 
moby866
Premium
join:2000-10-07
Above you | Unfettered access.... To higher bills Appeal the raises in the bills too.... | |
| 
Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA
| Others can compete... I use Cox. If somebody wanted to compete with Cox they can run their own cable and network buildings. There is nothing stopping them. Cable isn't like electricity or gas. The poles are available and if somebody else wants to pay the power company to use them I see no reason why they can't.
Also, it seems to me dish services are doing just fine competing with cable.
I suppose it's not fair that cable companies have to maintain their own equipment just for there services. Instead they must maintain their own equipment for everybody else to use and make money off of.
--
BBr| UT2003 Clan Server Administrator | |
|  | 
Wall9
Tell Me, Did You See It Too?
Premium
join:2002-06-25
Dupo, IL
| Re: Others can compete... said by Lumberjack  :
I use Cox. I suppose it's not fair that cable companies have to maintain their own equipment just for there services. Instead they must maintain their own equipment for everybody else to use and make money off of.
Exactly. They laid it, they paid for it. They continue to pay for it. As said yesterday, this will be ruling will be overturned.
When the day comes that someone is *made* to share what is theirs is a sad day indeed. | |
| | | SaBo7Ge
join:2003-03-12
US
| Re: Others can compete... Well since we're talking about what's fair and what isn't; then how can you justify telephone companies having to share their networks with any CLEC that wants acesss?? They own the hard copper lines, but they're forced to give open access so please tell me how that's any different here? Cable companies and upstarts hiding under CLEC status have long since been able to sell phone service cheaper than the owner of the lines, or offer dsl service when they don't own the lines... Similar situation.. In all honesty this decision levels the playing field and if the cable companies don't like it then quit selling internet services/VOiP that clearly fall under telcoms domain...
[text was edited by author 2003-10-09 03:38:45] | |
| | | 
Goliath28
@rr.com | Interesting.. Isn't that the same argument the RIAA is using for Music Sharing and everyone has a problem with it? | |
| | | | | | CCCMTech
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2002-05-17
Pound, VA
| said by Lumberjack :
I suppose it's not fair that cable companies have to maintain their own equipment just for there services. Instead they must maintain their own equipment for everybody else to use and make money off of.
If you think this way, why should the FCC see telcos any differently from cable companies? They own the facilities, they run the cable, they pay the maintenance yet CLECs and resellers make a large portion of their profits, why should cable have this advantage? I agree it's not fair to companies, cable and telco. Neither should have to provide facilities for upcoming companies who can't afford their own, who would rather leech off everyone else.
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today? | |
| | | HSD4490
join:2001-08-26
Matthews, NC
|  Re: Others can compete...
I think that makes a big difference as to why cable should not be forced to open their lines to "competition". Let the wannabes build their own stuff with their own money.
Simple. | |
| | | | CCCMTech
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2002-05-17
Pound, VA
| Re: Others can compete... I'd suggest you look again into how much money most telcos get in government funding. You'll find that 99% of the cable in your area is paid for by the telco, not the government.
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today? | |
| | | | | 
pit_viper
1 Shot, 1 Kill, No Remorse, I Decide
join:2002-07-24
Play_Hockey
| Re: Others can compete... said by CCCMTech :
I'd suggest you look again into how much money most telcos get in government funding. You'll find that 99% of the cable in your area is paid for by the telco, not the government.
Actually you will find that the city I live in paid for 84% of the funding for the telco according to public reports.
That means my tax dollars are paying for a company I don't even use (No landline phone here) | |
| | | | | | 
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: Others can compete... quote:
Actually you will find that the city I live in paid for 84% of the funding for the telco according to public reports.
That means my tax dollars are paying for a company I don't even use (No landline phone here)
Which city do you live in? What state? Country? Please show at least a link to the "reports" that you are quoting from...
Boogie | |
| | | | | 
JacksGhost
Got Bottle?
join:2002-12-29
Buffalo, NY
| "I'd suggest you look again into how much money most telcos get in government funding. You'll find that 99% of the cable in your area is paid for by the telco, not the government."
Umm.. Adelphia just laid out about.. Oh.. 24000 miles of new fibre in the last year.. Guess who paid for it? Adelphia  . No government, no telco, no dish provider..
Its theirs.
Copper carries emergency services. Cable lines currently do not. Big difference between the 2.
jAX | |
| | | | | | 
RR Conductor
RailRoadDude
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA | Re: Others can compete... Actually, it's ours, we paid for it through our fees  | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
RR Conductor
RailRoadDude
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA | Re: Others can compete... I was kidding, yeesh, chill out, didn't you see the ? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | 
ross96
VIP
join:2000-11-02
Dayton, OH
| Telephone companies own a lot of the poles out there too, and more times than not cable companies are on either a power pole or a telco pole without notifying either and paying rent for the space. That is criminal if you ask me. I think neither cable or telco should have there broadband networks regulated but you can't have one one way and the other the other way, just isn't right. | |
| | | | | bac522
join:2003-08-04
Manchester, NH
| said by Lumberjack :
The poles are available and if somebody else wants to pay the power company to use them I see no reason why they can't.
NOT, poles are regulated by local municipalities and just about every city, state and regional PUC which only allows three lines on a pole, electricity, phone and cable. | |
| | | CCCMTech
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2002-05-17
Pound, VA
| Re: Others can compete... said by bac522 :
said by Lumberjack :
The poles are available and if somebody else wants to pay the power company to use them I see no reason why they can't.
NOT, poles are regulated by local municipalities and just about every city, state and regional PUC which only allows three lines on a pole, electricity, phone and cable.
What about T1s, ISDNs, OCs and others that travel on those same poles? Our poles have as many as 7 lines on them..
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today? | |
| |
Costs
@verizon.net
| Actually cable didn't pay for it. The towns most often foot a great deal of the bill either in direct subsidies or in long term tax credits. If a pole is damaged its not the cable company footing that repair either.
The cable companies have collected off the customer for decades, raking in profits that have made them financial wonders in many cases. Only recently has this come under fire. If a town subsidized the building of the cable system, then that cable is a public utility, and therefore subject to share company providers.
Oh and please don't speak too loudly about how well maintained they are. Signals are crud in thousands of locations, so weak that meters show them as flawed, but no money is ever spent to fix that issue. Gain more customers, split the signal and put as little capital hardware in as possible. The cable company of most towns is FAR from a good corporate citizen.
If they suffer under competition, let em. They've screwed millions of people happily. Time for a bit of just reward. | |
| | | 
dav0r
translate
Premium
join:2003-06-15
Albertville, MN
 ·Charter Pipeline
 ·Embarq
| Re: Others can compete... said by Costs:
If they suffer under competition, let em. They've screwed millions of people happily. Time for a bit of just reward.
Amen brother.
--
Ever met someone from Microsoft Q/A? ...EXACTLY! | |
| | | |
Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA
| Re: Others can compete... said by dav0r :
said by Costs:
If they suffer under competition, let em. They've screwed millions of people happily. Time for a bit of just reward.
Amen brother.
While I don't mind a swift kick in the nuts to my local providers I don't think they should have to pay for more than what is theirs.
As far as the government, thats the root cause of the problem. The competition is there, let them invest like everybody else and compete the proper way, not with government hand holding... that will cost the taxpayer even more money.
--
BBr| UT2003 Clan Server Administrator | |
| | 
mondobyte
Politically Incorrect
Premium
join:2000-05-12
Saint Charles, MO
| Here in Missouri cable companies are operate under EXCLUSIVE contract to the local community, city, etc. This means that they are a government authorized monopoly.
A second cable company, by law, is impossible. Under these rules, a choice in ISP's is the only reasonable answer.
--
Security through obscurity is no security at all | |
| | | 
PatientGuy
I'M Way Deep Into Nothing Special
Premium
join:2000-12-11
Arlington, VA
clubs:
| Re: Others can compete... In my area Comcast has an exclusive deal with the county to provide cable service. As one might expect in such an arrangement the county gets lots of free channels and service to schools. The public gets screwed by Comcast with outrageous rates and indifferent support service. On the other hand the copper in Arlington is open to competition, I get excellent phone and Internet service from Cavalier Telephone. I want competition on the coaxial! | |
| | Jipa219
join:2000-08-02
Wilkes Barre, PA
| What you say may or may not be true of your area, however in Pennsylvania cable companys signed long term agreements with local municipalities, thus eliminating any chance of competition. Other cable companies cannot run lines in our area due to these agreements, thus our only option is to use them or get a dish. This as always struck me as a monopoly, but apparently through some FCC/Legal loophole we are stuck with just one company, with no hope of any other cable provider running their own lines, even if they wanted to. We simply have to keep taking rate hike after rate hike without any options. I chose DSL for Highspeed for just this reason, and I will be moving to the Dish soon. This is probably the only industry that is still allowed to simply bleed it subscribers because they know that no one can come in and challange them. I yearn for the day, and its coming soon, that consumers will have had enough and these antiquated agreements. On that day other cable companies can begin to come into areas and finally reduce the prices by competition. | |
| 
damonlab
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Detroit, MI
clubs: | Cable companies will be fine.... They will drag their heels and kick and scream, but in the long run they will be fine. CLECS never drove ILECS out of business. I don't think any cable company will go out of business because of this. | |
| 
Chief Sparky
52 Still On Patrol
Premium
join:2001-04-25
Thibodaux, LA
| Wonderful... more "competion" Great... if they open it up to "competition", all I see is my service degrading and more spam from the "competition". Why can't they just leave well enough alone?
When I got "competition" when I had DSL... my costs went up and the service quality went down. Go figure.
--
Life is too short to drive slow cars
[text was edited by author 2003-10-08 20:38:19] | |
| 
No_Strings
Premium,Mod
join:2001-11-22
The OC | Unfettered but intermittent I have unfettered access to any content I desire, until Cox goes down that is. The Cox HSI forum lists the sordid details, but I've been falling back onto dialup far too frequently of late. I welcome a move toward more competition. | |
| | 
mig288
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Merchantville, NJ | Re: Unfettered but intermittent I agree with you! I welcome a move toward competition also. If OOL can use comcraps lines then I say do it! I'm tired of comcrap. | |
| | 
paulhaskew
Unoffical Dominos Spokesman
join:2002-01-10
Vancouver, WA
clubs:
| if cox's goes down, and its a powersupply or line issue, guess what... if they don't have a seperate cable line, they (other isp) are gonna be down too...
--
I post for myself, from myself. Statements made do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer, Charter Communications, or any of its subsidiaries. | |
| | | | 
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| the new incumbants i think it not going to work for competitors, everyone remenbers what i incumbants did to the clecs. It will be the same story all over again. Besides i dont want earthlink or aol. I like just plain access to the net.
--
Alright DR. Slotkin do your worst. | |
| | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | Re: They're all different. I switched 2 years ago to satellite tv and am very satisfied. Although comcast may be better now for tv, they aren't offering anything I can't get from satellite and they sure aren't offering it cheaper.
HSI, on the other hand... | |
|
WOWed
@kcnet.com
 from:
tomsprat
JTRockville
| You are all clueless to this issue. I see all these comments defending the Cable co's position. Its quite ridiculous. Do you not realize that you can't compete with the cable co's? Let's look at the facts.
1) In order to be a cable co, you must petition the city government in which you live to grant you right of way rights over everyone's land in order for you to lay your cable. You can't just rent space from the power company, nice thought though.
2) It costs hundred of millions of dollars to roll out a full service cable company in just a small suburbian area. No startup has that kind of capital.
3) Current cable cos came about through monopoly agreements with the cities that allowed them to provide service at what ever price they chose without fear of compition, they simply gave a kick back to the cities in the form of cable line taxes. Fast ford 30 years and you now have 3 huge multi-billion dollar cable companies providing 95% of cable customers, Time-Warner, Cox, and Comcast.
4) Cable rates ahve increased year after year at rates much higher than the natural inflation... Yet costs for providing the services have decreased tremendously.
Let me give you an example of a small startup who tried this in the KC, MO area, Everest. They rolled out in highly targeted neighborhoods to increase their chance of success. As their trucks rolled out to build their network, Time-Warner cable trucks followed. Time-Warner sells reps went door-to-door, in front of Everest cable builders, and offered people the completely full channel package for under $35 a month... thats everything, not just basic, HBO, Cinemax, Showtime... you name it, hundreds of channels. Needless to say at these rates, Everest could not compete, they lost million in a matter of months. It got so bad they have ceased their limited expantion on hopes of just becoming profitable with the few areas they currently serve. In the meantime, time-warner has returned many of those customers on their special "test marketing" rate back to full price. The fear of competition is gone and so is their anti-competitive pricing.
That is a prime example of why cable co's should be treated exactly the same as telco's. I won't even go into the censoring they do by not allowing competitor ISPs to even advertise on their cable systems. How many small businesses do you think can afford to run ads nationwide on network TV?
Both Telcos and Cable Cos were create and paid for by You and Me, not themselves. They did it with our tax money and government subsidies.
PS. On a side note, don't feel to bad for Everest cable. They are owned by Aquila... another monopoly, the Power Co. Its a sad state of afairs when one monopoly can't compete with another across different markets.
PSS. Competition has been open among Cable Cos sinse '96, ever wonder why you can't fined Cox and Time-Warner in the same area, or Comcast and Cox, or any other combination... Can you say collusion boys and girls. If its as easy to come in and build your own network and compete as they say, then why aren't they doing it among themselves already? It would really make the whole issue mute if they did, but they won't because its not possible! | |
| |
illregisterlater
@bellsouth.net
| Re: You are all clueless to this issue. WOWed is 100 percent correct on this issue. I for one work at a cable company and it is a monopoly. Not just any company can move in in a territory. Now we do sometimes have two companies working in the same building , but they do have their own equipment. They do not share lines at all.
Mind you this would be better for the customer, but even in these situations the customer does not get a better rate. Perhaps it is cause this situation is only in a very small scale. I believe that if a company can go in and provide service to a whole system not only a part of it, the customer will see better prices.
We will see if anything comes out of this. | |
|
I dontlikecable
@bellsouth.net
| The Ignorance runs rampant in this thread You guys must love paying through the nose for cable broadband. You all should be happy. If you're consumers, now cable providers will have to charge you less if they want to keep you as a customer. Didn't you all read the headline that was posted here a while back that said that since Muni's were offering Cable TV in certain citys the cable monopolies were forced to lower their prices dramatically?
If you still think that the cable monopolies shouldn't have to share their lines... I'd like to offer you a subscription into my dial-a-fool line. Basically what it is me calling you at all hours of the night, telling you the headlines from a newspaper from 2 years ago, and you get to pay me $59.99 a month for it. I'm gonna go watch tv now.
Hey! I saw this one already!!! it was on like two years ago or something!
The sacarsm runs rampant... | |
| |
Chief Sparky
52 Still On Patrol
Premium
join:2001-04-25
Thibodaux, LA | Don't feed the trolls
Log on, register, or withhold your trolling.
--
Life is too short to drive slow cars | |
| | Kommie
join:2003-05-13
East Haven, CT
| Re: The Ignorance runs rampant in this thread Anyone can start a Cable Company to compete look at RCN. It just costs too much. There are no monopoly agreements, No Town/City has the right to give exclusive access.
Lets say it costs a hundred million dollars to start a cable service then at best the company break even in 10 years(Might be even more with competition prices). There is no profit in. | |
| | | | hescominsoon
join:2003-02-18
Brunswick, MD
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Agreed....i jsut dropped Adelphia HSi for VZ DSL and while getting setup has been a nightmare now that i am setup things are working nicely....Adelphia won't discuss competing on price becuase DSL's reach is not good out here..but heck i have DSL and Adelphia in competition..i am not hte only one who switched my neighbor two doors down jsut jumped..:)
--
God Blesshttp://www.faithwalk.org | |
| 
nunya
SEE ROCK CITY 475 MILES
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
clubs:
 ·AT&T CallVantage
| I hate the cable company... ...with a burning, searing passion.
But this is a step in the wrong direction. The govt. needs to get their fat little fingers out of the communications industry "pie".
While I agree the playing field needs to be leveled, this is just adding a new pile next the old one. Instead of forcing cable companies to share access, relax the requirements on telcos (cable's natural enemy). Cable is no longer a monopoly. Neither is the telephone company. Neither is a vital service (yes, you can survive without them). I have been cable free for over five years with a dish. My service and reception is ten times better and less than half the cost of Charter. I get my broadband from DSL which is way cheaper than Charter. Win-win for me. I can get telephone service from no less than 5 wireless providers. I can get BB over a Dish, Telephone, Cable, Cellular, and Fixed wireless.
If there is a market for BB, someone will find a way to deliver it to you. If there is no market, form a wireless co-op. This is America for goodness sake. Everybody gets a chance; but you are guaranteed nothing but life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - not 3 Meg downloads. Nobody "owes" you anything.
Side note for those claiming federal money finances your telephone service - do a little homework. Any govt. money probably goes to some mom and pop co-op (companies that need it), not major ILEC players.
--
The fighter still remains. RadioDoc is our honorary moderator. | |
|
Joker2345
@rasserver.net | It's judgement day! This is very Cool! If I go with the competition,I don't
think they'll make me buy Comcraps catv!
PS: I think cable co's,especially comcast,will be sorry
for pissing off customers! Hot-Digity-Damn!!!!! | |
|
Jim Pickrell
@brandx.net
from:
newview
MacGyver
| I'm the one who filed that appeal My name's Jim Pickrell. I'm the one that filed that appeal that you are reading here. You can read about us at »www.brandx.net. We filed this appeal because, as an independent ISP, we depend on access to lines so we can provide service to customers.
The FCC itself is anti-competition. They tried to exempt the telephone companies and the cable companies from the competitive obligations of the Telecommunications act by declaring that broadband is not a telecommunications service.
We disagree. We don't think the FCC should be able to change laws by redefining a word like telecommunications. If a law is going to be changed, that's a job for our elected officials, not bureaucrats.
We appealed, and the courts agreed.
At Brand X Internet we're not looking for a free ride. We're happy to pay for the access we get. All we are looking for is a level playing field, where we pay the same price for line access, as does Adelphia or Roadrunner or SBC Internet. Then it's up to the consumer to decide which service they like. Keep in mind the monopoly gets a subsidy the moment they get their franchise, and the lines are built with consumer money, not with Adelphia or AT&T money.
Choice is the best system. If these guys got there way there would be no place for a site like DSL reports because there would only be one broadband provider in each area.
I think it's crazy that the FCC is trying to stifle competition. We've seen how that worked here. It doesn't improve service and it doesn't improve costs. Competition is the best way to harness the energy of industry for the benefit of the public.
I've identified my affiliation and you know my bias. I like competition because we are the competition. When the FCC tries to close out competition we're the ones they're trying to shut down. The SBC participants in this forum I disagree with, but at least they are honorable enough to identify themselves. It looks like we're seeing a number of lurkers from the cable companies. I'd like to see them come forward and identify themselves.
Jim Pickrell (email jimp@brandx.net) | |
| |
Chief Sparky
52 Still On Patrol
Premium
join:2001-04-25
Thibodaux, LA
| Re: I'm the one who filed that appeal Some good, salient points you bring up, Jim.
In respect to competition, however, I already have it. I have my choice of cable, DSL, Dial-up, or sat. As someone else stated, for phone I have any number of wireless providers.
I brought up a particular point several years ago with a tech from GTE (long before Verizon came about). How are the repayment costs split for the initial investment in the infrastructure that was provided by GTE/ATT & public dollars? Cable/DSL/POTS competition shouldn't expect a free ride on facilities built by other companies, STILL IN BUSINESS and still utilizing those facilities that they installed. As lofty as the idea sounds, it's been my experience that when there is "competition", eventually someone loses and prices go back up. And customer service always suffers.
Just MHO, but if you want to compete... do it by putting up your own lines. Even better, put all that dark fiber to use.
paul
--
Life is too short to drive slow cars | |
| 
callihn4
join:2002-01-10
Space
| A few notes First, the term sharing is out of place here for example regarding TELCOS the ILECS lease lines to the CLECS at cost they do not have to let them access their network for FREE, the ILECS did not pay for all those lines and poles most of them where paid for by AT&T and then given to the ILECS.
My assumption would be that cable would operate the same way, I don't see a problem with this.
Look at the big picture:
It is easy to say they should have their own buildings and lines, however there is only so much space on this earth for poles and buildings and only so much space on each pole, they are only so tall you know.
How would you like to have your yard filled with poles to where you have little room to cook burgers on the grill.
How well do you think the company at the bottom of those poles will do with their lines two feet off the ground for every stray dog that comes along to cause them a network outage.
--
If Operating Systems Were Women? : »www.sigkill.com/os/ | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
phoneman5711
Premium
join:2003-09-30
| Congratulations Jim I agree with Jim Pickrell.
Let any competitors pay a reasonable access charge and then let the games begin. Maybe it will put a dent in the arrogance of the cable companies and help consumers.
At the time that the cable franchises were put in, they were exclusives with the local government. In the very, very early years of cable, maybe there was some risk that the technology would not be accepted. Very soon after that, it was obvious that these exclusive franchises were worth big money per household. The only exception was in rural areas where the cost of the plant was too great for the small number of customers.
The cable companies have had plenty of time to enjoy their monopoly. Now they can get a return for their facilities and maybe, just maybe, become a little bit more concerned about customers. | |
| |
Chief Sparky
52 Still On Patrol
Premium
join:2001-04-25
Thibodaux, LA
| Re: Congratulations Jim My only problem with this statement is that I have never, ever, not even once experienced "arrogance" with any sort of provider I have ever had. Cluelessness on occasion, but not arrogance. It's all a matter of how you approach them. Act like an arrogant ass to them, and they probably will do it in return. It's human nature to respond in kind.
Cable companies have had a monopoly for the same reason that ATT did for so long. Only a few companies have the time and deep pockets to invest in infrastructure over the long term. Yes, the lines were paid for with a majority of tax dollars, but the investment of the original companies still ran into the billions (trillions?) nationwide.
Competition implies a separate, competing product, hence cable vs. dsl. I am aware that some areas only have a couple options, or, in some cases, one. If a company wants to compete, let them put up their own system, not piggyback of the work of others. Cable, DSL, satellite, dialup. Four competing services. Works for me.
--
Life is too short to drive slow cars | |
| | |
MiguelS
@kcnet.com
| Re: Congratulations Jim Let's be sure to understand what we're talking about when we talk about investments....
True, cable co's (or ILEC's) have spent BILLIONS and TRILLIONS of dollars on their networks. But, let's be very clear that this money didn't just come out of their pockets up front. They made the investments because they were promised monopolies in their service areas in exchange for the buildout of infrastructure. Therefore, they could charge more and reinvest more money into the infrastructure while still making profits comparable to not building out the infrastructure and charging a bit less.
In the case of the ILEC's, Congress realized that they were NOT in fact pouring most of the money back into the infrastructue but were instead lining their pockets and their investor's pockets with the sky-high rates. Thus, along with other circumstances involving the Bells wanting to get into Long Distance, the TA of '96 was passed. Since then, choice for consumers has increased drastically, and long distance rates have settled into very affordable lows. And guess what? The infrastructure is still maintained, and the Bells get their money for this maintenance in the forms of Tariffs from CLECs and others who lease UNE-P. (Unbundled Network Elements). The only money Bell has to put out is their share of the cost of upkeep for THEIR customers. CLECs pay their share...
Now, finally, Cable is going to get caught playing the same game. Believe me, this will be a revolution for consumers, as innovation will now flourish as independent ISP's can build off the phone OR cable networks and beat the stodgy monopolies at their own game. | |
| | |
WOWed
@kcnet.com
| "Cable, DSL, satellite, dialup. Four competing services."
That is absolutely incorrect. Look at dialup as competition. There are numerous local and nationwide dialup providers. You can cancel your dialup service and sign up with another in minutes. Can you with DSL or Cable, no. In both you are looking at a week to 2 week migration, from DSL to DSL its even longer, you have to turn one of before the other. In DSL unless you are both a Voice and data provider, you can only sell DSL to ILEC voice customers, if they chose a CLEC for service, you can't compete on bell and that one clec can.
Lets look at who can get DSL, only people within roughly 15000 feet of their CO... How bought satellite, only people with southerly unobstructed views, cable only people that are in areas served by cable TV.
There is no competition here, just the perception of competition. Competition is two people offering the same service to the same people. | |
| | | | 
THZNDUP
Deorum Offensa Diis Curae
Premium
join:2003-09-18
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Congratulations Jim I'm kinda amazed that you picked WOWed as your unregistered handle. Are you aware that there is a cable company called WOW (Wide Open West) and what it is that they are up to?
--
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything | |
| | | | 
Air WAV
join:2000-09-16
Saint Louis, MO
| said by WOWed:
"Cable, DSL, satellite, dialup. Four competing services."
This is exactly why I got out of DSL. When a company by the name of PBI (Pacific Bell Internet) first surfaced it brought an entire boat load of CLECs and ISPs down, I was one. I owned a company by the name of SunFAST DSL and got to witness just what unfair competition was.
I want to provide broadband, and today I do, but I do it without wires (that could be WOW, too)
I choose not to be dependent on the Cable or ILEC for my last mile.
Jim, I salute you in your battle. I am very familiar with your company and know you have been around for years and and wish you continued success and luck.
--
»www.AWirelessGateway.com | |
|
Agent 86
| No respect for leeches I respect the companies that put their money where their mouth is and BUILD something. That includes facilities-based CLECs like Covad. I have zero respect for companies that want to abuse government regulations to leech a guaranteed, risk-free profit. | |
| | | |
|
|
Re: Others can compete...
They're all different.