3 ms·
Wasn't that what the US had with DSL? Copper lines had to be made available. Locally, cable was always faster so that's what we went with. DSL was cheaper th
by Steltek 9y ago
Wasn't that what the US had with DSL? Copper lines had to be made available. Locally, cable was always faster so that's what we went with. DSL was cheaper though. Anyone recall what the experience was like?
- xhrpost 9y agoAlso, they only have to resell ADSL by FCC requirement. However, AT&T voluntarily resells their VDSL Uverse system. I actually went with a reseller in the past because they were still offering no data caps while AT&T was.
- toast0 9y agoIn California, what is now AT&T offered retail DSL below the cost to wholesalers, and was very slow to offer 'uverse' (adsl2 and vdsl, for speeds over 6Mbps) to wholesalers. For ADSL1, it was a compelling offering, the data portion of the circuit was delivered to the wholesaler, so they could deliver things like straight Ethernet over ATM, instead of PPP over Ethernet, and had different IP routing than At&t, for uverse, it was basically a normal att account billed to the wholesaler. Getting problems fixed could be problematic because of dealing with one company that had to deal with another; otoh they were experts at dealing with att, because they did it so often. Also: the FCC decided line sharing didn't apply to cable internet pretty early in the lifetime of cable internet. Then when DSL companies complained (through courts) that that wasn't fair, the FCC said we have enough competition between cable, DSL, and power line (yeah) so DSL companies don't need to line share either; only voice needs to be line shared.