X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:34:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: EEkid@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on FCC rules that telcos can cut off DSL resellers
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx, joe@xxxxxxx
X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5200
X-Virus-Scanned-At: eList eXpress <http://www.elistx.com/>
X-Spam-Filtered-At: eList eXpress <http://www.elistx.com/>
Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:35:33 EDT
Resent-From: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Resent-To: dfarber@xxxxxxx
X-Spam-Clean: 7% (NO_REAL_NAME 0, __AOL_FROM 0, __BAT_BOUNDARY 0,
__C230066_P5 0, __CHILD_PORN_NOT_1 0, __CT 0, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY 0,
__CTYPE_MULTIPART 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_ALT 0, __FRAUD_419_BARRISTER 0,
__HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __LINES_OF_YELLING 0, __MIME_HTML 0,
__MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __STOCK_CRUFT 0, __STOCK_PHRASE_7 0,
__TAG_EXISTS_HTML 0)
X-Greylist: Default is to whitelist mail, not delayed by
milter-greylist-2.0 (mx5.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.10.115]); Mon, 08 Aug 2005
10:35:36 -0400 (EDT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on
waveman.securesites.net
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.63
X-Spam-Level:
Yes, but what happens when the ILEC (incumbent local exchange carrier)
won't allow the customer to purchase THEIR DSL service? Sound odd? I
thought so too. Since all the local exchanges were used in my area, I had
to get what is called a "foreign exchange" for my telephone. Once I got
this foreign exchange I was no longer allowed to purchase DSL through
Verizon while using the foreign exchange.
I then purchased the DSL from Covad which uses Verizon's infrastructure
(same phone line). If Verizon, dumps Covad as is now possible, I'll be
without broadband access.
Better price? Hardly! Covad charges $29.99 per month. Verizon charges
$29.99 per month. While Verizon may be able to charge less, they choose
not to do so. I have received numerous calls from Verizon wanting me to
switch to their DSL service. I simply explain to their solicitors that
I'm ineligible for DSL service. They always argue that their computer
shows that DSL is available for my address, I then have explain that while
that is the case, VERIZON CHOOSES NOT TO ALLOW ME TO USE THEIR SERVICE.
Jerry Ballman
In a message dated 8/7/2005 9:16:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
dave@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Joe McGuckin <joe@xxxxxxx>
Date: August 7, 2005 9:12:52 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx, Ip Ip <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] FCC rules that telcos can cut off DSL resellers
(For IP )
Brett,
Is this another 'the sky is falling' warning?
I've been hearing for years about how the telcos are going to crush
independent ISP's, yet small ISP's seem to be thriving. Yes, if you
try to
complete directly against an ILEC such as SBC, you're going to get
squashed.
You cannot beat the ILEC on price, service availability or install lead
times. Did I mention price?
I know the president of a large DSL reseller here in California. Even
though
they are probably one of the SBC's top 10 dsl resellers, he mentioned
to me
that after adding in the various costs imposed on them by the SBC for
access
to the DSL network and fees for accessing DSLAMS and CO's, their cost
per
subscriber was higher then the SBC's retail street price. They have to
compete on selling a 'better' product, but the sad fact is that
consumers
generally buy the cheapest product - and the ILEC will always be able to
sell it cheaper than any of their resellers.
Every bill received by a SBC telephone customer is a pitch for their
data
services. Every time a subscriber talks to the SBC customer service,
there's
a pitch to combine or consolidate services to save money. Three months
before a resale customer's contract is up, they're being cold-called by
SBC's telemarketers to switch over direct to SBC.
DSL is a lost cause - as T1's will be. Any service that remotely
resembles a
commodity and where the underlying access is controlled by an ILEC will
eventually be price-pointed below profitability for the non-
facilities based
ISP.
As far as backhauls go: Except for very rare circumstances, ILECS are
already the most expensive option for circuits. Any ISP with any
sense will
have moved their gear into network neutral colo with a wide selection of
carriers in order to guarantee themselves reasonable pricing.
I don't think the independent ISP's are endangered, you just have to
sell
against the ILEC's weaknesses, not their strengths.
Joe
On 8/6/05 4:25 PM, "David Farber" <dave@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Brett Glass <brett@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: August 6, 2005 4:35:03 PM EDT
> To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx, Ip Ip <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [IP] FCC rules that telcos can cut off DSL resellers
>
>
> Dave:
>
> The most serious problem with this ruling is that it may not only cut
> off local providers' access to the DSL infrastructure but also their
> "backhauls" -- their connections to the Internet. The ruling will
> allow the Baby Bells to price wholesale access (the "big pipes" that
> ISPs buy) above the retail value that can be derived from them, thus
> making it infeasible for others to compete and ensuring vertical
> integration. The days of the independent ISP may well be numbered.
>
> --Brett Glass
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as joe@xxxxxxx
> To manage your subscription, go to
> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
> people/
>
>
>
--
Joe McGuckin
ViaNet Communications
994 San Antonio Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Phone: 650-213-1302
Cell: 650-207-0372
Fax: 650-969-2124
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as EEkid@xxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/