On Mar 21, 2014, at 12:22 PM, Joe Greco <jgr...@ns.sol.net> wrote: >> On Mar 21, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Joe Greco <jgr...@ns.sol.net> wrote: >>> Why wouldn't you instead charge for the build out as a NRC and then = >> charge=20 >>> for maintenance as a MRC? >> >> I for one would be willing to bear a high NRC start-up cost for someone = >> building fiber to my home. Not everyone would make that tradeoff. > > I was discussing the cost that the service provider had to pay in the > context of a "$4/mo copper pair" for rental of a copper pair that the > ILEC almost certainly did not need to install. I do not see why the > cost for build out needs to be included in the actual monthly cost an > ILEC needs to charge. > > I think that utilities have a long history of proving that the cost > for build out can be successfully charged to the property owner in > several ways as you note. I don't see it as being an insurmountable > problem to find some way for an intermediate service provider to > deal with this if needed.
Sure, but for POTS this installation NRC was regulated for residential (at least last time I ordered a POTS line for a home, which was ....) The cost of the O&M on the switch and OSP is likely less than what I pay them. The history was they were allowed to show costs and add on a margin and rate increases would be approved. I don't want to know what their costs are after ice storms... Here in Michigan there was a recent law passed to allow ending of service in areas starting January 2017. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28la3cxz45kfy2bs55wvsiqy55%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2013-SB-0636 - Jared
