atcomsystems.ca/forum Forums Wiring - Telecom Carriers - Trunks & Services Telecom Service & Providers DSL & hunt groups

Around here AT&T (former BellSouth) will put DSL on anything except Centrex or a line that is coming in via CLEC.

I think Brian hit it on the head. I did a lot of work way back with Digital Loop Carrier & GR-303s & CRVs. They had special slots in the remote equipment for DSL cards. I could see where that might play havoc with Hunting.

Or they could just be too damn lazy.

Sam

Why ask us? Why not ask THEM to show you the policy in writing? Ask them (or better yet, your state's Public Utilities Commission) to show you the tariff that pertains to the provisioning of DSL on POTS.

If the tariffs are silent on the subject, then the LEC cannot arbitrarily decide not to provide you service.

Some interesting thoughts on remotes and carrier systems, although obviously our arrangements in England can be a little different.

My local C.O. is a system X RCU itself, but as far as I'm aware DSL provisioning at the RCU is no different from at the main DLE.

We have a lot of DACS (digital pair-gain) units in use where there have been line shortages, and remote line concentrators in some areas, neither of which can support DSL. A few places where there was heavy growth in the 1980s/early 1990s also had TPON remote concentrators installed with fiber links to the main C.O., which are also incompatible with DSL.

But all of those restrictions apply to DSL on any line in general, not specifically to a hunt group. If two lines on a group had been installed using DACS or on a line concentrator, then providing DSL would just mean getting the relevant line onto a dedicated copper pair back to C.O. -- No different from the shuffling around of line plant which has to take place to provision DSL on a single line if it's on DACS or a concentrator.

Trying to get a sensible answer out of BT on the official position of something like this is almost impossible these days. As for OfCom (the telecoms regulator), that's even worse.

Paul,
My head was a little cloudy on Monday when I typed my first response out on this thread… I had me a good weekend… :toast: I’ll try this again.

Many of the broadband capable DLC’s remote sites do not have physical (electrical) connections to DLAMs. The bandwidth is pumped out to ‘em as “dynamic bandwidth” and is allocated per line/port via software. The DLC cards in these where POTS line are provisioned to as well as the DSL is dropped out at are only really capable of providing those two basic functions. Even though a small hunt group is not a very fancy application that would be beyond the capabilities of a card intended to serve POTS lines off a GR-303 link and provide DSL. A small multi-line hunt group would delivered over some kind of universal voice grade card. Jumpering those lines out of a UVG card to a DSLAM would be impossible at remotes such as this, due to there are NO DSLAMs there.

Now granted there are a LOT of topologies and arrangements that remotes can be set-up to work. There are MANY within one Telco… Many more ideas on how to set these up, from one Telco to the next… and now we’re talkin’ too about different continents but the BIG pitfall I see is STILL there. DSL can not be added to special circuits, such as a hunt group in EVERY case.

Let’s take one town and three customers for an example…

* Smalltown Insurance Agency. This customer is served directly off Smalltown Main Central Office with a two-line hunt. The want DSL added over one pair to their office. No matter which pair they’d just like to have internet access and to occasionally VPN in to Acme Insurance. … No worries right? Their DSLAM is jumpered through and sent over to the frame connected to their first pair just like any other POTS + ADSL customer.

* Smalltown Computer Geeks a –R- Us, sitting on the edge of Smalltown are served off State-Highway 10 Smalltown Remote. That remote has an older legacy DLC (not capable of broadband) and a mini-DSLM shelf bolted up in to it. The CG wants the ADSL signal coming in on the 2nd line of their two-line hunt group due to the possibility of “ambient electromagnetic attenuation interference on the RJ-45 from the computer game The Wonder Wizard that will be played after hours.” … Whuh? Nevermind… They want it on the second line. No worries again, the signals are combined right there at the DLC cabinet.

* Smalltown Auto Sales site just outside of the other side of town and is served from the broadband capable Country Crossing remote site. Set-up just like I’ve tried to describe above. They would like DSL added to their two-line hunt group… and it’s NOT going to work! So, Telco tells Smalltown Auto Sales “no” when they place the call, if there’s ANY possible way an order entry person would have a way to determine that… or tell Smalltown Auto Sales “no” when the order hits the DSL provisioning group. That’s AFTER telling them “no worries” when the call was placed and that never goes over very well.

Here’s the BIGGEST problem… Two out of three customers get exactly what they want. One does not get DSL over there multi-line hunt arrangement. Regulating agency goes APE-#*$) when a carrier of last resort does that. Incumbent LEC’s are put in a “Do for One. Do far ALL. OR ELSE” situation all the time. In many ways it’s WAY safer to tell everyone to order a very basic POTS line rather then do something like put ADSL signal across a multi-line hunt group.
:bang:

Keep in mind, here, if the customer has more than 1 potential line for DSL, Qwest will typically test all lines for best possible conditions. Recently, i had a customer ask for an increase on their DSL speed with an existing circuit, this could not happen, so telco move it to another line/number.