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

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 
 

Message Digest 
Volume 29 : Issue 48 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
 Re: A Brief Followup/Update re VeriZon and Frontier 
 Re: What is an "app"? 
 Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
 Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
 Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
 Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
 Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
 Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
 Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
 Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
 Re:Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone?
 ISDN History 
 Re: ISDN History 
 Re: ISDN
 Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
 40% lack home broadband access 
 Re: 40% lack home broadband access 
 Re: 40% lack home broadband access 
 Re: 40% lack home broadband access 
 Re: Better Calling for Less, by Skipping the Cell Network 
 Re: What is an "app"? 
 Re: What is an "app"? 
 Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
 Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
 Re: What is an "app"? 


====== 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: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:41:57 -0800 (PST) From: "Mark J. Cuccia" <markjcuccia@yahoo.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: A Brief Followup/Update re VeriZon and Frontier Message-ID: <788076.34821.qm@web31108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I did a bit more digging through my own files, VeriZon's and Frontier's websites, and some more google searches, and have come up with the following additional information on the pending sale of VeriZon's legacy GTE and Contel in more than a dozen states, as well as legacy BOC (Bell Atlantic) C&P-of-West Virginia, over to Frontier, the pending sale was first announced to the public on Wednesday-13-May-2009. Two years ago (2007/08/09), when VeriZon chose to sell legacy BOC BA/NYNEX/NET&T in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, over to FairPoint, it was an "all or nothing" arrangement. ALL THREE states' agencies HAD to approve the deal before ANY of the deal (which was the same as ALL of the deal) could go through. If ONLY ONE state rejected the request of VZ to sell NET&T in ME/NH/VT to FairPoint, then the whole deal would then fall through. On the Federal level, the FCC obviously had to approve the transaction. Also the stockholders of both VeriZon and FairPoint had to approve, before any/all of the deal could go through. Legacy NET&T/NYNEX/BA/VeriZon in Massachusetts and Rhode Island was NOT included in the transaction to sell old NET&T in ME/NH/VT to FairPoint, MA and RI are still VZ/NET&T. In the current situation of selling off legacy VZ/GTE-and-Contel in over a dozen states as well as legacy BOC VZ/C&P-WV, all to Frontier, it does NOT seem to be an "all-or-nothing" deal. Apparently if one or more state(s) choose to reject the request from VZ and Frontier but other states approve (as well as the FCC and the stockholders of both companies), then the transaction could take effect in those states which did approve of the sale, but only for those states. There are 14 states involved in this pending transaction, although one of them, California, is for the sale of old GTE and old Contel only for certain exchange areas bordering Oregon, Nevada, Arizona. The bulk of old GTE and Contel in California is to be retained by VeriZon, as is the retained old GTE and Contel in Texas (in 2000, shortly after BA/NYNEX bought GTE/Contel to form VZ, some but not all of old GTE and Contel in Texas was sold to Valor-now-part-of-Alltel's Windstream), and the GTE Tampa Bay area exchanges in Florida are also to be retained. Old GTE and Contel in the two VeriZon/Bell Atlantic states of Pennsylvania and Virginia is to be retained, as is BOCs Bell Atlantic and NYNEX (although NET&T in ME/NH/VT was sold to FairPoint two years ago). These 14 states are: West Virginia (BOC C&P-WV) and thirteen states of old GTE & Contel: North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Idaho, Washington state, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, and those parts of California bordering OR/NV/AZ. On Tuesday-27-October-2009, Frontier's stockholders approved the sale. However, I have not found any reference to any news item if VeriZon's stockholders have also approved of the sale. The FCC (and any other necessary Federal government agencies) will still need to approve of the VeriZon/Frontier transaction. Only nine of the fourteen states need to approve of the sale. The other five states apparently don't have it written into their current utility regulatory laws or procedures that regulatory approval is required for such a sale, these states being North Carolina, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Idaho. Four states which need to approve the sale have already done so: Nevada on Wednesday-28-October-2009, South Carolina on Wednesday-28-October-2009, California on Thursday-29-October-2009, and most recently from Ohio on Thursday-11-February-2010. Approval of the pending sale is also still required from the regulatory authorities of the following five states: West Virginia, Illinois, Arizona, Oregon, Washington-state. VeriZon and Frontier hope to have the transaction completed by mid-2010. I do NOT know if they intend on going through with the deal for those states which have approved, foregoing those states which haven't approved if such is the case by mid-2010. As I mentioned earlier, the FCC (and other necessary Federal government agencies) still must approve this deal, and quite possibly the VeriZon shareholders (although Frontier's shareholders approved back in October 2009). In my previous posting on this, I mentioned that VeriZon intends on retaining (legacy GTE/Contel) Knotts Island NC which is a part of the Norfolk VA LATA, even though legacy GTE and Contel elsewhere in North Carolina is to be sold to Frontier. Also, the legacy BA/C&P Virginia-based ratecenter of Crows-Hematite VA is planned to be sold to Frontier, even though everything else in BA/C&P-Virginia is to be retained by VeriZon. Crows-Hematite VA gets its dialtone from White Sulphur Springs WV of BA/C&P-West Virginia, those exchanges being planned for sale to Frontier. White Sulphur Springs WV including Crows-Hematite VA is part of the Charleston WV LATA. There are also some ratecenters/exchange areas along the Maryland/ West Virginia state-line, where dialtone is provided in one state for customers/ratecenters in the other state. In preparation for the pending sale of BA/C&P-WV to Frontier, while VZ retains BA/C&P-MD, there are plans to re-wire the West Virginia ratecenters/customers who currently get dialtone from Maryland c.o.switches to now get dialtone from nearby existing c.o.switches in their own state of WV, and vice-versa, to rewire the Maryland ratecenters/customers who currently get dialtone from West Virginia c.o.switches to now get dialtone from nearby existing c.o.switches in their own state of MD. This will allow a "clean break" of West Virginia customers/ratecenters over to Frontier pending approval of the sale, while Maryland customers/ratecenters will be retained by VeriZon, and both sets of customers will get their dialtone from their own state-based local telco, no longer having to deal with dialtone from the opposite state -- and telco. Additionally, there will need to be other re-alignments and such, both on the technical side and non-technical side, assuming that the transaction/transfer from VZ to Frontier is approved for all states. There will need to be re-alignments of SS7 signaling trunks in the SS7 part of the network, modifications to network management procedures of both VeriZon and Frontier, possible re-homing of 911/PSAP associations especially involving some California counties if some exchanges in that county are transferred to Frontier while others remain with VeriZon, and other similar technical modifications. On the "non-technical" side, both VeriZon and Frontier need to prepare for re-alignment of marketing and customer service functions, billing and revenue, and so forth. I don't have any personal insight or predications as to whether or not all of the states (and especially the FCC/other Federal) will approve of the transaction. But while the Feds and possibly the shareholders of VeriZon STILL DO need to approve, on the individual state-level, it appears that this is NOT an "all or nothing" deal required "each and every" state to approve before ANY (and thus "all") of the deal to "go through". And as of mid-February 2010, four of the nine necessary states (of 14 total) HAVE approved of the pending sale (Nevada, South Carolina, California, and most recently Ohio), the five additional states which still need to approve are West Virginia, Illinois. Arizona, Oregon, Washington-state. Mark J. Cuccia markjcuccia at yahoo dot com Lafayette LA, formerly of New Orleans LA pre-Katrina
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:56:25 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: What is an "app"? Message-ID: <tmyen.96585$U83.80723@newsfe10.iad> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > The term "app" has been floating around a great deal these days in > terms of fancy cell phones. > > What exactly is an "app"? [Moderator snip] Visit the Apple Apps Store: http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/ On the first page it states: "Applications for iPhones are like nothing you've ever seen on a mobile phone. Explore some of our favorite apps here and see how the allow iPhone to do even more." Apple's culture accepts that today's youth are corrupting our language faster than ever.
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 07:06:28 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Message-ID: <Vvyen.96586$U83.56767@newsfe10.iad> inarms3223@mypacks.net wrote: > Good grief, it's like this is something IMPORTANT.....there are WAY > bigger things to worry about. Pet the cat....tell your wife you > love her....send the Salvation Army a small donation instead of > blowing the money on phone-ringing controls. Don't spend your lives > worrying about some "arms race" you can't control. I find a ringing phone an intrusion. Getting up to answer it is still a bigger intrusion which I accept if it is a friend or family. Sometimes, I will not get up and let family or friends go to the answering machine; I will call them back later. As to sales pitches, those jerks have won their unlawful game if I permit a voice connect to be established. And, play games with them? Why? It's not a "worry" issue; it is an control-of-access into my home issue. Caller ID, used properly, has given the called party rights ahead of the calling party, just as the door on my home, gives me right to access over those who come to my door. But, to each his own. You have lots of phones and apparently enjoy letting callers set your priorities for you. An anology are the rude retail staff who cut off face-to-face conversation with me to answer the phone. The smart retailers (the minority) do not do that.
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:38:37 -0500 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Message-ID: <MPG.25e4b037518740c7989c8a@news.eternal-september.org> In article <Vvyen.96586$U83.56767@newsfe10.iad>, sam@coldmail.com says... > > inarms3223@mypacks.net wrote: > > > Good grief, it's like this is something IMPORTANT.....there are WAY > > bigger things to worry about. Pet the cat....tell your wife you > > love her....send the Salvation Army a small donation instead of > > blowing the money on phone-ringing controls. Don't spend your lives > > worrying about some "arms race" you can't control. > > I find a ringing phone an intrusion. Getting up to answer it is still > a bigger intrusion which I accept if it is a friend or family. > Sometimes, I will not get up and let family or friends go to the > answering machine; I will call them back later. As to sales pitches, > those jerks have won their unlawful game if I permit a voice connect > to be established. And, play games with them? Why? > > It's not a "worry" issue; it is an control-of-access into my home > issue. Caller ID, used properly, has given the called party rights > ahead of the calling party, just as the door on my home, gives me > right to access over those who come to my door. > > But, to each his own. You have lots of phones and apparently enjoy > letting callers set your priorities for you. > > An anology are the rude retail staff who cut off face-to-face > conversation with me to answer the phone. The smart retailers (the > minority) do not do that. I've been getting constant calls from NCO. They're slick, they leave a message telling you to call a toll free number. So I called because I was getting sick of the constant harrasment. The guy I spoke to asked if I was calling from the number he had on his computer and I confirmed that. He asked for a Shirley Bassey. No such person here and I told him to please stop calling else I'd have to enlist the assistance of an attorney. I did get him to give me the physical address of the company though.
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:18:04 GMT From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Message-ID: <hler1c$vl7$1@news.eternal-september.org> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote: > I find a ringing phone an intrusion. Getting up to answer it is > still a bigger intrusion which I accept if it is a friend or family. I just realized how quaint the concept of "getting up" to answer a phone has become. I have not had landline service in nearly 9 years, so the idea of having to go across the room to answer a phone is becoming a distant memory. People who are 18 or 20 today probably never have had to get up to answer a phone in their lives. > It's not a "worry" issue; it is an control-of-access into my home > issue. Caller ID, used properly, has given the called party rights > ahead of the calling party, just as the door on my home, gives me > right to access over those who come to my door. I run yellow pages ads for my computer tech service, so I have the occasional caller who has restricted their caller ID. Depending on how busy I am I either take the call or ignore it. Calls from phone solicitors either have out of area area codes, bogus phone numbers (such as 000-000-0000, or 111-3123, etc) or when using outward WATS display the message "unavailable". I ignore those calls. When it's possible to put a number into my phonebook, I do so, tag it as "junk" and change the ring setting to play a pleasant tune. So, when a phone solicitor calls me I hear pleasant tunes, not annoying rings.
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:20:13 GMT From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Message-ID: <hler5d$vl7$2@news.eternal-september.org> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote: > An anology are the rude retail staff who cut off face-to-face > conversation with me to answer the phone. The smart retailers (the > minority) do not do that. I have been to retail stores where the clerk has stopped my transaction to answer a call. I've walked away. The clerk usually chases me down and I tell them, "I'm sorry, your call was more important than me, so I let you take your call." The apologize but I continue to walk. No retail transaction is worth that much to me. I can always buy at another time.
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:24:43 +0000 (UTC) From: Paul <pssawyer@comcast.net.INVALID> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Message-ID: <Xns9D219CC963456Senex@85.214.113.135> sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote in news:hler5d$vl7$2@news.eternal-september.org: > Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote: > >> An anology are the rude retail staff who cut off face-to-face >> conversation with me to answer the phone. The smart retailers (the >> minority) do not do that. > > I have been to retail stores where the clerk has stopped my > transaction to answer a call. I've walked away. The clerk usually > chases me down and I tell them, "I'm sorry, your call was more > important than me, so I let you take your call." The apologize but > I continue to walk. No retail transaction is worth that much to me. > I can always buy at another time. Aubuchon Hardware, a regional chain centered on Fitchburg, MA, once had a policy, set by the founder. of not having telephones in its retail stores, for that reason. That, of course has changed. -- Paul
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:32:10 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Message-ID: <pan.2010.02.16.22.32.06.681569@myrealbox.com> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:20:13 +0000, David Kaye wrote: > Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote: > >> An anology are the rude retail staff who cut off face-to-face >> conversation with me to answer the phone. The smart retailers (the >> minority) do not do that. > > I have been to retail stores where the clerk has stopped my > transaction to answer a call. I've walked away. The clerk usually > chases me down and I tell them, "I'm sorry, your call was more > important than me, so I let you take your call." The apologize but > I continue to walk. No retail transaction is worth that much to me. > I can always buy at another time. Interesting how we have been trained to respond to the demands of a piece of technology over a real human in front of our faces, innit? Seriously though, this is just one of the old dilemmas of human behaviour that Call Centres had to get on top of in their early years - the problem of visible and invisible queues. When you are in a shop/bank whatever you can see if there is going to be a delay and make your own decision based on that information and your own judgement (a "visible" queue). When you are on the other end of a voice connection you can't see why the phone is not being answered and are far more likely to hang up if it isn't answered within a short period of time (an "invisible" queue). Those on-hold messages like "You are X in the queue" are designed to provide some visibility and let the caller decide what to do with at least some information. Commerce knows that the initial answering of a call - even if it is just "Hold the line please" - makes the eventual conversation/transaction more likely than just letting the call ring out, so people in that situation are instructed to answer every call no matter if they are dealing with someone in front of them. It's all about using a limited resource to its maximum effectiveness, and while a few of the "face to face" customers may walk out, they'd probably lose more phone customers if they didn't answer all the calls - so it works out as a nett gain. -- 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: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:56:39 EST From: Wesrock@aol.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Message-ID: <1b8e5.4054365c.38ac98c7@aol.com> In a message dated 2/16/2010 9:28:47 AM Central Standard Time, sam@coldmail.com writes: > I find a ringing phone an intrusion. Getting up to answer it is > still a bigger intrusion which I accept if it is a friend or family. > Sometimes, I will not get up and let family or friends go to the > answering machine; I will call them back later. As to sales > pitches, those jerks have won their unlawful game if I permit a > voice connect to be established. And, play games with them? Why? My thoughts exactly. And you can turn off the ringer on most sets and let all calls go to the answering machine. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:45:14 -0500 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Message-ID: <op.u768lobfo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:03:10 -0500, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: >>> So now when I go to political sites and they request a phone number, >>> they get the Google Voice number. > > I give them 617-637-XXXX, for some random XXXX. I don't think the > Time Lady minds. Lovely, John :-) -- thanks for that one! That's be 203 SPRINGS in my AC. Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:40:51 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re:Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone? Message-ID: <pan.2010.02.16.06.40.45.926376@myrealbox.com> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:44:46 -0500, Gene S. Berkowitz wrote: > In article <hkrc86$r28$8@news.albasani.net>, ahk@chinet.com says... >> 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? > > In my experience, it's best to leave the DSL filter off at the > cordless base station. Cordless phones are already bandwidth > limited and highly filtered to remove the artifacts from their own > RF stages. > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > Gene, I think the filters are mostly to benefit the ADSL modem, which > needs all the signal strength it can get: some phones short out the high > frequencies the ADSL gear is trying to hear. ADSL performance is based on maximum possible S/N ratio at the remote modem end: allow another digital device to pump even tiny amounts of HF noise into the line (which "normal" handsets care little about) and you will find you maximum sync rate far lower than it could be. Just don't use one filter on a cordless base station, use two. -- 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: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:27:00 -0600 From: "Gray, Charles" <charles.gray@okstate.edu> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: ISDN History Message-ID: <38330A1CC0CF4C40ACDD33EDD32190E28D19D39B91@STWEXE2.ad.okstate.edu> A little history on ISDN, if you please. One reason that ISDN never found wide acceptance in the US was the fact that it was developed under the auspices of the CCITT (precursor to the ITU-T), driven by the PTTs of Europe. Beginning in 1961 Study Group III went about laying down restrictive rules for every conceivable issue associated with private leased circuits. They wanted to restrict the use of private lines so as to effectively force users to switched services, which were much more lucrative to the administrations (PTTs). Google on "leased circuits were generally to be made available" to bring up a couple of pages (from Google Books) of a book entitled "Regulating the Global Information Society". Pages 143-144 show a list of 17 restrictions on the use of private leased circuits. Page 145 has a stinging evaluation that says, in part, "discouragement [of private leased lines] would seem to stem . . . from a fear that their proliferation constitutes a threat to the revenues or even the status of administrations." It goes on to say "[to develop] unrealistic tariffs and a maze of loosely worded Recommendations, against whose restrictive interpretation users would have little redress, is to disregard the canons of social justice and of conventional business conduct. Furthermore, it is retarding the development of telecommunications in the service of man." On page 145 we find "They (the CCITT, driven by the European PTTs) also sought to strengthen their hand by developing the Integrated Services Digital Network, or ISDN. The ISDN was conceived in the 1973-6 study period as a single integrated national high-speed network that could carry all traffic regardless of its technical requirements. The vision was that with such networks in place, administrations' public networks could handle all business requirements for advanced services, potentially obviating the need to lease lines". The PTTs did (grudgingly) permit private lines for "closed user groups" such as the SITA airline network and the SWIFT banking network. On page 146 we read that the Director of the CCITT stated in a letter to the FCC that "It seems to me an extremely dangerous situation when one country, and what is more, the leading country with regard to the number of subscribers, the extent of its services and its telecommunications technology, can help to undermine the work of the CCITT." (emphasis mine). So the bottom line, the way I understand it, was that the Europeans wanted to do everything they could to prohibit private lines and force all services to ISDN. The United States wanted to open up the market, and in fact, the US Trade Representative began discussions with the telecom industry that ultimately led to making telecommunications a "trade" issue that became a part of the 1986-94 Uruguay Round of trade negotiations that resulted in the World Trade Organization that we have today. William Drake's paper (cited above) used to be posted to the internet, but now it seems to be available only as a part of the larger book "Regulating the Global Information Society" Edited by Christopher T. Marsden. Regards. Charles G. Gray Senior Lecturer, Telecommunications Oklahoma State University - Tulsa (918) 594-8433
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:18:17 +0000 (UTC) From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: ISDN History Message-ID: <hlf93p$g8t$1@reader2.panix.com> "Gray, Charles" <charles.gray@okstate.edu> writes: > So the bottom line, the way I understand it, was that the Europeans > wanted to do everything they could to prohibit private lines and > force all services to ISDN. The United States wanted to open up the > market, and in fact, the US Trade Representative began discussions > with the telecom industry that ultimately led to making > telecommunications a "trade" issue that became a part of the 1986-94 > Uruguay Round of trade negotiations that resulted in the World Trade > Organization that we have today. I'm sure you'll get a variety of replies, but I'll say: Horsepocky. ISDN PRI is a big success in the US; it shed half a century of cruft. Does anyone even recall unidirectional ground-start trunks, E&M, and other instruments of torture? ISDN BRI could have been a major success for the RBOC's, saving them copper, giving remote diags, and more, BUT... ...The shinypants beancounters got greedy, and tried to leverage it into forcing their long-sought pot-of-gold, universal metered [per minute] local service. They failed. There were other issues: it was seen as data service by the data tribe, and phone service by the voice tribe; and there were many fights within the tent. The US version was confusing to install and provision. It replaced some of the very profitable leased line services, at a far lower cost. [Try renting a pair of 3002 conditioned lines for a radio remote; than compare to two BRI's and Zepher...and guess which works when you need it!]. And it required a reputed $1E6 license on each #5ESS. But Verizontal bought 'em, and THEN made a failure out of it. Scott Adams used to work at PacBell ISDN, and he said it best: ISDN had lots of advantages, but the Bells were marketing it, ergo it was SURE to be a disaster. - - 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 ***** Moderator's Note ***** Ground Start and E&M were not "instruments of torture". They were God's way of separating the real diode-heads from the mere mortals. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:55:42 -0500 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: ISDN Message-ID: <MPG.25e4981752efa976989c89@news.eternal-september.org> In article <20100214061629.31148.qmail@simone.iecc.com>, johnl@iecc.com says... > It cost about $200/mo for the T1, and $300/mo for the Internet > service. That was a great price in 1995 but it's ridiculous now. It > was just data, the phone was (and is) on a separate pair. The T1 > price is distance independent which in my case was bad since the > distance was only three blocks. > > Telco is now touting their business fiber service, where I can get 5Mb > down/512Kb up for $69/mo with a three year commitment and a rather > vague pricing for IP addresses. Or I can pay $129 for 10Mb/768Kb, or > $128 for the bundle of 10Mb/768Kb, a phone line with 1c local, 5c toll > calling, and free installation. > > Yesterday I did some work for a client who is orginally from France. She was telling me that for 30 euros ($40) you can get 100mbps down/50mbps up net service along with 300 channels of video service, and telephone service that covers not only France but 100 other countries. This is for residential service of course but still, if you could ever get 100mpbs service here in the U.S. I'd imagine the price would be astronomical. My 20/5 service is $53.99 a month. And Vonage just hiked their bogus fees by $1.72 a month. Nice of them. http://www.scribd.com/doc/26434338/Vonage-Increases
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:40:20 -0500 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Message-ID: <MPG.25e4b09fcc063082989c8b@news.eternal-september.org> In article <7iUdn.77499$s%.72790@newsfe18.iad>, sam@coldmail.com says... > > Marty Lyons wrote: >> T wrote: >> >> >>> So now when I go to political sites and they request a phone >>> number, they get the Google Voice number. >> >> >> I have a line which I needed to stop all but urgent calls getting >> through. For $150 I bought the PrivacyCall Blocker from Digitone: >> >> http://www.digitone.com/Call%20Blocker.htm >> >> When people call they have to enter an extension number. I've got >> it programmed so if none or the wrong extension is entered, the >> phone never rings, and the line is just hung up. You can also >> program it various ways so unknown calls/unsuccessful extensions >> ring through to an answering machine, etc. The greatest feature of >> this unit is that until the confirmation step is successfully >> passed, the phones never even ring. >> >> The only drawback is the programming is a little tricky; the >> documentation is terrible. But you only need to figure it out >> once. I've had no problems and its been in service for about four >> years. > > So, how do you get all those folks that you want to receive calls > from to remember your routine? Or, will it tick off some of them > who will then just stop calling? That's the nice thing about Google Voice. I can put in a list of 'trusted' people who'll just ring right through. Otherwise they have to record their name. Then Google voice calls and announces the caller and allows you to either accept the call or reject it. Interestingly supervision starts when you're asked to record your name. I tested this by calling the Google Voice number with Skype and sure enough, the charge started as soon as it connected to the announcement.
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:48:38 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: 40% lack home broadband access Message-ID: <088ef007-3431-4886-954e-4dd772f6079f@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> 1010wins reported: " Roughly 40 percent of Americans do not have high-speed Internet access at home, according to new Commerce Department figures that underscore the challenges facing policymakers who are trying to bring affordable broadband connections to everyone." For full article please see: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_BROADBAND_DATA?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT What bothers me is that the techies of the world think everyone has convenient broadband access and design their websites and other services accordingly. For those of us with slow dial-up connections, we must wait and wait until bloated pages slowly unfold before us. IMHO, much of the stuff on bloated pages is unnecessary. It seems to be more of the web page designer's efforts to show off his knowledge of the latest bells and whistles rather than actually communicating real content. It doesn't have to be that way. There are plenty of excellent websites that work fine on dial up, so obviously it can be done if the designers choose to. Obviously the information technology industry is always pushing for faster and more powerful. In this way PCs get obsolete quicker and people must go out and buy ever-more powerful models. It also means users must subscribe to broadband access, making money for the communications carriers.
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:59:18 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: 40% lack home broadband access Message-ID: <GGDen.99457$CM7.47248@newsfe04.iad> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Obviously the information technology industry is always pushing for > faster and more powerful. In this way PCs get obsolete quicker and > people must go out and buy ever-more powerful models. It also means > users must subscribe to broadband access, making money for the > communications carriers. There are lots of us who couldn't care less about website glitz. But, we need the speed of broadband to send (and receive from) large files to associates across town or across the country. Sometimes with dial-up the transfer of large binary files fails after investing an hour, or so, trying to make the upload at 28.8 kb. ***** Moderator's Note ***** These days, most file transfer programs are able to resume a download from the point where it was interrupted. It's a far cry from the agony of seeing the Slackware CD image abort less than 1MB from the end. We're all been there. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:02:51 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: 40% lack home broadband access Message-ID: <2c70aff5-8fce-464b-8d01-e9e31c133aea@h2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> On Feb 16, 3:59 pm, Sam Spade wrote: > There are lots of us who couldn't care less about website > glitz.  But, we need the speed of broadband to send (and receive > from) large files to associates across town or across the country. > > Sometimes with dial-up the transfer of large binary files fails >after investing an hour, or so, trying to make the upload at 28.8 kb. > > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > These days, most file transfer programs are able to resume a > download from the point where it was interrupted. It's a far cry > from the agony of seeing the Slackware CD image abort less than 1MB > from the end. We're all been there. Mr. Spade makes an excellent point and I have to agree with him. In my humble opinion, a connnection of 56 kb, the max for dial-up, effectively limits a user to a transfer of about 1-2 meg. Anything beyond that leads to errors, retransmissions, or the dreaded cutout / lockout just before the end of the file. Sure, one can successfully transfer larger files, but it takes forever and it's risky. Of course, 1 meg can represent a pretty good sized spreadsheet or document. But not so much with jpg photographs.
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:46:21 GMT From: Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: 40% lack home broadband access Message-ID: <87wrycsq2x.fsf@nudel.nodomain.nowhere> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > 1010wins reported: > > "Roughly 40 percent of Americans do not have high-speed Internet > access at home.... > > [snip] > > What bothers me is that the techies of the world think everyone has > convenient broadband access and design their websites and other > services accordingly. For those of us with slow dial-up connections, > we must wait and wait until bloated pages slowly unfold before us. > > IMHO, much of the stuff on bloated pages is unnecessary. It seems to > be more of the web page designer's efforts to show off his knowledge > of the latest bells and whistles rather than actually communicating > real content. Yes, and to present the PHBs with whiz-bang eye candy. There is a single browser feature that would help a great deal, a feature that existed in Netscape Navigator 4.76 but not, AFAIK, in any more up-to-date browser. If images are disabled, then: A. Render every image larger than <tiny>: 1. As an icon if image size is not given in the <IMG tag or As an outline and icon if image size is available. 2. AND accompanied by ALT text if given in the <IMG tag. B. Make an icon rendered under this rubric an active link to the referenced image, such that: 1. If the user hovers the mouse over the icon, the URL for the image referenced by that icon appears in the status line and 2. if the user clicks on the icon representing the image, the browser fetches the image and re-renders the page to accommodate just that one image. This makes for a rather ugly layout on pages encrusted with numerous banners, dingbats, logos, buttons, pictures of words, ads, animations, background panels etc. ad naus. But it means that the bandwidth-impaired (typically, if not always) need only download pump-diagram.jpg but not all the visual fripperies. This would not deal with gratuitous flash, complex and voluminous use of javascript or other bloat (which the dialup user is well advised to disable anyhow) but it would be a very constructive leap backwards for we'uns 40%. -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:45:12 -0500 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Better Calling for Less, by Skipping the Cell Network Message-ID: <MPG.25e4b1c12a3f3320989c8c@news.eternal-september.org> In article <p0624080fc79debf4c138@[10.0.0.5]>, monty@roscom.com says... > And if those friends have Fring or iCall or Skype or Gizmo5, too, > the calls are free. Precisely what I'm planning on. I will be putting a Linksys WRT54G running OpenWRT on a ten foot mast on the roof. Power provided by solar and battery arrangement. I'll put it in repeater mode for my wifi network and add a couple of gain antennas in the 3 to 5 db range. Point one east, one west with a slight downward inclination since I live on a hill. That covers about half the city. Add a battery pack to my Touch, plug in a headset and Fring, Fring away. Doesn't cost me a dime other than the cost of the broadband service.
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:13:48 -0600 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: What is an "app"? Message-ID: <i7Odnc_NuPXhYefWnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <7ed21179-029a-43fb-bc55-01cab548f541@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >The term "app" has been floating around a great deal these days in >terms of fancy cell phones. > >What exactly is an "app"? 1) Those -big- metal things you find in a kitchen ("kitchen <app>liances") 2) What you fill out when applying for a job ("employmemt <app>lication") 3) Something bigger than an 'applet'. <grin> 4) a _self-contained_ collection of software for solving some sort of problem, or automating some sort of procedure, on behalf of a computer user. As distinct from 'systems' software, which manages system resources, arbitrates conflicting resource access requests, and ensures that one user's activities do not inadvertantly affect another user's operations. Smart-phone 'apps' are not really separate "programs" in the traditonal meaning of the word. The 'operating system' for a phone is does not support most of the standard system concepts -- things like 'multi-user', 'multi- progrmming', 'multi-processing', and frequently, not even true 'multi-tasking'. You don't have separate programs that are 'invoked'/'executed' and autonomously run to completion. Rather, they are routines that are fairly tightly integreated into the operating system of the phone, and can do things even when not 'activated'. Probably the simplest description of 'what is an app' is that it is a piece of add-on software that does 'something useful' for the user. :)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:24:32 +0000 (UTC) From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: What is an "app"? Message-ID: <hlfnhg$fig$2@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> In article <i7Odnc_NuPXhYefWnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>, Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote: > Smart-phone 'apps' are not really separate "programs" in the > traditonal meaning of the word. The 'operating system' for a phone > is does not support most of the standard system concepts -- things > like 'multi-user', 'multi- progrmming', 'multi-processing', and > frequently, not even true 'multi-tasking'. You don't have separate > programs that are 'invoked'/'executed' and autonomously run to > completion. Actually, Android has all of those things; it's just a really weird Linux distribution, after all. Android apps install in their own "sandbox" user ID, which is distinct from that used by all other apps -- and this is true even of the "system" apps like "Mail" and "Contacts". Most Android apps are written in Java, and each one running has its own Java Virtual Machine (designed for memory efficiency more than speed); the Android platform libraries provide mechanisms for apps to communicate with each other -- or send broadcasts -- over an internal message bus to request services. (There's actually a reasonably decent mechanism called "Intents" that allows applications to invoke actions like sending mail or responding to an incoming SMS; in the case of network-generated events, the system sends a broadcast and all apps that have registered an interest in that event get a chance to do their thing. It's very similar to the D-Bus mechanism promoted by freedesktop.org for regular desktops.) -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:42:18 -0500 From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.1002161940100.37@panix5.panix.com> [WSJ] ANNAPOLIS, Md - Equipment that jams cellphones will get its first federally sanctioned test inside a prison in Maryland this week, as state officials try to show Congress how the technology can prevent inmates from using the contraband devices to commit crimes, a governor's spokesman said Tuesday. ... a bill that passed the Senate and awaits action by the House would allow states to petition the FCC to block the use of cellphones from prisons. Testing is set to begin Wednesday at the Federal Correctional Institution in Cumberland, said Shaun Adamec, spokesman for Gov. Martin O'Malley. ---------------- rest: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069774004199984.html _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:16:37 -0600 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming Message-ID: <6645152a1002162016x37b926b6g57a35ff0844bcabb@mail.gmail.com> And here it starts... anyone in a betting mood? I'm going out on a limb and saying in 2020 there will be fierce debate if churches and movie theaters should employ this technology and dropped calls due to jamming while driving past certain businesses will be the newest complaint. I understand the need to prevent prisoners from conducting "business" from their cell, ordering hits, etc. But on the other hand prisoners who keep in touch with their families, even if it's sending an "I love you" to a child every night via text, helps to prevent convicts from returning to prison. Surely there's a compromise here without going down this path? I can't wait for the first lawsuit when a surgeon can't be reached due to cell phone jamming. John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jmayson
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:09:15 -0500 From: "Bob Goudreau" <BobGoudreau@nc.rr.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: What is an "app"? Message-ID: <7D3681E9F1964340AB8728AC552CC41F@estore.us.dg.com> John Mayson wrote: On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 5:29 PM, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> The term "app" has been floating around a great deal these days in >> terms of fancy cell phones. >> >> What exactly is an "app"? >> >> Is the word merely shorthand for 'computer application', that is, a >> computer program (or programs) that perform tasks for the user, such >> as a word processor, alarm clock calendar, obtain and display train >> schedules, etc.? >> >> Or is it shorthand for the Apple Company and its products? > > I've never heard it suggested that "app" was shorthand for "Apple". > Instead it's short for "application" and is used beyond the iPhone. Indeed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_software for a more thorough discussion. Note that the original "killer app" in mass-market software, VisiCalc, came out over 30 years ago. Ironically, this is the program that first propelled the Apple II to prominence. But as John states, "app" doesn't mean "Apple". Bob Goudreau Cary, NC
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 (25 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues