how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
358 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| SBC, Pacific Bell, and Project Pronto On top of all the problems mentioned by CISPA about access to the lines, there is another item which I have heard.
SBC (and PacBell) are required to provide space (although they can charge leasing for the space) in the Central Offices for other companies to install DSLAM units. At the same time, SBC has been going through their Project Pronto system and installing what amounts to a remote DSLAM terminal in the neighborhoods.
I've been told by several sources that they are not required to share the Project Pronto terminals. If this is the case, then people who are too far from the Central Office and cannot get DSL via the traditional means have only ONE choice for DSL - Pacific Bell (with Prodigy for the email service)!!
No competition at all?????? | |
| said by Markinsac:
If this is the case, then people who are too far from the Central Office and cannot get DSL via the traditional means have only ONE choice for DSL - Pacific Bell (with Prodigy for the email service)!!
No competition at all??????
So true!!! That's exactly what it amounts to. Take it or leave it. I took it  | |
 icp1Premium
join:2000-10-13
Saint Louis, MO | reply to Markinsac
Yes, this is true. There is nothing saying the CLEC's who normally put their equip in the central offices can't pay for and hook up their own remote terminals as far as I know, other than having to negotiate with the RBOCs for access (yeah I know). Besides, what would you rather have if you are more than the traditional distance from the CO, no DSL choice at all or just one choice?
The competition is not between DSL providers it is between DSL and Cable (and cable is winning big time).
Try putting your cable modem equip in the cable companies offices! | |
 lml2000Whazzup
join:2000-08-17
Los Angeles, CA | reply to Markinsac
said by Markinsac:
I've been told by several sources that they are not required to share the Project Pronto terminals. If this is the case, then people who are too far from the Central Office and cannot get DSL via the traditional means have only ONE choice for DSL - Pacific Bell (with Prodigy for the email service)!! No competition at all??????
I think there's some confusion by what is meant by "terminal." SBC is required to provide remote terminal "access" to the CLECs, but SBC has interpreted the Telecom Act to mean that "access" does not necessarily constitute PHYSICAL access, but VIRTUAL access. By "terminal" I refer to the structure, or vault, that is installed in the neighborhood which houses the equipment you refer to. In this respect, the CLECs do have access to such terminals. The question is at what cost. In contrast, you might be referring to "terminals" as a direct connection upon which to nail a subscriber's copper to a DSLAM. This the CLEC is free to do once it has made the investment to co-locate at the remote terminal, or RT.
As I understand it, if a CLEC wishes to "co-locate" off the RT, it (1) must install and power up its own equipment in the RT PROVIDED there is room, then (2) sign onto to the OCD, or optical concentrator device, located at the CO, allowing the CLEC to tap into their subscriber packets that are mux'd with packets representing other subscriber networks, principally PacBell's ASI's network.
I think the more important issue to understand is the economics at play by co-locating off an RT where line density is sufficiently less than at the CO. Any CLEC wishing to co-locate off an RT is going to have to assure itself a certain capture rate of subscribers or its going to lose its shirt on such investment. The RT to serve my loop is designed to serve 650 homes. Most have next generation DLC (which incorporate DSLAM cards) to serve as many as 2016 copper pairs. Compare that figure with a CO, where co-location provides that CLEC with a market of tens of thousands of customers. Big difference. You can see why the CLECs might want a little bit of "financial assistance" from the gov't.
But bottom line, it's easy to see that customers served off an RT are going to have much less choice of who their DSL provider is. This is something IMHO, that the drafters of the Telecom Act didn't foresee but could have if they had the slightest clue about wireline infrastructure. The natural progression for telco infrastructure is to push the fiber, and the electronics (i.e. switches), closer to the customer in order to fatten the copper pipe and deliver advanced services not possible over longer loops. Inherent in this "natural progression" are economics that work against a government policy of co-location. Its as simple as that.
From a business POV, it is understandable why the incumbents feel that they should not be obligated to open up their facilities. First, it cost more money to provide more space to house equipment they may or may not ever be installed. Second, these facilities are being installed in the neighborhoods where space and operational efficient are placed at a premium in the effort to mitigate the negative "environmental impacts" of such a facility in a residential setting. How would you like it is instead of one PacBell truck parked outside an RT three doors down from your house, you saw a half dozen, one from each DSL provider. I don't think you'd like it, and that's the argument SBC has going for it when it comes to defending its platform. According, SBC has provided "access" to the CLECs by providing "virtual" access from the OCD at the CO.
Personally, and idealistically, a lot of this mess could be avoided if the telcos could be pushed beyond a neighborhood gateway platform to a FTTH solution where all the electronics are at the CO and at the customer's premise. No impact upon the neighborhood. Individual fiber strands run from ports in the electronics located at the CO directly to the customer's home powered ONI. If the customer wants a different provider, the end of his fiber is just unplugged from one port of one carrier's box located at the CO and inserted into another carrier's box. Sounds too good to be true . . . but eventually we'll get there. | |
 SMCinAZPremium
join:2000-11-29
Glendale, AZ | reply to Markinsac
They are sharing RT's with other ISP's. Mine is AOL DSL, and it runs through a RT. | |
| reply to Markinsac
CLEC's are not being able to co-locate in the remote switches as far as I heard (they should), but the ILEC (Pacific Bell) is required to make basic transport services (DSL transport) available to any enhanced service provider when it is offering an enhanced service through one of its affiliated enhanced service providers (PBI and prodigy).
What this means is that any ISP is entitled to interconnect with the DSLAMS installed in the remote switches. And therefore, consumers are entitled to choose an independent ISP even if they connect to a remote switch.
Whatever measures the ILEC is taking to make sure it doesn't happen is just one more example of it's efforts to kill the spirit of the Telecommunications Act. (Any company should be entitled to compete in communications, ILECs can only offer enhanced services or long distance if they share their network with competition, CONSUMERS SHOULD HAVE A CHOICE) | |
|
