|
|
Message Digest
Volume 29 : Issue 41 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: FIOS battery life?
Re: FIOS battery life?
Touch-Tone<tm> on SxS
Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone?
Re: Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone?
Retired Phone Numbers Unretired
Re: Retired Phone Numbers Unretired
Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain
Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain
Area Code 710?
====== 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, 09 Feb 2010 07:39:05 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FIOS battery life?
Message-ID: <tkfcn.111785$fu3.46027@newsfe12.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> FIOS requires house power to run. The setup includes a battery in
> case of a power failure, but I've heard* the battery lasts only three
> hours. When the power failure exceeds that the subscriber is out of
> luck.
>
> * Friend in suburban Washington who has FIOS and lost phone service
> after three hours due to the storm power failures which lasted far
> longer.
>
With Vonage it all goes away immediately with a power failure.
Date: 9 Feb 2010 04:24:02 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FIOS battery life?
Message-ID: <20100209042402.42501.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>FIOS requires house power to run. The setup includes a battery in
>case of a power failure, but I've heard* the battery lasts only three
>hours. When the power failure exceeds that the subscriber is out of
>luck.
That sounds right. VZ doesn't replace the battery, so the older the
battery is, the faster your phone fails.
R's,
John
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:43:46 -0600 (CST)
From: jsw <jsw@ivgate.omahug.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Touch-Tone<tm> on SxS
Message-ID: <201002091843.o19Ihku7079845@ivgate.omahug.org>
Ma Bell did have one rather innovate method of providing
Touch-Tone on step offices, combined with other features.
Their 'directorized' SxS offices used a common control
unit between the linefinder and the first selector. This
provided dial tone and received digits, either dial pulse
or Touch-Tone in real time and stored them. When dialing
was complete, the common-control unit then either drove
the switches to complete the intra-office call or selected
a trunk to another office and outpulsed the appropriate
digits using the method the far-end office spoke.
The office I remember best of this type was the Manawa
office in Council Bluffs, Iowa, 712-366. This was cut
to a DMS-10 ca. 1984. It had the precise dial tone of
other TT-compatible offices, but an incredibly funky
set of tones for the ringback and busy-back tones.
When rotary dialing, the register-sender (or whatever
you call the common-control unit) did exhibit the
classic 'clunk' between digits, typical of SxS offices.
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:09:11 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject:Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone?
Message-ID: <hkrc86$r28$8@news.albasani.net>
I posted this in the XDSL group, but that group is too quiet.
Recently, I had a new phone service installed, shared with ADSL. I used the
filters shipped with the DSL device, but I'm getting lousy sound on my
old cordless phone, Sony SPP 2000, a 1.7 Mhz instrument. Yes, I know that
such phones were always inadequate and readily overheard, but the handset
is cool looking, it has swappable sealed lead acid batteries which means
the handset is never recharged in the base. It's survived being dropped
quite a lot.
Anyway, do these require a different filter than the one that came in the box?
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:23:46 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone?
Message-ID: <hksg8i$7p5$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> I posted this in the XDSL group, but that group is too quiet.
>
> Recently, I had a new phone service installed, shared with ADSL. I
> used the filters shipped with the DSL device, but I'm getting lousy
> sound on my old cordless phone, Sony SPP 2000, a 1.7 Mhz
> instrument. Yes, I know that such phones were always inadequate and
> readily overheard, but the handset is cool looking, it has swappable
> sealed lead acid batteries which means the handset is never
> recharged in the base. It's survived being dropped quite a lot.
>
> Anyway, do these require a different filter than the one that came
> in the box?
I had a problems like that, AT&T placed a filter at the Network
outside the house and ran a new cable direct to the DSL, that took
care of the problem as the voice phones no longer needed the filter.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:23:58 -0700
From: Robert Neville <dont@bother.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Retired Phone Numbers Unretired
Message-ID: <g0v2n55dt9kml5bca7t33jamqaf8d5n4pg@4ax.com>
Back in the day...
I seem to recall a general telco policy of retiring used phone numbers a minimum
of six months, and much longer if there continued to be hits on the not in
service number. I can recall a few exceptions when area codes/exchanges filled
up, but for the most part, when you received a number from the phone company it
was for all intents an unused number.
I don't know if it's abandonment of that policy, nearly free long distance, debt
collection companies who buy up past due accounts or an upsurge in people
skipping out, but I'm going nuts dealing with collection company calls.
I recently dropped Vonage as my primary landline service. Nothing wrong with
Vonage, but the underlying broadband collection in this rural area is pretty
flaky and I was tired of dealing with poor call quality. Previous locations with
Vonage worked fine.
Decided to use my Google Voice number as my public number, but needed an
underlying line from Qwest as cellular wouldn't meet my needs. My location is in
a very rural area, one voice exchange, not a high growth area, area code was
split a year or so ago.
The first number Qwest assigned started receiving one to two calls a day almost
immediately. Mostly collection calls, but school truancy, school
delay/cancellation robo calls, utilities and the occasional personal call.
Despite the personal information involved, it was amazing the profile I was able
to build up of the previous assignee. I know the full name (including kids
names), home address, and a pretty good financial profile.
After about two weeks of this, I had enough, so I called Qwest and asked for a
different number. They assigned a new number - same problem.
Citigroup, Barclays and an interesting group called MCM are particular
favorites. MCM is apparently what's left of the old Fingerhut Catalog company.
Remember them? They apparently fronted as a catalog sales company but made their
money going after all the suckers who fell for their "easy terms".
My understanding is that informing these companies that they are not to call any
more is all it takes to stop the calls by US law, even if I was the person they
were looking for, much less a wrong number. But it's amazing how much they try
to grill you when you tell them not to call. They want to know what number they
called, how long the number has been reassigned and try asking the same
questions in different ways.
Since Google Voice is the public number, changing the underlying physical number
isn't a problem other than the hassle factor, but I'm amazed at what a issue
this has been.
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:37:37 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Retired Phone Numbers Unretired
Message-ID: <db676da5-63de-4d5e-9468-675f30966c2f@h2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 9, 11:23 am, Robert Neville <d...@bother.com> wrote:
> The first number Qwest assigned started receiving one to two calls a
> day almost immediately.
Years ago, when I [first] got a phone, I got obscene calls the very
first night. At first Bell wanted a service charge to change the
number but after some pressure they agreed to change the number at no
charge. The new number had no problem.
For your situation I would try to get a hold of a carrier's supervisor
and demand a new number (at no charge) that has been idle for a while.
Perhaps you should send a Certified Letter to them rather than call
them.
As to [how long disconnected numbers are held before reassignment]
today, I retired two phone lines a few years ago. One line, which was
rarely used, was reassigned after several months. The other line is
still forwarding the calls after several years.
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:51:27 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain
Message-ID: <QFlcn.69684$RS6.19071@newsfe15.iad>
Mark J. Cuccia wrote:
~
>
> WECO/Lucent/Alcatel 1AESS switches still exist in the US. There are
> around 60 such 1As remaining, basically all within
> at&t/SBC/Ameritech, sbc's at&t/BellSouth, and
> at&t/SBC/Southwestern-Bell territory. From what I can tell, there
> are NO more 1As in at&t/SBC/Pacific*Telesis (Pacific*Bell in CA
> nor Nevada*Bell), nor Qwest/US-West territory, nor Cincinnati Bell
> territory, nor at&t/SBC/SNET (Connecticut).
Do you (or anyone) know why Pacific Bell, et al, decided to replace
perfectly good 1AESS platforms with either DMS-100s or 5ESSes? I can
understand changing to digital for further replacement of remaining
5XBAR and SXS, but some of those 1AESS platforms had been in service for
as little as 15 years.
What does a digital end office do that a 1AESS won't (wouldn't) do?
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:11:59 -0800 (PST)
From: markjcuccia@yahoo.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain
Message-ID: <2282da01-8f94-4e6b-a5ad-8909c93d7ebf@c4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
Sam Spade wrote:
> Mark J. Cuccia wrote:
>> WECO/Lucent/Alcatel 1AESS switches still exist in the US. There are
>> around 60 such 1As remaining, basically all within
>> at&t/SBC/Ameritech, sbc's at&t/BellSouth, and
>> at&t/SBC/Southwestern-Bell territory. From what I can tell, there
>> are NO more 1As in at&t/SBC/Pacific*Telesis (Pacific*Bell in CA
>> nor Nevada*Bell), nor Qwest/US-West territory, nor Cincinnati Bell
>> territory, nor at&t/SBC/SNET (Connecticut).
> Do you (or anyone) know why Pacific Bell, et al, decided to replace
> perfectly good 1AESS platforms with either DMS-100s or 5ESSes?
No specific reason, unless it was a tax write-off? Nortel (or
AT&T/Lucent) "sold" them on the DMS (or 5E)?
> I can understand changing to digital for further replacement of
> remaining 5XBAR and SXS, but some of those 1AESS platforms had been
> in service for as little as 15 years.
Well, when was the cutover? If it was past 2000, then the 1A was
originally installed after 1985. I don't know if WECO/AT&T was still
making 1As for NEW installations or complete cutovers replacements
of electromechanical switches (SXS, Panel, XB) after the mid-1980s.
In 1987 in New Orleans, the last two #5XBs were cutover to "ESS".
Broadmoor (NWORLABM---) became a 5ESS. Michoud (NWORLAMU---) became a
DMS-100.
> What does a digital end office do that a 1AESS won't (wouldn't) do?
1AESSes and similar non-digital, yet still electronic/SPC offices
apparently can NOT do ISDN, nor other more modern/enhanced packet-type
functions. Of course, for the average residential or small business
customer of the general public, this really isn't much of an issue.
But for larger business customers, if there aren't any 5Es or DMSes or
other digital switches nearby to get FX/FCO from, then the ILEC will
need to replace the 1A with a digital. Or else that business customer
will port away to a CLEC willing to provide service off of their
digital or packet switched local network!
Also, Lucent/Alcatel might not be able to provide continued
assistance/etc. for 1As (and 2(x)ESS, 3ESS) anymore, although I don't
know for certain. While I can still surf-the-web/etc. with Win-95 and
such. there are more and more webpages that won't function properly
with older OS' and/or software associated wtih older OS'. The older
software might not work anymore neither, or if I have an older OS, I
can't integrate newer software. I don't like it, but that's how things
are these days. Similarly, I have had to buy brand new cellphones
instead of having older ones simply repaired, or at times even buying
brand new cellphones to simply use my wireless provider. And then
there was the FORCED converson from NTSC/analog to digital last year
(don't get me started on that!), even though you can have
conveters/etc.
So, I guess the same things apply to 1As vs. digital/packet c.o.
switches as well.....
mjc
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:42:23 -0500
From: Ann O'Nymous <nobody@nowhere.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Area Code 710?
Message-ID: <hksrt0$v3$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Area Code 710 is assigned to "US Government Services". According
to the Wikipedia article on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_code_710)
there is only one working number as of 2006. It seems rather silly
to allocate an entire area code to one phone number, esp. when it was
assigned when area codes were rapidly becoming scarce (NNX format).
How is it really used? I assume that high level government officials
such as the President/VP, House and Senate Members, the Cabinet, high
level officials in the military/CIA/etc have 710 area code numbers,
not reachable by phones not in that area code other than those with a
need (home phones, those of family members). Correct, or am I way off
base?
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)
|
or 