This medieval local telecommunications structure serves regulatory bodies and regional providers, but adds no value to managers trying to knit a comprehensive network. We don't need three service provider contracts to ship a box from New York to Los Angeles, so why do we accept this setup in our networks? The answer is because we have no choice. But that is changing. Competition in the local loop actually began in the mid-1980s, well before the Telecommunications Act of 1996. At that time, competitive access providers (CAPs) supplied dedicated services by installing fiber optic facilities with route redundancy. CAPs connected locations in metropolitan areas with one another or with the interexchange carriers (IXCs) that provided long-haul private lines and long-distance services . CAPs used the benefits brought by fiber's capacity and reliability to beat the incumbent's pr edominantly copper-served offerings. Once they had established a fiber foothold, CAPs could move faster than the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC), offering quick installation and repair times, as well as progressive new data services.

For example, CAPs introduced LAN interconnection services over the native interfaces found on a customer's equipment. With the rest of the world shoving packets across router serial ports and High-Level Data Link Control (HDLC) links, these services provide actual Ethernet, FDDI or Token-Ring ports to the subscriber. Offered by WorldCom (through the former MFS Communications Co., with which WorldCom merged) as Highspeed LAN Interconnect (HLI) and by Teleport Communications Group as OmniLAN Services, these services not only give customers more bandwidth with lower latency but let the customer enjoy a reduction in equipment costs. Simply plug the WAN connector into your LAN hub or router port, and you're up. These services also conveniently fill the wide price and perfo rmance gap between the T1 and T3 services offered by the ILECs.

What else does this new breed of exchange carrier offer? For starters, a single point of contact for problem resolution. These carriers take responsibility for outages or performance degradations, regardless of whether they're in the local or long-haul portions of the network. Compare this approach to that of the frame relay service providers, which are willing to give performance guarantees only across their own backbones.

To download an Adobe Acrobat .pdf format version of the Competive Local Exchange Carriers chart, click here.

For the Side Bar on
The Big T HREE set out to t ackle Local markets

For more up to date information on
WAN Services
Check out these links
Your Guide To Finding A No-Fret FRAD , Buyers Guide, September 1, 1997
Connecting With Small Office ISDN On A Budget , Buyers Guide, October 15, 1997
Private Dial-Up Networking Gets a Virtual Workout , Corporate.Net, July 15, 1997
Betting on WAN Access Technology , Features, July 1, 1997
Hardcore ATM Switches for the WAN , Features, October 15, 1997
Storming the Castle , Features, October 15, 1997
Building a Frame Relay Network , INDM, October 96
ISDN Connectivity , INDM, May 96
Designing Remote Access to Local Area Networks , INDM, Jan. 96
Building Scalable Remote Access , INDM, January 1997
Designing a Videoconferencing Solution , INDM, April 1997
ISDN PC Card Adapters: Tiny Bundles of Remote Connectivity Pack a Punch , Reviews, July 1, 1997
ISDN Router/Hub Combination Devices: A Complete SOHO Solution? , Reviews, September 15, 1997
What's Cooking With T1 Bandwidth? , Workshops, June 15, 1997
Cellular Data Communications Made Easy , Workshops, July 1, 1997
Finding The Holy Grail Of Modem Connectivity , Workshops, July 15, 1997
Framing The Perfect WAN Contract , Workshops, September 15, 1997
This Issues other Feature
Hardcore ATM Switches for t he WAN
By Dav id Willis


Updated October 8, 1997