[asterisk-users] Dry Copper Pair

[thg at interoil.com]

> Quoting Stephen Bosch <posting at vodacomm.ca>:
>
>> Jon Pounder wrote:
>>>> On 5/11/07, Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 May 2007, C F said something to this effect:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not according to Verizon (in my area anyhow), We tried it and it
>>>>> didn't
>>>>>> work. The verizon technician insisted it wasn't real PTP copper and
>>>>>> therefore anything but analog voice might/should not work.
>>>>>    What is "PTP copper"?  Unless it's an issue of gauge.  But as far
>>>>> as
>>>>> I
>>>>> know, it's not.  All the standard copper used for POTS can be used
>>>>> for a
>>>>> T1 from a physical point of view, other aspects of conditioning/load
>>>>> coils/etc/etc not withstanding.
>>>> You are right, but that was not what I meant, in order for one to be
>>>> able to provision their own T1 over a pair of copper, the line has to
>>>> allow all traffic over all frequencies pass thru it. Which these lines
>>>> do not, since they are simply not just one long copper pair simply
>>>> cross connected.
>>>
>>> that's what "dry copper" is supposed to be, just a cross connect
>>> between 2
>>> pairs out of the CO. ie not even battery, line test equipment, or
>>> anything
>>> else hanging off it at the CO. any restriction should be purely a
>>> function
>>> of the inductance/capacitance of the wire and the connections and
>>> nothing
>>> else - anything else and you didn't get "dry copper" in the first
>>> place.
>>>
>>>
>>> just out of curiousity - anyone ever hijack pairs and get away with it
>>> ?
>>> (do your own cross connects on the street and utilize some crossconnect
>>> all within one branch of F1 cable out of the CO ?)
>>>
>>> I've been tempted in the past, and know that at least around here I
>>> would
>>> probably get away with it for quite some time before anyone actually
>>> cared
>>> enough to investigate.
>>
>> Jon:
>>
>> Is Thorold rural?
>>
>> You wouldn't get away with this for ten minutes in an urban CO. I don't
>> fancy spending the night in jail.
>>
>
> it not a big city, but its not the middle of nowhere either.
>
> The local CO here is actually the last hop on the fibre trunks from
> Canada to the US for the Toronto area, fence around it has the gate
> open 24x7, so its not just the local loops that they don't really care
> enough to protect.
>
> I have seen techs find things they didn't agree with or think should
> be somewhere and just shrug their shoulders - if its not a reported
> problem they don't want to be the one that touches something and
> breaks it if its really supposed to be there. A lot of the techs are
> subcontracted by the job, they don't get paid to make improvements,
> they get paid to do installations and go on repair calls, so if its
> not on their work order they just don't care.
>
> Here is an example, I order lines in batches of 1 or 2 at a time to my
> location, every time an installer comes they put another 2pr aerial
> cable from my pole to the pole across the street. I have plenty of
> underground capacity I put in myself out to my pole. Everytime I say,
> hey why not just consolidate things in a properly sized aerial cable
> or just bury it ? No, can't do that, all I can do is install yet
> another cable (there are about 10 up there now, and it looks like
> hell). I have even got the response, "well if you want to clean it up
> you could just do it and no one would care". If that's not a direct
> invitation to work on the telco outside plant yourself - what is ?
>
>
Uh-huh, so... say, leaving my car unlocked while it is sitting in my
driveway is "directly invitation" to someone to take it?

The exchange and all their feeder sites, rims, pillars, etc... are the
property of the telco, at the very least working on them without explicit
authority is a breech of the tresspass laws and it goes up from there.

You will probably find that they (the telco) will take the point of view
that (and you can confirm this with any lawyer you like) their failure to
prosecute every instance of tresspass does not imply permission to enter.

In todays socio/political climate, telco infrastructure is seen as
foundational, and an essential service that is vital in times of
emergency. Any unauthorised modification can present an unacceptable risk
exposure to the telco, the emergency services, and to the public in
general. This said, the telcos may not be providing the best security (and
in some cases their security is non-existent) however this does not mean
that an unauthorised person is entitle to make changes, or even enter the
site.

Any argument to the contrary is somewhat shortsighted, dont you think?

Or is your failure to lock your front door, a "direct invitation" to the
next person that walks down the sidewalk to help themselves to the
contents of your fridge?

It could be argued that some of this thread constitutes a solicitation to
commit a crime, or perhaps coersion of the same. In the US, it wouldnt
surprise me if tresspass into a telco pillar would get the full force of
homeland security down on you, and as you are probably aware, at the point
that the word "terrorism" is used, it is possible for what we commonly
understand as the "burden of proof" to be reversed.

My advise: Dont touch telco infrastructure beyond the network boundry
unless you have explicit authority to do so.

Regards,
T