

Unbundle

@50.182.138.x 1 recommendation Unbundle Anon Unbundling never applied to cable networks; only telecom Even before the FCC reversed some unbundling requirements on telecoms, the 1996 act never applied unbundling to cable systems. Is Sonic.net suggesting that unbundling applies to cable companies too? Because that wasn't in the 1996 act and enforcing unbundling on cable would need Congress to pass a new law. And without cable included in unbundling, this suggestion is meaningless.

Gami00

join:2010-03-11

Mississauga, ON 1 recommendation Gami00 Member Re: Unbundling never applied to cable networks; only telecom The FCC should be able to figure out if they need to include cable in the new law.



Sonic.net just wants FCC to think about Unbundling again..

not just re-introduce something from 10 years ago line by line.



KennyWest

@173.0.4.x KennyWest Anon Re: Unbundling never applied to cable networks; only telecom That's a problem. Since the FCC and the courts ruled that the Internet is an information source, they need to go back to square one and should get Congress to give them permission to regulate and tax the hell out of it.



Unbundling was never created to allow companies to keep going and going. It was allowed for short term investments while the CLECs invested and built their own network. To this day most of them have not even done this. They still rely on the UNE model which does exist. Tell Jasper to go call MP an they'll give him UNE across the entire country. Even ELink will.



fg8578

join:2009-04-26

San Antonio, TX fg8578 Member Re: Unbundling never applied to cable networks; only telecom said by KennyWest : Unbundling was never created to allow companies to keep going and going. It was allowed for short term investments while the CLECs invested and built their own network. To this day most of them have not even done this. They still rely on the UNE model which does exist.



And initially, I thought it unfair that CLECs could ride the ILEC network forever (albeit they pay for that privilege -- it isn't free -- not that you said it was.).



But after thinking about it, just how many telco lines do you want running to your house and digging up your yard? You don't need more than one physical line, as long as all telcos have a chance to use it.



The same should be true for fiber broadband. That is correct.And initially, I thought it unfair that CLECs could ride the ILEC network forever (albeit they pay for that privilege -- it isn't free -- not that you said it was.).But after thinking about it, just how many telco lines do you want running to your house and digging up your yard? You don't need more than one physical line, as long as all telcos have a chance to use it.The same should be true for fiber broadband.

gaforces (banned)

United We Stand, Divided We Fall

join:2002-04-07

Santa Cruz, CA 1 recommendation gaforces (banned) to Unbundle

Member to Unbundle

The distinction between telecom and cable has long been just those name designations.

Both are starting to offer the same services.

2 entity's with physical access to our homes, that's 2 too many for me.

The whole system needs reworking with a central authority to give access to 1 good fiber line with physical access from the central office with multiple company access there.



There are many local graduates with systems specialty's that could run it reliably.



tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA tshirt Premium Member Re: Unbundling never applied to cable networks; only telecom said by gaforces: The distinction between telecom and cable has long been just those name designations.

Both are starting to offer the same services.

The distinction is that Cable was entire private investment, and the Bells receive substantial public help to build their network.

That would greatly change the level of compensation due, as would the capability of a D3.1 capable plant vs an old twisted pair copper line I agree both now/in the near future intend to offer similar products.The distinction is that Cable was entire private investment, and the Bells receive substantial public help to build their network.That would greatly change the level of compensation due, as would the capability of a D3.1 capable plant vs an old twisted pair copper line



CapEx Guy

@198.86.248.x 1 recommendation CapEx Guy Anon Re: Unbundling never applied to cable networks; only telecom The cable business was not entirely private investment. When you count the tax breaks and universal service funds they did receive tax payer dollars though you are right it was at a lower rate than the phone company. A little known fact is that most of the internet was built by the universal service fund and cable was able to take advantage of that infrastructure.



fg8578

join:2009-04-26

San Antonio, TX 1 recommendation fg8578 Member Re: Unbundling never applied to cable networks; only telecom said by CapEx Guy : When you count the tax breaks and universal service funds they did receive tax payer dollars Which tax breaks and USF funds did cable companies receive?



TaxTricks

@50.182.138.x TaxTricks Anon Re: Unbundling never applied to cable networks; only telecom said by fg8578: said by CapEx Guy : When you count the tax breaks and universal service funds they did receive tax payer dollars Which tax breaks and USF funds did cable companies receive? Comcast never got any USF funds. They, just like any big business with thousands of employees, did get Real Estate tax breaks by agreeing to situate a hdqtrs bldg or cust serv center in a city or state. I do know Phila gave them large tax breaks when they built their hdqtrs bldg in Phila instead of in a nearby suburb. Phila did however make out on the deal because they got thousands of employees paying a wage tax that more than offset the real estate tax losses.



tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA tshirt Premium Member Re: Unbundling never applied to cable networks; only telecom said by TaxTricks : deal because they got thousands of employees paying a wage tax that more than offset the real estate tax losses.

»www.nbcphiladelphia.com/ ··· 291.html In fact when done right the temporary tax break can end up very lucrative for the city in the long run. that initial$40 million forgiven bring many thousand of high end jobs and taxpayer to the city and will yield $2+billion in taxable property to the city for generations, and creates a target area for other investments

tshirt tshirt to CapEx Guy

Premium Member to CapEx Guy

said by CapEx Guy : When you count the tax breaks said by CapEx Guy : universal service funds they did receive tax payer dollars Every company/individual gets tax breaks, not having to pay some taxes for meeting public goal X is not the same as receiving cash payments for building X capability or passing a higher percentage of houses/offering a connection.you'll need to point to specific cases of widespread USF to cable...only in very recent times has the phone service been consider a POTS subsitutue and only in limited areas have they been allowed to COLLECT USF (sure as hell, the Telco didn't share) Any USF for broadband would also be VERY recent

jjeffeory

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04

Bullhead City, AZ jjeffeory to tshirt

Member to tshirt

Cable was "private investment" using public poles and right of ways. Not completely private...

mdurkin

join:1999-08-11

San Bruno, CA 2 edits mdurkin to Unbundle

Member to Unbundle

The 1996 Act actually treats both cable and DSL broadband exactly the same, it was just deficient in what it was supposed to do... because the Supreme Court decided that there was no unbundling requirement for broadband at all in the Telecom Act, not even for DSL--only that if the basic transmission were unbundled from the information service that runs on top for some other reason, TA96's provisions would apply. In the case of DSL, it had been forcibly unbundled by virtue of the Computer Inquiry decisions, a line of pre-TA96 decisions at the FCC from the mid 80s to early 90s. The Supreme Court's decision left the discretion whether to apply the same unbundling requirement to cable modem service in the FCC's discretion. It made complete sense for the FCC to give parity to both types of service, but unfortunately that decision went the wrong way and bluntly likely was determined when the democrats lost the presidency in 2000.



It's very frustrating if you understand the history of the Computer Inquiry decisions and look at TA96's provisions. It's clear that the intent was to codify Computer Inquiry into statutory law, but congress missed the explicit unbundling requirement which in the Supreme Court's view left that discretion with the FCC.



Note that the cable companies and FCC, on the same side in Brand X, never denied that there is "telecommunications" as TA96 defines it inside the retail cable modem Internet access product, only that it doesn't meet the definition of "telecommunications service" in TA96 until the "telecommunications" is unbundled and offered separately, and that there was no requirement in TA96 itself to force the unbundling and give rise to a separate basic transmission service (the term used in Computer Inquiry) to be offered to independent ISPs. That is specifically what the Brand X decision hinged on... the definition of "telecommunications service" in TA96, and the lack of an explicit unbundling requirement in TA96.



By the way, the FCC could reverse themselves and reinstate the unbundling requirements of Computer Inquiry and it'd fit just fine with TA96's statutory provisions. They'd likely have to take new evidence and explain their change, but they can do it.



bluefox8

join:2014-08-20 bluefox8 Member Jasper is partially correct In the long run, customers would benefit best by building their own last mile (whether in organized community level or municipality level) and letting private ISPs build out to the node rather than to each home. Building out to a node, for say 1,000 homes, is much cheaper for an ISP to do that it is to build out to each home. Lowering the startup cost in this way allows new ISPs to enter market and give competition.



In a competitive market, I agree that FCC regulations are completely unnecessary as the free market can regulate itself.



However, as it currently stands, we all see that lack of competition creates problems (throttling, caps, expensive, lack of investment, poor customer service, poor satisfaction ratings) that are solved in the wrong way (government regulation of private businesses). Root of problems is the lack of conditions necessary to create a competitive environment, which the people can solve at a local level by building the last mile.

mdurkin

join:1999-08-11

San Bruno, CA mdurkin Member Re: Jasper is partially correct You are right that just building middle mile would be cheaper than requiring competitors to also build last mile, however there really is no reason to do that unless you want to drive up costs for everyone... it's a matter of degree. What is the point if everyone just duplicates the same fiber middle mile. Share the costs. Running cables in the streets, both middle and last mile, is a classic "natural monopoly".



ohreally

@82.69.144.x ohreally to bluefox8

Anon to bluefox8

said by bluefox8: In the long run, customers would benefit best by building their own last mile (whether in organized community level or municipality level) and letting private ISPs build out to the node rather than to each home. Building out to a node, for say 1,000 homes, is much cheaper for an ISP to do that it is to build out to each home. Lowering the startup cost in this way allows new ISPs to enter market and give competition.



The reason why it works well in countries like the UK is because of scale - there's one telco for 99% of the population, and if an ISP connects into a number of their PoPs (and the maximum is only 20 or so PoPs) they get something like 98% population coverage on the telco's ADSL/VDSL/FTTH networks regardless of where their customers actually live. Prices are regulated too.



(and that translates into choice for the consumer - I'm a fairly rural person in the UK and I can choose from 20 or 30 ISPs)



The less-than-1% of the country who get their phone service from a different phone company have no competition at all because ISPs are unwilling to make the investment to serve them as it's a lot of money just to get access to one small city - your choices are the telco's own ISP or mobile/satellite broadband. Does that sound familiar to Americans? said by bluefox8: In a competitive market, I agree that FCC regulations are completely unnecessary as the free market can regulate itself.



The cable companies have not demonstrated their desire to do the same either. So why would removing what few regulations are left suddenly reverse that?



Again, comparing this to countries where the incumbents are forced to share, where things work very well - the telco makes a handsome profit, the ISPs are able to compete on a much more level playing field, and the customer gets choice and lower prices. The problem with that is that you are still ensuring a heavily fragmented market - an ISP would have to invest into thousands of tiny PoPs to get customers - so the ones with the best cost/benefit ratio get competition whereas tiny podunk towns won't.The reason why it works well in countries like the UK is because of scale - there's one telco for 99% of the population, and if an ISP connects into a number of their PoPs (and the maximum is only 20 or so PoPs) they get something like 98% population coverage on the telco's ADSL/VDSL/FTTH networks regardless of where their customers actually live. Prices are regulated too.(and that translates into choice for the consumer - I'm a fairly rural person in the UK and I can choose from 20 or 30 ISPs)The less-than-1% of the country who get their phone service from a different phone company have no competition at all because ISPs are unwilling to make the investment to serve them as it's a lot of money just to get access to one small city - your choices are the telco's own ISP or mobile/satellite broadband. Does that sound familiar to Americans?Verizon and AT&T and other telcos have no regulation or obligation to do anything on their FTTN/FTTH networks - they could choose to allow competition, but they won't. They barely grudgingly allow it on POTS/DSL because they are forced to. I think AT&T allows third parties to resell U-verse, but that's not competition as it's the exact same service over AT&T's network, AT&T's equipment and subject to AT&T's whim.The cable companies have not demonstrated their desire to do the same either. So why would removing what few regulations are left suddenly reverse that?Again, comparing this to countries where the incumbents are forced to share, where things work very well - the telco makes a handsome profit, the ISPs are able to compete on a much more level playing field, and the customer gets choice and lower prices.



KennyWest

@173.0.4.x KennyWest Anon Re: Jasper is partially correct Actually U-verse does allow for resellers. the only catch is that data stays on the AT&T network and they will not allow you to tie directly into it it like they do with aDSL services.



ohreally

@82.69.144.x ohreally Anon Re: Jasper is partially correct said by KennyWest : Actually U-verse does allow for resellers. the only catch is that data stays on the AT&T network and they will not allow you to tie directly into it it like they do with aDSL services.



e.g. if AT&T decided to have a fight with Netflix, it'd affect their own customers and that of the resellers like DSLextreme I thought that is what I pretty much said - they're basically reselling the u-verse service that AT&T sells to its own customers - as far as I can see there's no real difference apart from billing and maybe some support?e.g. if AT&T decided to have a fight with Netflix, it'd affect their own customers and that of the resellers like DSLextreme



maartena

Elmo

Premium Member

join:2002-05-10

Orange, CA maartena Premium Member Makes sense...



And of course Obama had to open his mouth about it, which means people that were against Obama for many other policies, THEREFORE are automatically against title-II now.



It's time for regulations that would allow bold ISP's such as SONIC, but also resellers like DSLExtreme, have a much better time competing on the market. Makes perfect sense that 3d party ISP's (think Sonic's own fiber overbuild) would support both Title-II and unbundling at the same time. Those are the kinds of enterprises that would benefit most from it, where the big video players would not benefit from it all that much.And of course Obama had to open his mouth about it, which means people that were against Obama for many other policies, THEREFORE are automatically against title-II now.It's time for regulations that would allow bold ISP's such as SONIC, but also resellers like DSLExtreme, have a much better time competing on the market.



KennyWest

@173.0.4.x KennyWest Anon Re: Makes sense... What I want to know is why Sonic is not allowing unbundling of their network. If they want it for others then they should allow the openess of their network too. Fair is fair. But I don't see them having the same vision. No way is someone going to spend millions of dollars only to allow Joe ISP across the US to come in and resell the service without paying much of anything. It just doesn't make sense.



Zenit

The system is the solution

Premium Member

join:2012-05-07

Purcellville, VA Zenit Premium Member In the UK



»www.openreach.co.uk/orpg ··· /home.do



Our 1996 act did not really work out in the same way that the British legislation did, unfortunately. The UK gov forced British Telecom to separate infrastructure from service around 2000 - they are legally two separate entities now. The new FTTN/FTTH network that is being built is designed from the start to be an entirely unbundled network - very CLEC friendly.Our 1996 act did not really work out in the same way that the British legislation did, unfortunately.



ohreally

@82.69.144.x ohreally Anon Re: In the UK While you're right that the newer FTTC/FTTP networks are designed with it in mind (other ISPs were involved when it was still a tiny trial), there's nothing wrong with their older DSL lines and even just the plain copper.



A lot of people aren't connected to BT's fibre networks (this is improving - I'm in rural UK and have had 80Mbit FTTC for 3 years), so all they can get is typically ADSL from a BT owned DSLAM.



Despite that, you still get a huge choice of ISPs (actually more choice than on fibre as some ISPs still haven't made the jump) - and in my nearly 10 years of broadband I have never used BT for my internet service, always a third party competitor.



The copper itself has been available under local loop unbundling for well over a decade, and it's at the point where even rural villages have been targeted by one or more LLU companies. I think my village (roughly 1000 lines) got its first LLU DSLAM installed this year, 9 years after BT did it (the neighbouring village has had an LLU company for about 5 years). I'd assume in the US, these sorts of places might still be struggling to get DSL from anyone!



And BT are still investing in plain old DSL. They are slowly ramping down their ancient ATM-based DSL network and installing new DSLAMs that connect to the same IP/Ethernet based network as their FTTC/FTTP networks do. So an ISP has to do no extra work to offer any of the three types of connection. The eventual plan is to shut down their old POTS switches (currently Ericsson AXE10 and a British design called System X) and stuff some voice cards in these DSLAMs to offer phone and ISDN service too.



FWIW I pay about $50 for my 80Mbit down, 20Mbit up service plus around $20 or so for the phone service (no dry loop service available, which is one downside). No caps, no throttling, very little congestion.



Zenit

The system is the solution

Premium Member

join:2012-05-07

Purcellville, VA Zenit Premium Member Re: In the UK Yep, in the USA rural places typically have no DSL, or one DSL or Cable provider if your lucky.

The model in the UK is a success and not detrimental to private business. I wish the USA would implement it. But our government is bought and sold...



I pay $107 for 28Mbit down, 5Mbit up + HDTV + Phone from Comcast. They can deliver up to 150Mbps but that is too expensive. They are the fastest provider in town.



The only choice from the phone company (Verizon ex-Bell Atlantic) is DSL at a max speed of 3-5Mbit down, 1 up for about $47 dollars with regional calling included. Verizon is building FTTH outside of the town from my exchange but intends on skipping the town proper for unknown reasons.



KennyWest

@173.0.4.x KennyWest to Zenit

Anon to Zenit

OpenReach is still owned and operated by BT. Did you see their name on the site?



Zenit

The system is the solution

Premium Member

join:2012-05-07

Purcellville, VA Zenit Premium Member Re: In the UK

»www.ofcom.org.uk/about/w ··· s-ofcom/



Ofcom actualy has in its mission statement to ensure competition. If BT is caught in shenanigans hurting the competitive providers that rely on OpenReach they WILL end up in court.



The OpenReach FAQ:



»www.openreach.co.uk/orpg ··· 6HEq8%3D



Unlike here in the USA, the Brits realized the value of having one common infrastructure provider separated from service. We absolutely screwed up with breaking up Ma Bell - instead we should have separated infrastructure from service...just like power companies in some regions of the USA. Yes, but OpenReach has been sufficiently isolated from the rest of the BT group. It has its own CEO, and is held accountable by an independent panel known as the EAB (whom advises OpenReach - they have no legal authority), and the British equivalent to the FCC (Ofcom) which does have legal authority:Ofcom actualy has in its mission statement to ensure competition. If BT is caught in shenanigans hurting the competitive providers that rely on OpenReach they WILL end up in court.The OpenReach FAQ:Unlike here in the USA, the Brits realized the value of having one common infrastructure provider separated from service. We absolutely screwed up with breaking up Ma Bell - instead we should have separated infrastructure from service...just like power companies in some regions of the USA.



ohreally

@82.69.144.x 1 recommendation ohreally to KennyWest

Anon to KennyWest

said by KennyWest : OpenReach is still owned and operated by BT. Did you see their name on the site?



Some people don't think this goes far enough and that it should be a full split. But BT Retail, BT Wholesale and Openreach are still separate entities, just owned by a common parent. The point is to set up a chinese wall between BT's own retail and wholesale operations and the infrastructure side, just as there would be between a third party provider and Openreach.Some people don't think this goes far enough and that it should be a full split.



tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA tshirt Premium Member Umm Taxes...



You can't separate the prices in France, from the extreme taxation that makes it possible. people in the US would not tolerate such high rates.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta ··· n_France "Despite hand wringing from opponents of the idea, it has been successful in locations like Paris, where users now pay significantly less (check out this VentureBeat story this week for a prime example). "You can't separate the prices in France, from the extreme taxation that makes it possible. people in the US would not tolerate such high rates.



PlusOne

@50.182.138.x -1 recommendation PlusOne Anon Re: Umm Taxes... said by tshirt: "Despite hand wringing from opponents of the idea, it has been successful in locations like Paris, where users now pay significantly less (check out this VentureBeat story this week for a prime example). "



You can't separate the prices in France, from the extreme taxation that makes it possible. people in the US would not tolerate such high rates.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta ··· n_France



Bloggers and advocate groups always ignore that reality when comparing costs in US and in other countries. Plus One.Bloggers and advocate groups always ignore that reality when comparing costs in US and in other countries.

big_e

join:2011-03-05 7 recommendations big_e Member Re: Umm Taxes... Right wing bloggers and corporate shills always seem to ignore the reality that in so called socialist countries there is more competition for cellular phone and broadband internet service than the old free market capitalist USA. They will then bring up the tax bogeyman to wrongly suggest that government is somehow making the price artificially cheap via redistribution of wealth when it is really due to actual competition and government policies that will actually protect their citizens against corrupt monopolistic business practices that are tolerated and encouraged in the USA.

silbaco

Premium Member

join:2009-08-03

USA silbaco Premium Member Re: Umm Taxes... Is there really more competition in the cellular industry in Europe? When I look at each individual country in Europe, I see that there are 3-4 cellular providers in each country that make up nearly all the cellular subscriptions. That sounds pretty similar to what we have here.



JakCrow

join:2001-12-06

Palo Alto, CA 5 recommendations JakCrow to big_e

Member to big_e

Meanwhile, in the U.S., the tax payers are on the hook for more and more of the expenses of corporate America as our "patriotic" corporations keep getting legislation passed that allowed them to game our supposed "capitalist economy" for their own benefit, supposed "conservative" politicians are pushing to limit competition in multiple industries, and as those very same right wing bloggers and corporate shills keep advocating for lower corporate taxes on companies that are shipping jobs out of the country and cutting wages in country, but we're supposed to believe all of this has to do with the state of broadband in the U.S.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO 1 recommendation Skippy25 to tshirt

Member to tshirt

Their high taxes give them much more than better broadband and were there well before then.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24

Cleveland, OH sonicmerlin to tshirt

Member to tshirt

said by tshirt: "Despite hand wringing from opponents of the idea, it has been successful in locations like Paris, where users now pay significantly less (check out this VentureBeat story this week for a prime example). "



You can't separate the prices in France, from the extreme taxation that makes it possible. people in the US would not tolerate such high rates.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta ··· n_France



Research done in this area points to unbundling enabling multiple competitors bringing prices down and forcing incumbents to build out new lines before their new competitors do. Do you have any evidence to suggest France has spent more per capita than the US has on broadband, what with our $100 billion+ of unaudited USF money doled out to telcos?Research done in this area points to unbundling enabling multiple competitors bringing prices down and forcing incumbents to build out new lines before their new competitors do.



tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA tshirt Premium Member Re: Umm Taxes... said by sonicmerlin: Do you have any evidence to suggest France... said by sonicmerlin: what with our $100 billion+ of unaudited USF money Perhaps you have heard of a company called Orange S.A. which used to be a french gov't controlled business known formerly France Télécom S.A. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_S.A If it is unaudited, how do you, KNOW it was $100 billion, or if it was justifiable payments for high cost service vs a slush fund?



JasonOD

@107.77.83.x -3 recommendations JasonOD Anon Never going to happen.... 'Unbundling' is worse than title II in killing investment incentives.



JimH

@209.173.81.x JimH Anon Yes!!! I'm grandfathered in with EarthLink and pay $39.99 for internet service for which my cable company charges $69.95 plus a cable modem fee.



tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA tshirt Premium Member So if Dane likes unbundling, will he... Allow anyone to use HIS pipe?

Unilaterally demonstrating how well it would work and at what price would he share the fiber owned by Sonic.

talz13

join:2006-03-15

Avon, OH talz13 Member Re: So if Dane likes unbundling, will he... If Billy doesn't have to share, I don't either!

elray

join:2000-12-16

Santa Monica, CA 1 recommendation elray Member Pot, Kettle? Once again, hero Dane talks the talk...



while forcing "Fusion" customers to buy unwanted dialtone service and rent CPE*.



(* Sonic hides the modem rental fee opt-out process as much as AT&T and Comcast are accused of hiding / obfuscating their low-cost internet plans for the poor folks.)



Unbundling, indeed...

drivel

join:2013-07-12

Santa Clara, CA drivel Member unbundling Funny, you can't get unbundled service from Sonic.

wkm001

join:2009-12-14 wkm001 Member Why NOT! We should ask for twice what we want in hopes that we get half of what we want.



fg8578

join:2009-04-26

San Antonio, TX fg8578 Member Good for the goose is good for the gander? So Sonic.NET wants to apply Title II unbundling to ISP networks. Fine, would that include their own network?

mxyztplk

join:2003-07-24

San Jose, CA mxyztplk Member Is bundling really the problem? Evidently, Sonic.Net can make a profit from 1 gig fiber plus phone at $40/month.

Evidently, Google can make an even nicer profit from 1 gig fiber alone at $70/month.

So, maybe they are being selective in where they install.

So, maybe they are avoiding the really nutty cities.

Still, it looks like the infrastructure cost of FTTP has come way down.

So, is lack of unbundling the main problem?

And would unbundling usher in competitive nirvana?

Beck38

join:2014-05-12

Centralia, WA Beck38 Member Speakeasy performance during Competition with incumbants During the few years this was in effect (approx 2004-7 or so) Verizon DSL in my area was limited to 3M/768K (this even through the DSLAM was and still is with Frontier only some 3000' from my residence) Speakeasy was able to buy and install far better Alcatel DSLAM's (at some 8000+' at the nearest central office) that provided speeds better than 8M/2M, albeit at about twice the price. But at the time (no DOCSIS3 on cable) it was worth it.



Sounds fairly good until, of course, Verizon started running FIOS. But then again, they refused to wire neighborhoods where Comcast didn't like competition, and that's where we stand today, with FIOS literally at the entrance to our cul-de-sac but Frontier refusing to go the extra 100' to provide any competition.



But just wait, a 3rd party is about to start running private fiber (next spring) in competition with both Frontier and Comcast, costs about $1K to hook up but monthly fees are half what either Frontier FIOS or Comcast charge at speeds 5-10 times greater, so the pay back is at around 18 months, and less if you get some of your neighbors to split the main feed costs.