---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <0aeaac72-5b54-484d-9693-162626559311@googlegroups.com> Date: 6 Aug 2018 10:25:54 -0700 From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> Subject: Re: New Jersey gets new area code On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 11:58:15 AM UTC-4, David wrote: > The only "pain" of an overlay is 10D dialing. I don't know where to find > a cellphone using Millennial who knows how to dial 7D. > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > I do! I DO!! I even know how to dial 5D! > > Oh, wait a minute ... > > Sorry, wrong millennium. When electronic switching came along in the early 1980s, some small towns then lost their ability to dial only five digits for local calls. Earlier in this newsgroup Neal gave an excellent explanation of absorbers. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.dcom.telecom/absorb%7Csort:date/comp.dcom.telecom/XoQ_43x9j48/iV-AYYHx4w4J Fast forward to today, it seems most callers have cell phones which require ten digit dialing and also have speed call, so the ten digit dialing is not a burden. I still have a rotary phone and the ten digits are a pain. But I mostly use a Touch Tone phone for outgoing calls. Indeed, I wonder, today how many rotary-pulse calls are offered to telephone exchanges. I also wonder how long they'll be accepted. ***** Moderator's Note ***** I'd guess "forever" - the switch vendors have already sunk all the costs for development and marketing, so they'll be very reluctant to remove features that are still in use and for which they collect royalties every year. In addition, I doubt ANY politician would allow any change that might cause some voter to be cut off form 911 or their doctor. All things considered, I believe that the "500" set will be usable for the foreseeable future. Bill Horne Moderator ------------------------------ Message-ID: <7b5db31f-3aec-4a8e-a19d-71b1dfb3b204@googlegroups.com> Date: 7 Aug 2018 21:05:16 -0700 From: "Tom Horne" <hornetd-remove-this@and.this.too.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Backup Power for Cox [or other] ISP On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 5:39:45 PM UTC-4, Doug McIntyre wrote: > "Fred Atkinson" <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com> writes: > > How many of you continue to push antiquated technology to your > >customers? > > Many of the "new" technology isn't better, it is just shuffling the > money to somebody else now. ... > > We should be able to rely on the new technology and the providers > >should provide backup power so that their service continues to operate > >in the event of a power failure. ... > > If the customer wishes to provide a UPS or other means of keeping > >his/her hone network devices going in the event of a power failure, > >that would be their responsibility. > > The maintenance of keeping a UPS for communication services at a > typical residence is way beyond the capabilities of most consumers. > [snip] > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > As has been pointed out in the past, "UPS" devices are *NOT* intended > to provide power for any longer than it takes to shut the computer > down gracefully, i.e., without losing data. Anything longer than a few > minutes requires a power source, such as a generator, that can run > indefinitely. > > Bill Horne > Moderator UPS assemblies come in a huge range of capabilities, and that includes the run time supported by the batteries used. I worked on one at the US Government Printing Office (GPO): it was a conversion of the gigantic wet cells in the basement from supplying nothing but emergency lighting to supplying a huge UPS system that would keep the printing presses' controllers from forgetting what they were doing when power was lost. That would prevent very large amounts of waste caused by starting large print jobs over from scratch. I also worked on a UPS system that included a 20 foot diameter flywheel and a forward only clutch. The electric motor which turned that flywheel was a genuine monster. The 2 parallel back up generators were designed to come up to full operating voltage and current in 2 minutes. At full designed load that flywheel would not let the power fall more than 0.50 Hertz out from 60.0 Hertz for 5 minutes. We often joked that if anything ever happened to that set of bearings that people 25 miles away might be crushed. When you are supplying computer arrays which bill communications satellite usage time you do not allow the power to falter. Now that was a UPS! -- Tom ------------------------------ Message-ID: <e89369d3-3b01-ce28-c8d1-c39e97368c1a@kaminsky.org> Date: 7 Aug 2018 16:38:09 -0700 From: "Mark Kaminsky" <kaminsky-remove-this@kaminsky.org> Subject: Re: New Jersey gets new area code > Message-ID: <pk4ouk$2qvo$1@gal.iecc.com> > Date: 4 Aug 2018 17:49:08 -0000 > From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> > Subject: Re: New Jersey gets new area code > > In article > <BYAPR13MB2232E03E70209E69832FBE9591230@BYAPR13MB2232.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>, > Naveen Albert <wirelessaction@outlook.com> wrote: > > > Why not split area codes instead of overlay them? Everyone can keep > their number ... > > Except they don't. When your number moved from 414 into 262 everyone > in the new 262 area had to tell all their friends outside the 262 area > that their numbers had changed. There may be a few people who still > never call anyone outside their home town, but for everyone else, it's > a significant pain. With overlays, nobody's number changes. > > Geographically, area codes fail to have meaning if they are overlaid ... > > Uh, since the boundaries haven't changed, they mean exactly what they > meant all along. The meaning of 212 didn't change when they overlaid > 626 on it. It's still Manhattan. I was at the California PUC meeting to discuss the 415-650 split (many years ago). Stanford University pointed out that their catalogs were in high school libraries around the country, and were often not refreshed for many years. At least one security contractor said that he would have to go out to every single property (and he had thousands) and re-program every dial-out device. PUC did the split anyway, promising us at least ten years of stability (big deal!). Two years later, they were back to request another split. I went to that meeting, and after hearing their arguments, I told them that even though the many competing phone companies did not want to tell the public how many lines they needed, the PUC had a right to that information, and all those companies who needed less than ten lines in an office could split a single block of 10,000 lines rather than giving them 10,000 lines each. They cancelled the split, and we have not heard anything about another split or overlay for 650 since. Mark Kaminsky ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Fri, 10 Aug 2018