[39019] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SBC forcing new contract on ISPs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bruce Robertson)
Mon Jun 25 14:47:15 2001
Message-Id: <200106251841.f5PIfAf11830@roo.greatbasin.net>
To: "Christopher A. Woodfield" <rekoil@semihuman.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:36:36 EDT."
<20010625143636.C16197@semihuman.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:41:10 -0700
From: Bruce Robertson <bruce@greatbasin.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Under the existing contract, we were given the choice, and it makes no
significant difference. We chose to allow SBC (ASI, actually) to bill
the customer for the loop, so that we would not have to worry about the
$125 early cancellation fee. That would be between ASI and the customer.
The new contract forces us to bill for the circuit, which I don't have a
problem with, especially since the early cancellation fee has gone away.
The issue is that ASI wants to have the exclusive right to offer other
services over that circuit that *I* own.
> Educate me: are you not at this time billing the customer for the
> local loop? Here in VZ territory, the cost of the local loop lease from VZ
> and the DSLAM access from Covad (in your case, SBC provides both of
> these, right?) are both rolled into the standard monthly fee from my ISP.
> Is this not how it's done in SBC land?
--
Bruce Robertson, President/CEO +1-775-348-7299
Great Basin Internet Services, Inc. fax: +1-775-348-9412
For PGP key: finger bruce@greatbasin.net
