kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
|  When will SBC get naked?
See the front page story about Verizon offering naked DSL? I think it is high time that SBC follow suit. Forcing POTS to get DSL makes ILECs seem like the cold-hearted money-driven giant faceless corporations they really are.
--
::: Do, or do not, there is no try:::»www.kapilville.com |
|
Dennis
Premium,Mod
join:2001-01-26
Algonquin, IL
 ·AT&T Yahoo
Host:
Chicago
Users Find Hot Deals
Users find Hot Dea..
Requests for Hot D..
Home Repair & Impr..
| copper is a limited technology with a finite amount of applications coupled with high cost to maintain and install when complared to price per user ratios.
translation: if they're smart...never. move on to the next generation and drop the price per customer. don't waste time with yesterdays' stuff.
--
My Blog. Because I desperately need the acknowledgement of others.
Mainegirl and my Beer Review's |
|
dslwanter
Why would I want DSL? I have FTTH
Premium
join:2002-12-16
Lowellville, OH | reply to kapil
I'm curious to see what SBC looks like naked.  |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to kapil
Who cares?
Actually they were "naked" until 2001. Then they were forced to lineshare. Now sheeple are whining that they can't get "naked" DSL, when in fact you can. Call Covad. You'll pay for the line either way, and it's downright stupid to fork over $15 extra for an unbundled loop when it gives you no added benefit. The only people who are all moist over the prospect of naked DSL are those who believe the crap pundits spew. |
|
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| If SBC DSL WITH POTS costs $19.95, why should it cost more WITHOUT POTS? Theoretically, SBC the DSL company is paying SBC the phone company for the loop, even on the shared lines....because technically and legally they are two separate companies.
Maybe the cost of the loop goes up by a couple of bucks because instead of being shared for two services, the loop is only used for one service - DSL. Covad and its partners charge between $5 and $10 for the dedicated loop. Why would SBC charge $15? If anything, their cost structure is LOWER than Covad because, after all, they own the freakin' copper.
Now, we all know that it doesn't work that way in practice and that SBC the DSL company is selling DSL at a loss because A) they are killing off competition that doesn't have as deep a pocket and B) their sister, SBC the phone company is making up for the loss in revenue by charging obscene amounts for POTS and by requiring POTS for DSL.
SBC POTS customers fall into two camps. People like myself who pay $17 just so they can get DSL...and SBC makes a killing because we're paying $17 for a service that costs them practically nothing and will NEVER get used. OR people who actually use SBC POTS service and pay anywhere from $30 to $60 per month...again SBC makes a killing because the service is grossly overpriced.
The reason I am "all moist over the prospect of naked DSL" is because it is simply fair. I have long advocated the idea of breaking the ILECs up into two pieces each....one would own the infrastructure wholesale it to other carriers and the other would continue selling it retail.
The infrastructure was built with our tax dollars and subsidies. It should belong to us to use as we please. It should not be monopolized by one giant faceless corporation. I have long favored splitting up the ILECs into two...one part would own the infrastructure and would lease to other carriers including its own former self and the other would continue to retail the services on a playing field that is fair to all. This way there can be no conflict of interest.
--
::: Do, or do not, there is no try:::»www.kapilville.com |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Whatever. I'm not getting in a pissing match over something as silly as this. You have a lot to learn. Enjoy the nice weather. I'm done here. |
|
scooby
Premium
join:2001-05-01
Schaumburg, IL | reply to kapil
So its useless for those that want to use voip only? |
|
scooby
Premium
join:2001-05-01
Schaumburg, IL | reply to kapil
I'd kill to be able to pay $17 for just the line! Its around $24 in Michigan. |
|
Corona
It's cool, I'm takin it back
Premium
join:2000-03-14
Aubrey, TX
| reply to kapil
kapil  this only proves you know absolutely nothing about outside plant.
You seem to be anti-ILEC so I'm not going to debate with you the merits of one company owning and maintaining the plant vs. two.
To answer your question - it is being worked on. That's about all I can say.
--
Corona
Come and get your dork on
Take a Ride on the SHORT BUS
See my gallery |
|
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| Both you and RadioDoc said essentially the same thing...that I don't know what I'm talking about. I have worked for multiple telcos for a fair portion of my career. Including Ma Bell. I almost went to work for Ameritech. While there is always more to learn, I'd like to think that I know a fair bit about telecom.
I am not anti-ILEC. However, the idea of one company owning all telecom infrastructure and selling it to other carriers and also end users directly has many flaws.
Most of my gripes are due to the business practices that are readily accepted in telco-land. And the ILECs occupy most territory in telco land so naturally most of my gripes are directed at them.
In a market economy the market - that is to say, the consumer - should decide what sells and for how much. The ILECs due to their political and monetary clout have managed to subvert that process. I mean, there is no reason, other than ILEC shortsightedness and greed, on Earth that LNP, unlimited long distance, DSL without POTS...hell DSL itself etc. etc. should not have become available a decade ago.
I understand, trust me I do, the logistical nightmare of managing a century old system. I have first-hand familiarity with the Ma Bell red tape that the ILECs inherited. But that does not excuse the bells...they have been lazy. Instead of being proactive, they played political games. Instead of giving the market what it wants, they told the consumers what they can have and on what terms.
Lately, the ILECs have been acting as if they have seen the light. Fiber deployments, cut throat pricing on data products, advanced services, bundling....all the things that make sense and have been demanded for so long by consumers are finally seeing the light of day. GOOD FOR THEM. Kudos to the ILECs. However, this does not make up for their past mistakes and this does not mean that we should mortgage the future of our nation - since a sound technology infrastructure is crucial to a nation's success in this century - to a handful of companies that have had a checkered past and, aside from promises of a brighter tomorrow offer little credence to their argument.
I have more specific issues with SBC. I had the same issues with Ameritech and Illinois Bell before it. The customer service and billing related services the company offers are absolutely abysmal and completely unacceptable.
This, of course, does not include the hard working SBC employees on this site....they have single-handedly managed to instill in me any respect I have for their employer.
I could not count, even if I tried, the number of times SBC has offered me bad customer service or has screwed up my bill. There will have to be an immense amount of carrot dangling in the way of offering cheap DSL etc. before consumers will forget the horrible, horrible way in which the company treated them.
Does it take a genius to figure out that after a 45 minute call that has obviously been going south for the last 44 minutes the customer should not be asked "how would you rate my service on a scale of 1 to 5" or "please ask me how I can save you more money by offering you more products that I can't service" or my favorite "we value your business and thank you for being our customer" If you value my business, help me keep it with your company by fixing the $12.95 shipping charge for a CPE that was never shipped or give me that $4.95 credit that the rep I spoke to last month promised me. OR don't tell me that you value me as a customer when you essentially accuse me of being a liar when I say something that doesn't show up in your script.
I see that you are from San Antonio - the hometown of SBC. Maybe you know something about the company that I don't...but I take your word for it. If "dry DSL" is in the works - GREAT! But I still don't see how that makes up for the delay in offering this service or offering poor services for so long.
--
::: Do, or do not, there is no try:::»www.kapilville.com |
|
Corona
It's cool, I'm takin it back
Premium
join:2000-03-14
Aubrey, TX
| reply to kapil
As was stated earlier - Ameritech used to only offer dry DSL. I know because I worked in the AADS provisioning center in Detroit.
Dry DSL isn't really all it's cracked up to be. There were lots of problems with it. Since it's not connected to a class 5 switch, there was basically no testing on the loop available. It either worked or it didn't. Every trouble ticket required a technician truck roll, or worse a vendor meet with someone at the site, and someone in the CO. Lineshare typically does not. Lots of money spent which in a decent percentage of cases turned out to be too far from the office to get DSL. We did it - and we did it pretty good. Then we offered the ability to do linesharing DSL as well. You could get both from Ameritech.
Then the borg came in. SBC Purchased Ameritech. Once acquisition was complete - to bring Ameritech "in line" with SBC practices, sales of dry loop DSL halted, and embedded customers were grandfathered. Can I blame them? Not really. It costs more to install & maintain a loop without POTS on it because of the testing/maintenance features lost by not having it wired to a class 5 switch. So - how about adding the testing equipment for those naked DSL loops in the CO? There's your extra cost for UL DSL.
The FCC has recently decided that networks that are "information service" only are not subject to the same carrier sharing rules as the PSTN. Hence Lightspeed. SBC is building a next generation IP Based information service transport. »www.sbc.com/gen/press-room?pid=5838
And Since the FCC now said that SBC wouldn't have to sell this new network at a loss to their competitors there is real motivation to invest in the network you crave.
--
Corona
Come and get your dork on
Take a Ride on the SHORT BUS
See my gallery |
|
Zein
join:2003-06-14
Painesville, OH | I don't care to much about naked DSL but i would want some more speed! no wait i need some more Speed LOL |
|
Chopstix
join:2000-06-12
Monroe, MI
2 edits | reply to scooby
said by scooby :I'd kill to be able to pay $17 for just the line! Its around $24 in Michigan. Wow ... you'd kill for a measley 7 bucks a month? That must be an awful tight budget you live on. I pay about 45 for my line w/selected services. Another 75 a month for my cell phones and 65 a month for cable tv. Then of course there's the 30+ for DSL. |
|
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX
| reply to kapil
said by kapil :See the front page story about Verizon offering naked DSL? I think it is high time that SBC follow suit. Forcing POTS to get DSL makes ILECs seem like the cold-hearted money-driven giant faceless corporations they really are. You sound awfully money-driven yourself.
I know I am. Aren't we all?
--
"Either I will destroy this totalitarian police state or it will destroy me."
-Michael Badnarik
Link |
|
ArgMeMatey
join:2001-08-09
Milwaukee, WI
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to kapil
Let's just let the market decide. I've changed my opinion on this: Not everything has to be fixed this month. Laissez-Faire. I know regulation still plays a big part but this has all been said before. When SBC is getting major IP traffic over DSL and nobody is using their POTS lines anymore, those Class 5 switches are just going to be remote test units.
The trend is residential users stop using POTS because they have cell phones, and business users go to VoIP.
The wires are still important, and for that SBC needs to be compensated, whether I pay an UNE fee of $15 for the dry pair or pay $16 for a POTS line I rarely use. I think that's where the OSP comments are coming from. When it's not worth that anymore, the market will tell SBC and they will lower the price or go out of business. In a perfect world! |
|
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| reply to Corona
said by Corona :SBC wouldn't have to sell this new network at a loss to their competitors there is real motivation to invest in the network you crave. One look at SBC's stock and SEC filings will tell you that SBC isn't selling ANYTHING at a loss. It's a myth. It's fuzzy, Enron-style math. It's all about depreciating assets in a funny way where you value your 100 year old copper more than it would cost you to put fiber in.
So on the books, each loop cost you 10k, when in reality it's value has been depreciated over the years and written off many times over...yet SBC continues to carry it on the books so it can claim, in a blatantly false manner, that it is being forced to sell loops at a loss. Not to mention that much of the original Bell network was subsidised by tax dollars.
If this forced-to-sell-at-a-loss story were true, SBC would be putting up a better fight against it...like it is against muni projects, where it truly risks losing money.
Instead, SBC HAPPILY sells loops to Covad and anyone else that asks for them. SBC even willingly let ISPs into its remote terminals. Verizon is opening Fios to third party ISPs willingly...and I will bet that SBC will do the same with lightspeed. Why?...NOT out of the goodness of their hearts, but it makes financial sense. Because they are making money on the loops. Because they have capacity that would otherwise be sitting idle...so instead they wholesale it to competition.
The ILECs are businesses, so of course they have a right to sell services for a profit. But to claim that they are somehow the victims while all they are being asked to do is compete on a level playing field is simply unethical and un-American.
They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want regulation...but only as long as it's their competition being regulated out of business.
If the ILECs need money that bad, perhaps they should take a second look at their unionized workforce. Techs that stop taking new tickets at 3:30 and go park a block away from their garage so they can all file in exactly at 4:00 PM quitting time.
Do we need unions? Sure...but only because we have a management that is out to screw the worker. So the end result is that I have to pay $1 for a service that should really cost 50 cents.
If you want to debate on the merits of this issue, let's go. But please don't read stuff out of SBC propaganda material. I have an extremely high degree of respect for telecom workers....because maintaining six sigma uptime is an impressive feat....you parroting your employer's line without substantiating the argument just makes me think less of you.
--
::: Do, or do not, there is no try:::»www.kapilville.com |
|
nunya
SEE ROCK CITY 475 MILES
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
clubs:
 ·AT&T CallVantage
1 edit | reply to kapil
For "The Kapil" in response to your claim that "the people" paid for the phone company:
This is a snippet of a burn I used to post in order to get the CLECs riled up -
Some may whine, "The phone company has an unfair advantage. All their lines were in place."
And who paid for those? The stockholders of the phone company. The former AT&T (not the whiners using the name today) was a holding company of all the RBOCs. While AT&T controlled the long distance infrastructure, the RBOCs were liable for building and maintaining local facilities in their geographic area.
Then they moan, "The government funded the phone company."
No they didn't, and I challenge you prove it. The government granted phone companies (not just the big ones) near monopoly status in exchange for some trade offs. First the phone company would have to provide "Universal Service". This means Farmer Brown pays $25/mo for his dial-tone even though it costs $60/mo to get it to him. This is paid for by a Universal Service Fee (not a tax). Businesses cover most of this, you and I cover the rest. Easement that was not already public had, and still has, to be secured (with money) by the phone company. Another trade off was that phone companies had to be subject to heavy and severe regulation. I challenge you to find a more regulated industry. Healthcare? No. Airlines? No.
So, I've bought groceries at Schnuck's for 20 years now. Does that mean I should just be able to walk in and insist that I will only pay X amount of dollars for my groceries because I "funded" the grocery store. Give me a break.
Being a customer does not make you an owner unless you are at the credit union.
--
Ask me why I hate Cingular Wireless (if you've got a few hours to spare). |
|
Corona
It's cool, I'm takin it back
Premium
join:2000-03-14
Aubrey, TX
| reply to kapil
I'm not going to debate this with you. You obviously feel you've been wronged by the ILECs. You're obviously upset against something you feel they did against you. You've obviously got something against major corporations. You think The techs suck because they're union, the unions are required cause mgmt sucks, and the big bad ILECs just want regulation for everyone.
You asked your question - you got your answer. I'm not going to feed the trolls in here.
You want to complain about ILECs, how unfair they are, how you don't like their accounting practices, how you don't like their broadband offerings - do it in the Rants, Raves & Praise forum.
--
Corona
Come and get your dork on
Take a Ride on the SHORT BUS
See my gallery |
|
nunya
SEE ROCK CITY 475 MILES
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
clubs:
·AT&T CallVantage
| reply to kapil
As far as DSL as we know it goes, I would not expect to see too much more innovation. I do know that SBC is planning to offer POTS free DSL, but I do not know when. This breed of DSL is a dying duck. It is, and always has been, a stopgap measure to milk as much possible out of the existing infrastructure until it became economically beneficial or necessary to upgrade the plant.
--
Ask me why I hate Cingular Wireless (if you've got a few hours to spare). |
|
XBL2009
------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL | reply to kapil
God I miss the old Northpoint days for $40 |
|
