Plldwnyrpnts
join:2003-04-19
Chicago, IL
| Telcos lay down lines.... ...and others reap the benefits. It is unfortunate that it costs too much to lay down the infrastructure or to even get it started. Sharing the lines the someone else paid for sucks but it does help competition. It's a double edged sword.
Cable companies are lucky that they don't have to share. So they get to monopolize the area, but only until Cable company B comes in with it's own lines to bring on competition. A heavy price to pay for a shot in the dark.
Most people will not switch from one company for the other unless the price difference is significant. But how much will it cost company B just to bring in a decent customer base? Lose money to hope to make money.
I don't feel bad for the baby bells having to share their lines, but I understand that it sucks. | |
|
 |
 | 
SteveCon
IBEW 2222 Boston, MA
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Burlington, MA
| Re: Telcos lay down lines.... said by priller  :said by Plldwnyrpnts :...and others reap the benefits. It is unfortunate that it costs too much to lay down the infrastructure or to even get it started. Sharing the lines the someone else paid for sucks but it does help competition. It's a double edged sword. Line sharing does not equal FREE. If Covad or others "share", they still have to pay the telco for the access. People always seem to think that the telco is being forced to give something away and not get revenue. Not true. You're right, they're not giving it away for free. They give it away for a LOSS. Simply put, the government sets the rate for which the telco can charge the CLEC for the loop. This amount is LESS than what it cost for the loop & the maintenance. How the hell is that fair?? CLEC's have to be STUPID to NOT make money. Maybe that's why there are so many CLECs. It's a license to print money!
And I don't know how the CATV groups get their digital phone classified as an "information service" and avoid having to share their lines. If you regulate one - you have to regulate the other. Simple as that.
--
I work for the ILEC.. stuff happens. | |
|
Maxeh
Woot?
Premium
join:2002-12-23
Chicago, IL
clubs: | yes, but telcos built the infrastructure laregely with PUBLIC money, hence the infrastructure should be open to the public
--
Woot? | |
|
| raye
Premium
join:2000-08-14
Orange, CA
| Re: Telcos lay down lines.... And this is the difference between cable and local telcos.
Cable footed the bill for their infrastructure without taxpayer support. The local telcos had taxpayer financed aid in putting infrastructure in place.
IMHO, Cable should not be required to share, but telcos should.
What will this line sharing elimination do for T1 providers? | |
|
| | 
JohnDrenZ
Premium
join:2000-04-03
Phoenix, AZ
 ·Optimum Online
| Re: Telcos lay down lines.... said by raye :What will this line sharing elimination do for T1 providers? T1 is an unbundled product (UNE-P) so any ruling wouldnt effect it. | |
|
| | skrupowies
join:2002-08-22
Wallingford, CT
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| I suppose one could argue that it was "semi-public" money that placed the majority of the existing cables and poles since they were done during the days of big time monopoly. However, ALL of the DSL based infrastructure (DSLAMs, NGDLC RTs, fiber, etc) has been placed during the days of competition. There is no public money involved so there should be no requirement to share that equipment. And of course there is that great misnomer called competition anyway. How can it be called competition when NO ONE wants to build their own network? All any of them want to do is mooch off the incumbents. Let the incumbents design it, let the incumbents build it, let the incumbents maintain it, let the incumbents provision it but let me use it for some ridiculously low cost so I can slap my name on the bill. | |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| While the Baby Bells have to share their lines, it's not like it's free. It's not like it costs them anything. Understand that they are able to charge a fee to anyone using their lines to recover their costs. So it doesn't cost them anything.
What it does cost is their profit because by sharing that line means that someone else is making money on it and not them.
Not only is it a huge expense to create create a large network, think of the excess cabling etc. I have long said that the company who is maintaining the facilities should operate independantly of the company providing services.
As to higher speeds from this, nope this will make it worse. In areas where there isn't competition expect pricing to go up and speeds remain the same. The only thing that will drive DSL speeds up in certain areas is cable, as cable increases in speeds DSL will do the same to match it. After all if it wasn't for cable internet we'd probably all still be on 56k modems. | |
|
| 
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: Telcos lay down lines.... said by cmaenginsb :What it does cost is their profit because by sharing that line means that someone else is making money on it and not them. Not necessarily. It's like acquiring a wholesale customer. The costs of acquiring an equal number of retail customers isn't there (i.e. advertising, salespeople, etc.) Of course I guess these deals require a lot of attorneys, so maybe it is a wash... | |
|
|
| 
roamer1
sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
| Re: Telcos lay down lines.... Of course, TWC was forced to do so under their "social contract" with the FCC.
As for the Bells, I expect that most Bells will continue to offer wholesale "loop" services to independent ISPs despite the ruling, just at higher prices; heck, even Verizon has been reported to be working with indie ISPs for access to FiOS. (As it stands now, in some cases Bells charge indie ISPs more for LOOPS ALONE than they do for their own retail ISP product.) Those served by Covad and other DCLECs seem to be completely unaffected...for now.
-SC
--
"it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones" --a friend | |
|
|
|
|
·
