Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[James Hodgkinson]

This matches with what I've seen/heard/read - the clicking is the NTD turning 
off/on power to the DPU, while it tries to check if it's coming online. 

We had a DOA DPU and have had one since after a storm, in ... under three 
months.

James

On 2021-01-25 09:30 Matt Perkins wrote:
> There’s nothing quick about a disconnecting relay. But I do have the 
> reports of them clicking so perhaps power is applied and they are 
> looking for some condition that does not appear so power is removed a d 
> re-applied. Whatever condition they are looking for can not be sensed 
> due to the fault perhaps there’s some type of op-amp in that sense 
> circuit that’s sensitive to potential difference and the problem lies 
> there. Wherever the problem lies given the massive volumes involved 
> there appears to be a design fault / fit for purpose issue at play 
> here. 
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> /* Matt Perkins
>Direct 1300 137 379 Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd.
>Office 1300 133 299 m...@spectrum.com.au
>Fax1300 133 255 Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
>   SIP 1300137...@sip.spectrum.com.au
>Google Talk mattaperk...@gmail.com
>PGP/GNUPG Public Key can be found at  http://pgp.mit.edu
> */
> 
> > On 25 Jan 2021, at 10:24 am, Thomas Jones  wrote:
> > 
> > There is definitely a relay internally, not sure what it's actually there 
> > for though - could be for applying power to the line when attempting to 
> > power the DPU, if a short is detected it can disconnect quickly.
> > 
> > Kind regards,
> > Thomas Jones 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: AusNOG  On Behalf Of Matt Perkins
> > Sent: Monday, 25 January 2021 9:17 AM
> > To: Jrandombob 
> > Cc: AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> > Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?
> > 
> > They had a few hundred to replace in the eastern suburbs in the first week 
> > of Jan the cable there is almost all underground. If anyone has one and can 
> > post a detailed photo of the PCB we can get to the bottom of it but suspect 
> > the HV protection is non existent. 
> > 
> > I have heard mention from customers that there is some sort of clicking 
> > sound on a dead NTD not sure what that would be why there would be a relay 
> > in there. Might be just false info Matt
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > /* Matt Perkins
> >   Direct 1300 137 379 Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd.
> >   Office 1300 133 299 m...@spectrum.com.au
> >   Fax1300 133 255 Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
> >  SIP 1300137...@sip.spectrum.com.au
> >   Google Talk mattaperk...@gmail.com
> >   PGP/GNUPG Public Key can be found at  http://pgp.mit.edu
> > */
> > 
> >> On 24 Jan 2021, at 7:00 pm, Jrandombob  wrote:
> >> 
> >> Mea Culpa.
> >> 
> >> That makes perfect sense. I was considering it from an RF perspective
> >> wherein the mass of earth would theoretically shield the buried
> >> copper. I'd failed to consider that in the case of a ground strike the
> >> buried copper presents a low-resistance path through the lumped
> >> resistance of earth, so it will be the preferential path for the
> >> current to take.
> >> 
> >> In which case the best I can offer is that perhaps the apparent higher
> >> NTD mortality rate in high lightning areas with aerial lead-ins is
> >> maybe due to them being more susceptible to higher-frequency
> >> components which are induced RF-wise into the aerial cable?
> >> 
> >> Though without solid data it's hard to say if there's actually a real
> >> correlation between the aerial lead-ins and failures. Since most
> >> aerial cables end up being underground somewhere along the line it
> >> could well be a remote ground strike that is to blame and it's just
> >> the human propensity for pattern matching telling us there is a
> >> correlation.
> >> 
>  On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:51 PM Ross Wheeler  wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
>  On Fri, 22 Jan 2021, John Edwards wrote:
>  
>  Underground copper is probably more vulnerable than aerial to lightning.
>  Lightning strikes the ground, not the copper, but a voltage gets induced
>  in the copper due to the nearby electromagnetic charge - something that
>  doesn't happen in air because it's a fairly good insulator.
> >>> 
> >>> My experience has shown a different path to lightning damage.
> >>> 
> >>> When lightning strikes the ground, or a grounded object, that current
> >>> dissipates through the soil, which has a typical resistance of around 500
> >>> ohms per metre. If you have tens of thousands of amps flowing, then ohms
> >>> law tells us we have potentially huge potential differences over even
> >>> fairly short distances.
> >>> 
> >>> The copper cable has a very low resistance (by comparison).
> >>> If that cable happens to be radial (or oblique) to the current path from
> >>> the point of entry, the potential difference from one end of the cable to
> >>> the other will be hundreds to many 

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Matt Perkins]

Be great to see a few high res-shots inside.

Matt


On 25/1/21 10:45 am, James Hodgkinson wrote:

This matches with what I've seen/heard/read - the clicking is the NTD turning 
off/on power to the DPU, while it tries to check if it's coming online.

We had a DOA DPU and have had one since after a storm, in ... under three 
months.

James

On 2021-01-25 09:30 Matt Perkins wrote:

There’s nothing quick about a disconnecting relay. But I do have the
reports of them clicking so perhaps power is applied and they are
looking for some condition that does not appear so power is removed a d
re-applied. Whatever condition they are looking for can not be sensed
due to the fault perhaps there’s some type of op-amp in that sense
circuit that’s sensitive to potential difference and the problem lies
there. Wherever the problem lies given the massive volumes involved
there appears to be a design fault / fit for purpose issue at play
here.

Matt



--
/* Matt Perkins
Direct 1300 137 379 Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd.
Office 1300 133 299 m...@spectrum.com.au
Fax1300 133 255 Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
   SIP 1300137...@sip.spectrum.com.au
Google Talk mattaperk...@gmail.com
PGP/GNUPG Public Key can be found at  http://pgp.mit.edu
*/


On 25 Jan 2021, at 10:24 am, Thomas Jones  wrote:

There is definitely a relay internally, not sure what it's actually there for 
though - could be for applying power to the line when attempting to power the 
DPU, if a short is detected it can disconnect quickly.

Kind regards,
Thomas Jones

-Original Message-
From: AusNOG  On Behalf Of Matt Perkins
Sent: Monday, 25 January 2021 9:17 AM
To: Jrandombob 
Cc: AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

They had a few hundred to replace in the eastern suburbs in the first week of 
Jan the cable there is almost all underground. If anyone has one and can post a 
detailed photo of the PCB we can get to the bottom of it but suspect the HV 
protection is non existent.

I have heard mention from customers that there is some sort of clicking sound 
on a dead NTD not sure what that would be why there would be a relay in there. 
Might be just false info Matt



--
/* Matt Perkins
   Direct 1300 137 379 Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd.
   Office 1300 133 299 m...@spectrum.com.au
   Fax1300 133 255 Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
  SIP 1300137...@sip.spectrum.com.au
   Google Talk mattaperk...@gmail.com
   PGP/GNUPG Public Key can be found at  http://pgp.mit.edu
*/


On 24 Jan 2021, at 7:00 pm, Jrandombob  wrote:

Mea Culpa.

That makes perfect sense. I was considering it from an RF perspective
wherein the mass of earth would theoretically shield the buried
copper. I'd failed to consider that in the case of a ground strike the
buried copper presents a low-resistance path through the lumped
resistance of earth, so it will be the preferential path for the
current to take.

In which case the best I can offer is that perhaps the apparent higher
NTD mortality rate in high lightning areas with aerial lead-ins is
maybe due to them being more susceptible to higher-frequency
components which are induced RF-wise into the aerial cable?

Though without solid data it's hard to say if there's actually a real
correlation between the aerial lead-ins and failures. Since most
aerial cables end up being underground somewhere along the line it
could well be a remote ground strike that is to blame and it's just
the human propensity for pattern matching telling us there is a
correlation.


On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:51 PM Ross Wheeler  wrote:




On Fri, 22 Jan 2021, John Edwards wrote:

Underground copper is probably more vulnerable than aerial to lightning.
Lightning strikes the ground, not the copper, but a voltage gets induced
in the copper due to the nearby electromagnetic charge - something that
doesn't happen in air because it's a fairly good insulator.

My experience has shown a different path to lightning damage.

When lightning strikes the ground, or a grounded object, that current
dissipates through the soil, which has a typical resistance of around 500
ohms per metre. If you have tens of thousands of amps flowing, then ohms
law tells us we have potentially huge potential differences over even
fairly short distances.

The copper cable has a very low resistance (by comparison).
If that cable happens to be radial (or oblique) to the current path from
the point of entry, the potential difference from one end of the cable to
the other will be hundreds to many thousands of volts.

Even the insulation of the cable may not be enough to save it, and any
components connected to it which happen to be physically close to the
ground will certainly break down.

This can happen at distances far further away than magnetic induction
alone would explain. It also explains (to me anyway) why I've seen burried
cables 

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Matt Perkins]

There’s nothing quick about a disconnecting relay. But I do have the reports of 
them clicking so perhaps power is applied and they are looking for some 
condition that does not appear so power is removed a d re-applied. Whatever 
condition they are looking for can not be sensed due to the fault perhaps 
there’s some type of op-amp in that sense circuit that’s sensitive to potential 
difference and the problem lies there. Wherever the problem lies given the 
massive volumes involved there appears to be a design fault / fit for purpose 
issue at play here. 

Matt



-- 
/* Matt Perkins
   Direct 1300 137 379 Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd.
   Office 1300 133 299 m...@spectrum.com.au
   Fax1300 133 255 Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
  SIP 1300137...@sip.spectrum.com.au
   Google Talk mattaperk...@gmail.com
   PGP/GNUPG Public Key can be found at  http://pgp.mit.edu
*/

> On 25 Jan 2021, at 10:24 am, Thomas Jones  wrote:
> 
> There is definitely a relay internally, not sure what it's actually there 
> for though - could be for applying power to the line when attempting to power 
> the DPU, if a short is detected it can disconnect quickly.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Thomas Jones 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: AusNOG  On Behalf Of Matt Perkins
> Sent: Monday, 25 January 2021 9:17 AM
> To: Jrandombob 
> Cc: AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?
> 
> They had a few hundred to replace in the eastern suburbs in the first week of 
> Jan the cable there is almost all underground. If anyone has one and can post 
> a detailed photo of the PCB we can get to the bottom of it but suspect the HV 
> protection is non existent. 
> 
> I have heard mention from customers that there is some sort of clicking sound 
> on a dead NTD not sure what that would be why there would be a relay in 
> there. Might be just false info Matt
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> /* Matt Perkins
>   Direct 1300 137 379 Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd.
>   Office 1300 133 299 m...@spectrum.com.au
>   Fax1300 133 255 Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
>  SIP 1300137...@sip.spectrum.com.au
>   Google Talk mattaperk...@gmail.com
>   PGP/GNUPG Public Key can be found at  http://pgp.mit.edu
> */
> 
>> On 24 Jan 2021, at 7:00 pm, Jrandombob  wrote:
>> 
>> Mea Culpa.
>> 
>> That makes perfect sense. I was considering it from an RF perspective
>> wherein the mass of earth would theoretically shield the buried
>> copper. I'd failed to consider that in the case of a ground strike the
>> buried copper presents a low-resistance path through the lumped
>> resistance of earth, so it will be the preferential path for the
>> current to take.
>> 
>> In which case the best I can offer is that perhaps the apparent higher
>> NTD mortality rate in high lightning areas with aerial lead-ins is
>> maybe due to them being more susceptible to higher-frequency
>> components which are induced RF-wise into the aerial cable?
>> 
>> Though without solid data it's hard to say if there's actually a real
>> correlation between the aerial lead-ins and failures. Since most
>> aerial cables end up being underground somewhere along the line it
>> could well be a remote ground strike that is to blame and it's just
>> the human propensity for pattern matching telling us there is a
>> correlation.
>> 
 On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:51 PM Ross Wheeler  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Fri, 22 Jan 2021, John Edwards wrote:
 
 Underground copper is probably more vulnerable than aerial to lightning.
 Lightning strikes the ground, not the copper, but a voltage gets induced
 in the copper due to the nearby electromagnetic charge - something that
 doesn't happen in air because it's a fairly good insulator.
>>> 
>>> My experience has shown a different path to lightning damage.
>>> 
>>> When lightning strikes the ground, or a grounded object, that current
>>> dissipates through the soil, which has a typical resistance of around 500
>>> ohms per metre. If you have tens of thousands of amps flowing, then ohms
>>> law tells us we have potentially huge potential differences over even
>>> fairly short distances.
>>> 
>>> The copper cable has a very low resistance (by comparison).
>>> If that cable happens to be radial (or oblique) to the current path from
>>> the point of entry, the potential difference from one end of the cable to
>>> the other will be hundreds to many thousands of volts.
>>> 
>>> Even the insulation of the cable may not be enough to save it, and any
>>> components connected to it which happen to be physically close to the
>>> ground will certainly break down.
>>> 
>>> This can happen at distances far further away than magnetic induction
>>> alone would explain. It also explains (to me anyway) why I've seen burried
>>> cables damaged part way along their length (where the greatest potential
>>> difference has been).
>>> 
>>> Just my take on 

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Thomas Jones]

There is definitely a relay internally, not sure what it's actually there for 
though - could be for applying power to the line when attempting to power the 
DPU, if a short is detected it can disconnect quickly.

Kind regards,
Thomas Jones 

-Original Message-
From: AusNOG  On Behalf Of Matt Perkins
Sent: Monday, 25 January 2021 9:17 AM
To: Jrandombob 
Cc: AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

They had a few hundred to replace in the eastern suburbs in the first week of 
Jan the cable there is almost all underground. If anyone has one and can post a 
detailed photo of the PCB we can get to the bottom of it but suspect the HV 
protection is non existent. 

I have heard mention from customers that there is some sort of clicking sound 
on a dead NTD not sure what that would be why there would be a relay in there. 
Might be just false info Matt



-- 
/* Matt Perkins
   Direct 1300 137 379 Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd.
   Office 1300 133 299 m...@spectrum.com.au
   Fax1300 133 255 Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
  SIP 1300137...@sip.spectrum.com.au
   Google Talk mattaperk...@gmail.com
   PGP/GNUPG Public Key can be found at  http://pgp.mit.edu
*/

> On 24 Jan 2021, at 7:00 pm, Jrandombob  wrote:
> 
> Mea Culpa.
> 
> That makes perfect sense. I was considering it from an RF perspective
> wherein the mass of earth would theoretically shield the buried
> copper. I'd failed to consider that in the case of a ground strike the
> buried copper presents a low-resistance path through the lumped
> resistance of earth, so it will be the preferential path for the
> current to take.
> 
> In which case the best I can offer is that perhaps the apparent higher
> NTD mortality rate in high lightning areas with aerial lead-ins is
> maybe due to them being more susceptible to higher-frequency
> components which are induced RF-wise into the aerial cable?
> 
> Though without solid data it's hard to say if there's actually a real
> correlation between the aerial lead-ins and failures. Since most
> aerial cables end up being underground somewhere along the line it
> could well be a remote ground strike that is to blame and it's just
> the human propensity for pattern matching telling us there is a
> correlation.
> 
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:51 PM Ross Wheeler  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2021, John Edwards wrote:
>>> 
>>> Underground copper is probably more vulnerable than aerial to lightning.
>>> Lightning strikes the ground, not the copper, but a voltage gets induced
>>> in the copper due to the nearby electromagnetic charge - something that
>>> doesn't happen in air because it's a fairly good insulator.
>> 
>> My experience has shown a different path to lightning damage.
>> 
>> When lightning strikes the ground, or a grounded object, that current
>> dissipates through the soil, which has a typical resistance of around 500
>> ohms per metre. If you have tens of thousands of amps flowing, then ohms
>> law tells us we have potentially huge potential differences over even
>> fairly short distances.
>> 
>> The copper cable has a very low resistance (by comparison).
>> If that cable happens to be radial (or oblique) to the current path from
>> the point of entry, the potential difference from one end of the cable to
>> the other will be hundreds to many thousands of volts.
>> 
>> Even the insulation of the cable may not be enough to save it, and any
>> components connected to it which happen to be physically close to the
>> ground will certainly break down.
>> 
>> This can happen at distances far further away than magnetic induction
>> alone would explain. It also explains (to me anyway) why I've seen burried
>> cables damaged part way along their length (where the greatest potential
>> difference has been).
>> 
>> Just my take on it.
>> R.
> ___
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Matt Perkins]

They had a few hundred to replace in the eastern suburbs in the first week of 
Jan the cable there is almost all underground. If anyone has one and can post a 
detailed photo of the PCB we can get to the bottom of it but suspect the HV 
protection is non existent. 

I have heard mention from customers that there is some sort of clicking sound 
on a dead NTD not sure what that would be why there would be a relay in there. 
Might be just false info 
Matt



-- 
/* Matt Perkins
   Direct 1300 137 379 Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd.
   Office 1300 133 299 m...@spectrum.com.au
   Fax1300 133 255 Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
  SIP 1300137...@sip.spectrum.com.au
   Google Talk mattaperk...@gmail.com
   PGP/GNUPG Public Key can be found at  http://pgp.mit.edu
*/

> On 24 Jan 2021, at 7:00 pm, Jrandombob  wrote:
> 
> Mea Culpa.
> 
> That makes perfect sense. I was considering it from an RF perspective
> wherein the mass of earth would theoretically shield the buried
> copper. I'd failed to consider that in the case of a ground strike the
> buried copper presents a low-resistance path through the lumped
> resistance of earth, so it will be the preferential path for the
> current to take.
> 
> In which case the best I can offer is that perhaps the apparent higher
> NTD mortality rate in high lightning areas with aerial lead-ins is
> maybe due to them being more susceptible to higher-frequency
> components which are induced RF-wise into the aerial cable?
> 
> Though without solid data it's hard to say if there's actually a real
> correlation between the aerial lead-ins and failures. Since most
> aerial cables end up being underground somewhere along the line it
> could well be a remote ground strike that is to blame and it's just
> the human propensity for pattern matching telling us there is a
> correlation.
> 
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:51 PM Ross Wheeler  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2021, John Edwards wrote:
>>> 
>>> Underground copper is probably more vulnerable than aerial to lightning.
>>> Lightning strikes the ground, not the copper, but a voltage gets induced
>>> in the copper due to the nearby electromagnetic charge - something that
>>> doesn't happen in air because it's a fairly good insulator.
>> 
>> My experience has shown a different path to lightning damage.
>> 
>> When lightning strikes the ground, or a grounded object, that current
>> dissipates through the soil, which has a typical resistance of around 500
>> ohms per metre. If you have tens of thousands of amps flowing, then ohms
>> law tells us we have potentially huge potential differences over even
>> fairly short distances.
>> 
>> The copper cable has a very low resistance (by comparison).
>> If that cable happens to be radial (or oblique) to the current path from
>> the point of entry, the potential difference from one end of the cable to
>> the other will be hundreds to many thousands of volts.
>> 
>> Even the insulation of the cable may not be enough to save it, and any
>> components connected to it which happen to be physically close to the
>> ground will certainly break down.
>> 
>> This can happen at distances far further away than magnetic induction
>> alone would explain. It also explains (to me anyway) why I've seen burried
>> cables damaged part way along their length (where the greatest potential
>> difference has been).
>> 
>> Just my take on it.
>> R.
> ___
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Jrandombob]

Mea Culpa.

That makes perfect sense. I was considering it from an RF perspective
wherein the mass of earth would theoretically shield the buried
copper. I'd failed to consider that in the case of a ground strike the
buried copper presents a low-resistance path through the lumped
resistance of earth, so it will be the preferential path for the
current to take.

In which case the best I can offer is that perhaps the apparent higher
NTD mortality rate in high lightning areas with aerial lead-ins is
maybe due to them being more susceptible to higher-frequency
components which are induced RF-wise into the aerial cable?

Though without solid data it's hard to say if there's actually a real
correlation between the aerial lead-ins and failures. Since most
aerial cables end up being underground somewhere along the line it
could well be a remote ground strike that is to blame and it's just
the human propensity for pattern matching telling us there is a
correlation.

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:51 PM Ross Wheeler  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2021, John Edwards wrote:
>
> > Underground copper is probably more vulnerable than aerial to lightning.
> > Lightning strikes the ground, not the copper, but a voltage gets induced
> > in the copper due to the nearby electromagnetic charge - something that
> > doesn't happen in air because it's a fairly good insulator.
>
> My experience has shown a different path to lightning damage.
>
> When lightning strikes the ground, or a grounded object, that current
> dissipates through the soil, which has a typical resistance of around 500
> ohms per metre. If you have tens of thousands of amps flowing, then ohms
> law tells us we have potentially huge potential differences over even
> fairly short distances.
>
> The copper cable has a very low resistance (by comparison).
> If that cable happens to be radial (or oblique) to the current path from
> the point of entry, the potential difference from one end of the cable to
> the other will be hundreds to many thousands of volts.
>
> Even the insulation of the cable may not be enough to save it, and any
> components connected to it which happen to be physically close to the
> ground will certainly break down.
>
> This can happen at distances far further away than magnetic induction
> alone would explain. It also explains (to me anyway) why I've seen burried
> cables damaged part way along their length (where the greatest potential
> difference has been).
>
> Just my take on it.
> R.
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Craig Holyoak]

I don't know if it's related, but last weekend we had a NBN FttC
device fail following a storm, but it was the DPU in the street, not
the NTD. There was power loss, but no lightning in the immediate area.
They said due to equipment shortages it'd be 3 days for a replacement,
but it was there the next day.

-- 
Craig Holyoak
IT Support @ Redlands College
choly...@redlands.qld.edu.au
http://www.redlands.qld.edu.au/

-- 

___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Matt Perkins]

Yes it really is that bad. Word is they are replacing thousands of NTD's 
every week. It appears the design adopted is very sensitive to potential 
difference from induced current flows over relatively short cable lengths.


Faster Cheaper Better.  Thanks Malcolm.

Matt



On 22/1/21 11:30 am, m...@ozonline.com.au wrote:

On Friday 15th we had 30 FTTC NCDs "fried"
in a single 1km2 area due to an electrical storm.
No other devices were impacted in the affected households and
damage occurred irrespective of whether NCDs were plugged to
surge protectors or not.

It seems unlikely that lightning hit lead-ins for the
affected services.

The area has mainly aerial lead-in delivery.

Induced power spike?

- Michael Bethune
Australia On Line




___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog


--
/* Matt Perkins
Direct 02 8916 8101 Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd.
Office 1300 133 299 m...@spectrum.com.au
ABN 66 090 112 913  Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
*/

___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Ross Wheeler]

On Fri, 22 Jan 2021, John Edwards wrote:

Underground copper is probably more vulnerable than aerial to lightning. 
Lightning strikes the ground, not the copper, but a voltage gets induced 
in the copper due to the nearby electromagnetic charge - something that 
doesn't happen in air because it's a fairly good insulator.


My experience has shown a different path to lightning damage.

When lightning strikes the ground, or a grounded object, that current 
dissipates through the soil, which has a typical resistance of around 500 
ohms per metre. If you have tens of thousands of amps flowing, then ohms 
law tells us we have potentially huge potential differences over even 
fairly short distances.


The copper cable has a very low resistance (by comparison).
If that cable happens to be radial (or oblique) to the current path from 
the point of entry, the potential difference from one end of the cable to 
the other will be hundreds to many thousands of volts.


Even the insulation of the cable may not be enough to save it, and any 
components connected to it which happen to be physically close to the 
ground will certainly break down.


This can happen at distances far further away than magnetic induction 
alone would explain. It also explains (to me anyway) why I've seen burried 
cables damaged part way along their length (where the greatest potential 
difference has been).


Just my take on it.
R.___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[John Edwards]

All of the DSLAMs that Australian carriers are throwing in the bin right
now have $20 gas-discharge lightning arrestors on every port to comply with
TEBA rules around LSS connections.

I imagine that FTTC has no such requirement because there is no expensive
voice exchange to protect.

Underground copper is probably more vulnerable than aerial to lightning.
Lightning strikes the ground, not the copper, but a voltage gets induced in
the copper due to the nearby electromagnetic charge - something that
doesn't happen in air because it's a fairly good insulator.

If your disconnected FTTC copper line is still part of a bundle that it
connected back in the exchange, then you could be affected by a lightning
strike that is kilometers away.

Even better, since your line is shorter than the long lines back to the
exchange, you are now potentially on the high-voltage side of an un-coiled
transformer.

Consider also that VDSL2 FTTC CPE needs a more sensitive receiver than
legacy ADSL2+ to achieve the high-order modulations, so it's probably more
susceptible to overvoltage conditions.

Annual reminder: use hierarchical cable sizes when constructing an earthing
system to protect against lighting. Electrical contractors will use a
"bigger is better" rationale to upsell you to larger cables which can
inadvertently redirect lightning to where you don't want it. There are not
many professionals around that really understand this stuff.

I hope the E-waste guys know what's in those DSLAMs and recycle them
appropriately, but that's probably wishful thinking!

John






On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 11:14, Jrandombob  wrote:

> Yeah, I'd say that's a good bet.
>
> Aerial lead-ins are always going to be more susceptible to induced
> spikes from nearby lightning than buried cable.
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 11:30 AM  wrote:
> >
> > On Friday 15th we had 30 FTTC NCDs "fried"
> > in a single 1km2 area due to an electrical storm.
> > No other devices were impacted in the affected households and
> > damage occurred irrespective of whether NCDs were plugged to
> > surge protectors or not.
> >
> > It seems unlikely that lightning hit lead-ins for the
> > affected services.
> >
> > The area has mainly aerial lead-in delivery.
> >
> > Induced power spike?
> >
> > - Michael Bethune
> > Australia On Line
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > AusNOG mailing list
> > AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> ___
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Giles Pollock]

I wonder if it has anything to do with the old legacy copper that was
previously hooked up to the DPUs, which the NCDs trigger a cutover from.
There could potentially be rather a lot of it there, not necessarily
grounded if the old legacy infrastructure has been partially removed, so an
induced current could be quite substantial...

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 11:44 AM Jrandombob 
wrote:

> Yeah, I'd say that's a good bet.
>
> Aerial lead-ins are always going to be more susceptible to induced
> spikes from nearby lightning than buried cable.
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 11:30 AM  wrote:
> >
> > On Friday 15th we had 30 FTTC NCDs "fried"
> > in a single 1km2 area due to an electrical storm.
> > No other devices were impacted in the affected households and
> > damage occurred irrespective of whether NCDs were plugged to
> > surge protectors or not.
> >
> > It seems unlikely that lightning hit lead-ins for the
> > affected services.
> >
> > The area has mainly aerial lead-in delivery.
> >
> > Induced power spike?
> >
> > - Michael Bethune
> > Australia On Line
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > AusNOG mailing list
> > AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> ___
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Jrandombob]

Yeah, I'd say that's a good bet.

Aerial lead-ins are always going to be more susceptible to induced
spikes from nearby lightning than buried cable.

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 11:30 AM  wrote:
>
> On Friday 15th we had 30 FTTC NCDs "fried"
> in a single 1km2 area due to an electrical storm.
> No other devices were impacted in the affected households and
> damage occurred irrespective of whether NCDs were plugged to
> surge protectors or not.
>
> It seems unlikely that lightning hit lead-ins for the
> affected services.
>
> The area has mainly aerial lead-in delivery.
>
> Induced power spike?
>
> - Michael Bethune
> Australia On Line
>
>
>
>
> ___
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[mike]

On Friday 15th we had 30 FTTC NCDs "fried"
in a single 1km2 area due to an electrical storm.
No other devices were impacted in the affected households and
damage occurred irrespective of whether NCDs were plugged to
surge protectors or not.

It seems unlikely that lightning hit lead-ins for the
affected services.

The area has mainly aerial lead-in delivery.

Induced power spike?

- Michael Bethune
Australia On Line




___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Matthew Moyle-Croft]

The DPUs being back-fed from the houses they provide service I’d suggest is the 
main reason - ADSL modems just had the ADSL signal to contend with, whereas 
back feeding power means you’ve got the DPU, with power across the 4 Cu lines 
into the houses and the power grid in four houses connected to the NTDs all 
being electrically connected for power (Potentially (Ha!) across 3 phases).

So a lightning strike that hits a power pole nearby is likely to fry a lot of 
stuff.

Reality is, FTTC is just a way of delaying spending money on fibre. To build 
FTTC NBN are building a GPON network already, just using Cu into the house. 
(It’s a very NPV friendly way of deploying, delaying capex is always a winner 
there).

MMC

> On 21 Jan 2021, at 10:34 am, Jrandombob  wrote:
> 
> Yeah, sounds to me like the NTDs just aren't very well designed.
> 
> Even in a high lightning area, as Damien said previously, if anything FTTC 
> ought to be LESS susceptible (assuming of course the devices are well 
> designed) to lightning owing to the shorter cable runs.
> 
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:50 AM Paul Julian  > wrote:
> As somebody who lives in one of the areas that gets affected a lot, and that 
> the article was mostly written about I believe, I can tell you that there are 
> a lot more NTD’s getting damaged than there was ADSL modems.
> 
>  
> 
> I can’t explain it either, it shouldn’t be happening, however people with 
> surge protected power boards are copping it as well, it’s like it’s coming 
> through the copper, maybe due to the nature of the DPU and other people 
> connected, perhaps it’s transiting the DPU and damaging other NTD’s, I don’t 
> know, but the DPU’s seem to be unaffected, only NTD’s, so it could be a 
> design issue.
> 
>  
> 
> I don’t use NBN myself, however our local facebook page lights up whenever 
> there is a storm approaching or upon us, with people talking about unplugging 
> NTD’s etc. and then of course afterwards when people complain about no 
> internet, and then the complaints that it’s taken NBN 5 days to get there and 
> replace it 
> 
>  
> 
> Many people have been told by the provider that NBN is looking at NTD’s which 
> handle power spikes better, I don’t know what they are actually doing but 
> that’s what people are being told.
> 
>  
> 
> The NBN techs will also not leave spare equipment, this makes sense of 
> course, but I know the question has been asked many times in our community.
> 
>  
> 
> I believe the article came about due to many people complaining to local MP’s 
> about the issues and obviously the media has picked it up as well.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paul
> 
>  
> 
> From: AusNOG  > On Behalf Of Brendan Ord
> Sent: Thursday, 21 January 2021 10:36 AM
> To: Damien Gardner Jnr mailto:rend...@rendrag.net>>
> Cc: aus...@ausnog.net   >
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?
> 
>  
> 
> Damien, I agree with you.  Lightning is going to be causing the same issues 
> it always caused regardless of the technology; telegram, POTS, ADSL or VDSL 
> from the curb or cabinet – nothing’s changed because there’s still copper 
> conductors in the ground.
> 
>  
> 
> I smell a lot of agenda pushing and bias in this article and that’s about all 
> it is.
> 
>  
> 
> Although, maybe a more important topic mentioned in the article – NBN won’t 
> allow these businesses to buy a cold spare?!?
> 
>  
> 
> Brendan Ord
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: AusNOG  > On Behalf Of Damien Gardner Jnr
> Sent: Thursday, 21 January 2021 9:11 AM
> To: Troy Kelly mailto:t...@troykelly.com>>
> Cc: aus...@ausnog.net   >
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?
> 
>  
> 
> Yeah it really didn’t make sense to me. How is a product which only has a 
> TINY bit of copper compared to FTTN and indeed the older POTS network, SO 
> much more susceptible to lightning strikes?  I mean, it’s Fibre to the pit, 
> and then one breakout box is running four(?) homes, with maybe 100-150m total 
> of copper between all four homes’ runs?  Unless lightning is hitting one of 
> those houses, or the people in those houses are stupid enough to NOT be 
> running surge protection on their gear (seriously, wtf? Are there really 
> people without surge protection these days? It’s been around for 30 years, 
> and is on almost every power board Bunnings sell..), I don’t see how 
> lightning can be an issue??
> 
>  
> 
> Something doesn’t make sense here..
> 
>  
> 
> —DG
> 
>  
> 
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 8:25 am, Troy Kelly  > wrote:
> 
> Yes Mark, I've heard of it ;)
> 
>  
> 
> I guess my point was - why is (is it?) FTTC somehow apparently more 
> susceptible to discharge issues than POTS was/is. Perhaps I am getting the 
> wrong 

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Johnathon Brandis]

Dundas NSW - Have had three jobs at the one place since xmas including a
fire as the result of lightning  - I recall there is another fellow on list
from the area maybe has similar stories - The process is annoying for the
FTTC (can be 5 days waiting, for a quick hardware replacement from the good
friends at Optus)

Have a great night all - JB2

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 1:54 PM Brent Paddon  wrote:

> Agree, and as per the text below (cut 'n pasted from:
> https://www.cablinginstall.com/cable/article/16465312/ground-potentials-and-damage-to-lan-equipment),
> maybe part of the problem is that each house has a different earth
> potential?
>
> I'm not an electrical engineer - so I'm assuming the below is correct.
>
> "Consider the case where a workstation in Building A is sending data to
> another network device in Building B. The ground potential of each building
> will be a function of the impedance of its ground system and the current
> flowing through the ground. The data line, in addition to carrying data, is
> also connecting together the ground systems of the two buildings. If the
> ground potentials of Building A and Building B are different, a ground
> current flows in the data line. This is known as a ground potential
> difference. The voltage level of the data signals is increased or decreased
> by the ground potential difference, causing data transmission errors.
>
> It is not unusual for a nominal, steady-state ground potential difference
> to exist between two buildings. There are cases where the potential
> difference has burned open data cables because of the current flowing from
> one building ground to another. This usually indicates an electrical
> equipment fault or incorrect building wiring. Weather conditions such as
> rain can affect ground potential differences. The water-saturated soil is
> better able to carry current to earth ground. Note that the improved ground
> conductivity can either improve or worsen the potential difference problem.
> Under normal conditions there should be very little current flowing in the
> ground conductor.
>
> Transient events are a much greater source of ground potential
> differences. Lightning strikes are the most obvious source and often
> involve the building ground system. During a strike, instantaneous currents
> of 100,000 A are possible. If the strike occurs near Building A, as in the
> example above, some of this current flows through its ground system on its
> way to earth ground. Besides the damage done in Building A, the high
> current impulse will cause an instantaneous rise in the Building A ground
> potential. For example, a 10,000-A lightning current flowing through the
> building`s (ideally) 0.1-ohm ground impedance creates a 1000-V transient
> rise in the ground potential of Building A. The potential difference of the
> two buildings` grounds causes current to flow through any electrical path
> between the two buildings. In this case, a transient surge appears on the
> network cable connecting Building A to Building B. This transient surge can
> last for several microseconds. Any unprotected LAN equipment connected to
> the network cable in Building B will be damaged."
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 11:30 AM Paul Jones  wrote:
>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: AusNOG  On Behalf Of Karl Auer
>> > Sent: Thursday, 21 January 2021 11:24 AM
>> > To: aus...@ausnog.net 
>> > Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?
>> >
>> > There are two ways in to the CPE - the FTTC connection and the power
>> > supply to the CPE.
>> >
>> > The FTTC connections are themselves powered at the curb, and so may be a
>> > conduit for spikes into CPE.
>> >
>> > The likelihood of the cable run from the curb to the CPE getting hit
>> directly is
>> > probably very low, but the likelihood of the power grid getting hit and
>> > sending a spike down the line to either the curb equipment and thence to
>> > the CPE or to the CPE directly is unchanged.
>> > Actually it's probably higher, given the greater number of powered
>> devices in
>> > the network.
>>
>> I would think a direct hit would generally let the smoke out, and then
>> some. Just the EM fields from a nearby strike is enough to damage poorly
>> designed equipment connected to long wires. You should see how much extra
>> protection is provided in something as simple as an alarm system used in
>> tropical storm locations (like Taiwan). Things like spark gaps and spike
>> adsorbers.
>> I'm guessing the designers of the CPE made the same assumption we all did
>> - the copper is not as long so the problem won't be as bad (i.e. save money
>> on protection that is normally used when connecting to phone lines).
>>
>> Paul.
>>
>> ___
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
> ___
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> 

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[James Hodgkinson]

Maybe it's the fact that the NTDs are being powered by residential houses 
instead of the provider's exchanges, and *very* few people in reality use 
*good* surge protectors - let alone know they have to replace them after a hit, 
or identify when they're no longer working?

The power's still coming from the big shared network which loves to attract 
lightning, after all.

James

On 2021-01-21 10:04 Jrandombob wrote:
> Yeah, sounds to me like the NTDs just aren't very well designed.
> 
> Even in a high lightning area, as Damien said previously, if anything FTTC 
> ought to be LESS susceptible (assuming of course the devices are well 
> designed) to lightning owing to the shorter cable runs.
> 
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:50 AM Paul Julian  wrote:
>> As somebody who lives in one of the areas that gets affected a lot, and that 
>> the article was mostly written about I believe, I can tell you that there 
>> are a lot more NTD’s getting damaged than there was ADSL modems.__

>> __ __

>> I can’t explain it either, it shouldn’t be happening, however people with 
>> surge protected power boards are copping it as well, it’s like it’s coming 
>> through the copper, maybe due to the nature of the DPU and other people 
>> connected, perhaps it’s transiting the DPU and damaging other NTD’s, I don’t 
>> know, but the DPU’s seem to be unaffected, only NTD’s, so it could be a 
>> design issue.__

>> __ __

>> I don’t use NBN myself, however our local facebook page lights up whenever 
>> there is a storm approaching or upon us, with people talking about 
>> unplugging NTD’s etc. and then of course afterwards when people complain 
>> about no internet, and then the complaints that it’s taken NBN 5 days to get 
>> there and replace it __

>> __ __

>> Many people have been told by the provider that NBN is looking at NTD’s 
>> which handle power spikes better, I don’t know what they are actually doing 
>> but that’s what people are being told.__

>> __ __

>> The NBN techs will also not leave spare equipment, this makes sense of 
>> course, but I know the question has been asked many times in our community.__

>> __ __

>> I believe the article came about due to many people complaining to local 
>> MP’s about the issues and obviously the media has picked it up as well.__

>> __ __

>> Regards__

>> Paul__

>> __ __

>> *From:* AusNOG  *On Behalf Of *Brendan Ord
>> *Sent:* Thursday, 21 January 2021 10:36 AM
>> *To:* Damien Gardner Jnr 
>> *Cc:* aus...@ausnog.net 
>> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?__

>> __ __

>> Damien, I agree with you.  Lightning is going to be causing the same issues 
>> it always caused regardless of the technology; telegram, POTS, ADSL or VDSL 
>> from the curb or cabinet – nothing’s changed because there’s still copper 
>> conductors in the ground.__

>> __ __

>> I smell a lot of agenda pushing and bias in this article and that’s about 
>> all it is.__

>> __ __

>> Although, maybe a more important topic mentioned in the article – NBN won’t 
>> allow these businesses to buy a cold spare?!?__

>> __ __

>> 
>> *Brendan Ord*__

>> __ __

>> __ __

>> *From:* AusNOG  *On Behalf Of *Damien 
>> Gardner Jnr
>> *Sent:* Thursday, 21 January 2021 9:11 AM
>> *To:* Troy Kelly 
>> *Cc:* aus...@ausnog.net 
>> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?__

>> __ __

>> Yeah it really didn’t make sense to me. How is a product which only has a 
>> TINY bit of copper compared to FTTN and indeed the older POTS network, SO 
>> much more susceptible to lightning strikes?  I mean, it’s Fibre to the pit, 
>> and then one breakout box is running four(?) homes, with maybe 100-150m 
>> total of copper between all four homes’ runs?  Unless lightning is hitting 
>> one of those houses, or the people in those houses are stupid enough to NOT 
>> be running surge protection on their gear (seriously, wtf? Are there really 
>> people without surge protection these days? It’s been around for 30 years, 
>> and is on almost every power board Bunnings sell..), I don’t see how 
>> lightning can be an issue??__

>> __ __

>> Something doesn’t make sense here..__

>> __ __

>> —DG__

>> __ __

>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 8:25 am, Troy Kelly  wrote:__

>>> Yes Mark, I've heard of it ;)__

>>> __ __

>>> I guess my point was - why is (is it?) FTTC somehow apparently more 
>>> susceptible to discharge issues than POTS was/is. Perhaps I am getting the 
>>> wrong impression from the article.__

>>> __ __

>>> *Regards, Troy*__

>>> Brevity is the elixir of life.__

>>> Father Hector McGrath, Pixie 2020__

>>> __ __

>>> __ __

>>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐__

>>> On Wednesday, 20 January 2021 10:15 PM, Mark Smith  
>>> wrote:__

>>> __ __

 Heard of ADSL? POTS?__

 __ __

 If the Internet was only meant to run over fibre, there wouldn't have been 
 any ARPANET or Internet before the late 1980s or early 1990s.__

 __ __

 Fun fact, RFC1 was written on a 

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Brent Paddon]

Agree, and as per the text below (cut 'n pasted from:
https://www.cablinginstall.com/cable/article/16465312/ground-potentials-and-damage-to-lan-equipment),
maybe part of the problem is that each house has a different earth
potential?

I'm not an electrical engineer - so I'm assuming the below is correct.

"Consider the case where a workstation in Building A is sending data to
another network device in Building B. The ground potential of each building
will be a function of the impedance of its ground system and the current
flowing through the ground. The data line, in addition to carrying data, is
also connecting together the ground systems of the two buildings. If the
ground potentials of Building A and Building B are different, a ground
current flows in the data line. This is known as a ground potential
difference. The voltage level of the data signals is increased or decreased
by the ground potential difference, causing data transmission errors.

It is not unusual for a nominal, steady-state ground potential difference
to exist between two buildings. There are cases where the potential
difference has burned open data cables because of the current flowing from
one building ground to another. This usually indicates an electrical
equipment fault or incorrect building wiring. Weather conditions such as
rain can affect ground potential differences. The water-saturated soil is
better able to carry current to earth ground. Note that the improved ground
conductivity can either improve or worsen the potential difference problem.
Under normal conditions there should be very little current flowing in the
ground conductor.

Transient events are a much greater source of ground potential differences.
Lightning strikes are the most obvious source and often involve the
building ground system. During a strike, instantaneous currents of 100,000
A are possible. If the strike occurs near Building A, as in the example
above, some of this current flows through its ground system on its way to
earth ground. Besides the damage done in Building A, the high current
impulse will cause an instantaneous rise in the Building A ground
potential. For example, a 10,000-A lightning current flowing through the
building`s (ideally) 0.1-ohm ground impedance creates a 1000-V transient
rise in the ground potential of Building A. The potential difference of the
two buildings` grounds causes current to flow through any electrical path
between the two buildings. In this case, a transient surge appears on the
network cable connecting Building A to Building B. This transient surge can
last for several microseconds. Any unprotected LAN equipment connected to
the network cable in Building B will be damaged."

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 11:30 AM Paul Jones  wrote:

> > -Original Message-
> > From: AusNOG  On Behalf Of Karl Auer
> > Sent: Thursday, 21 January 2021 11:24 AM
> > To: aus...@ausnog.net 
> > Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?
> >
> > There are two ways in to the CPE - the FTTC connection and the power
> > supply to the CPE.
> >
> > The FTTC connections are themselves powered at the curb, and so may be a
> > conduit for spikes into CPE.
> >
> > The likelihood of the cable run from the curb to the CPE getting hit
> directly is
> > probably very low, but the likelihood of the power grid getting hit and
> > sending a spike down the line to either the curb equipment and thence to
> > the CPE or to the CPE directly is unchanged.
> > Actually it's probably higher, given the greater number of powered
> devices in
> > the network.
>
> I would think a direct hit would generally let the smoke out, and then
> some. Just the EM fields from a nearby strike is enough to damage poorly
> designed equipment connected to long wires. You should see how much extra
> protection is provided in something as simple as an alarm system used in
> tropical storm locations (like Taiwan). Things like spark gaps and spike
> adsorbers.
> I'm guessing the designers of the CPE made the same assumption we all did
> - the copper is not as long so the problem won't be as bad (i.e. save money
> on protection that is normally used when connecting to phone lines).
>
> Paul.
>
> ___
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Paul Jones]

> -Original Message-
> From: AusNOG  On Behalf Of Karl Auer
> Sent: Thursday, 21 January 2021 11:24 AM
> To: aus...@ausnog.net 
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?
> 
> There are two ways in to the CPE - the FTTC connection and the power
> supply to the CPE.
> 
> The FTTC connections are themselves powered at the curb, and so may be a
> conduit for spikes into CPE.
> 
> The likelihood of the cable run from the curb to the CPE getting hit directly 
> is
> probably very low, but the likelihood of the power grid getting hit and
> sending a spike down the line to either the curb equipment and thence to
> the CPE or to the CPE directly is unchanged.
> Actually it's probably higher, given the greater number of powered devices in
> the network.

I would think a direct hit would generally let the smoke out, and then some. 
Just the EM fields from a nearby strike is enough to damage poorly designed 
equipment connected to long wires. You should see how much extra protection is 
provided in something as simple as an alarm system used in tropical storm 
locations (like Taiwan). Things like spark gaps and spike adsorbers.
I'm guessing the designers of the CPE made the same assumption we all did - the 
copper is not as long so the problem won't be as bad (i.e. save money on 
protection that is normally used when connecting to phone lines).

Paul.

___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Troy Kelly]

Yes Mark, I've heard of it ;)

I guess my point was - why is (is it?) FTTC somehow apparently more susceptible 
to discharge issues than POTS was/is. Perhaps I am getting the wrong impression 
from the article.

Regards, Troy
Brevity is the elixir of life.
Father Hector McGrath, Pixie 2020

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, 20 January 2021 10:15 PM, Mark Smith  
wrote:

> Heard of ADSL? POTS?
> 

> If the Internet was only meant to run over fibre, there wouldn't have been 
> any ARPANET or Internet before the late 1980s or early 1990s.
> 

> Fun fact, RFC1 was written on a typewriter in a bathroom in 1969, because 
> Steve didn't want to disturb his flatmates.
> 

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1
> 

> BCP89.
> 

> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021, 21:54 Michael Junek,  wrote:
> 

> > Hi Troy,
> > 

> > Lightning has always been an issue for the copper network – the old adage 
> > “don’t use the phone in a storm” comes to mind.
> > 

> > Certainly where my mum is, in Springwood, the copper is above-ground-- you 
> > often see a 100-pair floating off the power poles, with the house pair 
> > coming from a jumper box mounted up high. This would contribute towards the 
> > issues seen.
> > 

> > So it definitely has some merit – my mum has already had to have the FTTC 
> > NCD replaced once in the (less than) 12 months she’s had an NBN connection.
> > 

> > The article states “Our technical teams continuously look to investigate 
> > ways to reduce the impact of lightning on our electronic equipment with 
> > ongoing testing and trials as part of this process.” – this I can attest 
> > to, as I have two properties which will be participating in these trials.
> > 

> > Cheers
> > 

> > M.
> > 

> > From: AusNOG  On Behalf Of Troy Kelly
> > 

> > Sent: Wednesday, 20 January 2021 20:54
> > 

> > To: 'aus...@ausnog.net' 
> > 

> > Subject: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?
> > 

> >  
> > 

> > I'm confused as to how FTTC would suffer more from lightning strike related 
> > issues than other ground conducting technologies?
> > 

> > Is it something about the Blue Mountains in particular, or is this article 
> > rubbish?
> > 

> > (Paywall, open in incognito if so inclined)
> > https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/blue-mountains-residents-turn-off-nbn-in-storms-or-risk-no-connection-for-days-20210120-p56vjb.html
> > 

> > Cheers,
> > Troy
> > 

> > ___
> > AusNOG mailing list
> > AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

publickey - troy@troykelly.com - 0x3DB9B3FB.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Jarryd Sullivan]

The FTTC NCD's in the customer premise reverse power the DPU in the 
street(curb). Up to 4 premise connected to the DPU can share the reverse 
powering of the DPU to allow lower power draw from each user's NTD and also 
providing a form of redundancy for the users connected to it. So I'd hazard a 
guess it's that at a minimum 4 lots of copper, 4 NCD's that are reverse 
powering the DPU so more risk to everyone connected/more chance at lightning 
impacting additional houses or users.

Jarryd Sullivan
­

On 21/1/21, 9:55 am, "AusNOG on behalf of Karl Auer" 
 wrote:

On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 11:04 +1100, Jrandombob wrote:
> Even in a high lightning area, as Damien said previously, if anything
> FTTC ought to be LESS susceptible (assuming of course the devices are
> well designed) to lightning owing to the shorter cable runs.

There are two ways in to the CPE - the FTTC connection and the power
supply to the CPE.

The FTTC connections are themselves powered at the curb, and so may be
a conduit for spikes into CPE.

The likelihood of the cable run from the curb to the CPE getting hit
directly is probably very low, but the likelihood of the power grid
getting hit and sending a spike down the line to either the curb
equipment and thence to the CPE or to the CPE directly is unchanged.
Actually it's probably higher, given the greater number of powered
devices in the network.

Regards, K.

--
~~~
Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer

GPG fingerprint: 2561 E9EC D868 E73C 8AF1 49CF EE50 4B1D CCA1 5170
Old fingerprint: 8D08 9CAA 649A AFEF E862 062A 2E97 42D4 A2A0 616D



___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

This e-mail may include confidential information. If you received this e-mail 
by mistake, please inform the sender immediately and then delete this e-mail. 
Please do not copy or share the information included in this e-mail. Aussie 
Broadband acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout 
Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect 
to their elders past, present, and emerging, and extend that respect to all 
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Karl Auer]

On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 11:04 +1100, Jrandombob wrote:
> Even in a high lightning area, as Damien said previously, if anything
> FTTC ought to be LESS susceptible (assuming of course the devices are
> well designed) to lightning owing to the shorter cable runs.

There are two ways in to the CPE - the FTTC connection and the power
supply to the CPE.

The FTTC connections are themselves powered at the curb, and so may be
a conduit for spikes into CPE.

The likelihood of the cable run from the curb to the CPE getting hit
directly is probably very low, but the likelihood of the power grid
getting hit and sending a spike down the line to either the curb
equipment and thence to the CPE or to the CPE directly is unchanged.
Actually it's probably higher, given the greater number of powered
devices in the network.

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~
Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer

GPG fingerprint: 2561 E9EC D868 E73C 8AF1 49CF EE50 4B1D CCA1 5170
Old fingerprint: 8D08 9CAA 649A AFEF E862 062A 2E97 42D4 A2A0 616D



___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Jrandombob]

Yeah, sounds to me like the NTDs just aren't very well designed.

Even in a high lightning area, as Damien said previously, if anything FTTC
ought to be LESS susceptible (assuming of course the devices are well
designed) to lightning owing to the shorter cable runs.

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:50 AM Paul Julian  wrote:

> As somebody who lives in one of the areas that gets affected a lot, and
> that the article was mostly written about I believe, I can tell you that
> there are a lot more NTD’s getting damaged than there was ADSL modems.
>
>
>
> I can’t explain it either, it shouldn’t be happening, however people with
> surge protected power boards are copping it as well, it’s like it’s coming
> through the copper, maybe due to the nature of the DPU and other people
> connected, perhaps it’s transiting the DPU and damaging other NTD’s, I
> don’t know, but the DPU’s seem to be unaffected, only NTD’s, so it could be
> a design issue.
>
>
>
> I don’t use NBN myself, however our local facebook page lights up whenever
> there is a storm approaching or upon us, with people talking about
> unplugging NTD’s etc. and then of course afterwards when people complain
> about no internet, and then the complaints that it’s taken NBN 5 days to
> get there and replace it 
>
>
>
> Many people have been told by the provider that NBN is looking at NTD’s
> which handle power spikes better, I don’t know what they are actually doing
> but that’s what people are being told.
>
>
>
> The NBN techs will also not leave spare equipment, this makes sense of
> course, but I know the question has been asked many times in our community.
>
>
>
> I believe the article came about due to many people complaining to local
> MP’s about the issues and obviously the media has picked it up as well.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> *From:* AusNOG  *On Behalf Of *Brendan
> Ord
> *Sent:* Thursday, 21 January 2021 10:36 AM
> *To:* Damien Gardner Jnr 
> *Cc:* aus...@ausnog.net 
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?
>
>
>
> Damien, I agree with you.  Lightning is going to be causing the same
> issues it always caused regardless of the technology; telegram, POTS, ADSL
> or VDSL from the curb or cabinet – nothing’s changed because there’s still
> copper conductors in the ground.
>
>
>
> I smell a lot of agenda pushing and bias in this article and that’s about
> all it is.
>
>
>
> Although, maybe a more important topic mentioned in the article – NBN
> won’t allow these businesses to buy a cold spare?!?
>
>
>
> *Brendan Ord*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AusNOG  *On Behalf Of *Damien
> Gardner Jnr
> *Sent:* Thursday, 21 January 2021 9:11 AM
> *To:* Troy Kelly 
> *Cc:* aus...@ausnog.net 
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?
>
>
>
> Yeah it really didn’t make sense to me. How is a product which only has a
> TINY bit of copper compared to FTTN and indeed the older POTS network, SO
> much more susceptible to lightning strikes?  I mean, it’s Fibre to the pit,
> and then one breakout box is running four(?) homes, with maybe 100-150m
> total of copper between all four homes’ runs?  Unless lightning is hitting
> one of those houses, or the people in those houses are stupid enough to NOT
> be running surge protection on their gear (seriously, wtf? Are there really
> people without surge protection these days? It’s been around for 30 years,
> and is on almost every power board Bunnings sell..), I don’t see how
> lightning can be an issue??
>
>
>
> Something doesn’t make sense here..
>
>
>
> —DG
>
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 8:25 am, Troy Kelly  wrote:
>
> Yes Mark, I've heard of it ;)
>
>
>
> I guess my point was - why is (is it?) FTTC somehow apparently more
> susceptible to discharge issues than POTS was/is. Perhaps I am getting the
> wrong impression from the article.
>
>
>
> *Regards, Troy*
>
> Brevity is the elixir of life.
>
> Father Hector McGrath, Pixie 2020
>
>
>
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>
> On Wednesday, 20 January 2021 10:15 PM, Mark Smith 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Heard of ADSL? POTS?
>
>
>
> If the Internet was only meant to run over fibre, there wouldn't have been
> any ARPANET or Internet before the late 1980s or early 1990s.
>
>
>
> Fun fact, RFC1 was written on a typewriter in a bathroom in 1969, because
> Steve didn't want to disturb his flatmates.
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1
>
>
>
> BCP89.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Giles Pollock]

Ever tried to convince NBNCo that they got incorrect maps from Telstra and
that HFC will not be a suitable replacement for a single property with
capacity for six legacy phone lines (terminating in different rooms)? They
are not known for their ability to solve problems that deviate from their
scripts!
It is almost certainly about politics. I have FTTC and while it has its
problems, at least I can keep my connection online during a power outage by
having the NCD hooked up to a UPS... I have heard reports of a large number
of NCDs needing to be replaced due to lightning damage, but nobody has been
particularly clear as to whether they are sensitive to it on the data
copper side, or on the power side.

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:36 AM Brendan Ord  wrote:

> Damien, I agree with you.  Lightning is going to be causing the same
> issues it always caused regardless of the technology; telegram, POTS, ADSL
> or VDSL from the curb or cabinet – nothing’s changed because there’s still
> copper conductors in the ground.
>
>
>
> I smell a lot of agenda pushing and bias in this article and that’s about
> all it is.
>
>
>
> Although, maybe a more important topic mentioned in the article – NBN
> won’t allow these businesses to buy a cold spare?!?
>
>
>
> *Brendan Ord*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AusNOG  *On Behalf Of *Damien
> Gardner Jnr
> *Sent:* Thursday, 21 January 2021 9:11 AM
> *To:* Troy Kelly 
> *Cc:* aus...@ausnog.net 
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?
>
>
>
> Yeah it really didn’t make sense to me. How is a product which only has a
> TINY bit of copper compared to FTTN and indeed the older POTS network, SO
> much more susceptible to lightning strikes?  I mean, it’s Fibre to the pit,
> and then one breakout box is running four(?) homes, with maybe 100-150m
> total of copper between all four homes’ runs?  Unless lightning is hitting
> one of those houses, or the people in those houses are stupid enough to NOT
> be running surge protection on their gear (seriously, wtf? Are there really
> people without surge protection these days? It’s been around for 30 years,
> and is on almost every power board Bunnings sell..), I don’t see how
> lightning can be an issue??
>
>
>
> Something doesn’t make sense here..
>
>
>
> —DG
>
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 8:25 am, Troy Kelly  wrote:
>
> Yes Mark, I've heard of it ;)
>
>
>
> I guess my point was - why is (is it?) FTTC somehow apparently more
> susceptible to discharge issues than POTS was/is. Perhaps I am getting the
> wrong impression from the article.
>
>
>
> *Regards, Troy*
>
> Brevity is the elixir of life.
>
> Father Hector McGrath, Pixie 2020
>
>
>
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>
> On Wednesday, 20 January 2021 10:15 PM, Mark Smith 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Heard of ADSL? POTS?
>
>
>
> If the Internet was only meant to run over fibre, there wouldn't have been
> any ARPANET or Internet before the late 1980s or early 1990s.
>
>
>
> Fun fact, RFC1 was written on a typewriter in a bathroom in 1969, because
> Steve didn't want to disturb his flatmates.
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1
>
>
>
> BCP89.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021, 21:54 Michael Junek,  wrote:
>
> Hi Troy,
>
>
>
> Lightning has always been an issue for the copper network – the old adage
> “don’t use the phone in a storm” comes to mind.
>
> Certainly where my mum is, in Springwood, the copper is above-ground-- you
> often see a 100-pair floating off the power poles, with the house pair
> coming from a jumper box mounted up high. This would contribute towards the
> issues seen.
>
> So it definitely has some merit – my mum has already had to have the FTTC
> NCD replaced once in the (less than) 12 months she’s had an NBN connection.
>
>
>
> The article states “Our technical teams continuously look to investigate
> ways to reduce the impact of lightning on our electronic equipment with
> ongoing testing and trials as part of this process.” – this I can attest
> to, as I have two properties which will be participating in these trials.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> M.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AusNOG  *On Behalf Of *Troy Kelly
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 20 January 2021 20:54
> *To:* 'aus...@ausnog.net' 
> *Subject:* [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?
>
>
>
> I'm confused as to how FTTC would suffer more from lightning strike
> related issues than other ground conducting technologies?
>
>
>
> Is it something about the Blue Mountains in particular, or is this article
> rubbish?
>
>
>
> (Paywall, open in incognito if so inclined)
>
>
> https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/blue-mountains-residents-turn-off-nbn-in-storms-or-risk-no-connection-for-days-20210120-p56vjb.html
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Troy
>
>
>
> ___
>
> AusNOG mailing list
>
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
>
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
> ___
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> 

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Paul Julian]

As somebody who lives in one of the areas that gets affected a lot, and that 
the article was mostly written about I believe, I can tell you that there are a 
lot more NTD’s getting damaged than there was ADSL modems.
 
I can’t explain it either, it shouldn’t be happening, however people with surge 
protected power boards are copping it as well, it’s like it’s coming through 
the copper, maybe due to the nature of the DPU and other people connected, 
perhaps it’s transiting the DPU and damaging other NTD’s, I don’t know, but the 
DPU’s seem to be unaffected, only NTD’s, so it could be a design issue.
 
I don’t use NBN myself, however our local facebook page lights up whenever 
there is a storm approaching or upon us, with people talking about unplugging 
NTD’s etc. and then of course afterwards when people complain about no 
internet, and then the complaints that it’s taken NBN 5 days to get there and 
replace it 
 
Many people have been told by the provider that NBN is looking at NTD’s which 
handle power spikes better, I don’t know what they are actually doing but 
that’s what people are being told.
 
The NBN techs will also not leave spare equipment, this makes sense of course, 
but I know the question has been asked many times in our community.
 
I believe the article came about due to many people complaining to local MP’s 
about the issues and obviously the media has picked it up as well.
 
Regards
Paul
 
From: AusNOG  On Behalf Of Brendan Ord
Sent: Thursday, 21 January 2021 10:36 AM
To: Damien Gardner Jnr 
Cc: aus...@ausnog.net 
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?
 
Damien, I agree with you.  Lightning is going to be causing the same issues it 
always caused regardless of the technology; telegram, POTS, ADSL or VDSL from 
the curb or cabinet – nothing’s changed because there’s still copper conductors 
in the ground.
 
I smell a lot of agenda pushing and bias in this article and that’s about all 
it is.
 
Although, maybe a more important topic mentioned in the article – NBN won’t 
allow these businesses to buy a cold spare?!?
 
 
 Brendan Ord
 
 
From: AusNOG mailto:ausnog-boun...@lists.ausnog.net> On Behalf Of Damien Gardner Jnr
Sent: Thursday, 21 January 2021 9:11 AM
To: Troy Kelly mailto:t...@troykelly.com>
Cc: aus...@ausnog.net mailto:aus...@ausnog.net mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?
 
Yeah it really didn’t make sense to me. How is a product which only has a TINY 
bit of copper compared to FTTN and indeed the older POTS network, SO much more 
susceptible to lightning strikes?  I mean, it’s Fibre to the pit, and then one 
breakout box is running four(?) homes, with maybe 100-150m total of copper 
between all four homes’ runs?  Unless lightning is hitting one of those houses, 
or the people in those houses are stupid enough to NOT be running surge 
protection on their gear (seriously, wtf? Are there really people without surge 
protection these days? It’s been around for 30 years, and is on almost every 
power board Bunnings sell..), I don’t see how lightning can be an issue??
 
Something doesn’t make sense here..
 
—DG
 
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 8:25 am, Troy Kelly mailto:t...@troykelly.com> wrote:
Yes Mark, I've heard of it ;)
 
I guess my point was - why is (is it?) FTTC somehow apparently more susceptible 
to discharge issues than POTS was/is. Perhaps I am getting the wrong impression 
from the article.
 
Regards, Troy
Brevity is the elixir of life.
Father Hector McGrath, Pixie 2020
 
 
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, 20 January 2021 10:15 PM, Mark Smith mailto:markzzzsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Heard of ADSL? POTS?
 
If the Internet was only meant to run over fibre, there wouldn't have been any 
ARPANET or Internet before the late 1980s or early 1990s.
 
Fun fact, RFC1 was written on a typewriter in a bathroom in 1969, because Steve 
didn't want to disturb his flatmates.
 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1
 
BCP89.___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Brendan Ord]

Damien, I agree with you.  Lightning is going to be causing the same issues it 
always caused regardless of the technology; telegram, POTS, ADSL or VDSL from 
the curb or cabinet – nothing’s changed because there’s still copper conductors 
in the ground.

I smell a lot of agenda pushing and bias in this article and that’s about all 
it is.

Although, maybe a more important topic mentioned in the article – NBN won’t 
allow these businesses to buy a cold spare?!?

Brendan Ord



From: AusNOG  On Behalf Of Damien Gardner Jnr
Sent: Thursday, 21 January 2021 9:11 AM
To: Troy Kelly 
Cc: aus...@ausnog.net 
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

Yeah it really didn’t make sense to me. How is a product which only has a TINY 
bit of copper compared to FTTN and indeed the older POTS network, SO much more 
susceptible to lightning strikes?  I mean, it’s Fibre to the pit, and then one 
breakout box is running four(?) homes, with maybe 100-150m total of copper 
between all four homes’ runs?  Unless lightning is hitting one of those houses, 
or the people in those houses are stupid enough to NOT be running surge 
protection on their gear (seriously, wtf? Are there really people without surge 
protection these days? It’s been around for 30 years, and is on almost every 
power board Bunnings sell..), I don’t see how lightning can be an issue??

Something doesn’t make sense here..

—DG

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 8:25 am, Troy Kelly 
mailto:t...@troykelly.com>> wrote:
Yes Mark, I've heard of it ;)

I guess my point was - why is (is it?) FTTC somehow apparently more susceptible 
to discharge issues than POTS was/is. Perhaps I am getting the wrong impression 
from the article.

Regards, Troy
Brevity is the elixir of life.
Father Hector McGrath, Pixie 2020


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, 20 January 2021 10:15 PM, Mark Smith 
mailto:markzzzsm...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Heard of ADSL? POTS?

If the Internet was only meant to run over fibre, there wouldn't have been any 
ARPANET or Internet before the late 1980s or early 1990s.

Fun fact, RFC1 was written on a typewriter in a bathroom in 1969, because Steve 
didn't want to disturb his flatmates.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1

BCP89.




On Wed, 20 Jan 2021, 21:54 Michael Junek, 
mailto:mich...@juneks.com.au>> wrote:

Hi Troy,



Lightning has always been an issue for the copper network – the old adage 
“don’t use the phone in a storm” comes to mind.

Certainly where my mum is, in Springwood, the copper is above-ground-- you 
often see a 100-pair floating off the power poles, with the house pair coming 
from a jumper box mounted up high. This would contribute towards the issues 
seen.

So it definitely has some merit – my mum has already had to have the FTTC NCD 
replaced once in the (less than) 12 months she’s had an NBN connection.



The article states “Our technical teams continuously look to investigate ways 
to reduce the impact of lightning on our electronic equipment with ongoing 
testing and trials as part of this process.” – this I can attest to, as I have 
two properties which will be participating in these trials.



Cheers

M.















From: AusNOG 
mailto:ausnog-boun...@lists.ausnog.net>> On 
Behalf Of Troy Kelly
Sent: Wednesday, 20 January 2021 20:54
To: 'aus...@ausnog.net' 
mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net>>
Subject: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?


I'm confused as to how FTTC would suffer more from lightning strike related 
issues than other ground conducting technologies?

Is it something about the Blue Mountains in particular, or is this article 
rubbish?

(Paywall, open in incognito if so inclined)
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/blue-mountains-residents-turn-off-nbn-in-storms-or-risk-no-connection-for-days-20210120-p56vjb.html

Cheers,
Troy

___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
--

Damien Gardner Jnr
VK2TDG. Dip EE. GradIEAust
rend...@rendrag.net -  http://www.rendrag.net/
--
We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
 We ran to the sounds of thunder.
We danced among the lightning bolts,
 and tore the world asunder
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Damien Gardner Jnr]

Yeah it really didn’t make sense to me. How is a product which only has a
TINY bit of copper compared to FTTN and indeed the older POTS network, SO
much more susceptible to lightning strikes?  I mean, it’s Fibre to the pit,
and then one breakout box is running four(?) homes, with maybe 100-150m
total of copper between all four homes’ runs?  Unless lightning is hitting
one of those houses, or the people in those houses are stupid enough to NOT
be running surge protection on their gear (seriously, wtf? Are there really
people without surge protection these days? It’s been around for 30 years,
and is on almost every power board Bunnings sell..), I don’t see how
lightning can be an issue??

Something doesn’t make sense here..

—DG

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 8:25 am, Troy Kelly  wrote:

> Yes Mark, I've heard of it ;)
>
> I guess my point was - why is (is it?) FTTC somehow apparently more
> susceptible to discharge issues than POTS was/is. Perhaps I am getting the
> wrong impression from the article.
>
> *Regards, Troy*
> Brevity is the elixir of life.
> Father Hector McGrath, Pixie 2020
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Wednesday, 20 January 2021 10:15 PM, Mark Smith 
> wrote:
>
> Heard of ADSL? POTS?
>
> If the Internet was only meant to run over fibre, there wouldn't have been
> any ARPANET or Internet before the late 1980s or early 1990s.
>
> Fun fact, RFC1 was written on a typewriter in a bathroom in 1969, because
> Steve didn't want to disturb his flatmates.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1
>
> BCP89.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021, 21:54 Michael Junek,  wrote:
>
>> Hi Troy,
>>
>>
>>
>> Lightning has always been an issue for the copper network – the old adage
>> “don’t use the phone in a storm” comes to mind.
>>
>> Certainly where my mum is, in Springwood, the copper is above-ground--
>> you often see a 100-pair floating off the power poles, with the house pair
>> coming from a jumper box mounted up high. This would contribute towards the
>> issues seen.
>>
>> So it definitely has some merit – my mum has already had to have the FTTC
>> NCD replaced once in the (less than) 12 months she’s had an NBN connection.
>>
>>
>>
>> The article states “Our technical teams continuously look to investigate
>> ways to reduce the impact of lightning on our electronic equipment with
>> ongoing testing and trials as part of this process.” – this I can attest
>> to, as I have two properties which will be participating in these trials.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> M.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AusNOG  *On Behalf Of *Troy
>> Kelly
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 20 January 2021 20:54
>> *To:* 'aus...@ausnog.net' 
>> *Subject:* [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm confused as to how FTTC would suffer more from lightning strike
>> related issues than other ground conducting technologies?
>>
>> Is it something about the Blue Mountains in particular, or is this
>> article rubbish?
>>
>> (Paywall, open in incognito if so inclined)
>>
>> https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/blue-mountains-residents-turn-off-nbn-in-storms-or-risk-no-connection-for-days-20210120-p56vjb.html
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Troy
>>
>> ___
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>
> ___
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
-- 

Damien Gardner Jnr
VK2TDG. Dip EE. GradIEAust
rend...@rendrag.net -  http://www.rendrag.net/
--
We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
 We ran to the sounds of thunder.
We danced among the lightning bolts,
 and tore the world asunder
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

[AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Troy Kelly]

I'm confused as to how FTTC would suffer more from lightning strike related 
issues than other ground conducting technologies?

Is it something about the Blue Mountains in particular, or is this article 
rubbish?

(Paywall, open in incognito if so inclined)
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/blue-mountains-residents-turn-off-nbn-in-storms-or-risk-no-connection-for-days-20210120-p56vjb.html

Cheers,
Troy




publickey - EmailAddress(s=troy@troykelly.com) - 0x3DB9B3FB.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Robert Hudson]

Excite@Home (which became Optus@Home, which became Optus Cable Internet)
had a contractual obligation on the customer to leave the cable modem
plugged directly into the wall socket they installed, specifically
prohibiting the installation of a surge protector/arrester.

They then tried to charge customers for replacement cable modems when they
were fried by lightning.  Didn't work out that way for them. :)

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 22:15, Mark Smith  wrote:

> Heard of ADSL? POTS?
>
> If the Internet was only meant to run over fibre, there wouldn't have been
> any ARPANET or Internet before the late 1980s or early 1990s.
>
> Fun fact, RFC1 was written on a typewriter in a bathroom in 1969, because
> Steve didn't want to disturb his flatmates.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1
>
> BCP89.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021, 21:54 Michael Junek,  wrote:
>
>> Hi Troy,
>>
>>
>>
>> Lightning has always been an issue for the copper network – the old adage
>> “don’t use the phone in a storm” comes to mind.
>>
>> Certainly where my mum is, in Springwood, the copper is above-ground--
>> you often see a 100-pair floating off the power poles, with the house pair
>> coming from a jumper box mounted up high. This would contribute towards the
>> issues seen.
>>
>> So it definitely has some merit – my mum has already had to have the FTTC
>> NCD replaced once in the (less than) 12 months she’s had an NBN connection.
>>
>>
>>
>> The article states “Our technical teams continuously look to investigate
>> ways to reduce the impact of lightning on our electronic equipment with
>> ongoing testing and trials as part of this process.” – this I can attest
>> to, as I have two properties which will be participating in these trials.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> M.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AusNOG  *On Behalf Of *Troy
>> Kelly
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 20 January 2021 20:54
>> *To:* 'aus...@ausnog.net' 
>> *Subject:* [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm confused as to how FTTC would suffer more from lightning strike
>> related issues than other ground conducting technologies?
>>
>> Is it something about the Blue Mountains in particular, or is this
>> article rubbish?
>>
>> (Paywall, open in incognito if so inclined)
>>
>> https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/blue-mountains-residents-turn-off-nbn-in-storms-or-risk-no-connection-for-days-20210120-p56vjb.html
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Troy
>>
>> ___
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
> ___
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Mark Smith]

Heard of ADSL? POTS?

If the Internet was only meant to run over fibre, there wouldn't have been
any ARPANET or Internet before the late 1980s or early 1990s.

Fun fact, RFC1 was written on a typewriter in a bathroom in 1969, because
Steve didn't want to disturb his flatmates.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1

BCP89.




On Wed, 20 Jan 2021, 21:54 Michael Junek,  wrote:

> Hi Troy,
>
>
>
> Lightning has always been an issue for the copper network – the old adage
> “don’t use the phone in a storm” comes to mind.
>
> Certainly where my mum is, in Springwood, the copper is above-ground-- you
> often see a 100-pair floating off the power poles, with the house pair
> coming from a jumper box mounted up high. This would contribute towards the
> issues seen.
>
> So it definitely has some merit – my mum has already had to have the FTTC
> NCD replaced once in the (less than) 12 months she’s had an NBN connection.
>
>
>
> The article states “Our technical teams continuously look to investigate
> ways to reduce the impact of lightning on our electronic equipment with
> ongoing testing and trials as part of this process.” – this I can attest
> to, as I have two properties which will be participating in these trials.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> M.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AusNOG  *On Behalf Of *Troy Kelly
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 20 January 2021 20:54
> *To:* 'aus...@ausnog.net' 
> *Subject:* [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?
>
>
>
> I'm confused as to how FTTC would suffer more from lightning strike
> related issues than other ground conducting technologies?
>
> Is it something about the Blue Mountains in particular, or is this article
> rubbish?
>
> (Paywall, open in incognito if so inclined)
>
> https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/blue-mountains-residents-turn-off-nbn-in-storms-or-risk-no-connection-for-days-20210120-p56vjb.html
>
> Cheers,
> Troy
>
> ___
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

[Michael Junek]

Hi Troy,

Lightning has always been an issue for the copper network – the old adage 
“don’t use the phone in a storm” comes to mind.
Certainly where my mum is, in Springwood, the copper is above-ground-- you 
often see a 100-pair floating off the power poles, with the house pair coming 
from a jumper box mounted up high. This would contribute towards the issues 
seen.
So it definitely has some merit – my mum has already had to have the FTTC NCD 
replaced once in the (less than) 12 months she’s had an NBN connection.

The article states “Our technical teams continuously look to investigate ways 
to reduce the impact of lightning on our electronic equipment with ongoing 
testing and trials as part of this process.” – this I can attest to, as I have 
two properties which will be participating in these trials.

Cheers
M.







From: AusNOG  On Behalf Of Troy Kelly
Sent: Wednesday, 20 January 2021 20:54
To: 'aus...@ausnog.net' 
Subject: [AusNOG] Lightning and FTTC - is it really this bad?

I'm confused as to how FTTC would suffer more from lightning strike related 
issues than other ground conducting technologies?

Is it something about the Blue Mountains in particular, or is this article 
rubbish?

(Paywall, open in incognito if so inclined)
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/blue-mountains-residents-turn-off-nbn-in-storms-or-risk-no-connection-for-days-20210120-p56vjb.html

Cheers,
Troy

___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog