Re: This is not new in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r5835943 en Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:26:47 EDT Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:26:47 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5885759 dyoo78 :
said by stickfigure See Profile:
Well, to start off with, my experience with customer service reps in just about any company has been that they are not always given the correct information. So one rep may tell you that it is illegal to put DSL across CLEC line and one may tell you it is technically impossible and it could all be based on something they heard from someone else that didn't know either. Yes it is frustrating not getting a straight answer but what can you do?

I don't see ILEC's offering DSL over CLEC's lines so there has to be some reason why not. Now thinking about this logically, DSL is a product sold to make money right? If they could provide it across a CLEC's line at a decent cost and make a profit why wouldn't they? I don't mean to sound condescending, but business is in business to make money. It doesn't make sense to me if you have the opportunity to make a profit why they wouldn't take it. Definitely open to other possibilities but that's my thoughts...


Your argument bases the assumption that the market for DSL is perfectly competitive. Yes, a business is created to generate profit, but only in competitive markets. What we are seeing is not a competitive market, but local monopoly.

When it comes to monopolies, we've seen US policy favoring competitive markets, not monopolies - Sherman Anti Trust law ring a bell?

If you think about it logically, competitive markets drive down prices such that normal profit goes to $0. Here, normal profit is an economic term defining how markets should behave over time. A business may enter and leave freely, and bases its decision on opportunity costs of entering such market. Customers choose products in the market freely, also basing decision on marginal utility, consumer surplus, etc.

Yet what we are seeing in the DSL market is just the opposite. Companies that want to enter cannot. Customers that want to choose DSL from another service provider cannot, simply because their only provider are ILECs.

You question why ILECs don't offer service via CLEC lines by which you conclude that the market is competitive. Logically speaking, if this were a competitive market, why wouldn't they? In this case, markets aren't competitive, hence no interconnection to offer DSL service over other's lines.

Forced interconnection is not new. Are we forgetting that long distance service prices fell below CPI only after AT&T was divested and forced to interconnect with any company who wanted to offer long distance?

I don't want to be condescending, yet mere logic will tell you that ILECs don't like competition and that interconnection is a necessary part of a competitive telecom market. Business is business, only if it behaves like a business, not a monopoly.
[text was edited by author 2003-02-04 20:33:33]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5885759 Tue, 04 Feb 2003 20:32:19 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5884640 boogie74 :
said by representing See Profile:
so then cable is at fault for broadcasting satellite signals??

i have just read the US Code 271 that you so plainly quoted without understanding, i have also read 272. your in other words are your consensus based on the one paragraph you read. Read the whole document, these sections state that bell cannot hold a monopoly if a competitor wishes to use their infrastructure. Bell may charge for services loaned but under no circumstances can discriminate, they must allow a competitor nondiscriminatory access to local services, directory access, 911 access, etc.

Oh and you had better read
US Code Title 47,
Chapter 5,
Subchapter II,
Part II,
sec 251.

just in case you try to go to court on what you quoted


That is exactly my point- a Bell Operating Company cannot discriminate and must offer unbundled access to local loop transport, switching and CO to trunk transport.

As far as your comment on cable companies with satellite signals, I'm a bit lost. Exactly what were you trying to say?

Boogie]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5884640 Tue, 04 Feb 2003 18:56:57 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5883098 representing : so then cable is at fault for broadcasting satellite signals??

i have just read the US Code 271 that you so plainly quoted without understanding, i have also read 272. your in other words are your consensus based on the one paragraph you read. Read the whole document, these sections state that bell cannot hold a monopoly if a competitor wishes to use their infrastructure. Bell may charge for services loaned but under no circumstances can discriminate, they must allow a competitor nondiscriminatory access to local services, directory access, 911 access, etc.

Oh and you had better read
US Code Title 47,
Chapter 5,
Subchapter II,
Part II,
sec 251.

just in case you try to go to court on what you quoted]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5883098 Tue, 04 Feb 2003 16:30:46 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5881109 stickfigure : Well, to start off with, my experience with customer service reps in just about any company has been that they are not always given the correct information. So one rep may tell you that it is illegal to put DSL across CLEC line and one may tell you it is technically impossible and it could all be based on something they heard from someone else that didn't know either. Yes it is frustrating not getting a straight answer but what can you do?

I don't see ILEC's offering DSL over CLEC's lines so there has to be some reason why not. Now thinking about this logically, DSL is a product sold to make money right? If they could provide it across a CLEC's line at a decent cost and make a profit why wouldn't they? I don't mean to sound condescending, but business is in business to make money. It doesn't make sense to me if you have the opportunity to make a profit why they wouldn't take it. Definitely open to other possibilities but that's my thoughts...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5881109 Tue, 04 Feb 2003 12:41:51 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5880722 BrianDamage : I don't think you understand the argument.
First, I stated that the ILEC COULD offer local services over the same pair that a CLEC offers DSL over-and the Bell folks who chime in on this argument say that it is "illegal" to do so, but then point out that their provisioning services are not set up to allow such an accommodation.
They claim that technical issues prevent it. I say that's not true at all. That's what I meant by the whether"...meaning that it is an administrative issue and not a technical one at all.
Like Krk said in a previous post, it is nice when a company can say that "we can't service you because we can't or won't accommodate your request", which to me means that we CHOOSE not to accommodate that request because it goes against what we believe to be fair, which is to say that the Bells do not want CLECs to be able to be in a position where they have primary access to a copper pair.
As far as getting DSL from another provider, well, most people, given a choice, would.
The problem is, there are few actual providers left.
Rhythms. Northpoint. IP. All gone. Those were the independents, exempting Covad, who still exists.
Sure, you could order DSL from Earthlink or any number of other ISPs, but in many instances what you will get is bundled and repackaged ILEC service.
Back in the late 90s, many ISPs went with independent providers (the aforementioned CLECs), but with the rapid dissolution of all of them, the only choice many have to offer DSL at all is to repackage and rebrand an ILEC offering.
Example-
Earthlink offered Rhythms DSL in my area. Now, with Rhythms gone, they offer Verizon DSL, and, it's considerably more than you would have paid for comparable Rhythms DSL.
Also, you don't have the choice of getting a static IP versus having DHCP or PPoE. Their DSL comes packaged as to what THEY want their customers to have, not with choice. This is not competitive choice.
This is exactly what I mean when I have mentioned "deceptive competition".....those who don't really know better or don't pay attention to the landscape don't know that the DSL they actually get from their "independent" DSL provider is actually an ILEC service.
They think they are getting away from the ILEC entirely, when in fact, they have not.
Back in the late 90s, such large ISPs like Megapath, Flashcom, etc., all used CLEC services.
Part of the downfall of some CLECs, and one reason Covad got into so much trouble, was that these ISPs did not pay their bills, and the CLECs were forced to write them off, some as profit because they did EXPECT to be paid.
It was this phenomenon that started the Telecom crash, because these companies were discovered doing this, the SEC launched an investigation, and Telecom started tumbling.
The domino effect caused investors to pull out, forcing companies like Rhythms into a cataclysmic state of affairs, also considering the fact that Rhythms was the primary plaintiff in many lawsuits against various RBOCs with whom some other CLECs were also a party (like IP, Caprock, Covad, etc.) as plaintiffs as well.
The money ran out.
I feel after having seen much of this with my own eyes, and having been directly involved in ILEC/CLEC relations, that this tactic of repeated legislation, noncompliance, and beligerence, was a well-formed "unofficial" tactic and position undertaken by the RBOCs/ILECs to dry up the CLECs' resources.
"He who has the deepest pockets wins", as the old saying goes.
I do believe however, that even though the RBOCs do have a lot of political muscle and power, and have "earned" the favor of many politicians sympathetic to their regulatory "plight", that eventually, we will see true competition based on sound regulatory legislation in Telecom, and that other technologies will continue to evolve as well in order to overcome the "last-mile stranglehold" that exists, thanks to the 100+ year old protected monopoly.
I have said so and I will say it again....to leave the fate on the entire nation's telephonic (and network) infrastructure in the hands of ONE company is detrimental to innovation, technology, and to consumers.
This is demonstrated in fine fashion by the DSL explosion that did occur in the 1990s.
BellCore invented the technology but it's development into a viable consumer technology was not undertaken and sat stagnant for years until CLECs sprang up and saw it's inherent value.
Covad and Rhythms were instrumental, along with companies like Alcatel, Nokia, and Cisco, to take DSL, run with it, and develop it into a viable technology that could be readily available to consumers using facilities already in place.
Bell will cite numerous reasons why they decided to sit on the technology and not offer it.
It's all a question of what you decide to believe, and that's entirely dependent on how much experience one has actually had in the development and deployment of DSL.
I have seen much of the DSL history, at least from the standpoint of competitive integration of it, but knew of it's existence long before a consumer could ever hope to purchase it.
Anyway, that's my take.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5880722 Tue, 04 Feb 2003 11:56:42 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5873661 stickfigure : "It is a question of the "whether"...whether or not the ILEC is willing to accommodate such an arrangement, which up to now, they have not been willing to do..."

So if they're not willing to provide it, they are losing out on the profit. Why make such a big deal about it then? Why not get DSL from another provider? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5873661 Mon, 03 Feb 2003 18:27:19 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5856849 BrianDamage : Yeah, too bad, especially considering that his positions change depending on who's questioning him.
But, like in all other cases, actions speak louder than words.
Just because Powell has taken more of a pro-RBOC position doesn't make him right.
This fight is far from over.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5856849 Sat, 01 Feb 2003 22:38:31 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5856826 BrianDamage : Whatever, Boogie. And BTW, it's too bad that you can't recognize a play on words when you see one.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5856826 Sat, 01 Feb 2003 22:36:01 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5849213 Abe Froman : Ok, I give up, you win.

You're right.

Too bad M. Powell doesn't think so.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5849213 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 23:19:00 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5848857 KrK :
said by boogie74 See Profile:
You've really lost it. WOW! That's all I can say. WOW! Hint: DRUGS ARE GOOOOOD!

Extortion?? Blackmail? Boogie

That's exactly what it was around here. Economic extortion, blackmail, political back-slapping, it's an accurate assessment.
--
"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.)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5848857 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 22:39:59 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5848392 boogie74 :
quote:
And I KNOW that I'm not alone.
Do you? Look around you. I think I garner more support for my position than you do for yours.
Remove your foot from your mouth. You're starting to drool on yourself now.


Then exactly why is it that legislators and regulators don't support you?

I know what you'll say... because they were threatened and extorted and bribed and paid off under the table (blah blah blah) to vote one way or another. But GEE... there IS another set of lobbyists that pushes JUST as hard as those lobbyists asking for revamping the system and more deregulation...

But then again, it's ALL a ploy to get YOU!

I used to think you called yourself BrianDamage to be funny. Little did I know, you were not only being serious, but you mispelled it too!

Boogie]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5848392 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:55:03 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5847443 BrianDamage : WOW! Hint: DRUGS ARE GOOOOOD!
I'm so glad you think so. Go back to your hash pipe.
Threats to shut the American public out of their constitutional rights to free broadband internet?
There you go, misquoting again. Your credibility is shot more and more every time you post nonsense like this.
And I KNOW that I'm not alone.
Do you? Look around you. I think I garner more support for my position than you do for yours.
Remove your foot from your mouth. You're starting to drool on yourself now.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5847443 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:25:27 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5847394 BrianDamage : Unbundling of a network element has to do with the actual PHYSICAL unbundling of a copper loop from the rest of the incumbent's network.
In other words, it is physically disconnected from switching facilities of the incumbent and in the case of a CLEC (facilities-based) that provides their own switching, it is connected PHYSICALLY to that network outside of the incumbent's network, aside from the connection to that portion which is required to deliver a circuit to an end-user.
This is where the term "last mile" is most frequently heard.
There are issues with unbundling that the ILECs raise, but, competitive local service and incumbent DSL service COULD exist simultaneously on a copper pair. It is a matter of policy, not technology.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5847394 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:20:54 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5847370 boogie74 :
said by BrianDamage See Profile:
There you go again, Boogie....putting words in my mouth and your foot in your own.
First off, the ILECs had not been allowed to offer LD because that was the "carrot" to solicit compliance in all respects to the TA1996, pertaining to the unbundling of loops.
In that regard, 100% compliance (which was the order of TA1996) has NEVER been satisfied.
However, some RBOCs are now being allowed to offer LD in some markets EVEN THOUGH 100% compliance under TA1996 has not been satisfied by even ONE Bell operating company.
Now, before you go off on a rant and say that what Verizon does has no bearing on what SBC does, I will concede to you already that I agree with that.
Obviously, the reverse is also true.
Meaning, that if SBC hasn't complied satisfactorily and Verizon has, then Verizon should be allowed to offer LD. (These are examples.) But, compliance has not been gained from either RBOC.
Still, SBC is offering LD.
Why? Political pressure and maneuvering. Extortion. Blackmail. Threats of deployment cutbacks, etc.
If there was another company behaving this way in America today legislators and attorneys would be all over them.
So why should the Bells be allowed to get away with that?
Why should the RBOCs be allowed to hold the American public hostage in this way? They shouldn't be.
I agree in that non-facilities based providers should have much less access than those who are seriously facilities-based, but, like I've stated before, repealing the UNE laws as written will spell the end for ALL of those who have a necessity to access unbundled lines, and not just those who are UNE-P customers.
More specific means has to spell the end of this.
The UNE provision under 271 cannot be rescinded the way that the Bell companies wish for them to be, or competition in America is history, at least until a more sensible administration takes office.


You've really lost it. WOW! That's all I can say. WOW! Hint: DRUGS ARE GOOOOOD!

I seldom see someone so sold on an idea or opinion that he insists till his dying day that his opinions are facts and that the fact that the world has surpassed him, strongly disagreed with him and still survived is a BIG HUGE conspiracy.

Extortion?? Blackmail? Threats to shut the American public out of their constitutional rights to free broadband internet! WOW! Do you actually believe this stuff? Or are you playing us all for fools into believing that you are really this nuts?? I propose that you are playing this and laughing at the role you present- because you are really starting to scare me. And I KNOW that I'm not alone.

Once again... DRUGS ARE GOOOOOOD!

Boogie]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5847370 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:19:02 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5847291 joako : "Nondiscriminatory access to network elements"

Dont the discriminate against people using a CLEC?

Also what is the true meaning of unbundled? The correct interpretation should be just that unbundled, meaning that you dont HAVE to get DSL, or switching service or anything else, that each element of the service is NOT bundled with another one, nothing that prevents you from ordering DSL as well.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5847291 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:12:33 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5847221 BrianDamage : There you go again, Boogie....putting words in my mouth and your foot in your own.
First off, the ILECs had not been allowed to offer LD because that was the "carrot" to solicit compliance in all respects to the TA1996, pertaining to the unbundling of loops.
In that regard, 100% compliance (which was the order of TA1996) has NEVER been satisfied.
However, some RBOCs are now being allowed to offer LD in some markets EVEN THOUGH 100% compliance under TA1996 has not been satisfied by even ONE Bell operating company.
Now, before you go off on a rant and say that what Verizon does has no bearing on what SBC does, I will concede to you already that I agree with that.
Obviously, the reverse is also true.
Meaning, that if SBC hasn't complied satisfactorily and Verizon has, then Verizon should be allowed to offer LD. (These are examples.) But, compliance has not been gained from either RBOC.
Still, SBC is offering LD.
Why? Political pressure and maneuvering. Extortion. Blackmail. Threats of deployment cutbacks, etc.
If there was another company behaving this way in America today legislators and attorneys would be all over them.
So why should the Bells be allowed to get away with that?
Why should the RBOCs be allowed to hold the American public hostage in this way? They shouldn't be.
I agree in that non-facilities based providers should have much less access than those who are seriously facilities-based, but, like I've stated before, repealing the UNE laws as written will spell the end for ALL of those who have a necessity to access unbundled lines, and not just those who are UNE-P customers.
More specific means has to spell the end of this.
The UNE provision under 271 cannot be rescinded the way that the Bell companies wish for them to be, or competition in America is history, at least until a more sensible administration takes office.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5847221 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:04:30 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5846429 boogie74 :
said by BrianDamage See Profile:
No, no change of heart.
Read back.
I said that if a CLEC can offer DSL over a lineshared line, then the reverse SHOULD be possible also.
I am telling you that the only thing preventing this from occurring is red-tape, not technology.
Your argument is suffering here, Boogie.


You call it red tape; I call it Federal Law. I guess the same can be said about long distance- If a CLEC can offer long distance, then the reverse should be true as well. I'm telling you that since the law says that without FCC approval per TA1996, ILECs can't offer long distance and they can't sell lineshare DSL (or anything else) retail on an unbundled wholesale loop.

I'm glad that we agree. The law should be changed. I think so too. It's a dumb rule- don't you think? Maybe with your having memorized all telecom laws and regulations, you might have some clout to reverse some of these silly rules that you hate so much.

Boogie]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5846429 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:43 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5845820 BrianDamage : And BTW, I did say yesterday that more than 90% of DSL is unbundled loop.
I was speaking of CLEC delivered-DSL.
I am sure that the RBOC delivered DSL, specifically residential ADSL services, are lineshared.
I don't know specific numbers in that case. Maybe you could enlighten us with your unbiased knowledge.
Or maybe not. We shall see.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5845820 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:53:09 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5845762 BrianDamage : No, no change of heart.
Read back.
I said that if a CLEC can offer DSL over a lineshared line, then the reverse SHOULD be possible also.
I am telling you that the only thing preventing this from occurring is red-tape, not technology.
Your argument is suffering here, Boogie.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5845762 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:48:28 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5845700 boogie74 :
quote:
I can understand the switching issues and unbundling-however, why couldn't an ILEC offer non line-shared DSL? They could!
My point has not been about lineshared DSL per se-I pointed out that in my experience less than 4% of DSL services are lineshared, although that number may have risen some since I last checked.
However, it is a certainty that over 90% of DSL services in place are separate line DSL, regardless of flavor.


Seems to me that you said exactly that your point and expert knowledge is regarding lineshare DSL when you said,

quote:
This has been going on for some time, and the CSRs will not give you a reason why.
Conversely, those Bell employees who post here that I have had discussions with will tell you that it is "illegal" for them to offer DSL over lines that an end-user has competitive local service on.
I have not seen any evidence of the illegality of it, nor will these employees post any relevant fact related to it.
It is just a tactic used to reinstate a local service that a consumer decided that they no longer wanted.


Change of heart? Or are you just changing your mind when you are proven wrong? Just yesterday you were confident with bells going off that ILECs can offer lineshare DSL over lines that CLECs are selling. Today, you are saying that it wasn't about linesharing per se... and NOW you actually want us to believe you when you claim 90%++ of all DSL is unbundled loop??

Go back to law school.

Boogie
--]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5845700 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:43:07 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5845511 BrianDamage : Is that the best you can do? What's your point, Abe Froman?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5845511 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:23:42 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5845501 BrianDamage : Like I said in my other posts, there is nothing anywhere in the verbage that prohibits an ILEC from offering DSL to a customer who receives local service from an alternate carrier.
I can understand the switching issues and unbundling-however, why couldn't an ILEC offer non line-shared DSL? They could!
My point has not been about lineshared DSL per se-I pointed out that in my experience less than 4% of DSL services are lineshared, although that number may have risen some since I last checked.
However, it is a certainty that over 90% of DSL services in place are separate line DSL, regardless of flavor.
The ILECs use the argument that they can't supply DSL unless they also provide local service as a form of blackmail, to sway people back to them from competitors.
I have seen no evidence to the contrary, regardless of what articles of 271 you guys post. I have read them all already.
While ILECs are not prohibited from offering unbundled loops when a customer has POTS from a CLEC, the cost involved (billing as well as infrastructure-wise) makes it unprofitable to offer these services to consumers.
Again, you acknowledge one of my points-it's not illegal or prohibited.
Not profitable? Please. The CLECs deliver DSL in just this manner. The fact is, the ILECs are satisfied with the money they will make on DSL unless they can package it with their local service, as well as whatever other services they wish to push on a customer who otherwise may not want to partake of their other services.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5845501 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:22:43 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5842349 boogie74 : The items I presented are iv, v and vi
quote:
(iv)

Local loop transmission from the central office to the customer's premises, unbundled from local switching or other services.

(v)

Local transport from the trunk side of a wireline local exchange carrier switch unbundled from switching or other services.

(vi)

Local switching unbundled from transport, local loop transmission, or other services.


Basically these items state that RBOCs as defined earlier in the act are required to offer local loop transport, switch transport and trunk to CO transport. These are all required to be available unbundled from each other. For example, the loop must be available unbundle from switching and or other services. Also, switching must be available unbundled from local loop transmissions, transport or other services.

This means in English, that the local loop itself as well as transmission of data and/or voice communication must be available to the CLEC unbundled- in other words- without reuse of the line by the ILEC and without requiring the CLEC to use other elements of the network at the same time.

The UNE-P platform allows for a CLEC to lease these individual network elements separately for cheaper than if they were leased bundled as a whole service from CO to end user. The ILEC cannot reuse an unbundled last mile pair for instance that isn't connected to its own network. The ILEC is also prohibited from connecting an unbundled switch that is leased and (this doesn't happen much yet) connected to a CLEC pair to the end user.

While ILECs are not prohibited from offering unbundled loops when a customer has POTS from a CLEC, the cost involved (billing as well as infrastructure-wise) makes it unprofitable to offer these services to consumers. The amount of churn raises significantly when customers only have 1 or 2 services and with the costs involved in setting up DSL alone (CPE, line conditioning, etc) it is not a business friendly decision to offer unbundled loop ADSL to consumers that don't have POTS service as well.

I hope this helps.

Boogie]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5842349 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:24:17 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5841607 lesopp : Here's the link »www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/271.html and here's the checklist. Please clarify which checklist item or items you use as reference. Maybe it will help your side of the argument or maybe it won't.

(B) Competitive checklist

Access or interconnection provided or generally offered by a Bell operating company to other telecommunications carriers meets the requirements of this subparagraph if such access and interconnection includes each of the following:

(i)

Interconnection in accordance with the requirements of sections 251(c)(2) and 252(d)(1) of this title.

(ii)

Nondiscriminatory access to network elements in accordance with the requirements of sections 251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1) of this title.

(iii)

Nondiscriminatory access to the poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way owned or controlled by the Bell operating company at just and reasonable rates in accordance with the requirements of section 224 of this title.

(iv)

Local loop transmission from the central office to the customer's premises, unbundled from local switching or other services.

(v)

Local transport from the trunk side of a wireline local exchange carrier switch unbundled from switching or other services.

(vi)

Local switching unbundled from transport, local loop transmission, or other services.

(vii)

Nondiscriminatory access to -

(I)

911 and E911 services;

(II)

directory assistance services to allow the other carrier's customers to obtain telephone numbers; and

(III)

operator call completion services.

(viii)

White pages directory listings for customers of the other carrier's telephone exchange service.

(ix)

Until the date by which telecommunications numbering administration guidelines, plan, or rules are established, nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers for assignment to the other carrier's telephone exchange service customers. After that date, compliance with such guidelines, plan, or rules.

(x)

Nondiscriminatory access to databases and associated signaling necessary for call routing and completion.

(xi)

Until the date by which the Commission issues regulations pursuant to section 251 of this title to require number portability, interim telecommunications number portability through remote call forwarding, direct inward dialing trunks, or other comparable arrangements, with as little impairment of functioning, quality, reliability, and convenience as possible. After that date, full compliance with such regulations.

(xii)

Nondiscriminatory access to such services or information as are necessary to allow the requesting carrier to implement local dialing parity in accordance with the requirements of section 251(b)(3) of this title.

(xiii)

Reciprocal compensation arrangements in accordance with the requirements of section 252(d)(2) of this title.

(xiv)

Telecommunications services are available for resale in accordance with the requirements of sections 251(c)(4) and 252(d)(3) of this title.
[text was edited by author 2003-01-31 11:16:57]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5841607 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:15:04 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5841394 jljohn0605 : The real issue isn't line sharing but the resale of DSL. MCI can have the line but they should deploy their own DSL eqpt. As anote, BellSouth can charge the MCI customer more for the DSL service according to the PSC ruling but BellSouth hasn't determined what the extra charge should be.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5841394 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:51:16 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5841009 lesopp : Explain why a CLEC can provide DSL while the ILEC still provides dial tone.

I believe the Telco's DSL division has the same legal standing as a CLEC, unless you can convince me otherwise. So why can't one CLEC provide dial tone while another provides DSL? Isn't that what unbundling and competition is all about?

Isn't this simply another anti competitive action taken by a monopoly?

Why haven't the RBOCs tried this in areas where they can now offer long distance? Is that next?

ILECs need to be reduced to wholesale local loop providers only whose customers are the retail service providers. All other traditional telecom services for business and residential users should be provided by competing entities, together or separate based on the consumer's desire.

I can hear the teco supporters, "that wouldn't be fair, its our infrastructure. blah blah blah", the same arguments Ma Bell tried.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5841009 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:07:57 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5840931 KoolMoe : I usually support the CLEC position on most all these issues, cause I really do feel the ILECs have made a concerted effort to stall, delay, and otherwise impair CLEC service any chance they get.
BUT in this case, from all I've read, this is not a really an ILEC problem.

Yeah, they probably COULD offer DSL over a line they're leasing to the CLEC, but I see why they'd rather not.
If, as boogie states, the law is as he quotes - that is enough to give the ILECs a break. Once that line is leased to the CLEC, the CLEC alone has control over offering any related services on that line. Makes sense to me.

Furthermore, this is a CLEC problem. If they have this leased line and have full control over it, why would they NOT want to offer DSL over that line? If its just a matter of not having the cash to add the additional services, then that's their own loss.

And even if the CLEC you chose for local phone service does not offer DSL, can you not get DSL from ANOTHER CLEC?
If I chose XYZ company for dialtone, can I not then ask Covad to provide DSL over the XYZ service?
If not, that should be the first problem CLECs address.

I would think ILECs would be happy to provide DSL over the line the CLEC leases - a good way to recoup some of the (ahem) lost revenue of the forced sharing. But if it's too complex or they just don't want to - that's just fine.

On this issue, surprisingly, the ILECs have my full support.
KM]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5840931 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:57:41 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5840777 Kaltes : Oh and by-the-way, when those states forced the ILECs to sell DSL to people who did not get local service from them, if federal law prohibited this, the ILECs would have sued the states AND WON.

This has not happened. Afaik they never sued. If they did not sue, I wonder why. Maybe it is because if they sued and lost (they probably are well aware they would lose), they would be on notice and would have to offer DSL without local service nationwide.

The status quo is that they pretend to harbor a good faith belief that their interpretation of the law is correct, and they get to misbehave and use political pressure to get their way on a state-by-state basis.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5840777 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:33:33 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5840710 Kaltes : That is funny how language that is obviously directed at safeguarding competition is being perverted to an anti-competitive purpose.

It is obvious that your interpretation is contrary to the intent of the persons who wrote and voted in favor of that section. Any good judge would point out that it was not the intent of congress to legitimize monopolistic abuse in that section, and then the judge could construe it to mean something else.

The ILEC lawyers found a good excuse to do a bad thing, and the ILECs can pretend to act in good faith when, in reality, we know they aren't. All this scheming boils down to trying to get out of something that turned out to be a bad deal when long distance profits dropped.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5840710 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:22:02 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5840439 boogie74 :
quote:
I will close by saying that because of this very argument put forth by some of Bell employees like I mentioned before, that I have looked specifically in the telecoms laws that exist as well as researching FCC regulations and state PUC regulations and have seen NOTHING to substantiate the illegality that they say exists.


Look at US Code Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Part III;section 271. It lists as part of the competitive 14 checklist that ILEC's offer local loop transport, trunk to last mile transport and switching transport unbundled from any other service- in other words, if the loop, trunk and/or switch is used by a competitor, the ILEC can't also reuse it to sell any other service.

Or did you miss that when you went through ALL telecom code, regulation and law??

Boogie ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5840439 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:29:31 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5840226 Abe Froman :
said by BD:
I


said by BD:
I


said by BD:
I


said by BD:
I


said by BD:
I


said by BD:
I


We get the picture.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5840226 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:38:19 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5839905 Kaltes : Customers buy services, not lines. When you say it would be 'anti-competitive' to offer DSL to a user who has local phone service with another company, you are flat wrong. Local service and DSL are apples and oranges.

Many resellers may not be able to offer DSL service for various reasons. If the local carrier has a monopoly on DSL service, that carrier is abusing that monopoly and leveraging it to inhibit competition for local phone service. It is called tying, forcing a consumer to buy something he doesnt want to get something he wants.

If a consumer wants local service from company A and DSL from company B, he cant get it. Company B forces the customer to take local service in order to get DSL. That forces consumers to take local service from B even though A's local service is superior in every way.

A lot of the rhetoric I see is that all these services are really just 1 thing, because they share the same line. DSL and local service and long distance are all different, even though they use the same lines. Why should a reseller be forced to provide DSL as a requisite to competing in offering local service? That does not make sense.

All telecom infrastructure should be nationalized and run by government employees. As bad as the post office might be, if a post office-like entity ran the telecom infrastructure in this country we would all have better service for less money.

The government, once it buys out all the infrastructure, could resell. It does not work when you take two parties with inherently unequal power/control over the system and attempt to make them equals.

The companies that own the lines resent being forced to act like the government by behaving in the public interest instead of like a selfish company (which is what they are, and this tying demonstrates it), and resellers resent operating with a systemic disadvantage. I had a SBC salesperson matter-of-factly tell me that Verizon's service couldn't possibly be competitive because "they have to buy time on our lines." It is sad when the bad faith of the local carriers is being used in sales pitches.

The only fair way out of this it to make local carriers extinct and give everyone equal status as resellers of government-owned lines.

All you techs would be much better off as govt employees as well, with better job security and benefits.

(As a disclaimer, I am an opponent of big government, but I do not let my political leanings disrupt my common sense. The govt already heavily regulates this area, let's just be honest instead of having the government administer the lines by proxy.)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5839905 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 05:26:51 EDT ALSO CELL phone # are lost w/ DSL services http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5839631 redstepchild : Currently when a customer has Qwest (telco) for local phone, DSL and Wireless (cell phone) and they decide to switch to a Broadband local phone carrier (like ATTBB).. they loose:
DSL service and CELL PHONE #

And customers are pissed because it is anti competitive..
QWEST and other TELCO's DON'T care about their customers.. or at least they don't treat the customers like they do..


--
RedStepChild@dslr.net]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5839631 Fri, 31 Jan 2003 03:12:52 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5838026 joako : As per the other post, covad is a good example. Why do they get to "lease" the line for DSL, I sure didnt have to get voice service from covad to get their DSL, so it's not "illegal"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5838026 Thu, 30 Jan 2003 23:08:11 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5836414 BrianDamage : Well, what you "understand" is what your Bell bosses are telling you.
What I am asking for here is for one of these Bell employees who DO continually chime in on this issue and DO claim to know what they are talking about to post their reference from whatever law they say exists, to substantiate what they claim. How hard should that be, if such a law exists?
Like I said, I have not yet found it.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5836414 Thu, 30 Jan 2003 20:51:09 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5836136 Marckus0513 : I am a Data Services/Wholesale tech for an ILEC and all I know is that once the ILEC's Customer goes to a CLEC for dial-tone the CLEC converts the service over to a UNE loop and owns that circuit. The ILEC provides the facility but the CLEC is now the ILEC's customer. The old ILEC customer now becomes the End-User. As a Tech I am not allowed to discuss any service that my company has to offer with the End-user and that includes DSL (after all we wouldn't want to be anti-competitive would we). So it kind of makes me wonder how once a customer goes to a CLEC and said end-user has a UNE loop to their house how the ILEC can then sell them DSL over that loop. I don't believe it is possible since the CLEC's UNE loop is a regulated Wholesale service.

So before we point fingers at the ILEC perhaps we had better get our facts straight. An ILEC cannot Piggyback any services of their own onto a CLEC's UNE Loop...

Of course then there is the topic of Line Sharing that is a complete Cluster Muck unto itself so I won't go there!


[text was edited by author 2003-01-30 20:41:38]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5836136 Thu, 30 Jan 2003 20:26:59 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5836062 BrianDamage : I have seen nothing in any telecom regs that would support this.
If the ILEC can offer dial tone and then allow a competitor to offer DSL over that same line, then the vice versa should be possible also.
It is not a question of possibility at all.
It is a question of the "whether"...whether or not the ILEC is willing to accommodate such an arrangement, which up to now, they have not been willing to do.
It comes down to the very idea of linesharing. "Linesharing" means that multiple services utilizing different sets of operating frequencies can be offered simultaneously over a single unshielded twisted copper pair. The reason that dialtone (voice) and DSL can exist on the same line is because of this. Neither services' operating frequency range should interfere with the other.
I would venture to say that in all of the research I've done, and in all of the DSL installations that I performed during my tenure(s) with Covad and Rhythms, that less that 4% of them were "lineshared" installs. The rest were separate line installs.
I was with Covad in 1999 when they performed the very FIRST competitive lineshared DSL installation in Minnesota (Ameritech region).
I will close by saying that because of this very argument put forth by some of Bell employees like I mentioned before, that I have looked specifically in the telecoms laws that exist as well as researching FCC regulations and state PUC regulations and have seen NOTHING to substantiate the illegality that they say exists.
They have always been unable to provide any relevant reference for me to examine either.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5836062 Thu, 30 Jan 2003 20:20:56 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5835943 Derek_Wildstar : Exactly! What SBC did for Covad (up until a couple of years ago) was to run an entirely separate drop for their circuits to the demarc. SBC could do the same thing, but then it would increase their cost on the circuit. So it's not entirely for "legal reasons" that are preventing them from giving service to those homes.
--
I use conjecture and hearsay. Those are kinds of evidence. - Lionel Hutz
[text was edited by author 2003-01-30 20:12:44]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5835943 Thu, 30 Jan 2003 20:11:15 EDT Re: This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5835781 DSL Oberst : Those who state it is illegal usually say it is a result of the FCC's line-leasing laws - basically that since the line is leased out to another company for voice service, it cannot be lease out for DSL, and vice versa. Only one company can lease a line at one time for any one service.

As to the truth of this, I am unable to say.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5835781 Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:58:12 EDT This is not new http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5835621 BrianDamage : This has been going on for some time, and the CSRs will not give you a reason why.
Conversely, those Bell employees who post here that I have had discussions with will tell you that it is "illegal" for them to offer DSL over lines that an end-user has competitive local service on.
I have not seen any evidence of the illegality of it, nor will these employees post any relevant fact related to it.
It is just a tactic used to reinstate a local service that a consumer decided that they no longer wanted.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5835621 Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:43:18 EDT