 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  Oops...
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
 | 
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| Re: Oops... That's a fallacy. The last mile isn't cheap. And today it is impossible to get the rights of way, easements and funding necessary to build a new network from scratch.
The ILECs are sitting on a taxpayer subsidized network goldmine, which should be owned by the taxpayers, not a monopolistic, anti-consumer entity.
The physical plant should be owned by a separate company that leases infrastructure wholesale to carriers, who then service the end consumers.
Either that or the infrastructure should be owned by municipalities.
The least desirable situation is the one we have now, where one large corporation owns the physical link to all the consumers in a geographic area, and holds consumers and governments hostage...and threatens to take its toys and go home if it doesn't get its way.
At the very least ILECs should be required to share the last mile infrastructure like they have been since 1997, including their new fiber. | |
|
| |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| Re: Oops... said by kapil  :That's a fallacy. The last mile isn't cheap. And today it is impossible to get the rights of way, easements and funding necessary to build a new network from scratch. The cable companies were able to do it, and they started from nothing. Why can't CLECs do the same?
said by kapil :The ILECs are sitting on a taxpayer subsidized network goldmine, which should be owned by the taxpayers, not a monopolistic, anti-consumer entity. Well, they aren't, and it isn't. CLECs can dream of an ideal reality, but that won't change the fact that if they want to continue existing, they will need to grow up and make their own capital investments.
said by kapil :At the very least ILECs should be required to share the last mile infrastructure like they have been since 1997, including their new fiber. Yawn... we already saw what happened with DSL deployments under this constraint. That is, there weren't any outside of what customers could be reached with a direct copper line to the CO. The only reason Verizon invested in FIOS was because they would not be compelled to share it with anyone else. If you want to stop fiber deployment dead in its tracks, go ahead and require that any private investment be shared.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | |
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
1 edit | Re: Oops... Cable did it the hard way, city by city, township by township...with local franchise agreements...which the ILECs have been busy dismantling.
In today's world, there is not enough capital - political or the green kind - for the CLECs to build a new network. Not to mention, it's an overkill...the facilities are already in the ground, why tear up the roads again?
What we saw was a travesty, and a rape of justice and fairness and equality.
The CLECs had a viable business model and the 1997 law gave them a way to make it reality. The ILECs stalled orders, refused to rectify problems and respond to trouble tickets, placed blame everywhere but where it squarely belonged. The little guy was mauled by the army of lawyers hired by the bullies.
I can't count the number of times I had a problem or a delay with my Northpoint, Rhythms or Covad DSL in 1999-2000, and everyone, even the homeless guy that slept outside my apartment building, knew the problem was ILEC related....yet the ILEC would never fix it. But amazingly, there were always there to offer their own product...which would never experience any of those loop related problems.
Oh...and Verizon didn't lay down fiber because it wanted to. It did it because the trifecta of cable , CLECs and wireless would have eaten it alive if it didn't. | |
|
| | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Oops... said by kapil :Cable did it the hard way, city by city, township by township...with local franchise agreements...which the ILECs have been busy dismantling. Who cares how cable did it? They just did it. And even if ILECs are getting statewide franchises there is nothing stopping a CLEC from getting a local franchise if it so desires.
said by kapil :In today's world, there is not enough capital - political or the green kind - for the CLECs to build a new network. Every successful and innovative business out there eschewed this sort of mentality.
said by kapil : Not to mention, it's an overkill...the facilities are already in the ground, why tear up the roads again? There's nothing stopping CLECs from negotiating with whoever owns the infrastructure a deal which would allow the CLEC to purchase it.
said by kapil :What we saw was a travesty, and a rape of justice and fairness and equality. Who ever said life was fair?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | | | | Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
| Re: Oops... said by pnh102 :Who cares how cable did it? I do, when it means that I'd have to wait a quarter of a century before any service came to my area. That's how long it took for my home town to get cable. Do you really think that anyone is going to wait that long to get phone service?  | |
|
| | | | 
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
| said by kapil :Cable did it the hard way, city by city, township by township...with local franchise agreements...which the ILECs have been busy dismantling. CLEC's can do that also. ATT is not the only company that can push for franchise agreements you know!
said by kapil :In today's world, there is not enough capital - political or the green kind - for the CLECs to build a new network. I disagree. Believe it or not, there are still investors and financial organizations worth BILLIONS who are looking to fund companies. Look at Clearwire, they raised over $1B last year. »www.clearwire.com/company/news/09_06_06.php
said by kapil :Not to mention, it's an overkill...the facilities are already in the ground, why tear up the roads again? Now I happen to agree with that statement! Savvy investors/CLEC's should consider purchasing the old plant. As long as they are willing to pay more for it than it costs to dismantle and remove I dont see why Verizon wouldnt sell it. In fact, that could be a huge opportunity for some of the CLEC's who are looking to build out their networks.
--
я люблю Денди! | |
|
| | | | |
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| Re: Oops... said by wifi4milez :Savvy investors/CLEC's should consider purchasing the old plant. As long as they are willing to pay more for it than it costs to dismantle and remove I dont see why Verizon wouldnt sell it. In fact, that could be a huge opportunity for some of the CLEC's who are looking to build out their networks. The actuall copper isn't the issue, as expensive as copper, the metal, is.
The real expense, and hassle, is in obtaining rights of way and easements...and dealing with a million municipalities to obtain permits to dig up the pavement to bury more cable or replace aging cable.
Why would an ILEC sell what is its true hidden asset - and one that cannot be replicated?
The ILECs were given a blank check in the way of a monopoly in exchange for their promise to wire America. Now they're hanging us with that same wire.
CLECs cannot replicate the ILEC model because they have to compete....the ILECs didn't have to, and they've gotten a little too used to that. | |
|
| | | | | |
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| Re: Oops... said by kapil :said by wifi4milez :Savvy investors/CLEC's should consider purchasing the old plant. As long as they are willing to pay more for it than it costs to dismantle and remove I dont see why Verizon wouldnt sell it. In fact, that could be a huge opportunity for some of the CLEC's who are looking to build out their networks. The actuall copper isn't the issue, as expensive as copper, the metal, is. The real expense, and hassle, is in obtaining rights of way and easements...and dealing with a million municipalities to obtain permits to dig up the pavement to bury more cable or replace aging cable. Again, how do you know this is the case? If Verizon were to sell the plant then it already "comes" with the Rights Of Way. The purchaser would not need to get new permits because they were already issued. That would be the benefit of buying previously established plant as opposed to trying to build a "new" network; all the work is already done.
--
я люблю Денди! | |
|
| | | | | shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA | Wireless and BroadbandoverPowerlines are the last frontiers... I hope to see wimax and the power companies offering services next. | |
|
| | | | Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
| Rhythms, now there was a class act! Rhythms always gave me uninterrupted, rock-solid service. And when DirecTV, who had acquired my DSL ISP, decided to pull the plug, it was a Rhythms guy who called me up on the phone to warn me a month in advance. DirecTV gave me no notice at all, except for a postcard that was mailed two days before the scheduled disconnection date, and two days after my line went down. Then they continued to bill me for service that they no longer provided to anyone! | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
| Re: Oops... said by batterup :CLECs can not be permitted to leech. CATV does not have a leech problem. So all of that cable TV equipment that I see hanging from telephone poles is imaginary? | |
|
| | | | | | 
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Oops... said by Time4aNAP :said by batterup :CLECs can not be permitted to leech. CATV does not have a leech problem. So all of that cable TV equipment that I see hanging from telephone poles is imaginary? CATV placed the equipment and do not have to let third parties use it. They don't leech telephone plant. CLEC can do the same thing. | |
|
| | | | | | | Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
| Re: Oops... said by batterup :CATV placed the equipment and do not have to let third parties use it. They don't leech telephone plant. CLEC can do the same thing. So you're claiming that telephone poles have nothing whatsoever to do with telephone companies?
So tell me, how did those telephone poles get there? And if they're free for all, as you imply, how come I would get arrested if I decided to string up my own wires on these poles? | |
|
| | | | | | | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Oops... said by Time4aNAP :said by batterup :CATV placed the equipment and do not have to let third parties use it. They don't leech telephone plant. CLEC can do the same thing. So you're claiming that telephone poles have nothing whatsoever to do with telephone companies? So tell me, how did those telephone poles get there? And if they're free for all, as you imply, how come I would get arrested if I decided to string up my own wires on these poles? Some poles belong to Electric Companies. CATV pays a fee to the owner of the pole to use it. The right of way belongs to the government and they get a tax for its use. CATV uses the poles so can you. Apply for the permits and show them how it is done.
quote:
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 guarantees municipalities the power to manage their public rights-of-way. This includes the ability to charge private telecommunications providers fair and reasonable fees when they use the space above and below public streets and sidewalks to convey services to their customers.
| |
|
| | | | | | | | | Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
| Re: Oops... What is "Electric Companies"? I've never heard of such a name, that proper noun. I ask again, who owns the poles? Are telephone poles carrying telephone lines owned by telephone companies, or not? And if not, why are they called telephone poles?
I couldn't find any listings in the phone book for "the government" either. Precisely which office of which government are you referring to?
As for the constant repetition of the anonymous "1996" quote, my calendar says that it's now 2007. What happened between 1996 and 2000 to keep all CLECs out of my area? Why did they disappear in 2004? Clearly this "guarantee" isn't worth the paper it was written on! | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Oops... said by Time4aNAP :What is "Electric Companies"? I've never heard of such a name, that proper noun. An electric company makes and delivers electricity. Can you say electricity? Sure you can. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
| Re: Oops... I know what electrical power generation and distribution companies do. But you wrote "Electric Companies" as a proper noun, saying that there is some entity called "Electric Companies". There isn't.
As someone who has yet to master 4th grade spelling, you're not in a very good position to mock others. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Oops... said by Time4aNAP :I know what electrical power generation and distribution companies do. But you wrote "Electric Companies" as a proper noun, saying that there is some entity called "Electric Companies". There isn't. As someone who has yet to master 4th grade spelling, you're not in a very good position to mock others. Criticizing spelling is the last refuge of one that has been owned. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA | My town owns the poles I believe. Not the telephone company. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 
PaulHikeS2
join:2003-03-06
Merrimack, NH
·Comcast
| I find it rather amazing in this day and age that someone doesn't understand that the term "telephone poles" is in the common vernacular and is synonymous with the term "utility poles" and aren't necessarily owned by telephone companies, regardless of what one may call them. That would be like someone thinking a "stop light" only had one red light, as opposed to a traffic light which has red, yellow, and green.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? | |
|
| | | | | | | | whsftbldad
join:2007-02-07
Lakewood, CA
| Those telephone poles that you are describing are not telephone poles, at least not for the last 30 or 40 years. They are UTILITY poles. Have you noticed the electrical that is strung from them also? This is also why we have what is called a PUC (public utilities commission). You would be arrested for climbing only because it can be a danger to yourself since even telephone carries voltage, not to mention the electrical. That is why the foot pegs on the poles are usually out of reach of anyone without a ladder. Telephone itself carries 48v on hook (not being used), and 122v off hook (while you are using it). | |
|
| | | | JohnA
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Pittsburgh, PA
|
If you're working from memory, then your memory is poor. The cable plant was built by hundreds of small start up companies. Out of nothing more than financial necessity, the loans and supplier credits that were necessary, they had to have a franchise agreement in hand, first. They just picked a willing suburban township, got an agreement, and built the plant. Move to the next town that would give them a franchise agreement and build the plant. Eventually the existing income would cover the next town's plant. They went franchise by franchise out of financial necessity, not because that is the right way to do it. Now you have a company with the resources to build the plant out of pocket, and you think they should be saddled with town by town franchise negotiations.
The cable plant for the most part was built with no PEGs, where politicians got their face time, and administrators got to extort: people, equipment, free service, and anything else that was on their wish list from a TV supplier. Had the cable companies not had a monopoly position, none of that low use system would exist today. They just couldn't have cared less when it came along, since they got to pass on all the costs to subscribers.
There's no point, or justification, to force the phone companies to submit to lengthy and costly negotiations to acquire TV franchises. They are not unwilling to submit to the conditions and fees that exist. They do however resist the extorting of things not related to the franchise. That's the sticking point. It's, as usual with government, all about putting money into someone's local fifedom.
When the phone system was built, and acquired enough size, the Feds and states laid taxes on the system left and right. That's why everyone thinks POTS prices are outrageous. When cable wanted to do phone, congress bent, broke, or changed the rules. But that was for cable to do digital phone, with all the same fees, taxes and regulations that the phone companies were subject to. Now they've been thrown a curve with VOIP. So the Feds have taken a position of sitting on the states when they try to regulate it. They need to let it grow to more widespread use, before they can add equivalent taxes to it to cover what they're losing from all the disconnected POTS lines. Enjoy the free ride with voip, till they start laying on the taxes. Won't be all that long. And if the towns keep slowing down the phone companies deployments .... you'll see a national TV franchise come out of nowhere overnight, since voip requires a strong, reliable data connection. That's their only concern about national broadband, is the taxes they can collect, when voip and e-commerce reach critical mass to support new taxes. | |
|
| | | 
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| said by pnh102 :If you want to stop fiber deployment dead in its tracks, go ahead and require that any private investment be shared. Shared?
You mean sold or leased at a profit I think.
Or are you trying to make a vague suggestion that CLECs just get the loop for free or at some insane discount? | |
|
| | | | Tikker_LoS
join:2004-04-29
Regina, SK | Re: Oops... of course they get it at a discount
if it wasn't cheaper to lease than build your own, no one would do it | |
|
| | | | | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: Oops... said by Tikker_LoS :of course they get it at a discount if it wasn't cheaper to lease than build your own, no one would do it Umm... If it wasn't more cost effective to build then lease to others, why would there be any ownership of anything? In general terms, you're not going to incur the expense of buying/building if you can't make a profit on the lease.
--
Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
| Re: Oops... said by batterup :They get it at an insane discount. I can't argue with that. It is insane to call full price a discount! | |
|
| | | | |
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| said by batterup :said by sporkme :Or are you trying to make a vague suggestion that CLECs just get the loop for free or at some insane discount? They get it at an insane discount. Nah, look up the tariffs for a bare loop, a shared-line loop, and a T1 loop.
Then look at what a rack costs in the CO, and for a real hoot, check out how much they charge for electricity there. | |
|
| | | | | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Oops... said by sporkme :Then look at what a rack costs in the CO, and for a real hoot, check out how much they charge for electricity there. Somebody has to pay for Three Mile Island.
Ma Bell is dead and her children are playing good ol' country hard ball. This is all 128 pages that explain it all courtesy of your FCC.
»www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.pdf | |
|
| | | 
Audiosug
@sbcglobal.net
| said by pnh102 :said by kapil :That's a fallacy. The last mile isn't cheap. And today it is impossible to get the rights of way, easements and funding necessary to build a new network from scratch. The cable companies were able to do it, and they started from nothing. Why can't CLECs do the same? said by kapil :The ILECs are sitting on a taxpayer subsidized network goldmine, which should be owned by the taxpayers, not a monopolistic, anti-consumer entity. Well, they aren't, and it isn't. CLECs can dream of an ideal reality, but that won't change the fact that if they want to continue existing, they will need to grow up and make their own capital investments. said by kapil :At the very least ILECs should be required to share the last mile infrastructure like they have been since 1997, including their new fiber. Yawn... we already saw what happened with DSL deployments under this constraint. That is, there weren't any outside of what customers could be reached with a direct copper line to the CO. The only reason Verizon invested in FIOS was because they would not be compelled to share it with anyone else. If you want to stop fiber deployment dead in its tracks, go ahead and require that any private investment be shared. The hardest part is where cities limit the amount of public utility wiring so line and pole sharing is key.
That was undone by the FCC ruling that said if there is 50% fiber in a CO CLECs are not allowed to share lines but FCC has no control over local utility Pole zoning so here is the paradox.
Most of my Clients whom have there own network will lease( if the line was in use prior to starting service with them) or string a new line to you depending on the local zoning laws.
There are places in the Detroit area that CableCos cannot provide certain services because of Condo, apartment and development owner rules about rights of way so it is not an even playing field. THE NEW AT&T can and is out in these areas and stringing lines and project light speed at will with not impediments. | |
|
| | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Cable also did it with no competition. Who did they have to compete with during their installation AND they received "incentives" as well?
They only had to compete with 6' sat dishes that cost lots and OTA reception. There were no monopolistic competitors already established blocking their way which is the #1 reason CLEC's won't ever be able to truly compete in a major way. | |
|
| | | Taget
join:2004-07-29
| quote:
The cable companies were able to do it, and they started from nothing. Why can't CLECs do the same.
That was back a long time ago and is near impossible now. Witness the example of RCN. They tried to piggyback on the construction done by gas companies to get houses. States at the cable companies requests enacted all kinds of regulations to either make it impossible or cost prohibitive. Which is why they have mostly stopped expanding into new areas and really with just a few exceptions hardly anyone now tries to build a wired plant. From a regulatory sense it is near impossible. | |
|
| | | | 
PGHammer
join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Oops... Horsepuckey. They didn't just partner with natural-gas utilities. Here in the Washington, DC area, RCN's partner was the dominant electrical utility (Potomac Electric and Power Company); by dominant, they covered *all* of Washington, DC and most of the Maryland suburbs (and even parts of northern Virginia), and they *still* failed to expand beyond parts of DC and Montgomery County. At the time, Comcast had *zero* presence in DC itself (cable-TV service was under ATTBI), and they were finishing the acquisition of Jones Intercable's systems in the area. However, overbuilders in general (not just RCN) have had their share of issues (in fact, other than WideOpenWest, I don't know of any overbuilder that has been even remotely successful). | |
|
| | |
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| "The cable companies were able to do it, and they started from nothing. Why can't CLECs do the same?"
It seems to me there is a very profound difference.
Cable didn't lay coax trying to compete with incumbent bell communications providers. They laid coax for a video distribution system and their only competition, at the time, was OTA free broadcast television. This is an important distinction. If coax had been laid for the purpose of competing with entrenched ilec data and voice communications services it is highly unlikely that cable would have survived and been able to build out the infrastructure it did. It wasn't entering an already established market. It was creating a new market of for-pay wireline video.
The data communications and broadband stuff only came later, well after cable had built out a national coax infrastructure that it could then leverage into these new service areas.
With proper spectrum reform a wireless infrastructure might have some hope of developing, but there is little hope that there could be a third wireline infrastructure developed from scratch. Certainly no clec is going to build a redundant fiber data network alongside ATT/verizon. The only hope of something along these lines might be electricity providers leveraging their networks for bpl development. | |
|
| | myokitis
join:2004-06-19
Alexandria, VA
| What about the Cable Cos? Keep in mind the twisted pair / glass cable is only one way to get in the house. Remember the cable companies have stolen a substantial number of customers from the telcos through the coax pipe. Futhermore, many customers opt to 'cut the cord' and go completely wireless for voice service. Plus, WiMax or other wireless broadband access technologies are (supposedly) on the horizon.
Given this competitive & technological environment it makes no sense for the govt to own all twisted pair plant. Unless, of course, you want them to own all cable & airwaves as well. | |
|
| | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Oops... I have mixed opinions on this...
I think that for a true open market, the last mile should be regulated, as it has been paid for by tax payers.
I think that if ILEC does not want to support the last mile of copper, then they should be able to 'give' it up to a CLEC that will support it.
I don't like the current corporate welfare/politics that have been going on (i.e. give me what I want, or forget broadband, and nobody else can deploy either). | |
|
| | | myokitis
join:2004-06-19
Alexandria, VA
| Taxpayer Funding of Outside Plant I don't get this perception that "taxpayers" paid for the outside plant . . . RATEPAYERS paid for it. Customers paying a private corporation for services rendered paid for it. Not the govt through debt or taxes.
While a govt-sanctioned monopoly did exist for many of these years the local telcos still paid for it themselves from the revenue they received. This was hardly a 'gift' from the govt since the telcos were (and still are) regulated entities, and for many years were regulated under rate of return regulations that restricted what they could charge for their services. | |
|
| | | | Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
| Re: Taxpayer Funding of Outside Plant said by myokitis :I don't get this perception that "taxpayers" paid for the outside plant... I'll try to write slow, so you can keep up.
Governments need money in order to operate. Governments get that money through taxes, bonds and other financial instruments. Therefore taxpayers fund governments. With me so far?
When governments exercise their power of eminent domain, and take land away from a tax-paying citizen, and give it to a monopoly business, the taxpayer loses something of value--the land. And the taxpayer pays the government money so that it can operate, so it can take their land. Still with me?
Now, when the government, which the taxpayer pays taxes to, and has sacrificed other items of value (land) to, turns around and gives this land to a monopoly, then the taxpayer has paid for the single most expensive part of that monopoly's physical plant--the land. No land, no telephone poles. No land, no buried cables. No land, no phone service. Get it? | |
|
| | | | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Taxpayer Funding of Outside Plant said by Time4aNAP :said by myokitis :I don't get this perception that "taxpayers" paid for the outside plant... I'll try to write slow, so you can keep up. See above post. | |
|
| | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Oops... said by en102 :I think that for a true open market, the last mile should be regulated, as it has been paid for by tax payers. TeleTruth lies. TeleTruth and CLEC build and contribute nothing. The entire network was regulated and and the people bitched. Ma Bell is dead and yet the people bitch. | |
|
| | Canezoid
join:2001-02-16
Powder Springs, GA
·Comcast
1 edit | Um, excuse me, but that's what "free enterprise" is all about. As with any company, they have the right here is this country to realize a profit. Monopoly, in telecom?? PlEEEEEEEAZE.
As per what a previous poster stated to you, if they want a piece, let um build it themselves. | |
|
| | |
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| Re: Oops... Perhaps it would help if you actually read up on communism and capitalism before speaking, or typing.
Free enterprise is hardly what our large corporations engage in, least of all the ILECs.
Here's what they did. They lied and cheated and deliberately sabotaged CLEC circuits. When CLEC customers got upset, the ILEC showed up at the door with their own below-cost alternative, thereby assuring the death of the CLECs.
The whole time they were engaging in this highly egregious and unethical behavior, the ILECs were crying, and are to this day, about how regulators have caused them to lose money...never mind that their SEC filings were showing record profits.
Once they effectively eliminated CLEC competition, they set out to reacquire monopoly status by holding States and consumers by the short-and-curlies and demanding that all oversight be given up if the nation is to have any semblance of an advanced communications network.
The worst part is this. The regulators bought this bullshit. Completely ignoring the fact that the ILECs were trying to save their own skin, not helping the consumer. If the ILECs didn't get what they wanted, it wasn't going to be the consumer that suffered, but it would have been the ILECs who would have met their long overdue demise.
Thanks to the free market whose virtues you all extoll, some other enterprise would have stepped in, swept aside the ILEC ashes and supplied services to fulfill any demand created by the consumers. | |
|
| | | | |
| | 
Technogeez
Gone but not forgetting
Premium
join:2007-01-20 | What, are you channeling judge greene???
--
Have I mentioned I'm connected on FiOS? | |
|
| | |
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| Re: Oops... said by Technogeez :What, are you channeling judge greene??? LOL. May he rest in peace. Aside from the obvious, we may also owe to him the open source software revolution and *NIX. | |
|
| | |
| | ashworth
join:2001-10-06
Pittsburgh, PA
·Verizon Online DSL
| This is true for the old copper networks (subsidized by taxpayers), but the tax payers didn't pay for the new fiber networks, which was paid for by the stockholders of the companies spending billions dollars....Companies investing money need to reap the rewards and not let other providers like you suggest ride the coat tails of a company's hard work. | |
|
| | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Oops... said by ashworth :This is true for the old copper networks (subsidized by taxpayers), Totally false B.S. Post your source, TeleTruth doesn't count as they are lying CLEC stooges. | |
|
|
unknown
@verizon.net
| said by pnh102 :Next time, invest in your own network! Then you won't have this problem! Ok, smart **s. How do I (an end user) do that?
There is so oh so many ISPs that will serve my area. | |
|
| | 
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Re: Oops... With strings and tin cans, duh | |
|
| |
| 
BIGMIKE
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Westminster, CA | Base Metals Chart Images in $US Dollars per pound.
--
Type "miserable failure" in Google | |
|
| | Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | Re: Oops... Hey! It looks like someone just unloaded a whole lot of Cu. I wonder who... | |
|
MarkyD
Premium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| it is their cable Why would they spend the money to maintain an obsolete copper plant? I don't blame them. Aren't they allowing competitors to strike contracts to offer service over the FTTH?
--
-Put this in your profile if you know someone who is fighting, has survived, or died from ninja attacks. | |
|
|
See 21 replies to this post |
|
Yauch
join:2005-06-24 | Of Course Not said by Karl :
But would FiOS customers really want to downgrade?
Of course not, and as we've echoed many times before: 'Less choice is always in the consumers best interest' | |
|
|
See 24 replies to this post |
|
jabetcha
join:2003-02-13
Lake Mary, FL | The copper is still in the ground Verizon leaves it there in case, for some reason, another provider wishes to use it. | |
|
|
See 13 replies to this post |
|
alt_p
join:2007-03-07
Argyle, TX | Left ours in We got it installed, they didn't dig up the old copper, nor did they even pull the old GTE box off the wall. They just ran the fiber and mounted the ONT next to the old copper box. I've heard of people saying that Verizon will pull the copper out. | |
|
| 
jsimmons
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-24
Falls Church, VA
| Re: Left ours in A friend of mine, previously on Verizon DSL and phone service, switched to FIOS. When the FIOS cable was strung to the house, I watched them remove the old twisted pair copper hanging between the pole and the house.
--
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler."- Albert Einstein | |
|
| | 
SteveCon
IBEW 2222 Boston, MA
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Burlington, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Left ours in By leaving the old copper plant available for concurrent or future use, the potential cost for repairs and maintenance doubles. This is NOT what the ILEC wants.
Remember, since the CLEC doesn't own the final mile, it cannot touch it. The ILEC does ALL maintenance - included in a monthly fee determined by politicians - not by the ILEC. The politician doesn't care about the difference in costs for maintaining a plant that is 6 mos old vs. one that is 10 YEARS old.
No one should be forced to make a their product / service available to their competition at a loss. | |
|
| | |
jsimmons
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-24
Falls Church, VA
1 edit | Re: Left ours in True... And I believe thats exactly what the Telecomm Act of 1996 did... Force the ILECS to share access to their "last mile" copper with the CLECS to create more competition. For a while I even had COVAD DSL service over a Verizon-owned twisted pair to my house that COVAD leased from Verizon. LOL - Verizon didn't even offer DSL to my address while COVAD did. So there was clearly benefit to the "customer" (me) for this arrangement. I've long since abandoned ILEC twisted pair in favor of cable for all telecom services (Verizon still does not offer FIOS at my address). While I still have copper, its all "dark" now.
I guess the Telecomm Act didn't preclude ILECS from replacing the old copper with new technology and didn't force ILECS to grant equal access to that new technology. I honestly can't blame Verizon for moving forward.
--
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler."
- Albert Einstein
| |
|
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
2 edits | Go to the FiOS forum You'll find plenty of people who were looking to get copper back.
While the gov't is worried about satellite radio mergers, this move by Verizon is a real anticompetitive measure needing gov't action. There is no reason people shouldn't be keeping copper POTS by default.
There are some people in my FiOS neighborhood that aren't happy with FiOS (most over price; they don't need the speed) and they would rather have a $15 DSL promo from DSLX or the like but can't get back to copper without huge effort fighting Verizon. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
jeffro1957
join:2007-05-11
| yes to the 2nd question I have FiOS TV from VZ in Richmond (VA) and kept my Cavalier Telephone DSL and phone service (for now) I have my reasons for doing that (don't need the speed, I get to keep my static IP, it's cheaper that way, etc.)
The TV is great by the way, much better than Comcast! who I am glad to be rid of.... | |
|
Lee GWB
Yaco
Premium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
1 edit | No VZ Fanboy but...... Who in their right mind would downgrade to DSL with Cable and FTTH and Wireless products out there?? They are done either way....Hell you can use dialup over FTTH if you want to be in the Stone Age.
Lee | |
|
marathonmike
Beer. You can only rent it
join:2001-12-12
Princeton, NJ
·Verizon FIOS
| NJ Copper must remain an option Don't know that I regard an installer as a reliable source, but my installer said that they must leave the copper in place. Claimed it was part of the judgement to permit Verizon to deploy the FTTP. Goal is to keep competition alive for all the obvious reasons.
--
Cheney - The same morals that made ENRON such a sucess! | |
|
richardpor
Fur it up
join:2003-04-19
Portland, OR
| Justification of FTTH and Government 100Mbs planning The existence of those who do not desire the latest and fastest service cuts to the issue of the need for FTTH and other forms of very fast broadband. Not everybody wants it.
Please think about this before you go half-cocked against Verizon investors and ATT&T and run to government for socialized broadband. | |
|
| 
JeepMatt
Delaware Fios
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Wilmington, DE | Re: Justification of FTTH and Government 100Mbs planning Copper line stays up in Delaware.
I still have my old line running from the pole to the house.
--
"ONE team - ONE city - ONE dream!!" | |
|
mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA | My Copper still there
My Copper line is still there (buried). Its just not being used obviously. | |
|
wwdubbia
join:2002-06-03
Clinton, NY
| but think about this... Most CLECs were born as the result of the huge amount of revenue generated in the old days of reciprical compensation where they got a ton of 'free money' by terminating their dial up customers calls on the ILEC networks. That money was a huge revenue stream that more than one ISP leveraged to start up their own local exchange carrier. The problem was, they only make so many phone poles and a customer only wants so many cables coming into their homes/business. Therefore CLEC's were able to use the Telecom Act of 1996 to competitvely use the ILEC's network infrastructure and even do things like Local Number Portability. ILECs reluctantly obliged, knowing that they were essentially this was a lose-win scenario as the local smaller CLEC's could trump ILECs by providing better customer service and making the customer not feel like a number. No one at the time imagined anything like Fios was only 10 years away and I'm sure Verizon is taking advantage of what amounts to a loophole in the whole equation. They can afford to build fiber along their rights of way that they've had for a century and not be required to share it as is new network facilities. They only had to provide access to the existing network, and not the new network as I understand it.
So in any event, it's in all of our best interests NOT to have a wild wild west of CLEC's hanging cable on more and more poles or digging more and more trenches. But it's ALSO in our best interest to let companies like Verizon build out fat pipes if they can afford to do it. | |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| switch to cable is possible? Verizon often is NOT the only provider in FIOS markets, they are increasingly overlapping a cable company's footprint, whether it be Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner and others.
So, cheaper VOIP is invariably the "other white meat" in the competitive landscape. If it's a choice between plain old copper legacy networks or HFC cable line delivered service (most of which MUST be delivered with BROADBAND bundled, except the video portion) I'm not sure the cable companies can deliver telephone service without the broadband being there first as its VOIP.. although I could see a deactivated cablemodem broadband service, but they really don't like selling it this way-- just as much as Verizon would flinch at having a FTTP customer who got that $2500 install want to "go back" to copper dsl at $20-30 per month... SOLUTION? LOWER THE PRICE OF ENTRY LEVEL FIOS and bundle with VOIP. | |
|
NY Tel
Premium
join:2004-04-09
Smithtown, NY | I still Have my Copper I simply placed my order and insisted on billing it to my Credit Card. Never mentioned that I had a phone line and they installed my FiOS.
I currently have Fios TV, Internet and copper POTS. | |
|
jriskin
join:2001-10-11
Topanga, CA
·Verizon FIOS
| Topanga area copper I can say in our area the copper isn't going anywhere. We have overhead lines and they litterally strapped the fiber on to the copper. They basically hung the fiber line below it, put a support wire on top of it, and then wrapped the whole package with more wire. Here is a picture... | |
|
Lenagainster
join:2005-01-07
Silver Spring, MD
·VoicePulse
 ·DIRECTV
·magicjack.com
| Still have my copper in Silver Spring, MD Had a CLEC when FiOS was installed, so the copper stayed. Switched phone service from the CLEC to Verizon and they just did it on the copper. Then I switched to VoIP and the copper went dead, but is still hanging.
I think in a few years down the road WiFi will be available area wide and Verizon will be stuck with all that fiber and no place to stick it. | |
|
|
heyabbott
@verizon.net | Re: Still have my copper in Silver Spring, MD Why doesn't the cable have to provide access to clecs??? Whats fair is fair. They also didn't need franchises for voice. It isn't regulated like verizon is. They don't even disclose how many customers they have in my area. | |
|
| | viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| Re: Still have my copper in Silver Spring, MD said by heyabbott :
Why doesn't the cable have to provide access to clecs??? Whats fair is fair. They also didn't need franchises for voice. It isn't regulated like verizon is. They don't even disclose how many customers they have in my area.
The FCC said so, and the Supreme Court agreed. | |
|
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
1 edit | said by Lenagainster :I think in a few years down the road WiFi will be available area wide and Verizon will be stuck with all that fiber and no place to stick it.
Wifi is over unlicensed spectrum, and has no growth path.
It MAY compete with bottom of barrel DSL, but we know current DSL is dead. | |
|
datguy3
@verizon.net | rcn built the last mile! RCN came into NYC, ripped up streets, ran fiber to buildings, installed NEW infrastructure to buildings for TELEPHONE and CABLE TV- a complete bypass of the incumbents
If RCN did it, why cant the CLECS do it????
answer that question!! | |
|
|
nuffsaid
@verizon.net
| Re: rcn built the last mile! said by datguy3 :
RCN came into NYC, ripped up streets, ran fiber to buildings, installed NEW infrastructure to buildings for TELEPHONE and CABLE TV- a complete bypass of the incumbents
If RCN did it, why cant the CLECS do it????
answer that question!!
Didn't RCN go bankrupt deploying their network (for all intensive purposes a 99% restructuring--selling off key money making market(s) & bankruptcy are by-in-large the same thing)?? That's with tons of Venture Capital by-in-large WASTED.
...And that was with cherry-picking areas in NY, CA, and MA... boo hoo.. someone left it up to the wind to figure out that the cable industry, tier-1 internet backbone providers and telcos to grind RCN into the ground... who's the Dinosaur now?
This is NOT to say that it can't be DONE RIGHT with costs ahead of the curve instead of behind it.. | |
|
| Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
| said by datguy3 :
If RCN did it, why cant the CLECS do it???? Well, first of all, the largest CLEC is now owned by the largest ILEC. Verizon owns MCI....
Looks like the answer is that they can't do it because there aren't any left to do it. | |
|
Kirby Smith
join:2001-01-26
Derry, NH
·Verizon FIOS
| POTS copper I had my old copper line removed to reduce clutter when I had FiOS installed. The FiOS POTS connection had lower noise than the copper. I would not want to go back, even though with FiOS a dedicated UPS is desirable to allow data service during power outages, and to extend telephone service time.
kirby
2 X 5/2 FiOS | |
|
dunninger
join:2000-10-12
Arlington, VA | My Copper is Gone They took it down when they installed FIOS. If I were to drop FIOS, I would have COMCAST as an option. | |
|
| 
RR Conductor
RailRoadDude
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA | Re: My Copper is Gone You're lucky to have an option, out where I live it's Comcast or Comcast, no DSL or fiber, and probably won't be in my lifetime. | |
|
Rob A
Same Old Jets
Premium
join:2005-01-17
Pompton Plains, NJ | Who cares... With fios, why would you ever want to go back to dsl? | |
|
|
|
|
