---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <nnb99t$lom$1@panix2.panix.com> Date: 27 Jul 2016 17:32:45 -0400 From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Alternatives to AT&T DSL service Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote: >On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 02:09:34AM +0000, bob prohaska wrote: >> >> 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. The good news is that instead of your spending forever on hold with idiots at AT&T, you call the local ISP and they fight with AT&T to get a good pair. They will have access to talk to actual technicians rather than have to escalate through four tiers to get to someone who can authorize a truck roll, like you have to do. If the local ISP has good customer service (and hopefully they do, or they wouldn't have lasted through the chaos of the 2000s), then your general experiences are apt to be much better. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Telecom Digest depends on generous contributions from readers such as John Lewandowski. Thank you! ------------------------------ Message-ID: <nnbcmd$9b1$1@news.albasani.net> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 22:30:38 +0000 (UTC) From: bob prohaska <bp@www.zefox.net> Subject: Re: Alternatives to AT&T DSL service Bill Horne <bill@horneqrm.net> wrote: > > 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. As far as I can tell, The U-verse AT&T is trying so valiantly to sell to me remains "copper to the premises". Does it somehow become exempt from "interconnect" rules if I change to U-verse? > 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". In my case the provider is called omsoft.com and seems to be as reputable as one can reasonably expect to find. They might be bought out or fold, but I don't think they're big enough to move away. > 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. Who is responsible for maintenance of my copper link? Historically that's been the weak point, at least for voice: Rain caused line noise and in some cases total loss of dialtone. The DSL service worked straight through the voice outage. There's no clear indication what's been causing the recent DSL problems, but it wouldn't be surprising if it's the copper. > FWIW. YMMV. Understood. Thanks for a speedy and informative reply! bob prohaska - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Telecom Digest depends on generous contributions from readers such as John Levine. Thank you! ------------------------------ Message-ID: <4cKdnRH1utiH0gTKnZ2dnUU7-c_NnZ2d@posted.palinacquisition> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 19:17:30 -0500 From: Frank Stearns <franks.pacifier.com@pacifier.net> Subject: Re: Alternatives to AT&T DSL service dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) writes: snips >Sonic provides a faster ADSL2 service, but unfortunately not in my >area (no remote terminal and no plans to add one). >I really do *not* want to move to Comcast to improve speeds. The >stories I hear about poor reliability, worse repair speeds, and even >worse customer service scare me. To Dave and the OP: any WISPs (wireless ISPs) in your areas? A few years back I moved to semi-rural Utah and that's all they had (not even any DSL this far out). I was not keen on the idea of wireless, but needed a connection -- particularly as I was also going VOIP for the phones. I was so disgusted with Centurylink in my old location that I never wanted to deal with them again, ever, and they're the copper provider here. After some growing pains during the first year I can say now that I love the system. My connection to the tower that's 3 miles away is capable of 60 MBpS (though I'm only paying for 10 @ $35/month and with VOIP there is no phone bill). The LAN connection I have to my brother's house using similar hardware (Ubiquity) can do 300 MBpS. He's 1000 feet away. At least in this area several WISPs strongly compete (that helps keep things honest). Seems like a win, and you're not beholded to ATT, Verizon, et al. The half-dozen or so WISPs here are all regional independents. Frank - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Telecom Digest depends on generous contributions from readers such as John Levine. Thank you! ------------------------------ Message-ID: <nnb4p2$cpm$1@dont-email.me> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 15:15:27 -0500 From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> Subject: Re: Alternatives to AT&T DSL service On 7/26/2016 9:09 PM, 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: I used to do that with my Baby Bell (NW Bell/USWest/Qwest/now CenturyLink). It was only available for the original DSL, for which that looks like about the max speed. It worked well, because for problems you contacted your ISP, and they had the contacts to skip all the script monkeys and directly talk to somebody at the telco who was competent. (In my experience, the telco's technical staff were usually very competent, but the telco did their best to prevent you from talking to them.) But they would not resell connectivity for VDSL2 (higher speeds) to ISPs, you had to use them as the ISP. > How does this arrangement work, and is it apt to be an improvement? From a consumer viewpoint, it was a great improvement (my local ISP was very competent, if you called them, chances were that whoever answered the phone could fix your problem on the spot). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Telecom Digest depends on generous contributions from readers such as John Levine. Thank you! ------------------------------ Message-ID: <DB363A7A-E44C-4250-B870-B30CA9780B09@roscom.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:00:02 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Platform wars: the final score Platform wars: the final score The smartphone platform wars are pretty much over, and Apple and Google won. But it's interesting, in passing, to note the final score, and think about what it means. Globally, something around 5bn people (give or take perhaps 250m each way) have a mobile phone, out of around 5.5bn people over the age of 16. (This number is fuzzy because many people have more than one SIM card). This will rise to closer to 6bn over the next few years as the population and the penetration grow. http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2016/7/25/platform-wars-final-score - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Telecom Digest depends on generous contributions from readers such as John Levine. Thank you! ------------------------------ Message-ID: <zknhxpk8r84y$.o964gajmoku2$.dlg@40tude.net> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 03:04:39 -0400 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> Subject: Re: Alternatives to AT&T DSL service On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 02:09:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Prohaska wrote: > 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". A friend in Santa Rosa, CA, took up such an arrangement with Sonic.net some years ago, and was overjoyed ... for a good while. Eventually the arrangement soured (no. I know not why, nor how) and a faster ISP got used. More than that I do not know, sorry. Cheers, and good luck, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Telecom Digest depends on generous contributions from readers such as John Lewandowski. Thank you! ------------------------------ Message-ID: <7D7BC6A7-3FBF-4810-B6C1-829512E73E2A@roscom.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:10:42 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: xkcd: Phone Alarm xkcd: Phone Alarm https://xkcd.com/1359/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Telecom Digest depends on generous contributions from readers such as John Lewandowski. Thank you! ------------------------------ Message-ID: <BE3D87D4-4126-49A3-82E2-349705143095@roscom.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:01:08 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Spam callers be gone! Spam callers be gone! Today, we're beginning to update your Google Phone app with spam protection on #Nexus and #AndroidOne devices to warn you about potential spam callers and give you the ability to block and report these numbers. If you already have Caller ID turned on, spam protection will be available on your phone once your app updates to the latest version. Learn more: https://goo.gl/FFRCP1 https://plus.google.com/+Nexus/posts/PLsxmDRUd4K - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Telecom Digest depends on generous contributions from readers such as John Lewandowski. Thank you! ------------------------------ Message-ID: <36AED891-245E-4394-8EA9-D0EE2CFF1D40@roscom.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:14:42 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: xkcd Phone 4 xkcd: xkcd Phone 4 https://xkcd.com/1707/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Telecom Digest depends on generous contributions from readers such as John Levine. Thank you! ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Fri, 29 Jul 2016