how-to block ads
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to lesopp
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:
| 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.... | |
|
