http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r14065769 en Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:39:36 EDT Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:39:36 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14065769 PhoenixDown : Covad I assume would have unbundled loop agreements already in place for thier SDSL products though its more expensive and less profitable for shared line ADSL.
--
www.pulsetoday.com -- marketing forums!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14065769 Fri, 05 Aug 2005 13:40:35 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14065276 JohnDrenZ : There wont be any significant impact but a DLEC like covad would have to negotiate an UNE-P loop now instead of line sharing. Line sharing in my opinion really doesnt work for a DLEC because there is no real preprovisioning like what is done for an unbundled loop. So in some cases you get no service or crappy service on a line shared loop. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14065276 Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:47:12 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14064678 PhoenixDown : If this is the death of line sharing, then I guess the clecs will have to go back to providing DSL over UNE-P?

I can imagine this having a significant impact but will it stop the clecs like Covad who were planning to roll out those new dslams for viop?
--
www.pulsetoday.com -- marketing forums!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14064678 Fri, 05 Aug 2005 11:18:36 EDT