Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #87133 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-05-26 02:21 -0400 |
| Last post | 2026-05-26 17:21 +0200 |
| Articles | 12 on this page of 192 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 02:21 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 08:46 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-05-26 09:49 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 04:47 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 11:25 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-26 09:53 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 04:38 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 11:35 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-26 22:09 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 16:17 -0700
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-27 00:02 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-27 00:11 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-05-28 10:32 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-27 08:41 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-27 11:04 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 03:31 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-28 09:18 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-28 13:42 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-28 15:01 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 21:34 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 11:07 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 12:55 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 12:14 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 13:36 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 13:26 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:36 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 17:24 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:37 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:36 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 22:34 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-30 04:29 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-30 13:09 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-30 23:29 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-05-31 21:45 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:15 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-01 18:53 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-02 01:46 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-02 03:01 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:12 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 10:16 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:09 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 21:26 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:48 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 14:35 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-02 02:58 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-02 11:11 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-02 22:15 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 22:32 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 02:33 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:57 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 14:40 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-29 04:30 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 01:34 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 06:36 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-31 00:38 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-31 05:09 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-31 03:10 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-31 07:14 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-01 00:49 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-01 04:57 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 03:20 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 19:45 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 18:30 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:27 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 10:49 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 13:16 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 00:00 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 14:43 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:35 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:21 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 18:25 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 21:36 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:06 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:32 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:43 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 13:05 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:14 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:31 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 14:43 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:13 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 14:48 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 14:46 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-01 19:00 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-06-02 17:44 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 17:54 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 16:57 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 21:02 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:41 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:13 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:47 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:49 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:10 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 22:29 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:52 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:49 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:56 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 02:17 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 03:50 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-01 01:07 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:47 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 17:36 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:33 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:25 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 02:12 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:03 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:06 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:02 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:26 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 17:31 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:49 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:37 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-05-30 09:09 +1000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-30 13:17 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-05-31 07:33 +1000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-31 00:14 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-31 12:09 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-01 00:51 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:28 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-31 12:58 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-27 20:51 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 14:02 -0700
Re: Redundancy/Survival not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-05-28 08:54 +1000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-28 05:04 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 03:54 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-05-28 09:15 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:29 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-28 13:45 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-29 02:50 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 01:17 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 06:48 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-30 04:25 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-30 13:20 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-30 14:16 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-30 04:00 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 23:41 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-27 14:09 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 03:51 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-28 17:08 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 22:14 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 04:41 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 01:53 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 06:32 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 13:19 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:52 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:46 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-03 00:27 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 03:26 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 03:03 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:12 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:08 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:33 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 14:45 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 13:08 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:55 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-02 10:39 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 13:21 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:57 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 22:39 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-27 14:10 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-05-28 09:05 +1000
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-28 08:19 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 03:52 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-28 09:20 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 20:34 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-05-28 21:07 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 13:40 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-01 19:12 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 10:28 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 12:15 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 16:19 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:30 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:29 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 16:49 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:18 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-06-02 17:38 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 15:48 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 00:39 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 17:55 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 16:03 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 12:22 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 16:36 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:39 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 00:48 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 01:21 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 02:08 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 06:41 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 13:23 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 23:00 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-05-26 09:44 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 04:45 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 11:38 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Worst Case" <fritz@spamexpire-202605.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2026-05-26 17:21 +0200
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
| From | TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 16:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a261568aa0a0bd9b6287@dev.null> |
| In reply to | #87374 |
>On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 12:22:46 -0400, InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote: >On 6/2/2026 12:03 PM, TheLastSysop wrote: >>> On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 17:55:51 +0200, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> On 2026-06-02 17:38, Marco Moock wrote: >>>> Am 02.06.26 um 01:12 schrieb InterLinked: >>>>> On 6/1/2026 9:40 AM, Rich wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>> My point was that copper POTS customers can get speeds in the 40s/50s >>>>> calling the same service, no problem at all, but I'm not able to do >>>>> that with my service being delivered over fiber. Dial-up Internet >>>>> speeds are actually *hampered* by fiber... how ironic is that? >>>> >>>> This is because the analog signal is being converter to a digital signal >>>> by an analog to digital converter - it does not interpret the digital >>>> data signal. With ISDN, this was't that faulty, as ISDN is line- >>>> switched. IP is packet-switched, so jitter is there and relevant. >>>> The VoIP phone signal is also transferred between different carriers, >>>> which means there might be codec conversions. >>>> >>>> TLDR: V.90 is intended for analog lines, not for any digital service. >>> >>> Huh, no, not fully correct. >>> >>> V.90 assumes the analog signal from the phone is converted to digital on >>> the spot, at the client's exchange. >> >> Right. The useful distinction is not "copper vs fiber" by itself, but whether >> the modem path is the old PSTN/PCM path V.90 was designed around. V.90 >> downstream assumes a digital server-side modem and a mostly-digital phone >> network with one final D/A conversion near the subscriber loop. >> >> Once the analog modem signal is created by an ATA/ONT and then packetised as >> VoIP, all the boring voice-service details start to matter: codec, jitter >> buffer, packet loss concealment, echo cancellation, VAD, transcoding, and >> clocking. Even if the access medium is fiber, the modem no longer sees the >> same >> sort of path. >> >> Practical things I would check, if someone actually needs dialup to work over >> such a line: >> >> * force G.711/u-law or A-law only, with no compression; >> * disable VAD/silence suppression and echo cancellation if the gear allows >> it; >> * give the ATA/ONT traffic decent QoS and avoid WiFi in that path; >> * try limiting the modem to V.34/33.6 rather than chasing V.90 speeds. >> >> If that still does not hold, the annoying answer is that the line is fine for >> voice but not a transparent modem circuit. > >Everyone here seems to be missing the point or did not fully read what I >said earlier. > >I have regulated "POTS over fiber" service and it uses private >facilities. There is no other traffic on the fiber, it's just voice. I >can get perfect connections at 33.6k that stay up forever and do not >drop. Also very good connections with low speeds (300 baud) that >normally see lots of corruption over VoIP. > >Jitter and latency are not the issues here. >The codec is not the issue here (it's G.711 ulaw, as it should be). >There is no compression. >The voice quality is excellent and basically identical to TDM. I have no >qualms with the quality of my service in general. I just dislike that >there's no common battery as with copper, and a few other things. > >All of these things would be problems with "over the top" VoIP, this is >not over the top VoIP, it is actually engineered very well. Over the top >VoIP, you would never get 33.6k connections that stay up forever, or >long 300 baud modem sessions with no corruption. > >I suspect (but have not confirmed) that the ONT is doing something weird >with V.90 handshakes. It could be as simple as DTMF false detection for >a signal in the handshake that screws up the V.92 negotiation and causes >it to fallback to 33.6 - except I know the ONT is configured for inband >from other stuff I have analyzed with telco techs in the past, so I >don't think that's it exactly... but maybe you get the idea. > >If I had the ability to swap out the ONT or further debug it for issues, >I'm sure I could make it work, unfortunately I don't have that kind of >access. Fair enough; if 33.6 is rock solid and low-speed data is clean, then I would stop treating it as generic bad VoIP and look specifically at the modem-relay and line-card behaviour in the ONT/softswitch path. A useful first split would be to make the modem less ambitious and see exactly which mode breaks: * disable V.92 and try V.90 only; * disable V.90/V.92 and force V.34; * try with/without V.42/LAPM and compression, just to separate carrier training from higher-layer negotiation; * if your modem can report it, log the final modulation, symbol rate, retrains, BLER, and disconnect reason. If V.34 is boringly stable but V.90/V.92 fails or falls back differently with small option changes, that points away from packet jitter and toward some feature in the access voice equipment: echo canceller, tone detector, gain plan, clock slip, DTMF/CNG/CED detection, or a vendor's idea of "modem passthrough". Unfortunately the fix, if that is the case, is probably on the provider side: a different ONT profile, different voice-port firmware, or a real copper/PCM path. From the customer side you may only be able to gather enough evidence to make the ticket land somewhere past first-level support. -- TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> "I survived the great rm -rf / rehearsal and all I got was this .signature."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 18:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <gjd3fmx7p2.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87371 |
On 2026-06-02 18:03, TheLastSysop wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 17:55:51 +0200, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> >> wrote: >> On 2026-06-02 17:38, Marco Moock wrote: >>> Am 02.06.26 um 01:12 schrieb InterLinked: >>>> On 6/1/2026 9:40 AM, Rich wrote: >> >> >> >>>> My point was that copper POTS customers can get speeds in the 40s/50s >>>> calling the same service, no problem at all, but I'm not able to do >>>> that with my service being delivered over fiber. Dial-up Internet >>>> speeds are actually *hampered* by fiber... how ironic is that? >>> >>> This is because the analog signal is being converter to a digital signal >>> by an analog to digital converter - it does not interpret the digital >>> data signal. With ISDN, this was't that faulty, as ISDN is line- >>> switched. IP is packet-switched, so jitter is there and relevant. >>> The VoIP phone signal is also transferred between different carriers, >>> which means there might be codec conversions. >>> >>> TLDR: V.90 is intended for analog lines, not for any digital service. >> >> Huh, no, not fully correct. >> >> V.90 assumes the analog signal from the phone is converted to digital on >> the spot, at the client's exchange. > > Right. The useful distinction is not "copper vs fiber" by itself, but whether > the modem path is the old PSTN/PCM path V.90 was designed around. V.90 > downstream assumes a digital server-side modem and a mostly-digital phone > network with one final D/A conversion near the subscriber loop. Side thinking: it amazes me, at the speed these technologies evolved, the many protocol changes from 1990 to 2010 that needed many equipment changes at the exchanges, if they were getting revenue, profits. At year 2000, we were here installing V90 hardware. A few years later, we were deploying ADSL. And next, removing it all and installing fibre instead. I have 1 Gbit up/dn... not so long ago, 56K seemed amazing. > > Once the analog modem signal is created by an ATA/ONT and then packetised as > VoIP, all the boring voice-service details start to matter: codec, jitter > buffer, packet loss concealment, echo cancellation, VAD, transcoding, and > clocking. Even if the access medium is fiber, the modem no longer sees the same > sort of path. > > Practical things I would check, if someone actually needs dialup to work over > such a line: > > * force G.711/u-law or A-law only, with no compression; > * disable VAD/silence suppression and echo cancellation if the gear allows it; > * give the ATA/ONT traffic decent QoS and avoid WiFi in that path; > * try limiting the modem to V.34/33.6 rather than chasing V.90 speeds. > > If that still does not hold, the annoying answer is that the line is fine for > voice but not a transparent modem circuit. Right. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 00:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <bYycnQUmOdS6L4L3nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87371 |
On 6/2/26 12:03, TheLastSysop wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 17:55:51 +0200, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> >> wrote: >> On 2026-06-02 17:38, Marco Moock wrote: >>> Am 02.06.26 um 01:12 schrieb InterLinked: >>>> On 6/1/2026 9:40 AM, Rich wrote: >> >> >> >>>> My point was that copper POTS customers can get speeds in the 40s/50s >>>> calling the same service, no problem at all, but I'm not able to do >>>> that with my service being delivered over fiber. Dial-up Internet >>>> speeds are actually *hampered* by fiber... how ironic is that? >>> >>> This is because the analog signal is being converter to a digital signal >>> by an analog to digital converter - it does not interpret the digital >>> data signal. With ISDN, this was't that faulty, as ISDN is line- >>> switched. IP is packet-switched, so jitter is there and relevant. >>> The VoIP phone signal is also transferred between different carriers, >>> which means there might be codec conversions. >>> >>> TLDR: V.90 is intended for analog lines, not for any digital service. >> >> Huh, no, not fully correct. >> >> V.90 assumes the analog signal from the phone is converted to digital on >> the spot, at the client's exchange. > > Right. The useful distinction is not "copper vs fiber" by itself, but whether > the modem path is the old PSTN/PCM path V.90 was designed around. V.90 > downstream assumes a digital server-side modem and a mostly-digital phone > network with one final D/A conversion near the subscriber loop. > > Once the analog modem signal is created by an ATA/ONT and then packetised as > VoIP, all the boring voice-service details start to matter: codec, jitter > buffer, packet loss concealment, echo cancellation, VAD, transcoding, and > clocking. Even if the access medium is fiber, the modem no longer sees the same > sort of path. > > Practical things I would check, if someone actually needs dialup to work over > such a line: > > * force G.711/u-law or A-law only, with no compression; > * disable VAD/silence suppression and echo cancellation if the gear allows it; > * give the ATA/ONT traffic decent QoS and avoid WiFi in that path; > * try limiting the modem to V.34/33.6 rather than chasing V.90 speeds. > > If that still does not hold, the annoying answer is that the line is fine for > voice but not a transparent modem circuit. "VOIP" really WAS a big prob in the Old Days. DID look into writing a VOIP app for our local PBX system. "Latency" could be severe, disqualifying. And the connecting entity, might NOT understand your carefully-chosen codec. It's All Better Now ... at the expense of 1000 times more CPU/code ........
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 01:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7s80tFo1qlU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87244 |
On Thu, 28 May 2026 20:34:37 -0400, c186282 wrote: > On 5/28/26 04:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 28/05/2026 08:52, c186282 wrote: >>> On 5/27/26 09:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 27/05/2026 03:39, c186282 wrote: >>>>> Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll >>>>> Â Â have fired all the humans who knew how to deal with it. >>>> >>>> Hardly. Fibre does not degrade. Not like copper >>> >>> Â Â The fiber doesn't ... but fiber requires splitters/repeaters. >>> Â Â THOSE will degrade. >>> Â Â HUMANS will be required to replace that stuff. Humans are a pain >>> Â Â in the ass and expensive. >>> >> Again,. no, not really. You don send humans under the oceans to fix >> cables And fibre junctions are where human access is by definition >> possible And fixing fibre connections is not rocket science > > > Fixing copper is even easier - and it's already there. We're in the middle of a thunderstorm which reminds me of a telco tech crouched under his little tent trying to hook a a multitude of wires while his little workspace fill with water...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 02:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <UYicnc-FJtzBsIT3nZ2dnZfqnPQAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87248 |
On 5/28/26 21:21, rbowman wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2026 20:34:37 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> On 5/28/26 04:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 28/05/2026 08:52, c186282 wrote: >>>> On 5/27/26 09:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>> On 27/05/2026 03:39, c186282 wrote: >>>>>> Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll >>>>>> Â Â have fired all the humans who knew how to deal with it. >>>>> >>>>> Hardly. Fibre does not degrade. Not like copper >>>> >>>> Â Â The fiber doesn't ... but fiber requires splitters/repeaters. >>>> Â Â THOSE will degrade. >>>> Â Â HUMANS will be required to replace that stuff. Humans are a pain >>>> Â Â in the ass and expensive. >>>> >>> Again,. no, not really. You don send humans under the oceans to fix >>> cables And fibre junctions are where human access is by definition >>> possible And fixing fibre connections is not rocket science >> >> >> Fixing copper is even easier - and it's already there. > > We're in the middle of a thunderstorm which reminds me of a telco tech > crouched under his little tent trying to hook a a multitude of wires while > his little workspace fill with water... Sounds "courageous", "dedicated" - a hero figure. Long years back I kinda of WAS that person.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 06:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7sqolFu3pfU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87264 |
On Fri, 29 May 2026 02:08:11 -0400, c186282 wrote: > On 5/28/26 21:21, rbowman wrote: >> On Thu, 28 May 2026 20:34:37 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> >>> On 5/28/26 04:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 28/05/2026 08:52, c186282 wrote: >>>>> On 5/27/26 09:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>> On 27/05/2026 03:39, c186282 wrote: >>>>>>> Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll >>>>>>> Â Â have fired all the humans who knew how to deal with it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hardly. Fibre does not degrade. Not like copper >>>>> >>>>> Â Â The fiber doesn't ... but fiber requires splitters/repeaters. >>>>> Â Â THOSE will degrade. >>>>> Â Â HUMANS will be required to replace that stuff. Humans are a >>>>> Â Â pain in the ass and expensive. >>>>> >>>> Again,. no, not really. You don send humans under the oceans to fix >>>> cables And fibre junctions are where human access is by definition >>>> possible And fixing fibre connections is not rocket science >>> >>> >>> Fixing copper is even easier - and it's already there. >> >> We're in the middle of a thunderstorm which reminds me of a telco tech >> crouched under his little tent trying to hook a a multitude of wires >> while his little workspace fill with water... > > > Sounds "courageous", "dedicated" - a hero figure. No, just a guy doing a job. Sometimes the job sucks but you do it anyway. Linemen are the same way. When the poles blow over it isn't a nice sunny day but they're out there fixing them. You haven't lived until you've driven a semi through a North Dakota blizzard but you keep on trucking. I'm not sure how much of that attitude is left in Gen Z.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-01 13:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10vk14q$27ab8$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87220 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 5/27/26 09:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 27/05/2026 03:39, c186282 wrote: >>> Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll >>> Â Â have fired all the humans who knew how to deal >>> Â Â with it. >> >> Hardly. Fibre does not degrade. Not like copper > > The fiber doesn't ... but fiber requires splitters/repeaters. > THOSE will degrade. HUMANS will be required to replace that stuff. > Humans are a pain in the ass and expensive. Newsflash.... So does your POTS copper line, if you are over the maximum length from the central office where it terminates. The POTS lines also have echo cancelers along the way between you and the central office. And if your wiring is above ground cabling, lightning arrestors, and lots of other bits and pieces that *will also degrade* and that periodically *require humans to replace*. There's nothing magic about copper POTS that makes it significantly more reliable than the alternatives. The reliability of POTS was *all* about the regulatory environment, not the hardware.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-01 23:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mg81fmxjks.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87336 |
On 2026-06-01 15:23, Rich wrote: > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> On 5/27/26 09:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 27/05/2026 03:39, c186282 wrote: >>>> Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll >>>>   have fired all the humans who knew how to deal >>>>   with it. >>> >>> Hardly. Fibre does not degrade. Not like copper >> >> The fiber doesn't ... but fiber requires splitters/repeaters. >> THOSE will degrade. HUMANS will be required to replace that stuff. >> Humans are a pain in the ass and expensive. > > Newsflash.... So does your POTS copper line, if you are over the > maximum length from the central office where it terminates. > > The POTS lines also have echo cancelers along the way between you and > the central office. And if your wiring is above ground cabling, > lightning arrestors, and lots of other bits and pieces that *will also > degrade* and that periodically *require humans to replace*. > > There's nothing magic about copper POTS that makes it significantly > more reliable than the alternatives. The reliability of POTS was *all* > about the regulatory environment, not the hardware. There is only the nuance that POTS worked during power failures and fibre doesn't. We need local power backup. And they managed to get the regulators accept this. Oh well... such is life. In Spain after the energy zero we had, the government asked to rethink how to keep the network working for longer on an energy zero. I have not heard anything more about it. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-26 09:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10v3j1q$3jdt3$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #87133 |
On 26.05.2026 02:21 c186282 c186282 wrote: > Last year, one of my old ISPs, who I still get > SOME services thru, sent a message saying they > would no longer support DIAL-UP ... ie hardline > modem access. Reasonable, as customer-base for that service is shrinking. Too slow for current needs and alternatives like satellite-bases access is available. theworld.com still lists such a service, is that an option for you? > DO still have a hardline phone, they keep raising > the price, trying to get me to quit. It works even > IF all the cell towers and such go down hard. Still > worth the money IMHO. And yea, HAVE had the experience > of all the towers going down. It's called HURRICANE. > The towers, IF still standing, have about three days > of generator power. Then ........ Amount of customers is shrinking, spare parts for old exchanges getting more expensive etc. > Admittedly dial-up is NOT good with modern, ultra- > cluttered bullshit-laden web pages. WILL usually > work though, if you're REALLY patient. > > However you CAN at least do e-mail and a few other > things. In case of disasters SOME basic stuff will > still work. > > But this back-redundancy is rapidly disappearing. > This leaves us with NOTHING in the event of > cyberwar or even natural disasters. Telephony is nowadays often done via VoIP - the old ISDN (or other digital protocols) is being phased out. In such a case, VoIP is most likely also affected.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-26 04:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Ooydne-JUtsAwIj3nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87143 |
On 5/26/26 03:44, Marco Moock wrote: > On 26.05.2026 02:21 c186282 c186282 wrote: > >> Last year, one of my old ISPs, who I still get >> SOME services thru, sent a message saying they >> would no longer support DIAL-UP ... ie hardline >> modem access. > > Reasonable, as customer-base for that service is shrinking. > Too slow for current needs and alternatives like satellite-bases access > is available. > > theworld.com still lists such a service, is that an option for you? > >> DO still have a hardline phone, they keep raising >> the price, trying to get me to quit. It works even >> IF all the cell towers and such go down hard. Still >> worth the money IMHO. And yea, HAVE had the experience >> of all the towers going down. It's called HURRICANE. >> The towers, IF still standing, have about three days >> of generator power. Then ........ > > Amount of customers is shrinking, spare parts for old exchanges getting > more expensive etc. > >> Admittedly dial-up is NOT good with modern, ultra- >> cluttered bullshit-laden web pages. WILL usually >> work though, if you're REALLY patient. >> >> However you CAN at least do e-mail and a few other >> things. In case of disasters SOME basic stuff will >> still work. >> >> But this back-redundancy is rapidly disappearing. >> This leaves us with NOTHING in the event of >> cyberwar or even natural disasters. > > Telephony is nowadays often done via VoIP - the old ISDN (or > other digital protocols) is being phased out. > In such a case, VoIP is most likely also affected. I fully realize how The Tech has changed. However the POINT of this post was to wonder if this is always a great thing. IMHO, *some* backwards compatibility should always remain. Disaster/War/OOPS! never goes away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-26 11:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <o86gemxej.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87143 |
On 2026-05-26 09:44, Marco Moock wrote: > On 26.05.2026 02:21 c186282 c186282 wrote: > >> Last year, one of my old ISPs, who I still get >> SOME services thru, sent a message saying they >> would no longer support DIAL-UP ... ie hardline >> modem access. > > Reasonable, as customer-base for that service is shrinking. > Too slow for current needs and alternatives like satellite-bases access > is available. Here they removed the huge equipment from the exchanges, then rented or sold the space. And that is a lot of money saved. That's the reason they remove copper pair service here, want it or not. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Worst Case" <fritz@spamexpire-202605.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-26 17:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d9d5244a3a4bae1da68f24678498c49a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> |
| In reply to | #87133 |
On Tue, 26 May 2026 02:21:09 -0400, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > Cudos to the HAM radio operators ... they DO keep at it. In many > disaster zones THEY are the only source of info in and out. It's > early 1900s tech, but STILL has a place - ultra robust. Hams have a new toy: LoRa Mesh radios — no license required. These are line of sight (LOS), ultra low power, low bandwidth devices. Typically they are battery powered and controlled by a Bluetooth Android/iPhone App good for short text applications like pagers used to be. They are already nearly ubiquitous in large metropolitan areas. You can buy microcontroller units (MCUs) and 3D-printed cases from catalogs of such things for much less than $100 USD and be up and running in a couple of weeks. Come join the fun! + https://meshtastic.org/ -- Moreover I'm convinced that Reddit must be destroyed. Worst Case
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web