how-to block ads
|
dyoo78
join:2002-10-25
Emeryville, CA
| reply to stickfigure
Re: This is not new
said by 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...
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] | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to representing
said by 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
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 | |
representing
5th Sniper
join:2001-01-20
Prince George, BC
 ·TELUS
| reply to boogie74
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 | |
stickfigure
join:2002-06-11
El Cajon, CA
| reply to BrianDamage
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... | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| reply to stickfigure
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.... | |
stickfigure
join:2002-06-11
El Cajon, CA
| reply to BrianDamage
"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? | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| reply to Abe Froman
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.... | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs: | reply to boogie74
Whatever, Boogie. And BTW, it's too bad that you can't recognize a play on words when you see one. | |
Abe Froman
join:2000-08-19
Dallas, TX |  reply to BrianDamage
Ok, I give up, you win.
You're right.
Too bad M. Powell doesn't think so. | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to boogie74
said by boogie74 :
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.) | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to BrianDamage
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 | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| reply to boogie74
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.... | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| reply to joako
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.... | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to BrianDamage
said by 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.
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 | |
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to boogie74
"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. | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| reply to boogie74
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.... | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to BrianDamage
said by 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.
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 | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| reply to boogie74
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.... | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| reply to boogie74
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.... | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to BrianDamage
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
-- | |
|
