KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to boogie74
Re: This is not new
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 |
