Speakeasy Unaffected by FCC Ruling

NaDrew writes "Speakeasy, the favorite DSL provider of many a Slashdotter, has issued a press release stating that they do not expect to be affected by the FCC ruling allowing ILECs to refuse to lease their lines to third-party providers. This is because the ruling specifically states that CLECs--such as Covad, from whom Speakeasy resells service--are not to be denied unbundled wholesale access to ILEC lines."

Comments

thank the goddess

[Anonymous Coward]

I was wondering if I had to buy a T1 just to get an unblocked internet connection with a stable set of terms and conditions.

ILEC and CLEC

[rogueuk]

For those, like me, that aren't in the know:
CLEC = competitive local exchange carrier
ILEC = incumbent local exchange carrier

An ILEC is a telephone company that was providing local service when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was enacted. Compare with CLEC, a company that competes with the already established local telephone business.

(from http://isp.webopedia.com/TERM/I/ILEC.html)

too bad

[TomSawyer]

I was starting to wish the ruling was as terrible as everyone was going ape shit over. I thought for sure we'd have affordable wireless broadband for all after a few months of the Bells trying to lock out competition.

What you say?

[brunes69]

You mean that slashdot was posting a story that jumped to a wildly irrational conclusion without reading the linked data source, thus leading to hundreds of people posting even more irrational conclusions based soley on the incorrect story summary?

Say it ain't so! I can't believe this happened. here is to hoping it never happens again.

Re:What you say?

[ChrisKnight]

I'd say you aren't getting the picture. The FCC ruling is indeed bad news for independant ISPs, ones who can not afford to build their own infrastructure. That is not blown out of proportion.

What SpeakEasy is stating with their press release is that they will not be affected because unlike smaller ISPs they do not lease their last mile from the telcos themselves. They lease from the last man standing in the world of DSL providers who built their own infrastructure: Covad.

So, SpeakEasy did not say the FCC ruling isn't bad, just that it isn't bad to them because of their situation.

As the customer of a small ISP (CLIQ), I fully expect to get screwed in the long run by SBC using this ruling to force my ISP out of business.

-Chris

Will it help expand their service?

[Copperhead]

What I want to know is what do I need to do to help Speakeasy expand their service. When I lived in my apartment near college, I had Speakeasy's DSL service, and loved it... I rarely had problems, and when I did, their customer service was excellent.

I also loved their policy of "you paid for your bandwidth... use it how you want", even to the point of assisting users in reselling the service to their neighbors.

When I moved to my new house in Coatesville, PA, I called Speakeasy to transfer the service, but they notified me that they didn't support my new address.

You can read about my trials here, but the short story is that I switched to Verizon, since they were the only game in town. After two years of their crap, I switched to Comcast. I've been happier with them than Verizon, but if I were able to go back to the Speakeasy, I'd do so in a second.

So, why can't Speakeasy service my home?

Re:Will it help expand their service?

[stinerman]

First, I can second the service/policies of Speakeasy ... they are certainly top notch.

Second, I believe that Speakeasy does not have any sort of agreement with Verizon-owned lines. Speakeasy only has agreements with a few CLECs to bundle with their services. For instance, a COVAD tech came to install my connection (which was over SBC lines). Speakeasy, AFAIK, just routes you over their private network and throws in the other value-added packages and acts as a liason between your ILEC and CLEC.

Certainly, feel free to correct me if I'm off the mark.

Re:Will it help expand their service?

[fsterman]

Yes,
When I called asking about service they said that Convad was not here. They still offered me service but at a much higher cost and limited services.

Re:Will it help expand their service?

[wesmills]

Covad (not Speakeasy; SE sells via the Covad network) has agreements with Verizon in some areas, namely the ex-GTE territories. I can speak authoritatively on this because my parents are in an ex-GTE Verizon area and are using Speakeasy via lineshare.

Covad is more prevalent in SBC and ex-Bell areas because SBC owns a chunk (approximately 20%, as I recall) of Covad, and has somewhat of a vested interest in keeping them alive. In addition, SBC's SDSL service is actually provisioned over Covad's network, since SBC does not have equipment to provide SDSL themselves.

Re:Will it help expand their service?

[squiggleslash]

When I was waiting for someone to supply a (real) DSL service to my home, which was listed in the public records as too far away from a Central Office (CO), BellSouth made an announcement it'd be available in February. I spoke to someone at SpeakEasy who told me that this was because BellSouth was building some form of repeater station (I don't remember the term used, but the point was the DSLAMs would be housed outside of the CO, closer to my home), and that "unfortunately we'll not have access to that".

So it looks to me like Covad's ability to provision DSL isn't necessarily dependent purely on what areas they cover, sometimes the unbundled lines just aren't good enough and the line's owners (the ILECs) have an advantage in what they can do with them anyway.

Re:Will it help expand their service?

[Copperhead]

I was told the same thing by Speakeasy, that they wouldn't ever have access to the means for providing their service. :-(

Re:Will it help expand their service?

[malachid69]

Second, I believe that Speakeasy does not have any sort of agreement with Verizon-owned lines.

Unfortunately, that isn't true. I tried to get Speakeasy so that I could overcome Verizon's unwillingness to upgrade my line. Speakeasy told me that there was nothing they could do, because they would just use the line Verizon provided, and that they could not acquire a different line.

Re:Will it help expand their service?

[stinerman]

Exactly.

Speakeasy can't upgrade the lines because they don't own them. The only thing they can do if you have crappy lines is ask Verizon nicely to do some upgrades. Its the same thing with all ILECs (the line owners). If you aren't getting your DSL through the ILEC, then the best your ISP can do is ask the them to fix the problem. When all is said and done, you're at the ILEC's whim.

Definition of "Denied"

[computersareevil]

Verizon Exec : "Sure, Speakeasy, you can buy DSL lines from us at the same rate as the REST of our business customers. Bend over!"

"Not to be denied" != fairly priced.

Who's got more lawyers, Verizon or Speakeasy?

Re:Definition of "Denied"

[dacarr]

Since SE leases the lines from CLECs, not ILECs, isn't this a moot point? Maybe in the future they themselves would be a CLEC, but right now this isn't even right.

Re:Definition of "Denied"

[computersareevil]

Since SE leases the lines from CLECs, not ILECs, isn't this a moot point?

Nope. Verizon can say the same thing to Covad. Verizon can charge them whatever they want, so long as they don't "deny" to sell it to them. The definition of "deny" will no-doubt be left to a murder of lawyers.

Re:Definition of "Denied"

[squiggleslash]

That's complete rubbish. The prices of unbundled lines are regulated, and Verizon's ability to sell long distance services, something they badly want, is dependent on their ability to provision unbundled lines to CLECs.

Verizon cannot "charge (Covad and other CLECs) whatever they want", neither legally nor practically.

This is unlike Slashdot.org, which can quite legally insert however many minutes they want between successive posts from the same user forcing them to be unable to participate in a conversation in a typically dumbass and ineffective attempt to avoid people flooding their forums with junk.

Re:Definition of "Denied"

[Anonymous Coward]

That USED to be the case, but now the FCC is reversing their position. They are no longer requiring the ILECs to lease their lines to CLECs like covad.

That is, if I am reading the FCC's publications correctly.

And there was much rejoicing!

[dacarr]

They mentioned this to me on their support channels that we are largely unaffected - but, this was Friday. Glad to know that they have mentioned this to put us at ease. (yay)

I don't think you're quite right about that.

[arete]

The following is my understanding...

As a rule, Covad still leases the "last mile" of wire from the ILEC. But they don't lease any DSL equipment.

Earthlink (for instance, I think) actually leases the DSL line from the ILEC AND the spot in the ILEC's DSLAM. So earthlink can offer DSL by only providing uplink bandwidth and everything else is virtual.

I have DSL through Cyberonic. From talking to their techs, the impression I have is that Cyberonic has the same sort of setup Speakeasy does, but replace Covad with MCI. (And make the service thereofore be less reliable)

I therefore believe that Covad is not quite the last-man standing of DSL CLEC.