BellSouth vs. AT&T stance on multi-tandem access.
Bellsouth was thought by many to be the most friendly to CLECs of all the divestiture RBOCs. Traditionally, in its 9-state operating area it was possible to do multi-tandem access; that is, you didn't have to have trunks to all the intra-LATA sector tandems in order to terminate to an end-office in that sector, as long as you had transient groups to the LATA access tandems. I have heard that the AT&T crowd does not take kindly to that and that this option doesn't exist in ex-SBC territories, or anywhere else. Can anyone confirm? Does anyone have any information on how that's being approached since the merger for new ICAs and/or if they're taking the opportunity to demolish that when Bellsouth-era ICAs are updated and/or renegotiated? Are folks that went up in Bellsouth days grandfathered on MTA? -- Alex Balashov Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775
Bellsouth was thought by many to be the most friendly to CLECs of all the divestiture RBOCs. Traditionally, in its 9-state operating area it was possible to do multi-tandem access; that is, you didn't have to have trunks to all the intra-LATA sector tandems in order to terminate to an end-office in that sector, as long as you had transient groups to the LATA access tandems.
I have heard that the AT&T crowd does not take kindly to that and that this option doesn't exist in ex-SBC territories, or anywhere else. Can anyone confirm?
I know that in Chicago, as part of your ICA, you had to connect to the sector tandems, however, you could 'overflow' onto another tandem if necessary. I was under the impression (now remember, this is 1996-1998 timeframe), that the 'not taking kindly' reason was that Wabash and Dearborn Tandem switches were being overloaded by all the CLECs locating switches in the loop area to take advantage of cheap transport... (MFS/Worldcom/Intellinet/whatever they were called that week at RVC with that nasty nasty, nasty, E1-native Ericom switch, Focal over in the Floorshime building, Teleport/TCG up in the Sears Tower, and all the other carriers that I can't remember anymore ;)
Does anyone have any information on how that's being approached since the merger for new ICAs and/or if they're taking the opportunity to demolish that when Bellsouth-era ICAs are updated and/or renegotiated? Are folks that went up in Bellsouth days grandfathered on MTA?
Weren't the ICA's timed? I would have assumed you would have been grandfathered until you reupped your ICA, although, you did have the right to 'use' another party's ICA during the beginning ICA negotiations, so if they didn't change the wording I guess you would have been stuck. But... if you're profitiable, who pulls out facilities anyways?
-- Alex Balashov Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775 _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Jason Vanick wrote:
Bellsouth was thought by many to be the most friendly to CLECs of all the divestiture RBOCs. Traditionally, in its 9-state operating area it was possible to do multi-tandem access; that is, you didn't have to have trunks to all the intra-LATA sector tandems in order to terminate to an end-office in that sector, as long as you had transient groups to the LATA access tandems.
I have heard that the AT&T crowd does not take kindly to that and that this option doesn't exist in ex-SBC territories, or anywhere else. Can anyone confirm?
I know that in Chicago, as part of your ICA, you had to connect to the sector tandems, however, you could 'overflow' onto another tandem if necessary.
I was under the impression (now remember, this is 1996-1998 timeframe), that the 'not taking kindly' reason was that Wabash and Dearborn Tandem switches were being overloaded by all the CLECs locating switches in the loop area to take advantage of cheap transport...
You mean backhauling end-office traffic and picking it all up at the access tandem without getting DEOT, despite incurring considerable usage? If so, I thought that's what the usage >= DS1 ? DEOT : tandem rule was meant to remedy, rather than having to have TGs to every tandem?
Does anyone have any information on how that's being approached since the merger for new ICAs and/or if they're taking the opportunity to demolish that when Bellsouth-era ICAs are updated and/or renegotiated? Are folks that went up in Bellsouth days grandfathered on MTA?
Weren't the ICA's timed? I would have assumed you would have been grandfathered until you reupped your ICA, although, you did have the right to 'use' another party's ICA during the beginning ICA negotiations, so if they didn't change the wording I guess you would have been stuck. But... if you're profitiable, who pulls out facilities anyways?
True. I'm thinking specifically of CLECs that got their license and started the interconnection process at the tail of BellSouth, and now face actually dealing with AT&T for turn-up, expansion, POI & transport changes, etc. -- Alex -- Alex Balashov Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
I was under the impression (now remember, this is 1996-1998 timeframe), that the 'not taking kindly' reason was that Wabash and Dearborn Tandem switches were being overloaded by all the CLECs locating switches in the loop area to take advantage of cheap transport...
You mean backhauling end-office traffic and picking it all up at the access tandem without getting DEOT, despite incurring considerable usage?
If so, I thought that's what the
usage >= DS1 ? DEOT : tandem
rule was meant to remedy, rather than having to have TGs to every tandem?
Yup, you're right, if your usage was greater than ds1 it might be better to have a DEOT... DEOT tho could be more expensive to outlying areas that you might only have a few users in... so it was sometimes better to just incur the extra usage fees at the access tandem. Ameritech somtimes forced this issue to, due to 'capacity' on their switches. Heck, in the mid-late 90's they were just turning down a 1AESS in the north chicago area.
Weren't the ICA's timed? I would have assumed you would have been grandfathered until you reupped your ICA, although, you did have the right to 'use' another party's ICA during the beginning ICA negotiations, so if they didn't change the wording I guess you would have been stuck. But... if you're profitiable, who pulls out facilities anyways?
True.
I'm thinking specifically of CLECs that got their license and started the interconnection process at the tail of BellSouth, and now face actually dealing with AT&T for turn-up, expansion, POI & transport changes, etc.
I truly feel sorry for those people. But it is a way of cutting your teeth. How many of us wouldn't have learned how things really work on the political/business side if we wouldn't have had to deal with all the RBOC fun. ;) ... ok, maybe we would all still have hair. -J
Jason Vanick wrote:
Yup, you're right, if your usage was greater than ds1 it might be better to have a DEOT...
DEOT tho could be more expensive to outlying areas that you might only have a few users in... so it was sometimes better to just incur the extra usage fees at the access tandem. Ameritech somtimes forced this issue to, due to 'capacity' on their switches. Heck, in the mid-late 90's they were just turning down a 1AESS in the north chicago area.
Hmm. Are we talking about inbound or outbound here? For inbound, there should not be any usage fees for picking up the calls at the tandem. The ILEC is required to drag calls from anywhere in its network to you, and as far as I know there's no additional cost. It's just that if you get a lot of inbound from one particular end-office, most ICAs allow them to force you to pay extra for DEOT and pick the traffic up yourself straight at the POI. This was, as you say, implemented mainly for tandem exhaust reasons at the time it was conceived. For outbound, of course, various intra-LATA recip. comp. and switched access fees apply.
I truly feel sorry for those people. But it is a way of cutting your teeth. How many of us wouldn't have learned how things really work on the political/business side if we wouldn't have had to deal with all the RBOC fun. ;) ... ok, maybe we would all still have hair.
Well, that's certainly one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that local loop deregulation is a train wreck. I didn't think this until I saw how comparatively smoothly deregulation has been pulled off in some other countries, i.e. in the UK when BT was politely told to divest itself into a telco unit and a loop unit and OpenReach was born. -- Alex -- Alex Balashov Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Jason Vanick wrote:
Yup, you're right, if your usage was greater than ds1 it might be better to have a DEOT...
DEOT tho could be more expensive to outlying areas that you might only have a few users in... so it was sometimes better to just incur the extra usage fees at the access tandem. Ameritech somtimes forced this issue to, due to 'capacity' on their switches. Heck, in the mid-late 90's they were just turning down a 1AESS in the north chicago area.
Hmm. Are we talking about inbound or outbound here? For inbound, there should not be any usage fees for picking up the calls at the tandem. The ILEC is required to drag calls from anywhere in its network to you, and as far as I know there's no additional cost.
you're right I was thinking more outbound.
It's just that if you get a lot of inbound from one particular end-office, most ICAs allow them to force you to pay extra for DEOT and pick the traffic up yourself straight at the POI. This was, as you say, implemented mainly for tandem exhaust reasons at the time it was conceived.
Exactly.
For outbound, of course, various intra-LATA recip. comp. and switched access fees apply.
Yup... tandem termination was always more pricey than DEOT termination... sometimes by as much as 3x.
I truly feel sorry for those people. But it is a way of cutting your teeth. How many of us wouldn't have learned how things really work on the political/business side if we wouldn't have had to deal with all the RBOC fun. ;) ... ok, maybe we would all still have hair.
Well, that's certainly one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that local loop deregulation is a train wreck. I didn't think this until I saw how comparatively smoothly deregulation has been pulled off in some other countries, i.e. in the UK when BT was politely told to divest itself into a telco unit and a loop unit and OpenReach was born.
Yup. The FCC probably should have stayed out of things much more than they did. But then they wouldn't have had all those jobs for all the regulation people. Well, that and the RBOCS really still thought (think?) they were the only game in town. Interesting culture difference. -J
Jason Vanick wrote:
For outbound, of course, various intra-LATA recip. comp. and switched access fees apply.
Yup... tandem termination was always more pricey than DEOT termination... sometimes by as much as 3x.
Ah. That's intense. I don't think the spreads were ever quite so large in BellSouth-land. BellSouth was always thought to be the most CLEC-friendly ILEC. But it's also the south; hospitality aside, there's just a lot less traffic down here.
Yup. The FCC probably should have stayed out of things much more than they did. But then they wouldn't have had all those jobs for all the regulation people. Well, that and the RBOCS really still thought (think?) they were the only game in town. Interesting culture difference.
In the UK, I think Oftel was more involved than the FCC was here. I think the real difference is that the system was never so Byzantine to begin with, and so it didn't conserve all the obfuscation across the divide as in the US. -- Alex Balashov Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
participants (2)
-
abalashov＠evaristesys.com -
jvanick＠spruce.oaknet.com