🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MI_k7.13$%D2.60@typhoon.sonic.net>, dane@bolt.sonic.net (Dane 
Jasper) writes...
> In ba.internet Mike Castle <dalgoda@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> : Damn, that bites.  Are there technological reasons for this being that
> : complicated (outside of qualifying the new land line as DSL capable)?  Or
> : is it just all a bunch of paperwork or systems not fully integrated?
> 
> The latter - rather, they were fully integrated, and they've been
> "un-integrated" since the creation of SBC-ASI.  Was that in the public
> interest?  I don't think so.


Actually there is undoubtedly a 'theoretical' advantage to 
separating ASI from SBC - at least the appearance that they
are competing on an equal footing with the other DSL circuit
providers. (if you believe the FCC's reasons for mandating it
anyway)

The problem is A) in practice they are still being favored by
SBC and B) the paperwork morass created by the separation 
(probably magnified "accidentally on purpose") makes some 
things less efficient.


-- 
Philip J. Koenig         The Electric Kahuna Organization       [anti-spammed]
----------------Computers & Communications for the New Millennium-------------
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces:  pjkunet64 @  ekahuna27 . com    *
*           Email Blacklists: stop using innocent users as pawns.            *
* Simple answers are for simple minds.  Try a new way of looking at things.  *