[kwlug-disc] YAK Internet + Home Phone deal for Kitchener

Mon Apr 26 01:55:04 EDT 2010

Bob Jonkman wrote, On 04/26/2010 12:04 AM:
> unsolicited writes:
> 
>> All well and good Bob, but the premise that started this thread was 
>> co-located (Yak) DLSAMs in Bell's boxes, going out through Yak's own 
>> fibre.
>>
>> Or am I completely missing, or misunderstanding something, here? 
> 
> It's the "last mile" -- All Yak can get is Bell connectivity from their 
> DSLAM in the CO to the customer's premises.  Bell can do better, from a 
> Remote DSLAM at the curbside to the customer's premises.  Unless Yak has 
> their own DSLAMs at the curbside, they'll never be able to give better 
> quality service than Bell does.

The way I read the initial messages of this thread, yes, it was these 
curbside DSLAMS that Yak was colocating at.

Thread reader: Confirm / Correct please.

It was my impression that although Bell has the last mile, now, what 
it connects to is (now) up for grabs, for the first time.

> Fortunately, that's no so far-fetched.  If Yak is depending on the 
> Globalive backhaul (that Globalive uses as the terrestrial network for 
> their Wind Mobile cellular network)

They are. Per their website / popular perception (at least this 
newsgroup). Mind you, so many people can split hairs that perhaps I'm 
erroneously extrapolating (inappropriately) from one blurb into other 
technologies.

> then Yak might be able to place a 
> DSLAM wherever Wind Mobile has a cell tower.  And there should be plenty 
> more cell towers than Bell has COs.  Still, getting that last mile from 
> the cell tower DSLAM to customer premises might be difficult.  But 
> Yak/Globalive/Wind is a cell phone company, with wireless data 
> capability...  Hmm, independence from the Rogers/Bell duopoly at last?

It has always been my impression that 'CO' is a bit of a misnomer. 
Every city / town / whatever will have a CO.

For our purposes here, CO just means the first point at which my 
copper (and its signals) gets multiplexed in with others, and sent on 
to the next hop as part of an aggregate.

Thus, it was my impression that there is no such thing as Remote 
DSLAM, there are merely DSLAMs, wherever they reside. (Digital 
Subscriber Link Access Module, multiple residence copper lines per 
card.) Aggregated out the back end of each card's bus to a larger pipe 
(T1, T3, fibre?) (T1's aggregated into T3's, etc.). I could just be 
foolishly stupid here, too.

So, to my mind, the Yak DSLAMs have to be colocated at the other end 
of my copper wire, or they could not be making the claims that they 
do. And to the point of the original poster saying Yak isn't available 
everywhere.) Once your copper is on a piece of Bell equipment - you're 
sunk.

Thus the, or my, interest in this thread - off Bell equipment, and 
their policies.

But hey, who's to say they won't follow Bell eventually anyways, when 
they find their equipment saturated, and the cost of increasing the 
infrastructure prohibitive. Look at Rogers, with the advent of digital 
(or for whatever other reasons), they've implemented limits and 
shaping where there never used to be any. Same for Bell. There's no 
reason to believe any vendor won't eventually do the same - until we 
get fibre to the home, or fast enough wi-fi that every home can have a 
router at 2x GB full duplex wi-fi capable of running full speed 24x7. 
And I don't expect we'll ever see that. Not until there's an access 
point on every lamppost. Carrying video simultaneously. e.g. Pervasive 
traffic cams, tying in all traffic lights, road traffic monitors, and 
so on and so forth. I don't expect it will be much like any technology 
currently in deployment - they were talking like this a few years 
back, and I think some things are in trial at airports, etc.

Certainly, it'll likely bear resemblance to today's Starbuck's like 
wi-fi - another provider to pay for. Which will never take off until 
it's fast enough to only use that and no direct ISP over copper to the 
home. Even the wi-fi through Waterloo, from I forget whom, is mostly 
11 Mbps [b] (shared). Note even 54Mbps [g], let alone "today's" 
802.11n 300 Mbps (shared).

Disclaimer: Everything said is my impression / opinion. I have no 
evidence or facts to point at to prove anything. I would be glad to be 
corrected.

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 at 23:37, unsolicited <unsolicited at swiz.ca> wrote 
> about Re: [kwlug-disc] YAK Internet + Home Phone deal for Kitchener:
>> All well and good Bob, but the premise that started this thread was 
>> co-located (Yak) DLSAMs in Bell's boxes, going out through Yak's own 
>> fibre.
>>
>> Or am I completely missing, or misunderstanding something, here?
>>
>> Side note: As for my (& Khalid's) Roger's Express, up to 10 Mbps (and 
>> above?), that's just a fantasy anyways. The net won't feed you that 
>> fast, heck, the net isn't feeding Rogers that fast for them to send it 
>> on to you. YMMV, average browsing, etc., etc., yada, yada, yada. I 
>> never have, and never expect, to see speeds that fast.
>>
>>     Mind you ... if full internet HD video streaming ever comes along 
>> for real, that does imply some pretty significant and expensive 
>> infrastructure changes, especially along that last mile.
>>
>>     Saw a news blurb on TV on that the other day - you'll require a 
>> Playstation or some other box on the home end of that wire. No home 
>> recording of THAT content. <sigh> So what would be the point. Drat them.
>>
>> And hijacking the thread again ... apparently Rogers business service 
>> has no cap. I expect you must have a business address. Don't know if 
>> traffic filtering is an issue on the business service - Paul? Charles?
>>
>> Bob Jonkman wrote, On 04/25/2010 10:23 PM:
>>> Khalid writes:
>>>
>>>> Yak runs their own DSLAM, and hence Bell cannot throttle anything.
>>>>
>>>> In Colin's case, it is his home's distance to the CO that is the
>>>> issue, not Bell throttling.
>>>
>>> Bell offers 5 Mbps from the DSLAMs located in their COs, and faster
>>> service from their Remote DSLAMs, located at the curbside in those ugly
>>> boxes. (IANANTBWPOOTV)[*]
>>>
>>> Pictures of Remote DSLAM boxes at
>>> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15874273 and
>>> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22739563-What-is-that (although the
>>> first link isn't Bell).
>>>
>>> I understand the Remote DSLAMs are connected to the COs by fibre, which
>>> provides the high speeds (another diagram:
>>> http://www.wholesale.bell.ca/images/dslgate_1.jpg ) Sadly, the 3rd-party
>>> access mandated by the CRTC requires access only to the CO DSLAMs, so
>>> Bell typically won't connect third-party customers to Remote DSLAMs.
>>> I'm not sure how Yak would get access to them, and so offer the higher
>>> speeds they're advertising.
>>>
>>> The advice typically given on DSLReports to new DSL customers is to
>>> subscribe to Bell Sympatico, get the high-speed connection from a Remote
>>> DSLAM, then switch to a third-party provider.  Odds are Bell won't
>>> bother to disconnect you from the Remote DSLAM, and so you retain higher
>>> speeds than you would have obtained from the third-party provider
>>> directly.
>>>
>>> Throttling takes place on the backhaul between the Bell equipment in the
>>> CO and their Point-Of-Presence to the upstream ISPs.  Third-party ISPs
>>> typically separate at the POP, connecting to their own services.  For
>>> most third-party providers the POP is at 1 Front Street in Toronto, at
>>> http://www.torix.net/
>>>
>>> [*] I Am Not A Network Technician, But Would Play One On TV
>>>
>>> On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 21:01 -0400, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Kyle Spaans <3lucid at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > It's 5Mbit.  I couldn't get the 10Mbit.  They may upgrade
>>>>         the C/O my
>>>> > DSLAM is in in the future, which will allow me to go to
>>>>         10Mbps.
>>>>                         Hmm, I would suspect that you can still be 
>>>> throttled in that
>>>>         case. I talked to
>>>>         a local guy who does server colo and business internet
>>>>         services and he said
>>>>         that unless you're hooked up to the non-Bell DSLAM in the CO
>>>>         or Remote
>>>>         Office then that's where Bell is going to throttle you.
>>>>                 I'm not saying you're lying about not noticing any
>>>>         throttling :), but please
>>>>         keep and eye out and let us know -- I'm very curious.
>>>>
>>>> Yak runs their own DSLAM, and hence Bell cannot throttle anything.
>>>>
>>>> In Colin's case, it is his home's distance to the CO that is the
>>>> issue, not
>>>> Bell throttling.