lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL
|  reply to INHCNN
understand what your asking for folks.
funny - whats funny is most of the peoples replies to this post thread. sure - lets have the govt make the same screwed up laws for the cable firms that have caused all this mess in the telecom sector. don't you folks read the papers? 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?
ha - what a joke. do you really believe all of those lost jobs and peoples lost 401k monies is a fair trade off for you to have a choice of ISP? |
|
onsitede
Hot Hot Hot
join:2000-11-24
Broad Brook, CT
clubs: | The companies that are folding are the companies that were built on paper (not the pretty green stuff with presidents faces, either) and were generally miss managed. |
|
Bsod
join:2002-06-19
Acton, MA | reply to lvas
Well it's not as if the government forced Worldcom to lend Bernie Ebbers that $half billion, is it? Immunity from regulation is not what telecom monopolies need at the moment. |
|
grunteled
Puffy And Prickly
Premium
join:2001-06-13
Kansas City, MO
clubs:
| reply to lvas
Oh yea, I'm remember that section 5 para 15 of the 1996 telcom act required all telecom companies to report false earnings and inflate stock prices. There was language to force investors to buy anything ending in "dot com". There was another clause instructing them to loan CEOs billions of dollars to purchase company stock to drive up it's apparent value. If it hadn't been for regulations these guys would have been honest, hardworking folks. Free from regs these execs would be out day after day working tirelessly to make life better for the working men and women at their company. It's all the fault of big, bad regulation.
Come on. |
|
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | reply to lvas
It was also the Telecom Act of '96 that CREATED all those telecom jobs.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| reply to lvas
so, you must be accessing dslreports.com on a T-1 or better, or maybe a metered ISDN line, eh? how about dialup?
i'm guessing no.
kinda hard to say that TA1996 was the cause of the burst of the bubble. too many other factors at play, such as gross mismanagement, fibbing stock analysts, market conditions that only gamblers could see was a mess, lying and cheating CEO's, etc.
TA1996 was certainly the cause of the inflation of the bubble, however. a lot of money, time, and effort went into that bubble.
to suggest that TA1996 somehow created this mess is ignoring the good it has done. if you live in the right place, it has done wonders to foster competition. remember, 1996 was only 6 years ago. it takes a long time to see how a landmark law like that is going to effect change. |
|
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
|  reply to lvas
I'll go easy since your obviously new here...Anti-competitive behavior of the baby bells is what primarily led to the demise of the telecom sector. Its just like what USA did in Iraq. We told the telecoms that they had a right to the baby bells distribution boxes, etc. They build a business based on this access to sell DSL and other related services like local phone service. THen the government FAILED to enforce their act. So their business model was shreaded in an instant. So CEOs realizing that their was NO way in hell their company would ever make money began to bilk the shareholders and fatten their pockets as fast as they could.
Anyone else remember NP exec on the job for about 3 months that took the HUGE bonus during their bankruptsy.
Your on the wrong forum to start talking about things that you have not investigated very well. Stick around, well learn ya.
--
dnoyeB"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
The government is pricing our rights our of our reach. |
|
Mike
Premium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
clubs:
| reply to lvas
Let's prevent job loss by not even creating them in the first place.
republican views are funny.
[text was edited by author 2002-08-02 13:34:33] |
|
lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL
| reply to garagerock
Ok, I will try one more time, but I know I'm pissing in the wind on this forum. Yes the dot.com bubble burst caused a lot of the job lost. When the global crossing's and others scalled back orders because of overbuilding of (longhaul) networks that had a ripple effect amoung all the equipment vendors (cisco, nortel, etc) out there, which had other ripple effects. Then when the ISP's (northpoint, etc) started going belly up that too had a ripple effect. Then of course you have Qwest and worldcom and others who failed through mismagement, etc. So yes there are/where a lot of factor at play here, but you can't deny that underline most of this (at least in the telecom sector) there was many business models built from the 1996 reg act basied upon UNE_p (buying wholesale services from the ILECs) that are just flawed. I'm sorry but the PUC's in each state set the rates for those wholesale rates - they are inforced so I'm at a lost to understand if your a clec and you know the published rate for a wholesale service how its the Ilecs fault if you can't manage your business in a profitable manner? again - those rates are enforced. that is the bottom line to the buiness correct? you buy something (that you don't create) at a wholesale rate then resell it at retail rate. that is the classic middleman business model is it not??? the 1996 act is flawed in my opinion because its trying to insert a middeman (clec) who does not really create anything (do they build networks? no they rent them) and then they call that Competition. that is not competition folks. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to lvas
Things aren't working because the telcos are NOT following the act and it's not being enforced. I hate to break it to you, but a significant number of people and money lost are from the companies the bells put out of business with anti-competitive tactics and pricing, and the rest lost is because all these bells tried to buy up everything around them with no business plans to speak off. |
|
gogeta6
join:2002-06-20
San Diego, CA
clubs: | reply to lvas
Udnoubtably, but do you really think it is preferable to giving the green light to monopolization. Seems like it's the best we have for now. |
|
pupowski
Premium
join:2002-03-22
Vancouver, WA
 ·Clearwire Wireless
·Cricket Broadband
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to lvas
said by lvas:
funny - whats funny is most of the peoples replies to this post thread. sure - lets have the govt make the same screwed up laws for the cable firms that have caused all this mess in the telecom sector. don't you folks read the papers?
Get your facts straight before you cast aspersions upon other forum members. RBOC lobbyists asked for and were instrumental in creating the 1996 Telecom act they now dis-avow. Government's failure was listening to industry lobbyists, a problem that has plagued us from the S&L crisis of the 80's to the Telecom and Corporate governance crises of today. We need separation of business and government to stop the rape of the American public. |
|
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| reply to lvas
clearly you have
1. not been around long.
2. not followed the industry.
3. not read any of the replies to your posts in this forum.
What is wrong with basing a business model on your legal right to have access to the baby bells equipment? Their model failed when the baby bells ignored the rule of law, and the FCC failed to enforce it. McCain/tauzin/dingell are attempting to make the laws the baby bells have been breaking for the last 4 years, go away...
All companies have a certain degree of mismanagement. The baby bells are guilty of the same thing. Notice their late entry into the broadband market and their complete attempt to kill it rather than embrace it.
--
dnoyeB"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
The government is pricing our rights our of our reach. |
|
Perihelion
join:2001-03-29
Orange, CA
| reply to dnoyeB
NP exec on the job for 3 mos. and took a bonus? Hmmm...give me a clue, I should have remembered that one.
TA1996 opened up the market for many of these firms. Uh BTW - Did I see someone refer to NorthPoint as an ISP? That should tell you what that person knows about it.
Regardless of what you may opine, you had to be there to get a sense of what happened. Fact - no one was ready for the huge pent up demand, ILEC's took great advantage of this and many other short comings to stick it to these smaller firms. It was like the ILEC teacher watching a bunch of little kids kicking the crap out of each other in the sand box. We willingly obliged.
Then someone decided that many of these little companies should have enterprise level systems and "real, credible" management teams. So the little guys hired some pedigreed MBA's who understood how to spend money in a limitless fashion. The MBA's hired consultants, who spent $10's of millions on these systems that didn't work properly until they were load tested, had dropped 20,000 orders on the floor and basically screwed the downstream partners for weeks on end. The consultants made millions folks.
Then the street decided that EBITDA was king and not customer base....too late Mr Banker I've spent all that money based on a 5 year ramp, guess we'll fire everyone and file BK.
Of course that's the generic version but if you worked for any of the CLEC's or ISP's that went up in smoke you've got a framework for your experience. Add your own names, toss in related dollar amounts plus the alphabet soup of consultants and finally add your office's soap opera and it's a wrap.
It varied by time, location and amount but the underlying story is pretty much the same. When the telco's realized they were going to get aced out of the deal they politely stiff armed all of us and then watched as we imploded through arrogant mismanagment.
I rest my case. |
|
xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| reply to lvas
said by lvas:
don't you folks read the papers? 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?
As one of those 500,000 people, let me say something here. It wasn't the 1996 telcom act that cost me or most of those others their jobs or money.
If you want to point fingers, pass blame, or anything else you can lay a lot of it on two things and two things only. 1. Bad Management i.e. worldcom, teligent, global crossing, take you pick.
2. ILEC's. When you have to wait a month and a half to have a line ported your sales people look like idiots and the customers tend to bail out. We had one line go 6 months because Ameritech couldn't get it straight.
Or how about the cage requirements?
No, the telecom act of '96 been enforced then it would have worked. You can pass any law you want, but until you back it up it is worth less then the paper you wasted writing it. |
|
lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL | reply to ieolus
really - the ability to unbundle network elements and sell them at wholesale prices to Clecs created 500,000 jobs? you better go back and look at all the layoff anoucments to check out your facts - you got that one wrong. |
|
lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL |  reply to garagerock
my opinion is that clecs are supposedly value added resellers who don't add much value and have in general faulty business models. the competiton in the broadband market is between DSL,Cable and wireless. |
|
Mike
Premium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
clubs: | uh, do you even know what a CLEC is from that last statement? |
|
lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL
| reply to dnoyeB
if the baby bells ignored the rule of the law as you stated then of course the clecs could/would/did take the bells to court. And of course you have tons of advidates to back up your claim that the bells ignored the laws right? or you wouldn't make such a statement - correct? |
|
lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL | reply to dnoyeB
"just like what the USA did in Iraq"?
sorry - you lost me on your comparsion. |
|
