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 76 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
 Re: When is broadband broad enough?
 Fwd: How Pandora Slipped Past the Junkyard
 Re: Waiting for Verizon.. 
 Re: Waiting for Verizon.. 
 Defenition of Baseband, Broadband, and Carrier 
 Re: Waiting for Verizon.. 
 Re: Waiting for Verizon.. 


====== 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: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:49:01 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: When is broadband broad enough? Message-ID: <pan.2010.03.16.05.48.58.283102@myrealbox.com> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:17:30 -0500, Rob Warnock wrote: ....... > Yes, that article mentions "methods where two or more signals share a > medium" as being one usage, in the narrow field of telephony network > engineering, but it has never been and is not the dominate one. Well, telephony network engineering was where I first encountered the term "Broadband" and there was a very clear understanding of what it defined. 15 (or so) years later I again encountered it when xDSL was first rolled out and it was initially used in an accurate manner when describing services that had voice as well as data on the same medium. Since then - IMHO - it has been hijacked for the various uses you have cited. For this grumpy old ex-telco person it will remain as it was! ;-) Come the revolution all these other whackers misusing it will be up against the wall while I chuck old handsets in their general direction...... -- 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: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 11:31:28 -0500 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Fwd: How Pandora Slipped Past the Junkyard Message-ID: <6645152a1003160931q4cec63e7n8894cdea5c172113@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote: >> Please describe the service for the readers: is it an iTunes clone? I >> mean, does it download audio files to your iphone for playing as if it >> was an iPod, or do you get "streaming" audio via the cellular >> connections? > > It is a web (Flash) based music player. You start by telling it a few > artists you like. It then goes out and finds similar artists. I have > about 15 liked arists and genres in my list and as John said, it's great > at making recommendations. It's more than just that. ¬ It's an audio streaming service. They have clients for handheld devices such as the iPhone. ¬ My Squeezebox radio includes Pandora software. > > Not advised for a corporate environment though. It is a bit of a > bandwidth pig. Which is why so many corporate IT departments block them. John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:53:40 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Waiting for Verizon.. Message-ID: <5958a1d0-d767-4f32-b800-39478d8ca514@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com> On Mar 14, 4:58†pm, Stephen Adler <adler@stephenadler-remove_this.com> wrote: > Hey guys... You may be interested in my latest vlogs... I call it > "Waiting for Verizon" Verizon, at&t, and others are all very large companies. They serve communities all over the country, and various services, eg POTS voice, broadband (ie DSL and fibre) and cellphone are provided by different divisions. It seems there is a great deal of variation in service quality provided depending on the carrier, geographic area, and the type of service offered. Accordingly, I'd like to suggest when discussing service issues, that posters be specific as to the geographic area and service in question. For myself, I've found Verizon offers excellent service and support for POTS in PA and NJ. I suspect this is because both the service techs and the business office are legacy Bell System operations with a long record of good service in those states. Even if the employees themselves were hired post-divesture, they were still trained by people from the 'old school'. However, I've found support for wireless and broadband to be not as good. I suspect this is because many of the business people are more sales oriented, working on commission under tough quotas with high employee turnover, rather than service-oriented with rigorous training. Unfortunately it seems that carriers today want to dump the legacy attitude on focus on aggressive sales, even if it means sales people promising rates and installations that aren't true. Historically, Bell provided good service in PA and NJ. But some other Bell territories, such as served by baby Bell NYNEX, did not have as good a record.
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:07:05 -0500 From: Tom Metro <tmetro+telecomdigest@gmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Waiting for Verizon.. Message-ID: <4B9EBD99.9010003@vl.com> Stephen Adler wrote: > Tom Metro wrote: >> Didn't the difficulty you had in dealing with Verizon give you second >> thoughts as to whether you can rely on them as an ISP? > Yes... that's why I'm keeping my current Comcast service for at least a > couple of weeks... That's not quite what I meant. The expectation for any modern broadband service is that it should have excellent uptime and high reliability. The question is what happens when something does break down the road. Perhaps something not as blatantly obvious as a complete service outage, but instead packet loss, bandwidth slowdowns, staled connections, DNS problems, etc. At this point you have become fully dependent on the service, and you're now at the mercy of the competence of Verizon support. Have those of you that have been using FIOS for a while had positive experiences in dealing with Verizon support for more subtle and highly technical issues, or are you just crossing your fingers and hoping it'll never come to that? > I get symmetric 25/25 performance. Was your testing just to confirm Verizon's claims, or did Verizon ever give you reason to believe you might not see their claimed bandwidth? (Of course I'm sure they have lots of "best effort" wishy-washy wording in their contract, as no low-end ISP wants to commit to providing a guaranteed bandwidth.) >> Did you purchase business-class service? I assume yes, given your >> mention of static IPs. > yup. You probably haven't had a need for this yet, but for others with business-class FIOS, have you tried getting custom PTR records for your static IPs? > As best as I know, there is no port blocking and I can do anything I > want. Maybe there is some fine print I didn't read? If I was going to depend on an ability to run servers - even for personal use - I'd want to be sure they were expressly permitted by the contract. > I think its around $100 something for the 5 static IPs. Sounds about right. I see $110 for 25/25 Mbps with a 1 year contract. http://smallbusiness.verizon.com/products/internet/fios_pricing.aspx I guess my objection to their pricing has always been that they charge an excessive premium for static IPs. (I wonder how that'll change when IPv6 starts getting rolled out.) Of course it's still a great bargain if you look at it purely from a bandwidth perspective, and ignore that they offer the same thing with dynamic IPs for $20 less. I think the price difference used to be more, as they used to start the business plans at $100 with non-symmetric bandwidth. Now I see the slowest link you can get with a static IP is 25/25. If only somebody like Speakeasy resold FIOS... (At one time Galaxy (gis.net) was a FIOS reseller, and it looked like there was going to be a competitive market of FIOS resellers, but it hasn't materialized, and Galaxy has since dropped it. A Google search for "fios reseller" turns up several hits, including a CA ISP that is undercutting Verizon's prices. But the trick isn't necessarily to get a better price, but a more competent support organization.) -Tom -- Tom Metro Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA "Enterprise solutions through open source." Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:24:43 -0400 From: "AJB Consulting" <ajbcs.remove-this@and-this-too.frontier.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Defenition of Baseband, Broadband, and Carrier Message-ID: <000801cac525$34ae9940$01fea8c0@dell8100> Definition of "Baseband," "Broadband," and "Carrier" In the thread entitled "When is broadband broad enough?", our esteemed colleague in Australia, David Clayton, calls attention to the use of the term "broadband," a word that seems to appear in every news report concerning the internet and connectivity. The use of the terms "baseband," "broadband," and "carrier" have always had a contextual meaning, but more importantly, the definition seems to vary based on who is using the term and why. I am fascinated by language, and always observe word usages carefully whenever I read documents published in different eras. In my mind, the first definition of these three words is always the electrical one - but as David pointed out, not everyone shares that view. I have here an older (1930's era) copy of the venerable text "Principles of Electricity as Applied to Telephone and Telegraph Work," published in many editions during the last century by the Long Lines Department of AT&T. The word "broadband" appears countless times throughout this edition, but even in this unassailable text it is not always used in the electrical engineering sense. In the electrical sense, "broadband" would refer to a signal the spectral energy of which occupies a broad frequency band, as the name implies. How wide this spectrum must be to qualify as broad is open to some debate, but in the case of any channelized FDM system where carriers of different frequencies are transmitted simultaneously over the same physical medium there can be no such debate - that's broadband. This remains true even if the content of the multiple carriers was originally just one channel of message content, split across multiple modulated carriers. Thus, a typical xDSL stream carrying one channel of user content, even flying solo on a "dry" copper pair, would qualify as broadband by this definition. But here is where semantics rears it ugly head. In that same text (often referred to simply as "Principles"), a discussion of time-division multiplexing of separate message channels of low speed (telegraph) data into a single higher bitrate stream refers to this as a "broadband" service. Electrically, this stream is anything but broadband - in the case of a conventional alternate-mark encoded bitstream (as this was), the actual electrical signal would appear on an oscilliscope as square wave, albeit a somewhat phase-distorted one. If you were to send all marks and no spaces, the square wave would be quite perfect indeed - and have virtually all of its spectral energy concentrated on a very specific frequency. This, electrically, is the very definition of the narrowest of narrow bands, which is often conflated with "baseband." The use of the word "broadband" to refer to this TDM telegraph stream conforms to the definition David Clayton was discussing, i.e. carrying more than one service, or in this case multiple channels of message content. The term "baseband" is equally subject to being defined based on context, but even allowing for that, its very meaning seems to have been construed in recent decades. Baseband, in the electrical sense, originally referred to a message signal that had not been "frequency-shifted." A good example of this would be a 1,000 hertz audio tone carried by a standard voice band telephone line. The 1,000 hertz tone playing in your ear from the telephone receiver is of course transduced directly from an electrical waveform of the very same frequency carried on the copper pair. If you were to drop the electrical signal on this copper pair into an old-style analog FDM carrier system, it would be used to modulate a higher frequency carrier wave, or, in VERY archaic language, "frequency-shifted out of the base band." (This is not to be confused with frequency-shift keying, a modulation scheme for radiotelegraph signals that is very far removed from this discussion.) These days, however, the term baseband has come to mean something very different, particularly in relation to transport of digital message content. Its early use in digital systems applied to any encoded message stream in which the symbol rate (the true meaning of "baud") was directly correlated to the actual bitrate of the message content. Simplex telegraphy is an example of this. A more recent example would be an RS-232 connection, in which the electrical signal state in each symbol slot is directly correlated to a 1 or a 0 in the actual message bit stream. In recent decades, however, ethernet over twisted pair has become king for local area networks, and here is where markets wield their power. The various popular flavors of twisted pair ethernet all have names that contain the word "base," e.g., 100baseT. Sure enough, the "base" is short for baseband, and this misnomer, applied to twisted-pair ethernet at the beginning, has stuck. Putting aside gigabit ethernet (which splits the message data stream across more than one physical circuit), even lowly 10baseT is not actually baseband in the electrical sense. Complex voodoo encoding schemes in all versions of ethernet result in a symbol rate that is indeed lower than the actual content bit rate. Thus, the use of the word "baseband" here is strictly applicable only in the sense that David referred to, i.e., it is used to connect a single node on a network, or at least talk to only one node at a time over a given physical connection. And of course, "baseT" is what everyone in the marketplace calls it, which is all that really matters if you want to do business with everyone else. This brings us to the word "carrier," a word which often appears in the same sentences as the words "baseband" and "broadband." This word has the hardest life of all - in addition to the electrical meaning and the number-of-channels of message content meaning, this word has yet a third job, that of defining what business a company is in. In the electrical meaning, "carrier" of course refers to a signal which is modulated by the message signal to produce a complex transmitted signal from which the message content can be demodulated at the receiving end. There are too many ways of doing this to even mention, and if you want a good lesson in carrier modulation you can ask your favorite Ham radio enthusiast to explain it. This would be a good first step, because you can't even hope to comprehend the various schemes for doing this with digital message content unless you understand the analogue signal techniques first. Too many textbooks that attempt to explain digital system modulation schemes tend to confuse encoding techniques with modulation. The two are often hoplessly intertwined, such as with QPAM, but they are indeed separate issues (and both are way beyond the scope of this article). An exploration of the encoding and modulation schemes used for modern digital content transport systems will lead the astute reader to one conclusion: These systems are such a complex amalgam of techniques developed over more than a century that it is pure folly to attempt to describe any of them using only one word. This is probably the biggest reason that these semantic debates will always be with us. The second definition of "carrier" as it relates to the number-of-channels of message content meaning is perhaps the most common usage. Everybody is familiar with "T-carrier," the undisputed king of digital transport of voice for decades. Electrically, a true T1 is in fact a baseband signalling system, virtually identical to the multiplexed telegraph channels described above. But everyone calls it T-carrier because the single bitstream can contain as many as twenty-four separate channels of message content, in effect, "carrying" these channels. The name was applied from the very beginning, and this has always made sense, especially when one considers that it was developed as a replacement for N- and O- carrier systems, which were "carrier" systems in BOTH the electrical sense and the number-of-channels of message content sense. The last definition of "carrier" is the business meaning - and this may be the most important of all, because without Carriers (with a capital "C"), we wouldn't be able to have this discussion. Carriers, of course, are the service providers that carry all the content that spews from our keyboards, cameras and mouths. Your phone service provider is a Carrier, as is your cable TV compnay, ISP, etc. It is from this meaning that we get the term "Carrier-grade equipment." There is also a second, elevated class of Carriers - those who operate long-haul networks that cross continents and oceans and whose customers are in fact themselves Carriers. These Carriers never have to deal with us lowly end-user customers, instead providing transport for companies that do, making them Carrier's Carriers. This inspires the following inevitable statement: "Carrier's Carriers carry Carrier's content carefully and continuously on optical carrier." And I suspect that somewhere, on a sunny beach where one of their undersea cables meets land, there is a girl selling sea shells. All comments to this article are welcome, even if they are to tell me I got it all wrong. Copyright 2010 A.J. Bennett. All rights reserved. Copyright 2010 Telecom Digest. All rights reserved. Jim Bennett ********************************************************************* Speaking from a secure undisclosed location.
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:50:09 -0400 From: Scott Ehrlich <srehrlich.remove-this@and-this-too.gmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Waiting for Verizon.. Message-ID: <4BA01931.9080702@speakeasy.net> Speaking of Verizon vs Comcast, what is the overall quality of service from both companies, and, technically, quality of voice service, between service through Comcast's voice options and through FIOS? I'd like to save money through a package deal, but I don't want to have to have the demarc moved from its current location. Last I heard, phone service had to be routed through a special box inside the house using Comcast's method, and I don't want to have to rely on VOIP should power/Internet service go down. Insights welcome. Thanks. Scott
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:09:13 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Waiting for Verizon.. Message-ID: <ZYVnn.12546$ao7.993@newsfe21.iad> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > > Historically, Bell provided good service in PA and NJ. But some other > Bell territories, such as served by baby Bell NYNEX, did not have as > good a record. > If I recall correctly, sometime in the early or mid 1970s New York Telephone (I think that is what it was called) service standards fell to all time lows in metro-NYC. I was there a lot in those days, and I recall perhaps 50% of the pay stations in Manhattan being out of service. If I recall correctly, inter-office trunks also fell in the dumpster, more because of bad maintenance than growtth. Thus, the grade of service also went into the dumpster. But, no one could match General Telephone Company of California for extremtly poor service in the 1970s, especially in the greater Los Angeles area. It got so bad Pacific Bell complained behind the scenes repeatedly to the California PUC how General's lousy tandem arrangements were affecting Pacific's metro service in Los Angeles. I personally felt the wrath of GT's then awful toll service.
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 (7 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues