reply to Sunfox
Re: Is 360 feet of any consequence in DSL? There are 2 impediments. First, the little breakout box that serves 8-16 homes from a larger cable is only wired into 1 big green or brown lawn wart. A terminal doesn't have feeds to both. The loops in the splice box should only be present in 1 big box (although with bridge taps, the reverse isn't true: two or more small terminals can be connected on the same trunk to the big box).
Even if you did rig up like that manually, the business rules can't cope with a single service address being put into another serving area. The provisioning model ties an address to a single SAI, except for some exceptional cases where it suits the telco (eg. bespoke services for enterprise).
If the cable form the house can go to either pole, and going to the left pole means a savings of over 100m to the DSLAM instead of the current wire which goes to the right pole, then Bell should be able to make a deicision to permanently move this house to the new closer DSLAM/JWI including for phone service.
When they decided to locate the DSLAMs , they probably would have factored that this house would be borderline between 2 DSLAMs and if necessary, it would have to be moved to the nearer one.
So it will take a decision at a higher enough level to authorize the move of a house which sits on the border between 2 DSLAMs.
said by jfmezei:Since the OP said there are only five homes on his trunk cable, there simply is no business case to justify fixing it as best as possible, risk ruining what still works on it in the process and ending up having to do a replacement that makes no financial sense... so Bell might simply end up flagging those addresses as non-serviceable.
Bell should be able to make a deicision to permanently move this house to the new closer DSLAM/JWI including for phone service.