Pro/Con articles on Tauzin-Dingell Bill → Ridiculous

First off, I think everybody should take note of who the authors of these two articles are. The Pro-Tauzin-Dingell author, Alford, "is president and chief executive officer of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, which as 201 affiliated chapters located in 40 states and eight countries." The author of the second article, Devlin, "is executive vice president and general counsel of Sprint." So these aren't disinterested parties or journalists writing these pieces, these are people who stand to benefit (or at least seem to think they do) by the outcome they're espousing.

That said, I found Alford's article ridiculous. Here's a good quote:

[the bill] enables accelerated broadband deployment by removing counterproductive regulations and delivering more competition and choices for small businesses and consumers.

Current U.S. telecommunications laws limit the ability of local phone companies to build broadband networks by requiring they give competitors access to this new infrastructure at below cost -- a rule intended to ensure competition in voice communications

I see, so by removing any possibility of competition for the Bells, we are actually increasing competition? I'd like to dispute this but he neglected to provide any reasoning for this theory, so I can only say how foolish it sounds.

Alford's piece also seems to simply talk about the digital divide (which I find ludicrous; some people cannot afford cars, is that evidence of an automotive divide?) and then essentially says that this bill will fix all that. Devlin's piece actually discusses what's wrong with the bill from a more realistic perspective.

I'm not very clear on the specifics of the bill, but it seems to me that it grants the baby Bells (though how anybody can call SBC and Verizon baby anything is beyond me) a monopoly in return for their assurance that they will provide broadband to everybody. I find this appalling. Why not let the market decide who gets broadband and who doesn't? I mean, this just seems like socialism to me. What if people in region X don't want broadband? If there are 3 people in a region who want broadband then should any company really be expected to lay down the infrastructure for 3 people? How many times do we need to be shown that preventing/breaking up a monopoly is a good thing? Look even at the problems caused by Microsoft's stranglehold on the PC industry. The company I used to work for lost a client because a program similar to the one we made might be included in WindowsXP. The company will now join the long list of others driven out of business by Microsoft.

Alford's angle is that this will help minority business owners. How so? When you give the Bells a monopoly they can charge whatever they want. So they can "offer" DSL to you at a mere $1000/month. Then we'll eventually end up with regulations like the ones we have on voice communications where people living in wealthy areas pay more for phone service to subsidize phone service in poor areas. I don't mean to be crude, but why the hell should I, or anybody else, be paying somebody else's phone bill? That, I fear, is what will end up happening with Tauzin-Dingell: some people will end up paying more to subsidize lower prices for broadband in poor areas.

said by ehoffman:

---

Why not let the market decide who gets broadband and who doesn't? I mean, this just seems like socialism to me.....
I don't mean to be crude, but why the hell should I, or anybody else, be paying somebody else's phone bill? That, I fear, is what will end up happening with Tauzin-Dingell: some people will end up paying more to subsidize lower prices for broadband in poor areas.

---

You are being crude,hoff, but in a free society opinions can be debated for the greater good.In that vein, I'll speak to the question you raise. First, you are not paying other's phone bills anymore than I am subsidizing the military to defend you, or government programs you like and I don't. And for that matter, unemployment insurance, which, being self-employed am not eligible for. Then again, why should anyone without kids pay school taxes, or get a lesser income tax deduction...?It's because it's a "we" society, not a "me" society, as in the words "we the people...".Civilization is not "survival of the fittest" or "I've got mine", we have other names for those. America subsidizes all of us in one way or another. Like it or not, that's the American way. Socialism shouldn't frighten you if capitalism doesn't. Neither works very well without being tempered by the other. Far-left and far-right politics are equally dangerous and unrealistic. The "me" generation launched the tech boom, and as stock option millionaires they could care less about the poor, homeless, and unemployed. Tech's collapse has them joining the poor in increasing numbers, and demanding government help for jobs, affordable housing, etc. America is a team effort, and always has been. The problem with TD and other special interests is that they allow greed to subvert the group process.

[text was edited by author 2001-09-04 01:53:34]

I respectfully disagree with your premise. Equating T-D with communist dogma is incorrect.

For any and all its shortcomings, T-D is a pro-market bill. The basic problem that it addresses is that the "owners" of the infrastructure have no incentive to extend or update it due to the regulations requiring that the new facilities be shared with CLECs. Any other arguments are side-issues and not what T-D was intended to address.

On this subject, it succeeds because it gives the RBOCs a profit center from the investment in new infrastructure. Any business that would agree to invest a large sum of money without acquiring a clear profit center from that investment would have a shareholder riot to contend with as they go out of business. Yet, opponents of T-D advocate this very action.

I have seen the following analogy on the forums here and I agree with it.

Let's say you want buy a new sports car. You put your money down and drive off the lot only to be stopped by the local law enforcement and told that "Joe here needs to deliver pizzas tonight so you have to loan him your car". If you knew that you were going to be forced to give access to your new sports car to Joe, would you still buy the car or would you continue driving your '78 Pinto?

To make your analogy fit the telecom industry, if you had the new sports car because law enforcement gave it to you, how could you protest when they want you to let the pizza guy use it?

You forget that the Bells didn't really buy this expansive copper network without lots of Government help. Your analogy is flawed. Think of that sports car as having partial ownership between you and the government since they put out money to buy it as well as giving you incentive to drive it. Now you complain because other drivers go to the government (which you did to get the car in the first place) to get fair use of the car. Not to mention they are still paying you for the gas and oil changes.

I don't see why the ILECs are complaining. They get revenue from the CLECs to make use of the facilities. From what I've been hearing the ILECs have been getting a profit from it too. The only logical explanation I can come up with is they want the copper all to themselves. Likely to keep prices high and profit margins even higher.

SRFireside and csalmon,

I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make. I am talking about Project Pronto, not the current (old) infrastructure.

Yes, the government helped build the old system, and yes Project Pronto builds on this old system somewhat, but the point I am trying to make is that there is no compelling reason for SBC/Ameritech to continue building Pronto unless there is a clear profit center gained from it.

In other words, the government gave you the '78 Pinto. Because they gave you the Pinto, Joe says that he should have access to the sports car. The Pinto is still used for errands and other light duty (voice), but Joe demands to use the new car, as well as the '78 Pinto and anything else you might buy for yourself.

He might even complain that you cheaped out on the stereo or the tires are not top of the line. He then would complain to the government that you are using it too much and should give him more access. While he has it he can go ahead and install his own parts and modifications (Line cards). When the people complain that your car is noisy and an eyesore due to the removal of the muffler and pink and purple paint job by Joe, you have to pay to fix the problem and are denounced by the public and fined by the local police.

I am talking about NEW investment in infrastructure. I agree the OLD infrastructure should be shared, but where there is no profit incentive, there is no infrastructure investment.

I think the government is STILL dishing out incentives to the Bells. If that's true then Project Pronto would still fall under the "old plan" and thus subject to line sharing. Which means that proverbial car could still be jointly owned by you and the government.

Also it isn't like Bell is just sitting there losing money on the deal. They CLECs still pay for the resources. Which boils down to that pizza guy paying you for gas and general maintenance while he's in your car. Heck... do it like the Bells and charge more than wholesale so you can go to a movie on the pizza boy's tab

Even if the postulate that the government is still giving incentives to the bells(I disagree), the argument still stands. The bells have no incentive to build Pronto if they have to share it at the level demanded by the CLECs.

Why does it stand? You keep saying the argument still stands, but it doesn't. The Bell's don't have to share the lines for FREE or for BELOW cost- they make a nice profit at $32 a line per month, dontcha think? That's profit, which can be reinvested in expanding their facilities, so they can run more lines. And hey! These CLEC's could then rent THOSE lines! Wow! So before where the Bell only had 10,000 lines rented by CLEC's, now that they've expanded, they can rent 10,000 more lines! Hey, those profits keep rolling in...
KM

So, now we move the debate to what is actually happening in the real world instead of what the bill proposes. OK, I can do that.

Yes, the ILECs are not following the current (badly written IMHO) law, they make a profit from the rental of the copper. What makes you think that will change with the defeat of T-D?

The behavior of the ILECs is awful, understandable but still unacceptable. Will more restrictive law restrain them ala Fritz Hollings' bill? I don't think so.

Even if some way was found to enforce the spirit, if not the letter, of the 1996 law, who is around to benefit? Covad? Will Covad provide enough "competition" for DSL service to provide the benefits to the customer that you desire?

To sum up:

The ILECs are bad.
The CLECs are bankrupt.
The ILECs will spend big money on new infrastructure to compete with cable etc if they given preferential treatment to the infrastructure they are paying for. (T-D)
The CLECs (bankrupt) are against the preferential treatment.

My conclusion is that T-D should pass because we will get new construction, even if it means that the CLECs have somewhat restricted access to the new customer base. If it does not pass, we get no new construction and the CLECs still have no access to many new customers (the ILEC does not get access to them as well).

More people with access to DSL means more aggressive competition from cable and wireless providers in the new areas and everyone is happy, including Covad.

Without T-D, DSL is dead. No access to DSL for millions of potential subscribers allows cable and wireless to move in unopposed. There will be no competition for broadband in many areas. Universal access to DSL/Pronto forces the cable people to compete. More competition from cable forces the ILECs to compete.

I'm sorry you're mad, mark, but you must be raving, because you're going on alot of assumption here.

First off, you're assuming that the T-D bill will increase competition between cable and dsl.. the competition's already there.

The situation we're in is more like a sandbox and 3 children. The first two children have been playing in the sand box everyday for years. One child is named cable, the second is named ilec. The third, newer child is named clec.

The first two children have been happy playing on opposite sides of the sandbox for years, both of them 'owning' their respective end. However, one day another child came to play, and mother said that ilec needed to share his end of the sandbox with the much younger and smaller clec. Well, ilec said ok, and mother walked off. As soon as she was out of sight, ilec started kicking clec's butt around the yard. Clec cried to mother. Mother scolds ilec and tells him to be nice and to share. As soon as mother's gone the same thing happens, because ilec would rather not play in the sand box, or shovel new sand in at all if he has to let clec play in it. He'd rather run around trying to beat the hell out of clec instead so that when clec is dead, he'll be alone in his end of the sandbox again.

See, the problem isn't that we need to get rid of clec, or make things easier for ilec to push him out of the sandbox. The problem is, we need to come up with a better way of forcing ilec to let clec live and grow. Maybe having a parent watch the whole time, and severely beating ilec if he gets out of line.

Of course, the same rules should apply to cable if anyone wants to play in his side of the sandbox. He should be forced to share because children won't necessarily share if they're not made to.

A simplistic approach, but much more true.

Now we are unregistered... Oh well...

The sandbox huh? OK, lets roll...

Half of the sandbox was filled by ilec and the mother, the other half was filled by cable. The reason clec was placed in the ilec half was because of the mother's involvement. ilec decides that there is more area on the playground that he can make into a bigger sandbox but mother says that he must allow clec to play in that area even though ilec wants to build it without mother's help. In the course of this argument, clec catches a severe cold and is coughing up blood, but still spits out his objection to ilec's plans. Meanwhile cable is busy building his part of the sandbox in the area that ilec was looking to build his. While arguing with mother, cable has completed his expansion and is happily playing in the new areas without interference and using bully tactics to keep anyone else from entering his new areas. By the time ilec convinces mother that his plan is a good idea, it is too late because the area is already taken up by cable.

Meanwhile sand technology has evolved to a point where all the children can use new sand to build castles like the other children could only build before now. Suddenly cable wants to build ilec style castles and ilec wants to build cable style castles. Some new types of castles can now be built and all children want to build them. cable buys new tech sand for his areas and ilec wants to do the same, but mother tells him that clec will get to use the new sand as well as the old sand. cable happily goes about his business of building the new castles unhampered by mother's edicts.

Why should cable be forced to share? Is the cable network public property? I pretty sure it is not because the right-of-way for a chunk of my townhouse common area is leased to the cable company for cable infrastructure.

Half of the sandbox was filled by ilec and the mother, the other half was filled by cable. The reason clec was placed in the ilec half was because of the mother's involvement. ilec decides that there is more area on the playground that he can make into a bigger sandbox but mother says that he must allow clec to play in that area even though ilec wants to build it without mother's help. In the course of this argument, clec catches a severe cold and is coughing up blood, but still spits out his objection to ilec's plans. Meanwhile cable is busy building his part of the sandbox in the area that ilec was looking to build his. While arguing with mother, cable has completed his expansion and is happily playing in the new areas without interference and using bully tactics to keep anyone else from entering his new areas. By the time ilec convinces mother that his plan is a good idea, it is too late because the area is already taken up by cable.

Ilec's plan is a good idea?

Ilec's plan is to build a bigger sandbox using the infrastructure and money his mother has grandfathered for him and charge everyone else an arm and a leg to walk through that sandbox to get to the playground (either go through the sandbox, or take a half hour to walk around the block to get to the low-speed access) because him and cable have a good working relationship (don't rock the boat baby)

If your idea of good competition is virtually no competition, then you must be enjoying that lobotomy.

What would be better is socialization of telecommunications. (big brother watching over their shoulder so to speak)

First thing madmark needs to do is actually read the bills pending before Congress and not make assumptions according to the media spin doctors. READ it and read it carefully, and study the language carefully, and you will understand why TD must fail and TA2001 must pass.
I don't have time to educate you on every section of the bill and its' idiosyncracies, nor do I have time to quote pertinent potions of TA1996 that are at issue here. Find them and READ them.
If TD passes then the RBOcs will **CLOSE** all ingress and egress to and from their network facilities to outsiders...TD *WILL* allow it. It totally contradicts every intention of TA1996. It is a tool of the ILECs to exploit loopholes (as they have been) and to circumvent the verdicts in cases they lost in reference to them having to open the facilities available under Pronto to competitors under the veil of "unbundling network elements", as stated in TA1996.
If you check the histories of these two fellas, Tauzen and Dingell, you will discover that they have a history of being "Pro-Bell". Do some research on them.
Is it a coincidence that Project Pronto wasn't conceived until after the TA1996 passed? No. It was designed to get a "leg up" on the new competition they were to face-a competition that never existed before. If TD passes, then it will nail the coffin lid shut on TA1996, thereby elimininating competition...why would they then continue Pronto? There is no reason to-there would be no more competition for Bell(s) to get that proverbial "leg up" on anymore, thereby nullifying the need to innovate.
Think back-when AT&T was still the monopolistic entity it was, before the breakup (pre-circa 1984), what real innovation did they spur? None that I remember. You could get a POTs line, and that's about it. And even that didn't work that well. Funny how how the innovation came after the breakup of the Bells and the competition that followed. Competition is what spurs innovation, not uncontrolled monopoly.

Passing T-D will not necessarily mean the ILECs will roll out to everyone and their dog like they say it could. As a matter of fact if their history has any merit to their intent, they won't roll out DSL to remote areas any faster than they are now.

Remember ILECs have been sitting on DSL technology for a very long time. Even if you consider time for testing and further research they still could have rolled out DSL years before it actually did. They didn't because they had no reason to. Residences were just getting into the Internet with dialup service (plus no broadband applications), businesses were paying thousands a month for T1 services. Why bring up a lower cost broadband alternative and lose potential profit?

It actually wasn't until well after the Telco Act in 1996 did DSL even spring out at all, and even then the Bells didn't do much with it. They didn't have to. They were getting some good money from CLECs and ISP's just to get the line provisioned. Then someone in the Bells decided to roll out their own DSL services at the same cost they charge for the line. Now we know that price, which was supposed to be wholesale, was actually a pretty nice markup from cost. So a lot of the CLECs had to compete and sell at below cost just to compete with Bell's line charges.

I will admit a LOT of CLECs made some really boneheaded decisions. Like when Covad was pushing out for more and more subscribers and a larger network than they can handle. Or when IP Communications promised it's partners they would not go into the DSL business as an ISP and ended up doing it, undercutting their own ISP customers. I also agree the 1996 Telco Act was not well written and I agree with your previous statement on how the Bells have no incentive to roll out Pronto. But the bottom line is the Tauzin-Dingel bill (I always snicker when I say that aloud) is by no means the way that will benefit consumers. Only the ILEC.

Nothing in the bill states they HAVE to roll out initiative like Pronto or anything similar. Nothing in the bill states they have to be competitive. All it does is release the ILEC from having to share their line. Everything else is just promises from the Bells on what they would do IF the bill passes. Sounds like extortion to me.

It is clear that this, once interesting discussion, is degenerating into a name-calling match. As such, I am removing myself from it as to not get dragged into a quagmire of personal attacks and nasty comments.

Good day gentlemen.

The CLECs need to find their own "sandbox". That's the problem. They act like phone lines are the only route to the home.
As far as government subsidizing the Bell's - Let's clarify.

Back when the American Telephone and Telegraph company started. They owned the patent to the telephone network. Enough said. Investors/customers funded deployment/growth. if you couldn't afford a telephone, you didn't have one. It became apparent that physically having two phone companies, power companies, gas companies, etc... would be a problem. These entities were granted monopoly rights. It was a sensible solution.

Years go by. Uncle Sam decides every community should have Electricity and Telephone service. Big cities did. They were profitable. Small towns / rural areas did not. There was no way to make a profit, therefore lines were not strung.
Then, we get programs such as the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority), REA (Rural Electrification Act), and the NRTCs (National Rural Telecommunications Co-op). Basically, Uncle Sam told companies if they built infrastructure, he would help pay for it. Furthermore, he would make it legal for these companies to tax the city slickers to help pay too. It still works this way. If you live in the City, you are paying for Cousin Jethro's dialtone. Even if his dialtone comes from a non-bell (mom & pop or co-op), you pay for it.
That's how the government has funded the Telcos. They have funded miles and miles of unprofitable (rural) cabling.
That's why CLECs don't want to put up their own facilities. They only want to deal with big and mid-size business customers (money) and not residential.
So, stating that the gov. has subsidized telcos is a little misleading.

[text was edited by author 2001-09-04 17:55:18]

What names did I call you? I only suggested that you should familiarize yourself with the language of these bills before you make comments. If you got your feelings hurt, or could not think of a way to retort, then I'm sorry. However, facts are facts. T-D must fail, and when you read it, you shall see why.
As was stated in another message here, feelings are strong, and the people in the know or really in the Broadband industry are likely to have the strongest feelings about it.

quote:

---

If you check the histories of these two fellas, Tauzen and Dingell, you will discover that they have a history of being "Pro-Bell". Do some research on them.

---

This only makes sense if the reader is TOTALLY against the Bell's in EVERY WAY.

If you look at the history of Tauzin and Dingell they have a history of being "Pro-Bell"?? What does that mean? If you look at the history of all the Republican members of congress, you will find a history of being "Pro-Business".... So WHAT???

If you don't have DSL and want it, don't argue against T-D. Without it, the Bell's have no incentive to deploy- no matter how cheap you or anyone else thinks it is to deploy- it will only happen if it can be done profitably- and NO ONE here at DSLR is to be the judge of that, the business owners and management are the judges of that.... and here's a hint: They don't CARE whether you agree or not.

If you don't have DSL and want it, either shut up, open up a CLEC and offer it, or move! If you don't like it, then do something!!!!

Boogie74

As I posted elsewhere in this topic, this notion that cable companies are sneaking up to everyone's house at night and plugging them into cable broadband while the ILECs are preoccupied killing off the CLECs is just a bunch of bull! With a total lack of broadband in my area, it is far l more likely that Verizon will finish it's murderous CLEC spree and get me connected before (the flavor of the month) cable company does.

Ahhh, Spoken like a true DSL subscriber. Sad...very sad....

I know you said you were done with this, but maybe you'll indulge me once more.
I don't understand why folks think Bell companies will have absolutely no incentive to expand if they're not allowed long-distance coverage.
Look, the bell's make money on every CLEC DSL install. They get CO cage fees and line rental fees, and they don't have to do as much maintenance as they do with their own DSL offerings. In fact, perhaps surprising the bells don't ditch DSL totally and just resell their lines/cages!
So the motivation to expand IS there- they'll make up their costs through rentals to CLEC's...right?
Or where is my thinking flawed?
KM

Your thinking is flawed in the profit margin aspect. CLECs pay a line rental/cage rental fee determined by the federal government and not fair market value. The rental fee prescribed by the government does not take into account the costs of maintaining outside plant (infrastructure), or the elaborate costs and work that go into conditioning many pairs for DSL service. For example: In the state where I work, a CLEC will pay $900 to have a pair conditioned for DSL service. This is a flat rate. So, they may only be getting one bridged tap removed and the pair tested. Not fair to the CLEC.
But more often (I estimate 75%) they want three load coils removed, a build out capacitor removed, two bridged taps removed under lead sleeves, and the pair cut dead to the field. We're talking seven different work locations for one pair. Each operation taking two hrs (minimum) for a two man crew. Not fair to the ILEC.
The only way to make it fair is bill CLECs for each step completed; a fee-for-service if you will. Better yet, the CLECs need to get it in gear and find their own path to the home.
Fixed Wireless? Cable TV? Satellite? Their own wires? Telephone lines (at market prices)?
The monopoly argument has been killed by technology and should be considered a moot point.

The monopoly argument is valid. Let's do some math using your theoretics:
7 locations X 2 man crew at $20.00/hr. each (2 hr. at each point)= $560.00. And this is using the figures you supplied. ILEC is charging $900.00 flat. Difference=profit of $340.00. And, I can tell you from experience working for CLECs in Engineering and Provisioning, that 85% of a CLEC's ordered lines are UNCONDITIONED.
Throw in the "co-op testing fee" of $300.00, and the ILEC profit goes to $640.00. So, the whole "market value" argument you are trying to perpetrate is moot.
SDSL can withstand bridged taps and multiple load coils, as long as there are not too many inline, and ADSL will not tolerate load coils or bridge taps, so they must be removed in that case, but ADSL is deployed far less by CLECs than ADSL, hence the disparity between actual conditioned lines and unconditioned lines.
The ILECS clearly make money on the provisioning of lines. No question. Throw in monthly recurring charges for the line, recurring charges for the equipment presence in the CO cage (about $10,000. a month), along with the initial non-recurring charge ILECs initially charge to allow a buildout in a CO, (around $36,000.), and it is easy to see how the ILECs still make money. It is clear.
That argument doesn't wash.

2 men x $38/hr (benefits)= $76/hr
Truck/Generator Gasoline/Diesel/Propane
Tools, test equipment
2hrs (MINIMUM) per location
Travel time
Lost time on expansion jobs due to demand work
Grand total
Way over $900
SDSL cannot work over loads or capacitors. No DSL in deployment at this time can work over loads.

Edit: I left out materials. Avg $100-$400/job. Can be in excess of $2000 per job. For instance one "2 type" pressurized splice closure can cost from $200 to $1000. That does not includes tapes, sealants and endplates. Also a source of dry nitrogen to buffer the cables. That runs about $40 per tank. It goes on and on.
[text was edited by author 2001-09-05 21:38:57]

Monopoly - exclusive control of a commodity or service that makes possible the manipulation of prices - the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.
Taken from Websters

My trash service, sewer, water, gas, and electric services are "monopolies". They are out of necessity. By definition, they are not monopolies either due to the regulation of prices and services.
The cable co. is not, I have satellite. My telephone co. is not. My cellular co. is not. Why ? I can pick who I want. None of these companies has exclusive control on the delivery or provider of these services. They are also regulated. The phone and cable company do not hold the only means of transport to the end user. CLECs are unwilling to invest in and pursue other viable modes of transport. Why invest in new technology, when you can rape the existing infrastructure at little or no cost to yourself, while reaping all of the rewards?
The government needs to back off and let natural selection take over. When CLECs are finally cut off from the telephone network, I'm sure they will find a way to get services to customers without depending on the handouts of the government.
The monopoly theory no longer holds water.

Lost time on expansion jobs due to "demand work"? OK.
CLECS are to pay for rentals on the trucks, generators, tools, pay for the dry nitrogen, supplies, etc.? Ludicrous.
First, as pointed out, this is for line conditioning, which is only necessary 15% of the time. 85% of lines ordered by CLECs for data services are ordered unconditioned.
DSL offerings (ADSL, SDSL, IDSL) will tolerate load coils as long as they don't exceed a certain number of them, and will tolerate a couple of bridged taps provided that they don't exceed a certain distance of tap.
That is why line conditioning is not generally required.
Conditioning is only requested if and when installation to the customer is difficult and can be determined that any of these conditions exist in excess to the degree that service is degraded. CLEC technicians have the ability to test for voltages, bridged taps, load coils by number, etc. that would materially affect the quality of the line. At that time these vendor meets would be requested, which incidentally, the ILECs wouldnt show up for 50% of the time.
Point of interest-
If such a meet for testing or repair is requested, the ILEC charges $300 for the roll. Period. If for some reason the CLEC doesnt show for the VM then the CLEC is still charged the $300, and additionally charged for not showing up.
On the other hand, if the VM is scheduled and the ILEC doesnt show up, the CLEC is still charged the $300. There is no recourse for the CLEC to recoup the charge, or levy "penalties" as the ILECs do, but the CLEC is just forced to reschedule the VM and hope the ILEC tech shows up next time, all the while leaving the customer uninstalled because of it.
It is common for the ILEC to only show up 50% (or less) of the time. Probably deliberately, for the most part.
So don't be crying about "lost time", etc., because everyone's time is money, jack.
Keep in mind that a CLEC is a customer at the same time that it is a competitor, and we all have a job to do.
It's a weird relationship, true, but a customer-provider relationship, nonetheless. And the ILEC's behavior where the CLECs are concerned are anticompetitive as well as unprofessional, and demonstrates poor customer service to boot.

Speaking of handouts from the government....
As was pointed out before, the existing telephone infrastructure was mandated by government edict, and financed by Uncle Sam as well. So the ILECs have rights to depending on Uncie Sam to subsidize them but CLECs have no right to the SAME government allowing said access to the networks, at a fair exchange to the Incumbents carriers? That's ridiculous.
The CLECs have undertaken massive deployments WITHOUT the same handouts from the government in which you speak of.
AT&T had the luxury of having TAX money pay for the bulk of their infrastructure. The CLECs have used *private investment* to fund their deployments, which is something ATT didn't.
CLECs have also invested in alternative technologies as well as DSL. DSL only represents a small portion of the overall broadband space.
Also, keep in mind that a provider wouldn't have to be a "CLEC" at all under current provisions, if they don't utilize "Incumbent Carrier's" infrastructure.
Local Exchange means that a carrier can provide dial tone and data services. Caprock was a local tone provider, for example. A Competitive "Local Exchange" Carrier, meaning that they could utilize the copper loop to the customer previously only serviced by the Incumbent carrier.
The same deregulation is occurring in the power industry. You can now get electrical service from different providers even though the same power lines to the home or business are utilized. Is that a bad thing too? Maybe if you live in Cali, but that's mainly because they went about deregulation the wrong way.
I would like to point out that you could arrange for someone else to pick up your trash. You can order your power from different providers. You can get your cable TV or modem and cellular phone from different providers. But local phone service? Not. A year ago, yes, when companies that were local service providers (like Caprock) still existed, but they have been driven out of biz by the LECS using the same tactics used to drive the the DLECs out of business.
So, yes, Incumbent Service is still a monopoly. The RBOCs and ILECs are still in control of the telecom infrastructure and have the ability to control the marketplace, and that constitutes monopoly. To strengthen this strangehold, bills such as the Pro-Bell Tauzin-Dingell Bill (HR 1542) were introduced, with the sole intention of uprooting the provisions of the very TA1996 that made competition in the Telecom marketplace possible, so that the strangehold can continue. Monopoly.
The RBOCs can be compared to DeBeers with one distinct difference- DeBeers cannot operate legally in the U.S. because they violate antitrust laws. That's why they stay in South Africa. AT&T was broken up because they violated the same antitrust laws. But the monopoly remained.
Without competition the monopoly will continue, and competition is good for technology. It's the only way consumers have a choice. If the RBOC is the only choice for consumers, then that's not choice at all. It's monopoly.

I will politely disagree with just about every point in your last post. I can only refer back my previous posts for counterpoints; and I will not rehash them. We will have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the lively debate.