I recently moved to a new town where there is a broadband cable monopoly, however I do not want to use cable service, I want DSL. But, DSL "companies" in the area all tell me the don't "serve" within these city limits, either because of the broadband monopoly (or for no stated reason at all). Again I don't want cable, I prefer DSL on top of my LAN and upcycling hobby. Since the jacks are already in place, what keeps me from using my own modem/filters and what not, and just configuring to some domain out on the net? Is it that simple?

No, the ISP has to turn on DSL service for your phone line and would assume your MODEM has to be registered with them.

The jack needs to be patched to a matching modem in the DSLAM at the exchange for the DSL to come up. The ATM VC that runs over the DSL needs to be mapped from the DSLAM to an ISP via a carrier. The PPP protocol that runs over the ATM VC needs to terminate at the ISP onto an access server that authenticates you against a valid user account and then gives you an IP address that is globally routable.

Theres a lot going on over DSL to make it all happen.

1 members found this post helpful.

Any technical reason you prefer DSL to cable?

If it is just a matter of "owning" the modem you can buy one (Motorola Surfboard modems are usually good for cable.)

I've been using Cable (first Time-Warner and now Comcast) ever since I left ISDN 12 years ago away and have never felt a compelling need to go to DSL. (In fact the reason I first got cable was because there was no DSL available in my new place back then.)

One of several technical reasons I am inclined toward DSL (in this case) is the lack of redundancy, or rather the over-reliance upon one particular communications vector that exists in a community that is evidently totally monolithic (all cable) with respect to its data access (whether defining the community in this instance as the apartment complex, or as the whole city in which the cable monopoly exists). I take this position personally, but I also hold the perspective as a member of the at-large networking community. This didn't happen in the previous city where I lived, where the monopoly was just "apparent" through ad clutter in the marketplace. But here, the usual carriers for DSL have cited the local cable service monopoly when saying they can't/won't put me on their domain, or just flat out say they don't provide it. If anyone is serving up DSLAM in Phoenix, let's talk.

Unless you live in Mars, almost every POTS line can have some dsl service or uverse.

It could be some crooked deal with how cities can restrict based on their crime syndicate. Some states allow that sort of thing. They claim the city owns the right to make a deal on poles running on your property.

Do you live in Texas or AZ?

They are hard to find, but there are places with a point to point wireless service. These people bought out old analog towers and offer pretty good speeds. You'd have to have a small outdoor antenna.

I'd also look at satellite. It isn't much more than crummy dsl and offers higher speeds but don't go over your bit limit. Turn off when not in use and limit images and all other un-needed data to preserve data limits.

Some stupid cities offer free wifi paid for by the stupid citizens for dead beats to leach.

Might make a deal with a neighbor for half their cable.

You might be close enough to access some cable or other providers wifi even if you need an outdoor antenna.

1 members found this post helpful.

Lack of competition (which is what you're actually describing when you say lack of redundancy) is NOT a "technical" reason. It may be a "valid" reason to despise the cable company. God knows there are many. Redundancy is only an issue if you actually intend to buy BOTH services to have that redundancy and you clearly don't.

However, I've not seen that in a market like mine where Awful Telephone & Telegraph offers DSL and Uverse or Commiecast offers cable that it makes much difference as to how well they treat their customers. 2 providers is NOT really competition.

Wouldn't it be nice if the U.S. government had actually enforced the laws regarding CLECs so you'd have a choice of providers for DSL. Or if it had forced those who bought wireless licenses to actually provide service. Competition is an amazing thing - the cost of long distance went so cheap due to enforced competition that these days wireless providers don't even bother to charge extra for it.

Jefro: I am in AZ now.

mensawater: yes it is a marketplace issue too, to be sure, but it IS a technical argument of redundancy and diversity of mode, for example when the whole town's cable goes black or the cable provider goes nuts and the only functional nodes would be the people ponying on telephony infrastructure not cable (or vice versa). It's a statistical thing. Love they neighbor as thyself. It happened in Houston with Hurricane Ike; the house telephony was digital through the comcast cable line not the att phone line, so when the power to the cable modem went out, so did the telephony. The people whose service was att (or some of the box posts still say bell) still had telephony during the blackout, which for us lasted for eight days, during which comcast customers had no telephony.

*Unless you live in Mars, almost every POTS line can have some dsl service*

That is exactly right.

The rental property manager says cox would also be the provider of any telephony services (so, the same situation as exampled above). The phone jack is just sitting right there, and nobody is going to tell me that it is illegal to do something normal with the extant technology, on right-of-way and infrastructure that old uncle Burl dug and laid back in the 70's, as it stands, instead of buying some passive service from some porn-riddled, middle-man goon of a cable company that is managed by coked-up out-of-state twenty-somethings from new jersey who are debauching the public currency with their crap-racket and who wouldn't know a utility post from a brick latrine. It has been a few decades since the common carrier monopolies were busted up, but it still serves as a cautionary tale, the spirit of which still prevails in the marketplace if you really look. However, I will say, the issue is pretty well buried out here, pardon the pun.

Locally, there is "century link" which appears to be a DBA of qwest, and while it serves some of the suburbs, its agents get off the phone with me when I say the word phoenix. Att's story is duplicitous; first its people told me I could get straight DSL but not their uverse hub collar, and that was good news because I don't want uverse nonsense and I don't even own a T.V. After two days of being passed around by its call centers, finally someone said that att does not provide any hardline web data / DSL services in Arizona, full stop.

If I have to do it, I have to do it, but for all of our sakes', if possible, I would like to get around the cox marketing collar. I don't trust the company because it does not appear to be availing its presence in the neighborhood in good faith. Cox is a common carrier whether it likes it or not, and it certainly is one if it is, in fact, the only game in town (which I doubt). I do not know what good it will do to give them my money, because this is a situation that should already be under investigation.

Do I have to establish working protocol with the nearest DSLAM or can it be just one in the region? Perhaps could the slackware kernel run a local protocol that solves the whole issue?

I live to far from the CO for DSL. The neighbourhood developer paid to have cable run out to the middle of nowhere... We also have point to point wireless which works well.

Typically a DSLAM would be located at the PTSN central office. And as stated unless your telephone line is physically connected to the DSLAM there isn't anything you can do. In a nutshell the DSL modem converts ethernet to the DSL signal and the DSlAM converts the DSL signal back to digital which eventually connects to the internet. No protocol will fix a physical problem...

1 members found this post helpful.

I suppose the question is, who's running any PSTN locations in Northern Phoenix. I would doubt that it's Cox.

The spam message posted on here (now gone) illustrates my point . . . selling a domain address for 1.99 per year? So I buy a domain from some chinese spammer and problem solved?