how-to block ads
|
Marckus0513
Just Because
join:2003-01-11
Vernon, VT
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: This is not new 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] | |
|  
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs: 
| Re: This is not new 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.... | |
| 
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| 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.) | |
| 
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| 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 | |
| |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: This is not new 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. | |
| |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| 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. | |
| | 
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| 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 | |
| | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| 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] | |
| | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: This is not new 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 | |
| | | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| Re: This is not new 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.... | |
| | representing
5th Sniper
join:2001-01-20
Prince George, BC
·TELUS
| 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 | |
| | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: This is not new 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 | |
| | | |
|
