Wow -- I wish SBC would follow suit. :-/
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050418/D89I0KP00.html
- ferg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
Wow -- I wish SBC would follow suit. :-/
You can already get this from Covad through providers like Speakeasy.
I recently switched from SDSL on a dedicated pair to ADSL.
- --
I love this part:
"Tom Tauke, a senior Verizon executive, said stand-alone DSL would eventually be expanded to all of Verizon's territory and be available to anyone, regardless of whether they are a current customer. He said technical issues limited the company to a partial rollout."
What possible technical issue could exist that to don't have to wire the dslam to a pots splitter?
Actually, even if they did wire it to a pots splitter, and there was no pots line present, it'd still work.
I think we all know, it was about POTS revenue protection.
It's fairly easy to see that the iLECs are the big players
these days in the US/Domestic market. They control the last mile, and
with that comes their distinct advantage.
Look at how they played the rules to keep the LD carriers out
of the local market, compete with Covad/Northpoint through removal of
line sharing agreements, and other practices against CLECs in the past.
This is a positive move, and will put some pressure on SBC
to unbundle their services as well.
Now if we could just get them to quit trying to keep everyone out
of the local space with their extensive lobbying efforts.
SBC and Verizon both seem to not want anything to do with my
home state (Michigan) by not offering any of the FTTH services here
and still do not deliver dialtone to some parts of the state.
- jared
(hoping for a more competitive local loop market for
residences globally).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
You can already get this from Covad through providers like Speakeasy.
I recently switched from SDSL on a dedicated pair to ADSL.
I've has this with Covad, who in Las Vegas resells XO service, for years. Rock solid, and I get four static IP addresses. And since it runs on it's own line, you don't need those silly little DSL filters on all your house phones, or run VoIP if you like.
Alex Rubenstein wrote:
What possible technical issue could exist that to don't have to wire the dslam to a pots splitter?
Actually, even if they did wire it to a pots splitter, and there was no pots line present, it'd still work.
My speculation is that their billing/accounting system is based on a POTs number, and since these customers will not need one, they will have administrative errors managing accounts.
Since VZ is doing their FTTP rollout, I imagine they have been tying new customers to Physical Addresses now instead, moving away from the old POTS based system. Again, all speculation based on how I see the DSL/FTTP order process taking place now.
that'd be unfortunate, what with number portability and all, yes?
that'd be unfortunate, what with number portability and all, yes?
Until a couple of months ago, Cingular Wireless here was still
determining whether or not to bill for "mobile to mobile" calls
based on whether the called party's NPA was one of theirs.
Never overestimate a telco..
matto
--matt@snark.net------------------------------------------<darwin><
The only thing necessary for the triumph
of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Andy Johnson wrote:
My speculation is that their billing/accounting system is based on a POTs number, and since these customers will not need one, they will have administrative errors managing accounts.
Yeahbut.
SBC was happy to assign me something that looks like a phone number, but wasn't, so I could make monthly payments on a Yellow Pages ad a few years ago. I was in area code 216, and the account number was 216 R01 XXX YYYY (I forget what the rest of it was).
So I'm not buying that argument. 
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
Wow -- I wish SBC would follow suit. :-/
Yes -- SBC should follow suit. I just think they'll stop running the $19.95/mo promos. 
It makes no sense for them to offer naked DSL @ $19.95 -- they'll simply just jack the price on the naked DSL.
Kind of like trying to get cable-internet w/o cable-tv coming along w/ it.
I personally still don't like the stability of SBC's PPPOE implementations and tunnels. I prefer Verizon's setup much more.
I love having mixed ILEC's in our service area. Always keeps you on your toes.
I personally still don't like the stability of SBC's PPPOE implementations and tunnels. I prefer Verizon's setup much more.
I am not sure what Verizon you are talking about, but the Verizon in my area (aka Bell Atlantic, aka New Jersey Bell) (at least used to) have, for some reason, have a cat 5000 in between us and the DSLAM. We see about 27 or so PVC's for the whole state. Verizon refers to these PVC's as PVC's to each 'switch.' Conjecture is that there is some insane type of LANE and god knows what going on. You run PPPOE over this, and in some limited cases, it's stable.
Sprint (aka United Telephone) in our area (northern NJ), IMHO, does things 'right', or at least best of all the players we've dealt with through the years. They provide a L2TP tunnel to you over an ATM-IP link, which the other end of is on a Redback SMS of sorts. You see all of your clients as PPPoEoL2TP. As hackery as it sounds, it works and is quite stable.
Yes, many LECs under your feet is interesting. Within 100 miles of our office, we have more than I can even think of (Verizon-NJ Bell, Verizon-NYNEX, Verizon-PA, Verizon-GTE, Sprint/United, Warwick Valley Telephone, SBC-SNET, Citizens-Frontier, RCI-Frontier.
I am not sure what Verizon you are talking about, but the Verizon in my area (aka Bell Atlantic, aka New Jersey Bell) (at least used to) have, for some reason, have a cat 5000 in between us and the DSLAM. We see about 27 or so PVC's for the whole state. Verizon refers to these PVC's as PVC's to each 'switch.' Conjecture is that there is some insane type of LANE and god knows what going on. You run PPPOE over this, and in some limited cases, it's stable.
That seems to be how the SBC model works here. It's not bad, except when they forget to tell you about a new Redback device they turn up.
In Verizonland here, they will just deliver you a PVC per customer, and you get to pick how you want to provision them (1483/PPPOE/etc). This seems to be better in some cases, as you can do RFC1483 then and not have MTU issues. If SBC would run larger MTU's internally so you could do do 1500 with PPPoE, it wouldn't be as bad.
Yes, many LECs under your feet is interesting. Within 100 miles of our office, we have more than I can even think of (Verizon-NJ Bell, Verizon-NYNEX, Verizon-PA, Verizon-GTE, Sprint/United, Warwick Valley Telephone, SBC-SNET, Citizens-Frontier, RCI-Frontier.
Ha!
I think Putnam County, OH holds the record of most telco's in a county. Take a look at this map:
http://www.puc.state.oh.us/pucogis/statemap/phone_e.pdf
Jason
That seems to be how the SBC model works here. It's not bad, except when they forget to tell you about a new Redback device they turn up.
Or when the tunnel simply doesn't come up because of a typo. That's always a fun one to have SBC to own up to.
In Verizonland here, they will just deliver you a PVC per customer, and you get to pick how you want to provision them (1483/PPPOE/etc). This seems to be better in some cases, as you can do RFC1483 then and not have MTU issues. If SBC would run larger MTU's internally so you could do do 1500 with PPPoE, it wouldn't be as bad.
We've been running into problems on some combination of modems and SBC DSL where we have to manually set the MTU on the customers CPE to something like 1464 for them to get to websites that block ICMP traffic.
At least we found a solution. For a bit, we couldn't figure out what the problem was.
Alex Rubenstein wrote:
> What possible technical issue could exist that to don't have to wire the
> dslam to a pots splitter?
>
> Actually, even if they did wire it to a pots splitter, and there was no
> pots line present, it'd still work.My speculation is that their billing/accounting system is based on a
POTs number, and since these customers will not need one, they will have
administrative errors managing accounts.
Their DSL OAM&P, at least in VerizonFL territory, is indeed tied to the
associated voice DN; they don't even do *ticket* numbers at the
consumer level: the tickets are tied to the DN as well.
Since VZ is doing their FTTP rollout, I imagine they have been tying
new customers to Physical Addresses now instead, moving away from the
old POTS based system. Again, all speculation based on how I see the
DSL/FTTP order process taking place now.
And I've just heard from a customer for FTTP in Tampa that he loves the
speed (13/1.2 stable)... but they're PPPoE at the box. <sigh>
Cheers,
-- jra
Probably to avoid the snafus of the early @Home rollouts, when at least one person was accused of stealing cable because the field tech installed her cable modem without an RF filter...
http://www.joabj.com/Balt/CableRobbing.html
-C
.... PPPoEoL2TPoIPSECoLANEoIPV6oRFC1149.....
What a bunch of mean nasty ugly stuff.
My Sonic.net connection is simply rfc1483 (IP packets on an ATM PVC
with a standard SNAP header), and I think that's probably what SBC is
delivering them.
AT&T's business SDSL and IDSL circuits also work that way, and I think
our business ADSL does too (definitely over Covad, but there may be
some locations we can't get that); I don't know what the AT&T Consumer
folks do, but it's nice to have a design that Just Works, and that
leaves the IP issues to the ISP and doesn't have the ILEC/CLEC messing
with MTU sizes for no good reason.
Bill