DSL wholesalers - does it matter?
Alan Commike
ba.internet archive doesn't go back very far.
I just spent some web surfing time looking into xDSL for a small
business in the East Bay. So far it looks like there's Covad,
NorthPoint, and PacBell who resell to ISP's. How much of a role
does the reseller actually play in getting a working DSL connection
and keeping it running? In other words, is the reseller a good
starting point to weed out the ISP?
Just by looking at the web pages, Covad seems more professional and
than NorthPoint, and they are partnering with more ISP's. Are
there any horror stories with any of the DSL ISP's? I'm not
considering PBI, Verio/Best/HiWay, and a few others that can't
even make a decent web page.
thanks much,
...alan
--
Alan Commike \ MTS - Applications Engineering
Silicon Graphics Inc. \ Teaching old applications
com...@sgi.com / 650.933.1637 \ new tricks
OTOH IMNSHO ROTFL YMMV EIEIO
Scott Hazen Mueller
>ISP's. How much of a role does the reseller actually play in getting a
>working DSL connection and keeping it running? In other words, is the
>reseller a good starting point to weed out the ISP?
Actually, it's a dual-reseller relationship, depending on which end of the
wire you're looking at. The ISPs resell the CLECs service as much as the
CLECs resell the ISPs. For that matter, with PacBell ILEC, your only ISP
choice is PBI ISP.
The relationship diagram is roughly
o PB --------- ---------
-|- -------------|-CLEC-o|-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-| ISP |
/ \ --------- ---------
(You) (wire) (CO) (ATM/Frame Cloud)
PB is PacBell. They own the wire. They can dig it up any time they want,
and you can't say 'boo'.
The CLEC is Covad or Northpoint (or PacBell). They have a DSL Access
Multiplexer (DSLAM) in PacBell's central office (or serving wire center).
Your physical wire goes into their DSLAM and comes out in ATM cell or Frame
relay frame format (packetized data, interleaved with other subscribers in the
same CO). It runs on facilities leased to the CLEC (Covad uses WorldCOM) in
this format until it hits the ISP.
The CLEC is smack in the middle. Nothing works without them. How they plan
their capacity will be key to your service, since (for example) many of the
sample business plans I've seen in DSL-gear-makers' material give each
customer about 15 Kbits of guaranteed bandwidth.
However, this may all be moot. Many areas don't have a choice. That's the
first thing to look into - see whether the area you want is served by more
than one carrier. If not, it's straight on to the next step anyway.
\scott
Alan Commike
Thanks for the picture, this clears up lots of the fuzzies on
how things are working.
>The relationship diagram is roughly
> o PB --------- ---------
> -|- -------------|-CLEC-o|-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-| ISP |
> / \ --------- ---------
>(You) (wire) (CO) (ATM/Frame Cloud)
>PB is PacBell. They own the wire. They can dig it up any time they want,
>and you can't say 'boo'.
>The CLEC is Covad or Northpoint (or PacBell). They have a DSL Access
>Multiplexer (DSLAM) in PacBell's central office (or serving wire center).
Hmmm, so i ride PacBell's copper into their facility and then I'm
totally out of PB land. I find it pretty amazing that the local CO's
give out their space and let others hook into their copper. I guess
deregulation was worth it.
>However, this may all be moot. Many areas don't have a choice. That's the
>first thing to look into - see whether the area you want is served by more
>than one carrier. If not, it's straight on to the next step anyway.
For some reason the east bay seems to be wired pretty well. I think
I saw all three have service in my area.
do...@89.usenet.us.com
: I find it pretty amazing that the local CO's
: give out their space and let others hook into their copper. I guess
: deregulation was worth it.
Colocation on PacBell premises was available even before deregulation.
It's just pricey.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - do...@network.rahul.net
- Pope Valley & Napa CA.
Philip J. Koenig
> sc...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:
>
> Thanks for the picture, this clears up lots of the fuzzies on
> how things are working.
>
> >The relationship diagram is roughly
>
> > o PB --------- ---------
> > -|- -------------|-CLEC-o|-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-| ISP |
> > / \ --------- ---------
>
> >(You) (wire) (CO) (ATM/Frame Cloud)
>
> >PB is PacBell. They own the wire. They can dig it up any time they want,
> >and you can't say 'boo'.
>
> >The CLEC is Covad or Northpoint (or PacBell). They have a DSL Access
> >Multiplexer (DSLAM) in PacBell's central office (or serving wire center).
>
> Hmmm, so i ride PacBell's copper into their facility and then I'm
> give out their space and let others hook into their copper. I guess
> deregulation was worth it.
Well Pacbell has been kicking and screaming all the way, and is far
from the point where they have facilitated real competition in the
local loop. As pointed out in another thread here, there is virtually
no competition whatsoever for local residential POTS service.
Deregulation also brought us 35c payphones (and soon 50c 411 calls),
800# "toll free" calls that you can't make toll-free from a variety
of places, "carrier line charges", etc. It's a mixed bag.
Phil
--
Philip J. Koenig The Electric Kahuna Organization [see below]
-----------------Computers & Communications for the New Millenium-------------
References to my email address in this message have been modified to foil
address-collection robots. If you wish to send email, use the following
address by removing numbers and spaces: pjkunet64 @ ekahuna27 . c o m
John Thomas
Bells. Let them go after one another like Pirhanas, and THEN they might
quit whing about how "regulations" are keeping them from rolling out DSL
and ISDN......
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>I just wish the FCC and the PUC would completely deregulate the Local
>Bells. Let them go after one another like Pirhanas, and THEN they might
>quit whing about how "regulations" are keeping them from rolling out DSL
>and ISDN......
Encouraging competition for the local loop was part of the Telecom Bill.
It hasn't happened. One or two companies have tried and died. The
CLEC's (competative local exchange carrier) that I've investigated offer
mostly specialty services (H.323) or resell bulk bandwidth. Even these
are forced to lease existing telco plant and co-locate in order to offer
any kind of service. As long as the former baby Bell's own the local
loop (the wire and right-of-way between you and the frame), you're at
their mercy.
The only real hope for competition is from alternative transport vendors
such as the cable companies and wireless providers (SMDS). One reason
that AT&T wants to control TCI is that TCI represents the only viable
alternative for delivering dialtone to the home and thus bypassing your
friendly neighborhood telco. If the deal goes through, TCI will
probably continue to operate cable tv normally, but implimentation of
telephony and cable modems will magically be delayed and probably
forgotten. In short, there is NO real competition for the local loop
and furthur deregulation is unlikely to create any.
Incidentally, telcos don't really compete. It's cheaper to merge and
the various public utilities commissions set the rates. The only
competition you're likely to see is on the type of services offered.
--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)699-0483 pgr (831)426-1240 fax (831)336-2558 home
http://www.cruzio.com/~jeffl WB6SSY
je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us je...@cruzio.com
Philip J. Koenig
writes...
> The only real hope for competition is from alternative transport vendors
> such as the cable companies and wireless providers (SMDS). One reason
> that AT&T wants to control TCI is that TCI represents the only viable
> alternative for delivering dialtone to the home and thus bypassing your
> friendly neighborhood telco. If the deal goes through, TCI will
> probably continue to operate cable tv normally, but implimentation of
> telephony and cable modems will magically be delayed and probably
> forgotten. In short, there is NO real competition for the local loop
> and furthur deregulation is unlikely to create any.
Well I'm not a real expert on the detailed politics of the matter, but
it was my impression that AT&T, post-breakup and post telecom-bill, has
been trying to devise a way to compete with the RBOC's on local service
for some time. It's well known that ATT had been spending lots of $$$
on development and testing of a wireless system to help them bypass
the existing-infrastructure (wire plant) barricade to providing local
service.
So I'm not sure I lump them in with the RBOC's at this point, they
do seem to be a legit competitor.. especially given the fact that the
RBOC's are now going to be allowed to compete in their bread-and-butter
market: long distance. So I happen to think ATT's cable-delivered
phone/data service will be a reality.
As an aside.. I'm personally much happier working with someone like
ATT as a cable provider than TCI. ATT's service record (and
apparently attitude) is a lot better.
John Thomas
newsgroup, there are some people that already have dialtone through
their cable modem. TCI is testing this now. As soon as it is halfway
reliable, I'll drop my Pac Bell Phone lines, as will my business
partner. We are so fed up with the poor service due to the monopoly, we
will try almost anything to get around it. I have said it before, and
will say it again, if any phone company wants to put facilities in
Antioch, CA, I will gladly pay TRIPLE what Pac Bell charges if the
service is good, and I NEVER have to speak to a Pac Bell Rep again.....
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 09:39:59 -0700, John Thomas <jth...@ecis.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I just wish the FCC and the PUC would completely deregulate the Local
> >Bells. Let them go after one another like Pirhanas, and THEN they might
> >quit whing about how "regulations" are keeping them from rolling out DSL
> >and ISDN......
>
> Encouraging competition for the local loop was part of the Telecom Bill.
> It hasn't happened. One or two companies have tried and died. The
> CLEC's (competative local exchange carrier) that I've investigated offer
> mostly specialty services (H.323) or resell bulk bandwidth. Even these
> are forced to lease existing telco plant and co-locate in order to offer
> any kind of service. As long as the former baby Bell's own the local
> loop (the wire and right-of-way between you and the frame), you're at
> their mercy.
>
> The only real hope for competition is from alternative transport vendors
> such as the cable companies and wireless providers (SMDS). One reason
> that AT&T wants to control TCI is that TCI represents the only viable
> alternative for delivering dialtone to the home and thus bypassing your
> friendly neighborhood telco. If the deal goes through, TCI will
> probably continue to operate cable tv normally, but implimentation of
> telephony and cable modems will magically be delayed and probably
> forgotten. In short, there is NO real competition for the local loop
> and furthur deregulation is unlikely to create any.
>
Me Again
>
> Actually, according to some of the messages in the cable modems
> newsgroup, there are some people that already have dialtone through
> their cable modem. TCI is testing this now.
TCI has wired a brand new flagship apartment building somewhere in
SillyCon Valley (near Cisco, I think) where they are offering Cable,
Internet connections and phone service, all from TCI. 96% of the
residents in that new building chose TCI for phone service (according to
a Murky News article a while back).
Recently there was a scathing report from an individual who chose to
live in that building *because* of these features and has had numerous
problems with their service and billing.
Don't count on TCI to provide better *service* than PacBell!
jc