Topic 'Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair...' in forum '' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1252789 en Wed, 23 Mar 2022 18:15:41 EDT Wed, 23 Mar 2022 18:15:41 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1274429
quote:
My point about the article was that ISP's DON'T have to go to ASI for their connections. There IS competition- there isn't a monopoly on DSL services.


quote:
WRONG. ASI isn't the only DSL provider- they aren't the only one that ISP's can go through- that means that there ARE competitors out there to offer DSL to ISP's and that MEANS THAT ASI IS NOT A MONOPOLY.

The whole point of the article we are talking about is that ISP's are complaining that ASI is acting in anti-competitive ways- NOT that SBC or Ameritech or SWBT or PacBell is the owner of the "last mile" and they think it's unfair- because regardless of that fact, if an ISP uses a CLEC for DSL services, it isn't SBC's DSLAM they would be connecting to, nor would they be using SBC's ATM networking.


quote:
ISP's using ASI for DSL connections doesn't mean they are reselling an ILEC's lines. They don't pay $30-39 for the ILEC's lines when using a CLEC. For instance, YOUR ISP uses Covad- meaning that YOUR ISP doesn't have a gripe with ASI- they don't vender their line connection thru them. This means that ASI ISN'T a monopoly, since there are other providers that are available- despite the economic downturn on several of them.


quote:
Furthermore, if an ISP wants to offer DSL, they can use another CLEC's DSL connection- for instance, the ISP that you happen to use does this- they use Covad- NOT ASI.


Now a quote from you and my response:

quote:
. You said that if the ISP's want to resell SBC/PB DSL they don't have to use ASI and that is not true.


I have never made such a claim. I pointed out that ISP's don't HAVE to sell DSL service using ASI, regardless of the "true" owner of the local loop, that they have other options. Of course if an ISP wants to sell DSL from SBC/PB they must go thru ASI. If an ISP wants to sell Covad or Rythms, then they must go thru their respective channels as well. This isn't anti-competitive, it is business. If I want a hamburger from McDonalds, I have to stand in line and pay at McDonalds. I can still go to Burger King- regardless of whether they buy beef from the same supplier.

Boogie74]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1274429 Mon, 13 Aug 2001 13:22:43 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1274343
Read your previous posts.

Boogie74

said by jhboricua:
said by boogie74:
ISP's using ASI for DSL connections doesn't mean they are reselling an ILEC's lines.
Funny, what is ASI there for then? If the ISP is going to resell SBC/PB DSL lines they have to go thru ASI, or does SBC has another DSL unit we don't know about?
said by boogie74:
They don't pay $30-39 for the ILEC's lines when using a CLEC.
Then they wouldn't be using ASI would they. And they probably end up paying around the same using a CLEC. CLEC's get their loops from the ILEC's, so if ASI, being a SBC DSL unit, charges that amount to ISP's then one has to wonder how much the ILEC's charge the CLEC's for them. Either way is much more than what they charge their own ILEC operated ISP.
said by boogie74:
This means that ASI ISN'T a monopoly, since there are other providers that are available- despite the economic downturn on several of them.
Who said ASI is a monopoly? I didn't see that in the article. Where you get that from?
said by boogie74:
ASI isn't the same thing as SBC. I think this is where you are confused. ASI is a wholly owned subsidiary of SBC, yes- but SBC must get its DSL services from ASI via the same channels as any other ISP that uses ASI.
RIGHT, it all make sense now, ASI treats SBC like any other ISP. SBC has no saying in how ASI is going to operate. Sure.

Check this article: »www.internetweek.com/new ··· 0201.htm.
Now if SBC and ASI are not the same, how can SBC force ISP's using ASI, to switch to PPPoE? Why the California ISP Association is suing both SBC and SBC/ASI because of this? I mean if ASI isn't the same as SBC, how can SBC wield this power over ASI connected ISP's? Or like it was mentioned on another article on DSLReports, How can SBC try to force ISP's reselling their lines thru ASI to let them sell premium content services to these ISP's end users, using the bandwidth these ISP's are paying for to offer these services to end users directly without these ISP's getting compensation? Explain that. Seems to me that SBC and not ASI is in command.
--
all statements made by me do not reflect the beliefs or opinions of my employer.
[text was edited by author 2001-08-13 02:22:41]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1274343 Mon, 13 Aug 2001 13:08:38 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1273953 said by boogie74:
ASI was created as per requirements from the FCC for the SBC/Ameritech merger. This requirement was envisioned to make it so that any broadband offerings that were offered were fairly available to everyone including SBC. In otherwords, ASI was created to make sure that if SBC wants to offer DSL, they would have to "resell" it just like everyone else.

Furthermore, if an ISP wants to offer DSL, they can use another CLEC's DSL connection- for instance, the ISP that you happen to use does this- they use Covad- NOT ASI.
But if they go with a CLEC they wouldn't be reselling SBC/PB DSL and this is what you keep ignoring. You said that if the ISP's want to resell SBC/PB DSL they don't have to use ASI and that is not true. So again to explain it simple since you seem mentally impaired, If the ISP wants to resell DSL it can resell PB/SBC DSL which means they'll have to use ASI or they go with a CLEC like Covad, which means they aren't reselling SBC/PB DSL lines.
said by boogie74:
quote:
Who said ASI is a monopoly? I didn't see that in the article. Where you get that from?


I believe that it was you that said this:
Yeah, where? Go and read again all my posts and find were did I say that. You're truly pathetic quoting things on me that I didn't say. How ignorant.
said by boogie74:
Now if this doesn't state that "If the ISP is going to resell SBC/PB DSL lines, then they have to go thru ASI," then I am lost.
That is exactly what I meant, you're not lost.
said by boogie74:
I would take that to mean, that if the local loop is required to be owned by SBC/PB, then they must be using ASI, hence SBC/PB must be supplying the DSLAM. Since your ISP uses Covad, that means that they AREN'T using SBC/PB's DSLAM.
I'll take it back, you're beyond lost, you have no hope. Yet another twisting of my post to favor your argument. God, your truly an idiot. Again, so your puny little mind can understand. If the ISP wants to resell SBC/PB DSL lines they have to use ASI, if the ISP goes with Covad then they wouldn't be reselling SBC/PB DSL, therefore your point that the ISP's that wants to resell SBC/PB DSL don't have to use ASI is wrong, because they do have to use them. SBC/PB owns the loop in both situations, that has nothing to do with it. What part of this don't you understand? And I still waiting on your explanation on why, if ASI is separate from SBC, can SBC force these ISP's using ASI to change the way their dsl connections are used like I mentioned on my other post, funny how you completely ignored that.

PS-I would really like you to stop quoting me on things I did not say and to stop twisting the meaning of my posts around. Don't be a fool.
--
all statements made by me do not reflect the beliefs or opinions of my employer.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1273953 Mon, 13 Aug 2001 11:40:28 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1273160 quote:
Funny, what is ASI there for then? If the ISP is going to resell SBC/PB DSL lines they have to go thru ASI, or does SBC has another DSL unit we don't know about?


ASI was created as per requirements from the FCC for the SBC/Ameritech merger. This requirement was envisioned to make it so that any broadband offerings that were offered were fairly available to everyone including SBC. In otherwords, ASI was created to make sure that if SBC wants to offer DSL, they would have to "resell" it just like everyone else.

Furthermore, if an ISP wants to offer DSL, they can use another CLEC's DSL connection- for instance, the ISP that you happen to use does this- they use Covad- NOT ASI.

quote:
Then they wouldn't be using ASI would they. And they probably end up paying around the same using a CLEC. CLEC's get their loops from the ILEC's, so if ASI, being a SBC DSL unit, charges that amount to ISP's then one has to wonder how much the ILEC's charge the CLEC's for them. Either way is much more than what they charge their own ILEC operated ISP.


That is right- they wouldn't be using ASI- they would be using Rythms or Covad or another CLEC for DSL usage. What other CLEC's charge for a DSL connection isn't up to SBC. The ILEC's charge the CLEC's between $12 and $18 for the local loop connection and this is determined by the PUC, not the ILEC. SBC charges ASI the same for the local loop as they do other CLEC's. Once again, since ASI is a totally separate subsidiary, they are treated as such. There isn't a "sweet deal" to just charge less and do more for ASI than other CLEC's.

quote:
Who said ASI is a monopoly? I didn't see that in the article. Where you get that from?


I believe that it was you that said this:

quote:
Funny, what is ASI there for then? If the ISP is going to resell SBC/PB DSL lines they have to go thru ASI, or does SBC has another DSL unit we don't know about?


Now if this doesn't state that "If the ISP is going to resell SBC/PB DSL lines, then they have to go thru ASI," then I am lost. I would take that to mean, that if the local loop is required to be owned by SBC/PB, then they must be using ASI, hence SBC/PB must be supplying the DSLAM. Since your ISP uses Covad, that means that they AREN'T using SBC/PB's DSLAM.

quote:
RIGHT, it all make sense now, ASI treats SBC like any other ISP. SBC has no saying in how ASI is going to operate. Sure.


ASI in fact goes OUT OF THEIR WAY to treat SBC like every other ISP. Look at how many complaints about SBC DSL companies having long installs. If they were favored, then SBC companies would have 2 day installs and everyone else would have 15 week installs- not the other way around.

boogie74]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1273160 Mon, 13 Aug 2001 07:40:26 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1273126 said by mdurkin:
Pacbell/SBC structured a deal that was designed so that only their own affiliated ISP could buy in. No other ISP but perhaps AOL could justify buying 750K lines. I could have bought in if I could conceivably sell that many. I can't, nor can the vast majority of other ISPs, Pacbell and SBC knew this and designed it that way. Sure, they would have honored a commitment from me too, but they knew they never had to worry about that. And they cannot justify their pricing by any economy of scale.

I am quite certain that SBCIS/PBI is the only ISP with this deal because I have logical thinking skills, a knowledge of the industry, and have spoken with a number of other industry reps including Pacbell reps about this issue. The only other ISP with a chance to have it is AOL, and while they may, the belief is that they didn't sign up with SBC/ASI for the deal before it was withdrawn in favor of the BCG for new contracts.
[text was edited by author 2001-08-13 03:19:13]


Sounds like sour grapes to me- in effect you are saying that ASI favored PacBell because they set up a volume discount that no one else has taken advantage of yet. This isn't anti-competititive, as it is available to anyone. EVERY business offers volume discounts. Just because it favors larger purchasers, doesn't mean that it is logical to conclude that it was designed to keep competition out. It in fact encourages others to strive to reach the larger purchase amounts.

Boogie74]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1273126 Mon, 13 Aug 2001 07:22:17 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1272770 said by highjinx:
Can you make sense?
To clarify, PBI signed a sweet deal with SBCIS and it was grand-fathered when ASI was created? Your company wasn't offered the same deal? How are you certain that PBI is the only ISP with this deal?

Did you sign up for this deal and the contract was canceled? Or are you mad because certain ISP's (PBI included) bought into a deal two years ago that made business sense for them but not for your company?

I'm not sure I understand your gripe.


Pacbell/SBC structured a deal that was designed so that only their own affiliated ISP could buy in. No other ISP but perhaps AOL could justify buying 750K lines. I could have bought in if I could conceivably sell that many. I can't, nor can the vast majority of other ISPs, Pacbell and SBC knew this and designed it that way. Sure, they would have honored a commitment from me too, but they knew they never had to worry about that. And they cannot justify their pricing by any economy of scale.

I am quite certain that SBCIS/PBI is the only ISP with this deal because I have logical thinking skills, a knowledge of the industry, and have spoken with a number of other industry reps including Pacbell reps about this issue. The only other ISP with a chance to have it is AOL, and while they may, the belief is that they didn't sign up with SBC/ASI for the deal before it was withdrawn in favor of the BCG for new contracts.
[text was edited by author 2001-08-13 03:19:13]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1272770 Mon, 13 Aug 2001 03:03:06 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1272674 said by boogie74:
ISP's using ASI for DSL connections doesn't mean they are reselling an ILEC's lines.
Funny, what is ASI there for then? If the ISP is going to resell SBC/PB DSL lines they have to go thru ASI, or does SBC has another DSL unit we don't know about?
said by boogie74:
They don't pay $30-39 for the ILEC's lines when using a CLEC.
Then they wouldn't be using ASI would they. And they probably end up paying around the same using a CLEC. CLEC's get their loops from the ILEC's, so if ASI, being a SBC DSL unit, charges that amount to ISP's then one has to wonder how much the ILEC's charge the CLEC's for them. Either way is much more than what they charge their own ILEC operated ISP.
said by boogie74:
This means that ASI ISN'T a monopoly, since there are other providers that are available- despite the economic downturn on several of them.
Who said ASI is a monopoly? I didn't see that in the article. Where you get that from?
said by boogie74:
ASI isn't the same thing as SBC. I think this is where you are confused. ASI is a wholly owned subsidiary of SBC, yes- but SBC must get its DSL services from ASI via the same channels as any other ISP that uses ASI.
RIGHT, it all make sense now, ASI treats SBC like any other ISP. SBC has no saying in how ASI is going to operate. Sure.

Check this article: »www.internetweek.com/new ··· 01.htm.
Now if SBC and ASI are not the same, how can SBC force ISP's using ASI, to switch to PPPoE? Why the California ISP Association is suing both SBC and SBC/ASI because of this? I mean if ASI isn't the same as SBC, how can SBC wield this power over ASI connected ISP's? Or like it was mentioned on another article on DSLReports, How can SBC try to force ISP's reselling their lines thru ASI to let them sell premium content services to these ISP's end users, using the bandwidth these ISP's are paying for to offer these services to end users directly without these ISP's getting compensation? Explain that. Seems to me that SBC and not ASI is in command.
--
all statements made by me do not reflect the beliefs or opinions of my employer.
[text was edited by author 2001-08-13 02:22:41]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1272674 Mon, 13 Aug 2001 02:19:40 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1272565 said by boogie74:
WRONG. ASI isn't the only DSL provider- they aren't the only one that ISP's can go through- that means that there ARE competitors out there to offer DSL to ISP's and that MEANS THAT ASI IS NOT A MONOPOLY.
Yet you said that the BELLS ARE NOT MONOPOLIES, NOT ASI, THE BELLS. Look at your firsts posts. Is funny you keep forgetting that. You contradict yourself more and more. Maybe next time you'll pay attention to your own posts.
said by boogie74:
The whole point of the article we are talking about is that ISP's are complaining that ASI is acting in anti-competitive ways- NOT that SBC or Ameritech or SWBT or PacBell is the owner of the "last mile" and they think it's unfair- because regardless of that fact, if an ISP uses a CLEC for DSL services, it isn't SBC's DSLAM they would be connecting to, nor would they be using SBC's ATM networking.
Really? I didn't see ASI on the headline. Let's see "Bell Companies Blamed for D.S.L.'s Woes", not ASI. Do you know how much of article was focused on ASI, maybe 3 or 4 little paragraphs. As a matter of fact, the name ASI is only mentioned ONCE in the whole damn thing just as an example. The article mentions more the BELLS names and is FOCUSED ON THE BELLS. Did you really read the article? I think not. You really need to get your stuff together before you run your mouth, eer, fingers off.
said by boogie74:

The whole point of the article is that ISP's complaining that they are paying $30 or $39 or whatever for the DSL connection thru ASI and that they claim that ASI is giving preferential treatment to PBI- NOT that they have to use the eventual "last mile" thru SBC.
If you think the WHOLE POINT of the article was on ASI then you're more ignorant that I thought or you read the wrong article. This was NOT an article ABOUT ASI. PERIOD.
said by boogie74:
Your pointing out that CLEC's aren't getting a fair shot because of having to use the "last mile" from the ILEC's has NOTHING to do with this article. It only serves to confuse people into thinking that SBC has a stranglehold on ISP's- which they don't. ISP's aren't required to use ASI for DSL service provisioning- regardless of your belief that SBC owning the "last mile" proves this myth.
You're the only one confused here it seems. Since your puny little mind still doesn't seem to understand I'll explain it really simple. YOU said that the BELLS, not ASI, THE BELLS were not monopolies. And MY post was directed to that argument of yours. Not the article, but your post indicating that the BELLS, again not ASI, the BELLS are not monopolies. If you still don't get it, then your beyond help.

But noooooo, 'I'm just trying to confuse people', how pathetic of you. My advise to you. READ THE WHOLE THING FIRST, POST LATER. I see no point in wasting more time with this. Later.
--
all statements made by me do not reflect the beliefs or opinions of my employer.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1272565 Mon, 13 Aug 2001 01:42:44 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1271455 To clarify, PBI signed a sweet deal with SBCIS and it was grand-fathered when ASI was created? Your company wasn't offered the same deal? How are you certain that PBI is the only ISP with this deal?

Did you sign up for this deal and the contract was canceled? Or are you mad because certain ISP's (PBI included) bought into a deal two years ago that made business sense for them but not for your company?

I'm not sure I understand your gripe. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1271455 Sun, 12 Aug 2001 21:18:45 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1269254 quote:
And my point is that they are a monopoly. Everyone knows that and considers them that, from customers to Government. And whether the ISP's resell ILEC's dsl lines thru a unit like ASI or goes thru a CLEC, they still have to deal with the ILEC's. There is no avoiding that.


ISP's using ASI for DSL connections doesn't mean they are reselling an ILEC's lines. They don't pay $30-39 for the ILEC's lines when using a CLEC. For instance, YOUR ISP uses Covad- meaning that YOUR ISP doesn't have a gripe with ASI- they don't vender their line connection thru them. This means that ASI ISN'T a monopoly, since there are other providers that are available- despite the economic downturn on several of them.

ASI isn't the same thing as SBC. I think this is where you are confused. ASI is a wholly owned subsidiary of SBC, yes- but SBC must get its DSL services from ASI via the same channels as any other ISP that uses ASI. The whole issue of who owns and maintains the local loop has nothing to do with it.

Boogie74]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1269254 Sun, 12 Aug 2001 13:07:10 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1269226 quote:
And my point is that they are a monopoly. Everyone knows that and considers them that, from customers to Government. And whether the ISP's resell ILEC's dsl lines thru a unit like ASI or goes thru a CLEC, they still have to deal with the ILEC's. There is no avoiding that.


WRONG. ASI isn't the only DSL provider- they aren't the only one that ISP's can go through- that means that there ARE competitors out there to offer DSL to ISP's and that MEANS THAT ASI IS NOT A MONOPOLY.

The whole point of the article we are talking about is that ISP's are complaining that ASI is acting in anti-competitive ways- NOT that SBC or Ameritech or SWBT or PacBell is the owner of the "last mile" and they think it's unfair- because regardless of that fact, if an ISP uses a CLEC for DSL services, it isn't SBC's DSLAM they would be connecting to, nor would they be using SBC's ATM networking.

The whole point of the article is that ISP's complaining that they are paying $30 or $39 or whatever for the DSL connection thru ASI and that they claim that ASI is giving preferential treatment to PBI- NOT that they have to use the eventual "last mile" thru SBC.

Your pointing out that CLEC's aren't getting a fair shot because of having to use the "last mile" from the ILEC's has NOTHING to do with this article. It only serves to confuse people into thinking that SBC has a stranglehold on ISP's- which they don't. ISP's aren't required to use ASI for DSL service provisioning- regardless of your belief that SBC owning the "last mile" proves this myth.

Boogie74]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1269226 Sun, 12 Aug 2001 13:00:40 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1267880 said by boogie74:
So it is your intention to try to muddy the waters by confusing everyone into thinking that ISP's are the same thing as CLEC's??
You're the only one doing that here. So please stop being so pathetic by making interpretations of other people writings to cover for your lack of reading skills. I never even remotely implied that ISP's are the same as CLEC's, so don't put that quote on me. I already explained on my previous post what was my point so if you can get it, then you're beyond any help.
said by boogie74:
My point about the article was that ISP's DON'T have to go to ASI for their connections. There IS competition- there isn't a monopoly on DSL services.
And my point is that they are a monopoly. Everyone knows that and considers them that, from customers to Government. And whether the ISP's resell ILEC's dsl lines thru a unit like ASI or goes thru a CLEC, they still have to deal with the ILEC's. There is no avoiding that.

*Sight* I can't wait to see how you're going to twist this post now.
--
all statements made by me do not reflect the beliefs or opinions of my employer.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1267880 Sun, 12 Aug 2001 01:24:05 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1267003
My point about the article was that ISP's DON'T have to go to ASI for their connections. There IS competition- there isn't a monopoly on DSL services.

Boogie74]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1267003 Sat, 11 Aug 2001 22:17:27 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1266599 said by boogie74:
Being that this thread is concerning ISP's that deal with ASI and has NOTHING do do with CLEC's and DLEC's0, I would read your comment to be a concern that ISP's don't have any other supplier of the line and DSLAM than the ILEC.
Well is not, your interpretation of my comment is wrong. I meant exactly what I said, that CLEC's and DLEC's depend on the ILEC for the last mile connectivity. And it was not aim at the article but at your argument that the Bells are not monopolies, so please don't twist around what I'm saying.
said by boogie74:
So when you make a comment like the one above, I must then assume that you mean to say that ISP's don't have a choice.
You've assumed wrong.
said by boogie74:
I give you better credit than that- I assume your ignorance.
I factored yours in ever since your first comment on how the Bells are not monopolies. Add on top of that your amazing ability to twist people's comments around...
--
all statements made by me do not reflect the beliefs or opinions of my employer.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1266599 Sat, 11 Aug 2001 20:40:04 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1266148
quote:
However, CLEC's and DLEC's DO DEPEND on the ILEC to offer last mile connectivity because they're the ones that own that infrastructure. NO ONE ELSE DOES. There is no choice. What part of that don't you understand?


Being that this thread is concerning ISP's that deal with ASI and has NOTHING do do with CLEC's and DLEC's0, I would read your comment to be a concern that ISP's don't have any other supplier of the line and DSLAM than the ILEC.

You see, when there is an article about ISP's complaining about their DSL supplier being anti-competitive, it doesn't mean that these are CLEC's- they are completely different entities and types of businesses all together. I assume you don't realize this, as the article doesn't mention CLEC's nor DLEC's- but there are many here that assume they are all the same thing...

So when you make a comment like the one above, I must then assume that you mean to say that ISP's don't have a choice. The article ISN'T talking about CLEC's having no choice... otherwise it wouldn't be called "Bell Companies Blamed for DSL Woe's", rather it would be called "Bell Companies being blamed for lack of Local Service"

If you DO know that the article is about ISP's and not CLEC's and DLEC's, then you are jumping on the issue by clouding it with unnecessary comments that have nothing to do with the subject and you are doing it intentionally. I give you better credit than that- I assume your ignorance.

boogie74]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1266148 Sat, 11 Aug 2001 18:51:06 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1266077 said by boogie74:
said by jhboricua:

Being that there IS a choice in local loop provider (last I checked, even in the midst of applications for Chapter 11, Rythms and Covad are competitors of RBOC's for the local loop and ATM network provisioning), this means that the Bells are not monopolies, regardless of how many people vote in your survey of whether they are or not.

Rhythms is formally done. Most of us saw it coming months ago. Covad may successfully restructure, but I've already gone through NorthPoint's demise as a partner and I'm not willing to make that bet with Covad at this time. As far as I'm concerned, there is no viable long-term competition to the ILEC's DSL at this point.

said by boogie74:

What the majority of the CLEC's that went down were doing was trying to attract customers by giving out unrealistic due dates, lower than cost pricing and relying on things like reciprocal compensation from the ILEC's for revenue- not to mention flawed business expectations and projections to garner short term investor interest. The ILEC's for instance would tell customers that a technician is needed to install their service, and the best due date would be 15 days out based on business needs. The CLEC (who also uses the Bell techs for outside network work) tried to tell customers that they can do it in 10 days or 7 days... Seeing that they were relying on the tech to be available who ISN'T for 15 days, GUESS WHAT??? The CLEC made a promise they can't keep. And the customers, investors, employees, EVERYONE jumped ship. Can we say, "I want to file for bankruptcy?"

We're talking pure-play DSL LECs here, reciprocal compensation is not involved at all. Few of the voice CLEC's that had/have an unhealthy reliance on reciprocal compensation revenue have gone completely under. The DSL LECs weren't relying on anything but getting a fair price for properly conditioned copper and not getting jerked around by the ILECs. I in the past worked with Covad, NorthPoint, and Pacbell/SBC/ASI. I never saw unrealistic due dates from either Covad or NorthPoint.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1266077 Sat, 11 Aug 2001 18:35:04 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1266001 said by highjinx:
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.

That's it, cut my quote mid-sentence so you can make a non-point because you haven't a leg to stand on. I never said I don't want to pay. I just want equitable terms, not a pricing structure designed to illegally hand the advantage to the supposedly arms-length SBC affiliated ISPs. I pay the same for my ATM, but my customer's don't pay the same for the other side, the end-user DSL circuits, and I have a harder time fully utilizing my ATM circuit because of this same pricing disparity on the end-user side, making my ATM circuit effectively cost me more than it does for PBI.

said by highjinx:

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.

Can you read?
I've told you that in this news item. It's well documented, go read Pacbell's FCC128 tariff, sheet 691.5 in the base 2000 tariff. It's available on the FCC website. Plan D, buy 750K lines over 4 years and get them for $30/mo. That deal was shifted to SBC/ASI with the spinoff, though ASI didn't have to file their own tariffs. Now PBI has the deal for two more years, including keeping their dedicated PVCs and paying $30/mo, while the rest of us they want to shaft further with the BCG contract including getting our 1.5M/128 circuits increased from $37-39/mo to $45/mo and having to use PPPoE when I have no desire to do so, plus sell content to my end user's, even marketing PBI to them by virtue of my sale of a DSL line. That tariff is called a sweetheart deal. It was designed so that though it was technically available to anyone, only SBCIS including PBI could buy in because it requires 750K lines over 4 years, and there is no justification for the price disparity as ASI does no marketing.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1266001 Sat, 11 Aug 2001 18:19:38 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1264909 said by boogie74:
Wasn't it just you that was saying that ISP's DON'T have a choice of DSL providers
No. Where did I say that? Where did you read that in my comments? I'm curious.
--
all statements made by me do not reflect the beliefs or opinions of my employer.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1264909 Sat, 11 Aug 2001 14:28:33 EDT Re: All things in moderation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-All-things-in-moderation-1264865 said by highjinx:
This is a blanket statement and very vague.
For you maybe, not for me, having experience this personally and not for the thousand of others customers and FST's from competing companies that deal with this situation on a daily basis.
said by highjinx:
I know in my state our ILEC beats all benchmarks for provisioning, meantime to repair, etc.
Hehe, This is a blanket statement and very vague. You need to back up your statements with facts.
said by highjinx:
PS If you're going to be the moderator, try not to be so damn biased.
I'm entitled to post my views just like anyone else, if you don't like it, don't read them. Everyone here is biased one way or another. That's is why THIS is a DISCUSSION forum.
--
all statements made by me do not reflect the beliefs or opinions of my employer.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-All-things-in-moderation-1264865 Sat, 11 Aug 2001 14:19:51 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1263601
Boogie74]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1263601 Sat, 11 Aug 2001 08:59:14 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1263577 said by pupowski:
POTS cost is difficult to ascertain within RBOC structures. It's like trying to figure the cost of an army jeep on patrol. Once you figure the hard costs, the pentagon adds a huge % for administration. I suspect it is very profitable on balance,with line-backer, caller ID, etc.,although the basic rate probably is below cost, based upon rate hearings in this region.


Which is why residential competition isn't gaining ground... there are MANY customers of the Bells that don't subscribe to ANY of their services- linebacker included. Nursing homes are a perfect example. How many CLEC's offer residential service to a nursing home? ZERO. Many will claim that the RBOC's are preventing this to keep a monopoly status on these zero revenue accounts. Oh, sure the CLEC will serve (and many do) the business account for the nursing home staff use. But that same address, same CO, same 1200 pair cable to the building- they just can't seem to get access to serve those residents at the age of 85 and 90. Those are being reserved to be screwed over by the RBOC...

Ask a CLEC how much for a POTS line with no add ons... you won't be on the phone much longer. And the ILEC's are being fined for it.

Boogie74]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1263577 Sat, 11 Aug 2001 08:48:35 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1263560 said by jhboricua:
Man, drop the restaurant analogy, it just plain doesn't work. With a little shopping around you could get as good prices as they do, because there are a LOT OF FOOD PROVIDERS around, not just one. You also have plenty of choices for Banks, so you can shop them around too. Same thing with TV & Radio stations. YOU HAVE A CHOICE!!

In other words: You DON'T DEPEND on Perkin's to be able to run your restaurant business because they can't force you to buy your supplies from X place or do your banking with X Bank or advertise with X station. They don't have that power over your business, period.

However, CLEC's and DLEC's DO DEPEND on the ILEC to offer last mile connectivity because they're the ones that own that infrastructure. NO ONE ELSE DOES. There is no choice. What part of that don't you understand?

The Bells are monopolies, to say less is denying the truth. Everyone recognizes them as monopolies, even the goverment. Why do they get fined for anti-competitive practices when they deny or delay access to their CO's to competitors? If they were not monopolies, why do they get fined for that?


This article is NOT TALKING ABOUT CLECS OR DLECS. It is about ISP's that have agreements with ASI. They DO currently have a choice as to the local provider. They ARE NOT CLEC's. CLEC's don't pay $39 or $30 or even $20 for the local loop. On average, CLEC's pay about $12-17 for the local loop, install their own DSLAM's and have been dumb enough not to market retail, but rather go wholesale for DSL, selling it to retail ISP's.

Being that there IS a choice in local loop provider (last I checked, even in the midst of applications for Chapter 11, Rythms and Covad are competitors of RBOC's for the local loop and ATM network provisioning), this means that the Bells are not monopolies, regardless of how many people vote in your survey of whether they are or not.

RBOC's are being fined for not being perfect- CLEC's only have to MENTION that some of their orders aren't being filled within a time period and the meter starts running. I also have mentioned TIME AND AGAIN, that RBOC's aren't boy scouts- but they aren't filled with conspiracy directives to their resale centers to be anti-competitive and stop access to the CO's.

To answer your last issue, there are PLENTY of facilities based competitors that string out their own networks, only depending on the ILEC's for small portions of the network until they can afford to build their own. The cost is NOT business prohibitive.

What the majority of the CLEC's that went down were doing was trying to attract customers by giving out unrealistic due dates, lower than cost pricing and relying on things like reciprocal compensation from the ILEC's for revenue- not to mention flawed business expectations and projections to garner short term investor interest. The ILEC's for instance would tell customers that a technician is needed to install their service, and the best due date would be 15 days out based on business needs. The CLEC (who also uses the Bell techs for outside network work) tried to tell customers that they can do it in 10 days or 7 days... Seeing that they were relying on the tech to be available who ISN'T for 15 days, GUESS WHAT??? The CLEC made a promise they can't keep. And the customers, investors, employees, EVERYONE jumped ship. Can we say, "I want to file for bankruptcy?"

This isn't all about RBOC's as the big bad guys here.

Boogie74]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1263560 Sat, 11 Aug 2001 08:42:24 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1263453 said by boogie74:
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


POTS cost is difficult to ascertain within RBOC structures. It's like trying to figure the cost of an army jeep on patrol. Once you figure the hard costs, the pentagon adds a huge % for administration. I suspect it is very profitable on balance,with line-backer, caller ID, etc.,although the basic rate probably is below cost, based upon rate hearings in this region.
--
Pupowski
"There are none so blind as those who will not see"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1263453 Sat, 11 Aug 2001 07:46:17 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1263165
In other words: You DON'T DEPEND on Perkin's to be able to run your restaurant business because they can't force you to buy your supplies from X place or do your banking with X Bank or advertise with X station. They don't have that power over your business, period.

However, CLEC's and DLEC's DO DEPEND on the ILEC to offer last mile connectivity because they're the ones that own that infrastructure. NO ONE ELSE DOES. There is no choice. What part of that don't you understand?

The Bells are monopolies, to say less is denying the truth. Everyone recognizes them as monopolies, even the goverment. Why do they get fined for anti-competitive practices when they deny or delay access to their CO's to competitors? If they were not monopolies, why do they get fined for that?
--
all statements made by me do not reflect the beliefs or opinions of my employer.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1263165 Sat, 11 Aug 2001 03:37:33 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1262503 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1262503 Sat, 11 Aug 2001 00:19:13 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1262439 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 ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1262439 Sat, 11 Aug 2001 00:04:50 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1262243 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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1262243 Fri, 10 Aug 2001 23:22:55 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1258582 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1258582 Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:30:45 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1258547
Try six to eight weeks.

-jinx]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1258547 Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:22:51 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1258411 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1258411 Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:48:18 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1258394 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 ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1258394 Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:43:29 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1257335
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1257335 Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:07:51 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1257274 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1257274 Fri, 10 Aug 2001 01:46:06 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1257096 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1257096 Fri, 10 Aug 2001 01:02:20 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1257078 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1257078 Fri, 10 Aug 2001 00:58:11 EDT All things in moderation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/All-things-in-moderation-1257060 quote:
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 couldn’t.

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… don’t 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 Denny’s, 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/All-things-in-moderation-1257060 Fri, 10 Aug 2001 00:53:19 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1256891 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1256891 Fri, 10 Aug 2001 00:19:03 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1256883 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1256883 Fri, 10 Aug 2001 00:15:08 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1256220 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1256220 Thu, 09 Aug 2001 22:03:15 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1256048 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1256048 Thu, 09 Aug 2001 21:33:57 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1255936
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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1255936 Thu, 09 Aug 2001 21:16:14 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1255906
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...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1255906 Thu, 09 Aug 2001 21:09:48 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1255876
Not likely.

The ILEC is getting too big a whack of the total.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1255876 Thu, 09 Aug 2001 21:03:50 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1255730
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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1255730 Thu, 09 Aug 2001 20:38:05 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1254512 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1254512 Thu, 09 Aug 2001 16:48:39 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1254187 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1254187 Thu, 09 Aug 2001 15:42:04 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1253596
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]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1253596 Thu, 09 Aug 2001 13:41:19 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1253499
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]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1253499 Thu, 09 Aug 2001 13:21:13 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1253397 --
all statements made by me do not reflect the beliefs or opinions of my employer.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1253397 Thu, 09 Aug 2001 12:58:57 EDT Re: Interesting how ISP's claim pricing is unfair... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1253395 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Interesting-how-ISPs-claim-pricing-is-unfair-1253395 Thu, 09 Aug 2001 12:58:48 EDT