Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #87133 > unrolled thread

Redundancy/Survival

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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> - 2026-06-01 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 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 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 "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 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 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8  Next page →

#87383

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2026-06-01 20:30, Rich wrote:
>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2026-06-01 05:20, Rich wrote:
>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>>>     I've EXPERIENCED tower networks Going DOWN ...  they have maybe
>>>>>     three days worth of power backup.  Then it's 1826 again.
>>>>>
>>>>>     But copper KEEPS WORKING. Simple and sure.
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> If you applied the identical regulations to fiber, it too would 
>>>> (and could) be just as much a "it KEEPS WORKING" system as the old 
>>>> copper POTS system was.  All the fiber would need to be all but 
>>>> identical is for a pair of power conductors (yes copper wires, 
>>>> since glass happens to be an electrical insulator) to be run along 
>>>> with each bundle, and for the demarc terminals in each home (plus 
>>>> one of the phone handsets) to be powered from the fiber bundle 
>>>> power conductors.
>>>
>>> That would not happen.
>> 
>> Agreed.  I highly doubt such would ever occur to the regulators as 
>> well.  My point is, it would be /possible/ for the fiber bundle to 
>> carry a single copper pair used only to provide the small power 
>> necessary to power the end point just like old style analog POTS 
>> phones were powered by the line from the switch.
> 
> Thing is, they would have to power the ONT or the router, and do so 
> for all customers the full time, even if they are not using their 
> phones actively at the moment.  That is no small power, it can be 
> 2..3 amps at 12 volts per client (based on the ratings of the power 
> wall wart of my router.

Don't look at the label on the wart as the consumption of the device.  
The wart's labels are what it is rated to output without lighting your 
house on fire.  If you measure the actual draw of the connected 
devices, you'll often find it is much less than the wart's max 2..3 
amps.  Often substantially less.

In any case, that is also fixable.  Run the power conductors at a 
higher voltage (48v -- the POE voltage) or even whatever your mains 
voltage is (220 in Spain?).  Then the current in the big cable is much 
reduced, even with every end point 'running' and drawing power.  It can 
be done, but it is also very much a not likely to be done thing as 
well.

Of course this would likely mean fewer "end points" on each arm from 
the local switch, as no matter how high one runs the voltage on the 
power pair, there is a limit of how many demarc's it can power at once.

Alternately, each "fiber line" could include a pair of power conductors 
to power that one end-point (again likely running a higher voltage to 
cover for resistive losses in the long wires).

But also, just an 'imagined possibility'.  No regulator today would 
think of trying to impose any such requirement anyway.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87384

>On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 18:21:34 -0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2026-06-01 20:30, Rich wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2026-06-01 05:20, Rich wrote:
>>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>>>>     I've EXPERIENCED tower networks Going DOWN ...  they have maybe
>>>>>>     three days worth of power backup.  Then it's 1826 again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     But copper KEEPS WORKING. Simple and sure.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> If you applied the identical regulations to fiber, it too would
>>>>> (and could) be just as much a "it KEEPS WORKING" system as the old
>>>>> copper POTS system was.  All the fiber would need to be all but
>>>>> identical is for a pair of power conductors (yes copper wires,
>>>>> since glass happens to be an electrical insulator) to be run along
>>>>> with each bundle, and for the demarc terminals in each home (plus
>>>>> one of the phone handsets) to be powered from the fiber bundle
>>>>> power conductors.
>>>>
>>>> That would not happen.
>>>
>>> Agreed.  I highly doubt such would ever occur to the regulators as
>>> well.  My point is, it would be /possible/ for the fiber bundle to
>>> carry a single copper pair used only to provide the small power
>>> necessary to power the end point just like old style analog POTS
>>> phones were powered by the line from the switch.
>>
>> Thing is, they would have to power the ONT or the router, and do so
>> for all customers the full time, even if they are not using their
>> phones actively at the moment.  That is no small power, it can be
>> 2..3 amps at 12 volts per client (based on the ratings of the power
>> wall wart of my router.
>
>Don't look at the label on the wart as the consumption of the device.
>The wart's labels are what it is rated to output without lighting your
>house on fire.  If you measure the actual draw of the connected
>devices, you'll often find it is much less than the wart's max 2..3
>amps.  Often substantially less.
>
>In any case, that is also fixable.  Run the power conductors at a
>higher voltage (48v -- the POE voltage) or even whatever your mains
>voltage is (220 in Spain?).  Then the current in the big cable is much
>reduced, even with every end point 'running' and drawing power.  It can
>be done, but it is also very much a not likely to be done thing as
>well.
>
>Of course this would likely mean fewer "end points" on each arm from
>the local switch, as no matter how high one runs the voltage on the
>power pair, there is a limit of how many demarc's it can power at once.
>
>Alternately, each "fiber line" could include a pair of power conductors
>to power that one end-point (again likely running a higher voltage to
>cover for resistive losses in the long wires).
>
>But also, just an 'imagined possibility'.  No regulator today would
>think of trying to impose any such requirement anyway.

For a home setup the useful first step is to measure the real load, not size
from the wall-wart label.  A cheap plug-in wattmeter on the AC side, or an
inline DC meter if the router/ONT uses a barrel connector, will usually show a
much smaller steady draw than the adapter's maximum rating.

If the goal is keeping voice or basic connectivity alive through short power
cuts, a small DC UPS or a modest AC UPS sized from that measured load is a lot
simpler than trying to make the access network provide line power.  Then check
whether the ONT, router and any ATA/DECT base all need backup; missing one box
in that chain is the usual surprise.

-- 
TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null>
"I survived the great rm -rf / rehearsal and all I got was this .signature."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87387

On 2026-06-02 20:25, TheLastSysop wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 18:21:34 -0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2026-06-01 20:30, Rich wrote:
>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-06-01 05:20, Rich wrote:


>>> Thing is, they would have to power the ONT or the router, and do so
>>> for all customers the full time, even if they are not using their
>>> phones actively at the moment.  That is no small power, it can be
>>> 2..3 amps at 12 volts per client (based on the ratings of the power
>>> wall wart of my router.
>>
>> Don't look at the label on the wart as the consumption of the device.
>> The wart's labels are what it is rated to output without lighting your
>> house on fire.  If you measure the actual draw of the connected
>> devices, you'll often find it is much less than the wart's max 2..3
>> amps.  Often substantially less.
>>
>> In any case, that is also fixable.  Run the power conductors at a
>> higher voltage (48v -- the POE voltage) or even whatever your mains
>> voltage is (220 in Spain?).  Then the current in the big cable is much
>> reduced, even with every end point 'running' and drawing power.  It can
>> be done, but it is also very much a not likely to be done thing as
>> well.
>>
>> Of course this would likely mean fewer "end points" on each arm from
>> the local switch, as no matter how high one runs the voltage on the
>> power pair, there is a limit of how many demarc's it can power at once.
>>
>> Alternately, each "fiber line" could include a pair of power conductors
>> to power that one end-point (again likely running a higher voltage to
>> cover for resistive losses in the long wires).
>>
>> But also, just an 'imagined possibility'.  No regulator today would
>> think of trying to impose any such requirement anyway.

Correct, they wouldn't.

> 
> For a home setup the useful first step is to measure the real load, not size
> from the wall-wart label.  A cheap plug-in wattmeter on the AC side, or an
> inline DC meter if the router/ONT uses a barrel connector, will usually show a
> much smaller steady draw than the adapter's maximum rating.
> 
> If the goal is keeping voice or basic connectivity alive through short power
> cuts, a small DC UPS or a modest AC UPS sized from that measured load is a lot
> simpler than trying to make the access network provide line power.  Then check
> whether the ONT, router and any ATA/DECT base all need backup; missing one box
> in that chain is the usual surprise.

I have looked at small DC-UPS designed precisely to power the router, 
and they are designed for 3A. But one of them just has two AAA cells. 
That's damn not enough.

<https://www.amazon.es/-/en/APC-Back-UPS-Connect-CP12036LI-Controladores/dp/B0CJ5D89Z9>

<https://www.amazon.es/-/en/Internal-Battery-Lightweight-Protects-Overloads/dp/B07DPTF9VW>

<https://www.amazon.es/-/en/Salicru-658BB000009-SPS-net2/dp/B0DHL4XRBW/>

<https://www.amazon.es/-/en/Shanqiu-Router-Surveillance-Camera-Output/dp/B0FF9QS7LK/>

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87349

On 6/1/2026 2:30 PM, Rich wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2026-06-01 05:20, Rich wrote:
>> What could happen is mandating the router or ONT have a battery backup
>> included, or at least optional. As simple as installing a bunch of AA
>> batteries.
> 
> Yep, that's already what Verizon does with their FIOS service.  One
> gets either a lead acid battery (UPS style battery) that will power the
> ONT for "some time" on a power fail, or one gets a rather large box
> that holds something like 12 D sized alkaline cell batteries as the
> "backup power" should mains be out.  I'm not sure if the different
> types arrive based on price level purchased, or just on "previously,
> they privided this, now they provide that".

The lead acid is the older variety and the D cell is the newer one. I 
had to buy the older kind on eBay as they are not really available 
anymore. Neither is sufficient, you can get 8-24 hours of standby power 
with these kinds, but that's woefully inadequate in an extended outage, 
and both are now a significant cost that consumers are now expected to bear.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87379

On 2026-06-01, InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote:
> On 6/1/2026 2:30 PM, Rich wrote:
>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2026-06-01 05:20, Rich wrote:
>>> What could happen is mandating the router or ONT have a battery backup
>>> included, or at least optional. As simple as installing a bunch of AA
>>> batteries.
>> 
>> Yep, that's already what Verizon does with their FIOS service.  One
>> gets either a lead acid battery (UPS style battery) that will power the
>> ONT for "some time" on a power fail, or one gets a rather large box
>> that holds something like 12 D sized alkaline cell batteries as the
>> "backup power" should mains be out.  I'm not sure if the different
>> types arrive based on price level purchased, or just on "previously,
>> they privided this, now they provide that".
>
> The lead acid is the older variety and the D cell is the newer one. I 
> had to buy the older kind on eBay as they are not really available 
> anymore. Neither is sufficient, you can get 8-24 hours of standby power 
> with these kinds, but that's woefully inadequate in an extended outage, 
> and both are now a significant cost that consumers are now expected to bear.

Verizon's FIOS/fiber successors (at least on the Verizon ->
Frontier -> Ziply path) no longer provide for any battery backup.
The new ziply ONTs have nothing for any duration longer than
maybe a second (likely at most a fraction of a second).  A
customer can add a UPS to power the ONT, but it's anyone's guess
whether Ziply now maintains power to even any neighborhood
concentration equipment or "central office" facilities.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87380

>On 2 Jun 2026 17:44:25 GMT, Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> wrote:
>On 2026-06-01, InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote:
>> On 6/1/2026 2:30 PM, Rich wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2026-06-01 05:20, Rich wrote:
>>>> What could happen is mandating the router or ONT have a battery backup
>>>> included, or at least optional. As simple as installing a bunch of AA
>>>> batteries.
>>>
>>> Yep, that's already what Verizon does with their FIOS service.  One
>>> gets either a lead acid battery (UPS style battery) that will power the
>>> ONT for "some time" on a power fail, or one gets a rather large box
>>> that holds something like 12 D sized alkaline cell batteries as the
>>> "backup power" should mains be out.  I'm not sure if the different
>>> types arrive based on price level purchased, or just on "previously,
>>> they privided this, now they provide that".
>>
>> The lead acid is the older variety and the D cell is the newer one. I
>> had to buy the older kind on eBay as they are not really available
>> anymore. Neither is sufficient, you can get 8-24 hours of standby power
>> with these kinds, but that's woefully inadequate in an extended outage,
>> and both are now a significant cost that consumers are now expected to bear.
>
>Verizon's FIOS/fiber successors (at least on the Verizon ->
>Frontier -> Ziply path) no longer provide for any battery backup.
>The new ziply ONTs have nothing for any duration longer than
>maybe a second (likely at most a fraction of a second).  A
>customer can add a UPS to power the ONT, but it's anyone's guess
>whether Ziply now maintains power to even any neighborhood
>concentration equipment or "central office" facilities.

One practical thing is to treat the ONT, router, and any switch you actually
need as one small critical load and measure that load before buying the UPS. A
lot of the little network boxes draw less than their wall warts imply, so a
modest UPS can run them longer than expected if it is not also carrying a PC,
monitor, printer, etc.

I would also do a planned pull-the-plug test while nothing important depends on
it.  If the ONT and router stay up but the provider's upstream plant drops, then
more battery on the customer side will not buy much.  If it stays online, then
the UPS runtime number is actually worth optimizing.

-- 
TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null>
"I survived the great rm -rf / rehearsal and all I got was this .signature."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87389

On 6/2/2026 1:54 PM, TheLastSysop wrote:
> One practical thing is to treat the ONT, router, and any switch you actually
> need as one small critical load and measure that load before buying the UPS. A
> lot of the little network boxes draw less than their wall warts imply, so a
> modest UPS can run them longer than expected if it is not also carrying a PC,
> monitor, printer, etc.

One thing that's worth mentioning is that use of a convention AC UPS 
involves inherent losses from converting the DC power to AC, then back 
to DC. The Verizon backup units at least avoided this issue because the 
backup battery supplies DC power straight to the ONT.

There are various ways to extend the runtime and maintain this property, 
of varying complexity. But a standard UPS meant for a PC is not a good 
UPS for something like a router or ONT which runs off 12 VDC, not 120 VAC.

> I would also do a planned pull-the-plug test while nothing important depends on
> it.  If the ONT and router stay up but the provider's upstream plant drops, then
> more battery on the customer side will not buy much.  If it stays online, then
> the UPS runtime number is actually worth optimizing.

Yes, this is a good point. When I moved to where I am now, I was 
tinkering with backup options for various equipment. I discovered that 
even if I powered my cable modem during an outage, the Internet 
immediately went out, showing that the cable network required active 
equipment that had zero backup power in an outage.

In contrast, my phone service over fiber continued working (only because 
I had my local lead acid battery backup for the ONT.)

I have lived in other places where the cable didn't immediately go out 
during an outage either, so this kind of thing probably varies from 
place to place.

I don't really fault Comcast for not keeping things going in an outage. 
I really couldn't care less whether anything except the phone keeps 
working in a power outage. I have UPS equipment for my PC, server rack, 
etc. but that's to shut everything down safely, not keep the network 
going for any meaningful length of time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87390

>On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 16:57:02 -0400, InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote:
>On 6/2/2026 1:54 PM, TheLastSysop wrote:
>> One practical thing is to treat the ONT, router, and any switch you actually
>> need as one small critical load and measure that load before buying the UPS.
>> A
>> lot of the little network boxes draw less than their wall warts imply, so a
>> modest UPS can run them longer than expected if it is not also carrying a PC,
>> monitor, printer, etc.
>
>One thing that's worth mentioning is that use of a convention AC UPS
>involves inherent losses from converting the DC power to AC, then back
>to DC. The Verizon backup units at least avoided this issue because the
>backup battery supplies DC power straight to the ONT.
>
>There are various ways to extend the runtime and maintain this property,
>of varying complexity. But a standard UPS meant for a PC is not a good
>UPS for something like a router or ONT which runs off 12 VDC, not 120 VAC.
>
>> I would also do a planned pull-the-plug test while nothing important depends
>> on
>> it.  If the ONT and router stay up but the provider's upstream plant drops,
>> then
>> more battery on the customer side will not buy much.  If it stays online,
>> then
>> the UPS runtime number is actually worth optimizing.
>
>Yes, this is a good point. When I moved to where I am now, I was
>tinkering with backup options for various equipment. I discovered that
>even if I powered my cable modem during an outage, the Internet
>immediately went out, showing that the cable network required active
>equipment that had zero backup power in an outage.
>
>In contrast, my phone service over fiber continued working (only because
>I had my local lead acid battery backup for the ONT.)
>
>I have lived in other places where the cable didn't immediately go out
>during an outage either, so this kind of thing probably varies from
>place to place.
>
>I don't really fault Comcast for not keeping things going in an outage.
>I really couldn't care less whether anything except the phone keeps
>working in a power outage. I have UPS equipment for my PC, server rack,
>etc. but that's to shut everything down safely, not keep the network
>going for any meaningful length of time.

Agreed.  If the load is all small DC gear, a purpose-built DC UPS or a battery
system with regulated 12 V / 9 V / 5 V outputs is often a better fit than
dragging the power through an inverter and a pile of wall warts.

The catches are worth checking before buying parts: the connector polarity, the
actual voltage tolerance of the ONT/router, startup current, and whether the
unit passes clean power while charging.  Some cheap "12 V UPS" boxes are really
just lithium packs with a boost converter and optimistic labels.

A safe approach is to measure the real load, size the battery for the desired
runtime with conversion losses included, add proper fusing, then do the same
planned outage test.  That answers both questions: whether the local gear
survives and whether the provider side stays up long enough to matter.

-- 
TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null>
"I survived the great rm -rf / rehearsal and all I got was this .signature."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87265

Argue crap all you want - the providers are
generally REQUIRED to keep the POTS running
and I support that.

Note the theme here - "Redundancy".

Keep EVERYTHING that worked. Add on new stuff
all you want, but .....

Use the Laws. Hire class-action lawyers if needed
to kick ass.

Oh, and even TELEGRAPH service should be preserved
over a few copper lines. Slow, but WORKED and was
very robust. First comm network that could use
pre-Tube/Transistor amplifiers ... just relays.
Edison figured out how to record the traffic
even as a youth.

On the whole, "new" is MUCH more technically
complicated at every level. That complication
means MANY more ways for it to FAIL.

OK ... believable ... North Korea sets off
several EMP bombs high over the USA. ALL the
'complicated' tech immediately DIES for a
LONG time.

So HOW do you call an ambulance ? Your bank ?

You AREN'T ... unless we've maintained some
lower-tech REDUNDANCY.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87318

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> Argue crap all you want - the providers are
> generally REQUIRED to keep the POTS running
> and I support that.

And there you are slowly beginning to maybe see why POTS service was 
mostly "always working".  The "providers are generally required" part 
is why.

> OK ... believable ... North Korea sets off
> several EMP bombs high over the USA. ALL the
> 'complicated' tech immediately DIES for a
> LONG time.

Sadly, I have bad news for you.  Your wonderful copper POTS line that 
begins at the side of your house, and travels however far from pole to 
pole to reach you local telephone switch, well, guess what it connects 
to at that switch now in 2026?

The old electromechanical step-by-step switches, or electromechanical 
crossbar switches?  Nope.  Those were, mostly, long gone by the early 
70's.

It connects to...... a modern digitizer that digitizes the signals on 
the line, and the entire rest of the switch, in 2026, is a fancy 
computer system (usually running Erlang) that routes digital bits and 
bytes around.

Guess what happens to those digital computer switches should that EMP 
be exploded?

While you /might/ have 48v of power on the line, for a while (until the 
diesel generators run out of fuel) you won't have any communications, 
because *everything* after your copper wires terminate at the local 
switch is, and has been since the early 70's, essentially VOIP service 
now (not literally VOIP, but digital networking and/or digital 
computerized circuit switching (i.e.  ATM)).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87324

On 5/31/26 23:50, Rich wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> Argue crap all you want - the providers are
>> generally REQUIRED to keep the POTS running
>> and I support that.
> 
> And there you are slowly beginning to maybe see why POTS service was
> mostly "always working".  The "providers are generally required" part
> is why.
> 
>> OK ... believable ... North Korea sets off
>> several EMP bombs high over the USA. ALL the
>> 'complicated' tech immediately DIES for a
>> LONG time.
> 
> Sadly, I have bad news for you.  Your wonderful copper POTS line that
> begins at the side of your house, and travels however far from pole to
> pole to reach you local telephone switch, well, guess what it connects
> to at that switch now in 2026?
> 
> The old electromechanical step-by-step switches, or electromechanical
> crossbar switches?  Nope.  Those were, mostly, long gone by the early
> 70's.

   Saw 'em in action, late 60s. Neat !

> It connects to...... a modern digitizer that digitizes the signals on
> the line, and the entire rest of the switch, in 2026, is a fancy
> computer system (usually running Erlang) that routes digital bits and
> bytes around.
> 
> Guess what happens to those digital computer switches should that EMP
> be exploded?
> 
> While you /might/ have 48v of power on the line, for a while (until the
> diesel generators run out of fuel) you won't have any communications,
> because *everything* after your copper wires terminate at the local
> switch is, and has been since the early 70's, essentially VOIP service
> now (not literally VOIP, but digital networking and/or digital
> computerized circuit switching (i.e.  ATM)).

   Well, if the digital stuff fries they can STILL
   manually connect at least a sub-portion of the
   copper.

   Most tech fried ... hey ... telegraphy works  :-)
   Simple relay-based line amps. Worked in 1850 and
   can work now over remaining POTS lines. Find a
   neighborhood 'telegraph guy'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87330

On 2026-06-01 07:07, c186282 wrote:
> On 5/31/26 23:50, Rich wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>> Argue crap all you want - the providers are
>>> generally REQUIRED to keep the POTS running
>>> and I support that.
>>
>> And there you are slowly beginning to maybe see why POTS service was
>> mostly "always working".  The "providers are generally required" part
>> is why.
>>
>>> OK ... believable ... North Korea sets off
>>> several EMP bombs high over the USA. ALL the
>>> 'complicated' tech immediately DIES for a
>>> LONG time.
>>
>> Sadly, I have bad news for you.  Your wonderful copper POTS line that
>> begins at the side of your house, and travels however far from pole to
>> pole to reach you local telephone switch, well, guess what it connects
>> to at that switch now in 2026?
>>
>> The old electromechanical step-by-step switches, or electromechanical
>> crossbar switches?  Nope.  Those were, mostly, long gone by the early
>> 70's.
> 
>    Saw 'em in action, late 60s. Neat !
> 
>> It connects to...... a modern digitizer that digitizes the signals on
>> the line, and the entire rest of the switch, in 2026, is a fancy
>> computer system (usually running Erlang) that routes digital bits and
>> bytes around.
>>
>> Guess what happens to those digital computer switches should that EMP
>> be exploded?
>>
>> While you /might/ have 48v of power on the line, for a while (until the
>> diesel generators run out of fuel) you won't have any communications,
>> because *everything* after your copper wires terminate at the local
>> switch is, and has been since the early 70's, essentially VOIP service
>> now (not literally VOIP, but digital networking and/or digital
>> computerized circuit switching (i.e.  ATM)).
> 
>    Well, if the digital stuff fries they can STILL
>    manually connect at least a sub-portion of the
>    copper.

Manually? You need an expert to go in the exchange and rewire the cables 
to connect two phones permanently. Maybe, because the batteries are the 
wrong voltage. Certainly no dialing.

> 
>    Most tech fried ... hey ... telegraphy works  :-)
>    Simple relay-based line amps. Worked in 1850 and
>    can work now over remaining POTS lines. Find a
>    neighborhood 'telegraph guy'.
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87339

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2026-06-01 07:07, c186282 wrote:
>> On 5/31/26 23:50, Rich wrote:
>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>> Argue crap all you want - the providers are
>>>> generally REQUIRED to keep the POTS running
>>>> and I support that.
>>>
>>> And there you are slowly beginning to maybe see why POTS service was
>>> mostly "always working".  The "providers are generally required" part
>>> is why.
>>>
>>>> OK ... believable ... North Korea sets off
>>>> several EMP bombs high over the USA. ALL the
>>>> 'complicated' tech immediately DIES for a
>>>> LONG time.
>>>
>>> Sadly, I have bad news for you.  Your wonderful copper POTS line that
>>> begins at the side of your house, and travels however far from pole to
>>> pole to reach you local telephone switch, well, guess what it connects
>>> to at that switch now in 2026?
>>>
>>> The old electromechanical step-by-step switches, or electromechanical
>>> crossbar switches?  Nope.  Those were, mostly, long gone by the early
>>> 70's.
>> 
>>    Saw 'em in action, late 60s. Neat !
>> 
>>> It connects to...... a modern digitizer that digitizes the signals on
>>> the line, and the entire rest of the switch, in 2026, is a fancy
>>> computer system (usually running Erlang) that routes digital bits and
>>> bytes around.
>>>
>>> Guess what happens to those digital computer switches should that EMP
>>> be exploded?
>>>
>>> While you /might/ have 48v of power on the line, for a while (until the
>>> diesel generators run out of fuel) you won't have any communications,
>>> because *everything* after your copper wires terminate at the local
>>> switch is, and has been since the early 70's, essentially VOIP service
>>> now (not literally VOIP, but digital networking and/or digital
>>> computerized circuit switching (i.e.  ATM)).
>> 
>>    Well, if the digital stuff fries they can STILL
>>    manually connect at least a sub-portion of the
>>    copper.
> 
> Manually? You need an expert to go in the exchange and rewire the cables 
> to connect two phones permanently. Maybe, because the batteries are the 
> wrong voltage. Certainly no dialing.

I've not even pointed out to him yet that in most of those "bundles" of 
4000 pairs, that there's only about 8 or 10 different colors (certianly 
not 4000 colors).  So "working out" which red/black, from the 10,000 
red/black pairs that terminate at the switch, connect to "joe's pizza" 
is a non-trivial job for the non-expert.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87343

On 2026-06-01 19:36, Rich wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2026-06-01 07:07, c186282 wrote:
>>> On 5/31/26 23:50, Rich wrote:
>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>>> Argue crap all you want - the providers are
>>>>> generally REQUIRED to keep the POTS running
>>>>> and I support that.
>>>>
>>>> And there you are slowly beginning to maybe see why POTS service was
>>>> mostly "always working".  The "providers are generally required" part
>>>> is why.
>>>>
>>>>> OK ... believable ... North Korea sets off
>>>>> several EMP bombs high over the USA. ALL the
>>>>> 'complicated' tech immediately DIES for a
>>>>> LONG time.
>>>>
>>>> Sadly, I have bad news for you.  Your wonderful copper POTS line that
>>>> begins at the side of your house, and travels however far from pole to
>>>> pole to reach you local telephone switch, well, guess what it connects
>>>> to at that switch now in 2026?
>>>>
>>>> The old electromechanical step-by-step switches, or electromechanical
>>>> crossbar switches?  Nope.  Those were, mostly, long gone by the early
>>>> 70's.
>>>
>>>     Saw 'em in action, late 60s. Neat !
>>>
>>>> It connects to...... a modern digitizer that digitizes the signals on
>>>> the line, and the entire rest of the switch, in 2026, is a fancy
>>>> computer system (usually running Erlang) that routes digital bits and
>>>> bytes around.
>>>>
>>>> Guess what happens to those digital computer switches should that EMP
>>>> be exploded?
>>>>
>>>> While you /might/ have 48v of power on the line, for a while (until the
>>>> diesel generators run out of fuel) you won't have any communications,
>>>> because *everything* after your copper wires terminate at the local
>>>> switch is, and has been since the early 70's, essentially VOIP service
>>>> now (not literally VOIP, but digital networking and/or digital
>>>> computerized circuit switching (i.e.  ATM)).
>>>
>>>     Well, if the digital stuff fries they can STILL
>>>     manually connect at least a sub-portion of the
>>>     copper.
>>
>> Manually? You need an expert to go in the exchange and rewire the cables
>> to connect two phones permanently. Maybe, because the batteries are the
>> wrong voltage. Certainly no dialing.
> 
> I've not even pointed out to him yet that in most of those "bundles" of
> 4000 pairs, that there's only about 8 or 10 different colors (certianly
> not 4000 colors).  So "working out" which red/black, from the 10,000
> red/black pairs that terminate at the switch, connect to "joe's pizza"
> is a non-trivial job for the non-expert.

Heh, absolutely.

Although you can find the cable at the... I don't know the English name, 
a rack of wire wrapping pins. 4000 at one side, connecting to 4000 at 
the other side which go to the actual switch. These are labelled, but 
you need to know the system. I have not wired these, so here I have to 
guess, but the phone number is not written here. Rather wire number of 
the bundle on the one side, and equipment number on the other side. You 
need a table to find out which is which, possibly computerized, possibly 
printed and stored in large binders.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87331

On 01/06/2026 06:07, c186282 wrote:
> Most tech fried ... hey ... telegraphy works  🙂
It didnt.
Neither did electrical power cables.
Underound fibre might

-- 
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87338

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> On 5/31/26 23:50, Rich wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>> Argue crap all you want - the providers are
>>> generally REQUIRED to keep the POTS running
>>> and I support that.
>> 
>> And there you are slowly beginning to maybe see why POTS service was
>> mostly "always working".  The "providers are generally required" part
>> is why.
>> 
>>> OK ... believable ... North Korea sets off
>>> several EMP bombs high over the USA. ALL the
>>> 'complicated' tech immediately DIES for a
>>> LONG time.
>> 
>> Sadly, I have bad news for you.  Your wonderful copper POTS line that
>> begins at the side of your house, and travels however far from pole to
>> pole to reach you local telephone switch, well, guess what it connects
>> to at that switch now in 2026?
>> 
>> The old electromechanical step-by-step switches, or electromechanical
>> crossbar switches?  Nope.  Those were, mostly, long gone by the early
>> 70's.
> 
>   Saw 'em in action, late 60s. Neat !
> 
>> It connects to...... a modern digitizer that digitizes the signals on
>> the line, and the entire rest of the switch, in 2026, is a fancy
>> computer system (usually running Erlang) that routes digital bits and
>> bytes around.
>> 
>> Guess what happens to those digital computer switches should that EMP
>> be exploded?
>> 
>> While you /might/ have 48v of power on the line, for a while (until the
>> diesel generators run out of fuel) you won't have any communications,
>> because *everything* after your copper wires terminate at the local
>> switch is, and has been since the early 70's, essentially VOIP service
>> now (not literally VOIP, but digital networking and/or digital
>> computerized circuit switching (i.e.  ATM)).
> 
>   Well, if the digital stuff fries they can STILL
>   manually connect at least a sub-portion of the
>   copper.

No, they can't.  The copper ends at a pair of screw down lugs attached 
to a digitizer board in what is, to use a word you might be familiar 
with, a computer server rack.

There's no longer any copper interconnecting anything, other than your 
handset in your home to the screw down lugs on that digitizer board.  
Every thing else beyond that point, that allows "communication" out 
from the switch, is all digital computer networking (usually TDM or 
ATM, but still, in effect, WAV files being transmitted over TCPIP).

None of the "copper" routing interconnect that made the old Ma-Bell 
AT&T the "phone company" exists anywhere other than on display in a 
museum somewhere.  It is all digital computer networking, and it has 
pretty much been all digital networking since somewhere around the 
early 70's.

The *only* "copper" parts left of the old pre-computer system are the 
star lines from the switch building out to each building which happens 
to still have old copper POTS service.

>   Most tech fried ... hey ... telegraphy works  :-)
>   Simple relay-based line amps. Worked in 1850 and
>   can work now over remaining POTS lines. Find a
>   neighborhood 'telegraph guy'.

And can only possibly work to another copper pair terminating in the 
same switch building as yours.  And even then, this requires someone 
running back and forth inside the building connecting the pairs that 
want to "telegraph" with each other via other long connecting patch 
cords (which don't exist at the switch waiting to be used).

Want to contact the hospital a couple miles up the street?  Is it wired 
to a different switch building?  If yes, then you can't do morse code 
over copper wires to the hospital no matter how much you want to do so, 
because there is simply no copper between the switch buildings anymore.

If the digital computers that handle the telephone networking are 
fried/out/dead, there's no communicating via those POTS copper pairs to 
anyone.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87344

On 2026-06-01 19:31, Rich wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> On 5/31/26 23:50, Rich wrote:


>>    Well, if the digital stuff fries they can STILL
>>    manually connect at least a sub-portion of the
>>    copper.
> 
> No, they can't.  The copper ends at a pair of screw down lugs attached
> to a digitizer board in what is, to use a word you might be familiar
> with, a computer server rack.
> 
> There's no longer any copper interconnecting anything, other than your
> handset in your home to the screw down lugs on that digitizer board.
> Every thing else beyond that point, that allows "communication" out
> from the switch, is all digital computer networking (usually TDM or
> ATM, but still, in effect, WAV files being transmitted over TCPIP).

The basic idea is very simple.

You take the wire and connect it to an 8 bit DAC. The output of that DAC 
is presented to a microprocessor there as one memory address. If you 
have worked with microprocesors, you will know that this is simple. 
Only, that you scale this so that you have thousands of those DACs 
mapped into the microprocessor memory.

Now, to connect subscriber A to subscriber B, you simply copy memory 
position A to position B about 8 thousand times per second. The DAC is 
synced to this speed.

Now, imagine the microprocessor just running thousands of those copy 
operations from thousand of output positions to input positions. Not 
simultaneously, but in sequence. When a subscriber phones another 
subscriber, you simply change the table, read from C, write to D.

Just add the complication that you actually have a DAC and ADC on each 
circuit, because there are signals going and out in the same copper pair.

This is the basic idea of digital switching in POTS technology. There 
are no metal contacts that move. On a 5ESSS that microprocessor is a 
single 68000. But there can be several units. And each unit on a city 
exchange occupies several big racks. Think you need thousands of ADC/DAC 
units.

Improvement: remove the DAC/ADC, and you have ISDN.


EMP bomb, all gone. You can shield the switch, but the switch has miles 
long antenas going out to the city... it fries.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87286

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>   Kind of agree with the sentiment that copper should always be at 
>>   hand for 'emergency' communications at a minimum.  Towers die, cell 
>>   contracts expire, copper keeps on going.
> 
> The legacy copper phones only "kept on going" because POTS (copper) 
> phone service was a highly regulated utility with requirements for 
> upkeep and maintence so that it /would/ just keep on going.
> 
> Without that upkeep, it eventually falls into disrepair and stops 
> working just like the rest.

You bet, that's my POTS line here in Australia described exactly.
Even though I just learnt our government is paying $270 million a
year to maintain it (on top of the fees paid by customers) in
places not connected to fibre or "fixed wireless" internet. Money
straight into the telco's profits, no doubt. The exchanges even
look abandoned now with peeling paint etc. 

> It's only real difference from towers is fewer possibilities to go 
> wrong when the 'system' is just a long pair of copper wires vs. complex 
> electronics systems for a radio tower (i.e., no capicators to dry out 
> and fail in a long pair of copper wires).  Most failures were 
> mechanical (something physically tearing down the wires) or chemical 
> (water infiltration corroding the connection points).

Well here it's almost always the exchange that keeps going
wrong. Then they take between a few days to a few weeks to fix it,
which I think just means how long until someone gets around to
visiting it. Someone said they're required to fix it within 24
hours, but if that's true then they're completely ignoring that.

> But fail it did.  If the lines were above ground then tree branches (or 
> automobiles) would take out the lines.  If the lines were underground 
> then water infiltration into the conduits would result in noise or 
> nothing working.  I had this one myself on my pair once.  Line that had 
> been nice and quiet (and worked well for DSL) suddenly sounded like 
> someone was scraping a turntable needle over a vinyl record constantly.  
> Reported it to Verizon, they took some time to fix, but I eventually 
> learned the cause was an underground wiring vault a couple miles away 
> had flooded.

Yeah my old line rotted away completely after it was noisy for
years and they switched me to a spare which also gets noisy when
the ground's wet, but since we haven't had decent rainfall for
years that hasn't been a problem lately. Since that line switch
~5+ years ago I only had one other line fault late last year when
the council slashing grass on the roadsides cut the line. Amazingly
that _was_ fixed within about 24 hours, though when the exchange
died yet again later that week affecting everyone using it rather
than just people down my road, it took them 4-5 days to fix it. And
the exchange breaks far more frequently, in fact it was breaking
every time there was a power failure for a year or so, but it does
seem to be surviving those these days (except the obviously-dead
battery there means you still can't make calls while the power's
off anymore).

> But your individual experience dependend upon what happened with your 
> specific pair.  If you were lucky and no falling trees, drunk drivers, 
> or ice storms happened to pull down your copper pair, and no leaky 
> underground conduits soaked it, then to you it appeared to be 
> impervious to failure.  Reality from the other size (the phone company) 
> viewpoint is that something, somewhere, was always failing and needing 
> repair.

So apparantly our largest telco decided to just send the government
the bill, then it eventually realised the government didn't
notice/care anymore if they didn't fix things quickly or properly
in return for that money anyway. Then they stopped mobile phones
working properly here as well when they turned off 3G...

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87291

On 2026-05-30 01:09, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>    Kind of agree with the sentiment that copper should always be at
>>>    hand for 'emergency' communications at a minimum.  Towers die, cell
>>>    contracts expire, copper keeps on going.
>>
>> The legacy copper phones only "kept on going" because POTS (copper)
>> phone service was a highly regulated utility with requirements for
>> upkeep and maintence so that it /would/ just keep on going.
>>
>> Without that upkeep, it eventually falls into disrepair and stops
>> working just like the rest.
> 
> You bet, that's my POTS line here in Australia described exactly.
> Even though I just learnt our government is paying $270 million a
> year to maintain it (on top of the fees paid by customers) in
> places not connected to fibre or "fixed wireless" internet. Money
> straight into the telco's profits, no doubt. The exchanges even
> look abandoned now with peeling paint etc.
> 
>> It's only real difference from towers is fewer possibilities to go
>> wrong when the 'system' is just a long pair of copper wires vs. complex
>> electronics systems for a radio tower (i.e., no capicators to dry out
>> and fail in a long pair of copper wires).  Most failures were
>> mechanical (something physically tearing down the wires) or chemical
>> (water infiltration corroding the connection points).
> 
> Well here it's almost always the exchange that keeps going
> wrong. Then they take between a few days to a few weeks to fix it,
> which I think just means how long until someone gets around to
> visiting it. Someone said they're required to fix it within 24
> hours, but if that's true then they're completely ignoring that.

Someone visiting, finding someone that knows those exchanges (all old 
people and running out), then finding the spares of abandoned 
technology, shipping them...

> 
>> But fail it did.  If the lines were above ground then tree branches (or
>> automobiles) would take out the lines.  If the lines were underground
>> then water infiltration into the conduits would result in noise or
>> nothing working.  I had this one myself on my pair once.  Line that had
>> been nice and quiet (and worked well for DSL) suddenly sounded like
>> someone was scraping a turntable needle over a vinyl record constantly.
>> Reported it to Verizon, they took some time to fix, but I eventually
>> learned the cause was an underground wiring vault a couple miles away
>> had flooded.
> 
> Yeah my old line rotted away completely after it was noisy for
> years and they switched me to a spare which also gets noisy when
> the ground's wet, but since we haven't had decent rainfall for
> years that hasn't been a problem lately. Since that line switch
> ~5+ years ago I only had one other line fault late last year when
> the council slashing grass on the roadsides cut the line. Amazingly
> that _was_ fixed within about 24 hours, though when the exchange
> died yet again later that week affecting everyone using it rather
> than just people down my road, it took them 4-5 days to fix it. And
> the exchange breaks far more frequently, in fact it was breaking
> every time there was a power failure for a year or so, but it does
> seem to be surviving those these days (except the obviously-dead
> battery there means you still can't make calls while the power's
> off anymore).

Those exchanges are not designed to suffer a sudden power off. And 
rebooting is not automatic, it takes a human with special knowledge to 
do it, because it is something done once in life.

> 
>> But your individual experience dependend upon what happened with your
>> specific pair.  If you were lucky and no falling trees, drunk drivers,
>> or ice storms happened to pull down your copper pair, and no leaky
>> underground conduits soaked it, then to you it appeared to be
>> impervious to failure.  Reality from the other size (the phone company)
>> viewpoint is that something, somewhere, was always failing and needing
>> repair.
> 
> So apparantly our largest telco decided to just send the government
> the bill, then it eventually realised the government didn't
> notice/care anymore if they didn't fix things quickly or properly
> in return for that money anyway. Then they stopped mobile phones
> working properly here as well when they turned off 3G...
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87294

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2026-05-30 01:09, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> Yeah my old line rotted away completely after it was noisy for
>> years and they switched me to a spare which also gets noisy when
>> the ground's wet, but since we haven't had decent rainfall for
>> years that hasn't been a problem lately. Since that line switch
>> ~5+ years ago I only had one other line fault late last year when
>> the council slashing grass on the roadsides cut the line. Amazingly
>> that _was_ fixed within about 24 hours, though when the exchange
>> died yet again later that week affecting everyone using it rather
>> than just people down my road, it took them 4-5 days to fix it. And
>> the exchange breaks far more frequently, in fact it was breaking
>> every time there was a power failure for a year or so, but it does
>> seem to be surviving those these days (except the obviously-dead
>> battery there means you still can't make calls while the power's
>> off anymore).
> 
> Those exchanges are not designed to suffer a sudden power off. And 
> rebooting is not automatic, it takes a human with special knowledge to 
> do it, because it is something done once in life.

That seems highly unlikely (more of your AI 'wisdom'?). These
exchanges are tiny huts littered throughout regional Australia, and
the last mechanical exchange was converted in the 1990s. If someone
designed their electronic exchange equipment to require manual
reset after power-off, they must have been nuts. In any case if
they replaced the battery, which used to work, it wouldn't get
powered off by every short blackout.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web