I have no reason to believe that money was not used for build outs and maintenance (plus padded profits).
Problem is - there is no way for 5-6 ILEC's to build all their own infrastructure - too costly and you would have issues with rights on poles and re-digging up folks lawn for hopefully some undefined number of customers. That is the reason I don;t think there will be any more than 2 companies doing fiber to the home. The pockets of most companies are not deep enough - even Verizon was having issues with shareholders not seeing the value soon enough. It is going to take a lot of time for the cost of the service to go down to what people expect.
People/customers are promised cheap tv, phone and internet but as many have found out - they will raise the rates as soon as they can to help pay for the new builds and make some profits. They get people in with cheap prices initially then raise the rates.
If every company be it ILEC/CLEC/cable has to do their own infrastructure than across the US expect to see 2 cable companies at most and 2 ILEC's remain in business (Verizon/AT&T) and that's it. Because of the barriers to entry are so high - building all new infrastructure for everyone will cause higher prices and less competition. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to John Galt
So what's your option? Maybe the CLECs should band together to build their own infrastructure. Or maybe they should purchase the old copper infrastructure as telcos migrate to fiber. Or maybe they should lobby for policy changes that might better facilitate their financial interests. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to CylonRed
I didn't mean to imply that you had a viewpoint one way or another. said by CylonRed :Not to mention that the build out the original companies built (copper) - was paid for, and still being paid for, by our taxes - not their profit. Yes, the original copper infrastructure was built via the assistance of government sanctioned/regulated monopolies and nice tax benefits. Are you implying that new infrastructure build outs and existing O&M costs are not being paid for by ILEC profits? Hopefully not. |
|
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
| reply to openbox9
I don't believe that I stated a view other than what it will take for them to make money - nothing more. I never stated I was for or against policy change.
I will say that if a build out by everyone is demanded then you will truely have near zero competition - far worse than it is now. Not to mention that the build out the original companies built (copper) - was paid for, and still being paid for, by our taxes - not their profit.
There is no easy answer to the problem... |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :Why should we put the cost burden on a larger company because a smaller company can't afford to enter a market and compete? Because public policy at the time allowed the ILECs to build out. The ILECs could only afford to build out if they were protected monopolies with guaranteed profit margins.
Now, you're saying that the new CLECs must compete against these ILECs by paying "full-freight" out of their own pocket?...
--
A is A |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to CylonRed
I'll take the other viewpoint and say that I think a service provider should have their own infrastructure to facilitate providing that service. Why should we put the cost burden on a larger company because a smaller company can't afford to enter a market and compete? |
|
