Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (3942)	6/1/1999 10:57:00 AM
From: WTC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

RE: Herc & Jimpit's difficulties -- Frank, I have not thought this through completely, but what if some of the ISPs had gone to a IPRS access approach -- with BLS taking over the terminating modem connections and routing directly from the terminating CO by T1 to the "dialed" ISP? IPRS and IPRS II arrangements are conceptually not really new, but there have been relatively few sales and deployments of the technology that I am aware of. IPRS seems to fit the pattern of where and when there are difficulties, but it probably fails on the squeaky wheel principle. The ISP would be the customer for IPRS, and they would surely not put up with a serious hitch in their access after they paid for what was to be an upgrade. The cable throw theory is credible if it were not apparently quite a widespread problem. And if the loops are measured and show clean for longitudinal and metallic noise, as was reported, I tend to discount the likelihood that any cable throw(s) has cast the customer loop into data service purgatory. I would be dubious that even a high density of DMT ADSL loops in a binder group would seriously impact the voice band below 3370 Hz, where V.90 operates. Lab tests I reviewed showed this to be very unlikely into well balanced lines, and goods noise results suggests well balanced pairs. I am equally dubious that there is anything intentional or purposeful by BLS in the reported V.90 dial-up performance. Any reports of similar difficulty from other ILEC areas? What might BLS be doing uniquely that could make the problem only theirs? I seem to remember they implemented a dial-in service capability that allowed statewide calling areas for data calls, to help small ISPs expand coverage throughout a state area. I don't know what equipment is associated with that capability, or if it is routinely installed for ISP incoming lines, but such equipment would be in the suspect "access portion" of the dial-up facility. It would be bypassed, presumably, by a 800 or 888 dial-in. Do you imagine it is possible that all of the BLS repair technicians working the problem are so outside plant oriented that they might not be aware of such "inside" potential trouble spots with these trouble reports? This is a peculiar one.