goldstein%delni.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388) (11/02/88)
Lars Poulsen writes, >>Date: 29 Oct 88 00:42:00 PST >>Subject: Re: I need a second line >> From: sultra!dtynan@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Der Tynan) >> Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU >> Subject: I need a second line... >> Date: 11 Oct 88 01:40:35 GMT >> >> ... I would like to have a separate line for [my] modem. I called >> Pacific Bell (the local phone company), expecting a simple order request. >> It turns out that the apartment building is not wired for two lines (how >> short-sighted can you get!). PacBell will put in a second line, if I want. >> ... they want $45 for the first fifteen minutes [of installation time], >> and (I think) $12 for every 15 minutes after that. ... It seems to >> me, that if the phone line is ~5K bandwidth, and the actual line to the >> exchange is maybe 10K, then I *should* be able to multiplex the line - >> PacBell said no. Any comments? > >Have I got comments !!!! This is outrageous !!!! > >This is a request for residential phone service: The tariff probably >does not allow them to charge you by the hour for installing the >access wiring (which after installation will be owned by the phone >company). Dear Readers and Lars: This is not 1976, it is 1988. Some years ago, residential inside wiring was "deregulated" and removed from the telephone company rate base. This means that the telco is responsible to bring the wire to a "demarcation" point inside your building, to be negotiated (usually in the basement, though!), and you the resident are responsible for the rest. I myself moved last spring, and paid for a couple of 15 minute segments to have the NETelco man do a little wiring for me, after he put in a new protector at the demarc. I could have done it myself or hired somebody else. >Some phone companies have tried to claim that all modem lines are >business service rather than residential service. If this is what >they are trying, talk to the PUC and explain why this is personal >use, not business use. I have heard PUCs that will allow that a BBS is >business service, but even that is the exception. This is totally irrelevant: Business and residence both pay for their own inside wiring. Frankly I'm amazed that there's not a latent second pair, though, in the apartment's inside wire. >The bandwidth of a metallic circuit is probably more like one megabit; >this is why we are moving towards IDSN: 2 twisted pairs is 1544 kbps = >24 voice channels. Have you priced out a multiplexor or access device for using a Primary Rate Interface or T1 circuit? ISDN's Basic Rate needs only 1 pair to send 144 kbps (includes 2 voice channels) but the chips aren't in production yet. You DO live within 18 kilofeet of the CO, I hope. >In analog land, one twisted pair subscriber loop will carry two phone >services, but this may already have been exploited, so this is none of >your business. (The line belongs to PacBell, so YOU can't multiplex it; >they can.) I can't believe you people read the same Telecom Digest (aka. various) that I do. Remember the cries of horror when the apartment resident got AML (analog mux) instead of a second local loop? Muxing is NOT a good way to go here: Active components reduce reliability and degrade the audio. Modem over a two-line mux? Horrors! (Lars is right, Der; the muxing is their business up to the point of demarc. A hundred feet of two-pair costs a lot less than ANY mux, though.) >Santa Barbara, where I live, is GTE land, and we complain a lot, but they >have NEVER tried to pull stunts like this one. Wanna bet? It's not a stunt. It's a federal regulation. See 47CFR68. Anyway, Der, here's the bottom line: STOP KVETCHING AND PULL YOUR OWN WIRE. Or pay somebody. The phone company isn't a charity any more; if you think their labor rates are high, call a plumber. If you want to be rich, you're in the wrong line of work. fred