SBC Plans DSL Expansion Oklahoma, where the wind comes sweepin' down the plain SBC has announced plans for a thirty million dollar expansion of service in Oklahoma, according to The Oklahoman. The company's DSL coverage should jump from 790,000 homes and businesses to more than 925,000, a 15 percent increase according to SBC officials. Such expansion comes with a cost, however, the legislation that made the expansion possible, allows SBC to expand networks without sharing the equipment or technology with other companies.
|
 | | I wouldn't be proud to be an Okie.... Personally I don't see how this law will stand up under the supremacy clause of the Constitution. If EarthLink or AOL challenges it as inconsistent with relevant Federal law the state legislation's going to get smacked down.
This is just SBC using another channel to put pressure on the FCC and the U.S. Congress to get things the way they want. | |
|  P NessYou'Ve Forgotten 9-11 AlreadyPremium
join:2001-08-29
way way out | AHHHH... OK..WTF how about finishing where you.... Already have crappy coverage....Please i live only 10k from the CO and still cannot get dsl...because of crappy SBC/Snet f'ed the lines in CT up...
grrrr | |
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Here in Oklahoma... SBC finally figured out the political situation a few years ago. The OCC (Oklahoma Corporation Commission) forced SBC to refund several hundred million dollars in overcharges it had been charging for several years on Telephone service. After that, SBC learned how politics work in the City. They came forward with a plan to "give" millions of dollars to the state for education and schools.
Immediately, the politicos started making noise about "regulatory relief" and the OCC began approving SBC's tarriff and other requests.
So now SBC has learned... grease the right palms, get whatever you want. Including the removal of DSL and high speed internet services from any regulation or oversight by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
Basically, our politicians just sold Oklahoma out. There is now *nothing* to control pricing, terms of service, speed, quantity or quality of DSL in Oklahoma. If you end up in a dispute with SBC, tough. Nothing you can do. You lose.
In return a bunch of small towns will get DSL access. They'll probably be glad, until the prices get too high for hardly anyone to actually use it, and the speeds to slow to really be useful for the future.
Congratulations, Oklahoma. Heads SBC wins, Tails, Consumers lose. | |
|  | | | Re: Here in Oklahoma... said by KrK:
In return a bunch of small towns will get DSL access. They'll probably be glad, until the prices get too high for hardly anyone to actually use it, and the speeds to slow to really be useful for the future.
Good idea, let's spend millions, if not billions on new hardware, then overprice it so no one will buy it, then we will be just another telecomm company with nothing to do but defend bad investments and bad bidness decisions.
If I were to guess, I would think that if a community already has cable broadband, and soon to have wireless broadband, DSL would only add to the choice, and not take away from. Just a thought, I could be wrong. SBC doesn't own a broadband cable provider in OK, Cingular is about to go IPO if the market will ever straighten out, hence......a choice for the consumer. | |
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| What's amazing is SBC has quoted the figure of 30 million dollars and which towns will receive DSL service. It appears the cost is about 1.3 million per town, according to SBC's own press release and figures. Apparently it isn't all THAT expensive to rollout DSL after all. (Ok, to me and you, 1.3 million is a lot.) But for a whole town, even a small town of 5,000 people, 1.3 million isn't that big of a deal. Let's say only 15% sign up, at $49.95 a month. That's 750 ppl, which is approx 450,000 a year revenue. Even with that low of market penetration, after a few years the install costs have been made up, and now all you have to do is cover maintenance and upgrades--- and chances are you'll gain customers too, so the overall revenue heads up away from costs, increasing profits.
Most of these towns don't have much in the way of cable TV service, more or less cable Internet, but as a result, DBS has done well. Hey, I use Dish Network here in town--- it would be a no brainer out in rural areas. | |
| | | | | Re: Here in Oklahoma... said by KrK:
What's amazing is SBC has quoted the figure of 30 million dollars and which towns will receive DSL service. It appears the cost is about 1.3 million per town, according to SBC's own press release and figures. Apparently it isn't all THAT expensive to rollout DSL after all. (Ok, to me and you, 1.3 million is a lot.) But for a whole town, even a small town of 5,000 people, 1.3 million isn't that big of a deal. Let's say only 15% sign up, at $49.95 a month. That's 750 ppl, which is approx 450,000 a year revenue. Even with that low of market penetration, after a few years the install costs have been made up, and now all you have to do is cover maintenance and upgrades--- and chances are you'll gain customers too, so the overall revenue heads up away from costs, increasing profits.
Most of these towns don't have much in the way of cable TV service, more or less cable Internet, but as a result, DBS has done well. Hey, I use Dish Network here in town--- it would be a no brainer out in rural areas.
Glad to see you are finally making sense, Krk... at a 15% penetration rate (which is about the right number nowadays for DSL), it would take about 3 years of customers buying to pay off each town investment of 1.3 million. I guess it isn't free to deploy it afterall!
You did forget to add in things like uncollectable accounts, customer service and tech support, paying inside and outside techs, costs of billing, advertising and overhead, and the overall profit margin of the service too...
But things sound about right- businesses (including SBC) sell things to make money- and won't do it unless it is profitable to do so.
Boogie | |
| | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Here in Oklahoma... said by boogie74:
I guess it isn't free to deploy it afterall!
You did forget to add in things like uncollectable accounts, customer service and tech support, paying inside and outside techs, costs of billing, advertising and overhead, and the overall profit margin of the service too...
But things sound about right- businesses (including SBC) sell things to make money- and won't do it unless it is profitable to do so.
Yes, I realize those are costs, and that the $49.95 isn't all profit... that's why I said it would take a few years to recover the initial investment, given a 15% market penetration. That's just a ballpark figure tho, because it doesn't include things like people who want premium DSL or businesess who pay for business DSL. Also, in my opinion, the 15% is on the low side. It's about right for today, but give it a few years and I think that market penetration will increase--- and you have to remember that cable Internet or even Dial-Up competition is scarce in a small town--- some of them are lucky to have even a dial up number that is local to them.
So I think given these conditions that DSL will have a higher percentage of customers then in a city where people have a wider range of options.
The main point being that the numbers suggest it is profitable to deploy DSL, even in small towns, right now, so why demand legislation first.
Without even minimal oversight, the potential for abuse is large. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Here in Oklahoma... said by KrK, getting smarter every day:
The main point being that the numbers suggest it is profitable to deploy DSL, even in small towns, right now, so why demand legislation first.
said by www.newsok.com:
The law allows Southwestern Bell to expand networks without sharing the equipment or technology with other companies.
said by THE SAUSAGE KING OF CHICAGO:
It's all about the RTs and access to them
| |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Yep.
They wanted a exclusive DSL monopoly, and Oklahoma caved. | |
| | | | | Re: Here in Oklahoma... said by KrK:
Yep.
They wanted a exclusive DSL monopoly, and Oklahoma caved.
Exactly what is it that is preventing a CLEC from investing in their own network elements to provide DSL? Is there something that you are referring to here that states that the only company that is allowed to spend money to put fiber to the RT and enable the RT for DSL is SBC?
What prevents the CLEC's from doing this on their own? Please explain...
Boogie | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Hmmm, well let me see.
1) Public Property
2) Easements on Private property.
And the real biggie
3) The incumbent local carrier.
Let's say I was a CLEC, and I (In this financial climate) had a bunch of money socked away. And let's say I came up with the brilliant plan to build all my own DSLAM's in various strategic locations. Sounds good, right?
Ah, but there's a catch. Somehow I still have to interface my DSLAM and facility with the Telco network... to get to the customers house, I need to connect to that good old "last mile" you hear about. And then there's the matter of what the DSLAM's are connected too on the backend. It's gotta be connected to something somewhere, prehaps independant fiber, if it exists, or more likely, purchased bandwidth from the local Telco.
-- SO -- even with my own DSLAMS, own techs, and own trucks, I still can have my business hosed over by my competition, because there's no way around it.
Unless you are suggesting that I also build my own duplicate last mile infrastructure too, (poles, buried cables, and lines to everyone's houses.) Even you must realize that is not practical at all... if it is even econmonically possible.
And one last nail in the coffin. Let's say I did build out my own DSLAM's and start offering service. Without PUC oversight (Oklahoma again) what's to stop SBC from just "dumping" DSL service at a huge loss for however long it took to drive me out of business? Nothing, because there's no regulations against it. Large companies have been willing in the past and present to accept losses for a number of years in order to drive out the competitors or take over market share.
Basically, as long as private interests control access to consumers, rather then compete with each other for business, we all lose.
Unless you're the one with the control, that is. | |
| | | | | Re: Here in Oklahoma... If you were a CLEC, none of these bills that are proposed nor passed takes away your access to last mile. You know that (at least I hope you do... if not, you're just not informed on any of this).
Secondly, predatory pricing is illegal. SBC could not just give away DSL at an intentional loss because that is called "predatory marketing" and is illegal. Many states put a nail in the coffin to prevent this by having "minimum mark-up laws" to prevent one company from doing exactly that.
What you took way too long to type out is just not how telecom works. Sorry to inform you, but you have no clue (as is again evident) what you're talking about.
Discussion is over, as I refuse to have a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed.
Boogie | |
| | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Here in Oklahoma... said by boogie74:
If you were a CLEC, none of these bills that are proposed nor passed takes away your access to last mile. You know that (at least I hope you do... if not, you're just not informed on any of this).
How do you figure? Oklahoma just passed legislation that exempts SBC DSL and other data services from PUC oversight. How can you figure that won't affect last mile access?
The fact is it is you who wilfully ignores SBC past and ongoing abuse of market power, you constantly jump to attack anyone or any argue with anyone.
"Predatory pricing is illegal." Yes, it is. It's also almost always un-enforced and un-enforceable. When was the last time you saw Wal-Mart or a Gas Station chain hauled up on charges of Predatory pricing while they knocked out the independants and Mom and Pops.
Get real. Your agenda, because you work for Ameritech is clear. "I work for the Telco therefore I know everything about telecom and I have the ego to prove it." It is you who has no grasp of reality, who stands there with your head in the sand ignoring the truth all around you, while attacking and insulting everybody who doesn't agree with you.
You're right, the discussion is over, because you turned it AGAIN like you always do into a flame war of insults.
Boogie74, Telco Shill to the Maximum. | |
| | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by boogie74:
If you were a CLEC, none of these bills that are proposed nor passed takes away your access to last mile. You know that (at least I hope you do... if not, you're just not informed on any of this).
How do you figure? Oklahoma just passed legislation that exempts SBC DSL and other data services from PUC oversight. How can you figure that won't affect last mile access?
The fact is it is you who wilfully ignores SBC past and ongoing abuse of market power, you constantly jump to attack anyone or any argue with anyone.
"Predatory pricing is illegal." Yes, it is. It's also almost always un-enforced and un-enforceable. When was the last time you saw Wal-Mart or a Gas Station chain hauled up on charges of Predatory pricing while they knocked out the idependants and Mom and Pops.
Get real. Your agenda, because you work for Ameritech is clear. "I work for the Telco therefore I know everything about telecom and I have the ego to prove it." It is you who has no grasp of reality, who stands there with your head in the sand ignoring the truth all around you, while attacking and insulting everybody who doesn't agree with you.
You're right, the discussion is over, because you turned it AGAIN like you always do into a flame war of insults.
Boogie74, Telco Shill to the Maximum. | |
|
 DSLGuy0thread killerPremium
join:2000-12-14
Mckinney, TX
| is that your opinion or is that based on fact? I'm curious how SBC/SNET f'ed up the lines in CT? Please explain.
EDIT: added comment on Oklahoma.. and spell check.. sorry, I fat fingered my response.
Now I'm really confused.. How does adding DSL to Oklahoma spell disaster for OK users? What other company is going to build out the infrastructure? Or should OK remain in the dark?
Call me confused here, but I don't get your arguments.
[text was edited by author 2002-04-30 12:25:27]
[text was edited by author 2002-04-30 12:25:58] | |
| | | | | lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL | dsl a basic service? Verizon & SBC have proven they can work with other companies & they do every day. Both RBOC’s have lost major access line numbers to competitors in the last couple of years. You might not like it,
But those are the facts. Now I’m not going to say they don’t make it difficult to when & where the
Legally Can – sure why not. After all – while they might have to give the knife over to there competitiors (equipment access) they don't have to stand still while its plunged into their backs.
As for DSL being a basic service – dream on. Where are the monies going to come from to deploy
DSL to everyone? Maybe you haven’t heard the news lately – but most telcom companies are just
A little bit worried about just staying afloat. Let alone building out a DSL network at great
Cost per house passed – when only about 20% of houses are buying when it is available. | |
| | | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Re: dsl a basic service? said by lvas:
Maybe you haven't heard the news lately but most telcom companies are just A little bit worried about just staying afloat.
So worried in fact that after a regulatory relief law is passed they find the funds to build out DSL networks in OK. Doesn't this prove Bells are abusing their monopoly status in the local loop?
Time for another Teddy Roosevelt type of trust buster!!! | |
|
| | | | Re: is that your opinion or is that based on fact? said by DamnDave:
What about parts of New Jersey, its baffles me that parts of NJ, the most populated state in the union, DSL isnt offered, or available because of DLCs. I dont think this would happen in Jersey because there are already a few competitors.
In regards to other companies, Verizon, SBC have proven they refuse to work with any other companies. So DSL should now become a basic service, DSL must be provided.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, New Jersey has MUCH fewer people than California, Texas and New York... Where did you even come up with NJ being the "most populated state in the union?"
Boogie | |
| | | | dbarc
join:2000-01-22
Fort Wayne, IN | Re: is that your opinion or is that based on fact? said by boogie74:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, New Jersey has MUCH fewer people than California, Texas and New York... Where did you even come up with NJ being the "most populated state in the union?"
Boogie
He only left out a word. New Jersey is the most DENSELY populated state in the union. | |
| | | | | | | Re: is that your opinion or is that based on fact? »www.census.gov/population/census···stco.txt
According to this site, Jersey has 1042 people per square mile while California only has 190...so New Jersey wins hands down!
Damn, where is everyone living??? | |
|
| DSLGuy0thread killerPremium
join:2000-12-14
Mckinney, TX | according to their site, SBC doesn't service NJ. I think you're way off point here.. DSL is not a basic service.. c'mon.. aren't we all being a little spoiled here if we think that DSL as a technology is now so mainstream that it should be available to every household in the US? Check into the DSL Forum Working Groups.. DSL is still in it's infancy.
--
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein | |
| | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by DSLGuy:
Now I'm really confused.. How does adding DSL to Oklahoma spell disaster for OK users?
Well let me explain. The adding of DSL service to some towns isn't a disaster. What is is the pricetag--- legislation that grants SBC data services (like DSL) exemption from the oversight of the OCC (Oklahoma's PUC.)
Basically, Oklahoma has just said "Here you go SBC, you are now free to do whatever you wish, and we give up our say about it. You are hereby granted monopoly control over our Citizens... Use them as you will! Thanks for your check!" | |
| | | | | Re: is that your opinion or is that based on fact? said by KrK:
Basically, Oklahoma has just said "Here you go SBC, you are now free to do whatever you wish,....
.......just like we told all those CLECs back in '96 that we gave an intentional head start to so, if they had their act together, could catch up.
I know, it wasn't the OK leg. that did it, but you get the point. The OK leg. is who got their act together first. Hopefully more will follow. | |
| | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: is that your opinion or is that based on fact? Oklahoma just was the first to sell out completely. No suprise, they've been doing that for years.
People? Who cares! Let 'em fend for 'emselves. We Okie politicians are friends of Business! | |
|
| P NessYou'Ve Forgotten 9-11 AlreadyPremium
join:2001-08-29
way way out | said by DSLGuy:
I'm curious how SBC/SNET f'ed up the lines in CT? Please explain.
they removed the copper in cromwell,CT and some other places in CT... and now all i have is a high fiber diet... i live 10k from CO but because there is not enough copper to feed to my house i cannot get dsl....even though the previous owner as of 12/1/01 had dsl from snet something changed from 12/1/01 to 12/15/01 and they removed our section of the town from the service area...
hmmm.very weird..if they would just let me have access to the fiber.. i mean i'm not picky..i'll take 100mb/100mb access... | |
|
 Aggie DanStop... Reverse That.Premium
join:2001-01-30
Frisco, TX | Personally... I've had pretty good service with my SBC line, though AOL is my ISP for DSL.
Though, I do plan on switching to SBC for the ISP. They seem to be pretty solid right now, at least in my area.
And let's face it folks, DSL equipment costs money. Installation costs money. Broadband isn't an inalienable right. If it was, you'd get it for free. It is a luxury. And it is one that I'm willing to pay for.
I'm from a telco family (Sprint, Qwest, SBC, and Verizon). So, my allegiances run both ways on all issues.
Now, SBC should open up those COs to competition... But, not at the cost of not being able to roll out service in the first place. Colocating costs them money. LOTS of money. And if a CO isn't going to be able to attract a large number of consumers, then everyone just puts out a lot of money fighting over scraps.
--
Note : The statements made by myself on DSL Reports are purely my own and is not in anyway to be considered indicative of the opinions of my employer or of my coworkers. | |
|  icp1Premium
join:2000-10-13
Saint Louis, MO | regulatory pressure This is just SBC's response to regulatory issues.
If the regulator's (FCC/congress) change regulations the way they (SBC) likes - the way the OCC did, SBC will in turn push out the services that everyone has been saying need to be pushed out further.
I am not saying that is right or wrong, that's just obviously the way it is. | |
| army5
join:2002-04-30
Oklahoma City, OK |  Great for SBC!!!!!
Jeff | |
| | | | Re: Great for SBC!!!!! Ah yes, a virgin poster. There are four kinds of people around here;
1.) CLEC/ex-CLEC employee, or contractor of one.
2.) Serious gammer who needs more than what the ILEC offers, and wants it dirt cheap, and up 24/7, etc. etc.
3.) Pro-ILEC folks (minority) fighting for goodness, trying to overcome evil.
4.) SETI power, very power users that got lost from the front page. I think something big just happened for them, congrats!
All, I mean most are very intelligent. | |
| | | army5
join:2002-04-30
Oklahoma City, OK | Re: Great for SBC!!!!! You are correct, this is my first post. However I have been reading many post here for the past two years. I sometimes feel like I know some of you from your online personality. As far as your assumptions on the type of people around here I would say you are correct. Common sense would say that "most" people read material that interest them. As for what kind of person I am I'll let you guess.
BTW I like your sig. Maybe I will pick one soon.
Jeff | |
| | | | | said by Abe froman:
Ah yes, a virgin poster. There are four kinds of people around here;
1.) CLEC/ex-CLEC employee, or contractor of one.
2.) Serious gammer who needs more than what the ILEC offers, and wants it dirt cheap, and up 24/7, etc. etc.
3.) Pro-ILEC folks (minority) fighting for goodness, trying to overcome evil.
4.) SETI power, very power users that got lost from the front page. I think something big just happened for them, congrats!
Yes, there are many types of broadband users out there...maybe if the ILEC's wold stop and look at these diversities and offer flexible, individualized service packages and stop ignoreing these facts and not catagorize the customer who asks to many technical questions as a "troublemaker" or throw this "Maybe a T1 line is what your looking for..I can transfer you there now" pitch, maybe just maybe users like these could take your company & their services seriously.
Regards
Shark...
--
416/416 SDSL thru Megapath | |
|
| | All I have to say is THANK YOU!!!!! For over 1 year now I have been calling, emailing, doing everything I could think of to get dsl here in skiatook.
Thank you SBC! Trust me anything is going to be better than dial-up........LOL | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·
