|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 174 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: 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: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was 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: 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: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
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: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:05:23 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <4A447333.1080108@thadlabs.com>
On 6/25/2009 8:59 PM, David Clayton wrote:
> 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?
Cisco developed the PoE concept in 2000 for VoIP telephony. I've setup several
asterisk phone systems using Cisco 7960 and Polycom IP4000 devices. The 7960
use PoE and the Polycoms have an external power module.
PoE is 48 volts DC, and many/most/all PoE telephony devices could consume up
to 15+ Watts of power.
Devices such as the Cisco 7960 and Polycom IP4000 are, for all intents and
purposes, computers with integrated RAM, FLASH, LCD display, Ethernet, audio
circuitry, etc. and are intended to operate 24/7. When there's a power failure
they get their IP address via DHCP followed by a tftp boot for the operating
system.
Looking at this Cisco document:
< http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/paws/97869/poe-requirement-faq.pdf >
there are power issues with PoE Ethernet switches. Depending on the standard,
the phones will use up to 15.4 Watts but negotiation can drop usage to 7 W.
Some Cisco switches with 48 ports and only 370W power capability can be quite
problematic and unable to support 48 phones.
If you have specific questions about the 7960, IP4000 and/or asterisk, I'd be
happy to answer from my notes and memory, though it's been slightly over a year
since I've "played" with an asterisk VoIP system and the devices. My notes do
span several CDs and include literally all the docs and manuals.
> 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.
Two new systems I have arriving soon are complete, full-featured Linux "boxes"
which are about the size of a wall-wart power supply and consume less than 5 W,
have GiGE, USB, and other features. Glance at these pictures:
http://www.cyrius.com/debian/kirkwood/sheevaplug/gallery.html
Product details can be seen here:
http://www.marvell.com/featured/plugcomputing.jsp
and
http://www.marvell.com/files/products/embedded_processors/kirkwood/SheevaPlug-002_WEB.pdf
Another low-power and amazingly low-priced possibility is this:
http://www.globalscaletechnologies.com/t-openrdcdetails.aspx
"Green" computing is clearly here. :-)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:53:25 -0500
From: "John F. Morse" <xanadu@example.invalid>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <8a08c$4a44fd07$4aded8bf$23802@EVERESTKC.NET>
Thad Floryan wrote:
> Cisco developed the PoE concept in 2000 for VoIP telephony. I've setup several
> asterisk phone systems using Cisco 7960 and Polycom IP4000 devices. The 7960
> use PoE and the Polycoms have an external power module.
>
Hi Thad,
Asterisk has always interested me, but I'm not up to speed on available
hardware products.
Could you recommend some very low-cost VoIP devices that would convert
the Asterisk VoIP to POTS, so common 2500 telsets could be used?
Perhaps even VoIP lines into 1A1 and 1A2 KTS as well?
TIA.
--
John
.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:30:37 +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.2009.06.27.00.30.36.267296@myrealbox.com>
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:18:29 -0400, Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 6/25/2009 8:59 PM, David Clayton wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Cisco developed the PoE concept in 2000 for VoIP telephony. I've setup
> several asterisk phone systems using Cisco 7960 and Polycom IP4000
> devices. The 7960 use PoE and the Polycoms have an external power
> module.
>
> PoE is 48 volts DC, and many/most/all PoE telephony devices could
> consume up to 15+ Watts of power.
.......
> http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/paws/97869/poe-requirement-faq.pdf
>
> there are power issues with PoE Ethernet switches. Depending on the
> standard, the phones will use up to 15.4 Watts but negotiation can drop
> usage to 7 W. Some Cisco switches with 48 ports and only 370W power
> capability can be quite problematic and unable to support 48 phones.
I suspected such, where I work I have a cabinet with 3 Cisco 24 port
switches providing PoE on most ports and these puppies suck a lot of
juice from my UPS (and generate a lot of heat themselves).
Compared the the power an on-hook POTS set (or possibly even a proprietary
digital handset) consumes we certainly have taken a step back in the
amount of power a terminal telephony device now consumes.
I wonder if the extra power these PoE devices (and their connecting
equipment) consume is offset by the reduced power consumption of their
switching equipment (compared to a PBX)? It would be interesting to see if
their are any studies on this given the push to reduce overall energy
consumption.
> If you have specific questions about the 7960, IP4000 and/or asterisk,
> I'd be happy to answer from my notes and memory, though it's been
> slightly over a year since I've "played" with an asterisk VoIP system
> and the devices. My notes do span several CDs and include literally all
> the docs and manuals.
Thanks, the info you have already provided is most enlightening.
>> 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.
>
> Two new systems I have arriving soon are complete, full-featured Linux
> "boxes" which are about the size of a wall-wart power supply and consume
> less than 5 W, have GiGE, USB, and other features. Glance at these
> pictures:
.......
> "Green" computing is clearly here. :-)
Let's hope so, it would be a shame if our embrace of newer comms
technologies significantly increased overall energy use - especially
when we are not actually using the bloody things!
--
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 06:44:08 -0600
From: Robert Neville <dont@bother.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <9qf9451nf301s5rs44ffbok2jelm051crj@4ax.com>
David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> 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.
No offence to Australia - it's one of my favorite countries - it's not
irrational, there's a scale factor problem here. The number of devices in the US
with an embedded 10 digit phone number capability that assumes a 7 digit local
number exceeds those in Austrailia by at least an order of magnitude.
The cost of swapping out or otherwise upgrading all the older ATMs, private
PBXes, fax machines, devices with backup modems, alarm systems and who knows
what else makes a number plan change quite expensive.
Add to that the investment in stationery changes and general mass confusion and
there'd probably be a mass revolt. Given how difficult people found the recent
DTV switch, I can't imagine what they'd do with an 8 digit phone number.
It's a similar problem that countries driving on the left side of the road have
when contemplating switching to the right side as most countries do. :) There
have been sucessful switches by small countries, but the larger ones seem to be
resisting for some reason.
------------------------------
Date: 26 Jun 2009 22:04:24 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <20090626220424.3236.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>> 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.
The problem isn't the numbering plan, it's the signalling.
North American phone networks use different signalling from the rest
of the world. Ours was designed first in the 1940s, and for some
political reason the ITU decided to do something else.
Our en-bloc signalling handles fixed length ten digit numbers, the
compelled signalling used other places passes digits one or a few at a
time. En-bloc signalling allowed a lot more sophisticated network
management, e.g., if a primary route was busy, it could back up and
try another route. Some day we'll go to longer numbers, but it will
be a huge job requiring upgrades of every switch in the continent.
By the way, you might also want to keep in mind that the NANP is by
far the largest unified numbering area in the world. Australia is
a swell place, but its population is about 4% of North America's,
with a correspondingly smaller phone system.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:59:37 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <pan.2009.06.26.23.59.36.776076@myrealbox.com>
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:20:23 -0400, Robert Neville wrote:
........
> It's a similar problem that countries driving on the left side of the road
> have when contemplating switching to the right side as most countries do.
> :) There have been successful switches by small countries, but the
> :larger
> ones seem to be resisting for some reason.
What was that old joke about Idi Amin:
"The Ugandan Government has decreed that from Monday all cars will now
drive on the Right Hand Side of the road.
If this policy proves successful, trucks and buses will follow at a later
date....."
:-)
--
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: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:19:26 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <pan.2009.06.27.00.19.25.230283@myrealbox.com>
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:20:23 -0400, Robert Neville wrote:
> David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> No offence to Australia - it's one of my favorite countries - it's not
> irrational, there's a scale factor problem here. The number of devices
> in the US with an embedded 10 digit phone number capability that assumes
> a 7 digit local number exceeds those in Australia by at least an order
> of magnitude.
>
Overall quantity isn't really relevant unless the per-capita use is
somehow significantly greater, it basically costs each person/company in a
country 10% the size of another the same amount to achieve the same thing.
> The cost of swapping out or otherwise upgrading all the older ATMs,
> private PBXes, fax machines, devices with backup modems, alarm systems
> and who knows what else makes a number plan change quite expensive.
>
Versus the costs of not doing it?
> Add to that the investment in stationery changes and general mass
> confusion and there'd probably be a mass revolt. Given how difficult
> people found the recent DTV switch, I can't imagine what they'd do with
> an 8 digit phone number.
Again, a person is a person and despite all the arguments along these
lines, many (many) other countries have managed such a change without too
much trouble at all - certainly far less trouble than the opponents of
theses things said would occur.
Unless North American citizens are - as a group - particularly stupid in
comparison to all these other people, there is a very high probability
that they will cope with little trouble at all.
As far as the "stationery changes" argument goes, experience shows that
the changeover period of any of these situations gives more than
sufficient time for old stock to be used up as new stationery is produced
with the new details.
There have been numerous precedents for mass changes in all sorts of areas
(unleaded petrol, as another example) that people have coped with. The
same old arguments seem to appear for every sort of change like this but
history also seems to show that all the issues can be overcome or they
aren't really as big an obstacle than they are made out to be.
People seem to have an overly irrational fear of change, but it seems that
they don't give themselves near enough credit for their proven abilities
to cope with such change (which they really should be quite proud of). I
don't quite understand why this is so, but I suspect that those with a
vested interest in the status quo have been quiet successful in implanting
the proverbial "FUD" over any change in our minds.
--
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 07:37:22 -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-BFB3A2.07365226062009@news.stanford.edu>
> > 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,
New ideas and/or breakthroughs in certain critical technologies can
emerge at some discrete point -- good examples are the concept of
optical WDM in fibers; the emergence of extremely low loss optical
fibers; efficient, manufacturable, room-temperature, near-IR diode
lasers; fast sensitive near-IR photodetectors; and the EDFA fiber
amplifier, all of which emerged during the past few two or three decades.
Let this happen in the right set of technologies and undersea fiber
cables vastly superior to undersea copper cables become possible. A few
years to get all the resources assembled, and early versions of fiber
cables are deployed (and the copper cables, which had been there for 40
years in some cases, are abandoned in place).
But another 5 years work and mature versions of these fiber cables with
very much larger capacity become available -- larger by 5X? 10X? 20X?
--- I don't really know -- and the demand for large increases in
bandwidth is there, because of parallel advances in the Internet.
It then makes sense to install and operate just one of those high
capacity fiber cables, and abandon the earlier versions in place, even
though they're less than 10 years old.
My understanding is that this is more or less what's happened with
undersea fiber cables in the past decade or so -- but this dramatic
increase in technical capabilities most likely won't go on forever or
for many more decades for fibers -- not in the way that integrated
circuit technology has seemed to follow Moore's Law for decade after
decade.
------------------------------
Date: 26 Jun 2009 10:51:12 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <h22n90$es7$1@panix2.panix.com>
Michael Grigoni <michael.grigoni@cybertheque.org> wrote:
>
>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.
A lot of that stuff IS still in the google archives, however the indices
are totally broken and consequently you can't get to it. Google does not
seem to care.
There are a lot of postings of mine that I can access by message-id, but
cannot get to with any keyword search.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:04:23 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <siegman-529F7A.08035326062009@news.stanford.edu>
In article <4A4402C0.90609@cybertheque.org>,
Michael Grigoni <michael.grigoni@cybertheque.org> wrote:
>
> Someone should promote an effort to collect private Usenet archives
> and merge them into a publicly accessible repository before it is
> too late.
>
If you think about the more general concept of information archives
broadly interpreted, this kind of "someone" used to be provided by
public and university libraries and museums; the Library of Congress;
and the Smithsonian.
Do any of these still really do this kind of thing? Or just, like the
Smithsonian, focus on glitz and hype?
Could the Computer History Museum here in Silicon Valley be the
"someone" for this particular need?
------------------------------
Date: 26 Jun 2009 10:54:49 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <h22nfp$364$1@panix2.panix.com>
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
>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.
When Dejanews started up, a lot of people who had been archiving postings
sent their old tapes and files to Dejanews. Henry Spencer had full archives
of several years of posts, which he donated. I had almost complete archives
of talk.bizarre from 1986 on, which I donated. A lot of folks pulled old
materials out of their closets.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:55:24 -0500
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <kf6dnfYMouAxutjXnZ2dnUVZ_ohi4p2d@supernews.com>
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> writes:
>> 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.
Yep, and the posts survived the trip from deja to google, and then
disappeared some time later.
I don't actually know the cause - just that posts I knew were present and
even had links saved to just were gone one day, and google said it was
requested that they be deleted. I certainly did no such thing. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:54:47 -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-FF198A.07541726062009@news.stanford.edu>
I'd suggest that crucial points in this whole thread -- that is, crucial
considerations as to whether new technologies will benefit _consumers_,
and not just _providers_ -- include:
1) The emergence, not too soon and not too late, of appropriate
_standards_ for these technologies, so that multiple providers can
compete in offering the new technology, and consumers can purchase that
technology from multiple providers, and have their purchases all
inter-operate properly, world wide.
The current chaos in video standards (e.g, video codecs) is an example
where this has NOT (yet) happened, to the consumer's detriment -- but at
the same time, perhaps it's still too early in the development of this
technology to know what should be the ultimate JPEG-like standard for
video.
2) The provision of adequate _regulation_ by governments, to be sure
that social and civic needs related to these technologies are adequately
identified and met, and that the emergence of these technologies is not
governed simply by unregulated free-market capitalism (which is as evil
a social system as Communism ever was, and should at this point be just
as dead -- though I'm not sure it is).
***** Moderator's Note *****
There are plenty of examples of "unregulated free-market capitalism"
still going strong:
1. The Heroin trade
2. Protitution
3. University Tuition fees
4. The underground labor market (Illegal aliens, "off the books"
workers, etc.)
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:54:49 -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: <1ee4ed81-59fa-48bc-8846-a2bbaeb19311@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 25, 11:58 pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> 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?
I would suggest your premise of old technology holding things back is
not valid.
Those who advocate change bear the burden of the proof that _all_
costs of such change will be cost-effective.
In the case of the telephone network, it HAS changed radically over
the years, both technically and administratively. The basic
signalling protocol is kept because it works. I would point out that
the two original protocols of telephony were changed because better
technologies came along (switching from ground to metallic return and
local to common battery).
Behind the scenes, the central office and transmission network is
_radically_ different than it was 25 years ago.
While basic telephone sets still work fine, most people have advanced-
featured sets with all sorts of built-in gizmos, like display screens,
answering machines, etc. Cellular telephone sets, even the free ones,
have all sorts of special features built in, like cameras, alarm
clocks, and calculators.
> 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! ;-)
There are many instances where "change" was implemented too fast or
improperly, perhaps by those too eager to save money, where people
suffered as a result.
We must remember that some of those advocating 'change' are actually
dumping the costs of their change onto someone else. For example,
when MCI undercut AT&T in price, it was doing so quite unfairly. When
VOIP came on the scene, it didn't have the tax burden conventional
landlines had, nor could reliably handle 911 and thus _appeared_
cheaper. (VOIP was touted as the Next Great Thing, but many people
tried it and then went back to landline).
In the information system world, client-server claimed cheaper
developing costs without the mainframe overhead, but it turned out
that 'mainframe overhead' was vital to maintaining reliable systems.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:07:23 -0500
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <ELKdnV0hR8nmt9jXnZ2dnUVZ_g9i4p2d@supernews.com>
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>They will indeed, and they will charge a substantial fee to install a
>new line to the building.
Maybe other locations are different. But that's definitely NOT true in
Chicago. It's the telco's responsibility to maintain the connection from
the pole to the NID. If there's a problem in that line, it's fixed at the
company's expense, not the customer's.
This is spelled out explicitly in a page of the phonebook, showing you how
to do a line test and determine which end of the NID the problem is on. I
had a problem a couple years ago with an occasional short in my drop (which
rang the phone or busied out the line, depending literally on which way the
wind was blowing), and they just came out and replaced it. No charge. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <1004b100-14c8-44af-b813-1018224e91fd@r25g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 25, 5:53 pm, Dan Lanciani <d...@danlan.com> wrote:
> Does POTS as typically tariffed allow the
> telco to require the customer to supply power for their equipment?
Since the advent of common battery nearly 100 years ago the phoneco
has provided the power for basic telephone needs. This is intentional
so as to keep telephone service reliable even if commercial power
fails.
Advanced equipment, such as key systems, modems, PBXs, etc., will
require customer power.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <4304e691-d185-476c-9bec-3e0139cd7ec3@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 25, 11:57 pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> 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.
You don't have to wonder about that at all. Where new technologies
are more cost effective--including capital costs--they will replace
older stuff.
An example is converting step by step central offices to ESS. In many
cases the building had no room for expansion but ESS allowed more
capacity in a smaller footprint. This saved the large cost of
expanding the building. Another advantage is that ESS requires less
maintenance than step. This saves on labor costs. It's particularly
significant in smaller rural offices where someone has to drive out to
service them.
HOWEVER, the new technology must be cost effective in its own right.
Let's not forget that electronics used to be extremely expensive not
too long ago. For most small applications, old-style electro-
mechanical relays were cheaper.
> 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).
Not correct. We have a massive amount of very expensive fixed plant
out there (be this in telecommunications or anything else). It costs
a great deal of money to dump it all, especially when done all at
once.
Diesel railroad locomotives, perfected in the 1930s, were immediately
obvious as being more cost-effective than steam locomotives. However,
it still took a full 25 years to replace every steam locomotive with a
diesel in the U.S. In countries with cheap labor it took much longer.
> 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.
The North American Numbering Plan was carefully thought out, taking
numerous variables into consideration.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Is "Notes on Distance Dialing" still in print? IIRC, that had a good
explanation of the NANP.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:03:25 -0500
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <ELKdnSIhR8kQtNjXnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@supernews.com>
Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com> writes:
>|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?
Also, wouldn't a copper drop be outside of the demarc anyway? What
business is it of the customers if they clip it? If it's ever needed again,
it will be the telco's job to put in a new one. There is no good reason
that they should be forced to maintain redundant cable runs.
I don't see this being any different than a cable company removing the run
to your house if you drop their service. Who cares? I'd rather that they do
that, because it's going to need to be replaced if needed again after years
of non-use anyway. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
------------------------------
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 