From: usenet@phreaknet.org
On 8/17/2025 12:38 PM, Rich wrote:
> InterLinked wrote:
>> On 8/16/2025 2:13 PM, Rich wrote:
>>> InterLinked wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I tried a local access number in my area, and connected at 31.2.
>>>> And sure enough, it appears to be resold GlobalPOPs. It doesn't
>>>> look like Dialup4Less has their own dial-up infrastructure.
>>>>
>>>> Do you mind sharing the specific access number you are using, and
>>>> what speeds you usually connect at? I wonder whether all of their
>>>> access numbers are deficient, or just some of them.
>>>
>>> Your connect speeds over POTS copper is going to be mostly always
>>> influenced by the "last mile wiring" (i.e., the copper from your
>>> home to the local exchange building). So any "deficiency" is very
>>> likely to exist somewhere in that last bit of copper rather than in
>>> different ISP POP endpoints.
>>>
>>> Once your copper terminates at the exchange, the rest of the phone
>>> network's all digital, so the analog signals on your wires are
>>> digitized at that point anyway.
>>
>> As I mentioned before, my phone service is over fiber ("POTS over
>> fiber", as Verizon calls it), so my copper loop is only a few feet
>> long. Like most phone people, I don't like fiber, but that's the way
>> it is.
>
> I missed that small tidbit of information. That, then, /may/ indicate
> that Verizon's ONT does not provide the 'trick' that allowed 56k
> downloads across copper POTS when that copper terminated at the local
> phone exchange. The 'trick' was that there was some way to "turn off"
> the digital to analog converter at the exchange end so that the digital
> data from the phone network could also make its way down the copper
> pair. If Verizon has ommitted that "feature" in their ONT's, then
> right about 33k is the maximum you'll get going through the digitizers
> that convert the POTS analog to/from digital for the rest of the phone
> network.
I can reliably get 36000 (V.90) on this line when calling certain
numbers, which I don't think would be possible if that were the case.
> And, I can see Verizon very deliberately omitting the "turn off last
> mile digital to analog conversion" in their fiber ONT's, for the
> explicit purpose of encouraging those still using 'dialup' to move to
> FIOS Internet by restricting the top speed that can be achieved.
>
>> [Aside: The irony with fiber is that Verizon has cannibalized their
>> chances of me ever ordering their Internet service, since they refuse to
>> provide regulated voice and unregulated Internet on the same ONT. Not
>> that I would be interested in paying for it, but they try to upsell me
>> on it every time I call in, and two minutes later I have them admitting
>> that no, I can't order their Internet service without losing my phone
>> service (being converted to Digital Voice, which I have no interest in).]
>
> Naturally, they would very much prefer to provide the "unregulated"
> option, less pesky 'regulations' to have to abide by that way...
> Note, not saying this is reasonable, just that it is very much in
> their best interest to do so.
Oh, absolutely, I completely understand that. They are doing everything
possible in order to discourage people from using the regulated voice
offering, especially when provided over fiber (copper customers can
still get POTS + DSL combos, so they have more flexibility). They won't
dissuade me, but there are relatively few customers like me that care
about the voice service more than the data service.
As an example, Verizon keeps detariffing features for no good reason. I
cannot order Speed Calling or Distinctive Ring from either Verizon
Residential or Verizon Business. It's not like the switch "forgot" how
to do it; I *am* able to get those features when ordering through a CLEC
that resells Verizon service. Why? No rhyme or reason to it, other than
Verizon is trying to make this service as unattractive as possible by
gradually stripping it away. I think only four or five features continue
to be offered - Caller ID, Call Waiting, Three-Way Calling, and Call
Forwarding, none of which I have any interest in. (Aside: Never order
POTS service from a CLEC, I don't know they ever had a great reputation,
but they are the sleaziest companies in existence today. Verizon and
most ILECs at least know what ethics and customer service mean.)
For this reason, I have a measured-rate line with only a 5c per-minute
long-distance plan, and no features, since the all inclusive Freedom
Essentials/Unlimited plans are much more expensive and have little value
to me. If they still offered features I wanted, I might have considered
it. It's kind of bizarre, they literally don't want your money if you
are interested in phone service, i.e. they care far more about making
the service as unattractive as possible to consumers than they do about
making money from it.
>> I don't have an issue connecting to certain V.90 test numbers (not PPP
>> Internet), so I don't think it's a quality issue with my phone service.
>> Therefore, I believe GlobalPOPs is most likely the issue, but I'm trying
>> to gather more data to prove that, e.g. different access numbers,
>> different local loop types (fiber, copper, etc.)
>
> Do you get full 56k speed connects from these V.90 test numbers over
> your ONT? If you do, then what I wrote above about Verizon omitting
> the "V.90" 'trick' in the ONT is not likely the case.
No, the one I've used recently I can only get up to 36k. I did connect
at 50666 over VoIP once, but was never able to do it again, and usually
I don't even get V.90 speeds.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
