You don't like a profit margin of 33 percent before fixed costs?
Try running a convenience store.
Robert Schainbaum
dopry wrote:
I'm not Alex, but my understanding is:
The FCC didn't necessarily kill wholesale DSL. They rules that ILEC no
longer have to provide access to their wireline broadband services.
Wireline broadband services being bundled layer2 or layer3 network
access and a physical line. It doesn't impact Unbundled Network
Elements(UNE-L), the physical lines. As long as you're running your own
DSLAM's you should be in the clear.
It doesn't really change the broadband landscape that much. Covad and
their resellers are safe and secure. The independents running their own
DSLAMS and providing T1 are ok.. Verizon will probably let their
existing resellers sit pretty.
FTTH is my real concern. Existing regulation only applies to the copper
plant, unless I've missed something in recent history. Incumbents do not
have to share access to their fiber networks. Hopefully they will to
help fulfill capacity and utilization, but that is a hope. While
Francois Menard alludes to pricing wars preventing municipalities from
enter the FTTH race, I think it is unfounded, currently incumbent
pricing is below cost for independent ISP's when scale is considered*.
I don't think municipalities want to get involved in the expenses of
rolling out or maintaining a fiber infrastructure, and Verizon will beat
them to the chase anyway.
I do however see this as a nod from the FCC to FTTH and Cable carriers,
to go on their merry way and not to worry, their lobbying dollars have
worked and they can move everything onto an IP platform without worry of
having it yanked out from underneath them in the short term.
-- on a paranoid note, maybe the govt just wants fewer companies to
deal with when they decide the internet should be managed in the US as
it is in China.
ok going back to my hole... I'd love to hear Alex's opinion still.
Footnote:
* consideration of scale...
verizon's introductory DSL offer is ~324/yr / user provides up to
3Mbps/768Kbps depending on what your line will carry
access costs for a thousand users is ~60/yr(line) + ~156/yr(bandwidth)
-$5/month/user UNE access
-13K/mo or $13/user/mo for a gige connection from HE.net
so total access costs/mo is about $216...
a thousand users over 1 year leaves you with
324K-216K = 108k
and you still have to pay for salaries, rent, hardware, marketing, and
businesses expenses... Don't worry about taxes... you'll probably be in
the red..
....
On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 08:02 -0400, Dana Spiegel wrote:
Alex,
Given this new FCC ruling on DSL, what is your position? How are you
affected by the change in DSL rules? Is muni-wireless now a more
attractive option for you?
I don't mean to single you out, but you are the most outspoken person
on the subject a few weeks ago. I'd personally like to solicit your
views on the matter because you had clear concerns before, and I'd
like to better understand what the FCC ruling means for you, and how
NYCwireless can help.
I'd like to start a constructive discussion about _how_ wireless in
NYC can help both ISPs and local people who want internet choice.
Dana Spiegel
Executive Director
NYCwireless
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.NYCwireless.net
+1 917 402 0422
Read the Community Wireless blog: http://sociable.blogspot.com
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dustin Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: August 6, 2005 11:03:49 AM EDT
To: "nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net"
<nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net>
Subject: [nycwireless] FCC kills wholesale DSL - Has the time come
for NYC Muni-Wifi?
The FCC has let the other shoe drop, Verizon will no longer be
required to offer wholesale DSL to competitive ISPs. Between this
and the Brand X ruling Time-Warner/Cablevision and Verizon can now
run their duopoly without worry. This means there are only 2
providers of "affordable" broadband into any dwelling or business
in NYC. If this doesn't worry you it should. Now that the FCC has
effectively killed real broadband competition, what should the
concerned NYer do? Maybe it's time to start caring about Muni-Wifi.
What could Muni-Wifi do for NYers?
1. Create competition in broadband services by providing an
alternative to Cable and DSL for last mile access for ISPs.
2. Provide a infrastructure for delivering low cost broadband
access to NYC neediest.
This can be achieved without the city competing with private
enterprise and without funding it with tax payer dollars. Please
see my earlier post on the cooperative wholesale model for
municipal broadband:
http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/2005-July/
009335.html
- Dustin -
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [CYBERTEL] FCC kills mandated DSL wholesale and
sanctifies a wireline duopoly as vibrant competition - Gone is Muni
FTTH?
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 03:50:42 -0400
From: Francois Menard (Mailing List Account) <fm-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FCC kills mandated DSL wholesale and sanctifies a wireline duopoly
as vibrant competition - Gone is Muni FTTH?
by François at 02:31AM (CDT) on August 6, 2005 | Permanent Link
http://tim.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2005/8/6/1112664.html
In a press statement issued today, the FCC commissionners have
agreed that the future of broadband in the US was better left in
the hands of market forces.
Commissionner Copps however concedes that what the FCC has chosen
to do today amounts to prospective regulatory making on a purely
theoritical basis. That has not stopped him however from
concurring with the other Commissionners with the only announced
accountability of the FCC being that he says he intends to keep
tabs to see if what is supposed to happen truly does. But just who
will be there to keep tabs when the term of Commissioner Coops
expires on May 1, 2006?
In the same statement, the FCC annnounces that it intends to issue
a public inquiry in which it will begin to investigate issues
associated with the walledgardenization of broadband access and by
interence, must now look into intercarrier compensation in the
context of broadband peering at public Internet NAPs which to this
date has remained free from FCC investigations.
While ISPs in Canada can behave like ostriches and duck their heads
in the dirt and avoid thinking about the ripple effects of the FCC
continuing to push the limits of the impossible in avoiding to
consider the impact of their policies on the survival of the same
independant ISPs which have created the market of retail internet
services, we can bet that the ILECs in Canada will take advantage
of the Telecom Review and start pointing out to the grand canyon
emerging between CRTC policies and the FCC policies.
In analyzing regulatory policies from the perspective of a
regulatory framework which is supposed to lead to sustainable
competition by remaining conducive to further facilities-based
entry, consequences of the disappearance of mandated wholesale of
DSL facilities are evident, that is, no more reasons for retail
price discipline, thus no more price floors, which will arguably
lead to foreclosure of further entry by other entities than the
incumbent Telco's and cable carriers.
Consequently, the risks of Municipal FTTH entry have just been
quintupled - do it and the ILECs and the Cable Carriers will
immediately react by way of targeted decreases of DSL and cable
modem services only for as long as necessary to kill Municipal FTTH
while still in the eggshell.
While the FCC is surely not foolish enough to believe that the
public interest will be served by targeted price decreases of ILEC
and MSO fat wasteband, the FCC seems to believe that they are
acting in the public interest in making it more difficult to make a
business case for municipal FTTH.
Unlike the CRTC, the actions of the FCC remain elusive as to
whether the FCC truly believes that its prospective regulatory
theories are compliant with the FCC's statutory obligation to
administer a regulatory framework conducive to sustainable
competition by ensuring that regulatory relief will exist for other
carriers than ILEC and MSOs interested in making investments into
their own facilities.
It is frustrating to see the American public endorse the fact that
the FCC will be leading another 7 year market experiementation
cycle in total disregard for the lessons supposed to be learned
from the previous experiementation cycle with telecom competition
concluding today.
With today's FCC action, it seems a safe bet that in 7 years, there
will be no more wireline providers serving homes of Americans than
their are today with only some exceptions coming to mind,
Lafayette, being the latest one.
It is sad to see the FCC officialize new rules that will allow
targeted below cost pricing by incumbent Telco's and MSO's with no
systematic regulatory relief before the FCC. This could hardly be
construed as a positive thing.
-=Francois=-
819 692 1383
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/
nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
