Doesn't their existing infrastructure, and social dependency on that infrastructure, give them a somewhat legitimate need for a bailout? If other, smaller, more efficient companies can replace everything the telecom behemoths do, then let the big boys suffer, but is that the case? Can smaller tech savvy companies do everything the large telecoms do or are we talking strictly about broadband internet?
Doesn't their existing infrastructure, and social dependency on that infrastructure, give them a somewhat legitimate need for a bailout?
As far as I know, the citizens of the US are engaged in an ongoing "bailout" of the Baby Bells... that's what all of the tariffs, etc. on the standard phone bill are for.
We've *paid* for the infrastructure, allowing the telcos to profit from their regional monopolies for decades.
I think that it is time to reclaim our ownership of it, decouple the infrastructure from the services by making infrastructure maintenance the province of non-profit organizations, forcing the the Baby Bells to compete for services on a level playing field.
Of course, it will never happen - the Baby Bells spend enormous amounts of lobbying money at both the state and federal level to retain their "ownership" and control of "their" infrastructure, and the fact that our money was spent to build out their regional infrastructures is something they'd prefer everyone ignore.
Oddly, one of the justifications that the Baby Bells continue to use for tariffs is to guarantee services in low population density areas... yet these regions are still lagging far behind more populous locations in DSL availability (and even quality POTS lines) because it isn't "cost effective" for the Bells to roll out such services there, despite the fact that the tariffs are supposed to eliminate cost considerations in such places in the first place!
Further, the ILECs continue to prevent competition from CLECs whenever possible.
True story: Here in Upstate NY I had a customer that wanted high speed Internet access... they are located in a small rural town, and a T1 line wasn't an option due to the cost. The POTS lines are lousy (and have been for the nearly 2 decades that I've done service there), and the local cable company didn't offer cablemodem services because their infrastructure couldn't support it and the owner wasn't prepared to make the financial commitment to rebuild the cable plant in town.
The ILEC in this case (Verizon) wouldn't even offer them ISDN, which was in theory available, would have been at least acceptable for their Internet needs (which were basic email and light Web-browsing for some 20 LAN users).
Well, after some searching, I found a CLEC that could offer DSL albeit "only" at 256Kbps due to distance) and local business dialtone service as well. There was much rejoicing, and plans were made to roll it out. A few other companies in town discovered what this company doing, and they too expressed an interest in DSL for their Internet access. It looked like a "win-win" for everyone: My customers would get cost-effective Internet access, lower cost business telephone service, the CLEC would get business that Verizon couldn't (or wouldn't) provide and my company would make money installing the firewalls, routers, mail servers, etc.
When Verizon found out what was going on, they closed the POP from which the CLEC was operating, splitting the services between 2 small cities in the area, citing "lack of demand for services" from that location as the reason for their actions, thereby eliminating the CLEC's ability to deliver local dial tone and DSL services to that town.
This is the same Verizon that is now allowed to offer long distance services because they have sufficiently opened up the last mile to competition...
The more things change, the more they stay the same, at least here in Verizonland.
It's obvious to me that so long as the RBOCs have control of the last mile, continue to have it supported by tax dollars, credits and tariffs, and abuse their monopoly control over it, that they will *not* compete, but will simply continue to ask for more money from us and the government when their mistakes cost them money.
Time to wean them from the public teat. No more bailouts!
There's a commercial running in the Wash, DC area about the curious condition of SBC (another of the Baby Bells). Seems that one of the financial officers was boasting to Wall Street that the company was so flush with cash (the amount $5B comes to mind), that they didn't know how they were going to spend it all! A mere week later, the company announced layoffs of 11,000 and now they want a bailout from the Fed Govt.
There's a commercial running in the Wash, DC area about the curious condition of SBC (another of the Baby Bells). Seems that one of the financial officers was boasting to Wall Street that the company was so flush with cash (the amount $5B comes to mind), that they didn't know how they were going to spend it all! A mere week later, the company announced layoffs of 11,000 and now they want a bailout from the Fed Govt. >>>>>>
Maybe they studied math with the Enron accountants?
Well put - you hit the nail on the head. I can't say I'm surprised to hear about your troubles with Verizon upstate. Reminds me of many stories I could relate...
What amazes me about them is how blatant and unapologetic they always were in flouting the TA96 regulations; even down to the middle- and lower-management. We watched them directly, blatantly and constantly bludgeon their "competitors." The FCC always seemed at best paralyzed by the political fight, and once Bush took the election, the writing was on the wall...
Your idea about maintaining the infrastrcuture with non-profits and converting the RBOCs to client status is an excellent one. Makes you wonder why they didn't do it that way in the first place.;)
Your idea about maintaining the infrastrcuture with non-profits and converting the RBOCs to client status is an excellent one. Makes you wonder why they didn't do it that way in the first place.;) Same reason these things always happen. Somebody had a lot of money, and some other people were willing to sell out the public to get their hands on it.
Verizon is still a protected monopoly hereabouts (with exclusive territories), from back in the day when GTE was the poor little downtrodden local telecom trying desperately to compete (but not doing so well largely due to crap service, which certainly hasn't gotten any better). Now that they have, per latest numbers I've seen, 83% of the market, will someone explain to me why they're still a protected monopoly with exclusive territories??
This area can't get DSL because Verizon won't update the bad DMS station (it's 15 years old and was defective/outdated when it was installed, and they can't get parts for it. So I was informed by the poor sucker in charge of maintaining this station.) It's also why dialup here peaks at 26k, and why there is lots of voice dropout and static.
I finally threatened Verizon with making a complaint to the dreaded Public Utilities Commission, and that got a response from some mid-level manager. But from the lack of followup (they failed to report back as promised on the results from testing the DMS), it's pretty clear that response was just to shut me up. Methinks a chat with the PUC is now in order.
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't their existing infrastructure, and
social dependency on that infrastructure, give them a somewhat legitimate need for a bailout?
As far as I know, the citizens of the US are engaged in an ongoing "bailout" of the Baby Bells... that's what all of the tariffs, etc. on the standard phone bill are for.
We've *paid* for the infrastructure, allowing the telcos to profit from their regional monopolies for decades.
I think that it is time to reclaim our ownership of it, decouple the infrastructure from the services by making infrastructure maintenance the province of non-profit organizations, forcing the the Baby Bells to compete for services on a level playing field.
Of course, it will never happen - the Baby Bells spend enormous amounts of lobbying money at both the state and federal level to retain their "ownership" and control of "their" infrastructure, and the fact that our money was spent to build out their regional infrastructures is something they'd prefer everyone ignore.
Oddly, one of the justifications that the Baby Bells continue to use for tariffs is to guarantee services in low population density areas... yet these regions are still lagging far behind more populous locations in DSL availability (and even quality POTS lines) because it isn't "cost effective" for the Bells to roll out such services there, despite the fact that the tariffs are supposed to eliminate cost considerations in such places in the first place!
Further, the ILECs continue to prevent competition from CLECs whenever possible.
True story: Here in Upstate NY I had a customer that wanted high speed Internet access... they are located in a small rural town, and a T1 line wasn't an option due to the cost. The POTS lines are lousy (and have been for the nearly 2 decades that I've done service there), and the local cable company didn't offer cablemodem services because their infrastructure couldn't support it and the owner wasn't prepared to make the financial commitment to rebuild the cable plant in town.
The ILEC in this case (Verizon) wouldn't even offer them ISDN, which was in theory available, would have been at least acceptable for their Internet needs (which were basic email and light Web-browsing for some 20 LAN users).
Well, after some searching, I found a CLEC that could offer DSL albeit "only" at 256Kbps due to distance) and local business dialtone service as well. There was much rejoicing, and plans were made to roll it out. A few other companies in town discovered what this company doing, and they too expressed an interest in DSL for their Internet access. It looked like a "win-win" for everyone: My customers would get cost-effective Internet access, lower cost business telephone service, the CLEC would get business that Verizon couldn't (or wouldn't) provide and my company would make money installing the firewalls, routers, mail servers, etc.
When Verizon found out what was going on, they closed the POP from which the CLEC was operating, splitting the services between 2 small cities in the area, citing "lack of demand for services" from that location as the reason for their actions, thereby eliminating the CLEC's ability to deliver local dial tone and DSL services to that town.
This is the same Verizon that is now allowed to offer long distance services because they have sufficiently opened up the last mile to competition...
The more things change, the more they stay the same, at least here in Verizonland.
It's obvious to me that so long as the RBOCs have control of the last mile, continue to have it supported by tax dollars, credits and tariffs, and abuse their monopoly control over it, that they will *not* compete, but will simply continue to ask for more money from us and the government when their mistakes cost them money.
Time to wean them from the public teat. No more bailouts!
SBC too (Score:2, Interesting)
What the heck, over?
Re:SBC too (Score:1)
Re:SBC too (Score:1)
>>>>>>
Maybe they studied math with the Enron accountants?
Excellent comment (Score:2)
What amazes me about them is how blatant and unapologetic they always were in flouting the TA96 regulations; even down to the middle- and lower-management. We watched them directly, blatantly and constantly bludgeon their "competitors." The FCC always seemed at best paralyzed by the political fight, and once Bush took the election, the writing was on the wall...
Your idea about maintaining the infrastrcuture with non-profits and converting the RBOCs to client status is an excellent one. Makes you wonder why they didn't do it that way in the first place.
Re:Excellent comment (Score:2)
Your idea about maintaining the infrastrcuture with non-profits and converting the RBOCs to client status is an excellent one. Makes you wonder why they didn't do it that way in the first place. ;)
Same reason these things always happen. Somebody had a lot of money, and some other people were willing to sell out the public to get their hands on it.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:2)
This area can't get DSL because Verizon won't update the bad DMS station (it's 15 years old and was defective/outdated when it was installed, and they can't get parts for it. So I was informed by the poor sucker in charge of maintaining this station.) It's also why dialup here peaks at 26k, and why there is lots of voice dropout and static.
I finally threatened Verizon with making a complaint to the dreaded Public Utilities Commission, and that got a response from some mid-level manager. But from the lack of followup (they failed to report back as promised on the results from testing the DMS), it's pretty clear that response was just to shut me up. Methinks a chat with the PUC is now in order.