28 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 297 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
  Re: AT&T Wireless data congestion possibly self-inflicted   
  Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services    
  Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services 
  Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services 
  Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services 
  Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services   
  Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services
  Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services 
  Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued) 
  Re: AT&T Wireless data congestion possibly self-inflicted   


====== 28 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: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:50:31 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless data congestion possibly self-inflicted Message-ID: <pan.2009.10.28.05.50.28.843805@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:25:26 -0700, hancock4 wrote: > On Oct 27, 2:29†pm, "Jack Myers" <jmy...@n6wuz.net> wrote: > >> Who wants to move forward into the past by using positive end-to-end >> control, more small buffers (for improved end-to-end latency), and >> request-to-send/clear-to-send hardware signalling at the end-user >> interface? > > Could this be explained in layman's terms? ......... > What is "end to end latency" so that we want to improve it? > Pre-empting an anticipated avalanche of replies, "end to end latency" is the time it takes whatever you send at one end of a link to get to the other end. In digital circuits this is the sum of the physical time it takes to send one data bit across the path AND the time it takes to assemble ALL of the bits you want to send in each packet that is sent as an individual entity across the path (referring to connections with a packet switched component, of course). Phone users will be familiar with the latency of geosynchronous satellite circuits compared to land line connections (either local or international) and the general rule for any real-time communication (like voice) is the less latency the better. In data connections, smaller packets reduce overall latency but at the cost of inefficiently using the available data bandwidth compared to large (which means higher latency) packets, so any data carrier will try to squeeze as much efficiency out a highly loaded link by using as large a packet size as possible. It's a compromise, the ATM packet size is a classic example of being bigger than what the voice people wanted but smaller than the data people's preferences, so ATM packets aren't the most efficient things for data carriage but work well enough and could well have been smaller for less voice latency but they still work well enough..... If packets (of any sort) end up being buffered, then the time it takes to clear the buffer just adds to the overall latency as well because it adds to the physical time in the overall connection/circuit. -- 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: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:41:16 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services Message-ID: <0f452836-f801-4e20-ac1a-56c76d095ea7@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> On Oct 27, 8:31†pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote: > Area code 500 is exhausted, and 533 has been assigned for personal > communications services. I had no idea these featurs were so popular. What are "personal communications services"?
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:25:55 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services Message-ID: <hc9ur3$pru$2@news.albasani.net> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >On Oct 27, 8:31 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote: >> Area code 500 is exhausted, and 533 has been assigned for personal >> communications services. I had no idea these featurs were so >> popular. > What are "personal communications services"? I don't know what these numbers are used for today. I've never seen a phone company marketing the service. It was my understanding that 500 was a non-geographical area code that was originally internal to a long distance provider. A subscriber had this number pointed to a particular phone, that could be anywhere in the country. To call the subscriber, one had to know what long distance company he subscribed to if the PIC had to be dialed. One wouldn't know how the call was distance rated in advance as it was based on the location of the terminating number, which wouldn't be known to the caller. I assume if the subscriber and the caller were both subscribed to the same long distance provider that the calls were charged at the caller's long distance rates, but if the caller was forced to use casual calling rates, the call would be absurdly expensive. At some point, this was changed to an entirely different type of service. I have no idea what it is today, or how to subscribe to it, or why I would want to subscribe to it. And I'm totally mystified as to how a service that no one uses managed to run out of prefixes.
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:03:22 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services Message-ID: <4AE8A38A.9010700@thadlabs.com> On 10/28/2009 10:25 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> On Oct 27, 8:31 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote: > >>> Area code 500 is exhausted, and 533 has been assigned for personal >>> communications services. I had no idea these featurs were so >>> popular. > [...] > It was my understanding that 500 was a non-geographical area code that > was originally internal to a long distance provider. A subscriber had > this number pointed to a particular phone, that could be anywhere in > the country. > [...] > At some point, this was changed to an entirely different type of > service. I have no idea what it is today, or how to subscribe to it, > or why I would want to subscribe to it. And I'm totally mystified as > to how a service that no one uses managed to run out of prefixes. Curious, I entered "500-123-4567" to Google. The number of Google "hits" is reasonably large. Here's one reasonably good explanation of "500" from http://www.lincmad.com/nongeographic.html: Personal Communications Services (a.k.a. "the Other PCS") in this context refers not to cellular telephones, but rather to so-called "follow-me" numbers. The idea was to have a single number, say (500) 123-4567, that you could program to ring your home phone from 6 to 10 p.m., go directly to voicemail at night, and ring your desk at work during the day. The number could also have some sort of response menu, along the lines of "press 1 for voicemail, 2 for fax, 3 for cellphone." Some implementations also allowed the same 500 number to be used for caller-pays or called-party-pays: dialing 1-500-xxx-xxxx, the caller would pay the cost of the call, but dialing 0-500-xxx-xxxx, the caller could enter a 4-digit PIN to charge the call to the owner of the number. However, in spite of some attempts to keep telesleaze out of the 500 number space, some unscrupulous operators exploited a feature that allowed 500 numbers to forward internationally, with the additional charge borne by the caller with only a "press 1 to accept" warning, if that. The 533 code was assigned as an expansion of 500, although no one is quite sure why it was assigned, since demand for 500 numbers has been steadily decreasing. The assignment was subsequently withdrawn. As of 2008-05-23, NANPA projects activating 533 in the second half of 2009; however, 533 has been "within 6 to 18 months" for several years now. Bottom line: I'll believe it when I see it. In particular, as of 2008-01-01, there were 79 available (533) prefixes to be assigned. In the first 5 months of 2008, 43 of those were handed out; however, 171 other (533) prefixes were returned or reclaimed, leaving 207 available for assignment. That's not a very intimidating demand curve from where I sit.
Date: 28 Oct 2009 20:02:30 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services Message-ID: <20091028200230.5070.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >It was my understanding that 500 was a non-geographical area code that >was originally internal to a long distance provider. A subscriber had >this number pointed to a particular phone, that could be anywhere in >the country. No, that's 700 numbers. The idea of 500 numbers was that they were intended for personal follow-me service and the like, charged to the caller. Since you can't predict how much a 500 number will cost, not unlike a 900 number, I figured they would fail. From the little I can see on Google, I get the impression that the 500 numbers in use don't cost anything to the caller. R's, John
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:55:09 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services Message-ID: <hcalks$th8$1@news.albasani.net> John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: > "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >> It was my understanding that 500 was a non-geographical area code >> that was originally internal to a long distance provider. A >> subscriber had this number pointed to a particular phone, that >> could be anywhere in the country. Correction: These can point to numbers outside the country. Your telephone bill might contain a not so nice surprise! > No, that's 700 numbers. The idea of 500 numbers was that they were > intended for personal follow-me service and the like, charged to the > caller. So these aren't sold by long-distance providers? Is the 500 number limited to a particular provider or can they be ported? > Since you can't predict how much a 500 number will cost, not unlike > a 900 number, I figured they would fail. From the little I can see > on Google, I get the impression that the 500 numbers in use don't > cost anything to the caller. I don't get it, then.
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:05:49 -0500 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services Message-ID: <6645152a0910281205y72fec88bq7323098e2b442d13@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:41 AM, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Oct 27, 8:31¬ pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote: >> Area code 500 is exhausted, and 533 has been assigned for personal >> communications services. I had no idea these featurs were so >> popular. > > What are "personal communications services"? Good questions; I'm still not sure I understand it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_code_500 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Communications_Service_(NANP) John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA
Date: 28 Oct 2009 15:08:21 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services Message-ID: <20091028150821.6241.qmail@simone.iecc.com> In article <hc83cq$5qr$1@news.albasani.net> you write: >Area code 500 is exhausted, and 533 has been assigned for personal >communications services. I had no idea these featurs were so popular. > >Is there any chance that huge chunks of numbering space were wasted and >should have been reclaimed first? If you look at the assignment list, which is by NXX, they're almost all assigned to Verizon Wireless and Cingular/AT&T, and the first chunk of 533 is to Cingular. I presume they wouldn't be asking for more if they couldn't show NANPA that they were in use, but I've never seen a 500 number in use, either. R's, John
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:04:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued) Message-ID: <f418d105-c902-4505-badd-259091f5e474@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com> On Oct 27, 5:44†pm, "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwe...@spamcop.net> wrote: > Do advertising limits even make sense in the day of 24/7 shopping channels? > . The saga continues... Vivendi CEO says IPO an option for NBC Universal Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:08pm EDT WATFORD, England (Reuters) - NBC Universal could be floated on the stock market if France's Vivendi decides to sell its 20 percent stake in the group majority-owned by General Electric, Vivendi's chief executive said on Tuesday. http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSTRE59Q4ET20091027 Neal McLain
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:12:23 -0700 From: "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless data congestion possibly self-inflicted Message-ID: <nkamr6-ijv.ln1@n6wuz.net> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Oct 27, 2:29?pm, "Jack Myers" <jmy...@n6wuz.net> wrote: > > Who wants to move forward into the past by using positive > > end-to-end control, more small buffers (for improved end-to-end > > latency), and request-to-send/clear-to-send hardware signalling at > > the end-user interface? > Could this be explained in layman's terms? I suspect a possible troll since your postings here indicate you really do know this stuff. > That is, what is "end to end control" and the difference between > "positive" and non-positive control of it? The Internet Protocol (IP) is a "best efforts" transport layer. Dump bits in at one end and accept the possibility that some of the bits will get lost along the way. The bits are important--why else would we pay the big bucks to send and receive them--so we are willing to pay in terms of time, throughput, or bandwidth to detect/correct these transmission errors. Congestion, which is due to instantaneous peaks and valleys in the aggregate traffic flow, causes some of the data loss. Buffering helps to smooth out the flow. It reduces data loss (reduces retransmission requests, improves throughput) at the expense of possibly increasing delays (network latency). The complaints were about variable delays, and the best-efforts IP layer is the ultimate cause. Some positive alternatives are reservations (like airline seats) and access metering (like freeway on ramps.) > Why is this considered "into the past"? Some of the original data communications protocols, which have been temporarily displaced by IP, had hardware or software reservation schemes or access metering. It's a way for the network to signal its status and capabilities back to the end users. > Is this stuff good or bad? It's just engineering. There's no intrinsic good or bad here. > What is "request-to-send/clear-to-send hardware signalling" and if > not accomplished as described, what are other options for doing so, > and are they better or worse? RTS analogy: A car stops over the sensor loop on a freeway on ramp. CTS analogy: The traffic metering light turns green. Access metering advantage: Throughput is optimized, delays minimized, fewer cars "lost" in transit. Access metering disadvantage: Neutrality suffers because the "haves" who are already on the freeway have an advantage over the "have nots" who are queued up at the entrance or taking a longer slower route. Conclusion: something more than simple metering is required [to optimize] transit [times]. Is my frustration with the academic systems engineers on a recent networking project coming through yet?
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 Bill Horne. 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 moderated by Bill Horne. 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) 2009 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 (10 messages)

Return to Archives**Older Issues