Verizon DSL requires local phone service

The requirement of active local phone service is fully dependent on each state's utility commission. I believe there are several states which do not require the acceptance of phone service. It is on the small print somewhere on the Verizon site. It shows that some utility commissions are not swayed by the telcos lobbying efforts.

Ted

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Verizon DSL Class) wrote in :

Actually there is a scientific reason, that is if you ILEC haters will listen to it. All along the way from the C.O. to your premise, there are mechanical splices in the copper cable. If these do not have current flowing through them, at least periodically, they tend to corrode from moisture in the air. This eventually degrades the connection and causes noise on the line, something you definitely don't want on a data circuit.

Good Luck ! I don't think what you propose is actionable.

snipped-for-privacy@isp.com (Tom Lager) wrote in news:95F77C637Lagertptdnet@140.99.99.130:

So how does Qwest get away with offering "naked DSL"?

I suspect it's because the conditions you describe don't really exist, but I'd still like to hear your explanation.

Assuming this is true (Which I haven't bothered to research), so what?

The ILEC could easily leave the line connected to power or even a

911-only dialtone (As is done in many areas throughout the US already) and run DSL over that line.

Putting a requirement of dialtone plus local calling plus a DID is an artificial limit.

Maybe so, but they _are_ allowed to set their terms-of-service for unregulated services. Which AFAIK DSL is everywhere in the USA. They could insist you pay a year upfront. They don't because it'd cost them too many customers.

Paying for local dialtone mostly covers the cost of maintaining the local loop. Without dialtone, you'd have to pay a separate charge. The ILEC probably doesn't want to hassle for the few customers, and dialtone brings you under the regs they use for all their customers.

-- Robert

I'd buy that, were it not for the fact that dry contact pairs for alarm circuits, which you can still get from most ILECS, would have the same problem. 99.999% of the time there is NOTHING running through those pairs. There is only current when the CPE triggers and alarm.

So why is it an issue for DSL but not dry contact alarm circuits?

So do the same on a DSL-only pair. This isn't hard to figure out.

The initial contention about the dry pair has only a tiny bit of truth to it........as does your description of alarm circuits. ;-)

Most alarm circuits are closed loop circuits. That is, a small current flows on the loop indicating "normal" and the current changes or goes open to indicate an alarm. This is done so that the circuit won't have a "silent" fault develop.

As for the initial question, the LECs do that because they CAN, not because they need to (except to keep their cash flow up).

Not round here. Put a multimeter on it before you hook up the equipment and it reads 0 amps, 0 volts.

No, not the type of alarm circuit I mean. The type I mean is used for the customer alarm equipment to send current down the line to (for instance) ring a bell on the other end, etc. In fact the spec for the type of dry pair circuit I am thinking of specifies essentialy point to point dry pairs. No loop. Simply patched at the CO. To CO equipment involved other that a patch panel. Dunno what they are called in different areas, back here we call them "BAPA" cicuits. The type of circuiit I am referring to is also commonlly used by folks who realize these are completely dry pairs to build "roll your own" 2mbps pt to pt dsl circuits.

Sealing current is anti-parallel to dial tone. You can park DC on the pair with no switch on the CO end...

For more on sealing current, see: