Heh... the techs here are all from out of town...
> Sure there is an excuse. It's "We only have to provide voice service. We're
> not required to provide any guaranteed data rate on voice circuits.". Now
> they can "refuse to spend money".
aah, but there is a problem there. Dual DA conversions usually drops
the point-to-point circuit loss (yes there ARE specs for loss outside of
the customer's loop!) and if you can prove it GTE is screwed.
> And i may be wrong, but my understanding of the SLC's is that you can shove
> 2 voice lines into one 56k circuit(or more accurately, 48 channels in a
> T-1), so even if you don't have any additional A-D conversions, you're
> physically limited to a 28k data path, hence, 26.4k connects regardless of
> the modem used. Is that wrong?
Incorrect. A SLC is mearly a line concentrator... Like the one I am
connected to has 64 line capability (58 wired in), and two T1s connected
to it, with one channel per T1 for signaling. If both T1s are working
as advertised there are MAX of 46 lines working on the remote at one
time. The chances of everyone being on the phone at once is nil
anyways.
> >I get 24.0k-28.8k through a 15 year old remote (not a SLC) to a DMS-10
> >which GTE claims is trunk side (I got them to switch it after a LOT of
> >fighting, before this it was 16.8k-21.6k). Since switching they have
> >had far less problems with the entire setup...
>
> But no KFlex through there, right?
I could probably push kflex or x2 through it if they replaced the line
cards (they are as old as the unit itself). I have a customer on a SLC
in Kennard, Texas (409-655 exchange - remote off Crockett's DMS-100/200)
that has tested at his house (also 3 miles from the remote) x2 on his
Courier - he got a 44k connection to a BBS (which was also LD, but all
traffic still goes back to Crockett and on to either AT&T or MCI's
fiber)
> >> Makes me look at those old Hayes Century 2 racks we have sitting around and
> >> our plans to purchase another PM-3 in a new light, if you know what I
> >> mean.....
> >
> >If GTE plans to backslide, start writing letters to the PUC now and nip
> >it in the bud.
>
> Backsliding to what? They still provide voice service at an "acceptable"
> quality, and I've never heard of anyone getting any telco to admit to any
> level of service that's covered by the PUC other than that. Guaranteed
> levels of data tranmission are only on dedicated circuits, from my
> understanding. All our dial-up customers are using "voice" lines. Works for
> voice, PUC is happy.
Not really.. GTE has their own specs if you can beat someone hard
enough to get them... I got them on audio cassette here somewhere, if
you want I will find and transcribe.
the original proposed PURA-97 docs had a LOT of line quality info...
Apparently recently it was evaulated and tossed out, since I can't find
anything about line quality in the 900k Word doc I just downloaded (the
proposed law was on the net.. Guess they don't want people to know they
removed all the stuff anyone needed and only left what the telcos
wanted)...
Also, don't fall for that 'voice line' crap.. You buy business POTS
service, not VOICE service. GTE also informed me BUSINESS POTS was
rated for 9600 baud... Made the beer-bellied dork of an engineer that
was out here quite green when he heard that, since he had been informing
me of the fact there is no data spec for any POTS service unless you got
dial datalink which is rated for 4800 baud.. blah.
Good Luck... The best thing I can see to do with GTE is A: Don't do it,
let the franchise morons run after GTE towns... and B: if you're like
me and stuck in one, BEG another telco to come in and quick.
JS
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.