how-to block ads
|
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs: 
| Re: This is not new 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.... | |
|  
Abe Froman
join:2000-08-19
Dallas, TX
| Re: This is not new 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. | |
| |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs: | Re: This is not new Is that the best you can do? What's your point, Abe Froman? | |
| | |
Abe Froman
join:2000-08-19
Dallas, TX |  Re: This is not new
You're right.
Too bad M. Powell doesn't think so. | |
| | | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| Re: This is not new 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.... | |
| 
stickfigure
join:2002-06-11
El Cajon, CA
| "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:
| Re: This is not new 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
| Re: This is not new 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... | |
| | | | 
dyoo78
join:2002-10-25
Emeryville, CA
| 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] | |
| | | |
|
