bhalvor
@iphouse.net
| reply to woodward
Re: New high speed tier and price increases.
said by woodward  :Wigwam, we were briefed by Qwest at the quarterly ISP partner conference this past Friday, and not only were we told that existing DSL prices are increasing $3, but the numbers we were given for FTTN were slightly larger than what you have here. Was there any word about allowing third party ISPs on the FTTN network? My dslam was upgraded last fall and the Qwest reps I talked to after that told me that my line qualifies for 7 Meg but since I'm using a third party ISP I can only get 1.5 Meg. I asked my ISP (IPHouse) to look into it but they got the same answers. |
|
caffeinator
Coming soon to a cup near you..
Premium
join:2005-01-16
Spokane, WA
 ·WebBand
edit:
April 21st, @08:11AM
| said by bhalvor :
Was there any word about allowing third party ISPs on the FTTN network? My dslam was upgraded last fall and the Qwest reps I talked to after that told me that my line qualifies for 7 Meg but since I'm using a third party ISP I can only get 1.5 Meg. I asked my ISP (IPHouse) to look into it but they got the same answers.
I'm guessing you'd have to be on a CO situation to get 7M. I don't think the average DSLAM will cut it.
I do have a local 3rd-party ISP because of a number of reasons and my 7/896 is just fine. I even get the 'price for life' deal from them. However, I'm about 1300' from the CO.
*edit*
I just checked your ISP, and what they offer is nearly identical to what I get, including prices.
-CaFF
--
My 9/11 Tribute..online since 9/14/01
Need an Avatar? Check out Wafen's Avatar Pages |
|
woodward
XMission Broadband
VIP
join:2000-12-28
Salt Lake City, UT
| reply to bhalvor
said by bhalvor :
Was there any word about allowing third party ISPs on the FTTN network? There was. Qwest is not allowing third party ISPs to host this service as they do on DSL, and have no plans on ever doing so. FTTN will be a Qwest end-to-end product.
They do have loose plans on allowing third party ISPs to resell FTTN and Qwest.net late this year, or early next. I don't have a clue why we would want to do that. |
|
djweis
join:2006-04-02
West Des Moines, IA | This is a good reason to start putting in your own DSLAM's and VoIP gear  |
|
dmconwa1
@spcsdns.net
| reply to bhalvor
The 1.5M package was increased by $3.00 the other packages did not increase.
As for 3rd party ISP's. Your DSLAM was upgraded to FTTN. If you didn't change your package then you are still connected to the ATM broadband network which allows 3rd party ISP's. When, and if you switch to FTTN there are no 3rd party options available currently. I'm assuming they don't have to play by the same rules as they do with ADSL since it's a totally different network. |
|
woodward
XMission Broadband
VIP
join:2000-12-28
Salt Lake City, UT
| said by dmconwa1 :
I'm assuming they don't have to play by the same rules as they do with ADSL since it's a totally different network. I may misunderstand you, but to be clear, the FCC deregulated DSL a few years ago. Telcos are not required to share their DSL networks.
/rant on
This is despite the fact that these networks were largely built by public funding made available by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It was nearly 10 years after the fact that the current administration decided that forcing the Bells to share data infrastructure was unfairly competitive(*boggle*)and pardoned this service from regulation. CLECs are still allowed to share the phone networks, but data networks are now exclusively owned and operated by the Bells and are shared only at their leisure.
If memory serves, the circular argument behind this theory was that creating competition would stall innovation and growth, since the telco industry would be less likely to invest in infrastructure they have to share.
/rant off |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| said by woodward : CLECs are still allowed to share the phone networks, but data networks are now exclusively owned and operated by the Bells and are shared only at their leisure. If memory serves, the circular argument behind this theory was that creating competition would stall innovation and growth, since the telco industry would be less likely to invest in infrastructure they have to share. Then I have a question for you. According to your information, it will become more and more difficult to reach wholesale agreements with the incumbent telco in what seems to be your primary market (Qwest and Utah). If so, then what are Xmission's plans for growth? Utopia and iProvo? You've been working that for a while. Comcast gonna suddenly open up and let you wholesale? Don't think so. Start selling in rural telco areas? I assume you have already found out how tough that is. Keep crying that you can't get access? The lawyers will love you for that. What have I missed?
I know, BUILD OUT YOUR OWN NETWORK!
I know it's expensive, but that's the only way to GUARANTEE access to your customers.
I have another question. If you do build out a fttp network, are you going to use ONTs with battery backup? If so, who maintains/replaces the batteries? Who replaces them now on fttp builds (Verizon, iProvo, Utopia, Qwest in Daybreak, etc.)? |
|
woodward
XMission Broadband
VIP
join:2000-12-28
Salt Lake City, UT
edit:
April 22nd, @02:40AM
| Far as XMission is concerned? Truth is, we're far past the days when connectivity was bread and butter. In fact, hosting broadband is our least profitable service. Believe me, all the DSLR bluster about ISP services ripping off consumers over monthly quotas is far, far off the mark. Most heavy data consumers are costing us a small fortune.
These days we do most of our business in colocation (our data center is virtually maxed out), hosting, business solutions, and dedicated access. And we're increasing our pcat all the time, with varying levels of success. Right now we're getting our feet wet with VoIP, and hope to grow quickly into full PBX and unified communications hosting.
But we haven't given up on access, and yes, we have considered our own fiber footprint. But saying its expensive is an understatement. You're talking anywhere between $5,000-10,000 per location install depending on area. It can be far more expensive for us to roll such a network than it is for incumbents who have a hundred years worth of subsidized infrastructure to build on - particularly when you face legal obstruction at every pole juncture. And, I admit, we're just not that skilled at leeching VC. We've always been privately owned and have always self-financed growth, which just isn't compatible with these needs.
We also started a CLEC subsidiary that we can use for interconnect/colocation and just lease last mile. Dunno if its worth the investment, though.
Waaayyy off topic now |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| Thanks for the interesting reply. I agree most residential consumers don't understand the cost of the bandwidth they use. And the heavy users want 100meg x 100meg for $20 a month, with no caps. But the part about a hundred years of subsidized infrastructure, I was asking about FTTP, and very little of that has been subsidized. Basically, it's all new stuff, so I believe much of that argument is a straw man. But focusing on the business side of the house, and not primarily on residential is probably a smart move. And I have always been impressed by companies that self-finance. Sure, growth is slower, but the profits are all yours. Good luck with the CLEC stuff! |
|
macroff
join:2001-02-23
Sandy, UT
edit:
April 22nd, @03:18PM
| reply to woodward
said by woodward :Far as XMission is concerned? Truth is, we're far past the days when connectivity was bread and butter. In fact, hosting broadband is our least profitable service. Believe me, all the DSLR bluster about ISP services ripping off consumers over monthly quotas is far, far off the mark. Most heavy data consumers are costing us a small fortune. I think if you look at the cost on an individual basis, this is the case. If you look at the whole picture, then, in my opinion, you need those heavy data consumers and residential connections. Lemme explain...
I'm just guessing with all this... by looking at your graph stats, your Qwest DSL customers use about 50% of your bandwidth. Add Utopia to that and your bandwidth usage by providing connectivity is probably pushing 70-80%. That's a lot of bandwidth usage that gives you leverage to negotiate lower prices with your backbone providers for a lower Mb/s cost. That lower Mb/s cost makes your collocation/hosting/other business more profitable. If you stopped providing connectivity right now, your backbone costs (per Mb) would probably go up quite a bit. The Qwest DSL and Utopia customers also help offset the cost of running your datacenter. Take DSL and Utopia out, you would find, in my opinion, that your data center wouldn't be as profitable. I would also give a little credit to residential and heavy bandwidth users in helping you (possibly forcing you) to build out a larger capacity network that makes Xmission competitive in the collocation market in Utah. Honestly, I wouldn't even look at Xmission for collocation if they didn't have GigE connections and larger routers. There are a number of large collocation companies in Utah that have big data centers, large pipes and facilities designed extremely well for 100% uptime. I just don't think Xmission would have built as good of a network without the connectivity customers. In many ways, you're following in the footsteps of ViaWest.
Right now we're getting our feet wet with VoIP, and hope to grow quickly into full PBX and unified communications hosting. I hope you can find success in these areas. So many companies are into this and a number have closed up shop (or are really struggling). If you can find ways to be different, then I think you can succeed in this area. You HAVE to be different.
We also started a CLEC subsidiary that we can use for interconnect/colocation and just lease last mile. Dunno if its worth the investment, though.
I don't know that becoming a CLEC is really worth it either. CLECs seem to be struggling too with either closing up shop, merging, or getting bought out. I think it's hard to make money in this area, but it may be the only option to reach some customers. There is, however, some really neat copper-based equipment out there that shows that copper still has a lot of potential.
I think it is an interesting time for Xmission. I'm really interested to see what Xmission does over the next 2-4 years. Things are changing. It seems that a critical junction point is forming. I just hope that Xmission isn't too late to enter some of the different markets out there. Xmission has to change and is probably large enough to do it. I think Qwest building a separate ADSL2 network shows the beginning of the end of 3rd party ISP's. |
|
woodward
XMission Broadband
VIP
join:2000-12-28
Salt Lake City, UT
| Your thinking is dead on for the most part, and we have pages and pages of data breaking down this relationship. There is indeed symbiosis. But our bandwidth consumption has always been driven by the coloc, and not access subscribers, and that's for one critical reason -- coloc = upload. Access = download. We've always essentially used the glut in inbound data to fuel our access service. It is a very, very rare occasion that we have to increase bandwidth for access subscribers.
You're absolutely right about the per-Mb cost, though. But, believe it or not, it isn't until just within the last couple of months that we have crossed into significant discounts. We also have a bad habit of re-investing those savings into our customer's service (*GASP* what are we thinking?!?!?!).  At the end of the day, we're still only making pennies on every access subscriber.
quote:
I think Qwest building a separate ADSL2 network shows the beginning of the end of 3rd party ISP's.
There were about 160 third party ISPs on the Qwest conference call that announced this who were realizing the same thing. |
|
macroff
join:2001-02-23
Sandy, UT
| said by woodward :We've always essentially used the glut in inbound data to fuel our access service. It is a very, very rare occasion that we have to increase bandwidth for access subscribers. I didn't even think of that. It seems like the two really complement each other and can help the bottom line.
We also have a bad habit of re-investing those savings into our customer's service (*GASP* what are we thinking?!?!?!).
Have you had any word on video with these new speed tiers or with the ADSL2 deployment? I ran across something interesting today going through some Sandy City Council minutes. They're about 6 months old, but I haven't heard/seen anything about this until now -- at least here in Utah. Here are two links to the minutes:
»sandy.utah.gov/fileadmin/downloa···_min.pdf -- Public hearing 3
and
»sandy.utah.gov/fileadmin/downloa···_min.pdf -- Council item 4
It appears as though Qwest wants to obtain a video franchise agreement in Sandy City to offer video/cable services over (what I'm guessing) their ADSL2 network. |
|
