31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for May 6, 2013
Volume 32 : Issue 97 : "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: Sat, 4 May 2013 23:17:40 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon phasing out copper
Message-ID: <znyg2nx8i95y$.11f32j9zs3j7h$.dlg@40tude.net>
On Sat, 04 May 2013 09:15:23 -0500, Doug McIntyre wrote:
> [In] my experience, the weather beats on the copper plant like nothing
> else, and deteri[or]ates it, especially here in Minnesota with our
> fairly extreme weather, snow, rain, hot sun, etc. Every spring/fall
> I hear lots of complaints of degraded phone lines, static, cross talk, etc.
And what the weather doesn't finish off completely, the squirrels do :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 10:32:28 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon phasing out copper
Message-ID: <20130505143228.GA15072@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 11:17:40PM -0400, tlvp wrote:
> On Sat, 04 May 2013 09:15:23 -0500, Doug McIntyre wrote:
>
> > [In] my experience, the weather beats on the copper plant like nothing
> > else, and deteri[or]ates it, especially here in Minnesota with our
> > fairly extreme weather, snow, rain, hot sun, etc. Every spring/fall
> > I hear lots of complaints of degraded phone lines, static, cross talk, etc.
>
> And what the weather doesn't finish off completely, the squirrels do :-) .
Although copper-based Outside Plant is vulnerable to weather, that's
also true for any physical layer. Fiber optic cable-based local
plant might be more reliable, but it's because, paradoxically, it's
a more complicated and brittle technology than copper.
Fiber optic cables must be terminated in expensive and complicated
electronic devices, which are, let's not forget, both newer and
better-protected than the older terminal boxes where copper wires are
"fanned out" to feed buildings and/or subsidiary cables. The ONT
terminals where fiber-optic strands transition to copper have the
advantage of modern materials, better weatherproofing, and (most
importantly) a continuous, uninterupted path back to the CO.
Most problems with copper are due to deterioration of the splices, and
local cables can be spliced at so many potential failure points that
they become hard to maintain simply because operating companies don't
choose to pay for routine maintenance of the many splices that have
been installed over the years at terminal boxes, aerial tie plates,
and manholes.
In short, copper is being killed by the cold-hearted economics of the
telephone business: the simplicity, intuitive operation, and flex-
ibility of centrally-powered metallic conductors has led to their
becoming a thing of the past, replaced not because of the cost of the
metal, but because of the cost of maintaining it.
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write me directly)
Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 15:47:40 -0400
From: Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon phasing out copper
Message-ID: <hgddo81m21qfnt07nb58irvu74oj361b2p@4ax.com>
Per Bill Horne:
>In short, copper is being killed by the cold-hearted economics of the
>telephone business: the simplicity, intuitive operation, and flex-
>ibility of centrally-powered metallic conductors has led to their
>becoming a thing of the past, replaced not because of the cost of the
>metal, but because of the cost of maintaining it.
This discussion has me wondering about the EMP weapons that have
surfaced in the news lately. (long story==>short story: devices have
been developed/weaponized that can deliver an electromagnetic pulse
similar that of an atomic bomb - but without the atomic bomb).
viz:
http://tinyurl.com/c7r5tfw
I'm thinking the replacement of copper by fiberoptic would mean one less
vehicle for the pulse to get into electronic gear - leaving, of course,
AC power lines... but I have no clue how vulnerability differs between
phone and power lines.
Maybe somebody who knows something can comment.
--
Pete Cresswell
Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 15:19:16 -0400
From: unknown <arnie.goetchius@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon phasing out copper
Message-ID: <km6b4f$vql$1@dont-email.me>
tlvp wrote:
> On Sat, 04 May 2013 09:15:23 -0500, Doug McIntyre wrote:
>
>> [In] my experience, the weather beats on the copper plant like nothing
>> else, and deteri[or]ates it, especially here in Minnesota with our
>> fairly extreme weather, snow, rain, hot sun, etc. Every spring/fall
>> I hear lots of complaints of degraded phone lines, static, cross talk, etc.
>
> And what the weather doesn't finish off completely, the squirrels do :-) .
Verizon says they won't re-build the copper plant in Mantoloking NJ
after most of it was destroyed by Sandy. Instead they are providing
telephone service through their new service called Verizon Voice Link.
Voice Link basically connects your home telephone service to Verizon
Wireless but it operates just like it was connected to the CO with a
copper line - same telephone number, 911, etc.. However, in the event of
a power failure, it does run on 3 AA batteries which last 36 hours.
That's a lot better than FiOS which only gives you about 6 hours. With
enough spare AA batteries, you could go for a while.
More information in the 5/4 edition of the Asbury Park Press located at
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013305020135
Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 23:11:08 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: The Shame of Boston's Wireless Woes
Message-ID: <uiktt47wzbqu$.1d9hwdsp8sqk5.dlg@40tude.net>
On Sat, 4 May 2013 17:09:16 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher wondered:
> ... does any cellphone show you when your outgoing SMS has
> not yet been delivered?
All those I've ever used while abroad have been willing to report success
or failure when delivering a message to the SMS gateway. On failure, it
would remain queued in the OutBox, urging me to Retry sending it. Nokia,
Motorola, and LG, brand-wise, all did this.
In the US, there were never any failures. HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 20:22:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: The Shame of Boston's Wireless Woes
Message-ID: <bea55514-06b3-4a95-b6e6-97c363c90313@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
On May 4, 1:09 pm, David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
> Cell voice is highly brittle. But there is no denying that
> SMS is far better than any other current scheme in impaired
> situations: it uses very little bandwidth, queues and retries
> until it succeeds, and is ubiquitous.
> Of course, it fails hard when no visible cell site has both
> power and backhaul.
According to wikipedia:
"SMS message delivery is not guaranteed, and many implementations
provide no mechanism through which a sender can determine whether an
SMS message has been delivered in a timely manner. SMS messages are
generally treated as lower-priority traffic than voice, and various
studies have shown that around 1% to 5% of messages are lost entirely,
even during normal operation conditions, and others may not be
delivered until long after their relevance has passed. The use of SMS
as an emergency notification service in particular has been starkly
criticized."
So, I would disagree that text messaging is a viable alternative in
impaired situations, indeed, given its inherent structure, I would say
it's particularly weak.
As mentioned, historically landline phone lines had extremely high
reliability, and it's only recently that it's started to slip.
To put it another way: Say someone is at a crowded train station and
they need an ambulance. They can't get through on my cell phone due
to overload. In the old days, they could ask someone at a pay phone
to let they use it due to emergency. But it's impractical to ask a
large crowd of people to stop using their cell phones.
> I wonder, does any cellphone show you when your outgoing SMS has
> not yet been delivered?
I have text messaging blocked on my cell phone since I don't want to
pay for unsolicited spam messages. Some people try to text me, and
they get no response that their message was refused. This has led to
some confusion and miscommunication where people assumed I got their
message but did not. Seems to me in this modern age of computers, a
reject response message ought to be sent out. (The carrier tells me
they can't do that.)
If they could strengthen texting with a solid structure so that there
was higher reliability and real feedback, it then could be a viable
service in emergencies. Of course, all 911 centers would need to be
equipped to properly receive and process text messages; I'm not sure
that's the case now.
Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 15:12:47 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: The Shame of Boston's Wireless Woes
Message-ID: <km5stf$7ha$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <bea55514-06b3-4a95-b6e6-97c363c90313@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> writes:
>To put it another way: Say someone is at a crowded train station and
>they need an ambulance. They can't get through on my cell phone due
>to overload. In the old days, they could ask someone at a pay phone
>to let they use it due to emergency. But it's impractical to ask a
>large crowd of people to stop using their cell phones.
One option in the cellular system (which, ttbomk, has never been
implemented) is that calls to "911" would have priority, up to and
including bumping off another user.
A similar option is supposed to be available to certain classes
of users, with the classic example being the cell phone held
by the fire chief. Anyone know if that's in place anywhere?
- There's also the FCC mandate that any cellco "seeing" an
attempt by a (compatable) phone, whether with an account on
that service or not - and, for that matter, whether there's
even a SIM card present or not, shall allow the connection
to go through. I'd guess that, in theory at least, a "911"
call inititally attempted on the customer's, err, customary
cellco "A" but blocked because it's super busy, could get
shifted to carrier "B'. But I've never heard of this.
By the way, the cellcos are trying to eliminate this FCC mandate
as we speak.
>service in emergencies. Of course, all 911 centers would need to be
>equipped to properly receive and process text messages; I'm not sure
>that's the case now.
A very small group are set up that way, but as of yet there's
no background infrastructure to automatically find your location
and route the texts to the local PSAP (911 center). For that
matter, I don't believe we have a national "911" designation "number"
for SMS/text messages.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 16:29:36 +0000 (UTC)
From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon phasing out copper
Message-ID: <km61dg$5q8$1@reader1.panix.com>
In article <1OednRx0nImINRnMnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@megapath.net>,
Hal Murray <hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> wrote:
>In article <51844810.9050409@horne.net>,
> Tom Metro <tmetro+blu.remove-this@and.this.too.gmail.com> writes:
>
>>So the old advice seem to be largely obsolete. (Regarding battery
>>power, the ONT has a battery that lasts, I think, 8 hours. If you use
>>a cordless phone, and even if you have the base plugged into a UPS (or
>>have a rare model with a built-in battery), your phone will likely die
>>in less than 8 hours. So practically speaking you aren't really any
>>worse off.)
>
>Some of us still use a non-fancy line powered phone.
>
>Even if you normally use a fancy phone, you could keep an old one
>in the closet for emergencies.
Which will do you no good if you are on FIOS and the ONT battery runs
down.
Hint: There is NO DC path to the CO.
--
Rich Greenberg Sarasota, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 941 378 2097
Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
Canines: Val,Red,Shasta,Zero,Casey & Cinnar (At the bridge) Owner:Chinook-L
Canines: Red & Max (Siberians) Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 12:56:52 -0400
From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Shirley_M=E1rquez_D=FAlcey?=" <mark@buttery.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon phasing out copper
Message-ID: <CAMdng5sCDCP-WJ_7st1g3+W9XqKJkFY_2ozCMv7BaOODCO7-0g@mail.gmail.com>
Tom Metro wrote:
> Today I received a letter from Verizon regarding my residence in
> Newton [Massachusetts] saying "Verizon is replacing telephone wires
> and removing obsolete equipment to ensure long-term service
> reliability for our customers. To avoid future service interruptions
> we'll need to move your telephone service to our new fiber
> network. This will be done at no charge to you and you will keep the
> same voice service at the exact same price you're paying now."
[Verizon is not] using labor to dismantle the copper. Mostly they're
just turning it off, or letting it degrade to the point where they
can't provide adequate service with it. I'm a victim of the latter
here in Dorchester [Massachusetts]; we had DSL for a while but it
would go out every time we had a serious rainstorm and Verizon simply
wouldn't fix it. They would send out technicians after the weather
cleared, find no problem, and go home, but would never send a tech
DURING the bad conditions, or [they would] simply concede there was
a problem and run a new pair.
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