From: heller@deepsoft.com   
      
   At Mon, 07 Jul 2014 18:58:45 -0500 Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
      
   >   
   > On 07-Jul-14 14:36, Robert Heller wrote:   
   > > 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:   
   > >>>> 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).   
   >   
   > Maybe long ago or in special applications, but all the stuff I've ever   
   > seen is solid or stranded copper, no steel.  Phone wires don't _need_   
   > strength; they need flexibility and conductivity, both of which pure   
   > copper does a far better job of than steel.   
   >   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > There is no rubbing of anything against the copper itself, just one   
   > piece of insulation against another.  Oxidation only happens at the very   
   > ends where the insulation is stripped to make connections, and strain   
   > relief is used in those locations for exactly that reason.   
   >   
   > >> 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.   
   >   
   > The insulation on the wires is not exposed to UV rays; only the sheath   
   > is, and modern materials are designed for UV resistance.  Yes, the old   
   > stuff had problems, but that's why better materials were developed   
   > decades ago.   
   >   
   > > And it too has fatigue issues (moving in the wind, etc.).   
   >   
   > The entire cable sways, but the stress on the individual wires is   
   > negligible because they're suspended from a steel carrier.   
   >   
   > > 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).   
   >   
   > That's entirely possible; nothing lasts forever, and that area would   
   > have some of the oldest wires in the country.   
   >   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > OTOH, the labor and equipment to terminate fiber is more expensive,   
   > which is why every other telco in the country is doing FTTN.   
   >   
   > The last few hundred feet from the SLC to the home don't gain anything   
   > from fiber; copper works just fine for such distances, and already has   
   > 100+ times the capacity of what is needed today.  If fiber is eventually   
   > needed for those runs in the far future, for some reason, they're   
   > relatively easy to replace.   
      
   The problem in most of Western Mass is that it is not a 'few hundred feet from   
   the SLC', it is more like thousands of feet, or 2-3 miles in many cases, in   
   which case the speed of the DSL is pretty poor. If by SLC you mean the   
   concentrator. Note: most of the time there *isn't* a DSLAM, so all the   
   concentrator handles is POTS. For anything other than POTS, the concentrator   
   needs to have a DSLAM added. The equiment that exists at the node does not   
   support anthing but POTS. Period. No Internet (other than dial-up) and no TV   
   service. *Phone* service is itself a non-issue. What is lacking is modern   
   broadband Internet service.   
      
   >   
   > The trunk lines are the real problem, and those _are_ being replaced   
   > with fiber everywhere, whether FTTN or FTTH.   
   >   
   > 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)