For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Apr 2005 20:05:00 EST Volume 24 : Issue 142
Inside This Issue: Remember to Set Your Clock Ahead!
Prepaid vrs. 'Regular' Cell Phone Service (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Microsoft Employee Sentenced for Software Theft (Lisa Minter)
Yahoo Hires Gen. Manager of MSN's Programming Group (Lisa Minter)
Cell Phone Service Comparisons (Den)
DECT For Local Loop: 'Boot up Time' (news@absamail.co.za)
Re: Fax Station ID (DevilsPGD)
Re: Fax Station ID (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Classic Telephone Call on PC (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Classic Telephone Call on PC (Gerhard Nowak)
Re: Blackboards vs. Whiteboards (John Hines)
Re: GSM-900 (Chris Farrar)
Re: Cell Phone Compatibility (Steve Sobol)
Re: Verizon's Pitch Could Signal Local Cable War (Steve Sobol)
Re: The Real Reason Why SBC Won't Work With Vonage on E-911 (Thor Simon)
Re: Does Your Computer Look Like This? (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Book Review: The Great Telecom Meltdown (John Levine)
Re: Every Ten Days (Choreboy)
Re: Obituary: Schiavo Dies After Feeding Tube Removed (AES)
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 18:37:21 EST
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Prepaid vrs. 'Regular' Cell Phone Service
I have mentioned before that I have _two_ working cellular phones
here. They are both Nokia 5165 models (digital service). The original
phone that I used both in Chicago, on the bus trip to here in
Independence, and for a month or so after that is on AT&T Wireless
(although it was not on prepaid in those days, just on regular service
with a Chicago 630 area code). I went downtown one day back then, to
a store which had an AT&T Wireless sign on the front of it, and asked
the lady about switching me over to a local (area 620-331) number. She
said she could not do it, mainly because they were no longer AT&T
... which had gone out of business here in town a few days before. "We
are now Cingular Wireless," the lady told me. "Myself and my two
clerks were with AT&T, but they 'traded us' off to Cingular when
Cingular took over Independence. The sign painters are coming out
today or tomorrow to change our sign and windows. But if you want to
go with Cingular, I can certainly help you."
I handed her the (at the time) _one_ Nokia 5165 phone I had and said
okay, program it over to Cingular. She looked at the phone and said,
"We cannot program that phone, it is permanently locked in firmware to
AT&T. When you quit AT&T the phone becomes useless." Thinking that maybe
she was lying to me in order to get a sale for Cingular, I checked with
various other places: the Cellular One dealer a few doors away, the
Radio Shack dealer here (who sells for Alltel under the Radio Shack
corporate deal), the United States Cellular dealer on Chestnut Street,
and the salesman at the Alltel Corporate kiosk out at Walmart. They
all said the same thing: Phone is locked into AT&T; buy any of ours
that you wish, on our various service plans, but that physical phone
you are holding now is _only useable_ on AT&T.
So I went back to the Cingular Wireless lady (whose store was now
properly decorated and marked as 'Cingular' rather that 'AT&T' and
told her I would take one of her service plans __if she could replace
the 5165 in order that I did not have to get all new peripherals for
it, after all, a Cellsocket and a headphone and a battery charger for
one 5165 will fit any 5165 phones; they don't care _who_ provides the
service.
"Well, yeah, she said, I think I have one in back somewhere," and she
found another 5165 _not firmware locked_ and she programmed it up for
use on Cingular Wireless with a local 620-330 number. She gave it to
me for ten dollars with a one year agreement. I chatted with the
person in Chicago who was holding the (now expired) agreement on the
AT&T phone, and his suggestion was 'just toss it in the trash and
we will go with the new Cingular phone you got instead.' But I did
not have the heart to just toss a perfectly good phone in the trash,
so I talked to someone in Tulsa (we here in Independence are in the
'Tulsa Market' on AT&T) and I had her put it on prepaid service,
figuring I would not use it a lot since I had just gotten the new
Cingular ... and all my peripherals would work on either phone. But
I took from the various selections I was offered a number out of
Wichita, KS (316-841). Now fast-forward three or four years; that is
where I am at today. One Nokia 5165 on Cingular, regular service
locally here in Independence, and one Nokia 5165 on AT&T Prepaid
service out of Wichita, which is considered 'roaming' when used here
in town.
On Thursday I called AT&T to replenish the time on the prepaid phone;
I only buy ten dollars of time because it expires whether used or not
after 45 days. But this time, the recorded menu for 'adding time to
your prepaid wireless' had changed. The recorded message said "We are
now known as Cingular Go service, the prices are the same, but you
get 90 days to use it up, and you can purchase prepaid time at your
local Cingular dealer." So, I went back downtown and talked to the
lady I deal with at Cingular. She agreed, "we will _soon_ be able to
take 'Go phone' payments; not right now, but hopefully soon." She
continued, "and you can also get a local number here in Independence
for your prepaid phone as well, we don't have any more '330' numbers,
now they are assigning on 620-714, but to get that prepaid phone
changed over to a local number, when you call to have it done
(I cannot do it here as of now), be certain to tell the clerk that
you are 'Tulsa Market' otherwise they will try to do it out of
Wichita and claim that AT&T (now Cingular) is not in the 620 area.
The _only way_ Cingular (prepaid or regular service) will give you
a 620 number is if they are clued into the fact that this agency is
out of the Tulsa market, otherwise they will assume you are up in
the bigger towns north end of state or else Wichita and try to give
you a 316 or a 913 number."
I came back home and called the number she had given me. They indeed
know all about assigning new numbers, but here is where the kicker
comes in: Yes, we now are Cingular, and yes, the former AT&T prepaid
service plan is now 'Go' from Cingular. But the only way you can get a
620 number is by _purchasing_ a new GSM phone. Cingular is now almost
entirely GSM; older digital customers such as yourself with the
Nokia 5165 phone are 'grandfathered' but no more digital service to
new prepaid customers (which I would be) allowed. And it seems they
refuse to assign a 620 number to anyone other than with a new
GSM-style phone. According to the folks at Cingular Wireless, "there
is no guarentee your old digital phone will work correctly on the
GSM network," that is why we do not allow old digital customers (other
than the 'regular customers' to use their existing phones."
The lady I deal with downtown at Cingular Wireless said "those people
at (our) corporate office are largely correct. I suggest you probably
would work out okay, but _they_ say the old AT&T firmware, while it
does allow number changes to be made, does _not_ allow for carrier
changes to be made. They told me how to go about changing phone
numbers for already existing Cingular Wireless customers; I could
maybe change your existing (Cingular) Nokia 5165 phone and program it
for a new number, but that old AT&T firmware is going to mess us up
if we try to get a number change _into 620_ using it. She said the
only people Cingular is allowing to go on prepaid service these days
are people with the newer GMS phones; the ones that have the little
card I have to slide in it.
By now I am completely confused. Can any reader familiar with GMS and
AT&T Wireless and Cingular Wireless help me figure this out? I am
willing, and desirous of using my old Nokia phone as long as I can;
the Cingular phone is perfect for me; it works with local seven digit
dialing. Only very rarely (when the local tower is overloaded for some
reason) does it go into 'roaming mode'. The AT&T phone defaults to
'roaming mode' since I am no where near Wichita or Tulsa or Chicago
(the screen message calls where I am 'extended area', but that is the
next step above 'roaming', and it demands to begin each outgoing call
with 'press one for English; enter your own number; enter your PIN;
enter the number you wish to call.' However, when I was on AT&T full
time as a 'regular' (not a prepaid) customer, I did not get all that
nonsense about 'enter your number and your PIN' before I was allowed
to make any calls at all; according to Cingular Wireless I should not
get that nonesense from them either _if I am a 'local' user_, prepaid
or not, that it is only 'roaming' customers on 'prepaid' who get that
request.
PAT
------------------------------
Date: 02 Apr 2005 13:58:41 -0800
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Microsoft Employee Sentenced for Software Theft
Richard Gregg, 45, agreed to a plea agreement in U.S.
District Court in Seattle, where he admitted to ordering more
than $13 million worth of software meant for internal use and
selling it to pay off a mortgage and buy luxury cars.
Gregg, who worked at Microsoft until late 2002, had cooperated with
prosecutors in their investigation, a fact that Judge John Coughenour
said he took into consideration at the sentencing.
Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft cracked down on criminal theft in
late 2003 and put in more stringent policies after similar incidents
involving employees selling Microsoft's high-end software for personal
gain were discovered.
Microsoft hired investigators and made changes to its internal
ordering system in order to prevent future incidents.
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily
media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra . Hundreds of new articles daily.
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Reuters Limited.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
------------------------------
Date: 02 Apr 2005 13:59:31 -0800
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Yahoo Hires Gen. Manager of MSN's Programming Group
Scott Moore will be based in Santa Monica, California, and report to
Yahoo Media Group leader Lloyd Braun. Moore will join the company on
May 2 and oversee a number of media sites within the group, Yahoo
said.
Earlier in his career, Moore had been publisher of Slate, the Internet
magazine recently sold by Microsoft to the Washington Post.
Yahoo, which is expanding in Southern California amid a move closer to
Hollywood's entertainment companies, has been led by former studio
chief Terry Semel since 2001.
Yahoo hired Braun, a former chairman of Walt Disney Co.'s ABC
Entertainment Television Group, in November.
The Silicon Valley company, which reaps most of its revenue from
advertising, is actively seeking content deals as it moves to broaden
into entertainment and beyond such staples as shopping, e-mail and Web
search.
Yahoo already has signed content deals with "Survivor" creator Mark
Burnett Productions and JibJab Media, a producer of short animated
films.
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily
media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra . Hundreds of new articles daily.
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Reuters Limited.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
------------------------------
From: Den <nul@nul.nul>
Subject: Cell Phone Service Comparisons
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 16:23:04 GMT
Group:
Is there a site or publication that gives an unbiased comparison of
the difference cell phone service plans? I'm thinking of moving from
pay-as-you-go but there seems to be so much choice!
Cheers,
Den
------------------------------
From: news@absamail.co.za
Subject: DECT For Local Loop: 'Boot up Time'.
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 03:22:31 -0600
Hi,
I'm told that DECT takes 10 minutes after power-up, before an incoming
call can be detected !!
DECT has been used in rural areas in 'developing' countries, where
solar-charges have been used for power. Apparently when the 'base
station' is 15 Km removed, the subscriber needs to transmit
continually 250mW power. Which means about 500mW continual standby
power !
My suggestion to use a 5% duty cycle to check for incoming call
detection, each say 2 seconds, was re-buffed on the basis that 'boot
up' takes 10 minutes. If so, what accounts for this massive delay ?
Thanks for any info.
== Chris Glur.
------------------------------
From: DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Fax Station ID
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:25:24 -0700
Organization: Disorganized
In message <telecom24.141.10@telecom-digest.org> T. Sean Weintz
<strap@hanh-ct.org> wrote:
> Robert Bonomi wrote:
> So when FAX.COM sends me junk faxes and they put MY OWN PHONE NUMBER
> in as the header on the fax, and also send MY OWN NUMBER as the CLID
> info (from what is likely a PRI they are using to war dial fax
> numbers), they are at least DOUBLY breaking the law, huh?
Yes indeed, they definitely are.
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Fax Station ID
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 09:48:07 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.141.10@telecom-digest.org>, T. Sean Weintz
<strap@hanh-ct.org> wrote:
> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> Sorry, John, but you are *wrong*.
>> You, "the person" sending the fax are *still* required to place the
>> identification information at the top/bottom of every page, or on the
>> first page.
>> You are correct that _equipment_ manufactured before 20 Dec 1992 does
>> not have to do this 'automatically', HOWEVER, just because you are
>> using such equipment you are _not_ exempt from the requirement of 47
>> USC 227 (d) (1).
> So when FAX.COM sends me junk faxes and they put MY OWN PHONE NUMBER
> in as the header on the fax, and also send MY OWN NUMBER as the CLID
> info (from what is likely a PRI they are using to war dial fax
> numbers), they are at least DOUBLY breaking the law, huh?
Yuppers. *YOU* can take them to court for violation of 47 USC 227, and
clearly show 'wilful and deliberate' non-compliance. The mere violation
entitles you to 'statutory damages' of $500 per fax. The 'wilful...' part
entitles you to _triple_ that amount, per fax.
Faking the Caller-ID, runs afoul of FTC 'telemarketing rules', +and+
similar FCC rules. The govt. has to go after them on that, but it is
$11,000 in fines for *each* instance.
Note: What you're getting isn't from "FAX.COM" any more. The feds
_did_ sue them out of existence. The perps behind that operation,
_didn't_ "learn from the experience", however, and _despite_ being
named *personally* in the court orders, have set up a new network of
sham corporations to continue their abusive ways.
The "wheels of justice" are grinding slowly, but when the hammer
falls, there _will_ be prison time involved. The Feds do _not_ take
it lightly when somebody *deliberately* sets out to violate their
orders.
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Classic Telephone Call on PC
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 09:37:15 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.141.8@telecom-digest.org>, T. Sean Weintz
<strap@hanh-ct.org> wrote:
> Gerhard Nowak wrote:
>> Hi there,
>> Since 3 months I try to get any proggy and tried out everything starting
>> from Hyperterminal to make a phonecall on my laptop!
>> Its just not possible! It's amazing, how all related programs guide
>> into the wrong direction.
>> Please help, if there is anybody out there to do so. Maybe I got
>> something wrong, or else. I don`t know:
>> If I use hyperterminal of windows -- and all other proggies are
>> derived from this - I can call a party, of course; and I also hear the
>> voice, but there is never a conversation and I can never answer, I can
>> not even "lift" the phone of the hook!
>> What to do?
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Gerry
> I've never seen a program that will do what you are trying to do.
It *does* exist.
> What would have to happen is the computers sound card would have to
> record your voice on the sound cards microphone, digitize it, and
> then play it back out the modem. To do that, you need a modem that
> shows up as a multimedia device under windows (most don't) and of
> course you also need software to actually do what I describe
> above. I have never seen such.
As you say, special hardware is required. It's called a 'voice/data'
modem. a whole bunch of people used to sell 'em; I have no idea about
the current market, not having used a dial-up modem in probably 5
years. ("always on" broadband does change your habits! :)
The 'bundled' software that came with such modems *did* provide the
capabilities the OP is trying to use.
I've got an old Toshiba "Tecra" laptop (Windows 95) that has a
voice/data modem, and came with full-blown "telephony" software. Not
only can I use the built-in microphone/speakers as a "hands-free"
telephone/speakerphone, It does automatic telephone answering, and
even handles multiple voice-mail mailboxes. About the only "big
system" feature it _doesn't_ have is a programmable IVR subsystem.
<grin>
I still like my antique "Complete Answering Machine" (from 'The
Complete PC') better though -- their mailbox access from the
keyboard/screen is a truly superior design. Too bad they 'went
under', years ago. Their voice/fax/modem card is one reason I still
have a _286-based_ box running!
------------------------------
From: Gerhard Nowak <nonspam@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: Classic Telephone Call on PC
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 15:40:43 +0400
Organization: Arcor
Thanks for answering. Now I`m a bit released. I just thought, only I
don`t see the solution.
But why is it working on VoIp so easily?
My problem is to connect my international calls via VoIp to local
calls from people don`t have ADSL so that these people can talk
together. Here in Mauritius not many people can afford ADSL and is
much more expensive than in the States or in Europe.
I thought, the realisation of this idea must be much easier ...
But thanks anyway I will continue to look for a possibility, maybe I can
at least manage to weld the Phone-cable to my headset ... like in the
old times with accoustic coupler ... or switch to Linux.
Regards,
Gerry
Mauritius
T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:telecom24.141.8@telecom-digest.org:
> I've never seen a program that will do what you are trying to do.
> What would have to happen is the computers sound card would have to
> record your voice on the sound cards microphone, digitize it, and then
> play it back out the modem. To do that, you need a modem that shows up
> as a multimedia device under windows (most don't) and of course you also
> need software to actually do what I describe above. I have never seen
> such.
> Plenty of software will DIAL for you, but then expects that once the
> call is made you will pick up the call on a plain old handset plugged
> into the passthru port on your modem.
------------------------------
From: John Hines <jbhines@newsguy.com>
Subject: Re: Blackboards vs. Whiteboards
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:21:10 -0600
Organization: www.jhines.org
Reply-To: john@jhines.org
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> I heard my school district will modernize and replace the classic
> "blackboard" (or greenboard) with modern 'whiteboards'. I can't help
> but wonder if this is a dumb idea.
I remember elementary Catholic school, 20 years ago, where white
shirts, and black pants was the uniform of the day, so when come the
last class on Friday, stealing what ever chalk was left on the board,
was the thing to do.
We had "chicken fights" on the walk home, where one guy on the back of
another would try and do as much damage as he could.
The white chalk would wash out no problems, so mom wasn't mad.
Egoism, bumps and bruises ...
That and being bad that day in class and you could be penalized by
having to say after and "clap the erasers", which meant you'd miss the
fights. <g>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 01:25:57 -0500
From: Chris Farrar <cfarrar1307@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: GSM-900
Jason <cheanglong@gmail.com> wrote about Re: GSM-900 on Date: 1 Apr
2005 09:02:14 -0800
>> But since we transmit in x freq, then the receiver must tune to x feq
>> in order to receive the signal right? Why transmit at x freq and
>> receive at y freq?
> The answer is "Full Duplex" vs "Half Duplex."
Think of a Family Radio Service (FRS) walkie talkie. You transmit and
listen on the same frequency. If you're transmitting, you can't hear.
If you're listening, you can't transmit. Only one side can speak at a
time. If both transmit at the same time, you can't hear each other,
and anyone else on the same frequency hears garbage as you get walked
on.
Transmit at X, and the other side transmits at Y, you listen on Y and
they listen on X. Thus both of you can talk simutaneously, like a
land line telephone.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Compatibility
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 22:36:11 -0800
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com
John Levine wrote:
> It's good you asked, because your feeling is wrong.
> The Moto 120e is a dual-band CDMA phone, and is doubtless locked to
> work only on Verizon.
It won't be unless it was sold as a prepay phone. Verizon doesn't lock
their postpay phones.
> If you could unlock them, a big if, the CDMA phone would work with
> other CDMA 800/1900 carriers, many of of the second tier telco-related
> ones like Alltel. The GSM phone would work on other GSM networks,
> which in the US basically means Cingular (the part that didn't used to
> be ATTWS) and T-Mobile.
Alltel would activate it. US Cellular and Sprint wouldn't (they both
run CDMA). I don't know whether Western Wireless would or not (WW
also runs CDMA).
The flat-rate prepay providers (Cricket, MetroPCS, Northcoast PCS)
definitely won't. Like USCC and SPrint, they will only activate phones
they originally sold.
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
------------------------------
From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: Verizon's Pitch Could Signal Local Cable War
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 22:38:16 -0800
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com
Monty Solomon wrote:
> By Steven Rosenberg, Globe Staff | March 31, 2005
> Coming soon to northern Massachusetts: Cable competition between
> Comcast and Verizon.
Yawn. Ameritech competed with some of the local cables in Cleveland
years before Verizon decided to compete with Comcast in Massachusetts.
The cable operation was called Americast, and Ameritech had to divest
it when they sold themselves to SBC.
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
------------------------------
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: The Real Reason Why SBC Won't Work With Vonage on E-911
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 07:14:02 UTC
Organization: Public Access Networks Corp.
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com
In article <telecom24.141.7@telecom-digest.org>, T. Sean Weintz
<strap@hanh-ct.org> wrote:
> SBC bought out SNET a few years back, and has done NOTHING for us but
> take what WAS good service and make it lousy, while raising prices and
> laying off workers. Back in the monolithic BELL ATT days, things were
> MUCH more reliable than they are now. I'm talking REAL sloppy stuff --
> botched record keeping, service suddenly shifted to a different set of
> pairs on the underground feed for no apparent reasons, etc. etc.
I'm not sure what the "monolithic BELL ATT days" might have been, but
I would just like to point out that Southern New England Telephone
(SNET) was never part of AT&T; it was not a wholly-owned subsidiary
like most other regional operating companies and it was not directly
controlled by AT&T in the same way in which the others were. SNET had
a separate ownership structure and was allowed to use the Bell logo,
but remain at least partially outside the control of the Bell System,
because of some very savvy dealmaking by its founders early on; Bell
needed them more than they needed Bell, and so things were always done
a little bit differently -- just a little bit, but still differently
-- in SNET territory than in the "monolith".
SNET and Cincinnati Bell had more in common in some ways with
Rochester Tel and the other large single-region independents than with
the regional companies that had been absorbed into AT&T. The one way
one could say, though, that they were "monolithic" is that unlike the
pure independents they still bought their switchgear from Western
Electric and generally conformed to operating practices established by
Bell Labs research.
It's not right to talk about what SNET or Cincinnatti Bell did and
draw conclusions about how AT&T was or was not, because those two
Bell companies were not part of AT&T.
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is
to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Does Your Computer Look Like This?
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 09:19:55 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.140.17@telecom-digest.org>, Patrick Townson
<ptownson@cableone.net> wrote:
> In 1954, the well-known Popular Electronics Magazine in connection
> with the Rand Corporation put together an artist's conception of what
> computers would look like in fifty years, in 2004. Look at it here.
> http://www.mountainwings.com/past/5082.htm
> This is _not_ an April Fool's joke.
While it may not be an "April Fool's" joke, it is, in actual fact, a
JOKE, or at best "creative fiction". That picture, as shown, I can
guarantee, did *NOT* run in _any_ 1954 (or even approximately that
year) publication.
Proof: the "console" in the foreground is a DECwriter LA-36 (or
possibly a LA-120 -- a very similar-looking, but _newer_, model), that
was first manufactured in 1974. See:
<http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/la36.html>
Proof: the 'cut-line' mentions the FORTRAN programming language, which
was first released in 1957. Three years _after_ the purported
publication of this material.
Note: whomever created the "fiction" also got the geometry slightly
wrong -- the white frame of the LA-36 does not _quite_ line up with
the console panel it is supposedly part of. The front-left corner is
slightly 'behind' the front edge of that panel, while the front-right
corner is slightly _in_front_ of the front edge of that same panel.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As I said in the last issue, it is very
hard -- damn near impossible -- to pull the wool over you guy's eyes.
Try as hard as I may. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: 2 Apr 2005 21:30:48 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: Book Review: The Great Telecom Meltdown
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
> Author: Fred R. Goldstein
> Publisher: Artech House, Boston
> ISBN: 1-58053-939-4
I've also read it, and it's really good. It collects the whole story
of the effect on Telecom of dereg and the 1990s bubble into one place,
something you can't find anywhere else.
Artech priced it rather high at $79.99. I hope Fred arranges for a
lower cost edition.
Regards,
John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies,
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
"I shook hands with Senators Dole and Inouye," said Tom, disarmingly.
------------------------------
From: Choreboy <choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com>
Subject: Re: Every Ten Days
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 19:34:47 -0500
Dave Garland wrote:
> It was a dark and stormy night when Choreboy
> <choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com> wrote:
>> March 9, somebody from 877 467 3277 called. I answered on the second
>> ring and they hung up. They did it again March 19 and March 29.
> Large telemarketing operations sometimes use dialers that call
> numbers, and when there is an answer shunt the call to an available
> human telemarketer. If all the telemarketers are busy (on the phone,
> on break, whatever), you get a few seconds of dead air, then it hangs
> up.
> This is an efficient use of the (probably minimum-wage) telemarketers,
> as they don't waste time dialing, waiting while it rings, getting
> answering machines, etc. The efficiency, of course, comes at the
> expense of the victims like you.
That could explain what happened March 9. I answered on five rings.
After eight seconds or so I heard a click.
It wouldn't explain the next two calls. March 19 I answered on four
rings and got a dial tone. March 29 I answered on one or two rings
and heard a click a second or so after I said hello.
I can't be sure it's Sears. In the past few months, Caller ID has shown
apparent telemarketers calling from out-of-service numbers, from
888-888-8888, and from 111-111-1111.
Choreboy
------------------------------
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Obituary: Schiavo Dies After Feeding Tube Removed
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 08:18:39 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
In article <telecom24.141.15@telecom-digest.org>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
>> "And so his heartless cruelty continues until this very last moment,"
>> said the Rev. Frank Pavone, a Roman Catholic priest. He added: "This
>> is not only a death, with all the sadness that brings, but this is a
>> killing, and for that we not only grieve that Terri has passed but we
>> grieve that our nation has allowed such an atrocity as this and we
>> pray that it will never happen again."
> This kind of thinking is really disturbing. The intimates are
> certainly entitled to their point of view. However, other familes
> simply do not share those religious attitudes about medical care.
This is certainly OT for this group; but when you see a message as
thoughtful and well done as this entire message was, you're willing to
forgive the error.
This priest is a real jerk. And the really serious problem is, is he
just stating the moral views he believes his parishoners and fellow
Catholics should follow for themselves; is he urging his
parishoners to vote for laws and legislators that will use the power
of the State to forcibly impose their religious views on the rest of
us, who do not share his views, in the management of our own lives?
His statements are very frightening.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There was a very interesting program
today at our local synagogue. A professor of theology from the
university at Lawrence, Kansas was invited to come and preach; his
sermon topic was 'Liberal Jews and Terri Schiavo'; afterward, at the
coffee hour, he and the rabbi entertained a question and answer
session. Most interesting, most revealing. The times are really
changing in these United States, to be sure.
Oh, and remember, this is 'spring ahead' night on our clocks. Move
your clocks _up one hour_ sometime tonight or tomorrow! PAT]
------------------------------
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and
other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the
moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 50
Independence, KS 67301
Phone: 620-402-0134
Fax 1: 775-255-9970
Fax 2: 530-309-7234
Fax 3: 208-692-5145
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from *
* Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate *
* 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. *
* http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com *
* Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing *
* views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. *
*************************************************************************
ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.
One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com
Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
************************
DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !
************************
Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.
The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum. Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.
Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu
************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of TELECOM Digest V24 #142
******************************
| |