Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain [telecom]

I recently posted the following information to several other telecom related Yahoo Groups and "Listserves", but I hadn't included Telecom Digest (comp.dcom.telecom). Many participants in Telecom Digest are also on one or another of these Yahoo Groups and/or the listserves, but there are still some TD participants or visitors who are not, and they might still have an interest in this.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

WECO/Lucent/Alcatel 1AESS switches still exist in the US. There are around 60 such 1As remaining, basically all within at&t/SBC/Ameritech, sbc's at&t/BellSouth, and at&t/SBC/Southwestern-Bell territory. From what I can tell, there are _NO_ more 1As in at&t/SBC/Pacific*Telesis (Pacific*Bell in CA nor Nevada*Bell), nor Qwest/US-West territory, nor Cincinnati Bell territory, nor at&t/SBC/SNET (Connecticut).

VeriZon/Bell-Atlantic/NYNEX does not seem to have any 1As remaining (nor does long-time VZ/BA/NYNEX/NET&T-now-FairPoint in ME/NH/VT), but VeriZon/Bell-Atlantic in C&P seems to have one in Baltimore MD, and two in Virginia (Richmond, Norfolk). It doesn't seem like VeriZon/BA/Bell-of-PA nor NJ-Bell have any more 1As still in service.

There were VERY FEW (no more than about four or five) Northern Electric NE-1ESS switches manufactured/installed in the mid/late

1960s-era for Bell Canada in Toronto ON and Montreal PQ. These were replaced LONG ago. These were manufactured/installed back when Northern Electric and Bell Canada still had a VERY CLOSE working relationship and licensing arrangement with Western Electric/AT&T/Bell Labs of the US. Back then, virtually everything developed by the "US" Bell System was also made available under license (although there might be some modifications) to Bell Canada and Northern Electric. That licensing arrangement for new developments ended around 1975/76, some twenty years following the 1956 Consent Decree that the Bell System entered into with the US DOJ. It SEEMS that it was the _US_ federal government more than the Canadians who back then wanted AT&T to withdraw from Canada! Prior licensing arrangements w/r/t Western Electric and Northern Electric, now known as Northern Telecom in the post-1975 period (Nortel) would be honored, but there would no longer be any almost automatic licensing of US Bell and Western innovations directly to Bell Canada as such.

Some other non-digital SPC (Stored Program Control) switches include the Northern Telecom SP(x) series, but I think that all of these in the US and Canada have since been replaced with digital switches. And the (AGCS) GTE-AE (x)EAX switches in the US and Canada (except for the

5EAX which is really the digital GTD-5) all seem to have been replaced with digital offices of one kind or another. There are still quite a number of 5EAX/GTD-5 switches still in service, but these are digital offices, not "analog" non-digital yet still SPC offices...

In the early 1970s, since Bell Canada and Northern Electric knew that the day was fast approaching for the separation between Bell/Northern of Canada and the "US" Bell System, especially as AT&T was selling off more and more of its holdings of Bell Canada and NECo, Bell Canada and NECO created "Bell Northern Research", sort of like a Bell Labs for Canada, their "own" Canadian R&D unit. It was BNR that developed the SP(x) series of stored program switches heavily used in Canada (and by many non-Bell telcos in the US and elsewhere in the North American network), as well as the early truly digital switches, the DMS series, also heavily used in Canada, by independent telcos in the US (and elsewhere), and even by Bell telcos in the US both prior to divestiture but also more-so after 1984 divestiture.

I also seem to think that there are no longer any more WECo 2(x)ESS or

3ESS analog-non-digital-yet-still-SPC offices still in service. The 4ESS and 5ESS are digital switches though -- the 4ESS is mainly for toll and tandem functions, and these are slowly being replaced with more recent model digital (tandem/toll) switches in the AT&T Long Lines network and some BOC/ILEC networks which inherited them post-divestiture. The 5ESS digital is quite versatile, handling local, tandem, toll, operator (OSPS) services, or combinations thereof. And Lucent/Alcatel keeps coming out with new features and models. But the old 1AESS (which enhanced/replaced the 1ESS of the mid-1960s/early-1970s era) is still around, although there aren't many left. However, "back in the days", the 1/1AESS was in _ALL_ Bell territories, even SNET in Connecticut and in Cincinnati Bell territory, both as replacements for SXS, Panel, Crossbar, and as brand new wirecenters or "expansions" of existing central offices, but to think that it's now down to around 60 such offices still in service, and only in a few of the old Bell telco territories!

But of at&t/SBC/Ameritech (Michigan-Bell and Illinois-Bell, but nothing left in Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin), sbc's at&t/BellSouth (both Southern Bell and South Central Bell), and at&t/SBC/SW-Bell (in the St.Louis MO area and scattered about Texas), there are still several, although these are SLOWLY being replaced by digital switches and packet switches.

In October and November 2009, at&t's technical notices website (I don't visit this each and every day... that's why I haven't posted this until now) had notices about the elimination of a Dearborn MI and a Livonia MI 1AESS.

The main page for the at&t technical notices is:

formatting link
On Thursday 22-October-2009, at&t (ILEC) issued ATT20091022L.1 which can be downloaded from:

formatting link
Sometime during 4Q/2010 (exact date not shown), LIVNMIMNCG0 Livonia MI "Main" 1AESS is to be replaced with a new Nortel Packet Remote switch, LIVNMIMNRP0. The Packet Remote will be hosted by WAYNMIMN20T/DS1 Wayne MI "Main" Nortel DMS-200 tandem, which doesn't appear to have any (Wayne MI DS0 does have local though).

LIVNMIMNCG0 Livonia MI "Main" 1AESS has SS7 Point Code 250-050-051. LIVNMIMNRP0 Livonia MI Nortel Remote Packet Switch will use the same SS7 Point Code 250-050-045 as its Wayne MI Nortel-DMS-200 host/tandem WAYNMIMN20T/DS1.

The "default" involved in the switch replacement are:

313-937 for the Detroit-Zone-05 MI ratecenter; 734-261,421,422,425,427,458,513,522,524 for the Livonia MI ratecenter.

On Monday 02-November-2009, at&t (ILEC) issued ATT20091102L.1 which can be downloaded from:

formatting link
Sometime during 3Q/2010 (exact date not shown), DRBRMIDBCG0 Dearborn MI "Main" 1AESS is to be eliminated, its 313-NXX, lines, customers all migrated over to the co-located DRBRMIDBDS0 WECO/Lucent/Alcatel 5ESS.

SS7 Point Codes involved: DRBRMIDBCG0 1AESS: 250-050-048 DRBRMIDBDS0 5ESS: 250-050-043

The "default" on the 1AESS include:

313-277,561,562,563,565,724, all on the Detroit-Zone-06 MI ratecenter.

The "default" on the 5ESS include:

313-274,278,359,730,791,792, all on the Detroit-Zone-06 MI ratecenter.

NOTE that in BOTH switch replacements, I mention "default" Remember that with portability, there might be customers with OTHER who ported-in to the old 1As being replaced, or there might be customers who have these indicated who have now ported-out of the old 1As and are now already on some digital or packet switch.

Additionally, I have compiled the following listing from NUMEROUS different sources, of what seems to be all of the other (some 59)

1AESS offices remaining in the US as of early 2010 -- the three in VZ/C&P, and the several in at&t/MI-Bell, at&t/IL-Bell, at&t/Southern-Bell, at&t/South-Central-Bell, at&t/Southwestern-Bell. The list below does NOT include the two at&t/MI-Bell 1As mentioned above that are scheduled to be replaced sometime later during 2010 (Livonia MI, Dearborn MI).

I hope I don't have any typos here. I tried to get ALL of the (BOC) NPA-NXX on these 1As. I did NOT include "paging" prefixes of other paging providers. There might still "appear" to be a BOC 1AESS in service in some resources, but the NPA-NXX associated are _NOT_ those of the BOC, however, and those are not included here, as their inclusion in some resources is probably an anomaly.

I have included the c.o.switch "building names" as well. If a building name is _NOT_ shown, then it is assumed to be known as "Main". Some building-ID-codes in the 7th/8th positions of the CLLI are 'MA' or 'MN' and these seem to always be known as "Main". 'MT' could mean "Main/Toll" by some BOCs. Some BOCs use a two-alpha abbreviation reflecting the ratecenter or locality name again for the "building" code, such as Oak Park 'OP' in Illinois listed below, so I consider that to be "Oak Park IL -- Main", and don't give any ADDITIONAL reference to "Oak Park" nor "Main" for the building name.



BLTMMDEDCG0 Baltimore MD "Edmondson Avenue"


RCMDVAHLCG0 Richmond VA "Hull Street"


NRFLVAGSCG0 Norfolk-Zone-02 VA "Granby Street"






PNTCMIWSCG0 Pontiac MI "West"




LNNGMISOCG0 Lansing MI "South"


GDRPMIBL770 Grand Rapids MI "BEll" (the co-located GDRPMIBLDS1 Nortel-DMS-100 has some 616-23x codes, which were known as 'BEll-x' in the 2L-5N days)










ATLNGAAD69F Atlanta GA "Adamsville"


ATLNGACD28F Atlanta GA "Columbia Drive"


ATLNGAGR24F Atlanta GA "Gresham"


ATLNGAHR79E Atlanta GA "Hollywood Road"


ATLNGAWE75F Atlanta GA "West End"


CRTNGAMA83C Carrollton GA

770-214,830,832,834,836,838 678-796

FRBNGAEB96A Fairburn GA Atlanta-South ratecenter "East Broad"



706-242,812,837,845,882,883,884,885 LaGrange GA ratecenter 334-982 Oakland (Chambers) AL ratecenter

SVNHGADE35C Savannah GA "Derenne Avenue"


WYCRGAMA28C/02T Waycross GA


AGSTGAFL79C Augusta GA "Fleming"


WRRBGAMA92C Warner-Robins GA


JCBHFLMA24E Jacksonville Beach FL


JCVLFLRV38E Jacksonville FL "Riverside"


FTLDFLSU74E Fort Lauderdale FL "Sunrise"


HLWDFLHA45E Hollywood FL "Hallandale"


MIAMFLBA85E Miami FL "Bayside"

305-250,285,854,856,857,858,859,860 786-314

MIAMFLME32E Miami FL "Metro"


WPBHFLRB84E West Palm Beach FL "Riviera Beach"




NSVLTNINCG0 Nashville TN "Inglewood"


BRHMALEN78E Birmingham AL "Ensley"


BRHMALEW95E Birmingham AL "Eastwood"


BRHMALTA84E Birmingham AL "Tarrant"




SHPTLAHDCG0 Shreveport LA "Highland"


SHPTLAQBCG0 Shreveport LA "Queensboro"


LFYTLAMACG1/04T Lafayette LA


LFYTLAVMCG0 Lafayette LA "Vermillion"




STLSMO04CG0 St.Louis MO "FOrest"


STLSMO05CG0 St.Louis MO "JEfferson"


STLSMO08CG0 St.Louis MO "PRospect"


STLSMO23CG0 Ladue MO ratecenter "Overland"


STLSMO24CG0 Ladue MO ratecenter "Riverview"


STLSMO40CG0 Ladue MO ratecenter "Florissant"


STLSMO43CG0 Ladue MO ratecenter "Hazelwood"


ELPSTXNECG0 El Paso TX "Northeast"


ODSSTXLICG0 Odessa TX "Lincoln"

432-331,332,333,334,335,337 Odessa TX ratecenter 432-580,532 Odessa 'EACS' TX ratecenter

DLLSTXGPCG0 Dallas TX "Grand Prairie" TX ratecenter

972-237,262,264,266,282,504,642 Grand Prairie TX ratecenter 972-260,263,269,558,901 Grand Prairie 'EMS' TX ratecenter

DLLSTXHACG0 Dallas TX "HAmilton"


DLLSTXWHCG0 Dallas TX "WHitehall"


FTWOTXATCG0 Ft.Worth TX "ATlas" TX (ratecenter and 2L-5N name)

817-284,580,590,595 Atlas TX ratecenter 817-589 Atlas 'EMS' TX ratecenter 817-280,282,285 Euless TX ratecenter 817-268 Euless 'EMS' TX ratecenter

FTWOTXGLCG0 Ft.Worth TX "GLendale" TX (ratecenter and 2L-5N name)

817-446,451,457,492,496 Glendale TX ratecenter 817-429,654,930 Glendale 'EMS' TX ratecenter

FTWOTXJECG0 Ft.Worth TX "JEfferson"


FTWOTXWACG0 Ft.Worth TX "WAlnut"


HSTNTXADCG0 Houston (Suburban) TX "Aldine"


HSTNTXGLCG0 Houston TX "GLendale"


HSTNTXIDCG0 Houston TX "IDlewood"

713-413,433,434 Houston TX ratecenter 713-340,436 Houston Suburban TX ratecenter

HSTNTXWLCG0 Houston (Suburban) TX "West Ellington"


BUMTTXTECG0 Beaumont TX "TErminal"

409-212,654,757,784,785,813,827,832,833,835,838,839,841,868,880 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Mark J. Cuccia
Reply to
Mark J. Cuccia
Loading thread data ...

Mark J. Cuccia wrote: ~

Do you (or anyone) know why Pacific Bell, et al, decided to replace perfectly good 1AESS platforms with either DMS-100s or 5ESSes? I can understand changing to digital for further replacement of remaining

5XBAR and SXS, but some of those 1AESS platforms had been in service for as little as 15 years.

What does a digital end office do that a 1AESS won't (wouldn't) do?

Reply to
Sam Spade

No specific reason, unless it was a tax write-off? Nortel (or AT&T/Lucent) "sold" them on the DMS (or 5E)?

Well, when was the cutover? If it was past 2000, then the 1A was originally installed after 1985. I don't know if WECO/AT&T was still making 1As for _NEW_ installations or complete cutovers replacements of electromechanical switches (SXS, Panel, XB) after the mid-1980s. In 1987 in New Orleans, the last two #5XBs were cutover to "ESS". Broadmoor (NWORLABM---) became a 5ESS. Michoud (NWORLAMU---) became a DMS-100.

1AESSes and similar non-digital, yet still electronic/SPC offices apparently can NOT do ISDN, nor other more modern/enhanced packet-type functions. Of course, for the average residential or small business customer of the general public, this really isn't much of an issue. But for larger business customers, if there aren't any 5Es or DMSes or other digital switches nearby to get FX/FCO from, then the ILEC will need to replace the 1A with a digital. Or else that business customer will port away to a CLEC willing to provide service off of their digital or packet switched local network!

Also, Lucent/Alcatel might not be able to provide continued assistance/etc. for 1As (and 2(x)ESS, 3ESS) anymore, although I don't know for certain. While I can still surf-the-web/etc. with Win-95 and such. there are more and more webpages that won't function properly with older OS' and/or software associated wtih older OS'. The older software might not work anymore neither, or if I have an older OS, I can't integrate newer software. I don't like it, but that's how things are these days. Similarly, I have had to buy brand new cellphones instead of having older ones simply repaired, or at times even buying brand new cellphones to simply use my wireless provider. And then there was the FORCED converson from NTSC/analog to digital last year (don't get me started on that!), even though you can have conveters/etc.

So, I guess the same things apply to 1As vs. digital/packet c.o. switches as well.....


Reply to

I would guess because customers wanted services that the 1A could not support. I wanted something and was in a 1A; don't remember what it was, but after a long protracted dispute; I wanted them to port my number to the 5E in the same office, the finally agreed to move me with a new phone number to the 5E with no charge. What was funny is that the

1A was replaced less then a year later. Switches don't have the life time (25 years or more) and can be replaced it 5 years. I like that because I'm a CO Installer and it keeps me very busy.
Reply to

The two I am familiar with: one was an early 1ESS, installed in 1970 or so. Upgraded to 1AESS in the late 1970s. Changed out to a 5ESS about 1986. The other was installed in 1975 (I recall the year on that one with certainty). It was upgraded to a 1AESS perhaps 4 years later, and changed out to a 5ESS in the early 1990s.

My city (San Clemente, CA) cut from 5XBAR to DMS-100 in 1985. The next town over was the one that cut from 1AESS to 5ESS about 1986. In the early 1990s when ISDN was being promoted I decided to go for it. My local DMS-100 could not handle ISDN. Apparently that is a major upgrade. So, Pacific Bell provisioned my two ISDN lines to the Irving DMS, some 27 circuit miles away. The 5ESS close by was ISDN capable, but Pacific Bell's policy was to place you on an ISDN platform of the same switch type as your local switch. I guess there were sufficient differences between the 5ESS and the DMS 100 that resulted in that policy.

I also understand that all the 5ESS could do ISDN unlike the DMS-100s. That was an expensive arrangement to provide me two 27 effective FX circuits at no change. I have up on ISDN after two years because the adapter I bought for $700 was lousy and did not perform to specs. I did get the data speed but most other features did not work. I finally sued the adapter vendor in small claims court and got my money back. ISDN, at least for me, was indeed Is Still Doing Nothing. I understand it's still around, but why escapes me, with it's painfully slow speed compared to DSL. (and DSL is not nearly as good as my local cable broadband).

What else do most people want other than broadband. I wonder whether DSL could have been made to work on 1AESSes with adjunct hardware?

Reply to
Sam Spade

It is still very important for broadcasters, because it provides better reliability and performance guarantees than IP-based technology

-- important if you're doing a live broadcast from a remote location or a home studio. Many radio stations also use ISDN as a backup studio-transmitter link, although T1 circuits are more popular now (because they have enough spare bandwidth to remotely operate all sorts of IP-based equipment now used at transmitter sites).

A few years ago, I was with a friend at a live broadcast of "A Prairie Home Companion" from the Koussevitzky Music Shed at Tanglewood in Lenox, Mass. We asked the show's engineer how they were getting the audio to the network, and he said that they had three ISDN circuits to Minnesota Public Radio HQ in St. Paul (where the show normally originates), and for emergency backup, three ISDN circuits to NPR Satellite Services in Virginia. Each one of those circuits had both "B" channels in use, since the broadcast feed is stereo. Two of each set of circuits were used for the audio feed and one was used for confidence monitoring.


Reply to
Garrett Wollman

It really comes down to maintenance expense. Plus the fact that I think Alcatel isn't making many parts for 1AESS these days.

Reply to

Understood, but it's sort of the chicken-egg syndrome. Had several hundred 1AESSes remained in service, parts wouldn't be an issue.

***** Moderator's Note *****

I think they retire 1A ESS offices because only the oldest techs can understand Type 3 E&M.

Bill "Protected member of the class" Horne Moderator

Reply to
Sam Spade

ISDN is still circuit switched 64K channels, known as B for Bearer channels. It's a substitute for POTS, not for broadband.

Since it's digital end to end, the voice quality is better than analog, and as has been noted you can bond multiple B channels together to get better fidelity. ISDN lines also have a D channel used for call setup and (in theory although rarely in practice) moderate speed data, so ISDN provides a full set of spiffy calling features via the D channel.

My impression is that in the US the main use of ISDN is on PBX trunks, where a T1 is typically configured as one D channel and 23 B channels.

The implementation of North American ISDN was seriously botched. Elsewhere in the world, it's plug and play so in Japan they have ISDN pay phones into which you can plug your ISDN laptop modem. The version in the US requires non-trivial configuration of each end of a circuit, so for most purposes it's more hassle than it's worth. Oh, and the Bells grossly overpriced it, too.

R's, John

***** Moderator's Note *****

I think the U.S. ILECs were reluctant to push ISDN because they had an acute shortage of 8-bit trunks to serve ISDN calls. Even after the implementation of SS7, most interoffice trunks were served via ordinary DPO and DPT cards that still used robbed-bit signalling.

There were also serious provisioning issues: when I was doing SS7 Engineering, I worked at home for an extended time following an accident, and at one point (this was waaaay before cable was available, and ADSL wouldn't stretch to my house yet) I ordered ISDN service in hopes of getting somewhat higher data rates. I had to sign up with an ISP that provided ISDN service, and since they were in Boston I had to resign myself to paying by the minute on every data call.

I bought a Motorola BitSurfer ISDN "T" adapter, and hooked everything up at the appointed hour. As John says, the voice quality was great, and I got an extra phone number. Although it was always a crapshoot as to whether or not I'd get a 64kbps or a 56kbps conneciton on a data call, I found the added speed to be a great advantage. Also, since the ISP had a much better backbone than my previous provider, I noticed dramatically reduced latency during data calls.

But -

The phone wouldn't ring on incoming calls. I tried a different T adapter, putting a voltmeter across the RJ-11 jacks, and using a phone with a 0.1 REN. Nothing worked.

After several days of frustration, N.E.T. changed me back to POTS, refunded the ISDN fees, and admitted that the provisioning system wasn't capable of correctly setting the IDSN bit mask needed to add ringing capability to an ISDN line. The CO foreman told me point-blank that none of his techs knew how to provision the service by hand, and said I was chaising my tail trying to use ISDN at all.

I took the hint: ISDN is, at least in the U.S., a monument to the elephantine inertia and shortsightedness of the former monopoly.

Bill Horne Moderator

Reply to
John Levine

Correct, and in that usage it's known as a Primary Rate Interface aka PRI.

I ordered a PRI for one client who wanted the Nortel BCM system (a PBX), and also PRIs for clients who wanted the asterisk VoIP system. Amazingly (to me) all PRIs were actually fiber lines to the MPOE where they were converted to (2-pair) over Cat5 that connected to the PCI card(s) in the asterisk system(s).

***** Moderator's Note *****

Please tell us what a "MPOE" is, and what the " (2-pair)" turned out to be. I'd also like to know what the PCI cards for the Asterisk system cost, and what hardware they're running on. TIA.

Bill Horne Moderator

Reply to
Thad Floryan

In article , Telecom Digest Moderator wrote

ain oint f ntry.

'bastardized' DS1. Works fine for relatively short distances.

DS1 cable spec calls for shielded TP, but you can get away with UTP for limited distances.

Dialogic or Brooktrout, basic functionality cards, circa $250-300 on the secondary market. (You can pay a bunch more, an get more 'smarts' on the card, which means less CPU required.)

Digium (the folks behind asterix) -- circa $800 list (new, obviously).

Reply to
Robert Bonomi

I don't think anyone's still installing traditional two-pair T1. My T1 was two-pair when they installed it in 1995, but a couple of years ago they switched to HDLC, so there was one pair coming to the house, and a little line powered box that turned it back into the traditional two pairs I plugged into my CSU/DSU.

There's tons of used T1 equipment available, on ebay and specialized places. I got a WANIC T1 card on ebay for under $100, probably because nobody else knew what it was.

R's, John

***** Moderator's Note *****

Please tell us how "HDLC" is used in this context, and which physical-layer protocol is used: the highest-speed two wire data line I'm familiar with is IDSL, but that tops out around 144 kbps.

Bill Horne Moderator

P.S. Why is it that everyone _else_ has the best toys? ;-)

Reply to
John Levine

The ISDN D channel is used in Australia for at least one service by the major telco here, and that is to cheaply transport small amounts of EFTPOS data from retailers to banks via an X25 network that connects to the D channel in the exchange (the Telstra "Argent" product).

It saves the cost of an individual data link, but nowadays is being outmoded by secure Internet based EFTPOS links.

Reply to
David Clayton

Sorry, too many TLAs today. That's HDSL, a flavor of DSL that is symmetric in both directions and is intended to replace T1s. It runs on one pair, can go 12Kft between repeaters, and is less sensitive to funky cable.

I just droped by the local telco who tells me their low end business fiber product is 5mb down/512kb up for $69/mo which is not that much more than the so-so DSL I have now.

R's, John

Reply to
John Levine

The LEC {be it I or C} sells you a DS1 circuit at your location. They deliver it over 2 pairs from their SmartJack [tm, I'm sure] on your wall.

How they get it to you is THEIR call. It could be circa 1961 [yes.. JFK, mini-skirts, etc] T-1, two pairs, repeater in the middle of each 6Kf segment [amazingly, right where the "paint can" loading coils were already, hmmm.] of cable, etc.

OR they could use other means. Maybe there's fiber in your basement already. [If you're in a skyscraper....] Or a SLC-FO next door. Or they use single pair HDSL, and a different color module in the SmartJack.

I was told by an installer that is was an Engineering option. T-1 needs two pairs, stomps over ADSL sharing the same bundle, and such; but it can used repeaters to get a LONG way, up to {ISTM} 150 miles before the jitter gets out of hand. [Such must use alternte power arrangemnets..]

The HDSL was good to ~18Kft, but did not allow repeaters. But I was just digging into the ADC catalog, and there they are; I assume they are a new offering. I know someone at ~40Kft who must have two repeaters, but I've seen only the one.

Reply to
David Lesher

Do you prefer to use a CSU/DSU because that's what you had on hand, or it's what your router is equiped for, or are there advantages, such as V.35 access for test equipment, that make it a better setup?

Bill Horne

Reply to
Bill Horne

a) It's what my cards were set up for.

b) Easier to test. The last CSU/DSU I used had an Ethernet jack and I could telnet into it from behind my firewall.

c) Sacrificial relatively cheap equipment in case of lightning strike

***** Moderator's Note *****

I hadn't thought about the lightning protection aspect: I'll keep that in mind if I'm ever in the market for HDSL or other similar wire-based services.

What, by the way, does an HDSL line cost in round numbers? Does your ISP use it to deliver your phone connections as well?

Bill Horne Moderator

Reply to
John Levine

It cost about $200/mo for the T1, and $300/mo for the Internet service. That was a great price in 1995 but it's ridiculous now. It was just data, the phone was (and is) on a separate pair. The T1 price is distance independent which in my case was bad since the distance was only three blocks.

Telco is now touting their business fiber service, where I can get 5Mb down/512Kb up for $69/mo with a three year commitment and a rather vague pricing for IP addresses. Or I can pay $129 for 10Mb/768Kb, or $128 for the bundle of 10Mb/768Kb, a phone line with 1c local, 5c toll calling, and free installation.

This is biz service. They say eventually they'll have resi fiber, but not for a while. Maybe I'll wait, the DSL is only $40 and is moderately sucky, about 3M/300K.

R's, John

***** Moderator's Note *****

My DSL is about 600k/100k, and I think that qualifies as _really_ sucky: too slow even for Vonage.

My brother, however, has FiOS, and he gets about 5,800k/1,280k: about the same as cable around here, but far from what fiber _can_ deliver. He says that Verizon is throttling usage to sell higher-tier services, but that the tier he's at now beats the separate internet & phone prices.

Whatever happened to the electricity that was going to be too cheap to measure?

Bill Horne Moderator

Reply to
John Levine

I have had 256k symmetric DMT for a number of years at about $39.00/mo with a voice pair (Qwest, separate ISP) and have never experienced any reduction in the allocated bandwidth. Perhaps I am lucky in how they provisioned it at my QTH?

Environmentalists. Lack of national focus and urgency. Energy should have the same priority as health care and war-making and is a lynch pin of "national security". How about a discussion for a little while here regarding a proposal to roll-out a significant number of fission reactors for a "25-year plan" during which time a real effort to mature fusion would be undertaken?


***** Moderator's Note *****

I opened the door, so I'm allowing your question. I'm also closing the door: a debate about nuclear power isn't related to telecom. Sorry.

Bill Horne Moderator

Reply to
Michael Grigoni

Yesterday I did some work for a client who is orginally from France. She was telling me that for 30 euros ($40) you can get 100mbps down/50mbps up net service along with 300 channels of video service, and telephone service that covers not only France but 100 other countries.

This is for residential service of course but still, if you could ever get 100mpbs service here in the U.S. I'd imagine the price would be astronomical. My 20/5 service is $53.99 a month.

And Vonage just hiked their bogus fees by $1.72 a month. Nice of them.

formatting link

Reply to
T Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.