 kmac1Off in new directionsPremium,VIP
join:2001-06-07
Port Neches, TX | YES, it is illegal! As an official support tech here at BBR for SBC, let me say this:
I am forbidden, by FEDERAL LAW, from discussing anything with a competitor's customer. I can't help them, I can't offer advice, I CAN'T talk to them, unless the customer(i.e. the CLEC who is their provider) gives me a written authorization.
The rule that an ILEC can't provide DSL service to a customer isn't an ILEC decision, it's law.
Whether I like it or not, it's not my call. I have to follow company policy, which means we have to follow FEDERAL LAW.
Before you SLAM the ILECs, think about investigating the real laws, and who wrote them.
--
Put your spare CPU cycles to WORK! Join the BBR DC Teams and join in on helping helping find ET or cures for diseases. SETI and Team Helix. Join in on the fun! |
|
 Derek_WildstarWhy the fck is Shane walking in there?
join:2001-02-24
Iscandar | Now I am confused. How is it that Covad - a CLEC who doesn't offer local voice service but does offer ADSL - can lineshare off of both ILEC & other CLEC's circuits but SBC (an ILEC) cannot lineshare off of a CLEC's circuit?
--
I use conjecture and hearsay. Those are kinds of evidence. - Lionel Hutz |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
The Bells say it would be too complex and expensive to offer their own DSL service over the local lines that are being leased and managed by competitors. One complication, they say, is that their computer systems aren't programmed to offer DSL over a leased line. Fixing that would be a major undertaking, they say -- but they added that they might do it if they could charge more for leasing the lines. Line lease rates are set by state regulators.
"I would like to have the business," but there's no way to do it, says Zeke Robertson, senior vice president of SBC's DSL division. "Few people understand the complexity of doing two services over a single line."
They claim it's "just too expensive". 
I don't know where the "illegal" claim comes from though. I'd like to see the actual law.
[text was edited by author 2003-01-30 20:24:06] |
|
 spgGrrrr
join:2001-10-31
NOT Texas! | reply to kmac1
Further, why would an ILEC WANT to make a CLECs service more appealing?
The subscriber chose the CLEC. Let the CLEC offer DSL. The CLEC leased the line. (For today's argument the price doesn't matter.) The CLEC can offer long distance, call forwarding, etc. They can offer DSL too if they put in their own equipment.
The ILECs are required to lease the lines and switching necessary for the completion of a phone call, and they do. Anything beyond that would feathering the competition's bed.
The CLECs were allowed to be middlemen on a temporary basis so that they could raise revenue for capital investment. So invest some capital and offer DSL.
--
Call Your CLEC after the Earthquake |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to kmac1
said by kmac1:
Before you SLAM the ILECs, think about investigating the real laws, and who wrote them.
Ok, ok, the ILEC's Congresstooges, then.
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948 (Yep, it's dead.) |
|
Derek_WildstarWhy the fck is Shane walking in there?
join:2001-02-24
Iscandar | reply to Karl Bode
quote:
"I would like to have the business," but there's no way to do it, says Zeke Robertson, senior vice president of SBC's DSL division.
Bull$h|7. Run a separate drop, just like your competitors did until the Federal courts made you open up your circuits to linesharing. Yes, that would increase costs, and I can understand why they wouldn't want to do it based upon that criterion. But don't tell me you can't do it.
Thank you for that quote, Leviathan.
--
I use conjecture and hearsay. Those are kinds of evidence. - Lionel Hutz |
|
spgGrrrr
join:2001-10-31
NOT Texas!
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:
I don't know where the "illegal" claim comes from though. I'd like to see the actual law.
I can't tell you for sure that it is illegal. But it is forbidden. It could be a consent decree, settlement or company lawyers.
Here is the reasoning as it has been explained to me over the years: Most, if not all of the CLEC use the ILECs as subcontractors for station repair. (inside the house) Since the only parties there are the CLECs subscriber and the CLECs competition, we as the subcontractor are not supposed to talk to the subscriber. We could try to win back the subscriber in a situation where the CLEC called us in in the first place. If the subscriber wants a new jack, for instance, he/she has to call the CLEC. The CLEC has to tell us to do it. And it's not our business how much the CLEC will charge them and it's not the sub's business how much we charge the CLEC.
We must follow the protocol to protect our customer's (the CLEC's) interest, and we can't use unfair competition to win that subscriber back. (You know, we charge less for that..." etc.) Remember, the ILEC's subscriber is the CLEC, not the end user.
The penalties for screwing up is not entering the long distance market or fines.
So the policy is not to go anywhere near the end user. (at least for us techs)
And it's frustrating for everyone involved. As a tech, all you want to do is fix the problem and you can't talk to the one experiencing the problem.
The end user fells like he/she's getting the runaround, and the CLEC is worried that if the two talk they may lose a customer, or at the least the subscriber will have information about the problem that they don't have.
It's a screwed up mess. So if the ILEC leases back part of the line the CLEC leased in the first place, who's the lessee? Who's the lessor? And how confused does the end user get?
--
Call Your CLEC after the Earthquake
[text was edited by author 2003-01-30 20:39:21] |
|
| reply to kmac1
Thats funny, since I work for a CLEC I have heard many of "OUR" end users state "yeah the Bell tech was out today and stated that he cant get our line to work, but stated if we went with them they could have us up in 5 days." Yeah.. Dont want to talk to our customer unless its slamming em.. or even seen where Bell techs state "oh its your CLEC's problem that you dont have dial tone, call them." So now where does it go. I thought Bell was the company who supported the Dial tone.
You know what I say, we are a F'ing Americans. I am sick of this war.. Basicly what your saying is you want me out of a job because your pissed off your Grandfather worked for Bell back in the day and now we are here leasing your Equipment that HE built. Get over it. How many CLECS are left.. 3.... Dont you think Bell has put enough people on the unemployment list. Your that type of guy in school that when asked to borrow a pencil, punched the kid in the face and told him to screw off.. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to spg
quote:
I can't tell you for sure that it is illegal. But it is forbidden. It could be a consent decree, settlement or company lawyers.
Or it could be a half-assed policy nobody in the company understands, so to justify questions, middle management just makes a reason up, and it becomes somewhat of a corporate urban legend..... 
quote:
It's a screwed up mess. So if the ILEC leases back part of the line the CLEC leased in the first place, who's the lessee? Who's the lessor? And how confused does the end user get?
As opposed to the crystal clear situation they have now? Where a customer who isn't aware of the switch policy, changes his service to AT&T, and finds his DSL service goes dead before his local phone selection is even activated? |
|
spgGrrrr
join:2001-10-31
NOT Texas! | reply to DSLviper
I tried explain the policy in a manner that was as neutral as I could, and you choose to flame.
And besides my grandfather, and my father, I built the network you're trying to make a profit from. Perhaps if the CLECs actually hired their own technicians (a few do) the employee who isn't following policy wouldn't be there in the first place.
And the Bells do support the dialtone. Right up to the MPOE.
--
Call Your CLEC after the Earthquake |
|
 HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:1 | reply to kmac1
said by kmac1:
I am forbidden, by FEDERAL LAW... The rule that an ILEC can't provide DSL service to a customer isn't an ILEC decision, it's law.
...which means we have to follow FEDERAL LAW.
Before you SLAM the ILECs, think about investigating the real laws
Okay, tell us five more times that it's a "law" and we'll believe you... Wait, no we won't. SHOW US THIS LAW. Please ?? Pretty please ??
--
-= Mindspring MaxDSL via Covad 1536/384 TeleSurfer Pro =- |
|
| reply to spg
I do work for a CLEC that hires their own techs. The problem is when there is a physical problem on the outside facilities, we cannot and do not mess with it since its a leased line that your company provides (obviously I dont work for a Dial Tone CLEC). I dont mean to flame, I am just sick of this corporate world so damn greedy about money and power. Jobless rates are at 6% and it wont help if the Bells (who just to remind everyone make a damn good profit every quarter), are pissed off because they only make $1 a line that a CLEC leases. You know what, that is $1 more your company is making that you wouldnt be making without the CLEC. Ill never bitch about getting a .50 cent raise. Money is money. |
|
spgGrrrr
join:2001-10-31
NOT Texas! | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:
quote:
It's a screwed up mess. So if the ILEC leases back part of the line the CLEC leased in the first place, who's the lessee? Who's the lessor? And how confused does the end user get?
As opposed to the crystal clear situation they have now? Where a customer who isn't aware of the switch policy, changes his service to AT&T, and finds his DSL service goes dead before his local phone selection is even activated?
Perhaps if AT&T and the others tell the end user that they are using leased lines instead of implying that they're theirs there would be less confusion.
The Neighborhood, built by MCI isn't deceptive? (emphasis added) MCI marketing has been caught telling potential customers that they've merged with ILEC's, SBC is going out of business, SBC sold them the territory, etc. This is nothing new, it's been reported many times before by consumer groups as well as the ILECs. MCI hasn't built anything but a house of cards.
AT&T once owned central office DSL equipment and sold it off.
Perhaps if they started out offering the product in a few areas and built up their capital, they could then invest in other areas...
--
Call Your CLEC after the Earthquake |
|
| reply to DSLviper
said by DSLviper:
Thats funny, since I work for a CLEC I have heard many of "OUR" end users state "yeah the Bell tech was out today and stated that he cant get our line to work, but stated if we went with them they could have us up in 5 days." Yeah.. Dont want to talk to our customer unless its slamming em.. or even seen where Bell techs state "oh its your CLEC's problem that you dont have dial tone, call them." So now where does it go. I thought Bell was the company who supported the Dial tone.
You know what I say, we are a F'ing Americans. I am sick of this war.. Basicly what your saying is you want me out of a job because your pissed off your Grandfather worked for Bell back in the day and now we are here leasing your Equipment that HE built. Get over it. How many CLECS are left.. 3.... Dont you think Bell has put enough people on the unemployment list. Your that type of guy in school that when asked to borrow a pencil, punched the kid in the face and told him to screw off..
How many CLECs are left?? 3??? ARE YOU SERIOUS???
Let's see... AT&T, MCI, Sprint does resale now, Covad, Z-Tel, TDS is making big moves lately, do you really want me to go and list all of the literally HUNDREDS of CLECs per state??
Or are you assuming that if they don't offer DSL at $39-$80 per month to residential subscribers that they don't exist??
You might as well say, "There aren't any auto makers besides Ford" with the stipulation that auto makers aren't really auto makers unless they make Mustangs.
Is it THAT implausible to think that the reason you aren't being offered a product from these other companies is because THEY DON'T WANT YOUR BUSINESS???
Boogie |
|
|
|
| reply to kmac1
"Show Me The Money!" I hope you DO realize why you keep getting NO RESPECT.
No matter HOW MANY times you SLING this RHETORIC about "the LAW", UNTIL you can INCLUDE the AUTHOR, NAME, COURT, NUMBER, CASE, CODE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, or ANY part thereof that we can look up ourselves, we'll continue to believe you just pulled it out of your a*s!
So, speaking for myself & possibly others, I WILL SLAM PacBell (esp. for what they did to me) until I know it resides in a Law Volume. |
|
| reply to DSLviper
Kudos To You! WOW! I like you.
It's nice to know there ARE others out there who are concerned about getting a problem fixed instead of worrying about "It's not my job!" OR who gets the pat on the back, or it's not job security.
JUST LIKE OUR OWN GOVERNMENT! Don't fall for the propaganda your companies' executives feed you.
CORPORATE GREED & POLITICAL TACTICS:
Let's pit ALL of the working groups, races, neighborhoods against each other until everybody is so CONSUMED with RAGE, HATE, & STRESS (...postal, Columbine, Matthew Sheppard, OK Fed., 9-11, Enron ...Hmmm, ...Ya THINK???) that they have NO TIME to see all of us Fat Rats & Chiefs lining our deceitful pocketbooks.
GOD SEES YOUR CROOKED CHRISTIAN ASS!! If all the executives, including our top elected officials, in our country were FORCED to give back even a FRACTION of their salaries, there would be enough to keep everybody employed. AND they'd STILL have more money than God!
Don't get me wrong! I love America, do not want to be anywhere else ... BUT, there IS room for improvement! |
|
| reply to rockybear
Re: "Show Me The Money!" said by rockybear:
UNTIL you can INCLUDE the AUTHOR, NAME, COURT, NUMBER, CASE, CODE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, or ANY part thereof that we can look up ourselves, we'll continue to believe you just pulled it out of your a*s!
I would say it is up to you to prove it is in fact legal to do such a thing. Otherwise, I suggest you give Sir ADSL Guy his props.
For arguments sake, let's say it is legal and the ILEC just doesn't want to do it because the ROI (that's return on investment for you CLEC guys) isn't enough to justify it. So what? Tough do do I say. |
|
| said by Abe Froman:
said by rockybear:
UNTIL you can INCLUDE the AUTHOR, NAME, COURT, NUMBER, CASE, CODE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH, or ANY part thereof that we can look up ourselves, we'll continue to believe you just pulled it out of your a*s!
I would say it is up to you to prove it is in fact legal to do such a thing. Otherwise, I suggest you give Sir ADSL Guy his props.
For arguments sake, let's say it is legal and the ILEC just doesn't want to do it because the ROI (that's return on investment for you CLEC guys) isn't enough to justify it. So what? Tough do do I say.
Abe, just tell them the truth- section 271 requirements lists as part of the magic 14 list that we offer local loop, trunk and switching transport unbundled from any offered service- meaning that if the CLEC uses UNE-P, we can't reuse the loop, trunk and/or switch to offer any services of our own.
I posted the literal language from section 271 elsewhere.
Boogie |
|
| reply to DSLviper
Re: YES, it is illegal! said by DSLviper:
Your that type of guy in school that when asked to borrow a pencil, punched the kid in the face and told him to screw off..
So your solution is to get the principal to force the kid to give you a pencil? |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | reply to kmac1
said by kmac1:
I am forbidden, by FEDERAL LAW, from discussing anything with a competitor's customer. I can't help them, I can't offer advice, I CAN'T talk to them, unless the customer(i.e. the CLEC who is their provider) gives me a written authorization.
Here's a dose of reality. If Covad leases the line and provides DSL only, the competitor you speak of is a DSL competitor and not a dial tone competitor.
said by kmac1:
Whether I like it or not, it's not my call. I have to follow company policy, which means we have to follow FEDERAL LAW.
We know it’s not your call, but I think it’s a little disingenuous to imply the RBOCs always follow the law. They do so when it suits their objectives. How else do you explain the millions of dollars in fines since the inception of the 1996 Telecommunications Act? |
|
