RE: [EFM] RE: [EFM-Copper] the merits of 12 kft and +
- To: "'Ron McConnell'" <rcmcc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Bob Burke'" <bburke@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Stanley, Patrick'" <pstanley@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Jack Andresen'" <jandresen@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: [EFM-Copper] the merits of 12 kft and +
- From: Frank Miller <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 12:40:23 -0800
- Cc: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'Behrooz Rezvani'" <email@example.com>, Frank Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'Vladimir Oksman'" <email@example.com>, "'Copper'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'Hugh Barrass'" <email@example.com>, "'Howard Frazier'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'Frank Van der Putten'" <email@example.com>, "'John W2XS Meade'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
Ron McConnell wrote:
>Having said all of that, and reading your
>note about using loops without POTS
>all the way down to 0Hz/DC, long loaded
>loops _could_ be deloaded for business data
>use for >= 18kft. That would take time & $,
>of course, but could be quicker than
>laying fiber. That would pick up another
>chunk of the loop world.
Ron, as an example in Qwest as an ILEC in Oregon
we have multiple ways to provision DSL over unloaded
pairs depending upon the tariff for each ILEC.
1) Single-line-service - utilization of existing POTs
pairs that are deloaded. Low-pass filters / splitters are utilized
to send voice to the PBX while the service provider
handles DSL over the same pair. Due to voice over deloaded pairs,
these types of services do not extend past 18Kft. This provides
the lowest cost service and is tailored for residential/small business
2) Dedicated pair - Customers can also be provisioned with dedicated
deloaded pairs (especially over 18Kt), which provide no limitation to
bandwidth/distance other than the DSL technology. This is also a large
market, especially in business, where voice is provisioned through other
means (inband DS0, etc).
Depending on the tariffs, deloading and conditioning are tariffed costs and
can easily be justified in comparison to traditional T-1 pricing in
reoccurring expenses / capital.
I see no reason to not encompass both markets.