Your portrayal below is what I can best describe as 'understanding of how the
Titanic Sank' from having watched the Movie.
What I mean by that is, you have gotten the jist of it correct, but you have no
feeling of the depth of the shenanigans which were involved.
While some circles have argued that Duopoly was acceptable to the ILEC's, my
personal opinion is that only happened after the Supreme Court Case of BrandX.
(Which solidified the Cable Operators position of not having to provide
competitive access on their network).
While we talk about copper wires, we often forget that the obligation to share
access to copper wires was a requirement due to the ILEC's being funded by
public funds, which allowed them to build their network.
When it came to sharing, the ILEC's quickly saw that new startups can and will
eat their lunch in the near future, unless they got back to calling the shots.
They like being a monopoly... these days, it is Fiber, Internet and Video (TV
Content).
Just look at the acquisitions... (all rules which could be dismantled, have
been dismantled, new rules were put in place regarding new media, which would
make it more challenging to address,)
If you don't believe me, see what is happening with VOIP and ATT.... VOIP =
unregulated (loosely speaking) when compared to POTS lines...
We have seen ATT bills, quietly changing POTS line billing to showing them as
VOIP lines on their Uverse Bills.... Guess why ?
Most of us tend not to realize how much $$$ is in Telecom...
For every nation, Telecom tends to be a significantly large part of the GDP,
and it is all $$$ made from vapor (electrons).
So it is understandable why there is such a close relationship between Telecom
and any Gov.
:)
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 2:58:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] T-Tommy Wheeler staying corrupt to the very end
> I don't think the "sharing" thing was ever the real objection. Everyone talks
> like they had to let CLECs use their copper pairs for free, but actually the
> wholesale pricing was supposed to be set at cost plus a fair profit. Some of
> the UNE pricing I saw made me question how a CLEC could possibly make a
> profit.
>
> The objection was to exactly what Congress hoped to accomplish with the 1996
> Telecom Act, which was to lower the entry barrier for competition in local
> access. The idea was that CLECs would initially rent colo cage space in the
> CO
> for their own switch, and lease copper pairs ("unbundled network elements")
> from the ILEC. Congress expected that once the more successful CLECs reached
> a
> certain size, they would start deploying their own physical infrastructure.
> None of this happened as planned. The ILECs were very successful in their
> maneuvering (a lot of it at state level) to put the CLECs out of business,
> plus
> the CLECs mostly didn't ever bury their own fiber or copper. The whole thing
> pretty much fizzled. But the big ILECs wanted to block this attempt to create
> competition for them. They wanted to keep the duopoly - 1 telco, 1 cableco
> per
> town. You'll notice the cable companies don't overbuild each other, and the
> wireline phone companies don't overbuild each other. I think when the govt
> broke up Ma Bell, they expected the RBOCs to build into each others
> territories
> and compete for local wireline customers.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 1:35 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] T-Tommy Wheeler staying corrupt to the very end
>
> On 12/19/16 10:11, Chuck McCown wrote:
>> The ILECs are focusing on fiber for several reasons:
>> 1) Dramatic loss of land line only customers due to cell phones.
>> 2) Loss of DSL customers to WISP due to long and poor copper.
>> 3) It is a good way to put more rate of return investment dollars in
>> the ground.
>
> 4) Don't have to share it with anyone else.
>
> ~Seth
