[lug] colo at home info

[Frank Whiteley]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nate Duehr" <nate at natetech.com>
To: <lug at lug.boulder.co.us>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 09:23
Subject: Re: [lug] colo at home info


> Then if you feel you were intentionally mislead by Qwest, make sure you
> let the PUC know.
>
> And while you're at it... complain that you can not purchase a DSL-ONLY
> line from Qwest.  They *require* that you have dial-tone on the line,
> which is obnoxious and not technically necessary.
>
> Tell the PUC you'd like to use Vonage or similar (www.vonage.com) for
> your home phone service and use new technology, but if you have to pay
> for dial tone from Qwest on a line you only want DATA from, they're
> unfairly keeping you from using your chosen technology.  :-)
>
> That last paragraph is my current pet-peeve.  I would have switched to
> Vonage already on the main line at the house, if it weren't for Qwest
> refusing to take the dial-tone off the DSL line.  :-(
>
AFAIK, DSL is an unregulated service from Qwest and not under the purvue of
the PUC, like your wireless phone.  Also, the FCC released the Baby Bells
DSL services from the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (like they did for the
cable companies by renaming their Internet offering "Information Services"
rather that "Data communications", and which Congress is looking at, DSL
that is).  By deregulating, they reinforced the BB monopoly position in the
area.

Although I would like to see DSL and Cable transport under the PUC, with
open access to providers of choice, especially since providers are now
moving into delivering dial-tone over VOIP.  If you have to call 911, you do
want a response, right?  At least one large NY (high taxes) city is
delivering DSL data communications through the public utilities, as
provider, at about $12.50/month.  Sounds nice, but probably really limits
your choice and options.  Colorado is one of 38 states that specifically
prohibits this.  However, I have no problem with open transport over public
utilities.  Major players certainly are not going to lobby for this however.
Over-building protected franchises and monopolies is improbably expensive,
as Wide Open West and ICG have found.

Frank Whiteley