DSL restrictions for CLECs?

Sorry for the somewhat off-topic post, but I figured this was the best
place to ask.

I've been trying to get a new DSL installation in my apartment complex.
After being told by Covad that I was unable to get ADSL through them, even
though I was only 13K feet from the CO, I called SBC to find out what the
problem with my line was.

After two days of talking to people of widely varying clue levels at SBC,
this is what I've learned:

I'm on a digital pair gain line out of a local RT. There are nothing but
DPG lines run from the CO -- copper is not, and never was, an option for
this neighborhood. SBC will not allow CLECs to access their DPG lines
either in the CO or in the RT -- "use the copper" is the response.

Is this standard practice? Is this legal? I am basically in a situation
where DSL availability should be a non-issue, except that SBC/Yahoo! has
constructed a scenario where they are the only possible provider due to
their decision to replace copper pair with DPG, and to refuse to allow
CLEC DSLAMs on the DPG lines.

What are the options for the CLECs that want to provide DSL, particularly
if this practice continues and last mile DPG lines with local RTs becomes
standard?

--Len.

I'm on a digital pair gain line out of a local RT. There are nothing but
DPG lines run from the CO -- copper is not, and never was, an option for
this neighborhood. SBC will not allow CLECs to access their DPG lines
either in the CO or in the RT -- "use the copper" is the response.

Is this standard practice? Is this legal? I am basically in a situation
where DSL availability should be a non-issue, except that SBC/Yahoo! has
constructed a scenario where they are the only possible provider due to
their decision to replace copper pair with DPG, and to refuse to allow
CLEC DSLAMs on the DPG lines.

a) Refusal to allow CLECs into RTs is not necessarily bad-intentioned.
Some RTs are really nothing more than a tiny enclosure, where there's
really no space for much equipment.

b) As far as -legality- of refusing to permit CLECs into RTs, according
to latest Triennial Review Ruling (which came out only a week ago, and
hasn't been fully digested yet due to it being 527 pages), it appears that
ILECs -must- now permit CLECs into RTs where it is technologically
possible. (IANAL, and wording of the ruling isn't the clearest).

c) Even if CLECs were permitted in your RT, its far from the fact that any
CLEC would want to be in there, due to cost/benefit considerations: RT
serves a small number of lines. CLEC would need to pay for backhaul and
rental of space, and considering that you probably would be the only
customer in an average RT that serves 500-5000 lines, that wouldn't make
financial sense.

d) Although not a part of Triennial Review (because it is not considered a
UNE), ILECs are still obligated to offer access to their own DSLAMs to
everyone equally, on the similar terms as their own Internet subsidiaries.
(I'm not sure where the requirement for that comes from though, TCA '96?)

So, you can still get DSL service from your friendly neighbourhood ISP
which would use ILEC's DSLAM-in-RT.

Brave-hearted can always read the full text of triennial review at:
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2003/db0821/FCC-03-36A1.pdf

Alex Pilosov | DSL, Colocation, Hosting Services
President | alex@pilosoft.com (800) 710-7031
Pilosoft, Inc. | http://www.pilosoft.com