Does FiOS support rotary phones? [telecom]
Bill Horne
(rotary) phones that I'm supposed to hook up.
Does FiOS support rotary phones? I'd hate to find out the hard way.
Bill
--
"I've been up and down this highway, far as my eye can see:
No matter how fast I run, I can never seem to get away from me."
- Jackson Browne
John Mayson
> My sister just got FiOS installed, and she has several dial-pulse (rotary)
> phones that I'm supposed to hook up.
>
> Does FiOS support rotary phones? I'd hate to find out the hard way.
Time-Warner digital phone explicitly stated they did not support
rotary phones. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but digital phone is
IP while FiOS is POTS, so a rotary should work.
According to this person it works fine: http://www.marco.org/2309733892
--
John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
SVU
> My sister just got FiOS installed, and she has several dial-pulse
> (rotary) phones that I'm supposed to hook up.
>
> Does FiOS support rotary phones? I'd hate to find out the hard way.
>
> Bill
Based on some quick googling, the answer is yes, assuming you request
a POTS line. (Probably not if it is a VOIP line.)
Brad Houser
Bill Horne
> On Mar 9, 10:34 pm, Bill Horne <b...@horneQRM.net> wrote:
> > My sister just got FiOS installed, and she has several dial-pulse
> > (rotary) phones that I'm supposed to hook up.
> >
> > Does FiOS support rotary phones? I'd hate to find out the hard way.
>
> a POTS line. (Probably not if it is a VOIP line.)
I don't know which kind she got: the dial tone comes out of the FiOS
box, if that's a help. In other words, _everything_ is being delivered
via FiOS.
Bill
--
"Proud and alone, cold as a stone
I'm afraid to believe the things I feel
I can cry with the best I can laugh with the rest
But I'm never sure when it's real"
- Jackson Browne
Lisa or Jeff
> My sister just got FiOS installed, and she has several dial-pulse
> (rotary) phones that I'm supposed to hook up.
>
> Does FiOS support rotary phones? I'd hate to find out the hard way.
According to Wikipedia, "Verizon offers POTS as well as VoIP over
FiOS. The common model optical network terminals have two or four
phone jacks."
I don't know if that answers your question or not. But it is a very
valid question as many modern services do not support pulse dialing,
and it would not suprise me if it FIOS didn't support pulse.
When I was inquiring on what to do with my hard wired rotary phones
and DSL, many told me to get rid of the rotary phones. I must admit
that other than nostalgia, they aren't very useful. I used to use the
phones for answering calls. But, these days I get automated business
calls that require a Touch Tone answer (like to confirm an
appointment), so the rotary phones won't work. We have ten digit
dialing, and dialing ten digits on a metal dial is tiring.
In my case the phones are hard wired so some effort would be necessary
to take them out and put in a jack, especially for the wall phone.
But if your sister's phones are not hard wired, she may want to
consider replacing them with modern phones, or just using them for
answer-only.
If the phones are hard wired, it is easy to connect two wires to the
network of a wall 554 set, and connect the other end of those wires to
a jack, allowing a Touch Tone phone to be plugged in. It's easy to
add a jack to an old style connecting block, too.
***** Moderator's Note *****
My sister says that her children dial fewer wrong numbers on the
rotary phones, and sometimes hang up before they've finished dialing,
because the added effort gave them time to realize that the call was a
bad idea, or wasn't needed.
Bill Horne
Moderator
AJB Consulting
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.
Gary
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
AJB Consulting
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
Lisa or Jeff
> 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.
Sam Spade
I just tried an old DP phone on my Vonage service. It works fine. My
guess is that most adapters support DP.
Gary
news:e2b88b2c-7ce5-4565...@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 2ข.
Bill Horne
Moderator
AJB Consulting
>***** 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 cents.
>Bill Horne
>Moderator
Bill, what you described sounds more like the AT&T U-verse system.
Every FiOS install I have ever seen uses an ONT [Optical Network
Termination] in the subscriber's home. The acronym dissects [supposedly]
to "Fiber In Off the Street," after all... Or else it is named after
a parish in Northern Spain. ;)
Jim
**************************************************
Speaking from a secure undisclosed location.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I suppose it's possible that the cable which came in from the street
was, in fact, a fiber-optic cable: the Verizon tech told me it was
coaxial, but that might be a misnomer.
The tech told me that the cable used "Moca" format, and when I asked
how it compared to Docsis, he just said "It's better".
I'll leave it to the experts to explain my confusion away.
--
Bill Horne
Moderator
Dave Garland
My Cisco SPA2102 just gives a fast busy after about three pulse
digits, and I don't find the phrase "pulse dial" in the Admin manual
or any relevant settings in the config screens (for what that's worth,
a lot of the settings I don't have any clue what they do). Of course,
this isn't FiOS, but clearly it's up to the adapter to provide (or
not) the support for DP.
Dave
Gary
>
> 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
Wes Leatherock
--- On Fri, 4/1/11, Gary <bogus...@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. -Gary
I wondered about that at the beginning. I understood the original
poster as saying it was a neighbor who was asking and that rotary-dial
500 sets were handy, so why not take one over to his neighbor's and
try it?
Wes Leatherock
wlea...@yahoo.com
wes...@aol.com
Wes Leatherock
> 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
wlea...@yahoo.com
wes...@aol.com
AJB Telecom
>The tech told me that the cable used "Moca" format, and when I asked
>how it compared to Docsis, he just said "It's better".
MoCA = Multimedia over Coax Alliance = definitely not FiOS
MoCA 2.0, which was rolled out in 2010, is capable of bitrates that are
fairly imperssive, but still not what FiOS can do. FiOS gives you
a QPAM digital TV stream with an effective channel bandwidth of 870
megahertz along with a 622 Mbps data channel in the downstream
direction, as well as a 155 Mbps data channel in the upstrem direction.
MoCA 2.0 can give a theoretical total throughput of around 800 Mbps,
and was intended primarily as an HDTV delivery method.
It is possible that the marketing department at Verizon has decided to
hang the FiOS moniker on all high-bitrate TV/Phone/Internet combo
offerings, but if that decision was made, it wasn't announced publicly.
[Or maybe I just wasn't paying attention.] I would be very interested
to know what it actually says on your sister's phone bill.
Wes Leatherock wrote:
>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, forgive me - I had my tongue planted firmly in my cheek when
I spoke of the "quintessential little old lady." The truth is, I am
actually a cantankerous old coot, and my own phone of choice is in fact
a plain black Western Electric 500 set. The 500 was the first phone we
ever had way back when, and of course as a teen-ager I did not
appreciate how well made it was - I just took it for granted that it
could be dropped on the floor at least once a day and still work.
In the intervening decades, there was a seemingly endless parade of
cheap plastic phones that always seemed to fail at the worst possible
time. I have now come full circle, and refuse to buy any phone that
is not an original Western Electric. Friends and family members are
quite tired of hearing me tell them to "get a real phone."
Jim Bennett
Lisa or Jeff
> 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.)
Michael Moroney
>I suppose it's possible that the cable which came in from the street
>was, in fact, a fiber-optic cable: the Verizon tech told me it was
>coaxial, but that might be a misnomer.
>The tech told me that the cable used "Moca" format, and when I asked
>how it compared to Docsis, he just said "It's better".
>I'll leave it to the experts to explain my confusion away.
I have FiOS. They did run fiber from the pole out front. I examined
the "cable" myself. Definitely not coax.
Wes Leatherock
--- On Sun, 4/3/11, AJB Telecom <ajbte...@frontier.com> wrote:
> Wes Leatherock wrote:
>>
>> 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, forgive me - I had my tongue planted firmly in my cheek when I
> spoke of the "quintessential little old lady." The truth is, I am
> actually a cantankerous old coot, and my own phone of choice is in
> fact a plain black Western Electric 500 set. The 500 was the first
> phone we ever had way back when, and of course as a teen-ager I did
> not appreciate how well made it was - I just took it for granted
> that it could be dropped on the floor at least once a day and still
> work.
>
> In the intervening decades, there was a seemingly endless parade of
> cheap plastic phones that always seemed to fail at the worst
> possible time. I have now come full circle, and refuse to buy any
> phone that is not an original Western Electric. Friends and family
> members are quite tired of hearing me tell them to "get a real
> phone."
We set out two or three years ago to get another phone but gave up
after we couldn't find anything even on the surface that was as robust
or as easy to use as a WE phone. I finally found one in the back of a
drawer that I'd forgotten about--a Trimline with the original round
buttons--and put it back into use.
Wes Leatherock
wlea...@yahoo.com
wes...@aol.com
John Stahl
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>I suppose it's possible that the cable which came in from the street
>was, in fact, a fiber-optic cable: the Verizon tech told me it was
>coaxial, but that might be a misnomer.
>
>The tech told me that the cable used "Moca" format, and when I asked
>how it compared to Docsis, he just said "It's better".
>
>I'll leave it to the experts to explain my confusion away.
>
>--
>Bill Horne
>Moderator
According to info gleaned from the Internet, the Verizon techie's
answer (above) that the house drop is "Moca" format instead of
fiber. seems to be based on yet another "service" which has industry
support through an organization. The organization known as Multimedia
over Coax Alliance (MoCA) which (according to their web site) has a
diverse corporation membership which includes equipment supplier
companies as: Broadcom, Cisco, Motorola, Panasonic, and Trident. Plus
has end users such as: Verizon, Comcast, Cox, and Echostar.
The web site address is: http://www.mocalliance.org/
The techie stuff on the site seems to indicate that the supplier of
"entertainment" services can utilize existing coax drops to the
premise thus (I guess) saving costs by not having to replace the last
connection drop. Since Verizon is a group member, it seems logical for
them to utilize this "standard" to help cut their installed costs.
John
______________________________
John Stahl
Aljon Enterprises
Data and Telecom Consultants
email: aljon-at-stny.rr.com
Scott Dorsey
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."
John Levine
>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
David Lesher
> I suppose it's possible that the cable which came in from the street
> was, in fact, a fiber-optic cable: the Verizon tech told me it was
> coaxial, but that might be a misnomer.
> The tech told me that the cable used "Moca" format, and when I asked
> how it compared to Docsis, he just said "It's better".
> I'll leave it to the experts to explain my confusion away.
He's the confused one....not you.
I see no way that Verizontal ever puts the ONT anywhere but inside the
residence, for a basic reason: what would power it out there on the
pole? Further, since it's the vict^H^H^H^H subscriber's job to not
just supply it power but also buy & install new batteries..who will
climb the pole...?
Obviously in a MDU, where there's one multiport unit; it's slightly
different. There, your unit does get POTS via existing twisted pair
and TV & TCP/IP via MOCA/coax.
They do use MOCA, but the reason to do so is to save time {money} on
installations. They need their Set Top Box to have both TV and TCP/IP
feeds; if it does not get TCP/IP, it can't sell you pay per view.
BUT, while the ONT can supply TCP/IP out either the RJ45 jacks
OR atop the coax via MOCA. it can not [do] both. And since there's
{presumably} coax to the TV now, but not CAT5, they started providing
routers with MOCA in, RJ45 out.
In fact, it's a screwy mess, as the router has to back-feed back
to the ONT to deliver TCP/IP via MOCA to the STB's. Somewhere
there's a good writeup on same.
I wonder if we're ever see a MOCA -> POTS adapter unit as well.
Unlikely.
Further, the first generation of MOCA "Actiontec" routers sucked
sharp rocks and brought howls. Later ones may be better; there
are now pages telling you how to turn the miserable Actiontecs
into a bridge where it does less damage.
As for power backup, I can't grasp why people are putting the
ONT's on a UPS. A UPS takes AC and makes DC to charge a battery
to later turn it back into AC again...so the ONT can make DC
from it. And loses efficiency at every step.
It's my understanding that all the ONT's have a 2nd battery
input, and if you feed it 13.8vdc, it runs. So go buy a big
"gel cell" or if you have the space, a 50AH deep cycle marine
battery; and a $5 trickle charger. THAT will keep you going when
Reddy Kilowatt goes on strike.
Eric Tappert
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
danny burstein
>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
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
AES
Eric Tappert <e.tapper...@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.
Lisa or Jeff
wrote:
> 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...). Â The change was maintenance cost driven, not at all due
> to customer convenience during power outages. Â Sending a craftsperson
> out to change the batteries was expensive then and prohibitively
> expensive today.
Another disadvantage of local battery was the lack of supervisory
signals on the switchboard. Subscribers were supposed to ring off
when done but most forgot.
There was an army technical manual, "Fundamentals of Telephony" that
had an excellent explanation of the differences between local battery
(hand cranked) and common battery (switchhook signal) telephone sets
and switchboards.
If memory serves, common battery required a more complex switchboard
than local battery. A local battery indicator was a tiny shutter drop
released by the subscriber's magneto. No lamp, no relays, so a
simpler switchboard. Also, I believe local battery permitted longer
loops than common battery, and probably the wire didn't have to be in
as good condition. Lastly, when I was a kid experimenting with No. 6
dry cells they lasted forever, so I don't think service visits to
change the battery were required very often.
I don't know when local battery ceased to be a _significant_ type of
commercial telephone service. Anyone know? I do know some railroads
and street railways used it for internal communications well into the
1970s. They had modern-looking telephone sets--it looked like a 500
set except with a handcrank where the dial would go and the handset
had a push-to-talk button.
I don't think FIOS would work with local battery phones <g>.
(Interesting on how we've gone full circle with a local battery).
However, an enthusiastic salesperson just might tell you it would to
make a sale, just as one told me DSL would work fine on a party line.
Not long ago someone posted an ad from a company in India that made
local battery telephone equipment. Unfortunately, it didn't have
pricing or a US dealer. But there's a lot of old local battery phones
available.
***** Moderator's Note *****
There are usually military-surplus "field" phones on Epay. My brother
has a TA-312 model, for which he was able to obtain, believe it or
not, an official government-issue touch tone pad, which fits over the
top of the phone and has a plastic barrier to remind users not to
crank the magneto. Go figure.
Interestingly, when I just did a search for "field phone" there, the
search produced listings for "Spirit of Saint Louis" "field phones"
that look like children's toys but are claimed to be actual
telephones: maybe something from the steampunk crowd, but
YMMV. They're definitely not local-battery sets.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Bill Horne
> There are usually military-surplus "field" phones on Epay. My brother
> has a TA-312 model, for which he was able to obtain, believe it or
> not, an official government-issue touch tone pad, which fits over the
> top of the phone and has a plastic barrier to remind users not to
> crank the magneto. Go figure.
I had done a seach for "field phone" on Ebay, and I was about to
redirect my browser to another page when I noticed an ebay listing for
a ta-263/pt field phone. The listing says it comes with two linesman's
whistles, and has a picture of them.
Somebody, please make my day: tell me the frequencies of those
whistles. Ghod, please, let one of them be 2600. I'll laugh for a
whole day.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
AJB Telecom
>I had done a seach for "field phone" on Ebay, and I was about to
>redirect my browser to another page when I noticed an ebay listing for
>a ta-263/pt field phone. The listing says it comes with two linesman's
>whistles, and has a picture of them.
>Somebody, please make my day: tell me the frequencies of those
>whistles. Ghod, please, let one of them be 2600. I'll laugh for a
>whole day.
>Bill
Bill, I wish I could make your day on this one, but those particular
whistles do not do 2600 Hz. One of them was indeed intended for SF
trunk signaling, but at 1600 Hz. The other whistle made a 1000 Hz
tone that was pulsed at 20 hertz. The TA-263 itself was actually a
TA-43 field phone combined with a low-pass filter and [4-wire] matching
network that allowed a tech in the field to clip on to [open wire]
analog carrier trunks without disturbing the active traffic.
The whistles, of course, were used to replicate the in-band ringing and
trunk seizure signals used by the carrier systems, and set up paths by
which a crew in the field could talk to the CO end[s]. Note that the
link that was set up was just a straight voice-band connection, the
phone did not communicate using carrier. I can not begin to guess
whether it was possible to actually seize trunks and set up routes with
the 1600 hertz SF tone [toot?], or if was merely used to ring-down the
distant end.
Now, if you really want a field phone that can do 2600 Hz, there is
at least one that I know of [and there could be others]. The TA-341
wasn't actually a field unit, but it was ruggedized. It is also the
only Army phone I have ever seen that is painted a lovely Navy grey.
It is a desk phone, designed for connection to the 4 wire lines that
were commonly used by the military and government in the Autovon era.
Note that these were not carrier trunks, but were often long-haul and
could include voice-band repeaters. The TA-341 can do 1000 hertz ring
signaling, and can also speak 2600 hertz SF. Amazingly, it does not
have an Autovon keypad.
Jim Bennett
**************************************************
Speaking from a secure undisclosed location.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Jim, thank you for the info. I would like to know a little bit more,
not only about the ta-341 that you mention, but about "field" phones
in general. For those of us whom are facing their second childhood and
are considering higher-priced toys, please tell me which phones I can
hook up to my POTS line and use.
I mentioned my brother having a ta-312 phone, to which he added a
touch-tone adapter (it's a ta-955/pt, btw). It works fine on his home
phone line, and is too heavy & old-looking for his kids to take, so he
likes it. I might get one myself, since the cordless phone I usually
use is never at the base station when I need it, and I'm tired of
going on safari chasing the mating call of the elusive horned owlet. ;-)
Bill Horne
Moderator
David Lesher
interface device") for same...
In a note to the alarm industry, they say:
However, Pulse-Dialing is not supported by AT&T U-verse Voice.
Only monitored alarm panels that support Touch-Tone dialing
should be used.
I'm not clear on what the iNED does {not} do. It appears it bonds 2
pair back to the 52B U-verse coffin, and on your side it has POTS, TV
and TCP/IP out with the TCP/IP going inside via HPNA over coax [vice
MOCA over coax...].
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Jim Bennett
>Jim, thank you for the info. I would like to know a little bit more,
>not only about the ta-341 that you mention, but about "field" phones
>in general. For those of us whom are facing their second childhood and
>are considering higher-priced toys, please tell me which phones I can
>hook up to my POTS line and use.
>I mentioned my brother having a ta-312 phone, to which he added a
>touch-tone adapter (it's a ta-955/pt, btw). It works fine on his home
>phone line, and is too heavy & old-looking for his kids to take, so he
>likes it. I might get one myself, since the cordless phone I usually
>use is never at the base station when I need it, and I'm tired of
>going on safari chasing the mating call of the elusive horned owlet. ;-)
>Bill Horne
>Moderator
Bill, Military surplus field phones were once so plentiful that surplus
dealers would purchase them by the skid load. Now days, as the local
"Army-Navy" store has all but disappeared, the best place to find them
is ebay [of course], and on-line surplus dealers. Condition ranges from
NOS [New Old Stock] to "usable for parts only," and the prices are all
over the map.
The TA-312/PT that your brother has was probably the most plentiful on
the surplus market, being part of the second-to-last generation of non-
digital field phones [the *final* generation of analog equipment never
made it onto the surplus market in any great numbers, for reasons I
never completely understood]. It was also the most "bulletproof" of
all field phones, and surprisingly heavy for such a small unit. While
it was primarily designed to be used with a magneto switchboard [or
with another 312, point-to-point only], it will work well on a POTS
line. The TA-955/PT keypad is a nice addition, but even without it the
phone can still be used to answer calls.
The TA-838 was the successor to the TA-312, and was part of the final
generation of non-digital wireline comms equipment used by the various
branches of the service. This entire generation of equipment never
made it into the surplus market in the same way as previous equipment,
making the 838 somewhat elusive. It is a nice phone, and certainly
far more versatile that the 312. It will work on a standard 2-wire
POTS line, on a magneto switchboard, point-to-point with another 838
or 312 [or others], on an automatic "tactical" switch using AC or DC
signaling, on 4-wire lines [including Autovon], connected to a radio
link with the necessary adapters, and probably several more modes of
operation that I have never even heard of. All of this versatility
comes with a price, however: if you look inside a TA-838, you will find
a circuit board with a micro-controller on it, making it far more
complex and expensive to repair than a 312. The 838 is still a very
desirable phone, if you are lucky enough to find one at a good price.
The TA-341, mentioned in my previous post, was part of the earlier
generation of analog phones and was once quite plentiful on the surplus
market. It is not strictly a "field" phone, but it was designed to be
used with an automatic tactical switch. Tactical switches, as the name
implies, were used primarily "in-theater" only, being intended for
temporary phone systems [some of which could get quite large and be set
up and used for years]. The 341 is another multi-mode phone, and can
use AC or DC signaling, making connection to a POTS line possible.
It is also capable of 4-wire operation, but being intended primarily for
use with a tactical switch, it does not have an Autovon keypad. While
it is far more rugged than a typical desk phone, it is only intended to
be installed in a sheltered area, out of the weather.
There are other field phones, of course, but most of them are rare and
not likely to turn up on the surplus market in any great number. There
are also much older generations of Military phones, these are usually
much sought after by collectors and the prices sometimes very high.
You will also notice a fair amount of digital wireline comms equipment
on the surplus market. This is all first-generation digital equipment,
things for which obsolescence came too quickly indeed. They can be
readily discerned from their analog predecessors by the naming - the
name plate will say things like: "Digital Non-Secure Voice Terminal."
Needless to say, these are intended for use with a digital tactical
switch and are completely useless without one, except that some of them
are capable of direct connection to another DVT for a point-to-point
system. The TA-1042 DNSVT apparently became obsolete so quickly that
entire truckloads of them, new-in-the-box, turned up on the secondary
market about ten years ago. They can still be found, and a pair of
them will operate point-to-point, requiring only a power supply. Note
that the first-generation Military digital phones are *not* IP phones.
Lastly, here are a couple of links:
"The Phone Lady" has a page with some pictures and descriptions of the
phones mentioned above. It continues across several pages, so be sure
to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page for the continuation
links:
http://myinsulators.com/commokid/telephones/contemporary.htm
Brooke Clarke has some excellent information on his web site, but the
pages have not been updated in a while and most of the links no longer
work, including a broken link to Telecom Digest. He does have info on
connecting the phones mentioned above:
http://www.prc68.com/I/phones.shtml#Mil
Jim
**************************************************
Speaking from a secure undisclosed location.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Jim, I appreciate the info. I'll check out the phones you mentioned,
and maybe even get one for a conversation piece.
Please answer these questions for me and the other readers:
1. Why were Autovan phones designed for four wire connections?
2. Were the "Digital Non-Secure Voice Terminals" actually ISDN sets?
3. Are any of the switchboards or other systems that these phones
connected to available on the surplus market? I'm not looking to
take over Radar O'Reilly's job, but I wonder if these "DNSVT" units
connected to the equivalent of a small-business PBX.
4. Are repairs or parts available for any of the more recent models?
TIA.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Lisa or Jeff
> Bill, Military surplus field phones were once so plentiful that surplus
> dealers would purchase them by the skid load. Â Now days, as the local
> "Army-Navy" store has all but disappeared, the best place to find them
> is ebay [of course], and on-line surplus dealers. Â Condition ranges from
> NOS [New Old Stock] to "usable for parts only," and the prices are all
> over the map.
Another source might be via the two phone collectors' groups, ATCA and
TCI. There's also Ron Knappen's telephone supply in Wisconsin.
As mentioned, the military wasn't the only user of hand-crank (local
battery) phones; railroads used them as did others. I believe they
were made commercially into the 1970s and there was a post here about
a company in India making them today.
David Lesher
>1. Why were Autovan phones designed for four wire connections?
autovOn.... AUTOmatic VOice Network
They were 4-wire to allegedly offer far better transmission &
conferencing than possible with lots of hybrids at far ends
of the earth. This in an era well before exotic DSP-based
cancellers/conference systems were dreamed of.
They also were thinking of connection to half duplex radio
links, etc.
All good in theory, but friends who used same said the levels
were so low, you could barely hear.
It got messy when a phone was both 2 & 4 wire, depending on
what line you used. [SecDef/Oval Office Call Directors, etc.]
Jim Bennett
> Why were Autovon phones designed for four wire connections?
The short answer is that they didn't have to be four-wire. Many
subscriber sets connected to the Autovon network were ordinary two-wire
phones, connected to a PBX or through Centrex lines to a local
switching center, which then connected to the Autovon network through
special, dedicated trunk interfaces.
The long answer includes some facts and a bit of conjecture. A
subscriber set that connected directly to an Autovon switch was indeed
a four-wire instrument, with a different internal network in the phone
[lacking the "hybrid" transformer arrangement found in a typical POTS
phone]. The standard explanation for this is that these subscribers
were located a long distance from the Autovon switch, and the trunks
were four-wire for the same reasons that all long-distance circuits
have a separate transmit and receive path, i.e., the need for carrier
systems and/or repeaters, which are easier to design and build when they
do not have to be bi-directional [which they would need to be on a
single pair], and the issue of echo cancellation [a huge problem on a
long single-pair trunk]. Additional premise equipment was needed at
a subscriber location in order to connect directly to an Autovon switch.
In addition to the signaling system needed to place calls over a trunk
[they used SF, and, on shorter circuits, DX signaling on a separate E&M
pair], there was also a special interface required to handle call
priority. [1]
But now the answer gets even longer: The Autovon switches themselves
are [were] referred to in the available literature as "four wire
switches." Indeed, the crossbar switches originally used were in fact
modified, and the 1AESS that replaced crossbar in Autovon was also a
"special," with very different programming from a standard ESS. Much
of the differences had to do with the actual route selection matrix,
which was remarkably complex and could re-route circuits to bypass
switching nodes and circuit paths that were down. This concept will
likely sound quite familiar today - it is, of course, part of the basis
of how the internet works. DARPA simply built on decades of existing
developments that were all driven by the impetus of the Cold War.
It is this reference to "four-wire switches" that leads to the
conjecture that makes this answer so long. While I cannot produce
any documentation to prove this, it has always been my belief that
Autovon switches had the ability to treat the transmit and receive paths
of a telephone call as completely separate circuits. In an ordinary
toll switch, the two circuits that carry to two sides of a conversation
are always handled and switched together as a unit, and will both travel
over the same physical route. I will leave it as an exercise to the
reader to conclude why the Autovon system would wish to treat the
transmit and receive pairs [and their long-haul circuit routes] as
distinctly separate. Officially, however, Autovon was always described
as a "non-secure" system, and was [supposedly] never intended to carry
"top secret" conversations. Proving [or disproving] any or all of this
theory could be a challenge: While Autovon has been out of service for
almost two decades, much of the official documentation regarding its
operation remains classified to this day. On his website, "A Secert
Landscape,"[2] Albert LaFrance has copies of two lists of Autovon
related documents that were furnished by the DoD's DTIC [Defense
Technical Information Center] in response to a Freedom of Information
Act request. The first is the list of documents that have been
"approved for public release," and it runs about fifty pages. The
second list, which contains those documents that remain classified
["distribution restricted" in DoD-speak] runs some two hundred pages.[3]
Bill continued:
> Were the "Digital Non-Secure Voice Terminals" actually ISDN sets?.
> Are any of the switchboards or other systems that these phones
> connected to available on the surplus market? I'm not looking to
> take over Radar O'Reilly's job, but I wonder if these "DNSVT" units
> connected to the equivalent of a small-business PBX.
As you know, ISDN does not actually specify a physical circuit type,
but I assume that you are referring to a typical ISDN phone in North
America, which connects to the CO over a four-wire circuit [two 64 kbps
channels, one transmit and one receive], essentially a single DS0
encoded using 2B1Q. The Digital Voice Terminal field phones used by the
Army actually used a 16 kbps CVSD [Continuously Variable Slope Delta]
coding technique for the actual talk path, and 16 or 32 bit conditioned
diphase [sometimes called "differential Manchester encoding"] for call
set-up and signaling. Some commercially available electronic key
systems use CVSD for the talk path, and when this question came up a
couple of years back on a popular interconnect forum, I questioned
whether such a key system could be adapted to work with these phones.
About a year after the thread first ran, an Army Signal Corps veteran
posted to describe what was actually required to connect one of these
phones to the PSTN: In addition to converting the talk path, you must of
course also interface the call setup and signaling, and based on this
person's comments it seems that there is no easy way to do this without
the actual equipment used by the Service.
As far as whether this equipment is available on the surplus market,
that is an excellent question. As you know, surfing the global
internets using our favorite search engine reveals that many of the
common search terms for this sort of thing have been usurped by "content
farm" sites and others that have nothing to do with Military phones, and
exist only to try and sell you something completely unrelated [insert
long sigh here]. If anyone knows of any legitimate surplus dealers
that carry this equipment at a reasonable price, please let us all know!
Bill also asked:
> Are repairs or parts available for any of the more recent models?
The best bet for repair parts for any Military phone is to cannibalize
an identical unit. This is why it never hurts to buy one that is
battered and incomplete, if the price is right and you have [or will
have] a "good" one. In addition to ebay and actual surplus dealers,
this equipment and parts for it often turn up at Ham shows, "old-school"
computer shows, and even shows for Military vehicle collectors. I don't
know of anyone that offers repairs for this equipment, but they may
exist, so again I would ask that if anyone knows of them, please let
us all know.
And now, [drum roll, please] the end notes:
[1] For an example of the additional premise equipment required to
connect directly to an Autovon switching center, see BSP
981-210-100 [if the following is split into two lines, you may
need to paste them into a text editor and splice it back together
to use the link]:
http://sc.infc.info/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&gid=3478&Itemid=2
[2] "A Secret Landscape" is found at: http://coldwar-c4i.net/ . Also see
Albert's other excellent site: http://long-lines.net/ .
[3] This will come as no surprise to anyone who has ever looked for
certain info regarding telecom and the Armed Services, as the DoD
has always played it very close to the vest in this area. Some
people may be amazed to discover that they can find a manual for
their new mil-surplus machine gun in about 30 seconds, but days of
searching can't turn up a manual for their ancient field phone.
For example, the TA-1 phone is basically a butt-set with a built
in magneto and a dynamic [sound powered] transmitter element. It
is considered an antique now, but the manual for it remains
"restricted" to this day. I keep mine locked in the safe, next to
the launch codes. ;)
Jim Bennett
Robert Bonomi
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>Jim, I appreciate the info. I'll check out the phones you mentioned,
>and maybe even get one for a conversation piece.
>
>Please answer these questions for me and the other readers:
>
>1. Why were Autovan phones designed for four wire connections?
This one I can contribute on:
(There were separate pairs for tx and rx, obviously, thus --)
no need for echo cancellers on long circuits.
easier interface to radio links.
better control of signal levels -- _very_ useful for multi-party calls.
Gary
news:siegman-4A6399...@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
Gary
>
> As for power backup, I can't grasp why people are putting the
> ONT's on a UPS. A UPS takes AC and makes DC to charge a battery
> to later turn it back into AC again...so the ONT can make DC
> from it. And loses efficiency at every step.
>
> It's my understanding that all the ONT's have a 2nd battery
> input, and if you feed it 13.8vdc, it runs. So go buy a big
> "gel cell" or if you have the space, a 50AH deep cycle marine
> battery; and a $5 trickle charger. THAT will keep you going when
> Reddy Kilowatt goes on strike.
To answer your question (at least for me):
A) It's easy. A brand new small (~500VA) UPS can be had for <$50 on sale.
Plug it in and go. Buy a new one every few years as they are often cheaper
on sale than the cost of a new battery.
B) Said small UPS can also run the router and any other necessary network
gear, so I can still access the internet. One of my computers is a laptop,
so it's got it's own built in "back up power;" it's battery. If I put a
deep cycle battery on the ONT, I'd still need the UPS to keep the router up
and running.
C) I don't care about the efficiency looses. I'm only running an amp or two
at most through this setup (ONT, router, switch), so the energy lost isn't a
big concern.
It all boils down to how much runtime you think you need, how much battery
you need to buy to cover potential outages, and your budget. For me, I've
got reliable power. In the last 10 years, I can't recall an outage over 30
minutes. So, a small UPS is perfect for my home. If I lived somewhere with
longer outages, I might have a deep cycle battery and a big UPS, or even a
back up gas fired generator depending on what I felt like spending.
Hope that helps you grasp why a small UPS is okay, at least for me. YMMV.
Thanks,
-Gary
Gary
>
> was, in fact, a fiber-optic cable: the Verizon tech told me it was
> coaxial, but that might be a misnomer.
>
> The tech told me that the cable used "Moca" format, and when I asked
> how it compared to Docsis, he just said "It's better".
>
> I'll leave it to the experts to explain my confusion away.
DOCSIS was developed to pass data over coax used for cable TV services. As
such, a single DOCSIS channel uses exactly one (analog) TV channel's worth
of bandwidth. This is 6 MHz in the United States (8 MHz elsewhere in the
world). DOCSIS uses QAM modulation to pass 38 Mbps of data (after error
correction) downstream using one of the 100's of channels available in a
typical cable systems. Typical cable systems use RF spectrum from around
100 MHz to 650 MHz, 750 MHz, 850 MHz or even 1GHz. Upstream channels are
carried in the low end of the spectrum and are much slower.
DOCSIS signals pass through the cable system just like any other video
signal (in fact, they are identical to digital video at the lowest OSI
layers). If a cable system can pass digital video, it can pass DOCSIS.
DOCSIS 3.0 allows channels to be bonded to get data rates higher than 38
Mbps.
MoCA, on the other hand, was developed to distribute high speed data WITHIN
a home. It runs over coax, based on the assumption that most homes have a
coax distribution network but not cat-5 or cat-6. It operates above the
frequencies used for cable channels (including DOCSIS) so as not to
interfere with the TV services on the coax. I think it is centered around
1.5 GHz, but I could be wrong. I don't recall the data rate of MoCA, but I
believe it is higher than DOCSIS. MoCA is designed to go backwards through
coax splitters to allow most home coax topologies to be supported.
Verizon uses MoCA to communicate between the set-top boxes and the ONT. The
router acts as a gateway and manager for the control communications. MoCA
carries upstream commands from the set top boxes to the ONT, then the ONT
sends them over the fiber back to the video head end. Video on demand can
also be carried over MoCA, as the data bandwidth is sufficient for video
service.
In my home, I've FiOS for data and phone - no video. I've got Ethernet from
the ONT to my router. I don't use MoCA or coax. If I ever use FiOS for
video, I'll have to change to coax/MoCA.
In short, DOCSIS is a WAN technology while MoCA is a LAN.
-Gary
David Clayton
> "AES" wrote in message
> news:siegman-4A6399...@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.
T
> In article <E8.00.2247...@hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com>,
> al...@stny.rr.com says...
>
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> I suppose it's possible that the cable which came in from the
>> street was, in fact, a fiber-optic cable: the Verizon tech told me
>> it was coaxial, but that might be a misnomer.
[Moderator snip]
> The techie stuff on the site seems to indicate that the supplier of
> "entertainment" services can utilize existing coax drops to the
> premise thus (I guess) saving costs by not having to replace the last
> connection drop. Since Verizon is a group member, it seems logical for
> them to utilize this "standard" to help cut their installed costs.
The way I've seen FiOS implement here is as follows:
Fiber drop to an Alcatel box. The Alcatel box puts out a coppper pair
for phone service and coaxial for television and net service.
AES
David Clayton <dcs...@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.
David Clayton
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.
Robert Bonomi
David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:39:32 -0700, AES wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2011.04.11....@myrealbox.com>,
>> David Clayton <dcs...@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.
Michael Moroney
>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.
I was always rather aware of that. As a kid, we had a summer cottage
whose phone was on a 2 party party line. The ringer was connected between
one of the two leads and the ground stake, not between the two leads.
Whenever a thunderstorm was nearby the phone would ring, usually just a
'ding' in synch with a lightning stroke. (actually the phone would tend
to ring more after the storm passed over us and was to the east) We'd
joke, "Mr. Lightning calling, don't answer it!"
Lisa or Jeff
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.
David Clayton
Basic electronic equipment - like ADSL modems - invariably have little
protection to surges and even small ones can cumulatively degrade
performance.
>From many years of observing one very popular broadband forum there were
*always* people complaining immediately after storms in every ISP's
individual forum. When you took a broader look at the complaints at a
regional level you could then see the pattern, and the subsequent
dissatisfaction with things until - magically - replacing the ADSL modem
seemed to fix all issues.
As I said before, good business for the modem manufacturers who sell the
replacements and maybe also those who also sell protection devices for the
incoming phone line (which aren't common in Australia).
Robert Bonomi
Lisa or Jeff <hanc...@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]
Thor Lancelot Simon
AJB Consulting <aj...@frontier.com> wrote:
>Our esteemed moderator wrote:
>
>>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>>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 cents.
>
>>Bill Horne
>>Moderator
>
>Bill, what you described sounds more like the AT&T U-verse system.
>
>Every FiOS install I have ever seen uses an ONT [Optical Network
>Termination] in the subscriber's home. The acronym dissects [supposedly]
>to "Fiber In Off the Street," after all... Or else it is named after
>a parish in Northern Spain. ;)
I can confirm this. I happen to have on my desk right now a Verizon
FiOS wiring plan for a 300-unit multiple dwelling in New York City.
It has a separate fiber drop to every apartment and an ONT in each
apartment that is subscribed to Verizon service. It has two layers
of passive optical hubs and no powered components -- or, at least, no
components that require building power. Whether any of the optical
components are actually powered to allow remote testing, etc. I do
not know but would tend to speculate likely not. I believe there
is really, truly, a 300 fiber bundle running in from the street and
that it's not actively multiplexed until that location. Maybe
there are totally passive ways to do DWDM now so the passive "hubs"
in the building actually have unpowered frequency multipliers/dividers
in them -- I do not know.
But it is unquestionably the case that even in multiple dwellings
(and in this case we are talking about 15 separate buildings served
by a single Verizon cable entrance!) VZ does bring the fiber all the
way to the ONT in the customer's home.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@panix.com
And now he couldn't remember when this passion had flown, leaving him so
foolish and bewildered and astray: can any man?
William Styron
Thor Lancelot Simon
>> was, in fact, a fiber-optic cable: the Verizon tech told me it was
>> coaxial, but that might be a misnomer.
>
>> how it compared to Docsis, he just said "It's better".
>
>> I'll leave it to the experts to explain my confusion away.
>
>
>I see no way that Verizontal ever puts the ONT anywhere but inside the
>residence, for a basic reason: what would power it out there on the
>pole? Further, since it's the vict^H^H^H^H subscriber's job to not
>just supply it power but also buy & install new batteries..who will
>climb the pole...?
>
>Obviously in a MDU, where there's one multiport unit; it's slightly
>different. There, your unit does get POTS via existing twisted pair
>and TV & TCP/IP via MOCA/coax.
It's not different. This isn't how Verizon wires multiple dwellings,
likely because they do not want to maintain or are (with good reason)
concerned they could not get permission to install duplicative coax
cable in structures already served by the local cableco.
Thor Lancelot Simon
Thor Lancelot Simon <t...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>not know but would tend to speculate likely not. I believe there
>is really, truly, a 300 fiber bundle running in from the street and
>that it's not actively multiplexed until that location. Maybe
>there are totally passive ways to do DWDM now so the passive "hubs"
>in the building actually have unpowered frequency multipliers/dividers
>in them -- I do not know.
I have looked into this a bit more; the above is not really correct in
two important respects.
1) The fiber "hubs" used by Verizon appear to be passive optical
beam splitters/combiners. The network is fully broadcast for
downstream communications with a link layer beneath any standard
Ethernet framing that emulates point-to-point Ethernet behavior
(it would certainly seem that since there is a single downstream
transmitter collisions really aren't possible so this should not
be hard). Downstream transmissions are encrypted so that, in theory,
only a specific ONT can decrypt them.
Upstream is a little funny. The upstream signal supposedly
propagates only towards the head end (how this is done optically
I do not know but I'm sure it's possible), so encryption is not
used. I don't know how the head end handles collisions though
it appears TDM in the upstream direction is used to attempt to
assure they do not occur.
2) Fully passive DWDM/CWDM equipment is, in fact, available from several
suppliers, but use of it in a PON deployment such as FiOS would be,
at least, not something that is standardized.
So, the diagram I have that shows VZ entering the building in question
with two fibers -- not 300 -- is almost certainly correct in that detail,
and I was speaking whereof I knew not.
T
>
> In article <incs58$5lr$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>***** Moderator's Note *****
> >
> >> I suppose it's possible that the cable which came in from the street
> >> was, in fact, a fiber-optic cable: the Verizon tech told me it was
> >> coaxial, but that might be a misnomer.
> >
> >> The tech told me that the cable used "Moca" format, and when I asked
> >> how it compared to Docsis, he just said "It's better".
> >
> >> I'll leave it to the experts to explain my confusion away.
> >
> >He's the confused one....not you.
> >
> >I see no way that Verizontal ever puts the ONT anywhere but inside the
> >residence, for a basic reason: what would power it out there on the
> >pole? Further, since it's the vict^H^H^H^H subscriber's job to not
> >just supply it power but also buy & install new batteries..who will
> >climb the pole...?
> >
> >Obviously in a MDU, where there's one multiport unit; it's slightly
> >different. There, your unit does get POTS via existing twisted pair
> >and TV & TCP/IP via MOCA/coax.
>
> It's not different. This isn't how Verizon wires multiple dwellings,
> likely because they do not want to maintain or are (with good reason)
> concerned they could not get permission to install duplicative coax
> cable in structures already served by the local cableco.
Ha! Around here they vampire the coax left in place by the predominant
carrier to get the net and CATV signal into the domicile.
Thor Lancelot Simon
But not in multiple dwellings, right? That would require them to either
install a duplicate network of coax feeding each "lit" unit, or for the
owner of the MDU to have completely kicked the other carrier out -- they
can't run MOCA over the same cable someone else is running digital cable
and DOCSIS on. Or can they?
D. W.
bigbadp...@gmail.com
rotary-dial, since rotary-dial is a digital system. It uses pulse count
modulation. In the U.S., there is one pulse for a 1, and ten for a 0, and
respective for all other numbers. Regardless of being electronic or
mechanical, it is sending out a series of 'bits' that are counted by either an
electronic or electro-mechanical system. Most modern POTS systems use
computers instead of cross-bar switches, and are fully capable of recognizing
POTS. I also have dialed a very rare few business whose automated telephone
systems do in fact recognize pulse-count modulation. There is no good reason
why more systems don't support rotary-dial other than they are fond of making
a legacy system obsolete, which seems to please so many die-hard modernists.
The rotary-dial system is, however, the first fully automated digital dialing
system, as Philco's rotary-dial Mystery Control was the first wireless
all-digital remote control.