Missouri Explores Deregulation > Look at the list of States being pushed to do this

reply to KrK

Re: Look at the list of States being pushed to do this

quote:

---

Given the RBOC's lobbying and political wheeling and dealing, any CLEC would be dumb to build anything else right now. They'll end up not being allowed to use it... better to wait for a more pro-consumer leadership change at the FCC to get the ball rolling in the right direction.

---

said by boogie74:

---

And exactly WHY wouldn't a CLEC not be allowed to use it if they deploy it? Are you just grasping at straws now? You've lost your touch somehow... what is missing here?

---

said by KrK:

---

said by boogie74:

---

And exactly WHY wouldn't a CLEC not be allowed to use it if they deploy it? Are you just grasping at straws now? You've lost your touch somehow... what is missing here?

---

Stop playing dumb... The reason is self obvious.

---

reply to KrK
Okay everyone has to come of age regulations were set between 1960 to the late 1980's they never figured for broadband only dialup and local/long distant service. Missouri, and Kansas are the BFE of the united states bunch of farmers and agriculture thats about it in a nut shell! Well late 80' into the 90's broadband hit and alot more people want it. They regulated because they were a monopoly and cable is a monopoly and they want to break it up Deregulation means more roll out for DSL and that means for cable to compete they would have to roll out also. Your forgetting one Big factor if deregulation applys to MO that means new broadband industry such as fixed wireless and the almighty fiber lines could possibly be lit up. All that can happen is we deregulate if it bites us in the butt the state steps back in and makes harsher regulations it's that easy.

reply to boogie74
I live in Mo and I have a computer.

said by mob:

---

I live in Mo and I have a computer.

---

said by boogie74:

---

If it is deployed and NO ONE subscribes, how is this a guaranteed profit? Sounds like a risk to me...Boogie

---

said by KrK:

---

said by boogie74:

---

If it is deployed and NO ONE subscribes, how is this a guaranteed profit? Sounds like a risk to me...Boogie

---

.... Yeah, a risk that they'll just have to raise rates on other services to cover it (Even the regulated services have a Profit margin granted by Law)... but it's moot anyway because they know very well the demand is there and it's growing, so loosing money is not an option, at least not once you get past the first couple of "deployment expense" years, anyway.

---

reply to KrK
Well, how about all the little towns that have a cable company that does not care, 1 AOL access number and no other options? I was in a town that had AOL, a few other dial up ISP's and that was it for almost 10 years. Then SBC DSL came into the picture (June,2001) and suddenly a fixed wireless venture popped up(November,2001). Then all the sudden the cable company decided it was time to upgrade again to allow net access over cable lines(June 2002). Now in that town you can get fixed wireless, cable, DSL, dial up and data services from national cell phone companies. Where did the interest come from?
--
GW Bush is delivering his promise to the end the national nightmare of peace and economic prosperity

reply to boogie74
I claim no such thing, it is you that reads the posts, and then decides to deliberatly miss the point and word your reply as to "make" the original post into a claim or some other misstatement.
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948 (Yep, it's dead.)

You wrote:

quote:

---

.... Yeah, a risk that they'll just have to raise rates on other services to cover it (Even the regulated services have a Profit margin granted by Law)... but it's moot anyway because they know very well the demand is there and it's growing, so loosing money is not an option, at least not once you get past the first couple of "deployment expense" years, anyway.

---

quote:

---

So you are claiming that the ILECs should be forced to invest in a product that may or may not be profitable, and be forced to raise the rates of its current services in the case that it isn't profitable?

---

reply to mob
I am in MO and own several computers, However none are on cinder blocks

reply to boogie74
There is *zero* risk for the ILEC. Under *NO* circumstance will they ever be "Forced" to lose money, period. If ever they WASTE money in one area, by REFUSING to deliver the service people want, they have the luxury under the law to make guaranteed returns and they can simply shift expenses. Other businesses can be driven out of business, but that CAN NOT happen to the incumbent Telephone carrier. The only risk they incur is that they might not make as much money as they want, but never that they'll lose money. And oh, I don't buy the argument that building infrastructure for the future is a "money losing venture" which has risk. 1) Building expenses are paid for by other services and 2) It's a long term asset which will reap profits for decades.
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948 (Yep, it's dead.)

quote:

---

And oh, I don't buy the argument that building infrastructure for the future is a "money losing venture" which has risk

---

quote:

---

Yeah, a risk that they'll just have to raise rates on other services to cover it (Even the regulated services have a Profit margin granted by Law)... but it's moot anyway because they know very well the demand is there and it's growing, so loosing money is not an option, at least not once you get past the first couple of "deployment expense" years, anyway.

---