dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
361
share rss forum feed

rebus9

join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Bright House

2 edits
reply to TBBroadband

Re: baloney

said by TBBroadband:

Any network that uses USF to be built, should be open. But the FCC tossed that out the window when they ruled that the Internet was an Information Service and not a Communications service under Brand X, which would have opened up the MSOs to line sharing as well.

Totally agree. What I disagree with is the USF itself.

If Country Joe wants to live 50 miles from nowhere, that's his choice to exchange big city conveniences for fresh air-- and one of those conveniences is high speed internet. Joe should never expect someone ELSE to pay the (high) cost of pulling high speed internet to the boondocks because he didn't want to live near the city. That was HIS choice, and he needs to man up to the drawbacks of rural life.

But I digress.

Since we DO have the USF, then YES, carriers SHOULD be required to open USF-funded networks.

However, if an ILEC takes NO subsidies and does a buildout 100% on their own dime, THEN it should be OK for them to keep it closed and proprietary. A 100% privately-funded investment should not be forced open by regulators.

Superstorm Standy was an anomoly, and a lot of copper plant was destroyed. I don't think VZ should be required to rebuild the copper-- but in all fairness, they should be requried to allow access to the fiber replacements for some reasonable period of time (define "reasonable" as you will) since the CLECs were already under an open access agreement at the time of loss. Otherwise, the CLECs have instantly and without warning, lost all access to thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of their own customers, with no hope of recovering them.

However, if VZ uses ANY public funding to rebuild, then all bets are off and the replacement network SHOULD have to be open.

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
reply to rebus9

the problem is this has been done in areas- Carlton Michigan (in Monroe County) It is an AT&T region formally Ameritech, and under Ed and Project Light Speed, AT&T was able to kick out the CLECs and other ISPs as they moved everyone over to the new network. That was granted and stamped when the FCC stripped the CLECs and ISPs access to the new networks which now is stupid since they're taking USF funds to expand the FTTX networks. Everyone gets to pay in some way or another, but not everyone gets to have access.

Any network that uses USF to be built, should be open. But the FCC tossed that out the window when they ruled that the Internet was an Information Service and not a Communications service under Brand X, which would have opened up the MSOs to line sharing as well.


TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath

1 recommendation

reply to Smith6612

DSLX was never and has never been a CLEC. They were and are a wholesale ISP. And now they're basically a reseller of Ikano their parent company (formally Dial-up USA). Anyone can become a DSLX over night with $200 and a call to them.

Earthlink/Earthlink Carrier/Wholesale, MegaPath, Sonic,net and a few others are CLECs that are still around. Otherwise you get wholesale companies and nothing more.


rebus9

join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Bright House
reply to elefante72

said by elefante72:

I'm sick of the whiny nature of every post. It's like the entire mission of companies is to screw people constantly. Companies don't exist without customers. Now one has to look to government picking winners or losers..a la our current and past administrations..and that is the problem not the open competitive market.

There's a difference between "competitive market" and monopoly/dupoloy. And history has clearly shown us the ANTI-competitive nature of the large players. That's why Ma Bell was broken up in 1984, for example.

Don't think for a second that Verizon wouldn't take any opportunity to burn CLECs out of its footprint. My concern would be what happens to the CLEC customers, without regulatory oversight.

My guess? Verizon would dump the copper, rip up the CLECs' access agreements, and convert the CLEC copper customers into direct Verizon fiber customers. Customers that VZ doesn't want to deal with would be ignored or abandoned. But regulations prevent that from happening. (*)

But it IS a valid question to ask what will happen to CLEC customers on copper.... when the copper suddenly goes away, without notice, leaving the CLECs spinning in circles scrambling for a workaround to reach their own customers.

(*) I say this as a pro-business registered Republican, who isn't so blinded by party politics to not see the reality of the way things would be in the absense of regulations.

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
reply to CXM_Splicer

Yeah. If I Monday morning quarterback my post, I might choose to to make it "the" goal and remove the world legally. It truly is the goal from which all other goals are spawned. Far too often we only have regard for the law after we get caught.

I don't know why but a Seinfeld episode comes to mind:


Mr. Lippman: It's come to my attention that you and the cleaning woman have engaged in sexual intercourse on the desk in your office. Is that correct?

George Costanza: Who said that?

Mr. Lippman: She did.

George Costanza: [pause] Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing is frowned upon... you know, cause I've worked in a lot of offices, and I tell you, people do that all the time.

Mr. Lippman: You're fired!

George Costanza: Well, you didn't have to say it like that.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to rradina

said by rradina:

One of the goals of any business is to make as much money as is legally possible. If you want to call it "screw", fine but whatever the term, the concept is the same.

Haha... I don't see any other goal out of the majority of business.


Smith6612
Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:24
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Frontier Communi..
reply to elefante72

Hopefully we'll start seeing CLECs such as DSLExtreme coming back into play with FiOS after Verizon yanked them off a few years ago. A lot of folks definitely opted for DSLExtreme's pricing and could help Verizon out a bit more with some uptake. Older, slower, legacy plans but ones that are priced a bit better.


elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
reply to Mojo 77

Not in prepaid which would be analogous to CLECs....

Prepaid has added over 15 million subs in the last year. In the US that is now over 100 million, which puts them in the league of AT&T or Verizon. Granted its many companies, but the top three have most of them. In fact American Movil is about the size of Tmobile in subs now, and yes I know they run on their networks...

My point is that there is a mid-market need and this is where the growth is happening. Back in the day you were a scrub if you had prepaid (I guess that means me because I have had prepaid for 5 years), but now with say the Nexus 4 that is planted squarely in the prepaid market.

30 minutes to sell out should say something about the scrubs....

As a point of disclosure, I use Verizon for my phone (corporate) and the bill with myfi is like $250 a month (5GB on each device and Canada Plan). The other phone is TMO straighttalk which is $45 a month. My third phone is PPC (burner phone), $70 for the year. My verizon phone is iphone 4s which I really hate, because the screen is small, ios in general does not play well with exchange, and I am stuck on slow 3g. And I'm only 7 months into a 2 year contract. Hence why I hate contracts...I'm stuck with this marginal device for another 17 months.


rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

1 recommendation

reply to elefante72

One of the goals of any business is to make as much money as is legally possible. If you want to call it "screw", fine but whatever the term, the concept is the same.

I don't think Karl is suggesting a conspiracy. He simply asked a question regarding competitive use of the destroyed infrastructure. If the new infrastructure causes competition to decrease, those that remain may have an opportunity to increase profits. It's also possible for profits to increase because the replaced infrastructure will be less costly to maintain. If some portion of those profits are regulated, that could translate into savings for consumers. If profits are not regulated and sufficient competition doesn't exist to cause an equalization, profits will go up and more "screwing" will occur.


Nobbie16

join:2000-09-28
Jersey City, NJ

1 recommendation

reply to elefante72

Lets stop the foolishness, no one said it was a conspiracy! It was a legitimate question which still stands. The CLECs existed because it was possible to conduct business as a CLEC and was a business relationship which brought additional money into the coffers of Verizon. CLECs provide services and also jobs and as a result the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy has and continues to have a negative impact on their customers and employees.

You fail to realize that Ma Bell was broken up for it's very anti competitive nature. SMH.



Mojo 77

@jillyred.net
reply to elefante72

Yes, because whining about whining (that doesn't seem like whining to me since it was just a question asked) is so much more productive.

The market is robust and growing like gangbusters.

Actually growth on wireless and wireline has slowed immensely, and me thinks calling our uncompetitive broadband market "robust" is way too kind.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

1 recommendation

Maybe they want to reduce CLEC's but keep in mind that converting to fiber is the smart thing. Copper had its day. The storm only hastened the movement, there is no conspiracy.

Telcos will offer CLECs if it's good for their bottom line. Look at MVNO in cell co's. The market is robust and growing like gangbusters. FIOS has been marketed as premium, so once saturation hits Verizon will need to go after the mid-market and the way to do that is to offlabel or offload to "CLECs". Since they are bulk reselling (making a tidy profit), they don't have to incur the high SGA costs with the brand label, and at the same time utilize the network (the more it's used the more profitable).

I'm sick of the whiny nature of every post. It's like the entire mission of companies is to screw people constantly. Companies don't exist without customers. Now one has to look to government picking winners or losers..a la our current and past administrations..and that is the problem not the open competitive market.