California DSL Fight Gets Nasty "ISPs in California are accusing SBC Communications of trying to run them out of the broadband business. The California Internet Service Provider Association (CISPA), which represents more than 100 independent ISPs, will meet with SBC on either Tuesday or Wednesday in the San Francisco Bay Area to discuss a last-ditch settlement before the industry group pursues its claim of anti-competitive business practices in court." Tech TV. Our information is that there may be protests organized next week in LA and Sacramento .. (tear gas over internet access?). The CISPA is gunning to freeze any changes to the rules while any pending court casts are completed.
|
 | | Down with SBC! I hope to be on the front lines throwing eggs at PacBell Reps. The lack of service and PacBell STOPING the rollout is unbelieveable! | |
|  | lifer49
join:2001-05-03
Encinitas, CA |  Re: Down with SBC!
Yes, the real foe (of telco and ISP's) is cable. However, it is ludicrous for SBC mouthpiece Britton to call the ISP's to arms, while continuing to charge them such high line access fees that the ISP's are forced out of business.
SBC, lower your line access fees so that ISP's can make a buck. Then you'll get support and cooperation from them to defeat cable. | |
| | | | | Re: Down with SBC! The ISP's aren't prevented from investing in their own DSLAM's and other network elements by anything but their own pocketbooks.
SBC is in business to make money. They shouldn't be forced to lose money so others can be more successful. If the ISP's feel they are overcharged, they can go to another CLEC for DSL access. If they don't like having to sign a contract with ASI, they can go to another CLEC for DSL access. They can invest in becoming their own CLEC for DSL access. No one prevents them from doing this.
Perhaps ISP sales for DSL isn't a profitable business to be in. Perhaps it is like bare bones residential POTS lines. Maybe CLEC's like Covad and Rythms et al wouldn't have gone bankrupt if they had sold direct ISP access to DSL retail instead of selling wholesale to ISP's trying to underprice ASI.
Perhaps they tried to grow too quickly. Perhaps if customers didn't jump ship when they heard a whisper that their CLEC is restructuring, the CLEC would still have revenue to operate.
Imagine what would happen if ALL of SBC's POTS, Centrex, PBX, DSL, DS1, DS3, etc customers jumped ship at once, AND all their investors sold ALL of the stock... SBC too would go down. That won't happen, because SBC has built a reputation that people trust- regardless of how many horror stories there are about bad service, rude tech support, etc (and I believe most all of them- as there are GOING TO BE BAD EMPLOYEES with any business) that doesn't mean that EVERYONE that subscribes to SBC for DSL service or even POTS or ISDN or whatever is totally unhappy.
Maybe SBC charges ISP's high DSL access fees because that is how SBC makes money... Should they lose money?
Boogie74 | |
| | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Down with SBC! said by boogie74:
The ISP's aren't prevented from investing in their own DSLAM's and other network elements by anything but their own pocketbooks.
Yeah, except even IF they did this, they still have to pay SBC for the line, so the rate of return on the investment becomes a lot harder to justify, they still have to cover the ILEC fees with higher prices then the ILEC DSL offerings, and thus, can't compete.
No one is asking SBC to lose money. They won't. It just needs to be even, and a fair price.
Or else, kick 'em to the curb... | |
| | | | | | | Re: Down with SBC! said by KrK:
said by boogie74:
The ISP's aren't prevented from investing in their own DSLAM's and other network elements by anything but their own pocketbooks.
Yeah, except even IF they did this, they still have to pay SBC for the line, so the rate of return on the investment becomes a lot harder to justify, they still have to cover the ILEC fees with higher prices then the ILEC DSL offerings, and thus, can't compete.
No one is asking SBC to lose money. They won't. It just needs to be even, and a fair price.
Or else, kick 'em to the curb...
Even money means unfair advantage to the ISP or CLEC as they have no incentive to build their business further than using the ILEC for everything and raking in profits. There really isn't an answer to this- except to allow RBOC's to re-align pricing between business and residential. Raising residential pricing for retail accounts provides an incentive for others to invest in their own networks, hence giving way to competition.
Of course the consumer world would hate this, as they are used to paying below cost prices for basic local loops, and won't find it fair to actually pay prices that would generate a profit.
Boogie74 | |
| | | | | | dbarc
join:2000-01-22
Fort Wayne, IN | Re: Down with SBC! said by boogie74:
There really isn't an answer to this- except to allow RBOC's to re-align pricing between business and residential. Raising residential pricing for retail accounts provides an incentive for others to invest in their own networks, hence giving way to competition.
Of course the consumer world would hate this, as they are used to paying below cost prices for basic local loops, and won't find it fair to actually pay prices that would generate a profit.
Boogie74
You're talking apples to oranges here. The 'basic local loop' is still provided for under the regulated business, a government enforced monopoly. The rates established, with our without the residential/business differential, provide a profit and a return on investment as set by the various utility commissions. That has nothing to do with the unregulated businesses. Removing the differential wouldn't do anything but increase residential rates and lower business rates. It couldn't be 'converted' to non-regulated businesses nor would it change SBC's interaction with the unregulated business, their own internal ISP' or those they are dealing with.
Since the loops WERE built and provided for by a regulated monopoly and guaranteed ROI, that means to provide a competitive environment, they must have a level playing field. That means they cannot use their own ISP to gain market share at a loss, subsidized by the regulated business, nor can they offer their own ISP different contractual arrangements for competitive services. Both should provide the regulated businesses, an equivalent return in investment. That's where they seem to be wavering, in forcing different contractual arrangements and their pricing structure. To then require ISP's pay for infrastructure that they will not be permitted to obtain ANY ROI (ie, SBC get's all benefit of future investment by their actions), then you have the ISP's subsidizing SBC. This doesn't work. period.
I'm as much as capitalist as anyone, probably more so. But if there's to be competition (which IS the capitalist structure...since the monopoly was built by guaranteed regulated monopoly NOT by competition), they all must be able to compete on an equal footing. This is not the apparent case with SBC's actions. I for one, feel the only way to truly allow competition is to require a split between the services and local loop infrastructures of the telco's. Trying otherwise would be like trying to have instilled competition in long distance while letting ATT keep both the RBOC's and long lines. IT didn't happen and wouldn't have happened until the split was required. IF we're going to have any monopoly, let it exist only with the loop and let the other services compete on their own merits. | |
| | | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Well said. That is one excellent post. I Salute thee!
Makes too much sense, therefore won't happen. (Darn it! The "realist" in me coming out again!!) | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Down with SBC! quote:
IF we're going to have any monopoly, let it exist only with the loop and let the other services compete on their own merits.
And who draws the short straw for this money losing business? To make serious money (and keep money to invest and keep the network running) prices will HAVE to increase anyways.
My best suggestion still is that instead of relying of fiber and copper, give EVERYONE an 18 inch dish that sends and receives ALL TV, Telephone, Internet, ETC. There are already TONS of companies that make these. Then, all the providers that want in on selling content can fly a satellite in the sky. If you want to switch, you point your dish 4 degrees to the left and 18 degrees up. If people can't afford the bundled content package, they can subscribe to a government subsidized satellite.
This would be cheaper than relying on people not digging around in their backyards, having bad reception when it rains too hard, etc. No one would OWN the "local loop infrastructure" because it wouldn't be there.
Any takers?
Boogie74 | |
| | | | | | | | | Anon | Re: Down with SBC! slight problem... sattelite communications blow for home net connections in terms of latency. the only way to keep it down is to put the sats at a very low orbit but then it reduces their footprint which means cost goes up per area of coverage... i.e. not gonna happen... | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Down with SBC! said by fromonkey:
slight problem... sattelite communications blow for home net connections in terms of latency. the only way to keep it down is to put the sats at a very low orbit but then it reduces their footprint which means cost goes up per area of coverage... i.e. not gonna happen...
Attitudes such as this caused people to doubt that a telephone would be invented, a radio invented, the lightbulb, refrigeration, high speed automobiles, airplanes, the space shuttle, etc... too expensive, not possible, no one will try it, etc. Besides which- you apparently aren't aware of how MUCH of our telephone and internet communications are already transmitted- There are LOTS of connections that rely on satellite technology as we speak.
Cost goes up per area of coverage?? And how much would it cost "per area", how big would the "area be", etc?? You have no idea how much it costs to lay copper and fiber now... how much a tech visit to diagnose your network DSL problem runs for the companies, how much the technology costs, etc.
Right now, cable connections blow in terms of latency too. Satellite blows for latency for 1 HUGE reason- people have to dial-up to upload. Slowing down the upload channel to a max of 33.6 Kbps (56K is only download max) causes big time problems when you are playing an online game for instance- you download what the other guy is doing to you REALLY fast, but you can't send a thing of what your doing to him.
I don't doubt that 2-way satellite will replace the outside copper completely- hell- put in all fiber optic cabling inside the home and hook it up to a satellite dish. It would be much more cost effective for installation, overhead, upkeep, etc- even if you had to pay $200 to $400 per month for all your telephone, internet and television combined (add $100 for phone now, $50-$60 for internet, and
$80 for tv as we are now and you total over $240 already) and many would buy it. Take away the cost of unbundling a network for competition, paying for tech visits to fix a copper short or pair crossing every time it rains or snows too hard, paying for emergency instances where trees knock down cables- take away ALL tech visits to install any of the services- as there would be no need to change a pair at a crossbox, or test the connection for DSL, or change a filter and program a converter for cable- I would think this would knock down MUCH of the current cost of doing business.
These are just ideas, IMHO of course. Please don't knock down those who dare to dream- attitudes such as expressed in your post above would have prevented you from talking on the phone- or defrosting the bagel your eating right this moment.
Boogie74 | |
| | | | | | | | | |  dru
join:2000-09-14
Corona, CA | Re: Down with SBC! said by boogie74:
Attitudes such as this caused people to doubt that a telephone would be invented, a radio invented, the lightbulb, refrigeration, high speed automobiles, airplanes, the space shuttle, etc...
Boogie74
Satellite "blows" because of a physical reality called "Speed of Light"; it takes too long to transmit packets up and back some 25,000 miles each way using geo-synchronous satellites, and adds up to serious latency that plagues its practical use for many internet applications. Both two-way and one-way satellite systems suffer from this limitation imposed by physics. Companies have focused on some clever software to mask the effects as much as possible, but in the end, satellite suffers significant technical and economic barriers here that are not likely to be solved any time soon.
If or when someone breaks the light-speed barrier, the breakthrough will be likely be far more significant to humankind and involved with a much loftier first application than just faster or cheaper internet access. Let's get real. In the mean time, "subspace" and "warp speed" and real-time communication over vast distances remains the fantasy of Star Trek fans.
Near Earth or low orbit satellites, as well as Angel planes, balloons, etc have been suggested to combat this problem, but for right now the current economic climate along with the failure of significant pioneers to date suggest that these designs and plans will sit on the shelf for a few years.
I'm all for pioneering spirit; throughout history, the more severe the challenge the more inventive the solution is that solve it. Unfortunately, you can also tell who the pioneers are by the arrows in their back. Iridium failed, wireless, satellite, and high-flying airplane initiatives are failing or running out of venture capital.
In the end, I suspect that existing ILEC and Cable companies will see evolutionary and economic changes in technology that make fiber to the home or business become practical before esoteric orbiting solutions become economically viable and developed to the point where they are serious alternatives. | |
|
| | | | Anon | In response to the post by boogie74:
You're right. ISPs aren't prevented from investing in DSLAMs. But you might be surprised at the barriers that incumbent phone companies like SBC can create to make sure that ISPs who install DSLAMs are given a competitive *disadvantage*. SBC does not want to cooperate with CLECs and, as the company who controls the infrastructure, SBC has the unique ability to make things miserable for anyone who is attempting to compete with them.
I am the owner of a small ISP in Los Angeles and we are partnered with SBC. Every day I see SBC use it's monopoly to create barriers against us. We react to this because we have been around for almost seven years and we don't want to loose our long-time customers to SBC.
But it's difficult going up against a company who has unfair advantage. As a government sanctioned monopoly, SBC are the legal owners of the physical copper that connects homes to the greater phone company infrastructure. They have right-of-way everywhere in their territory and no competitors are allowed to trench and lay their own cables.
Monopolies like this are illegal except in situations like the one SBC has inherited. As I understand it, the legal monopoly was granted back in the 1930s where, in the interest of communication, it was the only way to erect a nationwide telecommunications system. In response to the antiquated laws of the 1930s the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was created. It's purpose was to foster innovation by allowing (quote) "anyone [to] enter any communications business -- to let any communications business compete in any market against any other". But instead of modernizing the Telecom Act of 1934 the '96 Act has allowed incumbent phone companies to gain an unfair advantage over ISPs while maintaining their government granted monopoly.
Some phone companies *did* modify their operations to comply, not only with the laws, but with the spirit of competition that was proposed in the telecom act. our partnership with GTE has been successful for both ISP and phone company. We have many satisfied customers connected and have added five new high speed connections into the GTE network since we first partnered with them in 1999.
I have seen the operations of GTE California, a phone company who I believe embraced the spirit of competition, and I compare this to the operations of Pacific Bell. Pacfic Bell (wholly owned by SBC) found loopholes that would allow them to maintain monopoly control over services like DSL. Not coincidentally, independent companies who were dependent on Pac Bell like Flashcom, Zyan and Northpoint all went out of business leaving hundreds of thousands of Californians without Internet service.
I am not in love with GTE by any means. In fact, we have major problems with them too. But the unfortunate situation created by Pacific Bell eclipses any of the problems we have with Verizon (who owns GTE). As a result of our partnership with these two phone companies I am witness to the differences of an ethically operated phone company compared against those of a greedy desensitized company, whose only motivation seems to be domination of all Internet and telecom markets without regard to consumers time or inconvenience.
So, why did so many DSL service providers suddenly go out of business? How could Pacific Bell decimate all of its competition so effectively? Another ISP owner and CISPA board member answered these questions best when she said (quote): "Pacific Bell has mastered the art of strategic incompetence". Botched installations, mysteriously deleted orders and grossly incorrect billing are the weapons SBC uses against any competitors who dare to travel onto SBC turf.
To this day, my company, L A Bridge continues to provide DSL and Internet services. We didn't put all of our eggs in the DSL basket. Thanks to T-1s, Co-location and dial-up we continue to operate in the black. We encourage consumers to use independent, local ISPs who provide localized and individualized services. If you live in California then visit CISPA.org for a list of these indie providers. And if you have had an unfortunate experience with Pacific Bell then we ask you to contact the Public Utilities Commission and voice your opinion.
--Tony Cappelli
L A Bridge Internet & DSL | |
| | | | | | | Re: Down with SBC! said by Cappelli:
In response to the post by boogie74:
........Monopolies like this are illegal except in situations like the one SBC has inherited. As I understand it, the legal monopoly was granted back in the 1930s where, in the interest of communication, it was the only way to erect a nationwide telecommunications system.
No comment on the other stuff, but you're flunking history.SBC is not a monopoly,(cable competes) and competitors are not forbidden to lay cable, or the cable industry wouldn't exist. AT&T requested and was granted monopoly status in 1913-14, in exchange for allowing other phone companies (thousands of them)to inter-connect. AT&T lobbyists also conceived the regulatory framework, which brought AT&T phenomenal prosperity.Phones became ubiquitous as a result of a 1925 decision by AT&T's chairman to lower prices for higher volume profitability. He funded the expansion by selling IT&T and international rights. .
--
Pupowski
"Revolution is just evolution with more bandwidth" | |
|
| | | | These ISPs are STUPID. They need to break into cable access, it has 80% of the Broadband market share. DSL IS DEAD!!!! The TELCOs have lost!!!!!! Wake up!!!!!!!!!! I can get phone, long distance, cable TV, and faster than DSL internet access from one company, on one bill, on one piece of COAX. FOR THE SAME OR IN MY CASE LOWER PRICE!!!!!!!!!! I have to go the lunacy gives me a head ache. | |
| | | | | | | | dru
join:2000-09-14
Corona, CA | Sure. Find me a cable company that I, as an ISP can buy connections to serve my customers and I will be in the cable business. Nobody doubts it is a viable technology, and one that, in my opinion, offers a number of practical advantages (read: more economical than "pronto") especially in rural areas where many subscribers are miles from the CO.
Yep, I would buy cable connections in an instant over DSL. But they are not available in MY service area, so I am forced to use the only alternative to get to my customers and that is DSL. We can argue that DSL is better for security, but with SBC and their infernal BCG most if not all advantages of DSL are out the window. If I am going to have to share a connection and bandwidth of a BCG box, might as well take cable - it's cheaper to deploy and is more universally available.
There is no overwhelming technical reason why Cable companies could not resell collocation space in their headends and individual connections. It's been done, been demonstrated, and I myself have identified several easy workarounds to those few problems that are cited.
SBC and the other ILECS may be disingenuously anti-competitive in their conduct. But the one thing that rings true in various rantings of SBC employees is the basic question - why does SBC get hammered for the same practices that seem to be invited, encouraged, and accepted among the cable networks?
And why do cable companies so arduously fight to keep other ISPs out, even if these ISPs are willing to pay handsomely? I have a few theories:
1. Cable companies don't want to lose control of "their" customers. People want bandwidth, and the freedom to explore possibilities of that bandwidth. But for cable companies, it's not about bandwidth, but content. They have always had a tight control of content, and the holy grail is premium content via pay for view or the movie channels. Allowing another company to buy a wholesale pipe into their wired homes and living rooms is an anathema to the cable culture, even though the actual impact of selling wholesale channels to ISPs would be a win-win profit center, especially if there were mutual non-compete agreements (The last thing most ISPs want to do is get into the traditional TV business).
2. Cable networks are ever worried about available bandwidth, and feel that selling to ISPs would squander valuable channel space. Here the cable companies do face regulatory and contractual challenges that in all fairness to them, are real concerns. Many modern fiber-cable hybrid systems not only carry internet and 200+ channels of digital compressed video, but are still required to carry a complement of 50-60 analog channels for legacy "cable ready" sets per local franchise agreements. Even if they could offer free set top boxes (which would reduce loss to theft) most cities and counties refuse to relent. Add to this the must-carry FCC ruling that means the system must carry all local channels within 50 miles, contractual and licensing ties (In order to carry the popular Sci-FI channel or ubiquitous CNN they have to also carry 5 other channels nobody ever watches, and of course there's the shopping channels that they get spiffed on sales. So even though these cable networks may have bandwidth to burn today, they are reluctant to give up a single megabit to outsiders. Even though cable has tremendous data carrying capabilities (a single 6mhz TV channel yields 36 megs full duplex, nearly a T3), many cable companies are loath to devote a single TV channel's space to broadband, let alone reselling more to other companies.
3. Everybody including membership warehouses, home improvement centers, coffee houses, telephone companies, and even cable TV networks think they can cut corners or making an extra buck by being an ISP, even though few understand what it takes to be a good one. While they may have money to throw at a network, they usually misjudge the demand for support, the need for sophisticated OSS and billing systems, and the cost of training and keeping good people who keep their sanity and don't lose their cool when they are yelled at at 3 AM. Cable companies have a completely different operation, corporate culture, and workforce that is completely different than specialized ISPs. Cable companies, with their home consumer based vision of the internet don't understand the engineers and techno-geeks that constantly tweak and tune in a routine that every well-run IP network needs to function. With just a few exceptions, cable companies rate poorly in customer service and satisfaction compared with companies that specialize in business class IP services.
The bottom line is, they could resell space on their networks, but don't. Many could also partner with CLECS to compete with the telcos head on and provide dialtone via cable (Cox does this well in Orange County, CA) but most do not.
Yes, the modern cable systems have the right technology to deploy wide scale broadband services to homes, and quite literally, But like their brethren at the ILECS, they have not wised up and looked at the big picture for the future.
Someday, cable companies will wake up and realize they can't directly compete with the economies of scale offered by Dish and DirecTV for traditional entertainment and video channels. At the same time they will discover they sit on a powerful technology - a broadband gold mine of interactive and wholesale bandwidth resale opportunities that satellite and wireless networks can never match in capacity and scale. Even if the bandwidth is there, the latency renders satellite and many wireless networks unusable for many applications. | |
| | | | jdir
join:2001-05-04
Santa Clara, CA | seems strange but why hyping cable when you are posting from dsl.rcsntx.swbell.ne? isnt that from a dsl address?  | |
| | | | | Anon | Cable probably has a significant portion of the *residential* broadband market. Business customers use DSL since cable does not reach most businesses. Even if it did most businesses would reject cable because of the security issues and service blackouts inherent in a shared network. 2600 magazine has monthly articles on how to steal MAC addresses to implicate innocent cable users in DoS crimes.
Businesses don't want to put up with such foolishness.
In my opinion cable is inferior to DSL. My guess is that you agree with me. The reverse lookup on your IP address indicates that you are posting from a DSL line. | |
| | | | | ossito
join:2001-08-08
Harvey, IL | Re: Down with SBC! 2600 magazine does not sanction any illegal activities of hacking whatsoever. 2600 magazine does show readers how they could be possibly be attacked and how to seal up such holes in there systems. I have learned quite a bit from that magazine and have helped my sys admin make sure our network is secure. Please do not add to the governments fear campaign of hackers. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Well then tell my cable company to stop boosting services on the lower population end of the county and move to my end.
I live in Northern VA and have DSL, I would have originally rather had Cable after seeing how well RoadRunner worked (offered by Cox 5 miles to my left), but Comcast has yet to offer anything in my area except shoddy service (would get Direct TV or Dish but Apartment complex won't allow it). Digital Cable launched last year sometime in my county and has yet to move beyond the area around the Comcast Main office, Cable Internet available for over 2 years now is still in the same boat. I have called them and been called by them and the Rep told me that all of the wiring has been finished and the Testing Completed. But they won't turn it on.
So now I have Verizon DSL and it has only gone down once. The service I have seems to vary greatly from the horror stories others have experience, I think in part due to the fact that I am in a prior GTE area.
Cable will not replace DSL, My ping is a lot lower with ADSL then my friends Roadrunner account, I don't slow down around 6pm when everyone gets home from work (most nights I'm not home by 6), and my download speed on 768/128 is fast enough to be comparable mostly due to the fact that a lot of sites will not pay for the bandwidth to support DL'ing at anything over 120kbps and when I hit 88Kbps on most (downloading Red Hat 7.2) the time differance wasn't enough to worry over. | |
| | | | irsean
join:2001-05-10
Redlands, CA | Too bad there's no infrastructure to support business therefore making cable companies take an uncomfortable backseat to the Telco industry...whether ILEC or CLEC/DLEC. | |
|
| | | You don't get it. SBC is a phone company, a common carrier in regulatory jargon, and has no right to discriminate in how it provides services to its customers (whether it's a CISPA member or PacBell Internet). Period. Yes, an ISP can become a CLEC and install its own DSLAMs but that misses the point too. An ISP should not have to become a CLEC in order to provide DSL service. If SBC and the other telcos want to sell DSL service to their affiliated ISPs, then the telcos are required to provide DSL service to competitors as well by the Telecom Act. The fact that cable companies refuse to provide open access is a completely different issue, and one that obviously CISPA is pushing for as well. CISPA is fighting to open all pipes and allow its members to provide superior service to its customers. | |
| | | | Let me say that I see some real thought behind a lot of the opinions expressed here. Some of the opinions are misguided, but that's true of almost any discussion. Given that level of respect for all of you I hope you won't be to hard on me. This argument is not much different than the arguments made in 1984 when AT&T first divested the LECs.
SBC is required to resell it's regulated services to competitors at a set discount rate. The purpose of the arrangement is, of course to allow the CLECs to offer the service to customers at a price point lower than SBC's and still make a profit. In fact, this process was designed to foster the new companies and make sure that SBC lost customers to them. This really wasn't a very good idea then and still isn't today. The almost immediate result of this was horrible customer confusion over who they should call for help and when.
To some degree the same can be said of this unregulated portion of the business. The tangle of companies involved in provisioning DSL has created a horrible mess for customers to attempt to fathom all on their own. Competition isn't always better. It is however confusing and it's always easier to blame the incumbent than to accept responsibility for a poorly thought out business plan. There is no requirement that SBC resell it's enhanced services at anything other than prices negotiated and contracted with each competitor. The cry is SBC makes it too hard for us to make money off of THEIR product. Think carefully about that.
I'm sorry, but you aren't going to get a favorable ruling here. At some point, it is no longer SBC's responsibility to cut prices to competitors so they can sell what is essentially your product to others for less money. Is anyone believing that SBC is pricing their product to DSL competitors (wholesale buyers) at prices higher that retail customers. If your charging $60/month for DSL it's because of a flawed business plan that relied on the idea that SBC would subsidize the DSL business the way it did the CLEC business. | |
| | | Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX | Re: Down with SBC! said by deepthroat:
SBC is required to resell it's regulated services to competitors at a set discount rate. The purpose of the arrangement is, of course to allow the CLECs to offer the service to customers at a price point lower than SBC's and still make a profit. In fact, this process was designed to foster the new companies and make sure that SBC lost customers to them.
The purpose for the arrangement was to allow CLEC's to offer comparable service at comparable prices to encourage competition in the marketplace. Ensuring profit was not the purpose of the discounted rate. However, without that discount there would have been no hope of any company ever competing with an ILEC.
You're right, it isn't SBC's responsibility to cut prices for competitors. However, since SBC has a monopoly on the local loop, it is the responsibility of the regulators to make sure SBC does not abuse its monopoly power. If competition in the marketplace is what we desire, SBC must be required to provide access in a non-anti-competitive way. That means price concessions.
We seem to think that we can have competition and unregulated telco at the same time. As long as a single company has exclusionary rights to local delivery that will never happen. The only way to ensure competition in that environment is more regulation, not less. | |
| | | | | | Re: Down with SBC! oooohhhh You mean like cable TV | |
|
| | | Anon | I will have to disagree. Other than ISPs who are partnered with SBC, not many people realize what the price situation is. As the owner of a partnered ISP I can explain: SBC sells the loop component, the portion which they have a monopoly over, to ISPs for $39/month (there are another $60 in back-end T-1 and Virtual Path charges that I won't even bring into the discussion). Then, Pac Bell Internet sells the ISP component for 95 cents bringing the total bill to $39.95/month for the consumer.
I can't imagine a business plan where an ISP could survive selling the Internet access anywhere close to 95 cents. Pac Bell gets away with it because they are subsidized by SBC's monopoly who they are wholly owned by.
By comparison, Verizon sells the loop for $32.50 to ISPs and Verizon Online charges around $16.50 for the Internet access. This is a plan we can work with and have some competitive chance against.
SBC is abusing it's power. It's as simple as that. | |
| | | | | | Re: Down with SBC! SBC isn't selling DSL internet for $39.95- those contracts are ending in these few months ahead of us. It is currently $49.95 for 768/128 access.
Boogie74 | |
| | | | | | | Re: Down with SBC! said by boogie74:
SBC isn't selling DSL internet for $39.95- those contracts are ending in these few months ahead of us. It is currently $49.95 for 768/128 access.Boogie74
RBOC's are going to need more attractive pricing to compete with cable, and that may be below ISP cost. Otherwise, RBOC DSL will be a niche market with limited potential. AT&T cable gave as much as six months free service to meet growth projections in this region, and they didn't have any real competition. ISP's need to sink or swim in unregulated markets, just like CLECS and RBOC's. If congress wanted welfare for ISP's , they wrote the wrong legislation.
--
Pupowski
"Revolution is just evolution with more bandwidth" | |
|
looser
join:2001-02-04
La Mesa, CA | The truth will come out.... Before Pacbell became SBC we were putting in all the nodes and amp's in the new Developments. Lucent was working with Pacbell with all the hardware end of things, then the minute we became SBC the broadband unit of Pacbell was done away with, and all the new equipment we put in was ripped up and either thrown away (yes i said thrown away) or returned.
Why they did this I have no idea ? All I can think of was if we were to put this stuff in, why share it. | |
| | | | Re: The truth will come out.... See, that statement shows exactly why I call PacBell PerfectBell. For you life was grand until you got bought out by SBC. Ameritech didn't even start deploying DSL until they got bought out by SBC. Ameritechs completely lazy and incompetent greedy managers almost ran a monopoly into bankruptcy, now that takes talent. PacBell is 2-3 years ahead of Ameritech in terms of DSL deployment. PacBell was deploying RTs when Ameritech was just beginning to deploy DSLAMs. Your statement alone proves that PacBell is far and away the best RBOC | |
| | | | | Re: The truth will come out.... said by 2farfromCO:
See, that statement shows exactly why I call PacBell PerfectBell.
You mean the Pathetic Bell? That ILEC that LOOSES ORDERS? Randomly disconnects working services? Double or triple bill customers? Takes 2 workdays to respond to a technical support call? If at all? Lets their ATM network stay down for a week (remember the Luscent cascade in Southern CA)? Tells one company's customer that his account belongs to another company? Sends field technicians out that don't know what happens to data packets once they reach the CO? As far as the Pathetic Bell DSL field techs know DSL service works if there is sync between the DSLAM and the info box. And then, by some miracle, the data packets reach an ATM circuit in the other side of the Lata.
Since you are already here, you should read Pathetic Bell's reviews. Then you will understand why wise consumers choose Independent ISPs.
Pathetic Bell was pathetic before it became SBC, I had the same incompetent and unresponsive account manager and the same kind of problems. Becoming SBC just made matters worse. | |
| | | | | | Re: The truth will come out.... There are only problems with broadband access:
1. Availability
2. Availability
3. Availability
They(and EVERY OTHER BROADBAND COMPANY) could(and SHOULD) care less about customer service or technical support. Why should you when for every 1 existing customer complaining about their service you have 10 complaining that they can't get any. | |
|
|  lml2000Whazzup
join:2000-08-17
Los Angeles, CA | said by looser:
Before Pacbell became SBC we were putting in all the nodes and amp's in the new Developments. Lucent was working with Pacbell with all the hardware end of things, then the minute we became SBC the broadband unit of Pacbell was done away with, and all the new equipment we put in was ripped up and either thrown away (yes i said thrown away) or returned.
Appreciate you comments, but I think you might have the cart before the horse. I think SBC came in and bought Pacific Telesis after it had "squandered" investor capital by trying to push video over copper perhaps a bit too early before its time. From the engineers I've spoken with on the effort launched a decade ago it was just too expensive, and they ran into too much resistance at the local level, much as they are running into similar resistance in some cities today. So, in short, by the time SBC took over Pacific Telesis, the holding company of PacBell, the writing was already on the wall regarding the effort launched a decade ago. | |
| | | looser
join:2001-02-04
La Mesa, CA | Re: The truth will come out.... That very well could be true. Perhaps PB did blow it by jumping on the latest and greatest bandwagon, and SBC seen that and said enough is enough, why feed a dead horse. I know that also one of the other things is that if that equipment is up on the poles or in the ground it's taxed, and taxed heavily. So at the time, the goods is there before the customer, and if subscription is slow why pay all that city, county, state, and federal taxes.
There is so many people to blame in this mess it's crazy. Political, corporate, all the way down to the lame suppliers, who wonder why there stock prices are down (give out product now pay later) caught up with them. | |
|
| | SBC, Pacific Bell, and Project Pronto
SBC (and PacBell) are required to provide space (although they can charge leasing for the space) in the Central Offices for other companies to install DSLAM units. At the same time, SBC has been going through their Project Pronto system and installing what amounts to a remote DSLAM terminal in the neighborhoods.
I've been told by several sources that they are not required to share the Project Pronto terminals. If this is the case, then people who are too far from the Central Office and cannot get DSL via the traditional means have only ONE choice for DSL - Pacific Bell (with Prodigy for the email service)!!
No competition at all?????? | |
| | | |  Re: SBC, Pacific Bell, and Project Pronto
said by Markinsac:
If this is the case, then people who are too far from the Central Office and cannot get DSL via the traditional means have only ONE choice for DSL - Pacific Bell (with Prodigy for the email service)!!
No competition at all??????
So true!!! That's exactly what it amounts to. Take it or leave it. I took it | |
| |  icp1Premium
join:2000-10-13
Saint Louis, MO | Yes, this is true. There is nothing saying the CLEC's who normally put their equip in the central offices can't pay for and hook up their own remote terminals as far as I know, other than having to negotiate with the RBOCs for access (yeah I know). Besides, what would you rather have if you are more than the traditional distance from the CO, no DSL choice at all or just one choice?
The competition is not between DSL providers it is between DSL and Cable (and cable is winning big time).
Try putting your cable modem equip in the cable companies offices! | |
| | lml2000Whazzup
join:2000-08-17
Los Angeles, CA | said by Markinsac:
I've been told by several sources that they are not required to share the Project Pronto terminals. If this is the case, then people who are too far from the Central Office and cannot get DSL via the traditional means have only ONE choice for DSL - Pacific Bell (with Prodigy for the email service)!! No competition at all??????
I think there's some confusion by what is meant by "terminal." SBC is required to provide remote terminal "access" to the CLECs, but SBC has interpreted the Telecom Act to mean that "access" does not necessarily constitute PHYSICAL access, but VIRTUAL access. By "terminal" I refer to the structure, or vault, that is installed in the neighborhood which houses the equipment you refer to. In this respect, the CLECs do have access to such terminals. The question is at what cost. In contrast, you might be referring to "terminals" as a direct connection upon which to nail a subscriber's copper to a DSLAM. This the CLEC is free to do once it has made the investment to co-locate at the remote terminal, or RT.
As I understand it, if a CLEC wishes to "co-locate" off the RT, it (1) must install and power up its own equipment in the RT PROVIDED there is room, then (2) sign onto to the OCD, or optical concentrator device, located at the CO, allowing the CLEC to tap into their subscriber packets that are mux'd with packets representing other subscriber networks, principally PacBell's ASI's network.
I think the more important issue to understand is the economics at play by co-locating off an RT where line density is sufficiently less than at the CO. Any CLEC wishing to co-locate off an RT is going to have to assure itself a certain capture rate of subscribers or its going to lose its shirt on such investment. The RT to serve my loop is designed to serve 650 homes. Most have next generation DLC (which incorporate DSLAM cards) to serve as many as 2016 copper pairs. Compare that figure with a CO, where co-location provides that CLEC with a market of tens of thousands of customers. Big difference. You can see why the CLECs might want a little bit of "financial assistance" from the gov't.
But bottom line, it's easy to see that customers served off an RT are going to have much less choice of who their DSL provider is. This is something IMHO, that the drafters of the Telecom Act didn't foresee but could have if they had the slightest clue about wireline infrastructure. The natural progression for telco infrastructure is to push the fiber, and the electronics (i.e. switches), closer to the customer in order to fatten the copper pipe and deliver advanced services not possible over longer loops. Inherent in this "natural progression" are economics that work against a government policy of co-location. Its as simple as that.
From a business POV, it is understandable why the incumbents feel that they should not be obligated to open up their facilities. First, it cost more money to provide more space to house equipment they may or may not ever be installed. Second, these facilities are being installed in the neighborhoods where space and operational efficient are placed at a premium in the effort to mitigate the negative "environmental impacts" of such a facility in a residential setting. How would you like it is instead of one PacBell truck parked outside an RT three doors down from your house, you saw a half dozen, one from each DSL provider. I don't think you'd like it, and that's the argument SBC has going for it when it comes to defending its platform. According, SBC has provided "access" to the CLECs by providing "virtual" access from the OCD at the CO.
Personally, and idealistically, a lot of this mess could be avoided if the telcos could be pushed beyond a neighborhood gateway platform to a FTTH solution where all the electronics are at the CO and at the customer's premise. No impact upon the neighborhood. Individual fiber strands run from ports in the electronics located at the CO directly to the customer's home powered ONI. If the customer wants a different provider, the end of his fiber is just unplugged from one port of one carrier's box located at the CO and inserted into another carrier's box. Sounds too good to be true . . . but eventually we'll get there. | |
| |  SMCinAZPremium
join:2000-11-29
Glendale, AZ | They are sharing RT's with other ISP's. Mine is AOL DSL, and it runs through a RT. | |
| | | | CLEC's are not being able to co-locate in the remote switches as far as I heard (they should), but the ILEC (Pacific Bell) is required to make basic transport services (DSL transport) available to any enhanced service provider when it is offering an enhanced service through one of its affiliated enhanced service providers (PBI and prodigy).
What this means is that any ISP is entitled to interconnect with the DSLAMS installed in the remote switches. And therefore, consumers are entitled to choose an independent ISP even if they connect to a remote switch.
Whatever measures the ILEC is taking to make sure it doesn't happen is just one more example of it's efforts to kill the spirit of the Telecommunications Act. (Any company should be entitled to compete in communications, ILECs can only offer enhanced services or long distance if they share their network with competition, CONSUMERS SHOULD HAVE A CHOICE) | |
|
| | Official CISPA Filing with CPUC If anyone would like to review the actual text of the filing with the CPUC, you're more than welcome to from the CISPA website:
The actual document:
»www.cispa.org/244549.DOC
News as it happens:
»www.cispa.org/news.html
-David Diskin
| |
| | jdir
join:2001-05-04
Santa Clara, CA | Re: Official CISPA Filing with CPUC
To display high quality MPEG-2 video over broadband, I need more than 1500 kbps to stream video effectively. | |
| | |  Bobo$Silvio DanteMod 2001-02
join:2000-08-30
Holland, MI | Re: Official CISPA Filing with CPUC said by jdir:
To display high quality MPEG-2 video over broadband, I need more than 1500 kbps to stream video effectively.
Not true. You might need more than 1500 to stream over the public IP/Internet from a remote server. But you would not need more than 1500 to stream local content...the Akamai model...which is what I believe SBC means by offering bundled services. It's an ambitious move, but one that they have apparently deemed necessary in order to make the serious cash.
Think of it this way: why don't the ILEC's seem to care about the speed of DSL deployment? Why in many cases have they even been caught stonewalling/dragging their feet? ...they're waiting for something...
To be more precise, the answer is that "internet access" is not really the product that SBC wants to sell when they sell DSL. They want to sell "gatekeeper content over DSL" -- that, I believe is the product line SBC is waiting to deliver.
Now, I don't know if they're right (that the content model will make way more money than the access model), but it would appear from their releases and recent activities that this is the prevailing philosophy in the board and conference rooms over there at SBC. Perhaps they are overly concerned with Time Warner/AOL not because they are a cable modem company, but because they are a potentially deadly competitor when it comes time to offer content delivery via broadband subscriptions.
And, btw, don't be confused by their extensive rhetoric against cable modems: SBC doesn't give a crap whether cable modem subscriptions (for internet access) outstrip ILEC DSL subscriptions (for internet access). What they're really worried about is that once they begin to roll out their high content services (Akamai style), cable will have rolled out their own content delivery (broadcast, video on demand, voice/video conference) service system.
What's killing them is that they know how people's minds work (in general): if millions of people already have cable modems, then those people are a million times more likely to buy subscription gatekeeper content services from their cable provider, rather than go through a horror story switching to DSL and THEN subscribing to SBC's broadband content services.
So SBC truly cares about losing market share to cable modems now, but only because of potential lost revenue and customers for the services they're planning to offer down the road.
--
First rule of fiber optics: you do not talk about fiber optics | |
|
| | | David:
Thanks for the information.
Can I also mention that individuals contacting the California PUC is not a bad idea either. Hal Plotkin at the SF Chronicle wrote an article about this topic. For more background and what to put in a note go to....
»www.sfgate.com/technology/beat/
To contact the CPUC email them at
consumer-affairs@cpuc.ca.gov
If we don't take a stand the SBC/PacBell behemoth will just run right over us.
"Evil thrives when good men stand by and do nothing." | |
|
| | PacBell can go to %$##! | |
| |
See 15 replies to this post | |
 inciterNoobiePremium
join:2000-08-30
Rohnert Park, CA
| Just Wonderful! Woderful! Whats next SBC goes belly up?
All these users trying to get DSL that live in the sticks and can"t are going to reck it for the rest of us.
No competition at all?????? Well if competition means instead of 39 a month with PACBELL vs 50 or 60 with other small 5 person companies I'll take Pacbell anyday. Remember competition is going to be in it for one thing setup a company make a crap load of money then sell it to a big company that in the end will screw you just as well. The old ISP"s did this trade thing and the stock holders don't care about customer service they just want to quick cash and out they go. Ah yes the golden parachute is waiting
Does anyone really think that small companies are going to stay around? Just look at basic modem ISP's 90% of them are gone now.And I never hear any big shadoos about AOLTIMEWANERABCTIME being to big.
Live in the Sticks? No Water just wells, No cable just satellite no trash pickup bring it yourself. on and on and on. Play with sheep and leave SBC alone.
Just wonderful.
Have had Pabell for a year and a half now. Have NEVER needed to call I get full access speed 1500/128 39 a month Top it or leave Pacbell alone...........
[text was edited by author 2001-08-13 20:07:51] | |
| | | | Re: Just Wonderful! I gather you're trolling, but others may benefit from a short response.
$39 became $49 which will become => $??
When does your contract run out?
PacBell's price = "What market will bear" - "What it takes to kill competition"
When there is no competition, guess what kind of prices you'll be paying? | |
| | | | Sticks? Yahoo is 2.5 miles to the left of my front door!
Adobe is 1.5 miles to the right of my front door!
I live right in the heart of San Jose California.
PacBell have DSl in my hood? NOPE!!!!! I have called PacBell every week for 3 years giving them shit for not covering my area.
Alot of the areas on their pronto map show areas of the city they plan to never offer DSL EVER!!! Yet other areas show coverage now and those areas include public parks? PacBell doesn't have to install DSL for customers. NOWHERE is it stated in the laws that they are required. It is not a "basic service". This was written to me from my complanits to the PUC & the city council. | |
|
 mags2Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal | Bend over and spread 'em wide.... | |
| | | Did you guys use to work for Covad? Because I can't believe people take this news so seriously. | |
| | | | Re: Did you guys use to work for Covad? said by stainedblue:
Because I can't believe people take this news so seriously.
Then you obviously have never had to deal with the problems that this situation has created. Not just in California, but anywhere that SBC has control of the market.
--
There are 293 ways to make change for a dollar | |
|
 HpowerRoflmao
join:2000-06-08
Glendale, CA |  I don't know what to say...
I see only pacbell for many users.....
Nothing much we can do but to stick with what works. Complaining won't work, and nore will helping. | |
| | jdir
join:2001-05-04
Santa Clara, CA | Re: I don't know what to say...
700kbps on DSL or 3Mbits on cable - which would you pick? | |
| | |  arielnet
join:2001-01-29
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA | Re: I don't know what to say... This assumes you have a choice. Unfortunately, most businesses don't. The cable companies cater to home users. SBC has wiped out the business competition, so there is no choice for them. | |
|
ossito
join:2001-08-08
Harvey, IL | illinois is just as bad as california The metropolitan Chicago area is a large but broadband access is crap here as well. The main city has cable competition from several companies.(i.e. RCN)which is very limited. Plus there is Sprint Broadband on Sears Tower. Live within 15 miles and your can get flying broadband 2-3mpbs for 40 bucks a month. Now I have no DSL, Cable, or wireless. Dialup is 26.4 kbps. I hope those guys in CISP get what they need and hopefully Illinois ISP associations follows suit. | |
| | | So when are SBC and Verizon Merging? Someone please check me on this but isn't the entire nation now more or less controled by 2 mabey 3 ILEC's? I thought Ma Bell got broken up? | |
| | | | Re: So when are SBC and Verizon Merging? said by Linuvas:
Someone please check me on this but isn't the entire nation now more or less controled by 2 mabey 3 ILEC's? I thought Ma Bell got broken up?
Actually its 4- SBC, Verizon, Bell South and Qwest. That doesn't count the small town companies like Century Tel, etc.
The territories were drawn out by regulators- preventing local competition until 1996. It's only been 5 years. Long distance competition has had 17 years to develop now.
Give it a chance, things will BLOW WIDE OPEN sooner or later.
Boogie74 | |
| | | | | Re: So when are SBC and Verizon Merging? So how long untill Verizon swallows Bell South they have small areas all through it that they control. | |
|
| | | ..In the end, it will simply be FerIvan, the new Pa Bell.
--
==
..if we only had a choice.. | |
| | | | | Re: So when are SBC and Verizon Merging? said by jimboe:
..In the end, it will simply be FerIvan, the new Pa Bell.
Never heard of them. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
