babbster
join:2008-01-28
Saint Paul, MN
| Qwest Used FTTN DSL To Make Me Very Mad!
Qwest appears to be upgrading their network to FTTN at a rapid rate, at least in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. Then they are following up with an aggressive sales campaign to get customers to upgrade their service.
I recently placed an order based on the availability of faster service (going from 1.5 to 7). But today the order was executed, and now, after hours on the phone with Qwest and my ISP, I am extremely angry, as I believe I was subjected to a classic bait and switch.
Why do I feel that way? Because of what I was told by the sales rep (door to door), his boss, the original order enterer, the order "correcter" (I asked for an order correction after I figured out they planned to switch me from my alternate ISP), and the first level technical support.
I asked each of them: "Can I keep my alternate ISP?" They all said "yes, definitely" or "as far as I know." It seems they were all wrong. Second level Qwest tech support has told me that they will not connect FTTN to my ISP. She suggested or implied that they do (or may) connect FTTN to other ISPs now (or "in the future") but she could not (or would not) give me a link to a list of those suppliers.
My ISP tells me that Qwest does not have to, and probably will not, connect a 7 Mbps FTTN (in fact, any speed FTTN) circuit to them. And the second level Qwest tech support rep told me that she recently set up a 1.5 service for herself, and even it was provisioned on FTTN.
Does this make sense to you all? Has this happened to anyone else? I am preparing formal complaints to the Minnesota PUC and Attorney General's Office. Would anyone care to join me?
And please don't flame me for wanting Qwest to be required to keep their network open to CLECs after upgrading to fiber. I will respect your opinion that they shouldn't have to. My opinion is the opposite. But what really burns me is their misrepresentation. |
|
mrhuggles
join:2007-03-29
Ames, IA | too bad you cant just record all interactions with them |
|
christcorp
Premium
join:2001-05-21
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Bresnan Online
 ·VOIPo
| reply to babbster
Qwest should not be required to keep their network open to the CLECs. They should be required to allow the CLECs to "Lease" or "Purchase" access to their network. But Qwest shouldn't have to make it available for free. If so, why would qwest ever want to upgrade?
Having worked for Qwest, I remember how they and the other ILECs were forced to resell their "SPARE" cable/fiber to the CLECs at a fixed rate. A rate that was BELOW their wholesale and operating costs. Why would anyone in their right mind put in additional cable/fiber, creating spare, when they have to resell a portion to their competitors at a loss. That is plain stupid. The original ruling for this was made when the INITIAL cable plant was installed and the different government agencies like federal, state, and local helped compensate for the cost. Most of the new/additional/replacement cables/fiber being put in is at the cost of the ILEC.
If your ISP wants access to Qwest's network/fiber/ATM/Backhaul/etc... then I know FOR A FACT, that Qwest will sell/lease to them. But they shouldn't get free access. That is pure B.S. Your ISP is pushing blame to Qwest, when the fact is that your ISP is trying to get something for nothing. Your ISP is obviously providing you a service that you feel you can't get directly from Qwest. That's good. If qwest decides to invest millions into placing fiber, why should your ISP (A Competitor), benefit from this without spending 1 penny? later... mike... |
|
babbster
join:2008-01-28
Saint Paul, MN
| reply to babbster
Mike,
Thanks for your insight; that's what I like about this board. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the CLEC ISPs are not getting the original plant or any new plant for free, are they?
I guess I was misinformed, but I got the impression that Qwest wouldn't let my ISP connect me over FTTN for any price. I agree with you -- Qwest should not have to subsidize their competitors.
If my ISP can't make a business case for accepting Qwest's offer of new lines, only my misrepresentation complaint remains. But that to me is a serious complaint. |
|
woodward
XMission Broadband
VIP
join:2000-12-28
Salt Lake City, UT
| You were not misinformed. Qwest will not let an alternate ISP service FTTN at any price.
Mike has a particularly one sided opinion on this larger issue. But then again, this *is* a political argument, and that generates strong opinion -- do you encourage competition on publicly subsidized infrastructure, or encourage monopoly with hopes that extraordinary profit will lead to technological investment? *Shrug* The current administration believes the latter, and its FCC made significant policy changes that reflect that.
But from a purely business standpoint, sure, Mike is right, why would Qwest want to share with competitors what they can operate as a monopoly?
But, no, of course CLECs don't get anything for free. In fact, we are only able to lease at a wholesale rate that is usually higher than the retail rate, which is why you see less and less CLEC options available on the open market.
And non-CLEC Qwest ISP partners are paying through the nose to provide DSL service to their subscribers in ATM and transport fees (on top of the user's own retail payments) so that, in fact, Qwest is making double profit on alternate ISP subscribers.
Maybe they've determined that the oversell margins on ADSL2+ more than compensate for that additional revenue on the ISP partner model. Or maybe they're just worried enough about encroaching technology that may render their network obsolete, and they're taking a white knuckle hold on everything they own. Their litigious history certainly could suggest the latter. |
|
christcorp
Premium
join:2001-05-21
Cheyenne, WY
·Bresnan Online
·VOIPo
| reply to babbster
Obviously, we can't comment on each and every business venture done between qwest and competitors. But I do know first hand of competitors buying fiber and copper from Qwest. It's done every day. They may not be currently buying fiber directly to a customer's house, but that is so new that I don't know. But I know they are buying T1's directly to business and residential customers. Buying p2p copper between customers and a distant end. And I remember 1st hand when Qwest was reselling copper pairs to McCloud USA at BELOW wholesale costs. So I know it can/has been done.
Now, of any NEW circuits such as Fiber. IF; let me qualify; IF; the fiber was put in and SUBSIDIZED by any government agency; then Qwest should be required to resell it to it's competitors at whatever the regulated price is. IF; however; Qwest paid 100% for the fiber installation; then they shouldn't be forced to resell it if they don't want to. We don't have any fiber to the home for residential service. But there is fiber to many commerical locations. And resellers can buy from Qwest and resell. I have a vendor who specifically buys and sells T1, DS3, etc... All bought from Qwest and the other ILECs in the state. But if Qwest is holding out reselling their RESIDENTIAL services, and they paid for the fiber 100%, then so be it. later... mike... |
|
djweis
join:2006-04-02
West Des Moines, IA
| said by christcorp  :And I remember 1st hand when Qwest was reselling copper pairs to McCloud USA at BELOW wholesale costs. So I know it can/has been done. OK, how much do you think a copper loop should cost a CLEC per month and how much should a CLEC pay to have that loop installed? I know how much I pay and I know how much every other CLEC pays because I've read most of the agreements.
If there are no facilities available for a CLEC to lease (never purchase, always leased) Qwest has a process to have the CLEC pay for the construction cost (Google for CRUNEC). |
|
christcorp
Premium
join:2001-05-21
Cheyenne, WY
·Bresnan Online
·VOIPo
| You are correct. And from what I believe, the prices have changed. But I remember a number of years ago where the price was below. Maybe it's back in line. That's good. Remember, even though the initial cable was subsidized when put in, it's the ILEC who is responsible for the maintenance and service of the lines. It's not like they are maintenance free.
And if the CLEC wants to pay for construction to put in new cable, that's great too. My point is quite simple. If the cable/fiber is/was subsidized, then qwest should be required to lease it to the clecs/competitors at the established rate. If the cable/fiber is not subsidized, then Qwest shouldn't be required to lease it if they don't want to. If a clec or competitor wants to put in their own cable/fiber, then Qwest shouldn't disallow interconnect services. This is similar to when McCloud was putting in their own equipment inside of Qwest Central Offices. I agree with that. But anything NOT subsidized shouldn't be mandated to be made available to competitors. |
|
dsluser
@qwest.net
| reply to babbster
someone correct me if I am wrong on this, but doesn't it also have to do with DSL being reclassified by the FCC?
»www.techlawjournal.com/topstorie···805a.asp
With it being an information service, they no longer had to resell/share their DSL service. With the move from ATM to Ethernet for the FTTN deployment, they chose to do just that.
or am off base here? |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| reply to babbster
The agents who initially sold you the service were likely misinformed, and in turn misinformed you. At present, Qwest doesn't allow for 3rd party ISPs with FTTN. If or when that changes I don't know. I seriously doubt they intentionally mislead you; they probably just didn't know.
How much of that policy is derived from a business decision and how much from a technical perspective I don't know. Most 3rd party ISPs don't have the GigE trunks that Qwest uses for FTTN, but even if they do, at present Qwest doesn't provision to them.
As to the political argument; I'm on the less-is-more side of all things government in general. If Qwest spent the money to deploy FTTN, they should have the right to determine who gets revenue from it. Competetors should be free to deploy their own FTTN or FTTH if they want a piece of the pie. |
|
woodward
XMission Broadband
VIP
join:2000-12-28
Salt Lake City, UT
| said by dsluser :someone correct me if I am wrong on this, but doesn't it also have to do with DSL being reclassified by the FCC? » www.techlawjournal.com/topstorie···805a.aspWith it being an information service, they no longer had to resell/share their DSL service. With the move from ATM to Ethernet for the FTTN deployment, they chose to do just that. or am off base here? Nope, you're right on target.
said by dynob :
Competetors should be free to deploy their own FTTN or FTTH if they want a piece of the pie. And yet Qwest exercises unprecedented legal action against anyone who attempts to do so. |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| said by woodward :And yet Qwest exercises unprecedented legal action against anyone who attempts to do so. Define "anyone". I've heard of action with regards to municipal efforts, but not against a completely private entity trying to deploy FTTN or FTTH with private backing. |
|
woodward
XMission Broadband
VIP
join:2000-12-28
Salt Lake City, UT
| XMission has considered FTTN rollout in specific areas, and all our legal advisors assure us that we will face obstructionist litigation in those projects, primarily over pole access.
As to municipalities, it is my opinion that if an incumbent is unable to provide a highway, that doesn't mean the community should be forced to settle for the dirt road it already has (and thankfully America did not). That community has the right to band together and build something better as long as everyone has the same access to it once it's built.
That is not a new concept, its how we ended up with highways and airports and schools and libraries and parks and police and fire fighters and water and an electrical grid......
There's nothing wrong with making a buck, and I encourage Qwest to do so. But if the core business model fails to keep up with technology, the answer is not to throttle that technology in court. It should be embraced and nurtured from all parties that will benefit from its presence, even beyond exclusive access. That's just good for everyone.
But now I'm waayyy off topic. |
|
djweis
join:2006-04-02
West Des Moines, IA
| How many of the poles does Qwest actually own in your area? If I had to make a wild guess I would say they actually have a few percent of them here in my immediate area. If they do own them and you are a licensed CLEC in Utah you should have an easy trip to the Utilities Board with a violation of the interconnection agreement. |
|
mn user
@mn.us
| reply to babbster
It is not correct to argue that Qwest makes more money selling its dsl bundled with MSN than it does selling naked dsl. It charges more for naked DSL, and keeps all that revenue; it does not share the monthly recurring charge with MSN. For this reason, there is no merit to the claim that naked DSL doesn't earn adequate revenue; the product's price is not regulated--Qwest can set the price where ever it wants. Logically, it should be able to make MORE from naked DSL, since it does not have any contractual constraints, like it may have in its arrangements with MSN.
It appears that the reason for not selling naked DSL 7Mb (and now the 20 Mb) service is to try to starve ISP competition in its FTTN territory. Qwest has better ability to survive low revenue than most small ISPs, so, the refusal to sell naked FTTN service seems to have, as its goal, making ISP competitor's growth go flat. |
|
