[VoiceOps] BellSouth vs. AT&T stance on multi-tandem access.
jvanick at spruce.oaknet.com
Thu Aug 13 09:02:34 EDT 2009
> > 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?
> 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
More information about the VoiceOps