Captives of CompetitionWant our DSL? Better use our phone service too ( old news - 07:38PM Thursday Jan 30 2003) tags: dsl · competition · telco Baby bell customers who've switched to a competitor's local phone service and then return to the telco for DSL service are informed they're out of luck unless they switch their phone services back. Existing bell DSL customers who switch to a competing phone service get their DSL lines disconnected, sometimes before the actual switch even occurs. Some consumers feel like hostages because of it, and it's the focus of the 'Marketplace' lead story in the hard copy edition of today's Wall Street Journal. In some states like Louisiana, state regulators have ruled that such a tactic won't be tolerated. After MCI complained that BellSouth was threatening to terminate the DSL connections of potential customers, the local legal system kicked in to action. In a 3-1 vote last December, the Louisiana Public Service Commission ordered BellSouth to keep providing DSL service, regardless of who customers wanted as their phone provider. Instead of accepting the ruling and changing their tactics, BellSouth executives decided to threaten the state, telling them they'd stop rolling out their DSL networks to rural communities unless lawmakers changed their mind. So far it hasn't worked. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported last month, it's worse in certain portions of Northern California, where 18 percent of the populace has DSL, but none could have gotten it without having SBC as their local phone carrier. As that article explained, the problem is related to telco policy. " It's not a technical problem," says Ken McNeely, president of AT&T in California. " It's a policy decision by SBC (and others) that should rightly be scrutinized. It is clearly anticompetitive." According to McNeely, AT&T's attempts to negotiate with SBC to solve the problem and prevent disconnections have been futile. " We can't agree on any of the terms or conditions," said McNeely to the Chronicle, noting that his company intends to file a complaint with the California Public Utilities Commission early next year if the issue can't be resolved. SBC admitted to the Chronicle that in their opinion, it's a simple matter of protecting their investment. " If AT&T wanted to provide their new dial-tone customer with DSL, they could do so," said spokesman John Britton. " In fact, one would think they would be eager to generate more revenue from the access line they just won over." But according to a Wall Street Journal story on the subject published today, SBC told one customer " that for technical reasons, it can't provide DSL service to customers who change their local voice-calling service from the carrier", so clearly there's some confusion at the telco as to what to tell inquiring journalists and frustrated customers. As the Journal notes, the problem, which has been going on for some time, is just now getting noticed. Broadband is finally becoming mainstream enough to be considered "important", while at the same time companies like AT&T and MCI are beginning to erode the monopolies long held by regional bells over local phone services. The result is a considerable mess, and in the middle stands the consumer, sacrificing their freedom of choice while companies ironically argue over how best to serve them.
Related:- ISPs Shouldn't Pretend To Be Content Companies
- Verizon Reports Largest FiOS Additions To Date
- Embarq/Centurytel Deal Moving Forward
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Qwest Launches Rebranding Effort
- Embarq/CenturyTel Union Getting Closer
- Qwest Keeps Pretending Speed Doesn't Matter
- Verizon: Cut Your Landline To Save Money
|
 
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs: 
| This is not new 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.
--
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.... | |
|  | DSL Oberst
join:2001-11-29
| Re: This is not new Those who state it is illegal usually say it is a result of the FCC's line-leasing laws - basically that since the line is leased out to another company for voice service, it cannot be lease out for DSL, and vice versa. Only one company can lease a line at one time for any one service.
As to the truth of this, I am unable to say. | |
| | | 
Derek_Wildstar
Why the fck is Shane walking in there?
join:2001-02-24
Iscandar
| Re: This is not new Exactly! What SBC did for Covad (up until a couple of years ago) was to run an entirely separate drop for their circuits to the demarc. SBC could do the same thing, but then it would increase their cost on the circuit. So it's not entirely for "legal reasons" that are preventing them from giving service to those homes.
--
I use conjecture and hearsay. Those are kinds of evidence. - Lionel Hutz
[text was edited by author 2003-01-30 20:12:44] | |
| | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| 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] | |
| | | 
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null | As per the other post, covad is a good example. Why do they get to "lease" the line for DSL, I sure didnt have to get voice service from covad to get their DSL, so it's not "illegal" | |
| | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| Explain why a CLEC can provide DSL while the ILEC still provides dial tone.
I believe the Telco's DSL division has the same legal standing as a CLEC, unless you can convince me otherwise. So why can't one CLEC provide dial tone while another provides DSL? Isn't that what unbundling and competition is all about?
Isn't this simply another anti competitive action taken by a monopoly?
Why haven't the RBOCs tried this in areas where they can now offer long distance? Is that next?
ILECs need to be reduced to wholesale local loop providers only whose customers are the retail service providers. All other traditional telecom services for business and residential users should be provided by competing entities, together or separate based on the consumer's desire.
I can hear the teco supporters, "that wouldn't be fair, its our infrastructure. blah blah blah", the same arguments Ma Bell tried. | |
| | Marckus0513
Just Because
join:2003-01-11
Vernon, VT
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| 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 | |
| | 
redstepchild
Premium
join:2002-01-04
Birmingham, AL
| Currently when a customer has Qwest (telco) for local phone, DSL and Wireless (cell phone) and they decide to switch to a Broadband local phone carrier (like ATTBB).. they loose:
DSL service and CELL PHONE #
And customers are pissed because it is anti competitive..
QWEST and other TELCO's DON'T care about their customers.. or at least they don't treat the customers like they do..
--
RedStepChild@dslr.net | |
| | jljohn0605
join:2002-12-30
Arabi, LA
| The real issue isn't line sharing but the resale of DSL. MCI can have the line but they should deploy their own DSL eqpt. As anote, BellSouth can charge the MCI customer more for the DSL service according to the PSC ruling but BellSouth hasn't determined what the extra charge should be. | |
| |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| 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
-- | |
| | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| Re: This is not new 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:
| Re: This is not new 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 | |
| | | | |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| | | | |
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
·AT&T U-Verse
| "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:
| Re: This is not new 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.... | |
| jessdub99
join:2002-05-29
| Unreal Bush claims his plan will help stimulate small business' and yet shit like this goes on all the time. How the hell can a small business compete with tactics like this? I hope future generations can bring some great entrepreneurs to get rid of garbage companies like this. | |
| | CmmTch
join:2002-08-10
High Ridge, MO
| Re: Unreal Yeah, AT&T and MCI are small start ups needing a hand up to compete. Get the dial tone, get the DSL, so go for it AT&T and MCI. You can afford it.
Oh, wait, that would cost money, they'd have to put equipment the space that the ILEC was forced to provide in ILEC buildings. | |
| | | 
tomsprat
Draw Me A "Cold One"
Premium,ExMod 2002-04
join:2000-11-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL
clubs:
| Re: Unreal Seems that you've forgotten how the ILEC's/RBOC's were formed; from the dissolution of AT&T. Now the ILEC's want to provide long-distance service. Gee, none of those connections would travel through AT&T lines, would they?
--
Anything that ever was, was once a dream... | |
| | | | 
spg
Grrrr
join:2001-10-31
NOT Texas!
| Re: Unreal said by tomsprat :
Seems that you've forgotten how the ILEC's/RBOC's were formed; from the dissolution of AT&T. Now the ILEC's want to provide long-distance service. Gee, none of those connections would travel through AT&T lines, would they?
Actually, no they wouldn't. SBC for example has an exclusive contrac with Williams Communications, a company that built it's own network.
SBC didn't because they were forbidden to.
--
Call Your CLEC after the Earthquake | |
| | 
72276539
Premium
join:2001-01-19
Atlanta, GA
| The interesting story about Williams is they were a gas company initially, they dried up bigtime and were struggling until someone got the bright idea to run fiber through the gas conduits already in place. Because of this 95% of their work was done and they rapidly put together a network. At the peak of the telecom boom they sold most of it Worldcom but kept a small chunk, which they used to grow it to where it is today. | |
| | |
See 8 replies to this post | |
kmac1
Off in new directions
Premium,VIP
join:2001-06-07
Port Neches, TX
| YES, it is illegal! As an official support tech here at BBR for SBC, let me say this:
I am forbidden, by FEDERAL LAW, from discussing anything with a competitor's customer. I can't help them, I can't offer advice, I CAN'T talk to them, unless the customer(i.e. the CLEC who is their provider) gives me a written authorization.
The rule that an ILEC can't provide DSL service to a customer isn't an ILEC decision, it's law.
Whether I like it or not, it's not my call. I have to follow company policy, which means we have to follow FEDERAL LAW.
Before you SLAM the ILECs, think about investigating the real laws, and who wrote them.
--
Put your spare CPU cycles to WORK! Join the BBR DC Teams and join in on helping helping find ET or cures for diseases. SETI and Team Helix. Join in on the fun! | |
| |
See 32 replies to this post | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK |  Here's where the FCC could step in.... but won't.
| |
| 
Aggie Dan
Stop... Reverse That.
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Frisco, TX
clubs:
| Here's my take on it. Let's say you are a coder. Or even someone writing up business requirements for an order entry system for DSL provisioning. Well, obviously, you want to be able to order DSL for customers that you can service. and not ones serviced by another telephone company. On this case let's say you work for Verizon and don't want to try to sell to someone that has SBC telco service.
Obviously, you are going to have to reference some table of NPA/NXX combinations to see if they are your customer, or maybe there is some grand table or system that has this information. Your most likely source for this would be a loop qualification table or system.
Also, with the way that the pools of phone numbers work, IIRC certain pools are for one company and another pool is for another. As such all 214-574-xxxx belong to SBC, but 817-683-xxxx belong to Verizon. This pool could explain why you often have to get a new phone number when you switch providers. Like I said, I'm not sure if that is still the case. But, with all of the phone numbers about, I can imagine that maintaining them by block is easier on the LERG people than managing by line. Any of you DBAs can back me up on this one.
Okay, so let's take a look at who will keep the "golden record" on your phone line. This would obviously be your telco. Or the ILEC side of your phone company. These are the guys that actually own the copper and maintain the network.
Well, you cancel service with them and wish to transfer it to another company. Now, we all know how you can get incorrectly billed for phone service through manual error or other snafu. The easiest answer is to make it so that the original telco systems don't "know" the number exists. Otherwise I can see the number being given back out again, being billed from two phone companies, etc. not from any malicious intent but because people do make mistakes. And anytime a computer touches something, there is likely a bug in the programming SOMEWHERE. All of you code-heads can attest to that one as well.
Okay, so following this line of thought, the telco arm doesn't "see" the line belonging to them anymore. Hey, it is outside of our area, another ILEC must own that number. That's the assumption of any system that sees "line not found."
I can see a cascade affect going on here so that by the time it gets to the ISP portion of your former telephone company, it won't order it because it is hard coded to not place an order for a line that is out of the service area. Because the person coding it or the person writing the business case figured that, "duh, of course we don't want to place an order in NV when we don't even service that state!"
That seems like such an elementary idea when building a system.
Now fast forward to today.
Now they have to provide DSL to customers they don't provide service to?
Basic system assumptions get thrown out the window. Now you have to figure out how to track customers you don't have anymore.
Oh! And an added bonus... Because the ISP portion is often a separate business unit from the telco portion, you can't just query the telco systems even if the information is being stored there. You are separate companies after all. And THEN the telco would have to provide that same detailed information (on customers they don't have anymore - yet another sticky legal area) to all other ISPs as well.
"Now we see the problems inherent in the system!"
Now. I'm not saying that it can't be done. ANYTHING can be done.
But, it must be understood the additional resources it would require to do such system development. There are also legal and procedural issues to address here as well. Not to mention, in the interim, if FORCED to provide this service, there would most likely be manual workarounds in the beginning. And any system guy or DBA can attest, cleaning up after manual workarounds is NEVER pretty.
--
Note : The statements made by myself on DSL Reports are purely my own and is not in anyway to be considered indicative of the opinions of my employer or of my coworkers. | |
| |
See 11 replies to this post | |
IanR
join:2001-03-22
Madison, NJ
| What if I had switched only a Voice service ? Ok What happens when one leaves a Bell (in my case verizon) for a Voice service from another (I guess a CLEC) provider. The service I have switched IS VOICE ONLY.
So what happens IF I wanted a DSL connection on this line? Does the Voice only CLEC own the DSL/DATA rights down the shared line or does the ILEC (presumably in this case Verizon only gave up the Voice service and retained the rights to use the "shared line" for DSL.....???? | |
| | clecrupt9
join:2002-01-22
GA
| Re: What if I had switched only a Voice service ? Boy this is a mess.
The systems needed to provide DSL go beyond what most Clecs want to do. In reality if I switch my line over to MCI, then MCI should build network out for me to get dialtone, and or internet. Now we know that this costs lots and lots of money, but....rome wasnt built in a day nor the PSTN. Part of the problem is that big clecs want nationwide markets, not start small and grow.
RBOC's are not in the clear either, they dont want ANY competition. Say what you want, show where the techs follow procedures, ect, ect. I dont doubt that the bells follow the rules, I do doubt the intentions of these very, very old school companies. | |
| | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: An FCC rule ?? said by Hall :
A recent thread in the Ameritech forum dealt with this (again). Over and over, it was stated that this is an FCC rule. Over and over, people asked *where* is this rule. Last time I checked the thread, no one had shown this so-called "rule".
See my post... I have it quoted for ya... it's actually federal law... Good 'ole section 271.
Boogie | |
| | | | | 
Hall
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH | Re: An FCC rule ?? Took you a while to find that, huh ??  | |
| | | |
kmac1
Off in new directions
Premium,VIP
join:2001-06-07
Port Neches, TX | Re: An FCC rule ?? No, not really. We have to deal with it daily. Just had to get the info where all the "Show me the law!" shouters would understand. | |
| | | | |
Hall
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH | Re: An FCC rule ?? Come on, just because you say it's a law doesn't make it one... It's not unreasonable for people to ask for proof, is it ??
--
-= Mindspring MaxDSL via Covad 1536/384 TeleSurfer Pro =- | |
| | |
Abe Froman
join:2000-08-19
Dallas, TX
| Re: I'll add... Right on.
If someone switches dial tone that doesn't realize their DSL isn't part of their current package, too bad. I really don't think any of the people posting on this subject would let that happen to them as I suspect they are educated consumers, maybe, sort of, kinda. I'm sure you are though Hall.
The next few months will sure be interesting. | |
| | |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: I'll add... Well, you do realize that McDonalds is playing the same game too- because they're telling people that unless you go through the McDonalds drive through or walk up to the window- and allow McDonalds to bombard you with infinite visual name branding, advertisements, etc, you CAN'T get your Big Mac or your Chicken McNuggets anywhere else.
Oh... you can get your coke at Burger King- but if you do and don't come back to McDonalds (and they'll ask if you want something to drink- how CRAZY IS THAT?? Didn't it ever occur to them that you went to BK first for your coke and fries??) you can't get the Big Mac and/or Nuggets...
The tyrants I tell you... it's SO inconvenient to spend money driving around like that... don't you think?
Boogie | |
| | | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Re: I'll add... I'll remember that the next time I use the "Verizon drive thru" to make a call... | |
| 
richb01803
Rich
join:2001-02-14
02100
| Darth Vader rules Well, in the Northeast we've got Darth Vader telling us all about the one-bill "convenience" of buying everything from Verizon. They of course don't disclose the fact that you *have* to buy everything from Verizon; instead they spend tens of millions of dollars a year on marketing to convince customers that this is a "good thing".
AT&T Broadband does the exact same thing. Want Internet service? Gotta buy AT&T cable TV service. Think Comcast will change that policy? Not on Michael Powell's life. | |
| | 
matt986634
join:2002-08-28
Dyer, IN
| Re: Darth Vader rules I am not defending them or anything, but you do not need AT&T cable television to get cable internet access. It is true, however, that they jack the price up.
--
Don't ask me where my 75 dependents are, ask the Department of Missing Persons. | |
| | | TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| Re: Darth Vader rules said by matt986634 :
I am not defending them or anything, but you do not need AT&T cable television to get cable internet access. It is true, however, that they jack the price up.
Comcast is the same way. It's $39.95 if you have their cable TV, and something like $54.95 if you don't. The price difference is a little ridiculous IMHO, but since I already had cable TV, it didn't really bother me. | |
| 
nunya
SEE ROCK CITY 475 MILES
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
clubs:
 ·AT&T CallVantage
| The Truth is... Another slanted thread filled with CLEC lies...
The truth is MClIe and AT&Tell a Lie don't want to share the loop. They put on to the press like they are poor innocent victims of the oppressive evil Bell empire. In actuality they refuse to negotiate reasonable line-share contracts with the ILECs. They don't want to either. CLECs are not subject to une-p in this reversed situation, and use it to their full advantage. They want the political leverage this creates.
If they were truly interested in providing their customers service they would build their own networks or find other modes of transport to the end user.
Instead of research and development, they have dilly-dallied and tied up the court systems trying to sue their way to profit.
They put all of their eggs into one basket. Now that their are several modes of broadband transport to the end user, they put their blinders on and keep pointing toward the "evil" phone lines like a bunch of "slack-jawwed gawkers". They refuse to admit that there are alternatives so they do not have to invest in them. Investment seems to scare CLECs. Probably because they cannot fathom a real business model like real companies.
It's time to "Put-up, or Shut-up." You can rest assured most CLECs will do neither.
--
Look Mom, I'm a Provider. | |
| | 
ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
| Re: The Truth is... said by nunya :
It's time to "Put-up, or Shut-up." You can rest assured most CLECs will do neither.
At one time that may have been true but times are changing.
Broadband planning and deployment is underway and it ain't the foot-draggin', excuse-makin' ILECs doing it.
»www.swmiconnected.org
--
Earthlink/DirecWay SRS | SatMex 5-990 | Win2K - ICS on Celeron 500 w/192MB -> Netgear RO318 -> Home network | |
| flomokas
Premium
join:2003-01-06
Moberly, MO
| A Chunk of U.S. Code »www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/c···pII.html
Honestly, I know just enough about the Law, to keep out of trouble. What few sections of the code I did read, seem to put the baby bells in a bad light, IMHO.
I do hope at least one or two knowledgable folks can review this part of Title 47 and figure out what it means. | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
el_jeffe
join:2003-01-30
Altadena, CA
| here's how the sweaty tech sees it Hello, all...I'm just a lowly repair tech, but here is my understanding, at least technically...
Once you are provided service by a CLEC using the 'UNE-P' (Unbundled Network Elements) product, the CLEC is our customer, and the CLEC's customer is the 'end-usar'. damn im leet. All we provide is a pair of wires from our central office to your residence/business/whatnot. No switch, no dialtone, no nothing...just a pair of wires. Once that CLEC has leased that line, we aren't allowed to change it, unless they call us and say the wires are faulty, in which case we go fix your pair. We can't put any of our services over the pair. If you leased a car, would you let the dealer lease it to someone else halfway through your contract? (sorry, bad analogy, but I can't think of anything similar)
Now, if your CLEC wanted to order SBC DSL on that line ON YOUR BEHALF, (you/your being the end usar), then technically it could be done - we could connect our services to the line via a colocation point in the central office, much like many CLEC's do. We would bill them business rates, after all, they are a business...much like CLEC's who subscribe to our wire repair plan (not very many do), they are subject to the business rates, even though the end user may be a residential customer.
Ask your CLEC to order SBC DSL service for your access line...hehehe...of course, to recoup their cost, they would have to charge you business rates...
I hope that makes some sense, I'm really tired. | |
| |
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: here's how the sweaty tech sees it Better analogy would be: Lease a pre-owned BMW, but not from a dealer. I then want to add a CD changer and go to BMW/the dealer and TELL THEM to add a CD changer to the car. Just as if my CLEC leases a line and then I go to the provider and tell them I want to get DSL.
That's what I have right now, for over a year, this is the second time they say they are going to cut off our DSL and they never do.
said by el_jeffe :
Hello, all...I'm just a lowly repair tech, but here is my understanding, at least technically...
Once you are provided service by a CLEC using the 'UNE-P' (Unbundled Network Elements) product, the CLEC is our customer, and the CLEC's customer is the 'end-usar'. damn im leet. All we provide is a pair of wires from our central office to your residence/business/whatnot. No switch, no dialtone, no nothing...just a pair of wires. Once that CLEC has leased that line, we aren't allowed to change it, unless they call us and say the wires are faulty, in which case we go fix your pair. We can't put any of our services over the pair. If you leased a car, would you let the dealer lease it to someone else halfway through your contract? (sorry, bad analogy, but I can't think of anything similar)
Now, if your CLEC wanted to order SBC DSL on that line ON YOUR BEHALF, (you/your being the end usar), then technically it could be done - we could connect our services to the line via a colocation point in the central office, much like many CLEC's do. We would bill them business rates, after all, they are a business...much like CLEC's who subscribe to our wire repair plan (not very many do), they are subject to the business rates, even though the end user may be a residential customer.
Ask your CLEC to order SBC DSL service for your access line...hehehe...of course, to recoup their cost, they would have to charge you business rates...
I hope that makes some sense, I'm really tired.
| |
| | representing
5th Sniper
join:2001-01-20
Prince George, BC
·TELUS
| If you leased a car, would you let the dealer lease it to someone else halfway through your contract? (sorry, bad analogy, but I can't think of anything similar)
_________________________________________________________
Nope good analogy wrong side. it should be more like this. you lease a car and half way through your contract you return it and get one from someone else.
OR
you lease a car from one company then turn around and lease another one from another company so that your wife can drive one. The first company ain't going to take the car back considering they are still making money.
telco's should also follow this, they should be honored that a customer liked their service so much that they stay with their dsl service but wanted a cheaper monthly phone rate, the customer could have asked the telco to price match, they may have.
never know | |
| 
whose pair
| Who's pair is it? It is techically possible for the ILEC to connect a customer's cable pair to the CLEC's voice switch and a DSLAM owned by the ILEC. However, it will not happen under the current federal regulatory strucure.
The CLEC's lease a 'dry pair' from the ILEC. The CLEC is free to plug this dry pair into their equipment, which resides in a cage within the CO. The CLEC consequently leases a trunk(s) that connect that they use to connect that dry pair to the public switched telephone network, ISP, or whatever.
Besides, imagine how confusing it would be if the end user had problems. Both the DSL provider and voice provider would point their fingers each at each other. Let's say you have static on the line. The phone company would say they only are supplying the data portion and that they do not support dial tone. "call your CLEC if the voice section doesn't work" you would be told. The CLEC would say, "call the phone company and tell them to explain how to plug in your microfilters." Both could say, "it has to be your inside wiring," knowing that the end user is responsible for the inside wiring. | |
| fullback
join:2002-01-24
japan | Ouch This is giving me a headache.
It's your bloody lawyers, I tell you!
Off with their heads!
(Slinks away, snickering to himself, with his cheap fiber-optic line...) | |
| kauiman3
join:2002-08-16
Redondo Beach, CA
| CLEC local access v's DSL After looking up the regulations this is a grey area. ILEC's tell their employees that it is against FCC regulations. However after talking with 2 ILEC's legal council they basically agree that this is really their convenient interpretation of the law. They write internal emails to encourage the employees to interpret it this way, for obvious reasons. Even their own counsel knows its not really a black and white FCC regulation.
ATT and MCI is pushing the matter, which is good, however ATT nor MCI are not saints either. If a customer wants ATT/MCI local but DSL say from another provider say DSL Extreme, ATT/MCI will give you the same story, you must order DSL from ATT/MCI and no one else! Like others I side with the ILEC's until ATT/MCI plays fair
IMHO If open access is to work, the FCC should allow the Consumer any combo they want. This way the market settles the score and not the government.
In every scenario the ILEC is getting $$ for that leased line. Somewhere around $8 to $12. The ILEC's need to realize that fighting for a monopoly is only a waste of money at this point. With Cable VOIP (Docsys2) and PowerLine + Wireless coming on in the next 2 yrs they should be focused on developing great products and building a customer base the old fashion way. You earn it.... | |
| | 
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| You want deregulation? You got it! Hey, baby. Business is business.
Truth be told, SBC DSL is legally a separate company from the ILEC SBC.
In other words, they don't HAVE to give you service any more than Covad, Earthlink, or anyone else does.
They are indeed in bed with the "real" SBC. But they have the right to sleep with whomever they please. You can't buy a Chevy and then bitch because they won't put a Ford engine in it for you.
Deregulation works both ways...sometimes.
peace,
mocycler
[text was edited by author 2003-01-31 21:28:48] | |
| | 2farfromCO7
join:2000-10-14
Farmington, MI | Re: You want deregulation? You got it! no, it seems like it only works two different ways...
the RBOCs way....
OR THE HIGH-WAY:):):):):):) | |
| 2farfromCO7
join:2000-10-14
Farmington, MI
| I've ditched POTS completely I'm completely wireless. The bad thing now is that SBC/AmeriCRAP CSRs don't have a number to call to convince to to switch back over. I just loved ruthlessly terrorizing SBC CSRs with every last bit of hate I can muster. If they want my business, they can give me DSL. It's that simple. I will be nothing but a switching and money loser for SBC/AmeriCRAP until they give me DSL. IF THEY MAKE ANY MONEY OFF ME, ALL THEY DO IS TAKE IT AND USE IT TO DEPLOY DSL FOR OTHER PEOPLE. That makes me sick, and I won't stand for it.
THE ENTIRE TELECOM INDUSTRY SHOULD BE SOCIALIZED.
THAT IS A FACT ABE FROMAN | |
| |
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: I've ditched POTS completely You brag about how much you hate them and that you are a "money loser", then bemoan the fact that they can't call you and beg you to come back. Here's a clue: If you really hated them that much, you would stay if for no other purpose than to give their reps a hard time and drain their revenue. I'll bet your phone bill would be a lot less than the psychiatric treatment that you probably need, and you'd benefit more from it, too.
Reminds me of the old joke where the shopkeeper throws a guy out for stealing, and on the way out the thief says, "Well, I'll never come back HERE again!!!"
Some customers aren't worth having.
You got issues, man.
peace,
mocycler
| |
| | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| Re: I've ditched POTS completely I don't think he's bemoaning that they don't call, I think he's bragging. They can't call and telemarket to him because it's illegal to do so to cellular users. Maybe a law or just an FCC rule since the cell customer pays for incoming and outgoing minutes.
Just read his post again, he is bemoaning.
[text was edited by author 2003-02-01 21:23:35] | |
| | | | 2farfromCO7
join:2000-10-14
Farmington, MI
| Re: I've ditched POTS completely With 750 anytime minutes and NW starting at 8pm, I have plenty of minutes to kill if telemarketers call me, especially SBC/Ameritech.
BTW: how is against the law to harass somebody
THAT CALLED YOU !!!!!
THEY CALLED YOU !!!!
IF THEY CAN'T TAKE THE HEAT, GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN | |
| | | | | 2farfromCO7
join:2000-10-14
Farmington, MI | Re: I've ditched POTS completely oh, and I only pay $40/month for that plan.
Sprint PCS is simply one awesome company. I will never say a bad word about Sprint PCS. I'm just one free walking advertisement for them. | |
| | | Basil6
join:2002-06-30
Terre Hill, PA
1 edit | here a D-SLAM there a D-SLAM everywhere a D-SALM It is simple greed on the part of the Telco. Anyone can provide DSL via CO-LOCATION of their D-SLAM in the telco's cages (In fact the telcos charge the dsl providers a fee for this) so when they say it's technically not possible, they are in fact lying - BLATANTLY ! The pair that runs from your local telco to you is JUST THAT, a separate pair of wires carrying DT to you. The DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) is attached to that pair from THE PROVIDER'S D-SLAM. So in Verizon's Closet, you can have D-SLAMs owned by COVAD, MCI, EARTHLINK, etc, etc,. It is the almighty D-SLAM that provides the network connectivity to you. The DT has absolutely nothing to do with the DSL Connection except that the ONE EXISTENT PAIR OF WIRES (between you and the local Telco) carries the signals to and from the D-SLAM. Don't be fooled by the telco Employees.
Nuff Said
P.S.
I worked for Verizon, I have seen the configuration, It'z a no Brainer! | |
| | | |
|
|
Can't believe this made a headline...
·