Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Speakeasy Unaffected by FCC Ruling

Posted by timothy on from the acccording-to-speakeasy-anyhow dept.

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."

6 of 20 comments (clear)

  1. ILEC and CLEC by rogueuk · · Score: 4, Informative

    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)

  2. too bad by TomSawyer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    If you disagree then it must be overrated, redundant or trolling.
  3. What you say? by brunes69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:What you say? by ChrisKnight · · Score: 2, Informative

      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

      --
      -- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
  4. Re:Will it help expand their service? by stinerman · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:Will it help expand their service? by wesmills · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.