 
Voyager2K2
join:2001-10-04
Wayne, PA | Too Big for Their Britches Hey it happened once, it can happen again.
Break these big boys up into smaller more edible pieces.
These mega-bells are just as bad or worse than Ma Bell ever was. | |
|  | 
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
| Re: Too Big for Their Britches You guys are right... The big telcos are pure evil. I even wish they'd extend the line-sharing laws a little further. CLECs shouldn't have to pay for their lines at all! In fact, I think all employees of the CLECs should be able to sit at home and collect paychecks off of the ILECs. That's the spirit of competition! This is America - we don't need a level playing field. Artificial crutches and subsidies are the way of the future!
I want to break into the software business. Maybe I'll get the government involved and force Microsoft to share their developers and code with me. Of course, they'll need to do it at a considerable discount even though my sole purpose is to take customers away from them, but who cares?! Artificial "competition" - capitalism at its best! Woohoo!!
ATP | |
| | | 
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana | Re: Too Big for Their Britches Ya'll do realize that Verizon should now cease their FIOS residential overbuilds. If they don't then we know this is all election year posturing. | |
| | | | | | | | 
fiosisvoicessavior
@optonline.net
| fios is the last stand in a market that's going to voip (can you say cablemodem docsis 3+) in a big way.. the copper circuit switches are gonig the way of the dionaur, 8track, video cassette recorders, and those lovable huggable dot matrix printers... | |
| | | 
micl
Visit Lovely Downtown Port Starboard
Premium
join:2001-10-25
Silver Spring, MD
| said by Alpine  :
CLECs shouldn't have to pay for their lines at all! In fact, I think all employees of the CLECs should be able to sit at home and collect paychecks off of the ILECs. That's the spirit of competition! This is America - we don't need a level playing field. Artificial crutches and subsidies are the way of the future!
One thing that bugs me (among many) is that the Bells were so successful in convincing people they they were actually losing money under the UNE-P rules. Under those rules their compensation was cost + reasonable profit... but because they couldn't charge cost + rape & pillage markup they were loosing money???? LOL.
--
If I don't see you in the future, I'll see you in the pasture | |
| | | | Skier
join:2001-08-09
San Antonio, TX
| Re: Too Big for Their Britches ________________________________________________________
One thing that bugs me (among many) is that the Bells were so successful in convincing people they they were actually losing money under the UNE-P rules. Under those rules their compensation was cost + reasonable profit... but because they couldn't charge cost + rape & pillage markup they were loosing money???? LOL.
__________________________________________________________
If you are going to make statements like this at least speak with complete facts and not represent the situation. The cost + reasonable profit approach for UNE-P was based on least cost model that set costs based on a TELRIC model. This approach assumes each incremental line cost is derived by figuring the most efficient facilities, hardware & software available if you were building a new network.
Two problems with calling this "cost" + reasonable profit:
1) Each incremental unit if built using those pieces would not work with the existing infrastructure &
2) It ignores actual costs of the real deployment & the additional maintenance costs of older infrastructure.
If the pricing had been set using real costs to deploy what was being resold & what it really cost to provision it & maintain it, the only problem would be AT&T and others would use an alternative method just like they are doing now.
BTW: Dave Dorman himself pointed out this same issue of as President of Pacific Bell, he forgot that when he became President of AT&T. He also forgot that retail prices are set by a combination of state regulators and various real competitors. If wholesale rates go up it does not mean retail rates go up. For the Bells it means still selling basic services at below cost as mandated by state commissions & selling packages at lower rates to minimise losses to VoIP, Cellular, Cable & facilities based providers. | |
| | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| You are just simply sad.
I could give you $1,000,000,000 in startup capital to start a telco / broadband / video company of your own and you would STILL NOT be able to compete or even get a decent amount of coverage in any major city within 5 years if you had to build out your own infrastructure.
What point of that do people like you miss? You think you can just file a business application and start digging up yards and roads to lay that fiber down as if it were a lemonade stand you were starting. Are you really that IQ challenged? (I'm guessing you aren't, but instead are an employee of one of the monopolies)
It is a monopolistic service by nature because of the extreme barriers to entry even when you remove money from the picture. That is compounded by the monopolistic strategies employed by the companies that are already in the service. The entire infrastructure needs to be taken away from all of these companies (cable and telco) and owned and operated by an independent company or 2 (or the government). Then any and every company that wants to fight for our dollar is able to do it on a level playing field throughout the entire country without the extreme political barriers or the extreme market entry obstacles that exist now.
I as a consumer should not have to have my yard, my neighbor's yard, nor the parking lot of the local grocery store dug up everytime I want to change local or long distance carriers or broadband providers. I shouldn't have to have 8 lines hanging off my house for each time that has occured. I as a citizen shouldn't have to have 10 or 20 companies that want to compete for my business tearing up my local roads every other week to install their lines so they are able to bring me these services I may or may not want. I'm guessing you wouldn't want that either, but what you really want is for companies that want to compete against yours to have to pay you a lot more and charge the consumers a lot more so that in the end your already inflated profits can become more inflated by A) you getting more out of your competitor B) you charging more now because you can raise your prices and yet still under cut your competitors. | |
| | | 
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Nice hyperbole. Got something better? | |
| | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Too Big for Their Britches You want 10 billion? Regardless the point still stands - It is impossible to compete against a monopoly, which is why they are a monopoly. It is also impossible for 99% of the service providers to build out their own infrastructure to even try to begin to compete, which reinforces that monopoly.
You need it "dumbed down" any more? | |
| | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: Too Big for Their Britches The bells interfering with competitors trying to build out their own networks also doesn't help the situation. | |
| | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Too Big for Their Britches That is absolutely true.
That is more or less what I meant by ".... because of the extreme barriers to entry even when you remove money from the picture. That is compounded by the monopolistic strategies employed by the companies that are already in the service." Generally areas with the best services and prices are those with the most competition. Areas close to setting up a competitive service get put on some sudden "upgrade plan" or as in the case of muni's the local monopolies simply try to crush them with misleading and false PR information. | |
| | | | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| Re: Too Big for Their Britches I believe there was a case of a local phone company serving a small area in Texas that had built up its own network, and SBC tried to get a bill pushed thru the state legislature that would have forced this small phone company to give SBC half its profits for interconnect fees. I don't know what came of it. | |
| | | 
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Midwest
3 edits | Hi! You must be new here. A few things you should know to help you understand the madness a little better:
1. If you support the Bells you are a "shill". If you support the CLECs, you are a "consumer advocate".
1(a). If you say anything even remotely nice about the Bells you will be accused of working for them or being a stockholder (they have no right to an opinion, y'know). If you say anything nice about the CLEC's you are most certainly a "consumer advocate". CLEC employees and stockholders never, ever visit here or post comments.
2. The "consumer advocates" will incessantly bring up the fact that the Bells have been around for 100+ years and have a firm leg-up in the industry. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that most of the infrastructure everyone is bickering about...namely, broadband and fiber...was installed after the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
3. While I'm on the subject of the TCA, please understand that the Act was intended to give the CLECs complete access to another company's resources, forever, with no expectation that the CLEC will ever do anything for themselves. Yeah, I know that's not what the Act really says, but that's how the "consumer advocates" read it, so humor them and their alternate-reality plane...the dialog will go soooo much smoother.
4. As you have seen in this thread, the "I don't want my yard dug up" is also a popular excuse to bash the Bells. Forgive the "consumer advocates". They have never heard of wireless, cellphones, VOIP, or radio-guided boring equipment that can pull cable hundreds and hundreds of feet and do no more damage than a spade-sized hole at the end of the block.
5. There have been no reported sightings of CLEC technicians climbing utility poles in the rain, or sitting in manholes on Christmas. In fact, no one is certain if there even is such a creature known as a "CLEC tech." But don't worry. The "consumer advocates" have assured us that the Verizon truck you saw rolling along at 2:00 am was really a CLEC attorney/public relations hack hurrying to the aid of a customer in need.
There are other tidbits I could toss out to you, but I guess that'll do for now. Enjoy you visit.
Peace,
mocycler
--
The Lord's Prayer is 66 words. The Gettysburg Address is 286 words; there are 1,322 words in the Declaration of Independence. Government regulations on the sale of cabbage is 26,911 words. »www.lp.org | |
| | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Too Big for Their Britches I would agree with most of 1 and 2. However, 2 would probably have never taken place if things were not forced upon bells.
3 is questionable and really not relevant because of the extreme barrier of entry in the market. They pay a reasonable cost that the bells got to come up with on their own (can we say bloated?). In all your infinite knowledge what you would propose? Would you suggest that every company (in every county, city, state) run their own wire to a consumer's house to provide them service? Every single one of those places would then end up with 1 choice, maybe 2, but if they are really lucky 3. That is until they are gobbled up by the other. This would slowly expand from the county, to the city, to the state, to the region (really it would probably start here), then probably nationally.
4 I don’t know about the equipment, but I do know what I saw around here when cable was upgrading: Trenches, road detours, and spools of cable sitting next to roads. The wireless and cell phone things you mention are pointless as we are talking about 2 different things here and wireless for true networking for the most part just plain blows.
5 CLEC's pay the bells to support this, as they should. It is currently the Bells network and the CLEC's are renting it. Pretty standard practice anytime you rent something.
This is fun, come up with some more tidbits. While you are add it, provide a SINGLE benefit to a community that would result from removing the CLEC's ability to use the local monopoly's infrastructure and forcing them to build their own. Just one, that is all I as for and everyone is free to contribute. I always here the "it's our network" argument, which isn't valid (barriers). But that is not a benefit to the community. Good Luck! | |
| | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: Too Big for Their Britches And much the CLECs mocycler is railing on do have their own networks, but only the bells have the last mile, which as Skippy says, most people would be lucky to get 2 different provider drops to their home if even possible. | |
| | | | |
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
2 edits | said by Skippy25 :
3...not relevant because of the extreme barrier of entry in the market...In all your infinite knowledge what you would propose? Would you suggest that every company (in every county, city, state) run their own wire to a consumer's house to provide them service?
What do you mean "not relevant"? The very essence of TCA96 was to allow entry into the market. It gave the CLECs full access to a turnkey, top shelf network with zero effort on their own part. Yet even after that, so many of them still wind up in bankruptcy court. Where the blankety-blank have you been since 1996? I would propose that the CLECs get off their lazy asses and start innovating instead of depending on a competitor to supply them in perpetuity with the very resource needed to make money. Technology has advanced since simple copper wire run to each and every home. You should really be asking the CLECs what have they been doing to develop new ideas so they can compete like a real business instead of finger-pointing at the Bells who are actually out there doing it.
Funny, In these forums I always hear "I'm pissed at (insert name of RBOC here) because they won't give me broadband!" You never hear "(generic CLEC) sucks! They won't do anything for me!"
said by Skippy25 :
I don't know about the equipment
Of course you don't! You are a "consumer advocate". It's the Bells' problem to figure all that stuff out. As for the cableco digging up the streets? At least they are out there, working. Would it make you happier if a CLEC tore up the neighborhood instead? I guess we need a law that compels the RBOC to loan them a radio-guided boring machine. At cost, of course.
said by Skippy25 :
provide a SINGLE benefit to a community that would result from removing the CLEC's ability to use the local monopoly's infrastructure and forcing them to build their own.
I'll give you more than one.
1. Innovation derived from having to build a stand-alone infrastructure results in better service and advanced technology for customers. Maybe it would be easier for you to provide a single long-term benefit that would result from a CLEC reselling the same old RBOC copper and making no effort to come up with anything new. With your attitude, someone should have sued Thomas Edison for the right to use his phonograph patent...and today we'd still be listening to wax cylinders.
2. With their own autonomous network, CLECs would have a greater financial stake...not just be "renters"...therefore less likely to go under, forcing creditors and customers to eat the bill.
3. TCA96, and all the bazillions of taxpayer dollars plowed into it, would have never been needed in the first place.
Take care,
mocycler
--
The Lord's Prayer is 66 words. The Gettysburg Address is 286 words; there are 1,322 words in the Declaration of Independence. Government regulations on the sale of cabbage is 26,911 words. »www.lp.org | |
| | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Too Big for Their Britches You know I had this big response all typed up and as I was proofing it I realized I didn't need it for 2 reasons 1.) You obviously don't comprehend what I have already clearly stated so saying it again won't help. 2.) You pretty much reinforce EVERYTHING I have been saying with this simple sentence:
"... so many of them still wind up in bankruptcy court."
Ouch!
"I'll give you more than one." I'll take just one, as not a single one of what you provided show a benefit to the consumers. Really is that the best you came up with? Yes the CLEC's can begin investing those billions of dollars they are "robbing" the RBOC's of and find a better way to lay that fiber. I am partial to the fairy dust method, maybe one of them will come up with a working prototype. Oh I'm sorry, maybe they can get to that after the bankruptcy hearings.
Lastly, you quoted my questions but fail to answer them. You just can't move past the sharing of the network so I will ask again:
1.) Would you suggest that every company (in every county, city, state) run their own "wire" to a consumer's house to provide them service?
2.) What do you propose would be the best thing to do? Let's innovate together, shall we? I propose that the ENTIRE infrastructure (every cable, fiber and copper wire) is taken over and owned by a company or 2 and all service providers "rent" the lines from them. I have a long list of benefits to both the consumers and the service providers for this, but won't waste the space here. Surely you can think of the obvious ones. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by Alpine :
That's the spirit of competition! This is America - we don't need a level playing field. Artificial crutches and subsidies are the way of the future!
Yes, we all know how the big Telco's embrace competition! Why, that's why they have carved out "Service Areas" where the agree not to step on each other's toes! All in the spirit of Good competition, of course.... and you're absolutely right, the playing field isn't even close to level, why any upstarts sure find that out the hard way.... And artificial crutches and subsidies have always been the way of the past, and the present, so why not the future as well?
Ah, it's great to be a Telco in America...
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | macmouse
Premium
join:2002-05-30
Saratoga, CA
1 edit | This time, they should do it right.
Split all of the telco's into two companies.
A)Company that covers the local phone lines (copper wires,etc) *only* and nothing else. Provides no service directly to the customers. This could then arguably, go back to a national company for simplicity as there is no longer a threat.
B) Pacbell/Verizon/whatever all buy line service from this new company (just like sprint/att/covad). Then, they only have to worry about is competing on service.
As a bonus, the first company would probably provide a more reliable,cheaper service (after adjustment period). That's because, they make money by providing more coverage/reliable service/features and not by selling packages. | |
| | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | Re: Too Big for Their Britches There's only one way to do this properly.
1) It's simply inefficient to try and duplicate all the "last mile" infrastructure among many different competitors. In this case, a nationwide (or perhaps regional, but why not use economies of scale) monopoly is the most efficient and skilled way to maintain the network of infrastructure.
The ideal scenario IMHO:
1) To have one Monopoly who's job is to build, maintain, and upgrade the national telecom network, last mile, etc. The infrastructure would be their job and focus. These guys would be your engineers, your experts, your linemen, your professional telco equipment guys. --- However --- this company would not be in the habit of providing service to end users. This company would not be the one selling you options or sending you bills. Let's call this company MaBell for arguments sake.
Instead, this company would have it's own customers:
Those customers would be the Service providers, the companies that want to provide you with POTS, or Broadband, or VOIP, or TV services, Realtime shopping, etc etc
All These companies would all use MaBell's network--- and they would pay MaBell for access to the customers--- the same rate for all the companies, as set by MaBell itself. In other words, a *completely level playing field* for all entrants and would be service providers.
These "Service providers" would be in competition with each other, but all would be customers of MaBell, and as such, be treated equally as a customer by MaBell. This means MaBell doesn't have to worry about competition, or pricing of services. Not their concern.
These service provider companies can fight it out on basis of services, lowest cost, best customer service etc etc and the End user consumer can pick and choose which one they do business with (and switch to better deals or away from companies they are not happy with).
The ones who are inefficient or provide poor service would fail, while the ones who deliver service the people want and like would thrive. If one company came to grow very large, and start getting too greedy with raising prices and the like, competition would see fit to cut them back down because lower priced service providers would start taking their end-user customers away from them.... Everybody would have a fair and equal shot at getting customers, as MaBell would provide everyone (who paid their bills) with the same quality access.
This I think is the model of a perfect system, however, I doubt it will ever happen. | |
| | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Re: Too Big for Their Britches
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EXACTLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | |
| 
Count Hogula3
John Forged Kerry
Premium
join:2004-07-10
Corona, CA | Boo F-ing hoo They'll have to live with the money tree they have for the next few months.
My violins are playing for them. | |
| 
odog
Cable Centric Vendor Biased
Premium
join:2001-08-05
Norcross, GA
clubs:
1 edit | price is right? where? umm.
can't some outside source just agree on nationwide rates. make them reasonable and be done with it.
--
disclaimer: my opinions are my own, my employer is not responsible. | |
| | 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
1 edit | Re: price is right? where? said by odog :
umm.
can't some outside source just agree on nationwide rates. make them reasonable and be done with it.
Nice idea except it would take about 6000 years to come up with an agreement, and at every turn their would be a law suite.
--
»www.gobpl.com | |
| neftv
join:2000-10-01
Broomall, PA | Awww The poor bells I'm suppose to feel sorry for them.
Double and triple charging for a phone line, Data line I think not I don't feel sorry for them as long as the customer is left out of the picture in the scheme of savings. | |
| alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
|  Everybody and Nobody wants that Last Mile!
| |
| | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: Everybody and Nobody wants that Last Mile! Of course, this is after we've already paid for one last mile network, but the Bells own it and want to charge rates for it like they just installed it yesterday using hand labor, instead of having had it paid off for 25 years....
Calvoiper | |
| | | | | | | 
fritzmp
Biker Tux
Premium
join:2001-08-29
Warrenton, VA
clubs:
| Re: Everybody and Nobody wants that Last Mile! I know Americans inherently dislike Monopolies and for a good reason. The same reason we have a president and not a King.
There would be no Bells, or Verizons if it were not for Customers. Customers know when they are getting screwed and have a tendency to fight back. Which causes legislation and in-turn creates the vacuum ware innovative and competitive entrinponures will fill the void.
I don't feel sorry for pole climbers getting double time and a half on Christmas. Maybe if they went to school a little longer, or had some initiative, they would be sitting in a CLEC and spending Charismas at home with the family. Hell if they did have the day off, they probably would be getting drunk and telling old stories of their glory days as a baseball pitcher in high school.
I have grate respect for the common working man of roots I hold dear. I also read and understand history and this is no different than the train monopoly, or any other in the history of man.
--
"Takin' a trip?""Two of the most famous products of Berkeley are LSD and Unix. I don't think that this is a coincidence."--Anonymous "Get a bike, live life." --me | |
| | | | |
SBC Tekk
@pacbell.n
|  Re: Everybody and Nobody wants that Last Mile!
People volunteer to work Holidays (at about $80 an hour)
Do you think working at a money losing CLEC is better? Many of our techs did & got laid off after about a year. SBC did not want them back. | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
fritzmp
Biker Tux
Premium
join:2001-08-29
Warrenton, VA
clubs:
| Re: Everybody and Nobody wants that Last Mile! said by mocycler :
"The CLECs are in bankruptcy court mainly due to poor management."
"I don't believe you when you say "I have...repect for the common working man."
"Your comments might be amusing if they weren't so ignorant."
mocycler
CLEC's in the Washington DC area are quite profitable and the issue for them having to jump through hoops at the whim of Verizon from what I see here, would be quite an obstacle in a market of a less population density. Management and resources are usually an issue in any company, but the resistance is not helping at all. The customer is getting screwed by not having enough choice. Defending monopolies in America is like pissing up a rope.
As a framing carpenter most of my adult life, I don't need to answer that one.
Most people are loyal to a paycheck, your just expressing that fact, so I'll disregard the insult.
--
"Takin' a trip?""Two of the most famous products of Berkeley are LSD and Unix. I don't think that this is a coincidence."--Anonymous "Get a bike, live life." --me | |
| | alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| What are you guys talking about? I was talking about everyone getting off the wagon and loosen those purse strings, band together and build your Networks and buy your products from the Big Boys. Then you can control the size of the pipe and what you want to pay. | |
|
theVictim
@attbi.co
| Bell South Extortion continues Because the cost of running multiple infrastructures IS prohibitive (look at the initial run of "Facilities based CLECs and DSL providers...they're all gone, or returned after bankruptcy (Covad) eliminated most of their debt...), a regulated monopoly is required.
It is, however, the duty of Governement to regulate that monopoly so that it serves the best interest of the consumer, not abuse it.
Bells (ILECs) are very much abusing the consumer.
Verizon competes with SBC in some parts of Illinois, and this results in very low DSL prices - like $30 a month.
Here in Georgia, Bell South installed fiber to the curb in many areas 5 years ago, and continues to do so for all new housing developments.
In these areas bell south has created an abusive monopoly. There is no long copper, therefore there are no DSL competitors. You can have a CLEC for your dial tone, but if you do, you can't have Bell South "FastAccess". If you DO NOT have a phone, you cannot have Bell South "FastAccess".
And if you have their most basic dialtone ($25/month) your DSL (over IFITL) costs you $50/month.
So, in these fiber areas, Bell South forces unlawfull bundling of services and ensures that they'll make $75/month on each and every "FastAccess" customer.
This is how it is... and at every meeting of the Georgia Public Service Commission, bell south appeals and argues against UNE-P providers, and refuses to allow them interconnect agreements that would permit DSL.
Nor do they allow other DSL providers access to their IFITL network unless they'll pay a rediculous "wholesale" price of something like $35-$39/month.
This is how it is in Georgia.
»bellsouthextortion.com | |
| |
SIDES14
@adelphia.net
| Re: Bell South Extortion continues If the Bells don't want to abide by their agreements of line sharing in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, then the FCC should stop the Bells from offering long distance services. VOIP will kill the Bells. They made an agreement and now they no longer want to honor that agreement. | |
| | | |
|
|
Bells Battle the FCC
