The Perspective of Metallic Access Networks Based on MELT Parameter Measurements on Homogeneous Symmetric Lines

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

you may check attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

I have no comment.

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

My decision is major revision.

This paper focused on the perspective of metallic access networks utilizing homogeneous symmetric lines as a transmission medium. This miscellaneous environment has a strong influence on transmitted DSL signals and hence it is necessary to know its specific parameters in the given case. Also, the realization of the mobile application functionality for facilitating jobs of technicians is introduced together with possible availability of homogeneous symmetric lines for DSL service provision.

We are very pleased to have received Reviewer’s comments and remarks. Detailed responses are provided below. Changes made to the article are highlighted.

- Acronym problems in abstract, DSL, MELT should be derived before using in manuscript.

Response: We'd like to thank the Reviewer for a mentioned comment that makes this paper better. The comment is accepted; acronym problems in the abstract are removed.

- The quality of figure is not good. You should update.

Response: The comment is accepted; the quality of figures is increased; each figure has a minimum resolution 300 dpi.

- The contribution of manuscript in Introduction did not clear, you should compare with the another papers.

Response: We appreciate the Reviewer’s comment. The Introduction is extensive by reason of demonstration that metallic access networks (based on homogeneous symmetric lines) are still considered for future service provision by means of DSL technologies. For successful DSL service provision, fast measurement and diagnostic techniques for securing a reliable signal transmission are required. Finally, the attention is focused - in the first place - on the MELT test that can be effectively utilized for this purpose.

Each part of the Introduction is richly referenced to indicate that the applied research aim of this manuscript is original and there are no known papers suitable for a near comparison.

- Figure 2 did not show any information, you should analyze Figure 2 more details, I did not see any contributions of Figure 2 in manuscript. This problem also same with figure 3 and figure 4. You should explain more detail of figure and shows your results compare with another paper.

Response: The comment is fully accepted. Figure 2 is re-arranged and more details related to this figure are added to Rows 382-392. Besides, further details related to another mentioned figures are also added to Rows 455-461 (Figure 3) and to Rows 461-466 (Figure 4). Both these figures are also customized.

Finally, I hope you will solve all the issues that I mentioned above to make your paper better.

We'd like to thank the esteemed and respected Reviewer for his comments and remarks that make our paper better.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the authors have presented the perspective of metallic access networks based on MELT 2 parameter measurements on homogeneous symmetric lines. The results are interesting. However, some of the comments listed below should be considered before it can be published:

1. Figures 2 and 4 are not clear enough to show their content clearly.

2. What advantages does the “measurements on homogeneous symmetric lines by means of the metallic ended line testing” mentioned in the passage have over the others?

3. From the description of article 4.2, we did not see the comparative effect, please specify the test effect in more detail in the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

 Please carefully examine the grammatical errors and terminologies that can be found in some places in the manuscript.

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

We are very pleased to have received Reviewer’s comments and remarks. Detailed responses are provided below. Changes made to the article are highlighted.

In this manuscript, the authors have presented the perspective of metallic access networks based on MELT 2 parameter measurements on homogeneous symmetric lines. The results are interesting. However, some of the comments listed below should be considered before it can be published:

1. Figures 2 and 4 are not clear enough to show their content clearly.

Response: The comment is fully accepted. Figure 2 is re-arranged and more details related to this figure are added to Rows 382-392. Besides, further details related to another mentioned figures are also added to Rows 455-461 (Figure 3) and to Rows 461-466 (Figure 4). Both these figures are also customized.

2. What advantages does the “measurements on homogeneous symmetric lines by means of the metallic ended line testing” mentioned in the passage have over the others?

Response: We appreciate the Reviewer’s comment. Main advantages of the MELT testing are described in the Introduction, Rows 218-221. I.e.

The MELT test allows measuring on a metallic transmission medium, without the need for the presence of a customer-side connection. Unlike other types of tests, it is possible to accurately detect and localize the failure. Therefore, this type of test is the best for analyzing real homogeneous symmetric lines.

3. From the description of article 4.2, we did not see the comparative effect, please specify the test effect in more detail in the article.

Response: We respect the Reviewer’s comment. The Introduction is extensive by reason of demonstration that metallic access networks (based on homogeneous symmetric lines) are still considered for future service provision by means of DSL technologies. For successful DSL service provision, fast measurement and diagnostic techniques for securing a reliable signal transmission are required. Finally, the attention is focused - in the first place - on the MELT test that can be effectively utilized for this purpose.

Each part of the Introduction is richly referenced to indicate that the applied research aim of this manuscript is original and there are no known papers suitable for a near comparison.

For highlighting, our MELT test evaluation is originated by reason that the Nokia test software tool doesn’t provide this functionality.

Test effects are specified in the subsection 4.2, where are described MELT test results, measured values of tested lines and the evaluation MELT test parameters in the mobile application in more details.

4. Please carefully examine the grammatical errors and terminologies that can be found in some places in the manuscript.

Response: We'd like to thank the Reviewer for a mentioned comment that makes this paper better. The comment is accepted; based on the recommendation, we realized extensive English revisions of substantial parts in the manuscript. We eliminated typing errors and some inaccuracies. We also reformulated any sentences, expressions and formulations to be more accurate.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript show the metallic access networks utilizing homogeneous symmetric lines. Below are some comments:

mention the error percentage margin in abstract section. Try to be precise to the introduction section. 

revise the figure 1

maximum permitted tolerance value of 0nF means?

grammatical correction is required for sentence between Line 354-362

keep you code in github and you can share the link in reference. Remove fig 2

Fig 3, 4,5,6 is unnecessary

The way manuscript is organized is not good. Lots of aspects need to be revised. Author have just kept screenshot from softwares. There is no any comparison graphs neither is so Table of comparison.

I suggest Author should do more research and have better analytical presentation. The manuscript is just like a white paper. Its does not signifies the research oriented paper. 

English is too poor

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

We appreciate the Reviewer’s opinion, comments and remarks. Detailed responses are provided below. Changes made to the article are highlighted.

The manuscript shows the metallic access networks utilizing homogeneous symmetric lines. Below are some comments:

mention the error percentage margin in abstract section. Try to be precise to the introduction section. 

Response: We'd like to thank the Reviewer for mentioned comments. Can be these comments more precise? What should be the error percentage margin? What parts of the Introduction should be more precise? There is also other opinion, that the Section 1 (Introduction) is too much lengthy. So, we’ll try to find a compromise.

revise the figure 1

Response: We'd like to thank the Reviewer for a mentioned comment. Can be this comment more precise? Which way should be the Figure 1 revised? We are pleased to meet your idea.

maximum permitted tolerance value of 0nF means?

Response: We appreciate the Reviewer’s comment. If a measured value of the DC foreign voltages exceeds the maximum permitted tolerance value of 0nF, it means that there is the failure (the malfunction) on the measured homogeneous symmetric line.

grammatical correction is required for sentence between Line 354-362

Response: We'd like to thank the Reviewer for a mentioned comment that makes this paper better. The comment is accepted; based on the recommendation, we realized extensive English revisions of substantial parts in the manuscript. We eliminated typing errors and some inaccuracies. We also reformulated any sentences, expressions and formulations to be more accurate.

keep you code in github and you can share the link in reference. Remove fig 2

Fig 3, 4,5,6 is unnecessary

We respect the Reviewer’s comments related to mentioned Figures 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Because not all Reviewers and Readers are so familiar with topics presented in the manuscript, we prefer to keep these figures in a customized orm for their more explicit explanations.

We hope that the reputable and knowledgeable Reviewer understands this situation and he will agree with this reasoning.

The presented mobile application is in use of the Slovak telecom network operator and we have no admission to realize a solution suggested by the Reviewer.

The way manuscript is organized is not good. Lots of aspects need to be revised. Author have just kept screenshot from software. There are no any comparison graphs neither is so Table of comparison.

I suggest Author should do more research and have better analytical presentation. The manuscript is just like a white paper. It does not signify the research oriented paper. 

Response: We respect the Reviewer’s comments.

The Introduction is extensive by reason of demonstration that metallic access networks (based on homogeneous symmetric lines) are still considered for future service provision by means of DSL technologies. For successful DSL service provision, fast measurement and diagnostic techniques for securing a reliable signal transmission are required. Finally, the attention is focused - in the first place - on the MELT test that can be effectively utilized for this purpose.

Each part of the Introduction is richly referenced to indicate that the applied research aim of this manuscript is original and there are no known papers suitable for a near comparison.

For highlighting, our MELT test evaluation is originated by reason that the Nokia test software tool doesn’t provide this functionality.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In this paper, the authors have emphasized on the perspective of metallic access networks utilizing homogeneous symmetric lines as a transmission medium and possibilities for new evaluation techniques for analysing MELT parameters. It is quite interesting; however, it needs significant improvement discussed as follows.

1)      The Section 1 (Introduction) is too much lengthy. It is not a book chapter, it is research article so the authors must re-write this section succinctly to clarify the research gap, problem formulation and contribution.

2)      End of the Section 1, the discussion about section 1 not required to write because it is in the end of this section.

3)      In Section 2, again 2.1 (Introduction) and 2.2 (Metallic Ended Line Testing) is not required. Similarly, 3.1 is also not required.

4) Clarity of the Fig. 2 need to improve. In addition, authors must provide the developed Algorithm in standard format as well as comparison of MELT test with presented Nokia Test software. How the authors assure that the results obtained by the presented work is correct.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Reviewer #4:

In this paper, the authors have emphasized on the perspective of metallic access networks utilizing homogeneous symmetric lines as a transmission medium and possibilities for new evaluation techniques for analyzing MELT parameters. It is quite interesting; however, it needs significant improvement discussed as follows.

1)      The Section 1 (Introduction) is too much lengthy. It is not a book chapter, it is research article so the authors must re-write this section succinctly to clarify the research gap, problem formulation and contribution.

2)      End of the Section 1, the discussion about section 1 not required to write because it is in the end of this section.

Response: We appreciate the Reviewer’s comments related to the Section 1. We agree with Reviewer that the Introduction is too much lengthy. We hesitate over arrangement of this section for various reasons. First, we keep this form of the Introduction by reason of previous comments, demands and requests of other Reviewers. The complete chain of topics (as presented at the End of this section) - above all the utilization of metallic homogeneous lines in future access networks and perspectives of measurements on metallic homogeneous symmetric lines - is used for the purpose of satisfactory demonstration that metallic access networks are still considered for future service provision by means of DSL technologies. Furthermore, each part of the Introduction is richly referenced to indicate that the applied research aim of this manuscript is original and there are no known papers suitable for a near comparison.

We hope that the esteemed and respected Reviewer understands this situation and he will agree with this reasoning.

3)      In Section 2, again 2.1 (Introduction) and 2.2 (Metallic Ended Line Testing) is not required. Similarly, 3.1 is also not required.

Response: We respect the Reviewer’s comments related to mentioned Subsections 2.1, 2.2 and 3.1. We agree with Reviewer that these parts are not necessarily required. Because not all Reviewers and Readers are so familiar with topics presented in the manuscript, we prefer to keep these subsections in a mentioned form for their more explicit explanations.

We hope that the reputable and knowledgeable Reviewer understands this situation and he will agree with this solution also. In spite of all effort, we are ready to delete considered subsections on the ground of Reviewer and Editor decisions.

4)     Clarity of the Fig. 2 need to improve. In addition, authors must provide the developed Algorithm in standard format as well as comparison of MELT test with presented Nokia Test software. How the authors assure that the results obtained by the presented work is correct.

Response: We'd like to thank the Reviewer for mentioned comments that makes this paper better. The Figure 2 is re-arranged and more details related to this figure are added to Rows 382-392. As introduced in our responses previously, there are no known papers suitable for a near comparison. For highlighting, our MELT test evaluation is originated by reason that the Nokia test software tool doesn’t provide this functionality.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors revised based on my comments. This manuscript can be published

No comment.

Author Response

Authors revised based on my comments. This manuscript can be published.

We'd like to thank the esteemed and respected Reviewer for his comments and remarks that make our paper better.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the changes performed as suggested. However, better to present your code in github and place the reference in the reference list. 

Minor revision

Author Response

Thank you for the changes performed as suggested. However, better to present your code in github and place the reference in the reference list. 

We appreciate the Reviewer’s comment that makes our paper better. A detailed response is provided below. Changes made to the article are highlighted.

The presented mobile application is in use of the Slovak telecom network operator and we have no admission to realize a solution suggested by the reputable Reviewer. As an alternative solution, we prepared a link [https://mega.nz/folder/xG8gTJ4Z] where the mobile application’s code is placed and the access is allowed only with the agreement of the Slovak telecom network operator. This link is added as the reference in the reference list.

Reviewer 4 Report

Regarding the reviewer's comments, the authors improvement is very marginal. 

Presentation of English has been improved.

Author Response

Regarding the reviewer's comments, the authors improvement is very marginal. 

Response: We appreciate the Reviewer’s comments and respect the Reviewer’s opinion.

As we introduced in our previous responses in Round 1, we hesitated over arrangement of considered sections and subsections for various reasons. The problem is that Reviewer 4’ comments in the Round 1 are opposed to comments of other Reviewers so it is impossible to meet all. It means that accepted comments and remarks of other Reviewers should be eliminated to meet comments of the Reviewer 4. Finally, we have decided to remain mentioned subsections in the paper because not all Reviewers and Readers are so familiar with topics presented in the manuscript. For more explicit explanations of the complete chain of topics, a mentioned form of subsections will be helped.

Among other things, each part of the Introduction is richly referenced to indicate that the applied research aim of this manuscript is original and there are no known papers suitable for a near comparison. In addition, our MELT test evaluation is originated by reason that the Nokia test software tool doesn’t provide this functionality, not to replace some.