how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
183 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Here in Oklahoma... SBC finally figured out the political situation a few years ago. The OCC (Oklahoma Corporation Commission) forced SBC to refund several hundred million dollars in overcharges it had been charging for several years on Telephone service. After that, SBC learned how politics work in the City. They came forward with a plan to "give" millions of dollars to the state for education and schools.
Immediately, the politicos started making noise about "regulatory relief" and the OCC began approving SBC's tarriff and other requests.
So now SBC has learned... grease the right palms, get whatever you want. Including the removal of DSL and high speed internet services from any regulation or oversight by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
Basically, our politicians just sold Oklahoma out. There is now *nothing* to control pricing, terms of service, speed, quantity or quality of DSL in Oklahoma. If you end up in a dispute with SBC, tough. Nothing you can do. You lose.
In return a bunch of small towns will get DSL access. They'll probably be glad, until the prices get too high for hardly anyone to actually use it, and the speeds to slow to really be useful for the future.
Congratulations, Oklahoma. Heads SBC wins, Tails, Consumers lose. | |
| said by KrK:
In return a bunch of small towns will get DSL access. They'll probably be glad, until the prices get too high for hardly anyone to actually use it, and the speeds to slow to really be useful for the future.
Good idea, let's spend millions, if not billions on new hardware, then overprice it so no one will buy it, then we will be just another telecomm company with nothing to do but defend bad investments and bad bidness decisions.
If I were to guess, I would think that if a community already has cable broadband, and soon to have wireless broadband, DSL would only add to the choice, and not take away from. Just a thought, I could be wrong. SBC doesn't own a broadband cable provider in OK, Cingular is about to go IPO if the market will ever straighten out, hence......a choice for the consumer. | |
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to KrK
What's amazing is SBC has quoted the figure of 30 million dollars and which towns will receive DSL service. It appears the cost is about 1.3 million per town, according to SBC's own press release and figures. Apparently it isn't all THAT expensive to rollout DSL after all. (Ok, to me and you, 1.3 million is a lot.) But for a whole town, even a small town of 5,000 people, 1.3 million isn't that big of a deal. Let's say only 15% sign up, at $49.95 a month. That's 750 ppl, which is approx 450,000 a year revenue. Even with that low of market penetration, after a few years the install costs have been made up, and now all you have to do is cover maintenance and upgrades--- and chances are you'll gain customers too, so the overall revenue heads up away from costs, increasing profits.
Most of these towns don't have much in the way of cable TV service, more or less cable Internet, but as a result, DBS has done well. Hey, I use Dish Network here in town--- it would be a no brainer out in rural areas. | |
| said by KrK:
What's amazing is SBC has quoted the figure of 30 million dollars and which towns will receive DSL service. It appears the cost is about 1.3 million per town, according to SBC's own press release and figures. Apparently it isn't all THAT expensive to rollout DSL after all. (Ok, to me and you, 1.3 million is a lot.) But for a whole town, even a small town of 5,000 people, 1.3 million isn't that big of a deal. Let's say only 15% sign up, at $49.95 a month. That's 750 ppl, which is approx 450,000 a year revenue. Even with that low of market penetration, after a few years the install costs have been made up, and now all you have to do is cover maintenance and upgrades--- and chances are you'll gain customers too, so the overall revenue heads up away from costs, increasing profits.
Most of these towns don't have much in the way of cable TV service, more or less cable Internet, but as a result, DBS has done well. Hey, I use Dish Network here in town--- it would be a no brainer out in rural areas.
Glad to see you are finally making sense, Krk... at a 15% penetration rate (which is about the right number nowadays for DSL), it would take about 3 years of customers buying to pay off each town investment of 1.3 million. I guess it isn't free to deploy it afterall!
You did forget to add in things like uncollectable accounts, customer service and tech support, paying inside and outside techs, costs of billing, advertising and overhead, and the overall profit margin of the service too...
But things sound about right- businesses (including SBC) sell things to make money- and won't do it unless it is profitable to do so.
Boogie | |
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by boogie74:
I guess it isn't free to deploy it afterall!
You did forget to add in things like uncollectable accounts, customer service and tech support, paying inside and outside techs, costs of billing, advertising and overhead, and the overall profit margin of the service too...
But things sound about right- businesses (including SBC) sell things to make money- and won't do it unless it is profitable to do so.
Yes, I realize those are costs, and that the $49.95 isn't all profit... that's why I said it would take a few years to recover the initial investment, given a 15% market penetration. That's just a ballpark figure tho, because it doesn't include things like people who want premium DSL or businesess who pay for business DSL. Also, in my opinion, the 15% is on the low side. It's about right for today, but give it a few years and I think that market penetration will increase--- and you have to remember that cable Internet or even Dial-Up competition is scarce in a small town--- some of them are lucky to have even a dial up number that is local to them.
So I think given these conditions that DSL will have a higher percentage of customers then in a city where people have a wider range of options.
The main point being that the numbers suggest it is profitable to deploy DSL, even in small towns, right now, so why demand legislation first.
Without even minimal oversight, the potential for abuse is large. | | |
|
| said by KrK, getting smarter every day:
The main point being that the numbers suggest it is profitable to deploy DSL, even in small towns, right now, so why demand legislation first.
said by www.newsok.com:
The law allows Southwestern Bell to expand networks without sharing the equipment or technology with other companies.
said by THE SAUSAGE KING OF CHICAGO:
It's all about the RTs and access to them
| |
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to KrK
Yep.
They wanted a exclusive DSL monopoly, and Oklahoma caved. | |
| said by KrK:
Yep.
They wanted a exclusive DSL monopoly, and Oklahoma caved.
Exactly what is it that is preventing a CLEC from investing in their own network elements to provide DSL? Is there something that you are referring to here that states that the only company that is allowed to spend money to put fiber to the RT and enable the RT for DSL is SBC?
What prevents the CLEC's from doing this on their own? Please explain...
Boogie | |
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to KrK
Hmmm, well let me see.
1) Public Property
2) Easements on Private property.
And the real biggie
3) The incumbent local carrier.
Let's say I was a CLEC, and I (In this financial climate) had a bunch of money socked away. And let's say I came up with the brilliant plan to build all my own DSLAM's in various strategic locations. Sounds good, right?
Ah, but there's a catch. Somehow I still have to interface my DSLAM and facility with the Telco network... to get to the customers house, I need to connect to that good old "last mile" you hear about. And then there's the matter of what the DSLAM's are connected too on the backend. It's gotta be connected to something somewhere, prehaps independant fiber, if it exists, or more likely, purchased bandwidth from the local Telco.
-- SO -- even with my own DSLAMS, own techs, and own trucks, I still can have my business hosed over by my competition, because there's no way around it.
Unless you are suggesting that I also build my own duplicate last mile infrastructure too, (poles, buried cables, and lines to everyone's houses.) Even you must realize that is not practical at all... if it is even econmonically possible.
And one last nail in the coffin. Let's say I did build out my own DSLAM's and start offering service. Without PUC oversight (Oklahoma again) what's to stop SBC from just "dumping" DSL service at a huge loss for however long it took to drive me out of business? Nothing, because there's no regulations against it. Large companies have been willing in the past and present to accept losses for a number of years in order to drive out the competitors or take over market share.
Basically, as long as private interests control access to consumers, rather then compete with each other for business, we all lose.
Unless you're the one with the control, that is. | |
| If you were a CLEC, none of these bills that are proposed nor passed takes away your access to last mile. You know that (at least I hope you do... if not, you're just not informed on any of this).
Secondly, predatory pricing is illegal. SBC could not just give away DSL at an intentional loss because that is called "predatory marketing" and is illegal. Many states put a nail in the coffin to prevent this by having "minimum mark-up laws" to prevent one company from doing exactly that.
What you took way too long to type out is just not how telecom works. Sorry to inform you, but you have no clue (as is again evident) what you're talking about.
Discussion is over, as I refuse to have a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed.
Boogie | |
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by boogie74:
If you were a CLEC, none of these bills that are proposed nor passed takes away your access to last mile. You know that (at least I hope you do... if not, you're just not informed on any of this).
How do you figure? Oklahoma just passed legislation that exempts SBC DSL and other data services from PUC oversight. How can you figure that won't affect last mile access?
The fact is it is you who wilfully ignores SBC past and ongoing abuse of market power, you constantly jump to attack anyone or any argue with anyone.
"Predatory pricing is illegal." Yes, it is. It's also almost always un-enforced and un-enforceable. When was the last time you saw Wal-Mart or a Gas Station chain hauled up on charges of Predatory pricing while they knocked out the independants and Mom and Pops.
Get real. Your agenda, because you work for Ameritech is clear. "I work for the Telco therefore I know everything about telecom and I have the ego to prove it." It is you who has no grasp of reality, who stands there with your head in the sand ignoring the truth all around you, while attacking and insulting everybody who doesn't agree with you.
You're right, the discussion is over, because you turned it AGAIN like you always do into a flame war of insults.
Boogie74, Telco Shill to the Maximum. | |
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to boogie74
said by boogie74:
If you were a CLEC, none of these bills that are proposed nor passed takes away your access to last mile. You know that (at least I hope you do... if not, you're just not informed on any of this).
How do you figure? Oklahoma just passed legislation that exempts SBC DSL and other data services from PUC oversight. How can you figure that won't affect last mile access?
The fact is it is you who wilfully ignores SBC past and ongoing abuse of market power, you constantly jump to attack anyone or any argue with anyone.
"Predatory pricing is illegal." Yes, it is. It's also almost always un-enforced and un-enforceable. When was the last time you saw Wal-Mart or a Gas Station chain hauled up on charges of Predatory pricing while they knocked out the idependants and Mom and Pops.
Get real. Your agenda, because you work for Ameritech is clear. "I work for the Telco therefore I know everything about telecom and I have the ego to prove it." It is you who has no grasp of reality, who stands there with your head in the sand ignoring the truth all around you, while attacking and insulting everybody who doesn't agree with you.
You're right, the discussion is over, because you turned it AGAIN like you always do into a flame war of insults.
Boogie74, Telco Shill to the Maximum. | |
|
