|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 173 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Re: Help! Verizon/Fairpoint - Calling party control "never heard of it!"
Re: Help! Verizon/Fairpoint - Calling party control "never heard of it!"
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
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: Goodbye to copper?
====== 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 20:02:11 -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: <74dc23f6-3da5-4040-bdb4-28b10f3cf06f@v4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 23, 10:10 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?
Is the current 48V DC telephone set obsolete? It's using the same
signalling protocol of "common battery" switchboards of nearly 100
years ago.
Should we all have telephone sets that are VOIP compatible--is that
the new protocol? Do such sets need their own power?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:32:13 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <h201tc$g0e$1@news.eternal-september.org>
On 6/25/2009 5:47 AM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> [...]
> Should we all have telephone sets that are VOIP compatible--is that
> the new protocol? Do such sets need their own power?
Cisco 7960 (and similar) VoIP devices "prefer" PoE (Power over Ethernet), but
they can operate with external power supplies (e.g., "wall warts") on LANs
without PoE-capable switches.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:31:32 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <pan.2009.06.26.00.31.31.546786@myrealbox.com>
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:39:50 -0400, Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 6/25/2009 5:47 AM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> [...]
>> Should we all have telephone sets that are VOIP compatible--is that the
>> new protocol? Do such sets need their own power?
>
> Cisco 7960 (and similar) VoIP devices "prefer" PoE (Power over Ethernet),
> but they can operate with external power supplies (e.g., "wall warts") on
> LANs without PoE-capable switches.
Just on these Ethernet connected devices, does anyone know if the major
power use of these things is just keeping a valid Ethernet link going?
If we ever want to get wired non-PSTN devices close to the level of
reliability we currently have with PSTN devices, then perhaps someone
should be working on a way to reduce their power use to the level of
cellphone handsets.
--
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: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:16:32 +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.2009.06.26.00.16.31.503917@myrealbox.com>
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:47:45 -0400, hancock4 wrote:
> On Jun 23, 10:10Â 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?
>
> Is the current 48V DC telephone set obsolete? It's using the same
> signalling protocol of "common battery" switchboards of nearly 100 years
> ago.
>
> Should we all have telephone sets that are VOIP compatible--is that the
> new protocol? Do such sets need their own power?
All good points, but for a true evaluation perhaps we have to remove our
thinking of how the old technologies provide the service (phone
service powered from a central point, terminal line powered) and think
along the lines of the actual service to be provided - a usable voice
communication device that meets our requirements for reliability/cost etc?
It can be difficult to "think outside the box" for these things,
especially when they have been with (most of) us for all our lives, and
even more so if we are involved in a professional level, but perhaps it
may be worth while to let the discussion rip! ;-)
--
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 22:29:34 -0500
From: Field.Ops@Verizon.net
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Help! Verizon/Fairpoint - Calling party control "never heard of it!"
Message-ID: <Xns9C34EEFB5C5D8FieldOpsVerizonnet@216.196.109.144>
hemiguy1977 <rickthegeek@gmail.com> wrote in news:5b291663-4699-4a5d-
b918-c2a265b29216@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> Hello!
>
> I'm trying to configure a SPA-3102 and it's holding the PSTN port for
> a loooong time after the far end has hung up. The device is looking
> for a calling party control signal (removing talk battery for 250-500
> ms) but my switch is not sending this signal!
>
> I've checked with a meter, and yes, I am in fact *not* getting a CPC
> signal when the far end hangs up. I've called Fairpoint (formerly
> Verizon) and am getting the "ping-pong" treatment - the repair
> department says I need to talk to customer service, and the customer
> service department says I need to talk to repair!
>
> Is there anyone who knows what the "magic words" are to get Verizon/
> Fairpoint to enable CPC on my line? I've seen it referred to as
> "disconnect supervision", "open loop disconnect" and other such terms.
> If anyone knows how to enable it on a DMS-10 switch, the friendly
> manager I have been talking to can forward that on to the right
> people!
>
> Thanks!
> -Rick (rickthegeek (at) gmail (dot) com)
>
Rick.
Sorry about the late post/reply.
One important item missing from your description is "who" or what end
initiated the call?
The text below should help explain a few of the call release proceedures
as applied to end office subscriber lines.
Note: Any reference made to a loop battery reversal on line side
terminations (Loop/Ground Start), signify a far end answer supervision
sent back to the origination calling end. Reverse battery signaling does
not denote a signal on line side terminations.
Timed-Release Interval for Loop-Start and Ground-Start Interfaces
The following timed-release criteria apply to loop-start interfaces and
may be used on ground-start interfaces.
The duration of the timed-release interval shall be greater or equal to
10 seconds and equal or less than 12 seconds.
The duration of the timed-release interval should be as close as possible
to 10 seconds consistent with meeting requirement.
Loop-Start Interfaces
This following requirements apply when the call-terminating interface
uses loop-start signaling and the call-originating interface disconnects
first.
An SPCS shall apply a timed-release interval to the call-terminating
interface.
If an SPCS detects a disconnect signal from the loop-start call
terminating interface during the timed-release interval, the SPCS shall
return the interface to the idle state using the immediate-release
procedure.
Call-Originating Interface Disconnects First.
The procedures in this section apply when an SPCS detects a disconnect
signal from the call-originating interface before detecting a disconnect
signal from the call-terminating interface. The procedures in this
section do not apply to connections between ICT interfaces and OGT
interfaces (tandem calls).
When a disconnect signal is detected from a call-originating
interface, an SPCS shall use the immediate-release procedure to return a
loop-start interface to the idle state.
When a SPCS detects a disconnect from a ground-start interface, the
SPCS shall return the interface to the idle state using the immediate-
release procedure or the ground-start guard-release procedure.
It is an objective that the ground-start guard-release procedure be
used on a call-originating ground-start interface.
When a disconnect signal is detected from a call-originating
interface, an SPCS shall immediately release all connections call-
originating interface and the call-terminating interface.
Call-Terminating Interface Disconnects First.
The procedures in this section apply when an SPCS detects a disconnect
signal from the call-terminating interface before detecting a disconnect
signal from the call-originating interface. The procedures in this
section do not apply to connections between ICT interfaces and OGT
interfaces (tandem calls).
When a disconnect is detected from the call-terminating interface, an
SPCS shall maintain all connections between the call-originating
interface and the call-terminating interface or be capable of restoring
the connection between the interfaces without delay.
When a disconnect is detected from the call-terminating interface, the
SPCS will apply a timed-release interval to the call-originating
interface.
If the call-terminating interface returns to the off-hook state during
the timed-release interval, the SPCS shall return both interfaces to the
communication state.
If an SPCS detects a disconnect signal from the call-originating
interface during the timed-release interval, the SPCS shall immediately
release all connections between the call-originating interface and the
callterminating interface.
Loop-Start Interfaces
This following requirements apply when the call-originating interface
uses loop-start signaling and the call-terminating interface disconnects
first.
An SPCS shall apply a timed-release interval to the call-originating
interface.
If an SPCS detects a disconnect signal from a loop-start calloriginating
interface during the timed-release interval, the SPCS shall return the
call-originating interface to the idle state using the immediaterelease
procedure.
If an SPCS detects a disconnect signal from a loop-start calloriginating
interface during the timed-release interval and if the callterminating
interface uses loop-start signaling, the SPCS shall return the call-
terminating interface to the idle state using the immediate-release
procedure.
If an SPCS detects a disconnect signal from a loop-start calloriginating
interface during the timed-release interval and if the callterminating
interface uses ground-start signaling, the SPCS shall return the call-
terminating interface to the idle state using the immediate-release
procedure or the ground-start guard-release procedure.
O13-51 [507]It is an objective that the ground-start guard-release
procedure be used on a call-terminating ground-start interface.
If an SPCS detects a disconnect signal from a loop-start calloriginating
interface during the timed-release interval and if the callterminating
interface is an OGT interface, the SPCS shall return the callterminating
interface to the idle state using the OGT release-guard
procedure.
No Disconnect Signal Received Before the Expiration of the Timed-Release
Interval
This sections specifies the actions an SPCS will take when an interface
remains off-hook after the expiration of the timed-release interval.
At the expiration of the timed-release interval, the SPCS shall
immediately release any connections between the call-originating
interface and the call-terminating interface that have not been
previously released.
Requirement applies when a disconnect signal is detected from the call-
terminating interface first. Connections between the call-originating
interface and the call-terminating interface are released before the
timed-release interval when a disconnect signal is detected from the
call-originating interface first
..
Loop-Start Interfaces
The following requirements apply when the interface remaining off-hook
uses loop-start signaling.
When a loop-start line remains off-hook after the timed-disconnect
interval, an SPCS shall provide an option to apply the timed-disconnect
release procedure or apply permanent-signal treatment
The preferred procedure is to apply permanent signal treatment. Permanent
signal treatment prevents certain kinds of fraud. However, the timed-
disconnect release procedure may be needed to maintain compatibility with
some connecting equipment.
When selected, the option specified shall apply to all SPCS loop-start
interfaces.
It is an objective that exceptions to the SPCS selected option be
permitted on a per-loop-start interface basis.
The reverse loop current feed signaling state is used to provide a
service called line-side answer supervision. Line-side answer supervision
provides the calling party with an electrical indication that the called
party has answered the call.
When the call is answered the SPCS interface applies RLCF to the calling-
party access line.
Not all SPCS loop-start interfaces have to be capable of applying RLCF to
a loop-start access line. However, the SPCS must provide the capability
of applying RLCF to a specific loop-start access line when deemed
necessary by the network provider.
Regards,
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:11:58 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Help! Verizon/Fairpoint - Calling party control "never heard of it!"
Message-ID: <h207ke$okk$1@reader1.panix.com>
>> I've checked with a meter, and yes, I am in fact *not* getting a CPC
>> signal when the far end hangs up. I've called Fairpoint (formerly
>> Verizon) and am getting the "ping-pong" treatment - the repair
>> department says I need to talk to customer service, and the customer
>> service department says I need to talk to repair!
Don't hold your breath. CPC seems to be a forgotten stepchild.
I'm told that many current SLC [tm Lucent] and other similar boxs don't
even have the ability to interrupt the loop current on a pair. Real
switches may, but it's not always used.
After all, why should Ma help you cheat them? (Any time it's something
beyond dial tone, you must be a bad person out to do that...)
If you want CPC, just buy ground-start trunks!
Sigh: ISDN BRI *did* give you honest-to-gosh supervision, call
status, you name it. I always think of that when She pour all
that Bell_Juice about how FIOS will solve all problems.
--
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: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:15:44 -0500
From: Field.Ops@Verizon.net
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <Xns9C352AB54B20FieldOpsVerizonnet@216.196.109.144>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote in news:379641ef-a865-401e-ba53-
b659f3f64e6f@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 23, 7:26 pm, jmnormand.removet...@removethistoo.yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
>> As for forcing customers to "switch", this is just telco propaganda to
>> scare customers into higher priced plans they don't need.
>
> I have heard nothing about any telco propaganda. Around they have
> FIOS but no pressure at all.
>
You are absolutley correct with regards to regulation of services, not
facilities/technologies. How a circuit is designed and how it is carried to
the subscriber is not a tariff item, unless the customer is an IEC or CLEC.
The average PSC tafiffed consumer orders service, and it is delivered over
any available means. Metallic (Copper), or optical (Fiber) facilities. The
argument by end users over how a circuit is built is not new.
When a customer elects to subscribe to FTTP (FiOS), yes the CO line is
ported over to Digital Voice equipment (VoIP), the conventional line side
metallic switch interface, and analog loop disconnected (No dial tone).
However the copper cable is not ripped out!
For example, most Telco's have trouble making their connect due date
orders. The CO will certainly work the Disconnect order by pulling out the
cross-connect wire on the MDF. But the field will not chase a disco order.
The copper cable remains in-place, and the metallic pair is dead unless
reused for some other operational reason.
In the total optical fiber loop-network world of tomorrow, something none
of us will live to see, the copper plant network will be pulled out. First
to recover valuable urban duct space, and through depreciation of cable
assets it will be removed by regulatory directive. Just as the copper trunk
network was retired in one major US metropolitan city back in the 1990's.
Copper will probably remain for specialized applications that will be paid
for by that customer.
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:43:40 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <h209fs$sal$1@reader1.panix.com>
Field.Ops@Verizon.net writes:
>When a customer elects to subscribe to FTTP (FiOS), yes the CO line is
>ported over to Digital Voice equipment (VoIP), the conventional line side
>metallic switch interface, and analog loop disconnected (No dial tone).
>However the copper cable is not ripped out!
Read the MD PSC case for a different view; they have complaints from
customers.
>The copper cable remains in-place, and the metallic pair is dead unless
>reused for some other operational reason.
...
>Copper will probably remain for specialized applications that will be paid
>for by that customer.
You skip over the major legal difference: copper plant is regulated and
subject to resale [rental to CLEC's]. The FIOS fiber is explictly exempt.
I also harbor suspicians over cross-subsidization. The unregulated FIOS
fiber runs in regulated pole space, and through regulated duct space;
Does the FIOS business unit really pay rent on that at the rates any
other competitor would?
--
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, 25 Jun 2009 16:49:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <200906252049.QAA20250@ss10.danlan.com>
Field.Ops@Verizon.net wrote:
|You are absolutley correct with regards to regulation of services, not
|facilities/technologies. How a circuit is designed and how it is carried to
|the subscriber is not a tariff item, unless the customer is an IEC or CLEC.
Aren't tariffs (in at least some areas) fairly explicit about the interface
at the demark point, though? Does POTS as typically tariffed allow the
telco to require the customer to supply power for their equipment?
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:59:03 -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: <24b94acb-bab2-4b9c-a56c-30996dd1a2ad@g15g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 24, 4:26 pm, 1506 <adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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,
It is the nature of things. The rate of knowledge acquisition is
accelerating. Improvement or replacement happens in shorter life
cycles. The Audio CD will not have the lifespan of the vinyl album.
The computer technologies of the 50s and 60s has been improved and
upgraded over and over. Telecoms are no different. Fiber and VoIP
are in their infancy.
Adrian
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:22:07 -0500
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <0L6dnX1nBZayOd7XnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@supernews.com>
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> writes:
> Their 28 years' Usenet archives makes Google Groups a useful
> resource; one of my articles in sci.math from 1988 can be seen here:
Well good for you. Due to a kook war on a newsgroup I used to read,
everything I ever posted from 1991 to 2000ish is completly gone from
google groups, forever. Their 28 year figure is complete crap. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:05:36 -0500
From: Michael Grigoni <michael.grigoni@cybertheque.org>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <4A4402C0.90609@cybertheque.org>
PV wrote:
> Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> writes:
>
>
>>Their 28 years' Usenet archives makes Google Groups a useful
>>resource; one of my articles in sci.math from 1988 can be seen here:
>
>
> Well good for you. Due to a kook war on a newsgroup I used to read,
> everything I ever posted from 1991 to 2000ish is completly gone from
> google groups, forever. Their 28 year figure is complete crap. *
>
I had resisted replying to this but since you opened the door, I too
cannot find most of my posts to comp.* newsgroups from the early '90s.
And worse yet, there is bitrot in the archive wherein old posts from
others that I have bookmarked (web interface of course) when accessed
now come up as 'expired', 'deleted' or some other non sequitur.
Someone should promote an effort to collect private Usenet archives
and merge them into a publicly accessible repository before it is
too late.
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:31:41 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <4A4408DD.1090909@thadlabs.com>
On 6/25/2009 2:52 PM, PV wrote:
> Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> writes:
>
>> Their 28 years' Usenet archives makes Google Groups a useful
>> resource; one of my articles in sci.math from 1988 can be seen here:
>
> Well good for you. Due to a kook war on a newsgroup I used to read,
> everything I ever posted from 1991 to 2000ish is completly gone from
> google groups, forever. Their 28 year figure is complete crap.
Hmmm, I don't know about the "kook war", but Google acquired the Usenet
aspects of Deja in 2001.
I found the following quoted text in a file on one of my systems dated
back in 2001, but there is no reference (in the file) where I found the
info:
" On the other side, DejaNews, which had been just a web-based
" archive of USENET, added the capability of direct posting,
" effectively turning what was an archive into a full-fledged
" web-based message board, bridged to USENET.
"
" Then DejaNews changed their name to Deja.com, but then had a
" major computer crash that took them down completely. About
" six months later, Google bought out the remnants of Deja,
" reformed their archives, and announced the launching of
" Google Groups, which included not only the original USENET
" boards as well as any others anyone might wish to
" create. (It was in this period that the early messages were
" lost by Deja, not immediately repaired because of their
" down-time, and then permanently lost when the unrepaired
" remnant was passed to Google).
I do recall many people lamenting a 6-year archive loss, but your comments
suggest some Usenet groups may have taken a bigger "hit".
Deja News started in 1995, so it's not clear who had the earlier archives
later acquired by Google.
------------------------------
Date: 25 Jun 2009 16:43:45 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <h20ni1$bnu$1@panix2.panix.com>
David Clayton <dcstar@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?
Of course, when they are appropriate technologies. I cook my dinner every
evening using fire. It's been around for millennia. It's really good, and
I like it a lot. Why should I change when it's the appropriate technology
for the job?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:26:59 +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.2009.06.26.00.26.58.174443@myrealbox.com>
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:55:27 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> David Clayton <dcstar@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?
>
> Of course, when they are appropriate technologies. I cook my dinner every
> evening using fire. It's been around for millennia. It's really good,
> and I like it a lot. Why should I change when it's the appropriate
> technology for the job?
As long as it's not in the way of something better that others would
benefit from, of course.
The thing is that history is already full of examples of old technologies
being replaced (sometimes forcibly) by newer versions with varying degrees
of speed and acceptance (analogue to digital cell phone services, as
another recent example), so I am asking if there are other technologies
that we cling to now that perhaps we really shouldn't, and the good people
of this NG should be able to come up with good reasons for both sides of
the debate.
Some technologies make no sense at all to change, but that shouldn't stop
everything we currently use being re-evaluated as alternatives arise.
--
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: 25 Jun 2009 16:48:14 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <h20nqe$npp$1@panix2.panix.com>
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>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.
They will indeed, and they will charge a substantial fee to install a
new line to the building.
>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.
It's not irrelevant if it leads to a substantial charge for the consumer.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:49:38 -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: <207b4441-2d4d-4282-b8b0-5433b6b94c72@n19g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 25, 5:55 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >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.
>
> They will indeed, and they will charge a substantial fee to install a
> new line to the building.
What happens if someone new moves in? I strongly doubt an existing-
building occupant would be required to pay anything to run wire to
it. That's [Verizon's] problem.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:08:33 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <pan.2009.06.26.00.08.31.824363@myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:59:09 -0400, David Lesher wrote:
........
> 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.
Yep, but that is essentially a political decision and highlights that such
things hold back the use of potentially better technologies.
You have to wonder if the costs of the newer technologies (in the
long-term) would drop if they were to totally replace the older incumbent.
The issue (I suppose) is that by tying up old ways of doing things -
either by fixed rates or just our attitudes of resisting change - we miss
out on the benefits of the newer alternatives (or at least have them
reduced).
In the Telecoms area this sort of thing just doesn't apply to the physical
technology, I constantly have a chuckle at the dialling plan hoops you
people in North America constantly have to jump through because of the (to
me) seemingly irrational embrace the NANP has you in.
In Australia we recently (well, quite a few years ago) all went to 8 digit
local numbers, and despite all the whining of people who resisted it (some
bitterly) it is now accepted with no apparent problems whatsoever - and
its aims of eliminating any geographic number shortages now and in the
future have been achieved.
Sooner or later people have to decide if the convenience of doing things
in an old way outweighs the cost of changing.
--
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.
------------------------------
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.
End of The Telecom digest (18 messages)
******************************
|
or 