I think I'd call it dialtone.
They wouldn't place a filter on your line to get rid of your dialtone
though. I imagine that your copper pair would only go into the DSLAM
(ADSL termination) at the CO (an office in your neighbourhood where
your copper pair terminates), and would not be connected to the DLC
(Data Link Controller). The DLC is connected to a DACs (digital analog
converter) which is then conneted to a 5ESS, which provides the
dialtone.
home -> CO -> splitter ----> DSLAM -> ATM -> Traffic Aggregator -> Internet
\--> DLC -> DACS -> 5ESS -> PSTN network
I'm going off on a bit of a tangent, but I just learned about half of
this an hour ago from one of the frame relay guys @ work (so I may
have gotten some of it wrong), and thought it was pretty interesting.
spd
.:. Simon P. Ditner, Asterisk nut, http://uc.org/asterisk .:.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:02:57 -0500, Dan Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure the confusion is just about language. Personally, when I
> say "phone line" I mean "phone service" (and I'll say "phone service" from
> now on). When I want to talk about the physical thing that DSL runs over, I
> say "copper pair".
>
> You say tomato, I say tomato.
>
> :-)
>
>
> Dan
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Derek Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:18 PM
> > To: Dan Howard
> > Cc: Alex Sirota; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Glen MacDonald
> > Subject: Re: DSL w/o local phone line
> >
> >
> > There seems to be some confusion here.
> > You will always need a phone line to have DSL -- that's the
> > infrastructure that "DSL technology" runs on.
> > You will need one even with Sympatico's service.
> > What you will *not* need is phone *service*.
> > So, yes, you need a line running to your house -- but you don't need to
> > be able to make calls on it.
> > I imagine that Sympatico will simply filter your line to allow data,
> > but not regular phone calls in much the same way that Rogers can filter
> > out premium channels from your cable feed.
> >
> > Derek
> >
> >
> > On 10-Mar-05, at 9:17 PM, Dan Howard wrote:
> >
> > > I did write a little complaint to the CRTC (pasted below) and copied
> > > it to
> > > Egate, and they replied to me with this interesting message:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Dan,
> > > Currently to get DSL from Sympatico OR Primus you need a phone line.
> > > There
> > > is currently no exception.
> > > Bell has announced at a 'marketing' level the plans to allow us (and
> > > symaptico, and primus and all ISP's) the ability to offer DSL without a
> > > phone line; however it's just in marketing right now and as of yet no
> > > formal product announcemnt has been made.
> > >
> > > I agree with you; with the ability to get VoIP being tied to a phone
> > > line
> > > is a competitive disadvantage against something like Rogers which is
> > > why I
> > > think Bell is moving quickly to make this change.
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Dan Howard wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I was talking on the phone today with Ken Ho about getting your
> > >> service,
> > > but
> > >> found out that I have to *also* be paying for a local phone line for
> > >> you
> > > to
> > >> be able to provide it. For me, that is not acceptable, since I am
> > >> planning
> > >> to get VoIP for the very reason that I can *get rid of* my local phone
> > >> service. This small technicality is essentially doubling the price of
> > >> your
> > >> service to $90/month, from my point of view.
> > >>
> > >> I think you guys should be concerned about this, as it will eat into
> > >> your
> > >> business. I will end up getting my DSL from someone (Sympatico or
> > >> Primus,
> > > I
> > >> think) who can give it to me and *not* charge me for a regular local
> > >> line
> > >> *on top* of the fee for VoIP. I'm pretty sure that anyone considering
> > >> a
> > >> VoIP package will avoid using you for DSL for this exact same reason.
> > >> An
> > >> increasing number of people are getting VoIP, especially the more
> > > tech-savvy
> > >> ones such as would use a lesser-known ISP rather than Rogers or
> > >> Sympatico.
> > >>
> > >> I lodged a complaint with the CRTC via their online form about this.
> > >> FYI,
> > >> its text is below.
> > >>
> > >> Best regards,
> > >> Dan Howard
> > >> -------------
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I cannot get DSL without paying for a local phone line.
> > >>
> > >> The DSL provider I would like to use (www.egate.net) is unable to
> > >> provide
> > > me
> > >> with DSL service unless I continue paying for local phone service,
> > >> which I
> > >> am currently getting from Sprint. The whole reason I am looking for a
> > >> reliable broadband internet connection, like Egate's, is so that I
> > >> can get
> > > a
> > >> VoIP package which is far less expensive than what I am currently
> > >> paying
> > >> Sprint for regular phone service.
> > >>
> > >> Since I can't do this, I can't give my business to Egate. And yet, I
> > >> hear
> > >> that Sympatico will soon be offering "naked DSL". I believe this will
> > >> give
> > >> them an unfair advantage over Egate. Everyone wanting VoIP will want
> > >> to
> > >> cancel their home phone, and if their ISP can't offer DSL without a
> > >> local
> > >> phone subscription, that ISP is going to suffer.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >>
> > >> Dan Howard
> > >>
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Glen MacDonald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 4:18 PM
> > > To: Derek Martin
> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dan
> > > Howard; Alex Sirota
> > > Subject: Re: DSL w/o local phone line
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for the info, Derek.
> > >
> > > Funny you should mention your Dad, cuz my wife worked for Bell for 18
> > > years.
> > > Guess we should talk more often. :^)
> > >
> > > g
> > >
> > > It's no use, man.
> > > The reason that's the way it is is that Bell actually owns *all* the
> > > phone
> > > lines.
> > > In the 80s Bell was *the* only phone provider.
> > >
> > > Then a ruling came down that it was monopolistic, and it required Bell
> > > to
> > > allow other companies to lease its lines in bulk, and provide
> > > competitive
> > > services.
> > > So, they allowed that.
> > >
> > > But I think this is a different monkey altogether.
> > > Cable broadband and wireless broadband are competition to DSL.
> > > Consequently, I don't think Bell has to give anybody a damn thing.
> > > They're their lines, and they can do whatever they want with them as
> > > long as
> > > it's not monopolistic.
> > >
> > > I know this stuff cause my Dad worked for Bell for 30 years.
> > > Osmosis, you know.
> > >
> > > Derek
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10-Mar-05, at 4:08 PM, Glen MacDonald wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > This merits a complaint to the CRTC, and I'm not kidding. This is
> > > bullshit,
> > > and it's only when people DON'T yell & scream that they can keeping
> > > getting
> > > away with this shit.
> > > g
> > >
> > > I just talked to Egate.net, the local ISP that Glen recommends. They
> > > sound
> > > good, but one show-stopper: They can't service you if you don't have a
> > > local
> > > phone line. My plan *was* to use them for DSL, cancel my local phone,
> > > and
> > > get VoIP. Ironically, Bell's DSL package is going to be the only one
> > > (for
> > > now at least) that lets you do that. :-(
> > >
> > > Is this the intrinsic evilness you were talking about, Scott?
> > >
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Scott McIntosh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 5:10 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: DSL w/o local phone line
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, quite the contrary; everyone should immediately abandon Sympatico
> > > because of the intrinsic evilness of the phone company and their shitty
> > > shitty service. As a good-bye present, launch DoS attack on their
> > > billing site. They deserve no less.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Glen MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: Dan Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Cc: Simon P. Ditner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Alex Sirota
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Simon Rowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > > Scott McIntosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Derek Martin
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:16:28 -0500
> > > Subject: Re: DSL w/o local phone line
> > >
> > > It's in Today's Star, in the "@Biz" section. It also mentioned that
> > > Rogers is introducing a 60Gig/month cap for bandwidth usage --
> > > regardless of what level of service you're paying for.
> > >
> > > This isn't to say everyone should run out and get Sympatico. Quite the
> > > contrary: smaller providers like what I use (Egate) will give you
> > > better service at the same price, while offering a fixed IP address and
> > > no restrictions on anything, including bandwidth.
> > >
> > > g
> > >
> > >> Glen says that Sympatico just announced that by the end of March, you
> > > can
> > >> get DSL without subscribing to a local phone line.
> > >>
> > >> Hello, VoIP!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Dan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
