For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
TELECOM Digest Mon, 16 May 2005 19:35:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 216
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Book Review: The Essential Guide to Telecommunications (eric.garulay)
Re: Verizon FiOS (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Verizon FiOS (Michael D. Sullivan)
Re: Verizon FiOS (Joe Morris)
Re: Verizon FiOS (Lisa Hancock)
Re: FAQ: How Real ID Will Affect You (John R. Levine)
Re: FAQ: How Real ID Will Affect You (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Do Cell Phones Still Offer "A" and "B" Carriers? (Michael Sullivan)
Re: Do Cell Phones Still Offer "A" and "B" Carriers? (Isaiah Beard)
Re: Will 911 Difficulties Derail VoIP? (DevilsPGD)
Re: Will 911 Difficulties Derail VoIP? (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Will 911 Difficulties Derail VoIP? (Dean M.)
Re: Microsoft to Offer Anti-Virus Software, Service (Thomas A. Horsley)
Re: Traveller Seeks Phone Advice (Mark Crispin)
Re: Vonage Changes 911 to Opt-Out (AES)
Re: AT&T - Cingular - Alltel; They Broke MY Contract! (Isaiah Beard)
Re: Closed Captioning (was How is Weather Channel Data) (Dave Thompson)
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; other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: eric.garulay@pearsoned.com
Subject: Book Review: The Essential Guide to Telecommunications, 4th Edition
Reply-To: eric.garulay@pearsoned.com
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 17:14:42 EDT
NEW BOOK ANNOUNCEMENT
The Essential Guide to Telecommunications
Fourth Edition--By Annabel Z. Dodd, (ISBN 0131487256)
The superior resource on diverse telecommunications technologies!
Pub Date 6/26/05
The Essential Guide to Telecommunications is the world's #1
non-technical guide to the telecommunications industry. Writing in
plain English, lead ing telecom consultant Annabel Dodd has
completely updated this fourth ed ition to reflect the vast changes
in the industry.
Dodd explores the new competitive forces, critical industry issues and
important technologies that impact network security, reliability and
the pace of innovation.
The fourth edition of this best-selling guide will cover all the major
developments which have occurred in the telecom world in the past 3
years.
I look forward to speaking with you about excerpts, reviews and author
interview opportunities. Please feel free to contact me as
necessary.
Cheers,
Eric Garulay
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Verizon FiOS
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 03:47:12 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.213.2@telecom-digest.org>, William Cousert
<williamcousert@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a few qestions about Verizon's new FiOS service. It was
> recently installed in my neighborhood and I'm thinking about switching
> over from Comcast.
> 1. Does Verizon offer Usenet access with their accounts? Comcast only
> offers a limited amount of bandwidth for Usenet and charges extra if
> you exceed it.
Did you ask Verizon?
What did they say?
Do you figure that "somebody else" knows better about their offering
than they do?
Do you think it's possible that what is available to somebody else, at
a different location may be different than what is available at your
location?
> 2. Can I connect without using MSN?
See above.
> 3. I have three computers. Will they charge me extra for the
> additional IP's? If so, how much?
See above.
> 4. Can I run a personal server? I'd like to be able to host my own
> home page on it, as well as a message board. What about game servers
> (quake 3, etc.)?
See above.
> 5. Will they offer cable tv services? I'd like to dump Comcast
> completely. Will they have video on demand?
Check your crystal ball.
> 6. 15/2 service costs $49.95 per month. 30/5 costs $199.95 per
> month. Twice the bandwidth, four times the price. Why such a big jump
> in price?
Have you ever heard the phrase "what the market will bear" ?
The answer to _any_ question on "why do they price it like that?" is
always_ "because they think people will pay it."
> Can you get two 15/2 packages and join them together
> (remember shotgun modems? You could have two 56k modems work as one)?
Do you have two fiber lines?
(Do you remember running two 56k modems on _one_ phone line)?
> 6a. Does the $199.95 package give you the right to run servers?
Did you ask Verizon? If not, _why_not_?
> Maybe that's the reason for the big increase?
Maybe. And maybe not.
> 7. Can FiOS handle higher speeds in the future, or will they need to
> replace the fiber once again when the next leap in speed comes?
Yes. One of the above is definitely true.
------------------------------
From: Michael D. Sullivan <userid@camsul.example.invalid>
Subject: Re: Verizon FiOS
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 05:04:22 GMT
William Cousert wrote:
> I have a few qestions about Verizon's new FiOS service. It was
> recently installed in my neighborhood and I'm thinking about switching
> over from Comcast.
> 1. Does Verizon offer Usenet access with their accounts? Comcast only
> offers a limited amount of bandwidth for Usenet and charges extra if
> you exceed it.
Yes, Verizon has very good Usenet access. It was terrible a few years
ago, but was upgraded to excellent quality about a year ago.
Officially, retention is 6 months for most non-binary groups. There
are glitches, inevitably, but I am very pleased with it; I access it
via DSL, but the same 30,000+ groups are available from the same
servers to FIOS customers. There are no Usenet bandwidth limits and
no extra charges, a significant difference from Comcast for some
users. Verizon also maintains a closed set of newsgroups
(0.verizon.*) accessible only from Verizon residential broadband
customers, with a few minor exceptions. These are filled with
ranting, trolls, complaints, occasionally appreciative posts,
suggestions, etc. (not all that different from elsewhere on Usenet) --
and Verizon's news administrators participate, list newly available
groups, etc. Several Verizon Online employees also participate on
their own time and provide useful advice.
> 2. Can I connect without using MSN?
Yes.
> 3. I have three computers. Will they charge me extra for the
> additional IP's? If so, how much?
You can't get additional IPs, if Verizon's DSL practices extend to
FIOS. Use a router and you can connect as many computers as you want
for personal/family purposes. Verizon will even provide a wireless
router, if you want it; otherwise use whatever you want on your own
dime.
> 4. Can I run a personal server? I'd like to be able to host my own
> home page on it, as well as a message board. What about game servers
> (quake 3, etc.)?
I don't know how the terms of service for FIOS differ from DSL, but
the DSL terms of service officially prohibit servers. From what I
understand from the Verizon newsgroups, however, this is mainly
intended to apply to high-bandwidth and commercial servers. I haven't
heard of any action taken against people informally hosting games. As
to websites, no. Verizon (in most regions) blocks port 80, which
effectively means you can't host a website on your PC, unless you use
an alternate port and a dynamic DNS redirection service.
Verizon offers customers space for a website on its servers, but the
unanimous opinion of users is that the website service sucks raw eggs
big time. Get a web hosting account on a shared server for a few
bucks a month from any number of companies, register a domain name,
and use the webhost as your email provider, too. I use
http://www.thehostgroup.com to host my email and web pages for less
than $10 per month, and there are many cheaper companies, too. One
reason to use an outside service for email is that Verizon's email
sucks. They have blocked incoming email from huge swathes of Europe,
for example, in a fruitless effort to avoid spam, and Verizon is on
some blacklists due to zombie machines sending spam, so it would be
wise not to depend on its email service. Verizon does not block
outgoing port 25, so you can use your hosting company's smtp server
without problems.
> 5. Will they offer cable tv services? I'd like to dump Comcast
> completely. Will they have video on demand?
My understanding is that Verizon plans to offer fiber-based TV
service, but it may or may not be available when you get FIOS, because
of the regulatory situation. (Verizon either has to get a Cable TV
authorization where is provides service or get the FCC to determine
that some particular configuration of fiber-based TV doesn't
constitute cable TV and is therefore exempt from local CATV
regulation.) Verizon's game plan is to allow you to dump Comcast, and
I have to assume they will have video on demand. They would be idiots
not to (not that that ever stopped a telco ...).
> 6. 15/2 service costs $49.95 per month. 30/5 costs $199.95 per
> month. Twice the bandwidth, four times the price. Why such a big jump
> in price? Can you get two 15/2 packages and join them together
> (remember shotgun modems? You could have two 56k modems work as one)?
Dunno.
> 6a. Does the $199.95 package give you the right to run servers? Maybe
> that's the reason for the big increase?
Dunno.
> 7. Can FiOS handle higher speeds in the future, or will they need to
> replace the fiber once again when the next leap in speed comes?
An optical fiber can handle almost infinitely higher speeds than 15 or
30 MB/s. I have no doubt that Verizon will increase speeds as the
demand for higher speed grows and competitive sources for such speed
come into being. My DSL service started as 640K/128K for $59.95 per
month in 1999. Using the same wires, I now get 3M/768K for $29.95 per
month. As FIOS and digital cable/Internet subscribers use more and more
bandwidth to watch multiple simultaneous video channels per household as
well as engage in high-bandwidth online activities, I'm sure Verizon
will offer speed upgrades. If the DSL example holds, it will double
speeds every few years for the same price.
> 8. Has anyone in this group made the jump from Comcast to FiOS? What
> do you think so far?
I haven't had the opportunity yet, although the fiber is in place. The
customer's posting on 0.verizon.fios seem to be relatively satisfied.
Michael D. Sullivan
Bethesda, MD (USA)
(Replace "example.invalid" with "com" in my address.)
------------------------------
From: Joe Morris <jcmorris@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Verizon FiOS
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 12:59:46 UTC
Organization: The MITRE Organization
William Cousert <williamcousert@gmail.com> writes:
> I have a few qestions about Verizon's new FiOS service. It was
> recently installed in my neighborhood and I'm thinking about switching
> over from Comcast.
Comments below based on the Verizon DSL service, probably applicable
to FIOS as well but no warranties, express or implied [etc] ...
> 1. Does Verizon offer Usenet access with their accounts? Comcast only
> offers a limited amount of bandwidth for Usenet and charges extra if
> you exceed it.
Obviously (I hope) not *every* USENET newsgroup is carried, but they
seem to carry most of the ngs that aren't blatantly illegal. No
limitations on usage.
> 2. Can I connect without using MSN?
I last connected to MSN while working on the technical beta for
Windows 95, and then only as part of the beta...and I have absolutely
no intention of ever doing so again. In other words, yes.
> 3. I have three computers. Will they charge me extra for the
> additional IP's? If so, how much?
You get one IP per account, and using only one IP at a time is part of
your TOS. You are explicitly permitted to connect any number of
machines to Verizon through that single IP address using a NAT device.
> 4. Can I run a personal server? I'd like to be able to host my own
> home page on it, as well as a message board. What about game servers
> (quake 3, etc.)?
Gray area. The TOS forbids both business and personal servers, but
there seems to be some wiggle room based on interpretations by some of
Verizon's comments. I've not needed to look into this so I'm not
speaking from experience.
> 5. Will they offer cable tv services? I'd like to dump Comcast
> completely. Will they have video on demand?
Reportedly yes but not at present (other than some possible testbed
areas) AFAIK.
> 6. 15/2 service costs $49.95 per month. 30/5 costs $199.95 per
> month. Twice the bandwidth, four times the price. Why such a big jump
> in price? Can you get two 15/2 packages and join them together
> (remember shotgun modems? You could have two 56k modems work as one)?
The price will be lower if you get it as part of a package with local
landline service. My *guess* about the nonlinear price structure is
that the provisioning of the residential lines is set up with the
assumption that most users won't have any nonbusiness need for
anything above 15, so the additional work and equipment required to
support a line at 30/5 justifies a premium price. Also, by the time
you're using 30 MB/sec it's not unreasonable for VZ to wonder if the
customer is trying to run a business interface on a residential
circuit.
> 6a. Does the $199.95 package give you the right to run servers? Maybe
> that's the reason for the big increase?
Can't say ... but if the 199.95 figure is for *business* service then
I would expect no restriction on running a server.
> 7. Can FiOS handle higher speeds in the future, or will they need to
> replace the fiber once again when the next leap in speed comes?
I don't know what specific fiber they're using, but 15 MB/sec is
unlikely to be more than a small fraction of its potential.
Joe Morris
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Verizon FiOS
Date: 16 May 2005 08:04:46 -0700
William Cousert wrote:
> I have a few qestions about Verizon's new FiOS service.
Could you tell us what Verizon said in response to your questions?
> 1. Does Verizon offer Usenet access with their accounts?
> 2. Can I connect without using MSN?
> 3. I have three computers. Will they charge me extra for the
> additional IP's? If so, how much?
> 4. Can I run a personal server? I'd like to be able to host my own
> home page on it, as well as a message board. What about game servers
> (quake 3, etc.)?
> 5. Will they offer cable tv services? I'd like to dump Comcast
> completely. Will they have video on demand?
I had heard they'll send "Direct TV" over it, but aren't sure.
------------------------------
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: FAQ: How Real ID Will Affect You
Date: 15 May 2005 20:28:07 -0400
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
> What I'm not willing to deal with is the same fallout because somebody
> else (with the same name) had one of the above issues happen.
> In this respect, a universal ID is a good thing, names simply aren't
> unique enough.
Gosh, I love people's naive belief in technology. You know the
acronym GIGO, which stands for Garbage In, Gospel Out? That's what
Real ID is.
Mixups will still happen, because the people maintaining the files and
databases will be the exact same sloppy error-prone people who
maintain them today. The cost of getting a fake Real-ID license will
continue to be the price of bribing the most corrupt person in some
state's DMV. The difference will be that it'll be far harder to get
mistakes fixed, because now everyone will know that licenses are
perfect, so if the computer says that you are a crook, it must be
right and you're just lying.
R's,
John
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: FAQ: How Real ID Will Affect You
Date: 15 May 2005 20:44:22 -0700
DevilsPGD wrote:
> Sure -- I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm willing to deal with the
> resulting fallout if I get in a fight in a bar or with my landlord or
> whatever.
I don't know your personal circumstances, but I can't help but wonder
if you don't realize the long term import of the situation.
If you're young or single, it may not seem like a big deal. But
life can surprise us as we get older. Things that were easy and
we took for granted can become difficult. We may find ourselves
out of job for an extended period of time and in debt, for example --
I've seen it happen to many good people.
Anyway, when money and circumstances are tight, the last thing you
need is someone throwing up a 10 year old incident in your face.
You'll be even more upset if the facts are wrong but you can't
challenge them.
"Bait and switch" works on prospective employees and vendors, too.
You're offered a job. You walk in on your first day and they
"discovered" something in your past, which nullifies the employment
offer. Oh, but maybe they'll still hire you, but at a lesser title
and pay. If you're hard up for a job, you're screwed and have to take
what you're given. There are unscrupulus managers and owners out
there who will pull that stuff, especially in a lousy economy where
job seekers are vulnerable and mgmt is under pressure to keep their
budget low. When I entered the job market, I talked to some sleazy
employers, but fortunately at that time it was a good job market and I
had the capability to turn and walk away. Today the market isn't so
good and kids coming out of school are loaded with debt.
> What I'm not willing to deal with is the same fallout because somebody
> else (with the same name) had one of the above issues happen.
> In this respect, a universal ID is a good thing, names simply aren't
> unique enough.
First off, no matter how responsible we are, EVERYONE of us has some
skeleton in our closets. Many times it was not at all our fault, but
the skeleton is there just the same. Other times we made a stupid
choice or acted irresponsibly.
So, it's not a question of "someone else's" troubles haunting us, but
our own.
Second of all, date of birth, a common identifier, is not unique
either. Further, the existing data collection system on adverse
information is SLOPPY. There is garbage out there. You may be in
default of a credit card you never even had (as happened to me, as a
result of an unsolicited mailing many years ago sent to an inaccurate
address.)
Third, identify theft is a growing problem. If someone intentionally
steals your 'essence', you're really screwed. Suddenly, you're
"unique ID card" has you down as a criminal.
Until relatively recently, the personal-info databases out there
focused basically on accounting and credit issues. But cheap
computing and e-commerce has enabled them to collect far more
information. (ABC News ran a troubling documentary about this
recently.)
Go to your town hall. There's a guy in the corner entering into a
laptop every permit request or citation. It's public record. Again,
until recently the stuff remained buried in filing cabinets too hard
to dig out and consolidate. No more. It IS collected.
The point is that personal information, friendly and adverse, IS being
collected about you and being distributed.
> Whether the other issues are significant enough to be concerned about
> or not is another question altogether, but in my opinion, the benefit
> outweighs the risk right now.
WHAT benefits?
How do you benefit when prospective landlords are told that you had a
dispute with a prior landlord? How do you benefit when prospective
employers are told you were arrested in a protest demonstration?
As to "security", any college kid can show you how to get a passable
fake ID card; even high school kids got 'em now. With a little bit of
money, a quality ID may be had.
I'm sorry to sound so cynical, but I have enough gray hair to have
seen the real world and how it works. I know history, too, and know
how corporate blacklists ruined people. Pat's take on this issue is
correct.
If someone familiar with the information industry and today's
corporate/political culture can offer a counter argument, I'd like to
hear it.
------------------------------
From: Michael D. Sullivan <userid@camsul.example.invalid>
Subject: Re: Do Cell Phones Still Offer "A" and "B" Carriers?
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 05:29:37 GMT
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is the battery drain _that_ dramatic
> between analog and digital (you said 'prefer to have more than a
> minute or two of battery life'). PAT]
I engaged in hyperbole, to some extent. My Kyocera 7135 (CDMA/Analog
phone plus Palm OS PDA) tends to live for about one and a half to two
days before needing to be recharged real bad. Very little of that is
talk time; the worst drain is when I am in an area with bad coverage
(such as an underground garage, where I go to smoke my socially
unacceptable pipe when the outdoor environment is uninviting), when
the lack of a digital signal causes the phone to transmit re[eated
desparate attempts to contact an analog host; that, plus the
illuminated message that there is no signal, tends to drain the
battery. With the phone permanently turned off, and only occasional
use of the Palm features, the battery lasts for weeks. The phone is
good for quite a while on digital calls, but analog calls drain it
very fast, given that they tend to be at full power, since it only
reverts to analog when the digital signals fail to penetrate.
Michael D. Sullivan
Bethesda, MD (USA)
(Replace "example.invalid" with "com" in my address.)
------------------------------
From: Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com>
Subject: Re: Do Cell Phones Still Offer "A" and "B" Carriers?
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 16:27:52 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
John Levine wrote:
>> Do today's cell phones have any option to do that?
> None that I've seen. Typically the A carrier is TDMA or GSM, and the
> B carrier is CDMA,
Not always true. I know of markets in Texas and New Mexico where the A
and B carriers are both CDMA.
Nonetheless, carriers nowadays have "preferred roaming agreements"
with various carriers in different regions, and often prefer that if
you roam, you roam on those carriers. In the case of CDMA, switching
to the right band is governed by a "preferred roaming list" (PRL) that
is loaded into the phone's firmware. If the phone can't find its home
SID, it will scan for other available SIDS based on a "priority list"
and lock onto the first one it finds. This ensures that the carrier
gets the "cheapest rate" for roaming. GSM has something similar (I
forget the name of it), as does Nextel (called a "band map").
Of course, this takes the ability to chose a roaming carrier out of
the hands of the end user, but for that sacrifice, you get expanded
coverage at "home" rates. None of the large wireless carriers cover
every inch of the nationwide network they advertise. A lot of holes
are filled by these preferred roaming partners who agree to charge the
carrier a discounted rate, who then in turn bills you as if you were
on the "home" network. In exchange, the roaming partners are
guaranteed a revenue stream from all users of the large wireless
carrier that pass through their territory. That's where the PRL comes
in (and why end users lost tha ability of manual control).
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
------------------------------
From: Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com>
Subject: Re: Do Cell Phones Still Offer "A" and "B" Carriers?
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 16:31:33 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Michael D. Sullivan wrote:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is the battery drain _that_ dramatic
> between analog and digital (you said 'prefer to have more than a
> minute or two of battery life'). PAT]
Actually, yes. In analog mode, most phones will give you about the
same battery life that the old Motorla AMPS phones gave you (6-8 hours
standby, 1-2 hours talk time). In digital, you get far more (up to
five DAYS standby time, 4-5 hours talk time).
------------------------------
From: DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Will 911 Difficulties Derail VoIP?
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 18:28:46 -0600
Organization: Disorganized
In message <telecom24.214.11@telecom-digest.org> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> AES wrote:
>> 1) It seems likely that in the not too distant future telephone
>> service will be almost entirely provided by (or thru) VOIP. And,
>> there seem to be real technical difficulties -- in particular serious
>> "caller location identification" difficulties -- associated with
>> providing 911 service to VOIP phones.
> What time frame do you mean by "not too distant future"?
> Why do you think all telephone service will go over VOIP?
We're most of the way there already, only the last mile is typically
analog. TELUS switched all LD over to VoIP many moons ago.
As with all ventures, the last mile is the most expensive and most
difficult to implement.
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Will 911 Difficulties Derail VoIP?
Date: 16 May 2005 07:57:25 -0700
TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Lisa Hancock:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would think if it ever got that
> critical (where 'everyone' went with VOIP instead of landline) the
> VOIP administrators would develop the equivilent of the 'Erlang
> tables' in an effort to develop the amount of capacity needed to keep
> up with it. ....
> Telcos place their bets on the fact that at any typical time of
> day/day of week, _maybe_ one or two percent of their subscribers are
> actually using the phone. ...
> Why do you feel VOIP would be any different? I cannot imagine
> the _ratios_ would be much different than they are now.
Thanks for your comments. You are quite correct in the 'erlang'
calculations and that the system's capacity is based on a
small percentage of total subscribers.
My response was directed to the person who seemed to feel
that VOIP could easily replace POTS over much of the existing
network. I don't agree because I feel far more capacity will
be needed because:
1) While VOIP in itself isn't a resource hog (I presume), broadband is
still broadband and requires resources. They can't fit the same
number of broadband subscribers over the same lines as they can
traditional voice subscribers.
I suspect when a subscriber buys DSL, they are basically getting a
more "dedicated" line to the central office than what is given to a
POTS subscriber because they need a 'heavier' line to handle high
speed traffic than a voice grade line can support. So, just the very
use of broadband instead of POTS will require an increase of bandwidth
throughout the telephone system.
2) I think broadband will result in more usage. First off, there's
tremendous random hacking out there seeking unsecured terminals, so
while you're home terminal is supposedly sitting idle, it actually is
fending off (or participating in) hacking activity.
Secondly, since people won't have to bother dialing up and logging in
every time they have a quick question for the 'net, I suspect they'll
use it more often. Certainly the erlang concept of idle time will
still apply, but I expect they'll have to plan for more use. Kids are
hooked on this and today there are capacity issues as all the kids
come home from school and Instant Message or play games with each
other.
3) Some of the infrastructure of the existing voice telephone system
isn't too well suited to high speed data transmission. Old drop lines
and neighborhood loops might suffer with crosstalk issues and
attenuation with high data speeds. Not all intermediate loop-to-CO
lines multiplexors are modern.
4) Another problem is rapid obsolescence. Telephone gear is expensive
and intended for a long lifespan. Yes today's gear is "programmable"
but perhaps an ESS installed ten years ago might not have the hardware
to support what is desired today. Likewise for older fibre systems.
------------------------------
From: Dean M. <cjmebox-telecomdigest@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Will 911 Difficulties Derail VoIP?
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 20:33:19 GMT
I see now that your proposal is: since our communications are being
decoupled from the copper wire anyway (or at the very least the low
band part of it), we should not remove (on this point, see another
posting about Verizon's FiOS offering and copper) or allow it to
decay, but use it as dedicated conduit for "utility" services like
911, alarms etc. Anything which is first location dependent and then
customer dependent as opposed to the other way around.
It's quite interesting so let's disregard any marginal issues. Perhaps
someone with a better understanding of the maintenance costs for the
copper loop can hazard a guess if these offerings could possibly make
enough money so as to sustain themselves (i.e. pay for the service
including loop maintenance and extension to new housing) without tax
subsidies. It seems to me that this is the central issue if one was to
decide such a policy shift. Would it make much sense to continue to
pay to subsidise the loop only to provide 911 when we can be fairly
certain that the investments made and tax money spent to take us to
this future all VoIP (i.e. all broadband) world we are discussing
here, can also solve any location problems associated with
broadband. In the end, why continue to support a narrowband network,
when the issue is not bandwidth but location?
If we want to solve the location problem, why not do it in the
broadband world? Better yet, why not add GPS chips to every
communication device? To safeguard privacy, these would be dormant and
would only be activated in order to transmit their location in the
event the user dials 911. Can this be more expensive than continuing
to maintain a copper loop just for "utility" services?
Dean
AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:telecom24.212.4@telecom-digest.org:
> In article <telecom24.211.14@telecom-digest.org>, Dean M.
> <cjmebox-telecomdigest@yahoo.com> wrote in response to AES
> <siegman@stanford.edu> proposal regarding VOIP and 911 service:
>> I'm a little perplexed by your speculation. Why would a move to VoIP
>> have anything to do with killing off use of cable/fiber/copper for
>> telco services? Are you predicting a move to a completely wireless
>> service provision or am I just misunderstanding your comments? And if
>> indeed you are predicting a move to an entirely wireless world, why
>> are you portraying VoIP as the cause for this? Can you elaborate?
>> Dean
> Apologies if I'm not making myself clear.
> 1) It seems likely that in the not too distant future telephone
> service will be almost entirely provided by (or thru) VOIP. And,
> there seem to be real technical difficulties -- in particular serious
> "caller location identification" difficulties -- associated with
> providing 911 service to VOIP phones.
> Therefore I'm trying to envision a future situation (admittedly
> hypothetical at this point) in which telephone service will no longer
> necessarily be directly linked to 911 service, and a telco connection
> will no longer be presumed (or legally required) to include 911
> capability -- or alternatively where 911 emergency response to calls
> from a given location will no longer necessarily be provided or
> connected to emergency providers through the telephone network.
> 2) As a prelude to this, I'm noting that I, and many other residences
> and businesses, will likely in the near future obtain our telephone
> service and also our broadband Internet access either via a cable
> connection, or via a neighborhood or municipal wireless service, or
> via a cell phone connection, or via a fiber-to-the-premises
> connection, rather than via a conventional twisted-pair telephone wire
> to our premises.
> If (or rather when) that happens I, and many others, will no longer
> need those copper telephone wires (twisted pairs) that currently come
> directly from a telco central office (CO) into our homes or
> businesses. (Of course if our broadband Internet connection happens
> to be DSL we will continue to need that telephone twisted pair, though
> we won't need classic phone service on that wire any more, unless
> we're really backward and still use a modem.)
> 3) Nonetheless, all the current telephone twisted pairs between
> premises and telco COs will continue to exist, unless they're
> deliberately ripped out or allowed to deteriorate. And even for new
> homes and buildings ("greenfields construction") there's no technical
> reason that similar twisted pairs can't be brought into these new
> premises as part of the cable TV connection, or the fiber, or even
> just the electrical power wiring.
> 4) So, let's think about how we might use these existing and any new
> copper twisted pairs, not for telephone any more, but for other
> "utility" purposes -- possibly including a new kind of 911 service.
> In fact, let's refer to these wires, beginning at that point in time,
> not as "telephone wires" but as "utility service wires".
> 5) So, here are just some off the cuff thoughts as to useful services
> that could be provided over these utility wires, earning income for
> some utility service provider in the process:
> a) The telco won't be able to get income any more from selling telco
> service over it's telephone wires -- pardon me, utility wires -- and
> it therefore won't need banks of telephone switches to service those
> wires in its CO any more. So, maybe it will sell all this
> infrastructure to "utility providers", or maybe it will go into the
> "utility" business itself.
> b) One utility service could be a variant of 911 service. That is, in
> case of an emergency instead of dialing 911 you just push a red alarm
> button on a kind of intercom box in your house or office and it
> connects you over the utility wires to your "utility CO" (which was
> once your telco CO). This utility CO then connects you -- perhaps
> automatically -- to the 911 emergency dispatch setup in your town.
> c) Or, maybe you still dial 911 on your VOIP phone -- but instead of
> treating this as a VOIP call, your PC connects it to the utility
> wires, which are still connected into your home LAN. (If you move
> your VOIP phone to a new location in another town, and connect it to
> the PC in the new location, that PC will still do the right thing for
> your VOIP call.)
> d) Using add'l hardware and working with the utility service provider,
> your local gas, electric and water providers will read your meters,
> not by some "dial-in" call on the VOIP network, but by a hard-wired
> connection over the utility service wires.
> e) Commercial "always on" burglar alarm and security services can be
> provided over the utility wires by security services that work with or
> are part of the utility service providers.
> f) Ditto fire alarm services.
> g) The emergency medical pushbutton gadget that your elderly grandma,
> who lives alone, wears on her wrist to call for help could communicate
> not over her VOIP telephone service, but over the utility service
> system.
> And so on for lots and lots of other things. (And note that one of
> the featured advantages of VOIP telco service is that you can take
> your VOIP phone with you and get into the Internet anywhere -- but
> these local utility services are inherently local in character, and
> are much better hardwired into a *local* structure, with no need for
> the Internet.)
> 6) Bottom line: I recognize there would be lots of thorny problems
> (including major economic and public policy issues) in getting from
> the systems we have now to some new scheme like this; and very likely
> some downsides and practical problems that I haven't even thought of.
> But just maybe, at some point, the very tight connection between
> telephone service and 911 emergency service that we're so familiar
> with now could evolve so that 911 and telco were more or less
> completely de-linked, with both needs met in innovative and more
> effective new ways. I'm just trying to do some thinking about how
> that might happen.
> So, comments welcomed ...
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Microsoft to Offer Anti-Virus Software, Service
From: tom.horsley@att.net (Thomas A. Horsley)
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 21:31:13 GMT
> I guess it is much more profitable to sell cheese-cloth operating
> system software and then sell subscriptions to fix-up software that
> deals with the after effects of the security penetrations.
Yep. I noticed that part too. This seems an awful lot like a scheme
Dogbert would invent :-).
>>==>> The *Best* political site <URL:http://www.vote-smart.org/> >>==+
email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL |
<URL:http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley> Free Software and Politics <<==+
------------------------------
From: Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Subject: Re: Traveller Seeks Phone Advice
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:57:18 -0700
Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing
On Sun, 16 May 2005, John Levine wrote:
> In the US, you have to get the phone from whoever sells the prepaid
> service. You'd think you could just buy a SIM if you have a GSM
> phone, but you can't.
Both T-Mobile and Cingular say, at least at the local shops where I
checked, that they'll sell a prepay SIM card to someone who has a
suitable phone.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
------------------------------
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Vonage Changes 911 to Opt-Out
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 15:12:19 -0700
Organization: Stanford University
In article <telecom24.215.11@telecom-digest.org>, DevilsPGD
<spamsucks@crazyhat.net> wrote:
Message snipped for brevity, but I think the primary message is that
providing (and maintaining!) universal, standardized, up to date, and
effective 911 service on a future primarily VOIP phone service is almost
impossibly difficult.
On the other hand, every VOIP phone either contains or connects to a
computer of some sort, right? So, no matter where the VOIP phone is
moved, if it's in a location that also has a "real" phone line with at
least local service, then if you just patch a cord from a suitable
"911 port" on the side of the VOIP phone (or its computer) into the
hard-wired phone line each time you move it, the VOIP phone can easily
be smart enough to send the 911 call into that local hardwired line
instead of into the Internet -- and the resulting location for the 911
call will always automatically be correct, right?
Earlier Mark Peters wrote:
>>> A big problem is visitors, especially children who have been taught
>>> to dial 911 in case of an emergency.
Well, in a very large fraction of the nonresidential locations that I
know about (starting with all of Stanford University, and extending to
businesses, hotels, some apartment houses, stores, schools, and so
on), there is no "911" service: you have to dial "9-911" (sometimes
with a suitable pause) or even "1-9-911". There are certainly
children routinely in those places; will they know about that?
> 911 for everyone, everywhere, is a great idea. However, it's at direct
> odds with mobile VoIP unless you can force people to enter their current
> address when they move the device.
AND force the service providers to actually process the information,
accurately -- good luck!
> Something needs to be done, but frankly, I'm not seeing the solution
> even with a relative infinite amount of money.
Agreed -- we should think of other ways to meet the need (such as,
perhaps, my recent and more lengthy post).
------------------------------
From: Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com>
Subject: Re: AT&T - Cingular - Alltel; They Broke MY Contract!
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:40:05 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Steve wrote:
> Disgusted in Oklahoma.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think what you will find is the
> contract you signed at some point or another expressly gives _them_
> the right to assign your contract. It did not give _you_ any rights
> like that however; just AT&T. PAT]
That is true. Service contracts for wireless service can be
transferred from one carrier to another. In this case, Cingular
probably did it because they happened to hold a license and operate a
system in the same area as AT&T wireless, and in order for the merger
to pass regulatory muster, the combined company had to divest itself
of one of those systems and its subscribers. The original poster
happened to be unlucky enough to be on the discarded network.
I can see where the original poster may have issues. Alltel is a CDMA
carrier; AT&T/Cingular operate GSM/TDMA. This will at the very least
mean that in time, s/he will have to change handsets to a
CDMA-compliant model.
However, unless Alltel has acted in bad faith, or clearly cannot live
up to the contract's terms (i.e. cannot provide the service level,
coverage or plan features as originally agreed upon), then the OP is
stuck with the contract through its duration.
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
------------------------------
From: Dave Thompson <david.thompson1@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Closed captioning (was How is Weather Channel Data....)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 04:35:50 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
On Wed, 04 May 2005 22:37:17 -0500, Neal McLain
<nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
> PAT wrote:
>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Regards closed caption, since I
>> sometimes these days do not hear as well as I would like, I
>> frequently leave closed caption turned on (it is an on/off
>> option on my television set) even though I am also using sound
>> as well (closed caption allows me to keep up with words I miss
My hearing is OK (so far) but I also started leaving CC on for some
scifi programs especially to get spellings of names that aren't always
clear from the sound. And I found some interesting things:
>> or do not understand occassionally.) But has anyone else
>> noticed how they really _blow it bad_ sometimes, with trash
>> symbols instead of the words, etc,...
> The "trash symbols" you see are the result of corrupted CC data. In an
> NTSC video signal, the CC data is encoded on Line 21 <snip>
>> ... or sometimes just approximations of the phrases used
>> instead of the actual words?
> Sometimes this is done intentionally; sometimes not. An ad libbing
> speaker often speaks in a hesitant manner, sometimes repeating himself
> or inserting extraneous or meaningless words. <snip>
Also, AIU from my reading, there is a rather low limit on the data
rate for line 21, and an even lower limit on the number of lines/words
per second average viewers are assumed able to read. When there is
rapid complex speech it is usually simplified, sometimes sharply, or
less-important prompting or confirmatory lines dropped altogether. And
when there is overlapping speech (or speech with significant
sound/music) pretty often only the "main" speech is captioned.
>> And in the case of VCR or DVD movies, I assume the closed
>> caption is just encoded right on the finished product, is that
>> correct?
VHS definitely, and tapes I record from "air" include it along with
the rest of the video. I don't think DVD actually has the syncs and
(thus) BIs recorded; I believe caption is a separate data stream that
is synthesized into line 21 by the player. I see _very_ low garbles on
DVD play, maybe .01/hour, always corrected on replay and hence likely
faults in my TV (monitor) compared to usually 1-10/hour for
"broadcast" (analog cable) some but far from all of which I find recur
on rebroadcast in cases I can and did check -- presumably this is
either recorded badly on the master or there are data or video
patterns or both especially prone to (self) interference or noise.
Older material like old movies must have captioning added. For
programs created in the last few years, after the FCC mandates for it
became effective, I believe it is mostly done during the final stages
of production. In some cases I see captions that are quite different
from -- and not just shortened forms of -- the spoken lines, which I
suspect were ADRed late but the captioning not changed; and since
caption data must be transmitted a second or two in advance in order
to appear en-bloc in sync with the video, sometimes I see at the end
of a scene a line obviously for a following scene that has been cut.
Conversely this is why a line immediately after a commercial break
usually isn't captioned.
> Yes. It's also true of prerecorded network programming; in fact, it's
> true of just about everything you see on television except live or
> live-delayed programming. <snip examples>
ObSemiTopic: According to my reading much of the realtime captioning
is done by telecommuting. And I have indeed a few times seen Hayesisms
(NO CARRIER, CONNECT nnn) in the captions.
- David.Thompson1 at worldnet.att.net
------------------------------
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and
other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 50
Independence, KS 67301
Phone: 620-402-0134
Fax 1: 775-255-9970
Fax 2: 530-309-7234
Fax 3: 208-692-5145
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org
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
Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from *
* Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate *
* 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. *
* http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com *
* Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing *
* views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. *
*************************************************************************
ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.
One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com
Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
************************
DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !
************************
Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.
The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum. Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.
Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu
************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 TELECOM Digest V24 #216
******************************
| |