US Telco Support > CenturyLink > Merger question

Merger question

reply to browniept
Before the merger there was a sight that you could view each companies state by state srevice areas. It also included how many lines were DSL capable, I know this doesn't assure 768 download. Most of the area I happened to look at for Centurytel had a surprisingly high rate, at least I thought so.

I think Centurytel bought rights to a decent chunk of wireless spectrum that overlayed many of their rural community's. This likely was purchased to either provide wireless service or wireless backhaul, I assume for this purpose it would be cheaper than fiber.
--
Ofallon, Mo Weather
St. Peters, Mo Weather

On the FCC website type CenturyTel Embarq into the search box and you will find some 490 matching pages.

This one is very interesting and appears to be the home for all info related to the merger, including a timeline of events:

FCC - CenturyTel and Embarq -- WC Docket No. 08-238
»www.fcc.gov/transaction/centuryt···arq.html

What exactly was the FCC's final decision? It's the first hit just below the timeline on that page:

6/25/09 -- FCC Approves Embarq-CenturyTel Merger with Conditions.
»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···54A1.pdf

,

Conditions of the merger from that document, Appendix C, page 31:

=========

To meet this commitment the merged company will make available retail broadband Internet access service with a download speed of 768 kbps to 90 percent of its broadband eligible access lines using wireline technologies within three years of the Transaction Closing Date.

The merged company will make available retail broadband Internet access service in accordance with the FCC’s current definition of broadband to the remaining broadband eligible access lines using alternative technologies and operating arrangements, including but not limited to satellite and terrestrial wireless broadband technologies.

=========
,

So in essence, those of us in the rural locations are screwed under the terms of the merger. CenturyLink can just offer us crappy high-latency monthly-download-limit Hughesnet or WildBlue satellite service and call it good.

.

That may be the case where you are.

reply to Ring Trip
browniept is right,

CTEL in this area is completely unreliable and slow at best. I have contacted Tech Support so many times it's not even funny. after a couple days of contacting them it will get better for a short time,it seems to be a "bottle neck" issue .

and it only seems to get better after you get past the first level or so of Tech Support.(cookbook tech support).I understand they have to go though those steps in the beginning,but after calling 4,5,10 times within a few days,you can pretty much bet those steps have been covered and covered again!

I have sent them so many "trace routes",speed tests" (at their request).
CTEL Tech Support has come out and ran test and with their equipment,and agree the problem is on CTEL end.
always seems to be with the Lightcore servers in Monroe La.

huntdog

reply to browniept
CenturyLink might be doing rural upgrades but they never talk about it. There is no place that details specifically what work they are doing.

Personally I think CenturyLink should be forced to divulge who is in that last 10 percent group that they don't need to bother with servicing with anything other than satellite, so that WISP builders can know specifically where their services are needed to provide a competitive alternative.

--
CenturyLink remote pedestal: RUBY, 10 miles west of Gilman, WI
»Rural Century Telephone remote terminal unit
»Name of this pole-mount outdoor telco canister?

reply to browniept
Competition is built into the telcom industry. Otherwise potential customers get stagnant festering pools of poor service because there is no other game in town.

In the majority of CenturyTink's low-density service market, they have NO competitors. Nobody else wants to cover the lowest of the low density, but a WISP run on a shoestring budget could manage it.

Telcos are forced to lease their equipment at a low rate to competitors to sell services that compete with them. Cell tower radio frequencies are designed to support more than one carrier.

We the underserved have a right to demand that we have more opportunities for service better than satellite, beyond the 35 kilobit dialup we have been getting from CenturyTel for the last ten years.

.
--
CenturyLink remote pedestal: RUBY, 10 miles west of Gilman, WI
»Rural Century Telephone remote terminal unit
»Name of this pole-mount outdoor telco canister?

You have a right to demand it, but you don't have a right to get it.

Last I checked, broadband internet wasn't a right for anyone.
--
The goal of the broadcast engineer is to get all the meters on the transmitter to go as far to the right as possible!!

reply to browniept
I think everyone is missing the major point of this post, which is that things are getting better. I know that everyone wants service now, but it is simply not possible to build everything all at once. Ideally we want 100% coverage of voice and data. The internet is still an extremely young facility, only 15 years old.

In the 1800s, if you wanted the services of the railroads, you either moved to where the rail already was, or you built your own track. No one is stopping you from starting your own ISP.

If you campers are done grinding your various axes....

This began with a couple of simple questions: Did the FCC actually put those requirements in the merger and do they expect CenturyLink to even consider meeting them?

I understand the following:

1. I don't live in a big city.
2. CenturyLink may consider itself a rural telco, but rural customers are not a priority.
3. Some alleged pundits on this board apparently feel rather strongly that people in rural areas (BTW, anyone got a good definition of rural in this context?) do not deserve broadband internet access. Were they traumitized by a cow or what?

We all know that broadband access is driven by economics. Beating the above points into the ground will not resolve them. Those of us who live in rural areas generally have good reasons for living there and accept the inherent limitations and benefits. Trying to keep up with the advances in this area should not start the feeding frenzy it invariably does on this board. We are just trying to keep an eye what may or may not be coming our way and trying to sort out viable options from vaporware. Broadband users in urban areas are always looking for the next level of speed in their areas. You guys are looking for 100 meg, we're looking for 1. Same principle, different orders of magnitude. If you hear about higher speed access coming to your area, you will invariably inquire about time frames, logistics, etc. That doesn't make you a bad person, it makes you human.

Of course the ISP's are not going to tell you their intent. There's no profit in it. But then again, where is the profit in telling someone that something is coming when it isn't? And just beacuse they put forth the effort to be frustrating does not mean one is obligated to be frustrated. Broadband will make it to most areas eventually in one way or another when someone makes it worth the effort.

I don't think anyone here has said that people in rural areas don't deserve broadband internet access.

On the other hand, if people in rural areas have "good reasons for living there and accept the inherent limitations and benefits", then why is a CenturyLink review consisting of all "Ones" sitting on the front page (and admittedly scored that way simply because DSL isn't available to them)?

Sounds to me like someone isn't accepting the limitations.
--
The goal of the broadcast engineer is to get all the meters on the transmitter to go as far to the right as possible!!

I accept the limitations. I do not accept that they have to stay that way. Or do we accept the limitations as static and the implication that those of us in rural areas are not worth bringing broadband to and never will be? That may be the company line but history would dispute it.

I'm not defending CTL, but you're free to start up your own WISP or other type of broadband company if you don't approve of their business plan.

My point is that CenturyTel is like every other company on the planet. They're in business to make money. Is that fair or right? I won't be the judge of that, but the FCC has laid out what CTL is required to do in rural areas, and in some cases, they'll do the very minimum such as HughesNet.

Good or bad you'll have to accept it, unless you do something to change the game.

I
--
The goal of the broadcast engineer is to get all the meters on the transmitter to go as far to the right as possible!!

I could have sworn I said that earlier. And you forgot to tell me to move to where the broadband is.

"Because you seem to think that I'm picking a fight with you when I'm not. No need to take your frustration out on me."

Not at all. Just trying to keep up with the progress of broadband expansion. But I've encountered people who take umbrage at that and they have standard lines. "Move to where the broadband is" is one of them.
I understand that broadband will not be on my doorstep tommorrow, but it will be at some point. That's not a complaint, just an observation, but some take it otherwise.

And I think that it's a stupid line. Rural America needs to be wired with broadband. While I don't believe that high-speed internet is a right, I do believe that it should be universally available.

The problem is expense. As we all know, it's not a cheap proposition. What I don't get are the people who attack companies like CTL for not offering it where they are, and lay into them because they wire up where the money is. Well of course they do! I don't like it, but that capitalism at it's best (or worst)!

I guess the better line is be prepared "hurry up and wait".
--
The goal of the broadcast engineer is to get all the meters on the transmitter to go as far to the right as possible!!