SDSL the next telecom rip off

We all know unmetered 8mbit SDSL is cheaper than
metered 256kbit ADSL.

http://www.plus.net/products/busines...band_sdsl.html

On this page you see that 256kbit SDSL is 175 pounds per month.

Call me stuuuuppid, but is it cheaper to install a standard 512k ADSL,
with its built in 256k uplink speed, throttle the uplink speed to 256k
and flog it as 'SDSL' for 175 pounds a month?

Dah! Don't answer that question!

If you are a hungry new outfit, just take the LLU line and fit
your own modem pairs from taiwan and the like for $10,
and then flog it as SDSL for
30 quid a month 8bit service. You need dual pairs for higher
speeds, so its instructive to plan that way in advance.
gisajob next month, I need some dough then, and I'll show you how.

> Call me stuuuuppid, but is it cheaper to install a standard 512k ADSL,
> with its built in 256k uplink speed, throttle the uplink speed to 256k
> and flog it as 'SDSL' for 175 pounds a month?

dear stuuuuppid,
I think you've missed the point that SDSL is a business orientated product
that is backed up with a "Service Level" agreement. It is this agreement
that makes it more expensive. If your standard 512k ADSL breaks down for a
week you have very little chance of claiming compensation for loss of
business - not so with an SLA backed SDSL connection.

> Dah! Don't answer that question!

Oh, well nevermind then.

82.32.198.32 phantom wrote:

>> Call me stuuuuppid, but is it cheaper to install a standard 512k ADSL,
>> with its built in 256k uplink speed, throttle the uplink speed to 256k
>> and flog it as 'SDSL' for 175 pounds a month?
>
> dear stuuuuppid,
> I think you've missed the point that SDSL is a business orientated product

Hence the need to employ astro turfers
justifying rip off charges to the public.
I seem to remember ADSL equipment rooms were reputed to be made
from gold bars so as to levy business usage charges
against members of the public.


>> Dah! Don't answer that question!
>
> Oh, well nevermind then.

But you did!

"phantom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I think you've missed the point that SDSL is a business orientated product
>that is backed up with a "Service Level" agreement. It is this agreement
>that makes it more expensive. If your standard 512k ADSL breaks down for a
>week you have very little chance of claiming compensation for loss of
>business - not so with an SLA backed SDSL connection.

Could one not achieve the same thing, for far less, with two separate
analog phone lines, each one carrying an ADSL service with a different
ISP?

One might have a "service level agreement" with an ISP but they will
still disconnect you dead quick if their Accounts Dept messes up - to
give just one example.


Peter.
--
Return address is invalid to help stop junk mail.
E-mail replies to (E-Mail Removed) but remove the X and the Y.

Peter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> "phantom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>I think you've missed the point that SDSL is a business orientated product
>>that is backed up with a "Service Level" agreement. It is this agreement
>>that makes it more expensive. If your standard 512k ADSL breaks down for a
>>week you have very little chance of claiming compensation for loss of
>>business - not so with an SLA backed SDSL connection.
>
> Could one not achieve the same thing, for far less, with two separate
> analog phone lines, each one carrying an ADSL service with a different
> ISP?

No.
>
> One might have a "service level agreement" with an ISP but they will
> still disconnect you dead quick if their Accounts Dept messes up - to
> give just one example.

BT wholesale sell the SDSL line with the option (I think) of a service
level agreement.
With ADSL there is no such option.
If your SDSL line goes down, you have promises of it actually being
fixed within a certain period of time, or compensation is due.
If ADSL is down, then it's "we'll fix it when we've done more important
stuff"

phantom wrote on Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:54:54 GMT:

>> Call me stuuuuppid, but is it cheaper to install a standard 512k ADSL,
>> with its built in 256k uplink speed, throttle the uplink speed to 256k
>> and flog it as 'SDSL' for 175 pounds a month?
>
> dear stuuuuppid,
> I think you've missed the point that SDSL is a business orientated product
> that is backed up with a "Service Level" agreement. It is this agreement
> that makes it more expensive. If your standard 512k ADSL breaks down for a
> week you have very little chance of claiming compensation for loss of
> business - not so with an SLA backed SDSL connection.

Also, some SDSL has a contention ratio of 1:1 (ie. no contention) compared
to business ADSL of 20:1 and home ADSL of 50:1. Our company is in the
process of moving from a BT Megastream based connection to an Easynet
Surestream (SDSL) LLU one, and for the same line speed, contention ratio,
and SLA it's around half the cost.

Dan

Spack wrote:

> phantom wrote on Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:54:54 GMT:
>
>>> Call me stuuuuppid, but is it cheaper to install a standard 512k ADSL,
>>> with its built in 256k uplink speed, throttle the uplink speed to 256k
>>> and flog it as 'SDSL' for 175 pounds a month?
>>
>> dear stuuuuppid,
>> I think you've missed the point that SDSL is a business orientated
>> product that is backed up with a "Service Level" agreement. It is this
>> agreement that makes it more expensive. If your standard 512k ADSL breaks
>> down for a week you have very little chance of claiming compensation for
>> loss of business - not so with an SLA backed SDSL connection.
>
> Also, some SDSL has a contention ratio of 1:1 (ie. no contention) compared
> to business ADSL of 20:1 and home ADSL of 50:1. Our company is in the

Its more expensive to put in 20:1 content ratio equipment
than use uncontended, unmetered 8mbit SDSL and then let software
in the router do the contending.

Bring on LLU and we shall see. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAH!

--
p.s. someone give me a job end of next month. I wanna get into SDSL rollout.

In article <pkW%d.3248$(E-Mail Removed)>, 7 says...
> We all know unmetered 8mbit SDSL is cheaper than
> metered 256kbit ADSL.
>
> http://www.plus.net/products/busines...band_sdsl.html
>
> On this page you see that 256kbit SDSL is 175 pounds per month.
>
> Call me stuuuuppid, but is it cheaper to install a standard 512k ADSL,
> with its built in 256k uplink speed, throttle the uplink speed to 256k
> and flog it as 'SDSL' for 175 pounds a month?
>
> Dah! Don't answer that question!
>
> If you are a hungry new outfit, just take the LLU line and fit
> your own modem pairs from taiwan and the like for $10,
> and then flog it as SDSL for
> 30 quid a month 8bit service. You need dual pairs for higher
> speeds, so its instructive to plan that way in advance.
> gisajob next month, I need some dough then, and I'll show you how.
>
In a word, contention.

Home ADSL 50:1

SDSL a maximum of 10:1 or sometimes as low as 1:1 which is leased line
grade.

So it's more expensive to provision.

FR

82.152.42.212 Flying Rat wrote:

> In article <pkW%d.3248$(E-Mail Removed)>, 7 says...
>> We all know unmetered 8mbit SDSL is cheaper than
>> metered 256kbit ADSL.
>>
>> http://www.plus.net/products/busines...band_sdsl.html
>>
>> On this page you see that 256kbit SDSL is 175 pounds per month.
>>
>> Call me stuuuuppid, but is it cheaper to install a standard 512k ADSL,
>> with its built in 256k uplink speed, throttle the uplink speed to 256k
>> and flog it as 'SDSL' for 175 pounds a month?
>>
>> Dah! Don't answer that question!
>>
>> If you are a hungry new outfit, just take the LLU line and fit
>> your own modem pairs from taiwan and the like for $10,
>> and then flog it as SDSL for
>> 30 quid a month 8bit service. You need dual pairs for higher
>> speeds, so its instructive to plan that way in advance.
>> gisajob next month, I need some dough then, and I'll show you how.
>>
> In a word, contention.
>
> Home ADSL 50:1
>
> SDSL a maximum of 10:1 or sometimes as low as 1:1 which is leased line
> grade.
>
> So it's more expensive to provision.
>
> FR

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHHAAHAAAAH!!!
In a word, you are a common garden variety village idiot.

On 22 Mar 2005 17:10:32 GMT, Ian Stirling <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Peter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> "phantom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>I think you've missed the point that SDSL is a business orientated product
>>>that is backed up with a "Service Level" agreement. It is this agreement
>>>that makes it more expensive. If your standard 512k ADSL breaks down for a
>>>week you have very little chance of claiming compensation for loss of
>>>business - not so with an SLA backed SDSL connection.
>>
>> Could one not achieve the same thing, for far less, with two separate
>> analog phone lines, each one carrying an ADSL service with a different
>> ISP?
>
>No.
>>
>> One might have a "service level agreement" with an ISP but they will
>> still disconnect you dead quick if their Accounts Dept messes up - to
>> give just one example.
>
>BT wholesale sell the SDSL line with the option (I think) of a service
>level agreement.
>With ADSL there is no such option.
>If your SDSL line goes down, you have promises of it actually being
>fixed within a certain period of time, or compensation is due.
>If ADSL is down, then it's "we'll fix it when we've done more important
>stuff"

Not strictly true.

BT Wholesale ADSL and SDSL products are supplied as standard with the
same "Care" level, "Standard Care". Both can be upgraded to "Enhanced
Care" which gives identical response time (3 hours) and fix time (20
clock-hours).

Standard Care, by the way, has no guaranteed response time, and 40
clock-hour fix.

Jake