[109680] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Telecom Collapse?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tomas L. Byrnes)
Thu Dec 4 10:17:09 2008
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 07:17:01 -0800
In-Reply-To: <4937F0E2.6020906@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com>
From: "Tomas L. Byrnes" <tomb@byrneit.net>
To: "William Warren" <hescominsoon@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com>,
<nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
If they had made any decent investment in plant, or had not run the DSL
CLECs out of business, they could make money on DSL and Video services,
or by leasing the unused copper.
There's no sympathy for companies that have been nothing more than
obstacles to progress.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: William Warren
>[mailto:hescominsoon@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com]
>Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 7:02 AM
>To: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Telecom Collapse?
>
>Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster@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 =3D smaller subsidies =
taken
>> from other services =3D better profits for other services and the
>company.
>>
>>
>the lines are still there and still require maintenance so they loose
>money on it.
