freejazz_RdJ
join:2009-03-10
| reply to TBBPM
Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC
Absolutely TBBPM. Cost plus for several elements is a necessity. As I've said before to those who use the excuse "But Bell always applies to have unbundled loops removed from mandated wholesale so we won't build a product on it", it won't happen that way. The local loop is the single most costly portion of the network and the hardest to duplicate.
But I still disagree that every figure, even for loops, should be thrown out in public, because some of those elements, mostly surrounding labour and contract costs may be sensitive. But that's open for debate, and I'd be 100% for it if competitors could hire a 3rd party to review them in confidence on their behalf with a prohibition on disclosing the details while being allowed to challenge certain aspects. |
|
TBBPM
join:2009-02-09
| said by freejazz_RdJ  :But I still disagree that every figure, even for loops, should be thrown out in public, because some of those elements, mostly surrounding labour and contract costs may be sensitive. But that's open for debate, and I'd be 100% for it if competitors could hire a 3rd party to review them in confidence on their behalf with a prohibition on disclosing the details while being allowed to challenge certain aspects. No problem with the third party doing this as long as this is a truly neutral, non-political one. I guess CRTC believes they are exactly such "neutral party". |
|
MaynardKrebs
Premium
join:2009-06-17
| reply to freejazz_RdJ
said by freejazz_RdJ :Absolutely TBBPM. Cost plus for several elements is a necessity. As I've said before to those who use the excuse "But Bell always applies to have unbundled loops removed from mandated wholesale so we won't build a product on it", it won't happen that way. The local loop is the single most costly portion of the network and the hardest to duplicate. But I still disagree that every figure, even for loops, should be thrown out in public, because some of those elements, mostly surrounding labour and contract costs may be sensitive. But that's open for debate, and I'd be 100% for it if competitors could hire a 3rd party to review them in confidence on their behalf with a prohibition on disclosing the details while being allowed to challenge certain aspects. No need for a 3rd party study if *all* ILECS were required to make costs public. It would advantage/disadvantage equally.
And if you aren't an ILEC today but you become one through acquisition or your own build-out then you get to report too. |
|
