From: floyd@tanana.polarnet.com (Floyd Davidson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom.tech,alt.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: unsecured demarc
Date: 5 Oct 1998 02:47:02 GMT

Fred Goodwin, CMA <fgoodwin@eden.com> wrote:
>Wolfgang Rupprecht <wolfgang@dailyplanet.wsrcc.com> wrote:
>>fgoodwin@eden.com (Fred Goodwin, CMA) writes:
>
>>They can call first and make an appointment.  I have yet to see anyone
>>quote a regulation that requires the telco to have unannounced and/or
>>unsupervised access to the demarc.
>
>That's why most residential demarcs are on the outside of the house.  And why
>should the telco schedule an appointment to repair its own property?

Because the telco has only an easement to place their equipment
on the residential owner's property.  The interface box may be
telco property, but the location and whatever it is attached to
is distinctly NOT their property.  They have NO guarantee or
right to unlimited access.

>>What pray tell are they going to do in the case where the demarc is
>>inside the building?
>
>Good point -- but I believe this thread was about an exterior demarc and the
>related security issues.  If the demarc is inside, then there is no security
>issue and this whole thread becomes moot.

But if a property owner determines that there is exposure to
risk of fraud with an exterior demarc, that owner is entitled to
enclose the demarc where it exists and require the telephone
company to schedule an appointment to access the equipment.  The
telephone company does exactly that on an every day basis with
many customers.  If they refused to do so they would also be
implicitly accepting all risk for any fraud that results!
Likewise if the property owner refuses to schedule appointments
(and keep them) the telco has the options of 1) not repairing
service drop troubles, and 2) disconnecting service if they
determine that a service affecting problem might be originating
at or beyond the demarc which they are unable to access for
testing.

Both parties have responsibilities.

>>As for your claim that they can damage a homeowner owned security box
>>around the demarc, and then bill the homeowner for the time required
>>to damage the box, would you also claim that they can smash a
>>person-size hole in the wall in the case of an internal demarc and
>>then turn around and bill for the time it took them to do the
>>damage???
>
>If you don't be serious and prefer to argue ridiculous points like this, fine
>-- go ahead.  This thread refers to an exterior demarc, and if the demarc is
>outside, there is no need for the extreme measures you refer to.

Are *you* being serious?

The property owner has the right to lock the premises as was
described, and any contention that the telco would have a right
to destroy the owners property without permission is to "argue
ridiculous points" in the extreme.  They have no such right.
Any attempt at billing a customer for time spent vandalizing
that customer's property would no doubt be subject to serious
consideration in the resulting court case!  Only the judge would
be able to refrain from snickering...  (most judges, anyway).

>If the demarc is inside, then there are no security issues.  In business

There *are* security issues!  There is a vast difference in just
who is responsible for them, that's all.

>settings, yes, the telco must schedule an appointment to gain entry to the
>building before working on the demarc.  I assume the same would apply to a
>residence with an interior demarc.

Exactly.  And constructing a lock box around an exterior demarc
is totally at the discretion of the property owner, and in the
process converts said demarc from "exterior" to "interior".

  Floyd



--
Floyd L. Davidson                                floyd@ptialaska.net
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                       floyd@barrow.com