Re: [PLUG] Linksys and DSL

["William H. Magill" <magill@mcgillsociety.org>]

On 21 Sep, 2004, at 02:06, Doug Crompton wrote:
> Where this gets complicated is when the DSLAM is at a RT. It is my
> understanding that Verizon is installing DSLAM's at RT's but NOT 
> allowing
> competitors to do likewise. Since a large and growing number of 
> customers
> get service via RT's the competition is being squashed in those cases.
> While there is PUC ordered competition on the voice side there is non 
> on
> data (DSL) services.

Technically, the DSLAM always belongs to Verizon. The ISPs get their 
feeds from the back-side of the DSLAM.

What is NOT happening is a back-haul connection for anyone but Verizon. 
 This actually makes perverse sense. It most likely relates to the 
reason that the RT was installed in the first place -- there simply is 
no "excess" capacity available.

RTs don't exist because the RBOC is not building COs. They exist 
because the RBOC is using either a "maxed-out" existing cable plant (in 
the case of the city and apartment buildings) or more importantly, have 
converted over to Fibre (which IS happening in the suburbs)! DSL 
technology is NOT compatible with Fibre. DSL is strictly an analog 
technology. Fibre is a Digital technology. If a portion of the circuit 
utilizes Fibre, then the DSLAM must also connect to a local-to-the-RT 
ATM interface. Voice technology has no such requirement. ... or put 
another way, the voice side of the RT connects directly to the ATM 
cloud via the fibre pipe. The RT itself digitizes the voice side of the 
circuit. Because of the way it was developed, as an analog solution, 
DSL hardware doesn't yet exist which does this.  I suspect that the 
hardware which Verizon is now testing in Texas and California to allow 
them to do data/voice/video over the same fibre pipe is in fact, this 
"next generation" of DSL hardware.

From what I know, this is completely a case of the transition from one 
technological implementation to another generating the "unintended 
consequence" of preventing access to RTs by ISPs.  However, you are 
correct, the Data side of the house is completely unregulated.  The 
interesting question will be when Verizon starts offering Voice over 
IP.  I don't think that there will be much question but that Government 
will be opting to, minimally, consider VOIP as a Voice service and not 
a data service -- Why? Because there are massive tax revenues involved! 
Taxes on Voice services at the Federal, State and Local level are 
several times larger than those on data services... and their 
elimination would put far to many bureaucrats, lawyers and accountants 
in the unemployment line.

T.T.F.N.
William H. Magill
# Beige G3 - Rev A motherboard - 768 Meg
# Flat-panel iMac (2.1) 800MHz - Super Drive - 768 Meg
# PWS433a [Alpha 21164 Rev 7.2 (EV56)- 64 Meg]- Tru64 5.1a
# XP1000  [Alpha EV6]
magill@mcgillsociety.org
magill@acm.org
magill@mac.com
whmagill@gmail.com


___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug