|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 13:08:08 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul Zawada <zawada@ncsa.uiuc.edu> To: David Lesher <wb8foz@nrk.com> cc: nanog list <nanog@merit.edu> In-Reply-To: <199806031649.MAA00489@nrk.com> On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, David Lesher wrote: > Tom Walton sez: > > > > The most troubling thing to me about the ION plan is that it > > seems to revolve around the idea of using LEC local loops to > > deliver service to home customers. The LECs are not going to > > be enthusiastic about providing an unbundled loop to > > facilitate being cut out of their long-distance termination > > fees. This could be a very slow roll for Sprint. > > Count on SPRINT being their own CLEC; why would they give > away the gravy? One measure of how serious Sprint is about ION is how their ILEC arm (ex-UTS, ex-Centel) treats it. Granted, the Sprint ILEC doesn't serve many major metropolitain areas, but it covers enough ground to make it worth watching... > Buy PBX stock, and count on the > ILEC's fighting this tooth and nail, down to the last T-75 staple > and pole spike. You forgot to mention Scotchloks. ;-) --zawada Paul J. Zawada, RCDD | Senior Network Engineer zawada@ncsa.uiuc.edu | National Center for Supercomputing Applications +1 630 686 7825 | http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/zawada
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |