Amen, Tom, this is a excellent snapshot. I am still concerned about what
is going to happen in June or July when the ILECs don't have to share
anymore...
John
Tom DeReggi wrote:
Charles,
> below their cost
This is the key phrase. Do you really think CLECs have asked ILECs to
wholeslae their networks under cost? Definately not.
If they are, the ILEC is choosing to sell services below their cost
retail as well. And the CLECs are not asking for anything more than
the ILEC is already doing for themselves, if they were to seperate
Circuit versus Internet/backbone/value added features.
The truth is the only thing an ILEC is being asked today, is to sell
service at less than retail, so profit can be made on the value and
additional components that they provide. And ILECs are being asked to
sell to providers that are viewed as competitors.
This is where the ILEC mentality has been flawed and is greatly wrong.
A CLEC should not be viewed as a Competitor. The CLEC should be viewed
as a Partner. If a relationship is done properly, Both the ILEC and
the CLEC would get their fair share out of the deal. The problem is
that ILECs are greedy, and want the whole pie for themselves. I'd
argue that its not the ILECs thats are getting invaded but the ISPs
that are getting invaded. The ILECs have basically said, although we
are a circuit provider, we now also want to be the content and service
provider ALSO, and steal that position away from all the many value
add providers (ISPs and CLECs) out there. ILECs try to change the
rules. ILECs are the ones that broke the laws of Anti-Trust, unsing
the advantage of one service (network circuits) to leverage their
advantage to take over other peoples businesses (value add services
and Internet), forgetting that it was the public and monopoly
protection that allowed the ILEC to grow to their size and wealth.
Everyone wants to be King of the world if they could be. But this
country did away with aristocracy 200 years ago.
So I'd answer your comment, as no problem I'd be glad to wholesale my
network. I offer my peice, you offer yours, and we grow quicker
togeather, offer better value togeather, and we all prosper. And I'd
ahve no problem selling our services at a discounted rate,
proportional to the value they provide.
Would I agree to sell them broadband under cost? No. It is a
misconception that Verizon is doing that today. Its the Verizons and
Comcasts that are forcing the price down to unprofitable levels, that
force providers to use 30 year ROI models to plan for success.
Under cutting $500 a month services to $300 services (like CLECs do),
is not any where the same thing as Verizon and Comcast going to
businesses and selling services for $19 a month, at their own free
will under cost, with the purpose to extinguish competitors, and force
eveyone to run out of money, because ILECs have monopoly protection
and in most cases protection from the legislature and FCC based on the
Billions of Americans that would be effected, if ILECs had financial
problems.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with sharing networks, if there are
provisions designed in to allow it to be safely shared.
The day a private investors says, I paid for my network 100% with my
own money, and no protection, they have the right to say, I won't hare
"MY" network.
The only providers I'm aware of in that position, are WISPs. Its a
compeltely different situation when things are turned around.
I'd be estatic to share my network with a Comcast or SBC, take
advantage of their valuable expertise and marketing power. ONl;y thing
is, in todays world it won't happen, they'll just pull a "Northpoint"
deal. Gather competitove confidential info, and backout.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Charles Wu <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* 'WISPA General List' <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:08 AM
*Subject:* RE: [WISPA] FW: Call your Senators: Stop SB245
Just a thought here
Is more or less regulation on facilities based providers a good or
bad thing for WISPs (who are also facilities based providers)
Keep in mind, supporting regulation for SBC / Comcast / whoever
sets the precedent for regulation of our internal networks
Lets think of one possible scenario
It's 2016 and now WISPs have taken over (killed off SBC / Comcast)
-- guys like Scriv and Harnish and DeReggi have hundreds of
thousands (if not millions) of customers each, and WISPA is some
national force that has huge influence on capital
hill...now...what happens of a regulatory act gets passed forcing
WISPs to wholesale their networks to SBC / Comcast below their cost
just a thought
-Charles
-------------------------------------------
WiNOG Austin, TX
March 13-15, 2006
http://www.winog.com <http://www.winog.com/>
SNIP
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
