Not directly related, but don’t forget metro ILECs who have or buy RLECs as a
funnel to capture that sweet, sweet USF revenue. You know, that stuff that’s
ostensibly intended to facilitate rural broadbandisation and whatnot...
> On Oct 25, 2021, at 12:28 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>
> On 10/24/21
On 10/24/21 18:08, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
Why would a company want to be both an ILEC and CLEC in the same area?
Probably some regulatory benefits, as well as:
"You guys at Brand X suck, I'm switching to Brand Y."
Under the hood, Brand Y is essentially a CNAME for Brand X.
--
Jay Hennigan - j.
To avoid regulation……
From: VoiceOps On Behalf Of Ryan Finnesey
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2021 8:08 PM
To: Mike Johnston ; VoiceOps
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Carriers Keeping Acquired Defunct Company Names
Why would a company want to be both an ILEC and CLEC in the same area
Oct 24, 2021 at 3:19 PM Ryan Finnesey
wrote:
> Why would a company want to be both an ILEC and CLEC in the same area?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* VoiceOps *On Behalf Of *Mike
> Johnston
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 24, 2021 3:16 PM
> *To:* VoiceOps
> *Subject:* Re:
Why would a company want to be both an ILEC and CLEC in the same area?
From: VoiceOps On Behalf Of Mike Johnston
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2021 3:16 PM
To: VoiceOps
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Carriers Keeping Acquired Defunct Company Names
I see situations up here in Minnesota where it appears
To add to Brooks’ clarification, back in 2010-2011, O1 Communications sold the
entirety of their Small to Medium Enterprise portion (including customers,
leased lines, much of the networking infrastructure, the data center at 1515K
Street, and other various assets) to TelePacific. O1 retained th
I see situations up here in Minnesota where it appears that CenturyLink
is essentially CLECing themselves. An simple example would be Warroad, MN.
https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-by-ratecenter-state?ratecenter=WARROAD&state=MN
CENTURYTEL OF MINNESOTA, INC. (CenturyLink, Inc) O
My understanding is that this is all about the administrative friction of
transfers and re-registrations.
Once you’re registered with the FCC, state Public Utilities Commissions,
local authorities for access to right of way and pole access, name changes
and transfers can be complex. Then there are
ssage-
From: VoiceOps On Behalf Of Peter Beckman
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2021 5:22 PM
To: VoiceOps
Subject: [VoiceOps] Carriers Keeping Acquired Defunct Company Names
I'm curious why companies like T-Mobile and Inteliquent/Onvoy/Voyant continue
to retain company names and corporate ent
Just a point of note, Sprint does not, and never did, own O1
Communications. The O1 and TPx (telepacific) split happened almost a
decade before Siris acquired TPx. O1 is its own privately held entity.
On 10/23/2021 3:21 PM, Peter Beckman wrote:
Sprint -> O1 Communications, US Telepacific
Yeah, that’s right. The amount of stuff tied to the legacy companies’
identifiers, OCNs, namesakes and so forth is stupefying. It is completely
impractical to change at all.
—
Sent from mobile, with due apologies for brevity and errors.
> On Oct 23, 2021, at 6:52 PM, Jeff Shultz wrote:
>
>
I'd bet that taxes and business licences enter into it. For some of those
companies there is a lot of paper that goes back a lot of years in various
federal, state, and local file cabinets. It's sometimes easier to simply
use the old names that already have a legal existence in an area than try
to
I'm curious why companies like T-Mobile and Inteliquent/Onvoy/Voyant
continue to retain company names and corporate entities long after their
brands have been retired, acquired, and generally shell entities holding
phone numbers.
Some examples:
T-Mobile-> Omnipoint, Aerial Communications
13 matches
Mail list logo
