shared vs. dedicated DSL service

[blu at vl.com (Tom Metro)]

Rich Braun wrote:
> This was before so-called line-sharing, so Verizon rivals Covad/Northpoint
> had to provide service over a dedicated dry copper pair.
> ...
> The bottom line is that line-sharing is far more efficient, cost-wise, than
> any service which requires ordering a new, separate wire for each customer at
> order time.  Dry copper is not scalable unless you're building a brand new
> network.  Reselling line-shared service from Verizon is not viable; gross
> margins are in the 5% range vs. the 40% or so you'd need to operate a viable
> service with 24/7 monitoring.

When I signed up with Covad a couple of years ago, the only service they 
were promoting was shared line DSL. Now they also offer a dedicated line 
service, and I've since noticed several other providers doing likewise. 
It seems we've come full circle. I wonder what the resurgence of 
dedicated line service is due to? Was it in anticipation of this FCC 
ruling, or is it being motivated by changing economics elsewhere in the 
equation?

If I'm getting shared line service from Covad, how much is that relying 
on Verizon hardware? Beyond the local loop, is it using Covad hardware 
at the CO, or is it essentially just reselling Verizon DSL?

If shared line service only has a 5% margin, I'd be curious to know what 
margin is for dedicated line service. To the consumer, the price of the 
service is typically the same, regardless of how it is delivered. Yet 
from my perspective, dedicated line service provides several advantages, 
including elimination of line filters (and the resulting noise picked up 
by sensitive phones) and greater freedom in changing your local phone 
service. Currently with a shared line, I can't easily switch my local 
service to a provider other than Verizon, and might run into problems if 
I wanted to discontinue local service and switch to VoIP.

  -Tom