dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Group Takes Aim At Special Access Pricing
Sprint, T-Mobile others lobby Obama for caps or cuts...
by Karl Bode 03:53PM Monday Jun 22 2009
Sprint, Covad, T-Mobile, Clearwire and several other smaller carriers have joined forces with consumer advocacy firm Public Knowledge to take aim at "special access pricing." Through a new lobbying group dubbed "No Choke Points," the companies today issued a slew of statements complaining that AT&T and Verizon have abused their dominant position as gatekeepers of massive backhaul and core networks, imposing unreasonable special access charges on smaller operators requiring cross connectivity. Says the group:
quote:
Excessive pricing and other market abuses by these companies have long been an issue of concern at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Nearly five years ago, after many complaints by broadband customers in several FCC proceedings, the Commission began a review of the high-capacity broadband market to determine the changes needed to ensure reasonable prices. Despite ample evidence of excessive pricing, the Commission inexplicably has yet to take any action."
Click for full size
This debate is certainly not new, heated up recently since smaller operators are hoping to include special access reform (special access price cuts or caps) in the new broadband stimulus plan. The group claims that 87% of customers live in areas where special access pricing isn't regulated, giving Verizon and AT&T unchecked power amidst limited to no competition.

Repeating a trend at the recent FCC, the GAO has issued studies (pdf) over the years highlighting how the FCC doesn't correctly measure competition on the special access front.

As is usually the case in the lobbying wars, the telecom truth is in the eye of the beholder. AT&T and Verizon have consistently argued the special access market is "highly competitive," and that regulating the sector would impede progress and investment. AT&T takes particular aim at Sprint and their Nextel headache, telling the Wall Street Journal Sprint's efforts are "a cynical attempt to obtain government-mandated reductions in order to alleviate short-term financial and business pressures."

view:
topics flat nest 

ninjatutle
Premium

join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA

In other words

We're just about broke

tad2020

join:2007-07-17
Orange, CA

AT&T T1s

AT&T charges about 5 times as more for a T1 than Covad (unless you give them a price quote from Covad or another ISP and threaten to take all your services else where). Covad has an SLA, AT&T doesn't for what I can tell. When I've had an AT&T T1 go out, it has always taken them at least a week to get it repaired; friends of mine have Covad or other ISPs, they tell me that when their's go out, which is very rare, its fixed within a couple of days. :C

kapil
The Kapil

join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL

1 edit

Re: AT&T T1s

Covad T1s have a 4 hour TTR SLA.

And AT&T circuits also have a SLA...but you have to make sure you ask for it to be included in your agreement.

AT&T does charge more...mostly because they don't really want small business customers...they go after big enterprise and government accounts....and if a small business wants their service, they'll do it, but they will charge a large business price.
--
»www.Digium.com

tad2020

join:2007-07-17
Orange, CA

Re: AT&T T1s

We were ordering our PRI from AT&T because of previous issues with our previous CLEC provider. We figured we'd get our internet T1 from them as well, the initial price was over $1000/m without the local loop, but after showing them quotes I got from several CLECs the price dropped to under $400/m with local loop for the same service.
The install was a nightmare, 90+ days overdue for the start of the install, faulty "new" Cisco router, faulty CSU/DSU in replacement router. The line didn't become functional till about 160 days after the order was placed.
Since then I've had several cases where routes on AT&T's internal network were dysfunctional, sometimes for over a month. Latest one was kinda major, SBC-SoCal DSL (lsanca.sbcglobal.net) to AT&T BizSrvs San Diego (sd2ca.ip.att.net) was dead from about mid-late May till about a 2 weeks ago.

David
I start new work on
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:101

Re: AT&T T1s

hey tad, if you are having problems getting the t-1 working drop me a note next time.

Thanks
David

tad2020

join:2007-07-17
Orange, CA

Re: AT&T T1s

Thanks I will.

Gee, could you help a service provider of mine? Their T1 has been out since Thursday, and as of this morning, they still didn't have an ETA on the repair from what I heard.

David
I start new work on
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:101

Re: AT&T T1s

I think I can... E-mail or PM me the info.

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
I bet billing didn't waste any time sending you your first bill.

tad2020

join:2007-07-17
Orange, CA

Re: AT&T T1s

Nope since the other services on that order were only 30 and 60+ days late.

toddbs98

join:2000-07-08
North Little Rock, AR

Pass it on

I am sure Sprint, T-mobile, Covad, etc will pass on the savings to customers like they pass on any fees to the customers...right?
--
Patriots always speak of dying for their country never killing for it. Bertrand Russell
SuperWISP

join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

3 edits

"Special" access isn't

Let's take a step back and understand what's really going on here.

The first thing folks need to understand about this issue is that there's nothing "special" about "special access." It consists of the ordinary wholesale connections, often called the "middle mile," which connect cell phone towers to the telephone system and ISPs to the Internet backbone.

The second thing you need to understand is that overcharging for "special access," if it's allowed to continue, will lead to a cellular duopoly in many parts of the country or maybe even the whole country. Why? Because AT&T and Verizon, the two large telephone monopolies, are also cellular providers. When they do business in each other's territories, each overcharges the other for the "special access" lines which are necessary to hook their towers up to the phone system. But since they do this about equally to one another, it's a wash. However, cellular providers which are not also ILECs (telephone monopolies) do not have anyplace to overcharge. They have to pay the exorbitant prices everywhere. So, the two biggest providers, which are also ILECs, can very easily put the others out of business over time and achieve a nice, cozy duopoly. That's why Sprint and T-Mobile are so much in favor of doing something about the price gouging: their long term survival depends upon it.

The third observation which is interesting is that the remaining ILEC, Qwest, doesn't offer cell phone service. This is intentional. Their idea is to overcharge everyone for "special access" without having to pay any of that money back out! This is how Qwest hopes to prosper without getting into the wireless business in competition with the larger ILECs.

Finally, it's important to understand how all of this affects ISPs, including cable companies. ISPs, in nearly all locations, have to buy "special access" lines to connect themselves to the Internet backbone. But the ILECs charge incredibly high prices for it. In fact, to get Qwest to carry data 45 miles in my region costs about twice as much as an Internet backbone provider charges to take it to the rest of the world! This drives up the cost of bandwidth outside major cities. Our rural ISP's net cost of bandwidth is about $100 per Mbps month, and some ISPs we know are paying $300 to $400 per Mbps per month. Obviously, at these prices, we can't allow the use of bandwidth hogging applications without caps, metering, or simply prohibiting some of the worst applications (e.g. BitTorrent) altogether.

For all of these reasons, it's important to do something about this issue. Even if you just use a cell phone and not the Internet, you have good reason to want the government to fix this failed market.