Discussion:
flex dsl tips?
(too old to reply)
jt
2004-11-02 09:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Any advice on the do-it-yourself flex dsl plan?
What's generally needed, a dsl modem, maybe phone
dsl filters, possibly ethernet software?

Flex dsl rates look unbeatable, but with their
no-help policy can a naive user likely get it
going reasonably? tks
Del Wong
2004-11-07 07:06:42 UTC
Permalink
we (flexnet) are reselling system metrics' adsl services, as are some other ISPs. We got out of
provisioning our own about five months ago. not cost effective anymore especially with verizon
online's sub-$30 a month pricing.

i am recommending everyone to go to verizon online directly for adsl. if you go with flexnet, we
charge $25 a month and verizon will charge an additional $37.50 line charge. so total cost is
$63.45 a month to you.

if you go directly with verizon online, you just pay $30 a month IN TOTAL.

i am gonna repeat this as some users still don't get it. If you go with verizon, they charge
$30. If you tell verizon that you want flexnet to be your isp, guess what? Verizon will charge
you $37.50 a month. Now the isp has to make money too, but even if we charged you $0, you'd
still be paying more! So you add the ISP cost, which for flexnet is $25 a month, and you be
paying a WHOLE LOT MORE! So why would you want to go anyplace other than verizon online???

no isp can compete anymore pricewise with verizon for adsl service. so i kinda gave up.

Before verizon started this "undercutting" of ISPs, flexnet had around 660 ADSL customers. We
are now at around 300 and our current ADSL customers are DROPPING LIKE FLIES.

we can compete with verizon online only at the higher adsl speeds. Like for instance Titanium.

other than that, just forget it. go to verizon online.



//del//
Post by jt
Any advice on the do-it-yourself flex dsl plan?
What's generally needed, a dsl modem, maybe phone
dsl filters, possibly ethernet software?
Flex dsl rates look unbeatable, but with their
no-help policy can a naive user likely get it
going reasonably? tks
--
//del//

============================================================================
Local Modem Access at 2,220 locations in USA and Canada. Just $9.95 a month
Unlimited Time, No Setup Fees. Email & Webpages Included http://www.flex.com
Post by jt
Hawaii's Very First Public Access Internet Provider, July 19, 1994 <<<
Jason Forester
2004-11-08 16:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Del Wong
we can compete with verizon online only at the higher adsl speeds. Like for instance Titanium.
other than that, just forget it. go to verizon online.
//del//
Only one thing to add to what Del said -

Just remember that once there are no more small ISPs, it ain't gonna
be $30 no more.

In fact, on just about the same day I predict Time Warner and Verizon
will sing in stereo 'we're losing money on internet we have to reduce
service and increase prices waaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh'

- j
Michael Painter
2004-11-10 22:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Forester
Only one thing to add to what Del said -
Just remember that once there are no more small ISPs, it ain't gonna
be $30 no more.
In fact, on just about the same day I predict Time Warner and Verizon
will sing in stereo 'we're losing money on internet we have to reduce
service and increase prices waaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh'
- j
11/05/04
Order: SBC's Extension of Petition for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. 160(c)
from Application of Section 271. In this Order, the Bureau extends by 90
days the date by which the petition requesting forbearance filed by SBC
shall be deemed granted in the absence of a Commission decision that the
petition fails to meet the standards for forbearance. WC Docket No. 03-235.
Order: Word | Acrobat
11/03/04
COMMENTS INVITED ON PETITION FOR FORBEARANCE FILED BY BELLSOUTH
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. REGARDING INCUMBENT LEC PROVISION OF BROADBAND. WC
Docket No. 04-405
Public Notice: Word | Acrobat
This Petition is incredibly important to the ISP industry! It essentially
asks for the power to "disintermediate" (my word, but think about banks)
Internet access, putting the entire ISP sector out of business! You'll get
Internet service from the owner of the wire, period; ISPs won't have access
to telco wires (above dial-up speed, and that might become toll under
separate proceedings that the ILECs are working on) once this goes through.
Post by Jason Forester
http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/
Make some appointments and talk to the FCC.
Write intelligent comments.
Have your voice heard.
Do indeed!

I do not want to hear from ISPs saying that they are too busy to read this
and comment, or at least become part of a group comment. If this goes
ahead, the ISP will not be so busy in the future. Unless, perhaps, they
abandon the Internet and shift to the donut business.


_____________  The ISP-CLEC Discussion List  _____________
To Join: mailto:join-isp-***@isp-clec.com
To Remove: mailto:remove-isp-***@isp-clec.com
Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-clec/archives/
Michael Painter
2004-11-11 22:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Also forwarded from the isp-dsl list:

Here is a link to an excellent resource provided by CompTel. You can use the
form letters, add to them or write your own.

http://www.comptelaction.org/comptel/letterWizardFE.jsp?APPID=1211&LETTER=new

This is an easy way to make your voice heard. I urge everyone to participate
and do it now. Below is one letter I just posted using this resource. Let
your voice be heard.


Dear Chairman Powell,
The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which passed with overwhelming
Republican and Democrat support, envisioned an active FCC role in supporting
competitive access to the phone networks.

The FCC must rise to meet this challenge as commissioners craft long-term
access rules. Specifically, the FCC must take action that reaffirms that it
will not sit idly by while jobs are lost, prices rise and four phone
monopolies undo the progress of the past five years.

I also urge the FCC to look at the economic impact if the Independent ISP's
and CLEC's would no longer be open for business. If every Independent ISP
and CLEC, other than the BOC's, were to close today, what would happen next
would be an unbelievable event not felt since the Depression.


Your letter will be sent to the following:
FCC Chairman Michael Powell

And copied to:
U.S. Senator George Voinovich (R)
U.S. Senator Mike DeWine (R)
U.S. Representative Sherrod Brown (D)

FCC Commissioners
Bush Administration Officials



Frank Muto
President/Ceo
FSM Marketing Group, Inc
Michael Painter
2004-11-12 05:35:47 UTC
Permalink
Below, when Fred refers to DirecWay shutting down, I believe that he means SpaceWay and DirecTV's decision to charge $1.6B against
earnings and use the satellites for DBS TV instead.
Imo, neither service should be considered competitive anyway due to the cost, latency, and bandwidth throttling "FAP" (Fair Access
Policy).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For us who are not grounded in the history of each
subsection and consequences thereof, would you
please give us the short version - one that we can
1. Section 271
2. computer II and common carriage.
1. Section 271 is the part of the Telecom Act that overturned the MFJ
restriction on Bell company entry into long distance. It established a
14-point checklist that each Bell company had to meet in each state, before
being granted "Section 271 authority" to sell interLATA service. Each
state PUC and then the FCC had to approve each such state
application. Section 271 authority can theoretically be revoked if the
Bell stops obeying. Note that in Texas, SBC is a Bell but Verizon isn't.

The checklist includes unbundling a number of items, including switching,
loops, and transport. So when the TRO revoked the Section 251 "impairment"
requirement for some of those to be unbundled, CLECs in Bell areas invoked
Section 271. That does not necessarily, some argue, require cost-based
(TELRIC) pricing, just making them available. The SBC petition, IIRC, goes
a bit farther, saying that the RBOCs don't even have to make them
available. By the SBC Petition's logic, if there's no Section 251
impairment shown, then Section 271's requirements are void.

2. Computer II was, perhaps, the single most important FCC decision of the
past 25 years. It, along with the earlier Sharing and Resale ruling,
literally made the Internet possible. Computer II addressed several
things, including terminal equipment. Essentially, what it did was require
the telephone companies (it was during the late Bell System era, just
before divestiture) to structurally separate themselves into regulated and
unregulated entities. The regulated entity (which became the RBOC a year
later) could provide basic telecommunications services, such as dial tone
and leased lines, but could not provide "enhanced" services or terminal
equipment. The idea was to prevent the telephone company from leveraging
its monopoly on services into unregulated areas. They had been renting a
lot of PBXs under tariff, a practice that Computer II banned. Hence when
it took effect (1/1/83), AT&T opened the doors of "American Bell Inc."
(later ATTIS), its "fully separated subsidiary", and introduced its first
digital PBX, which had literally been sitting on the shelf for three years
awaiting detariffing.

This is relevant to the Internet because it banned Bells from providing
enhanced services except through an arms'-length subsidiary, which had to
purchase the underlying services on the same terms as anyone else. A few
years later, Computer III loosened it up a bit, removing the structural
separation (so the same sales force, for instance, could sell and install
both PBXs and lines), but still requiring the underlying services to be
offered.

BellSouth argues that Computer II is bad because it raises their cost of
DSL-fed ISP service by about two bucks a month. Due to Computer II,
there's a DSL telecom service and there's a separate, unregulated, ISP
service. Independent ISPs can buy just the former, while they prefer to
retail the latter, which buys the former and theoretically marks it up. (In
practice, they've been accused of marking it down, which could be seen as
predatory, but that's another issue.) If BellSouth gets their way, they
can dump the neutral ATM layer and just stick IP in the DSLAMs, with
BellSouth.net addresses, and either you subscribe to that or you don't use
THEIR wire. They argue that this is fine because the consumer can try to
get a satellite dish (though DirecWay just shut down) or WiFi (yeah, right)
or cable (maybe, but not open to ISPs) or just use the "wireless web" that
Cingular gives you on your cell phone. ISPs are, well, useless
intermediary trash.

3. Common carriage is the ancient principle (19th century if not earlier)
that a "carrier" is not responsible for the content, and can't "peek inside
the envelope". So when you make a phone call, the LEC can't listen in and
charge based on the "value" of what you say -- say, demand a share of the
price of that pizza you order. An ISP, as a non-common-carrier, is
technically expected to think about content, and block sites freely, or
cache them, or whatever, but a common carrier can't. A common carrier
pipe's just a pipe. Computer II is, in effect, a reinforcement of this; it
put in structural boundaries between what a common carrier did and what a
non-common carrier did with the common carriage.

Independent ISPs depend on common carriage, of course -- the IP layer is
*above* common carriage, so the Bell-captive ISP is just another
customer. By doing away with this, at least on "broadband" (which can be
defined *quite* broadly), independent ISPs will lose their access to the
raw bandwidth that they run on.
Without question, the ILEC bunch regrets they screwed
up when the Internet started - and now they want it, lock,
stock and barrel.
How true.


_____________  The ISP-CLEC Discussion List  _____________
To Join: mailto:join-isp-***@isp-clec.com
To Remove: mailto:remove-isp-***@isp-clec.com
Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-clec/archives/
Dan Birchall
2004-11-14 05:00:51 UTC
Permalink
If you go with verizon, they charge $30. If you tell verizon that you
want flexnet to be your isp, guess what? Verizon will charge you $37.50
a month. Now the isp has to make money too, but even if we charged you
$0, you'd still be paying more! So you add the ISP cost, which for
flexnet is $25 a month, and you be paying a WHOLE LOT MORE! So why would
you want to go anyplace other than verizon online???
Desire to have more'n one IP address, etc., comes to mind. But then, I'm
one of those crazies with his own pre-CIDR /24 ;)
--
Dan Birchall, Hilo HI - http://hilom.multiply.com/ - images, words, technology
Del Wong
2004-11-18 15:34:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Birchall
If you go with verizon, they charge $30. If you tell verizon that you
want flexnet to be your isp, guess what? Verizon will charge you $37.50
a month. Now the isp has to make money too, but even if we charged you
$0, you'd still be paying more! So you add the ISP cost, which for
flexnet is $25 a month, and you be paying a WHOLE LOT MORE! So why would
you want to go anyplace other than verizon online???
Desire to have more'n one IP address, etc., comes to mind. But then, I'm
one of those crazies with his own pre-CIDR /24 ;)
in a word, Tunneling.
--
//del//

============================================================================
Local Modem Access at 2,220 locations in USA and Canada. Just $9.95 a month
Unlimited Time, No Setup Fees. Email & Webpages Included http://www.flex.com
Post by Dan Birchall
Hawaii's Very First Public Access Internet Provider, July 19, 1994 <<<
Dan Birchall
2004-11-19 00:15:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Del Wong
Post by Dan Birchall
If you go with verizon, they charge $30. If you tell verizon that you
want flexnet to be your isp, guess what? Verizon will charge you $37.50
a month. Now the isp has to make money too, but even if we charged you
$0, you'd still be paying more! So you add the ISP cost, which for
flexnet is $25 a month, and you be paying a WHOLE LOT MORE! So why would
you want to go anyplace other than verizon online???
Desire to have more'n one IP address, etc., comes to mind. But then, I'm
one of those crazies with his own pre-CIDR /24 ;)
in a word, Tunneling.
Sorry, I meant "more'n one static IP address visible to the outside world."
--
Dan Birchall, Hilo HI - http://hilom.multiply.com/ - images, words, technology
Loading...