Pat, the Editor

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
Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 5 Jul 2005 23:59:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 309

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Cable TV vs. UHF (was RE: DSL Speed) (nmclain@annsgarden.com)
    Re: VoIP Phone Home? (Fred Atkinson)
    Re: IBM Lawsuit Against Microsoft (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Supplemental Grounding Electrodes (John Hines)
    Re: DO NOT! DO NOT Use Cingular Go Phone (Steve Sobol)
    Re: Don't Let Data Theft Happen to You (Wesrock@aol.com)
    Re: Supplemental Grounding Electrodes (Neal McLain)
    Re: Mediacom (J Kelly)

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.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue,  5 Jul 2005 19:28:34 -0600
From: nmclain@annsgarden.com
Subject: Cable TV vs. UHF (was RE: DSL Speed)


Choreboy <choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com> wrote:

> In 1956 I moved to Rutland VT, in a valley. We had three floors above
> the basement, and the peak of our slate roof may have been forty feet
> above the ground. On the peak was a mast with guy wires. There were
> three antennae on the mast, one pointed to Burlington 70 miles away,
> on to Albany 90 miles away, and one to Boston 160 miles away. Three
> cables led from the antennae to a switch on the back of the TV.

> The snow was bad all year. Community cable, with an antenna mast on a
> nearby mountain, was discussed. A year or so later, Lucky 13 started
> in Albany. In spite of the distance and the mountains, it came in
> without snow. I heard no more about community cable.

> I don't know how much it cost to operate a small UHF station, but in
> Rutland I think it could have been started and operated much cheaper
> than cable.  The audience would probably have needed something
> besides a loop on their TV, and I suppose advertising would have had
> to support it.

Perhaps so, but that would have provided only one channel.  So even if
a small UHF station had been built in Rutland, somebody would have
built a CATV system anyway.  Even back in the 50s, CATV systems were
offering "full network service": all three commercial networks.  They
supplemented these channels by adding nearby independent and NCE
(non-commercial educational) stations.

One UHF station obviously could not have provided anywhere near this
level of service.  And I can't imagine that three network-affiliate
stations would have been able to survive financially.

Of course, it might have been possible to build three translator
stations to retransmit the signals of three distant network stations,
provided that some financial-support mechanism could be established.
Such an arrangement existed in Darlington, Wisconsin for several years
during the 60s and 70s: three UHF translators retransmitted the
signals of the three Madison commercial stations.  The translators
were supported by "memberships"; although there was no way to prevent
non-members from tuning in, enough members apparently paid their dues
to keep things running.

But after the mid-70s, even membership-supported translators couldn't
compete with cable TV.  The company I was working for at the time
built a cable system in Darlington in 1980, and the translators were
shut down.  AFAIK, they're are still sitting there up on the hill
collecting cobwebs (although I once heard that the old transmitter
shack made a good deer-hunting blind).

Neal McLain

------------------------------

From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com>
Subject: Re: VoIP Phone Home?
Reply-To: fatkinson@mishmash.com
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 18:17:01 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net


On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 22:32:28 GMT, Marc Popek <LVMarc@att.net> wrote:

> And some wish to have a VOIP and a PSTN local presence. Why into use
> a PSTN /VOIP automatic switch so that you can mange both services
> from a single handset, answering machine etc?

Why not just get a two-line RJ-14 type telephone?  

Fred 

------------------------------

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: IBM Lawsuit Against Microsoft
Date: 5 Jul 2005 11:52:49 -0700


Lisa Minter wrote:

> BOSTON - IBM Corp. will get $775 million in cash and $75 million worth
> of software from Microsoft Corp. to settle claims still lingering from
> the federal government's antitrust case against Microsoft in the
> 1990s, the companies announced Friday.

How times have changed.  Years ago it was IBM that got hit with
anti-trust lawsuits.  Tom Watson Jr admitted in his memoirs "Father
Son & Co" that his rage at CDC coming out with a supercomputer before
IBM may have encouraged some not so good practices in sales pressure
and "paper" machines.  IBM settled with CDC at tremendous cost.  The
govt kept up its case but lost, costing the taxpayer and IBM millions
of wasted dollars.

Bill Gates and his crew ought to read Watson's book.  The Watsons
(both father and son) felt extremely passionately that IBM was THEIR
company and they could do as THEY WISHED with it.  They felt they
worked very hard to make the company so successful and done so
honestly and fairly by being the best.  That passion obscured their
vision to some business realities and anti-trust law -- even if you did
nothing wrong to get be #1, you are still in violation of the law by
merely being #1.

Undoubtedly Gates feels the same way toward Microsoft -- it's his
company, he worked hard to build it up and should be able run his
business without being second guessed by outsiders.

Both Watsons were forced to change their business practices in
response to government pressure.  Watson Sr had to license out his
patents and sell as well as rent his machines.  Watson Jr had to go
further with sales and break out of bundling into a la carte sales.  I
think Gates should take a lesson from that and consider loosening up
what is a near monopoly in his sales offerings and be more flexible in
his licensing agreements.

FWIW, IBM remains a strong company where Control Data is pretty much
gone.

I wonder what the Microsoft/Intel "Sloan" sales approach will lose
favor.  That is, very often they introduce new hardware and software
that "obsoletes" what is exists, and people rush out to buy new stuff.
Sloan did this at General Motors, coming out with a new model year to
encourage people to buy new cars for style.  Let's be honest -- the vast
majority of users could get along just fine with a 486, Windows 3.1,
and comparable versions of Word and Excel, and not need any more
horsepower and function.

------------------------------

From: John Hines <jbhines@newsguy.com>
Subject: Re: Supplemental Grounding Electrodes
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 16:33:03 -0500
Organization: www.jhines.org
Reply-To: john@jhines.org


Don_Shoemaker@HotMail.com wrote:

> John Hines wrote:

>> The NEC does get revised periodically, 2002 the most recent.

> The 2005 version has been out for several months.

They must review it more often than I (and others) are expecting. The
electrician I hired over the winter was interested in the 2002 code
book I had.

The biggest effect on building grounding systems has been the decrease
in reliance on metal plumbing, due to the usage of plastic piping.

I got my books from http://codecheck.com which are more user friendly
than the actual code books, which are more like legalese.

------------------------------

From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: DO NOT! DO NOT Use Cingular Go Phone
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 15:29:47 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com


hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> I have heard problems from people using pre-paid phones, such as
> "Trac" phone (believe it's offered by Verizon).  Yes, the service
> offices were international and no help at all.

Tracfone is NOT Verizon. Tracfone is not owned, and the service is not
offered, by any major carrier. In fact, Tracfones sold in different
areas use different networks.

Net10 Wireless, the 10c/minute prepay service just launched by
Tracfone, exclusively uses Cingular GSM. But Tracfone is separate from
Cingular and all of the major carriers.

> I don't understand either why the wireless companies treat these
> ad-hoc customers so poorly.  Maybe because they really want the
> guaranteed $40/month customers and hope they'll spend money on premium
> services to generate even more profit.

A friend who owns an ISP here made an interesting point. Cingular,
Verizon Wireless, Sprint PCS, Alltel ... all of those wireless
services are owned by wireline companies (in Verizon's case, only 55%
because the company that owns the other 45% is not a wireline
carrier).

And you know the kind of service the wireline providers offer. :)

> Do cell phone plans still charge per call?  

Not that I know of.


JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)

"Life's like an hourglass glued to the table"   --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"

------------------------------

From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 19:47:58 EDT
Subject: Re: Don't Let Data Theft Happen to You


In a message dated Tue, 5 Jul 2005 11:28:36 -0500, Lisa Minter 
<lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com> writes:

> By M.P. DUNLEAVEY

> -- Avoid letting your cards out of your sight. Do not let store
> clerks take your card away on the pretext that there's a "problem."

Apparently you would not be able to use your credit or debit card in a
restaurant then, since they require you give them the card to swipe at
a location out of your sight.  (An exception is Sonic fast-food
restaurants, where the card swipe device is right on the ordering
post.)

> -- Restrict the access to your personal data by signing up for the
> National Do Not Call Registry (www.donotcall.gov); remove your name
> and address from the phone book and reverse directories -- and, most
> important, from the marketing lists of the credit bureaus to reduce
> credit card solicitations. The site www.optoutprescreen.com can help.

While some people have a need or consider it a status symbol to have
an unlisted number, others are not willing to give up contact with
many desirable contacts in the outside world who would have no other
way to reach them by phone or snail mail.


Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only Sonic, but McDonalds here at
least also has a card swiper right by each register. If you have your
card in hand, while you are placing your order (or when the clerk
turns around to fill it) you can swipe your debit/credit card and have
it back in your pocket by the time the clerk asks for the money. They
don't care either way;  when the register says the order is paid for,
that is all they care. Ditto Marvin's Supermarket here: you dump all
your groceries on the conveyor belt, the kid starts ringing it up and
in the meantime you can swipe your card. The card swiper then seems to
'lock up ' until the clerk does something to tally it on the register;
then the card swiper clicks into action (and if you had already swiped
your card) it gets busy getting the approval and printing the receipt.
If you want 'cash back', the clerk over-rings the total by that same
amount.  If your order comes to twenty dollars and you want twenty
cash back, the clerk rings it on the register as 'amount tendered'
forty dollars, 'change returned' twenty dollars.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 18:54:45 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
Reply-To: nmclain@annsgarden.com
Subject: Re: Supplemental Grounding Electrodes


Choreboy <choreboyREMOVE@localnet.com> wrote:

> Article 250.54 of the NEC says local supplemental grounding
> electrodes (such as the one for phone service) must be
> bonded to the primary electrode.  Where does the NEC apply?
> According to what the telco man admitted seven years ago, I
> assume our county code says the same thing.

As other readers have noted, NEC applies in any jurisdiction that
adopts it by reference.  The adopting law or ordinance identifies the
edition of the code, and sometimes includes modifying clauses to
clarify certain requirements, create additional requirements, or omit
certain requirements.  Some state governments adopt it
(e.g. Wisconsin); most counties and municipalities also adopt it.

In your case, I'd guess that if you live in the City of Rutland, the
Building & Zoning Department enforces it.  If you live in one of the
surrounding towns, either the town government or the Rutland County
government enforces it.

> Is this a recent addition to the NEC?

It certainly existed in 1987, according to "The National Electrical
Code 1987 Handbook" (published by NFPA as a companion to the code
itself; includes the complete text of the 1987 code, plus numerous
drawings and annotations to clarify the text).  The annotation at
Article 250-71(b) states:

   The Code requires that separate systems be bonded together
   to reduce differences of potential between them, which can
   result from lightning or power contacts.  Interconnection
   is required for lightning rod systems (Section 250-46),
   communications systems [Sections 800-31(b)(5)], and CATV
   systems [Section 820-22(f)].  Lack of interconnection can
   result in severe shock and fire hazard.

"Communications systems" includes telephone.

> How is a citizen supposed to find out local code
> requirements?

Contact the city, town, or county building inspection department.

> How is a citizen supposed to know his electrodes are not bonded or
> that it's necessary?

The average citizen is not expected to know; the contractors who
install the stuff are supposed to know.  And the city/town/county
building inspector is supposed to make sure that it's done correctly.

The problem, of course, is that inspectors only inspect when a
contractor pulls a permit and then calls for an inspection.  If work
is done without a permit, there's usually no inspection.  Telephone
and CATV companies rarely, if ever, pull permits for residential
installs; from what I've seen, even electricians don't pull permits
for branch-circuit work.  Building inspection departments probably
don't approve of this arrangement, but in my experience they're
usually too overworked and underfunded to do much about it.

> If the telco assures a customer that there is nothing wrong with
> grounding which in fact is a code violation, does the telco have any
> liability?

I can't speak for the telco industry, but in the CATV industry (where
I used to work), we certainly assumed that we'd be liable for faulty
work done by our own employees.  Our contracts with subcontractors
included insurance and hold-harmless clauses to protect the customer,
the CATV company, and franchising authority, and all property owners
where CATV facilities were located.

Of course, if I were a personal injury lawyer, I'd be keeping a close
eye on that telephone company ...

Neal McLain

------------------------------

From: J Kelly <jkelly@*newsguy.com>
Subject: Re: Mediacom
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:51:45 -0500
Organization: http://newsguy.com
Reply-To: jkelly@*newsguy.com


Maybe.  I've heard (from a reliable source in the corporate office)
that it various from time to time and place to place which
ports/services are blocked.

They DO specifically forbid servers on residential packages in their
TOS and they DO terminate anyone's account that is caught running a
server.  My understanding that the termination is final and there is
no second chance.  That said, I've run services on all those ports at
some point and it worked, and most recently on port 22 (SSH).  The
last time I tried 20 and 21 I couldn't make it work, whether it was a
firewall problem or Mediacom blocking the ports, I'm not sure, I
didn't spend any time trying to troubleshoot the problem since it was
just a quick temporary thing I was trying to run.

My advice is to use a real host rather than try to host on a mediacom
account.  The upload speed is pitifully slow anyway.  I moved my
servers to real hosts almost 3 years ago, about three months after
switching from a municipal broadband system (who also forbids servers
but made an exception for me) to Mediacom.  My host costs me less than
$5 a month and gives 5GB of space.  It is pretty reliable and has
loads of bandwidth.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 03:03:13 GMT, Fred Atkinson
<fatkinson@mishmash.com> wrote:

> Does anyone know if Mediacom blocks ports 80, 20, 21, 23, 25,
> and/or other signficant ports?  

> Fred Atkinson 

------------------------------


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)

RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
  For syndication examples see http://www.feedrollpro.com/syndicate.php?id=308
    and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/TelecomDigest

*************************************************************************
*   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 #309
******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues