35 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Copyright © 2016 E. William Horne. All Rights Reserved.

The Telecom Digest for Wed, 14 Sep 2016
Volume 35 : Issue 135 : "text" format

Table of contents
Re: Is 384 Kibit/s adequate for travel?Doug McIntyre
Re: Alternatives to AT&T DSL servicebob prohaska
Re: Is 384 Kibit/s adequate for travel?Doug McIntyre
Re: Alternatives to AT&T DSL serviceJim Haynes
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <b_2dncezuKr8JEvKnZ2dnUU7-VGdnZ2d@giganews.com> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 09:19:13 -0500 From: Doug McIntyre <merlyn@dork.geeks.org> Subject: Re: Is 384 Kibit/s adequate for travel? >***** Moderator's Note ***** >IIRC, 384 Kibit/s was the rate of an ISDL line way back when. .... I was going to mention in my other post that OOTH, 384kbps is exactly 3 x ISDN BRI lines. This was quite a popular configuration for video conferencing, having 3 bonded BRI's together gave you just enough dedicated symmetric bandwidth for the video CODEC used without the variable analog modem changing speeds depending on line conditions. I'd wager that there are still a few videoconferencing setups still out there using this as a solution rather than Internet bandwidth, although the cost is probably too high for most to justify keeping it. --- Doug McIntyre doug@themcintyres.us ***** Moderator's Note ***** 384 Kibit/s is three times the speed of an ISDN line with both A and B channels bonded together in "full bandwidth" mode, i.e., with two "8 bit clean" connections between the customer and the data center. Early video conferencing setups were *ALSO* the driver for my efforts to find 8-bit clean trunk packs, and in some situations the problem could only be resolved by creating new trunk groups with 8-bit T-Carrier cards. Automatic rate selection was a few years away at that time, and some videoconferencing equpments refused to connect if they didn't get two 64 Kibit/s channels. Bill Horne Moderator ------------------------------ Message-ID: <nr7o5u$bln$1@news.albasani.net> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 02:27:11 +0000 (UTC) From: bob prohaska <bp@www.zefox.net> Subject: Re: Alternatives to AT&T DSL service Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote: > bob prohaska <bp@www.zefox.net> wrote: > >>Suppose I have a copper pair connected to a CO-powered phone. It >>sounds as if my carrier (AT&T) is obliged to share this copper with >>any ISP I designate. Is this correct? > > Yes, but they are not obliged to share it with another POTS provider. Ok, that isn't a huge problem. >>If I relinquish the analog copper service, by going to U-verse or something >>equivalent, do I then lose the right to ask AT&T to share the copper pair >>with other ISPs? Can I get the right back, perhaps by paying for >>reinstallation of an analog service line? > No. You will have traded in a tariffed service for which the > telco has certain restrictions for an untariffed service for > which they have no restrictions. Moral of the story: Hang on to your POTS! 8-) >>To put a sort of closure on my original question, after AT&T made their >>changes to the "redback" edge routers in Sacramento my service has been >>reasonably good. For the time being there's not enough incentive to change >>to another ISP. At least, not yet.... > > If you change to another DSL ISP, they will be using AT&T's infrastructure, > however when something goes wrong they will have to fight with AT&T on your > behalf rather than leaving you to talk to the lowest grade of support > representative in a desperate attempt to get them to take your problem > seriously. The service itself will be the same, the hardware will be the > same, but the support will not be. Not clear whether that's a plus or a minus. So far, my experience with ATT tech support hasn't been all that bad. Interestingly, the "local" ISP seems to charge a little bit less than ATT for DSL. Thanks for your insights! bob prohaska ------------------------------ Message-ID: <ka6dnW50JJ4SL0vKnZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 08:50:07 -0500 From: Doug McIntyre <merlyn@dork.geeks.org> Subject: Re: Is 384 Kibit/s adequate for travel? >***** Moderator's Note ***** > IIRC, 384 Kibit/s was the rate of an IDSL line way back when. When > we were all trying to make do with 300 baud modems and accoustic > couplers, IDSL and ISDN were the "gold standard" of data > communications. Nope, IDSL was 144kbps. IDSL's main thing was to utilize both D's (64kbps each), and the B signal channel (16kbps) since you didn't need Q.921/Q.931 signalling over a dedicated IDSL. So, 144kbps was a tiny incremental over the 128kbps a bonded ISDN dialup got you. Its main thing was that it was dedicated instead of dialup (even though the dialup setup on ISDN BRI was pretty fast), and probably didn't tie up two B channels on the voice switch, so the LECs liked it better, even if they had to roll different hardware. But it was symetric, and could be extended with ISDN type hardware. But the routers for IDSL also sucked pretty hard. By the time IDSL rolled out, there was also SDSL at faster speeds. Higher price points, and required more direct paths, ala ADSL, but people would typically pick price and speed over the slightly wonkier and much slower IDSL. Also, IDSL ran into many spectral interference issues when we were rolling out. It couldn't be in the same wire bundle as many other things. Much more repair and provisioning issues. --- Doug McIntyre doug@themcintyres.us ***** Moderator's Note ***** I hadn't know about the cable issues: that's something new I've learned today. IDSL was such a money-maker that I bet the added effort was well compensated. I never did understand why "Ma Bell" was so averse to ISDN: I worked at home for almost a year following an accident in the 1990's, and I was astonished at the voice quality and freedom from noise that the ISDN connection afforded me. I actually had people on the line whose calls had been forwarded from my office, asking me to stop by on my way to lunch or trying to find out where my "new" desk was - while they were calling from my cubicle. Having two phone numbers was nice, since I could reserve one for "business" and not have to worry about my son tying up the phone, and of course that meant fewer uncompleted calls. The "Data" connections were billed by the minute, so Mother Bell couldn't have been mad about /that/, either. I wonder if the ILECs had friends in the insurance industry who were worried about taking losses during power failures: like fiber, ISDN always required active devices at the premise, but not backup power. It's possible that the training costs were too high for corporate comfort: I can't think of why, though, since ISDN was just a wire pair, just like POTS. It's also possible that the bean counters didn't want to replace any of the inventory of T-Carrier channel units, which were almost all limited to "7 bit" connections. As it happened, I had spent months trying to find "8 bit clean" connections for executives who had some of the first home-office setups: due to the aforementioned "7 bit" trunk packs, most ISDN "Data" calls were limited to 56 Kibit/s per bearer, so 112 Kibit/s was the customary data rate for bonded data calls. Bill Horne Moderator ------------------------------ Message-ID: <0fe45007-f613-4370-b42d-fa377f945f70@googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:49:19 -0700 (PDT) From: jhhaynes@earthlink.net Subject: Re: Alternatives to AT&T DSL service In Fayetteville, AR my ISP is Earthlink, providing DSL over AT&T copper. Service has been reasonably satisfactory. I've had a couple of outages, in one case caused by AT&T equipment and in another case caused by an AT&T cable problem. Both took several days to resolve. The first time the delay was in getting Earthlink to realize the problem was in the AT&T plant and get AT&T on it. The second time Earthlink told me the trouble was an AT&T cable and nothing to do until AT&T fixed it. My friend in Columbia MO gets DSL from an ISP right there in town, Socket.net. They use CenturyLink copper. He's had a couple of incidents of intermittently bad service: one was caused by a loose connection on his premises, which I discovered during a visit and fixed, and the second time was apparently trouble in the CenturyLink cable. He only got that fixed by subscribing to a higher speed DSL service: I guess that forced CenturyLink to give Socket a better cable pair. ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Wed, 14 Sep 2016

Telecom Digest Archives