 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to SRFireside
Re: Take The Hint said by SRFireside:The thing is the incumbent carriers had a complete government endorsed monopoly to build out their infrastructure. I'm sorry, but there is no way you can argue the CLECs don't deserve the line sharing unless the government gives them the same considerations when building out their networks. Why not? As another poster mentioned, there was a time when CLECs were flush with investment money and blessed with high stock price. Another poster also mentioned that in Japan and France, CLECs actually did go and build their own networks and are doing very well for it. The failure of CLECs is not the fault of Ma Bell, but it is rather a function of bad management.
said by SRFireside:Besides the Bells AGREED to sharing the lines back in 1996 in the first place; thinking they will make a killing off of the long distance business. Instead they drop the ball on the whole Internet potential and now they want to take back what they agreed on. Businesses routinely change their plans when economic conditions change. Any business that doesn't recognize that a new plan of action might be needed depending on the situation is going to be out of business.
said by SRFireside:You think it sounds unfair that the incumbent carriers have to foot the bill on an agreement in spite of them not getting the profit they expected? Why should it be fair?
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
 jhboricuaExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN | said by pnh102:Another poster also mentioned that in Japan and France, CLECs actually did go and build their own networks and are doing very well for it. The failure of CLECs is not the fault of Ma Bell, but it is rather a function of bad management. Actually, in Japan the government forced NTT the incumbent to unbundled and set the rates they would charge the CLECs. That is what propelled Japan's broadband competition and adoption.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Admin * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * |
|
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:As another poster mentioned, there was a time when CLECs were flush with investment money and blessed with high stock price... The failure of CLECs is not the fault of Ma Bell, but it is rather a function of bad management. You will have to provide the figures on that because I don't remember seeing the kind of venture capitol that would pay for the bandwidth, support, line fees AND building out an infrastructure and all that it costs (including lobbying for rights of way with the various communities). You talk as if a mere ten million dollars or so will fit the bill. I worked for an ISP that had to deal with the way the Bells dealt with their line sharing. Believe me... DSL was hardly a moneymaker.
said by pnh102:Businesses routinely change their plans when economic conditions change. Any business that doesn't recognize that a new plan of action might be needed depending on the situation is going to be out of business. The problem is this wasn't a business agreement. This was an agreement made with the U.S. government in regards to passing a LAW. Sure they can try changing the law, but they can't expect to have it overturned just because they don't like the results.
said by pnh102:Why should it be fair? Exactly my point. Why should the incumbents get a free pass when they cry unfair when their plan backfires on them after convincing Congress to pass a law that they themselves agreed to abide by once enacted? |
|
