Telecom Collapse?

Frank Bulk frnkblk at iname.com
Thu Dec 4 15:10:29 CST 2008


The ILEC is the carrier of last resort.  The wireless carrier doesn't have
to build coverage everywhere.  They don't need to serve that hog barn that
requires a 10,000 feet copper loop while playing $17/month.  

The problem is that whether the take rate for POTS is 75% or 95%, the ILEC
still needs to maintain the plant, and capital expenses to maintain the
plant are a killer.

Either the FCC needs to release ILECs from their coverage obligations so
that they can do what CLECs have done and build to the most profitable
areas, or subsidize the plant for both POTS and broadband services.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Adams [mailto:cmadams at hiwaay.net] 
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 8:48 AM
To: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: Telecom Collapse?

Once upon a time, Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster at gmail.com> said:
> I deliberated for a while on whether to send this, or not, but  I figure
it
> might be of interest to this community:
>
> http://techliberation.com/2008/12/04/telecom-collapse/

One thing doesn't make sense in that article: it talks about POTS being
subsidized by other services, and people cutting POTS lines.  Wouldn't
that be _good_ for the companies and their other services?  The way the
article describes things, fewer POTS lines = smaller subsidies taken
from other services = better profits for other services and the company.

--
Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.






More information about the NANOG mailing list