Talk:Competitive local exchange carrier

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Article title[edit]

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)[reply]

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 23.25.39.105 (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link to reference 3 ("The New CLEC's Evolution", Billing and OSS World) no longer works. A quick Google search does not find the article so it is likely that it is no longer hosted on that website 206.29.176.52 (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

US POV[edit]

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

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 68.100.187.94 (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term is also used in Canada. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 67.243.145.65 (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scrub-a-dub incontinent puffy capitalization, among many other small flaws[edit]

oldid for ~~this edit~~ the last edit in this series, in case all those Upstanding Rand-Caps re-blossom at the hand of whomever thought this was good form in the first place.

Competitive local exchange carrier

Now the cat doesn't always come back, but there's a certain threshold of sustained breathlessness that truly disturbs me. — MaxEnt 22:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]