funny... in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r4015461 en Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:54:01 EDT Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:54:01 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4061262 boogie74 :
said by IPG0d:
HEY gumby what makes you think the telco's followed any of the 96 act?????


I would think that the fact that over 20% of all states have the ILEC able to offer long distance qualifies as evidence that telcos are following the act.

Boogie]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4061262 Wed, 07 Aug 2002 12:06:24 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4060740 IPG0d : HEY gumby what makes you think the telco's followed any of the 96 act?????]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4060740 Wed, 07 Aug 2002 11:06:57 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4049802 garagerock : well, this debate is tiresome at this point.

keep making excuses for ma bell, although i don't see a reason as to why.

as to data on timely installs, i'd venture a percentage guess of 50%, which is horrible in any industry. any retail establishment worth their salt doesn't wait on the wholesaler like any CLEC waits on the ILEC. perhaps your company just isn't ready or willing to be a wholesaler.

like i said before, i'm highly suspicious of the "no facilities" bullshit excuse, you can say what you like but I've seen what happens, and it happens with so much frequency it just can't be justified with the excuses you cite.

(yawn) yeah, yeah....all ILEC's had delays in 2000, no kidding. but i really doubt 100% of those delays were just coincidence in regards to CLEC's.

i'll just let the lawyers do the talking at this point. you can choose to continue this, but you'll be talking to yourself. i'm just one guy, hundreds of others in my shoes experienced the same things i did. and all you have is a pile of the same old excuses, and apologies for ma bell.

i say "bah"
--
My attitude sucks. I know it, and I don't care anymore. Age has that effect on you.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4049802 Tue, 06 Aug 2002 07:37:29 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4049548 boatie : In my oh-so-humble-opinion, the telcom "crash" you refer to is a result of mismanagement, lack of a "reality check" and greed, not government over- or under-regulation. As far as McCain's bill, no comment.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4049548 Tue, 06 Aug 2002 05:25:00 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4045700 boogie74 :
said by garagerock:
Oh, I see. The third degree on my background, eh? which evil master do you serve, Boogie? Do you have any evidence to suggest Ma Bell doesn't drag her feet???


You are the one making the claim that the ILEC's are dragging their feet all the time- based on the concept that no one is going very far to disprove it? I am not making the claim, you are- I'm asking you to support it.

quote:
I served Covad faithfully from 2000 to the demise of Bluestar, so I really have two companies perspectives on ILEC provisioning and delays. The six months I was citing was information I had access to as a regional engineer, in my desperate attempt to get as many customers turned up in a timely manner. There were many projects that never were completed, and there were many circuits in Ameritech territory that had a six month average to installation. Sorry, didn't get to keep any documents that prove this, just my foggy memory.

So yeah, in the 18 months I was there, there were several customers in Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan that never got turned up. We would call, check status, and get the same bullshit story-no facilities, no facilities, no facilities. Never mind that many other customers were getting Ameritech DSL from the same c.o.'s


So your job was to handle ILEC delays? In other words, you have no data on how many jobs were turned over in a TIMELY manner, only that ALL the jobs you saw were turned over with delays.

The CO has nothing to do with "no facilities" delays. If a CLEC orders a pair for ANYTHING and no good pair to the location is available, the answer will be, "No facilities" for a number of reasons- none of which have to do with whether the order is CLEC or ILEC. You can bet your booty that if the same customer (not same CO, same customer) were to order service with the ILEC, the same delay would occur. It is ONLY YOU that has come to the conclusion that the delay is because it is a CLEC order.

quote:

I never said there was a current average, my information is outdated, obviously...so you got me there, I guess.

But, my points are still valid. The lawsuit news today with BellSouth is just the beginning. And no one in your shoes has any credible story to explain all of this away.



Your points are using outdated information. I have no comment on the Bellsouth lawsuit, as I have no information on it. In 2000, Ameritech had BIG TIME delays in service for its OWN customers- it had nothing to do with whether the lines were with a CLEC or not. My point is simply that.

Also, there is something smelling rotten in Denmark when the same company continues to sue ALL the ILEC's for the same thing- as though the ILEC's are calling each other up to say, "Let's get Covad!"

Boogie]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4045700 Mon, 05 Aug 2002 20:16:15 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4045338 garagerock : Oh, I see. The third degree on my background, eh? which evil master do you serve, Boogie? Do you have any evidence to suggest Ma Bell doesn't drag her feet???

I served Covad faithfully from 2000 to the demise of Bluestar, so I really have two companies perspectives on ILEC provisioning and delays. The six months I was citing was information I had access to as a regional engineer, in my desperate attempt to get as many customers turned up in a timely manner. There were many projects that never were completed, and there were many circuits in Ameritech territory that had a six month average to installation. Sorry, didn't get to keep any documents that prove this, just my foggy memory.

So yeah, in the 18 months I was there, there were several customers in Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan that never got turned up. We would call, check status, and get the same bullshit story-no facilities, no facilities, no facilities. Never mind that many other customers were getting Ameritech DSL from the same c.o.'s

I never said there was a current average, my information is outdated, obviously...so you got me there, I guess.

But, my points are still valid. The lawsuit news today with BellSouth is just the beginning. And no one in your shoes has any credible story to explain all of this away.
--
My attitude sucks. I know it, and I don't care anymore. Age has that effect on you.
[text was edited by author 2002-08-05 19:36:07]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4045338 Mon, 05 Aug 2002 19:35:06 EDT Re: funny... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4044046 bigplatypus : Please state the Bill that granted the Telco's federal subsidies to build outside plant network that was not given under FEMA.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4044046 Mon, 05 Aug 2002 17:26:34 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4044019 boogie74 :
said by garagerock:
why do you ask?


Because you stated that you don't work in telecom but you used to. You then state that there is currently an average wait of 6 months or more to provision circuits to CLEC's.

So, that being said, I feel that the time period (and CLEC for that matter) that you worked there might have some relevance to your point of view.

For instance, if you worked there from 1996-1998, there are HUGE leaps in improvement since then that you would not be aware of.

Boogie]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4044019 Mon, 05 Aug 2002 17:24:33 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4041230 garagerock : why do you ask?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4041230 Mon, 05 Aug 2002 12:30:04 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4041081 boogie74 : When did you work for a CLEC?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4041081 Mon, 05 Aug 2002 12:12:18 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4040228 garagerock : when, exactly did I suppose the point that you put in such a glib fashion:

CLEC's that offer high end business services ARE putting out their own networks. It's not an issue of what the law says. It's an issue of "INVEST IN YOUR BUSINESS."

All I'm saying, and anyone else who's ever had to put up with ILEC foot dragging, is allow unfettered access to the last mile. Period. Any CLEC network interfaces with the last mile, which your beloved employer controls. The law says give up access, not build a new national infrastructure. My point still is that I and every other employee I had contact with during my stint with a CLEC could testify to endless delays to repair, to circuit ID, and to practically every other issue that involved the ILEC in any region of the country.

For some bizarre reason, you keep putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about subsidizing the CLEC's, just give them unfettered access to the last mile without the anti-competitive bullsh*t you and I both know happens. (well, you're not willing to admit it, but hey, that's your crutch)

I specifically said that such delays are NOT unique to CLEC orders- that MANY orders for ILEC customers actually have delays as well

Like I said before, I saw ILEC customers get repaired and/or turned up in the same building as CLEC customers, on several occasions. Sooooooooo, from my puny personal experience (not to mention various other customers' experiences) I have to suppose that there were bullsh*t delays occurring. I think I'm smart enough to see a pattern developing.

obviously we disagree. i give up trying to convince anyone on this issue, including you, but you could check the lawsuit being filed by Covad-I bet they'd agree.
[text was edited by author 2002-08-05 10:15:33]

[text was edited by author 2002-08-05 10:17:12]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4040228 Mon, 05 Aug 2002 10:07:42 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4040128 boogie74 :
quote:
Look man, why the hell would I cite such blatantly long delays unless I knew for sure that I was sitting on my ass waiting six months for a circuit ID from the ILEC AND I was the last CLEC employee to touch the order? I didn't wait six months to turn in orders, that's for damn sure, since I've got Customer A calling me by the hour wanting to know when he's getting turned up.


Looks like I've struck a nerve. If you re-read my post, I never said that there was NEVER a delay for circuitry or line assignments from an ILEC. I specifically said that such delays are NOT unique to CLEC orders- that MANY orders for ILEC customers actually have delays as well.

The suggested scenerio is something that has been documented on many occasions- even worse, the orders that aren't being submitted are DISCONNECT orders.

quote:
Is it at all possible that the CLEC has work to do in fullfilling orders? Or are you assuming that it is all done by the ILEC? And if so, why doesn't the CLEC invest in upgrading it's own equipment so in the future it doesn't have to rely on the ILEC?

This part kills me....hello? do you know what year it is? TA1996 has been law for 6 friggin years. The debate about this is as dead as Tupac Shakur (sorry Tupac, your the only celeb who died in 96 I could think of). The law said open up your networks to competition. I'm enlightened enough to think that is a good thing. Obviously, working for your precious employer makes you think otherwise. This makes you pretty self serving in my book. The hell with competition and the hell with consumer choice-wouldn't want to cut into your 401k now, would we?


I'm a bit lost here, did you actually answer the question? The law said open up the networks to competition. It's happening. Residential competition is slow to develop because CLEC's don't want the low income business. THAT has been proven.

CLEC's that offer high end business services ARE putting out their own networks. It's not an issue of what the law says. It's an issue of "INVEST IN YOUR BUSINESS."

Why is it that you would actually believe that the if law stating to open up markets to competition, that would mean that companies looking to compete are prohibited from investing in their own businesses? The law doesn't state, "Subsidize every business that wants to compete with you forever and ever"

Boogie]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4040128 Mon, 05 Aug 2002 09:52:32 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4039626 garagerock : Its always high comedy to me when a phone company employee defends his/her company to the end, as if they were birthed, indoctrinated, and employed by the same entity.

Look man, why the hell would I cite such blatantly long delays unless I knew for sure that I was sitting on my ass waiting six months for a circuit ID from the ILEC AND I was the last CLEC employee to touch the order? I didn't wait six months to turn in orders, that's for damn sure, since I've got Customer A calling me by the hour wanting to know when he's getting turned up.

Is it at all possible that the CLEC has work to do in fullfilling orders? Or are you assuming that it is all done by the ILEC? And if so, why doesn't the CLEC invest in upgrading it's own equipment so in the future it doesn't have to rely on the ILEC?

This part kills me....hello? do you know what year it is? TA1996 has been law for 6 friggin years. The debate about this is as dead as Tupac Shakur (sorry Tupac, your the only celeb who died in 96 I could think of). The law said open up your networks to competition. I'm enlightened enough to think that is a good thing. Obviously, working for your precious employer makes you think otherwise. This makes you pretty self serving in my book. The hell with competition and the hell with consumer choice-wouldn't want to cut into your 401k now, would we?

I hear these arguments over and over again from your ilk, and it just kills me-that's all you folks care about is your own asses.

I experienced firsthand the bullsh*t delays and anti-competitive behavior displayed by all of the ILEC's, you just can't convince me otherwise.

p.s. I don't work for telecom anymore, so I'm not saving my ass by defending CLEC's...
[text was edited by author 2002-08-05 08:44:53]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4039626 Mon, 05 Aug 2002 07:35:32 EDT Re: funny... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4036994 boogie74 :
said by reverendRon:
Telecom networks are built with federal subsidies therefore US governement has a right to demand equal access. CATV systems are not federally subsidized. Government regulation already has alot to do with the high prices of cable tv. This sort of scenario would just make it worse. If a rival cable comapny wishes to compete then they have every right to overbuild a system.


I keep seeing this claim- What government subsidies were there to build the telecom networks? Are you claiming that taxes are going to telecom build out? There are no such subsidies...

If you mean by subsidies the USF, USF isn't a goverment subsidy. All telecom companies pay into the fund, and yes- many of them itemize their contributions on customers' bills. But that doesn't make USF goverment funded.

USF also pretty much makes it so that "Bob Farmer" out in Iowa or Nebraska doesn't have a $750 phone bill each month because of the cost to draw a cable out to his house to run 1 line. It doesn't pay for the phone networks, nor does it pay for DSL deployment.

If you could please detail exactly where in the US Federal Budget (any year would do) the subsidies for phone networks is located, I would appreciate it.

Boogie ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4036994 Sun, 04 Aug 2002 21:53:07 EDT Re: funny... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4036604 INHCNN : And this is why deregulation is such a difficult topic.

Yes, the lines are the rightfull property of the ILEC, so why should they be forced to share with some mom and pop start up?

But speaking of force, should I be forced into using the ILEC in my area? Shouldn't I have a competitve choice?

To a corporation, what forces change? The need for change to remain competitive. If Nike was the only shoe company, what do you think would happen to cost and selection?

What good has the break up of Ma Bell caused? It did just that, broke it up, but thereafter, the US government has not only NOT (double negative, sorry) done anything about it, but to the contrary APPROVED these mergers. ?!. I thouhgt Ameritech was bad, but guess what? THEY JUST GOT BOUGHT BY A BIGGER TELCO!

Should cable co's be held to the regulation as the Telco's? NO NO AND NO - why - because as we have proven, the Telco's are NOT held to regulations or laws previously set in place.

Should we allow the CLEC's to put up thier own lines? Sure, why not. But the ILEC would have to COOPERATE. That and we'd surely have a rats' nest of lines up there. I can't keep the neighbors dog offn' it as is. How about the cable co's? Lets' get some competitive cable ops' out there putting up thier own lines... that'd work... but wait! In both scenarios the competitor has to turn a profit from customers while being competitive while getting GOUGED in the pocket book for putting up lines. Won't work.

/rant

So - how's this: I read all over that there's shi* ton's of excess fiber laying around, strung up, buried, whatever. How about we implement a fiber infrastructure here in the US, tear down all that old copper and coax (recycle it), and service cable, telephone, and internet all on the same lines (fiber) with equal access to all licensed carriers?

That would be the end of the argument. Period.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4036604 Sun, 04 Aug 2002 20:53:41 EDT Re: funny... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4035629 pupowski :
said by reverendRon:
CATV systems are not federally subsidized. Government regulation already has alot to do with the high prices of cable tv.
Correct!Most CATV systems were built under government granted local monopoly, which is essentially a non-cash government subsidy. Those cash-cow franchises were traded at ever higher prices, which in turn were used to justify escalating cable TV rates. Over-builders have a lot more risk, because predatory pricing or "features" by the incumbent is likely. Over-builders were approved in my area, but they all backed out because the economics didn't work. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4035629 Sun, 04 Aug 2002 19:03:45 EDT Re: funny... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4034175 reverendRon : Telecom networks are built with federal subsidies therefore US governement has a right to demand equal access. CATV systems are not federally subsidized. Government regulation already has alot to do with the high prices of cable tv. This sort of scenario would just make it worse. If a rival cable comapny wishes to compete then they have every right to overbuild a system.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4034175 Sun, 04 Aug 2002 15:27:43 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4033448 boogie74 :
quote:
p.s. I saw many a pissed off customer go bye bye waiting longer than six months for a circuit ID. Sometimes that was average, especially in Ameritech territory.


Sometimes that was average? Average can only be defined as one concept at a time- perhaps the median average or the mean average. That's like being a little pregnant.

Do you mean to say that sometimes the average turnaround time was 24 hours and sometimes the average turnaround time was 6 months or more? I'm very lost as to the veracity of your statement.

quote:
How is that, exactly? Not like any CLEC can turn the tables and wait six months before installing a customer...they are always waiting on the damn ILEC to do their part.


How's this for a scenerio: A CLEC offers a customer service to be turned on in 3 business days. The CLEC then waits 6 weeks to turn in the order to the ILEC who takes 3 business days to work it. The CLEC then tells the customer that the ILEC is refusing to work the order and is holding up the whole process. The CLEC tells the customer to complain to the PUC about the situation. The PUC fines the ILEC and orders the ILEC to pay the CLEC for "lost revenue."

Is it at all possible that the CLEC has work to do in fullfilling orders? Or are you assuming that it is all done by the ILEC? And if so, why doesn't the CLEC invest in upgrading it's own equipment so in the future it doesn't have to rely on the ILEC?



Boogie
[text was edited by author 2002-08-04 23:23:47]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4033448 Sun, 04 Aug 2002 13:43:16 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4030512 boogie74 :
said by garagerock:
said by boogie74:
While it may seem that all of these bad experiences were as a result of the ILEC's willful misconduct to harass the CLEC's, it is the same on all ends- the grass isn't greener on the other side!


How is that, exactly? Not like any CLEC can turn the tables and wait six months before installing a customer...they are always waiting on the damn ILEC to do their part.

so, basically you admit that willful misconduct to harass the CLEC's occurs??? haven't you proven my point for me? enforcement of TA1996 has been shoddy at best....so, how is it flawed if it hasn't been properly enforced? going back to 1984 by putting ma bell back together is NOT a solution any business customer would go for.

i (fortunately) don't even work in telecom anymore, and never will, quite frankly, given the current environment and reading these posts makes me wonder if the 1990's ever happened.

p.s. I saw many a pissed off customer go bye bye waiting longer than six months for a circuit ID. Sometimes that was average, especially in Ameritech territory.
[text was edited by author 2002-08-03 19:48:38]

[text was edited by author 2002-08-03 19:53:39]


If you re-read my post you will see it says, "While it may seem that all of these bad experiences were as a result of the ILEC's willful misconduct to harass the CLEC's, it is the same on all ends- the grass isn't greener on the other side!"

I don't see how you can translate that into "There is definitely willful misconduct from the ILEC's" It does not prove your point at all.

Boogie]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4030512 Sun, 04 Aug 2002 00:54:46 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4029210 JakCrow : Don't forget:

Stealing existing circuits CLEC customers to provide services for ILEC customers. (this happens frequently in Pac Bell territory)

And after the majority of the CLECs were eliminated in Pac Bell territory, prices were jacked up even though it has become cheaper to provide services.

I'm tired of the idiots that think because existing laws weren't enforced, we need new laws that repeal the existing one, but have more holes in them and are even looser than the original laws, like less restrictions will make it easier to enforce something. Like hell...
[text was edited by author 2002-08-03 22:11:30]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4029210 Sat, 03 Aug 2002 22:08:00 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4028161 garagerock :
said by boogie74:
While it may seem that all of these bad experiences were as a result of the ILEC's willful misconduct to harass the CLEC's, it is the same on all ends- the grass isn't greener on the other side!


How is that, exactly? Not like any CLEC can turn the tables and wait six months before installing a customer...they are always waiting on the damn ILEC to do their part.

so, basically you admit that willful misconduct to harass the CLEC's occurs??? haven't you proven my point for me? enforcement of TA1996 has been shoddy at best....so, how is it flawed if it hasn't been properly enforced? going back to 1984 by putting ma bell back together is NOT a solution any business customer would go for.

i (fortunately) don't even work in telecom anymore, and never will, quite frankly, given the current environment and reading these posts makes me wonder if the 1990's ever happened.

p.s. I saw many a pissed off customer go bye bye waiting longer than six months for a circuit ID. Sometimes that was average, especially in Ameritech territory.
[text was edited by author 2002-08-03 19:48:38]

[text was edited by author 2002-08-03 19:53:39]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4028161 Sat, 03 Aug 2002 19:40:48 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4027320 boogie74 :
said by garagerock:
that's easy.

1. prevention of CLEC customers from being turned up on a timely basis through lengthy delays, often as long as six or more months, while turning up their own customers in the same building in a matter of days. it's not as if they couldn't just identify the damn pair of wires while they were right there, in the same phone closet as the rest of the building...efficiency be damned. they chose to blow off CLEC circuit tagging on purpose.

2. creating a hostile environment in every c.o. that had CLEC equipment installed, and creating barriers to that access through unending identification changes.

3. bizarre pricing for UNE's, with discounts given only after ridiculous amounts of lines were sold (that even the ILEC's weren't selling in that quantity)

4. unending delays to repair for CLEC customers, citing "overbooking" when ILEC customers in very same building are repaired that day

these are just a few I experienced first hand. if this isn't evidence of noncompliance with TA1996, then I'm not sure what you call "compliance". the law called for access to c.o.'s and UNE's. these subtle and not so subtle roadblocks I call noncompliance.

nobody wants to wait around for six months to wait on a CLEC to get its circuit turned up. this tactic alone is the probable cause of the demise of many a CLEC. (not to mention bad business models, but that's a different debate)
[text was edited by author 2002-08-03 16:30:25]


Six MONTHS for a circuit to be assigned to a pair? ID issues are the same for ILEC employees as they are for CLEC vendors. ALL pricing for UNE's are set by PUC's, not the ILEC. Speaking from experience, ILEC customers also have unending delays in repairs and installation- just look at the nightmare of 2000 for Ameritech for an example of THAT!

While it may seem that all of these bad experiences were as a result of the ILEC's willful misconduct to harass the CLEC's, it is the same on all ends- the grass isn't greener on the other side!

Boogie]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4027320 Sat, 03 Aug 2002 17:35:04 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4026860 garagerock : that's easy.

1. prevention of CLEC customers from being turned up on a timely basis through lengthy delays, often as long as six or more months, while turning up their own customers in the same building in a matter of days. it's not as if they couldn't just identify the damn pair of wires while they were right there, in the same phone closet as the rest of the building...efficiency be damned. they chose to blow off CLEC circuit tagging on purpose.

2. creating a hostile environment in every c.o. that had CLEC equipment installed, and creating barriers to that access through unending identification changes.

3. bizarre pricing for UNE's, with discounts given only after ridiculous amounts of lines were sold (that even the ILEC's weren't selling in that quantity)

4. unending delays to repair for CLEC customers, citing "overbooking" when ILEC customers in very same building are repaired that day

these are just a few I experienced first hand. if this isn't evidence of noncompliance with TA1996, then I'm not sure what you call "compliance". the law called for access to c.o.'s and UNE's. these subtle and not so subtle roadblocks I call noncompliance.

nobody wants to wait around for six months to wait on a CLEC to get its circuit turned up. this tactic alone is the probable cause of the demise of many a CLEC. (not to mention bad business models, but that's a different debate)
[text was edited by author 2002-08-03 16:30:25]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4026860 Sat, 03 Aug 2002 16:23:02 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4026404 boogie74 :
said by JakCrow:
That's because the ILECs haven't been following the rules. Of course, they think they should also be rewarded for not following the rules....


Exactly which "rules" were the ILEC's not following? Please support your claim that the ILEC's were "breaking the law."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4026404 Sat, 03 Aug 2002 15:23:26 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4026141 JakCrow : That's because the ILECs haven't been following the rules. Of course, they think they should also be rewarded for not following the rules....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4026141 Sat, 03 Aug 2002 14:40:06 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4025550 Perihelion : Covad, Rhythms, NorthPoint all sued/made complaints to the various PUC's. I seem to recall Covad being the most aggressive of the three. I also recall several actions towards Ameritech and some rumblings that Covad went after BA for several issues.

They tried - they got little if any results. It wasn't all the ILEC's fault but they didn't help.

Check around. The ILEC's were getting pressured all over the country by these three CLEC's or DLEC's or whatever marketing was calling them at the time.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4025550 Sat, 03 Aug 2002 13:06:47 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4025479 boogie74 :
said by lesopp:
1. Over building - Consider this, if the CLECs that laid all the fiber had reasonable and inexpensive access to business and residential customers we would all be paying a lot less for broadband. Many of the CLECs did build their own networks but access to the customer was hampered at every turn in very creative ways.


Business competition is beyond thriving- over 30% of business customers have service with someone other than an ILEC. Residential is where the competition is lacking- that brings the nationwide average down in half to 15%. This is due to a business decision by CLEC's- not due to ILEC intervention.
quote:

3. Resellers & CLECs - Some of both are still in business, so they must be doing something right. Therefore the business model is not flawed. In fact the RBOCs are subject to the same model and pricing for broadband, that is to say the DSL business is separate and pays the same for local loop access and back-haul. Didn't Verizon in the last several quarters report record profits with respect to DSL?


Actually, all ILEC's posted record subscribership of DSL- not record profits. All ILEC's have posted continually lower diluted EPS estimates (Earnings per Share) for the past 3 consecutive quarters.

The fact that some CLEC's went under and others are thriving actually PROVES that those that went under had poor business models. If it were due to ILEC misbehavior, ALL CLEC's would have gone under- not just some of them. Not all CLEC's are had/have bad business models- just those that went out of business. Many CLEC's went under because they targeted customers that never pay any bills with advertising like "Did [insert ILEC name] disconnect you for non-payment?" or "Did [insert ILEC name] ask for a large deposit?" and "No deposits, no credit checks, no need for ID." They might as well have said, "No need to pay us, we'll just give you service."

Other companies went under because they expanded too quickly. Many went under because they relied on reciprocal compensation- making more money from ILEC's than from their customers.

I'm not saying that there isn't some sort of attempt (or overattempt) to control the flow of competition. Hell, if you were a business ordered to sell wholesale your investments, you'd try to follow the exact letter of the law too! The law was written to be followed exactly as it was written- not to be overdone by people who want to over-achieve on following it. Otherwise, if you felt everyone should follow the spirit of what the law was "supposed to mean," you'd be driving 10 miles per hour in school zones- not 20-25 (or faster). You would slow down to 30 MPH in construction zones for safety. You would NEVER walk across the street anywhere but at a corner and you would not walk on green lights with flashing "Don't Walk" signs.

When they say, "Open the markets to competition" they don't mean, "make sure that every one of your competitors is successful in business."

Boogie ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4025479 Sat, 03 Aug 2002 12:56:24 EDT Another Penny http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4025010 lesopp :
said by boogie74:
the ILEC's ALSO provide all outside network elements and pay for ALL upgrades and upkeep of those elements.
Why is my phone line connected to a SLC that is probably the "oldest still in use"? (Quoted from Verizon employee working at the SLC.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4025010 Sat, 03 Aug 2002 11:45:41 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4024929 lesopp : 1. Over building - Consider this, if the CLECs that laid all the fiber had reasonable and inexpensive access to business and residential customers we would all be paying a lot less for broadband. Many of the CLECs did build their own networks but access to the customer was hampered at every turn in very creative ways.

2. PUCs set the wholesale rate - In Florida, Bell South and Verizon have different wholesale rates. I looked up the Verizon tariffs, a reseller pays the same as a CLEC that colo's their equipment. I submit the the state commissions merely rubber stamp the tariff filings of the ILECs.

3. Resellers & CLECs - Some of both are still in business, so they must be doing something right. Therefore the business model is not flawed. In fact the RBOCs are subject to the same model and pricing for broadband, that is to say the DSL business is separate and pays the same for local loop access and back-haul. Didn't Verizon in the last several quarters report record profits with respect to DSL? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4024929 Sat, 03 Aug 2002 11:35:31 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4024733 lesopp : Hey ieolus, I would appreciate it if you would not use my quotes out of context. "Chadmaster" refers to the punch card ballot mess and has nothing to do with the 1996 Telecom Act, Senator McCain or the state of the telecom sector today.

I agree the Act made most of those jobs possible, so did the Ma Bell breakup and the investing community's unbridled desire to get rich quick.

"The laws of economics are elastic, stretch them out and sooner or later they snap back!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4024733 Sat, 03 Aug 2002 11:06:26 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4023144 JakCrow : Oh, I almost forgot. The bells pushed for deregulation and signed off on the the Telecommunications Act of 96 because they wanted to get into the long distance market so badly. Awww, but today, now that they've squandered their resources, grown too big to support themselves effectively, and abused their positions, they want the Act repealed or changed. You know what? Tough. Just like the energy market, they got what they wanted and blew it. Too bad, so sad. It's time for them to adapt or die.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4023144 Sat, 03 Aug 2002 02:42:42 EDT Re: funny... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4022735 BBC4544 : we are talking about dsl here, right??? here is the facts. co based dsl will reach about 30% of subscribers from a co. for dsl to be competitive to cable the rt's(remote terminals) have to be equiped with dsl. this cost money. why would a company develope its infrastructure to only lose money in the end. if you want technology to flurish, let the telcos have ownership of what they develope. as far as the wise crack about the clecs and thier cages, name one clec that has developed anything that progressed telephony or telecommunications to the next level. i would also like to point out that most clecs piss and moan because the are trying to put a service on copper that was developed for dail tone. this is not the telcos fault. in conclusion either level the playing field and regulate cable or deregulate telco.

on a side note, the comment about a closed minded republican, i am not a republican but i am also not a socialist democrat who wants to tax me into the poor house.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4022735 Sat, 03 Aug 2002 01:39:36 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4022494 grunteled : Do you have a source to cite that shows the 1996TA is the cause of 500,000 layoffs, and backs it up with more than opinion. Sorry, I take the word of those I know who were actually trying to make a go of it over "Ivas says so".

Not trying to rip on you, but if your going to ask for citations, then prepare to provide some yourself.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4022494 Sat, 03 Aug 2002 01:09:50 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4022244 Skier : Clearly you speak from a jaded point of view. The baby bells delayed deployment because the technology was not mature enough. What caused them to enter, cable industry inroads with cable modems, not TA96. Of course they paid a heavy price for rushing in technology that was not off-the-shelf ready for primetime.

Legal right to access? The person above is right, they are told to sell below cost so some other company can then sell it without providing any value added services. The bells maybe fighting the UNEP and other ridiculous rules that force them to squander shareholder equity, but they are not ignorig the rule of law. They sell at the tariffed rates. They build specialized systems to make it possible for their "competitors" to electronically order une's.

Oh yea, they also fight hard to win customers and earn money to pay their bills, pay their employees, contribute to the communities they operate in and to draw investor interest.

Better watch out for those terrible profit minded baby bells with their millions of employees!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4022244 Sat, 03 Aug 2002 00:37:41 EDT Re: funny... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4021443 garagerock :
said by BBC454:
i am sick of you idiots out there talking about how we need to regulate telcos. why in the hell would a company spend money to upgrade thier network to turn around and resell at a loss. do honestly think that the telcos exsist for the soul benifit for you. they have stock holders that want a profit. this is capitalism last time i checked. why do you think the telcos are laying people off. it is because stupid people expect them to operate in the red for the betterment of worthless clecs. go hug a tree you left wing dolts and keep out of telecommunications before you screw it up even more.


hee hee hee....this is high comedy here folks!

sooooooooooooooooooo, the CLEC's never pay for any of the loops, cage space, or UNE's?? they just get it for free????

why don't YOU stay out of telecommunications before you screw it up any more?????]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4021443 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 23:04:41 EDT Re: funny... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4020526 Mike : I'm not going to debate with closed republicans... I'm done.
[text was edited by author 2002-08-02 21:33:55]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4020526 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 21:33:25 EDT Re: funny... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4020501 BBC4544 : i am sick of you idiots out there talking about how we need to regulate telcos. why in the hell would a company spend money to upgrade thier network to turn around and resell at a loss. do honestly think that the telcos exsist for the soul benifit for you. they have stock holders that want a profit. this is capitalism last time i checked. why do you think the telcos are laying people off. it is because stupid people expect them to operate in the red for the betterment of worthless clecs. go hug a tree you left wing dolts and keep out of telecommunications before you screw it up even more.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4020501 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 21:29:30 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4020495 pupowski :
said by lvas:
.....however dude, I never once mentioned in my post who supported the 1996 act - so why did you bring it up? you then drolled on about past govt problems - are you just trying to change the subject or what....
You said
said by lvas:
..... "lets have the govt make the same screwed up laws for the cable firms that have caused all this mess in the telecom sector."....
and you went on to say
said by lvas:
..... "500,000 jobs lost in the telcom sector over the past 2 years - 2 trillion lost in the stock market crash in the telecom sector. that is real jobs and real monies lost - under the current rules/regulation from the 1996 act - and you all think the 1996 act is working?" ....
I didn't change the change the subject, you don't even know what it was.
said by lvas:
.....as I stated its a bad act and has had terriable results - my opinion and I stated the reasons why I have that opinion. so again dude - take your own advise and get your facts straight.
You stated nothing of the kind in that post. You are clueless. The Disney Forum or the Brittany Spears forum might be more suitable for you.
[text was edited by author 2002-08-02 21:30:49]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4020495 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 21:29:10 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4019947 boogie74 :
said by Mike:
They're a reseller of their own services with their own equipment, cages, employees, and usually utilities.

The only thing the ILEC does is usually own the building and give CLECs trouble.


First we need to define a few things here. The CLEC's in question are using something called UNE-P (pronounced you-knee-pee) which is basically the ability to purchase usage of only "parts" of a network that was never designed to be broken apart to begin with. To make things worse, those in power in the regulatory agencies have decided upon how much to value these network elements and then they discounted them further- all to encourage the illusion of competition.

Many companies (not all- just many) are using this as a means to stay afloat without investing a dime in their own network elements. Basically stated, these companies are being subsidized by ILEC's.

To address the above quote, there is a bit something missing in the equation above- the ILEC's ALSO provide all outside network elements and pay for ALL upgrades and upkeep of those elements.

What these CLEC's (not all CLEC's) are doing then is complaining that they are getting headaches and hassles from the ILEC's when they place residential orders, but they seem to be gaining large business customers without any trouble at all. What these companies are trying to convince those in charge of all this is the idea that ILEC's are perfectly willing and cooperative with large business services, but with residential services, they are locking tech's out of buildings, not showing up for vender meets, having the tech's not do any work at all in the CO to complete orders, etc.

Just my .02
Wait... here's another penny- it's now .03!

Boogie

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4019947 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 20:21:54 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4019288 Mike : They're a reseller of their own services with their own equipment, cages, employees, and usually utilities.

The only thing the ILEC does is usually own the building and give CLECs trouble.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4019288 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 19:02:43 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4019249 lvas : sure a clec is a competitve local exchange carrier. I don't agree with the word "competiteve" - I think they are a reseller. "please excus the spelling"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4019249 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 18:58:24 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4019229 JakCrow :
said by lvas:

as I stated its a bad act and has had terriable results - my opinion and I stated the reasons why I have that opinion. so again dude - take your own advise and get your facts straight.

It was a good act that wasn't followed and hardly enforced.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4019229 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 18:55:54 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4019213 lvas : boy its it easy to point out your faulty logic.

1. asking if you folks read the paper is casting an aspersion? I think you should take your own advise.

2.your claim " I need to get my facts straight" and then stating the RBOCS where instrumental in passing the 1996 act. which by the way is a true statement - the RBOCS did help pass the 1996 act because they thought they were trading access to the LD market for others access to their "last mile".

however dude, I never once mentioned in my post who supported the 1996 act - so why did you bring it up? you then drolled on about past govt problems - are you just trying to change the subject or what?

as I stated its a bad act and has had terriable results - my opinion and I stated the reasons why I have that opinion. so again dude - take your own advise and get your facts straight.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4019213 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 18:54:04 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4019165 JakCrow :
said by lvas:
really - what compaines did the bells buy up? can you name any? and after naming one - can you site a source where jobs where laid off from that company?

The bells went out and bought -other bells-. Have you been asleep for the last 6 years? Now these companies are sagging under their own weight. Regulation is just something for them to point fingers at to blame for bad business sense.
[text was edited by author 2002-08-02 18:54:34]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4019165 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 18:47:27 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4019053 lvas : really - what compaines did the bells buy up? can you name any? and after naming one - can you site a source where jobs where laid off from that company?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4019053 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 18:33:15 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4019037 lvas : "just like what the USA did in Iraq"?

sorry - you lost me on your comparsion.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4019037 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 18:31:01 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4019025 lvas : if the baby bells ignored the rule of the law as you stated then of course the clecs could/would/did take the bells to court. And of course you have tons of advidates to back up your claim that the bells ignored the laws right? or you wouldn't make such a statement - correct?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4019025 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 18:29:53 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4019009 Mike : uh, do you even know what a CLEC is from that last statement?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4019009 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 18:28:06 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4018989 lvas : my opinion is that clecs are supposedly value added resellers who don't add much value and have in general faulty business models. the competiton in the broadband market is between DSL,Cable and wireless.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4018989 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 18:26:48 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4018966 lvas : really - the ability to unbundle network elements and sell them at wholesale prices to Clecs created 500,000 jobs? you better go back and look at all the layoff anoucments to check out your facts - you got that one wrong.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4018966 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 18:24:13 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4018961 xrobertcmx :
said by lvas:
don't you folks read the papers? 500,000 jobs lost in the telcom sector over the past 2 years - 2 trillion lost in the stock market crash in the telecom sector. that is real jobs and real monies lost - under the current rules/regulation from the 1996 act - and you all think the 1996 act is working?


As one of those 500,000 people, let me say something here. It wasn't the 1996 telcom act that cost me or most of those others their jobs or money.
If you want to point fingers, pass blame, or anything else you can lay a lot of it on two things and two things only. 1. Bad Management i.e. worldcom, teligent, global crossing, take you pick.

2. ILEC's. When you have to wait a month and a half to have a line ported your sales people look like idiots and the customers tend to bail out. We had one line go 6 months because Ameritech couldn't get it straight.
Or how about the cage requirements?

No, the telecom act of '96 been enforced then it would have worked. You can pass any law you want, but until you back it up it is worth less then the paper you wasted writing it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4018961 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 18:23:52 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4018867 Perihelion : NP exec on the job for 3 mos. and took a bonus? Hmmm...give me a clue, I should have remembered that one.

TA1996 opened up the market for many of these firms. Uh BTW - Did I see someone refer to NorthPoint as an ISP? That should tell you what that person knows about it.

Regardless of what you may opine, you had to be there to get a sense of what happened. Fact - no one was ready for the huge pent up demand, ILEC's took great advantage of this and many other short comings to stick it to these smaller firms. It was like the ILEC teacher watching a bunch of little kids kicking the crap out of each other in the sand box. We willingly obliged.

Then someone decided that many of these little companies should have enterprise level systems and "real, credible" management teams. So the little guys hired some pedigreed MBA's who understood how to spend money in a limitless fashion. The MBA's hired consultants, who spent $10's of millions on these systems that didn't work properly until they were load tested, had dropped 20,000 orders on the floor and basically screwed the downstream partners for weeks on end. The consultants made millions folks.

Then the street decided that EBITDA was king and not customer base....too late Mr Banker I've spent all that money based on a 5 year ramp, guess we'll fire everyone and file BK.

Of course that's the generic version but if you worked for any of the CLEC's or ISP's that went up in smoke you've got a framework for your experience. Add your own names, toss in related dollar amounts plus the alphabet soup of consultants and finally add your office's soap opera and it's a wrap.

It varied by time, location and amount but the underlying story is pretty much the same. When the telco's realized they were going to get aced out of the deal they politely stiff armed all of us and then watched as we imploded through arrogant mismanagment.

I rest my case.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4018867 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 18:15:30 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4017224 dnoyeB : clearly you have
1. not been around long.
2. not followed the industry.
3. not read any of the replies to your posts in this forum.

What is wrong with basing a business model on your legal right to have access to the baby bells equipment? Their model failed when the baby bells ignored the rule of law, and the FCC failed to enforce it. McCain/tauzin/dingell are attempting to make the laws the baby bells have been breaking for the last 4 years, go away...

All companies have a certain degree of mismanagement. The baby bells are guilty of the same thing. Notice their late entry into the broadband market and their complete attempt to kill it rather than embrace it.
--
dnoyeB "Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
The government is pricing our rights our of our reach.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4017224 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:26:37 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4017116 pupowski :
said by lvas:
funny - whats funny is most of the peoples replies to this post thread. sure - lets have the govt make the same screwed up laws for the cable firms that have caused all this mess in the telecom sector. don't you folks read the papers?
Get your facts straight before you cast aspersions upon other forum members. RBOC lobbyists asked for and were instrumental in creating the 1996 Telecom act they now dis-avow. Government's failure was listening to industry lobbyists, a problem that has plagued us from the S&L crisis of the 80's to the Telecom and Corporate governance crises of today. We need separation of business and government to stop the rape of the American public.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4017116 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:11:29 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4016764 gogeta6 : Udnoubtably, but do you really think it is preferable to giving the green light to monopolization. Seems like it's the best we have for now.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4016764 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 14:32:50 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4016748 JakCrow : Things aren't working because the telcos are NOT following the act and it's not being enforced. I hate to break it to you, but a significant number of people and money lost are from the companies the bells put out of business with anti-competitive tactics and pricing, and the rest lost is because all these bells tried to buy up everything around them with no business plans to speak off.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4016748 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 14:30:32 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4016451 lvas : Ok, I will try one more time, but I know I'm pissing in the wind on this forum. Yes the dot.com bubble burst caused a lot of the job lost. When the global crossing's and others scalled back orders because of overbuilding of (longhaul) networks that had a ripple effect amoung all the equipment vendors (cisco, nortel, etc) out there, which had other ripple effects. Then when the ISP's (northpoint, etc) started going belly up that too had a ripple effect. Then of course you have Qwest and worldcom and others who failed through mismagement, etc. So yes there are/where a lot of factor at play here, but you can't deny that underline most of this (at least in the telecom sector) there was many business models built from the 1996 reg act basied upon UNE_p (buying wholesale services from the ILECs) that are just flawed. I'm sorry but the PUC's in each state set the rates for those wholesale rates - they are inforced so I'm at a lost to understand if your a clec and you know the published rate for a wholesale service how its the Ilecs fault if you can't manage your business in a profitable manner? again - those rates are enforced. that is the bottom line to the buiness correct? you buy something (that you don't create) at a wholesale rate then resell it at retail rate. that is the classic middleman business model is it not??? the 1996 act is flawed in my opinion because its trying to insert a middeman (clec) who does not really create anything (do they build networks? no they rent them) and then they call that Competition. that is not competition folks.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4016451 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 13:56:13 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4016231 Mike : Let's prevent job loss by not even creating them in the first place.

republican views are funny.
[text was edited by author 2002-08-02 13:34:33]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4016231 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 13:29:44 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4016134 dnoyeB : I'll go easy since your obviously new here...Anti-competitive behavior of the baby bells is what primarily led to the demise of the telecom sector. Its just like what USA did in Iraq. We told the telecoms that they had a right to the baby bells distribution boxes, etc. They build a business based on this access to sell DSL and other related services like local phone service. THen the government FAILED to enforce their act. So their business model was shreaded in an instant. So CEOs realizing that their was NO way in hell their company would ever make money began to bilk the shareholders and fatten their pockets as fast as they could.

Anyone else remember NP exec on the job for about 3 months that took the HUGE bonus during their bankruptsy.

Your on the wrong forum to start talking about things that you have not investigated very well. Stick around, well learn ya.
--
dnoyeB "Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
The government is pricing our rights our of our reach.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4016134 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 13:17:42 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4016054 garagerock : so, you must be accessing dslreports.com on a T-1 or better, or maybe a metered ISDN line, eh? how about dialup?

i'm guessing no.

kinda hard to say that TA1996 was the cause of the burst of the bubble. too many other factors at play, such as gross mismanagement, fibbing stock analysts, market conditions that only gamblers could see was a mess, lying and cheating CEO's, etc.

TA1996 was certainly the cause of the inflation of the bubble, however. a lot of money, time, and effort went into that bubble.

to suggest that TA1996 somehow created this mess is ignoring the good it has done. if you live in the right place, it has done wonders to foster competition. remember, 1996 was only 6 years ago. it takes a long time to see how a landmark law like that is going to effect change.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4016054 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 13:06:38 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4016035 ieolus : It was also the Telecom Act of '96 that CREATED all those telecom jobs.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4016035 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 13:05:17 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4015987 grunteled : Oh yea, I'm remember that section 5 para 15 of the 1996 telcom act required all telecom companies to report false earnings and inflate stock prices. There was language to force investors to buy anything ending in "dot com". There was another clause instructing them to loan CEOs billions of dollars to purchase company stock to drive up it's apparent value. If it hadn't been for regulations these guys would have been honest, hardworking folks. Free from regs these execs would be out day after day working tirelessly to make life better for the working men and women at their company. It's all the fault of big, bad regulation.

Come on.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4015987 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 12:57:37 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4015708 Bsod : Well it's not as if the government forced Worldcom to lend Bernie Ebbers that $half billion, is it? Immunity from regulation is not what telecom monopolies need at the moment.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4015708 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 12:18:51 EDT Re: understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4015695 onsitede : The companies that are folding are the companies that were built on paper (not the pretty green stuff with presidents faces, either) and were generally miss managed. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4015695 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 12:16:52 EDT understand what your asking for folks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4015592 lvas : funny - whats funny is most of the peoples replies to this post thread. sure - lets have the govt make the same screwed up laws for the cable firms that have caused all this mess in the telecom sector. don't you folks read the papers? 500,000 jobs lost in the telcom sector over the past 2 years - 2 trillion lost in the stock market crash in the telecom sector. that is real jobs and real monies lost - under the current rules/regulation from the 1996 act - and you all think the 1996 act is working?

ha - what a joke. do you really believe all of those lost jobs and peoples lost 401k monies is a fair trade off for you to have a choice of ISP?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4015592 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 12:02:04 EDT funny... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4015461 INHCNN : Yeah, from what I infer from the article, this is the exact opposite direction of what we should be traveling...

Cable cos' are not currently regulated like the Telco's are, and therefore limits my cable TV and cable modem access to 1 provider, whom I just happen to dislike. If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander, and I feel that it's time for us to start treating cable co's like telco's.

On a different note, has anyone else got a good chuckle about the new SBC commercial - the one where they go on and on about 'our networks, our people, our service' and the CLEC's being 'salespeople'? It was a pretty good laugh, but in a strange way, they bring out a good point - the ILEC is solely responsible for the maintenence of thier network, true? So, what if they are 'un-motivated' to fix this, or deploy that? Tottally thier choice. Now how do we fix that? The same theory needs to be tossed at the cable co's too....

my 2 pennies....

=T]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4015461 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 11:42:16 EDT