kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| reply to RadioDoc
Re: When will SBC get naked?
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. |
|
Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI
| said by RadioDoc  :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. Why the hostility? I feel like I am getting raped on pots in michigan. However naked dsl through se/covad and others is $99 for the 6m package. I would consider it over the bundled SBC static package. |
|
gdm
Premium,MVM
join:2001-06-15
Mchenry, IL
clubs: | SE's package for $99 is a dynamic IP where SBC's is 5 static. SE's 1 static is $115.95 so their is a difference still. |
|
Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI
1 edit | said by gdm :SE's package for $99 is a dynamic IP where SBC's is 5 static. SE's 1 static is $115.95 so their is a difference still. You are right, I have been grandfathered into yet another dsl deal.
Cyberonic is cheaper. But they do not do rdns. Also the start up cost is higher. |
|
gdm
Premium,MVM
join:2001-06-15
Mchenry, IL
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T CallVantage
·Comcast Digital Vo..
 ·Comcast
| drmorley pointed out to me first 2 months are $20 a month plus the $100 rebate for SE's 1 static package. So it is cheaper but it's still 1 static vs 5 static so not exactly apples to apples. |
|
drmorley
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-20
Park Ridge, IL
clubs:
1 edit | Actually you get eight static IP's with that package. |
|
gdm
Premium,MVM
join:2001-06-15
Mchenry, IL
clubs: | Sorry the package I was quoting showed 1 static on SE's site. I thought I remembered them offering 8 before but didn't see on the page I was looking at.
I stand corrected  . |
|
