 |  | mdurkin
join:1999-08-11
San Bruno, CA
| Re: Yeah, if you want to rewire.... This isn't about CLEC sharing, it's about ISPs accessing the existing cable modem transport. There is no rewiring involved, it's a logical connection much like an ATM PVC is used to choose which ISP your DSL line is connected to over say Covad's or SBC/ASI's last-mile DSL service. Technically it's not a problem to implement ISP choice. | |
| | | 
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
 ·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | Re: Yeah, if you want to rewire.... ...And we expect Cable companies to invest in DOCSIS 2.0 ??? Only to have to share it at wholesale rates??? There is a basic flaw in imposed line-sharing. Our form of government lacks the final Fascist or Communist force needed to make it work. Assuming we prefer Free Market Capitalism and the innovations thereof -- then line sharing is simply out-of-touch with market realities (witness UNE changes and Verizon's FTTP deployment).
Now, if the taxpayers are serious -- we should be providing infrastructure -- which to share among competitors. Taxpayer's seldom choose to "put their money where their mouth is" though. | |
| | | | 
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| Re: Yeah, if you want to rewire.... said by ronpin  :
Taxpayer's seldom choose to "put their money where their mouth is" though.
Oh so true. Such as folks don't want their tech support shipped overseas but don't complain when their prices get cut and half at the same time.
--
"Affluence separates people. Poverty knits 'em together. You got some sugar and I don't; I borrow some of yours. Next month you might not have any flour; well, I'll give you some of mine." - Ray Charleshttp://www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad | |
| | | | | 
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
| Re: Yeah, if you want to rewire.... well jobs are being cut as the jobs are moved, so in the end you need to pay more taxes to help fund the people that lost their jobs due to outsourcing through the unemployment system, in the end you loose.
stop reading the "outsourcing is good" bs that whoever is feeding you, outsourcing is a short term solution next your going to be complaining that your job was outsourced to india because they will work more hours for less money then you. | |
| | | | | hedyd4u
Premium
join:2003-12-16
Schenectady, NY | Who out-sources then lowers their price? Outsourcing is done to increase profits. | |
| | | 
acadiel
Keep trying - don't give up
Premium
join:2002-06-22
Bloomington, IL | I know it isn't about CLEC sharing - it was only a parallel that I was trying to bring up.  | |
| | | | | | | 
Count Hogula3
John Forged Kerry
Premium
join:2004-07-10
Corona, CA
| Re: Yeah, if you want to rewire.... Good thing I read the entire thread 'cause I was going to say the same thing. A lot of markets have this already. Time Warner gives you the choice of I think RCI, Roadrunner, and ELN. ATTBi had ELN in some markets like I think Seattle which Comcast honored when ATTBi was bought out.
They obviously can do it. They just obviously don't wanna do it.
--
»www.scaryjohnkerry.com | »media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv | Don't have it, demand it!»www.theanimenetwork.com | |
| | | | 
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| Re: Yeah, if you want to rewire.... In this case though, the appeal isn't really from having a different pipe to the internet. It's offering the same service with extras (like dialup access, AOL, allowing servers or better tech support) and probably a better price.
I'm with New York Connect here in NYC. They piggyback on the Time Warner network, and offer the same pipe to the net that Time Warner does, but you get unlimited free dialup, which time warner doesn't offer. Additionally, they don't force you to take cable TV, which is an important consideration since I have Satellite TV. | |
| | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | TWC in WOH gives: RR, ELN, WCoil, and BigNet. Also Maxx Internet(i think thats the name) but its not marketed Here. Just on their website if you can find it. | |
| | 
rec9140
Provoice just DO it
join:2003-07-29
Mulberry, FL
| said by acadiel :
I suppose they theoretically *could* have a competitor's ISP, but they would have to rewire the whole headend and re-do the nodes. Man, that would probably be a mess.
Nothing theoretical about it, I use IJ.NET via the local conble company. Thats all I take from conble. I use DBS for my video needs.
I chose IJ.net SPECIFICALLY because they are not the conble co.. They offer a better price for the same speed, and I get UNLIMITED ISDN backup in the event of failure of conble.
I would like to see MORE done to make cable modem service more CONSUMER & ISP netural.
CM service should be as simple as plugging in router/modem or modem & router and doing some simple config to signup/setup service or change out a modem. Users should be responsible for purchasing a DOCSIS CERTIFIED V1.0-2.0 CM from the source of their choice. Theres some other changes I would make too, but not relevant to this discussion. | |
| | | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Re: Yeah, if you want to rewire.... Not only is this not theoretical but it's part of the agreement. When Time Warner and AOL wanted to merge one of the agreements they had to make was to allow competitors into their network. Just like how the Bells agreed on TA1996. | |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs: | Correct header? Is the name of this article suppose to be "Brand X Appeal" or am I missing how the name relates? | |
| 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Alternate Strategy Earthlink and Brand X could have spent all the money they are wasting in legal fees and invest in building their own networks. Why do they think cable companies owe them anything? | |
| | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| Re: Alternate Strategy said by ruscorp :
However I resent the fact (and this is the only time I will defend the baby bells) that the bells have to share their lines while cable companies don't.
The only reason the telegraph companies have to share their lines is because they pushed for and got passed into law the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Ergo, they asked for it, and now they got it, and now they don't like how it tastes. The cable companies never asked for any such laws, and TA 1996 does not apply to them, so you can't apply the "fairness" doctrine in this case. Furthermore, cable companies paid for their facilities only with the money they got from willing subscribers. No one was forced to subsidize them in any way, so you can't apply the "entitlement" doctrine here either.
said by ruscorp :
Why can for example does Charter have a monopoly on the cable wires yet Verizon is compelled to share with AT&T, IDT, COVAD, etc?
Where I used to live, a second cable company (originally Telebeam, now Conestoga Communications) ran its own cables and started competing head to head with what was then AT&T Cable. Earthlink has cash, they could easily do the same thing if they wanted to.
--
www.swiftvets.com
9/11 was the best thing to happen to Michael Moore
Win another one for the Gipper! Bush/Cheney 2004 | |
| | | | | | | | 
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
1 edit | pnh, I usually disagree with your stance on ILEC/CLEC sharing, but I do agree with you competely on this post.
Just thought that would help make your day 
Well, ok, maybe I don't completely agree. I think it's unrealistic to ask any company to start competing from their own scratch infrastructure. I believe as long as area monopolies exist, some sort of deal must be made where the area ILECs and cable companies must share their lines. They should certainly be allowed to make a profit, but not price the access past a certain mark.
I have no idea what that mark should be.
Otherwise, local governments should get involved in telecom infrastructure. Counties can handle roads (mostly) so they can handle wires. I really have a hard time giving any sympathy to local monopolies who own infrastructure and service - it's just too overwhelming to compete with.
On the other hand, once wireless really finds it footing, maybe it's all a moot point.
KM
--
If Clinton lied, so did Bush.
Iraq Casualties | War Propaganda
Air America - Radio for the Rest of US! | |
| | | | | 
hobgoblin
Sortof Agoblin
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
clubs:
| Re: Alternate Strategy Koolmoe pontificated
"Well, ok, maybe I don't completely agree. I think it's unrealistic to ask any company to start competing from their own scratch infrastructure."
Why?
The original provider did.
Where were this company at the start.
You open a Pizza Parlor in Annapolis. I want one there too, so its ok for me to share your ovens that you paid for?
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | |
| | | | | | hedyd4u
Premium
join:2003-12-16
Schenectady, NY | Re: Alternate Strategy It's only fair cause I can't afford or maybe I don't want to spend my money on an oven. And why should you get to buy and be be the only one to use that oven. Oh and you should pay all the utilities too cause after all it is your oven. | |
| | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: Alternate Strategy Keep in mind the Bells have had several decades of an unfettered monopoly to build out their network. They had absolutely no worries on whether or not it would pay off because they set the rates and nobody would challenge them. The cable companies had essentially a similar situation with the sort of contracts they get from various communities. Ever wonder why most areas in the U.S. only have one cable provider and no competing service?
When a company builds an infrastructure at virtually no risk I don't see how they have much room to complain. | |
| | | | | | | | | | hedyd4u
Premium
join:2003-12-16
Schenectady, NY
| Also the baby bells had to lose some access lines to get into the Long Distance market, a fair trade off since the local loop is low profit and LD is high profit. The point was to allow competition an easy way to get started so they could afford to build their own networks. But as we see how many actually built anything. | |
| | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| said by pnh102 :
The only reason the telegraph companies have to share their lines is because they pushed for and got passed into law the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Ergo, they asked for it, and now they got it, and now they don't like how it tastes. The cable companies never asked for any such laws...
Actually Time Warner/AOL did agree to allow competitors to share their network as one of the terms of the merger. So this sounds to me like the same thing, just a different approach. | |
| | | 
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
1 edit | If the cable companies must share at wholesale rates, further investment in expansion and speed improvements will slow dramatically. Just like dsl has been slow to move into rural areas, where the telcos do not want to invest and then have to turn the lines over to the clecs. Verizon is deploying fiber only where they do not have to share with others because forced sharing greatly reduces the incentives to invest in the infrastructure. Now if broadband had been setup so that last mile was utility and the last mile providers were prohibited from suppling isp content and features and could only wholesale out the connection, this would not be an issue.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
| | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Re: Alternate Strategy The last mile provider should provide fiber as well. Lease it to Cable, Telephone, Internet, and what ever else can use the fiber for. | |
| 
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
| Report commisioned on cable network sharing: When anyone brings up cable sharing its networks, I always find this an interesting read:
Independent technical report commissioned by the ACLU and conducted by Columbia Telecommunications Corporation: Technological analysis of Open Access and Cable Television Systems (PDF, 2.4 megabytes)
To just share the internet access requires reconfiguring some gear in the headends and connecting the other ISPs network to the "incumbent" providers network at some point.
Providing a second cable TV channel line up is quite a bit different and usually requires a second "overbuilt" cable plant up on the poles.
--
For help here at BBR, click this: Help. If you are looking for official Adelphia tech support, call 1-888-683-1000 or goto Adelphia's contact page | |
| | russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | Re: Report commisioned on cable network sharing: And of course, cable companies (like telcos) often have sweetheart deals with municipalities to keep competing cable companies out. Cable choice is only in place in a small part of the country. | |
| | |
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
2 edits | Re: Report commisioned on cable network sharing: said by russotto :
And of course, cable companies (like telcos) often have sweetheart deals with municipalities to keep competing cable companies out. Cable choice is only in place in a small part of the country.
And just as often cities turn down overbuilders because they don't want all the extra equipment hanging around.
But more often then that most places don't have overbuilders because there isn't a good chance to make any money in it...
The take rate for a single cable company isn't anywhere near the 95% or greater phone companies have. Some areas may hit 50%, but it really depends on the area. Rural areas tend to be much lower, even if they're setup to service almost everybody in an area.
Lets see, provide coverage to almost 100% and get a theoretical 30% subscribtion in an rural area... Now build a second plant. Now two companies are at almost 100% coverage and have to fight over that 30% that are subscribing to one. They may get a little more, but not likely. When does that second builder expect to break even? Not for many years, if ever.
Multiple ISPs don't need overbuilt cable plants, so they are much more lucrative.
--
For help here at BBR, click this: Help. If you are looking for official Adelphia tech support, call 1-888-683-1000 or goto Adelphia's contact page | |
| | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Some companies are also putting lines underground and splitting them off at the node above ground. Thats the way its done in my area with a lot of the nodes. | |
| | | | 
feller
@drizzle.com
| Re: Report commisioned on cable network sharing: There are other underlying issues related to this. It's not that the cable companies dont have to share with the other kids. There is a lot of money involved, as well as a legalized erosion of your 'privacy'. Heck, 'hackers' spy on us less than our own regulatory agencies.
>>>
Quoted from »www.modemsite.com/56k/voip.asp
The public policy issues are huge: Billions and billions of dollars are collected today in the USA from taxes, fees and surcharges on telecommunications services: the Universal Service (Slosh) Fund, Federal Excise Taxes, Line Cost Charges, etc., etc., etc. A VoIP provider must purchase access to the public switched network in order to allow you to make calls - so, look for a fight as the players try and lay down rules to catch up with technology. The phone companies will fight for regulation of VoIP providers to protect their turf, as VoIP argues for a chance to compete.
End Quote:
>>>
Quoted from: »www.linuxinsider.com/story/35556.html
>>
The (»www.fcc.gov) Federal Communications Commission plans to propose a ruling today that would require Internet-based phone and broadband services to design their networks so they can be easily wiretapped, two FCC officials say.
The move is designed to resolve the Justice Department's fear that FCC plans to deregulate broadband could keep the FBI from monitoring the communications of criminals and terrorists, FCC officials say.
That's not an issue for most phone calls. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) requires "telecommunications" carriers to make their networks wiretap-friendly.
But the law exempts "information services." And in 2002 the FCC ruled that cable's broadband offerings are information services. It also plans to put phone-company DSL services in that category.
>>>
End Quote
.002 | |
| | | |
|
|
Brand X Appeal
Yeah, if you want to rewire....
·
·
