hahahaha
@swbell.net
| reply to BabyBear
Re: Rollin.. Rollin.. Rollin...
Since AT&T hands off to DSLExtreme at the ATM layer (layer 2), that's going to be highly difficult. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | Wrong, it hands off at Layer 1, copper pair. Since in the USA almost all competitor ISPs must provide their own DSLAMs/termination modems. This isn't Canada where you get 1 fiber optic cable with all of your customers' ATM PVCs on it. |
|
Dark_Fiber
Here We Go Again.
join:2004-06-13
Saint Charles, MO
| said by patcat88  :Wrong, it hands off at Layer 1, copper pair. Since in the USA almost all competitor ISPs must provide their own DSLAMs/termination modems. This isn't Canada where you get 1 fiber optic cable with all of your customers' ATM PVCs on it. Wrong. Very few "providers" have their own equipment. They would rather piggyback off of the companies that actually build networks! Hnading off at the cable pair would require the non-LEC ISP's to have DSLAMS in every central office. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | Thats why there is a CLEC like Covad, but Covad and its clones have no interest in throttling. Ma bell does. The CLECs will present a aggregated interface to the ISP. |
|
stfu
@sbc.com
| reply to patcat88
said by patcat88 :Wrong, it hands off at Layer 1, copper pair. Since in the USA almost all competitor ISPs must provide their own DSLAMs/termination modems. This isn't Canada where you get 1 fiber optic cable with all of your customers' ATM PVCs on it. You have no idea what you are talking about. I worked on wholesale DSL for nearly a decade in SBC/ATT. The wholesale subscribers are handed off to the independent ISPs at the ATM level. |
|
If they screw that up just half of what they are capable of, could make Comcast's data raping look like a 'hands-off' approach. 
