|
|
Message Digest
Volume 29 : Issue 8 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Verizon to double TV/Internet early termination fees
Re: FCC now planning "all-IP" phone transition
Re: FCC now planning "all-IP" phone transition
Re: FCC now planning "all-IP" phone transition
Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Re: FCC now planning "all-IP" phone transition
Re:FCC now planning "all-IP" phone transition
Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network...
Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
BSP and other files
====== 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: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 08:02:10 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <hi50i5$ok1$1@news.eternal-september.org>
David Clayton wrote:
> 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.
>
With all the problems I have had with my voice line and DSL over the
condition of the outside plant I can understand that. AT&T said that
the repairs as of last week on my complaints is over $60,000 and still
climbing, they have not replaced the 1000 feet of cable from the box to
my block.
--
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: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 08:22:32 +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.2010.01.07.21.22.29.120941@myrealbox.com>
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 08:02:10 -0800, Steven wrote:
.........
> With all the problems I have had with my voice line and DSL over the
> condition of the outside plant I can understand that. AT&T said that the
> repairs as of last week on my complaints is over $60,000 and still
> climbing, they have not replaced the 1000 feet of cable from the box to my
> block.
Was there ever pro-active maintenance of external cable plant in the
past?
It seems the modern way now is to just let it deteriorate to almost
unusable and then finally do a replacement - probably because
accountants worked out these this is more "cost effective" (in other
words, profitable) despite all the hassles any of the customers using
it suffer during the whole process.
I think I have just figured out that I now qualify for a "Grumpy Old
Men" episode......
--
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: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:26:37 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <hi61ke$6cu$1@news.eternal-september.org>
David Clayton wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 08:02:10 -0800, Steven wrote:
> .........
>> With all the problems I have had with my voice line and DSL over the
>> condition of the outside plant I can understand that. AT&T said that the
>> repairs as of last week on my complaints is over $60,000 and still
>> climbing, they have not replaced the 1000 feet of cable from the box to my
>> block.
>
> Was there ever pro-active maintenance of external cable plant in the
> past?
>
> It seems the modern way now is to just let it deteriorate to almost
> unusable and then finally do a replacement - probably because
> accountants worked out these this is more "cost effective" (in other
> words, profitable) despite all the hassles any of the customers using
> it suffer during the whole process.
The cable was installed in the 50's and 60's. Some of the cable has
had little or no work done on it in years. The real trouble started
when they reworked cable pairs for U-verse. A manager told me that
they have not done any cable pair recovery in years and have no plans
to do so.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 07:54:39 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Verizon to double TV/Internet early termination fees
Message-ID: <17ba6fc9-216b-458f-af9e-2698451a3dbb@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
An article describes Verizon's new policy for new FIOS and Internet
customers. It is to fight back against cable companies that steal its
customers; the cable companies will rebate the termination fee.
Current bundled customers would be grandfathered.
Verizon says the early termination fees cover the cost of installing
FIOS--$500-$600 per customer.
Some Comcast Cable promotional packages have early termination fees.
For full article please see:
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/technology/80772897.html
Date: 7 Jan 2010 14:34:23 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: FCC now planning "all-IP" phone transition
Message-ID: <20100107143423.8003.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
> 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 such
> things exist?
Sure. A decade ago the local telco had pole mounted boxes that broke
out a T1 into 24 POTS circuits. They were line powered, so the POTS
voltages were somewhat lower than normal. Their engineer told me that
he wanted to avoid equipment outside the CO that needed its own power.
I haven't checked to see what they do now, but since they offer DSL to
nearly everyone, it must be something else.
R's,
John
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 09:19:05 -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: <4B45FB69.6080408@annsgarden.com>
I wrote:
> 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 such
> things exist?
John Levine wrote:
> Sure. A decade ago the local telco had pole mounted boxes that broke
> out a T1 into 24 POTS circuits. They were line powered, so the POTS
> voltages were somewhat lower than normal. Their engineer told me that
> he wanted to avoid equipment outside the CO that needed its own power.
>
> I haven't checked to see what they do now, but since they offer DSL to
> nearly everyone, it must be something else.
Thanks for the info. I'm surprised that it was line powered, because
every DLC I've seen was pad-mounted and had an electric meter. But I
can certainly understand why they wanted to avoid equipment that
required its own power. Cable TV networks have numerous power
supplies, and maintaining them has always been a headache.
Neal McLain
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 17:17:45 -0500
From: "Gary" <fake-email-address@bogus.hotmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: FCC now planning "all-IP" phone transition
Message-ID: <hi5mia$mam$1@news.eternal-september.org>
"Neal McLain" <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote in message
news:4B45FB69.6080408@annsgarden.com...
>
> Thanks for the info. I'm surprised that it was line powered, because
> every DLC I've seen was pad-mounted and had an electric meter. But I
> can certainly understand why they wanted to avoid equipment that
> required its own power. Cable TV networks have numerous power
> supplies, and maintaining them has always been a headache.
That's one of the reasons Verizon is pushing FiOS. It is a PON, which
means "passive optical network." Passive is the key word here; PON's
have no powered equipment between the endpoints. All power is at the
"CO" or premise. Couple that with the fact that fiber doesn't
rust(*), and you can see they are creating a very reliable, low
maintenance cost infrastructure.
Cable networks use a hybrid fiber coax system (HFC). HFC does require
powered equipment in the field. There are some powered amplifiers,
but the biggest powered pieces are the "nodes," which convert between
fiber and coax. Thus, HFC infrastructure is inherently costlier to
maintain than a PON.
However, HFC infrastructure has been built out over a much wider area
of the country than FiOS, so it has the advantage of a much larger
installed base to amortize costs across.
-Gary
(*) When I had FiOS installed last spring. the connection between my
drop and the neighborhood fiber was made in an underground box that
was flooded. After screwing the connectors together, the tech simply
dropped the connection into the water. I asked if he was concerned,
but he wasn't. The connection is water tight (at least to a few
feet), and with no metal in the cable, water is no problem.
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:59:45 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <Rzu1n.15665$DY5.5133@newsfe08.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Dec 30 2009, 4:54 pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
I guess Erlangs are still around for growing end offices. I don't
imagine there are very many growing end offices, though.
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:08:32 -0500 (EST)
From: "Julian Thomas" <jt@jt-mj.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <100.f88f0400a093464b.002@jt-mj.net>
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:59:45 -0800 Sam Spade wrote:
>
>
>I guess Erlangs are still around for growing end offices.
Does anyone these days speak in Erlangs, let alone know what they are?
--
Julian Thomas: jt@jt-mj.net http://jt-mj.net
In the beautiful Genesee Valley of Western New York State!
-- --
If you have received this email in error, please add nutmeg and
two egg whites, whisk and place in a 350 degree oven for 40 minutes.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:16:13 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: FCC now planning "all-IP" phone transition
Message-ID: <cf83a9a3-5714-413b-999f-320981aaaca1@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 7, 12:16 am, Neal McLain <nmcl...@annsgarden.com> wrote:
> 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?
Good question.
For decades consumers just assumed the phone company would power their
home telephones. Business telephone systems* usually needed
commercial power, although some basic call ability continued with CO
power if a direct line could be established.
But in the last decade cordless phones became very popular and
consumers have to plug them in and depend on commercial power for them
to work. Consumers were advised to keep at least one traditional
wired phone for power failures. Likewise, consumers realize that cell
phones have to be recharged with commercial power.
So, the idea of using commercial power to run a telephone isn't a
strange idea to consumers anymore; they're used to it.
Consumers still will need to be educated that a backup battery is
absolutely required for modern telephones. I believe Verizon's FIOS
installation includes such a battery backup.
There is of course a slight cost in electricity consumers must pay for
these phones; but I don't think it's something consumers think about.
But all the rechargeable devices and modern electronic always-on
devices do eat power that adds up.
> 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?
I would expect new phones to come with power cords just as answering
machines and cordless phones do now. FIOS devices may have a
dedicated power source. Historically, business key systems plugged
into an 120V outlet that was mounted for that purpose in the utility
closet. (Older Princess and Trimline phones used an AC incandescent
dial lamp and those required a plug and transformer; newer models used
LEDs powered by the phone line. Interesting how we're going
backward.)
> > 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.
True. If someone had a cordless phone and went back in time to 1938,
they would plug it into a nearby 120V wall outlet (that most homes
had) and would be in business. I don't think cordless phones use much
current.
> > 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?
Probably.
> > 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.
Cable companies actually have diesel (or other fueled) generators?
Those units are big and heavy, plus there is the fuel storage, and
maintenance.
As an aside, these units need frequent testing. I've seen a lot of
mission critical places go dark when they were testing their
generators--the control circuitry failed to make a proper transition.
*Old PBXs sometimes had a hand crank to run the ringing signal in the
event of a power failure having used one, they're not that easy to
turn and get tiring pretty quickly. An alternative was just
connecting extensions to outside lines directly as done for night
connections.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 19:58:15 EST
From: wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re:FCC now planning "all-IP" phone transition
Message-ID: <992c.162a1ba3.3877dd27@aol.com>
In a message dated 1/7/2010 6:20:17 PM Central Standard Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes
> Likewise, consumers realize that cell phones have to be recharged
> with commercial power.
TV stations are warning with the sub-Zero cold expected to take your
cell phone car charger with you if you go out.
> As an aside, these units need frequent testing. I've seen a lot of
> mission critical places go dark when they were testing their
> generators--the control circuitry failed to make a proper
> transition.
Telcos used to run them, usually every Wednesday at 8 a.m. amd
actually transfer the power and run on auziliary power for an hour so
to make suwre the generator is working and so is the transer. I
wonder if they still do.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:32:15 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network...
Message-ID: <xuudncghgclS2dvWnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <c4bedafa-ab7b-4e75-87d4-34d56950ec34@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>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.
Well, AT&T revenues are roughly -30% smaller than Verizon, Inc. and assets
are $-63 billion smaller. and that's after Verizon acquired GTE and AlTel.
> 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.
FALSE TO FACT.
Extra compression is applied, such that the bandwidth demand for a
'voice channel' is smaller, BUT that (reduced) channel bandwidth
is reserved for the exclusive use of that voice channel.
This is an absolute necessity given the design requirement that
every 'established' call be able to actually use their 'voice
channel' at all times while the call is 'connected'.
> 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.
To misquote Clinton, "that depends on what you mean by 'circuit'".
With the possible exception of the proverbial "last mile" every
physical circuit contains a large number of 'logical' circuits.
EVERY such 'logical circuit' has certain resources assigned for it's
exclusive use.
Even on an OC-192, each (logical) DS-0 is guaranteed it's particular
stream of bits.
> There are many different ways to multiplex multiple telephone
> conversations or data streams on an individual circuit.
There are a surprisingly small number of ways to do multiplexing.
Time-division
Frequency-division
and 'statistical'
about cover it.
Time-division and frequency division are both 'synchronous'
techniques, except for a small (fixed!) amount of additional latency,
the recovered signal is an exact duplicate of the original.
Statistical multiplexing (of which packet-switching is a special-case
subset) is an asynchronous methodology. The bits will come back out
in the same order, but that's the extent of the 'guarantee' On any
given 'channel' one data block may have had much more (or less)
latency than the previous block. There's no way to know, nor to
predict in advance, when this happens, nor 'how bad it will be' when
it does happen. The advantage of 'stat muxing' is that you can
'over-subscribe' the capacity of the composite circuit -- e.g. put 16
9600 baud terminals on a single 19,200 baud trunk. As long as they
are lightly used, it works fine. BUT if they're all beating up on
the connection, they're each only going to see about 1200 baud
performance. And it will be 'bursty', a bunch of data will come in
fast, then there will be a long pause until the next burst of data.
> The particular technique chosen does not normally matter to the
> individual caller.
It -can- matter a great deal if one is trying to do something other
than 'talk' on the line. Modems, Fax machines, TDD devices,
voice-recognition systems (e.g., IVR) even Touch-Tone(r) control of
remote devices -- these can all be adversely affected by the use of an
'asynchronous' multiplexing technique.
> What matters is the assigned bandwidth--that determines the quality
> of the connection.
'Audio quality' of the connection is irrelevant to the _guaranteed_
availability_, END-TO-END, of the bandwidth (and other resources)
required to handle the particular connection.,
To have a _guaranteed_ end-to-end bandwidth, 'circuit switched'
technology is required. You have to build a 'virtual circuit' (a
locked-down routing decision at every decision point) from end to end,
with a committed circuit information rate on every link, and through
every switching device.
If one does -not- do that, one cannot guarantee that the resources
required by the connection (phone call) will be available at all times
during the call.
Every device, and every path segment, does have a fixed upper bound on
the amount of traffic it can handle. Any attempt (regardless of
whether it is packet-switched, or circuit-switched, technology) to
force 'n+1' things through a resource that can only handle 'n' is
doomed to failure.
The critical difference between packet-switching, and
circuit-switching, in that regard is that a circuit-switched network
can tell you at _call_ _initiation_ (aka 'call set-up') that the
required resources are not presently available (e.g. a 'fast
busy'). Also -- assuming the set-up phase completes successfully -- a
circuit-switched network _guarantees_ the availability of that level
of resources for your use until call completion (aka circuit tear-down
time).
A packet-switched network has no 'set up' and 'tear down' phases, and,
therefore cannot tell you whether or not any particular level of
resources is available at the time you start sending. Nor can it
guarantee that the necessary level of resources will be available for
the entire duration of the 'call'.
> "Packet switching" is just another multiplex method; a way to stuff
> multiple conversations or data streams through a single big pipe.
FALSE TO FACT.
"Packet switching" means that the 'routing' for each/every data block
is determined as _that_ data _block_ is _processed_. There is
no guarantee that successive blocks between the same source and
destination will take the same path at any point. And, as a result,
there is no guarantee that the blocks will arrive in the same order as
sent. There is also no guarantee that there will be 'room' for those
blocks on any given physical carrier segment when those blocks arrive.
In contrast, 'circuit switching' figures out all the routing decisions
at the time of call set-up; it is guaranteed that all packets will
traverse the same path, and will arrive in the same order as sent (if
they arrive at all, that is). It is also guaranteed that there is
space available on each physical link between the source and
destination for every packet that is sent as part of the call.
These are the critical differences between 'circuit switched' and
'packet switched' technology -
'Circuit swished' technology:
* 'Sets up' a connection (on demand) and allocates resources to it, before
it can be used.
* Releases those allocated resources only on call tear-down.
* All the routing decisions are made at call set-up time. *guaranteeing*
a (fixed) path is available, and that all blocks of data between the two
endpoints will take that specific path.
* Required bandwidth is reserved for that 'virtual circuit', =until. the
virtual circuit is 'torn down', at call completion.
+ These last two points, incidentally, guarantee a constant transit time,
a fixed amount of latency, fixed 'jitter', as well as stable values
for a number of other 'important' communications parameters.
* "Lost' data blocks are immediately detectable -- arrival of any block
without the arrival of the preceeding bloc is proof that the preceeding
block was lost.
'Packet-switched' technology:
* Has no concept of a 'connection' within the network. Endpoints may
agree among themselves, that certain blocks of data are to be
treated as part of a common stream, but it is only the end-points
that are aware of that relationship between those data blocks.
* Never 'reserves' any resources for the specific use of any particular
connection. Thus, cannot 'guarantee' availability for anyone, at any
given time.
* Therefore, never needs to 'release' any resources.
* All routing decisions are made _at_the_time_ =each= data block arrives
at each routing point. There is no guarantee that subsequent data blocks
will be routed the same way at any routing decision point.
* There is NO guarantee that any path between the endpoints is available
at the time any data block is sent.
* There is no guarantee that the path that was available for the prior
data block is still available for the current data block.
* There is no way for any intermediate point to *autonomously* notify
either end-point that a required link in the path is 'full', has
errors, or has completely stopped working.
* There is no guarantee that the data blocks will arrive at the destination
in the same sequence that they left the origin.
* Detecting data blocs that have actually gotten "lost" in route, as
opposed to merely 'delayed' is virtually impossible.`
Some_ of the characteristics of a circuit-switched technology CAN be
built, and relatively easily, on top of a packet-switched one. Some
of the more critical ones -- end-to-end _guaranteed_ bandwidth for the
lifetime of the 'connection', timely detection of 'lost' data, and
autonomous notification to the endpoints -- are very difficult to
add.
> 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.
Again, quality of the 'audio signal' is irrelevant, and IMMATERIAL, to
the quality of the communications _network_. Network 'quality' is
based on primary considerations of the reliability, and consistency of
behavior of the infrastructure, not the quality of '[what] passes
through it'.
One can have a 'high quality' network, carrying a very low quality
audio signal, and one can try to push 'high quality audio' across a
low quality network.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 17:14:43 -0500
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <MPG.25b026db35ec3ba989c38@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <pan.2010.01.07.05.18.45.551141@myrealbox.com>,
dcstar@myrealbox.com says...
> 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......
Same is true here in the U.S. I know for a fact that Verizon has lost
a little over half it's customer base in my state.
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:58:04 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: BSP and other files
Message-ID: <nqednf6NBeawDNvWnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
Here's another interesting site: it has some BSP's and other files.
http://sc.infc.info/
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
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 (14 messages)
|
or 