|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 172 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Re: Old analog cell phones--uses/disposal?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Pulse dialing overhead, was: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Re: Pulse dialing overhead, was: ANI vs. Caller ID
Goodbye to copper?
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
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.
====== 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: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:56:42 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <pan.2009.06.24.06.56.41.671609@myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:24:39 -0400, hancock4 wrote:
> On Jun 23, 10:10Â pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
.........
>> Telecom seems to be an area where the cost of retaining legacy
>> infrastructure may well be increasing the costs of better
>> infrastructure right now and/or slowing down the future deployment of
>> even better infrastructure.
>
> Actually, exactly where and what is the "cost of retaining legacy
> infrastructure"? The telcos can't upgrade the entire plant overnight.
I suppose the point I was trying to make is that retaining old technology
- like copper to premises - gets in the way of rolling out better
technology because of the sunk cost and the "if it works, leave it"
attitude that a lot of us have.
In a lot of developing countries that never really had much of this older
infrastructure, they seem to be going down different paths with wireless
(and other) Telecom technologies that may well result in these places
having a far better infrastructure situation than a lot of first-world
countries that hold on tightly to these old things!
Maybe the best question would be to ask - on the assumption that nothing
currently existed - what is current/future technology that should be used
right now to solve the need for the particular service to be delivered?
The follow-up question would be that if we aren't using that better
technology, is it because the old technology is "in the way"?
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <d2ef5450-4689-4df0-befa-6108341ef493@f30g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 24, 8:56 am, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > Actually, exactly where and what is the "cost of retaining legacy
> > infrastructure"? The telcos can't upgrade the entire plant overnight.
>
> I suppose the point I was trying to make is that retaining old technology
> - like copper to premises - gets in the way of rolling out better
> technology because of the sunk cost and the "if it works, leave it"
> attitude that a lot of us have.
I don't agree that old technology "gets in the way" of new technology,
neither physically nor administratively.
Remember, this is a 24/7 business, and any new technology must be
rolled out, tested, debugged, and ready for cutover before any of the
old infrastructure is removed. As to copper lines, a new line would
physically have to be laid; it's not like they can pull out copper
lines from a conduit or off a pole then replace them with fibre. The
same applies to switches.
(A restaurant or retail store can (and often do) close for a week
occasion for a full scale rennovation on , but a utility service
can't.)
There is nothing wrong with the "if it works, leave it" attitude.
Indeed, that maintains service quality because any new technology
comes with a risk. I was in a train station with new-fangled
automatic computerized display monitors, and a result of bad
information they displayed I missed my train and had to wait an hour
for the next one.
Very often hardware is replaced when the cost of repair and downtime
exceeds the cost of replacement, not obsolescence. Usually, but not
always, in the telephone business they don't wait that long. They
certainly didn't wait for manual switchboards to fail; they were
replaced by dial.
That being said, some people retain their automobile until it is
nothing but scrap metal. Others choose to upgrade every few years so
as to have the comfort of a new car without the headaches of repairs.
> In a lot of developing countries that never really had much of this older
> infrastructure, they seem to be going down different paths with wireless
> (and other) Telecom technologies that may well result in these places
> having a far better infrastructure situation than a lot of first-world
> countries that hold on tightly to these old things!
Very often the overseas situation is not exactly as described; one
must carefully research actual costs, availability, etc. In this
country, I can't help but wonder if we dumped our landlines and went
to cellular that cellular systems would get quite crowded and cell
rates would go up sharply.
> Maybe the best question would be to ask - on the assumption that nothing
> currently existed - what is current/future technology that should be used
> right now to solve the need for the particular service to be delivered?
But the reality is that we have existing infrastructure and it
represents an asset. To scrap 100% of it all at once requires that
the new technology is awfully cost efficient. Now, certainly they
have scrapped relatively new and expensive No. 5 crossbar offices for
ESS, or even newer No. 1 ESS for later models. But you need the
payoff.
> The follow-up question would be that if we aren't using that better
> technology, is it because the old technology is "in the way"?
No, the follow up question is: Who is going to pay for the new
technology? What will be the return on investment?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:22:12 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <8Ow0m.846$8d4.577@newsfe16.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> But the reality is that we have existing infrastructure and it
> represents an asset. To scrap 100% of it all at once requires that
> the new technology is awfully cost efficient. Now, certainly they
> have scrapped relatively new and expensive No. 5 crossbar offices for
> ESS, or even newer No. 1 ESS for later models. But you need the
> payoff.
>
>
>
>>The follow-up question would be that if we aren't using that better
>>technology, is it because the old technology is "in the way"?
>
>
> No, the follow up question is: Who is going to pay for the new
> technology? What will be the return on investment?
>
Then-Pacific Bell cut my local c.o. from 5XBAR to DMS-100 in 1984. The
next closest c.o. was cut from SxS to No1ESS in 1975, upgraded to 1A a
few years later. In 1990 that 1A was replaced with a No5ESS.
I suspect this is pretty much the end of it. The company has matured
and line growth is now negative. I suspect my local DMS-100 and the
nearby No5ESS will still be in service 50 years from now, and probably
longer.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:45:25 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <h1udui$id5$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Sam Spade wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> But the reality is that we have existing infrastructure and it
>> represents an asset. To scrap 100% of it all at once requires that
>> the new technology is awfully cost efficient. Now, certainly they
>> have scrapped relatively new and expensive No. 5 crossbar offices for
>> ESS, or even newer No. 1 ESS for later models. But you need the
>> payoff.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The follow-up question would be that if we aren't using that better
>>> technology, is it because the old technology is "in the way"?
>>
>>
>> No, the follow up question is: Who is going to pay for the new
>> technology? What will be the return on investment?
>>
> Then-Pacific Bell cut my local c.o. from 5XBAR to DMS-100 in 1984. The
> next closest c.o. was cut from SxS to No1ESS in 1975, upgraded to 1A a
> few years later. In 1990 that 1A was replaced with a No5ESS.
>
> I suspect this is pretty much the end of it. The company has matured
> and line growth is now negative. I suspect my local DMS-100 and the
> nearby No5ESS will still be in service 50 years from now, and probably
> longer.
>
Maybe not, the next generation IP switch and fiber are coming, this will
mean a few small CO's replacing the ones today. You may find one CO in
the place of 3 today. Verizon replaced 2 older electronic CO's with one
several years ago.
--
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, 24 Jun 2009 05:46:27 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <siegman-5F43B9.05455724062009@news.stanford.edu>
In article
<5ffefae1-9870-4642-925f-0c2cb9f99fef@e39g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> In any discussion like this we first must get out facts straight.
> These days, it includes separating out technology from policy, and
> marketing issues.
>
> We certainly don't know for sure if people were actually cut off from
> copper for fiber (I know I wasn't, and they seem in no rush to get me
> on fibre even if I wanted it).
The fact at issue, at least as I understood it, was not whether people
were _forced to shift their service_ from copper to fiber or cable,
whether or not they wanted to.
The asserted fact was instead that, after people had voluntarily shifted
their service away from copper to fiber or cable, the (now unused)
physical copper infrastructure was removed or cut or in some way
permanently disabled such that there could never be any return to it,
and that this was done in many cases without their knowing or being told
that this would happen.
Don't know for certain whether this latter version has actually happened
or not -- but I've seen it asserted numerous times.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <dff19a9e-f886-494e-bca6-56306360063c@l28g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 24, 8:56 am, AES <sieg...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> The asserted fact was instead that, after people had voluntarily shifted
> their service away from copper to fiber or cable, the (now unused)
> physical copper infrastructure was removed or cut or in some way
> permanently disabled such that there could never be any return to it,
> and that this was done in many cases without their knowing or being told
> that this would happen.
I find that very hard to believe because basic telephone service is
regulated, and as such, must be provided. If a subscriber chooses to
terminate FIOS and orders plain service to be restored, AFAIK the
company must and will provide it. I'd be extremely surprised if that
wasn't the case (and I'd think something more than aneectodal evidence
would be appropriate to substantiate the claim.)
Now, _how_ the phoneco restores the plain service is irrelevent. If
they leave the expensive fibre and terminal box to provide basic
service (advanced features cut out) that's there problem.
> Don't know for certain whether this latter version has actually happened
> or not -- but I've seen it asserted numerous times.
I strongly doubt it, for the reasons stated above.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:48:13 GMT
From: tlvp <PmUiRsGcE.TtHlEvSpE@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Old analog cell phones--uses/disposal?
Message-ID: <op.uv0qmkjuwqrt3j@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:41:18 -0400, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> Do old analog cell phones and accessories (AC charger, car charger)
> have any value or usefulness?
>
> This was discussed a year ago. The only use suggested at that time
> was a donation to a soldiers' service group but it was not clear
> whether analog phones had any value to them.
>
> Thanks.
From time to time cellular service providers will offer a
trade-in-your-old-handset deal for folks looking for a new
handset. T-Mo, for example, recently offered $50 (and up)
towards a BB flip. Just about any handset was acceptable,
even an old Nokia 2260 (AMPS & CDMA). Ancillary equipment
not needed.
As for old chargers/adapters, I always hang on to those, you
never know (and are always pleasantly surprised) when one
might come in handy (and you actually still have it) :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:41:24 GMT
From: "Gary" <fake-email-address@bogus.hotmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <U9p0m.893$9l4.507@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:cd45d1a0-b5e2-46ef-951b-5f6e426e2c4e@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
> They certainly did NOT "rip out copper" around here when they put in
> FIOS. Not everyone wants or needs FIOS.
My understanding is the "ripping out of copper" is a paperwork process, not
a physical process. I've heard that they file the paperwork to decommission
the pair, which frees them from maintaining it and offering to CLECs. The
copper remains to the NID, but it is legally disconnected.
When I had FIOS installed recently, I asked during signup to specifically
not decommission the pair. The salesperson assured me they wouldn't remove
the wire, but he did not understand my concern about decommissioning. I
called back to a different number the next day and asked again, and they too
said it wouldn't be removed.
Maybe one of the readers here can comment on my assumptions about
decommissioning.
I later learned that the first salesperson lied to me about something else
(*), so I've learned not to trust anything their telephone sales folk say.
I've no idea what the legal state of the pair to my home is now. However, I
do know that if I drop all FIOS services except POTS, I can still get
anything that's tariffed.
So, if in two years when my "price guarantee" expires VZ starts playing
games, I know I can switch to a cable provider and at least keep VZ for
POTs, if I choose.
-Gary
(*) When I signed up, VZ was offering an additional $5/month discount for
online signups. I called the FIOS sales desk to ask a few questions and
then planned to signup online, but the salesperson assured me he'd give me
the same discount. Once I got billed of course the discount was not there.
When I called VZ to sort it out, they told me the notes from my signup call
said he had told me could not give me the discount; this after I confirmed
with him at least three times! They did relent and give it to me; but like
I said, their sales people out and out lie. Beware.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:46:09 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <h1tl8h$bf7$1@reader1.panix.com>
(Argh: once again done in by dynamic URL's.... Let me try again:)
>Every time VZ puts in a FIOS deployment, they rip out the copper.
Clearly this must be a misunderstanding. Why, the senior PR flack for
Verizontal, VP Tom Tauke, in his 2 Oct 2007 House testimony resoundingly
DENIED that his company would/could ever cut down your copper.....
Thus the dozen-odd people I have spoken to who swear such happened to
them must be victims of mass delusion.
1) Go to the Maryland PSC site: <http://psc.state.md.us> and enter
Case 9123 on the lower left.
Retrieve document #63, "Initial Testimony of Steven Nocella.
Case No. 9123" and go to page 59, Attachment 9.
It is a partial transcript of:
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the
Internet Holds Hearing on Telecommunications Competition held on
Oct. 2, 2007.
The webcast and transcript that it came from can also be seen at the
Subcommittee site:
http://archives.energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-ti-hrg.100207.DigFuture.Part6.shtml
There you can see Mr. Tom Tauke, senior VP for Verizon say:
Let's start, Mr. Chairman, with the fact. The fact is we don't
disable the copper loops.
We have not disabled copper loops to any home to which we have
extended fiber, and we continue to provide services to competitors
over copper loops in areas where we provide fiber.
If you read more on MD PSC case 9123, I think it fair to say that that is
not exactly what the customers and the PSC are finding out to be the case.
For the benefit of Mr. Clayton; there's a vital bureacratic difference between
the copper and the glass. Verizontal is required to share [rent] the copper
to CLEC's that provide telephone &/or data. That is NOT the case for the fiber.
Thus, by cutting down the copper; Verizon is trapping people onto their offering.
It also precludes them from moving from FIOS to cheaper Verizon DSL...and guess
what... they just raised FIOS prices this week.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Pulse dialing overhead, was: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <afe2f56e-06cf-48af-9e98-6f8ede609800@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 23, 7:24 pm, Robert Neville <d...@bother.com> wrote:
> T <kd1s.nos...@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
>> But Bell was cagey, they were keep LD rates artificially high to
>> subsidize the local service.
> In all fairness to Bell - that was at the bequest of the various
> state PUCs who saw long distance as a luxury or business
> service. Regular people wrote letters by post for interstate
> communication to friends and relatives. In effect, taxing long
> distance to subsidize the local service was a political decision. It
> fell apart as all subsidies eventually do, when businesses got tired
> of paying inflated rates and challenged the laws that prevented
> alternate services like MCI.
The goal of the regulators was universal service. The "entry" rate
for the most basic residential and business phone services was
intentionally kept as low as possible to encourage as many people as
possible of modest means to have a phone. This applied to tiny
businesses as well. Premium services, both toll calls and equipment,
cost more intentionally.
Also note that Bell rates were intentionally ordered to be uniform, by
air miles, not actual transmission costs. So a low-cost corridor,
such as Chicago to St. Louis ended up being priced above cost, while a
high cost corridor, such as in Montanna, was priced below actual cost.
What sleazy MCI and certain regulators did was allow MCI to skim off
the cream of the business--to undersell AT&T in profitable corridors
but not have any of the high cost obligations. Indeed, Bell attempted
to respond with a lower rate Telpak offering and the regulators denied
it. (Bell did offer WATS lines for high volume long distance users.)
MCI didn't bother handling any 'difficult' calls, only the easy ones.
Customers having trouble were simply told to use AT&T instead (by
code, not by name.)
The kicker is TODAY we STILL subsidize low-end users, only this time
it's an explicit line item on the bill for _all_ local subscribers. I
don't know if cable, VOIP or cell phone users have to pay it. They
certainly should since the rest of us do.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: 1506 <adrian_auerhudson@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <f86d2aca-120b-4e16-ad64-3ba45fc5e968@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 23, 7:10 pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Having read the recent posts about people being cut off copper for fiber,
> and also being compelled to switch to Digital TV, it occurs to me that the
> underlying question should be is it really fair to retain - essentially
> ancient - technologies?
>
> Perhaps we should evaluate the ongoing costs/benefits of retaining or
> replacing these technologies, as it seems that the costs may well be
> outweighing the benefits now and in the future.
>
> I can see good arguments myself for both sides, but in reality a lot of
> these things are a bit like allowing "horse and buggy" vehicles onto a
> freeway and then requiring the freeway to accommodate them safely by
> providing legacy infrastructure (maybe a special lane just for them) or
> slowing everyone else down to their maximum capability - possible (and
> good for the horse and buggy user) but really tying up resources that
> newer technologies can use more efficiently.
>
> Telecom seems to be an area where the cost of retaining legacy
> infrastructure may well be increasing the costs of better infrastructure
> right now and/or slowing down the future deployment of even better
> infrastructure.
>
> Is it worth it? (let the debate begin, I'm sure there are plenty of people
> with good points for both sides in this NG.....)
>
Another aspect to this debate is the lifespan of technologies. The
new technologies of today may be superseded in significantly fewer
years than those which they replace.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Why is that so?
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:25:09 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Pulse dialing overhead, was: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <c49.3af88563.37741de5@aol.com>
In a message dated 6/24/2009 2:54:32 PM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> The goal of the regulators was universal service. The "entry" rate
> for the most basic residential and business phone services was
> intentionally kept as low as possible to encourage as many people as
> possible of modest means to have a phone. This applied to tiny
> businesses as well. Premium services, both toll calls and
> equipment, cost more intentionally.
You must be speaking in state regulators. The FCC, which regulated
interstate long distance, had no such goal. The FCC required long
distance rates to be as low as possible.
> Also note that Bell rates were intentionally ordered to be uniform,
> by air miles, not actual transmission costs. So a low-cost
> corridor, such as Chicago to St. Louis ended up being priced above
> cost, while a high cost corridor, such as in Montanna, was priced
> below actual cost.
That was interstate service and so under the FCC's jurisdiction.
An artifact was that in a large state the long distance rates,
subsidizing local service, were often (usually) higher over
considerable distances than interstate calls, which were regulated by
the FCC.
A notable example often cited is that the rate from Dallas to Phoenix
(interstate) was lower than the rate from Dallas to El Paso
(intrastate), although the distance to El Paso was less than the
distance to Phoenix.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:46:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Stephen Ronan <sronan.removethis@andthistoo.panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0906241929350.8594@panix2.panix.com>
There are some items toward the bottom of the page here that
might be of interest, though somewhat tangential to your
questions, which I hope list members here can address more
directly:
http://www.budde.com.au/presentations/Digital_Economy_Industry_Group.asp
For example, these two:
# FttP Networks Topology and competition
http://www.budde.com.au/presentations/content/FttP%20Networks%20Topology%20and%20competition.pdf
# Big Think Strategies - Costings and open network issues in
relation to FttH deployments
http://www.budde.com.au/presentations/content/2009_Big_Think_FttH_costings.pdf
And there are some interesting resources here, such as the Robin
Hood approach article:
http://groups.google.com/group/nyc-community-fiber/web/related-projects-beyond-nyc?hl=en
- Stephen
> ------------------------------
> If I wanted to DIY fiber, especially plastic, what does it take?
>
> Any good 'how to' sites someone knows about?
>
> Any reasonable (i.e. cheap or diy or kit) ethernet to/from fiber
> transceivers easily available?
>
> TIA...
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
***** Moderator's Note *****
Reprinted with author's permission
------------------------------
End of The Telecom digest (13 messages)
******************************
|
or 