[CLUE-Tech] Qwest DSL Pricing Change

[Frank Whiteley]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nate Duehr" <nate at natetech.com>
To: <clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 00:27
Subject: Re: [CLUE-Tech] Qwest DSL Pricing Change


> On Saturday 28 February 2004 03:29 pm, Collins Richey wrote:
>
> > A little <ot>.  Some of us don't have the luxury of saving money with
> > DSL.  I doubt that Qwest will ever update their equipment such that I
> > can use DSL (Hampden & Tower area).  Sigh, so I'm stuck with Comcast
> > cable which is good but expensive.
>
> Define "expensive".  Cable download rates are much higher than most DSL
> circuits (for the same price range) but shared with "neighbors" at the
> head-end, and your upload rates are capped lower... but most cable
customers
> have always had higher data rates for download -- so that all seems like
it
> trades off.
>
> Whenever I've priced it, the two services came out to similar pricing for
the
> same levels of service.
>
VOIP, if and when offered, may force them to open the upstream a bit.  My
VOIP line (CISCO ATA-186) via DSL takes 87kbps when in use.  Throw in a
number for the home office, the home, s.o., and each child, it's quite a bit
of bandwidth.

> Or have cable rates gone up that much lately?  (I don't "feed the pig"...
> heh... as Dish Network would say... so I wouldn't know.  I've been a happy
> customer with Dish for almost as long as they've been around, and like
> supporting a Colorado-born company with my entertainment dollar.  They
also
> seem to try to please their customers a lot harder than Comcast or AT&T
did
> before them.)
>
Cable rates continue to climb.  Last article I read implied that the rate
increase was due to the cost of delivering digital services which include
both Internet and cable TV (blending the product).  There was mention that
the cable Internet user profile is not what was expected when they go into
this business, that the average is much higher (what did they expect?).
Since my increase was only on analog cable (I get expanded basic at 50% of
digital cost and a few less channels of nothing to watch) I assume cable TV
customers are now underwriting some of the digital cable Internet cost (that
big bandwidth does cost money.)
> Qwest still requires you to have a regular analog phone line as a
> *requirement* to have DSL service.  I find this stupid and annoying, but
live
> with it.  It's certainly not a technical requirement.  But you have to
factor
> it into the overall cost.
>
> I'd rather give Vonage and my cell phone company my regular telephone
money,
> but can't justify both Vonage *and* a Qwest line.  No need for two.
>
> Can you order Cable Internet from Comcast without basic cable service?
Just
> wondering -- never looked into that.
>
$10 extra for what I hear.

> The only major difference I've seen between the two other than the above
is:
>
> By using an alternate ISP on Qwest's DSL network, I have access to cheap
> additional static IP addresses, where that would be impossible to find
> (either an alternate ISP *or* cheap statics) on cable.  Choice is good.
>
Yes

> Speaking of that, if the PUC already requires Qwest to open their DSL
network
> to competing ISP's, why don't they require Comcast to do the same thing?
>
History and the evolution of the system.  With the cable providers wanting
to deliver dial-tone, I agree, they should have to open them up.  FCC has
been running fast and loose with the definitions though, re-defining the
Internet operations "Information Services" for a short time to try and let
the RBOCs and Cable providers slither out from under the Telecommunications
Act of 1996.  This was challenged and rejected in the courts and was also on
Congress' agenda at one point.  They keep crying that they can't build out
if they can't monopolize because of the cost.

> Never figured that one out either.  Seems wrong, if they're both regulated
> utilities.  Cable should be a common-carrier pipeline for IP services just
as
> much as Qwest's DSL copper and equipment are.
>
However, the copper mountain came from a monopoly.  The cable overlay
started from mom and pop franchises (though it no longer resembles this in
most major markets) and had/has some local licensing protections also.  We
still have some small cable companies along the Front Range.  Some have
Internet, others don't.

Frank Whiteley