|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 335 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
====== 28 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: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:37:22 -0600
From: "David" <someone@somewhere.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Message-ID: <hgk2l9$se0$1@news.eternal-september.org>
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:hgjqfn$us9$2@news.albasani.net...
> Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
>
>> I just got the word from AT&T that they would not be able to
>> install the U-Verse on my line. This was after they took the order
>> and told me it would work. I questioned them on it since they
>> would still be using the last 3000 feet of cable that is a mess of
>> bad splices and pairs. . . .
>
> 3000 feet of copper that's required replacement for how many years
> now?
>
> I had no idea that the VLAD (the alien landing platform) could be
> that far from the subscriber's premises. Considering how ubiquitous
> these boxes are in communities in which AT&T is selling U-verse, I
> figured the subscriber had to be within 1/4 mile or no more than
> 1500 feet.
I have Uverse over a 4200 foot loop from the VRAD (node) to the demark
on 30 year old copper. The copper is mostly underground except for a
section of about 250 feet. They had to cut off a few bridge taps but
has been working quite well for close to two years now. The line runs
at about 25 Mb/s down and about 2 Mb/s up. This supports my low end
Internet access subscription at 1.5 Mb/s up and down plus 2 HD and 2
SD TV channels simultaneously. I would have never thought this bit
rate was possible over old copper of that length but I think I am at
the outer limits of what can be done.
David
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:28:51 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Message-ID: <hglmsn$h32$1@news.eternal-september.org>
David wrote:
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote in message
> news:hgjqfn$us9$2@news.albasani.net...
>> Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>> I just got the word from AT&T that they would not be able to
>>> install the U-Verse on my line. This was after they took the order
>>> and told me it would work. I questioned them on it since they
>>> would still be using the last 3000 feet of cable that is a mess of
>>> bad splices and pairs. . . .
>>
>> 3000 feet of copper that's required replacement for how many years
>> now?
>>
>> I had no idea that the VLAD (the alien landing platform) could be
>> that far from the subscriber's premises. Considering how ubiquitous
>> these boxes are in communities in which AT&T is selling U-verse, I
>> figured the subscriber had to be within 1/4 mile or no more than
>> 1500 feet.
>
> I have Uverse over a 4200 foot loop from the VRAD (node) to the demark
> on 30 year old copper. The copper is mostly underground except for a
> section of about 250 feet. They had to cut off a few bridge taps but
> has been working quite well for close to two years now. The line runs
> at about 25 Mb/s down and about 2 Mb/s up. This supports my low end
> Internet access subscription at 1.5 Mb/s up and down plus 2 HD and 2
> SD TV channels simultaneously. I would have never thought this bit
> rate was possible over old copper of that length but I think I am at
> the outer limits of what can be done.
The cable here is above ground and is in very bad shape. I have
problems with the 6MB DSL. The cable is a mix of lead, 24/26 gage and
goes all over the place. My guess is that there are still Bridge Taps
all over the place. I watched the tich try to turn it up vial his Lap
Top and it would not even try to start. A subscriber migh question
this, but I install the Switches so I know the problems. A block over
they can get it since the cable is about 1600 feet qand a bit newer.
I think I might have gotten them moving, the tech who tried to get it
up stopped by and told me they are now checking the condition of the
cable.
Last year they did a conditioning on the cable for U-verse and that is
when all the problems started, not they are going back over what was
done. When my DSL takes a dump I just switch my Mac's Airport over to
my Sprint MiFi (Mini Wifi) 4G Hub, gets about 4.5 down. Good thing I
opted for unlimited Data.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 03:32:31 -0700
From: "Fred Atkinson" <fatkinson@mishmash.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Message-ID: <003601ca815f$bd1a15c0$c800000a@mishmash>
Steven <diespamm...@killspammers.com> wrote:
> I just got the word from AT&T that they would not be able to install
> the U-Verse on my line. This was after they took the order and told
> me it would work. I questioned them on it since they would still be
> using the last 3000 feet of cable that is a mess of bad splices and
> pairs. I had a pretty good idea that they would be unable to
> install it. I have had problems with my DSL over the last year. By
> the way, 4 techs worked over 8 hours trying to get it up. I guess
> I'll just have to live with what I have until they get more people
> in the area that want U-verse and place another Hub a couple of
> thousand feet closer or we get the long promised rebuild. Cable is
> not an option.
Steve,
This is typical of the phone company. They promise it to you and
then they have no remorse on telling you they were wrong. Nothing new
here.
You can only be sure of something when they actually install it.
When we moved to Columbia, South Carolina, into a newly developed
neighborhood [with only a small complement of houses built and occupied
as yet], we ordered a private line.
When the installer showed up, they told us it was going to be a four
party line (this was in the early seventies). I protested. But he said
there weren't enough pairs in the neighborhood and this was the best
they could do. We were 'promised' that we'd have a private line within
three months.
About eight months later, we realized that we were still on the four
party line. We called and complained to the business office. They
still couldn't give us a private line. But they said they could take us
off the four party line and put us on the two party line. So they did.
I wish I could remember the time frame. But it was quite a while
after that before they finally put more pairs in the neighborhood and we
finally got our private line.
It seems a bit silly that a newly developed neighborhood [that is
now enormous] wouldn't have enough pairs to support the development that
is projected to take place.
Regards,
Fred
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:37:45 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Message-ID: <hglnde$jfq$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Fred Atkinson wrote:
> Steven <diespamm...@killspammers.com> wrote:
>> I just got the word from AT&T that they would not be able to install
>> the U-Verse on my line. This was after they took the order and told
>> me it would work. I questioned them on it since they would still be
>> using the last 3000 feet of cable that is a mess of bad splices and
>> pairs. I had a pretty good idea that they would be unable to
>> install it. I have had problems with my DSL over the last year. By
>> the way, 4 techs worked over 8 hours trying to get it up. I guess
>> I'll just have to live with what I have until they get more people
>> in the area that want U-verse and place another Hub a couple of
>> thousand feet closer or we get the long promised rebuild. Cable is
>> not an option.
>
> Steve,
>
> This is typical of the phone company. They promise it to you and
> then they have no remorse on telling you they were wrong. Nothing new
> here.
>
> You can only be sure of something when they actually install it.
>
> When we moved to Columbia, South Carolina, into a newly developed
> neighborhood [with only a small complement of houses built and occupied
> as yet], we ordered a private line.
>
> When the installer showed up, they told us it was going to be a four
> party line (this was in the early seventies). I protested. But he said
> there weren't enough pairs in the neighborhood and this was the best
> they could do. We were 'promised' that we'd have a private line within
> three months.
>
> About eight months later, we realized that we were still on the four
> party line. We called and complained to the business office. They
> still couldn't give us a private line. But they said they could take us
> off the four party line and put us on the two party line. So they did.
>
> I wish I could remember the time frame. But it was quite a while
> after that before they finally put more pairs in the neighborhood and we
> finally got our private line.
>
> It seems a bit silly that a newly developed neighborhood [that is
> now enormous] wouldn't have enough pairs to support the development that
> is projected to take place.
Having worked for GTE for 30 years I have seen it all. When we first
moved in here in 1977 we were on a 2 party line, because I worked for
the phone company they never put anyone else on my line; within about 6
months they got the cable in place.
We had a major problem in Moreno Valley; (1979), a contractor built
100 units of housing and never contacted GTE or the cable company
about the tract; you can guess what happened. GTE placed cables in
place after the developer dug the streets up, but the Cable company
said no way, and to this day there is no cable in that tract, but that
was one of the first FIOS system to be deployed and everyone there
signed up for it.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:15:10 EST
From: wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Message-ID: <118a1.1731e370.3860261e@aol.com>
In a message dated 12/20/2009 11:26:29 AM Central Standard Time,
fatkinson@mishmash.com writes:
> It seems a bit silly that a newly developed neighborhood [that is
> now enormous] wouldn't have enough pairs to support the development
> that is projected to take place.
You would be surprised to know how many developments proposed by a
developer never come to pass, and how many never reach their projected
size. The Telco's forecasters try mightly to make a good judgment as
to this because they would like to engineer enough facilities for what
will actually be built and sold, but sometimes they miss.
If they build too much, there will be a large and expensive plant
lying fallow in the ground and not earning.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
***** Moderator's Note *****
But if they build too little, potential customers turn to the
competition, and then they're likely to stay away forever.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:20:49 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Message-ID: <hgmpik$5qh$1@news.eternal-september.org>
wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 12/20/2009 11:26:29 AM Central Standard Time,
> fatkinson@mishmash.com writes:
>
>> It seems a bit silly that a newly developed neighborhood [that is
>> now enormous] wouldn't have enough pairs to support the development
>> that is projected to take place.
>
> You would be surprised to know how many developments proposed by a
> developer never come to pass, and how many never reach their projected
> size. The Telco's forecasters try mightly to make a good judgment as
> to this because they would like to engineer enough facilities for what
> will actually be built and sold, but sometimes they miss.
>
> If they build too much, there will be a large and expensive plant
> lying fallow in the ground and not earning.
>
> Wes Leatherock
> wesrock@aol.com
> wleathus@yahoo.com
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> But if they build too little, potential customers turn to the
> competition, and then they're likely to stay away forever.
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
In 2000 and 2001, Pacific Bell, U.S. West and Verizon were installing
DSL as fast as they could, [and] they are now starting to use those,
[but] now they are pushing U-Verse and FIOS, only this time the
companies are only putting more units in as they sell the [existing]
ones. We are putting [in] frames and power, but that is all. The
same thing appears to be what is happening with upgrades in outside
plant and [Fiber?] Nodes.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:57:20 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Message-ID: <LYCdnXbazJONebPWnZ2dnUVZ_oZi4p2d@speakeasy.net>
Fred Atkinson wrote:
> When we moved to Columbia, South Carolina, into a newly developed
> neighborhood [with only a small complement of houses built and occupied
> as yet], we ordered a private line.
>
> When the installer showed up, they told us it was going to be a four
> party line (this was in the early seventies). I protested. But he said
> there weren't enough pairs in the neighborhood and this was the best
> they could do. We were 'promised' that we'd have a private line within
> three months.
>
> About eight months later, we realized that we were still on the four
> party line. We called and complained to the business office. They
> still couldn't give us a private line. But they said they could take us
> off the four party line and put us on the two party line. So they did.
>
> I wish I could remember the time frame. But it was quite a while
> after that before they finally put more pairs in the neighborhood and we
> finally got our private line.
>
> It seems a bit silly that a newly developed neighborhood [that is
> now enormous] wouldn't have enough pairs to support the development that
> is projected to take place.
In the 1950's, my father moved us into a new house in a Boston suburb
called Dedham. The once-sleepy farm hamlet - the home of millionairess
Katherine Endicott - was overwhelmed by baby-boomer families that
swamped it's manual telephone exchange and open-wire infrastructure,
as the farmers sold out to developers and quarter-acre lots became the
norm.
When my dad went in to order a phone, he told the sales clerk that he
wanted a private line. The sales clerk said that he could only have an
eight-party line and that he'd have to wait for ten months or more to
get it.
My father, a former Marine who'd been shot on Guadalcanal, wasn't one
to shrink from a fight, but he had also grown up in the Roxbury
section of Boston, a place that by all accounts made New York's Hell's
Kitchen seem like an Indian Ashram, and he had a very low tolerance
for arrogant bureaucrats. He asked the clerk if he could use her phone
to make a call, and then informed her that he would call her back from
his home the next day. The woman laughed in his face.
The next night, a man in a suit knocked on the door of our house, and
told my father that there were two cable crews busy stringing new
telephone cables from the junction point at Endicott circle, about two
miles away. He said they could not be finished before 9 PM, and
apologized for the delay. My dad told the man that he appreciated his
hard work, and that 9 PM would be acceptable.
There's no mystery as to how my dad accomplished this miracle: my
mother's father, you see, was the State Respresentative for Roxbury,
and the Chairman of the Massachusetts State House of Representatives'
Committee on Public Utility Regulation.
It took Ma Bell a few decades, but eventually she had an attack of
common sense, and realized that the revenue she was losing by not
having people connected to the network far outstripped any savings
that could be obtained by forcing customers to wait ten months for
8-party lines. When I was an employee of that same company, I found
out that there were Engineering staff members who spent their days
scanning newspapers and trade magazines and building-permit reports so
as to have adequate cable or carrier ready and installed the day each
new development opened.
Of course, the old attitudes didn't die as fast as we might wish: more
than twenty years later, when Congressman Barney Frank's staff called
in to order some extra lines in preparation for his upcoming campaign
against a heavyweight contender named Marjorie Claprood, Ma Bell's old
attitudes once again appeared. Representative Frank's staff was told
that there were no lines available.
The next day, a courier deposited a large box on the central office
steps, which I was called upon to sign for. It contained a device
called an "AML-8", which was an analog multiplexing device that could
use two pairs of wire to support 8 phone lines (Yes, it's the same
idea as "N" carrier).
The device was strapped to the horizontal frame supports, and an
extension cord was run over the lights and down the frame stanchions
to power it. It was connected to eight dial tones (The CO Tech was
given the line equipment numbers in a hand-written note), and to two
cable pairs (which had been in use for two pay telephones in the
building that housed the Congressman's office). From the time I opened
the box until the Congressman's staff had eight new lines available,
it took about three hours.
There is a moral to these stories: if you want Ma Bell to do something
she doesn't feel like doing, all you need to do is find a way to
remind her that she is only a big fish while in her little pond. The
fastest way is to toss in a few sharks, but there are others.
Bill Horne
(Speaking for myself)
(Filter QRM from my address for direct replies)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:36:57 -0500
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Message-ID: <op.u471vvb8o63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:14:45 -0500, after whatever Steven
<diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote, Moderator wrote:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> What's "MiFi"?
>
> Bill Horne
It's Sprint's or Verizon's little fat-credit-card-sized, high-speed cellular
data-modem plus wi-fi router, made by Novatel.
cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiFi , which summarizes:
"... a device backconnecting to the cellular 3G network and frontconnecting to
local (up to 10m/30ft distance) Wi-Fi devices ..."
Novatel reportedly has (or will soon have) a GSM/EDGE/UMTS/HSPA version out,
too. I long for such a beasty, unlocked of course, for use with prepaid data
SIMs while traveling.
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:39:15 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Message-ID: <hglng5$jfq$2@news.eternal-september.org>
tlvp wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:14:45 -0500, after whatever Steven
> <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote, Moderator wrote:
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> What's "MiFi"?
>>
>> Bill Horne
>
> It's Sprint's or Verizon's little fat-credit-card-sized, high-speed
> cellular data-modem plus wi-fi router, made by Novatel.
>
> cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiFi , which summarizes:
>
> "... a device backconnecting to the cellular 3G network and
> frontconnecting to local (up to 10m/30ft distance) Wi-Fi devices
> ..."
>
> Novatel reportedly has (or will soon have) a GSM/EDGE/UMTS/HSPA
> version out, too. I long for such a beasty, unlocked of course, for
> use with prepaid data SIMs while traveling.
When there is 4G it finds that.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
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.
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) 2009 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 (9 messages)
|
or 