| Irony? Verizon and AT&T whining about anti-competitive behavior is the most *facepalm* inducing irony I have seen in a while. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Irony: Cablevision can block access to MSG from competitors, while AT&T/Verizon (wireless) block competing VoIP apps (or apps from the their network they don't like)
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
djeremy
join:2004-07-12
San Francisco, CA | reply to sonicmerlin
Exactly what I was going to say.
If Verizon or AT&T had the same exclusivity, they certainly wouldn't give it up and would probably use their lobbying dollars to make sure it would stay that way. |
|
| reply to en102
Actually far more important than that is the duopolistic control over the middle mile that AT&T and Verizon have, and the intense criticism lobbed at them for hugely marking up prices on access to the middle mile. |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| said by sonicmerlin:Actually far more important than that is the duopolistic control over the middle mile that AT&T and Verizon have Huh? |
|
| said by espaeth:said by sonicmerlin:Actually far more important than that is the duopolistic control over the middle mile that AT&T and Verizon have Huh? AT&T and Verizon own the majority of the back end internet "backbone" infrastructure in the U.S. and as such have a lot of influence on the price of access to the internet backbone.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
|
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Correction: they don't have the majority of the internet backbone infrastructure. But between the backbone and you, it's all them. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by iansltx:Correction: they don't have the majority of the internet backbone infrastructure. But between the backbone and you, it's all them. Unless you have service from Qwest, Frontier, CentryLink (formerly CentryTel & Embarq), Charter, RCN, Comcast, TWC, Cablevision, Cox, etc. None of those carriers rely on Verizon or ATT backhaul for their upstream connectivity -- they push traffic to carriers like Level(3), GlobalCrossing, Qwest, Telia, Cogent, Savvis, PCCW/BTN, etc. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Good point, but for high speed backhauls you're at the mercy of either the MSO or the telco at the last mile. Smaller cable companies (CableOne for example) and telcos (basically anyone smaller than the ones you mentioned) have to pay the ILEC for backhaul, and that can get very spendy very quickly. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by iansltx:Smaller cable companies (CableOne for example) and telcos (basically anyone smaller than the ones you mentioned) have to pay the ILEC for backhaul, and that can get very spendy very quickly. The LEC-based data circuits are billed according to the PUC-regulated tariff schedule. This has been the case since deregulation in the 90's -- the wholesale fee for all core services is the same regardless of which company is doing the retail sale of the service, even if it's the retail wing of the iLEC itself.
That's your local government at work. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| However these rates were set awhile back and thus don't reflect market realities today. PUCs don't regulate fiber backhauls which are what's needed to bring in major bandwidth these days.
Besides, $100 per Mbit for loop and port for a T3 isn't going to allow for next-gen services by any competitor. |
|
 elbm
join:2000-08-03
Reisterstown, MD | T3's cost what they do because of Service Level Agreements (SLA). There is alot of protection built into delivering a T3. At the customer prem there is 1+1 protection on the DS3 card, the timing, Comm/Management cards, Hi Speed optical cards, most are on upsr fiber rings and there is a duplication of all of this at every point that the DS3 is "switched". Along with all that redundancy the SLA assures 99.999 up time with guarantees on service restoration time. It is not cheap to deploy and maintain this stuff. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Fiber has SLAs too and I've gotten cheaper quotes for fiber around here than a T3. Also, the nice thing from the telco's perspective about an SLA is that you can break it and still make a crapload of money. Depending on the provider this happens all the time, particularly with T1s, which are basically just hyped up DSL connections these days. |
|
elbm
join:2000-08-03
Reisterstown, MD | Yeah, T1 on copper are transmitted via dsl technology and you are right T1 are almost treated as dial tone these days. As for the cheaper fiber quotes-- most likely they are ethernet based non-redundant service as opposed to protected TDM services that deliver DS3's. |
|
| reply to en102
said by en102:Irony: Cablevision can block access to MSG from competitors, while AT&T/Verizon (wireless) block competing VoIP apps (or apps from the their network they don't like) Or the fact that they don't share their next gen networks with competitors like they do copper. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to elbm
However the Ethernet services are much simpler to implement and still have an SLA. |
|
| said by iansltx:However the Ethernet services are much simpler to implement and still have an SLA. I agree, I recenly saw some quotes from this area and ethernet is about 1/2 the price of a T3/DS3 yet delivers the same speeds.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:Unless you have service from Qwest, Frontier, CentryLink (formerly CentryTel & Embarq), Charter, RCN, Comcast, TWC, Cablevision, Cox, etc. None of those carriers rely on Verizon or ATT backhaul for their upstream connectivity -- they push traffic to carriers like Level(3), GlobalCrossing, Qwest, Telia, Cogent, Savvis, PCCW/BTN, etc. Which, often times, switches over to ATT or Verizon backend at some point to get to it's destination. Do some trace-routes to various sites. I am not on ATT or Verizon but I see their routers come up a lot in tracerts. Have you even seen the sizing charts that compare backend sizes? Level 3, GC, Cog, etc. are like specs compared to the spider-web-like appearance of ATT and Verizon on those charts.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by jimbo2150:Which, often times, switches over to ATT or Verizon backend at some point to get to it's destination. Do some trace-routes to various sites. I am not on ATT or Verizon but I see their routers come up a lot in tracerts. You shouldn't see ATT or Verizon in a trace unless your destination happens to be on their network. They aren't centric to any kind of traffic pattern, and that shows quite well in metrics like the Knodes index. See: »www.fixedorbit.com/metrics.htm
said by jimbo2150:Have you even seen the sizing charts that compare backend sizes? Level 3, GC, Cog, etc. are like specs compared to the spider-web-like appearance of ATT and Verizon on those charts. ATT and Verizon are stretched very far, and very thin. They connect a lot of edge customers, but really don't have the core bandwidth to support the same amount of transit volume as a Level(3) or Global Crossing. When Comcast ended their contracts with ATT in 2006/2007, they cut ATT's US backbone loading levels by over 50%.
You also won't find any major US data centers using ATT or Verizon network connectivity.
Softlayer, who operate large hosting facilities in Washington, Dallas, and Seattle
Network Access Corp (NAC.net) where DSLReports is hosted
Amazon
ATT / Verizon do quite a bit of business with end-user attachment, from residential DSL subscribers all the way up to Fortune 500 enterprises. For core backbone transit, however, they priced themselves out of the game years ago. |
|
