Talk:Competitive local exchange carrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article needs to have the capital letters removed from the page title, as it is not a proper name! Would an admin please do this?

External Links[edit]

I removed the external links and added a link to the FCC's CLEC search. There are over a thousand CLECs in the country, and we can't link to all of them. Afiler 01:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

regardless, if you cant list them all, we, the LECs, should be able to post our names with the rest of the carriers if we meet the strict rules and criteria imposed on LECs — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


This article is a bit difficult to read without greater context/background. For example, the sentance "Many CLECs operate using the unbundled network element platform (UNE-P), in which they lease the underlying copper and port space on the local switch," might be particularly painful for a layperson. As a network engineer, I understand terms like underlying copper, port space and local switch, but I suspect the average person would not. I added information about DLECs, but there are also ELECs. ELECs are a bit unusual and really fit both here and in the LEC article. Now I'm wondering if perhaps this should be merged back into the LEC article with appropriate sections for each type of LEC (LEC, CLEC, DLEC, ELEC, others?) and an additional section for contrast/comparison of the different types. Thoughts?? ++ Arx Fortis 06:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless, for example, "local exchange carrier" is a term used outside of US telecommunications and CLEC isn't, I'd say merge them. The LEC article needs work anyway (not acknowledging CLECs except as a See Also, for example), and I think merging would help reduce duplication of effort. Merging might also make this page less of a spam magnet. Two other pages look related to the more general LEC page: telephone company and interexchange carrier. Both of those could use lots of work too. Afiler 19:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


This article isn't neutral because it has only a US worldview. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about a term used in the telecommunications industry in the United States. How could the article not have a US worldview, when the term is not used outside of the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The term is also used in Canada. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not simply change the heading of the article to reflect that this is about the US and Canada only, then provide a link for other countries (or allow others to create them)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)