[nycbug-talk] preferred home office 'net connection

[Bob Ippolito]

On Mar 11, 2005, at 8:36 PM, Jesse Callaway wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 06:10:06PM -0500, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 11, 2005, at 5:41 PM, pete wright wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 17:35 -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, pete wright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I guess the main issue I have is that I will have to get a landline
>>>>> phone connection if I want DSL which might make it too expensive 
>>>>> for
>>>>> me
>>>>> to switch.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all!  Covad now has "naked dsl" which is dedicated pair ADSL
>>>> that
>>>> does not require an existing POTS line.  The pair is used 
>>>> exclusively
>>>> for
>>>> DSL (much like SDSL).
>>>
>>> thanks again charles,
>>> 	I think the ISP i've been checking out requires me to have a POTS
>>> 	line
>>> for service, well i know they do because I just asked.  I'm checking
>>> out
>>> Covad now...it's a shame that I may not be able to go through a local
>>> outfit.  altho the prices from covad are not too bad....the plot
>>> thikens ;)
>>
>> Most of the time they require you to have a POTS line for
>> installation.. you can ditch it once the service is activated.
>
> ehh... not so much. I tried that and it worked well with a small co in 
> Westchester who had their equipment in the telco. It certainly did not 
> work when I had SpeakEasy over the Covad DSLAM. If you get your pair 
> dropped there is no getting it back due to the policy. And let's face 
> it, housecleaning gets done sometimes and they just run through the 
> telco with weapons and randomly tear down connects. I swear that must 
> be what happens. Yes, it was ADSL both times.

Really?  I've done it with SpeakEasy SDSL twice (two apartments in 
Manhattan) with no problems over the past 4 years or so.  They needed a 
verizon line to get it up, then I took it right down.

-bob