Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to pnh102
Re: Lesson Learned Not practical. Imagine a major city. Now image 20 phone companies and 20 cable companies wanting to service that area. Be great for competition but you would see 40 cables on the poles along with 40 times your yard/sidewalk/street would have to be ripped up.
Only so much real estate on the poles and in the underground easements. More than 3 or 4 total and your in trouble. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Sucks to be them then. I guess they will just have to either pay AT&T what they want or go under.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
| reply to dcurrey
Qwest has a telephone network here in SLC, but you can get DSL from another provider over their line.
AT&T is a little bit different because they can still lord over their exclusive network (which they went bankrupt laying out in the 80's)
In some areas, it's simply not feasible to have another ISP with it's own lines because the market is already saturated and content. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | In California, there are multiple indie ISP's selling Internet service that use AT&T's last mile.
The big issue that I have is that and indie ISP can not use a dry loop on AT&T, forcing POTS service and fees on me.
Eg.
DSL-Extreme 3Mbps/512kbps = $25/month (+POTS)
AT&T Pro 3Mbps/512kbps = $30/month (+POTS) 
AT&T Dry Pro 3Mbps/512kbps = $40/month
TWC 10/1Mbps = $46/month
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
| reply to longstreet
Are you talking about legacy AT&T or the new AT&T going bankrupt? I worked for the new AT&T (then SWB) in the 80's and don't recall them going bankrupt. |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| reply to en102
ISPs once had the dry-line dsl. It was only offered to them for a short time and then pulled it.
I do not agree with ATT's wholesale pricing though.
and also as far as building out their own network- yes they should have but that was CLEC NOT ISPs. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to longstreet
said by longstreet:Qwest has a telephone network here in SLC, but you can get DSL from another provider over their line. I do have a choice of DSL provider: DSL Extreme, Sonic, Speakeasy. Even Covad, but...
AT&T is a little bit different because they can still lord over their exclusive network (which they went bankrupt laying out in the 80's)
Odd statement to make. Part of that 80's network belonged to US West after 1984. They are now part of Qwest. And the part that now belongs to AT&T used to be called, "SBC", before SBC bought AT&T and changed their corporate identity. After 1984, AT&T owned no local telephone lines. Nor have they acquired any since then. If SBC had not bought AT&T in 2005, AT&T would still have no local telephone lines.
Nearly as I can tell, the only place where AT&T has "exclusive" control is "AT&T Southeast", which used to be Bellsouth.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
4 edits | Allow me to elaborate.
The telephone lines in my area are stewarded by Qwest, but you can get any ISP service for DSL over them. Doesn't have to be Qwest.
The telephone lines are actually the property of the tax payers . .Qwest is just a steward.
Try doing that with cable here and you'll run into a problem.
AT&T spent a ton of money in the 80's laying cable. This is what I meant by them going bankrupt.
They had to sell parts of the business off (like to SBC . . . other cable companies) to keep out of the red.
AFAIK, you can only get 1 cable ISP here, which is Comcast. I've tried for years, unsuccessfully, to find another provider via cable.
I can't call up SBC or AT&T and say give me cable, but I can call up Verizon or Xmission and say give me DSL. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by longstreet:Allow me to elaborate. The telephone lines in my area are stewarded by Qwest, but you can get any ISP service for DSL over them. Doesn't have to be Qwest. And those of us with AT&T can't? What are Covad, DSL Extreme, Sonic, and Speakeasy? Chopped liver?
The telephone lines are actually the property of the tax payers . .Qwest is just a steward.
When did the government nationalize Qwest? Through 1984, those lines belonged to AT&T. When the government broke up AT&T in 1984, seven "Regional Operating Bell Companies" were created to take over the AT&T LEC business. US West was one of them. US West operated the LEC business until they were bought by Qwest, some time around the year 2000.
AT&T spent a ton of money in the 80's laying cable. This is what I meant by them going bankrupt.
They did not go bankrupt laying cable, any more than laying fiber has bankrupted Verizon.
They had to sell parts of the business off (like to SBC . . . other cable companies) to keep out of the red.
AT&T sold nothing in 1984; they consented to a breakup ordered by Judge Green in the U.S. anti-trust suit against AT&T. SBC did not even exist then, SBC is just a renamed Southwestern Bell Telephone which, like US West, was one of the RBOCs created from the breakup of AT&T under the consent decree.
AFAIK, you can only get 1 cable ISP here, which is Comcast. I've tried for years, unsuccessfully, to find another provider via cable.
I can't call up SBC or AT&T and say give me cable, but I can call up Verizon or Xmission and say give me DSL.
I can't get Verizon DSL anywhere in California where AT&T is the LEC. I can't get AT&T DSL anywhere in California where Verizon is the LEC. I can get Covad, DSL Extreme, Sonic, or Speakasy DSL most anywhere in California, regardless of who my LEC is.
And you will have to explain to me; if the RBOC (i.e. Qwest, Verizon, or AT&T) is just a steward of taxpayer owned copper, which government agency is the owner?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
