In article ,
igor wrote:
On 30 Jan 2005 18:15:00 -0800, "Olebiker" wrote:
All the telephone company is required to provide is voice-quality
communications. There is no requirement for any minimum data transfer
rate. I work for a state utility commission and hear folks complain
bout this quite a bit. You can call all you want; we don't have the
authority to require more. The only thing that is going to make the
telephone companies provide better internet service is for competition
to force it to do so.
Dick Durbin
Thanks for the comments. As you know, it is state-by-state. Maybe you've
seen a NARUC survey or just know that most/all states still only require
voice quality. I have not been in that "business" for a few years and was
extrapolating as to what I thought may have happened since then with the
regulators, w/ or w/o a state legislative push. Gore tax and all those
charges to support universal service. I figured by now that some state
governments, in order to support "economic development", etc. would have
required basic data quality at some level. Seems my thinking was too
wishful. Anyway, that is why I suggested going up the chain if the PUC/PSC
didn't/couldn't help. Could a state impose a data standard - directly OR
indirectly - that would effectively require 54K (versus 56K) connections?
Or, would that be considered something off-limits to state regulators under
the 1996 act or some FCC rule? Not a biggie; just wonderin' -- Igor
If FAX, at 14,400 (possibly even only 9600) will connect, *NO* public-utility
commission in the U.S. will take your complaint. Some won't take a
complaint if you can get a 1200 baud data connection.
Over POTS (analog) phone lines, _ALL_ speeds above 14,400 require end-to-end
circuit connections that are 'higher quality' (higher bandwidth, less distort-
ion, lower noise) than voice circuit specifications require. Even 14.4k is
running 'right at the limits' of the specifications.
Some limits are _inherent_physical_characteristics_ of the length of wire
between the customer premises and the telephone company switching equipment.
Needless to say, you _cannot_ legislate around the laws of physics. grin
(BTW, this is also the reason that you *cannot* get DSL 'out in the country'.)
Other -legal-restrictions- arise from the need not to interfere with 'adjacent'
phone circuits. This is why you -cannot_ get a true '56k' connection (only
54k max.) *anywhere* in the U.S., today. the actual 56k rate signalling puts
"too much" energy on the wire pair; over the limit established to prevent
interference (e.g. 'cross-talk') with adjacent circuits in the multi-pair
cable.
THEN you get into the situation, on "longer" phone lines, where there are
things that are needed to make voice work 'well', which are detrimental to
high-speed data. If the phone line is _tariffed_ as a "voice circuit",
guess which kind of things are *required* to be done to that line?
Alternatively, you can pay the -higher- tariff for a dedicated "data circuit",
and the telco _will_ 'remove" those 'things' from that wire-pair. One of the
things that you, the 'data circuit' customer _pay_extra_ for, however, is the
cost for a technician to _physically_ go out to the various points on the line
where those 'things' are installed, and disconnect them, *AND* the cost of his
time for the 'return trip' _after_ you're through with the circuit, to
*RE-CONNECT* them -- so the line can be used for "normal" voice service again.
Any change in the 'technical requirements' for phone service would simply
_have_ to "grandfather" in any _pre-existing_ 'physical plant'. If it
wasn't, considering that the ILEC _is_ a 'regulated' service, with rates
set by the government -- at a level that *guarantees* that the company
can/will make a 'reasonable' profit -- then the ILEC would immediately
file for a tariff increase to 'pay for' those required upgrades. Base
phone rates would probably climb somewhere between 500% and 5000% percent.
Oddly enough, _voice_ customer's aren't willing to pay *that* kind of money
for an 'upgrade' that *they* don't need. wry grin
|