BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs: 
| This is not new
This has been going on for some time, and the CSRs will not give you a reason why.
Conversely, those Bell employees who post here that I have had discussions with will tell you that it is "illegal" for them to offer DSL over lines that an end-user has competitive local service on.
I have not seen any evidence of the illegality of it, nor will these employees post any relevant fact related to it.
It is just a tactic used to reinstate a local service that a consumer decided that they no longer wanted.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know.... |
|
jessdub99
join:2002-05-29
| Unreal
Bush claims his plan will help stimulate small business' and yet shit like this goes on all the time. How the hell can a small business compete with tactics like this? I hope future generations can bring some great entrepreneurs to get rid of garbage companies like this. |
|
Kylemaul
Lovin' My Firefox 1.5.x
Premium
join:2001-03-30
North Port, FL
clubs: |  Can't believe this made a headline...
Hello? Use a cell phone, instead of local lines. |
|
radougherty
join:1999-07-23
Austin, TX
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Security systems and DBS receivers like to have an actual phone line to connect to. It looks like it's either play the ILEC's way or nobody that's too far from the CO can ever get DSL service. Please don't say that the CLEC's can build their own facilities. If the ILEC's had to play by all the same rules/regulations/costs back in the early 20th century when they started to build the plant they couldn't afford to do it either. |
|
DSL Oberst
join:2001-11-29
| reply to BrianDamage
Re: This is not new
Those who state it is illegal usually say it is a result of the FCC's line-leasing laws - basically that since the line is leased out to another company for voice service, it cannot be lease out for DSL, and vice versa. Only one company can lease a line at one time for any one service.
As to the truth of this, I am unable to say. |
|
kmac1
Off in new directions
Premium,VIP
join:2001-06-07
Port Neches, TX
| YES, it is illegal!
As an official support tech here at BBR for SBC, let me say this:
I am forbidden, by FEDERAL LAW, from discussing anything with a competitor's customer. I can't help them, I can't offer advice, I CAN'T talk to them, unless the customer(i.e. the CLEC who is their provider) gives me a written authorization.
The rule that an ILEC can't provide DSL service to a customer isn't an ILEC decision, it's law.
Whether I like it or not, it's not my call. I have to follow company policy, which means we have to follow FEDERAL LAW.
Before you SLAM the ILECs, think about investigating the real laws, and who wrote them.
--
Put your spare CPU cycles to WORK! Join the BBR DC Teams and join in on helping helping find ET or cures for diseases. SETI and Team Helix. Join in on the fun! |
|
CmmTch
join:2002-08-10
High Ridge, MO
| reply to jessdub99
Re: Unreal
Yeah, AT&T and MCI are small start ups needing a hand up to compete. Get the dial tone, get the DSL, so go for it AT&T and MCI. You can afford it.
Oh, wait, that would cost money, they'd have to put equipment the space that the ILEC was forced to provide in ILEC buildings. |
|
Marckus0513
Just Because
join:2003-01-11
Vernon, VT
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to radougherty
Re: Can't believe this made a headline...
Oh Please!!!! Spare me with the 'Its tough to be a CLEC' story. First of all, costs are relative. It may cost more today to build out a facilities based network but doesn't everything cost more and everyone makes more too. And in todays world the CLEC's have the upper hand when it comes to regulation any ways....meaning they are pretty much free to do what they want. And isn't it interesting that the ILEC's are still spending billions a year to build out their networks even as they are required to let the CLEC's use them more and more for next to nothing!!
Give me break!!! |
|
Derek_Wildstar
Why the fck is Shane walking in there?
join:2001-02-24
Iscandar
| reply to kmac1
Re: YES, it is illegal!
Now I am confused. How is it that Covad - a CLEC who doesn't offer local voice service but does offer ADSL - can lineshare off of both ILEC & other CLEC's circuits but SBC (an ILEC) cannot lineshare off of a CLEC's circuit?
--
I use conjecture and hearsay. Those are kinds of evidence. - Lionel Hutz |
|
Derek_Wildstar
Why the fck is Shane walking in there?
join:2001-02-24
Iscandar
| reply to DSL Oberst
Re: This is not new
Exactly! What SBC did for Covad (up until a couple of years ago) was to run an entirely separate drop for their circuits to the demarc. SBC could do the same thing, but then it would increase their cost on the circuit. So it's not entirely for "legal reasons" that are preventing them from giving service to those homes.
--
I use conjecture and hearsay. Those are kinds of evidence. - Lionel Hutz
[text was edited by author 2003-01-30 20:12:44] |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to Derek_Wildstar
Re: YES, it is illegal!
quote:
The Bells say it would be too complex and expensive to offer their own DSL service over the local lines that are being leased and managed by competitors. One complication, they say, is that their computer systems aren't programmed to offer DSL over a leased line. Fixing that would be a major undertaking, they say -- but they added that they might do it if they could charge more for leasing the lines. Line lease rates are set by state regulators.
"I would like to have the business," but there's no way to do it, says Zeke Robertson, senior vice president of SBC's DSL division. "Few people understand the complexity of doing two services over a single line."
They claim it's "just too expensive". 
I don't know where the "illegal" claim comes from though. I'd like to see the actual law.
[text was edited by author 2003-01-30 20:24:06] |
|
spg
Grrrr
join:2001-10-31
NOT Texas!
| reply to kmac1
Further, why would an ILEC WANT to make a CLECs service more appealing?
The subscriber chose the CLEC. Let the CLEC offer DSL. The CLEC leased the line. (For today's argument the price doesn't matter.) The CLEC can offer long distance, call forwarding, etc. They can offer DSL too if they put in their own equipment.
The ILECs are required to lease the lines and switching necessary for the completion of a phone call, and they do. Anything beyond that would feathering the competition's bed.
The CLECs were allowed to be middlemen on a temporary basis so that they could raise revenue for capital investment. So invest some capital and offer DSL.
--
Call Your CLEC after the Earthquake |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK |  Here's where the FCC could step in.... but won't.
This could be stopped but quick--- by a simple FCC mandate. Powell should step in here... but rest assured, he won't.
|
|
Aggie Dan
Stop... Reverse That.
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Frisco, TX
clubs:
| Here's my take on it.
Let's say you are a coder. Or even someone writing up business requirements for an order entry system for DSL provisioning. Well, obviously, you want to be able to order DSL for customers that you can service. and not ones serviced by another telephone company. On this case let's say you work for Verizon and don't want to try to sell to someone that has SBC telco service.
Obviously, you are going to have to reference some table of NPA/NXX combinations to see if they are your customer, or maybe there is some grand table or system that has this information. Your most likely source for this would be a loop qualification table or system.
Also, with the way that the pools of phone numbers work, IIRC certain pools are for one company and another pool is for another. As such all 214-574-xxxx belong to SBC, but 817-683-xxxx belong to Verizon. This pool could explain why you often have to get a new phone number when you switch providers. Like I said, I'm not sure if that is still the case. But, with all of the phone numbers about, I can imagine that maintaining them by block is easier on the LERG people than managing by line. Any of you DBAs can back me up on this one.
Okay, so let's take a look at who will keep the "golden record" on your phone line. This would obviously be your telco. Or the ILEC side of your phone company. These are the guys that actually own the copper and maintain the network.
Well, you cancel service with them and wish to transfer it to another company. Now, we all know how you can get incorrectly billed for phone service through manual error or other snafu. The easiest answer is to make it so that the original telco systems don't "know" the number exists. Otherwise I can see the number being given back out again, being billed from two phone companies, etc. not from any malicious intent but because people do make mistakes. And anytime a computer touches something, there is likely a bug in the programming SOMEWHERE. All of you code-heads can attest to that one as well.
Okay, so following this line of thought, the telco arm doesn't "see" the line belonging to them anymore. Hey, it is outside of our area, another ILEC must own that number. That's the assumption of any system that sees "line not found."
I can see a cascade affect going on here so that by the time it gets to the ISP portion of your former telephone company, it won't order it because it is hard coded to not place an order for a line that is out of the service area. Because the person coding it or the person writing the business case figured that, "duh, of course we don't want to place an order in NV when we don't even service that state!"
That seems like such an elementary idea when building a system.
Now fast forward to today.
Now they have to provide DSL to customers they don't provide service to?
Basic system assumptions get thrown out the window. Now you have to figure out how to track customers you don't have anymore.
Oh! And an added bonus... Because the ISP portion is often a separate business unit from the telco portion, you can't just query the telco systems even if the information is being stored there. You are separate companies after all. And THEN the telco would have to provide that same detailed information (on customers they don't have anymore - yet another sticky legal area) to all other ISPs as well.
"Now we see the problems inherent in the system!"
Now. I'm not saying that it can't be done. ANYTHING can be done.
But, it must be understood the additional resources it would require to do such system development. There are also legal and procedural issues to address here as well. Not to mention, in the interim, if FORCED to provide this service, there would most likely be manual workarounds in the beginning. And any system guy or DBA can attest, cleaning up after manual workarounds is NEVER pretty.
--
Note : The statements made by myself on DSL Reports are purely my own and is not in anyway to be considered indicative of the opinions of my employer or of my coworkers. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to kmac1
Re: YES, it is illegal!
said by kmac1  :
Before you SLAM the ILECs, think about investigating the real laws, and who wrote them.
Ok, ok, the ILEC's Congresstooges, then.
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948 (Yep, it's dead.) |
|
Aggie Dan
Stop... Reverse That.
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Frisco, TX
clubs: | reply to Aggie Dan
Re: Here's my take on it.
Damn, there was only one post on this subject when I started my post. *chuckle*
I guess no one watches TV anymore on Thursday.
*chuckle* |
|
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| reply to DSL Oberst
Re: This is not new
I have seen nothing in any telecom regs that would support this.
If the ILEC can offer dial tone and then allow a competitor to offer DSL over that same line, then the vice versa should be possible also.
It is not a question of possibility at all.
It is a question of the "whether"...whether or not the ILEC is willing to accommodate such an arrangement, which up to now, they have not been willing to do.
It comes down to the very idea of linesharing. "Linesharing" means that multiple services utilizing different sets of operating frequencies can be offered simultaneously over a single unshielded twisted copper pair. The reason that dialtone (voice) and DSL can exist on the same line is because of this. Neither services' operating frequency range should interfere with the other.
I would venture to say that in all of the research I've done, and in all of the DSL installations that I performed during my tenure(s) with Covad and Rhythms, that less that 4% of them were "lineshared" installs. The rest were separate line installs.
I was with Covad in 1999 when they performed the very FIRST competitive lineshared DSL installation in Minnesota (Ameritech region).
I will close by saying that because of this very argument put forth by some of Bell employees like I mentioned before, that I have looked specifically in the telecoms laws that exist as well as researching FCC regulations and state PUC regulations and have seen NOTHING to substantiate the illegality that they say exists.
They have always been unable to provide any relevant reference for me to examine either.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know.... |
|
Derek_Wildstar
Why the fck is Shane walking in there?
join:2001-02-24
Iscandar
| reply to Karl Bode
Re: YES, it is illegal!
quote:
"I would like to have the business," but there's no way to do it, says Zeke Robertson, senior vice president of SBC's DSL division.
Bull$h|7. Run a separate drop, just like your competitors did until the Federal courts made you open up your circuits to linesharing. Yes, that would increase costs, and I can understand why they wouldn't want to do it based upon that criterion. But don't tell me you can't do it.
Thank you for that quote, Leviathan.
--
I use conjecture and hearsay. Those are kinds of evidence. - Lionel Hutz |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Kylemaul
Re: Can't believe this made a headline...
BTW the move is on to make a "Cell phone" 'equivalent' to having a "Phone line" for legal, tax, etc etc purposes.
I've already heard some local wireless ads where they refer to signing up for a "line" rather then "another phone".
This is purely a tax/fee move.
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948 (Yep, it's dead.) |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to Marckus0513
That post was full of factual errors. |
|
