31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for May 7, 2013
Volume 32 : Issue 98 : "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: Sun, 05 May 2013 18:50:03 -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: <6fodo85i42q48lruljbue24n6jlt0nahba@4ax.com>
Per Tom Metro:
>Anyone else received such a letter?
Can anybody comment on the prospects of Verizon putting in fiber in the
area behind Atlantic City NJ (Pleasantville, West Atlantic City)?
--
Pete Cresswell
Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 11:29:36 -0400
From: Jerry Feldman <gaf@remove-this.blu.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon phasing out copper
Message-ID: <5187CC60.60701@blu.org>
On 05/06/2013 09:24 AM, Matthew Gillen wrote:
> But not in the same way copper POTS was in some very important
> respects. First, access: Vz doesn't have to provide third party
> access (so for example there will never be another Speakeasy, or
> 10-10-220 if you remember that). Second, while Comcast is the vocal
> leader on this, Vz is right behind them: they like to claim that
> since it's not a POTS line any more that the provisions of
> common-carrier status don't apply (Comcast has voiced this on a few
> occasions in testimony to the FCC; Verizon for it's part took the
> FCC to court about net neutrality last year, wherein they basically
> said the same thing Comcast said ("common-carrier doesn't apply to
> us anymore"):
>
>
> http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2012/balancing-interests-open-internet-verizon-challenges-fccs-net-neutrality-rules
>
The whole thing is very complicated because you have many new
technologies. In the POTS days, each town had its CO as well as one or
more "exchanges". Today, the exchanges are nearly meaningless and the
area codes are becoming that way especially when phones are going
mostly VOIP. IMHO, the carriers do need to be regulated. We
essentially have a small number of carriers now in the US. Your TV
cable companies compete with satellite and FIOS. Your phone provider
competes with the cable tv, providers as well as the several VOIP
providers. So, essentially Verizion, Comcast, Time-Warner, et. al
provide essentially competing services. The issue is that the
governments have not yet caught up to the industry.
--
Jerry Feldman <gaf@remove-this.blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id:3BC1EB90
PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66 C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90
Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 23:41:26 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <fg_es@ionaryQRM.invalid>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon phasing out copper
Message-ID: <km78jj$s5i$1@dont-email.me>
On 5/5/2013 10:32 AM, Bill Horne wrote:
> 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.
Well, no. There is a fiber drop to the house which is spliced atop the
pole, or plugged into a connector if the aerial cable was
pre-connectorized. And there could be splices in the fiber going back
to the CO. I've heard of reels going as far as 18 kilofeet, but there
could well be splices on the fiber path. And those have to be done right.
> 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.
Age and lack of maintenance do take a toll. By the 1980s, they were
anticipating replacing the copper plant with fiber. In 1992-1993, the
Bells promised most states that they would replace most copper with
fiber by 2000 and completely get rid of copper by 2008-2010 or so,
providing 45 Mbps bidirectional common carrier (NOT just their
"information service") service to the home. In exchange, they were
allowed to move from strict price controls (rate of return) to looser
ones (price caps). Of course they didn't comply.
Hence Kushnick's Law: "A regulated company will always renege on
promises to provide public benefits tomorrow in exchange for regulatory
and financial benefits today."
Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 23:34:04 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <fg_es@ionaryQRM.invalid>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon phasing out copper
Message-ID: <km785o$qed$1@dont-email.me>
On 4/30/2013 10:29 PM, Tom Metro wrote:
>
> Back when Verizon first rolled out FIOS, the recommendation was that
> you should ask them to leave your copper wiring in place, as it
> provided a few advantages:
>
> 1. Verizon was legally obligated to lease access to that copper to
> their competitors, so you could purchase local phone service from
> someone else; and
>
> 2. It allowed you to receive battery power from the central office to
> keep your phones running in a power outage.
>
> 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."
>
> It seems unlikely they are still motivated by desire to escape sharing
> their copper infrastructure with their competitors. Are there any
> companies left that sell residential local phone service that haven't
> moved on to VoIP? If anything, installing fiber service will only
> lessen barriers to switching to a VoIP competitor.
There are companies who still sell residential service over unbundled
copper. I have some as clients. The numbers don't work unless there's
DSL in the bundle (POTS alone isn't worth it) but it allows alternatives
to Verizon DSL. The fiber, of course, is closed to them, so pulling out
the copper is a way to lock you out of alternative carriers. The
alternative carrier could still make use of the copper plant if they
paid for a new drop wire, but that adds considerable cost.
I don't know of any such carriers here in Newton (where I am too), but
then I get my phone lines, and Internet access, from both Comcast and
RCN. They're both pretty reliable here.
Now I don't think they can require you to drop your copper. VZ's new
game is to refuse copper repairs to "chronic customers". But I have my
doubts that the Mass. Commissioner of Telecommunications & Cable,
Geoffrey Why, would allow wholesale removal of copper service. Also
note that once they have you on FiOS, they're try to get you to switch
service from Verizon-Massachusetts (tariffed, price-capped) to another
Verizon subsidiary (an unregulated one). This removes most of your
consumer protections, and allows them to plead poverty -- they are
losing so many customers! But to other subsidiaries. It's a dirty trick.
> I'd be curious to know what it is costing them to maintain their
> copper plant. It must be a money sink, as they can't have high hopes
> of converting a lot of these copper customers into subscribers of
> Internet, TV, and other higher priced services. (Though undoubtedly
> some will.) Most people still using copper are doing so specifically
> because they don't want, or have no interest in, the other services
> Verizon offers, so slightly reducing the barriers isn't going to turn
> them into customers.
>
> In fact, you have to wonder how many people faced with setting an
> appointment to have this upgrade performed will say, "Landline? We
> still have one of those? Lets just cancel it."
>
> Anyone else received such a letter? Other than if you're still using
> DSL, any reason to hold on to copper?
>
The cost of maintaining copper isn't trivial, but it does last a long
time. Some of their wires are more than 60 years old! Which is well
past their sell-by date, given that depreciation schedules were never
more than 40 years (AFAIK) and are shorter now. They basically stopped
maintaining things about 15 years ago when they were moved from rate of
return regulation to price cap regulation. If they stopped the upkeep,
they'd be allowed to keep the profit... which works for a short time.
But now the unmaintained plant is collapsing. And FiOS isn't getting
the hoped-for amount of business, especially in cable TV. So they're
desperate to push FiOS, by hook or by crook, where it was installed,
though they're not installing much more.
Date: 6 May 2013 09:34:41 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon phasing out copper
Message-ID: <km8bhh$9hp$1@panix2.panix.com>
unknown <arnie.goetchius@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
>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.
Umm... and they can provide the uptime and line quality demanded in the
POTS tariff with this gadget?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 05:41:30 -0700
From: "Harold Hallikainen" <harold@hallikainen.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Cellular as replacement for copper
Message-ID: <9b9353e2a9762710b56127fce9fc26e7.squirrel@louise.hallikainen.org>
> 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
>
>
I wonder if the quality of the voice calls will be anything near what
we've had on POTS. We put up with extremely poor audio quality and latency
for the convenience of mobility, but when at home, I still use POTS. Also,
will a cellular based home phone offer "flat rate" unlimited local
calling, as POTS does here for about $25 per month?
Cellular has largely been competing on price. I wonder if they could
compete on audio quality (like Sprint's old "pin-drop" adds).
Harold
--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at
http://www.hallikainen.com
- Advertising
opportunities available!
Not sent from an iPhone.
Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 22:45:46 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Are all phone calls recorded and accessible to US Govt
Message-ID: <5187438A.40301@thadlabs.com>
Are all telephone calls recorded and accessible to the US government?
A former FBI counterterrorism agent claims on CNN that this is the case
Glenn Greenwald Saturday 4 May 2013 08.22 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/04/telephone-calls-recorded-fbi-boston
The real capabilities and behavior of the US surveillance state are
almost entirely unknown to the American public because, like most things
of significance done by the US government, it operates behind an
impenetrable wall of secrecy. But a seemingly spontaneous admission this
week by a former FBI counterterrorism agent provides a rather startling
acknowledgment of just how vast and invasive these surveillance
activities are.
Over the past couple days, cable news tabloid shows such as CNN's Out
Front with Erin Burnett have been excitingly focused on the possible
involvement in the Boston Marathon attack of Katherine Russell, the
24-year-old American widow of the deceased suspect.
As part of their relentless stream of leaks uncritically disseminated by
our Adversarial Press Corps, anonymous government officials are claiming
that they are now focused on telephone calls between Russell and
[the suspect] that took place both before and after the attack to determine
if she had prior knowledge of the plot or participated in any way.
On Wednesday night, Burnett interviewed Tim Clemente, a former FBI
counterterrorism agent, about whether the FBI would be able to discover
the contents of past telephone conversations between the two. He quite
clearly insisted that they could:
BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail
they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this
point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's
no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless
she tells them?
CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national
security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that
conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is
going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the
investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can
find that out.
BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look,
that is incredible.
CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being
captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."
{story continues at the above URL}
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 10:34:43 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Theft of an iPhone Sets Off a Cinematic High-Speed Chase
Message-ID: <p06240838cdad6fb7e195@[10.0.1.2]>
Theft of an iPhone Sets Off a Cinematic High-Speed Chase
By MICHAEL WILSON
May 3, 2013
The woman was talking on her iPhone, and never saw coming her
induction into a large and growing subset of crime victims. But there
it happened shortly after noon on April 15, on a busy corner of Main
Street in Flushing, Queens. A teenager zipped past, snatching the
phone out of her hand and kept running.
Devices like hers were stolen 16,000 times last year in New York
City. But what happened on this afternoon was anything but
commonplace. The closest comparison that leaps to mind is a classic
chase scene from a 1971 thriller.
The teenager, soon out of sight, had every reason to believe his
getaway was whistle clean. The woman, with just as many reasons to
believe that was the last she would see of her phone, flagged a
police officer, who put a call over the radio with a description of
the young man wearing a yellow hooded sweatshirt. Another officer
pulled out his own iPhone, and together with the victim, logged into
the Find My iPhone feature, which should work if the thief had not
turned the victim's phone off.
He had not. A telltale dot appeared on the screen of the officer's
phone. The victim's phone was nearby, at 126th Street and Roosevelt
Avenue.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/nyregion/crime-scene-chasing-down-a-gps-blip-to-a-stolen-iphone.html
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 10:24:27 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: A Camera Takes On the Phones
Message-ID: <p06240834cdad6d7559e5@[10.0.1.2]>
A Camera Takes On the Phones
By DAVID POGUE
May 1, 2013
Technologies come and go in waves. And lately, the waves are coming
and going faster.
Incoming waves: tablets, e-books, movies online. Outgoing waves:
Desktop PCs, landline phones, anything on disc, tape or paper.
It's fascinating to watch outgoing industries struggle to remain
relevant. Take, for example, the outgoing wave known as pocket
cameras. No wonder nobody is buying them anymore. Your phone takes
pictures nearly as well and is far more convenient.
You always have your phone with you, and you can transmit the photos
wirelessly as soon as you take them.
But Canon, the world's No. 1 camera maker, has dreamed up an
ingenious response to the phone-camera threat. It's a camera designed
to attack the cellphone threat on three fronts.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/technology/personaltech/canon-n-takes-on-phone-cameras.html
***** Moderator's Note *****
"Anything on disk, tape, or paper"?
I bet David Pogue has never experienced the thrill of loading focal
into a PDP-8 via the punched paper tape reader on a Model 33 Teletype!
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 10:43:07 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Cyberparenting and the Risk of T.M.I.
Message-ID: <p0624083bcdad719250ba@[10.0.1.2]>
Cyberparenting and the Risk of T.M.I.
By PAMELA PAUL
May 3, 2013
It may be a timeless curse of parenthood to know simultaneously too
much about one's teenager and yet never access the information one
actually wants. But the unruly morass of today's social media and
cellphone-infested landscape seems to have made both aspects of the
curse worse.
Nowadays, if you are the parent of a 14-year-old, you can see him
guzzle beer, flirt with a girl who squeezes her bosom in every
"selfie" she posts on Instagram, and describe a fellow ninth grader
in language saltier than any you ever used at that age.
Of course, your parents never even heard you swear. They had no idea
where you went after you slammed the front door behind you. They
couldn't begin to fathom what you were really up to on a Saturday
night.
Today, parents are just one click away: buddied up on Facebook,
logging on to Tumblr, peering over cryptic text messages and trying
to get a glimpse of Snapchat images before they dissolve into the
ether.
Parents who wouldn't be caught dead reading their teenage daughter's
diary are stuck in a bind. Who really wants to be privy to all this?
Karen Sanders, a 49-year-old mother of two in Scarsdale, N.Y., finds
herself reading comments made on her 15-year-old daughter's page.
"She'll post something about someone else, and I find myself stalking
her friends - not even mine! By then, even I'm creeped out - by
myself."
Sandra Tsing Loh, 51, a writer, radio personality and the mother of
two tween daughters in the Los Angeles area, said: "All the
boundaries have broken down. Facebook is constantly sending alerts of
what they're up to: liking and commenting and posting and sharing,
like squirrels pecking away. But when their mothers are reading, it's
way too much information."
For many adults, the Internet poses a vast array of potential privacy
infringements, not all of which are readily defined or understood.
But for teenagers the threat is clear: Big Mother.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/fashion/cyber-parents-accessing-perhaps-tmi.html
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 10:23:05 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Accessories No Longer Tethered to Apple
Message-ID: <p06240833cdad6d2747aa@[10.0.1.2]>
Accessories No Longer Tethered to Apple
By NICK WINGFIELD and BRIAN X. CHEN
May 5, 2013
For years, Apple's clout in the electronics world could be gauged by
how easy it was to bump into devices tailor-made for a connection to
an iPhone or iPod.
Hotels outfitted guest rooms with alarm clocks containing a telltale
wedge of 30 tiny pins that could play music from Apple's devices and
charge their batteries. Retail stores were thick with sound docks and
other speaker systems meant to work with Apple gadgets.
But Apple's iron grip on the digital accessories in hotel rooms,
store shelves and living rooms is starting to slip - potentially
risking the royalties it earns from accessory makers and, more
significant, giving Apple customers more freedom to switch to rival
products. That could be an issue for a company whose stock has been
shaken in recent months as investors worry that the iPhone business
is slowing.
Jeremy Horwitz, editor in chief of iLounge, a Web site devoted to
Apple accessories, said Apple's aggressive control over accessories
for its products drove many makers to more open means of connecting
devices, which helped feed the success of mobile devices made by
other companies.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/technology/apples-rivals-see-an-edge-in-using-wireless-accessories.html
Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 10:29:16 -0400
From: ajbcommconsulting@frontier.com (Jim Bennett)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon phasing out copper
Message-ID: <5187BE3C.7020206@frontier.com>
On 2013-05-05 15:47, Pete Cresswell wrote:
> 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.
>
There are basically three ways an EMP pulse can enter and destroy
telecommunications equipment. The first two, which you mentioned, are
through the lines themselves [including antenna feed lines for
wireless equipment], and through the power lines that may feed the
equipment. The third way is if the equipment is close enough to the
source of the pulse that it is directly exposed to the field.
Protecting against EMP is something that the DOD and the
telecommunications industry have been working on for a long time.
They first started on it way back in the early days of the cold war,
almost immediately after they became aware of it. Some of the studies
and reports have been declassified in recent years, and links to many
of them can be found in the archives of the yahoo group known as
"coldwarcomms" [1]. Just search the thread subject lines for "EMP,"
and make sure you have room for a lot of PDF files ;^)
How resistant copper-based telecommunications hardware is to EMP
varies widely, but I think I can confidently say that today's
equipment, built around low-power CMOS components, is much more
vulnerable than earlier generations of solid-state equipment. I
recently read a study from an actual EMP test in the late 1960's, in
which real, functioning ESS equipment and D type T1 channel banks were
subject to increasingly higher field strength pulses. Some of the old
equipment was a lot harder to kill than some ever might have thought.
Keep in mind that most of that equipment was built to a NEBS 3 level
of quality even before the standard existed, with chassis made of now
rare and exotic materials such as steel.
At the CO end, the level of EMP hardening that takes place likely
depends on just how important the Fed feels a particular installation
is. A local CO in a small town might have none, but a major East
Coast switching center that carries government and DSN [2] traffic
will likely by bolted down quite tightly indeed.
At the customer end, things get a lot dicier. If a company wants to,
they can certainly build an installation that is highly resistant to
EMP. In reality, most commercial systems, and certainly all consumer
grade equipment, is woefully unprotected. Some of the steps to EMP
control involve the same hardware that is used to meet code
requirements for protection against lightning and high-voltage power
line crosses, and we all see how little emphasis there is on this now
days.
As far as how fiber vs. copper relates to all of this, that also
varies. Fiber does have the advantage of not acting like a giant
antenna to pick up an EMP pulse and bring it directly into the
endpoint equipment, provided that the fiber cable is not reinforced
with a metal jacket or support/strength strand [such cable does
exist]. The FiOS system is a completely passive optical network [3]
between the CO and the customer, so the direct exposure of fiber
regenerators [repeaters] [4] has also been eliminated. This certainly
is an advantage when hardening for EMP, compared to a copper T1 or
HDSL line with multiple repeaters along the span that could be fried.
At the customer end, FiOS terminates in a box that contains plenty of
EMP sensitive parts. The ONT boxes that we see around here are fairly
well made equipment from the likes of Tellabs and Alcatel/Lucent, but
I doubt they can withstand a pulse of any real amplitude. Even if the
guts were protected and enclosed in a metal shielded box, it would
only help if the shielding had a very low-impedance path to ground.
Every ONT box seen around here has the ground lugs left unconnected,
or "flapping in the breeze," as they say.
So, to sum up, ordinary people and businesses who use electronic
communications are likely to see no real difference in the robustness
of their connections where EMP is concerned, regardless of whether
they are fed by FiOS or not. Of course, everyone knows that only
crazy "bunker mentality" people worry about these things, right? ;^)
References and Notes:
[1]
[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coldwarcomms/
[
[2] Defense Switched Network, the successor to Autovon
[3] Talking here about true FiOS, with fiber all the way to the
customer, not "Fiber to the neighborhood" systems such as U-verse
[4] Modern fiber regen equipment uses EDFA to eliminate a lot of the
solid-state electronics that was needed in the past, but still contains
lots of silicon in the power supply and control circuitry. See
wikipedia for an explanation of EDFA
Jim Bennett
===================================================================
The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you.
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 08:44:55 +0000 (UTC)
From: Koos van den Hout <koos+newsposting@kzdoos.xs4all.nl>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon phasing out copper
Message-ID: <km7qi7$c9$1@kzdoos.xs4all.nl>
unknown <arnie.goetchius@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote in <km6b4f$vql$1@dont-email.me>:
> 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.
> More information in the 5/4 edition of the Asbury Park Press located at
>
> http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013305020135
>
A less-cheering view of the "service" Verizon is offering post-Sandy:
http://www.newnetworks.com/VerizonNYC.htm
Disclaimer: I'm not involved with US telecom, I ran into this link in
comp.risks and it looks quite relevant to this discussion.
Koos van den Hout
--
Camp Wireless, the site about wireless Internet | Koos van den Hout
access at campsites
http://www.camp-wireless.org/
|
http://idefix.net/
PGP keyid DSS/1024 0xF0D7C263 | IPv6 enabled!
Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 09:24:36 -0400
From: Matthew Gillen <me@remove-this.mattgillen.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon phasing out copper
Message-ID: <5187AF14.7050907@mattgillen.net>
FiOS is not regulated in the same way copper POTS was, in some very
important respects.
First, access: Vz doesn't have to provide third party access (so for
example there will never be another Speakeasy, or 10-10-220 if you
remember that).
Second, while Comcast is the vocal leader on this, Vz is right behind
them: they like to claim that since it's not a POTS line any more that
the provisions of common-carrier status don't apply (Comcast has
voiced this on a few occasions in testimony to the FCC; Verizon for
it's part took the FCC to court about net neutrality last year,
wherein they basically said the same thing Comcast said
("common-carrier doesn't apply to us anymore"):
http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2012/balancing-interests-open-internet-verizon-challenges-fccs-net-neutrality-rules
).
Matt
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 (14 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues