---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <5FD7CB17-0145-481F-BFB9-77DC6F1FD839@roscom.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 08:38:25 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Verizon Reports Bigger-Than-Expected Fall in Quarterly Revenue Verizon Communications Inc reported a bigger-than-expected fall in quarterly revenue as the No. 1 U.S. wireless carrier's operations were disrupted by a strike involving its wireline workers and more customers opted for cheaper plans. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/07/26/business/26reuters-verizon-results.html ------------------------------ Message-ID: <20160727191550.GA10922@telecom.csail.mit.edu> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 15:15:50 -0400 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> Subject: Re: Alternatives to AT&T DSL service On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 02:09:34AM +0000, bob prohaska wrote: > Recently my AT&T DSL service has started to deteriorate in quality. Speed > drops to unusable levels randomly, when I complain they try to sell me > Uverse. It's 5-static, 1.5MBps/384kBps, my own nameservers, AT&T domain > registration. > > A local ISP claims to offer an alternative service provided I have AT&T > copper to my premises, which of course I do. They claim to use AT&T wire > but "their equipment". It looks like a lower-cost replacment...but: > > How does this arrangement work, and is it apt to be an improvement? That depends entirely on the ISP. They are entitled to lease the copper pair that goes to you house, under the "interconnect" rules, and that fact is *EXACTLY* why AT&T and other ILECs are trying to convert everyone over to fiber or cellular, since that don't have to share those "facilities" with their competition. However, be careful of jumping out of the frying pan you know into the fire you don't: I had Speakeasy DSL for years, using the same pair that served my home phone, until one day Speakeasy abandoned my town with no notice. They may be AT&T's competitors, but don't ever forget that "local" or "alternative" doesn't mean "non-profit". The one advantage of having a non-facilities-based CLEC or ISP is that they're not going to lick AT&T's boots: they'll do what works best and gives them better profits, and that fact /usually/ translates into better service for you. The enemy of your enemy, however, is not necessarily your friend. FWIW. YMMV. -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly) ------------------------------ Message-ID: <na5gpb15j873nm004sbvrrdr86dp8jfv2b@4ax.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 22:18:32 -0400 From: Ron <ron@see.below> Subject: Re: Microsoft Confirms Windows 10 New Monthly Charge HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote: >We must note that lease vs. purchase was a major motivator in the >Bell System breakup. Until then, all Bell System customers had to >lease almost all communications products from Bell. Worse than that (until the Carterphone decision), for the equipment they did own and connect to the Bell system, they were required to lease a "protective device" to isolate the "dangerous" device from the system. The cost of the lease for that device mostly killed the advantage of the non-Bell equipment. >I don't know who your wife's employer is, but I must respectfully >disagree. I do know that in the mainframe world, many once >independent vendors were bought out by a large company which now >has a near monopoly on independent mainframe software. Why this >isn't an anti-trust issue I don't know--it sure seems like it is. >Anyway, many of the software products are stable and haven't been >advanced in decades, but are still used by mainframe customers. >None the less, the prices charged for them are extremely high-- >thousands of dollars per year. Seems to me that a functionally >stabilized product should have a modest lease charge. You gave the reason yourself. They charge those prices because they can. They maintain a monopoly by buying up the competition. CA bought up both tape-management systems: TMS and TLMS. The company I worked for had TMS. When I called tech support, I would speak to the author. It seems he was the only TMS tech retained (though it made some sense: TLMS really was the far better system). The monthly price for TMS was no bargain; it didn't reflect in any way the low cost to CA. Eventually, we changed to TLMS - about the same price and better capability. -- Ron (user telnom.for.plume in domain antichef.com) ------------------------------ Message-ID: <nn954u$36c$1@news.albasani.net> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 02:09:34 +0000 (UTC) From: Bob Prohaska <bp@www.zefox.net> Subject: Alternatives to AT&T DSL service Recently my AT&T DSL service has started to deteriorate in quality. Speed drops to unusable levels randomly, when I complain they try to sell me Uverse. It's 5-static, 1.5MBps/384kBps, my own nameservers, AT&T domain registration. A local ISP claims to offer an alternative service provided I have AT&T copper to my premises, which of course I do. They claim to use AT&T wire but "their equipment". It looks like a lower-cost replacment...but: How does this arrangement work, and is it apt to be an improvement? Thanks for reading, bob prohaska ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Thu, 28 Jul 2016