"POTS is going away"; ATT, via Ars Technioca
TBerk
Huh, bet its still around 50 years from now.
berk
Jeff
Yep... right along with typewriters, cassette tapes, CRTs, liberty,
unadulterated food, selfless politicians, etc... in obscure corners of
the Smithsonian...
B^/
Tim Pozar
> http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2009/12/att-landline-phone-service-must-die-only-question-is-when.ars
>
> Huh, bet its still around 50 years from now.
I bet not. The copper plan is being abandoned by the local RBOCs. They
stopped upgrading copper going into buildings around San Francisco. I
did the broadband wireless for Techcrunch at the Concourse. Of the 600
pairs going into the building, we could only get 15 going as the rest of
the pairs were waterlogged. ATT was not willing to fix it.
Copper will be and is being abandoned in place. Wireless, fiber or coax
will be how you get your dial town now.
Tim
Roy
There is a large difference between what you see in San Francisco and
what's happening in the very rural areas. Just look at the cellphone
maps and the areas of no coverage. 114 years from the first voice
transmissions via radio, we still have morse code in use!
Kevin McMurtrie
AT&T abandoning copper wires doesn't mean that they are upgrading
anything. Name one consumer AT&T service that provides reliable voice
and broadband to homes without copper telephone wires.
--
I won't see Google Groups replies because I must filter them as spam
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>on 12/31/09 12:04 PM TBerk said the following:
>> http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2009/12/att-landline-phone-service-must-die-only-question-is-when.ars
>>
>> Huh, bet its still around 50 years from now.
>I bet not. The copper plan is being abandoned by the local RBOCs. They
>stopped upgrading copper going into buildings around San Francisco.
Meanwhile, most of the burglar alarm companies are insisting that
their circuits be over copper pair. It might share with DSL or POTS,
but they don't seem to like fiber or coax. Locally, First Alarm will
only install an alarm reporting system on a copper pair.
However, that may change. Two years ago, ANSI/SIA DC-09-2007 Internet
Protocol Event Reporting was published, defining how it's suppose to
be done. However, such products are both slow and expensive at this
time. Eventually, most alarm companies will probably learn to
tolerate virtual circuits. My guess is about 5-10 years for maybe
half the existing circuits.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
John Higdon
Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> However, that may change. Two years ago, ANSI/SIA DC-09-2007 Internet
> Protocol Event Reporting was published, defining how it's suppose to
> be done. However, such products are both slow and expensive at this
> time. Eventually, most alarm companies will probably learn to
> tolerate virtual circuits. My guess is about 5-10 years for maybe
> half the existing circuits.
What about data leased lines, such as T1 circuits? What about the
millions of POTS lines people of the ilk who do not post to technical
groups still have? Will they all be told that they will be required to
buy a cell phone, deal with undependable service whose audio quality
borders on unintelligible...and then pay four times as much for the
privilege? What about those of us who need reliable, 24/7 connectivity,
with addresses accessible from the outside?
Actually, I would have no problem with AT&T walking away from the copper
plant if it were turned over to CLECs, such as Covad.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
John Higdon
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmu...@pixelmemory.us> wrote:
> AT&T abandoning copper wires doesn't mean that they are upgrading
> anything. Name one consumer AT&T service that provides reliable voice
> and broadband to homes without copper telephone wires.
I went to VOIP years ago because I found that AT&T couldn't even provide
reliable telephone service by any means. My clients have all left AT&T,
even KKUP, a listener supported community radio station.
But other companies could make good use of that copper plant.
John Higdon
<tZ-dnX_NtYNttaDW...@posted.southvalleyinternet>,
Roy <aa...@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:
> There is a large difference between what you see in San Francisco and
> what's happening in the very rural areas. Just look at the cellphone
> maps and the areas of no coverage. 114 years from the first voice
> transmissions via radio, we still have morse code in use!
I don't have anything to back this up, but I would bet that the amount
of communications traffic that travels over the AT&T wired plant swamps
that which goes over this nation's fragmented, piecemeal wireless
"system". We're a long, long, long way from getting rid of the "legacy
copper plant".
Eric Weaver
> AT&T abandoning copper wires doesn't mean that they are upgrading
> anything. Name one consumer AT&T service that provides reliable voice
> and broadband to homes without copper telephone wires.
Anybody who lives in that new high-rise on Mission between 6th & 7th...
Soma Grand?
Anybody who lives in One Rincon Hill.
Probably more by now.
David Kaye
>Copper will be and is being abandoned in place. Wireless, fiber or coax
>will be how you get your dial town now.
I'm wondering if there's a business model that would work for someone taking
over old copper (besides the folks who steal it and resell it, that is). The
fact that existing twisted pair going back sometimes as far as the 1930s has
been able to pass DSL amazes me. Certainly there must be some kind of use for
all those drops.
David Kaye
>114 years from the first voice
>transmissions via radio, we still have morse code in use!
No we don't, not commercially anyway. Sure, hams use it, but that's a small
hobby.
John Higdon
Eric Weaver <we...@sigma.net> wrote:
> Anybody who lives in that new high-rise on Mission between 6th & 7th...
> Soma Grand?
>
> Anybody who lives in One Rincon Hill.
> Probably more by now.
Unfortunately, most of the country does not live there. The United
States at large looks like anything but downtown San Francisco. Even in
California, people in Eureka, Sonora, Needles, Vacaville, etc., etc.,
still get telephone service for the most part over copper POTS.
Existence extends far beyond the forty-nine square miles in the center
of the universe.
Eric Weaver
> In article<4b3d8eab$0$1583$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Eric Weaver<we...@sigma.net> wrote:
>
>> Soma Grand?
>>
>> Anybody who lives in One Rincon Hill.
>> Probably more by now.
>
> Unfortunately, most of the country does not live there. The United
> States at large looks like anything but downtown San Francisco. Even in
> California, people in Eureka, Sonora, Needles, Vacaville, etc., etc.,
> still get telephone service for the most part over copper POTS.
>
> Existence extends far beyond the forty-nine square miles in the center
> of the universe.
>
Agreed but the question was "name one person"...
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>Actually, I would have no problem with AT&T walking away from the copper
>plant if it were turned over to CLECs, such as Covad.
Methinks it more likely that AT&T would adopt a scorched earth policy,
such as they're doing with U-verse, which requires the abandonment of
all copper to the CO, while retaining the copper drop to the house,
before AT&T will activate U-verse. Most right of way leases and
easements include an abandonment provision that requires the lessee to
remove all their junk if it were abandoned. Were AT&T to abandon all
that copper on the poles, it's conceivable that they might also be
contractually required to physically remove it.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
John Higdon
Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> Methinks it more likely that AT&T would adopt a scorched earth policy,
> such as they're doing with U-verse, which requires the abandonment of
> all copper to the CO, while retaining the copper drop to the house,
> before AT&T will activate U-verse. Most right of way leases and
> easements include an abandonment provision that requires the lessee to
> remove all their junk if it were abandoned. Were AT&T to abandon all
> that copper on the poles, it's conceivable that they might also be
> contractually required to physically remove it.
So if you want any service that requires cabling, you have to deal with
crappy AT&T or crappy Comcast? So much for America's superior
communications "system"! I guess that's the thanks we get for giving
AT&T the broad rights of way, the guaranteed rate structures, and the
cross subsidy pricing policies that made the plant possible in the first
place. I hope we're never that stupid again.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>So if you want any service that requires cabling, you have to deal with
>crappy AT&T or crappy Comcast? So much for America's superior
>communications "system"!
Yep. That's about it. You can service a small segment of the
population with superior service, or you can service the entire
population with across the board with mediocre service. It's kinda
like the current debate of a national health plan. If you want it for
everyone, it will probably be crap.
I learned how it's done watching the "quality" of cellular audio and
tweaking the compression level on cable video. The idea was to
maximize the number of users, while still retaining some level of
acceptable performance and quality. So, they both just cranked up the
compression until the support phones started ringing with complaints.
Then, they backed it down a bit and left it there. The number of
complaints determines the minimum level of acceptable performance. The
process is called "optimization". If you want better quality, you
have to literally create a public relations crisis before it can be
raised again or find another vendor.
Kevin McMurtrie
Eric Weaver <we...@sigma.net> wrote:
I'm interested in the business model used there - who owns the digital
box. If the building owner has to host and maintain the hardware, I'd
say that it doesn't count. If AT&T pays for and maintains the digital
hardware on their own and works only with customers, then there's hope
for them yet.
John Higdon
Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> I learned how it's done watching the "quality" of cellular audio and
> tweaking the compression level on cable video. The idea was to
> maximize the number of users, while still retaining some level of
> acceptable performance and quality.
Cellular audio quality is so bad that I have repeatedly asked my clients
not to use cell calls on the air for broadcast purposes. The usual
response is agreement, followed by the observation that if those calls
were not put on the air, there would be little left.
The notion that wireless in its current state is to become the
standard-issue primary telephone service is not something I'm quite
ready to accept. I carry a cell phone so that I can be reached in
emergencies. Without fail, I defer any conversation until I can reach a
landline. I find all cell phones uncomfortable to hold, painful to the
ear. I do not like to repeat myself (to the point of spelling words),
and resent having to ask others to do the same...all the while paying by
the minute for the privilege.
I suspect Wiline and companies like it are going to see some major
growth. That's how we cut the cord at KKUP: VOIP over point-to-point
wireless Internet. Since August, it hasn't skipped a beat.
AES
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
I've repeatedly suggested some of these: Emergency fire and burglar
alarms (private commercial or public run), utility meter reading, 911,
public safety, terrorist-related remote sensing independent of the
Internet, disaster communications independent of power loss, etc.. etc.
-- all of these connected from premises to a local "mini-CO" operated by
local police or fire or "Public safety
And is there any reason every FTTP cable can't carry at least a few
twisted pairs to the "P", at almost zero cost at the installation phase.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>Cellular audio quality is so bad that I have repeatedly asked my clients
>not to use cell calls on the air for broadcast purposes. The usual
>response is agreement, followed by the observation that if those calls
>were not put on the air, there would be little left.
I don't listen to talk radio, so I have no idea what it's like. I can
imagine. Digital cellular and garbled audio arrived in about 1992
with the introduction of TDMA with multiplexed and compressed audio.
That means anyone under about 18 years of age, may not have had the
experience of a decent sounding cellular audio phone call. In my
case, I still (barely) remember the 1950's long distance calls in half
duplex accompanied by an occasional echo. The analog microwave
circuits sometimes added some background noise. In retrospect, we had
things fairly good between 1960 thru about 1995.
The surest sign of success is pollution and over subscription. When I
was paying $0.50/minute and my Oki mobile phone which cost about
$2,000, I was rather careful to keep my calls short. These days, with
unlimited plans, we're not so careful. I guess lousy audio quality,
marginal service, and creative billing are the price of having almost
universal cell phone service.
Incidentally, the average lifetime of a cell phone is now about 24
months. It was about 18 months but the expensive PDA phones have
temporarily raised these from a commodity to an investment. It won't
last.
>The notion that wireless in its current state is to become the
>standard-issue primary telephone service is not something I'm quite
>ready to accept.
My primary contact device is email. My cell phone is next. I have
VoIP in the office, which I'm slowly beginning to convince my
customers to use. I have a home phone, but it's sole purpose is to
support my DSL line. The VoIP quality is about the same as the cell
phone thanks to the Asterisk server being located in Florida. However,
the monthly cost is something like 1/20th of the cost of my cell
phone. I can live with the quality problem if it adds convenience
(i.e. mobility) and drops the price drastically. However, some
people, such as yourself and your clients, can't do that. As we go to
additional bandwidth gobbling applications, I expect the situation to
be worse, not better.
>I carry a cell phone so that I can be reached in
>emergencies. Without fail, I defer any conversation until I can reach a
>landline. I find all cell phones uncomfortable to hold, painful to the
>ear. I do not like to repeat myself (to the point of spelling words),
>and resent having to ask others to do the same...all the while paying by
>the minute for the privilege.
I would still be using a pager except that almost all the pay phones
have disappeared. Some of my friends use their cell phone like a
pager. They just grab the CID and possibly a voice mail message, and
call back on a POTS line. Whatever works. In my case, if I don't
respond to my customers immediately, they'll just find someone else to
do the work. They want it now, and the only effective solution is a
cell phone. The crappy audio is easily tolerated with the customer is
desperate for a fast fix.
(Drivel: This mornings first call started with "Is there a 2010
millennium bug"?)
>I suspect Wiline and companies like it are going to see some major
>growth. That's how we cut the cord at KKUP: VOIP over point-to-point
>wireless Internet. Since August, it hasn't skipped a beat.
Licensed wireless is a good thing and with coordination, quite
reliable. However, imagine that you're correct and everyone and his
brother in law subscribes to Wiline because Ma Bell dropped the ball
somewhere. Also pretend that they can initially handle the mass
migration and growth. Eventually, they're going to hire some former
AT&T or Comcast executives, who promises to "optimize" the network.
That translates into a reduction in quality to accommodate a
corresponding increase in growth, exactly as in cable video
compression and cellular audio. Fairly soon, it will be exactly like
AT&T and Comcast, where the minimum quality is determined by the
number of irate phone calls. Worse, I can't think of any way to
prevent this from happening to any service.
Roy
> ...
>
> And is there any reason every FTTP cable can't carry at least a few
> twisted pairs to the "P", at almost zero cost at the installation phase.
Terminating in what equipment at the CO end? All of that costs money.
The old alarm circuits where they run a continous pair from the home to
the alarm company have basically died off. SLICs, FTTN, remote COs, etc
have made them obsolete. Most alarm companies use dial via modem.
These seem to work with the Verizon FIOS system which is FTTP but not VOIP.
David Kaye
>Most alarm companies use dial via modem.
>These seem to work with the Verizon FIOS system which is FTTP but not VOIP.
And that part goes back decades. I recall some friends living in East Oakland
who had alarm service with ADT. Due to security reasons they had two phone
lines, terminating on different polls in the front and back of the house.
The alarm system dialed out over a primary line, and if there was any problem
it would switch to the secondary one. Also, if either line were cut or fail
to maintain on-hook voltage, the system would immediately dial out on the
other. There were no hot drops -- they were both dial-up. And this was in
the 80s.
David Kaye
>Cellular audio quality is so bad that I have repeatedly asked my clients
>not to use cell calls on the air for broadcast purposes.
Some cell service. As I've stated before (I think here, maybe elsewhere) my
Verizon Wireless service is excellent; I use it exclusively; the only time
people are aware I'm on a cell is when I happen to be sitting at my desk and
lean a little one way and the signal gets dropped or gets sporadic. And it
seems to be that the phone is getting hit with too many signals, rather than
not enough.
>The usual
>response is agreement, followed by the observation that if those calls
>were not put on the air, there would be little left.
I've called Dr. Dean Edell's show, gotten on the air, and heard an aircheck of
the show and couldn't tell I was calling from a cell phone.
Now, I'm not going to conclude that other cell providers are good, but VZW is
fine by me.
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> I've called Dr. Dean Edell's show, gotten on the air, and heard an aircheck
> of
> the show and couldn't tell I was calling from a cell phone.
I can easily spot every cell call without error, regardless of the
provider.
> Now, I'm not going to conclude that other cell providers are good, but VZW is
> fine by me.
I talk to a Verizon user every day through his cell phone. The
conversations are excruciating, to say the least.
The problem isn't the provider; the problem is the ultra-low bit rate
codec. Even with a perfect data stream, the artifacts are barely
tolerable.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>The problem isn't the provider; the problem is the ultra-low bit rate
>codec. Even with a perfect data stream, the artifacts are barely
>tolerable.
On Verizon, the CODEC's in use are 13K, EVRC and EVRC-B. 13K is
essentially an analog CODEC and is never used intentionally by
Verizon. EVRC (8K, IS-127) is the current technology. EVRC-B is
available on newer phones running CDMA2000 networks. EVRC will
encode voice at either 4, 8, or 14Kbits/sec. However, if you stop
talking, it immediately drops to 1Kbits/sec. The bulk of the garbled
audio is in the initial encoding delay when recovering from pauses in
the conversation. Try talking in a monolog and compare it with the
same speech with 1-2 second pauses. The first few syllables will
probably be garbled.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EVRC>
On some handsets, using the service or test mode, you can force 13K,
which offers the best quality. Of course, getting over-the-air
callers to do this is improbable. It's also possible for the cell
companies to control the encoder on a per call basis, thus offering
premium service. However, VZW hasn't irritated enough people with
crappy audio quality yet to justify the added cost. If they did,
methinks it would sell well.
John Higdon
Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Verizon, the CODEC's in use are 13K, EVRC and EVRC-B. 13K is
> essentially an analog CODEC and is never used intentionally by
> Verizon. EVRC (8K, IS-127) is the current technology. EVRC-B is
> available on newer phones running CDMA2000 networks. EVRC will
> encode voice at either 4, 8, or 14Kbits/sec. However, if you stop
> talking, it immediately drops to 1Kbits/sec. The bulk of the garbled
> audio is in the initial encoding delay when recovering from pauses in
> the conversation. Try talking in a monolog and compare it with the
> same speech with 1-2 second pauses. The first few syllables will
> probably be garbled.
Most annoying to me:
1. Phrases that turn to gibberish (sounding much like the language of
the aliens in "The Arrival". When asked to repeat what he said, it is
gibberish each time. Usually, the words end up having to be spelled.
2. "The chicken ranch" effect when a caller is in a noisy location. When
the cell phone caller speaks, the background noise is actually
intensified and sounds like cackling, or worse, sometimes it sounds as
though it's the caller's voice sort of turned upside down and
superimposed on itself.
3. All cell phones during the course of the conversation make the caller
sound as though he is cavorting in a dumpster or large tank. I call it
the "bottom of the well" effect.
4. Artificial background noise. This is typical of callers in vehicles
who stop talking and it sounds as though the call is disconnected and
fake background noise is substituted. The first part of the caller's
response is garbled or cut off completely.
There are other problems, but these are the ones that drive me stark
staring crazy. How anyone can even suggest that such audio mangling
might be considered as part of primary telephone service needs to get
his hearing checked.
David Kaye
>On some handsets, using the service or test mode, you can force 13K,
>which offers the best quality.
All I can say is that I have the small Samsung flip phone which is about 4 or
5 years old. I'm not sure what kind of system it's on, but I get a "1X" on my
display. Absolutely nobody complains about my voice quality.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
The 1X is an abrev. for 1xRTT which run 50 to 100 Kbits/sec. If you
had a later phone, it show EV for EV-DO, which will do up to 600 to
850 Kbit/sec.
You must have either an excellent phone, or really good luck. Perhaps
the phone is old enough that it won't run an EVRC codec and will only
do 13K. Model number? It's probably something like SCH-axxx.
I live in the mountains of the San Lorenzo Valley. Coverage varies
radically by location. Talking while driving down Hwy 9 invariably
results in garble and in some places, a disconnect. I have 4 phones
on my plan, all of which do roughly the same thing. I had always
assumed it was as bad or worse in urban canyons. Perhaps not.
Certainly SF has a higher density of cell sites than in the mountains.
I just did a quick run of available towers (not all of these are
Verizon):
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/cell-sf-01.jpg>
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/cell-sf-02.jpg>
and found about 400 towers in the downtown SF area. In any case, the
high tower density in SF is obvious. Verizon doesn't use all of these
but it's certainly a much higher density than the San Lorenzo Valley,
which has exactly one Verizon tower.
do...@38.usenet.us.com
> "1X" on my display. Absolutely nobody complains about my voice quality.
Nobody complains about the quality of my calls, either, unless I ask them.
People at large are so used to cell phone calls, no one is complaining or
even commenting on the quality.
I miss parts of what John Higdon is trying to say, though.
Avoiding the use of cellular voice due to quality concerns, but using VoIP
over cellular data, and commenting that the calls are cleaner on one data
carrier than another doesn't all blend well in my noggin.
I use a few different technologies. One guy that I talk to all the time
will comment on call quality, but it is because it is a separate topic that
we discuss because we know that our customers will probably not comment,
and we want to know that we are delivering reasonable audio. His blend
includes some cellular-Bluetooth-house_base-Bluetooth headset
conglomeration. Or maybe iPhone, a Sprint handset, Skype on a PC, or maybe
Mac, via WiFi, wired, or AT&T 3G, or Skype iPhone.
The odd thing about the VoIP products is that they almost always sound good
to the person on the VoIP, it's the VoIP speaker that sometimes goes Darth
Vader to the other parties.
--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
David Kaye
>You must have either an excellent phone, or really good luck. Perhaps
>the phone is old enough that it won't run an EVRC codec and will only
>do 13K. Model number? It's probably something like SCH-axxx.
SCH-A650.
>Certainly SF has a higher density of cell sites than in the mountains.
>I just did a quick run of available towers (not all of these are
>Verizon):
I don't go into the Santa Cruz mountains often, but I when I go south of Half
Moon Bay my reception gets spotty until I reach Pescadero. But then there's
not much there, either. Generally my reception is excellent. But the point
was not about reception; it was about talk quality. Again, people simply
can't seem to tell that I'm on a cell phone.
>and found about 400 towers in the downtown SF area. In any case, the
>high tower density in SF is obvious.
When I visit Treasure Island I notice on my bill that I get connections listed
as Sausalito, so I guess the range is pretty good. I never go to Sausalito so
I know that I'm hitting a site there from SF.
John Higdon
> I miss parts of what John Higdon is trying to say, though.
> Avoiding the use of cellular voice due to quality concerns, but using VoIP
> over cellular data, and commenting that the calls are cleaner on one data
> carrier than another doesn't all blend well in my noggin.
Not a big mystery by any means. When I make VOIP calls with my cell
phone (using 3G), the codec is ulaw, 64Kbps. That bit stream could
easily handle a half-dozen cell calls, but obviously with greatly
reduced audio quality.
> The odd thing about the VoIP products is that they almost always sound good
> to the person on the VoIP, it's the VoIP speaker that sometimes goes Darth
> Vader to the other parties.
Generally, home users of VOIP usually have Internet connections that are
much wider down (towards the VOIP customer) than up (away from the VOIP
customer). I don't have that problem here, nor do most businesses, so I
venture to say that you probably talk to many people over VOIP and never
even know it.
I now have two radio stations fully on VOIP and their phones have never
sounded better...much better than POTS ever was.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>>You must have either an excellent phone, or really good luck. Perhaps
>>the phone is old enough that it won't run an EVRC codec and will only
>>do 13K. Model number? It's probably something like SCH-axxx.
>
>SCH-A650
Bingo. See:
<http://mobilofant.com/en/brands/Samsung/SCH_A650.html>
and click on the "Sound Formats Support" button. Note that EVRC is
not supported. That's why you're getting good audio. Keep the phone.
David Kaye
>Bingo. See:
><http://mobilofant.com/en/brands/Samsung/SCH_A650.html>
>and click on the "Sound Formats Support" button. Note that EVRC is
>not supported. That's why you're getting good audio. Keep the phone.
Yipes. I like the phone very much. It's small and it's a flip phone so the
moutpiece is near my mouth and the earpiece near my ear, and I can use it with
an off-the-shelf sub-mini plugged headset.
But now I worry that this 7-year old phone is eventually going to fail (I do
get occasional display freezes where I have to remove the battery and reinsert
it to get the display to work again), and that I won't be able to replace it
with anything nearly as good.
Damn! Is there a way of turning off ht EVRC on more modern phones? Maybe
this could be a business sideline for someone...
David Kaye
>Nobody complains about the quality of my calls, either, unless I ask them.
>People at large are so used to cell phone calls, no one is complaining or
>even commenting on the quality.
The thing is that the quality does sound good. In fact when I first recorded
my voicemail message I used a landline phone. I have since re-recorded it
using the phone itself and I like the quality better. This stands to reason
given that one landline phone I had had a carbon mic and the other had a
very cheap piezo.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>>Bingo. See:
>><http://mobilofant.com/en/brands/Samsung/SCH_A650.html>
>>and click on the "Sound Formats Support" button. Note that EVRC is
>>not supported. That's why you're getting good audio. Keep the phone.
>
>Yipes. I like the phone very much. It's small and it's a flip phone so the
>moutpiece is near my mouth and the earpiece near my ear, and I can use it with
>an off-the-shelf sub-mini plugged headset.
>
>But now I worry that this 7-year old phone is eventually going to fail (I do
>get occasional display freezes where I have to remove the battery and reinsert
>it to get the display to work again), and that I won't be able to replace it
>with anything nearly as good.
I'll see if I can find you suitable backup phone. I see those all the
time, but never bother to grab one because they're so ancient. It may
not be identical, but it will be close.
It's very easy to swap phones with Verizon. In fact, it's too easy.
It can be done online on the VZW site with just the ESN number. You
can also do it over the air with the full phone number and last 4
digits of the SSI number used to create the account. I won't say
anything nice about such convenience over security. Verizon will
probably get the clue after a few incidents. Be sure to do:
*228 option 1 (update phone settings)
*228 option 2 (update PRL)
after switching phones.
Incidentally, you may find this list of Verizon codes and features
handy:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Verizon%20Codes.txt>
>Damn! Is there a way of turning off ht EVRC on more modern phones? Maybe
>this could be a business sideline for someone...
Yes, but results vary. For example:
<http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=848041>
shows how to do it with my former smartphone, an HTC XV6700. However,
this is an old posting and is not exactly up to date. What happens
these days is every time you do anything to the phone, the settings
get reset to EVRC. If you don't notice, you get garbled audio. You
can't change it while talking. Other phones use similar procedures
with spotty results. Current phones allow the tower almost complete
control over the call settings. You can set it for 13K but when you
call, the tower changes it back to EVRC. The only way to know for
sure is to try the new phone.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>>Damn! Is there a way of turning off ht EVRC on more modern phones? Maybe
>>this could be a business sideline for someone...
I just tried it with my LG VX8100. I turn off EVRC using the service
mode:
Menu -> 0 -> 000000 -> Field Tests -> Voice SO -> EVRC Capable -> off
I got 13K during a test call, but upon exiting the service mode, the
phone reboots, and EVRC is re-enabled (as shows on the test screen
under "Service Option" showing "EV" instead of "13").
Translation: I turned EVRC off, but the tower turned it back on.
do...@38.usenet.us.com
> In article <hhpfd6$j46$1...@blue.rahul.net>, do...@38.usenet.us.com wrote:
> > I miss parts of what John Higdon is trying to say, though.
> > Avoiding the use of cellular voice due to quality concerns, but using VoIP
> > over cellular data, and commenting that the calls are cleaner on one data
> > carrier than another doesn't all blend well in my noggin.
> Not a big mystery by any means. When I make VOIP calls with my cell
> phone (using 3G), the codec is ulaw, 64Kbps. That bit stream could
> easily handle a half-dozen cell calls, but obviously with greatly
> reduced audio quality.
But if it is "cleaner" on one digital carrier than another, the call must
be of inferior quality on one.
> Generally, home users of VOIP usually have Internet connections that are
> much wider down (towards the VOIP customer) than up (away from the VOIP
> customer). I don't have that problem here, nor do most businesses, so I
> venture to say that you probably talk to many people over VOIP and never
> even know it.
I know that I am talking to VoIP users all the time, because my company is
all VoIP. I can't tell from audio quality. My common cohort is often
speaking VoIP on a PC softphone over 3G, and that sounds fine.
At 10Mbits down, and 1Mbit up, I don't have a nominal bandwidth problem at
home.
> I now have two radio stations fully on VOIP and their phones have never
> sounded better...much better than POTS ever was.
Something about "weakest link in the chain" comes to mind. I can tell the
difference between different brands of Bluetooth headset, and a USB headset
on a softphone sounds excellent. My home POTS had static a few times in
the past few weeks during heavy rain.
John Higdon
> But if it is "cleaner" on one digital carrier than another, the call must
> be of inferior quality on one.
A number of things can affect the quality of a VOIP call, including
"jitter" (inconsistency of bit rate) and inadequate QOS. In my
experience, Verizon's 3G is more suitable for VOIP than is AT&T's. The
other thing is that VOIP itself has multiple codecs available to it, and
many times the sound quality is the result of the choice of codec
determined in switch negotiation.
> I know that I am talking to VoIP users all the time, because my company is
> all VoIP. I can't tell from audio quality. My common cohort is often
> speaking VoIP on a PC softphone over 3G, and that sounds fine.
Not surprised.
> At 10Mbits down, and 1Mbit up, I don't have a nominal bandwidth problem at
> home.
Are you running your own switch or using a service? If the latter, then
your VOIP provider determines choice of codec.
> Something about "weakest link in the chain" comes to mind. I can tell the
> difference between different brands of Bluetooth headset, and a USB headset
> on a softphone sounds excellent. My home POTS had static a few times in
> the past few weeks during heavy rain.
I've actually experienced that same thing. Bluetooth headsets, however,
typically suck in almost any environment. It is possible that a good
portion of what I consider crappy cell phone audio is nothing more than
the proliferation of Bluetooth headsets. I suspect they are just badly
designed.
Jeff Liebermann
>At 10Mbits down, and 1Mbit up, I don't have a nominal bandwidth problem at
>home.
Upstream constipation, jitter, and your neighbors IP Video habit, can
all cause problems even if you have decent local bandwidth. Test it
at:
<http://myspeed.visualware.com/voip/>
My 1500/384Kbit/sec DSL is marginal as usual:
<http://mcsiad.visualware.com/myspeed/db/report?id=1111378>
My VoIP calls come in 2 flavors, very wonderfully good, and worthless
garble. The problem is that my provider (www.Future-Nine.com) has
their server in Florida and New York. (There are plans for a local
server). Meanwhile, if the internet weather report shows a problem,
it wrecks my VoIP. Why do I tolerate this? Because it usually fixes
itself in less than an hour, and I only pay $75/year.
do...@38.usenet.us.com
> In article <hhqti0$ecg$1...@blue.rahul.net>, do...@38.usenet.us.com wrote:
> > But if it is "cleaner" on one digital carrier than another, the call must
> > be of inferior quality on one.
> A number of things can affect the quality of a VOIP call, including
> "jitter" (inconsistency of bit rate) and inadequate QOS. In my
So VoIP isn't always "better than POTS ever was", although often it is
of startlingly good quality.
> > all VoIP. I can't tell from audio quality. My common cohort is often
> > speaking VoIP on a PC softphone over 3G, and that sounds fine.
> Not surprised.
I forgot to say "AT&T 3G".
> Are you running your own switch or using a service? If the latter, then
> your VOIP provider determines choice of codec.
I never get to chose the codec, but some of it is an inhouse server. I
suspect that has a better managed load than some of the public servers.
do...@38.usenet.us.com
> all cause problems even if you have decent local bandwidth. Test it
1.0mS jitter, 0 loss, MOS=4.0, all green dots on the VoIP page.
<http://voiptest.packet8.net/> says the same.
> My VoIP calls come in 2 flavors, very wonderfully good, and worthless
> garble.
Sometimes one of our services is awful, usually it is very good. I think
it suffers from overload. The audio that I hear is almost always good, so
I don't have a clue how bad I sound unless the other party comments. That
happened often enough that I don't use it except inhouse.
> it wrecks my VoIP. Why do I tolerate this? Because it usually fixes
> itself in less than an hour, and I only pay $75/year.
If you could always tell when the audio was bad for the other party, that
might be okay. You could call back via another tool. But I think some
folks suffer in silence, assuming you are on a cellphone driving Hwy 17.
John Higdon
> So VoIP isn't always "better than POTS ever was", although often it is
> of startlingly good quality.
It is from my point of view. My POTS was always noisy with crackles and
hum. My VOIP is dead quiet. My POTS was two-wire with sidetone and
low-level (to enable the hybrid to function properly). My VOIP is pure
4-wire (whatever level I like; no sidetone). My POTS was fully
controlled by AT&T regarding dial plans. My VOIP is whatever I define
for it. My POTS did not support multiple trunk routes for cost saving
and a private line structure. My VOIP has extensive automatic route
selection, reducing incremental call costs to virtually zero.
Shall I go on?
> I never get to chose the codec, but some of it is an inhouse server. I
> suspect that has a better managed load than some of the public servers.
All of the installations with which I am familiar have in-house servers
(including my home). That's the only way you get the full benefit.
Leaving control in others' hands is, as with everything else these days,
dangerous.
What the phone companies cringe over is the fact that all VOIP servers
can be configured to talk to each other and complete calls from users of
one server to users of another server (anywhere in the world) without
the use of any phone company whatsoever. That's revenue the phone
companies are not going to like to lose when this takes off in a big way.
Jeff Liebermann
>Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>> all cause problems even if you have decent local bandwidth. Test it
>> <http://myspeed.visualware.com/voip/>
>
>1.0mS jitter, 0 loss, MOS=4.0, all green dots on the VoIP page.
I'm jealous.
><http://voiptest.packet8.net/> says the same.
>If you could always tell when the audio was bad for the other party, that
>might be okay. You could call back via another tool. But I think some
>folks suffer in silence, assuming you are on a cellphone driving Hwy 17.
It usually goes bad in both directions at the same time, so I can
usually tell from my end. I just traded my single "line" Linksys
SPA-921 for a 4 line SPA-942.
<http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&num=30&q=spa-942>
Line 1 is Future-Nine.com.
Line 2 is Gizmo5
Line 3 is an Asterisk extension at a customers.
Line 4 is SIP to Skype gateway or direct SIP to SIP using Free World
Dialup as a directory server.
If one "line" has problems, I just switch to another.
do...@38.usenet.us.com
> In article <hhr8nv$mok$1...@blue.rahul.net>, do...@38.usenet.us.com wrote:
> > So VoIP isn't always "better than POTS ever was", although often it is
> > of startlingly good quality.
> It is from my point of view. My POTS was always noisy with crackles and
Ah, that would make cellular "better than POTS" for your case.
> Shall I go on?
Features and control, not audio quality for a typical user that doesn't
have hum on their POTS.
do...@38.usenet.us.com
> It usually goes bad in both directions at the same time, so I can
> usually tell from my end. I just traded my single "line" Linksys
> SPA-921 for a 4 line SPA-942.
That would be an odd looking substitute for a cell phone in your D-50.
John Higdon
> Ah, that would make cellular "better than POTS" for your case.
Depends on what bothers you the most. General unintelligibility or a bit
of hum and intermittent crackling.
> Features and control, not audio quality for a typical user that doesn't
> have hum on their POTS.
And who would that be? Just about every POTS line I'm aware of today has
some sort of line noise on it. This has been getting worse and worse
since AT&T quit doing any maintenance on their cables.
do...@38.usenet.us.com
I'll have to leave it at that.
Jeff Liebermann
>Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>> It usually goes bad in both directions at the same time, so I can
>> usually tell from my end. I just traded my single "line" Linksys
>> SPA-921 for a 4 line SPA-942.
>
>That would be an odd looking substitute for a cell phone in your D-50.
The D50 is long gone. I miss it. It went to a trade skool that
trains auto mechanics and car strippers. I bought a 92 Isuzu Trooper
as a temporary vehicle and later replaced it with a 2001 Subaru
Forester.
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/subaru.jpg>
Sorry but it was the only photo I could find on my web pile.
There's no VoIP in the car yet. However, I'm planning on installing a
laptop under the seat, a touch screen on the dash, and wireless
connectivity to the nearest hotspot, in the style of www.mp3car.com.
Incidentally, the SPA-942 is difficult to program (provision), but
there are plenty of templates and clues scattered all over the web.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
Brad Allen
John Higdon <hi...@kome.com> wrote:
" In article <cpdsj5t9gduia3ddh...@4ax.com>,
" Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
"
" > I learned how it's done watching the "quality" of cellular audio
" > and tweaking the compression level on cable video. The idea was
" > to maximize the number of users, while still retaining some level
" > of acceptable performance and quality.
"
" Cellular audio quality is so bad that I have repeatedly asked my
" clients not to use cell calls on the air for broadcast purposes. The
" usual response is agreement, followed by the observation that if
" those calls were not put on the air, there would be little left.
"
" The notion that wireless in its current state is to become the
" standard-issue primary telephone service is not something I'm quite
" ready to accept.
And you don't have to, because you've been grandfathered, but for over
a decade now for young people it is standard issue to issue radio
based telephony ("cell phones", "wireless", etc.). I don't mind that
in and of itself, but I totally agree with you about quality. I field
business calls all the time now where I have to ask the caller to
repeat themselves over six times (!). How do I make a sales call that
way? Not well!
I used to have Bell Atlantic Mobile with AMPS (right after they
changed name from NYNEX Mobile whatever), and they were superb. My
AMPS phone got CID, and it was high quality, and fit in my pocket. I
could change batteries fast enough to keep an in-session call going
without it being dropped. I fielded sales calls on that all the time,
and the sound was close to in-person, because there I was holding my
earpiece to my ear and they had their mouth near their mouthpiece. I
rarely had to ask "what", and if at all, it was not often, like with
typical digitized signals sold today.
I've found VOIP to be unreliable, normal fidelity when it is reliable,
and mid to high latency, with occasional bouts of low latency. I
think with tuning digitized telephony can work quite well (e.g.,
Comcast's VOIP which they call CDV). I don't think that good quality
digitized telephony cannot work on radios, because if you use more
bandwidth and more redundancy (such as multipath and multiband, which
FINALLY after decades of my harping about they've started to actually
play with, such as 802.11n and such), you can eliminate a lot of the
latency and quality issues. Of course, it would have to be well
designed (e.g., eliminate hi-latency inherent designs which are
currently the norm), well engineered, and initially quite a bit more
expensive than the current implementations as proof of concept. Once
the equipment is common-place, it would become cheap again, if not
cheaper (since redudant paths would allow some shortcuts here and
there, although not many).
" I carry a cell phone so that I can be reached in
" emergencies.
Definately useful by itself.
" Without fail, I defer any conversation until I can reach a
" landline. I find all cell phones uncomfortable to hold, painful to
" the ear.
Here here.
" I do not like to repeat myself (to the point of spelling words), and
" resent having to ask others to do the same...all the while paying by
" the minute for the privilege.
Most plans these days used by kids are either a uniform price, or
close to it, not really as close to "per the minute" as it used to be,
but still it's counted in "rounded up and over minutes" anyway.
" I suspect Wiline and companies like it are going to see some major
" growth. That's how we cut the cord at KKUP: VOIP over point-to-point
" wireless Internet. Since August, it hasn't skipped a beat.
That's another example of digitized telephony working well, like I've
said. Wirelessly, even. (So new that it's still exciting enough I
almost want to spit out a login for your Asterisk to connect to my
Asterisk just for the fun of it, as useless as it would be.) But
that's still not an example of digitized mobile wireless.
Brad Allen
John Higdon <hi...@kome.com> wrote:
" In article <hhs38e$cs6$1...@blue.rahul.net>, do...@38.usenet.us.com wrote:
"
" > Ah, that would make cellular "better than POTS" for your case.
"
" Depends on what bothers you the most. General unintelligibility or a
" bit of hum and intermittent crackling.
That's the VOIP over VZW 3G?
" > Features and control, not audio quality for a typical user that
" > doesn't have hum on their POTS.
"
" And who would that be? Just about every POTS line I'm aware of today
" has some sort of line noise on it. This has been getting worse and
" worse since AT&T quit doing any maintenance on their cables.
Hum?
Mine went from crackling to dead last week. At least the DSL on it I
use to put VOIP on it still works. I suppose I ought to get it
working someday again -- it's a business line that we conduct about
$2,000 - $20,000 of business a month on. Doesn't seem to matter right
now since the call forwarding is set, though.
Actually that's inside wiring they said -- I actually have to fix that
myself. Have to dig a trench through two concrete foundations and
under a concrete sidewalk about 10 feet, or alternately run a 40'
inverted U pipe and about 500' of crawl space wire (I don't want to do
that option, personally). I haven't been able to justify it with the
owner since we are getting ready to bring in Direct TV, and Comcast
and cell phones round out the balance.
Brad Allen
Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
" Upstream constipation, jitter, and your neighbors IP Video habit,
" can all cause problems even if you have decent local bandwidth.
" Test it at: <http://myspeed.visualware.com/voip/>
"
" My 1500/384Kbit/sec DSL is marginal as usual:
" <http://mcsiad.visualware.com/myspeed/db/report?id=1111378>
My Comcast: <http://mcsiad.visualware.com/myspeed/db/report?id=1115328>
Jitter 2.0ms, packet loss 0.0%, MOS score 4.0, download speed
4.48Mbps, upload speed 3.46Mbps, Quality of Service 58%. TCP Pause
(forced idle) was bad.
My Sonic DSL (running on my shorted-out-causing-dead POTS line):
<http://mcsiad.visualware.com/myspeed/db/report?id=1115368>
Jitter 3.0ms, packet loss 0.0%, MOS score 3.8, download spee 189kbps,
upload speed 328kbps, Quality of Service 98%. Forced idle (TCP Pause)
is the biggie that is better than Comcast.
Comparing red spots (red=bad, green=good; green unless noted RED)
Comcast Sonic
Download speed 4485 Kbps 189 Kbps (RED)
Upload speed 3468 Kbps 328 Kbps (RED)
D/load QOS 58% 98%
U/load QOS 82% 99%
RTT 90ms 139ms (RED)
Max Delay 96ms 604ms (RED)
Avg Delay 4ms 65ms (RED)
Max Bandwidth 19200 Kbps 192 Kbps (RED)
Route Speed 5825 Kbps 3771 Kbps
Forced Idle 70% (RED) 0%
Route Conc 4.2 (RED) 1.0
Download test - -
Upload test - -
As you can see, Comcast forced idle is 70%, which is what kills VOIP.
Comparing the two, Comcast is unusable, Sonic is usable, Comcast is
hands down worse by far. So it seems Comcast is doing too many forced
idles. That is the problem with Comcast and VOIP. They're probably
doing it intentionally, like I've said in the past.
Sonic DSL, on the other hand, on a POTS line with impairment so bad
the POTS line is dead no less, the DSL is just fine, just really,
really, really SLOWWWW.
I'd rather have a radio P2P link with the best of the two .... I live
in flatland San Jose, so could run an antenna up to point at any
hillside somewhere ... any nice neighbors?
John Higdon
q...@sonic.net (Brad Allen) wrote:
> That's another example of digitized telephony working well, like I've
> said. Wirelessly, even. (So new that it's still exciting enough I
> almost want to spit out a login for your Asterisk to connect to my
> Asterisk just for the fun of it, as useless as it would be.) But
> that's still not an example of digitized mobile wireless.
My Asterisk box talks to eight other Asterisk boxes belonging to friends
and clients. As a result, about 95% of my telephony never touches a
phone company. The remaining five percent passes through IP-based phone
companies. As the .sig implies, AT&T is not involved at all.
Kevin McMurtrie
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 20:09:36 +0000 (UTC), do...@38.usenet.us.com wrote:
>
> >At 10Mbits down, and 1Mbit up, I don't have a nominal bandwidth problem at
> >home.
>
> Upstream constipation, jitter, and your neighbors IP Video habit, can
> all cause problems even if you have decent local bandwidth. Test it
> at:
> <http://myspeed.visualware.com/voip/>
>
> My 1500/384Kbit/sec DSL is marginal as usual:
> <http://mcsiad.visualware.com/myspeed/db/report?id=1111378>
>
> My VoIP calls come in 2 flavors, very wonderfully good, and worthless
> garble. The problem is that my provider (www.Future-Nine.com) has
> their server in Florida and New York. (There are plans for a local
> server). Meanwhile, if the internet weather report shows a problem,
> it wrecks my VoIP. Why do I tolerate this? Because it usually fixes
> itself in less than an hour, and I only pay $75/year.
You should be highly suspect of realtime QoS service tests performed
with Java because it doesn't have continuous code execution. That fancy
animation running during the test will cause garbage collection pauses
and native code compilation pauses.
--
I won't see Google Groups replies because I must filter them as spam
Dane Jasper
> Existence extends far beyond the forty-nine square miles in the center
> of the universe.
Awesome/funny.
--
Dane Jasper Sonic.net, Inc.
(707)522-1000
mailto:da...@sonic.net http://www.sonic.net/
Key fingerprint = A5 D6 6E 16 D8 81 BA E9 CB BD A9 77 B3 AF 45 53