The Saga of Getting DSL in Verizon Territory,

Bucks County Pennsylvania

 

In about February of 2002 I contacted a number of Internet providers to attempt to have xDSL service provided at my residence in Bucks County, PA. The providers I contacted turned me down due to my distance from my central office (CO). I quickly learned however that is was NOT an ISP issue but rather the apparent absolute rule of Verizon to limit xDSL connections to less than 18K feet. I am well aware that I cannot qualify for ADSL or even SDSL at my location but a variation of ISDN called IDSL is available and being used elsewhere in the nation at distances up to 36K feet or more. There is also another version of DSL – RADSL that is often used at distances beyond the capabilities of ADSL or SDSL.

 

After studying this for months and reading pages and pages of documentation it appears that IDSL (which is just DSL from repackaged ISDN) is a technology, which is available, and being used to loop distances of over 40K feet and through fiber. For some reason Verizon seems to deny it’s existence and/or it’s capabilities.

 

The following pages describe my formal complaint to the PUC and their response as well as documents from Pennsylvania legislators and supplier information documenting the availability of these services elsewhere.

 

Some quotes taken from supplier web pages –

 

QUEST -

“Qwest Integrated Service Digital Network Digital Subscriber Line (IDSL) service is an extension of the existing Qwest Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) services product and is another variety of the xDSL family of products. It extends the service reach, resulting in more potential sites, to get broadband technology. Customers who are served by selected types of Digital Loop Carriers (DLC) or who are farther than 15,000 feet but no greater than 36,000 feet from their corresponding central office, MAY qualify for this "flavor" of DSL.”

SPEAKEASY -

IDSL - IDSL is based on ISDN, an older technology that was designed to work well with existing ISDN transmission methods. SDSL, and ADSL travel over regular copper lines and cannot have any electronics on them (such as, for example, amplifiers or repeaters - commonly used to "boost" the voice signal on conventional telephone lines). Some ADSL, and SDSL orders cannot be fulfilled because of electronics or distance issues that are uncovered during the ordering process. In that case, IDSL may be the best solution. IDSL has the ability to work over great distances, and through certain types of electronics. If you are very far away from a Central Office, or there are electronics on the copper line you are given by your phone company, you may still be able to get broadband service using IDSL.

NETOPIA -

IDSL is the "always-on" version of dial-up ISDN, without the per minute usage charges. IDSL typically delivers maximum symmetric speeds at 144 Kbps, but with DSL Bonding IDSL can deliver maximum bandwidth of up to 576 Kbps. IDSL has a much farther reach compared to other types of DSL. IDSL is an affordable service for businesses located up to 36,000 feet (6.8 miles) from the CO, and is a particularly good option for those too far from the CO to get SDSL service.

 

IDSL Speeds	Best Applications	Maximum IDSL Speeds with DSL Bonding *	Maximum Distance from CO
128 Kbps	Always-on Internet access and email, Web surfing and transmission of large files (smooth video streaming requires at least 384 Kbps)	Up to 512 Kbps	36,000 feet or 6.8 miles
144 Kbps	All of the above, plus slightly more speed. Users can upgrade to a small voice and data network when VoDSL is available.	Up to 576 Kbps	36,000 feet or 6.8 miles

 

DSL AMERICA

Distance The speed that can be obtained using DSL is dependent on the distance (length of cable) between the user and the telephone company central office (C.O.) and the thickness of wire used by the telephone company. Typical maximum distances are as follows:

1.5Mbps - 10,500 feet (2 miles) 1.0Mbps - 12,300 feet (2.3 miles) 768Kbps - 13,500 feet (2.5 miles) 384Kbps - 22,500 feet (4.3 miles) 144Kbps - 35,000 feet (6.6 miles)*

*In many areas 144 Kbps (IDSL) is provided over digital carrier and fiber optic cable allowing unlimited distances to be obtained.

As new technologies and equipment are placed into service, speed and distance will continue to increase.

TENFORWARD –

IDSL	Price	Max. Distance from CO
Up to 144 kbps	$119.95/mo	30,000 ft.

 

 

XSPEED –

What is IDSL? ISDN Digital Subscriber Line. IDSL is based on the ISDN interface. This allows the Xpeed 200 IDSL Adapter to work with existing ISDN infrastructure, including repeaters and DLCs.

Why is IDSL better than ISDN?

•	IDSL is always-on so there is no inconvenient dial-up.
•	IDSL is connected directly to the digital data network, whereas ISDN goes through the Public Switched Telephone Network.
•	IDSL uses all available channels, 2B+D. So not only is the connection always on, but it utilizes the maximum 144 Kbps.

 

CROSSLINK –

This chart tells it all! Even Bell Atlantic, predecessor to Verizon had the limitation!

DSL Wiring Distance Limitations Average distance from telephone company CO Actual distance varies by quality and gauge of copper wire circuit
144Kbps IDSL circuit - Bell Atlantic areas*	3.2 miles
144Kbps IDSL circuit - GTE areas	7 miles
256Kbps SDSL circuit	3 miles
384 Kbps SDSL circuit	3 miles
768 Kbps SDSL circuit	2.5 miles
1.1 Mbps SDSL circuit	2 miles
1.5 Mbps / 384 Kbps SDSL circuit	2.5 miles
1.5 Mbps / 1.5 Mbps SDSL circuit	2 miles
*Bell Atlantic will only provide DSL circuits up to18,000 wiring feet from their equipment offices.

 

NETPIPE –

 

IDSL (ISDN Digital Subscriber Line): IDSL is a symmetric service that can deliver high-speed data communication up to 128 Kbps. New Edge Networks IDSL is an ideal high-speed service alternative for users living or working outside of the metropolitan periphery, beyond the reach of traditional SDSL and ADSL services. In many non-urban areas, the distance between a telephone company's central office and a user's business or home can be substantial. IDSL's strongest asset is its ability to reach up to 30,000 feet for the telephone central office. This is twice the distance of SDSL.

 

IDSL IDSL (ISDN DSL) A hybrid of ISDN and DSL; it’s an always on alternative to dial up ISDN. Does not support voice connections on the same line. Speed - 144 Kbps Max. Distance From CO - 35,000 ft. (6.6 miles)* Key Applications - As an alternate solution: it has a longer range than other DSLs, and is more affordable than dial-up ISDN.

See this Lucent press release –

 

http://www.lucent.com/press/1099/991019.nsa.html

BTI plans to offer a heavy concentration of IDSL services, plus SDSL services, in conjunction with its existing Digital Loop Carrier (DLC) network. IDSL provides symmetric bandwidth of 144 kbps over distances of up to 36,000 feet with the use of a mid-span repeater, and maximizes BTI's geographic range and service coverage by reaching subscribers located long distances from serving central offices or beyond digital loop carriers. SDSL maximizes service speeds and loop reach, with symmetric transmission up to 1.5 Mbps and reach up to 28,000 feet.

See http://www.dslcenter.com/glossary.htm for a glossary of DSL terms.

 

Links with important IDSL information

 

http://www.qwest.com/dsl/learn/idsl.html

http://dslcenter.netopia.com/netopia/idsl.html

http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0817copper.html

http://dsl-america.net/dsl/Business/dsl_facts.html

http://www.tenforward.com/dsla.htm

http://www.xpeed.com/faq.html

http://www2.crosslink.net/whatisdsl.cfm

http://208.12.71.4/netpipedsl/overview.htm

http://www.broadbandforwork.com/dslinfo.htm

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit19991202.html

http://www.dsl-warehouse.com/index.html

 

This is my formal complaint to the PUC

 

PUC Formal Complaint Form (continuation Items 3,4)

Doug Crompton

1269 2nd St Pike

Richboro, PA 18954-2021

3. The problem is the CO to customer distance restrictions applied to Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) by Verizon. Currently Verizon in the Pennsylvania area limits the distance to an 18,000-foot loop from the central office. This restriction is arbitrary and limits current technology. IDSL and RADSL technology reliably extend this distance to at least 24,000-foot limits and further with repeaters. This technology is being used in other parts of the county with other phone carriers successfully.

Various competitor DSL suppliers, including DCANet and Speakeasy, are willing to supply this service in the PA Verizon territory but are limited by Verizon’s current restrictive regulations.

I have found this to be a “blame game”, the state PUC says it is a Verizon limit and that they have no jurisdiction over DSL. Verizon claims that the limit is controlled by the state. Which is correct?

As many as 50% of Verizon customers are being denied DSL service or at least the ability to let a competitor try to make it work by this arbitrary limit.

DSL is being advertised heavily but almost half of the telephone customers do not qualify due to distance from the CO.

I am well aware that ADSL and SDSL have loop limits that prevent their use beyond 15000 to 18000 feet but newer technologies – IDSL, RADSL do not have these limitations and ARE being used throughout the world NOW successfully

This limit clearly limits the advancement of technology in Pennsylvania and also the consumer’s ability to make a competitive choice for high-speed Internet access.

 

4. I would like to have the ability to have DSL service or the attempt to see if the service would work at my location, based upon proven newer technology. I would like a clear understanding of why this limit is set, who is setting it, and how it can be changed?

 

And the Verizon Lawyers response:

 

BEFORE THE

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

DOUG CROMPTON,

Complainant

v. Docket No. C-20027309

VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA INC.,

. Respondent

ANSWER OF

VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA INC.

Verizon Pennsylvania Inc., ("Verizon PA" or "Company") by its attorneys in this proceeding, Malatesta Hawke & McKeon LLP, hereby submits its Answer to the Complaint filed by Doug Crompton ("Complainant"). In support thereof, Verizon PA avers and represents as follows:

1. ADMITTED in part DENIED in part. Verizon PA agrees that the customer's physical location is as stated. However, Verizon PA's records list the customer's home phone number as 215.355.5307. The number listed in the Complaint is assigned to Sprint and may be a cellular phone number.

2. ADMITTED. By way of further response, the company's full name is Verizon Pennsylvania Inc.

3. ADMITTED in part DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED that digital subscriber line ("DSL") effectiveness is limited to an equivalent distance of 18,000-foot loop length from the central office on non-loaded copper facilities. It is DENIED that this restriction is "arbitrary" or that customers are unfairly being denied DSL service. Further, it is DENIED that Verizon PA is limiting the advancement technology or limiting customers' ability to make a competitive choice. It is DENIED that Verizon PA is limiting the ability of DCANet or Speakeasy to deploy technology in Pennsylvania. To the extent that DCANet or Speakeasy are resale or UNE-based carriers, it may be that they are not willing to provide the facilities themselves.

By way of further response, Verizon PA states that the Complainant is served out of the Verizon PA's Churchville central office located in Bucks County, Pennsylvania and is located 21,300 equivalent feet from the central office. Currently, voice service is provided to the customer at 215.355.5307 via a digital loop carrier (Lucent Series 5 Subscriber Line Carrier), a fiber based technology upon which DSL service physically cannot be offered and, to the Company's best understanding, is not being developed by Lucent.

Cooper facilities are located in the area, but have three different repeaters (load coils) installed over that distance in order to boost the signal for the purposes of voice service. DSL is not available on loaded lines and, if the load coils were removed, customers' voice service would be impaired.

Verizon PA cannot offer a service which does not technologically exist for this application. The technology for the provision of DSL service is evolving and improving over time. Along with it, Verizon PA is evolving its network to provide faster Internet speeds to its more remote customers. In this matter, a proven and installed technical solution is not yet available at this distant location to provide DSL.

4. This paragraph is a request for relief to which no response is required. However, Verizon PA will welcome the opportunity to further discuss with the Complainant the current limitations upon Internet speeds at his location.

WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, Verizon Pennsylvania Inc. respectfully requests that the Formal Complaint filed by Doug Crompton at Docket No. 020027309 be dismissed or denied in its entirety.

Respectfully s b ' ,

ames Kennard alatesta Hawke & McKeon LLP Harrisburg Energy Center 100 North Tenth Street P.O. Box 1778 Harrisburg, PA 17105-1778 (717) 236-1300

 

Counsel for

Verizon Pennsylvania Inc.

DATED: April 24, 2002

 

 

Rural Telcos Pushing DSL to Low Densities

In their push to gain deregulation, the major incumbent telcos argue that regulatory burdens hike the cost of providing DSL service beyond the point where it is feasbile for them to bring high-speed service to low population density towns and rural areas.  It’s a simple matter of economics – the high upfront cost of delivering DSL, a cost inflated by interconnection unbundling requirements, makes only high density areas, rich as they are with a greater number of potential customers, realistic from a financial perspective.

But, according to data obtained from the Pinkham Group, a consultancy which continuously tracks DSL deployment on a central office-by-central office basis, small telcos that serve primarily rural territories have made solid strides in bringing DSL to underserved areas.  According to the Pinkham Group data, as of year-end 2001, small, independent telcos installed DSL gear in central offices that cover 50% of their service areas, compared to the former Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs, which include Bell South, Verizon, Qwest and SBC, and for the purpose of Pinkham Group’s calculations, Sprint’s local exchange areas), which have installed gear in CO’s that cover approximately 80% of their collective service territories.

[Note:  simply because the central office has been DSL-equipped doesn’t mean that all homes or offices service by that CO are able to buy DSL   Distance limitations significantly restrict the reach of DSL around the CO and line conditions and other factors can handicap the true service area around a DSL-enabled CO.]

Of the total 7,500 COs owned by small independent telcos, around 2,000, or 27%, have been retrofitted for DSL, predominately in the most dense areas served by these tiny telcos.   This ratio is only slightly lower than the corresponding percentage for the major telcos.  The RBOCs (and Sprint) have deployed DSL to slightly more than 4,600, or 37%, of their 12,500 COs.

As the table below shows, the average density of DSL-deployed COs differs dramatically between the major telcos (15,899 households per DSL-deployed CO) and their smaller brethren (2,239 households per DSL-deployed CO).   The data clearly shows that the small telcos have been willing to deploy DSL in CO’s that serve as little as 500 or fewer homes – in Wyoming, the average number of households per DSL-deployed CO for the small telcos is 374.  In New Mexico, the independent telcos have rolled out the high-speed service in CO’s that reach an average of only 421 COs.

What the data doesn’t reveal is how many homes and businesses in the small towns and rural communities are actually able to receive, much less buying, the service.  But the fact that independent telcos are now pushing DSL to the kinds of communities that the RBOCs say are unprofitable gives rise to the hope that even in the absence of deregulation, sooner or later DSL could become available to most every home in the country.

DSL Coverage Q4 2001
Central Office Densities Analysis of RBOC vs Independent Telcos
Courtesy of Pinkham Group
			Central Office Density (Hhlds/CO)
			State Avg	Avg Density of DSL-deployed COs
State	Total Hhlds (M)	Hhld Served by Independents	Hhlds/CO	RBOCs*	Independents Telcos
AK	235	100%	1,655	na	9,845
AL	1,659	11%	4,712	10,886	1,675
AR	980	34%	2,553	12,277	1,872
AZ	1,821	7%	8,165	27,306	4,381
CA	11,313	2%	12,087	21,423	4,208
CO	1,572	5%	5,802	25,923	1,216
CT	1,227	1%	9,741	12,051	na
DC	240	0%	17,147	17,147	na
DE	287	0%	8,698	21,187	na
FL	5,732	2%	12,249	16,761	4,536
GA	2,789	20%	6,738	16,127	5,125
HI	394	1%	4,686	7,846	na
IA	1,126	37%	1,577	15,933	749
ID	458	10%	2,726	15,579	817
IL	4,340	7%	4,502	20,464	1,892
IN	2,240	5%	4,014	13,009	2,170
KS	991	8%	1,852	15,042	428
KY	1,517	20%	3,919	9,412	4,899
LA	1,609	9%	4,920	10,904	1,602
MA	2,384	.13%	8,828	11,595	1,390
MD	1,914	0%	9,245	14,367	na
ME	498	17%	2,000	11,140	931
MI	3,730	4%	5,421	19,920	1,737
MN	1,773	23%	2,783	18,212	1,068
MO	2,070	11%	3,058	16,969	2,283
MS	984	9%	3,755	8,335	3,395
MT	344	30%	1,447	14,948	896
NC	2,847	15%	5,682	10,200	2,889
ND	271	41%	987	25,748	820
NE	649	45%	1,492	17,134	3,018
NH	472	6%	3,347	14,657	1,372
NJ	2,894	0%	12,474	14,583	1,787
NM	636	16%	3,719	18,709	421
NV	648	5%	7,708	18,012	6,197
NY	6,812	11%	8,472	24,219	2,744
OH	4,322	19%	5,133	12,970	8,645
OK	1,283	20%	2,507	11,393	778
OR	1,282	9%	4,836	16,600	1,618
PA	4,634	11%	5,597	15,747	2,501
RI	512	0%	17,060	26,093	na
SC	1,410	20%	5,280	9,711	4,255
SD	275	37%	1,182	24,733	774
TN	2,118	14%	5,915	11,748	3,581
TX	7,193	8%	5,246	17,822	1,831
UT	672	9%	4,871	14,101	917
VA	2,577	3%	5,640	14,830	3,280
VT	258	13%	2,113	5,791	1,017
WA	2,195	7%	6,714	16,137	1,729
WI	2,004	28%	3,313	15,353	1,883
WV	731	17%	3,192	10,113	4,219
WY	189	13%	2,336	23,566	374
US Total	101,110	10%	5,149	15,899	2,239
* Note RBOC coverage includes US Sprint Local Exchanges.

 

DSL - Here, There & Everywhere

By William Rodey

This Article first appeared in OUTSIDE PLANT Magazine January 2002

Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) service infrastructure has grown exponentially, yet demand among the residential and business user community is outpacing that growth. A significant portion of the community has been unable to get the service because they are located beyond the service footprint of their local Internet Service Provider (ISP), or on loops that are not copper and cannot support DSL. Fortunately, that service provider footprint is expanding due to newer and more efficient ways to deploy and service DSL over long loops and non-copper facilities. As DSL matures, industry experts realize how effective and mainstream DSL service can be. DSL has the potential to become as available and reliable as plain old telephone service (POTS), especially since a large part of the infrastructure is in place and can be used cost effectively. But two hurdles remain before Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) services can be made available to the majority user community: 1. Distance limitations 2. Incompatible Digital Loop Carriers (DLCs) Service providers can significantly increase their DSL service coverage, improve their data-rate offerings and/or reduce their costs by taking advantage of new technologies that improve the DSL method of qualification and delivery. Included in these options are: improved loop qualification tools, overlay solutions, integrated access solutions, loop extenders and repeaters, new technologies such as, enhanced ADSL and G.SHDSL Protecting DSL Everywhere To determine which loops can support DSL service, each individual loop must go through a process called loop qualification. In the past, the typical loop qualification included a basic review of company (provider) records, which revealed the loop length and any bridge taps or load coils that inhabited the loop. This type of qualification resulted in a reduced number of lines that appeared to qualify and a typical policy to limit delivery attempts to shorter loops that the provider had confidence could be served. Pre-qualifying loops in a given service region can help to eliminate the time and expense of qualifying loops on demand. Pre-qualification analyzes every loop connected to a CO in advance of customer orders and positions the service provider for mass deployment of DSL service. Loop qualification is most cost-effectively done from a centralized location. It should reduce the necessity to reconfigure existing services and dispatch technicians. The system should be capable of providing suggestions as to the nature of the problem(s), and steps necessary to further isolate or resolve the problem(s). When installing DSL over existing loops, overlay access solutions are an option. These include: 1. Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer (DSLAM) service provided via Central Office 2. Remote DSLAMs 3. Remote Access Multiplexers (RAMs). 1. DSLAM from the CO The DSLAM is typically an ATM multiplexer that consists of DSL modems to terminate the high frequency portion of subscriber loops and aggregates the DSL traffic into DS-3 or OC-3 interfaces to the service providers’ ATM network. DSLAMs are deployed as overlays to the incumbent service provider’s POTS networks and gain access to the high frequency portion of the subscriber loop through central office POTS splitters. POTS splitters are mechanical devices that separate the lower frequency POTS signals and the high frequency DSL signals via high pass and low pass filters. DSL lines are provisioned as “special services” when deployed with the overlay (to the volume POTS network) approach. 2. Remote DSLAM The remote DSLAM has the same functionality of an ordinary CO DSLAM, except it must be industrially hardened to be deployed in outside plant cabinets and to operate in extreme weather conditions. Due to environmental constraints, remote DSLAMs support a reduced number of lines, typically less than 200. 3. Remote Access Multiplexer RAM products are low-profile products, which are designed to fit into available dead space that may exist in a remote terminal cabinet. Because of their small size and relatively low cost, they are quickly and easily deployed and often serve as excellent competitive tools against cable modem deployments. They have been designed to be extremely easy to install and manage and are typically plug-and-play. The units usually have few serviceable parts since they are self-contained devices. The major advantage of remote DSLAMS and RAM overlay devices is the ability to provide DSL service at many of the 95,000 remote terminal sites previously unserved. (FCC Public Forum, Transmission Capacity Between the Central Office and End-Users in Next Generation Networks, March 29, 2001 - transcripts available from the FCC duplicating contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, Washington, D.C. 20036, at 202.857.3800). In addition, providing DSL service closer to subscribers at the RT, provides greater DSL service coverage and significantly improves the DSL data rate performance (higher speeds) due to shorter subscriber loops. Integrated Access Solutions, Where? Integrated access solutions integrate DSL and POTS to improve capital and operational costs, and can aid in accelerating DSL service deployment. These integrated solutions consume less power and provide higher densities than current solutions, and they speed the installation, provisioning and deployment of DSL services. A difficult issue that service providers face today is implementing economically viable solutions at the Remote Terminal (RT). The cost of deploying DSL at RT sites is amortized over a very small subscriber serving area (80% of RTs serve less than 672 subscribers). While the challenge of providing DSL from RTs seems daunting, the subscriber base served from RTs represents nearly 40% of all subscribers in the U.S. and is growing. Integrated access solutions enable service providers to address these prime DSL subscribers with quick and economically viable deployment models. Three examples of integrated access solutions are: 1. Digital Loop Carrier (DLC) Linecards 2. Next Generation DLC (NGDLC) 3. Broadband Loop Carrier (BLC) 1. POTS+DSL Linecards As existing subscribers and new growth are being migrated from Central Offices to RTs, subscriber loops are becoming shorter, significantly increasing their DSL bandwidth capabilities. The problem with this is that there are space constraints, capital costs, smaller serving areas, and a slow speed of development. One solution is the implementation of integrated POTS+DSL linecards. Over 28 million subscribers are served from Subscriber Loop Carriers (SLCs). (RHK) These vintage SLCs can be upgraded to state-of-the-art broadband access vehicles with simple, low-cost integrated POTS+DSL line cards, while retaining their full POTS and legacy functions and capacity. 2. Next Generation Digital Loop Carrier (NGDLC) With NGDLCs, each CO can serve end-users far beyond the local customer serving area. Today, 60% of all new voice lines are deployed from remote terminals or DLCs. (Memo from Optical Access RHK to Catena Networks, September 5, 2001, Barry J. Moon, Sr. Analyst). They can be deployed in outside plant, co-locations, in-building, and many more. As NGDLCs are supporting over 35% of all North American access lines, DSL service needs to be provided from the remote terminals or DLCs. (RHK - Access Network Systems and PON Technology and Market Report, June 2001, figure 16, page 35). The carrier is faced with several options of equipping the NGDLC with DSL, but it will most likely be one of three: 1. deploying an overlay remote DSLAM or mini-RAM at the NGDLC location, 2. upgrading the NGDLC to support DSL, or 3. replacing of the NGDLC to support DSL and voice. 3. Broadband Loop Carrier The Broadband Loop Carrier (BLC) is a new broadband access platform designed to enable mass market deployment of Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) and Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) service – from both remote terminals and Central Offices – while enabling service providers to manage a smooth migration from the current circuit-switched voice network to the emerging packet-based converged network. The BLC integrates voice, data, and media gateway functionality into a single platform, with a single network management interface, thereby reducing the cost and complexity of the access network. POTS and DSL is available on every subscriber line, resulting in significantly reduced capital and operational costs, and accelerated DSL deployment. The BLC can be remotely provisioned and managed, eliminating truck rolls to the RT and thereby giving carriers the ability to deliver services more quickly and cost effectively. Must We Repeat? Loop extenders are an available feature of DSL designed to improve the ability to extend service through out the network. In the old standard delivery of T1, an AMI signal was used over 2-pairs. Due to crosstalk, each pair had to be delivered in separate binder groups and engineered to remove all loaded coils and bridged taps. A contrasting method, called HDSL2, has applied advancements in technology that allow for service providers to better deliver T1 service. Loop extending methods mirror that of HDSL2. HDSL2 uses Trellis Coded Pulse Amplitude Modulation (TC PAM) with spectral shaping to provide service on a single pair of copper. HDSL2 can be deployed at CSA ranges without using repeaters and can tolerate up to 2,500 feet of bridged taps. Repeaters may be implemented to extend deployable range of DSL by one of two methods. Repeaters either amplify and equalize the signal or recover and regenerate the signal. A repeater is installed in the outside plant with industrially hardened elements and allows the service provider to extend service by 100%. For the most part, those solutions used in a variety of ways can handle the subscribers within the ISP’s footprint. To move for service beyond that, new technologies such as improved ADSL and G.shdsl are being developed and implemented. Improved ADSL is an enhancement to the ADSL chip set that implements strong forward error correction and a crosstalk cancellation technique to achieve slightly improved upstream and significant downstream signal performance. SHDSL is a new ITU standard (G.991.2) for Single Pair High Speed Digital Subscriber Line (SHDSL) technology. Carriers deploying SHDSL will be able to deliver symmetric data rates up to 2.3 Mbps over a single copper pair at distances 15 - 20% greater than current 2B1Q-based SDSL technology. SHDSL is more spectrally friendly than HDSL or SDSL, making it much easier for carriers to deploy. SHDSL works well over existing copper lines with all impairments and impedances, and works with repeaters, so the service footprint can be extended as far as 24,000 ft in some forms. DSL - Going Everywhere With these many new advances in DSL technology, service providers now have more options in every type of DSL deployment scenario. This gives providers freedom in extending their footprint. As these technologies and solutions become more widely implemented, the deployment of DSL is predicted to outpace any other type of broadband technology. This broadens the potential for service providers to increase revenue streams as well as benefit consumers who were previously unable to receive any type of broadband service.

William Rodey is president and chairman of DSL Forum, a non-profit DSL interest group made up of more than 330 companies worldwide. Rodey is also senior vice president, marketing & engineering for HyperEdge Corp. The full “DSL Anywhere” best practices guidelines are available to service providers on the DSL Forum Web site at www.dslforum.org

 

 A very comprehensive report on rural xDSL in Kentucky

 

http://www.rural.org/publications/Hartell01-03.pdf

 

 GoLong  -  A solution for extending DSL

 

http://www.symmetricom.com/GoLong/UniversalDSLService.pdf

 

The following is an important ruling which clearly shows that Verizon must allow competition even though they do not supply the end services. Interesting reading!

http://puc.paonline.com/Telephone/Global/Final%20Order/VII.doc

 

Excerpts from ruling below - 

In contrast,  BA-PA indicated that its DSL service offering is limited to customers served by relatively short loops[1] that require no conditioning.[2]  This testimony indicates that BA-PA has no intention of serving a significant portion of the Pennsylvania market -- the portion that is not presently served by an “ideal” loop, including loops over 12,000 feet.[3]  We cannot permit BA-PA to deny these customers the substantial benefits of DSL from CLECs simply because BA-PA has made the strategic decision to ignore this substantial market segment.

 

Under FCC rules, ILECs cannot use, as a basis for refusing to provision DSL-capable loops of any type, the argument that they do not yet provide certain DSL services themselves.[4]  The FCC expressly concluded that “section 251(c)(3) [of TA-96] does not limit the types of telecommunications services that competitors may provide over unbundled elements to those offered by the incumbent ILEC.”[5]  In addition, the FCC’s Advanced Services Order specifies that “incumbent LECs should not unilaterally determine what technologies LECs, both competitive LECs and incumbent LECs may deploy.”[6] (Emphasis added.)  In conformity with these determinations, we direct BA-PA to provision DSL-capable loops that are free of intrusive devices as requested by CLECs.  By grafting these federal mandates onto the 1648 proposal the Commission can best ensure the rapid, widespread deployment of DSL.

 

                        The FCC has further directed that, “incumbent LECs must ‘take affirmative steps to condition existing loop facilities to enable requesting carriers to provide services not currently provided over such facilities’” including, for example, “a loop free of loading coils, bridged taps, and other electronic impediments.”[7] The information BA-PA proposes to provide in its loop qualification database is insufficient because this database was developed to support the specific needs of BA‑PA’s more limited ADSL retail offering and does not include crucial loop information needed for other xDSL services. 

 

(My Comments on the above ruling)

 

In essence this ruling states that Verizon must make available for competitors a  “clean line” for the transmission of xDSL technology whether or not they themselves supply the service end service.

 

Status as of  5/26/2002

 

On Friday May 24, 2002 I spoke at length with a Verizon attorney in Harrisburg. The PUC directed them to meet or talk with me to resolve the complaint. As you can see from their written response (above), which I received prior to my telephone contact, they denied much of the original complaint based on technical aspects. I wholeheartedly disagree with much of the response. I expressed that to the Verizon lawyer on the phone. He obviously was taken back because I think he thought I was just an irate customer without any real knowledge. He did NOT have a technical background and was not able to answer any of my questions or respond to any great degree to my statements. He is going to arrange for a Verizon representative with more technical knowledge to speak with me.

 

From his comments it appears that Verizon is going to roll-out RADSL sometime in the near future.