<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2023-09-07 15:13, Evan Leibovitch
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMguqh0=QnRcZ7YmZCTy9CMo2g4TD_JNK7JqG7xO7y916ke37A@mail.gmail.com">
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"
class="gmail_default">I have fibre in my neighborhood (less than
20 years old), and yet I still have a supported POTS line wired
through my house that works with old phones.<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"
class="gmail_default">So we know Bell is able to supply a D-to-A
facility in at least some modern locations. If Karen's new
location cannot do this then IMO they're breaking backwards
capability. Maybe it's Bell, maybe it's the wiring in her
building, but it's not Karen. In any case this situation
arguably contravenes Canadian laws on accessibility IMO unless
Bell can find an all-digital solution that addresses Karen's
needs.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yep, this is a point I have been making. Bell will have fibre to
somewhere in your neighbourhood and copper from there. This has
been done for years. What difference do you expect between this and
a copper pair all the way back to the CO?<br>
<br>
It still goes back to how connections are made and the bandwidth
etc.. Bell has to provide a standard toll quality circuit. That
used to be over copper all the way from the CO. Now it could be
from a terminal in a home, as I have with Rogers. Either way, it's
still a toll quality connection. Here's an article about the G.711
CODEC, which describes what's expected from a phone circuit, no
matter who provides it and how. Even ancient analog systems
provided similar.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.711">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.711</a><br>
</body>
</html>