Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Finksburg article

Expand Messages
  • David
    I recall reading an archived article about local opposition to the big tower at Finksburg. One alternative was another L4 cable to ?Monrovia? Now I can t find
    Message 1 of 17 , Apr 14, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      I recall reading an archived article about local opposition to the big
      tower at Finksburg. One alternative was another L4 cable to ?Monrovia?

      Now I can't find it. Does anyone recall same?
    • ozob99
      I think I posted that several years ago, twas minutes from a county zoning variance meeting; I can t find it in archives either. [Non-text portions of this
      Message 2 of 17 , Apr 15, 2014
      • 0 Attachment
        I think I posted that several years ago, twas minutes from a county zoning variance meeting; I can't find it in archives either.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mike Tibor
        Is this what you re looking for: http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/FCCOps/1972/38F2_1013.htm
        Message 3 of 17 , Apr 15, 2014
        • 0 Attachment
        • David
          ... THAT is of interest. I m interested in such conversions. It sounds as if this upgrade would impair operation while under way, no surprise. But I thought
          Message 4 of 17 , Apr 15, 2014
          • 0 Attachment
            On 4/15/14 5:13 PM, Mike Tibor wrote:
            > Is this what you're looking for:
            >
            > http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/FCCOps/1972/38F2_1013.htm
            >


            Yes:

            > After evaluation of all information before us, we conclude that new
            > transmission facilities are required to interconnect the Finksburg
            > facility, which is a major junction for the Baltimore metropolitan area,
            > during the conversion of the Boston-Miami coaxial cable from L3 to L5
            > operation (90,000 voice circuit capacity). Such facilities would also
            > be used to handle the projected increase in long distance traffic into
            > and out of the Baltimore area.


            THAT is of interest. I'm interested in such conversions. It sounds as if
            this upgrade would impair operation while under way, no surprise.

            But I thought I'd read that the first non-trial L4 deployment was
            Boston-Miami. Was that parallel to a prior L3?
          • charlie Fargis
            The original L3 routes were maily city to city. L4 Boston Miami the backbone intentionally circumvented large cities. The big cities cpnnected to the backbone.
            Message 5 of 17 , Apr 16, 2014
            • 0 Attachment
              The original L3 routes were maily city to city.
              L4 Boston Miami the backbone intentionally circumvented large cities.
              The big cities cpnnected to the backbone.

              Examples
              Boston to Blackstone(2)
              Hartford -Cheshire
              Netcong to Newark Whiteplains and NYC
              Cedarbrook to Philly and Camden
              Finksburg to Balimur
              Dranesville to Arlington and Washington SW
              Mosely to Richmond
              and there i leave it DEX et al for Southern region Stanfield to Ojus and WIndermere

              To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
              From: wb8foz@...
              Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 23:36:07 -0400
              Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Finksburg article


























              On 4/15/14 5:13 PM, Mike Tibor wrote:

              > Is this what you're looking for:

              >

              > http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/FCCOps/1972/38F2_1013.htm

              >



              Yes:



              > After evaluation of all information before us, we conclude that new

              > transmission facilities are required to interconnect the Finksburg

              > facility, which is a major junction for the Baltimore metropolitan area,

              > during the conversion of the Boston-Miami coaxial cable from L3 to L5

              > operation (90,000 voice circuit capacity). Such facilities would also

              > be used to handle the projected increase in long distance traffic into

              > and out of the Baltimore area.



              THAT is of interest. I'm interested in such conversions. It sounds as if

              this upgrade would impair operation while under way, no surprise.



              But I thought I'd read that the first non-trial L4 deployment was

              Boston-Miami. Was that parallel to a prior L3?



















              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • ozob99
              In addition to long haul city/metro avoidance routes such as the Boston-Miami L4 and Airmont-Mojave L3I, customers(most often gov t) can select access
              Message 6 of 17 , Apr 16, 2014
              • 0 Attachment
                In addition to long haul city/metro avoidance routes such as the Boston-Miami L4 and Airmont-Mojave L3I, customers(most often gov't) can select access avoidance/diversity arrangements,sometimes incurring special construction 5 year termination charges.

                Snippet from a typical tariff:


                "Special Facilities Routing enables you to uniquely route your Special Access Services over routes or using facilities that differ from those provisioned by AT&T. Special Routing is provided where facilities and equipment exist and are available. Where facilities and equipment do not exist or are not available, Special Construction charges may apply.

                AT&T offers two types of Special Facilities Routing:

                Diversity - Two or more services provided over two different physical routes.

                Avoidance - One or more services provided on a route that avoids specified geographical locations.



                Special Facilities Routing of Access Services may be provided between:



                (1) a customer designated location and the AT&T serving wire center for that location and

                (2) a customer designated location and an alternate serving wire center, or a wire center and another wire center. Three arrangements support these designs:

                Local Channel Diversity Arrangement - Provides a transmission path between the customer's designated premises and the service wire center that is diverse from the normal transmission path. With this arrangement, one service will be provisioned over the normal route and the other will be provisioned over the diverse route.
                Inter Wire Center Diversity Arrangement (Ameritech and Southwestern Bell ONLY) - Provides a transmission path for a set of wire centers that are diverse from the normal transmission path. With this arrangement, one service will be provisioned over the normal route and the other will be provisioned over the diverse route.
                Serving Wire Center Avoidance Arrangement - Provides a transmission path between the customer's designated premises and a wire center that is not the serving wire center. AT&T will select the alternate wire center by choosing the alternate wire center closest to the customer's designated premises that is capable of providing the service provisioned over the alternate route."




                Here is a related contemporary customer location service restoration offering:


                1. CUSTOMER LOCATION ALTERNATE ROUTING (CLAR) (cont’d)
                A. Description
                Customer Location Alternate Routing (CLAR) is an Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN) based
                service that allows the customer to safeguard against the loss of incoming calls due to
                circumstances that make the customer’s physical work location inaccessible (i.e., fire, flood,
                cable cut, etc.).
                CLAR allows the customer to develop and maintain a contingency plan that can be activated at
                their command to reroute incoming calls to predetermined alternate customer locations.
                CLAR provides the customer the ability to develop and test solutions to potential problems before
                they occur.
                CLAR allows the customer to exercise their back-up facilities during normal conditions.
                CLAR supports up to ten alternate routing plans with a maximum of 10,000 telephone numbers.
                CLAR operates across the public network or private facilities.
                An CLAR plan is subject to review by the Company in order to determine effects on network
                capability, capacity and control.
                All telecommunications service required for rerouting must be in place or subscribed to at the
                same time as CLAR and will be reviewed by the Company.
                The customer may activate CLAR 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
              • David
                ... OK, trying to square that with the quoted statement, and others. Unorganized thoughts: A) Was there a real Boston to Miami L3 cable at all? Or just a
                Message 7 of 17 , Apr 16, 2014
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 4/16/14 8:11 AM, charlie Fargis wrote:

                  > The original L3 routes were maily city to city.
                  > L4 Boston Miami the backbone intentionally circumvented large cities.
                  > The big cities cpnnected to the backbone.


                  OK, trying to square that with the quoted statement, and others.

                  Unorganized thoughts:

                  A) Was there a real "Boston to Miami" L3 cable at all? Or just a buncha
                  linked pieces?

                  B) L3-L5 would have meant replacing everything but the line markers, I'd think:

                  1) Different route objectives: through vs. avoid cities.
                  2) L34 mile huts physically way different; must add 1 mile ones
                  3) Use Coax8 or overlay Coax22?
                  4) Mains are maybe big enough to reuse but is the spacing right?
                  5) Coexisting L3 AC and L5 DC power systems, until L3 is retired.



                  C) There were limits on the # of drop/add's for L4/5 to keep the noise spec
                  good enough. How did daisy-chaining L3 routes deal with that?

                  D) Did they end up with a L4 Boston-Miami L4, AND a separate parallel L5?
                  Maybe the minutes had it wrong - was it a L4->L5 conversion....?
                • David
                  ooops: 2) L3 s 4 mile huts physically way different; must add 1 mile ones....
                  Message 8 of 17 , Apr 16, 2014
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ooops:

                    2) L3's 4 mile huts physically way different; must add 1 mile ones....
                  • charlie Fargis
                    To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com From: wb8foz@nrk.com Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:23:17 -0400 Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] L3- L5, was Finksburg article ... OK,
                    Message 9 of 17 , Apr 16, 2014
                    • 0 Attachment
                      To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                      From: wb8foz@...
                      Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:23:17 -0400
                      Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] L3->L5, was Finksburg article


























                      On 4/16/14 8:11 AM, charlie Fargis wrote:



                      > The original L3 routes were maily city to city.

                      > L4 Boston Miami the backbone intentionally circumvented large cities.

                      > The big cities cpnnected to the backbone.



                      OK, trying to square that with the quoted statement, and others.



                      Unorganized thoughts:



                      A) Was there a real "Boston to Miami" L3 cable at all? Or just a buncha

                      linked pieces?
                      WHat I know -
                      L1 and L3 New York 4 Newark and L3 Ny7 to Newark

                      L3 Newark to Philly2
                      L 1 NY 4 to Philly
                      L1 Philly to Wilmington
                      L3 Philly to Baltimore was changed to L3 Philly to Wayne and Wayne to Baltimore
                      dunno about L1 to Baltimore or Washington
                      L3 Baltimore to Washington and then on to Richmond




                      B) L3-L5 would have meant replacing everything but the line markers, I'd think:
                      Yes and adding a few manholes as spacing was far less. If memory is right I think L3 L4 L5 was 4, 2 and 1



                      1) Different route objectives: through vs. avoid cities. Think Dr. Strangelove

                      2) L34 mile huts physically way different; must add 1 mile ones - Yes more coax and transistor vs tubes in L3

                      3) Use Coax8 or overlay Coax22? Never saw a L4,5 replace an L3 route.

                      4) Mains are maybe big enough to reuse but is the spacing right? "Mains?" whats that? Everything I worked on was
                      a 2 main station switched section. No power station in the middle. I know Pottstown Airmont had a power station on the Wolverton in property here in NJ.


                      5) Coexisting L3 AC and L5 DC power systems, until L3 is retired.



                      C) There were limits on the # of drop/add's for L4/5 to keep the noise spec

                      good enough. How did daisy-chaining L3 routes deal with that?
                      Not sure your question but if you mean plucking out mastergroups from one L line and sending out on another
                      then MG connectors were used with equalizers. Universal L3,4,5 , MMX1, MMX2R MMX2C interconnecting
                      and then later MGTs on L5E.




                      D) Did they end up with a L4 Boston-Miami L4, AND a separate parallel L5?

                      Maybe the minutes had it wrong - was it a L4->L5 conversion....?
                      Ask Dex he may know. I know they did L4 to L4 and L5 to L5E Monrovia Dranesville.

                      Philly 2 was moved over to Philly 3 after I left. Any Schuylkillites out there wanna chime in on reroute of Cedarbrook or did they just switch to fiber and forget L5?













                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • charlie Fargis
                      When they (AT&T Marketing) first put out CLAR, AT&T did not have the systems ready to do it. And some of those systems change as fast as STP at 40 below. They
                      Message 10 of 17 , Apr 16, 2014
                      • 0 Attachment
                        When they (AT&T Marketing) first put out CLAR, AT&T did not have the systems ready to do it.
                        And some of those systems change as fast as STP at 40 below. They called me in and asked can your system do this and an expedient. The big boy IBM systems said 9 months. Our small team did it in 6 weeks deployed and tested with 1 feature they swore they did not need. Right. First day in service, a customer asks for what "they dont need".
                        Of course all of this is going to be moot when everything is VOIP and no 4ESS anymore at wire centers.


                        To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                        From: ozob99@...
                        Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 07:13:00 -0700
                        Subject: RE: [coldwarcomms] Finksburg article






























                        In addition to long haul city/metro avoidance routes such as the Boston-Miami L4 and Airmont-Mojave L3I, customers(most often gov't) can select access avoidance/diversity arrangements,sometimes incurring special construction 5 year termination charges.



                        Snippet from a typical tariff:



                        "Special Facilities Routing enables you to uniquely route your Special Access Services over routes or using facilities that differ from those provisioned by AT&T. Special Routing is provided where facilities and equipment exist and are available. Where facilities and equipment do not exist or are not available, Special Construction charges may apply.



                        AT&T offers two types of Special Facilities Routing:



                        Diversity - Two or more services provided over two different physical routes.



                        Avoidance - One or more services provided on a route that avoids specified geographical locations.



                        Special Facilities Routing of Access Services may be provided between:



                        (1) a customer designated location and the AT&T serving wire center for that location and



                        (2) a customer designated location and an alternate serving wire center, or a wire center and another wire center. Three arrangements support these designs:



                        Local Channel Diversity Arrangement - Provides a transmission path between the customer's designated premises and the service wire center that is diverse from the normal transmission path. With this arrangement, one service will be provisioned over the normal route and the other will be provisioned over the diverse route.

                        Inter Wire Center Diversity Arrangement (Ameritech and Southwestern Bell ONLY) - Provides a transmission path for a set of wire centers that are diverse from the normal transmission path. With this arrangement, one service will be provisioned over the normal route and the other will be provisioned over the diverse route.

                        Serving Wire Center Avoidance Arrangement - Provides a transmission path between the customer's designated premises and a wire center that is not the serving wire center. AT&T will select the alternate wire center by choosing the alternate wire center closest to the customer's designated premises that is capable of providing the service provisioned over the alternate route."



                        Here is a related contemporary customer location service restoration offering:



                        1. CUSTOMER LOCATION ALTERNATE ROUTING (CLAR) (cont�d)

                        A. Description

                        Customer Location Alternate Routing (CLAR) is an Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN) based

                        service that allows the customer to safeguard against the loss of incoming calls due to

                        circumstances that make the customer�s physical work location inaccessible (i.e., fire, flood,

                        cable cut, etc.).

                        CLAR allows the customer to develop and maintain a contingency plan that can be activated at

                        their command to reroute incoming calls to predetermined alternate customer locations.

                        CLAR provides the customer the ability to develop and test solutions to potential problems before

                        they occur.

                        CLAR allows the customer to exercise their back-up facilities during normal conditions.

                        CLAR supports up to ten alternate routing plans with a maximum of 10,000 telephone numbers.

                        CLAR operates across the public network or private facilities.

                        An CLAR plan is subject to review by the Company in order to determine effects on network

                        capability, capacity and control.

                        All telecommunications service required for rerouting must be in place or subscribed to at the

                        same time as CLAR and will be reviewed by the Company.

                        The customer may activate CLAR 24 hours a day, seven days a week.



















                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • ozob99
                        ... linked pieces? The latter,I m sure the planners envisioned a Boston to Miami route someday, but built the sections where needed at the time: By 1946 L1
                        Message 11 of 17 , Apr 16, 2014
                        • 0 Attachment
                          >>>>A) Was there a real "Boston to Miami" L3 cable at all? Or just a buncha
                          linked pieces?

                          The latter,I'm sure the planners envisioned a Boston to Miami route someday, but built the sections where needed at the time:


                          By 1946 L1 NY-Charlotte and Atlanta-Jacksonville completed.
                          BY 1951 L1 Jacksonville-Miami completed.
                          BY 1955 L1 upgraded to L3; and the Charlotte-Atlanta and Boston-NY section were added, probably as L3.


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • cpe122
                          ... I think you ll find Charlie is correct and that the Boston-Miami cable (through Finksburg) was built as L4 (not L3 as the article says). ... No, I don t
                          Message 12 of 17 , Apr 16, 2014
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ---In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, <wb8foz@...> wrote :

                            >On 4/16/14 8:11 AM, charlie Fargis wrote:

                            >> The original L3 routes were maily city to city.
                            >> L4 Boston Miami the backbone intentionally circumvented large cities.
                            >> The big cities cpnnected to the backbone.

                            I think you'll find Charlie is correct and that the Boston-Miami cable (through Finksburg) was built as L4 (not L3 as the article says).

                            > OK, trying to square that with the quoted statement, and others.

                            > Unorganized thoughts:

                            > A) Was there a real "Boston to Miami" L3 cable at all? Or just a buncha linked pieces?

                            No, I don't think so. I don't see a pre-L4 way to get from NY to Boston.

                            > B) L3-L5 would have meant replacing everything but the line markers, I'd think:
                            > 1) Different route objectives: through vs. avoid cities.
                            > 2) L34 mile huts physically way different; must add 1 mile ones
                            > 3) Use Coax8 or overlay Coax22?
                            > 4) Mains are maybe big enough to reuse but is the spacing right?
                            > 5) Coexisting L3 AC and L5 DC power systems, until L3 is retired.

                            L4 not L3 voids much of this line of logic.

                            > C) There were limits on the # of drop/add's for L4/5 to keep the noise spec good enough.
                            > How did daisy-chaining L3 routes deal with that?

                            "Splicing" together L coax systems is not too difficult; even easier when like-to-like, i.e. L3-to-L3.

                            > D) Did they end up with a L4 Boston-Miami L4, AND a separate parallel L5?
                            > Maybe the minutes had it wrong - was it a L4->L5 conversion....?

                            Bingo.

                            /cpe




                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • David
                            ... What bothers me about that was the spokesman said 9300 re: the existing capacity. I could understand bobbling L3 vs L4, but....
                            Message 13 of 17 , Apr 17, 2014
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On 4/17/14 12:44 AM, cpe122@... wrote:


                              > I think you'll find Charlie is correct and that the Boston-Miami cable
                              > (through Finksburg) was built as L4 (not L3 as the article says).

                              What bothers me about that was the spokesman said "9300" re: the existing
                              capacity. I could understand bobbling L3 vs L4, but....
                            • ozob99
                              ... Telco terminology can be confusing, this may help to clarify cable vs routes for members not that familiar with telco infrastructure: While the
                              Message 14 of 17 , Apr 18, 2014
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > A) Was there a real "Boston to Miami" L3 cable at all? Or just a buncha linked pieces?

                                >No, I don't think so. I don't see a pre-L4 way to get from NY to Boston.


                                Telco terminology can be confusing, this may help to clarify cable vs routes for members not that familiar with telco infrastructure:


                                While the Boston-Miami L4, Airmont-Mojave L3I et al, were commonly referred to as "cable", it was more accurately a "cable route", comprised of many named cables between terminal main stations and "power feed" main stations, e.g. the middle cable sections of this route were known as the Cedarbrook-Finksburg A cable, Finksburg-Dranesville A, Dranesville-Moseley A, Moseley-Gibsonville A, Gibsonville-Stanfield A, Stanfield-Ware Shoals A, & so on; nor was it designed primarily for Boston-Miami circuits.
                                The majority of the groups,supergroups & mastergroups on this route were not between Boston & Miami, but between the various terminal(breaking down to master groups,supergroups & channel groups) offices along the route, with many branching out on sidelegs of cable and radio to other locations.

                                One could view it, like the early L1/L3 routes, as "a buncha linked pieces" in tandem; however this route, and the Airmont-Mojave L3I,was designed from the gitgo as one project to provide circuits between the distant terminals and the intermediate junctions as soon as possible(which was 2-3 years).




                                The eastern L1 & L3 N-S route I recently posted a timeline on was built between various intermediate city routes as needed,e.g. NY-Charlotte, with major terminals at Philly,Baltimore,Washington,Rickmond,Greensboro.(I don't know the sequence of construction between NY & Charlotte, or the other sections)
                                The L cables between these cities were usually tagged "C" because they already had an A & B cable(VF & K) between them(I believe there were a few L1/3 "D","E","F" coax's in the NorthEast where multiple cables existed)

                                When all these N-S L1/3 routes were connected by the late 1950's there was likely at least one or more L channel groups between Boston & Miami(designated 1L,2L Boston-Miami); but like the L4, the majority of bandwidth usage was between the intermediate offices.
                              • David
                                ... My point was re: construction, not usage. You ve made it clearer that the above were individual projects; as contrasted to the coast-coast L3I and L4 ones.
                                Message 15 of 17 , Apr 18, 2014
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On 4/18/14 10:39 AM, ozob99@... wrote:

                                  > The eastern L1 & L3 N-S route I recently posted a timeline on was built
                                  > between various intermediate city routes as needed, e.g. NY-Charlotte,
                                  > with major terminals at Philly,Baltimore,Washington, Rickmond, Greensboro.
                                  > (I don't know the sequence of construction between NY & Charlotte,
                                  > or the other sections)

                                  My point was re: construction, not usage. You've made it clearer that the
                                  above were individual projects; as contrasted to the coast-coast L3I and L4
                                  ones.

                                  Obviously even the latter were not started at one end, and extended west
                                  until your feet were wet; there had to be dozens of crews all working
                                  simultaneously spread out cross the route. [As well as different crafts in
                                  each crew: cable laying, cable splicing, repeater vault installation, main
                                  station construction, etc....]

                                  I did not mean to imply every mastergroup went from one end to another. One
                                  question I have is this. Clearly you can patch an incoming mastergroup to
                                  the outgoing one; that's what every repeater did in effect. But how
                                  significant was the penalty in S/S+N to extract & re-add a supergroup {or
                                  less} from the remaining system?
                                • ozob99
                                  ... As I recall, multi mastergroup and supergroup connectors had 231 type wide band amps & could have degraded S/N slightly; there was a limit on the number
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Apr 18, 2014
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    >>But how
                                    >>significant was the penalty in S/S+N to extract & re-add a supergroup {or
                                    >>less} from the remaining system?

                                    As I recall, multi mastergroup and supergroup connectors had 231 type wide band amps & could have degraded S/N slightly; there was a limit on the number in tandem but I don't recall it.

                                    Group connectors(aka L-L connectors,for LMX group to LMX group;not just L cxr related, as they were used on radio and/or coax groups) were passive(basically a pad); even so there was a limit of number in tandem, probably due to additional group frequency translations.

                                    I think there was an early L1/L3 passive mastergroup connector with no amp.

                                    All had equalizers,pads, & band pass filters; and associated pilot block & re-insert units.
                                  • cpe122
                                    Very well put. Thank you for keeping us straight; it s easy to get sloppy and assume everyone else is following along ... /cpe [Non-text portions of this
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Apr 18, 2014
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Very well put. Thank you for keeping us straight; it's easy to get sloppy and assume everyone else is following along ...

                                      /cpe

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.