PDA

View Full Version : One Phone Company



Stoop Dawg
3/3/2005, 03:36 PM
I predict that within 5 years you will essentially have one phone company (SBC). This company will carry your local, long distance, and wireless calls. There will still be some smaller companies out in rural America, but 90% of Americans will have service from SBC - and have no choice in the matter.

SBC recently purchased AT&T and already owns Cincular. Sprint is about to be gobbled up by Verizon (or possibly Qwest). Look for BellSouth to be eaten by SBC soon. In a few years, SBC will buy Verizon/Qwest (whoever gets Sprint) and you'll have one phone company.

You may recall that this is exactly the situation we were in in 1984. The government spent lots of money breaking up "Ma Bell" into Local and Long Distance. Then, in 1996 the government spent even more money promoting competition in the Local arena. Most of that competition was the result of the FCC requiring that the incumbent carriers ("Ma Bell") allow competitors to lease the infrastructure required to provide phone service. Well, the DC Circuit court has over-ruled the FCC and the Bells (SBC, BellSouth, Verizon, Qwest, etc.) don't have to lease their networks anymore. Most of them claim that they still allow competitors to lease their network. Well, that's technically correct. However, consider that SBC tripled their rates. Not exactly fostering competition, huh?

So now, if you want to compete with "Ma Bell" you have to go lay cable to every house you want to serve. Cable companies? Well, I suppose Cox could be considered competition. But have a look at the geographical region served by Cox. Our office is on NW Expressway and Rockwell and we can't get Cox service. So if you live in an urban area you'll have two choices. Rural areas get one.

Anyway, my question to you, Joe consumer, is do you care?

mdklatt
3/3/2005, 03:42 PM
I thought AT&T purchased SBC? Either way, it doesn't make sense when you consider that SBC originated when AT&T was broken up for being a monopoly in the first place.

Stoop Dawg
3/3/2005, 03:48 PM
No, SBC is the giant.

Exactly. The government spent a lot of time breaking up AT&T to foster competition. Now they're undoing the rules that created competition and are letting the giant reassemble. It's like a bad episode of the transformers where they all combine together to form one giant, menacing robot.

What irks me the most is that they made laws and entrepreneurs started business based on those laws. Now they are legislating many companies right out of business. Companies they intentionally created only 10 years ago!!

soonerspiff
3/3/2005, 03:52 PM
...Karl Marx's theory of communism taking place in phone companies

Ike
3/3/2005, 04:27 PM
before long it will be easier for phone companies to compete, when all phones are wireless. mark it down, this WILL happen...maybe not for several years, but the land line will go the way of the horse drawn carriage.

in that case, the only infrastructure you have to build are towers, which are much cheaper than laying cable everywhere.

But with most competing phone companies being gobbled up, its going to make it that much more difficult for new companies to get off the ground.

Mjcpr
3/3/2005, 04:46 PM
So now, if you want to compete with "Ma Bell" you have to go lay cable to every house you want to serve.
I'm the man for the job!

;)

the-boulder
3/3/2005, 05:29 PM
Well, as an employee of a large Telecom Company that is trying to decide between two Suitors I can tell you one large reason as to why this is happening.

Basically the FCC made the decision that the LEC(Local Exchange Carrier- SBC, Verizon, Qwest) no longer had to provide access loops to the the MCI's, SPrints and AT&T's of the world at a discounted rate. This means that if AT&T wants to sign up a business customer who has SBC fiber ot their building- AT&T will have to pay SBC a retail loop price and then try and make a thin margin off the rest of the peice depending on the product.

You might say this is pure competition, why should the LEC's have to discount Local Access to the Sprints, MCI, AT&T's of the world? Well, it comes down to that little government approved monopoly they had for 60 years. The only reason they have all the access lines is becasue of of government regulations that prior to 1984 breakup that prevented anyone else from putitng fiber or copper in the ground. Therefore, the required discounting of those loops(constructed and supported under a monopoly) is the only way to give every company a level playing field.

So, to wrap it up AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc, now need a LEC just to offset its cost and make any money.....

Stoop Dawg
3/3/2005, 05:31 PM
before long it will be easier for phone companies to compete, when all phones are wireless. mark it down, this WILL happen...maybe not for several years, but the land line will go the way of the horse drawn carriage.

in that case, the only infrastructure you have to build are towers, which are much cheaper than laying cable everywhere.

But with most competing phone companies being gobbled up, its going to make it that much more difficult for new companies to get off the ground.


Wireless bandwidth isn't there yet. You can't do broadband internet over a wireless signal - yet. I think you're probably right though. Wireless will usurp wireline.

However, you still have the same problem (or similar). The problem is infrastructure. Now, I'm all against government regulation and all for capitalism, but when it comes to infrastructure of this magnitude I think a little govt intervention may be called for (I can't believe I just typed that). Imagine having 5 cell towers in your neighborhood because 5 phone companies want your business. Ain't gonna happen. It's too expensive and too ugly. Plus, those 5 companies have to interconnect to complete calls on each other's networks. That means all kinds of switching equipment and cooperation between companies. If you think getting service from SBC is tough as a consumer, try being a competitor.

What we need is more of what we had. Instead of reniging on the promise of the Bells having to lease their network, we should say that the only thing the Bells CAN do is lease their network. No more end user sales. The infrastructure provider should only be allowed to sell to "retailers". The retailers then compete for your business by offering better rates, bundled products, better customer service, etc. If the Bells want to be a retailer they can start up a retail company. However, they pay the same rates as other retailers. It seems so simple, I can't believe our congressmen can't figure it out.

Mjcpr
3/3/2005, 05:31 PM
Well, as an employee of a large Telecom Company that is trying to decide between two Suitors I can tell you one large reason as to why this is happening.

Basically the FCC made the decision that the LEC(Local Exchange Carrier- SBC, Verizon, Qwest) no longer had to provide access loops to the the MCI's, SPrints and AT&T's of the world at a discounted rate. This means that if AT&T wants to sign up a business customer who has SBC fiber ot their building- AT&T will have to pay SBC a retail loop price and then try and make a thin margin off the rest of the peice depending on the product.

You might say this is pure competition, why should the LEC's have to discount Local Access to the Sprints, MCI, AT&T's of the world? Well, it comes down to that little government approved monopoly they had for 60 years. The only reason they have all the access lines is becasue of of government regulations that prior to 1984 breakup that prevented anyone else from putitng fiber or copper in the ground. Therefore, the required discounting of those loops(constructed and supported under a monopoly) is the only way to give every company a level playing field.

So, to wrap it up AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc, now need a LEC just to offset its cost and make any money.....
So should we be happy or afraid?

GottaHavePride
3/3/2005, 05:34 PM
Wireless bandwidth isn't there yet. You can't do broadband internet over a wireless signal - yet.
Japan can... ;)

Stoop Dawg
3/3/2005, 05:38 PM
So, to wrap it up AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc, now need a LEC just to offset its cost and make any money.....

Hmmm, I see it the other way around. The LECs are gobbling up LD companies to reap the huge (relatively speaking) profit margin there. That's what they've wanted since 1984 - to get back into the LD game. Now they got it.

Maybe it's just a matter of perspective.

DCSooner
3/3/2005, 05:38 PM
I'm the man for the job!

;)
wait. your a dude?

Stoop Dawg
3/3/2005, 05:40 PM
So should we be happy or afraid?

Afraid.

Have you called SBC lately? They actually answer the phone "SBC, my name is Stoop Dawg, I won't be able to help you but I'll be more than happy to transfer you to someone else who can't help you either".

Mjcpr
3/3/2005, 05:40 PM
wait. your a dude?
I'm a man, man.

mdklatt
3/3/2005, 05:41 PM
wait. your a dude?

I'm still waiting for the answer for this. Seriously, I want to know.

Stoop Dawg
3/3/2005, 05:42 PM
DO NOT ATTEMPT TO HIJACK MY RANT AGAINST SBC!!! :mad:

DCSooner
3/3/2005, 05:43 PM
DO NOT ATTEMPT TO HIJACK MY RANT AGAINST SBC!!! :mad:
dude, it was a generalization. Lighten up.


:D

soonerboomer93
3/3/2005, 05:43 PM
I thought cingular was 40% owned by Bell South, not SBC

Stoop Dawg
3/3/2005, 05:53 PM
I thought cingular was 40% owned by Bell South, not SBC

I'm pretty sure SBC is the majority owner (since AT&T merged with Cingular and SBC bought AT&T). BellSouth may own some too. That won't be an issue once SBC buys BellSouth (my prognostication).

the-boulder
3/3/2005, 07:09 PM
Hmmm, I see it the other way around. The LECs are gobbling up LD companies to reap the huge (relatively speaking) profit margin there. That's what they've wanted since 1984 - to get back into the LD game. Now they got it.

Maybe it's just a matter of perspective.

We are both correct- the LEC's want to get in the LD game, but up until recently the Big LD folks had some incentive to give it a fight and compete. Now they pretty much have had to lift their skirts and flaunt their goods to survive. MCI has been shopping itself for months knowiung that they can't survive under current regulations.

yermom
3/3/2005, 07:46 PM
it seems to me that with Wireless phones and Voice over IP all over the place that Long Distance won't exist the same way much longer

kinda like payphones, i just don't see them being money makers at all

the-boulder
3/3/2005, 09:50 PM
it seems to me that with Wireless phones and Voice over IP all over the place that Long Distance won't exist the same way much longer

kinda like payphones, i just don't see them being money makers at all

true, but I wasn't really speaking of LD(it's been a loss leader for years)- to get VOIP to a business customer all the MCI, AT&T and Sprints of the world still have to buy the local loop through SBC-

Johnny5
3/3/2005, 11:30 PM
Google is also going to be taking over everything withini 10 years. inside info, hide it well.

Sooner24
3/4/2005, 12:20 AM
For the LECs to have to lease their lines at a discount so the AT&T’s and other CLECs can go out and sell the leased lines cheaper then the SBCs and Verizons of the world are allowed too is unfair. The CLECs spent no money on employees to maintain equipment. They did not invest any money in upgrading equipment but wanted to take the high end business customers and leave the regular customer out of the mix.

Here is an example of how unfair it is. Say I went down to Burger King and they had to sell me their hamburgers for half of what they charge for them and I turn around and sell the burgers in the parking lot for $.50 less then they sell them.

Fair? I think not.

That is not competing that is stealing.

By the way Cingular is 60% owned by SBC and 40% by Bell South.

Stoop Dawg
3/4/2005, 09:19 AM
For the LECs to have to lease their lines at a discount so the AT&T’s and other CLECs can go out and sell the leased lines cheaper then the SBCs and Verizons of the world are allowed too is unfair. The CLECs spent no money on employees to maintain equipment. They did not invest any money in upgrading equipment but wanted to take the high end business customers and leave the regular customer out of the mix.

Here is an example of how unfair it is. Say I went down to Burger King and they had to sell me their hamburgers for half of what they charge for them and I turn around and sell the burgers in the parking lot for $.50 less then they sell them.

Fair? I think not.

That is not competing that is stealing.

By the way Cingular is 60% owned by SBC and 40% by Bell South.

I can appreciate that position, I really can. However, as the-boulder said the LECs were practically given their infrastructure due to their monopoly position all those years. To expect a CLEC to build the same infrastructure in 8 years is ludicrous. Actually, to expect a CLEC to build the same infrastructure at all is ludicrous. No one wants 10 lines into their house, and it isn't required.

Selling at a discounted rate isn't stealing. It happens all the time. There's actually a word for it - wholesale. Wholesale is offering a cheaper rate to someone who wants to resell your product. The advantage to the wholesaler is reduced customer care. What if you could sell the same amount of product but only have 100 customers instead of 1,000,000? Would that be cheaper? Yes! Labor is the top cost item in almost any business. And customer care likely tops the labor cost category in a phone company.

The LEC provides the infrastructure (or was given the infrastructure, depending on your perspective) and the CLEC provides the sales, billing, customer care, etc. Pretty simple, really. The alternative is to allow the LEC to sell retail, jack up the wholesale prices (TRIPLE!!!), and run everyone else out of business. That leaves us with a monopoly phone company, the same monopoly phone company we tried to get rid of in the 80s and 90s.

Stoop Dawg
3/4/2005, 09:26 AM
it seems to me that with Wireless phones and Voice over IP all over the place that Long Distance won't exist the same way much longer

kinda like payphones, i just don't see them being money makers at all

Don't kid yourself. Pay phones still make some coin (haha, okay, lame pun).


true, but I wasn't really speaking of LD(it's been a loss leader for years)- to get VOIP to a business customer all the MCI, AT&T and Sprints of the world still have to buy the local loop through SBC-

Dead on. VoIP requires broadband. Broadband means SBC or Cox. Satellite isn't even considered VoIP capable due to it's slow upstream speeds.

Wireless may replace residential LD, but I don't see business abandoning wireline LD for some time. But businesses are more likely to move to VoIP, so long as the QoS is up to par (still not quite there, or so I'm told).

So yeah, I'd agree that traditional LD is on the way out. However, it's replacements (Wireless and VoIP) are both going to be controlled by SBC. Remove money from left pocket and place in right one.

RU4OU2
3/4/2005, 09:48 AM
Antitrust!!! When AT&T wireless and Cingular merged there were 14 markets where Cingular was not allowed to purchase AT&T due to the fact that Cingular would have a monopoly. OKC is one of those markets. AT&T in OKC has been purchased by Alltel from Arkansas. The deal has not be finalized but should be completed some time in the second quater. The government will not allow one company to run the whole deal.

Stoop Dawg
3/4/2005, 11:51 AM
The government will not allow one company to run the whole deal.

I disagree. So Cingular couldn't buy AT&T in OKC (I'll take your word for it, though I hear from friends that had AT&T that they are now Cingular customers), that won't stop them from moving into this market and squeezing out competition. It'll cost a little more because they'll have to build infrastructure instead of buy it, but it won't stop them.

The main point, however, is that our government spent a lot of time and money breaking up these guys. Now they're simply letting them get back together - only now they control even more services (local, LD, wireless, broadband internet). It seems, errrr, odd to me.

The secondary point is that infrastructure is expensive. It doesn't make sense for every competitor to have to build new infrastructure. It creates an extremely high barrier to entry and serves only to drive up the cost of services to consumers. It's more desirable (to me, anyway) to have one infrastructure and lots of competition on top of that infrastructure.

Sooner24
3/4/2005, 01:23 PM
I can appreciate that position, I really can. However, as the-boulder said the LECs were practically given their infrastructure due to their monopoly position all those years. To expect a CLEC to build the same infrastructure in 8 years is ludicrous. Actually, to expect a CLEC to build the same infrastructure at all is ludicrous. No one wants 10 lines into their house, and it isn't required.

Selling at a discounted rate isn't stealing. It happens all the time. There's actually a word for it - wholesale. Wholesale is offering a cheaper rate to someone who wants to resell your product. The advantage to the wholesaler is reduced customer care. What if you could sell the same amount of product but only have 100 customers instead of 1,000,000? Would that be cheaper? Yes! Labor is the top cost item in almost any business. And customer care likely tops the labor cost category in a phone company.

The LEC provides the infrastructure (or was given the infrastructure, depending on your perspective) and the CLEC provides the sales, billing, customer care, etc. Pretty simple, really. The alternative is to allow the LEC to sell retail, jack up the wholesale prices (TRIPLE!!!), and run everyone else out of business. That leaves us with a monopoly phone company, the same monopoly phone company we tried to get rid of in the 80s and 90s.


Offering and being force are not the same thing.

Sooner24
3/4/2005, 01:26 PM
I disagree. So Cingular couldn't buy AT&T in OKC (I'll take your word for it, though I hear from friends that had AT&T that they are now Cingular customers), that won't stop them from moving into this market and squeezing out competition. It'll cost a little more because they'll have to build infrastructure instead of buy it, but it won't stop them.

The main point, however, is that our government spent a lot of time and money breaking up these guys. Now they're simply letting them get back together - only now they control even more services (local, LD, wireless, broadband internet). It seems, errrr, odd to me.

The secondary point is that infrastructure is expensive. It doesn't make sense for every competitor to have to build new infrastructure. It creates an extremely high barrier to entry and serves only to drive up the cost of services to consumers. It's more desirable (to me, anyway) to have one infrastructure and lots of competition on top of that infrastructure.


It also doesn't make any sense for the LECs to spend money on that expensive infrastructure only to have to turn around and give it away.

How about you build on an addition to you home but you then have to turn around and rent out half of it for next to nothing.

Stoop Dawg
3/4/2005, 06:45 PM
Offering and being force are not the same thing.

Of course not. But the reason the LECs were forced into UNE was because of their monopoly position. The goal was to create a competitive marketplace and reduce government regulation. If the LECs combine back into one big monopoly, you'll get to see even more forcing going on by the government.


It also doesn't make any sense for the LECs to spend money on that expensive infrastructure only to have to turn around and give it away.

How about you build on an addition to you home but you then have to turn around and rent out half of it for next to nothing.

I can see I've touched a nerve. That's fine, no one wants to give up the huge profits being raked in by the ILECs today. If we take a look at SBC's balance sheet I think we'll find that they are not struggling one bit. Quite the contrary.

Regardless, let me make two points in my defense.

1. The UNE rates were set by the LECs themselves and approved by the FCC. They were supposed to be high enough to cover the cost of maintaining the infrastructure. So it's not "next to nothing".

2. Under a wholesale arrangement, SBC could set its price at whatever it wanted - so long as it gave the same price to all retailers. Then SBC could set its rates as high as it wanted. They would only need to be careful that they didn't get so high that retailers can't sell the product anymore. SBC could even be a retailer, so long as they paid the same wholesale rates as everyone else. Think of automakers and dealerships. It would be a similar arrangement to that.

Sooner24
3/4/2005, 07:15 PM
No nerve touched here. I am all for competition but I don't believe that anyone should have to give away, involuntarily, their product to promote competition. Looking back at your prior post it looks like you are the one with the touchy nerve problem. :eddie:

I am guessing you have a problem with Bill Gates and Microsoft too. ;)

Stoop Dawg
3/6/2005, 07:21 PM
No nerve touched here. I am all for competition but I don't believe that anyone should have to give away, involuntarily, their product to promote competition. Looking back at your prior post it looks like you are the one with the touchy nerve problem. :eddie:

I am guessing you have a problem with Bill Gates and Microsoft too. ;)

Since you obviously haven't read my posts, it's understandable that you are unable to see (much less respond to) my points. Not a problem, I'm sure other people got it.

Sooner24
3/7/2005, 12:50 AM
Since you obviously haven't read my posts, it's understandable that you are unable to see (much less respond to) my points. Not a problem, I'm sure other people got it.


And your point is the phone company should give away their product because the CLECs don't want to invest their own money in infrastructure? Make sense to me. :rolleyes:

Stoop Dawg
3/7/2005, 11:56 AM
And your point is the phone company should give away their product because the CLECs don't want to invest their own money in infrastructure? Make sense to me. :rolleyes:

Yes, that's exactly what I said.


The main point, however, is that our government spent a lot of time and money breaking up these guys. Now they're simply letting them get back together - only now they control even more services (local, LD, wireless, broadband internet). It seems, errrr, odd to me.

The secondary point is that infrastructure is expensive. It doesn't make sense for every competitor to have to build new infrastructure. It creates an extremely high barrier to entry and serves only to drive up the cost of services to consumers. It's more desirable (to me, anyway) to have one infrastructure and lots of competition on top of that infrastructure.

Notice the highlighted text where I said that companies should be forced to give away their products for free.

(That's sarcasm, for the reading-comprehension impaired)

the-boulder
3/7/2005, 12:11 PM
No nerve touched here. I am all for competition but I don't believe that anyone should have to give away, involuntarily, their product to promote competition. Looking back at your prior post it looks like you are the one with the touchy nerve problem. :eddie:

I am guessing you have a problem with Bill Gates and Microsoft too. ;)


I think you are missing the point a little bit. In your buger king example it would be like if the government only allowwed Burger King to sell hamburgers in your city for 60 years and then all of the sudden allowed Mcdonalds to sell Burgers, but they had to buy their meat from Burger King because the government felt that having more than one company buying meat would be a public health issue. Burger King still wants everyone to buy burgers from them so they charge $2 bucks for the whole burger to retail customers and $1.50 to McD's for just the one piece of meat.

MCD's can technically sell Hamburgers now, but if they have to pay $1.50 for the meat, then there is little way they can sell the whole burger for $2 bucks.

So, thanks to gov't regulation, BK has an unlevel and unfair advantage given to them by the gov't- thus. the only way to offset that advantage is to force them to discount the meat they to sell to MCD's......

Sooner24
3/7/2005, 02:02 PM
I think you are missing the point a little bit. In your buger king example it would be like if the government only allowwed Burger King to sell hamburgers in your city for 60 years and then all of the sudden allowed Mcdonalds to sell Burgers, but they had to buy their meat from Burger King because the government felt that having more than one company buying meat would be a public health issue. Burger King still wants everyone to buy burgers from them so they charge $2 bucks for the whole burger to retail customers and $1.50 to McD's for just the one piece of meat.

MCD's can technically sell Hamburgers now, but if they have to pay $1.50 for the meat, then there is little way they can sell the whole burger for $2 bucks.

So, thanks to gov't regulation, BK has an unlevel and unfair advantage given to them by the gov't- thus. the only way to offset that advantage is to force them to discount the meat they to sell to MCD's......

The point is that ANYONE can go into ANY city or town and construct a building, run fiber all over town, and start selling phone, cable, internet and whatever other services they decide to sell. In your BK/MickyD example you are assuming that MickyD is forced to buy their meat from BK. This is not the case here. The government is not forcing AT&T, Birch or any other leach CLEC to buy their service from SBC. They were however forcing SBC to sell at a discounted rate their service to the CLEC so they could resell it and to top things off they, like COX cable, are not regulated by the Corporation Commission and can set their rates where they want them. My suggestion to Stoop Dawg since he has decided to start name calling is to switch to Cox cable.

Stoop Dawg
3/7/2005, 03:55 PM
My suggestion to Stoop Dawg since he has decided to start name calling is to switch to Cox cable.

I haven't called anyone a name.

I haven't called SBC anything but incompetent.

I don't blame SBC one bit for trying to make as much money as they can.

I don't blame SBC one bit for trying to eliminate competition.

If you'll take your f*cking blinders off for one second you'll see that my rant is against the FCC and the DC Circuit court of appeals, NOT SBC!!!

You need to quit drinking the SBC kool-aid, dude. It's impairing your ability to read or debate logically.

Sooner24
3/7/2005, 04:55 PM
(That's sarcasm, for the reading-comprehension impaired)------I just assumed you were refering to me but since I am reading-comprehensive impaired I am not sure. :rolleyes:

Gee you just keep getting worked up over this and I haven't had any kool-aid since I was 10 so that's not it. ;)

It wouldn't matter if you were talking about Wal-Mart, Microsoft or the Mom & Pop store down the street WRONG IS WRONG!!!!.

This will be my last post on this matter so you can go ahead and tee-off on me.

Stoop Dawg
3/6/2006, 01:04 PM
Is everyone ready for higher rates and even worse service?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060306/bs_nm/telecoms_att_dc

Mjcpr
3/6/2006, 01:21 PM
I predict that within 5 years you will essentially have one phone company (SBC).

You were way off; it's going to be called AT&T.

Stoop Dawg
3/6/2006, 01:40 PM
You were way off; it's going to be called AT&T.

Doh!!


Look for BellSouth to be eaten by SBC soon.

Craziness.

Oh, and get ready to pay extra for some IP-based real-time services (such as voice, video, music, etc.).


To address the problem, BellSouth and AT&T, formerly SBC, plan to offer Web content providers new fee-based services that would assure speedy delivery of movies, games and other offerings over DSL broadband lines. Verizon is also considering enhanced services but has been vague about its plans.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/982897311.html?did=982897311&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Feb+7%2C+2006&author=Paul+Davidson&pub=USA+TODAY&desc=Web+traffic+jams+bring+fight+over+fast-lane+fees+%3B+Phone+companies+plan+to+charge+conte nt+providers

Don't worry, I'm sure those costs won't be passed along to consumers, who are already paying for network speeds that they don't really get.

Vaevictis
3/6/2006, 05:21 PM
Afraid.

Have you called SBC lately? They actually answer the phone "SBC, my name is Stoop Dawg, I won't be able to help you but I'll be more than happy to transfer you to someone else who can't help you either".

Heh, it's all about knowing which number to call. Only fools call the customer service number. The smart people pull the SEC filings and find the contact numbers for the president's office, etc. The president's office of SBC does NOT like having its phone lines tied up with customer service issues.

(They actually re-ran a line 6,000 feet from my domicile to the CO after they promised that the line would be DSL capable and ended up not being so.... after I started hassling the president's office).


The point is that ANYONE with EXTRAORDINARILY deep pockets and a willingness to enter a low margin business (unless they can achieve monopoly) can go into ANY city or town and construct MANY buildings, run fiber all over town (provided that they can get permits to dig up every road in the city, assuming they can find right-of-way there in the first place), and start selling phone, cable, internet and whatever other services they decide to sell at prices that would require years, if not decades of service to recoup the initial investment.

Fixed it for you.

There are certain types of businesses that will not efficiently tolerate more than one player in the market; telecom physical infrastructure is one of them. It's not a coincidence that you're seeing this consolidation of physical infrastructure owners. Not at all.

Stoop Dawg
3/6/2006, 05:47 PM
Fixed it for you.

There are certain types of businesses that will not efficiently tolerate more than one player in the market; telecom physical infrastructure is one of them. It's not a coincidence that you're seeing this consolidation of physical infrastructure owners. Not at all.

Exactly.

I have no problem with one company "owning" all infrastructure. But that company must be regulated and should NOT be a retailer. And they especially should NOT be offering higher throughput for IP services to the highest bidder! Talk about crushing competition!!