That's exactly what I'm talking about. As far as I know for the GTA the dslams in CO's actually don't connect to copper but instead the remote dslams (OPI dslams) convert the traffic to PTM-TC, not ATM and send it the CO over fiber where it's optionally interfaced with the providers dslam again for legacy management systems. I believe this change was made 6 years ago when Bell upgraded their DSL network to Lucent equipment and hydro's backbone. That's why I think distance from the CO is probably not a good measure for the GTA. Bill, I'd love to hear a talk about DSL infrastructure, I'm sure most people would be really interested.
--- Shidan On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Bill Sandiford < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Guys: > > I think Shidan was referring to those roadside DSLAMs (they're called OPI > DSLAMs). > > At a meeting in the future I could probably speak about DSL infrastructure > and how it all works. As most of you know we operate our own ADSL2+ DSLAMs, > but unfortunately with a very limited footprint. > > With regards to the CRTC regulatory issues mentioned by Doug, I'm writing > another email shortly that I'm going to send to both lists. There is a lot > going on that will impact everyone that uses DSL for VoIP and I'll give you > the quick version (I'd like to give you the long version but I'm too busy > responding to the legal briefs to fight this stuff). > > Regards, > Bill > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Douglas Pickett [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 12:39 PM > To: Shidan > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [biz] Good DSL service to recommend > > Shidan, > The major issue with any DSL service is really "the last mile", not > (usually) the upstream towards the Internet. > > The copper loop from your premises (and your DSL modem) back to the CO > where > it connects to the DSLAM is usually the bottleneck. There's no getting > away > from physics, and the more distance from your premises back to the DSLAM > the > weaker the signal is, and therefore the lower the maximum data rate. In > the > early days of DSL there were also issues that some circuits had special > conditioning circuits added to help the voice service, but they would > degrade the DSL service so that a circuit that should have worked correctly > based only on distance would not in fact be usable. Ordering DSL when it > was first offered was very unpredictable. > > Bell has been getting around this distance issue by installing DSLAM's > outside of CO's, closer to the customer premises - I've been noticing extra > little boxes bolted onto the side of many of the roadside junction boxes > that act as distribution points for Bell's wiring infrastructure, which I > think are these. > > From what I understand Bell had been excluding other ISP's from access to > this upgraded infrastructure - IANAL, but I believe their position was that > the CRTC's rulings that required them to allow other ISP's to access their > infrastructure at favourable prices only applied to equipment installed in > the CO's. From the non-Bell ISP's perspective this amounted to Bell > reserving higher performance only for Bell's own customers. I can't > remember now whether the CRTC was extending (or had extended) their ruling > to requiring Bell to offer access to this infrastructure, or whether the > non-Bell ISP's had merely made an application that the CRTC do so. > > Regards, > Doug. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Shidan" <[email protected]> > To: "Peng Li" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Adam Ronthal" <[email protected]>; "Claude Tambu" > <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 9:49 PM > Subject: Re: [biz] Good DSL service to recommend > > > > Actually this is something I have been wondering about myself. Is it > > really > > an issue if you are greater than 21/2 miles from the CO in Toronto now > > days? > > Isn't all the DSL traffic going out PTM-TC on hydro's fiber network long > > before it hits any providers CO or DSLAM? > > > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Peng Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> Make sure you check with them (Techsavvy or Bell) that your home is > about > >> 2 > >> 1/2 miles to CO, otherwise, no DSL service will be available with good > >> quality. Cable or Wireless might be the choices left. > >> > >> In my area, I tried DSL with Bell and the speed was so slow. They > finally > >> figured that my neighborhood is a bit beyond that range and I have to > >> suck > >> up with Rogers. I don't like Roger's services of charging so much with > >> usage > >> caps. they also creep up the fee. > >> > >> peng > >> > >> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Adam Ronthal <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > I have been with teksavvy for 5 years now and been very satisfied. > >> > > >> > Adam > >> > > >> > On 3/29/09, Claude Tambu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > Morning All, > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Not sure if I should post in the Business or Tech section, but the > >> > question > >> > > looks for business than technical... > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > I'm looking to purchase DSL service for my home office and was > >> wondering > >> > if > >> > > anyone would have a suggestion to make. For starters, > >> > > > >> > > I host my homegrown Asterisk box running and mail server. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > must-have Features: > >> > > - At least one static IP > >> > > - Absolutely No port block (e.g. Bell and Rogers blocks TCP 25) > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > It'll also be nice not to pay thru the roof for the said-service > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > I was looking at Techsavvy and I see their service/price offering to > >> > > be > >> > > appealing... anyone has experience with them or could recommend a > >> > > good > >> > > company out there? > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Thanks all and have a wonderful day! > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Warmest Regards, > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Claude > >> > > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Sent from my mobile device > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
