Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: US West and RADSL (fwd)

  • From: Chad Skidmore
  • Date: Thu Jun 04 23:04:49 1998

Actually, they are not cross-marketing in ALL 14 states.  The Washington
Association of ISPs managed to work with the Utilities Commission in
Washington to put language in the tariff that prevents/limits
cross-marketing.  Take a look at the tariff at
and check the Washington MegaBit tariffs.  Some of the language from
that tariff could be incorporated into other state tariffs to prevent
this kind of cross-marketing.

If you know of any cross-marketing please let us know.  The WUTC would
love to hear as well.

Chad Skidmore
Director of Network Engineering
Northwest Nexus, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dax Kelson []
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 2:31 PM
> To:
> Subject: US West and RADSL (fwd)
> Doesn't look like her email made it to the NANOG list.  
> Co-marketing of an
> ILEC ISP along with the DSL circuit is going to be a big issue as the
> ILECs rollout DSL nationwide.  DSL is coming probably faster then you
> think, we turned up the first DSL connection in Utah a couple 
> weeks ago.
> Dax Kelson
> Internet Connect, Inc.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 12:18:39 -0600
> From: Marianne Granoff <>
> To:
> Cc:,
> Subject: US West and RADSL
> [snip]
> >I could go on and on about the VERY APPALLING situation here 
> with USW and
> >DSL and Internet access, about regulated and unregulated 
> services, etc,
> >etc. 
> >
> >Dax Kelson
> >Internet Connect, Inc.
> The preceeding message was forwarded to me by one of our NM 
> ISPs.  US West
> has been co-marketing its Internet service _with_ its RADSL 
> service in all
> of its 14 states 
> (
> Actions by ISP groups in Oregon and New Mexico may provide 
> some relief to
> local ISPs there.
> I have just put up a listserve for ISPs in the US West states 
> to use in
> sharing information.  Technet has had one for the NM ISPs for 
> several years
> - it has been a big help in getting out the word about some of these
> actions.  How about  Please feel free to 
> send this out
> to any interested ISPs.
> To subscribe, just send an empty note to:
> I believe that all the RBOCs/ILECs have taken or will be 
> taking similar
> actions.  Even Sprint's new ION services are part of this 
> trend.  In my
> opinion, this is anti-competitive behavior by monopoly 
> organizations.  I
> think that many local ISPs will be severly hurt by such 
> actions, and more
> than a few will close their doors.
> As I see it - the biggest problem is that local ISPs are not 
> organized and
> do not know how - or have the forums - to work together to 
> fight actions by
> a company the size of US West (or other RBOC/ILEC).  My 
> company, New Mexico
> Technet, is one of the larger ISPs in NM.  We wholesale 
> Internet access to
> other ISPs.  We have intervened in the NM tariff filing for US West's
> Megabit services (see to 
> attempt to
> correct some of the things that are very anti-competitive about the
> proposed tariff.  So far it has cost us over $30,000 in legal 
> fees and we
> have not even had the hearing yet.  Most local ISPs cannot do 
> this.  Most
> local ISPs do not know how to take the actions with the FCC 
> or with the
> state public regulatory agencies so that their concerns can 
> even be heard.
> Frankly - most ISPs are not members of CIX or of ISP/C - and 
> many of them
> do not even know about those organizations, or understand why 
> they should
> care.
> In NM, the local ISPs come in mostly 2 flavors: those that serve urban
> areas (Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Las Cruces, Los Alamos) who 
> "may" be affected
> by what US West does but are not sure, and those in rural 
> areas who do not
> feel they will ever be affected by these actions, and so do 
> not care.  In
> much of US West's 14 state territory - I suspect that this is 
> similar.  The
> local ISPs in the urban areas have mostly seen the other local ISPs as
> competitors, not collaborators.  They have seen US West (or 
> the RBOC/ILEC)
> as a vendor, not as a competitor.  Most local ISPs worry 
> about retribution
> from US West (or other RBOC/ILEC) (delayed service, 
> unresponsiveness on
> outages, unfilled orders) if they come on too strong in criticizing a
> company that they are _so_ dependent on. I am not sure that 
> their concerns
> are not valid.
> The local (state) regulatory agencies are overworked and 
> underfunded in
> this age of telecommunications transition/revolution.  It is 
> not that they
> don't care.  It is that they simply have too much on their 
> plates already.
> Few states provided extra funding to handle all the _new_ 
> issues raised by
> the 1996 Telecommunications Act at the _state_ regulatory 
> agency level.  No
> one is championing any of this in most states.  I think 
> probably because it
> is not considered a problem by the vast majority of ISP 
> _customers_.  I had
> one of my customers tell me to "just get out of the way" and 
> let US West
> introduce the high speed service because the customer needed 
> it right away
> and I was just holding it up.  They never saw that US West 
> owned some of
> the blame in the constant delays, counterfilings, 
> interrogatories, motions
> to compel, and other actions that have caused this 
> intervention to drag on.
>  Unfortunately, this person is more typical of ISP customers 
> than local
> ISPs want to believe.
> The saddest aspect of this is that unless something changes, 
> US West and
> the other RBOCs/ILECs will likely dominate the supply of 
> Internet access in
> large urban areas in a few years - and the rural areas will 
> have a great
> deal less Internet access than they do today.  
> I think the answer is that the local ISPs _and their 
> customers_ have to
> come together if they want to have choices about ISPs in the 
> future.  It
> will take some of the larger ISPs reaching out to the smaller 
> local ISPs to
> help them get _all_ of their respective customers informed of 
> the issues.
> It will take the larger ISPs intervening in more state and 
> FCC proceedings.
>  It will take constant email, listserves, and newsgroups 
> spreading such
> information - and reaching customers - not just ISPs.  It 
> will take some
> national politicians to "champion" this cause - some who are 
> not worried
> about losing RBOC/ILEC campaign contributions - which are 
> considerable.  It
> will take involvement by media organizations that are not 
> worried about
> losing the RBOC advertising revenues - which are also considerable. 
> It will take every local ISP who is harmed by US West actions calling,
> writing, or emailing their local and national politicians and 
> letting them
> know that they have informed all of their own customers about 
> the actions
> by US West or other RBOC/ILEC and informing their customers 
> of the fact
> that the politician has not responded to these
> illegal/unethical/anti-competitive actions.
> In NM, it is now other internet professionals and businesses that have
> joined ISPs in questioning the actions of US West.  Web 
> designers, web page
> hosting services, internet trainers, web-advertising services 
> and other
> businesses are starting to realize that US West wants to take their
> Internet-based business as well.  This is a start.
> Regards,
> Marianne
> Marianne Granoff
> Director of Operations
> New Mexico Technet, Inc.
> 5921 Jefferson NE
> Albuquerque, N.M. 87109
> Ph: (505) 345-6555
> FAX: (505) 345-6559
> email: or

Discussion Communities

About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home

Merit Network, Inc.