---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <20180927182726.GA483@telecom.csail.mit.edu> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 14:27:26 -0400 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> Subject: FCC limits fees cities can charge for 5G deployment The Federal Communications Commission says new rules will cut red tape. Critics say they weaken municipalities' ability to negotiate with big carriers. By Marguerite Reardon The Federal Communications Commission voted Wednesday to limit how much local governments can charge wireless companies to attach small radios to utility poles when deploying next-generation 5G service. The three Republicans on the FCC said the plan will streamline the process for installing 5G gear and save wireless providers an estimated $2 billion, which can be used to build networks in rural parts of the country. https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-limits-fees-for-5g-deployment/ -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly) ------------------------------ Message-ID: <277d7c65-95fb-47ff-8455-4be6c883585d@googlegroups.com> Date: 26 Sep 2018 17:05:10 -0700 From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> Subject: Re: Private monopolies failed to deliver fiber. Now it's time for municipal broadband On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 3:32:02 PM UTC-4, Bill Horne wrote: > By Don McIntosh > > In the Willamette Valley, you have two choices if you want high-speed > Internet access: cable monopoly Comcast or telephone landline > monopoly CenturyLink. For decades, without ever investing in > fiber-optic cables to residents' homes, the two monopolies have > ratcheted up the rent on their legacy coaxial cables and twisted > copper wires, all while confusing customers with complicated package > deals and temporary introductory rates - and maintaining > legendarily poor customer service. It's no wonder giant cable and > telephone providers are consistently ranked among the most hated > companies in America. But what are you gonna do about it? > > Now, coming soon to Portland City Council, is a union-backed plan for > public-owned Internet access that would be cheaper than Comcast and 40 > times as fast. Not only that, but it would pay for itself and cost > taxpayers nothing. > > https://nwlaborpress.org/2018/09/private-monopolies-failed-to-deliver-fiber-now-its-time-for-municipal-broadband/ Generally speaking, I think privately owned and operated systems would be more efficient. However, there are times when the private sector has failed to deliver, and government must step in. In the broadband access area, it is clear there are plenty of gaps, even in developed areas. The greed and arrogance of the private carriers is ugly. There are many examples of municipally owned utilities, such as water, sewage, gas, and electricity. I don't know what the overall experience is in terms of service quality, reliability, customer service, and rates. I do know of examples of good and bad on both sides. For instance, one city has municipally owned gas and water (separate departments). The water works operates very efficiently with low rates, despite aging pipes always breaking. The gas works operates poorly with very high rates, explosions, and many complaints. Why one city department would run well and the other poorly I can't say. Historically, the United States was well served by a privately owned regulated telephone system. Other countries had government owned telephone systems that weren't as good. Yet in contrast, that business model failed with Western Union and telegraph service; both the company and regulators made bad decisions in the 1970s. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <48cf2036-76e2-4884-9915-0304c8029823@googlegroups.com> Date: 26 Sep 2018 17:11:44 -0700 From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> Subject: Re: Finger Pointing On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 3:31:55 PM UTC-4, Fred Atkinson wrote: > I was just reading Hancock4's post of 9/22. > > His brief reference to 'finger pointing' in the industry brought > back a lot of memories. > > I worked for MCI during their high growth years. I was a very > sharp troubleshooter on analog lines. Every time a vendor tried to > get me into a finger pointing match with them, I always prevailed. > That was because I did thorough troubleshooting and I never assigned > blame to another telephone company or COAM provider without absolute > proof. If it wasn't their issue, I'd just fix it without getting them > involved. > > Sadly, a lot of the COAM and even some of the phone companies > would make assumptions and deny the issue was theirs even though my > troubleshooting clearly demonstrated that it was. It happens a lot > more often than you think much to your customer's displeasure. Unfortunately, soon after Divestiture, many telecom businesses-- new and old--changed their operating philosophy and consumers suffered as a result. As a regulated monopoly, Bell was more engineering oriented and tended to work hard for very high service standards. We all know their gear lasted forever and generally their people were well trained and helpful. (There were some exceptions over the years and in some places). But after Divestiture, AT&T and the Baby Bells were now marketing companies. They were out to make a buck. Suddenly, engineering took a back seat to profit, and a fast profit at that. Cost- cutting became a priority. Sales was a priority. Many dedicated well-trained professional staff were replaced with salespeople on commission. They didn't know anything about "ground start" nor did they care. They wanted you to buy something and buy it now. Staff turnover was high. This of course all applied to the newcomer carriers and suppliers as well. The exceptions were a few folks who knew what they were doing and could get something done. But for the customer, it was very frustrating trying to get along until a competent person was found. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <21ccdb3f-81dd-4f94-b8de-15f0c383ae2f@googlegroups.com> Date: 26 Sep 2018 17:26:26 -0700 From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> Subject: Re: Finger Pointing On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 3:32:02 PM UTC-4, Bill Horne wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 04:12:50PM -0600, Fred Atkinson wrote: > > I worked for MCI during their high growth years. I was a very > > sharp troubleshooter on analog lines. > > I guess it was inevitable that *someone* at MCI knew their trade. I'm > glad to know it was you. ;-) > > > ... Every time a vendor tried to get me into a finger pointing match > > with them, I always prevailed. That was because I did thorough > > troubleshooting and I never assigned blame to another telephone > > company or COAM provider without absolute proof. If it wasn't their > > issue, I'd just fix it without getting them involved. > > For those of a certain age, "COAM" means "Customer Owned And > Maintained." Where I worked, the designation was mostly applied to > owners of COCOT (Customer Owned Coin Operated Telephone) pay phones, > and then to those who bought PBX (Private Branch eXchange) units from > a slew of fly-by-night vendors who cropped up after divestiture to > take advantage of the Bell System reputation for reliability, by > peddling sub-standard technology at exorbitant prices. This was a huge problem. We saw it in this newsgroup years ago when some of those sellers would pose basic questions they should've known the answer to if they were in the business. A big problem with those alternate PBX's was when there was an explosion of new area codes and exchange designations. New PBX's had internal tables to control and route calls*. The newcomer companies failed to subscribe to industry bulletins giving timely news of new codes and didn't keep their PBX's up to date Customers couldn't make calls to new area codes. > > When I would get into a difference of opinion (a more > > professional way of referring to it than 'finger pointing'), I would > > schedule a meet with the COAM or telco and prove the issue to them. I > > always isolated the issue to their service or equipment and got them > > to repair it. > > > > I thoroughly embarrassed the local Bell company because they > > refused to believe my assessment. Their field installers/repair men > > always took the attitude that if you weren't one of them, you didn't > > know anything. > > Bell System technicians were trained to be self-assured and confident > when dealing with customers, long before divestiture. They sometimes > looked down on technicians working for other vendors because, frankly, > there wasn't much to go wrong with phone company wires or equipment, > and repairs could, for that reason, be made simply and quickly. THere > were some companies that I won't name which had a business model of > relying on Bell System training and expertise to do all the > "complicated" work on their behalf. In the old days, Bell had end-to-end responsibility. So the customers didn't care about the technical issues since Bell was expected to diagnose and resolve the problem, whatever it was. Generally (with some exceptions) that worked out well. Some large installations essentially had a full-time Bell tech on site to do repairs or installations. Back in the days of PBX operators, many large companies required that their operators previously had worked at Bell in order to have been thoroughly trained. Bell did train their people well. However, at times it could be regimented and highly structured. They really did have a procedure on the proper way to sweep a floor (partly to keep dust down and away from the switchgear.) [snip] > [rant] > I think most customer frustration was caused by the double-talk and > evasiveness of some new entrants into the "telephone" business who > didn't know anything about it, and who assumed that "standards" were > for others to uphold. They wanted money, and they didn't care how they > got it. They cried endlessly to the FCC, to the various PUC's, and to > the media, while they sold carp hardware and planned on being both > rich and gone before it failed. > [/rant] I saw many examples of the above. Very frustrating. Sadly, the old Bell System had a tarnished reputation at the time of Divestiture. It was considered by many CEO's to be better to dump Bell and save money with a newcomer equipment supplier and carrier. In the early days after Divestiture Bell people found themselves in a salesman's role, which they were not trained or prepared to do, and didn't do well. In contrast, many of the newcomers were salesman first and convinced corporate to go with them, even if the technical staff disagreed. At the time of Divestiture, the technical staff at my employer disliked the newcomers. They knew enough to know their claims were crap. But corporate liked the savings and glitz. The inhouse people ended up cleaning up a lot of messes. That happened in many places. * Historical Note: In the past, dialable codes and PBX routing was controlled at the central office, not at the PBX. In some cases, an extension would know to dial 8 for an outward WATS line or tie line for a call to a distant point. (Sometimes there were multiple lines to choose from, so there was 81+, 82+ etc). Anyway, in the new world, PBX's would be individually programmed, but the tables had to be kept up to date. ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Fri, 28 Sep 2018