 
copperdoctor
Premium
join:2003-12-08
Palatine, IL | Pffft As long as theyre at it why dont they ask the cable companies to unbundle the tv shows, Im tired of paying for Lifetime to watch HBO.
--
»kidcubfan.blogspot.com/ | |
|  | audiog
join:2004-08-09
Detroit, MI
| Re: Pffft said by copperdoctor  :As long as theyre at it why dont they ask the cable companies to unbundle the tv shows, Im tired of paying for Lifetime to watch HBO. You are now seeing the second step in a two year fight with AT&T( NOW YOU SEE WHY SBC IS BUYING IT) and MCI( VERIZON OR QWEST) and others. The other ISP resellers are being helped by the AT&T legal guys who are fighting for a change in the resell rules.
The first step was the the California Public service commission forced SBC and Verizon to process all order from other CLECs and not block switching of local service because a customer has DSL.
The next step is to force SBC and others to make their systems which they say cannot provision a separate voice line from DSL and visa versa.
SBC with Verizons backing was saying that their system can only provision a DSL if the customer is local voice customer. Their system cannot give someone a DSL line when they have local phone service with lets say AT&T in California. SBC showed the commission their system in a sealed meeting that their is only one option for a DSL. This is the reason that SBC says you can only get DSL if you are a local voice customer( it is the only option in the provisioning system). The California commission is about to force SBC to fix their system to allow provisioning of a DSL line only or any other combination.
But the FCC has ended price caps on unbundled network elements and this supersedes any state regulation to a slim area of scope. We will see this taken to the FCC if SBC loses in California. The FCC controls all TSLRIC rates ( all network element prices and resell prices) with the states having some say. And these rate are created by mathmatisicans hired by the RBOCs to show what it cost them to build and operate a telecommunications network in the local market. | |
| | | niko01
join:2004-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: Pffft You miss a very large and relevant point. DSL Internet access is not offered by the regulated entity and, as an information service, the service itself is not regulated and is outside the reach of the FCC or the CPUC. If the unregulated information service provider wants to restrict its service offering to a bundle, there is nothing the CPUC or the FCC can do about it. They can try to regulate it by pressuring those they do have regulatory power over - but then you start the slippery slope of regulating ISPs - which the government has no business regulating...
Like it or not, this is not an FCC or CPUC issue. If it is, then God help us because it means the government is in the business of regulating ISPs and if you are so naive to think that it will stop here - I have some land to sell you and I'll even bundle it with the water rights to the ocean that it's not on....
| |
| | | | audiog
join:2004-08-09
Detroit, MI | Re: Pffft All ISPs who own their own network or want to lowest price for network elements are regulated by the FCC and state public utilities commission. | |
| | | | | niko01
join:2004-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: Pffft Actually ISPs - and that includes separate affiliates of telcos - are not regulated by the FCC or the PUCs. Providers of "telecommunications services" are regulated and Internet access is, by definition, not that. Either you are too stubborn to admit that Information Service providers are unregulated, or you work for the FCC which, in that case, the World is yours to regulate... | |
| raye
Premium
join:2000-08-14
Orange, CA | Hopefully this will lead to cheaper T1s, T3s, DS3s I currently pay $180 to SBC for each of my four T1s (plus what my ISP charges me). This $720/month is JUST for the local loop.
What a ripoff. Hopefully something comes of this complaint. | |
| | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Re: Hopefully this will lead to cheaper T1s, T3s, DS3s thats why you shop around for the T1s.
But SBC is a total rip. which is why a lot of people don't use them. Keep the CLECs and the Naked DSL coming! | |
| | audiog
join:2004-08-09
Detroit, MI
| Re: Hopefully this will lead to cheaper T1s, T3s, said by raye :I currently pay $180 to SBC for each of my four T1s (plus what my ISP charges me). This $720/month is JUST for the local loop. What a ripoff. Hopefully something comes of this complaint. If your ISP is certified as CLEC they can get your T lines at wholesale and mark it up at less than what SBC is selling it for. I would shop around for a ISP that is a CLEC or resells a CLEC that is a wholesaler of bandwidth. The key is that they own your loop or lease it from SBC as a UNE-L and own their own network that should tell you if SBC is over charging you for you service. What state are you in? If I may ask....Shop around you are a business buying bandwidth and you are already tagged as a premium customer( high margin ). | |
| | 
Fershlugg
join:2000-10-11
Torrington, CT | count yourself lucky... it's $289/mo/T1 here from SBC...... | |
| | 
spg
Grrrr
join:2001-10-31
NOT Texas!
| You guys miss the point on this. DSL is a voice grade circuit with no guarantees. DS1s 2s 3s, etc. are data circuits that have guaranteed up time. That means if it breaks in the middle of the night, they're going to wake somebody's sorry ass up and dispatch him...NOW. That's what you're paying for. | |
| 
aztecnology
O Rly?
Premium
join:2003-02-12
Murrieta, CA | Fiber... They will make naked dsl available to all the neighborhoods that get project lightspeed, after it's substantially subscribed to of course... | |
| | |
aztecnology
O Rly?
Premium
join:2003-02-12
Murrieta, CA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: 18 Dollars?!? That's probably because you guys are a tier 36 isp, the largest players get the largest discounts - plus i think those figures quoted are applicable to California....
--
.:|:.Tell a man there are 300 billion stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch it to be sure. .:|:. | |
| | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | When i worked for a local ISP here in Fremont a couple years ago we were quoted $26.50 per line but the price would go down to $xx amount for XX amount of customers and so on.
but in Fremont its all it and miss DSL. | |
| 
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | Hmm.... Good Luck
--
BlooMe | |
| 
lettcco
join:2003-12-04
Valencia, CA | let's get Naked! We should all protest in front of SBC building naked to show them how bad we want naked DSL!  | |
| | 
Bill
Light Up The Halo
Premium,VIP
join:2001-12-09
clubs:
| Re: let's get Naked! Just make sure you tell everyone before you show up; they're going to need something to block their eyes :p
--
The new Secure-Wifi.net is open!
| |
| john262
join:2003-09-26
Elko, NV
 ·Wireless Beehive
| Those ISP's will drive up prices. If you are an SBC customer you can get DSL for $19.95 per month. That's dirt cheap and a real boon to consumers. Heck, a lot of diaup ISP's charge more than that.
But if these ISP's have their way SBC will no longer be able to sell DSL that cheap, and the consumer loses. As far as I'm concerned, if SBC wants to "subsidize SBC Yahoo’s DSL service with revenues from other telephone company subsidiaries" that's fine with me as long as it keeps prices down. | |
| | vavoiper
join:2005-03-08
Falls Church, VA
|  Re: Those ISP's will drive up prices.
| |
| | | john262
join:2003-09-26
Elko, NV
·Wireless Beehive
| Re: Those ISP's will drive up prices. Yes, I know all about predatory pricing. But if they raise their prices later people can always disconnect from them and get cable broadband or wireless. You see, as long as cable is out there and wireless is up and coming, they can't be called a monopoly.
The bottom line is that their $19.95 price is allowing many people to get broadband who otherwise couldn't afford it. How can that not be a good thing? | |
| | | | | | | | vavoiper
join:2005-03-08
Falls Church, VA | Who else can one call for business voice in most metropolitan areas. It ain't cable & it ain't wireless, in fact it ain't anybody but the monopoly ILEC. | |
| | | | | john262
join:2003-09-26
Elko, NV
·Wireless Beehive
| Re: Those ISP's will drive up prices. I'm not going to debate the merits or lack of merits of monopolies here, but I do know that a lot of people long for the less complicated days when AT&T had an unfettered nationwide monopoly. There are arguments on both sides of this issue, but generally I will go with whatever system provides consumers with the lowest possible price.
Right now that's SBC in many areas.
If SBC starts to abuse their position too much in the future they can always be subjected to subsequent regulations. | |
| | 
quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI
| Just remember, that SBC's $19.95 is only for x months. After the first (in Michigan it's 6 months), it bumps up to $39.95. Not only that, but unlike other ISP's, you are REQUIRED to get SBC's "All-Distance" service, for a mere $35/mo (Plus 'taxes', but lets not get into that discussion here).
Luckly, I still live in a state that SBC is required to sell unbundled pairs off their copper-plant. Meaning -- local ISP's can sell dry-pair DSL service.
SBC says that in some states this cannot be done, yet all the DSLAMS they installed in the past 5 years can work just fine on a dry-pair. In-fact, it works better, and get DSL to customers even further from the copper-plant.
And as far as the discussion of T1 service being more reliable -- just remember, in most of N. America, most T1 circuits are really dry-pair DSL circuits, that have monitors on them. Look for your local SmartJack -- chances are it's a DSL circuit that uses the full in-band signal, instead of the upper and lower band. | |
| | | john262
join:2003-09-26
Elko, NV
·Wireless Beehive
| Re: Those ISP's will drive up prices. They routinely renew subscribers at their present rate, and they also routinely let you change to a lower rate at renewal time if one is available. This is well documented at the SBC forum right here at BBR.
Of course nothing is forever, and their policies may change sometime in the future, but you can also say that about any other carrier that you sign up with bar none. | |
| 
turlockaviator
@206.78.x.x
| Spinoff ISP services//Transport only
I like Sonic because of the business class services they offer and the excellent customer service. SBC would in the end still make money since they would have guaranteed revenues as every ISP (including the one owned by SBC) would pay SBC the same amount for the physical piece of the DSL circuit. Competition in in the ISP market space is good for all consumers. | |
| | vavoiper
join:2005-03-08
Falls Church, VA | Re: Spinoff ISP services//Transport only Yes, it's called "structural seperation" and I like it too. Who knows, if the Brand X Supreme Court case goes against the cablecos and they have to provide equal access, maybe it wil be included in The Communications Act of 2005, or 2006. | |
|
spg
Grrrr
join:2001-10-31
NOT Texas!
| Anything to prove the claim??? "illegally subsidizing SBC Yahoo’s DSL service with revenues from other telephone company subsidiaries."
Did they ever point out how exactly SBC is doing that? We can make all kinds of assumptions, but something to back up the allegations would be clever.
Here's the problem as near as I can tell: You get your dialtone from AT&T, and your DSL from another CLEC. The wires break, not out in the network, but inside the house; who does the repair tech talk to? And who gets charged?
There are choices out there, but it's finally being narrowed down to the companies that spent some cash and built some sort of network. The days of renting a line and reselling the product are nearing the end. Is that really so bad? If a company spends a chunk of change on some sort of network, shouldn't they get a shot at marketing their product? | |
| | vavoiper
join:2005-03-08
Falls Church, VA
| Re: Anything to prove the claim??? It's pretty obvious isn't it? The RBOC's are lowering the price of DSL if you take their voice bundle (remember Whiteacre saying DSL should cost more than $50 just 2 years ago?) while raising the customer's "line charge" in order to justify higher line charges to CLEC's under UNE-L. I guess we'll have to await the inevitable litigation to hear the details.
The customer owns the inside wiring, they're on their own for repairs. Many utilize wireless phones now rendering that a moot point anyway.
My access provider, Covad, is the ONLY facilities-based CLEC left and has negotiated commercial access agreements with all RBOC's except BLS. Since they own their network (everything past the last mile) they can also offer naked DSL for those close enough to CO's. | |
| | |
spg
Grrrr
join:2001-10-31
NOT Texas!
| Re: Anything to prove the claim??? Yes, the customer does own the inside wiring, but who is the customer, and to whom? Typically the repair tech is from the ILEC. his customer isn't the homeowner, that's the end user. The customer for him is the CLEC. But again, which one?
And all it takes is one subscriber that isn't wireless to create the problem.
Covad does own it's own facilities, but it's still renting that last mile. As long as it does, it's going to have to operate at a disadvantage.
CableCos and wireless have at least bypassed the last mile. | |
| | | | | | | | vavoiper
join:2005-03-08
Falls Church, VA
| "Covad does own it's own facilities, but it's still renting that last mile. As long as it does, it's going to have to operate at a disadvantage.
CableCos and wireless have at least bypassed the last mile."
Well, they don't operate at a disadvantage under current law, namely UNE-L. Of course RBOC's are already furiously at work trying to rescind that too.
Keep your eye on The US Supreme Court in 2 weeks. The Brand X case wil be heard which will determine if cablecos must provide equal access to their networks a la telcos.
WiMax should allow all to operate independently of the RBOC last mile tyranny. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | vavoiper
join:2005-03-08
Falls Church, VA
| Re: Anything to prove the claim??? " Having a choice of two monopolies is not really much of a choice..."
You got that right KM...it's called a duopoly and leads to collusion on prices.
I don't know about Covad's long term plan for survival, but they are pushing VOIP + access for small/medium businesses with prioritized voice, much like Speakeasy. In fact, you're helping their survival by with Speakeasy DSL which is wholesaled from Covad (great comapany, Speakeasy!). I sure hope they make it because I would hate to have to give up my dedicated DSL line and call Verizon again. | |
| |
quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI
| Here's the problem as near as I can tell: You get your dialtone from AT&T, and your DSL from another CLEC. The wires break, not out in the network, but inside the house; who does the repair tech talk to? And who gets charged?
Internal wiring has been the end-customer's responsibility since the divesture in 1984. That is why we now have dmarc's. If it is determined that the inside wire is corrupted / broken, the end user has the option of hiring the RBOC (who is usually onsite to tell them this), or any qualified electrician.
I work for a company that does work on PBXs, and we always tell our customers of non-ds lines to plug a standard set into the dmarc -- if everything seems ok, give US a call and we will repair the line, otherwise call their dialtone provider -- it would be their responsibilty. | |
| 
ColdFiltered
join:2005-01-25
Atlanta, GA | They're pathetic! ISPs want it for free if they were confident they could get the government to back them. | |
| 
DOStradamus
MVM
join:2003-11-04
Santa Rosa, CA
| Bring It On.... Please! In fairness to SBC, I should say that the ISP service that SBC provides is worth about 1.95 a month -- I spent 40 minutes of cellphone airtime talking to an airhead 1000s of miles away just trying to get one simple answer on behalf of a friend who has that service. That was after 15 minutes on hold, I might add.
I have a "land line" that I only use for DSL, and, when I add its recurring cost to the SBC/ASI snafus*, that I thankfully have sonic.net to buffer me from, Broadlink Wireless (also an option with Sonic) keeps looking better and better..
* After my last move, SBC/ASI had been claiming that I was any one of several, incorrect distances from the CO (9700 ft, 10500 ft, 16000 ft, and 22000(!) ft), while, according to a lineman working out in front of my place one day, I'm actually less than 7500 ft.
On installation, ASI had me "capped" at 192k/128k, based on their 22,000 ft claim, telling Sonic that 1536/384 simply wouldn't work.. On my request, Sonic "twisted their arm" and got the cap lifted, and at 1.5m, service has been flawless. Heck, the 3m/416k probably would have performed similarly.
Next time I move, if something hasn't changed with SBC, my options will be quite entertained! | |
| | | |
|
|
·