dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
18
share rss forum feed

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

1 recommendation

reply to qworster

Re: Main problem with line sharing - determing wholesale cost

said by qworster:

said by FFH:

Line sharing always was a problem. And the biggest part of that problem is who determines what the real WHOLESALE cost is to the 3rd parties wanting to use an ISPs lines and how is that value determined.
Let's get real!

The copper infrastructure was bought and paid for DECADES ago- quite a bit of it with public money no less!! The telcos were given a monopoly partly to subsidize the cost of building out the copper.

Over 90% of the DSL out there is LINESHARE Why should they be allowed to gouge on the DSL GRAVY? A reasonable wholesale payment of say 3-5 dollars a month should be plenty!

And YES, linesharing should also apply to fiber and coax too!

PS: Cable's coax was also paid for years ago. Also do I have to remind you that cable TV rates have been going up an average of 10 times the rate of inflation?
Copper was not built with public monies. It was built under regulated rates of return. While I think we should discuss spinning off the copper into a public coop, such cannot occur without compensation to the LEC. But realizing the cost of the coop acquisition, as well as rehabbing and maintaining the copper will not result in cheaper broadband. Today's cheap rates are the result of the dotcom bust writing off costs to shareholders.

Linesharing cannot apply to fiber. The FCC granted Verizon and the Bell companies monopoly status in order to encourage them (and their shareholders) to risk the $100 billion or so it takes to build a fiber network. Despite the right to remove copper, and the right to exclude ISP's, Verizon allows resale of FIOS at a discount. Go figure.

Linesharing cannot be forced upon the LECs. The FCC rescinded copper line-sharing, and again with the aforementioned fiber. And yet, LECs continue to resell.

Your approach, forcing them to resell at $5 a month, would simply lead to them abandoning (and destroying) the copper plant, as they have the right.

Cable coax in my neighborhood is less than a year old, and it is the third new install of coax in five years. It wasn't "paid for years ago". While I'm not happy with cable TV rates and channel bundling, overall, cable continues to deliver better value every year; cable internet and cable telephony and triple-play bundles are very competitive options.

We are not being gouged.

qworster

join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS

Then the telcos should be required to re-divest! AT&T should be broken up again, Verizon should be forced to sell California and on and on!

Look, the telcos got to buy each other up BECAUSE they agreed to the wholesale linesharing requirement. Since THEY turned around amd reneged on it, then THEIR part of that agreement should be nullified!

The FCC made it so the telcos got to have their cake and eat it too!


sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to elray

said by elray:

said by qworster:

said by FFH:

Line sharing always was a problem. And the biggest part of that problem is who determines what the real WHOLESALE cost is to the 3rd parties wanting to use an ISPs lines and how is that value determined.
Let's get real!

The copper infrastructure was bought and paid for DECADES ago- quite a bit of it with public money no less!! The telcos were given a monopoly partly to subsidize the cost of building out the copper.

Over 90% of the DSL out there is LINESHARE Why should they be allowed to gouge on the DSL GRAVY? A reasonable wholesale payment of say 3-5 dollars a month should be plenty!

And YES, linesharing should also apply to fiber and coax too!

PS: Cable's coax was also paid for years ago. Also do I have to remind you that cable TV rates have been going up an average of 10 times the rate of inflation?
Copper was not built with public monies. It was built under regulated rates of return. While I think we should discuss spinning off the copper into a public coop, such cannot occur without compensation to the LEC. But realizing the cost of the coop acquisition, as well as rehabbing and maintaining the copper will not result in cheaper broadband. Today's cheap rates are the result of the dotcom bust writing off costs to shareholders.

Linesharing cannot apply to fiber. The FCC granted Verizon and the Bell companies monopoly status in order to encourage them (and their shareholders) to risk the $100 billion or so it takes to build a fiber network. Despite the right to remove copper, and the right to exclude ISP's, Verizon allows resale of FIOS at a discount. Go figure.

Linesharing cannot be forced upon the LECs. The FCC rescinded copper line-sharing, and again with the aforementioned fiber. And yet, LECs continue to resell.

Your approach, forcing them to resell at $5 a month, would simply lead to them abandoning (and destroying) the copper plant, as they have the right.

Cable coax in my neighborhood is less than a year old, and it is the third new install of coax in five years. It wasn't "paid for years ago". While I'm not happy with cable TV rates and channel bundling, overall, cable continues to deliver better value every year; cable internet and cable telephony and triple-play bundles are very competitive options.

We are not being gouged.
Yes, we are. Your worthless anecdotal experience does not apply to everyone else.

Forcing an ILEC to resell at $5 a month would not lead to them abandoning their business as long as they can turn a profit.

The term `competitive options` is a pathetic euphamism for `I have one real high-speed option`.