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

Groups > comp.dcom.telecom > #262 > unrolled thread

RE: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom]

Back to article view | Back to comp.dcom.telecom

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  RE: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] "AJB Consulting" <ajbcs@frontier.com> - 2011-04-01 09:22 -0400
    Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] "Gary" <bogus-email@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-01 19:49 -0400
      Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] "AJB Consulting" <ajbcs@frontier.com> - 2011-04-02 10:31 -0400
        Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-02 17:01 -0700
      Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2011-04-02 10:42 -0700
        Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] "Gary" <bogus-email@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-02 17:45 -0400
          Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] "Gary" <bogus-email@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-02 22:18 -0400
            Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2011-04-03 18:18 -0700
        Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2011-04-04 10:05 -0400
          Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> - 2011-04-04 15:54 +0000
            Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net> - 2011-04-04 15:24 -0400
              Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2011-04-04 19:52 +0000
              Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] AES <siegman@stanford.edu> - 2011-04-04 17:00 -0700
                Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] "Gary" <bogus-email@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-10 13:55 -0400
                  Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> - 2011-04-11 15:35 +1000
                    Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] AES <siegman@stanford.edu> - 2011-04-11 08:39 -0700
                      Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> - 2011-04-12 08:29 +1000
                        Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) - 2011-04-11 21:42 -0500
                          Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2011-04-12 20:09 -0700
                            Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) - 2011-04-13 21:35 -0500
                          Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> - 2011-04-13 13:58 +1000
                        Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2011-04-12 03:30 +0000
              Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2011-04-04 18:38 -0700
                Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> - 2011-04-05 10:52 -0400
                  Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] "AJB Telecom" <ajbtelecom@frontier.com> - 2011-04-06 09:25 -0400
                    Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] "Jim Bennett" <ajbtelecom@frontier.com> - 2011-04-07 10:02 -0400
                      Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2011-04-07 09:38 -0700
                      Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2011-04-07 17:09 +0000
                      Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] "Jim Bennett" <ajbtelecom@frontier.com> - 2011-04-08 11:41 -0400
                      Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) - 2011-04-08 11:31 -0500
                  Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2011-04-06 03:56 +0000
      Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> - 2011-04-02 13:44 -0700
        Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2011-04-02 20:23 -0500
      Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom] Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-02 16:51 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#262 — RE: Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom]

There seems to be some misconceptions in this thread that need clearing 
up. I realize this is about three weeks late, but as the saying goes, 
better late than never.

The most important point to remember is that with any modern consumer 
"box" that provides a POTS interface for the end user, whether or not 
certain standard phones will work has nothing to do with how the box 
connects to the service provider.  This applies irrespective of the 
connection type and protocol that your service provider uses between the 
box and the CO.  It could be an ATA [Analog Telephone Adapter] furnished 
by a VoIP provider, a box from a CATV company, a FiOS ONT [Optical 
Network Termination], or even an SLT [Single Line Telephone] port on a 
modern electronic key system.  In all of these cases, whatever you dial 
with your POTS phone to set up a call is digested completely by your 
local box, which then does whatever it has to do to set up your call.  
It all comes down to what types of phones the makers of said box decide 
to support.[1]

For the record, FiOS uses a real-time 64 kbps channel[2] for each phone 
number that appears at the POTS interface connections on the ONT.  This 
channel is just a tiny part of the optical bitstreams between the end 
user and the CO, and at the CO end, in many cases, it simply goes 
through a digital cross-connect and presents as a DS0 to an existing 
5ESS switch.  I don't have access to the written practices that would 
detail call setup, but more than likely the necessary information is 
passed on to the same switch much in the same way it would be for a 
voice channel in an ISDN/PRI [23+D]. The more things change, the more 
they stay the same.

So does the FiOS ONT support rotary-dial phones?  That is the million 
dollar question, and the only way to answer it is to get your mitts on 
the manufacturer's documentation for the ONT.  Earlier FiOS installs in 
this area used an ONT made by a company whose name escapes me [they were 
later bought by Tellabs].  More recent installs in this area use an ONT 
made by Alcatel-Lucent, and here is where you will run into a brick 
wall.  Documentation for end-user Lucent equipment remains readily 
available under the Alcatel regime, but anything in the carrier 
equipment line requires a log-in and password, which you can get by 
having an active service provider account with them.  Bill, you probably 
have much better connections in this area than most of us - perhaps it 
is time to call in a favor.


Here are the footnotes, if the reader can stand any more:

[1] The biggest beef most people have with these boxes is that they do 
not conform to long-established standards for an FXS [POTS] interface.  
Ringing is the most common complaint, as the boxes seldom provide true 
90 VAC sinusoidal current properly imposed on DC loop voltage to enable 
answer detection.  The makers of this equipment either don't know or 
don't care about the standards, and they wind up reinventing the wheel.  
Their new wheel often comes out square, which is especially amusing when 
one considers that there are numerous readily available ASIC chips on 
the market that could do all of this for them - all they had to do was 
open a catalog.  Other common complaints about these boxes include DC 
loop current and/or voltage that is not within established standards, 
sloppy answer [off-hook] detection, lack of CPC support, and so on.

[2] Pseudo real-time. It is contained in the ATM data stream, but does 
not have to go through the gyrations of packetized IP data.

Jim Bennett
**************************************************
Speaking from a secure undisclosed location.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#263

"AJB Consulting"  wrote in message 
news:000a01cbf06f$e2a98e30$01fea8c0@dell8100...
>
>So does the FiOS ONT support rotary-dial phones?  That is the million
>dollar question, and the only way to answer it is to get your mitts on
>the manufacturer's documentation for the ONT.

There's one other way; experimentation!  I've got FiOS with a Tellabs ONT on 
the wall.  I've got a 500 set in a box.  I took the 500 set out of the box, 
plugged it into one of my phone jacks.  Guess what?  I got dial tone and was 
able to actually *dial* the phone.  In other words, it worked.

-Gary

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

#267

Gary, that is *way* too easy. ;)

Actually, I am not surprised a bit - Tellabs is an "old-school" Telecom
company.  I would not be surprised if the Alcatel/Lucent ONT's also support
pulse dialing.  Verizon has been looking to an all-fiber network for some
time, and they probably want the option of serving *every* customer in some
areas with FiOS, including the ubiquitous "little old lady with the same
phone she has had [rented] since 1955."

Jim
**************************************************
Speaking from a secure undisclosed location.

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

#280

--- On Sat, 4/2/11, AJB Consulting <ajbcs@frontier.com> wrote:

> Actually, I am not surprised a bit - Tellabs is an "old-school"
> Telecom company. I would not be surprised if the Alcatel/Lucent
> ONT's also support pulse dialing. Verizon has been looking to an
> all-fiber network for some time, and they probably want the option
> of serving *every* customer in some areas with FiOS, including the
> ubiquitous "little old lady with the same phone she has had [rented]
> since 1955."

My wife and I may be a little old man and lady, but we have two
so-called "decorator" phones that WE used to provide innards for.  We
have them not because we've always had them but because of their
decorative aspect as part of the decor.  They have rotary
dials--anything else would be an anachronism.

Oh, yes, we have several T-T phones, too--on the same line.  We are AT&T
customers.


Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com

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

#270

On Apr 1, 7:49 pm, "Gary" <bogus-em...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> There's one other way; experimentation! I've got FiOS with a Tellabs
> ONT on the wall. I've got a 500 set in a box. I took the 500 set out
> of the box, plugged it into one of my phone jacks. Guess what? I got
> dial tone and was able to actually *dial* the phone. In other words,
> it worked.

Thanks for trying this out.

A question if I may about FIOS service.  Have you ever had a power
failure, and if so, did you lose your FIOS service due to the battery
going out (or some other reason)?  I know people with FIOS who had a
long power outage after a winter storm and lost their phone service.

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

#273

"Lisa or Jeff"  wrote in message 
news:e2b88b2c-7ce5-4565-9253-ba3bd5746b31@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
> A question if I may about FIOS service.  Have you ever had a power
> failure, and if so, did you lose your FIOS service due to the battery
> going out (or some other reason)?  I know people with FIOS who had a
> long power outage after a winter storm and lost their phone service.

I'm happy to answer questions (and ask them too :-).  That's why I still 
hang around this dusty old corner of the internet.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), I can't directly answer your question 
as I haven't had any power outages longer than a few minutes in the last 
decade.  I did think seriously about this before switching from POTS/DSL to 
FiOS two years ago, and decided that since my electric is rather reliable 
and that I've got cell phones for a backup, I could deal with a longer power 
outage.

That said, I did also add a small UPS to power the router and ONT in the 
event of an outage.  When the ONT looses power, it switches to it's internal 
backup battery.  It cuts off internet and video after a few minutes of no 
power to save the battery for voice.  The ONTs are designed to provide 8 
hours of voice service from battery backup.

With my setup, I get a some time with both internet (laptops have batteries) 
and phone service before the UPS cuts out.  Since most everything has gone 
paperless these days, having internet access is key to finding phone numbers 
to call to report outages.  I suppose I should write these numbers down in 
case I need them in an outage, but I'd probably loose the sheet of paper and 
the numbers might be out of date.

My ONT also has an external 12 DC power input.  Some folks have connected 
big deep cycle batteries to these to provide extended run time.  I've no 
idea if they keep internet running.  Of course, you'd still need a UPS for 
the router and any other network gear.

And don't forget that whatever backup power you provide at your home is only 
as good as the backup power in the network.  With POTS, I've had outages 
caused by battery failure at the remote terminal that serves my development. 
At least with FiOS the network power problem is pushed back to the CO, but 
who knows how much money Verizon is putting into keeping backup power in 
good condition these days.

-Gary

***** Moderator's Note *****

AFAIK, FiOS terminates the "fiber" portion of the path at a local CEV,
and the physical layer is Coaxial cable from there to the homes. That,
at least, is the way my sister's FiOS install happened, and I don't
think the CEV equipment is powered from the CO. That means that FiOS
is subject to the same limits as any SLC-served POTS line.

FWIW. YMMV. My 2¢.

Bill Horne
Moderator

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

#277

***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> AFAIK, FiOS terminates the "fiber" portion of the path at a local CEV,
> and the physical layer is Coaxial cable from there to the homes. That,
> at least, is the way my sister's FiOS install happened, and I don't
> think the CEV equipment is powered from the CO. That means that FiOS
> is subject to the same limits as any SLC-served POTS line.

That seems odd to me.  Every SFU (single family unit) FiOS install I've seen 
here in the south eastern PA and NJ areas has fiber directly to the premise. 
A battery backed up ONT:SFU is installed at the premise and provides POTS, 
Ethernet and coax (video) to the home.  The battery actually belongs to the 
subscriber, ridding Verizon of the cost of battery maintenance.

For MDU (multiple dwelling units), otherwise know as apartments, condos, or 
townhomes; a single ONT:MDU servers multiple homes (dwelling units).  The 
connection from the ONT to the home is usually copper or coax.  The ONT:MDU 
is typically installed in the telco or utility room if the building has one 
or outside near the old POTS demarc.

I've not seen or heard of a Verizon FiOS installation that did not bring 
fiber to the premise.  Fiber to the curb, neighborhood or node is done by 
other companies (Comcast and AT&T are a couple of big ones), but not Verizon 
as far as I'm aware.  Note that "FiOS" is Verizon's brand name for PON, so 
if your sister has a service from someone other than Verizon, it isn't FiOS 
just like Scott Tissues aren't Kleenex.  That might explain it.

-Gary

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

#287

On Apr 2, 10:18 pm, "Gary" <bogus-em...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> For MDU (multiple dwelling units), otherwise know as apartments, condos, or
> townhomes; a single ONT:MDU servers multiple homes (dwelling units). The
> connection from the ONT to the home is usually copper or coax. The ONT:MDU
> is typically installed in the telco or utility room if the building has one
> or outside near the old POTS demarc.

Interesting observation.

My condo complex (garden court style units) will not allow Verizon to
install FiOS in here because the condo says the necessary outside
boxes are ugly.  (Indeed, even a FIOS sales rep warned that the
necessary outside box is large and may not be appreciated).  But if
only one box per building (15 units) is needed then the box could
easily be easily be installed in the back, near the old Bell big
junction box.

I wonder if the condo misunderstood what Verizon wanted to do, or the
Verizon contact didn't explain it well.  Both are entirely possible.

Many of us want FIOS to have some competition against the local cable
company, although admittedly, the FIOS TV service offerings and price
just happen to be the same as cable.  How about that!

One other for us is commercial power reliability.  Our power supply is
lousy.  In a heavy thunderstorm or snowstorm, we can expect to lose
power.  Usually it's only about 60-120 minutes, but in some bad storms
it was six hours.  Friends who have FIOS told me their battery died
after four hours of outage.

(I also think the condo should get a generator for the clubhouse so at
least one place has power, but they won't do that.)

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

#292

Lisa or Jeff  <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Apr 1, 7:49 pm, "Gary" <bogus-em...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There's one other way; experimentation! I've got FiOS with a Tellabs
>> ONT on the wall. I've got a 500 set in a box. I took the 500 set out
>> of the box, plugged it into one of my phone jacks. Guess what? I got
>> dial tone and was able to actually *dial* the phone. In other words,
>> it worked.
>
>Thanks for trying this out.
>
>A question if I may about FIOS service.  Have you ever had a power
>failure, and if so, did you lose your FIOS service due to the battery
>going out (or some other reason)?  I know people with FIOS who had a
>long power outage after a winter storm and lost their phone service.

A friend of mine has FiOS, up in Maryland.  A year or so ago I visited him
and the FiOS box in the garage was flashing a red light saying the battery
needed replacing, which I pointed out to him.  Last week I visited again, and
the light is still flashing and the battery has not been changed.

If you don't do scheduled maintenance, things break.
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

#294

>A friend of mine has FiOS, up in Maryland.  A year or so ago I visited him
>and the FiOS box in the garage was flashing a red light saying the battery
>needed replacing, which I pointed out to him.  Last week I visited again, and
>the light is still flashing and the battery has not been changed.
>
>If you don't do scheduled maintenance, things break.

Right.  Part of the attraction of FiOS, from VZ's point of view, is
that [they] foist off the responsibility for maintaining the battery
backup on the customer, who generally doesn't understand that until
it's too late.

I mentioned this to someone at our rural ILEC a while back, who was
flabbergasted that the telco wouldn't maintain the batteries.  This is
hardly a new issue, [since] they changed out customer batteries all
the time in the early 1900s.

R's,
John

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

#296

On 4 Apr 2011 15:54:45 -0000, "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:

>>A friend of mine has FiOS, up in Maryland.  A year or so ago I visited him
>>and the FiOS box in the garage was flashing a red light saying the battery
>>needed replacing, which I pointed out to him.  Last week I visited again, and
>>the light is still flashing and the battery has not been changed.
>>
>>If you don't do scheduled maintenance, things break.
>
>Right.  Part of the attraction of FiOS, from VZ's point of view, is
>that [they] foist off the responsibility for maintaining the battery
>backup on the customer, who generally doesn't understand that until
>it's too late.
>
>I mentioned this to someone at our rural ILEC a while back, who was
>flabbergasted that the telco wouldn't maintain the batteries.  This is
>hardly a new issue, [since] they changed out customer batteries all
>the time in the early 1900s.
>
>R's,
>John


Not having to change the batteries was the major reason to go to
central office battery in the early days. Saved a bundle on
maintenance costs, even more than the invention of the switch hook
saved (not turning off the phone was a major cause of battery
rundown...).  The change was maintenance cost driven, not at all due
to customer convenience during power outages.  Sending a craftsperson
out to change the batteries was expensive then and prohibitively
expensive today.

Somehow that perspective got twisted over the years.  Of course today,
with the demise of police call boxes and Gamewell fire boxes, the
telephone has become the primary emergency communications means, so
operation in the absence of utility power may now be a public safety
issue...

Besides, providing premises power requires copper; fiber doesn't
transmit that level of power very well, so a separate copper plant
would have to be maintained.  That would make FiOS an additional
infrastructure, not a replacement infrastructure.  Going to fiber only
eliminates the expensive maintenance of the copper plant
(eventually...), thus the VZ requirement to give up the copper
connection if you subscribe to FiOS.

Such is progress.   

ET

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

#297

In <1s5kp6dasu6noln1cecjtnterhj0hj5mql@4ax.com> Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>Besides, providing premises power requires copper; fiber doesn't
>transmit that level of power very well, so a separate copper plant
>would have to be maintained.  That would make FiOS an additional
>infrastructure, not a replacement infrastructure.

I've got to wonder a bit about that, at least from
a pure, technical, side.

Back in the 1980s I remember articles in Science News
about the (for then) super high efficiency solar cells
coming out of Bell Labs research. (Yes, children, once
upon a time there was this company, in New Jersey!, that
did lots of ground breaking research).

It wouldn't work for a commercial complex with multiple
phone systems in place (which have generally required
local utility power anyway [a]), but I wouldn't be surprised
if, given a few nudges in teh right direction, we'd have
phones and related equipment that could, indeed, be
powered by the laser/fiber light stream. 

And... we'd also have seen quite a bit of improvement
in small sized, high density, storage cells - that would
"charge up" from the laser between calls.

And the consumer premises equipment ("CPE") would
be far more energy efficient than what's now in
common use.

[a] typically there'd be a couple of phone sets which
had "power failure pass through", getting direct dial
tone from the CO.


-- 
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
		     dannyb@panix.com 
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

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

#298

In article <1s5kp6dasu6noln1cecjtnterhj0hj5mql@4ax.com>,
 Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> Besides, providing premises power requires copper; fiber doesn't
> transmit that level of power very well, so a separate copper plant
> would have to be maintained. 

I believe undersea fiber optic cables actually carry something like 
several kW of power over kilo-mile distances via copper that's embedded 
in the fiber optic cable, in order to power the EDFAs (Erbium Doped 
Fiber Amplifiers) that are spliced into the cable every 50 km or so.  

So, the fiber cables for FTTH could certainly contain a copper pair or 
two to deliver low-power AC or DC all the way to the premises end.  
Wouldn't significantly increase the size or flexibility of the cable, 
I'd guess.  Would add noticeably to the cost of the cable, however, 
along with the cost of spllcing or connectorizing the cables -- and 
somebody would have to be responsible for supplying the power.

I'd bet that if one were installing the communication infrastructure in 
some large green-fields development, it might make overall economic 
sense to run a single cable containing a PON fiber plus a few pairs of 
copper to every premises, using the fiber for all forms of large-scale 
communications and data, and the copper to supply backup or emergency 
power for crucial parts of the whole infrastructure, plus a few 
low-data-rate communications applications such as various monitoring and 
alarm systems and maybe meter reading.

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

#331

"AES"  wrote in message 
news:siegman-4A6399.17001304042011@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu...

> So, the fiber cables for FTTH could certainly contain a copper pair or
> two to deliver low-power AC or DC all the way to the premises end.
> Wouldn't significantly increase the size or flexibility of the cable,
> I'd guess.  Would add noticeably to the cost of the cable, however,
> along with the cost of spllcing or connectorizing the cables -- and
> somebody would have to be responsible for supplying the power.

You've missed the main problem with powered copper - water.  Water WILL get 
into the cable, no matter how fancy the connector and how properly it is 
torqued.  It may take 50 years if done right or a few days if done wrong, 
but water always wins.  Once the water is in the metal starts corroding. 
Powered cables corrode much faster than unpowered ones.  Then, they stop 
working or pass noisy signals.

In short, water is the bane of powered copper installations and is one
of the big reasons PON (Passive Optical Network - Ed.) is so much more
reliable than copper.  With nothing powered between the OLT and ONT,
there is nothing to get damaged by water.  When my FiOS drop was
installed, the installer literally fished the drop cable out of a foot
of water in the access vault, removed the protective cap from the drop
cable, screwed on the fiber to my house, and dropped the whole thing
back in the water.  Even when water seeps into this connection, it'll
have little effect on the glass and plastic fiber cable assembly.

If we start passing power along with the fiber, the eliminates one of the 
major advantages of PON - lower maintenance costs due to no powered stuff in 
the field.

Now, I did see that the drop cable does have a ground wire attached to it. 
It is grounded at the access vault and my house.  It's purpose is to allow 
the cable to be located.  It doesn't pass power or signal.  Even if it 
corrodes (and it will), it'll still show up when the cable locator is passed 
over it.

-Gary

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

#336

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:55:20 -0400, Gary wrote:

> "AES"  wrote in message
> news:siegman-4A6399.17001304042011@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu...
> 
>> So, the fiber cables for FTTH could certainly contain a copper pair or
>> two to deliver low-power AC or DC all the way to the premises end.
>> Wouldn't significantly increase the size or flexibility of the cable,
>> I'd guess.  Would add noticeably to the cost of the cable, however,
>> along with the cost of spllcing or connectorizing the cables -- and
>> somebody would have to be responsible for supplying the power.
> 
> You've missed the main problem with powered copper - water.

......
And fibre doesn't propagate massive spikes from induced lightening strikes
into your equipment the way metal conductors do.

-- 
Regards, David.

David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.

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

#340

In article <pan.2011.04.11.05.35.40.152944@myrealbox.com>,
 David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:

> >> So, the fiber cables for FTTH could certainly contain a copper pair or
> >> two to deliver low-power AC or DC all the way to the premises end.
> >> Wouldn't significantly increase the size or flexibility of the cable,
> >> I'd guess.  Would add noticeably to the cost of the cable, however,
> >> along with the cost of spllcing or connectorizing the cables -- and
> >> somebody would have to be responsible for supplying the power.


> And fibre doesn't propagate massive spikes from induced lightening strikes
> into your equipment the way metal conductors do.

A valid point.  Lightning problems are rare here in the SF Bay Area, but 
I understand are a serious issue in many other locations.

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

#342

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:39:32 -0700, AES wrote:

> In article <pan.2011.04.11.05.35.40.152944@myrealbox.com>,
>  David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> 
>> >> So, the fiber cables for FTTH could certainly contain a copper pair
>> >> or two to deliver low-power AC or DC all the way to the premises end.
>> >> Wouldn't significantly increase the size or flexibility of the cable,
>> >> I'd guess.  Would add noticeably to the cost of the cable, however,
>> >> along with the cost of spllcing or connectorizing the cables -- and
>> >> somebody would have to be responsible for supplying the power.
> 
> 
>> And fibre doesn't propagate massive spikes from induced lightening
>> strikes into your equipment the way metal conductors do.
> 
> A valid point.  Lightning problems are rare here in the SF Bay Area, but I
> understand are a serious issue in many other locations.

Most people still don't understand that a lightening strike hitting the
ground in their vicinity can cause a massive spike in their metal phone
lines - which essentially act as massive antennas - which end up affecting
whatever is connected at either end. This can occur many miles away from
people but it can still affect them.

The Telcos have significant line protection to keep these nasties out of
their expensive electronic equipment, how many end-users have similar
protection at their ends?

People still complain about their ISP after storms in their area or
bellyache about their "crap" ADSL modems which - coincidently - seems to
either fail or degrade in performance after these self-same storms.
Ignorance is good business for the manufactures of anything connected to
the copper phone network - this may go away with fibre.

-- 
Regards, David.

David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.

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

#347

In article <pan.2011.04.11.22.29.51.300337@myrealbox.com>,
David Clayton  <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:39:32 -0700, AES wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2011.04.11.05.35.40.152944@myrealbox.com>,
>>  David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> >> So, the fiber cables for FTTH could certainly contain a copper pair
>>> >> or two to deliver low-power AC or DC all the way to the premises end.
>>> >> Wouldn't significantly increase the size or flexibility of the cable,
>>> >> I'd guess.  Would add noticeably to the cost of the cable, however,
>>> >> along with the cost of spllcing or connectorizing the cables -- and
>>> >> somebody would have to be responsible for supplying the power.
>> 
>> 
>>> And fibre doesn't propagate massive spikes from induced lightening
>>> strikes into your equipment the way metal conductors do.
>> 
>> A valid point.  Lightning problems are rare here in the SF Bay Area, but I
>> understand are a serious issue in many other locations.
>
>Most people still don't understand that a lightening strike hitting the
>ground in their vicinity can cause a massive spike in their metal phone
>lines - which essentially act as massive antennas - which end up affecting
>whatever is connected at either end. This can occur many miles away from
>people but it can still affect them.
>
>The Telcos have significant line protection to keep these nasties out of
>their expensive electronic equipment, how many end-users have similar
>protection at their ends?

In the U.S., with POTS service, virtually _all_ end-users have basic
protection against such 'at the DEMMARC', provided by the telco.

There are multiple reasons for the telco providing it.  For starters:

1) given a strike _on_ telco wiring, with a surge following the telco 
   wiring into the property, and possibly injuring someone inside, the
   telco _does_ have legal liability.

2) if there is a strike on the end-user property, the telco doesn't want
   that surge 'backing up' into the telco system, and blowing out lots
   of other customer pairs.

>
>People still complain about their ISP after storms in their area or
>bellyache about their "crap" ADSL modems which - coincidently - seems to
>either fail or degrade in performance after these self-same storms.

The only weather-related DSL problems I've known of were where a multi-
pair distribution cable had a moisture problem.  After a hard rain some
water would get into the cable, and cross-talk issues would go _way_ up.
wait a few days, the damp spot dried out and things were back to normal.
Well, until the next rain.

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

#352

On Apr 11, 10:42 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
wrote:

> In the U.S., with POTS service, virtually _all_ end-users have basic
> protection against such 'at the DEMMARC', provided by the telco.
>
> There are multiple reasons for the telco providing it. For starters:
>
> 1) given a strike _on_ telco wiring, with a surge following the telco
>    wiring into the property, and possibly injuring someone inside, the
>    telco _does_ have legal liability.
>
> 2) if there is a strike on the end-user property, the telco doesn't want
>    that surge 'backing up' into the telco system, and blowing out lots
>    of other customer pairs.

Our apt building has no such protection.  I've lost a few modems from
lightning strikes a distance a distance away, as others mentioned.
Several of my neighbors were affected too during the same storm.

I believe the telco differentiates between aerial drops and
underground drops.  AFAIK, subscribers served by a line from a pole to
their house has protection on it to protect the wiring from the
lightning-power currents that could cause a fire.  However, AFAIK
underground lines would not send out current that would be enough to
start a fire or even damage old style Western Electric phones, so
protection is not provided.

Not every subscriber has a demarc box.  Our complex does not have
them, and I understand that situation is typical for such older
buildings.  On the exterior of the building is a large telco junction
box, which serves as a mini-distributing frame connecting the
underground cable to the lines that serve each apt.  Residents do not
have access to that junction box.

For 99% of the residents not having a demarc is not an issue.  They
plug a phone into the jack on the wall and that's it.  One time I had
bad static on the line and I reported it.  The telco got back to me
that it was fixed "put on a different pair", but the fix was
completely transparent to me and at no charge.  The same thing
happened to a neighbor in a different building.

As mentioned, the condo board will not allow the telco to put FIOS in
here because the board fears the external boxes will be ugly.  I'm not
sure that's a valid concern since this thread suggests the FIOS boxes
could be installed in the building rear.  But then they had trouble
getting the cable company to install wires properly and discretely as
they promised to do, not run them across sidewalks or thrown over a
roof as they did.

All underground wiring was a big deal in the 1970s, but it has some
drawbacks.  Contractors screw up and cut phone lines despite being
warned to check first.  Winter freeze/thaw cycles can break electric
power cables and that's very costly to provide.  The original
underground transformers had overheating and moisture problems.

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

#358

In article <16fa9cb6-1318-47b4-a4b3-dcc0264c15cb@j17g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Lisa or Jeff  <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Apr 11, 10:42 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
>wrote:
>
>> In the U.S., with POTS service, virtually _all_ end-users have basic
>> protection against such 'at the DEMMARC', provided by the telco.
>>
>> There are multiple reasons for the telco providing it. For starters:
>>
>> 1) given a strike _on_ telco wiring, with a surge following the telco
>>    wiring into the property, and possibly injuring someone inside, the
>>    telco _does_ have legal liability.
>>
>> 2) if there is a strike on the end-user property, the telco doesn't want
>>    that surge 'backing up' into the telco system, and blowing out lots
>>    of other customer pairs.
>
> Our apt building has no such protection.  I've lost a few modems
> from lightning strikes a distance a distance away, as others
> mentioned.  Several of my neighbors were affected too during the
> same storm.

The telco-supplied protection is designed to prevent life-threatening
situations into the premises, and _wiring_ threatening surges from
propagating back to the network.

'Minor' excesses, can easily 'fry' many types of CPE without triggering
the "life-saving" gear.

> Not every subscriber has a demarc box.

Every installation _does_ have a DEMARC.  Whether or not it is a 
distinct 'box' is irrelevant.

> Our complex does not have them, and I understand that situation is
> typical for such older buildings.  On the exterior of the building
> is a large telco junction box, which serves as a mini-distributing
> frame connecting the underground cable to the lines that serve each
> apt.  Residents do not have access to that junction box.

I'm willing to bet that there are "circuit protective" devices inside that 
box. They may be as simple as passing bare wire "close" to a ground bus,
so that a life-threatening surge/spike will jump the gap and short to ground.

> For 99% of the residents not having a demarc is not an issue.

I repeat, -every- customer circuit has a DEMARC.  It always exists, 
because it is defined by statute and utility commission rules/regulations.
Whether or not there is a 'box' there -- with, or without a customer-
accessible test-point -- is irrelevant to the existence of the DEMARC.

[Moderator snip]

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.dcom.telecom

csiph-web