page: 1 · 2  |
 
gnucleus7
Number 3 Forever
join:2002-06-06
NASCAR
|  If I had MY way, you'd be out of office!
--
There is no justice, save that which we make for ourselves. | |
|  | Perihelion
join:2001-03-29
Orange, CA
| Re: If I had MY way, you'd be out of office! Great - let's concede the residential market to the ILEC's that makes a lot of sense. While we are at it let's bury a bunch more companies that have access to UNE-P and wipe out some more shareholder equity, cause more layoffs and make the ILEC's true monopolies once again.
Great plan Senator - are you at all in touch with what's going on out here? I suppose that's why there was no co-sponsor, because no one else shares this view. | |
| 
INHCNN
join:2001-12-15
Lansing, MI
| funny... Yeah, from what I infer from the article, this is the exact opposite direction of what we should be traveling...
Cable cos' are not currently regulated like the Telco's are, and therefore limits my cable TV and cable modem access to 1 provider, whom I just happen to dislike. If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander, and I feel that it's time for us to start treating cable co's like telco's.
On a different note, has anyone else got a good chuckle about the new SBC commercial - the one where they go on and on about 'our networks, our people, our service' and the CLEC's being 'salespeople'? It was a pretty good laugh, but in a strange way, they bring out a good point - the ILEC is solely responsible for the maintenence of thier network, true? So, what if they are 'un-motivated' to fix this, or deploy that? Tottally thier choice. Now how do we fix that? The same theory needs to be tossed at the cable co's too....
my 2 pennies....
=T | |
| | lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL
| understand what your asking for folks.
ha - what a joke. do you really believe all of those lost jobs and peoples lost 401k monies is a fair trade off for you to have a choice of ISP? | |
| | | 
onsitede
Hot Hot Hot
join:2000-11-24
Broad Brook, CT
clubs: | Re: understand what your asking for folks. The companies that are folding are the companies that were built on paper (not the pretty green stuff with presidents faces, either) and were generally miss managed. | |
| | | Bsod
join:2002-06-19
Acton, MA | Well it's not as if the government forced Worldcom to lend Bernie Ebbers that $half billion, is it? Immunity from regulation is not what telecom monopolies need at the moment. | |
| | | 
grunteled
Puffy And Prickly
Premium
join:2001-06-13
Kansas City, MO
clubs:
| Oh yea, I'm remember that section 5 para 15 of the 1996 telcom act required all telecom companies to report false earnings and inflate stock prices. There was language to force investors to buy anything ending in "dot com". There was another clause instructing them to loan CEOs billions of dollars to purchase company stock to drive up it's apparent value. If it hadn't been for regulations these guys would have been honest, hardworking folks. Free from regs these execs would be out day after day working tirelessly to make life better for the working men and women at their company. It's all the fault of big, bad regulation.
Come on. | |
| | | 
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | It was also the Telecom Act of '96 that CREATED all those telecom jobs.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp | |
| | | | lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL | Re: understand what your asking for folks. really - the ability to unbundle network elements and sell them at wholesale prices to Clecs created 500,000 jobs? you better go back and look at all the layoff anoucments to check out your facts - you got that one wrong. | |
| | | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| Hey ieolus, I would appreciate it if you would not use my quotes out of context. "Chadmaster" refers to the punch card ballot mess and has nothing to do with the 1996 Telecom Act, Senator McCain or the state of the telecom sector today.
I agree the Act made most of those jobs possible, so did the Ma Bell breakup and the investing community's unbridled desire to get rich quick.
"The laws of economics are elastic, stretch them out and sooner or later they snap back!" | |
| | | 
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| so, you must be accessing dslreports.com on a T-1 or better, or maybe a metered ISDN line, eh? how about dialup?
i'm guessing no.
kinda hard to say that TA1996 was the cause of the burst of the bubble. too many other factors at play, such as gross mismanagement, fibbing stock analysts, market conditions that only gamblers could see was a mess, lying and cheating CEO's, etc.
TA1996 was certainly the cause of the inflation of the bubble, however. a lot of money, time, and effort went into that bubble.
to suggest that TA1996 somehow created this mess is ignoring the good it has done. if you live in the right place, it has done wonders to foster competition. remember, 1996 was only 6 years ago. it takes a long time to see how a landmark law like that is going to effect change. | |
| | | | lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL
| Re: understand what your asking for folks. Ok, I will try one more time, but I know I'm pissing in the wind on this forum. Yes the dot.com bubble burst caused a lot of the job lost. When the global crossing's and others scalled back orders because of overbuilding of (longhaul) networks that had a ripple effect amoung all the equipment vendors (cisco, nortel, etc) out there, which had other ripple effects. Then when the ISP's (northpoint, etc) started going belly up that too had a ripple effect. Then of course you have Qwest and worldcom and others who failed through mismagement, etc. So yes there are/where a lot of factor at play here, but you can't deny that underline most of this (at least in the telecom sector) there was many business models built from the 1996 reg act basied upon UNE_p (buying wholesale services from the ILECs) that are just flawed. I'm sorry but the PUC's in each state set the rates for those wholesale rates - they are inforced so I'm at a lost to understand if your a clec and you know the published rate for a wholesale service how its the Ilecs fault if you can't manage your business in a profitable manner? again - those rates are enforced. that is the bottom line to the buiness correct? you buy something (that you don't create) at a wholesale rate then resell it at retail rate. that is the classic middleman business model is it not??? the 1996 act is flawed in my opinion because its trying to insert a middeman (clec) who does not really create anything (do they build networks? no they rent them) and then they call that Competition. that is not competition folks. | |
| | | | | 
gogeta6
join:2002-06-20
San Diego, CA
clubs: | Re: understand what your asking for folks. Udnoubtably, but do you really think it is preferable to giving the green light to monopolization. Seems like it's the best we have for now. | |
| | | | | 
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| clearly you have
1. not been around long.
2. not followed the industry.
3. not read any of the replies to your posts in this forum.
What is wrong with basing a business model on your legal right to have access to the baby bells equipment? Their model failed when the baby bells ignored the rule of law, and the FCC failed to enforce it. McCain/tauzin/dingell are attempting to make the laws the baby bells have been breaking for the last 4 years, go away...
All companies have a certain degree of mismanagement. The baby bells are guilty of the same thing. Notice their late entry into the broadband market and their complete attempt to kill it rather than embrace it.
--
dnoyeB"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
The government is pricing our rights our of our reach. | |
| | | | | | lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL
| Re: understand what your asking for folks. if the baby bells ignored the rule of the law as you stated then of course the clecs could/would/did take the bells to court. And of course you have tons of advidates to back up your claim that the bells ignored the laws right? or you wouldn't make such a statement - correct? | |
| | | | | | | Perihelion
join:2001-03-29
Orange, CA
| Re: understand what your asking for folks. Covad, Rhythms, NorthPoint all sued/made complaints to the various PUC's. I seem to recall Covad being the most aggressive of the three. I also recall several actions towards Ameritech and some rumblings that Covad went after BA for several issues.
They tried - they got little if any results. It wasn't all the ILEC's fault but they didn't help.
Check around. The ILEC's were getting pressured all over the country by these three CLEC's or DLEC's or whatever marketing was calling them at the time. | |
| | | | | | | | 
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: understand what your asking for folks. That's because the ILECs haven't been following the rules. Of course, they think they should also be rewarded for not following the rules.... | |
| | | | | | | | | 
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: understand what your asking for folks. said by JakCrow:
That's because the ILECs haven't been following the rules. Of course, they think they should also be rewarded for not following the rules....
Exactly which "rules" were the ILEC's not following? Please support your claim that the ILEC's were "breaking the law." | |
| | | | | | | | | |
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| Re: understand what your asking for folks. that's easy.
1. prevention of CLEC customers from being turned up on a timely basis through lengthy delays, often as long as six or more months, while turning up their own customers in the same building in a matter of days. it's not as if they couldn't just identify the damn pair of wires while they were right there, in the same phone closet as the rest of the building...efficiency be damned. they chose to blow off CLEC circuit tagging on purpose.
2. creating a hostile environment in every c.o. that had CLEC equipment installed, and creating barriers to that access through unending identification changes.
3. bizarre pricing for UNE's, with discounts given only after ridiculous amounts of lines were sold (that even the ILEC's weren't selling in that quantity)
4. unending delays to repair for CLEC customers, citing "overbooking" when ILEC customers in very same building are repaired that day
these are just a few I experienced first hand. if this isn't evidence of noncompliance with TA1996, then I'm not sure what you call "compliance". the law called for access to c.o.'s and UNE's. these subtle and not so subtle roadblocks I call noncompliance.
nobody wants to wait around for six months to wait on a CLEC to get its circuit turned up. this tactic alone is the probable cause of the demise of many a CLEC. (not to mention bad business models, but that's a different debate)
[text was edited by author 2002-08-03 16:30:25] | |
| | | | | | | | | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: understand what your asking for folks. said by garagerock:
that's easy.
1. prevention of CLEC customers from being turned up on a timely basis through lengthy delays, often as long as six or more months, while turning up their own customers in the same building in a matter of days. it's not as if they couldn't just identify the damn pair of wires while they were right there, in the same phone closet as the rest of the building...efficiency be damned. they chose to blow off CLEC circuit tagging on purpose.
2. creating a hostile environment in every c.o. that had CLEC equipment installed, and creating barriers to that access through unending identification changes.
3. bizarre pricing for UNE's, with discounts given only after ridiculous amounts of lines were sold (that even the ILEC's weren't selling in that quantity)
4. unending delays to repair for CLEC customers, citing "overbooking" when ILEC customers in very same building are repaired that day
these are just a few I experienced first hand. if this isn't evidence of noncompliance with TA1996, then I'm not sure what you call "compliance". the law called for access to c.o.'s and UNE's. these subtle and not so subtle roadblocks I call noncompliance.
nobody wants to wait around for six months to wait on a CLEC to get its circuit turned up. this tactic alone is the probable cause of the demise of many a CLEC. (not to mention bad business models, but that's a different debate)
[text was edited by author 2002-08-03 16:30:25]
Six MONTHS for a circuit to be assigned to a pair? ID issues are the same for ILEC employees as they are for CLEC vendors. ALL pricing for UNE's are set by PUC's, not the ILEC. Speaking from experience, ILEC customers also have unending delays in repairs and installation- just look at the nightmare of 2000 for Ameritech for an example of THAT!
While it may seem that all of these bad experiences were as a result of the ILEC's willful misconduct to harass the CLEC's, it is the same on all ends- the grass isn't greener on the other side!
Boogie | |
| | | | | | | | | |
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
|  Re: understand what your asking for folks.
said by boogie74:
While it may seem that all of these bad experiences were as a result of the ILEC's willful misconduct to harass the CLEC's, it is the same on all ends- the grass isn't greener on the other side!
How is that, exactly? Not like any CLEC can turn the tables and wait six months before installing a customer...they are always waiting on the damn ILEC to do their part.
so, basically you admit that willful misconduct to harass the CLEC's occurs??? haven't you proven my point for me? enforcement of TA1996 has been shoddy at best....so, how is it flawed if it hasn't been properly enforced? going back to 1984 by putting ma bell back together is NOT a solution any business customer would go for.
i (fortunately) don't even work in telecom anymore, and never will, quite frankly, given the current environment and reading these posts makes me wonder if the 1990's ever happened.
p.s. I saw many a pissed off customer go bye bye waiting longer than six months for a circuit ID. Sometimes that was average, especially in Ameritech territory.
[text was edited by author 2002-08-03 19:48:38]
[text was edited by author 2002-08-03 19:53:39] | |
| | | | | | | | | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: understand what your asking for folks. said by garagerock:
said by boogie74:
While it may seem that all of these bad experiences were as a result of the ILEC's willful misconduct to harass the CLEC's, it is the same on all ends- the grass isn't greener on the other side!
How is that, exactly? Not like any CLEC can turn the tables and wait six months before installing a customer...they are always waiting on the damn ILEC to do their part.
so, basically you admit that willful misconduct to harass the CLEC's occurs??? haven't you proven my point for me? enforcement of TA1996 has been shoddy at best....so, how is it flawed if it hasn't been properly enforced? going back to 1984 by putting ma bell back together is NOT a solution any business customer would go for.
i (fortunately) don't even work in telecom anymore, and never will, quite frankly, given the current environment and reading these posts makes me wonder if the 1990's ever happened.
p.s. I saw many a pissed off customer go bye bye waiting longer than six months for a circuit ID. Sometimes that was average, especially in Ameritech territory.
[text was edited by author 2002-08-03 19:48:38]
[text was edited by author 2002-08-03 19:53:39]
If you re-read my post you will see it says, "While it may seem that all of these bad experiences were as a result of the ILEC's willful misconduct to harass the CLEC's, it is the same on all ends- the grass isn't greener on the other side!"
I don't see how you can translate that into "There is definitely willful misconduct from the ILEC's" It does not prove your point at all.
Boogie | |
| | | | | | | | | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| quote:
p.s. I saw many a pissed off customer go bye bye waiting longer than six months for a circuit ID. Sometimes that was average, especially in Ameritech territory.
Sometimes that was average? Average can only be defined as one concept at a time- perhaps the median average or the mean average. That's like being a little pregnant.
Do you mean to say that sometimes the average turnaround time was 24 hours and sometimes the average turnaround time was 6 months or more? I'm very lost as to the veracity of your statement.
quote:
How is that, exactly? Not like any CLEC can turn the tables and wait six months before installing a customer...they are always waiting on the damn ILEC to do their part.
How's this for a scenerio: A CLEC offers a customer service to be turned on in 3 business days. The CLEC then waits 6 weeks to turn in the order to the ILEC who takes 3 business days to work it. The CLEC then tells the customer that the ILEC is refusing to work the order and is holding up the whole process. The CLEC tells the customer to complain to the PUC about the situation. The PUC fines the ILEC and orders the ILEC to pay the CLEC for "lost revenue."
Is it at all possible that the CLEC has work to do in fullfilling orders? Or are you assuming that it is all done by the ILEC? And if so, why doesn't the CLEC invest in upgrading it's own equipment so in the future it doesn't have to rely on the ILEC?
Boogie
[text was edited by author 2002-08-04 23:23:47] | |
| | | | | | | | | |
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| Re: understand what your asking for folks. Its always high comedy to me when a phone company employee defends his/her company to the end, as if they were birthed, indoctrinated, and employed by the same entity.
Look man, why the hell would I cite such blatantly long delays unless I knew for sure that I was sitting on my ass waiting six months for a circuit ID from the ILEC AND I was the last CLEC employee to touch the order? I didn't wait six months to turn in orders, that's for damn sure, since I've got Customer A calling me by the hour wanting to know when he's getting turned up.
Is it at all possible that the CLEC has work to do in fullfilling orders? Or are you assuming that it is all done by the ILEC? And if so, why doesn't the CLEC invest in upgrading it's own equipment so in the future it doesn't have to rely on the ILEC?
This part kills me....hello? do you know what year it is? TA1996 has been law for 6 friggin years. The debate about this is as dead as Tupac Shakur (sorry Tupac, your the only celeb who died in 96 I could think of). The law said open up your networks to competition. I'm enlightened enough to think that is a good thing. Obviously, working for your precious employer makes you think otherwise. This makes you pretty self serving in my book. The hell with competition and the hell with consumer choice-wouldn't want to cut into your 401k now, would we?
I hear these arguments over and over again from your ilk, and it just kills me-that's all you folks care about is your own asses.
I experienced firsthand the bullsh*t delays and anti-competitive behavior displayed by all of the ILEC's, you just can't convince me otherwise.
p.s. I don't work for telecom anymore, so I'm not saving my ass by defending CLEC's...
[text was edited by author 2002-08-05 08:44:53] | |
| | | | | | | | | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: understand what your asking for folks. quote:
Look man, why the hell would I cite such blatantly long delays unless I knew for sure that I was sitting on my ass waiting six months for a circuit ID from the ILEC AND I was the last CLEC employee to touch the order? I didn't wait six months to turn in orders, that's for damn sure, since I've got Customer A calling me by the hour wanting to know when he's getting turned up.
Looks like I've struck a nerve. If you re-read my post, I never said that there was NEVER a delay for circuitry or line assignments from an ILEC. I specifically said that such delays are NOT unique to CLEC orders- that MANY orders for ILEC customers actually have delays as well.
The suggested scenerio is something that has been documented on many occasions- even worse, the orders that aren't being submitted are DISCONNECT orders.
quote:
Is it at all possible that the CLEC has work to do in fullfilling orders? Or are you assuming that it is all done by the ILEC? And if so, why doesn't the CLEC invest in upgrading it's own equipment so in the future it doesn't have to rely on the ILEC?
This part kills me....hello? do you know what year it is? TA1996 has been law for 6 friggin years. The debate about this is as dead as Tupac Shakur (sorry Tupac, your the only celeb who died in 96 I could think of). The law said open up your networks to competition. I'm enlightened enough to think that is a good thing. Obviously, working for your precious employer makes you think otherwise. This makes you pretty self serving in my book. The hell with competition and the hell with consumer choice-wouldn't want to cut into your 401k now, would we?
I'm a bit lost here, did you actually answer the question? The law said open up the networks to competition. It's happening. Residential competition is slow to develop because CLEC's don't want the low income business. THAT has been proven.
CLEC's that offer high end business services ARE putting out their own networks. It's not an issue of what the law says. It's an issue of "INVEST IN YOUR BUSINESS."
Why is it that you would actually believe that the if law stating to open up markets to competition, that would mean that companies looking to compete are prohibited from investing in their own businesses? The law doesn't state, "Subsidize every business that wants to compete with you forever and ever"
Boogie | |
| | | | | | | | | |
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| Re: understand what your asking for folks. when, exactly did I suppose the point that you put in such a glib fashion:
CLEC's that offer high end business services ARE putting out their own networks. It's not an issue of what the law says. It's an issue of "INVEST IN YOUR BUSINESS."
All I'm saying, and anyone else who's ever had to put up with ILEC foot dragging, is allow unfettered access to the last mile. Period. Any CLEC network interfaces with the last mile, which your beloved employer controls. The law says give up access, not build a new national infrastructure. My point still is that I and every other employee I had contact with during my stint with a CLEC could testify to endless delays to repair, to circuit ID, and to practically every other issue that involved the ILEC in any region of the country.
For some bizarre reason, you keep putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about subsidizing the CLEC's, just give them unfettered access to the last mile without the anti-competitive bullsh*t you and I both know happens. (well, you're not willing to admit it, but hey, that's your crutch)
I specifically said that such delays are NOT unique to CLEC orders- that MANY orders for ILEC customers actually have delays as well
Like I said before, I saw ILEC customers get repaired and/or turned up in the same building as CLEC customers, on several occasions. Sooooooooo, from my puny personal experience (not to mention various other customers' experiences) I have to suppose that there were bullsh*t delays occurring. I think I'm smart enough to see a pattern developing.
obviously we disagree. i give up trying to convince anyone on this issue, including you, but you could check the lawsuit being filed by Covad-I bet they'd agree.
[text was edited by author 2002-08-05 10:15:33]
[text was edited by author 2002-08-05 10:17:12] | |
| | | | | | | | | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs: | Re: understand what your asking for folks. When did you work for a CLEC? | |
| | | | | | | | | |
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY | Re: understand what your asking for folks. why do you ask? | |
| | | | | | | | | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: understand what your asking for folks. said by garagerock:
why do you ask?
Because you stated that you don't work in telecom but you used to. You then state that there is currently an average wait of 6 months or more to provision circuits to CLEC's.
So, that being said, I feel that the time period (and CLEC for that matter) that you worked there might have some relevance to your point of view.
For instance, if you worked there from 1996-1998, there are HUGE leaps in improvement since then that you would not be aware of.
Boogie | |
| | | | | | | | | |
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| Re: understand what your asking for folks.
I served Covad faithfully from 2000 to the demise of Bluestar, so I really have two companies perspectives on ILEC provisioning and delays. The six months I was citing was information I had access to as a regional engineer, in my desperate attempt to get as many customers turned up in a timely manner. There were many projects that never were completed, and there were many circuits in Ameritech territory that had a six month average to installation. Sorry, didn't get to keep any documents that prove this, just my foggy memory.
So yeah, in the 18 months I was there, there were several customers in Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan that never got turned up. We would call, check status, and get the same bullshit story-no facilities, no facilities, no facilities. Never mind that many other customers were getting Ameritech DSL from the same c.o.'s
I never said there was a current average, my information is outdated, obviously...so you got me there, I guess.
But, my points are still valid. The lawsuit news today with BellSouth is just the beginning. And no one in your shoes has any credible story to explain all of this away.
--
My attitude sucks. I know it, and I don't care anymore. Age has that effect on you.
[text was edited by author 2002-08-05 19:36:07] | |
| | | | | | | | | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: understand what your asking for folks. said by garagerock:
Oh, I see. The third degree on my background, eh? which evil master do you serve, Boogie? Do you have any evidence to suggest Ma Bell doesn't drag her feet???
You are the one making the claim that the ILEC's are dragging their feet all the time- based on the concept that no one is going very far to disprove it? I am not making the claim, you are- I'm asking you to support it.
quote:
I served Covad faithfully from 2000 to the demise of Bluestar, so I really have two companies perspectives on ILEC provisioning and delays. The six months I was citing was information I had access to as a regional engineer, in my desperate attempt to get as many customers turned up in a timely manner. There were many projects that never were completed, and there were many circuits in Ameritech territory that had a six month average to installation. Sorry, didn't get to keep any documents that prove this, just my foggy memory.
So yeah, in the 18 months I was there, there were several customers in Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan that never got turned up. We would call, check status, and get the same bullshit story-no facilities, no facilities, no facilities. Never mind that many other customers were getting Ameritech DSL from the same c.o.'s
So your job was to handle ILEC delays? In other words, you have no data on how many jobs were turned over in a TIMELY manner, only that ALL the jobs you saw were turned over with delays.
The CO has nothing to do with "no facilities" delays. If a CLEC orders a pair for ANYTHING and no good pair to the location is available, the answer will be, "No facilities" for a number of reasons- none of which have to do with whether the order is CLEC or ILEC. You can bet your booty that if the same customer (not same CO, same customer) were to order service with the ILEC, the same delay would occur. It is ONLY YOU that has come to the conclusion that the delay is because it is a CLEC order.
quote:
I never said there was a current average, my information is outdated, obviously...so you got me there, I guess.
But, my points are still valid. The lawsuit news today with BellSouth is just the beginning. And no one in your shoes has any credible story to explain all of this away.
Your points are using outdated information. I have no comment on the Bellsouth lawsuit, as I have no information on it. In 2000, Ameritech had BIG TIME delays in service for its OWN customers- it had nothing to do with whether the lines were with a CLEC or not. My point is simply that.
Also, there is something smelling rotten in Denmark when the same company continues to sue ALL the ILEC's for the same thing- as though the ILEC's are calling each other up to say, "Let's get Covad!"
Boogie | |
| | | | | | | | | |
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| Re: understand what your asking for folks. well, this debate is tiresome at this point.
keep making excuses for ma bell, although i don't see a reason as to why.
as to data on timely installs, i'd venture a percentage guess of 50%, which is horrible in any industry. any retail establishment worth their salt doesn't wait on the wholesaler like any CLEC waits on the ILEC. perhaps your company just isn't ready or willing to be a wholesaler.
like i said before, i'm highly suspicious of the "no facilities" bullshit excuse, you can say what you like but I've seen what happens, and it happens with so much frequency it just can't be justified with the excuses you cite.
(yawn) yeah, yeah....all ILEC's had delays in 2000, no kidding. but i really doubt 100% of those delays were just coincidence in regards to CLEC's.
i'll just let the lawyers do the talking at this point. you can choose to continue this, but you'll be talking to yourself. i'm just one guy, hundreds of others in my shoes experienced the same things i did. and all you have is a pile of the same old excuses, and apologies for ma bell.
i say "bah"
--
My attitude sucks. I know it, and I don't care anymore. Age has that effect on you. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| Don't forget:
Stealing existing circuits CLEC customers to provide services for ILEC customers. (this happens frequently in Pac Bell territory)
And after the majority of the CLECs were eliminated in Pac Bell territory, prices were jacked up even though it has become cheaper to provide services.
I'm tired of the idiots that think because existing laws weren't enforced, we need new laws that repeal the existing one, but have more holes in them and are even looser than the original laws, like less restrictions will make it easier to enforce something. Like hell...
[text was edited by author 2002-08-03 22:11:30] | |
| | | | | | Skier
join:2001-08-09
San Antonio, TX
| Clearly you speak from a jaded point of view. The baby bells delayed deployment because the technology was not mature enough. What caused them to enter, cable industry inroads with cable modems, not TA96. Of course they paid a heavy price for rushing in technology that was not off-the-shelf ready for primetime.
Legal right to access? The person above is right, they are told to sell below cost so some other company can then sell it without providing any value added services. The bells maybe fighting the UNEP and other ridiculous rules that force them to squander shareholder equity, but they are not ignorig the rule of law. They sell at the tariffed rates. They build specialized systems to make it possible for their "competitors" to electronically order une's.
Oh yea, they also fight hard to win customers and earn money to pay their bills, pay their employees, contribute to the communities they operate in and to draw investor interest.
Better watch out for those terrible profit minded baby bells with their millions of employees! | |
| | | | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| 1. Over building - Consider this, if the CLECs that laid all the fiber had reasonable and inexpensive access to business and residential customers we would all be paying a lot less for broadband. Many of the CLECs did build their own networks but access to the customer was hampered at every turn in very creative ways.
2. PUCs set the wholesale rate - In Florida, Bell South and Verizon have different wholesale rates. I looked up the Verizon tariffs, a reseller pays the same as a CLEC that colo's their equipment. I submit the the state commissions merely rubber stamp the tariff filings of the ILECs.
3. Resellers & CLECs - Some of both are still in business, so they must be doing something right. Therefore the business model is not flawed. In fact the RBOCs are subject to the same model and pricing for broadband, that is to say the DSL business is separate and pays the same for local loop access and back-haul. Didn't Verizon in the last several quarters report record profits with respect to DSL? | |
| | | | | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: understand what your asking for folks. said by lesopp:
1. Over building - Consider this, if the CLECs that laid all the fiber had reasonable and inexpensive access to business and residential customers we would all be paying a lot less for broadband. Many of the CLECs did build their own networks but access to the customer was hampered at every turn in very creative ways.
Business competition is beyond thriving- over 30% of business customers have service with someone other than an ILEC. Residential is where the competition is lacking- that brings the nationwide average down in half to 15%. This is due to a business decision by CLEC's- not due to ILEC intervention.
quote:
3. Resellers & CLECs - Some of both are still in business, so they must be doing something right. Therefore the business model is not flawed. In fact the RBOCs are subject to the same model and pricing for broadband, that is to say the DSL business is separate and pays the same for local loop access and back-haul. Didn't Verizon in the last several quarters report record profits with respect to DSL?
Actually, all ILEC's posted record subscribership of DSL- not record profits. All ILEC's have posted continually lower diluted EPS estimates (Earnings per Share) for the past 3 consecutive quarters.
The fact that some CLEC's went under and others are thriving actually PROVES that those that went under had poor business models. If it were due to ILEC misbehavior, ALL CLEC's would have gone under- not just some of them. Not all CLEC's are had/have bad business models- just those that went out of business. Many CLEC's went under because they targeted customers that never pay any bills with advertising like "Did [insert ILEC name] disconnect you for non-payment?" or "Did [insert ILEC name] ask for a large deposit?" and "No deposits, no credit checks, no need for ID." They might as well have said, "No need to pay us, we'll just give you service."
Other companies went under because they expanded too quickly. Many went under because they relied on reciprocal compensation- making more money from ILEC's than from their customers.
I'm not saying that there isn't some sort of attempt (or overattempt) to control the flow of competition. Hell, if you were a business ordered to sell wholesale your investments, you'd try to follow the exact letter of the law too! The law was written to be followed exactly as it was written- not to be overdone by people who want to over-achieve on following it. Otherwise, if you felt everyone should follow the spirit of what the law was "supposed to mean," you'd be driving 10 miles per hour in school zones- not 20-25 (or faster). You would slow down to 30 MPH in construction zones for safety. You would NEVER walk across the street anywhere but at a corner and you would not walk on green lights with flashing "Don't Walk" signs.
When they say, "Open the markets to competition" they don't mean, "make sure that every one of your competitors is successful in business."
Boogie | |
| | | | lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL | my opinion is that clecs are supposedly value added resellers who don't add much value and have in general faulty business models. the competiton in the broadband market is between DSL,Cable and wireless. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL | Re: understand what your asking for folks. sure a clec is a competitve local exchange carrier. I don't agree with the word "competiteve" - I think they are a reseller. "please excus the spelling" | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: understand what your asking for folks. said by Mike:
They're a reseller of their own services with their own equipment, cages, employees, and usually utilities.
The only thing the ILEC does is usually own the building and give CLECs trouble.
First we need to define a few things here. The CLEC's in question are using something called UNE-P (pronounced you-knee-pee) which is basically the ability to purchase usage of only "parts" of a network that was never designed to be broken apart to begin with. To make things worse, those in power in the regulatory agencies have decided upon how much to value these network elements and then they discounted them further- all to encourage the illusion of competition.
Many companies (not all- just many) are using this as a means to stay afloat without investing a dime in their own network elements. Basically stated, these companies are being subsidized by ILEC's.
To address the above quote, there is a bit something missing in the equation above- the ILEC's ALSO provide all outside network elements and pay for ALL upgrades and upkeep of those elements.
What these CLEC's (not all CLEC's) are doing then is complaining that they are getting headaches and hassles from the ILEC's when they place residential orders, but they seem to be gaining large business customers without any trouble at all. What these companies are trying to convince those in charge of all this is the idea that ILEC's are perfectly willing and cooperative with large business services, but with residential services, they are locking tech's out of buildings, not showing up for vender meets, having the tech's not do any work at all in the CO to complete orders, etc.
Just my .02
Wait... here's another penny- it's now .03!
Boogie
| |
| | | | | | | | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| Another Penny said by boogie74:
the ILEC's ALSO provide all outside network elements and pay for ALL upgrades and upkeep of those elements.
Why is my phone line connected to a SLC that is probably the "oldest still in use"? (Quoted from Verizon employee working at the SLC. | |
| | |
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| I'll go easy since your obviously new here...Anti-competitive behavior of the baby bells is what primarily led to the demise of the telecom sector. Its just like what USA did in Iraq. We told the telecoms that they had a right to the baby bells distribution boxes, etc. They build a business based on this access to sell DSL and other related services like local phone service. THen the government FAILED to enforce their act. So their business model was shreaded in an instant. So CEOs realizing that their was NO way in hell their company would ever make money began to bilk the shareholders and fatten their pockets as fast as they could.
Anyone else remember NP exec on the job for about 3 months that took the HUGE bonus during their bankruptsy.
Your on the wrong forum to start talking about things that you have not investigated very well. Stick around, well learn ya.
--
dnoyeB"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
The government is pricing our rights our of our reach. | |
| | | | Perihelion
join:2001-03-29
Orange, CA
| Re: understand what your asking for folks. NP exec on the job for 3 mos. and took a bonus? Hmmm...give me a clue, I should have remembered that one.
TA1996 opened up the market for many of these firms. Uh BTW - Did I see someone refer to NorthPoint as an ISP? That should tell you what that person knows about it.
Regardless of what you may opine, you had to be there to get a sense of what happened. Fact - no one was ready for the huge pent up demand, ILEC's took great advantage of this and many other short comings to stick it to these smaller firms. It was like the ILEC teacher watching a bunch of little kids kicking the crap out of each other in the sand box. We willingly obliged.
Then someone decided that many of these little companies should have enterprise level systems and "real, credible" management teams. So the little guys hired some pedigreed MBA's who understood how to spend money in a limitless fashion. The MBA's hired consultants, who spent $10's of millions on these systems that didn't work properly until they were load tested, had dropped 20,000 orders on the floor and basically screwed the downstream partners for weeks on end. The consultants made millions folks.
Then the street decided that EBITDA was king and not customer base....too late Mr Banker I've spent all that money based on a 5 year ramp, guess we'll fire everyone and file BK.
Of course that's the generic version but if you worked for any of the CLEC's or ISP's that went up in smoke you've got a framework for your experience. Add your own names, toss in related dollar amounts plus the alphabet soup of consultants and finally add your office's soap opera and it's a wrap.
It varied by time, location and amount but the underlying story is pretty much the same. When the telco's realized they were going to get aced out of the deal they politely stiff armed all of us and then watched as we imploded through arrogant mismanagment.
I rest my case. | |
| | | | lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL | "just like what the USA did in Iraq"?
sorry - you lost me on your comparsion. | |
| | | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| Things aren't working because the telcos are NOT following the act and it's not being enforced. I hate to break it to you, but a significant number of people and money lost are from the companies the bells put out of business with anti-competitive tactics and pricing, and the rest lost is because all these bells tried to buy up everything around them with no business plans to speak off. | |
| | | | lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL | Re: understand what your asking for folks. really - what compaines did the bells buy up? can you name any? and after naming one - can you site a source where jobs where laid off from that company? | |
| | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| Re: understand what your asking for folks. said by lvas:
really - what compaines did the bells buy up? can you name any? and after naming one - can you site a source where jobs where laid off from that company?
The bells went out and bought -other bells-. Have you been asleep for the last 6 years? Now these companies are sagging under their own weight. Regulation is just something for them to point fingers at to blame for bad business sense.
[text was edited by author 2002-08-02 18:54:34] | |
| | | | |
grunteled
Puffy And Prickly
Premium
join:2001-06-13
Kansas City, MO
clubs:
| Do you have a source to cite that shows the 1996TA is the cause of 500,000 layoffs, and backs it up with more than opinion. Sorry, I take the word of those I know who were actually trying to make a go of it over "Ivas says so".
Not trying to rip on you, but if your going to ask for citations, then prepare to provide some yourself. | |
| | | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| Re: understand what your asking for folks. Oh, I almost forgot. The bells pushed for deregulation and signed off on the the Telecommunications Act of 96 because they wanted to get into the long distance market so badly. Awww, but today, now that they've squandered their resources, grown too big to support themselves effectively, and abused their positions, they want the Act repealed or changed. You know what? Tough. Just like the energy market, they got what they wanted and blew it. Too bad, so sad. It's time for them to adapt or die. | |
| | | | | | | lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL
| Re: understand what your asking for folks. boy its it easy to point out your faulty logic.
1. asking if you folks read the paper is casting an aspersion? I think you should take your own advise.
2.your claim " I need to get my facts straight" and then stating the RBOCS where instrumental in passing the 1996 act. which by the way is a true statement - the RBOCS did help pass the 1996 act because they thought they were trading access to the LD market for others access to their "last mile".
however dude, I never once mentioned in my post who supported the 1996 act - so why did you bring it up? you then drolled on about past govt problems - are you just trying to change the subject or what?
as I stated its a bad act and has had terriable results - my opinion and I stated the reasons why I have that opinion. so again dude - take your own advise and get your facts straight. | |
| | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| Re: understand what your asking for folks. said by lvas:
as I stated its a bad act and has had terriable results - my opinion and I stated the reasons why I have that opinion. so again dude - take your own advise and get your facts straight.
It was a good act that wasn't followed and hardly enforced. | |
| | | | | | | | xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Comcast
| said by lvas:
don't you folks read the papers? 500,000 jobs lost in the telcom sector over the past 2 years - 2 trillion lost in the stock market crash in the telecom sector. that is real jobs and real monies lost - under the current rules/regulation from the 1996 act - and you all think the 1996 act is working?
As one of those 500,000 people, let me say something here. It wasn't the 1996 telcom act that cost me or most of those others their jobs or money.
If you want to point fingers, pass blame, or anything else you can lay a lot of it on two things and two things only. 1. Bad Management i.e. worldcom, teligent, global crossing, take you pick.
2. ILEC's. When you have to wait a month and a half to have a line ported your sales people look like idiots and the customers tend to bail out. We had one line go 6 months because Ameritech couldn't get it straight.
Or how about the cage requirements?
No, the telecom act of '96 been enforced then it would have worked. You can pass any law you want, but until you back it up it is worth less then the paper you wasted writing it. | |
| | | boatie
join:2001-08-28
Warwick, NY | In my oh-so-humble-opinion, the telcom "crash" you refer to is a result of mismanagement, lack of a "reality check" and greed, not government over- or under-regulation. As far as McCain's bill, no comment. | |
| | | IPG0d
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Stevenson, WA | HEY gumby what makes you think the telco's followed any of the 96 act????? | |
| | | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: understand what your asking for folks. said by IPG0d:
HEY gumby what makes you think the telco's followed any of the 96 act?????
I would think that the fact that over 20% of all states have the ILEC able to offer long distance qualifies as evidence that telcos are following the act.
Boogie | |
| | 
BBC4544
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO
| Re: funny... i am sick of you idiots out there talking about how we need to regulate telcos. why in the hell would a company spend money to upgrade thier network to turn around and resell at a loss. do honestly think that the telcos exsist for the soul benifit for you. they have stock holders that want a profit. this is capitalism last time i checked. why do you think the telcos are laying people off. it is because stupid people expect them to operate in the red for the betterment of worthless clecs. go hug a tree you left wing dolts and keep out of telecommunications before you screw it up even more. | |
| | | | | |
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| said by BBC454:
i am sick of you idiots out there talking about how we need to regulate telcos. why in the hell would a company spend money to upgrade thier network to turn around and resell at a loss. do honestly think that the telcos exsist for the soul benifit for you. they have stock holders that want a profit. this is capitalism last time i checked. why do you think the telcos are laying people off. it is because stupid people expect them to operate in the red for the betterment of worthless clecs. go hug a tree you left wing dolts and keep out of telecommunications before you screw it up even more.
hee hee hee....this is high comedy here folks!
sooooooooooooooooooo, the CLEC's never pay for any of the loops, cage space, or UNE's?? they just get it for free????
why don't YOU stay out of telecommunications before you screw it up any more????? | |
| |
BBC4544
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO
| we are talking about dsl here, right??? here is the facts. co based dsl will reach about 30% of subscribers from a co. for dsl to be competitive to cable the rt's(remote terminals) have to be equiped with dsl. this cost money. why would a company develope its infrastructure to only lose money in the end. if you want technology to flurish, let the telcos have ownership of what they develope. as far as the wise crack about the clecs and thier cages, name one clec that has developed anything that progressed telephony or telecommunications to the next level. i would also like to point out that most clecs piss and moan because the are trying to put a service on copper that was developed for dail tone. this is not the telcos fault. in conclusion either level the playing field and regulate cable or deregulate telco.
on a side note, the comment about a closed minded republican, i am not a republican but i am also not a socialist democrat who wants to tax me into the poor house. | |
| | reverendRon
join:2002-07-27
Mabank, TX
| Telecom networks are built with federal subsidies therefore US governement has a right to demand equal access. CATV systems are not federally subsidized. Government regulation already has alot to do with the high prices of cable tv. This sort of scenario would just make it worse. If a rival cable comapny wishes to compete then they have every right to overbuild a system. | |
| | | | | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| said by reverendRon:
Telecom networks are built with federal subsidies therefore US governement has a right to demand equal access. CATV systems are not federally subsidized. Government regulation already has alot to do with the high prices of cable tv. This sort of scenario would just make it worse. If a rival cable comapny wishes to compete then they have every right to overbuild a system.
I keep seeing this claim- What government subsidies were there to build the telecom networks? Are you claiming that taxes are going to telecom build out? There are no such subsidies...
If you mean by subsidies the USF, USF isn't a goverment subsidy. All telecom companies pay into the fund, and yes- many of them itemize their contributions on customers' bills. But that doesn't make USF goverment funded.
USF also pretty much makes it so that "Bob Farmer" out in Iowa or Nebraska doesn't have a $750 phone bill each month because of the cost to draw a cable out to his house to run 1 line. It doesn't pay for the phone networks, nor does it pay for DSL deployment.
If you could please detail exactly where in the US Federal Budget (any year would do) the subsidies for phone networks is located, I would appreciate it.
Boogie | |
| | | bigplatypus
join:2001-12-01
Saint Louis, MO | Please state the Bill that granted the Telco's federal subsidies to build outside plant network that was not given under FEMA. | |
| |
INHCNN
join:2001-12-15
Lansing, MI
| And this is why deregulation is such a difficult topic.
Yes, the lines are the rightfull property of the ILEC, so why should they be forced to share with some mom and pop start up?
But speaking of force, should I be forced into using the ILEC in my area? Shouldn't I have a competitve choice?
To a corporation, what forces change? The need for change to remain competitive. If Nike was the only shoe company, what do you think would happen to cost and selection?
What good has the break up of Ma Bell caused? It did just that, broke it up, but thereafter, the US government has not only NOT (double negative, sorry) done anything about it, but to the contrary APPROVED these mergers. ?!. I thouhgt Ameritech was bad, but guess what? THEY JUST GOT BOUGHT BY A BIGGER TELCO!
Should cable co's be held to the regulation as the Telco's? NO NO AND NO - why - because as we have proven, the Telco's are NOT held to regulations or laws previously set in place.
Should we allow the CLEC's to put up thier own lines? Sure, why not. But the ILEC would have to COOPERATE. That and we'd surely have a rats' nest of lines up there. I can't keep the neighbors dog offn' it as is. How about the cable co's? Lets' get some competitive cable ops' out there putting up thier own lines... that'd work... but wait! In both scenarios the competitor has to turn a profit from customers while being competitive while getting GOUGED in the pocket book for putting up lines. Won't work.
/rant
So - how's this: I read all over that there's shi* ton's of excess fiber laying around, strung up, buried, whatever. How about we implement a fiber infrastructure here in the US, tear down all that old copper and coax (recycle it), and service cable, telephone, and internet all on the same lines (fiber) with equal access to all licensed carriers?
That would be the end of the argument. Period. | |
| 
phxmark
What Country Are We Living In?
join:2000-12-27
Glendale, AZ | This is BAD NEWS!!!
--
Where am I? | |
| blah194
join:2002-03-04
Lake Charles, LA | Oh good lord... Let's not forget that McCain is the author of that moronic campaing reform bill. I do NOT want him doing to the communications industry what he has done with that... | |
| 
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| McCain obviously has other motives..... because his proposal is really bad for the consumer and would essentially shut down all competition. And, the prime example to demonstrate this is happening right here
in Central Ohio.
RoadRunner is offered over two cable systems now in Columbus. Time Warner and Insight Communications.
If you are a Time Warner customer, you can get a CHOICE
of Time Warner RR..Earthlink Cable..or AOL High Speed Cable. And, in some other markets they have added even more, with some local companies being allowed access.
This Choice came about because of the regulations imposed on the AOL~Time Warner merger. That they HAD to open their lines to at least 3 competing ISP's.
Since that time, both Earthlink and AOL High Speed Cable
have offered an alternative to Time Warners RR.
And BOTH Earthlink and AOL Cable offer pricing plans that were LESS than Time Warners. (EL= 41.95 month and AOL you can get down to that price with a yearly plan)...whereas TW RR is 44.95.
Also, since Earthlink came on board..ALSO offering dialup backup with your cable access..Time warner has Also come out with dial access as well.
This is COMPETITION in action. Some RR customers were able to lower their monthly bill, and get Dialup access included in the price as well. And, if they don't like the service TW is delivering...they can switch.
This doesn't affect the speeds..pings etc because it's over the same lines...but it does impact the Customer service..price..and features.
In this same Area..Insight offers ONLY RR. They are a monopoly to those of us who can only be serviced by them.
The only reason AOL/TW is doing this is because they were forced to as part of their merger.
Insight had no such requirements..and certainly hasn't jumped on the bandwagon. And, why would they? When they can have the whole pie to themselves.
Insight has RAISED prices..and many people are seeing lower speeds than the others. Insight offers NO dialup backup access.
Mr McCain really only needs to look at this market to see how WRONG his proposal is.
He's out for one thing, and one thing only. To protect the big players out there now.
--
The life you help save just might be your own Team Discovery | |
| | abrody
join:2000-07-20
Silver Spring, MD
·RCN CABLE
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| Re: McCain obviously has other motives..... Alas, while here in Montgomery County Maryland we have competition, it is governed by unwritten geographic boundaries based on where the competition has managed to setup service. Scattered areas are covered by Starpower, but for the most part there is only Comcast if you are out of range of DSL. True competition means complete coverage everywhere by multiple ISPs. How else could Comcast raise their non-Cable TV subscriber rates to $63 a month for Cable internet? It is insanity. Lucky for me I live where DSL is plentiful, but again costly if you want anything more than 768 x 128 since the only telco is Verizon. Sure we have Cavalier, but they cost more for DSL than Verizon, and I might end up losing my existing phone number. | |
| 
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| 1996 tel act failed Its obvious the Telco act of 96 failed, and i understand why he would want to scrap it. However I think we need a stronger version. Just make the 'last mile' a seperate company problem solved.
--
Stop the insanity boycott the RIAA! | |
| |
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI | Re: 1996 tel act failed | |
| 
CO_Chris
Premium
join:2001-08-28
Broomfield, CO |  where do i need to call?
--
AMD Duron 950Mhz/256 Ram/Win Xp Pro/EarthLink DSL 1299/109 | |
| jethrogump
Premium
join:2001-03-02
Mesquite, TX
| What a Wonderfull Bill. I have always known McCain was hit a little too hard in the head with the Cain in Vietnam.
The Boys just not right in the Head. Yes we really need a broadband view from the “Manchurian Candidate”.
His handlers in the Hanoi Hilton must have thought this up. Its totally wacky and another politician giving professional opinion on something he knows nothing about.
Imagine a country run by John McCain and Ross Perot worse mini-me Ross Perot Jr. We would already be in an economic panic and at war with every country in the Middle East.
| |
| | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Is there anyone here that understands this bill? I find it odd that most here ignore that the bill ignores business data. This is based on the fact that business data is BIG time competitive. Business data is where the big money is, yet no one here has come to the conclusion that residential data is lacking competition because CLEC's and independent ISP's don't want to sell it- most here would rather conclude (can't comprehend this one) that ILEC's are letting in rivals for the big money clients, but holding on to the small potatoes in residential services.
And all for what? To make sure that "Bob Internet User" has no access to broadband? To make less money to make a group of DSLR posters unhappy?
Please explain the "bad" part of this? It's obvious that most here haven't a clue as to what the bill really says- did you all even read it? Or just conclude that you know better than everyone in the telecom industry and regulatory groups?
Boogie | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| McCain bill should be named Monopoly Act of 2002 The local Bells and the Cable companies must have compromising pictures of McCain or are sending tons of money his way. This bill should be introduced as the "Monopoly Act of 2002". Single handedly, McCain is trying to eliminate competition for residential broadband customers. This act would result in higher, rates, worse service, and less choices. Hopefully he won't get enough co-sponsors to get this bill moving.
--
"Golf and sex are about the only things you can enjoy without being good at it." | |
| |
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI |  Re: McCain bill should be named Monopoly Act of 2002
| |
| |
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| McCain bought & paid for by telecomm industry If you want to know why McCain is backing this bill, then you have to go no further than the list of his major contributors. Seven of his top 20 are in the telecomm/broadband industry.
JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ)
»www.opensecrets.org/politicians/···cle=2002
Qwest Communications $108,450
Verizon Communications $68,300
Viacom Inc $64,604
AT&T $63,500
BellSouth Corp $58,300
AOL Time Warner $58,025
SBC Communications $37,250
Top telecom contributors in last 5 yrs = $458,429
--
"Golf and sex are about the only things you can enjoy without being good at it." | |
| | | 
TXTigerman
Monopolies Kill
join:2000-12-21
Beeville, TX
| And to think I voted for McCain for President! Looks like it's a good thing Bush got the nomination back in 2000. I'd hate to see what this moron would have done if he'd gotten president.
McCain just lost at least one in his next next bid for prez.
--
If you think that's funny, wait until you see the BILL! | |
| | charlesejohnson
join:2000-09-26
75023-6816
| Re: And to think I voted for McCain for President! | |
| | | mdmathis6
join:2001-10-15
Midlothian, VA
| Re: And to think I voted for McCain for President! These foreign people have a lot of their own foreign policy successes to crow about...BOSNIA/YUGOSLAVIA(the Americans had to come and put some kind of order there after Europe just went running around in circles with their hands up in the air.) When a European site gets bombed the Europeans government just put out the fires, sit around and cluck their toungues while making wild speeches about how there must even be more aid to third world nations(and asking Americans to pay more of it so they don't have to. We Americans supported GW who actually had the cajones to go after the source of terrorism itself.) I enjoy watching the foreign policy antics of the Indian and Pakistani governments in keeping the peace in their regions as well, LOL(does anyone remember Tom Lehrer's song "....so long mom..I'm off to drop the bomb so don't wait up for me!") Before you cringe in fear at the comments that our foreign neighbors make about our president,just you look about objectively at the messes our foreign neighbors' governments make of their own foreign policies! | |
| | | | | | | | | mdmathis6
join:2001-10-15
Midlothian, VA
| Re: And to think I voted for McCain for President! And when we hold back and do nothing we are being accused of going isolationist and cowboy renegade...actually we really should try that for a change. You want to know how to get rid of a yearly 200 billion dollar hole in our budget? Renounce our defense treaties with Europe and locations in Asia and make them pay for their own defense.(remember the 200 billion dollar deficits that clinton had originally planned in his budgets into the early 2000's...that congress supposedly knocked down....this was based on our continuing these foreign defense postures. If you analyse the yearly deficits from the 80's on and contrasted those costs with the costs of maintaining our military at disparate places across the globe you'll find that they matched and will continue to match...so much for a peace dividend.
So I say lets not force our view on the world rather let the world view the removal of all US military force out all foreign venues. The fact of the matter is when there were two super powers in the world the rest of the world felt safer playing the 2 off on one another. It might have been considered great sport amongst the world's diplomats to regularly bait the top 2 like bears. Now for the forseeable future there is only one and they fear us and envy us. It wouldn't matter if we were the nicest country with the most kindest leaders and wisest souls,we'd still get criticism. Heck if every American were like Jesus Christ the rest of the world would just crucify us if they had the chance.
We are a democratically elected representative republic and most of the world just doesn't get what that means. It isn't that GW Bush is a rugged individualist cowboy extremist who just does his own thing and let the world be damned, rather he and the legislature and courts represent the body politic..the country itself and its people that put those men there whether or not you agree with the current crop at the top or not. {After-all there is always the next election!  } | |
| charlesejohnson
join:2000-09-26
75023-6816
| Throw the bums out
My contribution to the effort is to vote straight anti-incumbent in every election after sending a letter to the incumbent regarding my views. If only incumbents appear on the ballot, I write someone in. | |
| | stevejc
join:2001-12-29
Buffalo, NY
| Re: Throw the bums out Charles, I've been voting anti-incumbent for years!! Unfortunately, there aren't enough of us to make a difference. It's the people's own fault for what they get. Time after time, they believe the lies, and the politicos thrive on the masses stupidity.
Perhaps if congressional salaries & raises were dictated by referendum (just as my boss decides my pay and raises, not me) within the individual districts. But then there would be the fear that it could be in direct conflict with the federal minimum wage laws. I'd propose the same exemption enjoyed by waiters and waitresses. Congress also gets the bulk of it's income through *tips*, and should be exempt.
"A person is smart, people are stupid." | |
| | IPG0d
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Stevenson, WA | God Bless you my child keep up the good work......
and you guys said there was no Intelligent life in here?
you have restored my faith in humans a tad my friend | |
|
gogeta6
join:2002-06-20
San Diego, CA
clubs:
| Two faced Indeed, I used to think McCain was one of a few good politicians, and though a democrat most of the time I would have voted for him. However, in doing this he proves that he is not in the least above corporate interests which he supposedly wanted to break ties with through campaign finance reform. | |
| | Beeper
Part Of The Problem
join:2001-09-27
Dayton, OH
clubs:
| Re: Two faced said by gogeta6:
However, in doing this he proves that he is not in the least above corporate interests which he supposedly wanted to break ties with through campaign finance reform.
I would have hoped that McCain's dealings with Charles Keating in the 80's would have caused you to think otherwise.
Campaign reform is a sham, designed to screw over Democrats. It will do that magnificently, due to the GOP's overwhelming hard cash advantage.
McCain will be 72 years old the next time a GOP presidential nomination comes up for grabs. Not likely this legislation is connected to a future eye on the White House.
McCain's proposals for telecom are chock full of bad ideas.
--
Guaranteed Fear and Loathing. Abandon all hope. Prepare for the Weirdness. Get familiar with Cannibalism. | |
| onefear
join:2002-07-24
Saint Louis, MO
| All I know . . .
onefear -- tongue planted firmly in cheek | |
| 
scott2ya
Iphone junkie
Premium
join:2002-03-07
Missouri
| My turn to VENT MCI just went bankrupt. they owe SBC 300 million. SBC cannot disconnect them because they are bankrupt! Birch just filed for bankruptcy, they lease SBC lines then resell them to the end user, (ever seen some of them billboards? 100% of our customers fired southwestern bell) don't know how much money they owe. So Mcain is in the TELCO's pocket what else is new. SBC is just trying to protect it's interest with this bill. Then they will deploy more of the RT's to reach more customers. Most of the ISP are piggy backing, getting a free ride in essence. They are not going to deny those ISP's access that already have it! The way things have been going they are all going to be bankrupt pretty soon anyways leaving SBC to foot the bill. Then prices are going to sky rocket to make up the lost revenue, just like when shoplifters steal, the stores hike up the prices to make up the difference.
Another thing that chaps my ass is that when a CLEC (such as Birch) has a trouble ticket in, the telco has to work that ticket before they can fix their own customer.
Ohh yea! I work for SBC in the Broadband arena, guess that's why I feel like this. Sure hope we don't have any more layoffs soon, due to more bankrupt companies renigging on what they owe us. Just glad I still have a job!
Sorry if I offended anyone... just my two cents! have a nice day! | |
| |
See 13 replies to this post | |
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | Deregulation Deregulation does not work. look at the california power mess. | |
| | 
Ianguy
join:2002-06-09
Tehachapi, CA
| Re: Deregulation The Power mess was caused by deregulation that wasn't really deregulation. The companies were still partialy regulated. Partial regulation is the worst thing. Yes, there are problems with a lieze-fair (I'm not french, sorry for the spelling) approach which can foster monopolies and can hurt consumers. The other choice is government regulation which forces multiple companies to share lines and a consumer base. Regulation can keep prices low, but with lower prices, you usualy get lower quality unless you get government to subsodize, which is usualy bad news. Regulation hurts telecom companies, they have invested in putting up lines (in some cases over invested) and are working to milk that investment. If the government forces those lines to be shared, why should companies make those investments? Deregulation has its problems, but they are less than full regulation. | |
| | | IPG0d
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Stevenson, WA
| Re: Deregulation hey yo what planet do you live on?????? www.newnetworks.com
what part of the telco's wrote off the copper network at a cost of 21 billion to the taxpayers in 84 or so (while back)
the 96 act was to return the local loop to it's rightful owners....US yes us the little guy taxpayers even only these guys cheat steal hell they make bill clinton look like the pope come to my office and read the 6 boxes of paperwork i got from my LEC cute little notes "lets the 4 of us get togther and make a plan of attack and get rid of this guy he has filed 2 puc complaints already" they need to be exiled to adack alaska | |
| 
spicerun
join:2001-03-21
Southlake, TX
| Deregulation should apply to the local level... I would be for total deregulation IF and ONLY IF it also applies to the local city governments. Right now, there is exactly one vendor who is allowed to string wire in a city government's jurisdiction. How can there be competition if only SBC is allowed to string the wire and then not share it? Answer is, there can't be competition. If the city governments were forced to allow anyone to string wires in any area, then there could be competition. ILECs like SBC would be able to use their networks without sharing, and CLECs would be able to set up their networks any way they want and set up their own usage in the same areas and compete.
So, Either ALL LEVELs of Government should be kept out of Regulation of Broadband, or it really is needed for total regulation to insure some sort of competition. Isn't the problem right now that people in various areas are only allowed to use the 'City' sanctioned services of one cable company or one telecom company? Especially when both are substandard services? If anything, it is time for the City governments to be regulated concerning broadband. | |
| | | | |
spicerun
join:2001-03-21
Southlake, TX
| Re: Deregulation should apply to the local level.. said by tschmidt:
Are you saying SBC is the company installing CableTV in you town?
No, it is Paragon Cable in my town -- ONLY! It is Verizon is my town on the Telco side -- ONLY! Thanks to my Local Government, I can't chose SBC, or Charter, or AT&T etc.
said by tschmidt:
I have no problem with local government controlling access to local rights-of-way. It ought to be a local decision not forced on the community by Washington.
I Do have a problem with Local Government controlling access to local rights-of-way....It only allows the Local Government (NOTE: NOT COMMUNITY), to let the company that paid the most money to provide service to me -- ON THEIR TERMS ONLY!
said by tschmidt:
As an analogy it as if the government granted the rights for a private company to build a toll road and allowed them to control the type of vehicles that are allowed to use the road, GM vehicles are OK Toyota is prohibited. The most important issue is how do we create incentives to private companies to build the toll road while preventing them from discriminating against traffic they don't like!
That has already happened here in the Dallas/Ft. Worth Area...It is called the North Texas Tollway Association who have managed to get the state to give them some roads for their express control....And Dallas encourages them so they can keep getting their cut of revenues. | |
| | | | | | | |
|
|
·
·