Pat, the Editor

27 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 
 
Message Digest 
Volume 28 : Issue 175 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
  Re: Goodbye to copper? 
  Re: Goodbye to copper? 
  followup on cell2tel Bluetooth RJ11 gateway 
  Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper? 
  Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper? 
  Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper? 
  Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper? 
  Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?      
  Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever? 
  Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever? 
  Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper? 
  Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper? 
  Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper? 
  Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper? 
  Re: Goodbye to copper? 
  Re: Goodbye to copper? 
  OT: Darwin Award nominee, Sullivan man dies from electrocution after cutting live power line with a saw 
  Re: Goodbye to copper?   
  Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper? 


====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ====== 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, and other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:19:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper? Message-ID: <200906270419.AAA06634@ss10.danlan.com> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: |On Jun 25, 5:53 pm, Dan Lanciani <d...@danlan.com> wrote: |> Does POTS as typically tariffed allow the |> telco to require the customer to supply power for their equipment? | |Since the advent of common battery nearly 100 years ago the phoneco |has provided the power for basic telephone needs. This is intentional |so as to keep telephone service reliable even if commercial power |fails. But that doesn't answer my question. :) Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:09:55 EDT From: Wesrock@aol.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper? Message-ID: <cf8.5b38c6a6.377800c3@aol.com> In a message dated 6/25/2009 10:57:30 PM Central Daylight Time, dcstar@myrealbox.com writes: > Yep, but that is essentially a political decision and highlights > that such things hold back the use of potentially better > technologies. > > You have to wonder if the costs of the newer technologies (in the > long-term) would drop if they were to totally replace the older > incumbent. > > The issue (I suppose) is that by tying up old ways of doing things - > either by fixed rates or just our attitudes of resisting change - we > miss out on the benefits of the newer alternatives (or at least have > them reduced). Many of the "benefits of the newer alternatives" are benefits for only certain groups or hard-core techies and by their complexity make earlier technology unavailable to many of those used to the older technologies, which may fit all their needs, because of the need for extensive training needed to make use of either the older or the newer technologies. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:24:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: followup on cell2tel Bluetooth RJ11 gateway Message-ID: <200906270424.AAA06687@ss10.danlan.com> I sent it back for repair/replacement. They decided it was not repairable and sent another. The new one does ring the phone (once) much as the old one did (at one time) but then it crashes just like the old one. I suspect that if I keep ringing the phone whatever failed completely on the old one will fail on the new one. I guess people don't even test with mechanical ringers anymore... Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:46:30 +1000 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper? Message-ID: <pan.2009.06.27.04.46.29.687962@myrealbox.com> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:30:38 -0400, John Levine wrote: ....... > By the way, you might also want to keep in mind that the NANP is by far > the largest unified numbering area in the world. Australia is a swell > place, but its population is about 4% of North America's, with a > correspondingly smaller phone system. > We certainly are a lot smaller, but we still seem to manage with 8 digit "local" numbers without too much difficulty as these things progressed over the last century from 5 to 6 to 7 and finally to 8. Places like the UK (and probably every single other major western country) have also migrated their telephone systems over time. I certainly acknowledge that the NANP must have provided a lot of benefits from its initial inception, but when I read all this stuff about overlays and splitting area codes because of its constraints then I wonder why someone doesn't acknowledge that its time is up and come up with something better for the future. Basically everything has a use-by date, and nostalgia can be a big handicap in fast changing technologies. -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 06:45:14 -0700 From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper? Message-ID: <siegman-E9C484.06444427062009@news.stanford.edu> In article <pan.2009.06.27.04.46.29.687962@myrealbox.com>, David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote: > > Places like the UK (and probably every single other major western > country) have also migrated their telephone systems over time. > And, for much of Western Europe, their entire currency system (i.e., the conversion to the Euro) -- and many of us in the U.S. admire how quickly and efficiently they did it, and the benefits this has obviously brought, even to us as tourists or visitors there. > > Basically everything has a use-by date, and nostalgia can be a big > handicap in fast changing technologies. > Not to mention the handicap of having politicians who think "Europe socialism" is somehow a term of abuse. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:25:05 -0700 From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper? Message-ID: <h25oas$ejd$1@news.eternal-september.org> AES wrote: > In article <pan.2009.06.27.04.46.29.687962@myrealbox.com>, > David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote: > >> Places like the UK (and probably every single other major western >> country) have also migrated their telephone systems over time. >> > > And, for much of Western Europe, their entire currency system (i.e., the > conversion to the Euro) -- and many of us in the U.S. admire how quickly > and efficiently they did it, and the benefits this has obviously > brought, even to us as tourists or visitors there. > >> Basically everything has a use-by date, and nostalgia can be a big >> handicap in fast changing technologies. >> > > Not to mention the handicap of having politicians who think "Europe > socialism" is somehow a term of abuse. Some years ago there was talk of adding one number to phone numbers; xxx-xxxx-xxxx, but was dropped because everyone in the US and Canada plus other countries in the NPA would have to get new advertising plus at the time the network was Analog. To me it would have been worth it; look at all the work that has to be done now with all the area codes that are the same as phone exchanges, I think the extra number would have been the best, since it would have added millions of new numbers within an area code, adding, 2 numbers would have been even better in the long run. -- The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 02:15:20 +0000 (UTC) From: dwolffxx@panix.com (David Wolff) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper? Message-ID: <h26jno$br$1@reader1.panix.com> In article <siegman-E9C484.06444427062009@news.stanford.edu>, AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote: > In article <pan.2009.06.27.04.46.29.687962@myrealbox.com>, > David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote: > >> Places like the UK (and probably every single other major western >> country) have also migrated their telephone systems over time. > > And, for much of Western Europe, their entire currency system (i.e., the > conversion to the Euro) -- and many of us in the U.S. admire how quickly > and efficiently they did it, and the benefits this has obviously > brought, even to us as tourists or visitors there. Converting currency is probably easier. There's no hardware involved, and the software changes are probably easier than changing from a fixed-length number to a variable-length number. >> Basically everything has a use-by date, and nostalgia can be a big >> handicap in fast changing technologies. > > Not to mention the handicap of having politicians who think "Europe > socialism" is somehow a term of abuse. They can't use "Communist" -- that's so 1980s. And "Liberal" is so 1990s. I'm predicting either "Scandinavian" or "Dutch" will be the term of abuse around 2010. Thanks -- David (Remove "xx" to reply.) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:06:43 +1000 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever? Message-ID: <pan.2009.06.27.05.06.42.657037@myrealbox.com> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:25:12 -0400, hancock4 wrote: > On Jun 25, 11:58 pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote: > >> All good points, but for a true evaluation perhaps we have to remove our >> thinking of how the old technologies provide the service (phone service >> powered from a central point, terminal line powered) and think along the >> lines of the actual service to be provided - a usable voice >> communication device that meets our requirements for reliability/cost >> etc? > > I would suggest your premise of old technology holding things back is not > valid. > > Those who advocate change bear the burden of the proof that _all_ costs of > such change will be cost-effective. > I will agree partially with that, but a lot of new technologies bring opportunities that cannot be anticipated (and therefore costed) now and things can turn into an "apples versus oranges" comparison. The convenience and effectiveness of SMS is one thing in the Telecoms area that few anticipated would be as popular (or as profitable) as has eventuated, and few could have used that as part of the justification for replacing analogue cell phone networks with digital. > In the case of the telephone network, it HAS changed radically over the > years, both technically and administratively. The basic signalling > protocol is kept because it works. I would point out that the two > original protocols of telephony were changed because better technologies > came along (switching from ground to metallic return and local to common > battery). > > Behind the scenes, the central office and transmission network is > _radically_ different than it was 25 years ago. > Yes, but the basic topology - which evolved from the constraints of the "last mile" capabilities of the 20th century - still holds sway with all the existing infrastructure built around it. Newer technologies like fibre can have radically different topologies to be used in their most efficient manner but still seems to be tied up with the old topology. > While basic telephone sets still work fine, most people have advanced- > featured sets with all sorts of built-in gizmos, like display screens, > answering machines, etc. Cellular telephone sets, even the free ones, > have all sorts of special features built in, like cameras, alarm clocks, > and calculators. > >> It can be difficult to "think outside the box" for these things, >> especially when they have been with (most of) us for all our lives, and >> even more so if we are involved in a professional level, but perhaps it >> may be worth while to let the discussion rip!   ;-) > > There are many instances where "change" was implemented too fast or > improperly, perhaps by those too eager to save money, where people > suffered as a result. > Certainly, and part of the equation is to manage any sort of change in the most effective and efficient manner - perhaps if there was more of it we'd get better at it? > We must remember that some of those advocating 'change' are actually > dumping the costs of their change onto someone else. For example, when > MCI undercut AT&T in price, it was doing so quite unfairly. When VOIP > came on the scene, it didn't have the tax burden conventional landlines > had, nor could reliably handle 911 and thus _appeared_ cheaper. (VOIP was > touted as the Next Great Thing, but many people tried it and then went > back to landline). > VoIP is still just another method of accessing the existing voice networks, and as your have highlighted an imperfect method. Perhaps in the future some fully digital voice comms system will work better. > In the information system world, client-server claimed cheaper developing > costs without the mainframe overhead, but it turned out that 'mainframe > overhead' was vital to maintaining reliable systems. Ahh yes, but ask 9 out of 10 (99 out of 100?) businesses if they are happy to sacrifice a little bit of reliability (99% uptime instead of 99.9% - do we really care?) and history has shown that this sacrifice is certainly "cost effective". Unfortunately that is the world we live in. -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:59:29 GMT From: tlvp <PmUiRsGcE.TtHlEvSpE@att.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever? Message-ID: <op.uv55lchpwqrt3j@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:18:29 -0400, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: > On 6/25/2009 8:59 PM, David Clayton wrote: >> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:39:50 -0400, Thad Floryan wrote: >> >>> On 6/25/2009 5:47 AM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> Should we all have telephone sets that are VOIP compatible--is >>>> that the new protocol? Do such sets need their own power? >>> Cisco 7960 (and similar) VoIP devices "prefer" PoE (Power over >>> Ethernet), but they can operate with external power supplies >>> (e.g., "wall warts") on LANs without PoE-capable switches. >> Just on these Ethernet connected devices, does anyone know if the major >> power use of these things is just keeping a valid Ethernet link going? > Cisco developed the PoE concept in 2000 for VoIP telephony. I've > setup several asterisk phone systems using Cisco 7960 and Polycom > IP4000 devices. The 7960 use PoE and the Polycoms have an external > power module. > > PoE is 48 volts DC, and many/most/all PoE telephony devices could > consume up to 15+ Watts of power. > > Devices such as the Cisco 7960 and Polycom IP4000 are, for all > intents and purposes, computers with integrated RAM, FLASH, LCD > display, Ethernet, audio circuitry, etc. and are intended to operate > 24/7. When there's a power failure they get their IP address via > DHCP followed by a tftp boot for the operating system. > > Looking at this Cisco document: > > <http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/paws/97869/poe-requirement-faq.pdf> > > there are power issues with PoE Ethernet switches. Depending on the > standard, the phones will use up to 15.4 Watts but negotiation can > drop usage to 7 W. Some Cisco switches with 48 ports and only 370W > power capability can be quite problematic and unable to support 48 > phones. > > If you have specific questions about the 7960, IP4000 and/or > asterisk, I'd be happy to answer from my notes and memory, though > it's been slightly over a year since I've "played" with an asterisk > VoIP system and the devices. My notes do span several CDs and > include literally all the docs and manuals. > >> If we ever want to get wired non-PSTN devices close to the level of >> reliability we currently have with PSTN devices, then perhaps someone >> should be working on a way to reduce their power use to the level of >> cellphone handsets. > > Two new systems I have arriving soon are complete, full-featured > Linux "boxes" which are about the size of a wall-wart power supply > and consume less than 5 W, have GiGE, USB, and other > features. Glance at these pictures: > > http://www.cyrius.com/debian/kirkwood/sheevaplug/gallery.html > > Product details can be seen here: > > http://www.marvell.com/featured/plugcomputing.jsp > and > http://www.marvell.com/files/products/embedded_processors/kirkwood/SheevaPlug-002_WEB.pdf > > Another low-power and amazingly low-priced possibility is this: > > http://www.globalscaletechnologies.com/t-openrdcdetails.aspx > > "Green" computing is clearly here. :-) Both the Sheeva and the Marvell devices look very intriguing! The Marvell, I see, has a VGA output port, and can, I'd imagine, serve as CPU for a full linux system with USB kb & mouse and VGA monitor. But the Sheeva? Or is that just a "headless" server? Thanks, Thad, for bringing these to our attention here! And cheers, -- tlvp ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:16:41 +1000 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever? Message-ID: <pan.2009.06.27.23.16.38.751197@myrealbox.com> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 07:50:11 -0400, tlvp wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:18:29 -0400, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> > wrote: ........ >> Two new systems I have arriving soon are complete, full-featured Linux >> "boxes" which are about the size of a wall-wart power supply and consume >> less than 5 W, have GiGE, USB, and other features. Glance at these >> pictures: >> >> http://www.cyrius.com/debian/kirkwood/sheevaplug/gallery.html >> >> Product details can be seen here: >> >> http://www.marvell.com/featured/plugcomputing.jsp >> and http://www.marvell.com/files/products/embedded_processors/kirkwood/SheevaPlug-002_WEB.pdf >> >> Another low-power and amazingly low-priced possibility is this: >> >> http://www.globalscaletechnologies.com/t-openrdcdetails.aspx >> >> "Green" computing is clearly here. :-) > > Both the Sheeva and the Marvell devices look very intriguing! > > The Marvell, I see, has a VGA output port, and can, I'd imagine, > serve as CPU for a full linux system with USB kb & mouse and VGA > monitor. > > But the Sheeva? Or is that just a "headless" server? > > Thanks, Thad, for bringing these to our attention here! And cheers, There is also another tiny "Box" PC device that has been around for a while: http://www.fit-pc.com/new/ -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:14:44 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper? Message-ID: <Uzr1m.398$ox3.197@newsfe17.iad> John Levine wrote: >>>I constantly have a chuckle at the dialling plan hoops you people >>>in North America constantly have to jump through because of the (to >>>me) seemingly irrational embrace the NANP has you in. > > > The problem isn't the numbering plan, it's the signalling. > > North American phone networks use different signalling from the rest > of the world. Ours was designed first in the 1940s, and for some > political reason the ITU decided to do something else. > > Our en-bloc signalling handles fixed length ten digit numbers, the > compelled signalling used other places passes digits one or a few at a > time. En-bloc signalling allowed a lot more sophisticated network > management, e.g., if a primary route was busy, it could back up and > try another route. Some day we'll go to longer numbers, but it will > be a huge job requiring upgrades of every switch in the continent. > > By the way, you might also want to keep in mind that the NANP is by > far the largest unified numbering area in the world. Australia is > a swell place, but its population is about 4% of North America's, > with a correspondingly smaller phone system. > > R's, > John > Because every switch in the NANP area is digital (well, at least in Canada and the U.S.) it should be no big deal to go to 4 digit NPA (area) codes. The big deal would be the public outcry. Originally, if I recall correctly, Mexico was supposed to be part of the NANP. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:27:38 -0700 From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper? Message-ID: <h25ofj$dtk$1@news.eternal-september.org> Sam Spade wrote: > Originally, if I recall correctly, Mexico was supposed to be part of the > NANP. They were part of it at one time, I believe they chose to drop out. -- The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 2009 23:24:52 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper? Message-ID: <20090627232452.2225.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >Because every switch in the NANP area is digital (well, at least in >Canada and the U.S.) it should be no big deal to go to 4 digit NPA >(area) codes. The big deal would be the public outcry. If you consider upgrading the software in every switch in the continent to be no big deal, I suppose you're correct. R's, John ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:38:54 -0700 From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper? Message-ID: <h26l8p$1gu$1@news.eternal-september.org> John Levine wrote: >> Because every switch in the NANP area is digital (well, at least in >> Canada and the U.S.) it should be no big deal to go to 4 digit NPA >> (area) codes. The big deal would be the public outcry. > > If you consider upgrading the software in every switch in the > continent to be no big deal, I suppose you're correct. Remember 1999, every switch needed a software update, it went with very little trouble. -- The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:48:34 +0000 (UTC) From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper? Message-ID: <h25bg2$dpq$1@reader1.panix.com> The poster in Chicago basing what ILBell/Ameritech/SBC/ATT will really do, based on a vague statement in the phone book... Good Luck! I'm not attacking Mr. Clayton here, but there is a certain irony in his visibility in this thread. I say that because while we are discussing deregulation & monopoly of the local loop; Australia is embarking on a bold National Broadband Network (NBN) plan to connect 90 percent of all Australian homes, schools and workplaces with fiber to the end user. And important for our discussion, it's the national government doing this; NOT the existing telco carrier, Telsta. NBN will deliver wholesale bandwidth. In other words, the end-user will not be locked into what one carrier chooses to bundle & offer; any more than we are locked into USP, FedEx, or USPS -- all can use the same road to Peoria. Given that only the most starry-eyed libertarian types can keep a straight face while proclaiming that Real Soon Now we'll have the 3+ unregulated fibers to each house that is needed to support bona-fide competition.... ...a loop plant plan such as this -- where the last mile access is NOT monopoly-controlled -- is the only hope we have for an open future. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:28:09 +1000 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper? Message-ID: <pan.2009.06.27.23.28.08.11299@myrealbox.com> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:37:22 -0400, David Lesher wrote: > The poster in Chicago basing what ILBell/Ameritech/SBC/ATT will really > do, based on a vague statement in the phone book... Good Luck! > > I'm not attacking Mr. Clayton here, but there is a certain irony in his > visibility in this thread. > > I say that because while we are discussing deregulation & monopoly of > the local loop; Australia is embarking on a bold National Broadband > Network (NBN) plan to connect 90 percent of all Australian homes, > schools and workplaces with fiber to the end user. > > And important for our discussion, it's the national government doing > this; NOT the existing telco carrier, Telstra. Originally various consortiums of other Telcos tendered to provide the FTTN network that the government wanted, but no one came up with a suitable solution so the FTTH network was announced. In that tender process Telstra were excluded basically because of their arrogance in assuming that they were essential in any FTTN rollout, so they put in a tender that blatantly did not meet some basic requirements and then complained when they were left out!. Just today it has been reported that Telstra may well be involved in part of the FTTH network. AFAIK the government intends to initially set up the network in partnership with private enterprise, and then gradually sell out of it as time goes on. > NBN will deliver wholesale bandwidth. In other words, the end-user > will not be locked into what one carrier chooses to bundle & offer; > any more than we are locked into USP, FedEx, or USPS -- all can use > the same road to Peoria. Which is the dream for most of us who cannot stand dealing with the dominant telco right now. > Given that only the most starry-eyed libertarian types can keep a > straight face while proclaiming that Real Soon Now we'll have the 3+ > unregulated fibers to each house that is needed to support bona-fide > competition.... > > ...a loop plant plan such as this -- where the last mile access is > NOT monopoly-controlled -- is the only hope we have for an open > future. -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:56:30 -0400 From: Steve Stone <n2ubp@hotmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: OT: Darwin Award nominee, Sullivan man dies from electrocution after cutting live power line with a saw Message-ID: <h25tme$gho$1@news.eternal-september.org> http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090627/NEWS/90627005 By Adam Bosch Times Herald-Record Posted: June 27, 2009 - 10:20 AM POND EDDY - Authorities say a drunken 64-year-old man died from electrocution early Saturday morning when he stood in a puddle and cut a live power line with an industrial saw. Firefighters who had been guarding the line for about seven hours repeatedly told Mieczyskaw Mil to stay away from it, but the highly intoxicated man grew frustrated, fetched a circular saw from his house and began to cut the line. Sullivan County Undersheriff Eric Chaboty said that Mil was standing in a puddle of water while he cut the hissing, buzzing power line. The transmission line sent roughly 4,800 volts of electricity through Mils body. Authorities said the man fell onto the line, became tangled in it and was killed by continuous electrocution. He was pronounced dead at the scene. Emergency responders could not remove the mans body until Orange & Rockland utility workers shut down the power line. "We did everything we could", said Dick Martinkovic, commissioner of public safety in Sullivan County. "Police were there, firefighters were there, and they chased him away, literally, a couple times". The incident happened about 12:35 a.m. outside Mils house at 1160 Route 97 in Pond Eddy, in southwest Sullivan County. Town of Lumberland constables were en route to Mils house at the time. Firefighters who were guarding the line had called the constables because Mil was becoming increasingly intoxicated. Authorities said Mils family was sleeping inside their bungalow when he was electrocuted. The fallen power line was reported to Orange & Rockland about 5 p.m. Friday. Utility spokesman Mike Donovan said an inspector was sent to make sure the line hadnt fallen near gas tanks or buildings that could ignite. But then line workers were sent to areas where the largest number of customers were knocked out by Fridays storm - places like Middletown and Matamoras. The Lumberland line only serviced 17 homes, Donovan said. "What we always do is get the greatest number of people back on in the shortest time", Donovan said. "We had 17,000 customers out last night, and this line was not as high a priority as one that could restore 5,000 people". abosch@th-record.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:32:46 EDT From: Wesrock@aol.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper? Message-ID: <c8d.490564a5.3778142e@aol.com> In a message dated 6/26/2009 9:20:37 AM Central Daylight Time, dont@bother.com writes: > Given how difficult people found the recent DTV switch, I can't > imagine what they'd do with an 8 digit phone number. I got my first DTV over-the-air radio for Father's Day and just programmed it. It was very tedious and intimidation to read through the 15-page manual going into all the options you had to select, many of them with names that only TV techies know what they mean. I almost gave up and asked one of grandkids to program it, it appeared so intimidating. When I got to doing it, I found all you needed to do was follow the 5-step procedure on a sticker on it, which was almost a no-brainer and whipped you right through it. There are apparently a lot of options you can select, none of which appear to be needed by most people. I still don't understand why the quick procedure apparently called for you to raise the small built-in antenna which you were charging the battery initially, but it did not seem to do any harm and was quit clear what to do. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 2009 23:23:21 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper? Message-ID: <20090627232321.2204.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >Again, a person is a person and despite all the arguments along these >lines, many (many) other countries have managed such a change without >too much trouble at all - certainly far less trouble than the >opponents of theses things said would occur. Once again, you are (wilfully?) missing the main point. The technology in North American phone switches is different from that in the rest of the world. The inter-switch signalling in Australia was already set up to handle numbers of differing lengths, so it was not a big deal to change lengths of numbers incrementally, since those longer numbers didn't affect the switches that don't handle the numbers being changed. In North America, the 3+3+4 format is wired into the hardware (and now into the switch software.) Like it or not, longer numbers will require changes to every phone switch in the continent. That's the real issue, not the consumer answering machines, stationery, and other junk. We'll have to make numbers longer at some point, perhaps 30 years from now, and the telcos are thinking about how to do it, but it'll be a huge project. R's, John ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition 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. The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while Pat Townson recovers from a stroke. Contact information: Bill Horne Telecom Digest 43 Deerfield Road Sharon MA 02067-2301 781-784-7287 bill at horne dot net Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom 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 Copyright (C) 2008 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 The Telecom digest (19 messages) ******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues