dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed


Seattle, WA
reply to JRigo

There's a reason for that, you know

It's called, the providers want to protect their sales of leased lines (T1, T3, fractional of those, etc) from being cannibalized by DSL. Also they want to make sure residential DSL users don't "run servers" although the providers' definition of servers is generally different from provider to provider.

Why protect leased line sales? Well, ADSL is going to $39-49 a month, but a T1 line can run upwards of $1200 a month. I think those leased lines are only *slightly* more profitable, don't you?

It's ignorant to think that telcos are delaying the progress of DSL availability due to wanting to protect T1 lines. First off, no big business is gonna want a DSL line, because it's not as reliable as a T1 line. When you're trying to make big bucks, you're gonna have to spend a lot of money on a broadband connection. Secondly, DSL is aimed at the average consumer who has a PC, and an Internet connection. I can not afford a T1 line, so I will not buy one. If you were the telco would you rather offer just a T1 line and only fulfil orders for a T1 line for big business, or offer DSL at a lower price to average consumers AND provide T1 lines at the same high price? The telcos want both the average consumer, and big business ordering services from them.
T1 lines are also treated differently than DSL lines. The telco only takes a few hours to a day to fix a T1 line when it's down, but a few days for a DSL line that's down.
The main reason they're delaying the progress of DSL is that they've opened a floodgate that they can't stop or slow down. There's more demand for DSL than they can provide and for the most part the phone lines are somewhat incompatible with DSL. In my opinion the telcos should have upgraded their facilities before letting ANYONE order or attempt to order a DSL line. It only adds to frustration when people next door, a few blocks away, or a town away can get DSL from the same telco you have, but when trying to order it yourself they refuse to process your order because of line impairments THEY are responsible for. And of course companies like Rythyms, Jato, Covad, etc always stay where the Baby Bells are instead of servicing an area where there is no DSL. The state of DSL availability, and the way it is being handled is ridicululous, and I think anything less than a class action suit will be useless.


Bothell, WA
FYI, the newer T1 T3 lines are run off of HDSL. So saying DSL isn't good nuff for those demanding business's is utter BS.

how does a T-1 or T-3 with a distance of 18,000' from the CO run over HDSL, when HDSL usaully has a distance limitation of, "you have to be inside the CO" lol, really about 5'000' or less.


North Olmsted, OH
reply to Anon
I see the point of your post. However I differ slightly in that I am seeing alot of people who run medium to small businesses that have like 56k or 128 k lines that are switching to the faster and in most cases alot cheaper DSL lines.. 100 dollars a month for SDSL 384 or whatever..
I dont know.. I am seeing alot of people soing that.. because there is ALOT of small to medium sized businesses that are going to DSL.. and I guess the arguement could be made that they are still paying about the same but.. eh...
« Try CableCertainly easier to get than it currently is! »
This is a sub-selection from Should be SDSL