30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for February 1, 2012
Volume 31 : Issue 32 : "text" Format
====== 30 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 Bill Horne 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 that person, or email address
owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of
that address. 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: 31 Jan 2012 06:38:48 GMT
From: Doug McIntyre <merlyn@geeks.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Fiber Optics Connectors
Message-ID: <4f278c78$0$79795$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>
fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com writes:
> I need to read up on fiber optics connectors. I'm familiar with the
> LC, ST, and SC type connectors.
Those are the 3 [most widely used] used ones. ST is not used much now.
FC was used a lot by Qwest and other ILECs for SONET, but not so much
now-a-days, being more SC types in newer installations.
> I understand that there are special connectors called APC (Angle
> Polished Connectors) and I'd like to read up on when they are used.
That isn't a type of connector, but a style of end join.
There are APC, UPC and straight.
APC actually stands for Angled Physical Contact (not connector).
The point of the APC is that the ends are angled instead of flush, so
when they mate, if there is any side glancing back reflection from the
polished end that it bounces off to the cladding and only straight
through signal gets pushed through. Kind of a bear to line up
correctly, so they really only get used in FC type connectors that
have a notch to line up the ferrule.
Unlike what Wikipedia says, I was taught that UPC polish on the end
has just a slight curve to it and not just a better "polish", with
just the signal path kissing just right in the middle. Same concept as
the APC, just done more subtle and circular so it doesn't require
mating the angle just right so any connector can be used (ie. SC)
Plus if you mate UPC with straight cable, nothing bad happens. APC
end to anything else will either break things, or have too large of a loss.
It costs just slightly more at the fiber assembly vendor to get UPC polish.
Typically in telco/datacenter applications, you'll get single-mode
duplex, SC connectors with UPC polish. Ie. my cable vendor doesn't
even ask, that is just what I get. Or if it a patch going from one
piece of gear to gear without a patch panel in the middle, it'll be an
LC to LC cable.
I haven't actually seen any installation with APC polished ends, but
have heard that there are some out there local to me.
> Can someone recommend a book that explains APCs and some of the
> newer connectors [those I have not listed here]?
Not enough material for a book. And nothing else "new".
Wikipedia does a decent enough job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_connector
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_fiber_connector
Otherwise, talk to a cable vendor (ie. Graybar, Anixter). Their sales
critters should be versed enough in it as well.
Typically now-a-days, everything is SC and LC.
You still see the occasional FC from the ILEC panels.
MT-RJ died off along with 100-Base-FL.
ST died out earlier, but was installed in a lot more places.
SMA and FDDI are long dead.
If you end up needing any other style, you just get the proper patch
cable and leave it at that. It isn't like everything has to be the
same all the way through.
***** Moderator's Note *****
100BaseFL died? Is multi-mode fiber still in use?
I remember a job I did to get a LAN across an isolated ground window:
fiber transceivers and ST connectors saved me a lot of grief.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:40:49 -0800
From: Andrew Carey <carey.remove-this@and-this-too.ar-ballbat.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Fiber Optics Connectors
Message-ID: <F20743B4-3365-4D53-AE7D-6DA5D0803A09@ar-ballbat.org>
On Jan 30, 2012, at 2238, Doug McIntyre wrote:
> fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com writes:
>> I need to read up on fiber optics connectors. I'm familiar with the
>> LC, ST, and SC type connectors.
>
> Those are the 3 [most widely used] used ones. ST is not used much now.
> FC was used a lot by Qwest and other ILECs for SONET, but not so much
> now-a-days, being more SC types in newer installations.
All three of those use 2.5mm ferrules (the little pointy part of the
connector) and are used for cross connections at fiber panels and some
equipment ports. ODC (Outdoor Connector) is another 2.5mm ferrule
connector, but not one I've worked with. More and more vendors are
using 1.25mm ferrule connectors such as LC or MU (less common) to
allow greater port densities. MTP/MPO connectors also show up. Those
terminate ribbon fibers composed of several separate fibers in a
single connector.
And of course there are many older and niche connectors out there.
>> I understand that there are special connectors called APC (Angle
>> Polished Connectors) and I'd like to read up on when they are used.
>
> That isn't a type of connector, but a style of end join. There are
> APC, UPC and straight. APC actually stands for Angled Physical
> Contact (not connector).
This is one of those acronyms that depend on who you're talking
to. Even fiber vendors use both. Either one works and refers to the
same thing.
> The point of the APC is that the ends are angled instead of flush,
> so when they mate, if there is any side glancing back reflection
> from the polished end that it bounces off to the cladding and only
> straight through signal gets pushed through. Kind of a bear to line
> up correctly, so they really only get used in FC type connectors
> that have a notch to line up the ferrule.
APC is superior to UPC as far as return loss from the connector. Both
types have back reflection due to the transition of material from the
core through the connectors but APC minimizes as described above due
to the angled surface. I mostly use APC in SC & MTP connectors but
according to TE (formerly ADC) it's available in LC connectors
too. Neither SC or MTP is difficult to mate because the connectors
only come together one way. Inspection probes allow the ferrule to
rotate but there's a mark on it to line up the correct angle.
It's also not that big of angle, 8 degree slant for APC versus 0
degree for UPC.
More on the differences from ADC here:
http://www.adc.com/Attachment/1270711936302/105662AE.pdf
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:06:24 -0800 (PST)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Teen boots banned on account of cell phone smuggling
Message-ID: <7981083c-3d90-4cb2-89bd-85a894afd962@c6g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>
I thought the following was rather silly at first, but it made the
national news and I thought I'd share it.
A Pottstown, PA (suburban Philadelphia) school district has banned a
very popular style of fashion booth ("Uggs") from school because they
believe kids are smuggling cell phones in the boot. Cell phones are
forbidden in the school classrooms. The story made the Los Angeles
Times: (includes a link to the local paper).
http://goo.gl/39uIk
-or-
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/01/school-bans-uggs-blames-them-for-contraband-gadgets.html
In my own humble, this is bureaucracy (paranoia) gone too far.
The issue of cell phones and kids is tougher. As discussed, there are
problems in getting adults to turn off their cellphones during
concerts, religious services, funerals, etc. If adults are unable to
"break their connection" for an hour or two, how can we expect kids to
do it in class?
(I was recently at a business meeting. During the breaks, the
participants immediately whipped out their phones to check for emails
and send out texts. These days plenty of adults are as focused on
their cell phones as much as kids are.)
But cell phones are a distraction in class and should not be permitted
to be used. Further, they can be used for inproper purposes, such as
taking embarassing photos of fellow students, or passing test
questions to other students.
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:52:50 -0500
From: Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Teen boots banned on account of cell phone smuggling
Message-ID: <lhogi7pt6742g0monndje6eufvi4m4j1bu@4ax.com>
Per HAncock4:
>The issue of cell phones and kids is tougher. As discussed, there
>are problems in getting adults to turn off their cellphones during
>concerts, religious services, funerals, etc. If adults are unable to
>"break their connection" for an hour or two, how can we expect kids
>to do it in class?
Is there some legal problem with technologically-enforced
"Cell-Free" zones?
As a tMobile user, I can attest that many buildings [in my] area
already [have] such zones.... -)
--
Pete Cresswell
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:03:14 -0500
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Teen boots banned on account of cell phone smuggling
Message-ID: <1rf3hp3d3sk7o.1essq3nhh2phs.dlg@40tude.net>
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:06:24 -0800 (PST), HAncock4 wrote:
> ...
> A ... school district has banned a very popular style of fashion
> booth ("Uggs") from school because they believe kids are smuggling
> cell phones in the boot.
Heh-heh ... in my day, it wasn't cell phones but shivs or zip guns
that kids would smuggle into school, and not in "Uggs" but in their
galoshes.
I think I'd rather have 'em smuggle cellphones, all things considered :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:54:17 -0800 (PST)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FDA staffers sue agency over surveillance of personal e-mail
Message-ID: <4b5a1076-854b-42be-bce2-63de4af6dd9b@s7g2000vby.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 30, 5:10 pm, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
> FDA computers post a warning, visible when users log on, that they
> should have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in any data
> passing through or stored on the system, and that the government may
> intercept any such data at any time for any lawful government purpose.
>
> But in the suit, the doctors and scientists say the government
> violated their constitutional privacy rights by gazing into personal
> e-mail accounts for the purpose of monitoring activity that they say
> was lawful.
Telecom administrators and labor representatives have often said there
is no expectation of privacy for anything a person does on their
employer's computer or network. Using a personal email account on the
organization's computer does not provide any exemption from that
policy. This also applies to conversations made over the employer's
telephone.
Now, those involved may have a case under "whistle blowing" laws, but
that is an entirely separate issue.
Date: 31 Jan 2012 17:10:27 GMT
From: Doug McIntyre <merlyn@geeks.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Fiber Optics Connectors
Message-ID: <4f282083$0$79796$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>
Doug McIntyre <merlyn@geeks.org> writes:
>>MT-RJ died off along with 100-Base-FL.
>>ST died out earlier, but was installed in a lot more places.
>>SMA and FDDI are long dead.
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>100BaseFL died? Is multi-mode fiber still in use?
I guess in my environment (telco/datacenter), anything new going in
is probably going to be 10Gbit. With a smaller percentage of Gigabit
ethernet (at whatever standard for fiber related, 1000-Base-SX or
1000-Base-LX or 1000-Base-ZX). Guess I'm not large enough to see any
40G and 100G installations.
I haven't seen 100Mbps fiber at 100-Base-FL for maybe 9-10 years now.
The switch to gigabit was pretty instant once things there became
afordable for almost everybody. The sweet spot for 10Gbps is still
in the telco/datacenter realm. Smaller enterprises are probably still
on gigabit or LAG'd gigabit. I can buy GigE switches with a few fiber ports
for low $200's now-a-days.
Yes, multi-mode fiber is still in use. I just installed 100m of OM3 MM
(with SC connectors) which is what is needed to run 10Gbase-SX on
multi-mode fiber. (50um core, "laser-optimized" fiber).
Although I know several places that don't bother figuring out of they
want multi-mode or single-mode and just standardize on single-mode
fiber, as the gear and material prices aren't that much higher
(ie. $200 for a 10Gbase-SX SFP vs $500-$600 for a 10Gbase-LX SFP).
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:31:33 -0500
From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cloud-based PBX service
Message-ID: <c6b88$4f286ba0$adce4491$23211@PRIMUS.CA>
Dave Platt wrote:
> SIP phone costs have come down a lot in recent years. Alterna-
> tively, use an existing analog phone and a separate ATA (analog
> telephone adapter)... the latter can be had for around $50.
There are also 'soft phones' e.g. Bria* for about that price, assuming
that you already have a computer with speaker and microphone.
* DISCLAIMER: I have Bria on my laptop and it seems to work, but I
don't use it much and this is definitely not to be taken as an
endorsement or recommendation of the product.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I'm uncomfortable with the idea that using a laptop for phone calls
makes it into a "soft" phone: I think it makes a very expensive
telephone instrument with a built-in analog-to-digital adapter.
It's not that I don't understand the appeal of saving the cost of a
dedicated instrument - far from it. What worries me are the ways in
which my PC's power and my investment in internet connectivity can be
turned to other uses that aren't possible with a dedicated instrument:
some VoIP services demand that users endure pop-up ads and DNS
redirections, and they don't allow users to port numbers in or out of
the "service" they have subscribed to.
I'd rather price a system with dedicated devices, and then consider
what, if anything, I can save by using a PC in place of one or more of
the dedicated devices.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:04:36 -0500
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Proposed legislation triggered by Carrier IQ
Message-ID: <e2knjku2lqpw$.pv1b67b4i2ym$.dlg@40tude.net>
Apparently Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) recently "released draft
legislation that would require disclosure of monitoring software when
a consumer buys a mobile phone [and] would prevent manufacturers from
collecting and transmitting information unless consumer consent is
obtained ... ."
More at:
http://goo.gl/4HrzU
-or-
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/mobile-device-privacy-act-would-prevent-secret-smartphone-monitoring.ars
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:03:55 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Justices Say GPS Tracker Violated Privacy Rights
Message-ID: <jfsbjb$18ec$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
Moderator's Note: I made a mistake and this post was delayed because
of it. My apologies to Mr. Wollman. BH
In article <jfrusr$7ou$1@news.albasani.net>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>Huh. That's a poor summary of the case.
SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein posted a long piece criticizing the
reporting on the story the other day.
>The Supreme Court let the reversal stand. The government tried to bring up
>an argument, disallowed as it was not raised in the lower courts, that
>there was reasonable suspicion and thus probable cause and therefore the
>search wasn't unconstitutional.
"Reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" are two different
standards. "Probable cause" is a much stronger standard than
"reasonable suspicion". The Court didn't say which standard it
favored.
>The troubling part of Alito's opinion, with which Sotomayor kinda/sorta
>concurred with, making a majority, was that Alito distinguished between
>the possibility that a short-term warrantless search might not be
>unconstitutional, in case of an investigation into an extraordinary
>offense, but that a long-term warrantless search would be.
Alito's opinion was concerned with the "reasonable expectation of
privacy" standard on the question of long-term continuous monitoring.
Scalia did find that a search occurred, when the tracking device was
attached to the defendant's car, but didn't say anything about whether
a warrant was required or the admissibility of the long-term tracking
data as evidence. Sotomayor's opinion says that she would be willing
to revisit this whole area of the law in light of how circumstances
have changed since the 1960s when the controlling case law was
written. (In particular, Sotomayor wants to revisit the so-called
"third-party doctrine" that says you have no expectation of privacy in
anything you voluntarily disclose to a third party, absent some
countervailing law.)
>Unlike what the lead of the New York Times suggests, the US Supreme Court
>did not uphold the right to privacy against warrantless searches using
>modern tracking technology. The Court equivocated on the issue and
>await further litigation. Who knows what privacy rights will survive
>after the next case is heard?
Remember that the case law ex ante said that you have no expectation
of privacy when you go about in a public place. You have half of the
court suggesting that perhaps you should, at least with respect to the
sort of long-term surveillance that would be impractical for a human
operative to perform, and another half of the court suggesting that
attaching something to your car counts as a search even when the car
is not parked in your garage. This is still something of a victory
for privacy advocates, even if it leaves open many important
questions.
Because of some issues with the factual record in this case -- in
particular, the fact that the police evidently thought that they
needed a warrant, got one, then let it expire, and finally attached
the tracking device while the car was parked in a public place in
another judicial district[1] -- many of the questions that advocates
would like to see answered are really not squarely presented by this
case. If the police had attached the tracking device before the
warrant had expired, then the court might have addressed the standard
for granting such a warrant, or indeed whether one was required at
all.
-GAWollman
[1] A warrant is supposed to be supervised by a court in the judicial
district where it will be executed.
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
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 Bill Horne. 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 moderated by Bill Horne.
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) 2012 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 (10 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues