|
|
Message Digest
Volume 29 : Issue 67 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Voice mail versus cassette answering machine (was: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears)
Re: Voice mail versus cassette answering machine
Re: Voice mail versus cassette answering machine
Re: Voice mail versus cassette answering machine
Re: Voice mail versus cassette answering machine
Re: Voice mail versus cassette answering machine
Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears
Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears
Domestic Earthquake Survivability
Re: Domestic Earthquake Survivability
Re: Domestic Earthquake Survivability
Re: Domestic Earthquake Survivability
Re: Domestic Earthquake Survivability
====== 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: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 16:15:54 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Voice mail versus cassette answering machine (was: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears)
Message-ID: <hn0jfq$mie$5@news.albasani.net>
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>To put a telecom angle back on this, I now understand why some people
>continue to use a traditional land-line phone without any features and
>perhaps a cassette-based answering machine. It's simple and they know
>how to use it.
Reel-to-reel, shirley.
Actually, several of the ubiquitous Panasonic dual cassette tape machines
were excellent. Voice mail tends to compress band width for worse sound
quality. It was an inferior substitution, in many cases. Also, certain
voice mail systems made you listen all the way to the end of the message
before allowing you to use another command, and any number of the common
voice mail systems just have poorly thought out command structures.
Also, there's something satisfying about throwing away the cassette and
thus getting rid of the unwanted message. In voice mail, nothing deleted
is ever actually expunged, unless a hard drive and its backups have failed.
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 17:20:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Voice mail versus cassette answering machine
Message-ID: <201003072220.RAA11986@ss10.danlan.com>
ahk@chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) wrote:
> Actually, several of the ubiquitous Panasonic dual cassette tape
> machines were excellent.
Yes, I had one until the physical maintenance became bothersome.
> Voice mail tends to compress band width for worse sound quality. It
> was an inferior substitution, in many cases. Also, certain voice
> mail systems made you listen all the way to the end of the message
> before allowing you to use another command, and any number of the
> common voice mail systems just have poorly thought out command
> structures.
When I finally switched to voice mail it was voice mail on my own
Asterisk server. I have forced everything to 56k ulaw (including
making sure all the prompts are available natively in that format) and
I'm quite pleased with the quality. (This is in contrast to my
attempts to use VOIP externally.) The system is sufficiently flexible
that I was able to make the "user experience" pretty much the same as
my old answering machine.
For anyone who has the necessary unix-style machine on all the time
and whose answering machine is reaching end-of-life I recommend this
approach. If you have other functions that can be subsumed by
Asterisk (e.g., alarm dialer) the payoff may be even higher, though at
the cost of increased single-point-of-failure issues.
I still access the Asterisk server with a 2565 set...
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:50:26 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Voice mail versus cassette answering machine
Message-ID: <4B9457E2.6020405@thadlabs.com>
On 3/7/2010 2:20 PM, Dan Lanciani wrote:
> [...]
> When I finally switched to voice mail it was voice mail on my own
> Asterisk server. I have forced everything to 56k ulaw (including
> making sure all the prompts are available natively in that format) and
> I'm quite pleased with the quality. (This is in contrast to my
> attempts to use VOIP externally.) The system is sufficiently flexible
> that I was able to make the "user experience" pretty much the same as
> my old answering machine.
>
> For anyone who has the necessary unix-style machine on all the time
> and whose answering machine is reaching end-of-life I recommend this
> approach. If you have other functions that can be subsumed by
> Asterisk (e.g., alarm dialer) the payoff may be even higher, though at
> the cost of increased single-point-of-failure issues.
>
> I still access the Asterisk server with a 2565 set...
Asterisk is a fine system and works well with today's hardware and
the Internet. I've installed/maintained a number of asterisk systems.
Another all-digital system that I used to use before my Bogen Friday
was a system cobbled-up using AT&T 3B1 (aka UNIX PC aka PC7300) boxes
and the VoicePower cards. Many small businesses (lawyer firms in
particular, dunno why), movie theaters, emergency medical facilities
and people like me would use these as answering systems. Audio quality
was magnificent. The VoicePower cards recognized/generated TouchTone
and voice and even the synthesized speech was pleasant and understandable
though one could also record items for later playback.
Looking at some of my (random) notes saved along with the VoicePower
manuals:
$ # enable voice manager for answering machine
$ setvm on
$ vrecord -24 -t 60 -e 5 soundfile
$ vplay -24 soundfile
$ cat /dev/voice > soundfile
$ cat soundfile > /dev/voice
There was also a graphical sound/voice editor (noting the 3B1 came with a
3-button mouse (early 1980s)) accompanying the VoicePower cards. A full
installation of VoicePower included a lot of supporting software.
I still have 3 fully-functional 3B1 systems and expansion chassis and,
time permitting later this year, I'll set up a web page with info about
them along with scanned manuals (of which I probably have the only
extant copies).
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:25:24 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Voice mail versus cassette answering machine
Message-ID: <pan.2010.03.08.03.24.59.732375@myrealbox.com>
On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:20:19 -0500, Dan Lanciani wrote:
........
> For anyone who has the necessary unix-style machine on all the time and
> whose answering machine is reaching end-of-life I recommend this approach.
> If you have other functions that can be subsumed by Asterisk (e.g., alarm
> dialer) the payoff may be even higher, though at the cost of increased
> single-point-of-failure issues.
Must use a lot more juice than a stand-alone answering machine?
- -
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.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Not compared to the cost of a new answering machine: PC's are much
more power-friendly these days, and there are now "PC Cubes" that have
no mechanical parts and whose power consumpsion may be less than that
of an answering machine.
In any case, the versatility of the Asterisk software makes the
comparison problematic: take a PC one-generation-out-of-fashion, some
free-as-in-speech software, and some time, and you have a compined
voicemail, PBX, and emergency-alert system for zero cash outlay. That
difference covers a lot of electricity.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:20:42 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Voice mail versus cassette answering machine
Message-ID: <4B9450EA.2090501@thadlabs.com>
On 3/7/2010 8:15 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>
>> To put a telecom angle back on this, I now understand why some people
>> continue to use a traditional land-line phone without any features and
>> perhaps a cassette-based answering machine. It's simple and they know
>> how to use it.
>
> Reel-to-reel, shirley.
>
> Actually, several of the ubiquitous Panasonic dual cassette tape machines
> were excellent. [...]
I found the Bogen Friday to be absolutely perfect and featureful for the
last 10+ years I had landline service. It could even route, over a second
line, an incoming call to my cell phone. The only mod I made to it was adding
a jack so I could use an external speaker with it for better audio fidelity.
It still works fine though it's not in service anymore since I'm cell-phone
only since 2002.
The unit is fully digital and had, IIRC, 99-message capability along with
multiple mailboxes. A Google search just now found the manual so I don't
have to scan it:
http://www.bogen.com/support/discontinued/pdfs/FR1000m.pdf [51p, 1.2MB]
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:34:51 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Voice mail versus cassette answering machine
Message-ID: <hn1nod$gfm$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 3/7/2010 8:15 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>>
>>> To put a telecom angle back on this, I now understand why some people
>>> continue to use a traditional land-line phone without any features and
>>> perhaps a cassette-based answering machine. It's simple and they know
>>> how to use it.
>> Reel-to-reel, shirley.
>>
>> Actually, several of the ubiquitous Panasonic dual cassette tape machines
>> were excellent. [...]
>
> I found the Bogen Friday to be absolutely perfect and featureful for the
> last 10+ years I had landline service. It could even route, over a second
> line, an incoming call to my cell phone. The only mod I made to it was adding
> a jack so I could use an external speaker with it for better audio fidelity.
>
> It still works fine though it's not in service anymore since I'm cell-phone
> only since 2002.
>
> The unit is fully digital and had, IIRC, 99-message capability along with
> multiple mailboxes. A Google search just now found the manual so I don't
> have to scan it:
>
> http://www.bogen.com/support/discontinued/pdfs/FR1000m.pdf [51p, 1.2MB]
>
I have the ATT version of it as well as the manual for it. You should
sell it, I have seen them for as much as $400.00 and have had a few
people offer to buy mine. I use it for several mail boxes and being
able to access my second home line and make out going calls as well as
having people being able to call me on my cell phone since I give the
number to very few people.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 16:26:07 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears
Message-ID: <hn0k2v$mie$6@news.albasani.net>
PV <pv+usenet@pobox.com> wrote:
>John Mayson <john@mayson.us> writes:
>> I'm still trying to decide just how naive she really was. If she
>> thought to go buy a wireless extender that tells me she sort of
>> knew she was accessing someone else's wifi. But to call into Leo's
>> show, wow, maybe she really is that lost.
> Nah, she wasn't lost at all. She was hoping there was some technical
> fix that would let her continue to steal wifi. She admitted as much
> on the call.
> She thought she was entitled to steal. A leech, not clueless.
I agree with [the Moderator's] position. She was leeching, not
stealing, assuming she didn't falsely identify herself as a specific
user with password with other than guest credentials. We forget that
the radio spectrum is a public resource and there isn't even any
regulatory license imposed on the portion use for WiFi. It's
unreasonable for us to expect privacy when using it.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Small nitpick: I think it's reasonable to expert privacy when using
an unsecured WiFi hotspot, but not reasonable to expect _exclusivity_.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 22:24:15 -0500
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears
Message-ID: <op.u88bqp1vitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:26:07 -0500, following what
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote, Moderator added:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Small nitpick: I think it's reasonable to expert privacy when using
> an unsecured WiFi hotspot, but not reasonable to expect _exclusivity_.
May I ask a "test-case" question?
Background: many owner-occupied single-family residences have a
water spigot mounted near the foundation, for use with lawn- or
garden-watering equipment. Such water is usually billed, either
by the gallon or by the 100 cubic feet, to the home-owner.
Questions: is it "reasonable" for an unrelated person unobtrusively
to use the water from such a spigot? and "unreasonable" for the
home-owner to expect "exclusivity"-of-use for that (payable) resource?
I, myself, take no position on these questions for now, but wonder ... .
TIA. And cheers, -- tlvp
- -
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
***** Moderator's Note *****
The problem with talking about Access Points is that most analogies to
the brick-and-morter world don't apply. With few exceptions, Internet
access for homeowners isn't billed by the Megabyte: it would, of
course, be wrong for someone sharing a WiFi Access Point to
knowingly cause it's owner to pay extra, but that's not the usual
case.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 14:33:47 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Domestic Earthquake Survivability
Message-ID: <69bfb162-8c15-4c55-8a42-dbfa44d225fe@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
News reports following the Chilean earthquake showed other potential
zones and these were around the Pacific coast. It was more of a
question of 'when', not 'if', a big quake will hit.
Apparently they do know a lot on how to build things to survive a big
quake, although it adds quite a bit to the cost, and only the newest
buildings meet the latest standards. In a prior west coast quake,
plenty of 1960s buildings crashed.
How well will the telecom infrastructure withstand a quake? That
includes...
-- Classic line poles to connect homes and businesses to the C.O.
-- Buried fiber and copper trunk lines. Can high-volume fiber and
copper withstand a severe 'kink' and still carry messages or does a
fiber line have to be absolutely clean in order to work? (It
doesn't take much to knock the capacity of my dial-up phone line
way down.)
-- Remote pedestals holding amplifiers, junction boxes, and
concentators.
-- Remote power supplies--their ability to withstand a shock and
remain in service, and the length of their charge.
-- Cell phone towers, both free standing and those atop buildings.
-- CO buildings. I imagine in older major cities the downtown CO
buildings may date from the 1920s; in early suburbs, from the
1950s, and may not be earthquake proof.
-- Commercial electric power--again, generating stations, distribution
lines, substations.
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 15:50:55 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Domestic Earthquake Survivability
Message-ID: <hn1e51$qij$1@news.eternal-september.org>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> News reports following the Chilean earthquake showed other potential
> zones and these were around the Pacific coast. It was more of a
> question of 'when', not 'if', a big quake will hit.
>
> Apparently they do know a lot on how to build things to survive a big
> quake, although it adds quite a bit to the cost, and only the newest
> buildings meet the latest standards. In a prior west coast quake,
> plenty of 1960s buildings crashed.
>
> How well will the telecom infrastructure withstand a quake? That
> includes...
>
> -- Classic line poles to connect homes and businesses to the C.O.
>
> -- Buried fiber and copper trunk lines. Can high-volume fiber and
> copper withstand a severe 'kink' and still carry messages or does a
> fiber line have to be absolutely clean in order to work? (It
> doesn't take much to knock the capacity of my dial-up phone line
> way down.)
>
> -- Remote pedestals holding amplifiers, junction boxes, and
> concentators.
>
> -- Remote power supplies--their ability to withstand a shock and
> remain in service, and the length of their charge.
>
> -- Cell phone towers, both free standing and those atop buildings.
>
> -- CO buildings. I imagine in older major cities the downtown CO
> buildings may date from the 1920s; in early suburbs, from the
> 1950s, and may not be earthquake proof.
>
> -- Commercial electric power--again, generating stations, distribution
> lines, substations.
>
After the 1971 Sylmar earthquake, GTE (Verizon) sunk steal poles 20 or
so feet below the building to the roof. This was done in the Sylmar CO
and a few others in the area. The building held up pretty well, it was
the superstructure that failed. Since that time I have been in
buildings during quakes and the building as well as the equipment held up.
--
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: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:22:45 -0500
From: Steve Stone <n2ubp@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Domestic Earthquake Survivability
Message-ID: <hn1g0p$hbf$1@news.eternal-september.org>
> How well will the telecom infrastructure withstand a quake? That
> includes...
>
Heck, in my area of south eastern New York the infrastructure can't hold
up under an anticipated 20 to 30 inch snowstorm.
Damage to overhead wires and poles from snow laden branches and auto
accidents resulted in many homes
being left without power, cable TV, FIOS, or POTS for up to a week.
Tower sites lost power, switched to generator, ran out of fuel, switch
to battery, and were down for days until a path was cut thru the snow by
heavy plow equipment.
At one major tower site a police helicopter was used to drop a power
company lineman at a tower site to replace a pole fuse.
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:50:01 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Domestic Earthquake Survivability
Message-ID: <ZQXkn.22129$wr5.8251@newsfe22.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> -- CO buildings. I imagine in older major cities the downtown CO
> buildings may date from the 1920s; in early suburbs, from the
> 1950s, and may not be earthquake proof.
California had its first earthquake building codes enacted in the 1930s
after the Long Beach earthquake.
In 1972 the Sylmar quake knocked down the 14' high SxS racks in the
Sylmar GTE C.O. and damaged the building. The rebuild probrably would
withstand a whole lot.
Pacific Telephone inherited from Home Telephone Company a huge SxS C.O.
on Green Street in Pasadena. It has had a whole of of retrofits done
over the years as more as been learned about earthquakes. Of course,
all the 14' high racks are long gone.
These are representatives of improvements that I know to have been made
to telco infrastructure.
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:31:00 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Domestic Earthquake Survivability
Message-ID: <hn1nh6$fjq$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Sam Spade wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>>
>> -- CO buildings. I imagine in older major cities the downtown CO
>> buildings may date from the 1920s; in early suburbs, from the
>> 1950s, and may not be earthquake proof.
>
> California had its first earthquake building codes enacted in the 1930s
> after the Long Beach earthquake.
>
> In 1972 the Sylmar quake knocked down the 14' high SxS racks in the
> Sylmar GTE C.O. and damaged the building. The rebuild probrably would
> withstand a whole lot.
>
> Pacific Telephone inherited from Home Telephone Company a huge SxS C.O.
> on Green Street in Pasadena. It has had a whole of of retrofits done
> over the years as more as been learned about earthquakes. Of course,
> all the 14' high racks are long gone.
>
> These are representatives of improvements that I know to have been made
> to telco infrastructure.
>
It was 1971 for Sylmar, I know I was working that night in Sunland. I
have some pictures of the Long Beach Main CO. Employees looking out
from inside where the walls used to be. They are in a book on GTE
California History that we were given some years ago. When the
Northridge quake it, I had that day off, the first call I got was from
my boss wanting to knew there was going to be an earthquake; I had told
him I would not be working when we had another one.
--
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.
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 (13 messages)
|
or 