Stephen, I would suggest that you are quick leaving the ranks of neophytedom.
You say,
"...Chairman Kennard is holding his own deep within the trenches."
From within the trenches, or from the within the safety of a command center (more likely), Kennard may be suggesting what the new- and would-be- purveyors and their adversaries should be doing, no doubt.
That's a far cry, however, from making recommendations as to viable means by which those things can get done, I'd suggest.
Perhaps there should be four franchising privileges in every locale for the ILEC, the CableCo, the utility company, and a fourth one for all others.
To gain entry into this last one, all others, maybe there should be a countdown starting right now and running through the end of March '99, for aspiring CLECs to announce their candidacies. From then on it could be grandfatherdom, or licenses for sale. Kinda like a New York City Taxi Medallion owner.
Hey, it's not that far fetched. We could see the wireline industry face the same kinds of lotteries and license allocation measures as the Cellulars, PCSs, xMDSs, and the other WLLs. And if it's good enough for NY City Taxi Medallion owners, then...
One of the things that strikes me directly about this whole issue is the notion that ILECs would be very slow to develop and implement any form of "excellent" last mile solution that they cannot control, or utilize, entirely and exclusively.
And lets not kid ourselves, ILECs are capable of deploying excellent systems. Their end office POTS administration and their outside plant functions are without match in any comparable industry.
They might implement a framework, on the other hand, that was just mediocre from a feature standpoint, if they knew that they would have to unbundle it, relegating them in effect, to the status of wholesaler.
Heck, if I knew that I would only be eligible to a predetermined % in a wholesale retail arrangement, on the basis of regulated resale, then I'd want that as soon as possible, if the margin was appreciable, or I wouldn't want it at all if it meant that I'd be eliminating my options or cutting myself at the knees. I would not waste my time putting in something that would eventually cannibalize the rest of my offerings at the same time, if I couldn't see the lion's share of its proceeds.
---
Perhaps the ILECs' collaboration with the Intels, Compaqs and the Microsofts of the world would lead to an "excellent" network access solution, the very same kind that the critics have been suggesting that they should have had in place by now.
Now that they have proposed just such an initiative to fit that bill, they are again facing resistance from their competitors and the regulators, because the fairness rules dictate that others should have the ability to ride their coattails, while not sharing in up front expenses or the down the road risks of putting the infrastructure in place.
Do you see the contradictions inherent to this situation? Or is my bell-shaped helmet starting to show here, again?
On the contrary. I am not that naive. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that there was a foregone conclusion on the parts of the ILECs that such resistance would be imminent, and that they were banking on this all along. And that they used this opportunity as a red herring to demonstrate that they could at least give it the old college try, against all odds, and all that.
---
I've had personal experiences dealing with upper management of one of the BOCs mentioned in those consortium releases. It was a long time ago, when I ran a special services organization in NY City.
Long time ago or not, the philosophical rudiments do not change.
A particular episode sticks out in my mind. It was at a time when I was shoveling fecal matter up against the tide for several years on a special situation desk, attempting to meet escalating (although reasonable) customers' data transmission demands while using the same tools, I felt, that Alexander Graham Bell used to set up the first manual transfer exchange between Boston and NY.
I saw the benefit of effectively divesting the special services group from the POTS divisions. This I thought would allow my staff the ability to exercise some autonomous movement, and for once allow them to get things done in an unencumbered way. Roving task forces in the field, dedicated "frame men," the use of wireless comms for dispatch and troubleshooting, critical path techniques... nothing star-warish, just common sense things.
Let's just consider this my failed attempt at the pursuit of excellence in domestic private line services, a long time ago.
I still have a copy of the memorandum. (Remember those things? Typed out and photocopied letters that were actually circulated around offices at one time?) I submitted it with the purpose of recommending what I thought were reasonable measures to cut costs, improve service and boost morale.
When I handed it to The Guy in charge of Manhattan, he thanked me and told me that he would take it under advisement, that he would get back to me, and the meeting was suddenly over as quickly as it had commenced.
Several days, maybe a week, later, I questioned him about it, and he said,
"You know Frank, after you left my office the other day, I read the memo once again, then I shuddered. I shuddered. And then I put it back into in my desk drawer. That's where I think it's going to stay for a while. By the way, you weren't kidding, were you?"
A month later I was teaching private line transmission theory in the NY Hilton and Americana Hotels in NY City, while taking orders to project manage the implementation of two branch banking systems.
This, in an age when anyone who left the Bell System was suspect of being slightly more than just a little certifiable. And so it went.
Regards, Frank C. |
