From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jan 7 21:02:55 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i0822ta20388; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:02:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:02:55 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200401080202.i0822ta20388@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #11 TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:03:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 11 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson JetBlue to Add Fox Video Entertainment System; Debut XM (Monty Solomon) AT&T 'Unlimited Country Plans' (Monty Solomon) Re: Caller-ID on Regular Phones Using a PBX (Carl Navarro) Re: Twenty Years Ago Today 1-Jan-2004,on 1-Jan-1984 (Kilo Delta Sierra) Re: NANP Numbering (Wesrock@aol.com) Re: NANP Numbering; Joey's Advice to the Unwashed Masses (David Winfrey) Re: The NANP, and Comments by the Digest's Editor (Joseph) NANP and Mr. Cuccia (Earle Robinson) Inventions (was Re: NANP Numbering) (Mark Brader) 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 is 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: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:03:31 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: JetBlue to Add Fox Video Entertainment System and Debut XM NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 7, 2004-- Low-Fare Carrier Will Offer up to 100 Channels of Satellite Radio Free of Charge and Add Movies and Episodes of "The Simpsons" JetBlue Airways (Nasdaq:JBLU) will make flights even more entertaining in 2004. JetBlue was the first carrier to debut up to 24 channels of live DIRECTV(R)(a) programming in-flight in 2000, and remains the only carrier offering satellite TV free at every seat. Now, in agreements with XM Satellite Radio (Nasdaq:XMSR) and News Corporation (NYSE:NWS), (NYSE:NWS.A); (ASX:NCP), (ASX:NCPDP), JetBlue will add up to 100 channels of digital satellite radio and movie channels featuring 20th Century Fox movies and episodes of Fox's popular TV series "The Simpsons." XM Satellite Radio's free in-flight service will allow JetBlue customers to choose from XM's unmatched variety of music, news, sports, information and entertainment, all with digital-quality audio and coast-to-coast coverage. Current artist information and song title playing will be displayed on JetBlue's seat-back TV screens to provide a comprehensive audio-visual experience. The system is expected to be introduced fleet-wide on JetBlue's Airbus A320 aircraft this year and on the airline's new fleet of EMBRAER 190 aircraft as they are introduced into service in 2005. In 2004, JetBlue will also add movie channels which will be offered for a nominal fee. The first dedicated in-flight service created by News Corporation's Fox Entertainment Group will offer JetBlue customers first-run movies, television shows, sports and news programming plus other original entertainment developed by Fox. The digital video system will feature an in-seat credit card payment system, whereby JetBlue customers can purchase Fox entertainment options through a convenient credit card reader. LiveTV, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of JetBlue, will install the onboard systems that will deliver the XM Satellite Radio and digital video services. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40133815 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:06:04 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AT&T 'Unlimited Country Plans' AT&T Leads Market with Innovative 'Unlimited Country Plans' - Jan 7, 2004 07:30 AM (PR Newswire) Unique New Plans Offer Unlimited International Calling To 17 Countries. Consumers Also Offered An Unlimited Asia Select And Unlimited Europe Select Plan. MORRISTOWN, N.J., Jan. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- AT&T today announced a groundbreaking and industry-leading offer with its "AT&T Unlimited Country(SM) Plans." These exclusive AT&T calling plans provide unlimited international calling to 17 popular countries for a specific monthly plan fee.* As the industry leader in unlimited long distance for domestic calling, AT&T continues to break new ground by broadening its portfolio to include unlimited international calling to 17 countries. With a monthly plan fee as low as $39.95 for unlimited calling to the United Kingdom, calling across the ocean or around the world has never been easier or more economical. Consumers will enjoy the ease and convenience of one low monthly plan fee for unlimited international calls to the eligible country of their choice -- 24 hours a day, seven days a week -- on direct-dialed calls made from home. In addition, subscribers who call any other country will receive AT&T's already low international rates through the AT&T AnyHour Advantage Plan. As a special value at no additional charge, subscribers to any Unlimited Country Plan will receive a flat rate on domestic long distance of 7 cents per minute on all interstate and in-state calls direct-dialed from home.** - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=40134455 ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: Caller-ID on Regular Phones using a PBX Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 10:07:38 -0500 Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America On 6 Jan 2004 19:27:59 -0800, Chainsman wrote: > Hi, I have a home telephone system which I'm very pleased with but my > family is distraught that it won't pass caller-ID to their regular > phones. I have looked around for systems that pass caller-ID to > regular old phones but haven't found any so far. I have heard that > there is a new Panasonic unit that will pass caller-ID to regular > phones. Does anyone know of any systems that will do this? My > requirements are for a minimum of 2 outside lines and 6 extensions. The Comdial DX-80 will pass CID to 4 S/L sets. Since a system would probably come with a couple of multi line sets, or you could double up extensions, it might not be a problem. I would guess that correspondingly the Vodavi STS might do the same. The Panasonic digital 308 will pass CID to one S/L station and you could drive a couple of CID boxes. I don't remember if the new systems coming out will do CID to sets. Carl Navarro ------------------------------ From: kd1s@aol.comremvthis (Kilo Delta One Sierra) Date: 07 Jan 2004 18:39:29 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Twenty Years Ago Today 1-Jan-2004, back on 1-Jan-1984 > I don't think it's a good idea to start an inter-regional war. The > current implementation of USF certainly leavs something to be desired, > but the theory is as good as ever: the more people you can call, the > more useful your phone is. There are lots of involuntary transfers > from one part of the country to another, and I sure hope you don't > live in California because if you do, I'd like to have a few words > about your water bill. No, not California but Rhode Island. New England in general gets screwed in the federal tax scheme. We put much more money in than we get back, even when you include the Big Dig in Boston. What blew my mind about the Big Dig is that most of it is 6 lane highway. If you've ever driven the highways through Boston or even Providence you know that six lanes isn't adequate. The difference is obvious here in Providence. Once you break past downtown Providence and points south, I-95 becomes 4 lanes. And every day -- in the afternoon there's a huge pile-up during the commute at the change from 4 to 3 lanes coming north. For those living in Cranston and parts of Warwick they can take either RI-10 in or I-295 to RI-6 which then dumps in at the end of RI-10 which then connects back to I-95 near the I-195 interchange. Stupidity of government agencies never fails to amaze me. ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:51:21 EST Subject: Re: NANP Numbering In a message dated Tue, 06 Jan 2004 13:39:12 -0800 Joseph writes: > Well, it's no different than what other places went through. Smaller > places had differing length phone numbers. Many places in the UK had > three digit telephone numbers up until a few years ago. Many places > in the US if they were small enough might have had as few as 3 digit > telephone numbers as well. When I lived in Konawa, Oklahoma, during the early 1950s and was owner of the Konawa Leader (weekly newspaper), the office number was 234 and my home number was, I believe, 287. This was a dial exchange. The NANP, while in existence, was still in its preliminary stages of being implemented. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: David Winfrey Subject: Re: NANP Numbering; Joey's Advice to the Unwashed Masses Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 13:04:58 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There you go, Earle! Did Joey get you > straightened out, or didn't he? Don't you just love Canadians who > like to pretend they are arrogant USA citizens, with their general > dislike for so much of the customs of the rest of the world? PAT] The editor's credibility might be improved substantially if he would present facts to demonstrate why Joey's various points are not correct. Accusations of arrogance are not particularly useful; rational argument requires actual data. But this is Usenet. Sorry, I forgot. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are forgiven for forgetting this time around. But this Usenet (the very same!) is where Joey Lindstrom can make comments to Earle such as: (Quoting from the back issue a couple days ago:) > Y'know, the way you really, really stretch credulity in order to > construct an argument -- ANY argument -- that something French is better > than something American, reminds me a whole lot of something that > Robin Williams said in his recent concert video. Imagine, if you > will, Robin speaking in an over-the-top French accent, and saying > something like the following (paraphrased to keep it in a g-rated > context): > "Ah, screw you Americans, we hate you ... What's that? Ze Germans are > coming? 'ALLO, AMERICANS! WE LOVE YOU!!!" > Joey Lindstrom So while you are reminising about Usenet and the things you have for- gotten about it, please remember the above as well. In no *moderated* newsgroup would the above total disdain for an entire nation of people be permitted, as Joey has done. And those final two lines above which begin, "ah screw you Americans" was the basis of my response to Joey Lindstrom. So while you complain about my dearth of factual matter, perhaps you might ask Mr. Lindstrom to explain where the above fits in to anything. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: The NANP, and Comments by the Digest's Editor Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:27:32 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NOcom On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:51:50 -0600 (CST), [Pat the comp.dcom.telecom editor] wrote: > [I do not know what you are talking about when you > say our numbering system is stable. So stable, in fact, that during > the 1990-2000 time period I had to change my number four times on > account of changes in area codes. I started out in 312, had it for > many years, along with all of northern Illinois. Then it became 773 > because the crybaby banks and financial houses downtown kept wanting > more and more and more and more phones, and *they* thought it was > unfair to make *them* change to 773, so everyone else in Chicago had > to move to 773 to accomodate them (maybe so they would quit crying > about what an expense it would be to make *them* have to change their > stationary, etc ... so a few million rest of us had to change ours > instead). If we had had a 'flexible' numbering system such as parts > of Europe, then the stupid bankers could have had fifteen digit > numbers if they wanted to cover all their PBX-extensions and the > rest of us would have stayed in 312, since the banks and large corp- > orations downtown refused to give it up. The reality is that the form of the NANP has remained pretty much the same since 1947. The changes to area codes have happened because of growth and also because of politics. As was mentioned in another previous bit on this subject the fault for you having to change your number the many times you had to was because everyone did every possible thing that they could do to fight the "inevitable" that instead of carving up areas into smaller and smaller areas they instead did overlays and put another area code in the same area where an area code already served. In retrospect if people knew what they do now about how there was going to be a run on procuring new numbers between 1995 and 2002 they perhaps might have done things differently. Then again some areas probably wouldn't such as Californians who have a fear of dialing extra digits on a local call even though 80% of their calls require them to dial extra digits anyway. Politics has played a big part in the mess. Not only in Chicago, but in Boston among other places. Places with clout got to keep their old area code. Places that didn't have clout were relegated to getting a new area code with all the trouble and expense that goes with it. remove NO from .NOcom to reply ------------------------------ From: Earle Robinson
Subject: NANP and Mr. Cuccia Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 00:53:22 +0100 (Please mask my email address. Thank you.) First all, Mr. Cuccia taxes as arrogant anyone who disagrees with him. Why an ad hominem attack? Mr. Cuccia, not only are there far more people in China than in the USA, but Europe has more people, too. While the UK did fumble its modernization of the telephone numbering system, this didn't occur in the rest of Europe. My number in Paris has remained the same for 20 years now. Friends of mine in the states have endured 3, 4 or more area code changes during this time. In the USA the dialing system is also very confusing. In some areas you dial 7 digits for a local call, in others 10, and in others 11. Why? Mr. Cuccia also praises and repraises the "free" local calls in much of the states. However, he omits a couple of salient points. First, one pays much more monthly for a telephone line in the states than here in France. So, someone who doesn't make many local calls is out of pocket much less here than in the USA. Further, there are now plans that offer a fixed number of minutes per month at a very reasonable rate, too, and some that are unlimited usage. Unlike Mr. Cuccia, I have used both the NANP system and the French system extensively. How can one write without experience? Earle Robinson ------------------------------ Subject: Inventions (was: NANP Numbering) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:12:23 EST From: msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) Earle Robinson writes: > The nuclear research was mostly done by men from Europe, too. Turing > was English, the diesel engine was invented in Germany, movies in France > ... Radar and the decryption of German code were done in England. ... The Enigma cipher was first broken in Poland, although the later developments that enabled the Allies to continue breaking it throughout the war, as well as the breaking of the more difficult Geheimschreiber (code name "Fish") ciphers, did take place in England. As for radar, the Germans, the British, the Americans, the French, and the Japanese *all* invented it independently, and all kept it secret from each other until the outbreak of war. The first to complete a working radar system was Rudolf Kühnold (Kuehnold) of Germany, in 1933-34. The Germans were initially interested in naval applications, and they had the first shipboard installation, in 1935. Robert Watson-Watt of Britain invented radar independently in 1935, and was determining the distance to targets months ahead of the Germans. The British government committed to using it for air defense the same year, and by 1937 the British also had airborne radar systems. In the US, work on radar began in 1934 but proceeded more slowly and a working system was not developed until 1936. After the war began, British and US researchers worked together to develop better systems than either country had individually; much of this work was in the US, which also contributed the word "radar" in 1940. -- Mark Brader, Toronto "Unjutsly malinged? I think not." msb@vex.net -- Ross Howard My text in this article is in the public domain. ------------------------------ 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: 620-330-6774 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 second 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 2003 ICB, Inc. and 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #11 *****************************