 




<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Uncommon Wisdom &#187; US RBOC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/telecom/tag/us-rboc/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/telecom</link>
	<description>A SearchCloudProvider.com blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:46:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
		<item>
		<title>CenturyTel and Qwest together: Could they be a contender?</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/telecom/centurytel-and-qwest-together-could-they-be-a-contender/</link>
		<comments>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/telecom/centurytel-and-qwest-together-could-they-be-a-contender/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:18:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom Nolle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CenturyTel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IXC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mergers & acquisitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Qwest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US RBOC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/telecom/?p=1430</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In an ironic déjà vu thing, CenturyTel is acquiring Qwest for a stock swap. We think this is ironic because Qwest was created when an overvalued IXC wannabe (Qwest) took advantage of inflated stock pricing to buy US West, one of the original seven U.S. RBOCs when the Bell System was originally broken up. The [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In an ironic déjà vu thing, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704133804575199214192619260.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular">CenturyTel is acquiring Qwest for a stock swap</a>. We think this is ironic because Qwest was created when an overvalued IXC wannabe (Qwest) took advantage of inflated stock pricing to buy US West, one of the original seven U.S. RBOCs when the Bell System was originally broken up. The result was a shambles that hurt the local exchange business of the new company and, of course, the IXC business was in fact a child of the bubble.</p>
<p>The question here is whether CenturyTel, which is at least more like a real telecom company than Qwest was in the bubble era, can make something of a symbiosis here. Qwest’s profit margin is much lower than CenturyTel’s margins, and the territory isn’t a super prospect for near-term exploitation of opportunity. Still, <a href="http://www.benzinga.com/240980/zacks-analyst-blog-highlights-centurytel-qwest-communications-at-t-verizon-and-sprint-nextel-">the move creates a real third competitor</a> in the US telco world, which probably wasn’t possible any other way.</p>
<p>The story is that the growth in the future will come from business services, but we think that unless it plans to get into cloud computing services or something at a higher layer, Level 3’s experience shows that there’s not much room for enterprise growth.</p>
<!-- wpms-network-global-inserts -->]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/telecom/centurytel-and-qwest-together-could-they-be-a-contender/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>US RBOCs: Just how open is open?</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/telecom/us-rbocs-just-how-open-is-open/</link>
		<comments>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/telecom/us-rbocs-just-how-open-is-open/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:07:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom Nolle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[broadband stimulus package]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rural broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US RBOC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/telecom/us-rbocs-just-how-open-is-open/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The US RBOCs are concerned about applying for aid under the broadband stimulus package because it may force them to open their networks to competitors. The provision in the rural broadband aid portion of the stimulus requires the grantees to adhere to FCC principles of open interconnection, but it is not clear just what those [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The US RBOCs are concerned about applying for aid under the broadband stimulus package because it may force them to open their networks to competitors. The provision in the rural broadband aid portion of the stimulus requires the grantees to adhere to FCC principles of open interconnection, but it is not clear just what those principles are. The fear is that the interpretation given to this requirement would force the RBOCs who apply to open the networks, and just how far that “open-ness” might extend (to the grant-funded lines or to all lines) is also open to debate.</p>
<p>This issue has received a bit of negative publicity, but from what we hear the issue is simply one of clarification. One RBOC executive told us that if the use of grant money on a single hypothetical line were to create a broadband unbundling obligation through their whole region, they’d surely not be interested. We doubt, and most RBOCs doubt, that is the interpretation intended, but they want to be sure before moving forward. This demonstrates how vulnerable broadband investment is to the issues of wholesaling, and clearly that should be considered in any rules and legislation involving broadband deployment.</p>
<!-- wpms-network-global-inserts -->]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/telecom/us-rbocs-just-how-open-is-open/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
