Perihelion
join:2001-03-29
Orange, CA
| reply to lvas
Re: understand what your asking for folks.
Covad, Rhythms, NorthPoint all sued/made complaints to the various PUC's. I seem to recall Covad being the most aggressive of the three. I also recall several actions towards Ameritech and some rumblings that Covad went after BA for several issues.
They tried - they got little if any results. It wasn't all the ILEC's fault but they didn't help.
Check around. The ILEC's were getting pressured all over the country by these three CLEC's or DLEC's or whatever marketing was calling them at the time. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | That's because the ILECs haven't been following the rules. Of course, they think they should also be rewarded for not following the rules.... |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| said by JakCrow:
That's because the ILECs haven't been following the rules. Of course, they think they should also be rewarded for not following the rules....
Exactly which "rules" were the ILEC's not following? Please support your claim that the ILEC's were "breaking the law." |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| that's easy.
1. prevention of CLEC customers from being turned up on a timely basis through lengthy delays, often as long as six or more months, while turning up their own customers in the same building in a matter of days. it's not as if they couldn't just identify the damn pair of wires while they were right there, in the same phone closet as the rest of the building...efficiency be damned. they chose to blow off CLEC circuit tagging on purpose.
2. creating a hostile environment in every c.o. that had CLEC equipment installed, and creating barriers to that access through unending identification changes.
3. bizarre pricing for UNE's, with discounts given only after ridiculous amounts of lines were sold (that even the ILEC's weren't selling in that quantity)
4. unending delays to repair for CLEC customers, citing "overbooking" when ILEC customers in very same building are repaired that day
these are just a few I experienced first hand. if this isn't evidence of noncompliance with TA1996, then I'm not sure what you call "compliance". the law called for access to c.o.'s and UNE's. these subtle and not so subtle roadblocks I call noncompliance.
nobody wants to wait around for six months to wait on a CLEC to get its circuit turned up. this tactic alone is the probable cause of the demise of many a CLEC. (not to mention bad business models, but that's a different debate)
[text was edited by author 2002-08-03 16:30:25] |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| said by garagerock:
that's easy.
1. prevention of CLEC customers from being turned up on a timely basis through lengthy delays, often as long as six or more months, while turning up their own customers in the same building in a matter of days. it's not as if they couldn't just identify the damn pair of wires while they were right there, in the same phone closet as the rest of the building...efficiency be damned. they chose to blow off CLEC circuit tagging on purpose.
2. creating a hostile environment in every c.o. that had CLEC equipment installed, and creating barriers to that access through unending identification changes.
3. bizarre pricing for UNE's, with discounts given only after ridiculous amounts of lines were sold (that even the ILEC's weren't selling in that quantity)
4. unending delays to repair for CLEC customers, citing "overbooking" when ILEC customers in very same building are repaired that day
these are just a few I experienced first hand. if this isn't evidence of noncompliance with TA1996, then I'm not sure what you call "compliance". the law called for access to c.o.'s and UNE's. these subtle and not so subtle roadblocks I call noncompliance.
nobody wants to wait around for six months to wait on a CLEC to get its circuit turned up. this tactic alone is the probable cause of the demise of many a CLEC. (not to mention bad business models, but that's a different debate)
[text was edited by author 2002-08-03 16:30:25]
Six MONTHS for a circuit to be assigned to a pair? ID issues are the same for ILEC employees as they are for CLEC vendors. ALL pricing for UNE's are set by PUC's, not the ILEC. Speaking from experience, ILEC customers also have unending delays in repairs and installation- just look at the nightmare of 2000 for Ameritech for an example of THAT!
While it may seem that all of these bad experiences were as a result of the ILEC's willful misconduct to harass the CLEC's, it is the same on all ends- the grass isn't greener on the other side!
Boogie |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
|  said by boogie74:
While it may seem that all of these bad experiences were as a result of the ILEC's willful misconduct to harass the CLEC's, it is the same on all ends- the grass isn't greener on the other side!
How is that, exactly? Not like any CLEC can turn the tables and wait six months before installing a customer...they are always waiting on the damn ILEC to do their part.
so, basically you admit that willful misconduct to harass the CLEC's occurs??? haven't you proven my point for me? enforcement of TA1996 has been shoddy at best....so, how is it flawed if it hasn't been properly enforced? going back to 1984 by putting ma bell back together is NOT a solution any business customer would go for.
i (fortunately) don't even work in telecom anymore, and never will, quite frankly, given the current environment and reading these posts makes me wonder if the 1990's ever happened.
p.s. I saw many a pissed off customer go bye bye waiting longer than six months for a circuit ID. Sometimes that was average, especially in Ameritech territory.
[text was edited by author 2002-08-03 19:48:38]
[text was edited by author 2002-08-03 19:53:39] |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to garagerock
Don't forget:
Stealing existing circuits CLEC customers to provide services for ILEC customers. (this happens frequently in Pac Bell territory)
And after the majority of the CLECs were eliminated in Pac Bell territory, prices were jacked up even though it has become cheaper to provide services.
I'm tired of the idiots that think because existing laws weren't enforced, we need new laws that repeal the existing one, but have more holes in them and are even looser than the original laws, like less restrictions will make it easier to enforce something. Like hell...
[text was edited by author 2002-08-03 22:11:30] |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to garagerock
said by garagerock:
said by boogie74:
While it may seem that all of these bad experiences were as a result of the ILEC's willful misconduct to harass the CLEC's, it is the same on all ends- the grass isn't greener on the other side!
How is that, exactly? Not like any CLEC can turn the tables and wait six months before installing a customer...they are always waiting on the damn ILEC to do their part.
so, basically you admit that willful misconduct to harass the CLEC's occurs??? haven't you proven my point for me? enforcement of TA1996 has been shoddy at best....so, how is it flawed if it hasn't been properly enforced? going back to 1984 by putting ma bell back together is NOT a solution any business customer would go for.
i (fortunately) don't even work in telecom anymore, and never will, quite frankly, given the current environment and reading these posts makes me wonder if the 1990's ever happened.
p.s. I saw many a pissed off customer go bye bye waiting longer than six months for a circuit ID. Sometimes that was average, especially in Ameritech territory.
[text was edited by author 2002-08-03 19:48:38]
[text was edited by author 2002-08-03 19:53:39]
If you re-read my post you will see it says, "While it may seem that all of these bad experiences were as a result of the ILEC's willful misconduct to harass the CLEC's, it is the same on all ends- the grass isn't greener on the other side!"
I don't see how you can translate that into "There is definitely willful misconduct from the ILEC's" It does not prove your point at all.
Boogie |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to garagerock
quote:
p.s. I saw many a pissed off customer go bye bye waiting longer than six months for a circuit ID. Sometimes that was average, especially in Ameritech territory.
Sometimes that was average? Average can only be defined as one concept at a time- perhaps the median average or the mean average. That's like being a little pregnant.
Do you mean to say that sometimes the average turnaround time was 24 hours and sometimes the average turnaround time was 6 months or more? I'm very lost as to the veracity of your statement.
quote:
How is that, exactly? Not like any CLEC can turn the tables and wait six months before installing a customer...they are always waiting on the damn ILEC to do their part.
How's this for a scenerio: A CLEC offers a customer service to be turned on in 3 business days. The CLEC then waits 6 weeks to turn in the order to the ILEC who takes 3 business days to work it. The CLEC then tells the customer that the ILEC is refusing to work the order and is holding up the whole process. The CLEC tells the customer to complain to the PUC about the situation. The PUC fines the ILEC and orders the ILEC to pay the CLEC for "lost revenue."
Is it at all possible that the CLEC has work to do in fullfilling orders? Or are you assuming that it is all done by the ILEC? And if so, why doesn't the CLEC invest in upgrading it's own equipment so in the future it doesn't have to rely on the ILEC?
Boogie
[text was edited by author 2002-08-04 23:23:47] |
|
reverendRon
join:2002-07-27
Mabank, TX
|  reply to INHCNN
Re: funny...
Telecom networks are built with federal subsidies therefore US governement has a right to demand equal access. CATV systems are not federally subsidized. Government regulation already has alot to do with the high prices of cable tv. This sort of scenario would just make it worse. If a rival cable comapny wishes to compete then they have every right to overbuild a system. |
|
pupowski
Premium
join:2002-03-22
Vancouver, WA
 ·Clearwire Wireless
·Cricket Broadband
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| said by reverendRon:
CATV systems are not federally subsidized. Government regulation already has alot to do with the high prices of cable tv.
Correct!Most CATV systems were built under government granted local monopoly, which is essentially a non-cash government subsidy. Those cash-cow franchises were traded at ever higher prices, which in turn were used to justify escalating cable TV rates. Over-builders have a lot more risk, because predatory pricing or "features" by the incumbent is likely. Over-builders were approved in my area, but they all backed out because the economics didn't work. |
|
INHCNN
join:2001-12-15
Lansing, MI
| reply to INHCNN
And this is why deregulation is such a difficult topic.
Yes, the lines are the rightfull property of the ILEC, so why should they be forced to share with some mom and pop start up?
But speaking of force, should I be forced into using the ILEC in my area? Shouldn't I have a competitve choice?
To a corporation, what forces change? The need for change to remain competitive. If Nike was the only shoe company, what do you think would happen to cost and selection?
What good has the break up of Ma Bell caused? It did just that, broke it up, but thereafter, the US government has not only NOT (double negative, sorry) done anything about it, but to the contrary APPROVED these mergers. ?!. I thouhgt Ameritech was bad, but guess what? THEY JUST GOT BOUGHT BY A BIGGER TELCO!
Should cable co's be held to the regulation as the Telco's? NO NO AND NO - why - because as we have proven, the Telco's are NOT held to regulations or laws previously set in place.
Should we allow the CLEC's to put up thier own lines? Sure, why not. But the ILEC would have to COOPERATE. That and we'd surely have a rats' nest of lines up there. I can't keep the neighbors dog offn' it as is. How about the cable co's? Lets' get some competitive cable ops' out there putting up thier own lines... that'd work... but wait! In both scenarios the competitor has to turn a profit from customers while being competitive while getting GOUGED in the pocket book for putting up lines. Won't work.
/rant
So - how's this: I read all over that there's shi* ton's of excess fiber laying around, strung up, buried, whatever. How about we implement a fiber infrastructure here in the US, tear down all that old copper and coax (recycle it), and service cable, telephone, and internet all on the same lines (fiber) with equal access to all licensed carriers?
That would be the end of the argument. Period. |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to reverendRon
said by reverendRon:
Telecom networks are built with federal subsidies therefore US governement has a right to demand equal access. CATV systems are not federally subsidized. Government regulation already has alot to do with the high prices of cable tv. This sort of scenario would just make it worse. If a rival cable comapny wishes to compete then they have every right to overbuild a system.
I keep seeing this claim- What government subsidies were there to build the telecom networks? Are you claiming that taxes are going to telecom build out? There are no such subsidies...
If you mean by subsidies the USF, USF isn't a goverment subsidy. All telecom companies pay into the fund, and yes- many of them itemize their contributions on customers' bills. But that doesn't make USF goverment funded.
USF also pretty much makes it so that "Bob Farmer" out in Iowa or Nebraska doesn't have a $750 phone bill each month because of the cost to draw a cable out to his house to run 1 line. It doesn't pay for the phone networks, nor does it pay for DSL deployment.
If you could please detail exactly where in the US Federal Budget (any year would do) the subsidies for phone networks is located, I would appreciate it.
Boogie |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| reply to boogie74
Re: understand what your asking for folks.
Its always high comedy to me when a phone company employee defends his/her company to the end, as if they were birthed, indoctrinated, and employed by the same entity.
Look man, why the hell would I cite such blatantly long delays unless I knew for sure that I was sitting on my ass waiting six months for a circuit ID from the ILEC AND I was the last CLEC employee to touch the order? I didn't wait six months to turn in orders, that's for damn sure, since I've got Customer A calling me by the hour wanting to know when he's getting turned up.
Is it at all possible that the CLEC has work to do in fullfilling orders? Or are you assuming that it is all done by the ILEC? And if so, why doesn't the CLEC invest in upgrading it's own equipment so in the future it doesn't have to rely on the ILEC?
This part kills me....hello? do you know what year it is? TA1996 has been law for 6 friggin years. The debate about this is as dead as Tupac Shakur (sorry Tupac, your the only celeb who died in 96 I could think of). The law said open up your networks to competition. I'm enlightened enough to think that is a good thing. Obviously, working for your precious employer makes you think otherwise. This makes you pretty self serving in my book. The hell with competition and the hell with consumer choice-wouldn't want to cut into your 401k now, would we?
I hear these arguments over and over again from your ilk, and it just kills me-that's all you folks care about is your own asses.
I experienced firsthand the bullsh*t delays and anti-competitive behavior displayed by all of the ILEC's, you just can't convince me otherwise.
p.s. I don't work for telecom anymore, so I'm not saving my ass by defending CLEC's...
[text was edited by author 2002-08-05 08:44:53] |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| quote:
Look man, why the hell would I cite such blatantly long delays unless I knew for sure that I was sitting on my ass waiting six months for a circuit ID from the ILEC AND I was the last CLEC employee to touch the order? I didn't wait six months to turn in orders, that's for damn sure, since I've got Customer A calling me by the hour wanting to know when he's getting turned up.
Looks like I've struck a nerve. If you re-read my post, I never said that there was NEVER a delay for circuitry or line assignments from an ILEC. I specifically said that such delays are NOT unique to CLEC orders- that MANY orders for ILEC customers actually have delays as well.
The suggested scenerio is something that has been documented on many occasions- even worse, the orders that aren't being submitted are DISCONNECT orders.
quote:
Is it at all possible that the CLEC has work to do in fullfilling orders? Or are you assuming that it is all done by the ILEC? And if so, why doesn't the CLEC invest in upgrading it's own equipment so in the future it doesn't have to rely on the ILEC?
This part kills me....hello? do you know what year it is? TA1996 has been law for 6 friggin years. The debate about this is as dead as Tupac Shakur (sorry Tupac, your the only celeb who died in 96 I could think of). The law said open up your networks to competition. I'm enlightened enough to think that is a good thing. Obviously, working for your precious employer makes you think otherwise. This makes you pretty self serving in my book. The hell with competition and the hell with consumer choice-wouldn't want to cut into your 401k now, would we?
I'm a bit lost here, did you actually answer the question? The law said open up the networks to competition. It's happening. Residential competition is slow to develop because CLEC's don't want the low income business. THAT has been proven.
CLEC's that offer high end business services ARE putting out their own networks. It's not an issue of what the law says. It's an issue of "INVEST IN YOUR BUSINESS."
Why is it that you would actually believe that the if law stating to open up markets to competition, that would mean that companies looking to compete are prohibited from investing in their own businesses? The law doesn't state, "Subsidize every business that wants to compete with you forever and ever"
Boogie |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| when, exactly did I suppose the point that you put in such a glib fashion:
CLEC's that offer high end business services ARE putting out their own networks. It's not an issue of what the law says. It's an issue of "INVEST IN YOUR BUSINESS."
All I'm saying, and anyone else who's ever had to put up with ILEC foot dragging, is allow unfettered access to the last mile. Period. Any CLEC network interfaces with the last mile, which your beloved employer controls. The law says give up access, not build a new national infrastructure. My point still is that I and every other employee I had contact with during my stint with a CLEC could testify to endless delays to repair, to circuit ID, and to practically every other issue that involved the ILEC in any region of the country.
For some bizarre reason, you keep putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about subsidizing the CLEC's, just give them unfettered access to the last mile without the anti-competitive bullsh*t you and I both know happens. (well, you're not willing to admit it, but hey, that's your crutch)
I specifically said that such delays are NOT unique to CLEC orders- that MANY orders for ILEC customers actually have delays as well
Like I said before, I saw ILEC customers get repaired and/or turned up in the same building as CLEC customers, on several occasions. Sooooooooo, from my puny personal experience (not to mention various other customers' experiences) I have to suppose that there were bullsh*t delays occurring. I think I'm smart enough to see a pattern developing.
obviously we disagree. i give up trying to convince anyone on this issue, including you, but you could check the lawsuit being filed by Covad-I bet they'd agree.
[text was edited by author 2002-08-05 10:15:33]
[text was edited by author 2002-08-05 10:17:12] |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs: | When did you work for a CLEC? |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY | why do you ask? |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| said by garagerock:
why do you ask?
Because you stated that you don't work in telecom but you used to. You then state that there is currently an average wait of 6 months or more to provision circuits to CLEC's.
So, that being said, I feel that the time period (and CLEC for that matter) that you worked there might have some relevance to your point of view.
For instance, if you worked there from 1996-1998, there are HUGE leaps in improvement since then that you would not be aware of.
Boogie |
|
bigplatypus
join:2001-12-01
Saint Louis, MO | reply to reverendRon
Re: funny...
Please state the Bill that granted the Telco's federal subsidies to build outside plant network that was not given under FEMA. |
|
