How to install DSL, how to install ethernet card?

September 12, 2007

Re: How to install DSL, how to install ethernet card?

w_tom wrote:

> On Sep 12, 6:56 am, "dadiOH" <dad...@guesswhere.com> wrote:

>> As long as the overpriced price isn't more than the $30-40 range I

>> still like them. Why? Insurance...they pay off/replace if

>> connected stuff is damaged. Belkin has paid me more than $1000

>> over the last

>> few years.

> Read fine print associated with most warranties. For example, one

> states that if protectors from any other manufacturer are used, then

> that claim is rejected. A protector warranty contains numerous fine

> print exemptions. They do not intend to pay for damage.

But they do. Some (Belkin, eg) more readily than others.

________________

> Purchase insurance from a broker who is required by law to honor

> those claims.

Insurance is an ongoing, annual expense. A surge protector is a one

time expense.

--

dadiOH

____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...

....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from

LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.

Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

September 12, 2007

Re: How to install DSL, how to install ethernet card?

On Sep 12, 4:30 am, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:

"Real world protectors don't connect tip to ring."

They do and it's called transverse mode or line to line.

"Voltage (before asurge) between earth and ring is maybe 50 volts.

Voltage between tip and ring is maybe 50 volts. Let's say asurge

arrives. Voltage between tip and ring remains at 50 volts. But

voltage between earth and ring is now 2050 volts. Voltage tip to

earth is now 2000 volts."

Odds of this happening are close to 0% with working primary protection

that protects T-G and R-G. Odds of the primary properly "Earth Ground"

letting in 400-1000v, close to 100%.

"What has your tip to ring protector done? Nothing. Your protector

saw no spike voltage while a 2000 voltsurgecontinued destructively

into a DSL modem."

That's why it is important for a point of use or secondary protector

to be equipped with a polyswitch resettable fusing PTC on both the tip

and ring to disconnect the line with more that 150ma current flow, no

current flow -- no damage to the DSL modem.

"That tip to ring protector is classic of protectors promoted by urban

myths in retail stores."

Lot less urban myths in retail stores than on the Internet.

"Telephone primary protector breakdown voltages are very high;

adequate, perhaps to prevent severe shocks to users, and possibly

adequate to protect older, electromechanical phone systems with no

ground or AC connections. But the

combination of high protector surge limiting voltage, and possible

large voltage rise in the protector ground connection, means that the

net surge voltage seen by the equipment may be too high to be safe for

modems and fax machines with

delicate electronic circuits."

IEEE Guide for Surge Protection of Equipment page 29

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf

September 13, 2007

Re: How to install DSL, how to install ethernet card?

Claiming that a Polyswitch device will provide protection implies no

electrical knowledge; that "knowledge" by quoting a guide is without

understanding what that guide actually says.

Did you really think a 150 ma Polyswitch is protection? The

numbers. 1) What is voltage for that Polyswitch? 60 volts. Surges

are current sources. That means voltage will rise as necessary to

maintain that current flow. Current will blow right through that 60

volt Polyswitch. Blow through easily. Please first learn from

Raychem (now Tyco) datasheets before making assumptions. 2)

Telephone equipment must withstand well over 600 volts (transverse and

longitudinal) without damage as was even obvious in 1950s Bell System

Technical Journal papers. What good does a 60 volt Polyswitch do when

existing circuits already inside telephone appliances make 600 volts

non-destructive? 3) The Polyswitch takes how many milliseconds or

seconds to respond? Surges are done in microseconds. Polyswitch would

need how many thousand consecutive surges before it might respond?

Same reason is also why fuses and circuit breakers provide no surge

protection. 4) Even 1950s protectors did not attempt to do what

fl_fly_boy claims a Polyswitch does. Even in the 50s, a 3 mil gap

protector was used - protection from each wire to earth. Even 1950s

protection never attempted to block a surge as you speculated a

Polyswitch would do.

Is that enough reasons? If fl_fly_boy knew any one reason, then he

would have never made that Polyswitch claim. That Polyswitch idea

can only be recommended without basic electrical knowledge.

fl_fly_boy will demonstrate how so many make claims without first

learning basic facts.

Responsible telephone protectors don't connect 'tip to ring'.

Effective telephone protectors connect 'wire to earth' (tip to earth

ground and ring to earth ground). And then we include numbers:

something missing in posted anchored in junk science.. Those

protectors limit voltages to 300 volts. That is well below what

telephone equipment must withstand without damage; a standard that has

existed for more than 50 years.

Moving on; telephone appliances already contain internal

protection. Why would a function inside a 'miracle box' do what

already exists? The 'magic box' does nothing useful. Instead, we

earth a protector so that protection already inside POTS equipment is

not overwhelmed. That 'tip to ring' protector will not accomplish

that task. But an earthed protector (installed free by the telco)

does. It has a connection to shunt / divert a surge to earth. What

does the effective protector do? Shunt or divert to earth. Then

protection inside telephone appliances is not overwhelmed.

No wonder telcos use same protector systems in their own facilities

where failure is not an option.

Claims that effective protectors are 'tip to ring' were demonstrated

false even by a 1950 vintage protector AND by that protector inside

your NID. The protector installed free by the telco is 'wire to

earth'. Is that enough reasons demonstrating fl_fly_boy in error.

No. If he knew any one reason, then he would not post what he did. So

how much did he not know when he posted?

Even NEC code requirements defines 'wire to earth' protection for

phone line: Article 800.31 -

> The primary protector shall consist of an arrester connected

> between each line conductor and ground ....

What does a 'wire to earth' protector provide? It also does 'tip to

ring' protection. But another reason why responsible telephone

protector manufacture does not use a 'tip to ring' only protector.

OK. The Polyswitch recommendation is obviously bogus. 'Wire to

earth' protectors do both transverse and longitudinal protection.

Above are maybe ten different reasons. If fl_fly_boy knew any one,

then he would not have posted as he did. This is no longer about an

incorrect recommendation. This is about the so many who somehow know

things but could never bother to first learn basic science. One of us

learned from both theory and from decades of experience why earth

ground provides protection.

Moving on to reason eleven. Numbers from people who did the work

and published it. Some Bell System papers measured surge voltages in

SC, MI, MD, CT, and NJ - both longitudinal and transverse. Nothing

exceeded 600 volts when using the standard 'wire to earth'

protectors. As expected, powerful surges were not transverse - 'tip

to ring'. Destructive surges (as demonstrated by an example in the

previous post) would not even be seen by a 'tip to ring' protector.

Obviously, surges on those long cables would not be transverse as fl-

fly predicted. But fl_fly_boy is typical of those who assume any

protector is protection; never learned why earthing is so critical.

No, I am not done. In the 1970s, a Bell System study provided

numbers for surges. Medium surge voltage was 381 volts. None

exceeded 2000 volts. Did I select 2000 volts arbitrarily in that

previous example? Maybe I learned the science before posting. Typical

2000 volt surge never applied 2000 volts 'tip to ring'. The 'tip to

ring' protector would never see the same 2000 volt surge confronting a

DSL modem. Even a Polyswitch would do nothing - obviously if one

first learned electronics before posting.

Those Bell System papers completely contradict this fl_fly_boy

sentence that is traceable only to wild speculation:

> Odds of the primary properly "Earth Ground" letting in

> 400-1000v, close to 100%.

Those research papers correct his odds: closer to 0% get "letting

in". Earthing limited all surges to below what the telephone

equipment must withstand without damage.

Most embarrassing is fl_fly_boy's claim that a 150 ma Polyswitch

would *stop* a surge. He could only make that claim by having zero

grasp of what how a Polyswitch works. fl_fly_boy could only make that

claim by assuming a surge, not stopped by three miles of sky, can be

stopped by a 1 centimeter Polyswitch. fl_fly demonstrates why so many

others never learn what really provides protection - earth ground.

fl_fly apparently believes retail store salesmen also do not promote

urban myths. Then why do they sell products from Monster Cable?

What protects that DSL modem? First the 'whole house' protector

installed by the telco (for free) must be properly earthed. Second.

the most common path of modem destructive surges - AC electric - also

must have all three incoming wires properly earthed; two wire earthed

via a 'whole house' protector from a responsible protector

manufacturer. Just like the telephone protector; AC electric

protection means the protector makes a 'wire to earth' connection

from each AC power line. The protector being only as effective as its

earth ground.

So what was that? Maybe 14 different reasons why fl_fly_boy has

posted in error. If he knew even one reason, then he would not have

posted so.

On Sep 12, 3:33 pm, fl_fly_...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Sep 12, 4:30 am, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:

>> Real world protectors don't connect tip to ring.

>

> They do and it's called transverse mode or line to line.

>

>> Voltage between tip and ring remains at 50 volts. But voltage

>> between earth and ring is now 2050 volts. Voltage tip to earth

>> is now 2000 volts."

>

> Odds of this happening are close to 0% with working primary protection

> that protects T-G and R-G. Odds of the primary properly "Earth Ground"

> letting in 400-1000v, close to 100%.

> ...

>

> That's why it is important for a point of use or secondary protector

> to be equipped with a polyswitch resettable fusing PTC on both the tip

> and ring to disconnect the line with more that 150ma current flow, no

> current flow -- no damage to the DSL modem.

> ...

>

> Lot less urban myths in retail stores than on the Internet.

September 13, 2007

Re: How to install DSL, how to install ethernet card?

Enough already,

I've been an amateur radio operator for over 30 years, with various antennas

as high as 60 feet up. I know about lightning first-hand, and have been a

"victim" of a direct lightning hit to my house wiring.

Surge suppression *is highly recommending* on all equipment. Voltage spikes

far in excess of the nominal 120VAC line voltage *can and do* come through

the house wiring when an electrical storm is present. A surge suppressor at

the appliance can effectively prevent this spike from reaching the equipment

(appliance). It will be of *no* use whatsoever in the event of a direct

lightning strike to the electrical lines.

Those same voltage spikes *can and do* come through the phone lines, and fry

modems every day. The modem can be protected from these spikes with a

suppressor built for phone lines. Additionally, the computer itself should

be run through a surge suppressor too. All solid-state equipment (computers,

VCR's, DVD players, televisions, etc.) are all much more sensitive and prone

to damage from a voltage surge running the AC line than a non solid-state

appliance.

The only *absolute* protection against a direct lightning to your power

pole, or a telephone junction box, is to *disconnect* any vulnerable

equipment/appliances.

--

HTH,

Curt

Windows Support Center

http://www.aumha.org

Practically Nerded,...

http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm

"w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in message

news:1189586260.372093.77020@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

| On Sep 11, 11:40 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

| > But I don't believe that spikes are a myth, or that they can't be

| > surprressed.

|

| Meanwhile, I don't see where you grasped why USB on Windows SE

| cannot be used with DSL. Did you understand the numbers that permit

| using a camera but not usnig a DSL modem on your USB?

|

September 13, 2007

Re: How to install DSL, how to install ethernet card?

On Sep 12, 11:19 pm, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:

> Claiming that a Polyswitch device will provideprotectionimplies no

> electrical knowledge; that "knowledge" by quoting a guide is without

> understanding what that guide actually says.

>

> Did you really think a 150 ma Polyswitch isprotection? The

> numbers. 1) What is voltage for that Polyswitch? 60 volts. Surges

> are current sources. That means voltage will rise as necessary to

> maintain that current flow. Current will blow right through that 60

> volt Polyswitch. Blow through easily. Please first learn from

> Raychem (now Tyco) datasheets before making assumptions. 2)

> Telephone equipment must withstand well over 600 volts (transverse and

> longitudinal) without damage as was even obvious in 1950s Bell System

> Technical Journal papers. What good does a 60 volt Polyswitch do when

> existing circuits already inside telephone appliances make 600 volts

> non-destructive? 3) The Polyswitch takes how many milliseconds or

> seconds to respond? Surges are done in microseconds. Polyswitch would

> need how many thousand consecutive surges before it might respond?

> Same reason is also why fuses and circuit breakers provide nosurgeprotection. 4) Even 1950s protectors did not attempt to do what

> fl_fly_boy claims a Polyswitch does. Even in the 50s, a 3 mil gap

> protector was used -protectionfrom each wire to earth. Even 1950sprotectionnever attempted to block asurgeas you speculated a

> Polyswitch would do.

>

> Is that enough reasons? If fl_fly_boy knew any one reason, then he

> would have never made that Polyswitch claim. That Polyswitch idea

> can only be recommended without basic electrical knowledge.

> fl_fly_boy will demonstrate how so many make claims without first

> learning basic facts.

>

> Responsible telephone protectors don't connect 'tip to ring'.

> Effective telephone protectors connect 'wire to earth' (tip to earth

> ground and ring to earth ground). And then we include numbers:

> something missing in posted anchored in junk science.. Those

> protectors limit voltages to 300 volts. That is well below what

> telephone equipment must withstand without damage; a standard that has

> existed for more than 50 years.

>

> Moving on; telephone appliances already contain internalprotection. Why would a function inside a 'miracle box' do what

> already exists? The 'magic box' does nothing useful. Instead, we

> earth a protector so thatprotectionalready inside POTS equipment is

> not overwhelmed. That 'tip to ring' protector will not accomplish

> that task. But an earthed protector (installed free by the telco)

> does. It has a connection to shunt / divert asurgeto earth. What

> does the effective protector do? Shunt or divert to earth. Thenprotectioninside telephone appliances is not overwhelmed.

>

> No wonder telcos use same protector systems in their own facilities

> where failure is not an option.

>

> Claims that effective protectors are 'tip to ring' were demonstrated

> false even by a 1950 vintage protector AND by that protector inside

> your NID. The protector installed free by the telco is 'wire to

> earth'. Is that enough reasons demonstrating fl_fly_boy in error.

> No. If he knew any one reason, then he would not post what he did. So

> how much did he not know when he posted?

>

> Even NEC code requirements defines 'wire to earth'protectionfor

> phone line: Article 800.31 -

>

> > The primary protector shall consist of an arrester connected

> > between each line conductor and ground ....

>

> What does a 'wire to earth' protector provide? It also does 'tip to

> ring'protection. But another reason why responsible telephone

> protector manufacture does not use a 'tip to ring' only protector.

>

> OK. The Polyswitch recommendation is obviously bogus. 'Wire to

> earth' protectors do both transverse and longitudinalprotection.

> Above are maybe ten different reasons. If fl_fly_boy knew any one,

> then he would not have posted as he did. This is no longer about an

> incorrect recommendation. This is about the so many who somehow know

> things but could never bother to first learn basic science. One of us

> learned from both theory and from decades of experience why earth

> ground providesprotection.

>

> Moving on to reason eleven. Numbers from people who did the work

> and published it. Some Bell System papers measuredsurgevoltages in

> SC, MI, MD, CT, and NJ - both longitudinal and transverse. Nothing

> exceeded 600 volts when using the standard 'wire to earth'

> protectors. As expected, powerful surges were not transverse - 'tip

> to ring'. Destructive surges (as demonstrated by an example in the

> previous post) would not even be seen by a 'tip to ring' protector.

> Obviously, surges on those long cables would not be transverse as fl-

> fly predicted. But fl_fly_boy is typical of those who assume any

> protector isprotection; never learned why earthing is so critical.

>

> No, I am not done. In the 1970s, a Bell System study provided

> numbers for surges. Mediumsurgevoltage was 381 volts. None

> exceeded 2000 volts. Did I select 2000 volts arbitrarily in that

> previous example? Maybe I learned the science before posting. Typical

> 2000 voltsurgenever applied 2000 volts 'tip to ring'. The 'tip to

> ring' protector would never see the same 2000 voltsurgeconfronting a

> DSL modem. Even a Polyswitch would do nothing - obviously if one

> first learned electronics before posting.

>

> Those Bell System papers completely contradict this fl_fly_boy

> sentence that is traceable only to wild speculation:> Odds of the primary properly "Earth Ground" letting in

> > 400-1000v, close to 100%.

>

> Those research papers correct his odds: closer to 0% get "letting

> in". Earthing limited all surges to below what the telephone

> equipment must withstand without damage.

>

> Most embarrassing is fl_fly_boy's claim that a 150 ma Polyswitch

> would *stop* asurge. He could only make that claim by having zero

> grasp of what how a Polyswitch works. fl_fly_boy could only make that

> claim by assuming asurge, not stopped by three miles of sky, can be

> stopped by a 1 centimeter Polyswitch. fl_fly demonstrates why so many

> others never learn what really providesprotection- earth ground.

>

> fl_fly apparently believes retail store salesmen also do not promote

> urban myths. Then why do they sell products from Monster Cable?

>

> What protects that DSL modem? First the 'whole house' protector

> installed by the telco (for free) must be properly earthed. Second.

> the most common path of modem destructive surges - AC electric - also

> must have all three incoming wires properly earthed; two wire earthed

> via a 'whole house' protector from a responsible protector

> manufacturer. Just like the telephone protector; AC electricprotection means the protector makes a 'wire to earth' connection

> from each AC power line. The protector being only as effective as its

> earth ground.

>

> So what was that? Maybe 14 different reasons why fl_fly_boy has

> posted in error. If he knew even one reason, then he would not have

> posted so.

>

> On Sep 12, 3:33 pm, fl_fly_...@yahoo.com wrote:

>

> > On Sep 12, 4:30 am, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:

> >> Real world protectors don't connect tip to ring.

>

> > They do and it's called transverse mode or line to line.

>

> >> Voltage between tip and ring remains at 50 volts. But voltage

> >> between earth and ring is now 2050 volts. Voltage tip to earth

> >> is now 2000 volts."

>

> > Odds of this happening are close to 0% with working primaryprotection

> > that protects T-G and R-G. Odds of the primary properly "Earth Ground"

> > letting in 400-1000v, close to 100%.

> > ...

>

> > That's why it is important for a point of use or secondary protector

> > to be equipped with a polyswitch resettable fusing PTC on both the tip

> > and ring to disconnect the line with more that 150ma current flow, no

> > current flow -- no damage to the DSL modem.

> > ...

>

> > Lot less urban myths in retail stores than on the Internet.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

Why don't you learn to read and think "to be equipped with" is in no

way saying it is the only component in the protector?

Mm was obviously talking about a different component than a ptc so

that is at least two components.

Only a person of your ignorance could propose 60v.

How fast is that ac surge into that dsl modem coming out the pots

line?

Do you think lighting creates all surges?

What 'miracle box' components in existing circuits already inside

telephone appliances make 600 volts non-destructive?

Why does the dsl modem take damage with the in existing circuits

already inside telephone appliances?

"Telephone line "primary protectors" have been required for almost

100 years, and are normally spark gap protectors, based on either

carbon or gas discharge tubes. "Carbon block" protectors consist of

carbon electrodes and an air gap. They are generally considered

obsolete, but are still found in the field. In the last 50 years, they

have been mostly replaced by "gas tube" protectors, which consist of a

spark gap in a small container of inert gas, like a neon lamp. The

breakdown voltages are quite high, typically 600-1000 V for carbon and

400-600 V for gas tubes. They normally have a thermally-activated

short circuit switch so that if a sustained high AC voltage occurs,

heat generated in the arc will close the switch and carry the current

harmlessly to ground. These protectors are listed under UL Standard

497. They typically have high surge current ratings, 5,000 to 10,000 A

(8x20 µs), since they may have to intercept direct lightning strikes

carried in on aerial phone lines."

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf

IEEE Guide for Surge Protection of Equipment 27

"harmlessly to ground" to be confused with w_tom's " 'wire to

earth' (tip to earth

ground and ring to earth ground)."

The guide is saying the opposite of you. Who's should I believe ieee

or w_tom?

Most embarrassing is w_tom that can't read and think before lying.

So how much did he not know when he posted?

And I know better than ask you to backup anything you say with a

reference, you don't do that.

September 13, 2007

Re: How to install DSL, how to install ethernet card?

w_tom wrote:

>

> Did you really think a 150 ma Polyswitch is protection?

I agree a polyswitch is not good for surge protection.

>

> Responsible telephone protectors don't connect 'tip to ring'.

> Effective telephone protectors connect 'wire to earth' (tip to earth

> ground and ring to earth ground). And then we include numbers:

> something missing in posted anchored in junk science.. Those

> protectors limit voltages to 300 volts. That is well below what

> telephone equipment must withstand without damage; a standard that has

> existed for more than 50 years.

I agree that protecting between just the phone wires is not likely to be

effective.

But w_ ignores fl__fly_boy’s quote from the IEEE guide:

"Telephone primary protector breakdown voltages are very high; adequate,

perhaps to prevent severe shocks to users, and possibly adequate to

protect older, electromechanical phone systems with no ground or AC

connections. But the combination of high protector surge limiting

voltage, and possible large voltage rise in the protector ground

connection, means that the net surge voltage seen by the equipment may

be too high to be safe for modems and fax machines with delicate

electronic circuits."

The guide explains that the phone entry protector may limit voltage to

‘ground’ to 400V (which may be too high for some equipment). Then if the

phone entry protector ‘ground’ connection to the common building

‘ground’ is 10 feet another 1,000V can be added - a total surge voltage

between phone and power wires of 1400V. That is plenty to damage

anything connected to both power and phone wires. A plug–in surge

suppressor with the phone wires going through it will limit the voltage

on all wires to a safe value for the connected equipment.

The effect of even a 10 foot ‘ground’ wire illustrates why keeping a

*short* interconnection of phone and cable protector ‘ground’ with the

‘ground’ at the power service is important. In many houses, the entry

location of the phone, cable, ... prevents a short interconnection.

Then, the IEEE guide says for equipment connected to both power and

signal wires "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to

use a multiport protector."

Note the IEEE guide is at both

http://omegaps.com/Lightning Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf

and as posted by fl_fly_boy

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf

>

> Moving on; telephone appliances already contain internal

> protection. Why would a function inside a 'miracle box' do what

> already exists? The 'magic box' does nothing useful.

Both the IEEE and NIST disagree.

>

> No, I am not done. In the 1970s, a Bell System study provided

> numbers for surges. Medium surge voltage was 381 volts. None

> exceeded 2000 volts. Did I select 2000 volts arbitrarily in that

> previous example? Maybe I learned the science before posting. Typical

> 2000 volt surge never applied 2000 volts 'tip to ring'.

Of course 2000V getting through common mode on both phone wires would be

a disaster.

>

> What protects that DSL modem? First the 'whole house' protector

> installed by the telco (for free) must be properly earthed. Second.

> the most common path of modem destructive surges - AC electric - also

> must have all three incoming wires properly earthed; two wire earthed

> via a 'whole house' protector from a responsible protector

> manufacturer.

What does the NIST guide say?

"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be

sufficient for the whole house?

A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances,

No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or

CATV or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link

appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that

does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance

is useless."

> The protector being only as effective as its

> earth ground.

The required statement of religious belief in earthing.

Everyone is for earthing. The only question is whether plug-in

suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors

are effective. Read the sources.

w_ still has not found another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are

NOT effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious

belief in earthing.

Never explained by w_:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-

in suppressors?

- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest

solution"?

--

bud--

September 14, 2007

Re: How to install DSL, how to install ethernet card?

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:40:58 -0400, mm <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com>

wrote:

>

>Surge suppressors are meant to suppress voltage spikes that are

>induced in conductors that are near the lightning. These spikes

>occur in a wide range of voltages, and suppressors can stop or bypass

>many of them.

>

>One way to protect equipment connected to a phone line would be with

>one of the semiconductors (I forget the name) that have high

>resistance with normal voltages (whatever is normal for device as

>normally used), and much lower resistance when voltage gets much

>higher. This could be used to short the tip and ring of a phone line,

Replying to my own post: This is probably true, but it was a mistake

for me to bring it up. I'm not going to be using a stand-alone surge

supressor on my phone line or dsl line. I'm going to use the one that

is built into my UPS or the control box that sits underneath my

monitor, with separage power swtiches for the monitor, and any 3 other

computer things that use AC power, like the speakers.

Both have a pair of phone jacks (not ethernet) and I'm sure both of

these short the spike to the ground (or neutral?) of the AC wiring

that powers the UPS and the switch/control box.

Another friend in a technical field today told me that sometimes

suppresors cut off part of the signal and damage DSL substantially,

like someone here said, but he said sometimes they don't.

So if one does, I'll try the other one, and if both do, I won't use

either.

I still don't know why Verizon made no mention of this one way or the

other. I havent' played the whole CD yet, but I have read the whole

booklet. And the woman on the phone had no idea.

Thanks to all of you.

>sending any spike back to the phone company, where they have either

>better surge grounding, higher quality components, or where they will

>replace any parts that get ruined.

If you are inclined to email me

for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)

September 14, 2007

Re: How to install DSL, how to install ethernet card?

On Sep 13, 11:05 am, "Curt Christianson"

<curtchrist...@NOSPAM.Yahoo.com> wrote:

> Enough already,

>

> I've been an amateur radio operator for over 30 years, with various antennas

> as high as 60 feet up. I know about lightning first-hand, and have been a

> "victim" of a direct lightning hit to my house wiring.

Curt's post is in direct contradiction to what amateur radio

operators have been saying for a hundred years. Routine is to have

direct lightning strikes with no damage. But those who recommend

connecting 'through a surge protector', well Curt, did you bother to

open one up? Makes no difference whether the computer is connected

to a power strip OR connected to the other duplex wall receptacle.

Either way, the electric circuit remains unchanged.

If the "computer itself should be run through a surge suppressor",

then why is Curt still suffering damage? Why does he recommend:

> The only *absolute* protection ... is to *disconnect* any

> vulnerable equipment/appliances.

He recommends disconnecting because a connection through that

protector provided no effective protection. Protector was too close

to electronics and too far from earth ground.

Since a telco's computer is connected to overhead wires all over

town, then the telco also disconnects their computers - terminates

phone service - during every thunderstorm? Curt Christianson makes

that claim because telco switching computer must not be damaged. So

they disconnect to protect hardware? Of course not. Curt is

obviously wrong.

Reality: view what learned ham radio operators do:

http://home1.gte.net/res0958z/

Emergency response center operators remove their headsets and stop

taking calls when thunderstorms arrive. Oh? 911 centers don't stop

working? Surge threat is eliminated by not using plug-in protectors

AND by upgrading earthing:

http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

A ham who also runs a commercial broadcasting station - and suffers

no damage. . He is not using protectors that are missing earthing:

http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html

A ham radio operator should know an industry benchmark -

Polyphaser. Polyphaser's application notes discuss protection -

discuss earthing extensively:

http://www.polyphaser.com/technical_notes.aspx

and http://tinyurl.com/2aymw9

Another radio station also demonstrated how to have no damage from

direct lightning strikes:

http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm

Even direct lightning strikes to munitions storage structures result

in no explosion due to Ufer grounding.

No wonder Curt Christianson must disconnect. His solution is a

protector that does not even claim to provide protection. Why do ham

operators that do not disconnect, instead, suffer direct lightning

strikes and no damage?

Early 20th Century Ham radio operators would disconnect the antenna,

put that lead inside a mason jar, and still suffer damage. But when

the antenna wire was earthed, then damage stopped. Ham radio

operators who also do this in commercial broadcasting stations cite

earthing as essential to protection. Curt completely ignores even what

ARRL recommends. Curt's protectors do not perform magic blocking

functions as he has assumed. Therefore he suffers damage from direct

lightning strikes.

> The only *absolute* protection against a direct lightning to your

> power pole, or a telephone junction box, is to *disconnect* ...

Even early 20th Century ham radio operators learned that disconnecting

is not so effective. Numerous citations by those who suffer direct

strikes without damage completely contradict what Curt has posted.

According to Curt, damage is unavoidable - because he uses ineffecitve

plug-in protectors - no earthing. According to Curt, the telco must

shutdown phone service during every thunderstorm - to disconnect and

protect electronics such as modems.

Numerous radio operators completely contradict what Curt Christianson

has posted. Bill Otten KC9CS (first citation) is quite blunt about

earthing. Enough already, Curt. The telco and 911 emergency operators

disconnect and stop working when thunderstorms arrive? In the real

world, instead, they install earthed protection and avoid the

protectors that Curt has recommended.

September 14, 2007

Re: How to install DSL, how to install ethernet card?

On Sep 13, 11:49 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> I'm not going to be using a stand-alone surge supressor on my

> phone line or dsl line. I'm going to use the one that is built into

> my UPS or the control box that sits underneath my monitor, with

> separage power swtiches for the monitor, and any 3 other

> computer things that use AC power, like the speakers.

>

> Both have a pair of phone jacks (not ethernet) and I'm sure both of

> these short the spike to the ground (or neutral?) of the AC wiring

> that powers the UPS and the switch/control box.

Those other protectors (UPS and control switch) are the same circuit

found in power strips. In the case of the UPS, that protector is so

tiny as to be near zero. How tiny? Well, look at its numeric specs.

It does not even claim protection for each type of surge. And just

like power strip protectors, it may even earth the surge destructively

through the DSL modem. The surge needs earth ground. The protector

only shunts - gives the surge access to all wires. If the best path

to earth is via the DSL modem, then modem is damaged. We even saw

this to the entire network of powered off computers. Surge was

earthed via two protectors, destructively, through three computers.

We traced the surge by replacing damaged integrated circuits. Yes,

one here has significant technical experience with lightning. Plug-in

protectors earthed that surge, destructively, through three powered

off computers.

Neutral wire obviously cannot make an earthing connection. More

than ten feet to earth. Bundled with other wires - it may even induce

surges on all those other wire. Sharp bends - too many to count.

Almost as many splices. So many reasons why safety ground and neutral

wires cannot effectively earth. Learn about wire impedance to better

appreciate why. Then appreciate the significance of 'less than 10

foot'.

So where does the UPS list any surge protection in numbers? It does

not. Its protector circuit is same as in other stand alone surge

protectors. Its specs don't even claim the protection you have

assumed.

Why does Verizon not discuss this? Where is the two paragraph

description that can define single point earth ground, 'less than 10

feet', no sharp bends, protectors with no earthing AND that don't even

claim to provide protection. Do you think Verizon will discuss wire

impedance? You have even confused wall receptacle safety ground with

earth ground because you don't comprehend the significance of wire

impedance. Do you really think Verizon wants to discuss this?

Obviously not. Destructive surges occur typically once every seven

years. And not every surge results in DSL damage. Verizon has enough

trouble telling people how to setup DSL. Why would they discuss surge

protection? But if you suffer seriously diminished DSL signals, then

Verizon will ask you to remove those ineffective plug-in protectors

and keep them removed.

That telco protector installed for free? It has been sufficient

even for DSL even 20 years before DSL was being installed. Just

another fact that others recommending stand alone solutions can't

discuss due to no technical knowledge and experience.

September 14, 2007

Re: How to install DSL, how to install ethernet card?

On Sep 13, 11:32 am, fl_fly_...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Sep 12, 11:19 pm, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:

>> Did you really think a 150 ma Polyswitch is protection? The

>> numbers. 1) What is voltage for that Polyswitch? 60 volts.

>

> Only a person of your ignorance could propose 60v.

Let's view that Polyswitch datasheet for the RXEF010 at:

http://tinyurl.com/389gyp

> Vmax Operating (V) = 60

Curious. A Polyswitch that would have to block at least 600 volts

(ypically more like 1000 volts) is only rated for 60 volts? Fourteen

reasons demonstrated that fl_fly_boy does not have basic electrical

knowledge. Which one is *ignorant* ? One that quotes a

manufacturer datasheet? Or the electrically naive accuser who could

not bother to post numbers or a datasheet; who recommends ineffective

protectors; who instead posts insults? Well, one who posts insults

also believes protectors work 'tip to ring'. He just knows this;

cannot even say why. Those who post myths often avoid 'reasons why'.

Myths don't last very long if numbers are provided.

A poster who identified fourteen errors in fl_fly_boy's reasoning,

AND who provided the datasheet, AND who identifies effective

protectors as 'wire to earth', AND has a few decades of actual

experience, AND knew about the telco provided 'whole house' protector

(fl_fly_boy did not), AND understands that destructive surges are made

irrelevant when shunted / diverted / clamped to earth ground - that

one is accused by fl_fly_boy as being "ignorant"? He accuses and

does not even provide a number to prove 'ignorance'. But again,

personal accusations and no numbers is how junk science gets promoted.

Telephone appliances already contain internal protection. Telephone

appliances must withstand more than 600 volt transients without

damage as even demonstrated in Bell System Technical papers. Any

protection that would be effective adjacent to a DSL modem is already

inside that DSL modem. So that protection inside that DSL modem is

not overwhelmed, we earth a typically destructive surge (lightning)

before that surge can enter a building. IOW we do exactly what the

telco also does for their own switching computers. Connected to

overhead wires all over town, that switching computer may be

threatened by 100 surges during every thunderstorm - and must not be

damaged.

fl_fly_boy also asks:

> Do you think lighting creates all surges?

We install surge protection for lightning. Then other surges are

also made irrelevant. Effective surge protection is installed so that

direct lightning strikes should not cause damage to electronics or the

protector. How do we do that? Clearly a one centimeter Polyswitch

will block lightning surges.

Those who learned about Ben Franklin's lightning rods in primary

school would know about earthing lightning - to protect church

steeples and even humans. Ben Franklin demonstrated the technique in

1752. Earliest 20th Century Ham radio operators learned that a mason

jar does not stop lightning; but earthing their antenna stopped

damage. Westinghouse and GE research papers demonstrated earthing to

protect electronics in the 1930s. Why were they so much smarter long

ago?

21st Century 'geniuses' who recommend 'miracle box' protectors need

not learn from science and history. Instead, Circuit City and Best

Buy salesman can provide education. Those 'miracle boxes' will

somehow stop what three miles of sky could not? It must be true. The

salesman said so.

If fl_fly_boy knew even one of those fourteen reasons, then he would

not have again replied with myths - that a Polyswitch will somehow

stop lightning surges. Let's see. The surge is done in

microseconds. The Polyswitch takes about 1000 times longer to

respond. Oh. Another fact that fl_fly_boy did not learn from

datasheets. Polyswitch could never respond fast enough - but somehow

it provided protection.

The OP was provided two recommendations to protect his DSL modem.

First, confirm and maybe enhance earthing for a telco installed 'whole

house' protector. Second, earth all AC electric wires 'less than 10

feet' to that same earth ground - either directly (neutral wire) or

via a 'whole house' protector (hot wires). Protection of his DSL

modem and everything else inside the building should be defined by the

quality of and connections to his earthing system (secondary

protection) -

http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr002.pdf

AND the primary protection system:

http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

Both systems should be inspected.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - be it a surge

protector or a Franklin lightning rod.

September 14, 2007

Re: How to install DSL, how to install ethernet card?

On Sep 14, 3:04 am, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:

> On Sep 13, 11:32 am, fl_fly_...@yahoo.com wrote:

>

> > On Sep 12, 11:19 pm, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:

> >> Did you really think a 150 ma Polyswitch isprotection? The

> >> numbers. 1) What is voltage for that Polyswitch? 60 volts.

>

> > Only a person of your ignorance could propose 60v.

>

> Let's view that Polyswitch datasheet for the RXEF010 at:

> http://tinyurl.com/389gyp

>

> > Vmax Operating (V) = 60

>

> Curious. A Polyswitch that would have to block at least 600 volts

> (ypically more like 1000 volts) is only rated for 60 volts? Fourteen

> reasons demonstrated that fl_fly_boy does not have basic electrical

> knowledge. Which one is *ignorant* ? One that quotes a

> manufacturer datasheet? Or the electrically naive accuser who could

> not bother to post numbers or a datasheet; who recommends ineffective

> protectors; who instead posts insults? Well, one who posts insults

> also believes protectors work 'tip to ring'. He just knows this;

> cannot even say why. Those who post myths often avoid 'reasons why'.

> Myths don't last very long if numbers are provided.

>

> A poster who identified fourteen errors in fl_fly_boy's reasoning,

> AND who provided the datasheet, AND who identifies effective

> protectors as 'wire to earth', AND has a few decades of actual

> experience, AND knew about the telco provided 'whole house' protector

> (fl_fly_boy did not), AND understands that destructive surges are made

> irrelevant when shunted / diverted / clamped to earth ground - that

> one is accused by fl_fly_boy as being "ignorant"? He accuses and

> does not even provide a number to prove 'ignorance'. But again,

> personal accusations and no numbers is how junk science gets promoted.

>

> Telephone appliances already contain internalprotection. Telephone

> appliances must withstand more than 600 volt transients without

> damage as even demonstrated in Bell System Technical papers. Anyprotectionthat would be effective adjacent to a DSL modem is already

> inside that DSL modem. So thatprotectioninside that DSL modem is

> not overwhelmed, we earth a typically destructivesurge(lightning)

> before thatsurgecan enter a building. IOW we do exactly what the

> telco also does for their own switching computers. Connected to

> overhead wires all over town, that switching computer may be

> threatened by 100 surges during every thunderstorm - and must not be

> damaged.

>

> fl_fly_boy also asks:

>

> > Do you think lighting creates all surges?

>

> We installsurgeprotectionfor lightning. Then other surges are

> also made irrelevant. Effectivesurgeprotectionis installed so that

> direct lightning strikes should not cause damage to electronics or the

> protector. How do we do that? Clearly a one centimeter Polyswitch

> will block lightning surges.

>

> Those who learned about Ben Franklin's lightning rods in primary

> school would know about earthing lightning - to protect church

> steeples and even humans. Ben Franklin demonstrated the technique in

> 1752. Earliest 20th Century Ham radio operators learned that a mason

> jar does not stop lightning; but earthing their antenna stopped

> damage. Westinghouse and GE research papers demonstrated earthing to

> protect electronics in the 1930s. Why were they so much smarter long

> ago?

>

> 21st Century 'geniuses' who recommend 'miracle box' protectors need

> not learn from science and history. Instead, Circuit City and Best

> Buy salesman can provide education. Those 'miracle boxes' will

> somehow stop what three miles of sky could not? It must be true. The

> salesman said so.

>

> If fl_fly_boy knew even one of those fourteen reasons, then he would

> not have again replied with myths - that a Polyswitch will somehow

> stop lightning surges. Let's see. Thesurgeis done in

> microseconds. The Polyswitch takes about 1000 times longer to

> respond. Oh. Another fact that fl_fly_boy did not learn from

> datasheets. Polyswitch could never respond fast enough - but somehow

> it providedprotection.

>

> The OP was provided two recommendations to protect his DSL modem.

> First, confirm and maybe enhance earthing for a telco installed 'whole

> house' protector. Second, earth all AC electric wires 'less than 10

> feet' to that same earth ground - either directly (neutral wire) or

> via a 'whole house' protector (hot wires). Protectionof his DSL

> modem and everything else inside the building should be defined by the

> quality of and connections to his earthing system (secondaryprotection) -

> http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr002.pdf

> AND the primaryprotectionsystem:

> http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

> Both systems should be inspected.

>

> A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - be it asurge

> protector or a Franklin lightning rod.

Why don't you learn to read and think "to be equipped with" is in no

way saying it is the only component in the protector?

Mm was obviously talking about a different component than a ptc so

that is at least two components.

Only a person of your ignorance could propose 60v.

How fast is that ac surge into that dsl modem coming out the pots

line?

Do you think lighting creates all surges?

What 'miracle box' components in existing circuits already inside

telephone appliances make 600 volts non-destructive?

Why does the dsl modem take damage with the in existing circuits

already inside telephone appliances?

"Telephone line "primary protectors" have been required for almost

100 years, and are normally spark gap protectors, based on either

carbon or gas discharge tubes. "Carbon block" protectors consist of

carbon electrodes and an air gap. They are generally considered

obsolete, but are still found in the field. In the last 50 years,

they

have been mostly replaced by "gas tube" protectors, which consist of

a

spark gap in a small container of inert gas, like a neon lamp. The

breakdown voltages are quite high, typically 600-1000 V for carbon

and

400-600 V for gas tubes. They normally have a thermally-activated

short circuit switch so that if a sustained high AC voltage occurs,

heat generated in the arc will close the switch and carry the current

harmlessly to ground. These protectors are listed under UL Standard

497. They typically have high surge current ratings, 5,000 to 10,000

A

(8x20 µs), since they may have to intercept direct lightning strikes

carried in on aerial phone lines."

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf

IEEE Guide for Surge Protection of Equipment 27

"harmlessly to ground" to be confused with w_tom's " 'wire to

earth' (tip to earth

ground and ring to earth ground)."

The guide is saying the opposite of you. Who's should I believe ieee

or w_tom?

Most embarrassing is w_tom that can't read and think before lying.

So how much did he not know when he posted?

And I know better than ask you to backup anything you say with a

reference, you don't do that.

September 14, 2007

Re: How to install DSL, how to install ethernet card?

w_tom wrote:

>

> Those other protectors (UPS and control switch) are the same circuit

> found in power strips. In the case of the UPS, that protector is so

> tiny as to be near zero. How tiny? Well, look at its numeric specs.

You do need to look at the specs. A UPS may or may not have adequate

surge protection. A UPS can be plugged into a plug-in suppressor with

high ratings.

> It does not even claim protection for each type of surge.

The nonsense repeated.

> Yes,

> one here has significant technical experience with lightning.

But apparently hasn’t learned from it. w_ trolls the newsgroups with

his bizarre claim about plug-in suppressors that is at odds with the

IEEE and NIST.

>

> So where does the UPS list any surge protection in numbers? It does

> not. Its protector circuit is same as in other stand alone surge

> protectors.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug–in suppressors are effective.

>

> That telco protector installed for free? It has been sufficient

> even for DSL even 20 years before DSL was being installed. Just

> another fact that others recommending stand alone solutions can't

> discuss due to no technical knowledge and experience.

For technical knowledge read the IEEE guide. A telco protector is not

adequate unless installed in a "single point ground” with *short*

connections from the protector to the ground at the power service.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Read the sources.

And w_ still has not found another lunatic that says plug-in

suppressors are NOT effective. Why doesn't anyone agree with you w_???

And still never explained by w_:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-

in suppressors?

- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest

solution"?

Why no answers to simple questions w_???

--

bud--

September 14, 2007

Re: How to install DSL, how to install ethernet card?

I completely believe in earthing (or grounding as we call) it. But you

mis-understood my response. A surge suppressor is only good for those minor

spikes that come through power lines and telco lines. For that they *do*

work. For anything larger, they are of *no* use. Unfortunately, one cannot

predict ahead of time what kind of surge they are to get.

In a severe electrical storm for example, the only "safe" recourse from an

equipment standpoint is to disconnect said equipment from the AC mains, and

disconnect the equipment (answering machines, fax, etc.) from the telco's

lines. In the case of ham's or anyone else with an outdoor antenna of any

height, it should be grounded.

The jar you refered to BTW is a Leyden jar--you're right on!

--

HTH,

Curt

Windows Support Center

http://www.aumha.org

Practically Nerded,...

http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm

"w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in message

news:1189750944.386637.245300@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

| On Sep 13, 11:05 am, "Curt Christianson"

| <curtchrist...@NOSPAM.Yahoo.com> wrote:

| > Enough already,

| >

| > I've been an amateur radio operator for over 30 years, with various

antennas

| > as high as 60 feet up. I know about lightning first-hand, and have been

a

| > "victim" of a direct lightning hit to my house wiring.

|

| Curt's post is in direct contradiction to what amateur radio

| operators have been saying for a hundred years. Routine is to have

| direct lightning strikes with no damage. But those who recommend

| connecting 'through a surge protector', well Curt, did you bother to

| open one up? Makes no difference whether the computer is connected

| to a power strip OR connected to the other duplex wall receptacle.

| Either way, the electric circuit remains unchanged.

|

| If the "computer itself should be run through a surge suppressor",

| then why is Curt still suffering damage? Why does he recommend:

| > The only *absolute* protection ... is to *disconnect* any

| > vulnerable equipment/appliances.

|

| He recommends disconnecting because a connection through that

| protector provided no effective protection. Protector was too close

| to electronics and too far from earth ground.

|

| Since a telco's computer is connected to overhead wires all over

| town, then the telco also disconnects their computers - terminates

| phone service - during every thunderstorm? Curt Christianson makes

| that claim because telco switching computer must not be damaged. So

| they disconnect to protect hardware? Of course not. Curt is

| obviously wrong.

|

| Reality: view what learned ham radio operators do:

| http://home1.gte.net/res0958z/

|

| Emergency response center operators remove their headsets and stop

| taking calls when thunderstorms arrive. Oh? 911 centers don't stop

| working? Surge threat is eliminated by not using plug-in protectors

| AND by upgrading earthing:

| http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

|

| A ham who also runs a commercial broadcasting station - and suffers

| no damage. . He is not using protectors that are missing earthing:

| http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html

|

| A ham radio operator should know an industry benchmark -

| Polyphaser. Polyphaser's application notes discuss protection -

| discuss earthing extensively:

| http://www.polyphaser.com/technical_notes.aspx

| and http://tinyurl.com/2aymw9

|

| Another radio station also demonstrated how to have no damage from

| direct lightning strikes:

| http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm

| Even direct lightning strikes to munitions storage structures result

| in no explosion due to Ufer grounding.

|

| No wonder Curt Christianson must disconnect. His solution is a

| protector that does not even claim to provide protection. Why do ham

| operators that do not disconnect, instead, suffer direct lightning

| strikes and no damage?

|

| Early 20th Century Ham radio operators would disconnect the antenna,

| put that lead inside a mason jar, and still suffer damage. But when

| the antenna wire was earthed, then damage stopped. Ham radio

| operators who also do this in commercial broadcasting stations cite

| earthing as essential to protection. Curt completely ignores even what

| ARRL recommends. Curt's protectors do not perform magic blocking

| functions as he has assumed. Therefore he suffers damage from direct

| lightning strikes.

|

| > The only *absolute* protection against a direct lightning to your

| > power pole, or a telephone junction box, is to *disconnect* ...

| Even early 20th Century ham radio operators learned that disconnecting

| is not so effective. Numerous citations by those who suffer direct

| strikes without damage completely contradict what Curt has posted.

| According to Curt, damage is unavoidable - because he uses ineffecitve

| plug-in protectors - no earthing. According to Curt, the telco must

| shutdown phone service during every thunderstorm - to disconnect and

| protect electronics such as modems.

|

| Numerous radio operators completely contradict what Curt Christianson

| has posted. Bill Otten KC9CS (first citation) is quite blunt about

| earthing. Enough already, Curt. The telco and 911 emergency operators

| disconnect and stop working when thunderstorms arrive? In the real

| world, instead, they install earthed protection and avoid the

| protectors that Curt has recommended.

|

September 14, 2007

Re: How to install DSL, how to install ethernet card?

Hi w_tom,

I neglected to respond to a couple of other *very important* points.

Yes there is protection available that permits ham's , broadcast stations,

etc. to continue to operate in the face of the worst electrical storms.

There most definitely *is* that protection available. The cost for the

average consumer however can be cost prohibitive to get something that truly

offers good protection. Another factor one *cannot* ignore is the ignorance,

or in absense of ignorance the attitude that "I'll just take my chances".

That is all too common.

I'll be the first to admit that I began my ham career when hams did not have

the money to afford the protection available now, had that protection even

been popular among ham's or consumers at that time. Ham operators and

consumers alike have more disposible income nowadays, and *some are* willing

to spend it wisely on protection for their equipment.

As I've said, I've seen more than one modem get fried from a surge through

the telco lines, along with modern day telephones, answering machines, etc.

Back in the day when few people *had* computers, used answering machines,

and one only had the old rotary dial phones, there wasn't much to be damaged

by a telco line surge. Open most any telephone book, and in the front pages

where all the dialing info., how to pay your bill, etc. is located there is

usually a small section about the use of your telephone and telephone

safety. The telco's recommend *not using* your phone in an electrical

storm. Too bad they don't go one step further and suggest a disconnect

until the worst of the disturbance is over.