said by jfmezei:
Am reading Bell's submission.
This is one of the better Bell submissions in a long time. They really had to dig up stuff to counter the arguments that MTS and I made.
(I have to wonder how many "lateral taps" really exist in areas that were upgraded to FTTN since copper lengths were reduced and many such taps would no longer exist because they would have been further from homes than the new JWI.
Just reading it now.
I find it funny that Bell has to directly address you, while also saying what you submitted should be completely disregarded.
1A. First, the vast majority of the Companies' current access network consists of copper facilities that were deployed over the past 30 plus years with both lateral and end bridge taps to maximize the usage of copper cable pairs to provide voice services. Contrary to
Vaxination's claim, the removal of bridge taps did not start with the deployment of ADSL1 technology since it was unnecessary to remove bridge taps in order to provide the lower speed DSL services
This is 100% false. Bell even removed the bridge tap on me when I had Bell in the 90's. Although Bell is correct that they did "not remove them for legacy DSL" (that is to say as a standard procedure), they sure as hell removed them when people complained of substandard service.
When Bell had their own forum, this was quite visible. Even on this DSLr forum we've seen it done.
1B. Until recently,15 the Companies never had a practice in place to remove bridge taps and therefore, these bridge taps remained in the Companies' networks even as DSL services were provisioned. However, in order to provide increasingly higher and stable DSL speeds, it became necessary to remove bridge taps from the Companies' access facilities and thus a network conditioning program was launched in 2010.
Total Bullshit. Again, if one could get their hands on Bell's own forum from 2006-2008 you would see this isn't true. Even on this forum.
While it may not have been standard practice or part of the standard service, Bell sure as heck did this if people complained.
-Bell's claim: Contrary to Vaxination's claim, the removal of bridge taps did not start with the deployment of ADSL1 technology since it was unnecessary to remove bridge taps in order to provide the lower speed DSL services.
True for the 1-meg service.
Untrue when they got into 3-meg and 5-meg services.
-Bells claim: Until recently,15 the Companies never had a practice in place to remove bridge taps and therefore, these bridge taps remained in the Companies' networks even as DSL services were provisioned.
True for 1-meg service. Even then back in about 1999 (+/-1 or 2 years) when DSL first became available and I complained, a guy climbed a pole to fix the bridge tap! And I saw this again around 2007.
So while they claim they have "no procedure" in place when provisioning legacy DSL, they sure as hell did it anyways. They had no choice in many areas. It was all party line remnants!
2. Although, in some neighborhoods the network can become damaged beyond repair and must be completely replaced (using a new design without bridge taps), this situation occurs rarely in the entire network.
Rarely? In my area something did happen to the cable that feeds the entire neighborhood. Bell had to do splices and soldering jobs on the cable. The VP I was in contact with then said the cable is beyond repair. Not much we can do, it all has to be replaced. So what did they do? They only removed bridge taps and performed what they called "cut dead ahead" on the squeaky wheels who complained.
Now, Bell used to have to report statistics to the CRTC on these failures up till about 2-3 years ago when Bell asked that it be stopped. The statistics had to show the people who called in for failures and how long it took Bell to repair the failures.
These stats used to also be available on BCE's corporate site. So when I looked up the month of the failure on my street while I was on the phone with the VP for the situation described above. It showed all was good. No failures and if there was a failure it was addressed within 2 working days.
I took offense to this lie so I brought it to the attention of the VP We chit-chatted a bit and he tells me, well, we don't report everything, Lets call your situation of a failed cable in your neighbourhood a statistical outlier thus not included in the Quality reports. I was floored.
So what Bell is stating here it pure BS.
-It does not occur rarely.
-Bell petitioned the CRTC to remove Quality of Service reports (this can be found the the CRTC website).
-The CRTC approved to no longer require QoS reports and stats showing these failures and response time.
-Bell will leave a neighbourhood in disrepair, not address the issue, and remove bridge taps and "cut dead ahead" for only those who complain.
-The only thing "Rare" is Bell actually addressing the failures they describe in that paragraph they submitted.
Maybe JF would like to question why the CRTC has allowed these failures to no longer be reported? Maybe because they were made with faked data anyhow?
3. In regards to the picture Bell puts up with respect to JF's comments. This is true. But again, I have had this done for me twice. Plus we have seen in in Bell's forum pre-2010 and in the forums here.
In addition Bell states in this paragraph: network conditioning benefits existing customers as well as new customers. Network conditioning will also enable further speed upgrades which the Companies expect DSL technology will deliver in the years to come.
In plain english this means: yeah, ok. If we "condition" one person likely 3 or 4 streets will be conditioned (maybe 100 or more people in housing area. More in a condo area). But we will charge each and every person anyhow even though there are no bridge taps. We will just keep the money for future use.
If the CRTC gives them this, there should be a revolt by everyone directed squarely at the CRTC.
What they just said here is, "give us money for nothing".
So this is where I have left off... I'll read the rest once my blood pressure has come down.
JF, there are some things here you can, and should, throw right in the CRTC's face.