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 185 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 02:21 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 08:46 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-05-26 09:49 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 04:47 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 11:25 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-26 09:53 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 04:38 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 11:35 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-26 22:09 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 16:17 -0700
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-27 00:02 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-27 00:11 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-05-28 10:32 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-27 08:41 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-27 11:04 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 03:31 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-28 09:18 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-28 13:42 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-28 15:01 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 21:34 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 11:07 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 12:55 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 12:14 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 13:36 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 13:26 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:36 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 17:24 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:37 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:36 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 22:34 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-30 04:29 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-30 13:09 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-30 23:29 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-05-31 21:45 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:15 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-01 18:53 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-02 01:46 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-02 03:01 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:12 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 10:16 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:09 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 21:26 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:48 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-02 02:58 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-02 11:11 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-02 22:15 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 22:32 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 02:33 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:57 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-29 04:30 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 01:34 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 06:36 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-31 00:38 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-31 05:09 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-31 03:10 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-31 07:14 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-01 00:49 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-01 04:57 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 03:20 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 19:45 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 18:30 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:27 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 10:49 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 13:16 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 00:00 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:35 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:21 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 18:25 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 21:36 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:06 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:32 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:43 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 13:05 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:14 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:31 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:13 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-01 19:00 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-06-02 17:44 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 17:54 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 16:57 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 21:02 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:41 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:13 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:47 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:49 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:10 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 22:29 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:52 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:49 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:56 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 02:17 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 03:50 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-01 01:07 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:47 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 17:36 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:33 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:25 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 02:12 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:03 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:06 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:02 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:26 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 17:31 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:49 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:37 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-05-30 09:09 +1000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-30 13:17 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-05-31 07:33 +1000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-31 00:14 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-31 12:09 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-01 00:51 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:28 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-31 12:58 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-27 20:51 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 14:02 -0700
Re: Redundancy/Survival not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-05-28 08:54 +1000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-28 05:04 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 03:54 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-05-28 09:15 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:29 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-28 13:45 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-29 02:50 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 01:17 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 06:48 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-30 04:25 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-30 13:20 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-30 14:16 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-30 04:00 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 23:41 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-27 14:09 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 03:51 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-28 17:08 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 22:14 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 04:41 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 01:53 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 06:32 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 13:19 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:52 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:46 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-03 00:27 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 03:26 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 03:03 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:12 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:08 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:33 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 13:08 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:55 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-02 10:39 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 13:21 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:57 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 22:39 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-27 14:10 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-05-28 09:05 +1000
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-28 08:19 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 03:52 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-28 09:20 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 20:34 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-05-28 21:07 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 13:40 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-01 19:12 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 10:28 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 12:15 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 16:19 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:30 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:29 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 16:49 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:18 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-06-02 17:38 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 15:48 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 00:39 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 17:55 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 16:03 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 12:22 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 16:36 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:39 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 00:48 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 01:21 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 02:08 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 06:41 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 13:23 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 23:00 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-05-26 09:44 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 04:45 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 11:38 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Worst Case" <fritz@spamexpire-202605.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2026-05-26 17:21 +0200
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-01 18:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10vkj3a$2dpu1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87340 |
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. >> >> Check that bet one winter when the ice storms pull down the mains >> cables powering your local copper exchange, and the snow is deep enough >> that the fuel trucks can't get to the exchange before its backup >> generators consume the diesel in their tanks. >> >> The copper *will* also stop working then as well. >> >> It only appears to keep working because there were several layers of >> redundancy backed in by the regulations. >> >> But those regulations are being sidelined now. Without those >> regulations keeping the companies honest, the old POTS that "just kept >> working" almost all the time will become just as flakey and offline at >> the slightest provocation as the other options. >> >> A *lot* of expense was spent to make the old copper POTS just "keep >> working", not a bit of it "just working" was because it was "copper". >> It was all because the companies operating it were kept whipped into >> shape by the regulators and forced to pay for the upkeep needed. >> >> 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. > 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".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-01 22:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2i61fmxegm.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87341 |
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. >>> >>> Check that bet one winter when the ice storms pull down the mains >>> cables powering your local copper exchange, and the snow is deep enough >>> that the fuel trucks can't get to the exchange before its backup >>> generators consume the diesel in their tanks. >>> >>> The copper *will* also stop working then as well. >>> >>> It only appears to keep working because there were several layers of >>> redundancy backed in by the regulations. >>> >>> But those regulations are being sidelined now. Without those >>> regulations keeping the companies honest, the old POTS that "just kept >>> working" almost all the time will become just as flakey and offline at >>> the slightest provocation as the other options. >>> >>> A *lot* of expense was spent to make the old copper POTS just "keep >>> working", not a bit of it "just working" was because it was "copper". >>> It was all because the companies operating it were kept whipped into >>> shape by the regulators and forced to pay for the upkeep needed. >>> >>> 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. That is not a small power. Orders of magnitude over what POTS needs: all houses not actively using the phone draw no power at all. > >> 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". > -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 10:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <30d97d5998333b57adee@dev.null> |
| In reply to | #87342 |
>On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 22:27:14 +0200, "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. >>>> >>>> Check that bet one winter when the ice storms pull down the mains >>>> cables powering your local copper exchange, and the snow is deep enough >>>> that the fuel trucks can't get to the exchange before its backup >>>> generators consume the diesel in their tanks. >>>> >>>> The copper *will* also stop working then as well. >>>> >>>> It only appears to keep working because there were several layers of >>>> redundancy backed in by the regulations. >>>> >>>> But those regulations are being sidelined now. Without those >>>> regulations keeping the companies honest, the old POTS that "just kept >>>> working" almost all the time will become just as flakey and offline at >>>> the slightest provocation as the other options. >>>> >>>> A *lot* of expense was spent to make the old copper POTS just "keep >>>> working", not a bit of it "just working" was because it was "copper". >>>> It was all because the companies operating it were kept whipped into >>>> shape by the regulators and forced to pay for the upkeep needed. >>>> >>>> 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. > >That is not a small power. Orders of magnitude over what POTS needs: all >houses not actively using the phone draw no power at all. > >> >>> 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 wall wart rating is a ceiling, not the normal draw, but the basic problem is still real. A plain POTS set is almost unfairly cheap to keep alive. On-hook, it is basically a supervised loop drawing almost nothing at the subscriber end; off- hook it is tens of milliamps from a central battery plant that was built, maintained, and regulated around that job. An ONT plus router is a different animal. Even if the ONT idles well below its adapter rating, it is still active electronics at every customer site. If the service needs voice, routing, WiFi, or an ATA alive during an outage, then the backup problem has moved from one hardened central office to a pile of little boxes in houses, closets, and garages. That is why the old system felt magic. It was not the copper. It was the engineering assumption that the network had to power the endpoint and keep doing so when the customer's mains failed. Fiber can be made reliable too, but only if the same requirement is written down and paid for instead of being waved away as an optional battery accessory. -- 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 13:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qlq2fmxa11.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87364 |
On 2026-06-02 12:49, TheLastSysop wrote: >> On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 22:27:14 +0200, "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: > A plain POTS set is almost unfairly cheap to keep alive. On-hook, it is > basically a supervised loop drawing almost nothing at the subscriber end; off- > hook it is tens of milliamps from a central battery plant that was built, > maintained, and regulated around that job. On hook, on an old phone I think it is a capacitor in series with a bell ringer coil; there should be a 48 DC nominal volts and no current. To ring, the exchange sends an AC voltage of around 60 volts. Being AC it passes the capacitor. On a modern POTs terminal, there are active electronics, so there may be a small current draw while on hook -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 00:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <08WdnZDiT4maOoL3nZ2dnZfqnPQAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87366 |
On 6/2/26 07:16, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-06-02 12:49, TheLastSysop wrote: >>> On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 22:27:14 +0200, "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: > > >> A plain POTS set is almost unfairly cheap to keep alive. On-hook, it is >> basically a supervised loop drawing almost nothing at the subscriber >> end; off- >> hook it is tens of milliamps from a central battery plant that was built, >> maintained, and regulated around that job. > > On hook, on an old phone I think it is a capacitor in series with a bell > ringer coil; there should be a 48 DC nominal volts and no current. To > ring, the exchange sends an AC voltage of around 60 volts. Being AC it > passes the capacitor. > > On a modern POTs terminal, there are active electronics, so there may be > a small current draw while on hook Um, USA, I think the 'ring' is closer to 90 volts. But, overall, that's How It Works. Simple yet functional.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 18:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10vn7po$33tsa$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87364 |
TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote: >>On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 22:27:14 +0200, "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. >>>>> >>>>> Check that bet one winter when the ice storms pull down the mains >>>>> cables powering your local copper exchange, and the snow is deep enough >>>>> that the fuel trucks can't get to the exchange before its backup >>>>> generators consume the diesel in their tanks. >>>>> >>>>> The copper *will* also stop working then as well. >>>>> >>>>> It only appears to keep working because there were several layers of >>>>> redundancy backed in by the regulations. >>>>> >>>>> But those regulations are being sidelined now. Without those >>>>> regulations keeping the companies honest, the old POTS that "just kept >>>>> working" almost all the time will become just as flakey and offline at >>>>> the slightest provocation as the other options. >>>>> >>>>> A *lot* of expense was spent to make the old copper POTS just "keep >>>>> working", not a bit of it "just working" was because it was "copper". >>>>> It was all because the companies operating it were kept whipped into >>>>> shape by the regulators and forced to pay for the upkeep needed. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >> >>That is not a small power. Orders of magnitude over what POTS needs: all >>houses not actively using the phone draw no power at all. >> >>> >>>> 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 wall wart rating is a ceiling, not the normal draw, but the basic problem is > still real. > > A plain POTS set is almost unfairly cheap to keep alive. On-hook, it is > basically a supervised loop drawing almost nothing at the subscriber end; off- > hook it is tens of milliamps from a central battery plant that was built, > maintained, and regulated around that job. > > An ONT plus router is a different animal. Even if the ONT idles well below its > adapter rating, it is still active electronics at every customer site. If the > service needs voice, routing, WiFi, or an ATA alive during an outage, then the > backup problem has moved from one hardened central office to a pile of little > boxes in houses, closets, and garages. > > That is why the old system felt magic. It was not the copper. It was the > engineering assumption that the network had to power the endpoint and keep doing > so when the customer's mains failed. Yep, exactly. The original engineering assumption was the central plant had to power the end points. And that was made, at the time, not because anyone thought about "emergency services calls" (such a concept simply did not exist before there was a widespread telephone network installed). The original design parameter of "central office powers the end points" was made because the phone network was being installed during the same time frame that mains electricity was first being installed as well. There was no guarantee that homes being wired for phones would have mains power yet, therefore the need for the phones to be powered from the central plant. > Fiber can be made reliable too, but only if the same requirement is > written down and paid for instead of being waved away as an optional > battery accessory. Yep, it would add expense. And the companies would cry-baby enough that they would end up wanting to charge $500/month or more for what they now charge $65/month if they were forced to make it equally as reliable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 18:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10vn6ve$33tsa$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87342 |
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]
| From | TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 18:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <333de5e6978df739348e@dev.null> |
| In reply to | #87383 |
>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]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 21:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <6vn3fmxrvv.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87384 |
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]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 02:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10vo275$3b3aj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87387 |
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > > 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. Two AAA cells will provide 3A, for a rather short length of time.... Yeah, there's not enough energy in two AAA cells to power a modern router for longer than very brief intervals, unless that same router is very minimal power draw itself.. > <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/> Interesting, I'd not encountered these style "UPS" boxes yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 11:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ru85fmxlce.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87342 |
On 2026-06-01 22:27, Carlos E.R. 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. >>>> >>>> Check that bet one winter when the ice storms pull down the mains >>>> cables powering your local copper exchange, and the snow is deep enough >>>> that the fuel trucks can't get to the exchange before its backup >>>> generators consume the diesel in their tanks. >>>> >>>> The copper *will* also stop working then as well. >>>> >>>> It only appears to keep working because there were several layers of >>>> redundancy backed in by the regulations. >>>> >>>> But those regulations are being sidelined now. Without those >>>> regulations keeping the companies honest, the old POTS that "just kept >>>> working" almost all the time will become just as flakey and offline at >>>> the slightest provocation as the other options. >>>> >>>> A *lot* of expense was spent to make the old copper POTS just "keep >>>> working", not a bit of it "just working" was because it was "copper". >>>> It was all because the companies operating it were kept whipped into >>>> shape by the regulators and forced to pay for the upkeep needed. >>>> >>>> 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. > > That is not a small power. Orders of magnitude over what POTS needs: all > houses not actively using the phone draw no power at all. There is something else. It would be a tree network of DC cables going out from a central node. Two thick cables going out, perhaps 48V DC, then branching at each home (and fuses). At least part of the network would be thick cables. Which means, some people would try to steal them. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 11:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vp0gp$3io0e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87415 |
On 2026-06-03, Carlos E.R. wrote: > There is something else. It would be a tree network of DC cables going > out from a central node. Two thick cables going out, perhaps 48V DC, > then branching at each home (and fuses). At least part of the network > would be thick cables. Which means, some people would try to steal > them. Is it true some people even try to steal the kind of bare wiring that is used carry 25 kV 50 Hz? -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 13:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rce5fmxkbi.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87424 |
On 2026-06-03 12:43, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2026-06-03, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> There is something else. It would be a tree network of DC cables going >> out from a central node. Two thick cables going out, perhaps 48V DC, >> then branching at each home (and fuses). At least part of the network >> would be thick cables. Which means, some people would try to steal >> them. > > Is it true some people even try to steal the kind of bare wiring that is > used carry 25 kV 50 Hz? > They steal the live catenary from the railway... Sometimes someone dies. The distribution wires, I have not heard of it. Too high? We would need harsher laws to protect the railways. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 12:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vp2ae$3igml$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87431 |
On 03/06/2026 12:05, Carlos E.R. wrote: > They steal the live catenary from the railway... Sometimes someone dies. > The distribution wires, I have not heard of it. Too high? > > We would need harsher laws to protect the railways. Or higher voltages -- "The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll look exactly the same afterwards." Billy Connolly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 12:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vp3ai$3io0e$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87434 |
On 2026-06-03, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 03/06/2026 12:05, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> They steal the live catenary from the railway... Sometimes someone >> dies. The distribution wires, I have not heard of it. Too high? >> >> We would need harsher laws to protect the railways. > > Or higher voltages Probably less likely, IIRC 25kV was the sweet point for AC electrification? -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 12:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vp28q$3igml$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87424 |
On 03/06/2026 11:43, Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2026-06-03, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> There is something else. It would be a tree network of DC cables going
>> out from a central node. Two thick cables going out, perhaps 48V DC,
>> then branching at each home (and fuses). At least part of the network
>> would be thick cables. Which means, some people would try to steal
>> them.
>
> Is it true some people even try to steal the kind of bare wiring that is
> used carry 25 kV 50 Hz?
>
Oh yes, I had an inspection of 'my' substation - 3 phase 11KV in, 240v
100A out to my property. I am the only person connected.
Thieves had attempted to force the doors in order to steal the whole
transformer.
Any crowbar thrown across the lines will cause the 11kV circuits to trip
and stay tripped.
--
"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
higher education positively fortifies it."
- Stephen Vizinczey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-01 19:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10vl2v5$2icdr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87341 |
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]
| From | Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 17:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn111u5jp.ust.spamtrap42@one.localnet> |
| In reply to | #87349 |
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]
| From | TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 17:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3eab0acd126d1b887323@dev.null> |
| In reply to | #87379 |
>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]
| From | InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 16:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10vng30$376sh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87380 |
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]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web