From: heller@deepsoft.com   
      
   At Mon, 07 Jul 2014 11:07:21 -0500 Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
      
   >   
   > On 07-Jul-14 08:05, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   > > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
   > >> On Sunday, July 6, 2014 4:04:09 PM UTC-4, Robert Heller wrote:   
   > >>> ... And the 50 or so miles of copper is basically crap. Most of   
   > >>> it is worn out and overdue for replacement.   
   > >>   
   > >> When say the "copper is worn out", do you actually mean the   
   > >> insulation of each wire and the sheath of the cable itself?  I   
   > >> would think the copper itself doesn't wear.   
   > >   
   > > Huh? Copper can oxidize, like any other metal.   
   >   
   > Yes, but like aluminum oxide, copper oxide forms a protective layer that   
   > protects against further oxidation.  It's not like iron oxide.   
      
   I believe that copper is non-conductive.  And the phone wires are actually   
   copper plated steel (for strength). Once the *thin* layer of copper oxizes,   
   the *steel* wires no longer conduct well. And I guess the whole impedence   
   rating of the *twisted pair* is blown away as well.  Hello massive signal   
   loss, etc.  I also suspect that repeated exposure to water might wash away the   
   layer of copper oxide.  Plus as the cables move in the wind and the shething   
   rubs against the copper wires, the copper oxide layer is rubbed off, exposing   
   fresh copper.  It is not like we are talking about a solid bar of copper in a   
   fixed unmoving location. Things are not that simple.   
      
   >   
   > > When I moved into my current place, it still had screw-down   
   > > connectors, not idea for DSL.  66 and 110 punch-down blocks were   
   > > designed to minimize oxidation at the point of connection inside   
   > > the subscriber's premisis.   
   >   
   > Really?  I thought they were designed to minimize the space and time   
   > required to make connections.   
   >   
   > Screw (and wire-wrap) connectors do require the tips of the wires to be   
   > exposed whereas punch-down connectors don't, but I suspect that is more   
   > an issue of not needing the installer to waste time stripping them; just   
   > punch them and move on.   
   >   
   > > In the field, wherever the insulation is cracked, water infiltration   
   > > and hence oxidation is assumed.   
   >   
   > Of course.  One of the things the insulation is protecting against is   
   > air, which contains water (among other things).   
      
   And the *insulation* breaks down over time and exposure to UV rays.  And it   
   too has fatigue issues (moving in the wind, etc.).   
      
   Note: I am NOT saying the fiber optic cable will last longer than copper cable   
   -- both have fixed lifetimes -- just that the cables (copper) that are *now*   
   on the poles in Western Mass are generally near, at, or past their intended   
   lifetimes, since *Verizon* has not bothered to do the needed maintaince (eg   
   replace them in a timely manor). At this point it is not really a matter of   
   whether to replace them or not, but what to replace them with: new copper or   
   new fiber and what really makes more sense in the long term. Given that in   
   time (10 years? 20 years? 30 years?) there will likely be need for more   
   bandwidth than copper can ever handle, it makes little sense to put up *new*   
   copper and then tear it down well before it wears out. We might as well   
   future-proof ourselves and put up fiber. We may not need the bandwidth *now*,   
   but in the future we will, and probably not in all that distant a future.   
      
   >   
   > S   
   >   
      
   --   
   Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933   
   Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services   
   http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services   
   heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)