NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/dcom/modems-part1/3948

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 3.7 KB

Path: polarnet.com!floyd
From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Any way to fight the phone company?
Date: 4 Feb 1996 21:31:49 GMT
Organization: __________
Message-ID: <4f38k5$[e-mail]>
References: <4es3dm$[e-mail]> <4etla4$[e-mail]> <4f1u91$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
NNTP-Posting-Host: tanana.polarnet.com

Bill Garfield <[e-mail]> wrote:
>[e-mail] (doug haire) wrote:
>>Marc Fuller ([e-mail]) wrote:
>>: having trouble sending faxes and get a better response. There is a good
>>: chance that your second line is a SLCC ( a frequency multiplexed line on the
>>: same pair of wires as your first) These often have problems with digital
>>: transmission.
>>
>>Arrgggggh!!!! Once again, we have the myth of the SLC as a poor facility
>>for data. The SLC is nothing more than digital carrier technology. If
>>properly optioned, it is *better* than having standard copper all the way
...
>Your counter-argument is factually correct Doug, but as we've discussed
>in other forums, =YOUR= results, for the most part, do _not_ parallel
>those experienced by many others who are doomed (yes, doomed) to receive
>their telephone service via the ubiquitous Subscriber Loop Concentrator.

The point made in your discussion, however, is that the SLC works
fine, and without it you wouldn't be able to get a v.32 or v.34
modem to even connect.  The analog equipment that is also used by
your local telco is restricting you to less that 28.8Kbps
connections, but since you are paying for a line specified to get
only 14.4Kbps (at worst case, and you are getting better than
that), what is there to complain about?

SLC technology is _not_ the cause of problems with modem
connections, and your discussion demonstrated that very well.

>Yes, an analog switch + SLC is far preferable to a 30,000 ft copper loop
>with load pots, bridge taps, multiple wire guages, etc along its way,
>but why when the office is modernized is it seemingly *mandated* that
>the damned analog wire frame be allowed to remain in the middle of
>otherwise digital services?  This mindset prevails, not just in SWB
>territory. Ask around.
>
>Your own situation is very unique, Doug.  You're one of the lucky ones.
>
>For most of us who receive our phone service from a neighborhood SLC it
>means that we're multiple cable MILES from the switch and that switch is
>most likely analog, and if not, it still has an old analog wire frame
>ahead of it.  It also means that we are *NOT* going to achieve 28.8k
>performance out of our V34 modems, period.  I guess we're all just going
>to have to move to W. Palm Beach.  :-)

Without the SLC you would be lucky to connect at 1200bps!  And what
is the big deal about getting 28.8Kbps anyway?  You are not paying
for a subscriber loop guaranteed to get 28.8Kbps.  v.32bis (and
hence v.34) was designed to get 14.4Kbps over a loop that meets
minimum specs.  Everything above that is good fortune, and you
have no valid complaint if you are not getting it.  In your case
it is apparent that you are being provided far better than minimum
standard service and you are complaining is that it does not come
with gold plating.

I get 24Kbps connects, and sometimes 26Kbps, but I can't imagine
making a complaint to the telco about not getting 28.8Kbps.  I'm
26 miles from the CO, and the last 4 miles is copper.  I talk to
the telco tech's on a regular basis, and more than once have told
them how lucky I am to get what I do...

(I'm the third AT&T employee to pitch in here...)

  Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson          Salcha, Alaska         [e-mail]