dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6
share rss forum feed


coldmoon
Premium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
Reviews:
·Windstream
reply to MEohME

Re: Pathetic

Also as far as line sharing? That will never happen. As soon as its required, VZ, ATT and others will STOP building out. ...

My guess is that this would lead inexorably to nationalization of the networks these companies control to address the public outcry in time. Is this what the ISP's really want?

Another scenario would make this type of temper tantrum irrelevant as other companies would eventually sweep in to take advantage of the fire sale when it becomes obvious that the providers are not going to upgrade or improve their equipment and networks.

Don't underestimate the disruptive and sometime catastrophic effect that an angry, motivated populace and the emergence of better, cheaper technology can have on your future bottom line or viability as a company...

JMHO
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC


MEohME

@wideopenwest.com
It has already shown that if ILECs are required to share they will NOT build out nor offer anything else. That was the whole issue with DSL and especially FTTH networks. As soon as they was killed U-Verse and FiOS and service expanded. When line sharing was actually required nothing faster than 3meg was offered and most areas were not even able to get that let alone 1.5meg. If they are required to line share- services will be stopped at what they are and the FCC will be sued so far out of this country it wouldn't be funny. The FCC has NO control over private networks such as MSO's networks. And they damn well know that. And as soon as the new budget passes the FCC will be more stripped of power and the US will have more services than before as the FCC won't be able to push their illegal rules and regulations as they currently are.

BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Integra Telecom
Line-sharing already exists, just not on the residential-based service level.

How do you think metro fiber gets used? It doesn't make sense for multiple providers to all bury fiber in the same place. Waste of time and money.

What needs to happen is there should be a carrier-neutral company/organization that buries fiber and then any provider can lease the dark fiber. That would be the simplistic form of a solution.


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

3 edits
reply to MEohME

It has already shown that if ILECs are required to share they will NOT build out nor offer anything else.

Tip: they weren't building out in large part because competition didn't require them to. And for what it's worth, U-Verse and FiOS expansion into new areas that haven't already signed franchise deals has frozen again. Investment is tied to a lot of things, many of which have nothing to do with regulation. "We won't deploy if you impose regulation X" is a very popular mantra, but it's fairly far removed from reality.

When line sharing was actually required nothing faster than 3meg was offered and most areas were not even able to get that let alone 1.5meg.

Many areas are still that way, which again has more to do with a lack of competition and placating investors who don't want to pay for network upgrades than line sharing. Also, if you were right, the small business market where networks are shared daily would see zero growth.

And as soon as the new budget passes the FCC will be more stripped of power and the US will have more services than before as the FCC won't be able to push their illegal rules and regulations as they currently are.

Just like MAGIC! Just eliminate the FCC and Utopia flourishes like pixie dust from on high. People seem confused into thinking the FCC is the bane of carriers because they wrist slapped Comcast about throttling. By and large, government policy, from the FTC to FCC, has been of a protectionist nature, artificially propping up a lot of giant companies and throwing billions in unaccountable subsidies their way. Get rid of the FCC and incumbent protectionism will still be the mantra of the government.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to MEohME
You are so ignorant to the truth (by choice I am guessing). I really suggest you go back and review the history of these companies and you will see the opposite is true of all you argue.

First off, ALL of these companies built the current networks under great subsidies given to them. Whether or not they were given cash to do it is not relevant. They were always given advantages and have prospered quite nicely under this. Look at the quarterly earnings of just the 3 biggest phone companies. They could deploy FTTH to everyone they serve and pay cash to do it over the next 5 years.

Secondly, while the companies whine and complain about how this bill and that regulation is going to just stifle innovation and prevent them from making a living it has proven wrong every time. They did the exact same thing leading up to the 1996 act and then within 2 years of it being implemented they themselves cut back on providing the very services they pushed for. They took billions in subsidies and then stopped deploying. Even back then they themselves defined broadband as 45mbps symmetrical and now they fight to have it raised to be defined as a measly 3mbps. You look at the countries that took parts of the 1996 act we created and actually implemented it and they are flourishing compared to the US. Why? Because they used it to create competition while our worthless incumbents were busying lawyering up and trying to dismantle it.

Third, your argument of WISP above is just silly. The entire reason WISP are even out there is because of the barriers of entry and the unwillingness of the incumbents to actually wire the places. So if they were required to do so WISP would no longer be needed and their worthless bandwidth would go away or be a perk on top of actual broadband.

Lastly, your choice to try to blow smoke here isnt going to go well. You have maybe 2 or 3 other shills that will try to help you out but a majority of the people here are educated and knowledgeable enough to see through the BS you and the others will be flinging.


MEohME

@wideopenwest.com
reply to BlueC
line sharing metro dark fiber and line sharing residential are TWO totally different things. So stop trying to say that it does exsit. That is not the topic at hand.

And you'll NEVER find that carrier-neutral company to build that FTTH/B network on a national basis. Shareholders of that company will want their money back at some point and by doing the wholesale- you're not gonna be able to fully say "yah we'll be able to repay you at some point" as like Comcast and others are able to say.


MEohME

@wideopenwest.com
reply to Karl Bode
Sorry but you're not understanding what I said. I said IF Line sharing WAS required AGAIN any new networks would NOT be built. They would stop.

And U-Verse IS Expanding. You must not have had that memo yet. I can tell you a number of cities in Ohio and Michigan that NOW have U-Verse that have NEVER had a press release on them. And why? cause the cities are not HUGE but the fact is- the service is NOW available.

NO lack of compeition does NOT have to do with 3meg or lower DSL. It's the fact that most are smaller phone companies or they're too far from the DSLAM. Which is the problem with DSL (even though people seem to think its God on this website).

And yes the FCC is to blame. It seems that the problem always is with the FCC and people on here don't get that. The FCC is like a damn crack-user. They'll say one thing now and then they'll say something later on the same issue and it be 2 totally different things said. You can NOT trust the FCC especially when they're the ones making the illegal rules. If they can't do what they were SET up to do; then you get rid of them and give that job to someone that can do it. Simple as that. You don't see Comcast's board of directors replacing Roberts because he does a shitty job. Nor do you see that with any other company. And the FCC should be treated the same way. We do that with the President. Nobody likes him after 4 years- we vote him out. That's the way it works. The Gov't is a company no matter how you look at it. The people who vote are the shareholders that just don't get paid. The FTC also does NOT rule on many things regarding communcations. That is left up to the FCC. But back to what I sai; Nobody is going to listen a a body of people who do NOT know what their job is when they over step that line and start creating illegal rules.


MEohME

@wideopenwest.com
reply to Skippy25
As far as MSOs rights to deploy into a City are NOT subsidies. NOTHING was given to them except being able to serve those cities; especially when it is NOT cost bearable to over build in MOST areas. RCN has already seen that issue. Look how many times they've been sold. Look at VZ- their TV service has a HUGE drop in numbers compared to what they protected and want. ATT is the same way. Overbuilding is NOT something that makes sense.

As defending broadband as 45mbps that was VZ that did that. NOT ATT. that has been on here before as VZ making claims that they could do that to PA. Which really they did. It is available and it is available to anyone. Place the order and pay for it. It's simple.

They don't fight to define broadband at 3megs. Only because the FCC has NO power over that. That's the whole point you fail to see. The FCC has NO POWER OVER THE INTERNET. Got it? I'm sure you don't. Competition is NOT created when you wholesale/resell a product. That is only creating a leach that will NEVER do anything else with the product. Why should I build out a network and then let you come along and resell it just so you can provide your own service? You didn't spend anything on the network. I did. And thats the same way these companies feel. And the only real countries that did anything with reselling/wholesaling was France and GB. And see where Canada is left with their wholesaling/reselling issue? they're pretty much stuck on 6meg DSL which is the way the US would be if it wasn't for killing line sharing on that or on new networks.

And no my argument on WISPs is not silly. The OP at the stop said ALL carriers. WISPs are a carrier and thus should be required to do wholesale/resell as well. What is good for one company IS good for all. Means of getting the product to the customer does not matter. Especially when you're treating the Internet as Title II.

And people being educated on here? Not really. They just fail to see the real picture on how things work and thats the problem with this site. Nobody knows how the real works; just what they want and demand it. Sorry; things don't work that way. If you want something different then- you need to do 1 of two things; Build it yourself- or 2 shut up about it cause it will NEVER happen. But not on here- this site just lets you bitch about it and let those voices over rule everyone elese's opinions because it is not what the majority thinks nor sees.

gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL
reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

Third, your argument of WISP above is just silly. The entire reason WISP are even out there is because of the barriers of entry and the unwillingness of the incumbents to actually wire the places. So if they were required to do so WISP would no longer be needed and their worthless bandwidth would go away or be a perk on top of actual broadband.

That is probably one of the most arrogant comments I have ever read here. WE as WISP's are here because places exist that you can't wire and actually have a return on your investment. Like the guys 20 miles out of town down a dirt road, with a 2 mile long driveway. Cost to install with fiber for that one individual, a quarter million dollars or better.. I dont know about your WISP, but we have 6 meg plans, and I know of others that have 10-20meg (actual) plans.
We are also here, BECAUSE of incumbents that don't provide good service, have foreign tech support, don't care about "people" or their "families" and also don't even know the area we live in. We are here to serve people.. Oh, and guess what, almost none of us have ever gotten a dime from the Government. We built our networks from good old fashion business plans, conservity with our finaces, hard work, and customers that asked us to be in business. Go flippen figure Skippy25.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to MEohME
I didnt bother reading your entire message after you completely discredited your statements by saying "especially when it is NOT cost bearable to over build in MOST areas." and "Overbuilding is NOT something that makes sense." So what you are saying is that they should continue to have a protected monopoly / duopoly that allows them to earn a much larger profit through charging the customer more than they could in a competitive market. Which by the way is the #1 subsidy they have received and continue to receive. NICE!


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to MEohME
Line sharing *IS* required in Canada, and yet Bell and Videotron are both deploying VDSL and DOCSIS 3.0 as fast as they can, pushing fibre closer and closer to homes at a rapid pace. Why? Because of two facts:

1) ILECs and cablecos still make money off wholesale customers. Less, yes, but not nothing.

2) If ILECs stop investing in networks, they'll lose customers to cablecos and cableco wholesalers.

3) If cablecos stop investing in networks, they'll lose customers to ILECs and ILEC wholesalers.

We don't have enough competition to keep pricing reasonable, sure, but we do at least have enough competition to ensure that the duopolies don't sit on their thumbs.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to gunther_01
Call it what you want, but it is wireless and wireless will never compete with wired.

You substantiated my entire claim when you said "WE as WISP's are here because places exist that you can't wire and actually have a return on your investment."

I am not questioning your business plan nor how good or bad you may be. I am simply stating that the incumbents should have been before and should be now required to build out to ALL regardless of cost because they have received enough subsidies over the decades to do so.

gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL
They have built to almost if not all.. its called telephone lines. That was USF's initial purpose. Just because it doesn't support "x"meg/sec. Isn't a fault of the telco's. But, that whole topic is much larger then that.


MEohME

@wideopenwest.com
totally agree with you gunther_01. Where I used to live was 10 miles out side of the city. We were lucky to get 14.4k dial-up and have it work. The area is STILL only lucky to get that unless you go to Hughes/WildBlue or a Cell Carrier. They have WISPs that are available now- but TWC and ATT will tell you that it is NOT cost bearable to wire that far out of the city and make any ROI. You get a telephone. you get Dish/DirecTV. But the fact is like you said; it will cost a good million+ to even get FTTH out there. And hope 5 people sign up- and that 5 people where ALL a half mile to over a mile apart.