28 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 
 

Message Digest 
Volume 29 : Issue 7 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
 Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network...
 Overview of L5 carrier
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
 Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
 Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network...
 Re: FCC now planning "all-IP" phone transition


====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ====== Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:46:30 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <an11n.16657$Wl3.16102@newsfe11.iad> Robert Neville wrote: > T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote: > > >>Made the switch five years ago and never looked back. > > > I have been on Vonage on top of either cable/dry dsl for over 4 years > now and don't have any particular issue with VOIP in general, other > than when operated as a customer application over residential > broadband, it is highly dependent on the bandwidth, latency and > stability of the underlying circuit. > My cable ranges 18.79 to 27.59 megabits down and 2.71 megabits up. So, needless to say, it works great here. But, I have taken my adapter to Hawaii and used it on DSL for 1 month 384 kbs up, 1.5 megabits down, and couldn't see any deterioation in quality. Having said that, this country in general is lagging behind the industrial world on "pipe" size.
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 22:01:26 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network... Message-ID: <pan.2010.01.06.11.01.23.516932@myrealbox.com> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:01:37 -0600, Robert Bonomi wrote: ....... > This is why the telco backbone is referenced as a 'circuit-switched' > architecture, not a 'packet-switched' one. In Australia, the major telco has been using VoIP as a backbone for business voice traffic for quite a while now. No one has noticed much difference. http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/9981/telstra_flicks_switch_1_5_billion_ip_network/ -- 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.
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:49:57 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Overview of L5 carrier Message-ID: <4B44DB55.50909@speakeasy.net> For those who (like me) are nostalgic for the Good Old Days, here's a link to a .pdf file which gives an excellent overview of L5 carrier. http://download.yousendit.com/TzY2b3BGeWFENlIzZUE9PQ -- Bill Horne (Filter QRM for direct replies)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:32:19 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <7c8a0f76-19e2-48fe-a9a9-2d7785374aad@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com> On Dec 30 2009, 4:54 pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote: > How long has it been since the actual "wire" infrastructure was the > major cost component in voice calls? Tough to say, indeed, wire may not have been the 'major' cost component in voice calls. Terminal equipment--the gear that converts analog to digital and back, repeaters, and multiplexers--all cost serious money in the past. A 1975 Bell System text noted the high cost of terminal equipment and that in some cases it was cheaper to simply use wire instead of multiplexing. As noted in a prior post, the huge drop in the cost of electronic computers has allowed for big savings in the cost of terminal equipment. Another cost component was the switchgear itself--the design, construction, installation, and maintenance of electro-mechanical switches was not cheap. Considerable advance engineering went into designing the optimum amount of switchgear for a particular central office--too small would cause service jams and too big was wasteful. > The billing component these days on legacy comms must be just about > the biggest cost that is incurred by a provider. While costs have gone down, telephone switches and terminal gear still cost serious money. There are physical concerns to maintaining fiber links whether underground or aerial. Buildings are still needed.
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:15:38 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <pan.2010.01.07.01.15.36.374272@myrealbox.com> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:32:19 -0800, hancock4 wrote: > On Dec 30 2009, 4:54Β pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote: ........ >> The billing component these days on legacy comms must be just about the >> biggest cost that is incurred by a provider. > > While costs have gone down, telephone switches and terminal gear still > cost serious money. There are physical concerns to maintaining fiber > links whether underground or aerial. Buildings are still needed. Agreed, but in comparison the cost of counting all the calls, determining what to charge for them, sending out bills, processing payments, chasing up overdue accounts and providing "Customer Service" facilities must be a way higher percentage of any "retail" telco's costs these days than previously. I wonder if these admin costs are now the biggest cost component. -- 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.
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:38:59 -0800 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <hi3l0j$ql1$1@news.eternal-september.org> David Clayton wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:32:19 -0800, hancock4 wrote: > >> On Dec 30 2009, 4:54 pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote: > ........ >>> The billing component these days on legacy comms must be just about the >>> biggest cost that is incurred by a provider. >> While costs have gone down, telephone switches and terminal gear still >> cost serious money. There are physical concerns to maintaining fiber >> links whether underground or aerial. Buildings are still needed. > > Agreed, but in comparison the cost of counting all the calls, > determining what to charge for them, sending out bills, processing > payments, chasing up overdue accounts and providing "Customer Service" > facilities must be a way higher percentage of any "retail" telco's > costs these days than previously. > > I wonder if these admin costs are now the biggest cost component. > > -- > 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. > If you look at the bill; at least in the US; there is a charge on it which includes those costs, it is the customer charge. I always thought that should have been included in the costs of services. -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:18:48 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <pan.2010.01.07.05.18.45.551141@myrealbox.com> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:38:59 -0800, Steven wrote: > David Clayton wrote: ........ >> Agreed, but in comparison the cost of counting all the calls, >> determining what to charge for them, sending out bills, processing >> payments, chasing up overdue accounts and providing "Customer Service" >> facilities must be a way higher percentage of any "retail" telco's >> costs these days than previously. >> >> I wonder if these admin costs are now the biggest cost component. > If you look at the bill; at least in the US; there is a charge on it > which includes those costs, it is the customer charge. I always thought > that should have been included in the costs of services. In Australia it has traditionally been bundled into a catch-all "Monthly (or whatever) Service Charge" listed with the call costs. Since true land-line competition began here, this charge had gone steadily up and and up (and up!) even though the actual cost of providing dial tone to the vast majority has plummeted in the same period. Call costs (where there is true competition) have dived in the same period. It's a little hard to reconcile how the fixed cost keeps going up when almost all local exchanges are now fully digital/automated, and maintenance of external plant has been cut way back in the name of "efficiency". There used to be a lot more people employed keeping the service up than in the past, but it costs everyone a lot more. Most people used to just grumble and accept it, a lot now go VoIP and let Telstra know where they can insert their expensive dial-tone...... -- 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.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:48:35 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <01386f58-dcf0-4d75-8b28-f6d5efeed584@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> On Jan 4, 2:33 pm, woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote: >>> (I've been on the same 150-minute/month plan since 2001 and have only >>> once ever gone over, when I was recuperating from a broken knee away >>> from home and telecommuting. > >> I think you are overlooking local calls. > > I'm "overlooking" them because I don't make any.  Well, maybe once > every so often to reschedule a dentist appointment or something of > that nature.  I'm at a loss as to what else I might make a local call > for that isn't more easily accomplished online. When comparing cellphones to landlines, one thing we must remember is that cellphones usually include incoming calls as part of the monthly bill while a landline does not. My landline gets plenty of unwanted legal and illegal solicitation calls--marketing surveys, political surveys, charity drives and even illegal sales pitches. My answering machine gets plenty of them. I don't get such calls on my cellphone, but if I were to port my landline phone number--which is (sadly) in many directories--will I start getting such calls on the cellphone? I know they're not supposed to call cellphones, but I know they callers don't always honor those rules. This includes calling nursing home phones or sending spam text messages to my cellphone. (I disconnected my texting ability since I had to pay for the spam text). Anyway, the point is that these minutes add up and have to be included. The usage of incoming and outgoing calls of a household will of course vary greatly by household. But I dare say even a single person alone will use more than 150 minutes of talk time a month total of combined landline and cellphone--that comes out to only five minutes per day per month--not a whole lot. I'd figure an individual person would talk at least 15 minutes per day on average. A cellphone replacing a landline might not need be 'unlimited', but it'd better have quite a bit more minutes. My cellphone is free after 9 PM on weeknights, but I find I rarely talk that late; most people prefer an earlier call. Lastly, the quality of a cellphone transmission is significantly worse than a landline.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 00:05:12 +0000 (UTC) From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <hi38fo$2ft$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> In article <01386f58-dcf0-4d75-8b28-f6d5efeed584@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >The usage of incoming and outgoing calls of a household will of course >vary greatly by household. But I dare say even a single person alone >will use more than 150 minutes of talk time a month total of combined >landline and cellphone--that comes out to only five minutes per day >per month--not a whole lot. I'd figure an individual person would >talk at least 15 minutes per day on average. Why would you figure that? (Speaking as a single person, living alone, who -- as noted earlier in this thread -- does not spend even remotely close to that much time on the telephone.) Is there any recent evidence as to what the actual distribution is? (Anything published in BSTJ is far too old to count as recent.) I might spend as much as an hour, total, on the phone in a typical month. Am I a serious outlier, or within a standard deviation of the mean for youngish single guys? -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:42:23 -0800 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch Message-ID: <4B454A0F.2020303@thadlabs.com> On 1/6/2010 4:05 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote: > [...] > I might spend as much as an hour, total, on the phone in a typical > month. Am I a serious outlier, or within a standard deviation of the > mean for youngish single guys? That's about my usage, too, and it appears you use your phone "smartly", too. I have several friends, however, who seem to use their phones some 8 to 12 hours each day; I prefer speaking with friends face to face (in person) and become annoyed when some will allow their ringing cellphone to interrupt us (I usually turn off the ringer when I'm with others). People must have too much free time or, perhaps, they're simply not doing all the things they should and/or need to be doing and, instead, are playing too much with their phone(s). The new "smart" phones aren't going to improve this situation; I was examining a neighbor's Nexus last week (he works for Google) and it's a remarkable device but nothing I would want or use -- with my V3 I push one button, speak "order pizza", and 45 seconds later the pizza is ready for pickup in 15 minutes because they have my number (CallID) and I simply say "repeat the last order". :-)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 20:05:46 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network... Message-ID: <c4bedafa-ab7b-4e75-87d4-34d56950ec34@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com> On Jan 5, 11:01 pm, Robert Bonomi <bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com> wrote: >> Where does Verizon fit in all of this?  Isn't today's at&t a >> relatively small company? > > AT&T: >       Current assets $265 Billion >       2008 gross revenues $124 *Billion*.   >        (operating expenses $100 Billion) >       2008 gross profit (revenues less expenses) $24 Billion > > Doesn't sound like a 'small' company to me.   The question was relative to other carriers, such as Verizon. And isn't it properly spelled as "at&t"? > False to fact. Nope. It's true to life. > One does get dedicated use of a given digital 'circuit' between > the two points. This is what the 'connection set-up' when a call is > placed establishes It may well be time-division-multiplexed (e.g.  a > DS-0 in a DS-1) on a common physical connection, but the full > capacity of that circuit IS dedicated for your use, regardless of > how much, or how little, use you actually make of it during the > call. That connection is _yours_, for your exclusive use, until the > 'connection tear-down' at the end of the call. > > This is why the telco backbone is referenced as a > 'circuit-switched' architecture, not a 'packet-switched' one. Actually, certain multiplexing techniques, such as on an underseas cable, do NOT dedicate the full capacity of an assigned channel. You snipped some key explanations in my earlier post. The "full capacity of a 'circuit'" these days is enormous, far more than one needs for a voice telephone conversation. That's why we have 'multiplexing' which is a way for multiple conversations to share an individual circuit. There are many different ways to multiplex multiple telephone conversations or data streams on an individual circuit. The particular technique chosen does not normally matter to the individual caller. What matters is the assigned bandwidth--that determines the quality of the connection. When an audio sound is digitized for transmission, it could be a high or low quality. (Will it sound like a telephone voice or CD voice?) Certain telephone users need higher bandwidth and pay more to get it. For instance, a radio show transmitted over phones needs a higher quality sound so a better connection is provided. Television needs a much higher bandwidth for the video signal and better sound, so an even bigger connection is provided. (Not as much TV and radio use the phone network these days; this is just to show an example to illustrate the point.) "Packet switching" is just another multiplex method; a way to stuff multiple conversations or data streams through a single big pipe. Once again, when an audio sound is digitized for transmission, it could be a high or low quality. They can make packet switching very high quality or very low quality as they deem fit. Another poster describes good quality packet switching in Australia. What will matter is how the packets are defined, just as the digital sampling rate varies. ***** Moderator's Note ***** This is a complicated subject: let's try to shed more light than heat, OK? Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:16:36 -0600 From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: FCC now planning "all-IP" phone transition Message-ID: <4B456E34.5020402@annsgarden.com> Paul Hoffman wrote: > Recently AT&T asked the FCC to set a date to transition > completely off traditional "switched technology" telephone > networking, in favor of packet switched (internet-style) > networking. [AT&T claimed that] maintaining two parallel > networks that accomplish essentially the same thing was > wasteful and uneconomical, and this has caused quite a bit of > posts, especially between collectors and users of 'old > telephone technology' such as me. > > At the time I read about AT&T's request I did not realize the > petition was for the technology in and between central > offices, and not a bid to remove all copper twisted pair out > to consumer's premises. However with the ever-increasing > amount of fiber either to premises or to centralized > communication near the end users, my [concerns] remain the > same. hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > There are several issues in play here, some transparent to the > home subscriber, some possibly of import. > First, today's telephone network is almost all digital even > though most telephone sets are analog. Shortly after your > analog signal leaves your telephone set the telephone company > converts it to digital. This may be done at a line > concentrator on a pole, at a converter box within or near your > home (such as with VOIP), or at the central office. The A-D conversion can be done by digital loop carrier, but I've never seen a DLC small enough to be mounted on a pole. Do the such things exist? As for doing it in a "converter box within or near your home," the old question remains: how do you power it? With VOIP, the customer understands that he/she must provide the power, including battery backup power if desired. But if the telco provides the conversion, who provides the power? > Second, we must remember the real difference between fibre and > copper (and coax) is capacity. If they replace your copper > line with coax or fibre there is no reason your home telephone > set_has to change. Except that somebody -- either the subscriber or the telco -- still has to provide the operating power for the phone, possibly including backup batteries. How do you propose to power it? > As far as I know, other than Touch Tone and fancy features, a > telephone set today is functionally exactly the same as a 1938 > telephone set (300 set with F handset). True, including the requirement that the copper pair that connects it to the network also provides operating power. > A 1938 set works fine today and a modern set would work fine > on the 1938 network (except for Touch Tone and some sets offer > pulse as an switchable option). They even require the same kind of power to function. > To me, a big change may come where the subscriber's > individual telephone set will do the analog-digital conversion > and so emit digital signals. It likely will use a new > carrier-signal and ringing current instead of the 48V DC and > 90V AC 20 Hz used now. But at that point almost all telephone > sets will be obsolete. Subscribers may have to buy adapters > just as rabit ear TV owners had to do. What kind of adapter? A D-A converter that includes a power supply and a ring generator? > (I suppose some business sets are digital now.) They are. They operate on local power and may or may not have backup batteries. Numerous small business systems are digital, but if you dial 9 to get an outside line, you get an analog subscriber line. It's usually ground start, as opposed to loop start, but it's still an analog loop. DC voltage and ringing voltage are superimposed on the loop for signaling purposes, but the customer's phone system itself is powered locally. Hoffman continued: > Also, as far as I can tell, POTS stuff is pretty much copper > ONLY from the last CO to the houses... Or the last DLC. > and in many cases not all that way either as fiber is pushed > closer and closer to the customer premises, or directly into > them in some cases. So if switched technology were to be > phased out, AT&T would beef up their internet backbones, > surplus dozens of backbone ESS switches and probably hundreds > of local CO switches, and start to recover enough copper > strung throughout the country to probably defray most of the > transition costs. AT&T could recover pole-mounted cables relatively easily (so could scavengers). Recovering buried cables, particularly in urban neighborhoods, would be far more expensive. I suspect the cost of recovering it would exceed its value, even at today's copper prices. > I strongly doubt the cable companies have diesel generators > and huge batteries in their terminal rooms. Diesel generators, yes; huge batteries, no. Most of the headend equipment that cable companies use is powered from 115 VAC, not -48 VDC, so DC is not needed for normal operations. Batteries are needed only in UPSs that keep essential equipment running until the generator fires up. Neal McLain
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne. Contact information: Bill Horne Telecom Digest 43 Deerfield Road Sharon MA 02067-2301 781-784-7287 bill at horne dot net Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
End of The Telecom digest (12 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues