lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL | reply to dnoyeB
Re: understand what your asking for folks.
"just like what the USA did in Iraq"?
sorry - you lost me on your comparsion. |
|
lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL | reply to JakCrow
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? |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| 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] |
|
lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL
| reply to pupowski
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. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| 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. |
|
lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL | reply to Mike
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" |
|
Mike
Premium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
clubs:   |  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. |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| 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
|
|
pupowski
Premium
join:2002-03-22
Vancouver, WA
 ·Clearwire Wireless
·Cricket Broadband
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to lvas
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] |
|
BBC4544
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO
| reply to INHCNN
Re: funny...
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. |
|
Mike
Premium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
clubs:
| I'm not going to debate with closed republicans... I'm done.
[text was edited by author 2002-08-02 21:33:55] |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| reply to BBC4544
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????? |
|
Skier
join:2001-08-09
San Antonio, TX
| reply to dnoyeB
Re: understand what your asking for folks.
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! |
|
grunteled
Puffy And Prickly
Premium
join:2001-06-13
Kansas City, MO
clubs:
| reply to lvas
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. |
|
BBC4544
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO
| reply to INHCNN
Re: funny...
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. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to grunteled
Re: understand what your asking for folks.
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. |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| reply to ieolus
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!" |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| reply to lvas
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? |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| reply to boogie74
Another Penny
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. |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to lesopp
Re: understand what your asking for folks.
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 |
|
