garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| reply to lvas
Re: understand what your asking for folks.
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. |
|
lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL
| 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. |
|
gogeta6
join:2002-06-20
San Diego, CA
clubs: | 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. |
|
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. |
|
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 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
|
|
Skier
join:2001-08-09
San Antonio, TX
| reply to dnoyeB
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! |
|
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 |
|
Perihelion
join:2001-03-29
Orange, CA
| reply to lvas
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] |
|
