 | | waiting for the other shoe to fall... waiting for it...
the usual cries of "they built it, they should (fill in the blank) or whatever carte blance reasons given for the free marketeers positions...
Let's see how long it takes someone to build a competing network. Say, a hundred years? | |
|
 |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: waiting for the other shoe to fall... with taxpayer support, of course. | |
|
| | | | Re: waiting for the other shoe to fall... Hate to say it, but the Telcos are really not getting any government support to build-out anymore. The investments the Telcos have made really since the breakup of AT&T came from their own bottom line.
Line sharing was a loser for the Telcos because the worthless 1996 Telecom Act implemented UNE-P, which made the Telcos sell at below even what they could recover on costs--losing about $7 a line so some half-witted CLEC could sell phone service. Even the bigger CLECs still cost them that $7 per line vs. what it cost to maintain it.
Sure, the Telcos get ROWs and so forth but not anything near what they were used to getting 30 years ago.
Even with UNE-P a lot of CLECs, including COVAD, went bankrupt. Telocity was around for about 3 minutes and 45 seconds. It's customers ordered DSL from BellSouth for the free modems then switched to Telocity. I wonder if that was Telocity's idea or a way not to pay Telocity for a modem since they didn't give them away ("A modem is $300 but you could order BellSouth DSL and get a free modem and always just switch to us"). So, BellSouth eventually went back and nailed those folks for $200-300 for the modems.
Line sharing just doesn't work. If you think it does then how about this: K-Mart is having a tough time against WalMart so WalMart has to lease an aisle in a WalMart store just so K-Mart doesn't have to build its own. Or, GM has to allow some factory time so Ford can build a few cars. Line sharing in any other business is stupid especially since Cable doesn't have to line share their telephony service.
If you impose line sharing on the Telcos, then Cable has to have it to on both HSI and Phone Service.
I would like to see real law make the Telcos and Cable tell me exactly where all those damn fees go to not the bulls&&t language that is there now.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
|
| | | ke4pymPremium
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC Reviews:
 ·VOIPo
 ·Verizon Broadban..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Northland Cable ..
| Re: waiting for the other shoe to fall... said by supergirl:Hate to say it, but the Telcos are really not getting any government support to build-out anymore. Really? What would you call the Universal Service Fee? Sure, it might not be line-itemed as build-out but they're getting gobs of government support at our expense. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: waiting for the other shoe to fall... said by ke4pym:said by supergirl:Hate to say it, but the Telcos are really not getting any government support to build-out anymore. Really? What would you call the Universal Service Fee? Sure, it might not be line-itemed as build-out but they're getting gobs of government support at our expense. The USF goes to rural carriers not the RBOCs. If the Bells get any of it, it is very little. Forbes Magazine called the USF and outright ripoff that made rural carriers rich at the expense of everyone with a Bell. Forbes called for an end to the USF since the rural carriers were using the money for anything but telephone service including even building out cell and HSI networks. The money freed up so much cash at one rural teleco the telco refunded an entire year of charges to ALL its customers.
The Bells did complain that they should get some of the USF for their rural areas but not sure if they did.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
|
| | | | | Reviews:
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: waiting for the other shoe to fall... »www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib···lar.html
The CA Utilities Commission cut the rural fund charge, but then raised the overall monthly service total by 25c/mo instead.
Also "Among those who have lobbied for the reduction or elimination of the surcharges are cable television providers. Since phone companies can use the money for anything they want, the cable companies argue, it could be used to provide competing television services." | |
|
| | | | |  intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | THAT is horseshit. Are you so naive to think that RBOCs don't operate in rural areas? They get TONS of USF money.
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!" | |
|
| | | | cwire
join:2007-06-07
Bedford, KY | while talking to a local public schools I.T. man, we began discussing the price of the ds-3 that the school system was purchasing from at&t. the price he told me seemed really low to me, so i asked how this could be. he said that the school only pays 25% of it's at&t bill, and the rest of the money, 75% to be exact comes from the usf fund. i don't know if this is how it is set up for all school systems, but that 75% funding seems like it could take a big chunk of usf money. | |
|
| | | | |  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: waiting for the other shoe to fall... said by cwire:while talking to a local public schools I.T. man, we began discussing the price of the ds-3 that the school system was purchasing from at&t. the price he told me seemed really low to me, so i asked how this could be. he said that the school only pays 25% of it's at&t bill, and the rest of the money, 75% to be exact comes from the usf fund. i don't know if this is how it is set up for all school systems, but that 75% funding seems like it could take a big chunk of usf money. The USF only goes to the great-unwashed. New Jersey gets ZERO. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | said by supergirl:Hate to say it, but the Telcos are really not getting any government support to build-out anymore. ... they don't need govt support, they are f*ing monopolies. How did they become monopolies? Govt support.
the really maddening thing is that in Japan and France, the CLECs, that became successful because of line sharing, now have enough capitol to start building their own infrastructure, such as fiber.
If competitors are not given a chance to share last mile infrastructure, we will NEVER get a competitive market in the U.S.
as for telcos losing money on UNE-P, I posit that's a big line of BS from the telcos. It's so difficult to determine exactly what telco costs are because of shifty accounting and other tricks.
As it is now, the U.S. is likely stuck with the current monopoly/duopoly situation for the next several years. | |
|
| | | | | I agree with most of what you say, except...
said by supergirl:Hate to say it, but the Telcos are really not getting any government support to build-out anymore. The investments the Telcos have made really since the breakup of AT&T came from their own bottom line. The line sharing ruling is only for the copper lines, which were deployed before the AT&T breakup.
said by supergirl:Line sharing just doesn't work. If you think it does then how about this: K-Mart is having a tough time against WalMart so WalMart has to lease an aisle in a WalMart store just so K-Mart doesn't have to build its own. Or, GM has to allow some factory time so Ford can build a few cars. Bad analogy. Stores and factories are private assets. Line sharing is predicated on the existence of public assets, public subsidies, or deeding of public ROW. Whether or not that should be done is a matter of public policy and debate, but your analogy is really bad. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: waiting for the other shoe to fall... SD6 - funny the cable analogy wasn't acknowleged. If cable doesn't have to do it, why do the telcos? | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: waiting for the other shoe to fall... They should. But then again I am one that would declare all networks should be confiscated (since they were built with tax money or profits based on government protection regardless of time) and one fiber network that runs every where that any service provider can lease to gain access to any customer that wants any service. | |
|
| | | | | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: waiting for the other shoe to fall... said by Skippy25: But then again I am one that would declare all networks should be confiscated . Thank you Hugo Chavez, we all know communism works. | |
|
| | | | | | | said by supergirl:SD6 - funny the cable analogy wasn't acknowleged. If cable doesn't have to do it, why do the telcos? The telcos don't have to share their recent deployments... | |
|
| | | | | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: waiting for the other shoe to fall... said by SD6:[The telcos don't have to share their recent deployments... that's because the FCC was successfully lobbied by Verizon to exempt fiber from sharing reqts. And a little bit of "we won't build it if you don't exempt it" threats. | |
|
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by supergirl:SD6 - funny the cable analogy wasn't acknowleged. If cable doesn't have to do it, why do the telcos? Why? Cable paid for their infrustructure with private funds. Telephone was not 100% private funds. People love to talk about how cable was able to 'negotiate' an exclusive deal (most people forget the word NEGOTIATE) however, phone was always granted a monopoly and then partially funded.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
|
| | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | i agree that telcos aren't getting the taxpayer support that they once did. however, once the nationwide network has been built, it costs a fraction to maintain it. hence, taxpayer money went to build a monopoly.
what needs to happen is that the lines/pipes need to be neutral----ripped from the arms of AT&T and ilk, and then true competition will flourish by the company that can best provide service. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | | | Re: waiting for the other shoe to fall... said by King P:If you remember, the 1996 telecom act also gave the Telcos BILLIONS of dollars with which they were to have FIBER OPTICS laid to every home in their footprint by 2004. Well, its 2007 and where's my fiber line to my house? Just in case there is anybody out there who might be tempted to believe/repeat this, it is SOOOO untrue. | |
|
| | | | |  King PDon't blame me. I voted for Ron PaulPremium
join:2004-11-17
Franklin, TN
·Comcast
·Vonage
1 edit | Re: waiting for the other shoe to fall... said by SD6:said by King P:If you remember, the 1996 telecom act also gave the Telcos BILLIONS of dollars with which they were to have FIBER OPTICS laid to every home in their footprint by 2004. Well, its 2007 and where's my fiber line to my house? Just in case there is anybody out there who might be tempted to believe/repeat this, it is SOOOO untrue. »www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm···isid=186
There...is that clear enough for you?
*edit* oh and here's more:
Pennsylvania: Teletruth Files 'Broadband Fraud' Complaint
»www.lightreading.com/document.as···id=46736
--
Forget 'em, Support the Indies.
»www.ind-music.com | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: waiting for the other shoe to fall... Ahh, another unfortunate ignorant caught in the clutches of Teletruth. Their complaint was thrown out of court and they have been debunked. The claims just get more and more grandiose with time... | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: waiting for the other shoe to fall... said by SD6:Ahh, another unfortunate ignorant caught in the clutches of Teletruth. Their complaint was thrown out of court and they have been debunked. The claims just get more and more grandiose with time... Doesn't change the fact that certain Bell companies promised one thing and failed to deliver it... | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| I think you are referring to the E-Rate that was to subsides internet services to schools and Libraries not Private homes. It seems it was pushed under the guise of universal service. The problem was the money ended up being wasted by the bureaucracy like the school spent $500,000 system that more needed by a major corporation rather than a school and had spent another $500,000 for support and training when a cheep solution that cold had met the schools need could been bought for $50,000 | |
|
| | | |
| | | | | | Re: waiting for the other shoe to fall... Please provide a link that shows ATT had a 28 TRILLION dollar profit ?
Are you sure you didn't mean BILLION? And even then, 28 Billion in profits is suspect. | |
|
| | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
1 edit | 2006
AT&T net sales: $63B (as in billion)
Op Inc: $10B
Net Inc: $7.356B
Gross profit is a meaningless statistic. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: waiting for the other shoe to fall... said by elvey:I don't see the word 'profit' in my post. said by elvey:They took in 63 BILLION DOLLARS last year. They made a gross profit of 28 BILLION DOLLARS last year. Sheesh. What you take in is 'revenue'. Doh. Source: » finance.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=T It was there even AFTER you edited out the Trillion dollar statement, which, btw, showed you have no idea what you're talking about since I believe the entire world's annual GDP is only around $50 trillion. Regardless, as I stated, Gross profit is a meaningless metric. Net Income is what you're looking for. Or just revenue. | |
|
| | | | | |  elveySpamassassin
join:2001-02-17
San Francisco, CA
·Virgin Mobile Br..
·Sipgate VOIP
1 edit | Re: waiting for the other shoe to fall... Actually, I'm fairly familiar with Gross Profit, Net income, EBITDA, etc, and why different metrics are emphasized at times. I just don't use them on a regular basis.
When you're talking about a regulated monopoly, different metrics are important; the normal metrics are distorted. | |
|
| | | | | said by supergirl:Telocity was around for about 3 minutes and 45 seconds. It's customers ordered DSL from BellSouth for the free modems then switched to Telocity. I wonder if that was Telocity's idea or a way not to pay Telocity for a modem since they didn't give them away ("A modem is $300 but you could order BellSouth DSL and get a free modem and always just switch to us"). So, BellSouth eventually went back and nailed those folks for $200-300 for the modems. Okay, let's stick to the facts here...
1. Telocity provided modems to their customers at no cost.
2. Telocity modems were designed and provisioned BY TELOCITY at their office, so in order to use Telocity, you needed to use a Telocity modem. Using a third party modem with Telocity did not work.
3. Please provide proof that Telocity customers ordered Bellsouth services for the modems and then switched to Telocity where the Bellsouth provided modem would do no good (see #2). | |
|
| | | |  nklbPremium
join:2000-11-17
Ann Arbor, MI
kudos:2 | Re: waiting for the other shoe to fall... said by StickToTheFacts :
Using a third party modem with Telocity did not work. Not true! I had Telocity almost from the beginning of their existence and all the way through the DirectTV acquisition, and you COULD use an alternative modem.
I used a plain copper mountain SDSL bridge modem connected to a linux box for routing and server hosting. The routing was difficult to setup, but it got you 5 static IPs that you could route however you wanted on your LAN!
That was the best connection I ever had, 768k SDSL. Not as fast to download large files as my junky comcast connection is now, but I would trade back for it in a heartbeat. So much more reliable, so much better performing with high numbers of connections, and it never once went down due to an outage.
--
for all your Linux questions | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: waiting for the other shoe to fall... The routing was difficult to setup, but it got you 5 static IPs that you could route however you wanted on your LAN! Sorry, that's right, you could use a third party, but for most people it was difficult enough that it wasn't worth all the added effort and using the Telocity issued modem made sense.
The point is that there weren't massive numbers of people signing up and canceling service with Bellsouth in order to get a free modem to use with Telocity. Telocity provided modems to their users. | |
|
| | | | | Even if the Telcos are not getting any government support to build out any more (we'll leave the USF for others) they still generated huge blocks of their existing infrastructure on taxpayer subsidy. Since line sharing on just that infrastructure really isn't feasible (figuring out what's new vs old), perhaps the Telco's should pay the gov back for the amount of subsidy received plus any additional revenue generated off of the infrastructure where they didn't achieve the promised service levels. | |
|
| | | | | Well it is obvious that you do not understand the regulations concerning the delivery of a local loop by the telcos. The ILECs (Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, which are at times also RBOCs - Regional Bell Operating Companies) have exclusive access to provide lines in a given area. In exchange for that exclusive access, they are now required to make available those lines to CLECs to encourage competition and innovation. The initial access was considered FCC or special access, ordered through an ASR. That version required the payment by the CLEC for services that weren't needed, such as muxing on top of the line charges. Enter UNEs (unbundled network elements), where only the equipment and line required to deliver the service would need to be charged to the CLEC. UNE lines effectively permit a CLEC to compete in locations that otherwise would fall under a monopoly status.
The problem with a monopoly is that you as the consumer are then unable to switch to someone else to avoid sub-par performance at prime prices. Would you pay top new mercedez-benz prices for a 10 year old crunched up old Kia? I think not, however, prior to the deregulation of the Telecom industry, that is exactly what happened and there was very little that a consumer could do about it. Now there is a choice, you may switch your service to another provider. | |
|
| | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by morbo:with taxpayer support, of course. I have 1/2 a brain and know that is TeleLies B.S. | |
|
|  Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | said by satellite68:waiting for it... the usual cries of "they built it, they should (fill in the blank) or whatever carte blance reasons given for the free marketeers positions... Let's see how long it takes someone to build a competing network. Say, a hundred years? That's not even the point. The problem in this country is that someone shouldn't have to build a second redundant and mostly useless network to transport the same medium. Either the government builds and owns the lines or makes sure others have access to the "private" ones at a fair price. Sorry, but this nonsense of "it's ours" that is part of the national infrastructure is getting ridiculous. | |
|
|  knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | said by satellite68:waiting for it... the usual cries of "they built it, they should (fill in the blank) or whatever carte blance reasons given for the free marketeers positions... Let's see how long it takes someone to build a competing network. Say, a hundred years? I don't want thousands of wires hung everywhere for competing service. At the same time, given how much the public has put into this with $$$, it should open to anyone willing to provide and compete the service. It's bad enough that we have to string cable and phone line everywhere. I remember reading back in the 20th century of how fiber was going to help change that. Bury fiber everywhere, make it public so that any company that has the equipment and financial backing to support a service can use it to provide a service and let the free market keep prices low with competition. | |
|
| |
See 10 replies to this post |
|
|  beerbumobscurum per obscuriusPremium
join:2000-05-06
Eastern PA
1 edit | said by satellite68:Let's see how long it takes someone to build a competing network. Say, a hundred years? it took Commonwealth Telephone (now Frontier) about 1 year to completely wire my city of 80,000+ , and another year to add the northern suburbs.. they have their own telco network which is independent of Verizon..
bottom line it can be done, problem is nobody wants to pay to do it. | |
|
| | | | Re: waiting for the other shoe to fall... said by beerbum:said by satellite68:Let's see how long it takes someone to build a competing network. Say, a hundred years? it took Commonwealth Telephone (now Frontier) about 1 year to completely wire my city of 80,000+ , and another year to add the northern suburbs.. they have their own telco network which is independent of Verizon.. bottom line it can be done, problem is nobody wants to pay to do it. Yes, a competing network that has a national footprint will take about one year to build. Sheesh. And I have a bridge to sell you... | |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Wow... This is cool, we're now reporting news that hasn't happened yet. | |
|
| | | Re: Wow... yes, let's wait until stuff happens before we have a chance to know about it.
screw pre-emptive knowledge!
i don't want to know who the next president is until they are giving their victory speech! | |
|
| | jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: Wow... Err... okayyy.
My point is that the story is being reported as if it is a done deal, which it is not.
Anyone remember "Dewey Wins!"? | |
|
| | | | | Re: Wow... if the past year hasn't shown you that telcos are having their way with the FCC's backing, it's pretty much a 99% chance that it will occur. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Wow... I have actually been looking forward to news on the decision. Perhaps the last sentence is the news - that line sharing is no longer required by default because FCC didn't make a decision. | |
|
| | FCC Hands off! The internet isnt a utility. you're owed nothing. if you want something you pay for it. they use that money to build better services. its called a free market. competition is good for all of us, and they should not be forced to share anything with anyone else. | |
|
|
See 22 replies to this post |
|
|
