31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for April 24, 2013
Volume 32 : Issue 88 : "text" Format
====== 31 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: 22 Apr 2013 15:24:00 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: "Fiber-backed" - mean anything specific, or marketing buzz?
Message-ID: <kl42og$o4r$1@panix2.panix.com>
Matt Simpson <net-news69@jmatt.net> wrote:
>
>Considering that almost any internet service is probably going to
>involve some fiber somewhere, when is it appropriate to call a service
>"fiber-backed"? And how much more fiber do you need to be "100%
>fiber-backed"? Does this statement mean anything specific? Or just
>that they've buried some more fiber?
It means only one thing: you're not getting real "fibre to the desk"
service but something cheaper and inferior.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:53:28 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Road Testing the Newest Wave in Taxi Hailing Apps
Message-ID: <p0624083acd9c34721312@[10.0.1.5]>
Road Testing the Newest Wave in Taxi Hailing Apps
Rob Pegoraro
The Atlantic
Internet-linked phones have been changing the way we travel through
big cities for some time now. Mobile sites and apps combined with GPS
allow us to see real-time arrival estimates for trains and buses. If
your city has bike-share, you can even use your phone to find out
just how many bikes are in the nearest station. But for so long,
taxis seemed to lag behind. Hailing a cab has until recently involved
either a phone call or a raised hand.
That's finally changing. For years, Alexandria, Virginia's Taxi Magic
was the only major online option, but the San Francisco-based
sedan-booking service Uber has since begun to branch into a
lower-cost traditional taxi service, and Hamburg's myTaxi has also
recently launched in the United States.
Conveniently enough, all three options now compete in my city,
Washington, D.C.-a city that, until 2008, subjected taxi passengers
to a perplexing zone-fare system that earned nationwide scorn.
...
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2013/04/road-testing-newest-wave-taxi-hailing-apps/5361/
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:05:38 +0000 (UTC)
From: Koos van den Hout <koos+newsposting@kzdoos.xs4all.nl>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: "Fiber-backed" - mean anything specific, or marketing buzz?
Message-ID: <kl5it2$elk$1@kzdoos.xs4all.nl>
Matt Simpson <net-news69@jmatt.net> wrote in <net-news69-24413A.13000822042013@news.eternal-september.org>:
> I'm pretty sure their DSL customers still have copper running to their
> homes. They may have added more fiber somewhere in their backbone.
> "Closer to you than ever before" might mean they've run fiber to the
> neighborhoods.
> Considering that almost any internet service is probably going to
> involve some fiber somewhere, when is it appropriate to call a service
> "fiber-backed"? And how much more fiber do you need to be "100%
> fiber-backed"? Does this statement mean anything specific? Or just
> that they've buried some more fiber?
It's just marketing, aimed at confusing you when a competitor offers fiber
to the home.
Cable "Internet" providers in the Netherlands also like to remind us that
most of their network is fiber-based when their competitors threaten to win
over customers with fiber to the home.
Koos van den Hout
--
Koos van den Hout, PGP keyid DSS/1024 0xF0D7C263 via keyservers
koos@kzdoos.xs4all.nl
Weather maps from free sources at
http://idefix.net/
http://weather.idefix.net/
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:28:43 -0500
From: Doug McIntyre <merlyn@dork.geeks.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: "Fiber-backed" - mean anything specific, or marketing buzz?
Message-ID: <Bt6dnUKRzuDmAOjMnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Matt Simpson <net-news69@jmatt.net> writes:
>Windstream, the local telco in this area, has just started running ads
>about their new "fiber-backed" internet service:
....
>Considering that almost any internet service is probably going to
>involve some fiber somewhere, when is it appropriate to call a service
>"fiber-backed"? And how much more fiber do you need to be "100%
>fiber-backed"? Does this statement mean anything specific? Or just
>that they've buried some more fiber?
Yes, almost every internet link in the end will involve fiber of some kind.
Most likely what they did, like most every other telco is to upgrade
their DSLAM network. Old school DSLAMs talked over ATM/SONET
type technology. Ie. T1s, DS3s, OC3s.
Many remote DSLAMs out in the field were fed by IMUX bonded T1s, which
didn't provide much bandwidth, was usually sufficient in the olden
days, but not any longer.
But the copper was there, and bonding 8 T1s (usually the max) gave at
least 12Mbps down/up to a remote DSLAM. Although larger deployments,
especially located in existing fiber huts could have utilized DS3s
(45Mbps) or OC3s (155Mbps).
All new DSLAMs talk over Gigabit Ethernet, and for a remote, you'll
want that over fiber. So they most likely upgraded their cable plant
to get GigE fiber out to all their remote DSLAMs.
Thus, you get "Fiber-To-The-Node" or their term Fiber-Backed. Qwest
got into some problems saying All Fiber Internet until they got called
on it, so they developed the FTTN term instead.
The last-mile is still copper as you surmise, because that is what DSL
is defined to be. And if the prem is 5 miles away from the remote
DSLAM, even though it is lit with GigE fiber, you'll still get ~1Mbps
or whatever the DSL signalling can eek out of the copper loop.
Since the term "fiber-backed" means absolutely nothing, what do you
want it to be deinfed as? :-)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:50:05 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: The Shame of Boston's Wireless Woes
Message-ID: <p06240839cd9c33a2e257@[10.0.1.5]>
The Shame of Boston's Wireless Woes
Anthony Townsend
The Atlantic
APR 17, 2013
Almost immediately after Monday's tragic bombings at the Boston
Marathon, the city's cellular networks collapsed. The Associated
Press initially reported what many of us suspected, that law
enforcement officials had requested a communications blackout to
prevent the remote detonation of additional explosives. But the claim
was soon redacted as the truth became clear. It didn't take
government fiat to shut down the cellular networks. They fell apart
all on their own.
As cell service sputtered under a surge of calls, runners were left
in the dark, families couldn't reach loved ones, and even
investigators were stymied in making calls related to their pursuit
of suspects. Admirably, Boston residents and businesses responded
quickly by opening up Wi-Fi hotspots to help evacuees communicate
with loved ones.
...
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2013/04/shame-bostons-wireless-woes/5320/
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:19:24 -0600
From: fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Comcast Story
Message-ID: <ece453070ae4082cb568634f70f41849.squirrel@webmail.mishmash.org>
I moved into my new home on Friday. On Sunday afternoon, a Comcast
guy came by to hook up a new jack for my HDTV and Internet service.
The last time I had a Comcast tech come by and install a jack for me,
I had to write the check for the work performed right then and there.
So I asked this Comcast guy what to make the check out for (dollars).
He told me that Comcast was no longer doing that because a Comcast
installer was shot by someone he was trying to get a check from for
installing a jack. He advised that I would be billed for the new
jack.
I never heard about this. Can anyone here confirm or deny it?
Regards,
Fred
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Who is John Galt?
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Any opinions about xLink BT?
Message-ID: <1366724425.35115.YahooMailClassic@web121903.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Sat, 20 Apr 2013 13:20:36 -0400 Julian Thomas wrote:
> The good, the bad, and the ugly. This is a device that connects
> your cell phones to the wired phones (including cordless base
> stations) in your home.
I've been using the Xlink BT for several years now and before that a
device with a similar purpose a "CellSocket." CellSocket went out of
business in part I believe because it required a "dock" that was only
compatible with a limited set of devices. Using BlueTooth solved that
problem.
As for the Xlink BT I've found that it works well provided you take
certain actions with it. I've found that to get the best results with
the device you need to have your cellphone right up against the Xlink
unit otherwise the reception on the regular phone can get staticky.
Also, the Xlink BT does provide caller ID but identifies calls on the
display only with the calling number and the 'name' says Xlink BT. I
was never able to find out whether this is a setup problem or if
that's just the way you have to settle for caller ID using the device.
Another interesting thing is that if you go beyond the BlueTooth range
the unit will disconnect, but when it gets close enough to the Xlink
unit will automatically re-connect though as I said earlier in my
response unless you have your cellphone near the Xlink unit
conversations can sound staticky. Bottom line is that it does work
well if placed properly near your cellphone. Another 'quirk' of the
unit is when you receive an incoming call your cellphone has the
regular ring, but incoming ring on regular lines is "shorter" than
regular telco company ring (to my ears about as short as ringing on a
PBX.)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:34:45 -0400
From: ajbcommconsulting@frontier.com (Jim Bennett)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: "Fiber-backed" - mean anything specific, or marketing buzz?
Message-ID: <5175E535.5010506@frontier.com>
On 2013-04-22 13:00, Matt Simpson wrote:
> Considering that almost any internet service is probably going to
> involve some fiber somewhere, when is it appropriate to call a service
> "fiber-backed"? And how much more fiber do you need to be "100%
> fiber-backed"? Does this statement mean anything specific? Or just
> that they've buried some more fiber?
You have pretty much nailed it. All of the real backbone of both the
internet and the PSTN are fiber. Closer to the customer, virtually all
of the remote switches and DSLAMs used in small CO's, and the packet
switches that are quickly replacing them, connect to the higher level
switches over fiber. There is microwave backhaul in use in very remote
areas, such as rural cell towers and very rural CO's, but that is
irrelevant to this discussion.
I suppose there could still be some small CO's that connect to higher
level switches over copper, but their number is dwindling. Going any
real distance over T-Carrier, whether true T1 or the HDSL2 and HDSL4
transport that replaces it, gets expensive. Copper and repeaters require
truck rolls to stay working, and skilled techs in those trucks.
Whether their marketing hype is actually based on any real change in
their backbone connectivity is anybody's guess. If they really did run
fiber out to the neighborhoods, as with u-Verse or HFC CATV, you would
certainly know, because then they would be pushing a whole raft of more
expensive offerings.
Jim
==================================================
Speaking from a secure undisclosed location.
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:17:16 -0500
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: "Fiber-backed" - mean anything specific, or marketing buzz?
Message-ID: <MIGdnTRAg72xTevMnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@supernews.com>
Matt Simpson <net-news69@jmatt.net> writes:
>Considering that almost any internet service is probably going to
>involve some fiber somewhere, when is it appropriate to call a service
>"fiber-backed"? And how much more fiber do you need to be "100%
>fiber-backed"? Does this statement mean anything specific? Or just
>that they've buried some more fiber?
As others have said, "Fiber backed" is mostly a null term these days,
because not much DOESN'T have fiber in it somewhere (part of a good
telcom diet).
However, it likely means that they've run fiber to DSLAM type devices,
and connected (or will connect, if you buy digital services) copper
lines in the area to it. This is a good thing - when my neighborhood
went green for uverse because of a dslam dropped about a block from my
house, I went from 1930s era copper plant, which was unreliable and noisy
as hell, to dead quiet lines. I later switched over to uverse and run my
landlines on VOIP, and it's been never been this reliable.
So yeah, it's a marketroid term, but that doesn't mean that there
haven't been substantial improvements to your telco's network. *
--
* 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 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) 2013 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)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues