KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to BBC4544
Re: broadband for everyone
The problem is, I think, the definition of an 'unprofitable market'.
If, as the ILECs claim, regulation is forcing them to sell access to their lines to CLECs at below the TRUE costs for maintaining those lines, then I agree - that could be unprofitable.
However, as I understand the current regulation, the costs the ILECs must use to rent to the CLECs is one dollar above maintenance costs.
This results in profit - but of course, not as much profit as SBC would like.
SO the REAL issue: is SBC being misleading when it says they have no incentive to build-out when it's not profitable? Are they really saying, the build-out will not be done because it would take us two years longer to recoup the build-out expenses than we'd like?
If that's the case, then my feeling is SBC needs to suck it up and deal - they've had a regional monopoly for long enough...AND they LOBBIED for the TA96 act to get into the (dubiously) lucrative long-distance market. So now, lie in the bed you made.
Perhaps instead of fighting so hard, they could be cooperative? How about working out a deal with the competitors to share the build-out costs? At least try?
Or perhaps someone in the state who cares needs to take the initiative and point out the federal programs setup to help such rural services (as noted here on DSLR over the past couple week headlines) so SBC can be bypassed entirely.
Ultimately the problem comes down to those in the legislature, in any state, being clueless as the real issues and options.
KM |
|
BBC4544
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO
| hey idiot
why does a clec not build out?????? what is stopping them????? if there was money to be made they would build out. what i am hearing from you is "bell has money,make them do it" how stupid is that, how about this, lets make clecs build out and force them to sell access to sbc. with your $1 theory is incorrect and even if it was correct it is still a stupid communist view. does the gov't make car manufactures sell thier cars for a $1 more then what it takes to build. so what if it takes 30 years to recoop r & d cost. wake up stalin |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
 ·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| said by BBC4544  :
hey idiot
why does a clec not build out?????? what is stopping them????? if there was money to be made they would build out. what i am hearing from you is "bell has money,make them do it" how stupid is that, how about this, lets make clecs build out and force them to sell access to sbc. with your $1 theory is incorrect and even if it was correct it is still a stupid communist view. does the gov't make car manufactures sell thier cars for a $1 more then what it takes to build. so what if it takes 30 years to recoop r & d cost. wake up stalin
lol! i'm sorry to say i live in the same state as you.
--
Nixon : "Hello, Morbo, how's the family?" Morbo : "Belligerent and numerous." |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| reply to BBC4544
Your immature ranting and incoherent thoughts really make replying unnecessary, but I have some time...
First, name-calling really helps get your point across. Glad you've mastered that tactic - good for you!
If what you're hearing from me is "bell has money,make them do it", then your lack of comprehension is trumped only by your sad level of ignorance.
Finally, there is very little 'communist' about my viewpoint...socialist perhaps. If you insist on following that tactic, however laughable, I suggest you read a little on the subject - it may not only help your arguments (bwahahaha!) but may teach you something about sentence structure and cohesive train-of-thought.
Enjoy your day trying to make sense of the world around you.
KM |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| reply to BBC4544
said by BBC4544 :
hey idiot
why does a clec not build out?????? what is stopping them????? if there was money to be made they would build out. what i am hearing from you is "bell has money,make them do it" how stupid is that, how about this, lets make clecs build out and force them to sell access to sbc. with your $1 theory is incorrect and even if it was correct it is still a stupid communist view. does the gov't make car manufactures sell thier cars for a $1 more then what it takes to build. so what if it takes 30 years to recoop r & d cost. wake up stalin
Hmmmmmmmm....right of way? |
|
BBC4544
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO
| what right of way??? there are cages in co and per regulation a clec can build an rt and tie into plant. the reason why the do not is because they can lease the line without investing a dime in build out. the clec idea is good if looked at in a reasonable manner. if the clec does not invest into its own network then they should not reap the benifits of someone who does. |
|
alex4life
Alex4life
Premium
join:2001-06-22
Delta, BC
| said by BBC4544 :
what right of way??? there are cages in co and per regulation a clec can build an rt and tie into plant. the reason why the do not is because they can lease the line without investing a dime in build out. the clec idea is good if looked at in a reasonable manner. if the clec does not invest into its own network then they should not reap the benifits of someone who does.
Fine, but would you like to live in a world without competition? Competition is what keeps prices low.
--
I wanna Rock and Roll sometimes, and party once in a while. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to BBC4544
said by BBC4544 :
what right of way??? there are cages in co and per regulation a clec can build an rt and tie into plant. the reason why the do not is because they can lease the line without investing a dime in build out. the clec idea is good if looked at in a reasonable manner. if the clec does not invest into its own network then they should not reap the benifits of someone who does.
You seem to forget that those same plants owned by SBC were paid for by a goverment authorized monopoly. People got phone service from the phone company. They couldn't get it anywhere else. There was no choice until very recently. SBC didn't pay for their plants. Customers did. |
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| reply to KoolMoe
said by KoolMoe :
Finally, there is very little 'communist' about my viewpoint...socialist perhaps.
The only difference between communists and socialists is that communists kill people when they try to leave. |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy :
said by BBC4544 :
what right of way??? there are cages in co and per regulation a clec can build an rt and tie into plant. the reason why the do not is because they can lease the line without investing a dime in build out. the clec idea is good if looked at in a reasonable manner. if the clec does not invest into its own network then they should not reap the benifits of someone who does.
You seem to forget that those same plants owned by SBC were paid for by a goverment authorized monopoly. People got phone service from the phone company. They couldn't get it anywhere else. There was no choice until very recently. SBC didn't pay for their plants. Customers did.
First of all, in ALL businesses (monopoly or not), the "customers" pay to build the business entirely. That's how business works- you sell a product for more than it costs you to produce or provide, and the difference goes into your pocket and into paying for the business investment.
Secondly, having a past as part of a monopoly has nothing to do with requiring the company to invest in future items and share them with competitors. Exactly why is it that SBC should invest money in new products and technology and CLECs should not? Are you saying, "Lets tie the bad giant's hands behind his back to handicap him so others can be just as big one day?" That's not competition. It's not like a bowling game where one wins and the other loses, hence requiring a handicap to be added to the less successful player's score- both can win at this game.
Are you actually suggesting that since all oil companies used to be part of Standard Oil, I should expect FKG or Amoco to buy me a gas station and deliver their gas to me at below cost? Or perhaps I should be able to set up a cashier stand at my nearest Qwik Trip and let customers decide when they pump if they want my gas or Qwik Trips?
After all, Standard Oil WAS paid for by consumers- as there was no choice until THAT monopoly was broken up, and it should be seen as inefficient for me to have to put in my own gas station and negotiate my own oil rates.
Boogie |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Telephone companies had a gauranteed customer base. You either had them or no phone. What about long distance? Should we have never broken up AT&T?
Under your argument, long distance companies can be kicked off the local phone system because the local phone company wants to sell their own long distance. Imagine SBC saying either use our long distance or go get service from MCI.
At what point do we have a ton of wires outside and tie into the ones we want? Yes, this would be nice until we have a ton of wires to look at everytime we go outside.
SBC invested in items it can price without consent of the Public Service Commission. Caller ID, call waiting, etc. DSL also fits this catagory. These items are NOT regulated. Standard dial tone service is regulated so that SBC only makes a certain amount of profit. In exchange, they get a complete monopoly for local phone service.
Now, I have always said, I would like to choose my own ISP. I have cable and I am forced to use Comcast. I would like another ISP that will allow me more access to newsgroups, better website usage, etc. However, this is not the case in 99% of the time.
If local phone companies did it right, then there would be no need for competition since no one would challenge it. However, customer service is not important anymore. Who cares about the customers. Take it or leave it is the prevailing attitude. That's why other ISP's are wanted. |
|
TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
| reply to BBC4544
Are the CLECs allowed to build out in the same, unrestricted manner that an ILEC would. Meaning, do they have the same "Rights of Way" and the like? Also, if the CLECs were to "build out" as some describe, I would imagine they would still have to deal with the ILECs to get the last wires to the house, destroying everyones yards in the process.
Those who suggest that the CLECs just build out their own infrastructure are not being practical. The ILECs, through their MONOPOLY status were given certain privaleges to build out the network. They were allowed to make a profit on building out this network (cost plus), and they were then allowed to keep the network to themselves after deregulation.
When the ILECs are talking about building out, they are only talking FIBRE to the subdivision. They would then hook into their own copper to get the last distance to the homes. I am sure that if a CLEC would do that, the ILECs would be more than willing to let them hook up at that point also. .
Let's imagine that it did happen, the ILECs would then have to go out to remote places to hook up the last wire to the homes to the CLECs equipment (instead of just doing everyone from one central office). I can see the complaint now - "it takes us so long to hook up the CLECs because we have to go out in the field and it costs us so much in manpower to do it".
More and more I wish the states would play the emminent domain card and just take back the wires from these extortionist ILECs. Make them compete on a level playing field. |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| I agree - the only way to ever really solve the squabbling and maintain competition in this field is to forcibly split the phone companies into two - infrastructure and services. Infrastructure maintains all equipment; CO's, lines, etc and charges the same rate to whomever wants to lease those lines.
Only then will the ILEC playing field be level.
Of course, this will never happen.
KM |
|
bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
Santa Clarita, CA
·AT&T Yahoo
| Bad idea. We have that here in CA. PacBell for the lines and last mile. ASI for DSL services. PBI for ISP services. You can't pick and choose who you use. All three are under the same corporate umbrella, but they can't talk to each other because gubmint made it that way. |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| Maybe a bad idea - you didn't say why it was.
If under the same 'corporate umbrella', then that's not taking it far enough. They should be entirely different companies. You should totally be able to chose who you use!
As is, we hear an awful lot about SBC/PacBell showing preferential treatment toward the DSL users who also use PacBell for dialtone.
I do think it's silly to force different entities when still of the same company - all that will do is increase difficulty of communication with none of the competition benefits a true split would (should!) bring.
KM |
|
bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
Santa Clarita, CA
·AT&T Yahoo
| said by KoolMoe :
Maybe a bad idea - you didn't say why it was.
If under the same 'corporate umbrella', then that's not taking it far enough. They should be entirely different companies. You should totally be able to chose who you use!
As is, we hear an awful lot about SBC/PacBell showing preferential treatment toward the DSL users who also use PacBell for dialtone.
I do think it's silly to force different entities when still of the same company - all that will do is increase difficulty of communication with none of the competition benefits a true split would (should!) bring.
KM
It's not bad in concept, only in execution, as evidenced.
The three are separate entities in the eyes of the law. I agree there should be more of a separation, but here we have a quasi separation and they won't even deal with each other. So how can an absolute separation help? More rules? Thank you, but gubmint already screws things up too much "in the name of fairness."
I am all for competition, and I believe it can (and does) help the overall landscape, but the way it shakes out is almost always detrimental. A perfect example is the electrical market here in CA. Unless you are powered by the monopoly (LADWP), you are screwed.
The benefits (or lack of) can go either way. It's a tough call... |
|
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| reply to KoolMoe
said by KoolMoe :
Finally, there is very little 'communist' about my viewpoint...socialist perhaps. KM
"We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." — Nikita Krushchev
--
"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."—Thomas Sowell
[text was edited by author 2003-02-03 17:19:51] |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to TheGhost
quote:
Are the CLECs allowed to build out in the same, unrestricted manner that an ILEC would. Meaning, do they have the same "Rights of Way" and the like? Also, if the CLECs were to "build out" as some describe, I would imagine they would still have to deal with the ILECs to get the last wires to the house, destroying everyones yards in the process.
Those who suggest that the CLECs just build out their own infrastructure are not being practical. The ILECs, through their MONOPOLY status were given certain privaleges to build out the network. They were allowed to make a profit on building out this network (cost plus), and they were then allowed to keep the network to themselves after deregulation.
Actually, as per US Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter 2, Part 3, Section 271, Subsection (c)(2)(B)(iii), the Bells are required to offer:
quote:
Nondiscriminatory access to the poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way owned or controlled by the Bell operating company at just and reasonable rates in accordance with the requirements of section 224 of this title.
The fact that very few CLECs take advantage of this does not negate the fact that they have just as much capability to use public and/or private right-of-ways, pole usage, conduits, etc. The Bells don't have the advantage you mentioned.
In fact, the whole argument that Congress never wanted for CLECs to deploy their own wires to the home is null and void- as that requirement in and of itself INVITES CLECs to do so.
Boogie |
|
