 | | No Competition Yet another reason to put back in place all of the provisions of the 1996 Telecom Act, including line sharing. None of the proposed forbearance nonsense is needed. | |
|
 | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: No Competition and no regulation.
...and as there is no regulation in place requiring them to sell the product via a wholesale offering; Verizon came to the decision that they will no longer allow us to offer this service to our clients.
great combination ... for Verizon. | |
|
| | | This was not covered under the Telecom Act of 96 or any before. the no regulation was granted to all new networks by the FCC in order for the ILECs to build out the new network. They said they'd build out the new networks if they did NOT have to share those. The FCC agreed and gave them what they wanted. In return the customers get what they want; VZ FiOS; the next best thing since slice bread.
You can't have your cake and eat it to.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS
 ·MSN
2 edits | Re: No Competition said by hottboiinnc:This was not covered under the Telecom Act of 96 or any before. the no regulation was granted to all new networks by the FCC in order for the ILECs to build out the new network. They said they'd build out the new networks if they did NOT have to share those. The FCC agreed and gave them what they wanted. In return the customers get what they want; VZ FiOS; the next best thing since slice bread. You can't have your cake and eat it to. BULL$HIT!
The 1996 Telecom Act required ILECS to share the last mile in exchange for them to be allowed to get into the long distance business. Verizon hardly waited intil it's ink was dry to buy MCI. THEN the ILECS lobbied the Bush/Powell FCC to NOT require them to do their part of the bargain, leaving the independents out in the cold. This was a RIG JOB, pure and simple!!
Our govt. works AGAINST us and instead works FOR the big companies who fill their Swiss coffers. | |
|
| | | | | Re: No Competition Fiber networks were NOT included in that. VZ at ATT were granted extra provisions to that when THEY BUILT FiOS out! It was lobbied for and was here on DSLR.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! | |
|
| | | | | | Re: No Competition said by hottboiinnc:Fiber networks were NOT included in that. VZ at ATT were granted extra provisions to that when THEY BUILT FiOS out! It was lobbied for and was here on DSLR. IIRC, ALL loops, both copper & fiber were supposed to be included in line-sharing per the 1996 Act. I suppose it was somewhat vague as there really wasn't too much fiber-to-the-home around in 1996. But around 2004, prior to the "Triennial Review Order" rewrite of the Act, the FCC started reinterpreting things, and fiber line-sharing was officially axed after EarthLink took the issue to court. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: No Competition line sharing was axed out of the act due to that was the only way the ILECs today would build out the new networks. Why else would they spend the money they did to build out these networks?
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: No Competition I never did understand that connection. It sounds like a big telco lobbiest talking point ("I won't build out if I'm required to share") to knock out the competition. Being required to share local loops does not necessarily mean somebody won't build out. Seems to work ok in other countries from what I hear. | |
|
| | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: No Competition And it was the Teleco's that demanded no line share on the next-gen networks. Why else would it have been axed from the agreement?
not really. the Ausies has the problems with their telecom until the country decided to pay them off to join. As far as BT? They still own the network and still say who gets to resell services the only thing the gov't does is keep the wholesale prices in check. But the resellers still dependo on BT for upgrading the network- for now.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! | |
|
| | | | | said by qworster:said by hottboiinnc:This was not covered under the Telecom Act of 96 or any before. the no regulation was granted to all new networks by the FCC in order for the ILECs to build out the new network. They said they'd build out the new networks if they did NOT have to share those. The FCC agreed and gave them what they wanted. In return the customers get what they want; VZ FiOS; the next best thing since slice bread. You can't have your cake and eat it to. BULL$HIT! The 1996 Telecom Act required ILECS to share the last mile in exchange for them to be allowed to get into the long distance business. Verizon hardly waited intil it's ink was dry to buy MCI. THEN the ILECS lobbied the Bush/Powell FCC to NOT require them to do their part of the bargain, leaving the independents out in the cold. This was a RIG JOB, pure and simple!! Our govt. works AGAINST us and instead works FOR the big companies who fill their Swiss coffers. Not really. UNE-P couldn't even resell dsl in most cases. If the DSLAM was in the CO, couldn't resell it.
UNE-P was a ripoff of the ILECs (loss of $7 a line resold) that CLECs never took advantage of which was building their own networks.
Telocity went bankrupt. Covad went bankrupt reselling; the only way to really make money is to own the network. DSLX's prices aren't any better than the ILECs but it takes an Act of Congress, based on reviews, to get DSLX to fix anything.
Telocity even told customers to order from the telcos (free modems), cancel service, then sign up with Telocity. Funny when techies I know got a $200 bill for those modems they where, "Huh?" Yeah, you used the system to get a free modem and not use the service giving you one for free. You should have to pay for it.
VZ's account of DSLX not making enough money to even pay for the network sounds like the old UNE-P deal. UNE-P was only tolerated so the ILECs could get long distance. UNE-P really was not in the 1996 Act. CLECs were supposed to lease the whole line not just the voice.
Some CLEC is South Florida had customers demanding DSL but couldn't get it since they were UNE-P.
I only left the bell system when Cox and Comcast offered everything for $15-20 cheaper. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: No Competition as far as UNE-P most CLECs used and still do use UNE-L. For the Loop. | |
|
| | | | said by hottboiinnc:This was not covered under the Telecom Act of 96 or any before. the no regulation was granted to all new networks by the FCC in order for the ILECs to build out the new network. They said they'd build out the new networks if they did NOT have to share those. The FCC agreed and gave them what they wanted. In return the customers get what they want; VZ FiOS; the next best thing since slice bread. You can't have your cake and eat it to. That is pure revisionist history. I don't even know why you brought FIOS into that. It has absolutely nothing to do with the '96 Act. | |
|
| | | | | Re: No Competition because FiOS was NEVER included inthe Act. Which why i said it was NOT covered in the act of 96. | |
|
| |
1 edit | "You can't have your cake and eat it to."
Actually you CAN have your cake and eat it too...
If I HAVE my cake I CAN certainly eat it also.
What you can't do is EAT your cake and have it too.
 | |
|
| | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | Except, of course, that Verizon REMOVED the copper cable infrastructure -- paid for in part and whole by tax payers (often more than once) -- for which they are required to share access. So, now everyone is completely f***ed. If you don't want Verizon services, you have zero alternatives; VZ owns the fibre and has no requirements to share it -- no one else can offer you service. The lines that used to be available to CLECs were pulled up out of the ground.
(The only possible option is the other monopoly... your local cable company. They've never had to share.) | |
|
 jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3 | Great business plan The offer a product that is totally dependent on a competitor to supply the actual service without having a solid long term agreement?
Are we supposed to feel sorry for them? | |
|
|  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·CenturyLink
| Re: Great business plan said by jjoshua:The offer a product that is totally dependent on a competitor to supply the actual service without having a solid long term agreement? Are we supposed to feel sorry for them? I have to agree knowing the history of deals reneged on, and general screw you over attitude such providers have why would anyone want to make a such a deal with them.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
|
|
1 edit | Considering ... Verizon did sell it's landline's to Frontier communication, and this becomes effective July 1st. As of such, DSLExtreme will need to renegotiate with the new owners (Frontier Communications).
--
»www.reverse.net | |
|
| | | Re: Considering ... Only in some markets. And those are the ones that usually don't have FiOS.
Verizon isn't giving up everything. | |
|
|  darciliciousCyber LibrarianPremium
join:2001-01-02
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:2
·Frontier FiOS
| said by nightwalker:Verizon did sell it's landline's to Frontier communication, and this becomes effective July 1st. As of such, DSLExtreme will need to renegotiate with the new owners (Frontier Communications). All other DSLX customers that are in the other Vz markets will be transitioned back to Vz by March 2011. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  Fail
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Fail Doubtful. It didn't work for most of the companies in the late 90s. | |
|
| |  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: Fail said by openbox9:Doubtful. It didn't work for most of the companies in the late 90s. The vast majority of providers in the late 90's were the UNE-P kind with no network to speak of. They simply resold voice and data services they purchased wholesale from the LEC's with their own brand name on the bill. Its no wonder they all failed miserably; that simply wasnt a real business model.
--
"You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."
-Abraham Lincoln-
| |
|
| | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Fail Right. But these providers had time to build out their infrastructure, but most chose not to because it would cost them money. Didn't work out very well. | |
|
| | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: Fail said by openbox9:Right. But these providers had time to build out their infrastructure, but most chose not to because it would cost them money. Didn't work out very well. Thats true, but again it was because of a lack of a real business plan. When every CLEC in the country went public (they all did) and the stock was over $100 per share, they should have thought about it then. Instead, they all hoped the government would regulate the industry and enforce the "free ride" doctrine.
--
"You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."
-Abraham Lincoln-
| |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Fail said by wifi4milez:said by openbox9:Right. But these providers had time to build out their infrastructure, but most chose not to because it would cost them money. Didn't work out very well. Thats true, but again it was because of a lack of a real business plan. When every CLEC in the country went public (they all did) and the stock was over $100 per share, they should have thought about it then. Instead, they all hoped the government would regulate the industry and enforce the "free ride" doctrine. Right. Line sharing is a "free ride" doctrine. The CLECs put in absolutely no effort whatsoever to provide service to their customers, and simply leech profits from the incumbents. Your bias is showing, and it's an ugly wart. | |
|
| | | Rolling your own last mile network very rarely works. When it does there is almost certainly a government funding the project. | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Fail said by battleop:Rolling your own last mile network very rarely works. Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and numerous other cable companies don't seem to have a problem doing this.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Fail None of them are hardly start ups. All of them were monopolies for years and became entrenched to where it's impossible for anyone to really compete with them on a last mile level.
The general public wouldn't tolerate multiple outside plants. | |
|
| | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Fail said by battleop:The general public wouldn't tolerate multiple outside plants. Really? Bury the cable and a vast majority won't know, or care, about multiple runs. | |
|
| | | | |
See 9 replies to this post |
| | | neftv
join:2000-10-01
Broomall, PA Reviews:
 ·SIP Global Phone
·QuantumVoice
| When you have companies that are basically cash cows and have customers willing to pay for it it's no surprise monopolies exist.
Through it all I went from @home to Comcast to Starband back to Comcast to Covad to Verizon DSL to Fios (just for internet). No matter what I tried I end up with a big evil empire and now with Fiber I just can't see looking back.
Probably won't see anyone else deploy fiber the way Verizon manage to do with the way wireless technologies getting better, be it very slow. | |
|
| | |  elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand
·Cybersurf Intern..
| The reality is NOBODY today could afford to build out a new network.
The cost is huge, and the payback(if there is one) is slow in coming.
--
Jake: "Four fried chickens, and a coke" Elwood: "And some dry white toast, pleas | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Fail You can; it just takes time and you'll only be able to serve a handful of customers at a time. Many small ILECs in Ohio are doing it and without a problem. They're all going FTTH and with out a problem. One of the first VDSL IPTV companies is based in Ohio and they still offer IPTV over that same VDSL network they built years ago. They also own a HFC network on top of it all.: »www.horizontechnology.net/
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Fail said by hottboiinnc:You can; it just takes time and you'll only be able to serve a handful of customers at a time. Many small ILECs in Ohio are doing it and without a problem. They're all going FTTH and with out a problem. One of the first VDSL IPTV companies is based in Ohio and they still offer IPTV over that same VDSL network they built years ago. They also own a HFC network on top of it all.: » www.horizontechnology.net/ As long as you're small enough for the incumbents not to take notice, then sure. If you even dare to try to grow a tiny bit, they'll lower their prices to dirt-cheap to bankrupt your fledgling company. Don't you wonder why there have been no new companies formed this way in the last decade? | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Fail HZ is the ILEC in their area.
BUT You should know you're from CLE. Most of CLE has 3 choices for data, WOW, TWC and ATT-DSL/U-Verse. And the Incumbents only care if you're a Muni.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! | |
|
| | | | | said by pnh102:said by battleop:Rolling your own last mile network very rarely works. Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and numerous other cable companies don't seem to have a problem doing this. The current situation with DSL/Cable is a coincidental one. The original reason they rolled out their lines had nothing to do with the internet, and only later did they find they could provide internet service over their lines. | |
|
 Unit649I B U, Who U B?Premium
join:2000-01-22
Stockton, CA | Same thing happened in CA ...with "deregulation" "power companies" showed up overnight-but all they did was buy power on the spot market and resell it. They of course expected PG&E et al to provide the lines to the house, metering, etc for free.
Once they discovered they had to pay a fee to PG&E for this kind of stuff, suddenly they were not as cheap anymore.
I'm surprised companies like this made it at all. Obviously Verizon was cutting them a good deal if they could resell it and still make enough to exist.
Either that or people were paying DSLExtreme more for the service than if you got it straight from V.
The other thing these "other" power providers also discovered, btw, was that when there was a power outage, PG&E would fix their customers first | |
|
| | | Re: Same thing happened in CA PG&E must work different as far as other power companies. Many of them charge the consumer for using a "electric or gas marketing company" for access to the network. My gas company is NOT allowed to sell gas in the state of Ohio anymore. (www.dom.com) so you MUST choose a company or use a "sister" company of their's. BUT either way YOU still do them to provide the billing (2.00per month), pay them to read your meter (3.00per month) on top of paying them to use the gas lines (depends on how much gas you use that month). The marketing company pays next to nothing to use the lines due to that's what the state says. All companies here that have 3rd party marketing providers do the same thing. Consumers MUST pay the utility for the services all the way around. But DOES come out cheaper; especially if you're part of a HUGE buying group.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! | |
|
|
|
