[39024] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SBC forcing new contract on ISPs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Derek Balling)
Mon Jun 25 15:04:31 2001
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0510100db75d36ff8ffe@[216.145.52.64]>
In-Reply-To: <20010625143636.C16197@semihuman.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:46:34 -0700
To: "Christopher A. Woodfield" <rekoil@semihuman.com>,
Bruce Robertson <bruce@greatbasin.net>
From: Derek Balling <dredd@megacity.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I can't speak for Bruce's situation, but in San Jose, if you're using
a competitive ISP, (e.g., not the SBC/PBI inhouse ISP arm), you get
two bills. a bill from your ISP for "internet access", and a fee
rolled onto the bill of the POTS line the DSL is a "Service" on.
D
At 2:36 PM -0400 6/25/01, Christopher A. Woodfield wrote:
>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?
>
>-C
>
>> opportunity to also sell other services over that DSL circuit, and we are
> > also made responsible for billing the DSL circuit to the customer. So in
--
+---------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| dredd@megacity.org | "Conan! What is best in life?" |
| Derek J. Balling | "To crush your enemies, see them |
| | driven before you, and to hear the |
| | lamentation of their women!" |
+---------------------+-----------------------------------------+
