Message-ID: <20220523124757.C4BF77C0@telecom2018.csail.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 12:47:57 +0000 (UTC)
From: Bill Horne <malQRMassimilation@gmail.com>
Subject: The Top 10 Do's and Don'ts of Cell Tower Leases from a
Telecommunications Attorney
After nearly three decades representing property owners on cell tower
leases, I've seen property values helped and harmed, terms that
empowered or restricted, and deals that left the property owner
pleased or later regretful. While the intricacies of cell tower leases
should be left to professionals, I've assembled a shortlist of do's
and don'ts for property owners to keep in mind.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/top-10-do-s-and-don-ts-cell-tower-leases-telecommunications-attorney
--
(Please remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)
Message-ID: <dfe55ea1-2ba6-b0d0-d868-060975d7a563@ionary.com>
Date: 23 May 2022 08:39:30 -0400
From: "Fred Goldstein" <invalid@see.sig.telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Re: ISDN's days are numbered: What should you do?
On 5/22/2022 10:41 PM, Bill Horne wrote:
> ...
>> ISDN Basic Rate Interface (BRI) is generally no longer available in
>> the US. Verizon and I think ATT long ago gave formal notice of
>> discontinuance or grandfathering. Maybe Qwest, pre-Century, didn't
>> bother, so it may still be on the books there. But few know how to
>> provision it. Many of the switches that provided it (mainly 5ESS
>> and DMS-100 in the US) no longer are in service. It was useful,
>> especially for broadcasters doing remote feeds. It was better than
>> a modem for Internet access, and that's what killed it as it was
>> coming out in the early 1990s -- the Bells hated the Internet,
>> which broke their locality-based business model, and while they
>> couldn't attack modem users per se, they could at least attack the
>> most obvious Internet user group, non-Centrex ISDN BRI users. Bell
>> Atlantic l/k/a Verizon was also fanatical in those days about
>> selling Centrex, and saw ISDN BRI as a tool for Centrex feature
>> phones, but that was about it. That business has faded out too.
>
> I don't often disagree with Fred on issues like ISDN, but I'm going to
> advance a different theory: I had a chance to test an ISDN line at my
> home near Boston, back around 1994 or so, and I was /very/ surprised to
> find that getting a 64Kbps connection on either of the "Bearer"
> channels was very difficult.
>
> It turned out that the only solution was to redial several times, and
> sooner or later I'd get a 64Kbps connection. After 15 or 20 minutes of
> dialing and redialing, I might end up with two 64Kbps "Bearer"
> connections to The Well, an ISP which served ISDN customers, and I
> could bind them together to obtain a 128 Kbps Internet connection.
>
> When I investigated, I quickly found out that almost all of the
> T-Carrier systems connecting the central office to its Tandems were
> not equipped for "8 bit clean" connections. In other words, the
> connections from the CO to Tandem offices were designed for the
> original T-Carrier "robbed bit" signalling paradigm, and were not
> capable of delivering 64Kbps data connections.
>
> I think Verizon - and probably the other Baby Bells - wanted to avoid
> the expense of retraining a unionized workforce to make use of the
> 8-bit-clean fiber-optic channels just being introduced at the
> time. The company would have had to retrain not only the "CO"
> technicians, but also the provisioning specialists responsible for
> specifying the number and type of trunks for each CO to use for each
> service. Even though ISDN data calls were billed per-minute, the
> accountants most likely projected more cost than revenue.
The 64-kbit data bearer service was, as you note, not widely
available. For it to work, both the transmission systems and the
switching systems needed to implement the B8ZS fix to the T1 carrier
system specification. And yes, NYNEX was full of old line cards that
only did the not-clean old AMI format. They had upgraded some of the
switches to have ISDN but didn't update the trunk network. Also, the
inbound ports needed ISDN PRI, which they were initially slow to roll
out. They treated ISDN data as "Switched 56", an older data service
that accommodated robbed-bit signaling. That was where their tariff
came from too, at 8c/minute for data calls.
There was a work-around, though. I always used "data over voice bearer
service" (DOVBS), wherein the network was told it was a voice call and
the terminal gear only used the clean 7 bits, for a 56k connection.
That not only worked well, but took advantage of the flat rate voice
calls on residential lines. Those calls could also terminate into a
modem pool that was not on ISDN PRI, just on the older robbed-bit T1
trunk service. When I was setting up DEC's ISDN trial circa 1993,
they actually told us to do that, as they had no other way to deliver
the calls.
--
Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred "at" ionary.com
+1 617 795 2701
***** Moderator's Note *****
For some reason, "DOSBS" (Data Over Speech Bearer Service) was a taboo
subject by 1994: the ISP's that supported ISDN connections all
pretended that they had never heard of it, and "bonding," even with 56
Kbps
DATA calls, was likewise a mystery.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Message-ID: <3026776e4c5b7c87bf0257b3659a2818.squirrel@hallikainen.org>
Date: 22 May 2022 09:39:17 -0700
From: "Harold Hallikainen" <harold@hallikainen.org>
Subject: Re: ISDN's days are numbered: What should you do?
For POTS, whether delivered over copper or ISDN, it appears that there is
an effort to move from circuit switched to packet switched (VoIP). Besides
the efficiency of packet switched (data compression and no bandwidth
allocated to silence), VoIP is not regulated as a common carrier under
title 2, as far as I know.
Harold
https://w6iwi.org
***** Moderator's Note *****
Harold,
You have an interesting website: I especially liked the link to the
Model 19 Teletype repair photos. I learned to type on a Model 19, at
the M.I.T. Radio Club, W1MX, back around 1968.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Message-ID: <t6gd5a$5mp$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
Date: 23 May 2022 10:36:05 -0600
From: "Grant Taylor" <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
Subject: Re: ISDN's days are numbered: What should you do?
On 5/22/22 8:41 PM, Bill Horne wrote:
> When I investigated, I quickly found out that almost all of the
> T-Carrier systems connecting the central office to its Tandems were not
> equipped for "8 bit clean" connections. In other words, the connections
> from the CO to Tandem offices were designed for the original T-Carrier
> "robbed bit" signalling paradigm, and were not capable of delivering
> 64Kbps data connections.
This seems to be directly related to the type of bearer channel /needed/
to support the type of call being placed.
E.g. /data/ was supposed to be 64 kbps / 8-bit clean from TA to TA all
the way through the network. Conversely, /voice/ and / or /audio/ calls
(terms are slightly different) could use 56 kbps or even analog trunks
somewhere in the middle of the network.
My understanding is that 64 kbps / 8-bit clean calls are supposed to
refuse to establish over an impure intermediate transit between two
switches.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
