Adam Augustine wrote:
Speakeasy.net is pretty good. Their DSL service is about $50 per month for 1.5/256kbps (recently changed, it used to be about $70 for 1.5/384). They are able to give this speed in many (most?) places where Qwest will only delivery 640/256kbps.
Can't be possible, Qwest _is_ your DSL provider in Utah, there is no other. Some ISPs pay Qwest on your behalf to simplify your bill, but the line is from Qwest no matter what. How much you get charged for it and what the terms of the connection are is another question.
Warning: Long (and ranting) post
First, remember what they teach you in school. Statements that contain words/phrases like "always", "never", and "no matter what" are almost always false. Absolutes are rare. Even one counter example...
But, I would love to hear your source of this information. Chances are good it can be traced directly back to Qwest.
Anyway, from my experience, it /is/ possible, although Qwest goes to great lengths to deceive you into thinking that it isn't.
As recently as last week I had a Speakeasy installation completed at a
customer site at 1.5/384k, where Qwest had said 640/256k was the highest
rate possible. Covad is the DSL layer provider for Speakeasy for this client, and yes it is on a Qwest voice line.
I found all this out by calling Qwest some time ago for a client to get DSL. Since I didn't want them to suffer with MSN, I asked for Speakeasy as the ISP. They started the process, and told me it would be some few weeks before service was installed.
Not trusting Qwest (having done major installs with them in the past (OC3s, and SHARP services)), I decided to call Speakeasy to make sure Qwest got things right. The Speakeasy rep said no, you order everything through us and we provide the DSL service. Just for fun, I asked what the maximum rate that I could get on the line was (assuming there would be a repeat of the Qwest story) and the rep said that the /minimum/ they could provide was 1.5/384. I asked how that was possible if Qwest said the maximum speed was 640/256 and they have to use Qwest's DSL service.
They said "Oh, we don't use Qwest. For most of Utah we use Covad." "On Qwest voice lines?" "Of course."
I ordered through Speakeasy and canceled my order through Qwest. The Qwest rep insisted over and over that I was wrong and that they had to go through Qwest for the DSL part of the service (connecting through ATM to the ISP). I said that to go ahead and cancel anyway since the billing would all be done through Speakeasy. She couldn't argue with that so she did the cancellation.
About three days later the service was turned on according to the installation update page (which mentioned Firm Order Commit
and install dates from Covad, no mention of Qwest). Two days after that
the actual modem arrived, which I hooked up. It synced up and I was
surfing. The next day Speakeasy emailed me and said "We noticed that
your service is working, so we are going to start billing".
On the off chance that Covad was using the Qwest DSLAMs and ATM service, I called them and started asking around. Once I found someone that knew what I was talking about they assured me that they were using their own DSLAMs.
At this point, either Covad is lying or Qwest is. My bet is on Covad being the more truthful, but I have further evidence as well.
I doubt that Covad is going to have better install times by multiple weeks, and be capable of better speeds if they are using Qwest for anything at all. The reason I believe this is from many installation experiences, where every carrier that must rely on Qwest for anything, like local loops or something, will always blame Qwest for the inevitable delays in installing the service. A quick install is a very strong indicator that Qwest was not involved in the process.
Further, Qwest does line tests to check for load coils and such, and to
measure distance from the CO to verify the possible bitrates. Speakeasy
(and Covad) also do those tests. If they used Qwest then the bitrates
offered should be the same. These tests (from what I understand) can
tell that there are load coils and such, but they cannot tell what the
possible bitrates would be if they were removed. So it leads me to
believe that they are using different equipment, and hence get different performance.
Here are some things to keep in mind:
1) Qwest is required by law (deregulation to compete in other markets)
to open their physical lines to competitors (for now anyway, there is a good chance that the laws will change soon, unfortunately). This typically is something of a legal battle to convince Qwest to allow someone in, but in theory anyone can do it. Usually most companies do not bother. Covad seems to have bothered, and so DSL at higher bitrates are possible despite Qwest's claim to the contrary. Check www.rric.net if you want to see a case of a co-op providing their own DSL service instead of Qwest. Particularly read http://www.rric.net/faq/clec.htm .
2) Even if Qwest is providing the DSL layer of the service, they are
required by those same deregulation laws to allow you to choose a different ISP.
3) Don't believe everything (anything?) Qwest tells you, especially as a residential customer. It is often not in their best interests to tell you the truth. They will be very unhelpful in selling you service that they do not want to. An example of this is http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010823.html (third paragraph). ISDN was another example, up until a couple of years ago. I have fought a few battles with Qwest to get service as a business customer, and for residential it is more difficult, in my experience.
4) Most ISPs either don't know this is possible, or more likely, haven't
bothered or can't afford the legal battle (even even the equipment if they won) to make the law effectuous for them. They will typically not tell you that, unless you ask pointed questions of upper management. Lower people in the chain have been told a story ("Qwest must provide the DSL layer") and simply repeat it. This is much like the story told by computer software sales people about some federal law that says that opened software cannot be returned. From what I can research, there is no such law. Any restriction on software return is the policy of the store or the software maker, not a federal law.
5) What Jan said about other ISPs making Qwest remove the load coils and such is also true, and often happens. Fibernet (fiber.net) has done this for me on more than one occasion. The risk that you run though is the line still may not qualify. Certainly worth a try.
6) Something you can also try is to order a new phone line, in addition to your main line (that may or may not qualify). If you are lucky, the new line will be from the correct part of the CO and will be DSL capable. Then you can cancel the first line. It is kind of risky, since the new line may not qualify either.
Just some things to consider.
Adam Augustine
____________________
BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
