Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Wired telephone bandwidth

P

Paul Ingram

Does anyone know what are the highest and lowest frequencies that can
be transmitted as CW over a commercial wired telephone network?

Could bypassing the mic and speaker extend this range?

Paul Ingram
 
Does anyone know what are the highest and lowest frequencies that can
be transmitted as CW over a commercial wired telephone network?

POTS is limited at the upper end by the DACs. They use 8k samples per second,
so that's ideally a 4kHz bandwidth. I'm not sure what the low end limiter is,
but it's supposed the spec is 300Hz.
Could bypassing the mic and speaker extend this range?

No.
 
F

FatBytestard

Does anyone know what are the highest and lowest frequencies that can
be transmitted as CW over a commercial wired telephone network?

Could bypassing the mic and speaker extend this range?

Paul Ingram


Ask Floyd L. Davidson up in alt.engineering.electrical
 
J

Jon Kirwan

POTS is limited at the upper end by the DACs. They use 8k samples per second,
so that's ideally a 4kHz bandwidth. I'm not sure what the low end limiter is,
but it's supposed the spec is 300Hz.
<snip>

Bandwidth is specified as 300Hz - 3000Hz. 2700Hz width. Not
4k. They may provide more, but my more recent tests suggest
they hard limit it pretty close these days. Back when
(1950's), it was much more.

I've got a copy of the official specifications on the shelf,
if anyone needs specific citations. They are designed to
cover different phone and switching systems, but they all
agree on this point.

There was a ruckus some years after when tape players made it
into business places after WW II (german invention discovered
in captured tanks, I think) where some folks would tape at
normal speed and play fast for international calls to short
the time (and expense), allowing the other side to record
fast and then play back slower. I think that was part of the
first "why" that AT&T started figuring it was worth some
trouble to start sticking low pass filters in the line.

That's the story I heard and I'm sticking to it. But I have
no real idea, at all. Sounded good when I heard it, maybe 30
years back, though.

Anyway, the easiest way to tell is just sit at a piano, hit
keys, and let the other side tell you when it goes "clunk,
clunk" instead of a nice tone.

Jon
 
J

Jon Kirwan

Originally one pair of wires sent one long-distance call. Then, to
save wire, a bunch of calls were sent SSB over one pair, over
close-spaced carriers. The Western Electric "J" system used 4 KHz
channel spacings, so the baseband audio was sharply filtered between
300 and 2600 Hz to avoid channel-channel crosstalk.

There remains the tariffs for POTS which state 300Hz to
3000Hz as the required bandpass. I believe I must have read
them more than a few times, by now.
Later digital systems sampled at 8 KHz, so an antialiasing filter
preceded the digitizer, usually about 2700 Hz.

The tape recorder thing doesn't make much sense. International phone
lines never had enough bandwidth to allow that trick.

It was one of those tales I heard from someone working at the
phone company, back then. I frankly had (and have) no idea.

Jon
 
O

oopere

Paul said:
Does anyone know what are the highest and lowest frequencies that can
be transmitted as CW over a commercial wired telephone network?

Could bypassing the mic and speaker extend this range?

Paul Ingram

"The" telephone channel is usually specified as 300..3400 Hz. This is
what is guaranteed to be transmitted to anywhere on the world. The
bandwidth of the transmission line between you and the first electronic
gadget it meets is from dc to something that is specific to each case.

Pere
 
M

MakeNoAttemptToAdjustYourSet

I'm still on dialup,and I usually log on at 48K,according to the W98SE
taskbar indicator.Sometimes,it logs on at 49K,but it's never stable.
ISTR that the max limit was 52K,but was usually limited by coils in the
lines.


Century Link in central Florida is my telco.


NO. NONE of you get those speeds. Those speeds are IF the handshake
can pipe multiple streams into your NOISE FREE line. The line is NEVER
noise free, and the actual hardware speed is NEVER more than 32k bits/per
second, and even that is derived from stacking several 9600 baud streams
together and that only happens on the best, most noise free connections,
which are closest to their switch.

It is limited by the integrity of the link between you and your first
digital switch point, which is usually not all that great.
 
M

Martin Brown

Google "concentrator" a widget that pipes more lines down existing
copper pairs..

In the UK they call them DACS. Ugly prehistoric technology devices that
totally destroy bandwidth to share one real copper line. eg

http://frank.gwc.org.uk/~ali/dacs/

There used to be a site with a spectrum analyser on that could be dialed
into on a modem and would return a 3 bands per octave spectrum.
My beef is that cell uses so much compression, you cant use a modem
with cell.

OTOH you can use cellular for bulk datastreams and get reasonable price
performance for modest amounts of data. No good for video on demand but
fine for Usenet and casual web browsing.
And I'm stuck in a area with no wimax, so its $$$$ cable or death,
because the previous idiot renter of the apartment signed a paper
allowing removal of the copper pair...

Can't you get the telco to give you a real copper wire and pinch it off
some old dear who just has a basic handset? That is what they do round
here when the real copper is running out. Applying for an ADSL service
from your supplier should get you out of the speed rut.

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
N

Nico Coesel

Does anyone know what are the highest and lowest frequencies that can
be transmitted as CW over a commercial wired telephone network?

300Hz - 3600Hz
Could bypassing the mic and speaker extend this range?

Nope.
 
F

Fred Abse

I think the bandwidth is supposed to be 3KHz, but do mot know if that
is the 3dB point and do not know the rolloff rate.
However, traditionally (ie up to 5 years ago and maybe later) one
could *reliably* get 48Kbaud data rate with a modem.

Not Kbaud, Kbits/sec. Baud rate is *considerably* lower (1200, or is
it 2400?). Bit rates are obtained by using fancy modulation schemes
yielding many bits per baud. IIRC, usually based on quadrature amplitude
modulation.

Shannon sets the theoretical limit.

But (some??) telcos have deliberately, in some unknown manner,
throttled that so the best one can now do is 28.8Kbaud.

Probably down to SNR (Shannon again).

And the response from then as well as from PUCs is "all we are
required to support is VOICE QUALITY".

All they were ever required to support.
 
C

Charlie E.

Please comment as to WTF telcos did to throttle dial-up from 48Kbaud
to 28.8Kbaud.
Probably not much...

What basically happened, was that more and more, there were 2 or more
subscribers added to a single cable pair, with carrier equipment to
share that pair between them. The carrier equipment didn't have the
bandwidth needed to support the higher modem speeds (that basically,
relied on the fact that the digital CO was digitizing right at the
cable head, so why go back to analog at the ISP...) so people got
frustrated. To the telcos, they were just selling you a voice line,
guaranteed to be usable by a telephone. If you really needed digital
transmission, then you should have to pay for a specially conditioned
line that gave you that much throughput! BTW, the data line usually
cost more than a DSL line does today...

Charlie
 
A

Adrian C

Does anyone know what are the highest and lowest frequencies that can
be transmitted as CW over a commercial wired telephone network?

more that 1 wpm and less than 35 wpm.

-- --- .-. ... .
 
H

Howard Eisenhauer

It's roughly between 300 to 3400 hz, thats standard for either the old
FDM or digital transport 4 khz channel systems for everything except
trans-ocianic lines which, used to be at any rate, limited to 3000 hz
to fit more calls onto the cables/satelite links. With the prevalence
of ATM these days they've probably probably gone up to 4 too.

All bets are off for IP telephony.

H.
 
NO. NONE of you get those speeds.

Wrong, AlwaysWrong. When v.90 modems first came out I was regularly doing
48-52K on one of my POTS lines (the other was stuck at 28.8 because it went
five miles, all the way back to the CO).
Those speeds are IF the handshake
can pipe multiple streams into your NOISE FREE line.

Wrong again, Dimmie. One pipe, one stream, PCM encoded.
The line is NEVER noise free,

Wrong, Nymbecile. Nothing is *ever* noise-free.
and the actual hardware speed is NEVER more than 32k bits/per
second,

A lie. You're lying a lot more these days, DimBulb.
and even that is derived from stacking several 9600 baud streams
together and that only happens on the best, most noise free connections,
which are closest to their switch.

AlwaysWrong is once again, wrong.
It is limited by the integrity of the link between you and your first
digital switch point, which is usually not all that great.

Wrong again, AlwaysWrong. It's limited by the integrity between you and the
first DAC and the NUMBER of DACs (<28.8K if there is more than one DAC in the
link - though that is rare anymore).
 
Not Kbaud, Kbits/sec. Baud rate is *considerably* lower (1200, or is
it 2400?). Bit rates are obtained by using fancy modulation schemes
yielding many bits per baud. IIRC, usually based on quadrature amplitude
modulation.

PCM, I think. QAM is used on the, slower, uplink.
Shannon sets the theoretical limit.

Doesn't he always.
Probably down to SNR (Shannon again).



All they were ever required to support.

....and that snotty attitude has lost Ma' bundles of $$.
 
M

MakeNoAttemptToAdjustYourSet

Wrong, AlwaysWrong. When v.90 modems first came out I was regularly doing
48-52K on one of my POTS lines (the other was stuck at 28.8 because it went
five miles, all the way back to the CO).


NO, IDIOT. It was "handshaking" at that rate. You NEVER got file
transfers at that rate. Not even today. I WILL BET! FOAD!

Try it with ANY 10MB file, and the numbers and the transfer do not
match. and don't even try to hand me a load of horseshit about packet
headers, you retarded little piece of DUMB motherfucker shit. The Speeds
were NEVER attained, and I was right next door to the goddamned switch
with top gear online, fuckhead!

Not to mention that I actually researched it, and I happen to remember
what I learned. You have obviously forgotten. If you ever knew.
 
M

MakeNoAttemptToAdjustYourSet

Wrong again, AlwaysWrong. It's limited by the integrity between you and the
first DAC and the NUMBER of DACs (<28.8K if there is more than one DAC in the
link - though that is rare anymore).

You're an idiot. It is 100% pure ISDN from the first link forward for
POTS today.
 
NO, IDIOT. It was "handshaking" at that rate. You NEVER got file
transfers at that rate. Not even today. I WILL BET! FOAD!

Wrong, as always.
Try it with ANY 10MB file, and the numbers and the transfer do not
match. and don't even try to hand me a load of horseshit about packet
headers, you retarded little piece of DUMB motherfucker shit. The Speeds
were NEVER attained, and I was right next door to the goddamned switch
with top gear online, fuckhead!

Wrong, as always.
Not to mention that I actually researched it, and I happen to remember
what I learned. You have obviously forgotten. If you ever knew.

Obviously wrong, as always.

Give it up, AlwaysWrong. You'll *always* be wrong. It's just you.
 
Top