x
raypeso 12/4/2012 | 11:00:12 PM
re: Tauzin-Dingell Clan Holds Pep Rally I work for a CLEC that has mostly midsize buisness customers. My companyis pushing hard against it without giving many details, Is this bill just going to let RBOC's give DSL to residential customers, or does it include T1 and above?

Raypeso
PantomineHorse 12/4/2012 | 11:00:10 PM
re: Tauzin-Dingell Clan Holds Pep Rally "...I work for a CLEC that has mostly midsize buisness customers..."

Your business must get in tune with lobbying efforts.

The RBOCs are attempting to use their political muscle to steamroll anything & everything that gets in their way. RBOCs stepped up their efforts right after 911.
fgoldstein 12/4/2012 | 11:00:04 PM
re: Tauzin-Dingell Clan Holds Pep Rally D-T cuts off CLEC access to DSL, so if you're hoping to reach business customers that way, you're dead in the water. I think it also cuts off T1 EELs, which are the best way a CLEC reaches business customers. I am not 100% sure of what it does to the T1 loop UNE; I think it terminates the TELRIC-based price and allows the ILEC to set the price on it wherever they want.

D-T allows the ILEC to set retail pricing on all >200 kbps services wherever they want. So if they choose to raise the local T1 Special Access rate from ~$300 (which has a preposterously high markup) to say ~$3000, there's no regulatory recourse.

Most of the press about D-T focuses on its gutting of Section 271, which would cripple the LD companies, but it's the devastating effects on CLECs that are most dangerous.
fsubob 12/4/2012 | 10:59:56 PM
re: Tauzin-Dingell Clan Holds Pep Rally "D-T cuts off CLEC access to DSL, so if you're hoping to reach business customers that way, you're dead in the water."

Not sure how you come to this conclusion when the DT bill focuses on broadband internet access over long distances. CLECs will have same access to DSL lines as they have today.

"Most of the press about D-T focuses on its gutting of Section 271, which would cripple the LD companies, but it's the devastating effects on CLECs that are most dangerous."

DT bill finally levels the playing field with the LD companies. Today LD companies can play in the local markets and they contine to lobby to keep the RBOCs out of LD, seems fair to me???
high plains drifter 12/4/2012 | 10:59:48 PM
re: Tauzin-Dingell Clan Holds Pep Rally this was a good article about some important legislation affecting the industry, but what would be a GREAT article is one that examines each of the 3 bills up for consideration and their potential effect on the sector. as it stands I don't really know much about the differences between the 3, and I suspect most of your readers don't either...
fgoldstein 12/4/2012 | 10:59:43 PM
re: Tauzin-Dingell Clan Holds Pep Rally >Not sure how you come to this conclusion when the DT bill focuses on broadband internet access over long distances. CLECs will have same access to DSL lines as they have today.

WRONG! D-T says that CLECs only get access to those UNEs which were available to them prior to a specific date, I think 2/99. Whatever, it was just before the FCC ruled that CLECs have access to subloops, which they need to get around DLCs, and it was before the FCC's Pronto ruling, which said that if an ILEC put in DLC, it still had to make the old copper available to CLECs. SBC's Pronto planned to put in tons of gratuitous DLC, blocking CLEC access to a majority of subscribers. CLECs gained various other things, like cageless colo, after the cutoff date.

So under D-T, a CLEC would only have access to DSL-qualified loops from costly cages to subscribers who were very close to the CO and which the ILEC chose not to cut off. The qual rate would fall well below 50%, making CLEC loop services very hard to make money on.

>DT bill finally levels the playing field with the LD companies. Today LD companies can play in the local markets and they contine to lobby to keep the RBOCs out of LD, seems fair to me???

Huh? Wrong again. LD companies do not have monoply power in ANYTHING, but ILECs have monopoly power over the loop, local switched service, etc. The whole deal behind the Telecom Act was to get the RBOCs to open up the networks *for real*, which they haven't done, in exchange for LD authority. The RBOCs were *created*, remember, in order to open up the LD market. Yes, there was nominal competition before 1/1/84, but Ma Bell had too much monopoly power. Now the RBOCs act that way.
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE