audiog
join:2004-08-09
Detroit, MI
| reply to TelecomJunky
Re: 2 tier won't limit access; only apportion costs
As of December of 2006 DSL will be unbundled as per the California ruling and FCC stipulation for the merger approvals.
Verizon and the New AT&T have until the end of the year to offer naked DSL ( un-bundling the DSL from voice in the provisioning system) per a case brought against SBC and Verizon by AT&T on the same issue.
I followed the case over the last 2 and 1/2 years. SBC and Verizon in a closed meeting with the California Commission showed that in for their systems to provision a DSL you need a phone number. a Naked DSL is not an option; Per the commission's order SBC and Verizon has until the end of this year to make naked DSL work and the FCC made that apart of the merger approval for The NEW AT&T and Verizon/MCI.
What was lost was two of the biggest CLECs that was suing the RBOCs for a competitive market place and now it is gone.
The American way: If a competitor is always suing you for your illegal practices then buy them.
The First statement from the head of AT&T( CEO of SBC) GOOGLE should pay us for access to our customers. Double dipping; Google is paying to access and we (DSL, cable and dialup customers) are paying for access to the internet. |
|
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| The problem with SBC naked DSL claims is that we are offering Naked DSL in SBC and have no problem doing so without a DID.
And since you follow the issue, I am sure you are aware they only have to offer naked DSL for 2 years and there is no stipulation as to what they have to charge. Meaning, don't expect to pay $12.99 for naked DSL from SBC.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com |
|
