http://www.dslreports.com/forum/CLECs-1383797 en Thu, 24 Mar 2022 20:25:39 EDT Thu, 24 Mar 2022 20:25:39 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-CLECs-1397278 All that a CLEC needs is that copper facility to the consumer. That consists of copper pairs from the CLEC's equipment to the distribution frame in the Central Office (hardwire crossconnect) to the corrresponding cable out of the CO into the field that ultimately gets to the subscriber at their end.
On the CO end, the CLEC owns the DSLAM providing the actual DSL to their customers, the routers sending traffic to other points in their network, and the ATM switch and multiplexers mashing all this data together into a high speed circuit like a T1, DS3, OC3, etc.
So to say that CLECs don't own or operate their own networks is not entirely accurate.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-CLECs-1397278 Thu, 06 Sep 2001 00:16:18 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-CLECs-1389063
My recommendation is to lay a single set of municipally-owned (or federally-owned) conduits to every building in the USA, and provide access to a minimum of 3 companies to install their utility cables through them.

The alternative is to regulate the h*ll out of the entity which owns the sole infrastructure. That seems to be the direction where we're headed, at the expense of innovation. We will be stuck with copper twisted-pair and coax for the next couple of decades.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-CLECs-1389063 Tue, 04 Sep 2001 16:46:18 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-CLECs-1388758
What would make far more sense is to have ONE infrastructure that is publicly owned/or controlled and shared equally by all including the costs... you know... like they highways are. It wouldn't make sense to run 10 parallel highways going to the same place, either.

If you think the crying by CLEC's is bad now, imagine the howling you'd hear from the ILEC's and RBOC's if this happened.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 attempted a compromise. RBOC's and ILEC's kept control of the existing infrastructure, but had to share it, but in return, were able to charge the CLEC's for access and still make a profit. That was the idea, anyway, but it's been so abused and sabotaged that it's not working out at all, so they have only themselves to blame if they end up forfeiting ownership or control of the infrastructure, for the good of all.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-CLECs-1388758 Tue, 04 Sep 2001 15:44:09 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-CLECs-1387251
Hold on a second. The ILECS were built by government edict and a monopoly and profits that were GUARANTEED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Talk about your corporate welfare! ATT and those guys couldn't lose, no matter what they did. In fact in many cases the more they spent the more profit they made because they were GUARANTEED a certain percentage profit on their investment with NO RISK WHATSOEVER. And they were GUARANTEED NO COMPETITION by government edict.

So the truth is, this "put up your own facilities" crap we hear from ILEC cheerleaders totally ignores the fact that the ILEC facilities were subsidized by government guarantees of monopoly and profit. Who couldn't build a huge network if they could tell investors that the government guaranteed them a profit and no competition?!?! Is that what you mean by "get a business model that works" - one where failure is impossible and profits are guaranteed by the government? Wow what a challenge it is to build a network with that model.

That is why we need enforcement of the Telcom Act of 1996 and broader access to these ILEC's networks. Those networks were not built by any kind of honest, capitalistic investment and competition. It was a government-run show for that 100 years you were talking about, and the government made sure that Bell would have a guaranteed profit no matter what they did. AND if you wanted to invest in telecommunications your options were limited, to say the least. The govermnent handed the telecom business to the ILEC on a silver platter, with cushions. So if you want to talk about who has a "welfare" business, let's talk about how the ILEC networks were actually built. As far as I am concerned all the taxpayers, citizens, and telecom users of this country built those networks and they should be opened up, completely and totally.

If we were having this discussion 100 years ago I would agree with you, let all the phone companies get in and build their own networks and battle it out lassaiz-faire style. But we made the decision to build the telecom networks with a government handout to Bell. After 100 years of government subsidy and monopoly it is ridiculous to tell the CLEC's - "Yeah, get in there and build your own network like we did" - oh you mean by having a government guarantee that you will profit and you will have no competition??
--
Founder, VP, GM Cyberstation Inc.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-CLECs-1387251 Tue, 04 Sep 2001 09:59:50 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-CLECs-1386986 said by nunya01:

---

My favorite quote:
CLECs give the waaa-waaa story that they can't raise the capital to build their own networks. Well, that's tough. Get a business model that works, and investors will follow.

---

Two fundamental flaws in your argument. First is if you do the math, only one player can make a profit at last mile. If there's a market with two competitors, both lose money.

Second, investors are sheep. If a market segment has the kiss of death, no one will invest regardless of the actual facts.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-CLECs-1386986 Tue, 04 Sep 2001 08:16:39 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/CLECs-1383797 According to Armstrong, "No company will invest billions of dollars to become a facilities-based broadband services provider if competitors who have not invested a penny of capital nor taken an ounce of risk can come along and get a free ride on the investments and risks of others."

This is from a man who hates the phone company.

CLECs give the waaa-waaa story that they can't raise the capital to build their own networks. Well, that's tough. Get a business model that works, and investors will follow.
Stop standing around with your hands out taking "welfare" business from the government. That is all a non-facility CLEC is; a welfare recipient that depends on the federal and state governments for it very existence. It's time for a "welfare to work" program for CLECs.
Some cherry picking CLECs cry because they are forced to provide service to unprofitable residential customers if they build their own facilities. Boo-Hoo. ILECs have been doing it for 100 years.
The long and short of it is - Put up your own facilities or get out while you can.
--
"It's your world, babe. I'm just livin' in it."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/CLECs-1383797 Mon, 03 Sep 2001 16:30:04 EDT