Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Alan Chapman
I missed this thread when it originally popped up.

Sen Hollings is a moron. I work for a certain Bell company in Louisiana. We of course offer DSL over our phone networks. We can get DSL just anywhere if we wanted to get it anywhere. It's just a simple matter of inserting into the POTS loop a DSLAM or a miniRAM. Not to mention they have developed a DSLAM that can give DSL to people 11 miles out.

The key here is cost. To install this equipment costs a good bit of money not to mention the tax that the Feds put on our equipment and the area that they tax on our internet availability. So you have a DSLAM which requires 2 T1s to operate at full capacity chock full of channel units that cost about 150-200$ a pop not to mention the money it costs to install and maintain.

So Bell will put these places only where they can be guaranteed a return within so many months of initial use. So the places where only half a dozen or so people would use it would never see it. While the place where 1.5-2 dozen people want it may see it if BellSouth sees potential growth.

Holling doesn't understand the nature of Telco's. They install and spend thousands of dollars to give service under the assumption that they'll make it back eventually. When you introduce competition you make profitability more elusive and force fewer expenditures in additional plant.

Back when there was a phone monopoly Bell could just pour money down the drain on some expenditures that were not guaranteed to ever be profitable because they could take the money from guaranteed sources of cash. That's why local service was cheap but long distance was expensive.

No matter how you cut it some company owns the copper. They have to maintain it. If you make every CLEC and Bell company pay the same rate for access after cleaving the copper from Bell then you're guaranteed most CLECS will go belly up since they operate with minimal capital to begin with. Hollins needs to understand that Telco's operate best under a monopoly. Expect your service to get worse if Fritz gewts his way.

4 posted on 05/25/2002 7:51:27 AM PDT by Bogey78O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Bogey78O
No matter how you cut it some company owns the copper.

Is that the copper that the Bell company runs through my yard on the way to the neighbors' houses down the street? When is the Bell company going to start paying rent for using my property?

Oh wait - the Bell companies only want a law the exempts them from having to share their property - not mine.

If they won't compensate me for their use of my property, the least they could do is improve their crappy service. But they refuse to do so.

Personally, I think SBC should be busted up into state units, the 100-year-old voice grade standard should be phased out quickly, and high-speed digital standards mandated.

7 posted on 05/27/2002 11:30:05 PM PDT by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Bogey78O
Not to mention they have developed a DSLAM that can give DSL to people 11 miles out.

How so? What kind of xfer rates?

I live in a whole neighborhood that would like a DSL alternative to the local cableco, but Verizon won't move because I'm just upwards of 20000 feet from the CO.

9 posted on 05/28/2002 6:37:51 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Bogey78O
This is a perfect argument for why your wholesale and retail operations should be separated. Then BellSouth would operate like a real company and we can all be consumers of the goods (the plant) you supply on equal footing. BellSouth will never treat its competitors like cutomers until BellSouth retail becomes a customer. It's the only workable solution.
17 posted on 05/28/2002 12:44:10 PM PDT by jayef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Bogey78O
"... Not to mention they have developed a DSLAM that can give DSL to people 11 miles out."

Yeah, but it's only a measly 128kbps up/down and costs $120/month, right?

19 posted on 05/28/2002 12:48:04 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Bogey78O
The real problem with respect to cheap and ubiquitous broadband is that the telcos want to bleed every last dollar they can out of their copper infrastructure. As long as they attempt to do this, broadband service will continue to suck. The architecture is crappy to begin with and the services are only expensive because they insist on using it.

Fortunately, we are seeing the very first rollouts of voice and data services that will obsolete the need to use the telco's last mile (or any of their infrastructure for that matter), and delivering way better performance for the money. The telcos will either change the way they do business and write-off their old infrastructure or die a slow death. They cannot compete cost-wise with some of the smart and viable alternatives that are just now emerging, and they are way too slow and top-heavy to make the necesary changes to their networks in a cost effective manner. Good riddance I say.

24 posted on 05/28/2002 1:15:26 PM PDT by tortoise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Bogey78O
When you introduce competition you make profitability more elusive and force fewer expenditures in additional plant.

When you introduce competition, prices go down and availability goes up!

Back when there was a phone monopoly Bell could just pour money down the drain on some expenditures that were not guaranteed to ever be profitable because they could take the money from guaranteed sources of cash. That's why local service was cheap but long distance was expensive.

Back then you could not buy a phone for your house and you could rent any color as long as it was black. The phone company continuously "rang" your line to verify that you were paying for EACH phone.

32 posted on 05/28/2002 1:55:22 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Bogey78O
"DSLAM"

Heh heh... thank goodness for Anconym Finder.

Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer

45 posted on 05/28/2002 2:40:44 PM PDT by Harrison Bergeron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson