Part I: The Forbearance Bandwagon
October 20, 2008
We took a break from forbearance for a bit – but I was asked by Rob Powell over at TelecomRamblings.com a while ago to make a case for forbearance, and I didn’t want to leave that question unanswered. Here’s what he said:
So Dave, to get me to jump off the fence and onto your bandwagon, can you answer this question? If all such forbearances were granted and the government stops watching, what will stop the ILECs from doubling prices where there isn’t competition and cutting prices in half where there is – thus ending the business case for anyone else to hook up more buildings with fiber? In other words, does granting forbearance necessarily lead to more choice?
Let’s have a reality check. Telecom is a high fixed cost, fixed asset business. For the life of me, I can’t figure out how the self-proclaimed “National CLECs” think for a billion dollars in debt/equity that they can compete on a national basis with an ILEC that spent tens of billions of dollars over 100 years just to get where we are today. Please no whining about guaranteed rates of return – it bolsters my argument as to why there should have been zero incentive for any “rational CEO” CLEC to have bought/rented anything from an ILEC.
Before we are ever going to see this alleged plethora of highly rich, user defined applications, there is an inherent need for bandwidth. And I am not talking about “basic” broadband that is dominant today. I am talking about 50 megabits ubiquitously within three years and 1 gigabit ubiquitously within ten years. Sorry to say, but this requires fiber, not rented copper. Inside baseball – don’t tell anyone – the ILECs know the need for fiber. That’s why they are spending over $30 billion annually on new builds though, according to Wall Street experts not so long ago, we had this HUGE fiber glut. As of today, does Wall Street have any credibility with anyone besides themselves?
Like Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns and more to follow, let telecom wholesale prices rise by way of forbearance to weed out the weak balance sheets. Those running a telecom business on paper (like Wall Street has) by colocations and renting – let this brilliant management group demonstrate their abilities to compete without any more government supports. The CA 1996 is 12 years old; do the asset-light CLECs deserve another 12 years to figure things out? I can’t help it that they took their investors money and went 100 miles wide but an inch deep. Perhaps, like a few of us have done, if they decided to go 20 miles wide but 10 feet deep, I would not have to point this out. However, these CEOs had choices to make over the past 12 years; they had a business plan that gave investors a choice to invest or pass. It is time to lift wholesale rates vis-à-vis forbearance.
Stay with me. Much more to come in this dialogue.
Do you want Dave to shoot straight on another telecom topic of interest to you? Shoot him an email or post your comment/question below.
Written by Dave Rusin - Telecom Executive
Posted by admin | Filed Under American telecom, Fiber bandwidth, Forbearance, Telecom broadband, Telecom bubble, Telecom definitions, Telecommunications companies, Telecommunications industry, Telecommunications news, Trends + telecommunications, Trends in telecommunications, What is telecommunications
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Comments
Got something to say?
Feeds
