Helmet_hair Posted January 29, 2007 Posted January 29, 2007 Why is it that I can get DSL service through Frontiernet my local telephone provider who put in all the necessary equipment, switches, updated lines ect... a few years ago but when I call Earthlink and Netzero for their DSL options they tell me DSL is not available in my area? I can’t find anyone who knows the answer to this question. Maybe since Frontier put in the lines for DSL they get some type monopoly status for some period of time, I don’t get cable in my area?
Helmet_hair Posted January 29, 2007 Author Posted January 29, 2007 sorry, I thought I put this in "off the wall".
34-78-83 Posted January 29, 2007 Posted January 29, 2007 It's pretty standard actually. For example, where I live I cannot get frontiernet DSL service, but I can get Verizon DSL if I wanted (although I have time warner cable). They have specific coverage areas in various markets.
Helmet_hair Posted January 29, 2007 Author Posted January 29, 2007 It's pretty standard actually. For example, where I live I cannot get frontiernet DSL service, but I can get Verizon DSL if I wanted (although I have time warner cable).They have specific coverage areas in various markets. Then how can companies like Netzero and Earthlink who don’t own or maintain any DSL lines offer DSL and why would any telecom who put in all the necessary infrastructure to offer DSL invite these 3rd parties in especially if they do it cheaper?
34-78-83 Posted January 29, 2007 Posted January 29, 2007 Then how can companies like Netzero and Earthlink who don’t own or maintain any DSL lines offer DSL and why would any telecom who put in all the necessary infrastructure to offer DSL invite these 3rd parties in especially if they do it cheaper? That's a good question. I'm not sure exactly. I know my company I work for does a lot of strategic marketing for specific target areas and feels that certain other areas aren't worth their efforts. Maybe just "contracting" out these areas is easier for them.
bluenews Posted January 29, 2007 Posted January 29, 2007 That's a good question. I'm not sure exactly. I know my company I work for does a lot of strategic marketing for specific target areas and feels that certain other areas aren't worth their efforts. Maybe just "contracting" out these areas is easier for them. BINGO!!!
The Big Cat Posted January 29, 2007 Posted January 29, 2007 why would any telecom who put in all the necessary infrastructure to offer DSL invite these 3rd parties in especially if they do it cheaper? probably to lease the lines to save on cost because there isn't a return large enough to justify a crappy product like DSL
ACor58 Posted January 29, 2007 Posted January 29, 2007 Then how can companies like Netzero and Earthlink who don’t own or maintain any DSL lines offer DSL and why would any telecom who put in all the necessary infrastructure to offer DSL invite these 3rd parties in especially if they do it cheaper? Probably a couple of reasons, but the first being that Rochester is not a large enough market, so Net Zero and Earthlink have chose not to offer their DSL service here. While it is very inexpensive to offer dial-up, DSL is much more capital intensive, requiring equipment on the customers end, but also equipment to be co-located with the incumbent LEC, in this case Frontier, which can be very expensive. If you want my opinion, you should look into cable anyway, which provides a heck of a lot more bandwidth for the money than DSL is able to.
Mark Long Beach Posted January 29, 2007 Posted January 29, 2007 And cable companies don't suck quite as bad as they used to. Mind you, I use DSL and DirectTV, because I still don't like cable companies. The original question asked why his telco offered DSL, but competitors didn't... I think the answer is roughly that you still need a connection from the copper of the phone lines to the internet. So you'd either have to install your own, or lease capacity from the telco on their lines. While the Telco's are required by law to allow this, my guess is that it's not cost effective in smaller markets where the leasing or installing company would need some large threshold of customers to make it cost-effective. Which is why electric and phone companies were classified utilities long ago, becuase they SURE wouldn't support smaller comunities unless they had to, and why much smaller comunities have no wired broadband access at all yet.
Helmet_hair Posted January 30, 2007 Author Posted January 30, 2007 The original question asked why his telco offered DSL, but competitors didn't... I think the answer is roughly that you still need a connection from the copper of the phone lines to the internet. So you'd either have to install your own, or lease capacity from the telco on their lines. While the Telco's are required by law to allow this, my guess is that it's not cost effective in smaller markets where the leasing or installing company would need some large threshold of customers to make it cost-effective. That makes sense to me. If you have to lease the capacity from the telco then you need to spread your cost over a very large volume in order to be competitive and profitable.
Recommended Posts