Search similar:
|
|
uniqs
1139 |
|
 |
|
| |
Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair...$30 per month for DSL provisioning is unfair because the ISP must add another $30 to make money??? These are ISP's that provision thru ASI, hence they aren't installing or maintaining any network elements at all. Why is it that the ISP can make money on $21.95 or $19.95 when it is dial-up, but they can't make any money with the same price with DSL?? Adding $19.95 to $30 (for line provisioning) comes to $49.95.
It seems to me that the ISP's are complaining that RBOC's have more money than they do, so they are acting anti-competitively by not GIVING the ISP's money to survive an economic downturn. Here's an idea... If you can't afford to go into business offering a product, you shouldn't try to do it.
I would LOVE to open up a Denny's downtown in my city. I have NO way of affording this, and if I took all my life's savings to open one, Perkin's KNOWS I would have to charge at least $7 for a Grand Slam Breakfast. All they have to do is act as a monopoly would and keep their Trememdous Twelve meal at $5.50- cuz they would outprice me and still make money... AND, they are selling more of their much more expensive Steak and Eggs- which I could NEVER afford to sell- I am just a food service beginner- a Mom and Pop if you will. I have heard their servers recommending Steak and Eggs OVER Tremendous Twelve to keep me out of business... I will have to go bankrupt. I can't compete. I am going to complain to the media!
Come on people... being a large enough company to not go bankrupt in a bad economy (AND to know the timing as to when to invest and when not to- and neither Qwest nor SBC are staying out of DSL- they are both deploying at neck breaking speeds) does not make you a monopoly because the smaller companies that might like to compete with you can't afford to keep up.
I will say that statistically it is going to happen that AT LEAST ONE technician is incompetent, at least one order gets lost, etc... Technicians have no way of deciding not to do an order because of the ISP chosen- Technicians don't know who the ISP is. Technicians go out to crossboxes, they connect cables and pairs, they change binding posts. They have nothing to do with the ISP that ASI is connecting a customer to for DSL. I find it amazing that this article suggests that tech's are abandoning orders in an effort to hurt other ISP's.
Just how many ISP's are complaining that tech's are holding off on orders because they heard a customer is going to use another dial-up company?
This sounds like alot of finger pointing to me, IMHO.
boogie74 | | | |
You're missing the point completely, and you better read the article again. said by boogie74:
$30 per month for DSL provisioning is unfair because the ISP must add another $30 to make money??? These are ISP's that provision thru ASI, hence they aren't installing or maintaining any network elements at all. Why is it that the ISP can make money on $21.95 or $19.95 when it is dial-up, but they can't make any money with the same price with DSL?? Adding $19.95 to $30 (for line provisioning) comes to $49.95.
Easy, on a dialup, the ISP doesn't need the Bells to do any line reselling, all they need is some modem banks and to pay for multiple phone lines or a T1. The problem in the DSL is that the Bells are charging the ISP's a lot more for line provisioning that they charge to their own ISP unit. Add to that the fact that on a line share circuit there is barely any increased cost for them but they charge high fees for this lines to competing ISP's and it becomes a problem. said by boogie74:
It seems to me that the ISP's are complaining that RBOC's have more money than they do, so they are acting anti-competitively by not GIVING the ISP's money to survive an economic downturn. Here's an idea... If you can't afford to go into business offering a product, you shouldn't try to do it.
If you READ you'll see they are complaining about the excessive fees they charge to ISP reselling their lines. Add to that the recent reports on how SBC, for example, is also trying to force these competing ISP to sign a new agreement where SBC also can provide $premium$ services on these competitor lines. So not only the competing ISP pays more on fees, but also the Bell gets to use the BANDWIDTH this ISP is paying for to offer $premium$ services with the ISP receiving nothing in return to allow this. said by boogie74:
I would LOVE to open up a Denny's downtown in my city. I have NO way of affording this, and if I took all my life's savings to open one, Perkin's KNOWS I would have to charge at least $7 for a Grand Slam Breakfast. All they have to do is act as a monopoly would and keep their Trememdous Twelve meal at $5.50- cuz they would outprice me and still make money... AND, they are selling more of their much more expensive Steak and Eggs- which I could NEVER afford to sell- I am just a food service beginner- a Mom and Pop if you will. I have heard their servers recommending Steak and Eggs OVER Tremendous Twelve to keep me out of business... I will have to go bankrupt. I can't compete. I am going to complain to the media!
Uh, bad analogy and it has nothing to do with the article. First of all, last I check Perkins is hardly a Monopoly, unlike the Bells. Second, you're not using Perkins kitchen nor are you reselling their food, which would have been a better way to put it. It did make for a good laugh. said by boogie74:
Come on people... being a large enough company to not go bankrupt in a bad economy (AND to know the timing as to when to invest and when not to- and neither Qwest nor SBC are staying out of DSL- they are both deploying at neck breaking speeds) does not make you a monopoly because the smaller companies that might like to compete with you can't afford to keep up.
The Bells ARE monopolies, even before this all started, what are you talking about? said by boogie74:
I will say that statistically it is going to happen that AT LEAST ONE technician is incompetent, at least one order gets lost, etc... Technicians have no way of deciding not to do an order because of the ISP chosen- Technicians don't know who the ISP is. Technicians go out to crossboxes, they connect cables and pairs, they change binding posts. They have nothing to do with the ISP that ASI is connecting a customer to for DSL. I find it amazing that this article suggests that tech's are abandoning orders in an effort to hurt other ISP's.
Wrong, the order info makes it easy to know if it is from a competing ISP or not. And what the article says about how some Bell techs do without installing lines for competitors is just a few examples. You say you find what the article suggest amazing? I guess you've never ordered a dsl line from a Bell competitor. said by boogie74:
Just how many ISP's are complaining that tech's are holding off on orders because they heard a customer is going to use another dial-up company?
This sounds like alot of finger pointing to me, IMHO.
Do you know how dial-up works? | |  onsitedeHot Hot Hot
join:2000-11-24
Simsbury, CT |
to boogie74
NO Way.
Here is a better analogy.
You want to open a grocery store in you town, The only place that will let you buy supplies for your little mom and pop grocery is the local super food store across the street, and you have to pay their prices. Which means that you are forced to charge more for the same products. Oh, did I mention that the local super food store gets to put their value added gas station on your property free of charge. | | | |
abccccccccc to jhboricua
Anon
2001-Aug-9 12:26 pm
to jhboricua
You both have valid points. But I can tell you that ASI techs don't care who the isp is they just want to do the orders. You are a fool to think that ANYONE at a tech level cares who the isp is. Get real. | | | | |
to onsitede
You can also add that the large grocery story makes you wait 2-3 days just to get the same products that their normal customers can have on the spot. Even though you are paying through the nose for them. Plus, they give you the spoiled produce and then force you to buy more. People we need to socialize the entire telecom and cable industry. Monopolies have no accountability or credibility. | | | |
to abccccccccc
ASI is a unit of the ILEC that provisions reselled DSL lines, I don't think they do the actual loop delivery. The actual loop delivery is made by the ILEC and as it is well known, the number of loops from ILEC competitors that fail their delivery date is VERY high. And I've seen business orders that were not delivered with a customer no-show as a reason countless times, when the install attempt took place during business hours. Try and convince me or the end user that the ILEC tech didn't care that this was a competitor loop. Get real. | |
|
to abccccccccc
Any experience in that area my friend? I run an ISP supplying Covad service. When I ordered a line for my own house, the installer came out and after about 1.5 minutes said, "You'll need to get trenching done." and tried to leave. When I protested, he said that if I had ordered Pac Bell DSL, they would have figured out all the engineering ahead of time! I never told him who the order was through...
I eventually figured out what needed to be done (without $$$ trenching) and got service, but if I were not an employee, the suggestion to go to Pac Bell DSL would have been a very powerful one.
[text was edited by author 2001-08-09 13:22:59] | | abhandari
|
to boogie74
The amount necessary to make a profit might vary, but consider that the line charge is not the only cost of providing a DSL line. ISPs also pay a large fee for the line which backhauls the data traffic to their offices (probably between $4,000-$10,000/month). [post edit: I forgot to mention the "per central office fee" for the privledge of being able to offer services from each CO. And did I mention that if you exceed the CO limit, you need a new backhaul?] These lines don't have an unlimited capacity, so more than one might be required. Now add in the cost of bandwidth for carrying the data to the Internet. Now support costs, equipment costs, marketing costs. It adds up.
I'm not saying that $30 is what it comes out to. Personally, I'll compete with the phone company any day at a level that is profitable for them. Of course, I mean their "ISP entity", not their telco side. The ILECs make their money and their goals by moving the profit to the line side where they have no competition. My low overhead, small organization can out-profit any telco on an even playing field. They need 10 people just to man a copy machine. (OK, exaggeration).
As others have mentioned, your analogy is seriously flawed. Another person used a grocery store analogy which was close, but rather than that superstore opening a gas station on your property, it's actually more like all of the high-margin impulse items at the counter have been usurped by the superstore and they will be taking all of the space on those racks and setting up a register right next to yours so that your customers can "benefit" from the added services that you would have provided anyway.
We are not asking the ILECs to give us money. We do, however, expect that they should obey the law. You DID know that it's the law, didn't you?
[text was edited by author 2001-08-09 17:12:45] | | xrobertcmx
Premium Member
join:2001-06-18
White Plains, MD |
to boogie74
Now Boogie, here is some info for you to ponder, ok.
I worked for a little know CLEC a little while back called Teligent. I did order entry/tracking. The number of times I got sucked into a conferance call because we had infrastructer in place to handle the service but no phone number was astounding.
Ameritech, SBC, Pacific Bell, Cinci Bell, Verizon, Quest you name it. Ameritech was the worst.
You place an order wait two weeks no phone number ported, they hadn't let go. We would have the Radio up, everything in place, and it would all be costing us money sitting there waiting on the ILEC to port out the number. I had orders go a month when it shouldn't have gone past two weeks at the outside. 1 ANI orders that took months, the customers would just say oh did we order from you?
Don't ask me how they decided what orders to hold and which not to, but they DID! It was to frequent to be coincidence.
In business terms we had overhead but no revenue and the ILEC's loved it.
So aside from management that couldn't get dressed on there own in the morning that is why Teligent went bankrupt. | |  dru
join:2000-09-14
Ogden, UT |
to boogie74
said by boogie74:
$30 per month for DSL provisioning is unfair because the ISP must add another $30 to make money??? boogie74
Your entire argument is out the window due to the following fact. ASI sells DSL for $39 per month. While my company has a SIGNED CONTRACT stipulating $35 per month, all lines we have provisioned get billed at $39, including those recently provisioned, months after the contract was signed. Meanwhile, Pac Bell Internet has and continues to offer service at $39.95, just 95 cents for bandwidth, support, services, etc, which no ISP can hope to compete with, and they even toss in free or discounted equipment and eat the installation costs. While the general price was recently raised, you can still get the $39.95 deal by signing up for certain other services on the POTS line provided by the ILEC, which of course ISPs can't offer or participate in. I defy you to justify or argue that PBI, ASI, or SBC is NOT taking money overcharged to ISPs and independents, and subsidizing their internet division and undercutting their own customers. This is the same old dumping / dominate the market routine practiced by Wal-Mart and other companies; nothing new here. They are overcharging the wholesale rate, undercutting any valid competition at the retail level, then when all the competition is either out of business or otherwise frustrated out of the DSL market, they control the market and raise prices. Any time there is little or no competition, they can and will raise their prices. Just look what happened to your cable bills in the late 1980's to mid 1990's. | | | |
Pac Bell sells DSL for $49, not $39...
Also, tech's don't have a clue who the ISP is. They don't have a clue what the content is. They don't care about anything but getting their orders done for the day. If a tech pulls a "no access" on a business for a DSL order, then they are doing it on all orders, RBOC or CLEC alike.
This whole thing is wrong anyways- none of you are realizing that it isn't about ISP RESELLERS! It is all about ISP's that use ASI to provision the DSL to begin with. ISP resellers pay what the loop costs, not $39 per month for the loop. On average resellers pay between $12 and $20 for the local loop.
Read the article people. Learn what you are talking about...
boogie74
boogie74 | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Zoom 5341J
|
to boogie74
Yeah, except when the ISP and DSL is bundled the ISP's pay more like $39 per month to the ILEC for the line, and with the ILEC's DSL and Cable offerings varying between $39.95-$49.95 a month on average, there just isn't a lot of "room" there for the ISP to make *any* money. $19.95 for dial-up was close to break-even, just a little bit of profit, and it's based on the quantity over quality (little margin, but lots of customers). The DSL is different, a lot more bandwidth is needed for far fewer customers, and people are expecting the ISP to be able to survive charging $4-$14 a month tops?
Not likely.
The ILEC is getting too big a whack of the total. | | | KrK |
to boogie74
THEY PAY $39.
Why you in such a big hurry to defend SBC's practices, I have no idea.... Except maybe you're thankful someone came in and took over Ameriwreck, I see you're up in their territory, maybe you feel grateful to SBC for saving you... | | | |
to KrK
Then the ISP should buy or provision their own network elements... right now, the ISP is charging for dial-up when the ILEC is provisioning the line...
For consumers, this means that the ISP is raking in the cash cow and the ILEC is losing money on an empty POTS, as consumer POTS costs more to provision than pulls in for revenue. Do you honestly believe that an ISP should be GIVEN the line for free to sell DSL service at a HUGE profit of $40-50 per line?
The line isn't free to keep going... Techs aren't volunteers... there HAS to be a better answer.... I suggest that they allow RBOC's to even the field between consumer and business lines... in other words, stop overcharging business accounts to subsidize consumer accounts. This would increase consumer competition, as there would then be money in it. RBOC's would then charge $70-80 or $100 for DSL instead of $40-50, still provision local loops and ATM network access to the ISP's for $40-50, and the ISP's could make the profit that they want by charging $70-100 for DSL to compete with the RBOC's... EVERYONE HAPPY!
Except, the consumer world would then be shocked to realize how cheap they've had it for the last 60 years or so because they've been paying less than cost for a POTS line.
boogie74 | | | boogie74 |
to xrobertcmx
said by Linuvas:
Now Boogie, here is some info for you to ponder, ok.
I worked for a little know CLEC a little while back called Teligent. I did order entry/tracking. The number of times I got sucked into a conferance call because we had infrastructer in place to handle the service but no phone number was astounding.
Ameritech, SBC, Pacific Bell, Cinci Bell, Verizon, Quest you name it. Ameritech was the worst.
You place an order wait two weeks no phone number ported, they hadn't let go. We would have the Radio up, everything in place, and it would all be costing us money sitting there waiting on the ILEC to port out the number. I had orders go a month when it shouldn't have gone past two weeks at the outside. 1 ANI orders that took months, the customers would just say oh did we order from you?
Don't ask me how they decided what orders to hold and which not to, but they DID! It was to frequent to be coincidence.
If you had customers that were HONESTLY interested in changing local companies, they shouldn't EVER say, "I didn't know I ordered from you". Sounds like slamming to me... LNP is a bitch.. I agree there... RBOC's aren't boy scouts... but they aren't out to kill the competition away either. They lose on average 3000 lines per day... Boogie74 | | mdurkin
join:1999-08-11
San Bruno, CA |
to boogie74
said by boogie74:
$30 per month for DSL provisioning is unfair because the ISP must add another $30 to make money??? These are ISP's that provision thru ASI, hence they aren't installing or maintaining any network elements at all. Why is it that the ISP can make money on $21.95 or $19.95 when it is dial-up, but they can't make any money with the same price with DSL?? Adding $19.95 to $30 (for line provisioning) comes to $49.95.
boogie74
I said it elsewhere in this news topic, but I'm going to say it again. The article was wrong in that that small ISP was paying at least $37/mo I'm sure, upto $39/mo. To get $30/mo lines takes 750K lines over 4 years per the pre-ASI tariff that was carried over to ASI and now has been buried in favor of BCG contracts and nothing else. So in order to compete directly with PBI's $49.95/mo price point, the ISP has to provide his ISP service for $10-12.95/mo. When he was competing against a $39.95/mo price point that PBI, he had to do it for as little as $0.95. You have to consider that the ISP needs to buy ATM backhaul--we pay $6-7K/mo for DS3 depending on how many VPs they decide to charge us for that month. And then we have to buy upstream bandwidth, and all the equipment, and spend the time to run the stuff, and remember our customer's passwords for them because they can't be bothered  . Give me a $30/mo line and I will be able to compete with PBI head on on price and kick their ass in service quality and flexibility. To the customers that go for the cheapest price and believe that PBI is Ma Bell is 'direct', wait until you see what they do to your cheap broadband once all the rest of us are out of business. | | | |
to jhboricua
said by jhboricua:
ASI is a unit of the ILEC that provisions reselled DSL lines, I don't think they do the actual loop delivery. The actual loop delivery is made by the ILEC and as it is well known, the number of loops from ILEC competitors that fail their delivery date is VERY high. And I've seen business orders that were not delivered with a customer no-show as a reason countless times, when the install attempt took place during business hours. Try and convince me or the end user that the ILEC tech didn't care that this was a competitor loop. Get real.
The ISP's in question AREN'T reselling the local loops. They are only selling internet access using ASI as the DSL provider. Techs aren't losing orders to hurt them. Techs don't have a clue who the ISP is going to be. They only go out to cross boxes, install NID's, test lines and change pairs to different binding posts (amongst other maintainence issues like troubleshooting and the like). They don't have any way of knowing who is collecting the check at the end of the month. These details aren't included in orders. boogie74 | | boogie74
|
to abhandari
said by abhandari:
Any experience in that area my friend? I run an ISP supplying Covad service. When I ordered a line for my own house, the installer came out and after about 1.5 minutes said, "You'll need to get trenching done." and tried to leave. When I protested, he said that if I had ordered Pac Bell DSL, they would have figured out all the engineering ahead of time! I never told him who the order was through...
I eventually figured out what needed to be done (without $$$ trenching) and got service, but if I were not an employee, the suggestion to go to Pac Bell DSL would have been a very powerful one.
[text was edited by author 2001-08-09 13:22:59]
This isn't the scenerio that the article is talking about- it is referring to ISP's that use ASI for the DSL service itself. Your scenerio used Covad. I am not condoning the tech's behavior- there are many that aren't doing their jobs at all. But it isn't as a result of corporate conspiracy and orders to be difficult... FCC and PUC compliance is a BIG ISSUE on the corporate and even lower management levels. The larger the number of employees, the larger the chance that some are going to go against the flow and hurt business. boogie74 | | | |
to jhboricua
All things in moderationquote:
ASI is a unit of the ILEC that provisions reselled DSL lines, I don't think they do the actual loop delivery.
This is correct for SBC, as well as Verizon (The FCC mandated that they create a CLEC that runs their fast packet services. i.e. Frame Relay, ATM, DSL, etc.) The reason for this is/was to put the Bell's in the same position as other CLEC's. They have to order, open trouble tickets, resolve billing, etc. the same way (thru ASI) as everyone else does. ASI is not allowed to give preferential treatment to any company. And they will go out of their way to insure this. quote:
...as it is well known, the number of loops from ILEC competitors that fail their delivery date is VERY high. And I've seen business orders that were not delivered with a customer no-show as a reason countless times, when the install attempt took place during business hours.
This is a blanket statement and very vague. I know in my state our ILEC beats all benchmarks for provisioning, meantime to repair, etc. You need to back up your statements with facts not the sales you lost because you promised your customer something you couldnt. quote:
Try and convince me or the end user that the ILEC tech didn't care that this was a competitor loop.
These CLEC's that were created do not give a rat's ass if the line is Covads, the Bell's, or Denny's (I couldn't resist!), they have company directives to get the job done and to get it done right. boogie74 is correct in saying that, Technicians go out to crossboxes, they connect cables and pairs.What you need to understand is that these companies were literally thrown into the fire. The companies were created in one day. It must have sucked! "Uh, here you go, welcome to the Bandwidth Business. Here are our 300,000 existing customers and, oh yeah, here's 15,000 orders for today, and uh..don't forget to bill them, and uh
dont forget these ATM and Frame Relay orders, and uh..we know you don't have any processes in place, but where should we send tomorrow's orders? and uh..."This came from every agent, every ISP, every reseller, the Bell, the waitress at Dennys, everyone. This was a huge task and if you ask me, they've done a pretty damn good Job creating it from dust. -jinx PS If you're going to be the moderator, try not to be so damn biased. | | | highjinx |
to KrK
Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair...quote:
The DSL is different, a lot more bandwidth is needed for far fewer customers
You need to figure it out kid! Go read a book and learn something before you shoot your mouth off. You got this all backwards. -jinx | | | highjinx |
to mdurkin
quote:
You have to consider that the ISP needs to buy ATM backhaul--we pay $6-7K/mo for DS3 depending on how many VPs they decide to charge us for that month. And then we have to buy upstream bandwidth, and all the equipment, and spend the time to run the stuff, and remember our customer's passwords for them because they can't be bothered
Sounds like running a business? What a bother! So how many VP's can you have on your DS3? -jinx | | mdurkin
join:1999-08-11
San Bruno, CA |
said by highjinx:
quote:
You have to consider that the ISP needs to buy ATM backhaul--we pay $6-7K/mo for DS3 depending on how many VPs they decide to charge us for that month. And then we have to buy upstream bandwidth, and all the equipment, and spend the time to run the stuff, and remember our customer's passwords for them because they can't be bothered
Sounds like running a business? What a bother! So how many VP's can you have on your DS3?
-jinx
Another SBC apologist eh? I have no problem paying for my DS3. I have a problem being forced to do my side of the service, including paying SBC for my ATM connection, by working with half the margin that SBCIS/PBI have to do the same thing if I want to compete with them because of a sweetheart deal on DSL circuit pricing between sister companies that has no justification besides SBC wanting to abuse their position in the market instead of playing fair. SBCIS/PBI is supposed to be arms length, and they aren't treated that way. That's not legal under the telecom act nor under state law for non-discrimination by LECs doing business in the state. What do you think you're getting at with VP count anyway? I could have up to 256 VPs on my circuit if I pay for them, and I shouldn't have to have that many. That's another story with the provisioning model. They used that quite well during the DSLAM port shortages last year to allow PBI to get their orders done faster than my customers. Waiting two weeks for a new VP after the DSLAM went in service with reps contradicting each other as to whether the VP was preordered and then PBI filling the DSLAM with their customers before I can even get my VP up | | | |
to boogie74
Actually the point of my little story was to illustrate that the tech's service order DOES contain the level of detail you claim it doesn't.
I can understand employees pushing their own company. But you have to agree that given the consequences, the ILECs should be training their installers not to do it. Of course, if all they have to pay is $1.5 million once every year or so, it actually makes business sense not too bother. They can make many times that in one month with the customers they gain in that same period. | | | |
to jhboricua
quote:
Uh, bad analogy and it has nothing to do with the article. First of all, last I check Perkins is hardly a Monopoly, unlike the Bells. Second, you're not using Perkins kitchen nor are you reselling their food, which would have been a better way to put it.
These ISP's aren't required to use ASI for the DSL provisioning. The Bells are NOT monopolies at all- last I checked, competition is pulling over 100,000 lines away from each Bell each month- that's 3,000 lines lost per day, per Bell. I would venture further to say that Perkins and Denny's have a damn good shot (especially in the same city) of vendoring their eggs, veggies, bread, coffee, etc from the same providers. The article more exactly describes me complaining that the vendor I get my eggs from is always late and I have heard that Perkin's has the guy showing up on time. I also have heard that Perkin's is getting a much cheaper price on their eggs than I am, got a better interest rate on their loan even though we use the same bank and they have a much bigger presence in the city, giving them an unfair marketing advantage. They have more money to advertise than I do. I have heard that the same TV stations give them better advertising time than has been offered to me. ETC ETC ETC. This is all finger pointing and assumtive complaining. Using blanket statements like "It's well known that Bell's lose orders" or "Duh, Bell's are monopolies..." to support the idea that Bells are monopolies is unrealistic. You can't state "Bell's are monopolies because, well... Duh... they are monopolies.. that's why..." It doesn't make sense. boogie74 | | | boogie74 |
to dru
quote:
I defy you to justify or argue that PBI, ASI, or SBC is NOT taking money overcharged to ISPs and independents, and subsidizing their internet division and undercutting their own customers.
If you are going to accuse a company of doing so, it is up to YOU to PROVE that it IS happening. You can't logically assume that they are doing this because no one has proved they aren't. It reminds me of the racist that says, "Black men have breasts- I've never seen a black man before, but I defy you to prove that they don't- therefore they must" Use logic based on facts, not what you can't prove isn't happening to justify what must be happening. boogie74 | | | |
to xrobertcmx
And how long did it take Teligent to port numbers back?
Try six to eight weeks.
-jinx | | | highjinx |
to mdurkin
quote:
I have no problem paying for my DS3. I have a problem being forced to do my side of the service, including paying SBC for my ATM connection
And just how do you propose pointing those DSL connections to your DS3? You think it's fair that your plugged into the ATM switches, using ASI facilities (which they are providing services), and you don't want to pay? I don't get you. quote:
by working with half the margin that SBCIS/PBI have to do the same thing if I want to compete with them because of a sweetheart deal on DSL circuit pricing between sister companies
What sweet-heart deal is this? Please share with all of us. Provide some documentation. Tell me what SBCIS/PBI does. | | xrobertcmx
Premium Member
join:2001-06-18
White Plains, MD |
to boogie74
said by boogie74:
said by . Sounds like slamming to me...
No, not slamming just took months sometimes to get a line ported. I doubt they ever actully said that was more like calling daily until they decided to stay put. But I will never believe that the ILEC's, Ameritech in particular weren't holding the lines. We would port out in days to whoever took our lines, I was working Disco's at the end, why couldn't they? | | | |
said by Linuvas:
No, not slamming just took months sometimes to get a line ported. I doubt they ever actully said that was more like calling daily until they decided to stay put. But I will never believe that the ILEC's, Ameritech in particular weren't holding the lines. We would port out in days to whoever took our lines, I was working Disco's at the end, why couldn't they?
As I have said in the past, RBOC's aren't necessarily boyscouts, and there are employees that do anti-competitive things. There are employees of CLEC's that are just as anti-competitive... I can say that this is not because of a directive from the company, just that the employees are unethical. I consistently see ads from CLEC's that say, "Are you tired of all the little charges on your phone bill? Are you tired of telemarketers calling you to change long distance? DUMP your local company- it won't happen with US... We CARE about your service" These ads THEN actually go and itemize what all the unbundled services run rack rate for the ILEC, and then show a bundled price if you took their super duper discount package. They even go to say at the bottom that the price comparisons aren't apples to apples, because they added in things like a federal access charge on the ILEC's side and didn't do it for the CLEC's side. In other words, both sides are playing dirty- in fact, I find it odd that ILEC's are reporting 15-18% line loss to the PUC's (which is auditable) yet the CLEC's (which don't have to report these numbers) are claiming to only hold 2-3% of the lines... and they are SCREAMING that they can't compete. I don't doubt that you've seen delays in porting numbers. I don't have an answer for that. I have seen delays in resold lines being released at an address for a new service to be installed- it has gone weeks and months at a time in some cases. I am humble enough though to admit that this isn't ALWAYS the case. boogie74 | | xrobertcmx
Premium Member
join:2001-06-18
White Plains, MD |
I never said we played fair, I'm sure a few people put there priorities where the money was. But the money went Bye, bye. And so did that job. So now I happily work for a .com, wonder how long this time. | |
|
. Give me a $30/mo line and I will be able to compete with PBI head on on price and kick their ass in service quality and flexibility.