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 | 20 on this page of 146 — 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 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 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-28 20:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <UYicndWFJtyzQoX3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87225 |
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 >>>> 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. >> > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-28 21:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10vaorr$3r8c4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87244 |
On 5/28/2026 8:34 PM, 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 >>>>> 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. >>> >> 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. It isn't just the fiber itself, but the other active equipment involved. I live in a Verizon metro area, so unfortunately it's fiber and not copper. I still pay for standalone regulated "POTS over fiber" (not the more common unregulated FiOS Digital Voice offering). It works ~mostly the same, i.e. you can make dial-around calls using Feature Group D Equal Access and I have a TDM-based long-distance service, even though my ONT connects via SIP to a new packet switch. In just the past couple years, there have been several impairments to my service that would not have happened with copper. On one occasion, I came home and had no dial tone, and called Verizon up using VoIP through my cable ISP. I made a stink, since the "POTS" line (albeit fiber) is my only way to reach 911 in an emergency. They gave me a service credit, but could not explain why it randomly stopped working and needed a reboot. When is the last time a 5ESS or DMS100 just "stopped providing dial tone" randomly and needed a reboot? Probably never. On another occasion, I called about another unrelated issue and the idiot offshore tech decided to reboot my ONT *without my consent*, and unnecessarily given I wasn't calling about a line-related issue at all. Well, I let *him* have it and also demanded and got another service credit. But another loss of service (however temporary) that would be impossible on copper. Yes, copper is not perfect, but in actual reality, copper works much more of the time than fiber. There are fewer things that can go wrong. And even though I have a backup battery unit for my service, it's only good for 8 hours. What happens then? I would take a line with a little hum or static over no line at all, especially when most needed. This has all come to a head recently in California - the California regulator has so far protected consumers and stood up to AT&T, unlike other states, and now AT&T has sued California for this and asked the FCC to preempt California's protections - see https://savelandlines.org/ for the high-level details. While I live in an urban area and probably will be fine in a power outage unless I hurt myself, many Californias will be left for dead if they lose their copper POTS line, as it's often the only reliable way to call for help in many areas, esp. with prolonged power outages being common. But the FCC has long ago decided that helping industry increase its already massive profits is now more important than its actual job, protecting the people from industry. P.S. I empathize with the OP here... while I still have cable Internet for the time being (not interested in Verizon's stupid and unnecessary fiber that I never asked for or wanted), I've been questioning why I even have that. Between JavaScript that doesn't work in my browsers, user agent blocking, and just plain bloated and unusable sites, hardly anything on the WWW even works anymore (or is even worth accessing if it still does). Email and Usenet work fine on slow connections and asynchronously. I found a new dial-up ISP[1] in the last month that has good customer service and is still reselling dial-up, and I'm planning to cancel my cable and switch to dial-up. Will save a few bucks and cut some BS out of my life. (And yes, it works just fine on my "POTS over fiber", though for some reason I can only negotiate 33.6k. It's rock solid and will stay up with no drops, though my fellow copper dial-up users tell me they can get speeds in the 40s and 50s, so something about the fiber arrangement seems to be interfering with V.90/V.92 negotiation.) [1] https://www.va.net/dialup
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-01 13:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10vk256$27ab8$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87245 |
InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote: > though for some reason I can only negotiate 33.6k. 33.6 is as high as you can negioate using digital to audio and audio to digital signal transmission (i.e., standard "modem" working) due to the underlying digitizing rate for all phone calls by the carriers. > so something about the fiber arrangement seems to be interfering with > V.90/V.92 negotiation.) Obtaining speeds higher than 33.6 requires: 1) copper between the modem and the dmarc in the exchange 2) the dmark in the switch being one that can have the analog to digital converter at the end of the copper turned off. The higher speeds work by both ends driving the copper as if it were a digital baseband network link (i.e., somewhat akin to driving ethernet signaling over the line). But, with any analog to digital converters in between mean you can't get better than 33.6. And all the "fiber to your home, with a little box that drives your in house copper as if it were still connected to POTS" means there is a small analog to digital converter in the way (and no one decided to offer the ability to switch it off and drive the copper as digital baseband).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-01 19:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10vl3kr$2ii0i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87337 |
On 6/1/2026 9:40 AM, Rich wrote: > InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote: >> though for some reason I can only negotiate 33.6k. > > 33.6 is as high as you can negioate using digital to audio and audio to > digital signal transmission (i.e., standard "modem" working) due to the > underlying digitizing rate for all phone calls by the carriers. > >> so something about the fiber arrangement seems to be interfering with >> V.90/V.92 negotiation.) > > Obtaining speeds higher than 33.6 requires: > 1) copper between the modem and the dmarc in the exchange > 2) the dmark in the switch being one that can have the analog to > digital converter at the end of the copper turned off. > > The higher speeds work by both ends driving the copper as if it were a > digital baseband network link (i.e., somewhat akin to driving ethernet > signaling over the line). > > But, with any analog to digital converters in between mean you can't > get better than 33.6. And all the "fiber to your home, with a little > box that drives your in house copper as if it were still connected to > POTS" means there is a small analog to digital converter in the way > (and no one decided to offer the ability to switch it off and drive the > copper as digital baseband). Yes, I'm aware of the 33.6 ceiling with conversions. I don't think I mentioned it before, but I can get 36000 (not 33600) when calling certain modems. I've gotten it a few times when calling the dial-up ISP here in the US (there is really only one, no matter which reseller you use), but usually just 33600. That demonstrates I can get speeds > 33.6k, but usually the negotiation fails (I can hear it too, it's not happy trying to negotiate V.90/V.92). 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? So from my (consumer) perspective, fiber is a loser. It's inferior quality and connectivity and it doesn't work in a power outage. There's already coax in my area for CATV so the fiber was redundant to begin with for broadband. They crippled our phone service in favor of another expensive[1] and unregulated service... but it's great for the telco! Now the burden - and cost - of powering phone service is on the consumer. The only scenario in which fiber wins in my book would be where your copper line is fed out of a SLC-96 that doesn't have a reliable power supply in emergencies, in which case if you happen to have enough backup power yourself, fiber would be better since it's passive (GPON). [1] Oh, and even though my service is arguably inferior to copper, I don't pay any less than copper customers; still all the high taxes/fees associated with regulated service (which I have intentionally). So it's not copper that's expensive per se, it's regulated phone service regardless of technology.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 10:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <9rg2fmxp12.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87350 |
On 2026-06-02 01:12, InterLinked wrote: > On 6/1/2026 9:40 AM, Rich wrote: >> InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote: >>> though for some reason I can only negotiate 33.6k. >> >> 33.6 is as high as you can negioate using digital to audio and audio to >> digital signal transmission (i.e., standard "modem" working) due to the >> underlying digitizing rate for all phone calls by the carriers. > > >>> so something about the fiber arrangement seems to be interfering with >>> V.90/V.92 negotiation.) >> >> Obtaining speeds higher than 33.6 requires: >> 1) copper between the modem and the dmarc in the exchange >> 2) the dmark in the switch being one that can have the analog to >> digital converter at the end of the copper turned off. >> >> The higher speeds work by both ends driving the copper as if it were a >> digital baseband network link (i.e., somewhat akin to driving ethernet >> signaling over the line). >> >> But, with any analog to digital converters in between mean you can't >> get better than 33.6. And all the "fiber to your home, with a little >> box that drives your in house copper as if it were still connected to >> POTS" means there is a small analog to digital converter in the way >> (and no one decided to offer the ability to switch it off and drive the >> copper as digital baseband). > > Yes, I'm aware of the 33.6 ceiling with conversions. > > I don't think I mentioned it before, but I can get 36000 (not 33600) > when calling certain modems. I've gotten it a few times when calling the > dial-up ISP here in the US (there is really only one, no matter which > reseller you use), but usually just 33600. > > That demonstrates I can get speeds > 33.6k, but usually the negotiation > fails (I can hear it too, it's not happy trying to negotiate V.90/V.92). > > 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? Yes. The signal was digitized at your exchange, then transmitted to the remote exchange. which had a bank of signal processors that would process the digital signal instead of a modem, and get you that V90. I worked for a telco that did precisely this (using the 5ESSS and the Lucent MAX TNT) around year 2000. With fibre and VoIP you have a problem: you are probably using a codec. Maybe a lossy one. > So from my (consumer) perspective, fiber is a loser. It's inferior > quality and connectivity and it doesn't work in a power outage. There's > already coax in my area for CATV so the fiber was redundant to begin > with for broadband. They crippled our phone service in favor of another > expensive[1] and unregulated service... but it's great for the telco! > Now the burden - and cost - of powering phone service is on the consumer. Well, if you want to use dial up modem, you are using the wrong technology. > > The only scenario in which fiber wins in my book would be where your > copper line is fed out of a SLC-96 that doesn't have a reliable power > supply in emergencies, in which case if you happen to have enough backup > power yourself, fiber would be better since it's passive (GPON). > > [1] Oh, and even though my service is arguably inferior to copper, I > don't pay any less than copper customers; still all the high taxes/fees > associated with regulated service (which I have intentionally). So it's > not copper that's expensive per se, it's regulated phone service > regardless of technology. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 12:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10vmvit$325bn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87361 |
On 6/2/2026 4:28 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-06-02 01:12, InterLinked wrote: >> On 6/1/2026 9:40 AM, Rich wrote: >>> InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote: >>>> though for some reason I can only negotiate 33.6k. >>> >>> 33.6 is as high as you can negioate using digital to audio and audio to >>> digital signal transmission (i.e., standard "modem" working) due to the >>> underlying digitizing rate for all phone calls by the carriers. >> > >>>> so something about the fiber arrangement seems to be interfering with >>>> V.90/V.92 negotiation.) >>> >>> Obtaining speeds higher than 33.6 requires: >>> 1) copper between the modem and the dmarc in the exchange >>> 2) the dmark in the switch being one that can have the analog to >>> digital converter at the end of the copper turned off. >>> >>> The higher speeds work by both ends driving the copper as if it were a >>> digital baseband network link (i.e., somewhat akin to driving ethernet >>> signaling over the line). >>> >>> But, with any analog to digital converters in between mean you can't >>> get better than 33.6. And all the "fiber to your home, with a little >>> box that drives your in house copper as if it were still connected to >>> POTS" means there is a small analog to digital converter in the way >>> (and no one decided to offer the ability to switch it off and drive the >>> copper as digital baseband). >> >> Yes, I'm aware of the 33.6 ceiling with conversions. >> >> I don't think I mentioned it before, but I can get 36000 (not 33600) >> when calling certain modems. I've gotten it a few times when calling >> the dial-up ISP here in the US (there is really only one, no matter >> which reseller you use), but usually just 33600. >> >> That demonstrates I can get speeds > 33.6k, but usually the >> negotiation fails (I can hear it too, it's not happy trying to >> negotiate V.90/V.92). >> >> 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? > > Yes. The signal was digitized at your exchange, then transmitted to the > remote exchange. which had a bank of signal processors that would > process the digital signal instead of a modem, and get you that V90. > > I worked for a telco that did precisely this (using the 5ESSS and the > Lucent MAX TNT) around year 2000. > > With fibre and VoIP you have a problem: you are probably using a codec. > Maybe a lossy one. No, it's G.711 ulaw, as it should be, same as TDM. I can dial up at 33.6k and it will stay up for hours. Quality of the connection itself is not the issue. I think there is some "audio" part of the V.92 handshake that is getting tripped up by the ONT or something like that. >> So from my (consumer) perspective, fiber is a loser. It's inferior >> quality and connectivity and it doesn't work in a power outage. >> There's already coax in my area for CATV so the fiber was redundant to >> begin with for broadband. They crippled our phone service in favor of >> another expensive[1] and unregulated service... but it's great for the >> telco! Now the burden - and cost - of powering phone service is on the >> consumer. > > Well, if you want to use dial up modem, you are using the wrong technology. I don't have a choice, there's no copper here, I am forced to use fiber.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 16:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2237a70cbaafcb587eb9@dev.null> |
| In reply to | #87372 |
>On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 12:15:25 -0400, InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote: >On 6/2/2026 4:28 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2026-06-02 01:12, InterLinked wrote: >>> On 6/1/2026 9:40 AM, Rich wrote: >>>> InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote: >>>>> though for some reason I can only negotiate 33.6k. >>>> >>>> 33.6 is as high as you can negioate using digital to audio and audio to >>>> digital signal transmission (i.e., standard "modem" working) due to the >>>> underlying digitizing rate for all phone calls by the carriers. >>> > >>>>> so something about the fiber arrangement seems to be interfering with >>>>> V.90/V.92 negotiation.) >>>> >>>> Obtaining speeds higher than 33.6 requires: >>>> 1) copper between the modem and the dmarc in the exchange >>>> 2) the dmark in the switch being one that can have the analog to >>>> digital converter at the end of the copper turned off. >>>> >>>> The higher speeds work by both ends driving the copper as if it were a >>>> digital baseband network link (i.e., somewhat akin to driving ethernet >>>> signaling over the line). >>>> >>>> But, with any analog to digital converters in between mean you can't >>>> get better than 33.6. And all the "fiber to your home, with a little >>>> box that drives your in house copper as if it were still connected to >>>> POTS" means there is a small analog to digital converter in the way >>>> (and no one decided to offer the ability to switch it off and drive the >>>> copper as digital baseband). >>> >>> Yes, I'm aware of the 33.6 ceiling with conversions. >>> >>> I don't think I mentioned it before, but I can get 36000 (not 33600) >>> when calling certain modems. I've gotten it a few times when calling >>> the dial-up ISP here in the US (there is really only one, no matter >>> which reseller you use), but usually just 33600. >>> >>> That demonstrates I can get speeds > 33.6k, but usually the >>> negotiation fails (I can hear it too, it's not happy trying to >>> negotiate V.90/V.92). >>> >>> 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? >> >> Yes. The signal was digitized at your exchange, then transmitted to the >> remote exchange. which had a bank of signal processors that would >> process the digital signal instead of a modem, and get you that V90. >> >> I worked for a telco that did precisely this (using the 5ESSS and the >> Lucent MAX TNT) around year 2000. >> >> With fibre and VoIP you have a problem: you are probably using a codec. >> Maybe a lossy one. > >No, it's G.711 ulaw, as it should be, same as TDM. > >I can dial up at 33.6k and it will stay up for hours. Quality of the >connection itself is not the issue. I think there is some "audio" part >of the V.92 handshake that is getting tripped up by the ONT or something >like that. > >>> So from my (consumer) perspective, fiber is a loser. It's inferior >>> quality and connectivity and it doesn't work in a power outage. >>> There's already coax in my area for CATV so the fiber was redundant to >>> begin with for broadband. They crippled our phone service in favor of >>> another expensive[1] and unregulated service... but it's great for the >>> telco! Now the burden - and cost - of powering phone service is on the >>> consumer. >> >> Well, if you want to use dial up modem, you are using the wrong technology. > >I don't have a choice, there's no copper here, I am forced to use fiber. A practical thing to check is whether the modem is repeatedly trying the PCM part of V.90/V.92 and then falling back. On a lot of modems the CONNECT banner alone is not enough; the extended result/log will show the final modulation and sometimes the reason for the retrain/fallback. If you only need the link to be boring and reliable, I would try an init string that disables V.90/V.92 and forces V.34. That avoids the PCM negotiation entirely and turns the problem into ordinary analog modem over G.711. You may lose the occasional 36000 connect, but you also avoid the failed negotiation dance. If you want to chase the higher rate, look for anything in the ONT/ATA path that is meant to "help" voice: echo cancellation, VAD/silence suppression, comfort noise, gain control, fax/modem detection, T.38-ish switching, or impedance/level settings. G.711 is necessary, but it is not always sufficient if the access box is still doing voice processing around it. -- 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 18:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d2d3fmxbht.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87372 |
On 2026-06-02 18:15, InterLinked wrote: > On 6/2/2026 4:28 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2026-06-02 01:12, InterLinked wrote: >>> On 6/1/2026 9:40 AM, Rich wrote: >>>> InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote: >>>>> though for some reason I can only negotiate 33.6k. >>>> >>>> 33.6 is as high as you can negioate using digital to audio and audio to >>>> digital signal transmission (i.e., standard "modem" working) due to the >>>> underlying digitizing rate for all phone calls by the carriers. >>> > >>>>> so something about the fiber arrangement seems to be interfering with >>>>> V.90/V.92 negotiation.) >>>> >>>> Obtaining speeds higher than 33.6 requires: >>>> 1) copper between the modem and the dmarc in the exchange >>>> 2) the dmark in the switch being one that can have the analog to >>>> digital converter at the end of the copper turned off. >>>> >>>> The higher speeds work by both ends driving the copper as if it were a >>>> digital baseband network link (i.e., somewhat akin to driving ethernet >>>> signaling over the line). >>>> >>>> But, with any analog to digital converters in between mean you can't >>>> get better than 33.6. And all the "fiber to your home, with a little >>>> box that drives your in house copper as if it were still connected to >>>> POTS" means there is a small analog to digital converter in the way >>>> (and no one decided to offer the ability to switch it off and drive the >>>> copper as digital baseband). >>> >>> Yes, I'm aware of the 33.6 ceiling with conversions. >>> >>> I don't think I mentioned it before, but I can get 36000 (not 33600) >>> when calling certain modems. I've gotten it a few times when calling >>> the dial-up ISP here in the US (there is really only one, no matter >>> which reseller you use), but usually just 33600. >>> >>> That demonstrates I can get speeds > 33.6k, but usually the >>> negotiation fails (I can hear it too, it's not happy trying to >>> negotiate V.90/V.92). >>> >>> 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? >> >> Yes. The signal was digitized at your exchange, then transmitted to >> the remote exchange. which had a bank of signal processors that would >> process the digital signal instead of a modem, and get you that V90. >> >> I worked for a telco that did precisely this (using the 5ESSS and the >> Lucent MAX TNT) around year 2000. >> >> With fibre and VoIP you have a problem: you are probably using a >> codec. Maybe a lossy one. > > No, it's G.711 ulaw, as it should be, same as TDM. Then you have another problem that I forgot: timing. In traditional phone system, circuit switched, the timing was guaranteed and exact. With VoIP, the timing when each package arrive varies. The receiver would have to store and later rebuild the sequence with the exact timing. And I don't know what the return route timings would do to this, would not be synced. > > I can dial up at 33.6k and it will stay up for hours. Quality of the > connection itself is not the issue. I think there is some "audio" part > of the V.92 handshake that is getting tripped up by the ONT or something > like that. > >>> So from my (consumer) perspective, fiber is a loser. It's inferior >>> quality and connectivity and it doesn't work in a power outage. >>> There's already coax in my area for CATV so the fiber was redundant >>> to begin with for broadband. They crippled our phone service in favor >>> of another expensive[1] and unregulated service... but it's great for >>> the telco! Now the burden - and cost - of powering phone service is >>> on the consumer. >> >> Well, if you want to use dial up modem, you are using the wrong >> technology. > > I don't have a choice, there's no copper here, I am forced to use fiber. If you have fibre, you should already have a data connection. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 18:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vn3u5$33fsr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87375 |
On 02/06/2026 17:30, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> I don't have a choice, there's no copper here, I am forced to use fiber. > > If you have fibre, you should already have a data connection. Ah, That socialist/fascist 'should' He patently doesn't have it. Live with it. -- Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people. But Marxism is the crack cocaine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 16:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10vnflg$3733e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87375 |
On 6/2/2026 12:30 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > If you have fibre, you should already have a data connection. Nope. I only get phone service from Verizon. Not interested in their overpriced Internet service that I didn't ask for. Ostensibly, I would also have to get unregulated FiOS Digital Voice and lose my regulated service. I care about the phone service, I do not care much about the Internet service. If they still had copper, I would probably have the POTS + DSL bundle, but since they replaced it with fiber, they've lost me as an Internet customer. Besides, there is also cable Internet in this area, which is much cheaper, about $22/month amortized if you use the Seasonal Plan. No reason I'd want fiber Internet which costs more than double that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 17:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10vmtdr$6c5k$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #87350 |
Am 02.06.26 um 01:12 schrieb InterLinked: > On 6/1/2026 9:40 AM, Rich wrote: >> InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote: >>> though for some reason I can only negotiate 33.6k. >> >> 33.6 is as high as you can negioate using digital to audio and audio to >> digital signal transmission (i.e., standard "modem" working) due to the >> underlying digitizing rate for all phone calls by the carriers. > > >>> so something about the fiber arrangement seems to be interfering with >>> V.90/V.92 negotiation.) >> >> Obtaining speeds higher than 33.6 requires: >> 1) copper between the modem and the dmarc in the exchange >> 2) the dmark in the switch being one that can have the analog to >> digital converter at the end of the copper turned off. >> >> The higher speeds work by both ends driving the copper as if it were a >> digital baseband network link (i.e., somewhat akin to driving ethernet >> signaling over the line). >> >> But, with any analog to digital converters in between mean you can't >> get better than 33.6. And all the "fiber to your home, with a little >> box that drives your in house copper as if it were still connected to >> POTS" means there is a small analog to digital converter in the way >> (and no one decided to offer the ability to switch it off and drive the >> copper as digital baseband). > > Yes, I'm aware of the 33.6 ceiling with conversions. > > I don't think I mentioned it before, but I can get 36000 (not 33600) > when calling certain modems. I've gotten it a few times when calling the > dial-up ISP here in the US (there is really only one, no matter which > reseller you use), but usually just 33600. > > That demonstrates I can get speeds > 33.6k, but usually the negotiation > fails (I can hear it too, it's not happy trying to negotiate V.90/V.92). > > 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. > So from my (consumer) perspective, fiber is a loser. It's inferior > quality and connectivity and it doesn't work in a power outage. There's > already coax in my area for CATV so the fiber was redundant to begin > with for broadband. They crippled our phone service in favor of another > expensive[1] and unregulated service... but it's great for the telco! > Now the burden - and cost - of powering phone service is on the consumer. Analog dialup internet is a dead thing. It already was when ISDN came out - although usage was still possible. Nowadays analog dialup is almost useless. Even if you could use it nowadays, the speed is so low, no normal website can be opened in a reasonable time, you will most likely get timeouts. That means the amount of people who will use it is very low and that means the providers will stop providing it. Some still provide it, but they won't invest in it. If their devices fail, they will stop providing the service. The ISDN support was removed from Linux, dunno about Windows. Device drivers for various ISDN devices were last supported on XP... This will mean it will be harder for telcos to provide dialup internet - even if they want. Satellite based internet will thrive away the last users, as this is much faster. -- Gruß Marco Spam bitte an abfalleimer2001@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 15:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fe5f3db28ed1804b61a3@dev.null> |
| In reply to | #87368 |
>On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 17:38:35 +0200, Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: >Am 02.06.26 um 01:12 schrieb InterLinked: >> On 6/1/2026 9:40 AM, Rich wrote: >>> InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote: >>>> though for some reason I can only negotiate 33.6k. >>> >>> 33.6 is as high as you can negioate using digital to audio and audio to >>> digital signal transmission (i.e., standard "modem" working) due to the >>> underlying digitizing rate for all phone calls by the carriers. >> > >>>> so something about the fiber arrangement seems to be interfering with >>>> V.90/V.92 negotiation.) >>> >>> Obtaining speeds higher than 33.6 requires: >>> 1) copper between the modem and the dmarc in the exchange >>> 2) the dmark in the switch being one that can have the analog to >>> digital converter at the end of the copper turned off. >>> >>> The higher speeds work by both ends driving the copper as if it were a >>> digital baseband network link (i.e., somewhat akin to driving ethernet >>> signaling over the line). >>> >>> But, with any analog to digital converters in between mean you can't >>> get better than 33.6. And all the "fiber to your home, with a little >>> box that drives your in house copper as if it were still connected to >>> POTS" means there is a small analog to digital converter in the way >>> (and no one decided to offer the ability to switch it off and drive the >>> copper as digital baseband). >> >> Yes, I'm aware of the 33.6 ceiling with conversions. >> >> I don't think I mentioned it before, but I can get 36000 (not 33600) >> when calling certain modems. I've gotten it a few times when calling the >> dial-up ISP here in the US (there is really only one, no matter which >> reseller you use), but usually just 33600. >> >> That demonstrates I can get speeds > 33.6k, but usually the negotiation >> fails (I can hear it too, it's not happy trying to negotiate V.90/V.92). >> >> 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. > >> So from my (consumer) perspective, fiber is a loser. It's inferior >> quality and connectivity and it doesn't work in a power outage. There's >> already coax in my area for CATV so the fiber was redundant to begin >> with for broadband. They crippled our phone service in favor of another >> expensive[1] and unregulated service... but it's great for the telco! >> Now the burden - and cost - of powering phone service is on the consumer. > >Analog dialup internet is a dead thing. It already was when ISDN came >out - although usage was still possible. > >Nowadays analog dialup is almost useless. Even if you could use it >nowadays, the speed is so low, no normal website can be opened in a >reasonable time, you will most likely get timeouts. >That means the amount of people who will use it is very low and that >means the providers will stop providing it. Some still provide it, but >they won't invest in it. >If their devices fail, they will stop providing the service. > >The ISDN support was removed from Linux, dunno about Windows. Device >drivers for various ISDN devices were last supported on XP... > >This will mean it will be harder for telcos to provide dialup internet - >even if they want. > >Satellite based internet will thrive away the last users, as this is >much faster. For redundancy, I would treat analog dialup over a fibre/VoIP terminal as a best-effort curiosity, not as the backup path. A practical setup is usually: * put the ONT/router/phone ATA on a UPS and actually time how long it runs; * keep a small LTE/5G router or phone-tethering path tested and documented; * if dialup still matters, test the exact modem, number, and carrier path you intend to use, because codec/ATA/carrier changes can break it without notice. The important part is not what the service is called, but whether it survives the failure you care about. A copper pair with central-office battery was good at that; a fibre ONT in the house is only as good as its local power and the provider's outside plant. -- 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 17:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <71b3fmxhhh.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87368 |
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. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 16:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <f5c151e204a788607173@dev.null> |
| In reply to | #87370 |
>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. -- TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> "I survived the great rm -rf / rehearsal and all I got was this .signature."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 12:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10vn00o$32aon$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87371 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| 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 | 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 >>>>> 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. >>> >> 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 >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>> 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 >>>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> 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]
Page 7 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