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 336 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
 Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
 Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
 Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
 Senate Bill S. 2881 would add technical expertise to FCC Commissioners' offices
 Re: Senate Bill S. 2881 would add technical expertise to FCC Commissioners' offices
 Re: Verizon femtocell user report
 Re: Verizon femtocell user report


====== 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: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:52:28 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse Message-ID: <weiYm.29283$_b5.18158@newsfe22.iad> Steven wrote: > > In 2000 and 2001, Pacific Bell, U.S. West and Verizon were installing > DSL as fast as they could, [and] they are now starting to use those, > [but] now they are pushing U-Verse and FIOS, only this time the > companies are only putting more units in as they sell the [existing] > ones. We are putting [in] frames and power, but that is all. The > same thing appears to be what is happening with upgrades in outside > plant and [Fiber?] Nodes. > AT&T in California is cherry picking their installation of U-Verse. We live in an old neighborhood so I doubt we will ever see them in this part of town. OTOH, the local cable company (Cox) spent the bucks to bring fiber into every neighborhood in town.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:47:01 -0800 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse Message-ID: <hgtoj5$jvl$1@news.eternal-september.org> Sam Spade wrote: > Steven wrote: > >> >> In 2000 and 2001, Pacific Bell, U.S. West and Verizon were >> installing DSL as fast as they could, [and] they are now starting >> to use those, [but] now they are pushing U-Verse and FIOS, only >> this time the companies are only putting more units in as they sell >> the [existing] ones. We are putting [in] frames and power, but >> that is all. The same thing appears to be what is happening with >> upgrades in outside plant and [Fiber?] Nodes. >> > > AT&T in California is cherry picking their installation of U-Verse. > We live in an old neighborhood so I doubt we will ever see them in > this part of town. OTOH, the local cable company (Cox) spent the > bucks to bring fiber into every neighborhood in town. The area I live in has U-verse, it is just that the cable is really bad, we have wind today and nothing but noise on the line. I got a call from AT&T with the company line, I guess they forgot to tell the person who called me that I have over 40 years of telephone experience. I talked to the PUC yesterday and follwed it up with a Formal written complaint today. It is not just the U-verse; it is also problems with DSL as well a voice. I also contacted the city because I believe they have a franchise agreement. All they have to do is replace about 900 feet of old lead cable and make sure that there are no more bridge taps; for you that do not know what a bridge tap is, it is a splice where the cable goes in two directions, so that it can be used at 2 points. -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:43:28 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse Message-ID: <ROyYm.12484$ft1.10451@newsfe10.iad> Steven wrote: > > I talked to the PUC yesterday and follwed it up with a Formal written > complaint today. It is not just the U-verse; it is also problems with > DSL as well a voice. I also contacted the city because I believe they > have a franchise agreement. All they have to do is replace about 900 > feet of old lead cable and make sure that there are no more bridge > taps; for you that do not know what a bridge tap is, it is a splice > where the cable goes in two directions, so that it can be used at 2 > points. > I suspect you filed an written informal complaint. ;-) A formal complaint is a legal pleading, has to conform the PUCs rules of procedure and practice, and must allege, among other things, that an informal complaint was first filed. I've done a few formal complaints. They can be done without an attorney but you have to know how to walk through the minefield.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:59:30 -0600 From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Senate Bill S. 2881 would add technical expertise to FCC Commissioners' offices Message-ID: <4B3292C2.60406@annsgarden.com> Senate Bill S. 2881 would add technical expertise to FCC Commissioners' offices A bill introduced on Monday [12/14/2009] in the U.S. Senate would potentially add one electrical engineer or computer scientist within each of the offices of the five FCC Commissioners. Introduced by Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and co-sponsored by Senator Mark Warner (D-Virginia), Senate Bill 2881 would authorize each FCC Commissioner to add one staff assistant position to the three that are currently authorized. The new position of "staff engineer" would require that the holder either have a degree in electrical engineering or be a computer scientist. If eventually passed, the new authorization would effectively undo a loosening of requirements for technical staff at the highest level of the FCC that began more than 25 years ago. http://sbe.org/SenateBill.php Neal McLain ***** Moderator's Note ***** In the world of Washington shadow-boxing, this is as close as a federal agency ever gets to a rebuke. The F.C.C., annoyed by a Congressional demand to plan for upgrading the nation's telecommunications infrastructure, put out a notice that asked for input on converting the nation's phone system to VoIP. Of course, that can't happen, and apparently the word has reached the Congress, so Senators Snow and Warner are firing a shot across the FCC's bureaucratic bow. Time will tell if the commission gets the message "loud and clear". Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:43:42 -0800 From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Senate Bill S. 2881 would add technical expertise to FCC Commissioners' offices Message-ID: <mvr5j5tokf8p9o1uiiu05ug667i2007ckc@4ax.com> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:59:30 -0600, Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote: > Senate Bill S. 2881 would add technical expertise to FCC Commissioners' > offices > > A bill introduced on Monday [12/14/2009] in the U.S. Senate would > potentially add one electrical engineer or computer scientist within > each of the offices of the five FCC Commissioners. > > Introduced by Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and co-sponsored by > Senator Mark Warner (D-Virginia), Senate Bill 2881 would authorize > each FCC Commissioner to add one staff assistant position to the three > that are currently authorized. The new position of "staff engineer" > would require that the holder either have a degree in electrical > engineering or be a computer scientist. If eventually passed, the new > authorization would effectively undo a loosening of requirements for > technical staff at the highest level of the FCC that began more than > 25 years ago. > > http://sbe.org/SenateBill.php The text of the bill reads: "`Each commissioner MAY also appoint an electrical engineer or computer scientist to provide the commissioner technical consultation when appropriate ..." [emphasis added] So, each commissioner may appoint one, but is not required to do so. I predict that no commissioner will appoint an electrical engineer or computer scientist.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:20:42 -0500 From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Verizon femtocell user report Message-ID: <29a43$4b327b9c$adce602a$23051@PRIMUS.CA> AES wrote: > Comcast gives us typically a 10 to 20 MB Internet connection. Users > guide for the femtocell claims it should work OK with a 300 to 400 > KB DSL connection. A voice connection doesn't require much bandwidth, so it should work with just about any wired or fixed wireless broadband service, but voice connections are very sensitive to latency, and whether you have 256 kilobits per second or 10 megabits per second, one poorly configured BitTorrent client might render your calls intolerable... ***** Moderator's Note ***** Why? Bill Horne
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:13:24 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Verizon femtocell user report Message-ID: <pan.2009.12.24.01.13.23.409118@myrealbox.com> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:20:42 -0500, Geoffrey Welsh wrote: > AES wrote: >> Comcast gives us typically a 10 to 20 MB Internet connection. Users >> guide for the femtocell claims it should work OK with a 300 to 400 KB >> DSL connection. > > A voice connection doesn't require much bandwidth, so it should work with > just about any wired or fixed wireless broadband service, but voice > connections are very sensitive to latency, and whether you have 256 > kilobits per second or 10 megabits per second, one poorly configured > BitTorrent client might render your calls intolerable... > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > Why? Unless the underlying IP infrastructure has more than adequate capacity or gives priority to voice traffic, other high demand traffic can saturate a node and delay the voice packets. -- 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.
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 (7 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues