ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | In other words
We're just about broke  |
|
tad2020
join:2007-07-17
Orange, CA
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| AT&T T1s
AT&T charges about 5 times as more for a T1 than Covad (unless you give them a price quote from Covad or another ISP and threaten to take all your services else where). Covad has an SLA, AT&T doesn't for what I can tell. When I've had an AT&T T1 go out, it has always taken them at least a week to get it repaired; friends of mine have Covad or other ISPs, they tell me that when their's go out, which is very rare, its fixed within a couple of days. :C |
|
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
1 edit | Covad T1s have a 4 hour TTR SLA.
And AT&T circuits also have a SLA...but you have to make sure you ask for it to be included in your agreement.
AT&T does charge more...mostly because they don't really want small business customers...they go after big enterprise and government accounts....and if a small business wants their service, they'll do it, but they will charge a large business price.
--
»www.Digium.com |
|
toddbs98
join:2000-07-08
North Little Rock, AR
clubs:  | Pass it on
I am sure Sprint, T-mobile, Covad, etc will pass on the savings to customers like they pass on any fees to the customers...right?
--
Patriots always speak of dying for their country never killing for it. Bertrand Russell
|
|
tad2020
join:2007-07-17
Orange, CA
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to kapil
Re: AT&T T1s
We were ordering our PRI from AT&T because of previous issues with our previous CLEC provider. We figured we'd get our internet T1 from them as well, the initial price was over $1000/m without the local loop, but after showing them quotes I got from several CLECs the price dropped to under $400/m with local loop for the same service.
The install was a nightmare, 90+ days overdue for the start of the install, faulty "new" Cisco router, faulty CSU/DSU in replacement router. The line didn't become functional till about 160 days after the order was placed.
Since then I've had several cases where routes on AT&T's internal network were dysfunctional, sometimes for over a month. Latest one was kinda major, SBC-SoCal DSL (lsanca.sbcglobal.net) to AT&T BizSrvs San Diego (sd2ca.ip.att.net) was dead from about mid-late May till about a 2 weeks ago. |
|
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs: | hey tad, if you are having problems getting the t-1 working drop me a note next time.
Thanks
David |
|
tad2020
join:2007-07-17
Orange, CA | Thanks I will.
Gee, could you help a service provider of mine? Their T1 has been out since Thursday, and as of this morning, they still didn't have an ETA on the repair from what I heard. |
|
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs: | I think I can... E-mail or PM me the info. |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | reply to tad2020
I bet billing didn't waste any time sending you your first bill.  |
|
tad2020
join:2007-07-17
Orange, CA | Nope since the other services on that order were only 30 and 60+ days late. |
|
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
3 edits | "Special" access isn't
Let's take a step back and understand what's really going on here.
The first thing folks need to understand about this issue is that there's nothing "special" about "special access." It consists of the ordinary wholesale connections, often called the "middle mile," which connect cell phone towers to the telephone system and ISPs to the Internet backbone.
The second thing you need to understand is that overcharging for "special access," if it's allowed to continue, will lead to a cellular duopoly in many parts of the country or maybe even the whole country. Why? Because AT&T and Verizon, the two large telephone monopolies, are also cellular providers. When they do business in each other's territories, each overcharges the other for the "special access" lines which are necessary to hook their towers up to the phone system. But since they do this about equally to one another, it's a wash. However, cellular providers which are not also ILECs (telephone monopolies) do not have anyplace to overcharge. They have to pay the exorbitant prices everywhere. So, the two biggest providers, which are also ILECs, can very easily put the others out of business over time and achieve a nice, cozy duopoly. That's why Sprint and T-Mobile are so much in favor of doing something about the price gouging: their long term survival depends upon it.
The third observation which is interesting is that the remaining ILEC, Qwest, doesn't offer cell phone service. This is intentional. Their idea is to overcharge everyone for "special access" without having to pay any of that money back out! This is how Qwest hopes to prosper without getting into the wireless business in competition with the larger ILECs.
Finally, it's important to understand how all of this affects ISPs, including cable companies. ISPs, in nearly all locations, have to buy "special access" lines to connect themselves to the Internet backbone. But the ILECs charge incredibly high prices for it. In fact, to get Qwest to carry data 45 miles in my region costs about twice as much as an Internet backbone provider charges to take it to the rest of the world! This drives up the cost of bandwidth outside major cities. Our rural ISP's net cost of bandwidth is about $100 per Mbps month, and some ISPs we know are paying $300 to $400 per Mbps per month. Obviously, at these prices, we can't allow the use of bandwidth hogging applications without caps, metering, or simply prohibiting some of the worst applications (e.g. BitTorrent) altogether.
For all of these reasons, it's important to do something about this issue. Even if you just use a cell phone and not the Internet, you have good reason to want the government to fix this failed market. |
|
