Ilya Chernykh wrote:

They say not in plans.

That's a common problem. We'll soon reach the point where IPv4 addresses are no longer available to ISPs and sometime after that to new customers. In the mean time, there's no reason why people can't get ready now, even if they have to use a tunnel to get IPv6. As I mentioned, I use gogoNET. They have a client available for Linux, Windows, Unix, Mac etc. (versions other than Windows have to be compiled) that can be configured for either a single address or a subnet. It's easy to set up and get going on IPv6 with it. The other provider I mention may be better for use with routers that support 6in4 tunnels, but can certainly be used with a Linux box. If ISPs don't provide IPv6, then they'll be forced to use NAT, as some already do. As has been shown, that breaks some protocols and also makes it difficult for people to reach their own networks. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

On Wednesday 08 September 2010 21:12:17 James Knott wrote:

...

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

...

They say not in plans.

That's a common problem. We'll soon reach the point where IPv4 addresses are no longer available to ISPs and sometime after that to new customers.

My provider used dynamic IPs and also NAT to mitigate this problem. Using NAT there is virtully no problem with IP address shortage (NAT technology limits some network activities, but this does not concern the provider as there is plenty of users who are willing to pay for NAT access, some even ask to change their PPTP or PPPoE to NAT, erroneously confusing it with IPoE)

NAT has limitations and dynamic IPs only delay the problem as your ISP will eventually reach the point where there are not enough addresses for everyone who wants to use the internet.

...

In the mean time, there's no reason why people can't get ready now, even if they have to use a tunnel to get IPv6.

As I mentioned, I use gogoNET. They have a client available for Linux, Windows, Unix, Mac etc. (versions other than Windows have to be compiled) that can be configured for either a single address or a subnet. It's easy to set up and get going on IPv6 with it.

I have tried but it seems not to work for me.

Have you used gogoNET? I found it easy to set up. From what I've seen, he.net is also fairly simple.

...

The other provider I mention may be better for use with routers that support 6in4 tunnels, but can certainly be used with a Linux box.

If ISPs don't provide IPv6, then they'll be forced to use NAT, as some already do. As has been shown, that breaks some protocols and also makes it difficult for people to reach their own networks.

This is a concern of users, not providers, so the providers are comfortable with NAT.

It will concern the providers when the customers start complaining and leaving. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

...

...

My provider used dynamic IPs and also NAT to mitigate this problem. Using NAT there is virtully no problem with IP address shortage (NAT technology limits some network activities, but this does not concern the provider as there is plenty of users who are willing to pay for NAT access, some even ask to change their PPTP or PPPoE to NAT, erroneously confusing it with IPoE)

NAT has limitations and dynamic IPs only delay the problem as your ISP will eventually reach the point where there are not enough addresses for everyone who wants to use the internet.

My impression is they have hundreds of thousands if not millions of addresses much exceeding their user base. Not to say still most of their clients get real (dynamic) IPs so they have reserve to transfer all to NAT.

This is the crux of the matter - ISPs need to dish out IP-addresses. If they can't get them or can't get enough, they'll try (to find) other ways - NAT for instance. Only once they've exhausted both options, will IPv6 become a real option. For a small ISP, incompetent or not, that could still be quite a while. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (14.1°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Thursday 09 September 2010 01:43:25 Per Jessen wrote: Just to calculate. Only from those ranges I know they have, the number sums up at least to 262136 addresses. In a city of 12 million I doubt they can have more than 500000 clients, considering there are equal (if not larger) providers in the city and many smaller. Of note also that they did not connect even 50% of districts yet. They of course do not need to provide with an unique IP all of their clients, just those who are online at the moment thanks to dynamic IP. They already have NAT in some districts and can force others to NAT also. So unless the city expands 100-fold, they will not experience IP shortage, even if any inhabitant connects to Internet his mobile phone, vacuum cleaner, dog, watch etc :-). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

This is the crux of the matter - ISPs need to dish out IP-addresses. If they can't get them or can't get enough, they'll try (to find) other ways - NAT for instance. Only once they've exhausted both options, will IPv6 become a real option. For a small ISP, incompetent or not, that could still be quite a while. And yet, IPv6 is so easy. It's a lot easier to configure than IPv4. ISPs may have to update some equipment, but in the mean time, alternatives such as tunnel brokers and 6in4 tunnelling exist to get

Per Jessen wrote: things going. It's even easier for servers. If IPv6 is not available at the server location, just connect to a tunnel broker and get an IPv6 address for that computer. BTW, one thing IPv6 supports is something called "depreciated addresses". As an example of how this might be used is when someone initially uses a tunnel broker to get an IPv6 address. Then, when IPv6 is finally available from their ISP (hopefully before the sun goes supernova <g>), they simply change their DNS and leave both addresses up for a while and then, at some point later, disconnect from the tunnel broker. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Per Jessen wrote:

...

And yet, IPv6 is so easy. It's a lot easier to configure than IPv4.

...

ISPs may have to update some equipment, but in the mean time,

The thing is - their customers will have to as well. Ye olde Zyxel ADSL router doesn't do IPv6 (but it does the rest of the internet very well). New customers would have to pay extra to get a box that does IPv6 - it's a steep path, so as long as an ISP is not actually running out of addresses, well ...

While I can't speak about individual modems, PPPoE does support IPv6 (and a lot more). I'm in a similar position with my cable modem. It runs DOCSIS 2, which requires an update to run IPv6 (the current DOCSIS 2 specs have been updated to include IPv6). DOCSIS 3 already supports it. So, if my ISP provides IPv6 and the modem can't be updated, then I'd have to buy a new modem or use a tunnel to my ISP. One thing I see in this thread, is people saying that since IPv6 isn't yet supported by everything, we shouldn't use it at all. If everyone did that, then we'll never be able to use it. IPv6 is available and usable now. The more it gets used, the more the laggards will have to provide support or be left behind. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2010-09-09 18:06, James Knott wrote:

...

One thing I see in this thread, is people saying that since IPv6 isn't yet supported by everything, we shouldn't use it at all. If everyone did that, then we'll never be able to use it. IPv6 is available and usable now. The more it gets used, the more the laggards will have to provide support or be left behind.

I have seen, with oS 11.3, many people complaining of "slow internet", and the reply is always "disable ipv6".

Thus, it is "obvious" that support for ipv6 is broken and/or incomplete in current openSUSE>:-)

I have seen those messages too and I wonder why. I have never had the need to disable IPv6 because of that. Perhaps it's an issue with the DNS server they're using. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Lew Wolfgang wrote:

The lion's share of hosts were Windows XP boxes Ah yes... Windows strikes again.

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Saturday 11 September 2010 15:46:25 Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

One thing I see in this thread, is people saying that since IPv6 isn't yet supported by everything, we shouldn't use it at all. If everyone did that, then we'll never be able to use it. IPv6 is available and usable now. The more it gets used, the more the laggards will have to provide support or be left behind.

I have seen, with oS 11.3, many people complaining of "slow internet", and the reply is always "disable ipv6".

Thus, it is "obvious" that support for ipv6 is broken and/or incomplete in current openSUSE >:-)

My provider recommends to disable IPv6 on Windows either as IPv6 creates lags in browsers and network flooding. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On 2010-09-11 21:42, James Knott wrote:

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

...

My provider recommends to disable IPv6 on Windows either as IPv6 creates lags in browsers and network flooding.

I can understand the lags caused by DNS issues, but flooding? How does that happen? If someone is running IPv6 on their network and uses a tunnel to get IPv6 access, then the ISP's network would never see an IPv6 packet.

Larger routing tables overflowing routers, perhaps. I read about this in a report, from the IEEE if I recall correctly. Or a side effect of some sort. Discovery broadcasts?? -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.2 x86_64 "Emerald" GM (Elessar))

On 2010-09-09 08:56, Per Jessen wrote:

James Knott wrote:

...

And yet, IPv6 is so easy. It's a lot easier to configure than IPv4. ISPs may have to update some equipment, but in the mean time,

The thing is - their customers will have to as well. Ye olde Zyxel ADSL router doesn't do IPv6 (but it does the rest of the internet very well). New customers would have to pay extra to get a box that does IPv6 - it's a steep path, so as long as an ISP is not actually running out of addresses, well ...

That's the crux. And those modems are often supplied by the ISP, so the cost would be on them. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.2 x86_64 "Emerald" GM (Elessar))

Per Jessen said the following on 09/11/2010 09:07 AM:

Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

On 2010-09-09 08:56, Per Jessen wrote:

...

James Knott wrote:

...

...

And yet, IPv6 is so easy. It's a lot easier to configure than IPv4. ISPs may have to update some equipment, but in the mean time,

The thing is - their customers will have to as well. Ye olde Zyxel ADSL router doesn't do IPv6 (but it does the rest of the internet very well). New customers would have to pay extra to get a box that does IPv6 - it's a steep path, so as long as an ISP is not actually running out of addresses, well ...

That's the crux. And those modems are often supplied by the ISP, so the cost would be on them.

In Switzerland the modem is paid for by the customer, but either way there's an extra cost.

Please note: "supplied by" and "paid for by" are not the same thing. My cable provider supplies a modem. I pay for that. I can pay a monthly fee or buy it from them. There are lots of cheaper cable modems, but they refuse to support them and threaten to discontinue service if I use them. As it stands, they only support connections from PCs and MACs. That I have a firewall and that I use Linux means they won't support me when I have problems. This seems to be typical of consumer grade support from the major providers. Their official stance and what happens in reality are different, though. Many of support people are network geeks or other techie variants and use Linux at home and can be quite reasonable and break-out of the "script". But the modem is paid for by the customer. One way or another. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Saturday 11 September 2010 17:07:53 Per Jessen wrote:

Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

On 2010-09-09 08:56, Per Jessen wrote:

...

James Knott wrote:

...

And yet, IPv6 is so easy. It's a lot easier to configure than IPv4. ISPs may have to update some equipment, but in the mean time,

The thing is - their customers will have to as well. Ye olde Zyxel ADSL router doesn't do IPv6 (but it does the rest of the internet very well). New customers would have to pay extra to get a box that does IPv6 - it's a steep path, so as long as an ISP is not actually running out of addresses, well ...

That's the crux. And those modems are often supplied by the ISP, so the cost would be on them.

In Switzerland the modem is paid for by the customer, but either way there's an extra cost.

I have no modem here. I think most people who use Internet in this city have no modems, I just have a socket for Ethernet cable on the wall, so no additional costs for me for transition to IPv6. It is just provider who does not want IPv6. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Saturday 11 September 2010 19:34:58 Per Jessen wrote:

...

I have no modem here. I think most people who use Internet in this city have no modems, I just have a socket for Ethernet cable on the wall,

Wow, very modern - Ethernet-To-The-Home.

This is common here, nobody uses xDSL. I have Ethernet here from 2007.

Do you get ethernet speeds as well?

The Internet speed depends on your plan but otherwise limited with 100Mbit/s. All plans also have unlimited access to the LAN at 100Mbit/s. There are about several thousand computers in the LAN with PtP, video broacast and other services. The LAN connection is not the subject for any payments. Unfortunately Internet is quite expensive in this city: in Ukraine for example you can have unlimited 100Mbit/s access for under $10/month http://triolan.ua/item.aspx?id=137 http://internet.beeline.ua/ukr/tariffs/rates.wbp and in St.Petersburg they advertise 0.5 Gbiit/s Internet access with unlimited traffic coupled with 1 Gbit/s LAN for about $10/month. http://terabita.ru/money.php -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On 12/09/2010 17:39, Per Jessen wrote:

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

...

On Saturday 11 September 2010 19:34:58 Per Jessen wrote:

...

...

I have no modem here. I think most people who use Internet in this city have no modems, I just have a socket for Ethernet cable on the wall,

Wow, very modern - Ethernet-To-The-Home.

This is common here, nobody uses xDSL. I have Ethernet here from 2007.

I guess you (i.e. your city) was able to skip DSL altogether because the infra-structure was late in coming? Fibre is slowly becoming available here too, but so far only in the cities. The DSL speeds go to 20Mbps, but that's on copper.

Awww, you are way behind the times! *We* have 24Mbps on copper! But you will only get this if you live on top of the telephone exchange! Look at this graph for example: http://www.tpg.com.au/dslam/faq.php This is why, in the UK, there are complaints about false advertising about what you get for what you pay. Here in Australia people have yet to wake up. But the newly elected government here has promised to deliver on a new fibre optic system (NBN) to every home. Pictures at 11pm, in 20 years...... BC -- Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

This is why, in the UK, there are complaints about false advertising about what you get for what you pay. Last year, there was a TV show comparing performance of various ISPs in Canada. As part of the test, they timed how long it took to download a Linux distro. Bell Canada was by far the worst, taking hours (I don't

Basil Chupin wrote: think they actually completed the download) to do what my ISP (Rogers) was able to do in under half an hour. The tests showed that none of the ADSL providers were able to deliver advertised performance, but Bell was the worst. Rogers, with cable modems, was able to deliver very close to the advertised speed. I have experienced the same at home. I have a 10 Mb down/1 Mb up services. When I run a speed test I generally get better than 9.8 Mb down and often slightly exceed 1 Mb up. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Sun, 2010-09-12 at 18:05 +1000, Basil Chupin wrote:

...

...

...

...

Wow, very modern - Ethernet-To-The-Home.

This is common here, nobody uses xDSL. I have Ethernet here from 2007.

I guess you (i.e. your city) was able to skip DSL altogether because the infra-structure was late in coming? Fibre is slowly becoming available here too, but so far only in the cities. The DSL speeds go to 20Mbps, but that's on copper.

Awww, you are way behind the times! *We* have 24Mbps on copper!

But you will only get this if you live on top of the telephone exchange!

Look at this graph for example:

http://www.tpg.com.au/dslam/faq.php

This is why, in the UK, there are complaints about false advertising about what you get for what you pay.

Here some real-life results based on end-user reports, from NL http://adsl.xandrios.net/ Though the site is dutch, the graphs speak for themselfs. Clearly, any subscription while living more than 3km from the local exchange, is a waste of money (unless you have no alternative) Biggest telco around here is succesfully obstructing any other players around here, who might be introducing ftth. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Sunday 12 September 2010 11:39:43 Per Jessen wrote:

...

...

Wow, very modern - Ethernet-To-The-Home.

This is common here, nobody uses xDSL. I have Ethernet here from 2007.

I guess you (i.e. your city) was able to skip DSL altogether because the infra-structure was late in coming?

First Ethernet-based nets appeared here in the mid-90s when people just bought first Ethernet cards (then with throughput of 10 Mbit/s) and connected to their neighbors to exchange files and play LAN games. Some of such games included only 2-3 computers and some spanned several buildings to include tens and hundreds. The people themselves negotiated with local officials, utility services for unofficial permissions to lay the cable, for access to collectors, attics etc. Then people from some nets decided that they can collect money to buy Internet access wholesale from the provider to have much lower prices and higher speed than on dial-up. From this time on some people connected to the local networks just to have cheap Internet. Some nets were organized with this purpose in mind. Over time the largest nets officially registered as "Local network of district XXX" to be able to officially collect money and negotiate with the officials for cable placement. Then there appeared some professional providers who decided to use the same technology. They either competed or bought small local providers. This day I would say that most of smaller providers already incorporated in 2-3 largest and ad-hoc nets were disbanded due to unnecessity. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Sunday 12 September 2010 13:19:30 Per Jessen wrote:

...

Some of such games included only 2-3 computers and some spanned several buildings to include tens and hundreds. The people themselves negotiated with local officials, utility services for unofficial permissions to lay the cable, for access to collectors, attics etc.

Well yes, we've all been there, but that's not quite what is meant by "Ethernet-To-The-Home".

Then what does? It was already in the mid-90s (96-98) when some people were already able to connect Internet over Ethernet this was dependent on whether their building is already connected. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Sunday 12 September 2010 13:46:38 Per Jessen wrote:

...

...

Well yes, we've all been there, but that's not quite what is meant by "Ethernet-To-The-Home".

Then what does? It was already in the mid-90s (96-98) when some people were already able to connect Internet over Ethernet this was dependent on whether their building is already connected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETTH

So the difference is only in fiber optics? Optic cable is an Ethernet technology nothing more than 10 Mbit/s card. The provider uses those technologies which he considers economically viable. This does not impact end-user as optic cable anyway does not reach apartments, and possible even separate buildings. Currently in each building there is a hub with several 100 Mbit/s ports and at least two 1 Gigabit/s ports (one of them used for uplink to the provider and the other is in reserve). The Gigabit ports may be copper or optic or support the both cable types. This does not make any difference for a end-user. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Sunday 12 September 2010 20:19:17 Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

So the difference is only in fiber optics? Optic cable is an Ethernet technology nothing more than 10 Mbit/s card. The provider uses those technologies which he considers economically viable. This does not impact end-user as optic cable anyway does not reach apartments, and possible even separate buildings. Currently in each building there is a hub with several 100 Mbit/s ports and at least two 1 Gigabit/s ports (one of them used for uplink to the provider and the other is in reserve). The Gigabit ports may be copper or optic or support the both cable types.

This does not make any difference for a end-user.

It is a curious setup what you describe. So the building, perhaps the city, is a local network to you, with a gateway to internet somewhere?

Yes, until this month we used VPN to access Internet (connecting to a server ppp.lan). Now they moved us to PPPoE. In other districts they use NAT, but in any case all connected to one local network. You can use the local network for free even if you did not pay for Internet.

Interesting.

No, I haven't seen such a thing here (Spain).

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Sunday 12 September 2010 20:34:48 James Knott wrote:

...

It is a curious setup what you describe. So the building, perhaps the city, is a local network to you, with a gateway to internet somewhere?

In another message, I provided a link to just such a setup in Wellington NZ. There, Ethernet is a utility, which you can use to connect to an ISP of your choice.

I would say that my network is entirely controlled by one provider, but I can insert my Ethernet cable into a hub any of at least 3 providers who have a hub in my house. This is completely standard not only for this city but for this country and for neighboring countries also. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Per Jessen wrote:

Also for single-family houses or mostly in areas with higher concentrations? I'm surprised it was worth the extra investment in the infrastructure, but I guess xDSL wasn't suitable for some reason.

A while ago, I set up ADSL in a seniors residence, which bridged them to the main network, where the DHCP server and internet connection were. They used the existing phone wires to get ADSL into the rooms. Otherwise, they'd have had to rewire the building for ethernet, which would have been *VERY* expensive. I also did similar in a university student's residence, which had previously been a hotel. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Sunday 12 September 2010 20:55:17 Per Jessen wrote:

...

...

...

It is a curious setup what you describe. So the building, perhaps the city, is a local network to you, with a gateway to internet somewhere?

In another message, I provided a link to just such a setup in Wellington> NZ. There, Ethernet is a utility, which you can use to connect to an ISP of your choice.

I would say that my network is entirely controlled by one provider, but I can insert my Ethernet cable into a hub any of at least 3 providers who have a hub in my house.

This sounds a lot like a cable-TV network, except it's not for TV. I guess the uplink is fibre?

Completely irrelevant. It may be optic fiber or copper UTP depending on distance to a higher-level hub. What is definite is that the cable which connects my building has capacity 1 Gbit/s, optical or not. The higher-level cable is almost certainly optic because it should have higher capacity.

...

This is completely standard not only for this city but for this country and for neighboring countries also.

Also for single-family houses or mostly in areas with higher concentrations?

For areas with higher concentrations.

I'm surprised it was worth the extra investment in the infrastructure, but I guess xDSL wasn't suitable for some reason.

There are providers who advertise xDSL, for example, a telephone company, but they are competitive only in buildings which are not connected to the Ethernet (the number of them decreases with the majority now have multiple Ethernet providers). Ethernet is a standard here at least from mid-90s, the only major change for a end-user being change of the end-user connection capacity from 10 Mbit/s to 100 Mbit/s which was mostly completed by the end of 1990s. And of course, the moment when his building was connected after all. I recall how in the end of 1990s I every day opened a site of a district network to see the map: which new buildings they connected? The network though, failed to cross a wide street separating the connected part of the district from non-connected. Another network was in a quarter from me in the opposite direction. In the end my building was connected to a third network and it seems I learned about it much later than it actually happened :-) After a while it was bought by a city-wide provider. The tariffs changed greatly in the last 3 years and now one can have a 50 times faster connection (of more traffic if the tariff is traffic-based with unlimited speed) for the same money than 3 years ago. But if to compare with onthe cities and countries one can find that we now have high prices: in Ukraine one can have 40 times cheaper Internet if to count $/(Mbit/s), also by Ethernet of course. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

söndagen den 12 september 2010 20.46.17 skrev Per Jessen:

I'm really surprised that it was worth rewiring entire apartment buildings with Cat5 cable, when VoIP didn't exist. I mean, in the mid-90s the internet had barely been invented, people were happy dialling into Compuserve at 56K (or 64K in ISDN countries). It's totally surreal to hear you explain about 10Mbps speeds to an internet that barely existed (to Joe Bloggs).

I got that in my flat in Malmö, Sweden in 2000. All HSB flats were connected using 100Mbps ethernet, plug in the wall to an ethernet card, dhcp, done, surf. The houses were at that time connected using gigabit routers, I don't know what it's like today, since I moved away from there some time ago (and boy do I miss that connection :) Today I can get 100Mbps with vdsl2, but only if I live in the right areas. I guess that will become standard too some day. 50Mbps I can get in many places, and t-online has been broadcasting digital TV over the net with 25Mbps for some time now Anders -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Monday 13 September 2010 09:21:44 Per Jessen wrote:

Anders Johansson wrote:

...

söndagen den 12 september 2010 20.46.17 skrev Per Jessen:

...

I'm really surprised that it was worth rewiring entire apartment buildings with Cat5 cable, when VoIP didn't exist. I mean, in the mid-90s the internet had barely been invented, people were happy dialling into Compuserve at 56K (or 64K in ISDN countries). It's totally surreal to hear you explain about 10Mbps speeds to an internet that barely existed (to Joe Bloggs).

I got that in my flat in Malmö, Sweden in 2000. All HSB flats were connected using 100Mbps ethernet, plug in the wall to an ethernet card, dhcp, done, surf. The houses were at that time connected using gigabit routers, I don't know what it's like today, since I moved away from there some time ago (and boy do I miss that connection :)

I guess those were new buildings?

My flat was built in the 30s, I believe. Very much not new. Anyway, as I said it was all HSB flats, and they are the largest condo company in Sweden. It was called "HSB bolina" and was a very ambitious project. Some friends of mine worked for one of the contractors who laid down the cabling, they were very busy at the time :) Anders -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

You know, any network card 9and motherboard) now supports gigabit Ethernet. Thus some providers, for example, in St.Petersburg as I already mentioned provide Gigabit Ethernet to end users via a copper cable.

But ethernet only reaches 100m - how do the providers connect to the switch? Must be fibre, presumably dug in.

...

I'm really surprised that it was worth rewiring entire apartment buildings with Cat5 cable, when VoIP didn't exist. I mean, in the mid-90s the internet had barely been invented, people were happy dialling into Compuserve at 56K (or 64K in ISDN countries). It's totally surreal to hear you explain about 10Mbps speeds to an internet that barely existed (to Joe Bloggs).

People just stretched cables from window to window to get the LAN working. Internet in those time was only a supplement to the LAN, it was expensive, although technically it was already possible to have a 10 Mbit/s connection.

But you said that it then developed such that every house/apartment now has 10Mpbs ethernet. Of course, you're also saying that the internet is not available at that speed, so we're not really talking about ETTH, more EITH (ethernet in the home)?

Even 3 years ago in 2007 the normal speed for an internet connection was 128 Kbit/s on speed-limited tariffs (this is not the technical speed limitation, which always was 100 Mbit/s but an artificial limitation on unlimited-traffic tariffs, on pay-for-traffic tariffs you could have 100 Mbit/s but would pay more money for traffic).

Even with a very high contention ratio, providing 100Mbit/s to more than a few apartments in a residential area is very, very pricey. I'm amazed that your providers are able to do that and make it affordable. In Zurich (the city itself), you can have a 100Mbit connection, but at CHF2000/month. xDSL is far cheaper. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (13.5°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

söndagen den 12 september 2010 22.58.01 skrev Carlos E. R.:

On 2010-09-12 18:55, Per Jessen wrote:

...

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

...

This is completely standard not only for this city but for this country and for neighboring countries also.

Also for single-family houses or mostly in areas with higher concentrations? I'm surprised it was worth the extra investment in the infrastructure, but I guess xDSL wasn't suitable for some reason.

I guess that their phone network is older.

That's hardly the only reason for such a move. It is a service just like any other. I dare you to try selling a house or flat without a telephone connection or power outlets. You either won't be able to or you'll have to dramatically drop the price In the future, it will become equally impossible to sell any house or flat without an internet connection. In Sweden when I got it, that was the main argument used to sell the idea - it was a step into the future. DSL is a hack that deserves to die, the sooner the better, just like the analog modems. Anders -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Monday 13 September 2010 11:42:17 Per Jessen wrote:

Anders Johansson wrote:

...

söndagen den 12 september 2010 22.58.01 skrev Carlos E. R.:

...

On 2010-09-12 18:55, Per Jessen wrote:

...

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

...

This is completely standard not only for this city but for this country and for neighboring countries also.

Also for single-family houses or mostly in areas with higher concentrations? I'm surprised it was worth the extra investment in the infrastructure, but I guess xDSL wasn't suitable for some reason.

I guess that their phone network is older.

That's hardly the only reason for such a move.

But it is undoubtedly a very significant argument. If the existing wiring is good enough to provide X, why spend more money to provide X ?

Are you asking about now or some time ago? Some time ago nobody would use just Internet without a LAN because Internet was very expensive. Now they are closer, but Ethernet is somewhat cheaper. And also there is only one telephone company with their ADSL over telephone and multiple Ethernet providers.

...

DSL is a hack that deserves to die, the sooner the better, just like the analog modems. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Monday 13 September 2010 14:19:49 Per Jessen wrote:

How do your Ethernet providers connect your LANs to the internet? I mean, I guess you have a switch in each building, but what does that connect to? A central highspeed backbone switch or fibre connection or what (just curious).

I think each district (and maybe each building) is connected by an optical fiber. But this is a subject to change as provider has to upgrade infrastructure frequently. Early providers tried to avoid use of optics that's why Internet was so expensive(=good charge for low speed) then. In the last 3 years Internet became much cheaper, I think because of infrastructure upgrade. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Monday 13 September 2010 14:19:49 Per Jessen wrote:

1) in my part of the world in the 90s, there was no use nor demand for the LAN in residential areas, but once the internet content grew, the internet connection got increasingly better, and more people began buying computers. 2) in your part of the world, ethernet LAN (for some yet unexplained reason) became extremely popular in residential multi-storey buildings.

Because 1. it was cheap to buy an ethernet card and a cable and connect to the neighbors 2. five people if acting together could get cheaper Internet than acting separately - just buy one channel (whether fiber, ADSL, radio or other technology available then) and share it. 3. such networks grew to become local providers, then merged to become a city-wide provider -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Monday 13 September 2010 15:02:49 Per Jessen wrote:

...

...

1) in my part of the world in the 90s, there was no use nor demand for the LAN in residential areas, but once the internet content grew, the internet connection got increasingly better, and more people began buying computers. 2) in your part of the world, ethernet LAN (for some yet unexplained reason) became extremely popular in residential multi-storey buildings.

Because

1. it was cheap to buy an ethernet card and a cable and connect to the neighbors

Same was the case here, except to 99% of people it wasn't interesting. (even then, it was still mostly people with some involvement in IT or other technical sciences that had a computer at home).

...

2. five people if acting together could get cheaper Internet than acting separately - just buy one channel (whether fiber, ADSL, radio or other technology available then) and share it.

That must have happened later, right?

I think from 90s.

Well, comparing with western Europe, sharing across household limits was not allowed due to telecomms regulation

1. It i impossible to check 2. Not all providers impose such restrictions (some do indeed, modeling after Western countries), but I think it appeared only recently 3. I think such restrictions illegal in this country and can be protested in the court, so nobody enforces it.

and pricewise it didn't matter much anyway.

Matters very much if traffic not counted but the payment is only for connection speed.

...

3. such networks grew to become local providers, then merged to become a city-wide provider

Yep, that I have understood and that makes sense. What I still can't quite see is how a few nerds wiring up their apartments developed into every or virtually every apartment building being fully wired for ethernet,

http://www.tushino.com/ - LAN of Tushino district http://www.izmaylovo.ru/ - LAN of Izmailovo district http://www.butovo.com/ - LAN of Butovo district http://www.metronet.ru/ - LAN of Metrogorodok district http://www.golnet.ru/ - LAN of a part of Golyanovo They all now Internet providers. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 13:02 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
> Ilya Chernykh wrote:
> > On Monday 13 September 2010 14:19:49 Per Jessen wrote:
> >> 1) in my part of the world in the 90s, there was no use nor demand
> >> for the LAN in residential areas, but once the internet content grew,
> >> the internet connection got increasingly better, and more people
> >> began buying computers.
> >> 2) in your part of the world, ethernet LAN (for some yet unexplained
> >> reason) became extremely popular in residential multi-storey
> >> buildings.
> > Because
> > 1. it was cheap to buy an ethernet card and a cable and connect to the
> > neighbors
> Same was the case here, except to 99% of people it wasn't interesting.
> (even then, it was still mostly people with some involvement in IT or
> other technical sciences that had a computer at home). 

+1;  there is no local content.  And, especially today, peer-to-peer is
essentially dead. 

> > 2. five people if acting together could get cheaper Internet than
> > acting separately - just buy one channel (whether fiber, ADSL, radio
> > or other technology available then) and share it.
> That must have happened later, right?  Well, comparing with western
> Europe, sharing across household limits was not allowed due to
> telecomms regulation and pricewise it didn't matter much anyway. 

And sociological attitudes matter too.  This could happen only rarely in
the USA.

> > 3. such networks grew to become local providers, then merged to become
> > a city-wide provider
> Yep, that I have understood and that makes sense. What I still can't
> quite see is how a few nerds wiring up their apartments developed into
> every or virtually every apartment building being fully wired for
> ethernet, but I'm obviously missing the bigger picture.

Easy; with facilitation from local governments.  Which is why what he is
talking about isn't applicable other places - it just won't happen in
most places due to non-technical reasons; and it is probably criminal,
or at least prohibited [the USA*], in many places,.

* government entities are often restricted form 'competing' with the
'private sector' (note that both those terms are used in a very
tongue-in-cheek manner).  If a local government installs something like
a fiber-loop you can start the count-down until they are sued by the
telopolies.

-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On 9/13/2010 12:15 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2010-09-13 13:51, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:

...

On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 13:02 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:

...

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

...

...

...

3. such networks grew to become local providers, then merged to become a city-wide provider Yep, that I have understood and that makes sense. What I still can't quite see is how a few nerds wiring up their apartments developed into every or virtually every apartment building being fully wired for ethernet, but I'm obviously missing the bigger picture.

Easy; with facilitation from local governments. Which is why what he is talking about isn't applicable other places - it just won't happen in most places due to non-technical reasons; and it is probably criminal, or at least prohibited [the USA*], in many places,.

(here) it is forbidden to share a connection, unless you ask the ISP for a connection that you are going to share between several households - I think.

Its criminal in most places. Its called theft of services. In Hong Kong and some parts of Mexico and most of Iraq people steel electricity this way too. You can always get away with this on small scale. Close neighbors who you trust. This is about the only thing Coax is still good for, because of the long run lengths allowed. But Its not legal anywhere there is a commercial ISP that does not specifically offer it as an option. -- _____________________________________ At one time I had a Real Sig. Its been downsized. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On 2010-09-13 21:42, Ilya Chernykh wrote:

On Monday 13 September 2010 23:24:37 John Andersen wrote:

...

In Hong Kong and some parts of Mexico and most of Iraq people steel electricity this way too.

Steal electricity? And those who pay for it do not know? Or they buy electricity together?

In the "corrugated steel villages" or however you call them, I mean villages that grow on the outskirts of cities, illegally, they usually just climb a pole and hook a cable. Try to sue them... nobody lives there, officially. The policy may unhook the cable, that people put it back as soon as they go. That is, assuming they dare to get inside that village! Another trick is to hook the cable after the meter of the neighbor. It is cheaper, because there is only one contract, but they are paying whatever electricity (or water) they use. Of course both know what they are doing. Then there is the trick of connecting "before" the meter. That's stealing. Or put a "jumper" across the meter: it does not bulge even if you put the entire house on air conditioning! If an inspector comes by, they remove the jumper fast. There are many tricks - I only know what every body knows :-p -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.2 x86_64 "Emerald" GM (Elessar))

On 2010-09-13 22:50, Ilya Chernykh wrote:

On Monday 13 September 2010 23:55:30 Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Another trick is to hook the cable after the meter of the neighbor. It is cheaper, because there is only one contract, but they are paying whatever electricity (or water) they use. Of course both know what they are doing.

Also theft.

I don't think that particular one is strictly forbidden here. It is typically done when your neighbour has to repair his cabling and you lend him a "cable". It is not prosecuted, as far as I know - after all, you are paying all that electricity, and being "two", you are using more, so more money.

But a cannot understand why you can 'theft' when people buy some amount of product or service and then resell it.

Different countries, different laws :-) -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.2 x86_64 "Emerald" GM (Elessar))

On 2010-09-14 02:30, John Andersen wrote:

On 9/13/2010 3:19 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

Even with no transfer caps in place, ISPs price service based on what a typical household consumes. When there start to be 4 or 8 households they still get the revenue for one contract but they get 4 or 8 times the usage.

They even gets "nasty" when people use their connection full time and full capacity, downloading videos or linux dvds. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.2 x86_64 "Emerald" GM (Minas Tirith))

On 2010-09-13 21:24, John Andersen wrote:

On 9/13/2010 12:15 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

(here) it is forbidden to share a connection, unless you ask the ISP for a connection that you are going to share between several households - I think.

Its criminal in most places. Its called theft of services.

Yes, of course, but it is not theft if you are paying the provider specifically for that kind of service. If you ask the provider an internet connection for a hundred households and pay for it, it is the same as if you ask for a connection for a hundred employees. The provider may refuse, of course. It is not theft in that case, you respect the terms of the contract. It is theft if you ask for a connection for a household, and then connect a hundred. You lied to them. However... why should they care? It is the same bandwidth. The problem is that it is fully used. Bad design. If I buy one meg I'm entitled to use it fully and full time. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.2 x86_64 "Emerald" GM (Elessar))

On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 00:48 +0400, Ilya Chernykh wrote:

...

...

Its criminal in most places. Its called theft of services. Yes, of course, but it is not theft if you are paying the provider specifically for that kind of service. If you ask the provider an internet connection for a hundred households and pay for it, it is the same as if you ask for a connection for a hundred employees. The provider may refuse, of course. It is not theft in that case, you respect the terms of the contract. It is theft if you ask for a connection for a household, and then connect a hundred. You lied to them. Is it theft if you buyed some oranges saying it is for you but then re-selled

On Monday 13 September 2010 23:44:32 Carlos E. R. wrote: them?

If you agreed to a contract [like you do when you purchase connectivity] stating that you wouldn't resell the oranges - Yes, it is. Technically it is breach-of-contract, but in this particular case is referred to as theft-of-service. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Tuesday 14 September 2010 02:34:38 Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2010-09-13 22:48, Ilya Chernykh wrote:

...

On Monday 13 September 2010 23:44:32 Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

...

Is it theft if you buyed some oranges saying it is for you but then re-selled them?

Not theft, but it is something, because you don't have the paper that says that you can manipulate food - health certificate or whatnot :-)

Also, being a private person, you are not registered as a private busineman, you have not registered to pass over the VAT (whatever is the technical term in English), not registered to pay revenue for the benefits you get, not registered (and paying taxes) with the council for having a business, and... I'm sure I have forgotten a dozen laws or bylaws :-P

It is if you have business of selling oranges. And for taxes there is a limitation: if you have profits lower that a set limit you have not to declare. Yes, to sell oranges you have to have a food selling license, but suppose you have.

Of course you can resell your oranges to a friend. But if you make an habit of that, selling to random people, you do risk being fined or prosecuted. In fact, there are people selling fruits that way, without license, from the boot of a car. They have to run when the police gets near. Often it is stolen fruit or groceries from some grange or other.

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

* Carlos E. R. (robin.listas@gmail.com) [20100914 20:37]:

It is different from buying letting them think that you are the final buyer.

Folks! This is as off topic as it can get so PLEASE move this to the off-topic ml. EOD for opensuse, please! Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2010-09-14 02:39, John Andersen wrote:

On 9/13/2010 12:44 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

However... why should they care? It is the same bandwidth. The problem is that it is fully used. Bad design. If I buy one meg I'm entitled to use it fully and full time.

Hey Carlos, don't get me to try to defend those rip off artists. ;-)

From a purely business case, I presume they price the service based on the fact that they know nobody uses one meg all the time. They run the numbers and learn that people use less, and price it accordingly.

I know, I know... after all, it is my field ;-)

They know (on average) you won't use the full meg, so they charge you less than it would actually cost (allegedly) to provide you with a full meg 24/7.

Nobody wants caps. That's why they do it that way. If they just put in the bandwidth caps and byte caps they would never be in this situation. But people bitch, and equipment to do so is more expensive.

But it is bad design. You can cut corners, offer, say so much capacity, but instead install less, calculating for an average, peak, and reserve. However, if everybody fully utilizes their network, the fault is of the ISP, they should not be allowed to bitch and increase prizes. You know, the network is not designed to minimize congestion, but to reduce congestion claims to a certain acceptable limit. No congestion is expensive; to many claims is also expensive. That's it. >:-) - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.2 x86_64 "Emerald" GM (Minas Tirith)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREIAAYFAkyPLgIACgkQja8UbcUWM1yDpQEAloEQHNpJ4/anX0hZl/7gYVnH zXdcaFc9LhFb5THwol8A/RGT/+a7uRoy6obQWPSSeFXmzJW87FATq1PhdKEezl97 =MolH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Carlos E. R. wrote:

I don't know if analog exchanges can support xDSL. I think not.

Yes they can. There are ADSL shelves that are separate from the exchange and the phone line passes through them on the way to the customer. I have installed some of those. I have also installed the ones that include digital phone lines on the same cards. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2010-09-14 03:30, James Knott wrote:

...

Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

I don't know if analog exchanges can support xDSL. I think not.

Yes they can. There are ADSL shelves that are separate from the exchange and the phone line passes through them on the way to the customer. I have installed some of those. I have also installed the ones that include digital phone lines on the same cards.

I don't mean ISDN, I mean POTS with digital exchange, vs analog exchanges: rotatrix, pentaconta... (I don't know the English names). Here there are a lot of 1240s. I think in Russia they even have multiplexed frequency transmission (hey, even Canada had it in the early nineties...). They can have xDSL? Wow. :-O

Yes, I know what you mean. I wasn't referring to ISDN at all. Stand alone ADSL DSLAM shelves are available which can be wired in between an existing phone switch, including old analog ones, and the subscriber line. There is also another type, used for newer digital switches, where both telephone lines and ADSL are supported on the same equipment. It's entirely possible to use the appropriate card to provide basic rate ISDN, but I don't have experience with that. (I have worked with both basic and primary rate ISDN, but provided in a different manner.). So, if you had a old phone switch in a central office that was installed long before anyonehad even heard of the internet, you could still offer ADSL, by using the stand alone shelf. With the other type of shelf that I have worked with, the phone lines are connected to the switch via DS1 (T1) circuits (1.544 Mb/s) and the ADSL data via DS3 (45 Mb/s). The stand alone shelf uses etherent for the ADSL data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dslam -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Tuesday 14 September 2010 03:18:43 Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

söndagen den 12 september 2010 22.58.01 skrev Carlos E. R.:

...

I guess that their phone network is older.

That's hardly the only reason for such a move.

I don't know if analog exchanges can support xDSL. I think not.

No exchange can support transfer of xDSL data. In order to have DSL you have to specifically modify the telephone stations so that high-frequency signal to bypass the repeaters, and the telephone station completely. This is a difficult task. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Tuesday 14 September 2010 16:37:09 James Knott wrote:

Loading coils were used to make phone links work better over longer cable runs, by equalizing frequency response in the voice bandwidth. However, those coils also kill ADSL.

Yes, and also in this country most of telephone wiring historically was made not with twisted pair but with cables with parallel conductors (like this: http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/6526/resizeoftrp.jpg ) Also in older outlets a saw capacitors which effectively filter out not only high frequency but even the frequencies of modem data transfer. This may require re-wiring in order to have full speed ADSL. ADSL over telephone line is not better in any way than other exotic solutions on the market like ADSL over mains power outlets. Some ADSL providers advertise ADSL solutions based on new lines, which is nothing more expensive for the user than using existing telephone lines (i.e. the connection in both cases is free, and of course there is no evident advantage over Ethernet as in both cases new wiring is required). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Per Jessen wrote:

...

Yes, and also in this country most of telephone wiring historically

...

was made not with twisted pair but with cables with parallel conductors (like this: http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/6526/resizeoftrp.jpg )

Yep, that's also the case in western Europa. AFAIK, nobody uses twisted pair for analog telephone wiring. For ISDN, it is often used on the S0 bus, but that's more for convenience.

That is similar to what, in Canada, is referred to as "drop wire". It would be used to run from the cable in the street to the home. Inside the home, a cable with 4 wires, often called "quad" or "JKT" was run around the home. More recently, 3 pair CAT 3 cable has been used inside for running phone lines. The cables back to the central office have been twisted pairs for many, many years, although not necessarily even CAT 3 quality. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On 2010-09-14 15:20, Per Jessen wrote:

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

...

On Tuesday 14 September 2010 16:37:09 James Knott wrote:

...

Loading coils were used to make phone links work better over longer cable runs, by equalizing frequency response in the voice bandwidth. However, those coils also kill ADSL.

Yes, and also in this country most of telephone wiring historically was made not with twisted pair but with cables with parallel conductors (like this: http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/6526/resizeoftrp.jpg )

Yep, that's also the case in western Europa. AFAIK, nobody uses twisted pair for analog telephone wiring.

Yes, but when you group about 50 pairs in a single cable, pairs are twisted. Twisted and grouped by fours or eights with a strand of colour silk. Or similar combination. The twist on the pairs can be different for each pair (how many turns per meter).

...

ADSL over telephone line is not better in any way than other exotic solutions on the market like ADSL over mains power outlets.

No, it's only a matter of providing the access and the bandwidth in the most economical fashion.

Exactly. It appears that in Russia it is not economical, but in Western Europe it is.

The old 2-wire telephone is both thinner and cheaper than Cat5.

There are two kinds: internal (to the house) pair, and external. The old internal was a thin parallel wire. The new internal pair is two wires twisted in a loose sleve, similar to cat5, but thinner. The old external pair had a third iron or steel wire for strength, it could hang for itself from poles. The current variant instead has a thick plastic cover. I have seen a variant with a copper braid, like coaxials. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.2 x86_64 "Emerald" GM (Elessar))

On Tuesday 14 September 2010 23:42:46 Per Jessen wrote:

...

Exactly. It appears that in Russia it is not economical, but in Western Europe it is.

Which is why I keep saying I'm not getting the whole picture. I still haven't figured out why it doesn't pay to re-use the existing infrastructure. There are really two possible answers - 1) it doesn't exist or 2) it's not good enough. Or maybe there is no market if the majority is ethernet connected to Internet3.

It exists and currently advertised: ADSL over telephone is advertised by telephone company (a monopoly) and ADSL combined with cable television is advertised by another provider. This is an article from 2007: http://www.rosinvest.com/news/357112 It says ADSL had about 27% of the market share just one year ago but loose 10% of the market just in one year since because of backwards technology to the Ethernet providers. I think now they lost even more. It says the ADSL peaked in 2005 with 38% of all connections. It also says that in 2005 ADSL prices were 2 times lower than that of home networks (ethernet) but since then the prices became equal because starting from 2006 already existing home networks regained their positions by lowering prices. I also think that in other cities ADSL never had such share. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 01:37 +0400, Ilya Chernykh wrote:

On Tuesday 14 September 2010 23:42:46 Per Jessen wrote:

...

Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

...

...

ADSL over telephone line is not better in any way than other exotic solutions on the market like ADSL over mains power outlets.

No, it's only a matter of providing the access and the bandwidth in the most economical fashion.

Exactly. It appears that in Russia it is not economical, but in Western Europe it is.

Which is why I keep saying I'm not getting the whole picture. I still haven't figured out why it doesn't pay to re-use the existing infrastructure. There are really two possible answers - 1) it doesn't exist or 2) it's not good enough. Or maybe there is no market if the majority is ethernet connected to Internet3.

This is a chart showing market shares in 2006:

http://www.3dnews.ru/_imgdata/img/2006/11/30/34333.png

Impressive charts, however i presume that two-third share of ethernet is only achieved in densely populated cities. How about the more rural area's? Still 1200 bps modems? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Tuesday 14 September 2010 23:42:46 Per Jessen wrote:

...

...

...

ADSL over telephone line is not better in any way than other exotic solutions on the market like ADSL over mains power outlets.

No, it's only a matter of providing the access and the bandwidth in the most economical fashion.

Exactly. It appears that in Russia it is not economical, but in Western Europe it is.

Which is why I keep saying I'm not getting the whole picture. I still haven't figured out why it doesn't pay to re-use the existing infrastructure. There are really two possible answers - 1) it doesn't exist or 2) it's not good enough. Or maybe there is no market if the majority is ethernet connected to Internet3.

Another chart from 2006, comparing shares of home networks, ADSL and dialup: http://www.mediaplan.ru/img/news/news75.jpg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Tuesday 14 September 2010 23:42:46 Per Jessen wrote:

...

...

...

ADSL over telephone line is not better in any way than other exotic solutions on the market like ADSL over mains power outlets.

No, it's only a matter of providing the access and the bandwidth in the most economical fashion.

Exactly. It appears that in Russia it is not economical, but in Western Europe it is.

Which is why I keep saying I'm not getting the whole picture. I still haven't figured out why it doesn't pay to re-use the existing infrastructure. There are really two possible answers - 1) it doesn't exist or 2) it's not good enough. Or maybe there is no market if the majority is ethernet connected to Internet3.

Chart from 2004, Moscow: http://img.nag.ru/images/16708/001.gif This shows that Ehernet networks emerged before ADSL -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 01:52 +0400, Ilya Chernykh wrote:

On Monday 13 September 2010 00:58:01 Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

...

...

This is completely standard not only for this city but for this country and for neighboring countries also.

Also for single-family houses or mostly in areas with higher concentrations? I'm surprised it was worth the extra investment in the infrastructure, but I guess xDSL wasn't suitable for some reason.

I guess that their phone network is older.

Can you please tell me why do you think ADSL is better than Ethernet?

A question or better-or-worse has no merit. For Ethernet you must have an Ethernet network (Cat-5 copper, OptEman fiber, etc...). Lacking that - you use something else.

Why one should choose ADSL?

*IF* one has the choice? Nobody would choose ADSL. Ether hardware and software support is ubiquitous and extremely well tested and known.

- ADSL requires installing of much of additional equipment on the abonent side - It requires modification of telephone stations - It has lower data rates - It it asymmetric - It has greather latency - There is no LAN for ADSL users so they have to pay for Internet in order to connect to each other. The last reason was I think the man cause why ADSL was not adopted here. When Internet was too expensive, people used cost-free LANs to play games, exchange files etc and connected to Internet only rarely so their bills were moderate. Early Internet providers also attracted people with wide LANs with much of shared resources, chats, forums, PtP services, Counter-Strike and Quake servers, film libraries, so any ADSL providers were in disadvantage as they could provide only (costly) Internet access.

I don't know about "costly" (that is a relative term). At scale ADSL networks [obviously] have proven to be cost-effective. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

For whom? Currently ADSL companies advertise Internet access in my area slightly more expensive than Ethenet providers for the same download speed (and much slower upload speed). In order to offer ethernet, you have to have cables capable of carrying it. There are a lot of buildings and neighbourhoods that have lots of

Ilya Chernykh wrote: phone cable but no cat5 or fibre. The only way is via ADSL riding on the phone lines or by the cable TV networks. It cost a lot to rewire an area with a new cable type. So, the work around, in the mean time, is ADSL, cable, microwave or satellite. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 03:48 +0400, Ilya Chernykh wrote:

On Monday 13 September 2010 03:23:04 James Knott wrote:

...

...

For whom? Currently ADSL companies advertise Internet access in my area slightly more expensive than Ethenet providers for the same download speed (and much slower upload speed). In order to offer ethernet, you have to have cables capable of carrying it. There are a lot of buildings and neighbourhoods that have lots of phone cable but no cat5 or fibre. What's the problem with stretching such cables? Currently at least 3 providers have their separate ethernet networks in my building.

You are repeatedly missing a *very* important point - you are talking *about where YOU are*. Ethernet cabling in existing facilities is extremely rare. There is a *HUGE* cost in just labor and materials to deploying such a network. Obviously where you are _somehow_ those organizations are defraying that cost [subsidies, tax breaks, grants, etc...]. I have some experience with issues regarding transportation, and network infrastructure suffers from one of the same major issues: *RIGHT-OF-WAY* If you want to put a wire on a pole, under a road, under a rail line, etc... you have to have RIGHT-OF-WAY from whatever authority controls that impediment. That means you need *LAWYERS* to build your network. Which may end up costing more than the physical infrastructure.

...

The only way is via ADSL riding on the phone lines or by the cable TV networks. Why do you think cable TV coaxial(or anything) is better than UTP?

Nobody is saying it is. But it _is_ there, pretty universally. Cat-5 and fiber are nowhere near universal.

To have cable TV you also have to make wiring.

But the wire was installed 20 years ago. Cat-5 didn't exist.

In this country television is historically by radio shared between flats by coaxial. Even if there were (or are) some cables connecting the buildings to a district TV hub (there were sometime in 90s translations from a district TV studio), it is unevident by whom such cables may be owned and why they should be interested in Internet deal and even if they agree how all customers would share one cable?

They are interesting for providing Internet because they are already there. There are no RIGHT-OF-WAY issues. I just replace what is on both ends of the wire and BAM - I have a network.

Only imagine: plain UTP ethernet cable has bandwidth 10-100 times greater than any old wiring that could exist, even without optics and cat5 cables. If you want to provide modern cable TV with Internet, you still have to provide optics to any building, so no difference from ethernet.

No, you can provide a large amount of service on existing cable with a negligible installation cost; you just replace what is on both ends of the wire.

...

It cost a lot to rewire an area with a new cable type. Which area do you mean? One building? Or a wider area?

City blocks, neighborhoods, industrial parks, etc... where you have to cross roads, rail lines, rivers, and all manner of impediments you don't own.

...

So, the work around, in the mean time, is ADSL, cable, microwave or satellite.

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

What's the problem with stretching such cables? Currently at least 3 providers have their separate ethernet networks in my building.

Cost. In an existing building you have to run cables in conduits that barely have room for phone cables or run new conduits on the outside of the buildings. Laying new cables around town is also expensive.

Why do you think cable TV coaxial(or anything) is better than UTP? To have cable TV you also have to make wiring. UTP has a maximum usable distance of 100M. This means you'll need lots of repeaters for lots of cables to deliver ethernet. Cable TV plant has been around for many years and the technology used works better over the greater distances.

Only imagine: plain UTP ethernet cable has bandwidth 10-100 times greater than any old wiring that could exist, even without optics and cat5 cables.

I think you have that reversed. Cable TV plant handles much greater bandwidth than UTP and does it over much greater distances. On my shelf beside me there's a cable modem that is capable of up to 30 MB/s. Many of my neighbours have similar. These are all supplied by the same cable that's also carrying hundreds of digital TV channels, including several HD. It still carries analog TV too. All this on one single cable serving over 300 homes. A UTP cable couldn't even reach the street from my condo and still provide usable ethernet.

Which area do you mean? One building? Or a wider area?

Both. Either a building or a neighbourhood. Retrofitting cable into a multi-unit building is a big, expensive job. Laying new cable down the street is also expensive. Cables like that are amortized over decades. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2010-09-13 04:20, James Knott wrote:

...

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

...

What's the problem with stretching such cables? Currently at least 3 providers have their separate ethernet networks in my building.

Cost. In an existing building you have to run cables in conduits that barely have room for phone cables or run new conduits on the outside of the buildings. Laying new cables around town is also expensive.

It depends on what permissions you have. No space inside? Put it up the front outside wall, all the way up. One drop per level, just to the living room window. You just need a chap hanging down in ropes from the top, making holes in the wall, and another one helping. Two people. You just need permission from the owners.

No kidding, that's how they do it here (Spain).

I had the feeling someone was going to point that out :-)

The street is way more expensive, you have to put pipes under the pavement, and cover it with concrete. Get permission from the authorities, put the street out of service for a week or a month. Costs in the hundred thousands euros per kilometer.

Yep. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (13.8°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

They usually either use existing collectors or stretch the cables over air from one building to another, which is even cheaper.

Have fun getting competitors to allow you to run cables in their conduits. Also, in many areas of the world, overhead cables are not used. Everything is underground. You seem to be passing off what some neighbours have done (perhaps out of necessity) as the proper way to run a communications network. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

What they can do better? Properly engineered and installed networks.

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On 2010-09-13 10:56, Ilya Chernykh wrote:

On Monday 13 September 2010 06:40:05 Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

The street is way more expensive, you have to put pipes under the pavement, and cover it with concrete. Get permission from the authorities, put the street out of service for a week or a month.

Oh no, never seen anybody closed a street for a month especially to lay an Internet cable. :-)

I have. Several times :-) First they dig up the street. The start placing the tubes. Then they discover they can not cross certain place, because there is a water pipe, or gas, or "something" that nobody knows what it is. So they have to wait. That's just a possible scenario of many. Or just after they close the hole, somebody finds out that it would be a good time to put gas piping, so they open the street up again. Or repair the sewage. Or worse, the machinery breaks something from some other company: the water piping breaks, because it is half a century old. The water gets with force inside the new telco piping and gets to the hole in the pavement where the equipment is and ruins it all, putting the district out of service. Or the digging machinery breaks the entire fiber optic loop from the competing company and puts an entire city out of telephone service... Just dream away, it has already happened somewhere. >:-P

They usually either use existing collectors

For that they need permission from the owner of those conduits, who is going to charge. Perhaps a lot. Here.

or stretch the cables over air from one building to another, which is even cheaper.

And forbidden here. People could do it on their own, till somebody complains and the police investigates. A business can not do it, they risk hefty fines. What you describe that happens in your city is very peculiar, very different from what happens on many other places. For you it is the obvious thing to do, it is familiar, but not for us. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.2 x86_64 "Emerald" GM (Elessar))

On 2010-09-13 22:56, Ilya Chernykh wrote:

On Tuesday 14 September 2010 00:22:24 Carlos E. R. wrote:

It is not only in my city to be fair. It is even not only in my country.

Ok, but very peculiar :-) Let me guess, when you meet a neighbour on the elevator, you salute and exchange pleasantries? :-) Here, in flats, we ignore one another. Privacy or whatever. Frequently people do not know the person living above or below, or even in the same level. It would be very rare that we would coordinate and create a building LAN. In fact, I did think, sometime in the late 90's, that a LAN in the building would be interesting, sharing one internet connection somehow. I had no idea about switches and routers anyway, and I knew that it would be impossible task to coordinate and make all the neighbours to even agree to allow installation of the cable. Reminds me... when I wanted to play computer games with my room-mate, I set up a long RS232 cable across our rooms. The idea of "ethernet" never occurred to us - and anyway, none of our computers had a card. I'm very sure mine didn't, at least. The other chap had a better machine. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.2 x86_64 "Emerald" GM (Elessar))

On Monday 13 September 2010 06:20:08 James Knott wrote:

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

...

What's the problem with stretching such cables? Currently at least 3 providers have their separate ethernet networks in my building.

Cost. In an existing building you have to run cables in conduits that barely have room for phone cables

Oh they have, in fact my provider used the existing tube which is used for electricity, phone and anything else. It is a large thick tube connecting all floors. On the other hand, other providers made separate tubes and drilled holes for them in each floor/ceiling. I do not think it was too expensive. Just have a drill, plastic tube and a cable.

or run new conduits on the outside of the buildings. Laying new cables around town is also expensive.

...

Why do you think cable TV coaxial(or anything) is better than UTP? To have cable TV you also have to make wiring.

UTP has a maximum usable distance of 100M. This means you'll need lots of repeaters for lots of cables to deliver ethernet.

Yes but you connect not just one building but lots of them.

Cable TV plant has been around for many years and the technology used works better over the greater distances.

How can one provide Internet to a building over one coax (even if it exist?) I even do not know if there is any cable television here. I have only ether channels, although they expanded the number greatly last year (which may indicate they layed cable TV cable). There is also a commercial cable TV provider here who is notorious for advertising by telephone calls, they have a separate net and advertise cable TV and Internet, but they for sure layed their network themselves from start. Overall I had telephone spam advertising calls from at least 6 or 7 broadband providers who all claimed they connected my house. Some of them called 5-6 times or more even if I said I am not interested.

...

Only imagine: plain UTP ethernet cable has bandwidth 10-100 times greater than any old wiring that could exist, even without optics and cat5 cables.

I think you have that reversed. Cable TV plant handles much greater bandwidth than UTP and does it over much greater distances. On my shelf beside me there's a cable modem that is capable of up to 30 MB/s. Many of my neighbours have similar. These are all supplied by the same cable that's also carrying hundreds of digital TV channels, including several HD. It still carries analog TV too. All this on one single cable serving over 300 homes.

So the cable is probably modern, no difference from Ethernet then - you still have to lay a ney cable. Or we are speaking about a 30-year old cable?

A UTP cable couldn't even reach the street from my condo and still provide usable ethernet.

...

Which area do you mean? One building? Or a wider area?

Both. Either a building or a neighbourhood. Retrofitting cable into a multi-unit building is a big, expensive job.

I think it is very very cheap.

Laying new cable down the street is also expensive. Cables like that are amortized over decades.

This may be but only for mainline cables. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Monday 13 September 2010 13:12:36 Per Jessen wrote:

...

How can one provide Internet to a building over one coax (even if it exist?)

A coaxial cable has a _lot_ of bandwidth.

Then they would rather use coax for Ethernet than Cat-5 UTP. :-)

...

...

Both. Either a building or a neighbourhood. Retrofitting cable into a multi-unit building is a big, expensive job.

I think it is very very cheap.

I can assure you it is not. My mum lives on the 4th floor in an apartment building - last year, they had ethernet wired into every apartment (2 per floor, seven floors, eight such units per building, probably 10 buildings. New cable ducts, lots of holes to be drilled (through 15-20cm concrete), 80 local switches, power supply, racks with locks. I think it took two or three months. I don't know the exact cost, but the word cheap does not come into it.

The other provider (not mine) wired my building (12 floors) in only one day. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Monday 13 September 2010 14:10:57 Per Jessen wrote:

I don't think I want to know to what it looks like.

It looks like two plastic tubes from floor to floor (one in each wing). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

The other provider (not mine) wired my building (12 floors) in only one day.

Having worked in the telecom industry for many years, I find that highly unlikely. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Monday 13 September 2010 23:34:10 Hans Witvliet wrote:

On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 08:41 -0400, James Knott wrote:

...

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

...

The other provider (not mine) wired my building (12 floors) in only one day.

Having worked in the telecom industry for many years, I find that highly unlikely.

What did they define by "wired my building" ? Putting a router on each floor of the elevator shaft? do-able ...

No need for router on any floor, just one for a building.

Wiring each apartment? No way!

Wiring the flats do flat owners. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Monday 13 September 2010 16:20:20 James Knott wrote:

...

Oh they have, in fact my provider used the existing tube which is used for electricity, phone and anything else.

In many areas, that would be illegal. Power and copper signal cables must be separate for safety reasons.

That tube is used for telephone, TV antenna cable and and cable radio from the Soviet times.

No problem with fibre though. Also, it's often very difficult to run new cables into a conduit that already has cables.

It has about 5-6 cm in diameter and bricked up in the wall, connects utility boxes on each floor.

With phone cables in an apartment building etc., you'll find multi-pair cables running vertically in conduits, from floor to floor, appearing in a utility box in the wall, where individual pairs can be connected to. A 25 pair cable is about as big as your finger, and 50 pair a bit bigger than your thumb. There's no way you're going to get 25 or 50 ethernet cables in anywhere near the same space.

There is no need for 50 cables, just for those users who are interested, maybe, 10 in one entrance (which has two utility columns, so just 5 on each column).

...

UTP has a maximum usable distance of 100M. This means you'll need lots

...

of repeaters for lots of cables to deliver ethernet.

Yes but you connect not just one building but lots of them.

Are you suggesting they have repeaters in every building? Even so, you're still limited to 100M between bridges or switches.

Certainly they have hubs/switches in each building.

Carriers in Canada are gradually installing "fibre to curb", which brings fibre into the local neighbourhood. But they are most certainly not running cat5 or cat6 building to building to cover the distance from the central office. As I mentioned in another note, my building is over 100M from the road and the utility room is even further back, at the opposite end from the road. Ethernet over UTP simply won't go that far.

I think my provider also uses optics to connect buildings but this does not mean that the optic was here from the very beginning.

...

How can one provide Internet to a building over one coax (even if it exist?) I even do not know if there is any cable television here. I have only ether channels, although they expanded the number greatly last year (which may indicate they layed cable TV cable). There is also a commercial cable TV provider here who is notorious for advertising by telephone calls, they have a separate net and advertise cable TV and Internet, but they for sure layed their network themselves from start.

Internet over the cable TV network has been common in Canada and elsewhere for many years. I first connected to it about 11-12 years ago. Here's a link to some info on the technology used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docsis

For many years, the cable networks here have been capable of carrying data in both directions.

Not here as there was no cable TV here historically. Each building has its own antenna and receives radio signal. It then distributed between the flats. In the mid-90s there was an experiment with the cable TV: the district had its own TV station which was connected to the usual antennas. But it was only one 'district channel' and it was closed soon. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Monday 13 September 2010 17:24:35 Per Jessen wrote:

...

...

With phone cables in an apartment building etc., you'll find multi-pair cables running vertically in conduits, from floor to floor, appearing in a utility box in the wall, where individual pairs can be connected to. A 25 pair cable is about as big as your finger, and 50 pair a bit bigger than your thumb. There's no way you're going to get 25 or 50 ethernet cables in anywhere near the same space.

There is no need for 50 cables, just for those users who are interested, maybe, 10 in one entrance (which has two utility columns, so just 5 on each column).

Um, I thought we were previously talking about entire buildings, where all or virtual all apartments had ethernet? That's what it sounded like to me.

Yes, anybody who wants can have Ethernet in just a day. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On 2010-09-13 10:52, Ilya Chernykh wrote:

Overall I had telephone spam advertising calls from at least 6 or 7 broadband providers who all claimed they connected my house. Some of them called 5-6 times or more even if I said I am not interested.

Me too! I wish I could hook some programmable machine to the phone line to start rejecting calls. I have though of using a modem and a small computer. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.2 x86_64 "Emerald" GM (Elessar))

Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2010-09-13 10:52, Ilya Chernykh wrote:

...

Overall I had telephone spam advertising calls from at least 6 or 7 broadband providers who all claimed they connected my house. Some of them called 5-6 times or more even if I said I am not interested.

Me too!

I wish I could hook some programmable machine to the phone line to start rejecting calls.

asterisk? might be overkill :-) -- Per Jessen, Zürich (10.8°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Per Jessen wrote:

Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

On 2010-09-13 10:52, Ilya Chernykh wrote:

...

Overall I had telephone spam advertising calls from at least 6 or 7 broadband providers who all claimed they connected my house. Some of them called 5-6 times or more even if I said I am not interested.

Me too!

I wish I could hook some programmable machine to the phone line to start rejecting calls.

asterisk? might be overkill :-)

You can play SIT tones on the line to make the equipment most of those spammers use think your number is disconnected. Here's a link to some that are used in North America. I have no idea how well they'd work elsewhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIT_tone. After playing a tone, you can click on "More" to download. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

On Monday 13 September 2010 03:23:04 James Knott wrote:

...

...

For whom? Currently ADSL companies advertise Internet access in my area slightly more expensive than Ethenet providers for the same download speed (and much slower upload speed).

In order to offer ethernet, you have to have cables capable of carrying it. There are a lot of buildings and neighbourhoods that have lots of phone cable but no cat5 or fibre.

What's the problem with stretching such cables? Currently at least 3 providers have their separate ethernet networks in my building.

There's no problem as such, it's only a matter of cost. Older buildings will typically not have room for a thick ethernet cable per apartment in the cable ducts, so new ducts are required. Because of the length limitation, you need ethernet switches in each building, one port per apartment. To inter-connect buildings, you'll need to dig the cables in, that's expensive and disruptive. To connect to the internet, you need an uplink. All very expensive. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (13.9°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On 9/13/2010 4:29 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2010-09-13 01:48, Ilya Chernykh wrote:

...

Why do you think cable TV coaxial(or anything) is better than UTP? To have cable TV you also have to make wiring. Coaxial is more capable than twisted pair. But quite more expensive, too.

Actually, no. Coax is much easier to build as a true constant-impedance line, but it has higher loss, especially at higher frequencies, which is the true limiting characteristic. If you can build a twisted pair to a very high standard of consistency, it will give greater ultimate range due to the lower signal loss. Coax needs less signal conditioning over shorter distances, and less complex conditioning over any distance because it's normally better controlled (that's why short instrumentation cables like oscillosope probes are almost always coax), but twisted pair gives greater range and acceptable signal fidelity once you've done the signal conditioning. That's also why the ancient Ethernet cables were coax, but limited essentially to 10Mbps and short distances, and we had to go to twisted pair (cat-5, cat-5E, cat-6) to get higher bandwidth and signal fidelity over longer distances. Manufacturers are building Ethernet cables much more carefully than they do short-range, low-frequency twisted pair, and for longer distances the transceivers are more complex to compensate for the poorer signal fidelity,. Those cable systems that still use coax have frequent repeaters with frequency-dependent loss compensation. Pedantic John Perry :-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

James Knott said the following on 09/14/2010 10:25 AM:

Actually, it's not quite that simple. Loss depends on physical dimensions and the dielectric constant of the insulator. However, properly constructed coax generally has better shielding than Unshielded Twisted Pair (UTP).

Which is significant in buildings that have other electrical devices (motors, fluorescent lights, microwave ovens, etc) around. To say nothing of what might be encountered in the great outdoors: electrical motors, automotive spark plugs, commercial lighting, storms, sunspots ...) -- Life is like an analogy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 11:52 -0400, John Perry wrote:

...

And, since there's more dielectric in coax than in TP, there's more loss. And, since copper losses are greater than in TP due to the much smaller center conductor, there's more loss.

The loss at higher frequencies has nothing to do with the amount of copper. Because of the "skin effect" lots of smaller wires will have less attenuation than a thicker solid core. Only when pushing many amps through a wire (as if hf-transmitters) this might be an issue, although even then, isolation of the dielectricum is more of a problem. Pushing 1kw through RG58U gives a nasty smell. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On 2010-09-12 23:52, Ilya Chernykh wrote:

On Monday 13 September 2010 00:58:01 Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

...

...

This is completely standard not only for this city but for this country and for neighboring countries also.

Also for single-family houses or mostly in areas with higher concentrations? I'm surprised it was worth the extra investment in the infrastructure, but I guess xDSL wasn't suitable for some reason.

I guess that their phone network is older.

Can you please tell me why do you think ADSL is better than Ethernet? Why one should choose ADSL?

Where did I say that??? :-o

- ADSL requires installing of much of additional equipment on the abonent side - It requires modification of telephone stations - It has lower data rates - It it asymmetric - It has greather latency - There is no LAN for ADSL users so they have to pay for Internet in order to connect to each other.

It is cheaper and faster to install, because the cable (copper pair) is already there. The equipment is placed in the exchange, with lots of space, no need to go to the street and request permissions. It is a method to reuse what is already installed, with profit. Look. In my country (Spain), there was a moment when the government favoured the installation of new telephone companies, phone and cable, starting on the 1st of January of 1998. I remember, I was there, a diminute participant. To facilitate competitivity, the state forced the dominant Telephone company (previous monopoly) to refrain from offering advanced services, like fast adsl, or TV over the copper pair, or fiber to the home, so that the cable companies had time to start up. This restriction has finished, I understand. Well. In my home (not a flat), I have the cable box on the corner of the block, not more than 25 meters from my front door. Never the less, the cable company, when I wanted to hire service from them (TV, Internet, and phone) refused to give service because I was "too far" to lay the cable (year 1999). To this day, I have no option to use cable, a mere 25 meter lay. Several neighbours on the block were told the same, and one I know fought the decision - unsuccessfully. Apparently, as the corner house is a baby school, they need some kind of special permission or insurance. I know the school gave permission. Nevertheless, the cable company said "no". Even with the advantage given by the authorities to the cable companies, they do not give service unless you live on a high rise building, with high rentability. So... Is cable better? Undoubtedly, for the user. But I have no option: Copper pair phone and ADSL, plus satellite dish for digital TV (now we have terrestrial digital TV, free of charge, 20 or 40 channels, so satellite is less of a temptation). The copper pair was already in the house, I asked for adsl, got it immediately. That is probably the situation in western Europe (except that Spain is/was less developed than most of W.Europe). ADSL was faster and cheaper to install. And what I said is that my guess is that perhaps in Russia that was not the case perhaps because the network wasn't fully digitalized. It is an hypothesis, I do not know. I never said nor implied that ADSL is better. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.2 x86_64 "Emerald" GM (Elessar))

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

On Monday 13 September 2010 04:38:24 Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

That is probably the situation in western Europe (except that Spain is/was less developed than most of W.Europe). ADSL was faster and cheaper to install. And what I said is that my guess is that perhaps in Russia that was not the case perhaps because the network wasn't fully digitalized. It is an hypothesis, I do not know.

I don't think it matter. ADSL providers are there and always were. The only problem is that with ADSL you get only Internet, but with Ethernet you get also the LAN.

Which to most people is probably of zero importance. I have no need to have a local network connection to my neighbour, but with ADSL I can still always ping him. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (14.6°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

Today, yes. But some 10 years ago it was very important. Just imagine you need a new version of Windows...

Ummm... I have been using the internet for almost 20 years, going back to dial up days. I have never found it necessary to access my neighbour's network. If I ever find the need to, I'd likely use a VPN (unless they shared their WiFi with me) as I'd expect they'd have a firewall. In the interest of security, you don't leave your network wide open to whoever happens to live near you. The more you talk, the more I get the impression you had to improvise something, because you simply didn't have available things we have taken for granted for many years. In Canada, it's almost impossible to be in a location so remote that you couldn't have phone and internet access, even if only via satellite. In urban, suburban and even rural areas, if you don't have a connection, it's because you chose not to, not because it isn't available in some form. In fact, some people are complaining about others using the internet or phones when they're out camping and want to get away from it all! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

This is a local network of a district. It's like Internet but is not accessible from the outside.

How much do you trust your neighbours? Are you willing to give them access to your personal data? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

Why personal data? Nobody opens access to personal data.

If you put several neighbours on a lan, with no firewall, you may find one of your neighbours has the skill and desire to break into your computer to access your data. They may also be able to intercept your data, as it flies around the neighbourhood network. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

On Monday 13 September 2010 00:58:01 Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

...

...

This is completely standard not only for this city but for this country and for neighboring countries also.

Also for single-family houses or mostly in areas with higher concentrations? I'm surprised it was worth the extra investment in the infrastructure, but I guess xDSL wasn't suitable for some reason.

I guess that their phone network is older.

Can you please tell me why do you think ADSL is better than Ethernet? Why one should choose ADSL?

ADSL requires only two wires, Ethernet at least 4, usually in shielded cables with 4 twisted pairs. ADSL deteriorates slowly over distance, but up to at least 3500m is fine. Ethernet is limited to about 100m. ADSL is better suited to the typical user profile which has more downstream than upstream traffic. Most residential places are not wired for ethernet, but have a telephone, so ADSL would not require any extra investment. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (13.2°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Ilya Chernykh wrote:

On Monday 13 September 2010 10:57:40 Per Jessen wrote:

...

ADSL is better suited to the typical user profile which has more downstream than upstream traffic. Most residential places are not wired for ethernet, but have a telephone, so ADSL would not require any extra investment.

At least they have to install a modem, telephone filters or a separate telephone line (?).

Yes, you need a modem and a splitter, they can be had for about EUR120. Then you plug them in, and that's it. (more expensive modem are available with Wifi, VoIP and what have you).

I asked about ADSL in the early 2000s and they said only connection cost would be comparable with that of getting a new separate telephone number (about $300-$500).

We got ADSL at home around 2003 I think. Prior to that, Swisscom told it wasn't possible due to the distance to the exchange, but I guess the technology improved. I think the price was about CHF50/month (it still is for the entry-level connection). -- Per Jessen, Zürich (14.9°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org