how-to block ads
|
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
| reply to DaneJasper
Re: One Question:
You never answered the basic question: Why should they allow you to lease their lines?
Even the Telecom Act of 1996 wanted "competition" based on line sharing of phones proviso the CLECs built their own "last mile" eventually.
The Act failed except to give the Bells LD, which is destroying the LD companies piecemail (MCI is now VZ, T is now SBC owned, Sprint is hobbling on one foot). AT&T was basically dropping out of the consumer LD market.
Covad filed bankruptcy trying to compete and its rates are a joke. Honestly, I only care about VZ's stock.
My point: if the Bells have to share, why not cable? Cable is just as monopolistic as the Bells. The Bells might still be a "monopoly" but cell phones (and now Cable VOIP) are killing them. I do think the Bells should get franchises just like Cable was required to do for TV.
You point on "unbundling": Why shouldn't their stockholders get as much profit as possible, even out of you?
Also, if you put the DSLAM in the CO, no line share is even on the table, right?
Other than FIOS, may the Bells rest in Hell.
Personally, I hope your company gets to take ALL their DSL customers (T) furthering my hope T goes down in flames. Cable is at least honest that they are overpriced. Can't say that for the Bells or the Satellite bunch. I hate T more than any other company on this earth. I even have more respect for a drug dealer than T. | |
Cem C
@com.tr
| The (primarily) copper infrastructure going to tens of millions of homes is clearly a natural monopoly. Maybe 2 or 3 sets of infrastructure (ILEC + CableCO), but economically it certainly does not make sense to have 10 telcos dig up all the roads and lay new cables to tens of millions of homes. This is like asking trucking companies to build their own roads, and having duplicate roads in all the neighbourhoods.
Keep in mind as well that the copper telephone line infrastructure as built out over decades by the bells ina monopoly environment with a cost+ guarantee (i.e. no investment risk, the regulator guaranteed a return + profit on investment). This investment has been more than amortized by now and no new significant investment is going into the copper plant. The copper wires you get phone and DSL service from is the same copper cable laid decade(s) ago.
New investment is in DSLAMS and backhaul. The incumbents try to muddle this. "We are investing tons in DSL, so don't remove our incentives." But they are not investing in the copper plant, and the main thing CLECS and competitors want is access to the EXISTING, ALREADY AMORTIZED copper at cost+reasonable profit.
In France the regulator has been successful at LOCAL LOOP UNBUNDLING and now some of the most competitive ADSL offers in the world are there. ADSL take-up has taken off. Everyone, including the incumbent, is investing in the latest 20Mb/s+ ADSL2+ DSLAMS, in triple play offers, etc. This is what competition is about.
Monopoly or duopoly supply is not competition. The ILECS model of vertical integratition is a recipe for diaster. Already the ILECS are now pushing to extend their integrated domain to VOIP. Pretty soon they will be degrading the service of VONAGE, and making VOIP bundled offers of their own. "Why should VONAGE free ride on my network, this is killing my incentives to investm etc" We have heard all before and we are starting to hear it again.
As for the "well cable should be forced to share too then" argument, I agree. | |
|
