-----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. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/ iD8DBQFCZCEYTs2s3OoD6D8RAvEhAJ9W+xieWGZB8H/TO1pxHErGomwBkACffNMl BwTsdtcI9Am6H6S2XGX/wuc= =P1Fg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 04:53:29PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:

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). -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Andy Johnson wrote:

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.

that'd be unfortunate, what with number portability and all, yes?

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. ;) -- JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free" --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

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 On Apr 18, 2005, at 5:08 PM, Andy Johnson wrote:

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.

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. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex@nac.net, latency, Al Reuben Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net

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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Matt Taber tabes@wmis.net WMIS Internet http://www.wmis.net "Accelerate ... It's a Speed Thing" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~