As I mentioned earlier, here in Time Warner Cable land the "field backup generator" appears to be a guy who wanders out in a pickup truck with jumper cables attached to the cable distribution panel on the pole.
I now wish I'd taken a photo of that at the time. --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator ----- Forwarded message from Dave Farber <[email protected]> ----- Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 13:27:42 -0500 From: Dave Farber <[email protected]> Subject: [IP] READ POTS Reliability - Reality Reply-To: [email protected] To: ip <[email protected]> Begin forwarded message: > From: David Josephson <[email protected]> > Date: January 2, 2010 12:30:43 PM EST > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [IP] POTS Reliability - Reality > > Dave, > > The carriers are doing a great job shifting focus to a fiber vs copper, > or VoIP vs analog loop debate. I think the real issue is whether the > public and regulators will accept a further reduction of responsibility > for failures. It's reasonable to require the customer to provide a > standard telephone instrument -- spares are cheap and easily fixed -- > but now we are asked to provide power and to replace the backup battery. > Is that OK? Are we going back to farmers' lines with local dry cell > batteries? > > Yes, remote terminals (whether they are fiber or copper) with just > eight hours of backup are a weak link, but the wireline carriers here > have typically been able to respond with a small generator when a power > outage exceeds battery capacity, just as a central office generator is > expected to take over if downtown is dark. > > The issue is not which technology is in use, the issue is whether the > carrier is permitted to dump the responsibility for outages on the > subscriber. > > -- > David Josephson > > > ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ----- End forwarded message -----
