30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for November 29, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 303 : "text" Format
====== 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
owner.
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: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:10:59 -0500
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Update on at&t/T-mobile merger
Message-ID: <5wh87008oj8y$.1qj2522j6idy0.dlg@40tude.net>
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 20:55:08 -0800 (PST), HAncock4 wrote:
> The NYT reported on 11/24/11 "The companies said they had withdrawn
> their application to the F.C.C. to join their cellular phone
> operations but still plan to contest a federal antitrust lawsuit and
> pursue their $39 billion deal"
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/technology/att-deal-with-t-mobile-takes-a-step-back.html?hp
>
>
>
> To me it seems if the whole point of the Bell System Divesture was
> that public interest required smaller competing companies, then this
> merger should not be allowed. Aren't both wireless companies big
> enough on their own to compete successfully?
My take, based on news reports and general "reading-between-the-lines"
experience: "big enough" has nothing to do with it; rather, 1) Deutsche
Telekom (DE) just wants out of the US [T-Mobile (USA)] market; and 2) at&t
would rather exploit others' towers, spectrum, and backhaul than pay to
erect/develop their own.
Other forces may be at play too, of course. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:37:04 +0000 (UTC)
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Update on at&t/T-mobile merger
Message-ID: <jb0kcg$1q2j$1@leila.iecc.com>
>My take, based on news reports and general "reading-between-the-lines"
>experience: "big enough" has nothing to do with it; rather, 1) Deutsche
>Telekom (DE) just wants out of the US [T-Mobile (USA)] market; and 2) at&t
>would rather exploit others' towers, spectrum, and backhaul than pay to
>erect/develop their own.
It's the former, not the latter. The US has two big mobile carriers,
AT&T and Verizon, and two small ones, Sprint and T-Mo. The big ones
control all of the older 800MHz spectrum and some 1900 MHz, the small
ones are all 1900 MHz. (As new spectrum is auctioned, the big two
seem to be buying it and doing nothing with it.) Since 800MHz goes
through trees and such much better than 1900, it provides much better
coverage, if not as high top speeds.
The obvious approach of T-Mo and Sprint merging to get bigger scale
doesn't work, because Sprint is CDMA and T-Mo is GSM, and the costs of
converting one network to the other band would be enormous. Sprint
hasn't even finished figuring out what it's going to do with Nextel's
network. DT, which is a strong player in other markets, doesn't want
to own a weak player here, so they want to get rid of it.
Technically it makes some sense to merge T-Mo and AT&T, since they're
both GSM, but the main reason AT&T is interested is to knock out a
competitor which has historically offered lower prices. I can't find
the reference now, but AT&T let slip at one point that they could build
out the equivalent facilities they'd get from T-Mo for about 1/10 of
what they're offering to spend for T-Mo.
So the merger seems to be dead, since it would be egregiously
anti-competitive, and DT will have to decide whether to invest in
T-Mo, spin it off, or just let it stumble along as is.
R's,
John
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:23:34 -0500
From: "r.e.d." <red-nospam-99@mindspring.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: MSNBC/NYT: Caller ID Forging
Message-ID: <bMCdnfytL_HnAU_TnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@earthlink.com>
"HAncock4" <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote in message
news:8ba88f93-78b7-4535-8df2-ff4f3e73db2b@i8g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
>
> [Quote from MSNBC]
>
> Caller ID has been celebrated as a defense against unwelcome
> phone pitches. But it is backfiring. Telemarketers increasingly
> are disguising their real identities and phone numbers to provoke
> people to pick up the phone. "Humane Soc." may not be the Humane
> Society. And [do you] think the I.R.S. is on the line? Think
> again.
>
> Caller ID, in other words, is becoming fake ID.
>
> For full article please see:
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45413739/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/
>
>
Can someone point to technical articles/references/etc. giving details about
how various methods of caller-id spoofing work? Down to the level of bits
in signaling protocols, trunk interfaces, etc.
If a reader has such references but is hesitant to reply publicly because of
the sensitivity of this issue, you can email me privately, performing an
obvious edit on my reply address.
To allay concerns, I want to understand this better to try to figure out
ways to alleviate the problem. I'm an ex-big-telecom systems engineer (Bell
Labs, etc.) who was in the business when Local Area Signaling Services (SS7
for local switches) was introduced, making Caller-ID possible, and it's
irritating to me that a service intended to eliminate heavy breathers is now
being subverted.
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 13:52:22 -0800 (PST)
From: withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org (HAncock4)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Early and modern PBX systems--was Telephony on TV
Message-ID: <2d087c3e-cf7d-4994-8eb3-41cbccf07228@q11g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 27, 11:41 am, Wes Leatherock <wleat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In the 1940s, I worked as a reporter and editor for the Daily
> Oklahoman / Oklahoma City Times in Oklahoma City. On the
> switcchboard multiple, besides the local dial trunks, there what we
> could now call s "rotary group" of toll trunks, assigned number
> L.D. 343, which gives an idea of the volume of toll traffic.
Many businesses had trunks like this on their PBX switchboards. In
some cases access was limited to the PBX attendant who had to place
calls on them, in others users could dial on them using special access
codes, such as 8 or 8n.
> There was also L.D. 419 which appeared on a regular black set on a
> desk behind the city editor, bypassing the switchboard.
Many business people, especially high executives, had a direct line
telephone that was separate from the PBX. In several offices I worked
in the head man had such a phone and no one answered it if he wasn't
around.
> In my experience, the switchboard operators were more then pluggers.
> If someone asked for Mr. Smith, the PBX operator probably knew the
> number and would connect to it without further discussion.
Absolutely. The Bell System strongly encouraged that business
customers train their PBX attendants thoroughly in good telephone
manners as well as merely how to work the keys and cords.
However, going way back PBX attendants were also gatekeepers to making
outside calls. Many extensions could not dial out and needed the
attendant to place any outside calls. Some companies were restrictive
with even local calls, most companies were restrictive with toll
calls. Often the PBX attendant dialed any toll calls and wrote up an
internal charge ticket for the calling extension.
One big feature of Centrex when it came out was that each extension
would get a separate toll call listing (even when ONI was used.)
Question: when did the phone company start providing machine-readable
media to customers of their phone bill as an option in addition to
paper? I know it was available in 1976.
> They also took incoming calls and messages, and were uncanny in
> guessing where someone was if they were away from their desks.
The amount of 'extra service' rendered by a PBX attendant varied by
each business. On large busy boards, the attendants tended to handle
traffic only--connecting outside calls to the desired extension. On
boards with less traffic the attendants would take messages, offer
alternative extensions if one was busy, page people, etc.
Today, I find PBX service very frustrating if I need assistance.
Switchboards today are so automated there is little service for a
caller who needs help. For instance, if you don't know Mr. Smith's
extension, you'll be asked to key in his name and it will look it up
for you. If Mr. Smith isn't around you'll be routed to his voicemail.
The problem is that sometimes you don't know the proper spelling or
department of the desired extension, or, the voice-mailbox is full, or
the call is urgent. PBXs are supposed to have an exit to get a human,
but far too often no human is available or the caller just ends up in
dead air or cut off. They seem to go all out to design a system to
make it as difficult as possible to get a human. I know they want to
save money on labor, but it seems to me they're pushing it way too
far.
(If there are any PBX administrators reading this would you share your
comments on this issue?)
> Newspapers were also very big users of communications services, by the
> nature of the news business. Many of the buzzers and squawk boxes were
> part of the telco provided quipment and integrated with the key
> systems.
I remember in 1973 the city desk of a large newspaper had lots of
'space saver' ('pharmacist') telephone sets. Instead of a handset, a
headset dangled from the hookswitch.
Reporters carried lots of dimes and knew the location of payphones to
call in urgent stories. (In the 1960s, city reporters also carried
transit tokens and a transit map to get around on the transit system).
> Telegraph channels were also provided by the telecos, presumably at
> competitive rates, in view of the number that were provided by the
> telcos.
On bitsavers, the IBM introduction to telecommunications has some
early statistics of private line telegraph mileage between AT&T and
Western Union. Although we thought of Western Union as the 'telegraph
company', AT&T had a substantial amount of mileage, both switched and
dedicated.
Both AT&T and Western Union would advertise large corporate and
government private Teletype networks they operated. These included
the Pennsylvania State Police, US Steel Corp, and the national Blue
Cross/Blue Shield. In the 1960s WU installed a large system for the
US Air Force.
> TWX was a switched service. A private line system connecting
> Teletypes was called just that, not TWX. The nation was blanketed by
> such systems of the United Press (for which I later worked),
> Associated Press and International News Service, with local,
> regional and national wires.
For various reasons, many businesses had a news teletype in the
office, well into the 1980s (the old dark green Teletype). Stock
brokers had it alongside the stock ticker to give business news.
Businesses that were weather-sensitive had weather information.
> All of them I was familiar with were
> telco-provided, except on Saturday afternoons and nights in the fall
> when W.U. had rights to various stadium and private circuits were
> ordered from them to the selected wire service bureau or to some
> newspaper that sent thir own sportswriters.
WU literature made a big deal of their ability to quickly set up
telegraph lines to cover major sports events, political conventions,
and other big news stories.
(Old copies of a WU general newsletter are available on disk from the
WU retirees association. Interesting stuff, but about an era that is
long gone. WU was proud of the many branch offices located in smaller
cities and towns. Sadly, today many of those old business districts
have fallen on hard times*).
> As I recall, all Montgomery Ward stores had their own isolated
> systems. On the other hand, later when I was working for the Bell
> System, I knew of one industiral installatiion on the Gulf Coast
> that chose to go with Bell even thought it was higher in cost
> because of the massive ability of the Bell System to restore service
> after a hurricane.
The Phila department stores had, at least in the 1960s, Bell provided
systems, included tie lines connecting all the stores (downtown and
branches). This way if a customer wanted something that was out of
stock, a clerk could call the equivalent department in another branch
and see if the item was available.
(As an aside, when I was little I get lost in a branch department
store. They took me to the PBX room where the attendants were very
nice to me while they paged my mother "we have a little lost boy...".
Even though it was a branch store, there were at least two operators,
maybe three. Also a bag of jelly beans.)
When they got Centrex the phone book listings were detailed with the
direct dial number of every department of the store. I think today
they discourage customers from calling the sales floor.
Department stores had separate "order turret" lines for sales-by-
phone.
* When I read an old article about a business district, I look it up
on Google Street View to compare the photos of then and now. Only
once did I see a "Main Street" that hadn't changed--and that was
because the 1950s Main Street was rundown already. In the 1950s view,
it was clear the people seen were poor, and the main corner had a big
pawn shop on it. The current view isn't much changed, and the pawn
shop is still in business under the same name.
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 07:50:56 -0500
From: John Stahl <aljon@stny.rr.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re.: Cell phones: more texting, less talking?
Message-ID: <C5.22.04648.2B383DE4@cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com>
On November 27, 2011, "HAncock4" wrote:
> On the commuter train on Saturday I noticed it was quieter than
> usual. Typically on a weekend many passengers, especially the
> younger ones, are yakking away on their cell phones making the train
> rather noisy. (That's why some railroads have introduced "quiet
> cars", though not on weekends). Anyway, I did notice a number of
> passengers 'thumbing away', that is, apparently sending and
> receiving text messages.
Isn't it amazing how human beings (is it at a certain age level - or
should I ask is it "up to" a certain age level) have become so
non-verbal in their inter-personal communications?
> I understand text message traffic has gone up, which the cell
> carriers love because texting uses less bandwidth capacity than a
> voice call does, but they charge more for it. One needs to pay
> extra to get unlimited texting. Otherwise, as many parents found
> out the hard way, texting is expensive.
A huge amount of the carriers revenue most probably is coming from
texting. After all, texting is really a "no cost to the carrier" item
hidden away in the business portion of the sub-band communications
between the cell phone and the nearest cell tower; the communication
link which keeps the cell system advised as to the location of the
cell phone. The 160 character text message, from what I have read,
costs the carrier nothing to send or receive (wonder if the person who
"discovered" this capability was rewarded for its revelation?) So the
extra $5 or $10/month for this "service" is pure profit. Multiply
this profit by the 10's of millions of customers who text, relates to
huge amounts of monthly revenue. The carriers should be rejoicing!
> Has text message traffic overcame voice message traffic? Could
> someone expand on today's cell phone traffic mix? Thanks.
I am sometimes involved in secondary education where I see examples of
a vast number of high school students texting (albeit it, against the
rules) every chance they get during the school day. And they have
learned to do it without looking at their key boards.
John Stahl
Aljon Enterprises
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:04:12 -0500
From: "r.e.d." <red-nospam-99@mindspring.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Update on at&t/T-mobile merger
Message-ID: <u7ydna38V4tsCk_TnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@earthlink.com>
"HAncock4" <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote in message
news:b55b3d94-24d1-4deb-9db5-0d792b3e3f60@s6g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> The NYT reported on 11/24/11 "The companies said they had withdrawn
> their application to the F.C.C. to join their cellular phone
> operations but still plan to contest a federal antitrust lawsuit and
> pursue their $39 billion deal"
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/technology/att-deal-with-t-mobile-takes-a-step-back.html?hp
>
>
>
> To me it seems if the whole point of the Bell System Divesture was
> that public interest required smaller competing companies, then this
> merger should not be allowed. Aren't both wireless companies big
> enough on their own to compete successfully?
>
> [public replies, please]
>
I'm not sure your characterization of the point of the breakup is completely
correct. My understanding is that the issue was not size, but that fact
that AT&T owned not only long distance and equipment manuracturing. but
local service. Creative accounting could cause the regulated local services
to subsidize the other parts of the business, particularly long distance, at
the expense of local rate-payers, so fair competition for long distance
services would not be possible as long as it remained one company.
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:59:23 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Telemarketing On Your Cell Phone?
Message-ID: <p06240854caf97bd88fc4@[10.0.1.4]>
On Point with Tom Ashbrook
November 28, 2011
Telemarketing On Your Cell Phone?
Congress may soon open up your cell phone to robocalls. Will this put
a telemarketing hell in your pocket?
Ever since cell phones took off in the early 1990s, they've lived in
a special, protected zone - by law. Tele-marketers might hound you
on your land line at home, but your cell phone was off-limits.
Sacred. No pesky tele-marketing calls ringing in the middle of your
morning run, your drive to work, your romantic night out.
But as more and more Americans drop land lines and move to cell
phones only, American business is desperate to get access to the
phone in your pocket. A bill before Congress would open the door.
This hour On Point: the push to robo-dial your cell phone.
-Tom Ashbrook
Guests
Brendan Sasso, covers technology and telecommunications for the
congressional journal "The Hill."
Delicia Reynolds Hand, Legislative Director for the National
Association of Consumer Advocates.
John Abell, New York City Bureau Chief for Wired.
Scott Zoeller, Attorney General for the state of Indiana.
Howard Waltzman, A partner at law firm Meyer Brown. He heads a
multi-industry coalition of 13-14 different trade associations
lobbying for this bill.
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/11/28/cell-phone
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:04:34 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Universal Service Reform Order Yields a Surprise or Two
Message-ID: <jb0pgi$cq4$1@news.albasani.net>
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>FCC is ordering 6 Mbps down/1.5 up in rural areas in five years in some
>>portions of rural service area. 4/1 in all Universal Service areas in
>>five years, and 4/1 to 85% of subscribers in three years.
>Wow! That's as good as Korea had a decade ago! What an advance!
In rural areas?
>>What federal law defines broadband as universal service?
>In the past it has not been defined as such, which I would argue has been
>a barrier to broadband availability in many areas.
I'd say a lack of sufficient density of telephone subscribers was the
barrier.
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.
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.
End of The Telecom Digest (8 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues