30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for November 14, 2011
====== 30 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 Bill Horne 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 that person, or email address
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of that address. 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, 14 Nov 2011 05:26:53 -0500 From: Telecom Digest Moderator <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Usenet gateway is still down Message-ID: <20111114102652.GA21005@telecom.csail.mit.edu> To the subscribers: the Usenet gateway we use to post the Telecom Digest to comp.dcom.telecom is still down, and we're working on the problem. In the meantime, I've decided to release pending posts to the email subscribers. As soon as the Usenet gateway is repaired, all posts and replies will go out to comp.dcom.telecom. My thanks to Robert Bonomi and John Levine for their continued help. Bill -- Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:05:30 +0000 (UTC) From: email@example.com (Michael Moroney) To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Standard Telephone Wire Message-ID: <email@example.com> Howard Eisenhauer <howarde@NOSPAMhfx.eastlink.ca> writes: >On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 16:30:04 -0600, >firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: >> Can anyone recommend an outlet that still sells standard telephone wire? >> >> I am looking for a one thousand foot roll of plenum four conductor >>(or more) and I may need it fast. >> >> Everyone I call wants to sell me CAT-3 or CAT-5E which is more >>expensive. >Alarm companies still use it but i haven't seen it used for phone >lines in many years- cat3 is as cheap if not cheaper & superior for >cross talk purposes if you're running two lines on it. I happened to notice thermostat wire and (door)bell wire at the local big box home center, which appears to be the same stuff as old style telephone wire except for the number of conductors. I didn't check the price vs. Cat 3 or anything.
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:47:52 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: email@example.com. Subject: The end of POTS Message-ID: <CAFY5RQL-oAHY7Uyh-Ta5Ag2QWjjNTkjo7koNAs0JvWCJ_ZoLQA@mail.gmail.com> I got this link from Richard Shockey on the Cybertelecom-l mailing list. http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db1110/DA-11-1882A1.pdf Bill
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:06:08 -0500 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Verizon API To Give Apps 'Turbo' Bandwidth Boost for pay Message-ID: <email@example.com> On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 23:55:11 -0700, following Thad Floryan's contribution, ***** Moderator ***** noted, in part: > Oh, and I love the mealy-mouthed salesman-speak. It's not even a > payment, it's a "transaction"! It's a "micro" transaction, too small > to even think about! Open your micro-wallet, micro-suckers! Let > Verizon take all your micro-money! "Weasel words" is what my beloved late lamented high school English teacher reprimanded them as. Please consider, therefore, amending your term to "*weasel*-mouthed salesman-speak". Thank you :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:32:59 +1100 From: David Clayton <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Telemarketers might get OK to call cellphones Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:47:21 -0500, Pete Cresswell wrote: ........ > Cresswell Predicts: Somebody will start offering, and people will start > moving to some sort of challenge-response scheme on their phones. > > My personal fantasy: "Hello, you have reached nnn-nnn-nnnn. Please enter > the extension of the person you wish to speak with or leave a message at > the beep. Press 1 for Fred, press 2 for Sue, press 3 for Tom......." and > so-forth.... where I'm "99" or something, more than 1 try, or a pause of > more than n seconds flips them to voicemail, and the magic number can be > entered as soon or even before they hear "Hello". Or a little Artificial Intelligence app/device is developed that when you get one of these calls, it starts its own conversation with the caller that will eventually burn up their time until they realise they are not talking to a human. Just think of the money someone could make creating this! -- 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: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 15:25:55 -0600 From: Dave Garrett <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Air Raid sirens Message-ID: <MPG.email@example.com> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com says... > > HAncock4 <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > > >As an aside, Bell Labs did a lot of research in sirens during WW II > >for air raid defense purposes. They wanted to develop warnings loud > >enough to be heard within buildings of the city. Apparently they were > >successful. I've heard (unconfirmed) some sirens were so powerful > >that hearing damage resulted. > > Umm, yeah. Some of the air raid sirens were powered by V8 car engines! Chrysler Hemis, no less: http://www.victorysiren.com/x/index.htm
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:25:56 -0500 From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Apple's Universe Message-ID: <15c05$4ebdca06$cf70713e$2588@PRIMUS.CA> Randall Webmail wrote: > Apple's stuff works, and it works well together. Yes, thank $DEITY, Apple's stuff usually works. But being the computer/telecom guy, I'm the one people come to when it doesn't, so I see a lot more devices that aren't working right than ones that are. Some observations: (1) Apple seems to assume that only a trivially small portion of users will need to use anything but the standard settings: when trying to, say, set a custom port number or authentication for sending SMTP email you can't go directly to advanced settings, you must wait for the assumed settings to time out before you can enter the correct values. Sometimes these things add up to much longer than necessary support time. (2) Toggling between alpha, numeric, and symbol 'keyboards' might be great when writing a note, but can be h-e-double-hockey-sticks when trying to enter a strong password to access a corporate web site or email. (3) When Apple stuff works, It Just Works. When it doesn't work, It Just Doesn't Work. Little or no useful information in error messages that might help you guess where the problem lies. If there are debugging options or log files, it's not apparent that they exist, let alone where to find them. (Please tell me I'm wrong and that that there's a simple "system administrator's guide to supporting iDevices" available somewhere...) I admire Apple's effort to make these devices as simple to use as, say, a car with a "check engine" 'idiot light', but in the corporate environment all they've done is simply transfer the headaches from the user to the support staff and, in some cases, compounding them.
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 17:35:29 -0500 From: Pete Cresswell <withheld@Invalid.telecom-digest.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Telemarketers might get OK to call cellphones Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Pete, you can do that with an Asterisk pbx if you want. I think I've heard that before, but blew it off figuring that it would be beyond somebody like me. OTOH, I do have a 24-7 box - Albeit running Windows XP.... All my outgoing except 911 and 800 calls goes via VOIP. My incoming is still POTS. Am I still a candidate for Asterisk? >BTW, the solution for those who ignore the "do not call" list is for >everyone they call to "take one for the team", and waste as much of >the human's time as possible. If everyone that they called did that, >they'd be out of business in a month. I do that from time to time. A standup comedian once said "I tell them that I've lost my job, my wife is fooling around on me, my son is on drugs, my dog died......" and eventually they hang up on me. I try to get caller-specific information... but as soon as they catch on they tend to hang up. But that stuff doesn't work with robocalls... and the vast majority of the calls I get now are robocalls. I guess I could "Press 1 to speak with a bottom feeder..." but that gets old and I've got a life to live. - - PeteCresswell ***** Moderator's Note ***** Yes, Asterisk can do that, and you'll thank me later. As for pressing 1 to "speak with a bottom feeder", you don't need to do it every time. Just every other time, or every third time, or whenever you're bored. You see, sometimes the team takes one for you! Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:56:19 -0800 (PST) From: email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Sixty Years Ago on Saturday 10-Nov-1951 Englewood "DDD" Message-ID: <email@example.com> On Nov 10, 6:22 pm, "Mark J. Cuccia" <markjcuc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Calls within the northeastern NJ area were dialed as just 2L-5N. > No mention of NJ being area code 201 was made in the dialing booklet. I've heard that originally NJ was all 201, then later was split to include 609. Area codes were still being fine tuned in that early era, which might explain the San Francisco situation. > Only single and 2-party customers were eligible for the customer > long distance dial service. Although routing and trunking equipment gets our attention with DDD, automated billing "AMA-Automatic Message Accounting" was a critical part of it. I don't think the billing equipment could work with more than 2-party service. I wonder how common 4 party service was in developed areas, where costs of the local loop were not as much of an issue. In a few areas, including NYC metro, city-suburban calls were billed by incrementing the message unit counter. Other places used AMA. The NYC system caused controversy when subscribers complained about being taxed unfairly--apparently different taxes applied for local city calls as opposed to 'toll' calls to the suburbs, but they were all lumped together in the message units. (NYT articles early 1950s).
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:59:42 -0700 From: Fred Atkinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Telemarketers might get OK to call cellphones Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Pete, There has to be something that you are doing to invite those calls. I've been on the DNC list at my present address for a few years now. I've rarely gotten telemarketing calls and the ones I did receive were usually for the previous holder of my telephone number. But even that hasn't happened in over a year. It could be as simple as ordering from a mail order catalog. Some years ago, I renewed my driver's license in Maryland. I had been a member of Private Citizen at that time and rarely got telemarketing calls. But I was suddenly being hammered by telemarketing callers. I discovered that Maryland was selling my information to marketing companies. At that time, they had a toll-free number you could call to opt for Maryland MVD to not sell your information. So I used it and it stopped after a short while. Years later, Maryland MVD stopped selling the information. Now it's not a problem there. But it might still be in your state. When I do get one, I always give them the 'Put me on your Do Not Call list' line. I rarely hear from them again. Regards, Fred On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:47:21 -0500, Pete Cresswell <email@example.com> wrote: >Per danny burstein: >>We've all seen the repeated warnings, make that WARNINGS, that the >>telemarketers were about to Get All The Cell Numbers or get >>directories or get the law changed to allow Robot Calls to cell >>phones, etc. >> >>And 99 percent of the time this has been [a lie]. >> >>(That doesn't mean they all follow the current laws, of course, >>but most of the time most of them do.) >> >>I just got an e-mail chain letter with yet another claim >>of this sort. It's a warning that the House is about to >>push through a law to... yes, let telemarketers bother >>us, legally, on our cell phones. Which in the US also >>means most of us pay for incoming air time. >> >>Seems this one is real: > >It's already a reality for some of us. > >Out of every 10 calls I get on my cell phone, I estimate that 7 >are telemarketers and most of them are robo calls. > >Yes, I'm on the no-call list - both Penna state and US >government. > >No, you may not be so lucky.... yet.... but wait a year or two... > >My understanding is that telemarketers are becoming immune to >prosecution as they move offshore and use VOIP (with "multiple >relays" - whatever that means, but the phrase appears in the >lame-sounding letters I get from do-not-call complaints to Penna) >to make tracing difficult or impossible. > >Cresswell Predicts: Somebody will start offering, and people will >start moving to some sort of challenge-response scheme on their >phones. > >My personal fantasy: "Hello, you have reached nnn-nnn-nnnn. >Please enter the extension of the person you wish to speak with >or leave a message at the beep. Press 1 for Fred, press 2 for >Sue, press 3 for Tom......." and so-forth.... where I'm "99" or >something, more than 1 try, or a pause of more than n seconds >flips them to voicemail, and the magic number can be entered as >soon or even before they hear "Hello".
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:55:37 -0500 From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Standard Telephone Wire Message-ID: <76035$4ebdc2eb$cf70713e$1093@PRIMUS.CA> Fred Atkinson wrote: > CAT-1 is standard telephone wire. > > But I can't seem to easily find it any more. > > Since PBX systems and even analog home telephone service are > going the way of the dinosaur, I guess this is why. I wouldn't say that. I can't speak for anyone else, but wherever I am involved in the installation of new wiring, I always specify category 5 (or better), multiple runs per location, each run in a set terminated at an RJ-45 jack on a separate panel - on a separate rack, except for very small installations. But not because PBXes are going away. Why, then? Because your PBX runs fine over the inside pair (or two) of cat 5. So do analog extensions, and direct POTS lines. And ISDN lines. Oh, and data, too. If you install two cat 5 drops at every station you can connect not only voice and data, but also two data, multiple voice (or equivalent), and more: I've custom-wired four ISDN BRIs (routed through a PBX, but they could have been direct from the telco) through the four pairs of a single cat 5 drop so that someone could put an ISDN-based point to multipoint video conference system where they had never planned for it. But they were ready because I pushed for two cat5 drops everywhere. And they were ready again when they reorganized and decided to move the video conference unit. I have installed remote consoles to KVM switches in data centre racks (not KVM over IP) over cat 5. I have patched audio/video from one location to another by running it back to the wiring room, cross-conencting, and running it back out over cat 5. There are USB over cat 5 extenders, and probably lots of more 'X over cat 5' applications that I've never heard of. So many things run over cat 5, and most of them won't run over regular voice cable. So, even if you still have a PBX that only requires a single pair ten or twenty years from now that runs fine over cat 1, if you had to run new wiring for someone, wouldn't you run cat 5 (or better)? (I chuckle when I see PBX installers wire from the system to a BIX or other punchdown on a backboard and then to the RJ-45 jack for the actual cross-connect to station wiring but, hey, we both get our preferred cross-connects.) > But there are plenty of old style PBXs still in service. I'd > give it another ten years and they will all be gone. Don't count them out, especially the smaller key systems. I've seen Norstar systems (I'm in Canada... substitute the manufacturer used by the former monopoly phone company in your area and I'm sure it would be the same) inherited as one company moves out of a space (or goes under) and another takes it over, simply because it's there and it works. A lot of those systems - probably already 10, 20, or more years old - will probably remain right where they are, adopted by each tenant in turn, until they stop working.
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 19:32:10 -0500 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Telemarketers might get OK to call cellphones Message-ID: <email@example.com> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:47:21 -0500, following Pete Cresswell's comments on danny burstein's OP, ***** Moderator ***** noted: > BTW, the solution for those who ignore the "do not call" list is for > everyone they call to "take one for the team", and waste as much of > the human's time as possible. If everyone that they called did that, > they'd be out of business in a month. Alas, in my experience at my home phone, the odds of a human actually coming on the line from a robo-dialed call are under one in ten -- my impression of predictive dialing is that it's way too optimistic with regard to the time a human in the boiler room will take to get on the line once the call's been answered by a flesh-and-blood human -- thus the few times I have tried to pick up the robo-call, I've met only a robo-voice encoraging me to stay on the line for an agent to speak with me, but no agent before my patience wore thin and I hung up. Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
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.
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
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) 2011 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.