Replies

Yea, that was the deal then. And if the feds want to keep playing with this deal then they're going to be watching a telcom industry that will get run over by third world countries.

Look at it this way. It's better for patients if doctors see them in a timely manner and if possible in some instances make house calls. However it's not profitable so the patients are just SOL.

No matter how you cut it there's only so much money out there that can be made. And there's only so much overhead you can cut.

I'd much rather amend the laws though if you're really up for it where so much is paid by the CLEC for the amount of copper and type of system used in the loop. That way the CLEC picks up a truer cost of what they're selling and doesn't wind up getting a deal where they can always undercut Bell's prices. If a CLEC thinks it can do well getting rural customers DSL then they can put in an order for it and Bell would write them up a bill for it and they'll get their customer what they want with Bell getting no profit off of it. If they get a customer who wants a phone and the cable isn't laid then they pay the bare costs to lay the cable. And if their customer bails then they have to eat the loss like Bell normally does. If their customer service is high quality and that's what sells it then their customer stays and everyone is happy because Bell doesn't invest in it, the CLEC gets the customer, and the customer gets the service they want.

Of course it puts a great deal of risk on the CLEC so I'm sure they'd rather not go that route. They'd much rather keep to the tried and true printing up of bills and interoffice switching and not even touch the last mile of death. Let Bell take the risk after all.

When you think about it, it takes more than a few months to recover the cost of a new installation with a normal residential customer.