A Sophomoric Analysis of CLECs

1.    There is some effective CLEC growth in the US, but one will not find it clearly in this analysis.
2.    The independent telcos are adding competitive services, particularly in adjacent territories to their incumbent areas.
3.    There is also no mention in the source article about the countless CLECs that have bitten the dust.
 

While there were other names given to such carriers, “the first competitive entrants” were not called CLECs “in the late 1980s and early '90s.”  Of course, the term comes from the Telecommunications Act of 1996.   In addition, the idea that CLECs “extend upgraded service to areas or specific locations that would otherwise have no recourse if the incumbent deemed it an insufficiently profitable opportunity” would be news to most of these carriers.  Historically, the CLECs have tended to cherry-pick attractive customers from the ILECs.  They have not been inclined to be on a “quest to identify and satisfy underserved customers.”

The piece also talks about “nationwide providers,” such as Level 3, PAETEC, Time Warner Telecom [sic], and XO Communications” and that “they own expansive fiber networks.”  Left out is either the lack of or insufficient last-mile fiber assets of these companies that are critical to success.

Lastly, the CLECs do not really provide “meaningful alternatives” to the ILECs.  As always, it is in fact all about speed of service delivery and price.

 

Samuel Greenholtz consults with leading institutions through GLG