Re: External Modem Recomendation?
From: Floyd L. Davidson (floyd_at_barrow.com)
Date: 07/04/05
- Next message: Richard Corden: "Re: running linux voids warranty?"
- Previous message: K_Bot: "Re: How to Deal with Certain FUD Pieces"
- In reply to: Bob Hardy: "Re: External Modem Recomendation?"
- Next in thread: Robert Heller: "Re: External Modem Recomendation?"
- Reply: Robert Heller: "Re: External Modem Recomendation?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:59:09 -0800
Bob Hardy <bhxxxx@localhost.net> wrote:
>> "improve" your telco, that might be productive too! How many lines to
>> you have to your home? Have you ever managed to talk to anyone other
>> than a clerk or manager at the telco (a tech or an engineer)?? How far
>> from the telco are you, as far as cable goes? And most important, does
>> *anyone* in your area actually get better data rates?
>
>I live about 15 miles from a medium sized Texas town. Several years ago,
>before broadband was so available, people suddenly noticed that their
>modem speeds were dropping to less than half of what they had been and it
>was happening geographically - that is, the speed drop was moving in a
>growing pie shaped area around the town.. The phone company would not
>accept any service calls for modems. Their stock answer was that the law
>required them to provide good voice service on a consumer line and nothing
>else. If you need data service, contact our ISDN rep (with a large
>check).
That might sound like a conspiracy, but (really) it isn't!
I can think of multiple scenarios that would have fit that
description to a 't'. It is fairly common. One is that if
digital switches had already been installed, the initial
network topography was probably based on what had worked with
old mechanical switches. That meant one "Central Office"
switch per area, where "area" was determined by how far a
local loop could be extended on typical outside cable plant.
With different engineering examples, that might mean out to 5
miles, or even 10 miles. But the point is that a fairly large
area would require multiple CO's, and there would be trunks
between the CO's.
When major switch manufacturer's became aware of how that
was being implemented, they came up with a "management tool"
to "encourage" a more appropriate paradigm. (Switch
manufacturer's, which basically means Lucent and Nortel,
were *very* aware that a digital telephone switch is nothing
but a big computer, while operating companies were totally
unaware of that. Hence simply telling an operating company
what would be best, wasn't viable. They had to make it
economically best to do the right thing.)
The switch manufacturer's license the software that runs on
those switches, and periodic upgrades are required. It is
possible to miss some, but basically every 2-3 years there is no
choice. By making each CO switch more expensive (well over a
million dollars per upgrade) compared to software for a "remote
unit", the manufacturers forced operating companies to
re-engineer their network topology to have as few CO switches as
possible and as many "remote units", controlled by a single CO,
as it took to be functional.
What you describe sounds like the implementation of that
topology. Either as they converted from analog to digital
switching in the first place, or at a later date when they
either re-engineered the entire topology, or when they
implemented major expansions because of the increased number of
lines required as business surged in the 1990's.
If they already had a significant investment in analog line
interfaces for their existing digital CO switches, they would
naturally try to make use of that investment. Likewise if the
engineers had little or no previous experience with digital
switching systems, they might pick essentially the same paradigm
for ease of implementation. (Both of those last two were very
common with the Bell operating company in Texas.)
That is a technically inferior method, and will not work with
v.90 modems or with dsl lines. And it limits v.34 to 26kbps.
That does *not* mean that it provides "substandard" lines
though! In fact, v.32bis is designed to provide a 14.4kbps
connection on a loop that just meets minimum standards. Which
is to say that if your line will support at least 14.4 kbps, it
*definitely* meets the required standards!
Of course, that made good sense in 1985, and by 1995 was
extremely annoying to hear. By 2005 it is abject stupidity on
the part of any telco to irritate customers with such
limitations!
>So the local newspaper and a state representative started an investigation
>into what was going on. It turned out to be the shortest investigation on
>record - in fact, it just disappeared inside of a week. It was obvious,
>without having any proof, that the newspaper and the office of the rep
>were told to drop it and drop it yesterday and don't bring it up again. I
>assume that there was an 'Or else!' along with it. They dropped it.
Actually, almost any well grounded marketeer would have been
able to sit them down and in a single four hour session explain,
in detail with dollars and sense, exactly what was happening.
Anyone who wanted to continue the "investigation" would be
considered a bit slow... There is nothing to investigate; but
it is a very touchy public relations problem.
>The husband of one of my compadres at work is a telco serviceman and told
>us that they were told to answer no questions on the subject and don't
>even admit that they knew what the ruckus was.
Telcos all think that customers are necessarily "a bit slow". But
that's because telcos are run by Pointy Haired Bosses... ;-)
>But what goes around comes around. As wireless and cable are taking over
>the town, more and more folks are cutting the line. I notice that my
>phone bill for standard service keeps going down and more and more offers
>of freebies come in every month. So maybe they are already seeing a
>significant movement away.
Oh, it's far worse than you are imagining! AT&T just folded...
because try as they might, they could *never* get control of the
company away from people who grew up in the Long Lines
department of a regulated monopoly. AT&T understood how to run
a network for circuit switched message traffic. (Which is to
say, voice calls.) They were *never* able to market anything.
Ten year ago every indicator they had was saying that "voice"
was going away and "data" would be all that was left. Their
only method to deal with that, was to guide the ship by looking
off the stern to make sure the wake was straight! And that is
how they ended up going aground.
Consider that when v.32bis modem protocols were originally
designed everyone who knew about The Internet and understood
where the future of computer networking was headed, knew that 1)
standard telephone lines were able to deliver multi kilobyte
data rates between the CO and the customer, and 2) digital
switches and long distance were all limited to 64kbps per
connection. When the design for ISDN (in the mid-1980's) came
out with the ability to provide customers with one or two
connections at 64kbps per connection... telephone company
(Pointy Haired Bosses) management simply could *not* see a
market for it! "Who is going to pay for it?" was the question
about implementation. As a result virtually no telcos
implemented ISDN in any reasonable way.
So, instead of the telecom industry providing for customer needs
and grabbing the entire market, modem companies first (with v.34
and then v.90 protocols) and then even cable TV companies,
jumped on the bandwagon to supply Internet bandwidth. They made
millions, and the telcos sat there until well into the mid
1990's without a clue... and they missed being able to control
a multi billion dollar market that they could have locked down
right from day one.
>If I ever get a fast enough wireless link out here I will gladly do the
>same, but I will most definitely tell them why - with pleasure. I now
>have great cell phone access, but no alternate data link yet, although I
>am thinking of satellite.
Satellite has disadvantages too. Shared bandwidth and high
latency, just for starters.
At 15 miles from the telco, you necessarily *have* to be
connected to a "remote unit". The catch is in two questions.
One is how far are you, in cable miles, from that remote? It
would probably be a little hut, maybe the size of a pickup
truck, but could be either larger or smaller. The second
question (and much harder to get answers for) is what type of
facilities do they have between the remote and the CO?
If they do have some purely digital facilities, and if you are
less than say 3 miles from the remote, it *is* possible to get
better connect rates. That is why the question about does
*anyone* at all get better connections? If *nobody* does, it
may just plain not be available. If somebody does, the trick is
to find a way to get your line provisioned on the facility that
provides better connections.
One example of a way, which is not without expense but in some
places has been reasonable enough to do it, is to order up an
ISDN line, and when it works, cancel your other line. Then wait
a month (long enough for them to re-use the facilities for your
original line), and cancel the ISDN by going back to a regular
phone line. They most likely will use the digital facilities
for the ISDN line to provide your new service... and you'd then
be able to run a v.90 modem on it.
Of course, if ISDN installation costs are exorbitant, that is
too risky to try unless you know it will work. The trick then
becomes one of finding a friendly telco engineer who will clue
you in on *exactly* what you have and what is available. Such a
person might even just switch you from one to the other to be a
good guy. Or you may have to put 2 and 2 together from what you
hear from 4 different people to get an idea what will work.
Or, that kind of politics might be just boring as Hell. You can
get a good modem and live with 26kbps for a few more years.
Now, just to make you feel bad... I worked for a long distance
carrier for more than 3 decades, and was intimately involved in
how this whole scenario took shape here in Alaska. I was not
able to use v.90 until about 3 years ago. But, whoopee, by
early this winter it appears that I may actually have some kind
of broadband service! (Long after I've retired, and provided by
the "other" long distance company! What a hoot.)
-- Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com
- Next message: Richard Corden: "Re: running linux voids warranty?"
- Previous message: K_Bot: "Re: How to Deal with Certain FUD Pieces"
- In reply to: Bob Hardy: "Re: External Modem Recomendation?"
- Next in thread: Robert Heller: "Re: External Modem Recomendation?"
- Reply: Robert Heller: "Re: External Modem Recomendation?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
