Amen, Tom, this is a excellent snapshot. I am still concerned about what is going to happen in June or July when the ILECs don't have to share anymore...


Tom DeReggi wrote:

> below their cost This is the key phrase. Do you really think CLECs have asked ILECs to wholeslae their networks under cost? Definately not. If they are, the ILEC is choosing to sell services below their cost retail as well. And the CLECs are not asking for anything more than the ILEC is already doing for themselves, if they were to seperate Circuit versus Internet/backbone/value added features. The truth is the only thing an ILEC is being asked today, is to sell service at less than retail, so profit can be made on the value and additional components that they provide. And ILECs are being asked to sell to providers that are viewed as competitors. This is where the ILEC mentality has been flawed and is greatly wrong. A CLEC should not be viewed as a Competitor. The CLEC should be viewed as a Partner. If a relationship is done properly, Both the ILEC and the CLEC would get their fair share out of the deal. The problem is that ILECs are greedy, and want the whole pie for themselves. I'd argue that its not the ILECs thats are getting invaded but the ISPs that are getting invaded. The ILECs have basically said, although we are a circuit provider, we now also want to be the content and service provider ALSO, and steal that position away from all the many value add providers (ISPs and CLECs) out there. ILECs try to change the rules. ILECs are the ones that broke the laws of Anti-Trust, unsing the advantage of one service (network circuits) to leverage their advantage to take over other peoples businesses (value add services and Internet), forgetting that it was the public and monopoly protection that allowed the ILEC to grow to their size and wealth. Everyone wants to be King of the world if they could be. But this country did away with aristocracy 200 years ago. So I'd answer your comment, as no problem I'd be glad to wholesale my network. I offer my peice, you offer yours, and we grow quicker togeather, offer better value togeather, and we all prosper. And I'd ahve no problem selling our services at a discounted rate, proportional to the value they provide. Would I agree to sell them broadband under cost? No. It is a misconception that Verizon is doing that today. Its the Verizons and Comcasts that are forcing the price down to unprofitable levels, that force providers to use 30 year ROI models to plan for success. Under cutting $500 a month services to $300 services (like CLECs do), is not any where the same thing as Verizon and Comcast going to businesses and selling services for $19 a month, at their own free will under cost, with the purpose to extinguish competitors, and force eveyone to run out of money, because ILECs have monopoly protection and in most cases protection from the legislature and FCC based on the Billions of Americans that would be effected, if ILECs had financial problems. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sharing networks, if there are provisions designed in to allow it to be safely shared. The day a private investors says, I paid for my network 100% with my own money, and no protection, they have the right to say, I won't hare "MY" network. The only providers I'm aware of in that position, are WISPs. Its a compeltely different situation when things are turned around. I'd be estatic to share my network with a Comcast or SBC, take advantage of their valuable expertise and marketing power. ONl;y thing is, in todays world it won't happen, they'll just pull a "Northpoint" deal. Gather competitove confidential info, and backout. Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
    ----- Original Message -----
    *From:* Charles Wu <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
    *To:* 'WISPA General List' <>
    *Sent:* Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:08 AM
    *Subject:* RE: [WISPA] FW: Call your Senators: Stop SB245

    Just a thought here
Is more or less regulation on facilities based providers a good or
    bad thing for WISPs (who are also facilities based providers)
    Keep in mind, supporting regulation for SBC / Comcast / whoever
    sets the precedent for regulation of our internal networks
Lets think of one possible scenario It's 2016 and now WISPs have taken over (killed off SBC / Comcast)
    -- guys like Scriv and Harnish and DeReggi have hundreds of
    thousands (if not millions) of customers each, and WISPA is some
    national force that has huge influence on capital happens of a regulatory act gets passed forcing
    WISPs to wholesale their networks to SBC / Comcast below their cost
just a thought -Charles
    WiNOG Austin, TX
    March 13-15, 2006 <>


WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to