how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
424 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| | A few notes First, the term sharing is out of place here for example regarding TELCOS the ILECS lease lines to the CLECS at cost they do not have to let them access their network for FREE, the ILECS did not pay for all those lines and poles most of them where paid for by AT&T and then given to the ILECS.
My assumption would be that cable would operate the same way, I don't see a problem with this.
Look at the big picture:
It is easy to say they should have their own buildings and lines, however there is only so much space on this earth for poles and buildings and only so much space on each pole, they are only so tall you know.
How would you like to have your yard filled with poles to where you have little room to cook burgers on the grill.
How well do you think the company at the bottom of those poles will do with their lines two feet off the ground for every stray dog that comes along to cause them a network outage.
--
If Operating Systems Were Women? : »www.sigkill.com/os/ | |
|  | | Re: A few notes said by callihn4:
First, the term sharing is out of place here for example regarding TELCOS the ILECS lease lines to the CLECS at cost they do not have to let them access their network for FREE, the ILECS did not pay for all those lines and poles most of them where paid for by AT&T and then given to the ILECS.
My assumption would be that cable would operate the same way, I don't see a problem with this.
Look at the big picture:
It is easy to say they should have their own buildings and lines, however there is only so much space on this earth for poles and buildings and only so much space on each pole, they are only so tall you know.
How would you like to have your yard filled with poles to where you have little room to cook burgers on the grill.
How well do you think the company at the bottom of those poles will do with their lines two feet off the ground for every stray dog that comes along to cause them a network outage.
Wrong answer. You have neglected to include the BILLIONS invested since 1984 for new construction build outs (unless you think that no new neighborhoods have been built in the past 19 to 20 years), fiber replacements, digital switch integration, etc.
Your 2nd error comes in thinking that the no one wants duplicate networks built out. Since there are ALREADY multiple networks built out (and you didn't even know how to notice the FIRST one) and since TA1996 includes provisions for the build outs of duplicate networks, you are not only wrong on this point, but your opinion on the matter has already been overuled.
You can certainly conclude in any paranoid way you like that all the politicians and all the judges are against you and that they are always bought under the table to do things that will make it so that you aren't allowed to have 150 Gbps/150 Gbps with 8000 static IPs and the legal allowance to steal (share) copyrighted materials without having to pay for ANY of it- as long as you can make sure that those companies willing to pay to offer you these services don't have anything to do with the delivery of them. Of course, I would simply suggest to take your medication.
Boogie | |
| | | | Re: A few notes You are way off base. Since 1984 there have been many expansions and network upgrades just as you pointed out. But in none of these cases did the ILEC just make the upgrade or make the expansion. Each time they have expanded or upgraded it has been through deals with the local PUC to raise prices and levie new taxes in exchange for increased coverage. Time and time again, these ILECs have increased their prices as a result of these agreements and still not made the expansion promised. Just look at recent deals for fiber with SBC and Kansas, or Verizon and Pennsylvania. This same story repeats itself through out the history of the Bells first with tone dial, then ISDN, then fiber, then dsl, then fiber again. Its an endless circle with the Bells which have never fulfilled their end of the obligation.
Ever heard of the FCC tarif, you know that little $5-$8 fee on every single persons phonebill... you are aware that is NOT an FCC tax right? That, that fee is actually charged by the Bells and paid to the Bells. That is what pays for expansion.
You talk as though the bells and cable don't spend more on lobbying then the do on r&d ... read their annual reports they consistantly outspend r&d with lobbying. Look at Billy Tauzin, his son is a lobbist for the telco's, his entire staff is made up of former lobbyists. Look at who the president of SBC is, Gore's former campaign manager. Even John McCain is in the pockets of SBC.
Look out how Bell treated DSL, and you tell me if a monopoly is best for consumers. DSL was invented when? Early 80's. When did it come to your home? 1, 2, 3 years ago. Only when cable started its push did the Telco's follow (they didn't want to lose $2k+/month T1s to DSL).
Same thing is happening with cable, now they are talking about charging you extra for ESPN, though espn is not a subscription type service like HBO, they are advertiser supported. | |
| | |  THZNDUPDeorum Offensa Diis CuraePremium
join:2003-09-18
Lard
kudos:2 | Re: A few notes said by WOWed:
......Same thing is happening with cable, now they are talking about charging you extra for ESPN, though espn is not a subscription type service like HBO, they are advertiser supported.
ESPN, etc are are ALSO supported by fees paid by the cable company to carry them. The attempt to break them out into tiers will probably be self-defeating as ESPN will chg the cable co more per tier subscriber as opposed to all basic subs.
--
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything | |
| | | | | quote:
You are way off base. Since 1984 there have been many expansions and network upgrades just as you pointed out. But in none of these cases did the ILEC just make the upgrade or make the expansion. Each time they have expanded or upgraded it has been through deals with the local PUC to raise prices and levie new taxes in exchange for increased coverage. Time and time again, these ILECs have increased their prices as a result of these agreements and still not made the expansion promised. Just look at recent deals for fiber with SBC and Kansas, or Verizon and Pennsylvania
I'm a bit lost as to your point here. You first stated that there have been many expansions and upgrades. You then stated that these only occurred in exchange for large increases in prices, etc. Please support this with actual data- not a hyped up story on BBR and "Telescam" about how Verizon promised FTTH for tax cuts. This has already been proven to be completely off base and hyped up beyond it's actual implications- as there was no such promise by SBC to Kansas to do the same. Your example with SBC and Kansas was actually an agreement between SBC and Oklahoma whereas Oklahoma agreed in January of 2002 to deregulated broadband deployments and remove lineshare requirements if SBC agreed to deploy and expand DSL to a number of OK regions (which they are actually on schedule with).
quote:
Ever heard of the FCC tarif, you know that little $5-$8 fee on every single persons phonebill... you are aware that is NOT an FCC tax right? That, that fee is actually charged by the Bells and paid to the Bells. That is what pays for expansion.
You should do a little more research before you make such claims. Yes, you are correct that this is not an FCC tax. It's actually state specific, in no case is it $8 per month- it's usually between $5 and $5.60. However, the REAL history of the federal access charge is this...
Before divestiture, the local networks were subsidized by long distance rates. In 1983 and before, long distance rates were NOWHERE near as low as a nickel per minute- they ran between 35 and 60 cents per minute. Since the Bells in 1984 weren't allowed to sell long distance and long distance was what was subsidizing the local networks, Judge Green allowed the Bells to charge a federal access charge of $3.50. The other difference was made up with the invention of access charges that the long distance carriers paid the Bells to access the local networks in order to complete long distance calls. In 1996, there was reform to these charges in an effort to cut long distance rates- making a small fee roughly $1-$2 per month per line charge that cut substantially the access charges paid from long distance carriers to local carriers. This caused long distance rates to drop down even further. Long distance carriers began simply adding this on to customers' bills. In 1998, there was more regulatory reform that eliminated this $1-$2 charge and allowed the Bells to increase the $3.50 federal access charge on a gradual basis to what will eventually be $6.50 maximum.
If you notice, so far, the entire goal so far has been to keep the image of lower prices while they still haven't really changed much at all.
quote:
Look out how Bell treated DSL, and you tell me if a monopoly is best for consumers. DSL was invented when? Early 80's. When did it come to your home? 1, 2, 3 years ago. Only when cable started its push did the Telco's follow (they didn't want to lose $2k+/month T1s to DSL).
Nice try, but there aren't many residential customers that have or had (ever!) T1 lines in their homes. Further, it is just naive to think that in the 80's there would be a market for a broadband product so that people could access ARPNET with their Commodore 64's. You'd have better luck trying to claim that Leonardo DeVinci held back on the helicopter invention (and yes he designed it 100%) because of political pressure to keep people paying high prices for horses and drawn carriage rides to get cross country. Sometimes the "invention" of an item or technology is a moot point until there is a proven market for it. Hell- most BUSINESSES didn't subscribe to T1 lines in the 80's.
Get a grip on reality and please post based on facts- not emotion. You'd be better off relying on information that doesn't come from things you read on BBR. Fox News has a more "fair and balanced" approach than this place does.
Boogie | |
|
| | | Unfortunately, you've neglected to understand the facts behind the statements you make...
1st, you talk about the BILLIONS spent on upgrades to the networks since 1984. You're right, BILLIONS have been spent.... where did that money come from, though? The money came from the pockets of customers, who have been overcharged for years because of the FCC and stats PUC's not giving due diligence. Do you know how rates are set? The ILEC presents the rates they want to charge to the state PUC. There is a waiting period during which the state PUC can question or reject a rate. If this waiting period ends, however, the rates go into effect. This happens far more often than anyone would like to think, or admit.
2nd, you talk about multiple networks and the TA1996 (Telecom Act of '96) allowing for those. You are right, the act does allow for those. However, just because a piece of legislation allows for it doesn't mean it's possible. FOR EXAMPLE:
Most municipalities now require new buildouts to be underground. They no longer allow buildouts to be done on poles, as they're trying to beautify neighborhoods by keeping the poles from being littered with lines, etc. This makes sense, but burying cable is enormously more expensive than running cable on poles. Therefore, as has been mentioned in previous comments, it's prohibitively expensive to buildout a new network. That was understood by the drafters of TA1996 and why it was allowed. If you understand your history AT ALL you'll see that the ILEC's had no problem with this in 1996. Only today do they not like it (because they wanted long distance and the bottom fell out of that market).
Your third comment is pointless. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion and is just an underhanded way of slamming the previous poster. No one is asking for ridiculous amounts of bandwidth or anything like that, just the chance to have a real choice when it comes to internet access.
Michael | |
| | | | said by boogie74:
Wrong answer. You have neglected to include the BILLIONS invested since 1984 for new construction build outs (unless you think that no new neighborhoods have been built in the past 19 to 20 years), fiber replacements, digital switch integration, etc.
The poles and lines in my neighborhood are over fifty years old the money for new contruction also does not come directly from the ILECs pocket.
said by boogie74:
Your 2nd error comes in thinking that the no one wants duplicate networks built out.
Well if there are no duplicate networks built out then the existing network would have to be shared, you can't have it both ways here.
said by boogie74:
Since there are ALREADY multiple networks built out
Where? Not here pal, I have only four lines on my pole CABLE, TELCO and ELECTRIC each owned by one sole provider of services.
said by boogie74:
and since TA1996 includes provisions for the build outs of duplicate networks
Which only envolves TELCOS and which TELCOS would like to change.
said by boogie74:
You can certainly conclude in any paranoid way you like that all the politicians and all the judges are against you and that they are always bought under the table to do things that will make it so that you aren't allowed to have 150 Gbps/150 Gbps with 8000 static IPs and the legal allowance to steal (share) copyrighted materials without having to pay for ANY of it- as long as you can make sure that those companies willing to pay to offer you these services don't have anything to do with the delivery of them. Of course, I would simply suggest to take your medication.
Boogie
WTF, is that about? TOTALLY OFF TOPIC AND IGNORANT ASSUMPTIONS!!!
--
If Operating Systems Were Women? : »www.sigkill.com/os/ | |
|
| |
|
