Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica

Fri Mar 21 15:01:07 UTC 2014

> We don't know because the service provider rolls that cost up along with th=
> e services they sell.  That is my point.  They are able to spread the costs=
>  out based on the profitable services they sell. 

Okay.

> If they were not able to =
> sell us services I am not sure they could afford to provide that infrastruc=
> ture. 

That's a crock.  You can always provide infrastructure without selling
services on top of it.  It's wire.  Or fiber.  Or whatever.  If you're
not able to subsidize the infrastructure with services, then what you
actually get is a less distorted reality where you can actually identify
the component costs (circuit, services, etc).

> In fact, having been a service provider I can tell you that I paid t=
> he LEC about $4 a month for a copper pair to your house to sell DSL service=
>  at around ten times that cost.  I am sure the LEC was not making money at =
> the $4 a month and I know I could not fund a build out for that price.

Why would you try to fund a build out on that?

Why wouldn't you instead charge for the build out as a NRC and then charge 
for maintenance as a MRC?

What you're suggesting reeks of the deliberate cost distortion games that
go on so often.  My personal favorite is cell phone contracts where the
cost of the phone is *cough* "subsidized" by the carrier.  But what's
really happening is that the customer is paying for the phone over the
term of the contract, and if the customer doesn't get a different phone
at the end of the contract, then the carrier ...  lowers their monthly
rate accordingly?  No, of course not...  they keep it as profit.

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.