In Telecom Digest V24 #72 Michael D. Sullivan wrote:
"Except that rolling out fiber costs exactly the same for a telco as for
a non-telco. If the telcos had to allow others to use their fiber as
unbundled network elements (UNEs), priced in accordance with TELRIC,
they wouldn't bother, and there would be no fiber to the home, and no
competition for the cable operators. For installing fiber to the home,
telcos have no "natural monopoly" advantages, so nobody else is
"impaired" without access to that fiber at UNE prices, because they
could install the same fiber at the same cost. Why should a telco have
to lease out that fiber to others at what amounts to a below-cost rate?
If they had to do that, their competitors would automatically be able to
profitably provide broadband service cheaper than the telco, because
they wouldn't have to bear the cost of deployment. It seems to me that
the FCC's decision not to require sharing of FTTH was the only way to
give the telcos an incentive to deploy fiber. That's a socially
desirable policy, while requiring them to offer fiber to others at UNE
prices would be massively socially undesirable."
I must disagree with this. It does cost the same, for the most part,
to lay fiber The cost to run it is higher for non-ILEC companies. Back
in the "hey-day" of telecom, a company (now going to be part of SBC
due to their takeover of AT&T) called Teleport came into the Detroit
area to install fiber rings. Working for their first Detroit area
customer I had great insight to the process. Every community they ran
fiber though wanted their cut, even when they were doing nothing more
then going though and not dropping any service. Teleport was hit with
outrageous cost to use the right-of-ways as well as having a 5%
"Franchise Fee" tacked on (paid annually). None of the ILECs though
out the country pay "Franchise Fees" and you will see their lawyers
out in force when they have FTTH and start providing TV. They will
argue (and most likely win) that they, being a common carrier and
telephone company, do not have to pay these fees. "Franchise Fees"
alone mean that it is cheaper for them then any other to provide FTTH.
What I advocate is taking the ILEC's existing, rate payer paid, legacy
cable plant and forcing them to divest it into a separate company that
only provides transport on a equal basis. This way the ILECs keep the
new fiber that they are paying for to do with as they please. Any
other company wanting to incur the cost can also do FTTH (with out the
bulls#it fees from each community). Or any company, including the
ILECs can go to this new entity that now owns and operates the legacy
cable plant for service. This way companies like (I'm in Michigan
remember) LDMI (Long Distance Michigan) can continue to offer a
completive product without having SBC take all the profits like they
are doing now. The big joke on us rate payers is the "so called"
completive market.
Chip Cryderman
Charles Cryderman (