|reply to telcotech |
Re: To: Dane Jasper, President of both the California
You sound like one of those SBC-Ameritech commercials on TV!!!!!!! The reason for regulatory intervention is that without competition, the bells can (and do) gouge customers on price, lack of services, and--here in Indiana Bell/Ameritech/SBC land have extremely slow response times for installation and service requests (even in non-hostile conditions). The latter became such a problem that Ameritech was forced to refund its customers over a several month period. As for the use of bell-own lines, it would be absurd to have such redundancy of lines that every company owned their own facilities. Additionally, there is already a problem for utilities to obtain public and private easements, particularly in urban areas. This would only create an even greater problem. However, I DO realize that the bells should be allowed to remain competitive within the framework of the industry, just not allowed to price the competition out of the game by exorbitant lease rates. I understand that because they do installations and maintenance there will be costs. They brought the need for regulation and competition on themselves when they decided to jam their customers--just because they were a monopoly.
I agree, there should be no monopoly and the pricing should be regulated and fair to all consumers and businesses.
The government has no idea what it takes to maintain the infrastructure or provide telecommunication services, they decide the discounts an ILEC must give to a CLEC, without this knowledge and it hurts every consumer. I think all CLEC's should pay their fair share. CLEC's make the same amount of profit or more than the ILEC's do on each customer they have, yet the ILEC's have to maintain the services at their own expenses, that is not fair.
I deal with the condition of the infrastructure every day, anywhere you go you see that there are things that need to be done to provide better services, it all costs money and the way the industry is currently regulated the money is not there and the customer is the one that it affects.
The regulators allow CLEC's to bundle long distance with local service, the CLEC makes a profit on both, long distance and the local loop, the calls all go over the ILEC's infrastructure and through the ILEC's switches, the CLEC's simply bill the customer, maintain nothing and make more money than the ILEC. The CLEC has a competitive advantage over the ILEC, they can bundle services and make it look as if the customer is getting a deal, thus taking the customer away from the ILEC.
The playing field needs to be evened out.
quote:Have you ever seen a CLEC put 2 miles of cable in the ground or in the air for a new customer that just built 2 miles from the end of an ILEC's cable, no, and you will not see it, they don't need to, the ILEC will put the cable in the ground and the CLEC will offer him a better deal after he has service. Why don't the regulators make the CLEC's pay an infrastructure improvement assessment in every area they want to compete in, more cable would get into the ground faster and it would help ease the financial burden of building the infrastructure off the ILEC's.
As for the use of bell-own lines, it would be absurd to have such redundancy of lines that every company owned their own facilities.
My point is, everything needs to be played fair and to deliberatly hurt an ILEC is stupid, if they were not there in the past, are not there in the future or just freeze at the point they are at right now, the CLEC's would not take over their roll and telecommunications as a whole would deteriorate and the consumers would ultimately be the ones to suffer the most.