I'm curious: What is the policy of your local telco regarding the provision of DSL service on one line of a multi-line hunt group?

BT Customer Services will insist that it "can't be done" here, even though technically there is no reason why it could not. The only difficulty might be in the logistics of the automated provisioning based upon phone number in those cases where two or more lines don't have separate assigned exchange numbers, but I can't see it being that much of a problem.

So what's the position in your area?

Paul, Verizon will put DSL on any line they are told. Half the time, they end up putting it on the opposite of what was requested, but that is another subject. They typically suggest to put DSL on the fax line, but I saw one as recently as last week where it was on the customer's main hunt group number.

I really can't see what difference it would make. The DSL is just riding along the cable pair like an antenna. It is certainly not telephone number-specific, so BT's logic sounds a bit flawed.

They won't put it on a line that appears at more than one address but other than that I agree with Ed. I can't see what difference it would make either.

-Hal

That's the problem, I can see no technical reason why it couldn't be done either, since the DSLAM is just jumpered to the physical pair at the MDF and neither knows nor cares about what's behind the voice side of things on the exchange line card.

But every attempt to get anything out of BT on this matter brings no joy. I've had a couple of cases now where the customer would be served quite adequately with DSL on one line of an existing two-line group, but because of BT's "policy" is forced to pay for a third line for the DSL -- Or resort to having the second line of the group converted to a single line and using call-forward on busy to simulate a simple hunt group, which costs per-call here.

It sounds like a way for them to increase revenue.

When DSL first came out here they would say they couldn't put it on a line in rotary.

then I started noticing they where doing it

now it can be on any line as ed said and often not on the line its supposed to be on

Paul -

For the last 20 years I had two lines in a hunt group. For the last 9 of those years I had DSL on the first of the two lines.

No problems - ever.

Three days ago I cut over to FIOS (fiber to the home), dropped the second line, got call waiting,caller ID, Voice mail, 20mbs D/L , 5mbs U/L and a gazillion TV channels.


Sam

at&t (former SBC, former Pac*Bell) won't put in on a Centrex line, and won't put it on a line in a hunt group. That usually leaves you putting it on a Fax line.

Not that they can't, they just won't.

At one of my customer's office, they put the DSL Line in and put their phone jack right in the middle of the backboard...gotta love it!

Weather in can be done technically has a lot to do with how the dial tone is delivered… It’s true that a DSLAM to provide DSL is bridge together with the dial tone at the MDF if…. IF… IF served from a Main C.O. where the sticher is located.

The wrinkle of “remote offices” and “remote terminals (RT’s)” is the curve ball that may have a lot of LECs including BT saying, “no, we can’t do that.”

The cards and/or equipment to transport ADSL further from main C.O. to remotes or RT’s may not always be capable of delivering lines in a multi-line hunt. Very often the NGDLC’s (next generation digital loop carriers) deployed already have the POTS lines assigned a CRV (call reference value) over a GR-303 link AND the DSL path via IMA (inverse multiplexed) links already combined together by the time they reach the remote. Where in your examples the two lines in a multi-line hunt would be working off some flavor of Universal-Voice grade card that would not pass DSL… and since everyone else out of that remote is getting their DSL traffic over a IMA link there’s would be no DSLAMs there to bridge.

So, since knowing a head of time when an order for DSL is placed what the topology of the area would be impossible to tell… Could be they’re saying “no” now rather than later.

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.