|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 71 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: AT&T adds thousands of jobs
Re: AT&T adds thousands of jobs
Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Two Numbers on One Landline
2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Re: To Bury or Not to Bury
Oklahoma, Utah Lead the Pack in Cell Phone-Only Households
====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:06:56 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: AT&T adds thousands of jobs
Message-ID: <lVFtl.14038$W06.4141@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> ABC News reported tonight that at&t will add a few thousand jobs in
> its wireless and broadband units.
>
> This is of course welcome news these days. But I strongly doubt the
> jobs will be as good as jobs once offered in the old Bell System. I
> can't help but suspect any jobs dealing with the public will be on
> commission with demands for aggressive sales goals. I'm not
> optimistic about the technical jobs either. Hopefully I am wrong
> about this.
>
> If anyone is familiar with the internal corporate culture at today's
> at&t your comments would be appreciated.
>
> [public replies, please]
>
That would depend on what unit within the company. If they were tech
jobs the pay would be very good because there is a high demand for these
kind of jobs. Since I retired I have done a lot of contract work in
Central Office Installation and I only want t o work 6 months, but I get
calls all the time even when I'm on another job. When they ask me what
I'm looking for I get what I ask plus expense. Also these jobs can't be
done in India.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: AT&T adds thousands of jobs
Message-ID: <2dbf3973-f20e-4535-87b5-7d462fd1d536@w9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
> ABC News reported tonight that at&t will add a few thousand jobs in
> its wireless and broadband units.
Here is a link to the article, which goes into some detail about
traffic carried and the business:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=7049258
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:25:39 -0500
From: "Who Me?" <hitchhiker@dont.panic>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Message-ID: <OaGtl.15476$as4.14532@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>
<chithi123@gmail.com> wrote
> The phone rep said the only way would be installing another line at
> the new location - something the landlord does not permit.
>
The two obvious solutions are: Remote (Fixed) call forwarding of the second
number to the first, like Bill mentioned
OR
If the building is new enough to have quad (four conductor) inside wire in
place already, no additional inside wiring would be required for the second
line and I'm not sure the landlord can legally prevent additional drops to
the premises (what would be the point?).
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:04:00 -0400
From: Carl Navarro <cnavarro@wcnet.org>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Message-ID: <p1her4dlea17pie6el41k7q0i40vbph3mi@4ax.com>
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:45:54 -0400 (EDT), chithi123@gmail.com wrote:
>Is it possible for Ma Bell to provide me service for 2 numbers on one
>phone line? The reason is that we are consolidating at one location
>and would like to keep both phones.
>
>The phone rep said the only way would be installing another line at
>the new location - something the landlord does not permit.
>
>The other option I have is to port the number to my cellphone but I
>the phone rep could not guarantee me that there would be no downtime
>in the dsl service if I were to do this since the cell provider is
>tmobile.
>
>Does anyone have any insight on how to convince ATT to configure their
>switch to route 2 numbers to the same line
Are both numbers served out of the same central office? If they are,
Identa Ring/Smart Ring/Teen Line can land both numbers on the same
line.
Unless your building is historic or construction is improbable, I fail
to see why the landlord would not permit you to add another line.
Subscriber carrier techniques went out the window with the DSL as it
uses the same or similar frequencies as the DSL.
If you have a chance, you could sign up for VoIP service and port the
number to VoIP. It may take 30 days to get it done. In the meantime,
order Call Forwarding on the remote number and forward it. Then order
the porting to VoIP.
Just a couple of thoughts.
Carl
------------------------------
Date: 11 Mar 2009 10:32:20 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Message-ID: <20090311103220.20996.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
> Is it possible for Ma Bell to provide me service for 2 numbers on
> one phone line? The reason is that we are consolidating at one
> location and would like to keep both phones.
Sure. The name for that feature is distinctive ring. Technically,
they can do it in two seconds so long as the two numbers are both on
the same switch, although since it's AT&T, there's lots of
bureaucratic reasons they might not want to do it.
Failing that, I concur with the advice to port it to a cheap VoIP provider.
R's,
John
PS:
>3. Switch to ISDN service, which can provide two separate call paths
> on a single pair. It tends to be pricey, but you'll have full use of
> both lines at your new location. I don't know if this will work
> with ADSL.
Can't have ISDN and DSL on the same pair.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:29:26 -0500
From: Hudson Leighton <hudsonl@skypoint.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Message-ID: <hudsonl-419315.10292511032009@news.isp.giganews.com>
In article
<dbde69af-661b-4007-82c5-5cf4d2f50dac@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
chithi123@gmail.com wrote:
> Is it possible for Ma Bell to provide me service for 2 numbers on one
> phone line? The reason is that we are consolidating at one location
> and would like to keep both phones.
>
>
> Thanks, /chi
Distinctive ringing, at one time I had 3 numbers on one pair.
-Hudson
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:40:00 -0500
From: "Gray, Charles" <charles.gray@okstate.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Two Numbers on One Landline
Message-ID: <38330A1CC0CF4C40ACDD33EDD32190E2894CA95304@STWEXE2.ad.okstate.edu>
My daughter in central Ohio has two numbers on one line - one for the home and
one for the business. Distinctive ring patterns identify which number was
called. Signaling System 7 should accommodate two numbers (or more - but I
don't know about this for sure) on one pair.
Regards.
Charles G. Gray
Senior Lecturer, Telecommunications
Oklahoma State University - Tulsa
(918) 594-8433
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:56:16 -0400
From: "David Hunt" <dhunt@mscon.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Message-ID: <007201c9a248$c5332c20$4f998460$@com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
chithi123@gmail.com said:
> Is it possible for Ma Bell to provide me service for 2 numbers on one phone
> line? The reason is that we are consolidating at one location and would
> like to keep both phones.
It is possible to have two numbers on one line. It is typically
called teen line and has two distinctive ringtones. However, it may
be that they do not allow it for business lines. You can check the
tariff to determine if it is allowed.
David Hunt
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:02:03 -0400
From: Will Roberts <oldbear@arctos.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Message-ID: <0MKp8S-1LhO4W1rbs-000g2b@mrelay.perfora.net>
In Telecom Digest, <chithi123@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it possible for Ma Bell to provide me service for 2 numbers on one
> phone line? The reason is that we are consolidating at one location
> and would like to keep both phones.
[snip: lots of good options suggested by moderator Bill Horne]
If your local exchange carrier offers "Ring-Mate" (tm), or whatever it
calls its brand of selective ring service, providing one or more
supplemental phone numbers with different ringing cadences on the same
line, that might be a way to go. The service certainly provides
multiple numbers on the same line and the porting of your old numbers
should not be too difficult, especially if done at the same time.
The cost of this service is typically only a few dollars per month,
maybe $3 or so, and much less than a separate additional line.
(If you are not familiar with selective ring, think of the old "party
line" services which a line was shared by several subscribers, each of
whom had a difference ring cadence.)
Keep in mind that, when placing and outgoing call, only the primary
number will appear as caller ID or billing ANI. So, if you want to
keep one of your numbers concealed, have the telco make it the
secondary number and not the primary number.
Regards,
Will
***** Moderator's Note *****
My thanks to everybody, and their brothers, aunts, uncles, nephews,
cousins, sisters, brothers, parents, grandparents, and significant
others, who pointed out the availability of party^h^h^h^h^hRingMate
service.
Ya leave out one answer, and from then until the heat-death of the
universe, it's "What about RingMate, Bill?". Jeesh! ;-)
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:03:05 +0000 (UTC)
From: ranck@vt.edu
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Message-ID: <gp8qs9$hs1$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu>
chithi123@gmail.com wrote:
> Is it possible for Ma Bell to provide me service for 2 numbers on one
> phone line? The reason is that we are consolidating at one location
> and would like to keep both phones.
My wife runs a chocolate shop and when she temporarily closed one
location she had the phone number forwarded to the other. Both numbers
rang on the same line (in a different town and exchange).
> The phone rep said the only way would be installing another line at
> the new location - something the landlord does not permit.
You had a clueless rep.
Not sure what to say about your landlord.
Seems pretty silly to disallow another phone line, but not knowing
the exact situation I can only speculate. I will point out that
most modern phone wire has 2 pairs, so no additional wiring may
be needed to accomodate a second line, but there could be insufficient
pairs in the building drop or something.
> line. Here in Verizon territory, this is called Remote Call Forwarding.
Yep, that's what they called it. Oh, the 800 number that rang to the
forwarded number continued to work as well.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Message-ID: <bbee3ea2-bce4-4bde-b4e5-ae519bef4680@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> 3. Switch to ISDN service, which can provide two separate call paths
> on a single pair. It tends to be pricey, but you'll have full use of
> both lines at your new location. I don't know if this will work
> with ADSL.
This was discussed in the past, but I remain confused over the
difference between "ISDN" and "DSL". In the past, ISDN was supposed
to be the big wave of the future, but then DSL came out and we heard
little about ISDN after that. Could someone explain the differences,
and why DSL replaced it?
Thanks.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I have always been puzzled by Ma Bell's distaste for ISDN: if there's
someone reading this that knows The Real Truth(tm), PLEASE tell us
why.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: 11 Mar 2009 21:28:29 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Message-ID: <gp9oft$3u6$1@panix2.panix.com>
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>This was discussed in the past, but I remain confused over the
>difference between "ISDN" and "DSL". In the past, ISDN was supposed
>to be the big wave of the future, but then DSL came out and we heard
>little about ISDN after that. Could someone explain the differences,
>and why DSL replaced it?
They are totally different services that bear no connection with one
another and do not serve the same purposes.
ISDN is a data service that is intended for realtime data connection.
Among other popular services, it is possible to provide digital telephone
service from the exchange over ISDN. This was quite popular in Europe.
Some people have used ISDN for internet access over the years, but it
is cumbersome and badly tariffed.
For the most part the primary users of ISDN in the US are people who
have realtime data and need fixed latency connections, like radio
stations doing remote broadcasts. Odds are when you tune into a radio
broadcast of a sports event, the connection from the stadium to the
radio station is an ISDN link carrying MUSCAM-compressed audio. It is
a switched service... the engineer plugs a codec unit into the line at
the stadium, and dials the ISDN circuit at the station.
DSL is a whole bunch of different services entirely, but they are all
involving non-realtime data connections of various sources, often
piggybacked onto POTS pairs. It does not replace ISDN, it is an utterly
different thing. As far as I know, DSL is _only_ used to deliver internet
service. No point to point links are available and it is not switched.
Like all internet services, there is no real guarantee of latency or
that your packets will even arrive at the other end.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
***** Moderator's Note *****
ISTR that there was a DSL service which shared the same coding scheme
as ISDN: I think it was called IDSL. IIRC, it was good out to 18Kf,
just like ISDN, but was limited a maximum of 384 Kbps, although it
provided symetric bandwidth. It could not, however, be used on the
same pair of wires as a POTS line, like ADSL.
Back before ADSL or cable data connections were available here, I
spent a lot of time trying to figure out ways to convince Verizon to
put a full-time data line in at my house. I even had the phone line
converted to ISDN, and tried that out for a couple of days using a
Motorola BitSurfer adapter. Unfortunately, Verizon could never figure
out how to make the lines ring: it seems there is a separate CO option
for that, and they finally gave up, tore up the bill, and switched me
pack to POTS.
It was for the best, because there were so few ISP's offering ISDN
terminations that I had to dial into Boston and access The World just
to get to an ISDN-aware ISP. I live about twenty miles away, and that was
too long a distance: I realized that the per-minute charges were going
to make it impractical.
The upside was the data transfer rates, which were phenominal for that
time: I could bond the two channels and get 128 Kbps throughput. I've
always compared my other data lines to the ISDN connection, since it
had the lowest latency of any data connection I've ever used.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:02:28 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Message-ID: <gpa514$ibe$1@reader1.panix.com>
>I have always been puzzled by Ma Bell's distaste for ISDN: if there's
>someone reading this that knows The Real Truth(tm), PLEASE tell us why.
Scott Adams worked on ISDN for PacBell. Does that explain where
Dilbert came from?
ISDN-BRI was *telephone service*. Not just technically, but politically
within Ma. But the fact that it was carrying data meant several things:
a) Internal warfare between the Voice and Data camps; perhaps not so
much in the union crafts but also the mid-level folks.
b) Greed: the shiny-pants bean-counters were determined to charge by the
minute. That doomed it.
Add to that:
High installation costs. ISDN BRI required better pair quality than
voice. No so mucb better than Ma CLAIMED to have but rather better than
reality, after decades of skimping on outside plant budgets. But since
it was tariffed telco service; if you knew how to make a stink, you could
get it.
[Note that Verizontal blew $$$$ on the software update for every CO, then
figured out it was a P&L disaster.]
It's no longer marketed for Internet access as it's too slow to compete,
but does have some real advantages for some apps. You can use it for
fallback on DS1 failures; while awaiting same, it's the fax line, etc.
It is also widely used in large Centrex's. BRI allows you to have a fancy
feature-full phone on your desk, with multiple line appearances and
indicators and great conferencing etc... yet work over a 'n' mile long
loop.
It delivers PERFECT voice quality; so quiet that you look down at the LED
during silences to be sure the call is still going on. And it has real
supervision. Plus; it offered remote maint. She could run a metallic loop
test from the CO, and know, not guess, about the line issue.
But Ma pulled a real General Motors, and ended up shooting themselves
in both feet. Too bad; they could have saved themselves a lot of
long-term grief if only...
[I bet Fred Goldstein has some comments as well...]
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:08:17 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Message-ID: <gpa5c1$ibe$2@reader1.panix.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>This was discussed in the past, but I remain confused over the
>difference between "ISDN" and "DSL". In the past, ISDN was supposed
>to be the big wave of the future, but then DSL came out and we heard
>little about ISDN after that. Could someone explain the differences,
>and why DSL replaced it?
ISDN is tariffed telephone service; with 128Kbps of data in the last
mile. It moved the A->D converter into your phone.
But it was marketed as a Internet access solution; for which it
was not a big enough improvement to matter [by the time She
got around to deploying it.]
DSL is a rework of Ma's attempt to offer Video on Demand via copper. It
works in the spectrum above voice, on the same pair....for a limited
distance.
It's NOT a tariffed service; there are no guarantees you can get it, keep
it working, etc. But if it works, it's much faster downstream than ISDN
was.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
***** Moderator's Note *****
There _was_ friction between the "data" and the "voice" groups on the
subject of ISDN: getting 64 Kbps connections required access to "full
rate" T-Carrier channels, and most voice trunks were limited to 56
Kbps.
The biggest issue was hold time: data calls throw the stats off, and
ISDN calls probably tended to use more links than other calls, because
so few ISPs were equipped for it.
Of course, pushing ISDN would have meant re-educating the field techs,
buying more equipment, supporting ISDN along with POTS, etc., etc. I'd
bet that Ma Bell's planners knew that everyone was going to go to
high-speed links anyway, and they didn't want to overbuild the
switched network to accomodate more ISDN when it was going to be a
"flash in the pan" from their viewpoint.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:52:59 -0600
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: To Bury or Not to Bury
Message-ID: <49B824AB.2080409@annsgarden.com>
David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Vehicles can't crash into power poles that aren't there, winds can't
> affect power lines that are underground, and the visual pollution of
> underground power distribution is limited to the access ports on the
> pavement.
Are "access ports" in Australia the same things that we call "manhole
covers" here in the USA -- round steel plates about a meter in diameter?
Where are equipment enclosures (transformers and switchgear) located?
Are they also underground?
"Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> I've also read reports that indicate trouble shooting and repairing
> underground power lines near the end of their life is very expensive.
Troubleshooting and repairing any kind of underground cables -- power,
telco, or CATV -- is expensive at any point during the life of the
cables. Physical damage due to excavation work can occur at any time.
To the extent that repair work is required near the end of life, it's
usually caused by failure of the insulation. This is a slow process,
more likely to occur after a period of years. Reasons include corrosion
caused by water (and whatever chemicals are dissolved in it); rodent and
tree-root damage; and (in the case of power lines) conductor heating
caused by I-squared-R heating.
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> As to burying power lines, obviously individual lines to houses and
> lines to a block of houses can be buried. But is there a limit to the
> amount of voltage on a line that can economically be placed
> underground?
Depends on what you mean by "economical." There's no inherent "limit"
imposed by voltage, but there's certainly a tradeoff between voltage and
cost. Given enough money, you could probably put anything underground.
As Will Roberts noted in TD 28:69, a 345-kv line exists in Boston. By
my calculation, that line cost about $12 million/mile. But even that
cost was (presumably) economical when compared to the cost (both in
dollars and PR issues) of building it overhead.
An even bigger problem is conductor heating. For any given power,
current is the inverse of voltage, and the resulting I-squared-R loss
produces heat. That heat must be dissipated through insulation. If the
insulation does not dissipate it safely, the insulation will fail.
The best insulation provides high electrical resistance and low thermal
resistance -- in other words, air. Which is why almost all overhead
power conductors are uninsulated -- just bare metal swinging in the
breeze. Only customer drops (typically between 115 and 460 volts) are
insulated.
For obvious reasons, underground cables have to be insulated with
something else. There are two ways to control I-squared-R heating: by
reducing current (increasing voltage) or by reducing resistance (using
larger conductors). Both ways are employed, but larger conductors are
more obvious: take a look at a primary riser, and you'll see an abrupt
transition between the relatively small uninsulated conductors and the
much larger conductors sticking out of the insulation at the top of the
riser.
> I'll note that while in the city phone lines are buried, in the
> suburbs they're on poles.
Phone and cable TV lines don't conduct much power so I-squared-R heating
is not a problem.
"Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net> also wrote:
> One newspaper report I just read stated that underground power lines
> cost from 4 to 10 times as much as overhead lines.
A lot depends on the costs of right-of-way acquisition and restoration
requirements.
Construction in a new residential neighborhood (before lots are
developed) is relatively inexpensive: the power company digs a trench,
dumps in a "sand bed" (4"-6" of sand), all three companies (power,
telco, and CATV), lay their cables, power puts in another layer of sand,
then backfills the trench with the spoil and compacts it. Except for
backfill, there are no restoration costs. Right-of-way (usually by
easement) is dedicated in the original plat.
Construction in established residential neighborhoods costs a lot more.
Even if utility easements already exist, explaining that to homeowners
can be a challenge. Actual construction can be a nightmare -- see my
earlier post about the problems cable TV companies face in such
situations at http://tinyurl.com/cm29d.
Randall <rv...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Our electric monopoly, long-ago privatized, said in September and
> repeated in January that it would cost ratepayers a million dollars a
> mile to bury the lines. Overhead lines were said to be one tenth of
> that.
That's a common rule-of-thumb for moving existing overhead to
underground. But as Tony Toews noted:
> So I'd want to see some detailed cost estimates and real world
> experiences before agreeing that underground power lines are a "good
> thing".
Absolutely!
Randall <rv...@insightbb.com> also wrote:
> No mention was made of what it would cost to cut the damned
> trees that took out the lines both times.
Or the wrath of local homeowners if it actually tried to do it?
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
> That is all industry bovine effluent. First of all automatic
> trenching equipment is available these days. Cut and cover and bury
> it all. Second of all you [can] run everything through massive
> conduits.
Sure, if you're putting the cable in an open field. But try running
your automatic trenching equipment down a backlot easement in an
established residential neighborhood, working your way around tree
roots, swing sets, fences, gardens, swimming pools, lawn-sprinkler
pipes, dog houses....
Or try running it down a congested city street, working your way around
sewer pipes, catch basins, water mains, gas mains, steam pipes, telco
conduits, telco manholes, abandoned coal bins, abandoned streetcar
rails, colonial-era cobblestones....
I agree that all conductors should be in conduit (although I must admit
that I've been responsible for many miles of direct-bury CATV cable).
Power companies routinely install transmission and cables in conduit,
typically 4- or 6-inch Schedule 80 PVC, one conduit per conductor (and
sometimes they provide extra conduits for telco, CATV, or whatever).
Then they encase the entire bundle of conduits in concrete. The end
result looks like a buried sidewalk three or four feet deep.
But doing all that requires a lot of hand work. Even if automatic
trenching equipment is used to dig the trench, workers still have to
place the conduits, build forms for the concrete, and guide the wet
concrete into position. When the work is done, the trench must be
backfilled, compacted, and the surface restored to as-was condition.
Workers are also needed to pull the conductors through the conduits and
terminate them.
Then there's the problem of finding space for transformers, splices,
and switchgear. In suburban areas, you can put this stuff in big steel
boxes above ground and hope that nobody complains. But in congested
urban centers, there's no place for it above ground. So you either
have to construct manholes or put it in the basement of a nearby
building. You can imagine the difficulties these options would
encounter.
You can put a lot of transformers and switchgear on poles, and most
people don't even notice.
What's been your experience with NYSEG there in Trumansburg? Are they
converting overhead to underground? If so, how are they placing the
cables -- in conduits or direct burial? Where are they putting the
transformers and switchgear? Who's paying for it? Are they burying
telephone and CATV at the same?
> NYC is probably the worst case example, where the city is built on a
> slab of rock, and digging the tunnels involves jackhammers and
> blasting. They flood, too. But given the density of wires there,
> overhead simply stopped being practical in the heart of the city,
> although there's still plenty of overhead in the outer boroughs.
For only ten times the cost of putting the stuff on poles....
Neal McLain
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:49:42 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Oklahoma, Utah Lead the Pack in Cell Phone-Only Households
Message-ID: <6645152a0903112049v57f1882m6115e9c11feb5801@mail.gmail.com>
"Trendy California isn't a trendsetter when it comes to relying on
cell phones. And while the 1987 movie "Wall Street" helped introduce
the then-brick-sized mobile phone to popular culture, New York and
other Northeast states lag in dropping landlines. Surprisingly,
Oklahoma and Utah lead in going wireless, according to federal
estimates released Wednesday."
More at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508927,00.html
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
For syndication examples see http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecomDigest
Copyright (C) 2008 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of The Telecom digest (16 messages)
******************************
|
or 