From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue May 11 13:57:51 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i4BHvpu21927; Tue, 11 May 2004 13:57:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 13:57:51 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200405111757.i4BHvpu21927@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 #236 TELECOM Digest Tue, 11 May 2004 13:58:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 236 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Online Intrusions More Than Criminal (Monty Solomon) Re: Comcast Home Networking (Monty Solomon) Verizon Wireless North American Continent Calling Plan (Monty Solomon) Cablevision is Adding 3,200 Consumer VoIP Lines per Week (VOIP News) Re: AT&T Bill For *Non Existant* Line. What to Do?? (Nick Landsberg) Re: AT&T Bill For *Non Existant* Line. What to Do?? (Carl Navarro) Re: AT&T Bill For *Non Existant* Line. What to Do?? (Dan Lanciani) Alternatives, was Re: AT&T Bill For *Non Existant* Line. (Danny Burstein) Re: Ditching Copper - Getting Fax Machines and VoIP to Play (G Berkowitz) Re: Verizon to Expand DSL Offerings With New, Higher-Speed Service (Sobol) Re: Canada to Criminalize Watching Foreign TV and Radio (Mark Crispin) Terminating Feature Group D for Terminating Traffic (blakestelecom) Re: Verizon Wireless "Detail Missing" New Bills (Lisa Hancock) Re: Verizon Wireless "Detail Missing" New Bills (Steven J Sobol) Dialogic D/600SC 2E1 120 Problems (C. Breitbach) Re: Fires and Telecommunications (Gordon S. Hlavenka) 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, 11 May 2004 01:40:37 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Online Intrusions More Than Criminal By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff | May 10, 2004 You should never put any personal information on the Internet that you wouldn't want to see in the newspapers. That's the government's job. With hardly any fuss, federal, state, and local governments routinely publish on the Internet a variety of sensitive information about us. File for bankruptcy lately? It's probably on there. Did you contribute money to John Kerry's campaign? That's online too. Here's hoping you paid up your property taxes and haven't fallen behind on child support; otherwise there may be an Internet page with your name on it. http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2004/05/10/online_intrusions_more_than_criminal/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 02:02:10 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Re: Comcast Home Networking Comcast working on Mac support for "Home Networking" initiative We previously reported that Comcast's new "Home Networking" service add-on -- which simply allows users to share the company's high-speed cable Internet connection, printers and other devices, and provide other functionality -- was labeled by the company as not Macintosh compatible. We've now received word from the company's technical support department indicating that official support is forthcoming. http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20040510080857154 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 02:16:40 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Verizon Wireless North American Continent Calling Plan North America's Choice(SM) Offers Business and Leisure Travelers A Calling Plan That Stretches Beyond the U.S. to Canada, Mexico and Puerto Rico BEDMINSTER, N.J., May 10 /PRNewswire/ -- Verizon Wireless is introducing the nation's first North American calling plan that lets customers call from the U.S. to Canada, Mexico and Puerto Rico with no roaming or long distance fees. Beginning today, Verizon Wireless customers, nationwide can sign up for North America's Choice, a unique calling plan that includes Canada, Mexico and Puerto Rico as part of their monthly plan's calling area. Customers who sign up for North America's Choice will also be able to call within these countries and back to the U. S. without incurring roaming or long distance charges while in the coverage area. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41316500 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 03:49:13 -0400 Subject: Cablevision is Adding 3,200 Consumer VoIP Lines per Week Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.convergedigest.com/DSL/lastmilearticle.asp?ID=11068 Cablevision is Adding 3,200 Consumer VoIP Lines per Week in New York Cablevision System's new residential VoIP service, which is available in the New York metro area, is adding about 3,200 new customers per week. The cable company ended Q1 with 70,800 VoIP customers, up by 42,200 for the quarter. Full story at: http://www.convergedigest.com/DSL/lastmilearticle.asp?ID=11068 How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Reply-To: hukolau@NOSPAM.att.net Subject: Re: AT&T Bill For *Non Existant* Line. What to Do?? Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 23:32:57 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: [Snippage regarding erroneous billing for a a phantom second line.] > More importantly, which regulatory office should receive a copy of the > letter I'm going to write to AT&T? Surely it must be illegal to bill > for a non-existant number. > Thanks. > -Joel > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: AT&T would probably tell you, and > whichever regulators you chose to complain to, that Verizon made the > mistake by informing them that the identi-ring line was an actual > existent number instead of just an alias pointing at your first line. > I would not blame AT&T for this -- not at first, anyway -- I would > blame Verizon for whatever good it would do. Identi-ring alias > numbers, by whatever name they go under -- are relatively rare > phenomena, at least according to the chairman's office at SBC. People > seem to prefer actual, physical second lines in most instances, and > telco does not sell a lot of indenti-call service. I know when I got > my identi-call line, SBC looked me as though I was nuts (and who > knows, maybe I am). The local tech here at the Independence central > office over at 6th and Maple said to me he could not recall anyone > around town here ever ordering one before. My main reason was with my > relatively low phone usage, I did not need a 'second' line; I wanted a > way to have my 800 line get a different ringing cadence so I could use > the appropriate answer-phrase (and to discretely know whose nickle was > paying for the call without having to ask the caller.) [Snipped funny part about dead-beat owner of second number] This kind of SNAFU seems to happen all too often (mis-billing after a switch in carriers). I recently switched from Verizon as my local carrier to AT&T. I did the arithmetic, and, with my billing plans and such, it came up about $15 per month cheaper to have AT&T as both my local and LD carrier, thanks mostly to a $10.00/month reduction for my ISP charges. So, I switched. The first bill came in and my eyes popped. During the switch their software (or so the service rep told me) had wiped out all information about my previous AT&T LD plans so I was paying full rates for LD! I called customer service, and they were very nice about it and said it was a known problem (Hello? if it was a known problem, why hasn't it been fixed?), and they re-rated the calls using almost the same plan as I had (some of the small details were different, but essentially the same plan) and I got a credit to the tune of $170.00 . The next month, I got a more reasonable bill but still higher than I expected. I checked the statement, and, although it says that I have the "international plan", the phone calls to friends in Canada were still rated at full price! Again, the service representative was very nice and re-rated those few calls (about $40.00 worth became $4.00 worth) and gave me a credit. That was last month. I'm still waiting for next month's bill. The moral of the story would seem to be that when you switch carriers, scrutinize your first few months' bills very carefully! I have no reason to believe that this was intentional, but better safe than sorry. Nick L. P.S. - Funny thing is, on the electronic statement which lists all of my plans and services, it says that I have not chosen a LD carrier, even though AT&T is my LD carrier. I figure that this will be the source of yet another gripe/complaint at some time in the future. "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: AT&T Bill For *Non Existant* Line. What to Do?? Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 04:51:35 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com On Mon, 10 May 2004 14:32:01 GMT, joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: > My parents recently started receiving a bill from AT&T for a > *non-existant* line. They have always had two numbers on the same > line, a main number ("line 1"), and a second number ("line 2") that > rings on the same line but with a special ring pattern. (This is > called identi-ring here. It has other names.) > Last Fall they discontinued their AT&T LD service and switched to > Verizon. About two months ago, though, they started getting bills > from AT&T for *line 2*! Line 2 doesn't exist, and cannot make > outgoing calls! They are being charged about $3.50 for a "standard > line." and then a handful of regulatory nonsense that brings the bill > up to about $7.50/month. > This seems like out and out fraud. But it has been my experience, > that, by and large, AT&T earns money with decpetive but legal > practices, unlike the fly-by-night outfits that earn money illegally. > Is this likely to be just a clerical error on AT&T's part? Is it > willful deception? Has AT&T done this to anyone else? No, no, yes. > More importantly, which regulatory office should receive a copy of the > letter I'm going to write to AT&T? Surely it must be illegal to bill > for a non-existant number. It's not a non-existant number, it just never has any outgoing calls. I had one of those annoying aggregators and was blindly paying the $3.50 or whatever they charged on my "three" numbers. When I pointed it out to them, it was MY fault for not calling them when I noticed the error. Of course they went back 6 months for credit, then they disconnect my 800 number for non-payment. That was a nightmare to jerk back Resp-Org from those clowns, but all is well and I'll NEVER use AT&T anything. The best part was when they were going to sue me over $30 worth of minimum charges which occurred because they cut my service in half. I'm still waiting for the papers. Carl Navarro ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 01:33:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Lanciani Subject: Re: AT&T Bill For *Non Existant* Line. What to Do?? joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: > My parents recently started receiving a bill from AT&T for a > *non-existant* line. They have always had two numbers on the same > line, a main number ("line 1"), and a second number ("line 2") that > rings on the same line but with a special ring pattern. (This is > called identi-ring here. It has other names.) > Last Fall they discontinued their AT&T LD service and switched to > Verizon. About two months ago, though, they started getting bills > from AT&T for *line 2*! Line 2 doesn't exist, and cannot make > outgoing calls! They are being charged about $3.50 for a "standard > line." and then a handful of regulatory nonsense that brings the bill > up to about $7.50/month. Back when I actually answered my distinctive ring numbers (they are currently used for a fax and modem) I received periodic calls from representatives who claimed to work for AT&T. The dialog was always the same. They would say that because of a computer problem they had 'lost' the billing address for my number and they needed me to give it to them "again." My first response would be that this was not a billable number, to which they would reply, "yes, sir, I don't understand exactly what you mean, but we still need a billing address." I would then suggest that any company as big as AT&T surely had backups for its computers and should be able to recover any lost data from those. The reply would be along the lines of, "yes, sir, normally that would be true, but we are unable to recover your billing information and you must provide it again." I would then move on to pointing out that I don't use AT&T long distance in the first place, at which time they would thank me (or not) and hang up. I always assumed that these amusing calls were from non-AT&T scammers, but now I wonder ... > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: [...] Identi-ring alias numbers, by > whatever name they go under -- are relatively rare phenomena, at > least according to the chairman's office at SBC. Distinctive ring isn't too common around here either as far as I can tell. What's even less common, though, is voice-only ISDN service. The interesting thing is that they have been ramping up the price on the distinctive ring option and the caller id option such that a voice-only ISDN line with two fully independent numbers and 'free' caller id (but not name) now costs less than an analog line with caller id and distinctive ring. Moreover, the ISDN line's two numbers both operate under whatever local calling plan you subscribe to (I have an almost-all-state unlimited service) even though you pay only once. The problem, of course, is that it takes ~6 months to convince Verizon to configure a voice-only ISDN line as such. Level after level of representatives will tell you that the tariffs don't allow such a thing (even as you are quoting the order codes from that tariff). The last time I installed a voice-only ISDN line for my new (old) house I ended up (after ~5 months) with a great message on my answering machine from a technical support advisor. He said that even though he had never heard of such a thing (a fact he had emphasized often in our previous conversations), he had found that it was "not illegal" in my state, so he would "let it go." I'd like to switch my remaining analog line to ISDN, but, unfortunately, the conversion option is no longer available so I'd have to order a fresh line and then try to get them to switch the numbers from my analog line. Such an operation is so frighteningly complex that I'm sure I would be without my main numbers for months, assuming I didn't lose them altogether ... Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com ------------------------------ From: Danny Burstein Subject: Alternatives, was Re: AT&T Bill For *Non Existant* Line. What to Do? Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 02:41:40 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In dold@ATXTXBillX.usenet.us.com writes: [ snip of Yet Another set of improper bills from AT&T ] My recommendation: don't waste time trying to work through AT&T. Spend fifteen minutes writing a letter to your State's Public Service Commission, cc'ing it to the Attorney General. Point out that AT&T has been cited by a half dozen State AGs in the past month for sending out improper bills and that you are not going to clean up their act for them [a]. For example, check out NYS's press release from 04-May-2004 titled: PSC Chairman Flynn Announces New AT&T Commitment to Fix Remaining Bill Problems available at www.dps.state.ny.us, then choose the press release section. (the direct url is a javascript monstrosity). [a] A couple of side notes: 1) the press release describes the problems and how AT&T agrees to not charge people who complain, and will, after their investigation, refund the improper bills. There is *nothing* in the release that talks about any penalties against them. Keep in mind that, let's say, twenty percent of the people getting these bills simply paid them, and are continuing to pay them... So there's every incentive to the companies that do this stuff to keep doing it. 2) There's no relief for the customers who had to waste their time, effort, and money, to get AT&T to fix this. 3) Any other business sending out improper bills of this sor, by the thousands, would find the treasurer walking out of the office with a pair of chrome bracelets. 4) I suspect that many places have recognized that making "the usual errors" of this sort have no downside, and plenty of pluses... (and yes, I've written to the PSC stating these points). _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: Gene S. Berkowitz Subject: Re: Ditching Copper - Getting Fax Machines and VoIP to Play Nice Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 22:33:12 -0400 In article , hoch@exemplary.invalid says: > In article , VOIP News > wrote: >> The question now is, does the same >> method allow users to conquer one of the last great VoIP roadblocks: >> allowing your DirecTV/Tivo modem to dial out via your VoIP connection. > Wait a minute ... if you have VoIP, you have broadband of some sort. > And a TiVo can be configured to use a broadband connection to "call home" > rather than use dialup. So why is TiVo an issue here? I believe that TiVo requires using the modem for the INITIAL registration; from then on, a broadband connection can be used. --Gene ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Verizon to Expand DSL Offerings With New, Higher-Speed Service Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 18:53:21 -0500 Temporary FL@L&ER wrote: > What most folks fail to realize is that most of Verizon's customers > are in an urban environment, Correction. The former Bell Atlantic areas were largely urban, and there are some former GTE markets like various Texas cities and the chunks of Los Angeles that GTE used to have that were also large(ish) cities, but there are plenty of GTE areas that were not urban. I don't know that I'd say "most" of Verizon's customers live in the city. Many, for sure. Perhaps not most. (And then there are areas like mine, which are a weird combination of rural and more populated areas. Verizon [former GTE] is my ILEC.) JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/ "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003 ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: Canada to Criminalize Watching Foreign TV and Radio Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 20:23:41 -0700 Organization: University of Washington On Mon, 10 May 2004 cfarrar@spamcop.net wrote: > Ex-patroit and "snowbird" Canadians are know to take Bell ExpressVu > satellite receivers down to their winter homes in Florida, South > Carolina, and Nevada so they can received CBC and other "home" > programming. However. Bell isn't licenced for use in the US and the > FCC could just as easily start seizing their receivers. There is nothing illegal under US law in taking your legitimate Bell ExpressVu receivers into the US and using them in the US. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 04:41:16 +0400 (MSD) From: blakestelecom Subject: Terminating Feature Group D Tandem for Terminating Traffic To whoever asked this question: Hey, Use row 20. Terminating Feature Group D Tandem for your terminating traffic. I assume your checked the npa-nxx in LERG 6 and verified its SHA indicator. Insure your checking the correct thousands group. Some are split eg. 212-345-0010 may have a different EO and tandem office than 212-345- 2000. The SHA indicator depicts which EO/tandem to route to. If LERG 6 SHA says SHA 02 then look up your EO switch CLLI in LERG 7SHA table and find the one corresponding to SHA 02. By the way this is all assumed on ISUP traffic for SS7 access tandems. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Verizon Wireless "Detail Missing" New Bills Date: 11 May 2004 07:10:38 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Minter) wrote > Southwestern Bell Telephone Company dated *1924*; it was the size > you mentioned, written out in pen and ink in a most ecquisite > handwriting, (obviously a bookkeeper/school teacher style of writing) I always had trouble with handwriting and it drove my parents and teachers crazy. They were raised in the day when handwriting was almost an art. By my day the cursive script standard had been revised with less curly-cues. Anyway, as soon as my teachers would accept typewritten reports (8th grade) I typed everything and haven't stopped since. (Of course now my employer doesn't like my typewriter and wants stuff done on the word processor ). (In high school I used our computer-timesharing Teletype machine for stuff, with the paper tape it made a crude word but usable processor although the all-caps was limiting.) > stating her total bill for that month was $6.28 which included the The inflation factor from then to now is about 21, which makes that a pretty expensive phone bill! For all their talk about universal service, it wasn't until well after WW II that the Bell System achieved it. In the Depression they lost customers. Many people lived in high density cities where a hallway or corner store payphone sufficed. In the war and immediate postwar era, there was no equipment or capacity. Also in the postwar era was a big shift from party to single line service. I remain curious as to what is the party-line usage today in the U.S. Some states have none at all, others limit it to existing customers. I suspect in the 1980s and 1990s there was a big push to rewire old rural loops; by then the technology was cheap enough. ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Verizon Wireless "Detail Missing" New Bills Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 19:01:12 -0500 Lisa Minter wrote: > Verizon Wireless (cell phones) has introduced what they call a: > "shorter, simpler, 'streamlined bill' thatt is simpler to understand > while using less paper". > Nonsense. > What they did is remove the detailed billing listings. > It's funny on how in the two months they've done this, my cell phone > bill is $5-$10 more than it usually is, especially when I rarely use > it. I have no idea what they've billed me for. It's very possible > they made errors; they have made errors in bill calculations in the > past (1-they charged me peak rates for offpeak usage and 2-overcharged > the landline fee). You are supposed to have been grandfathered if, like me, you had the detailed billing at no charge, but you had to call. I called at least a month ago (deadline is 6/30/04), once for each line I have active with Verizon Wireless, and both times was told I already had detailed billing. (Duh!) SO ... this month I get a bill without call details. I call and complain, and the CSR says she'll reset my account and send me out a properly-generated bill. We'll see if I get charged. Incidentally, Lisa, if you use verizonwireless.com, the online bill includes call details and has some interesting other tools that'll let you see how you are spending your cellular money. I strongly suggest using the web site. > I tried to get a detail listing online, as they encourage, but I don't > want to give them my email address (required) because I do not want to > receive "news items that may interest me" on my email. Heh. You don't have to. I trust them not to e-mail me. I don't believe VZW are a bunch of scumbag spammers. Actually, I initially told them I did want promotional emails, got a few, and got nothing since then. :) I don't even get the monthly notices that my bill is available online! > The power company did even less: They used a postcard -- name and > address on the right side, beg/end KWH usage, tax, and total on > the left side. Just be glad you don't receive AT&T Business Long Distance bills. I think AT&T must be in bed with the paper mills. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/ "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003 ------------------------------ From: cbreitbach@braintags.de (C. Breitbach) Subject: Dialogic D/600SC 2E1 120 Problems Date: 11 May 2004 08:52:30 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hallo, I have a Dialogic D/600SC 2E1 120 on a new instaled Win2000 Server. I instaled "SR 5.1.1" and "SR 5.1.1 SP" My problem is, that windows doesn't know the card (doesn't load the drivers), but in the DCM the right card is diplayed. When I start the card I there were the following messages in the syslogs and the starting proces ends. ################### 1. "dlgcmpd" not started because windows can't find the device 2. CTBBAPI.exe 01.50 bld 3 (release). 0x20000000 : CTBB_ERROR_SUCCESS: Function completed properly. Exit value : 0x0. 3. Dialogic Generic Downloader Version 5.11 (Build 31) Copyright (c) 1992-2000 by Dialogic Corp. System Download ........................................................................... D/600SC-2E1 (ID 2) Download .. SPAN Firmware Version 6.65 1 Dialogic Board Successfully Installed 4. StartDrv.exe: Started device:dtiB1 StartDrv.exe: Started device:dtiB2 StartDrv.exe: Started device:dxxxB1 StartDrv.exe: Started device:dxxxB10 StartDrv.exe: Started device:dxxxB11 StartDrv.exe: Started device:dxxxB12 StartDrv.exe: Started device:dxxxB13 StartDrv.exe: Started device:dxxxB14 StartDrv.exe: Started device:dxxxB15 StartDrv.exe: Started device:dxxxB16 StartDrv.exe: Started device:dxxxB2 StartDrv.exe: Started device:dxxxB3 StartDrv.exe: Started device:dxxxB4 StartDrv.exe: Started device:dxxxB5 StartDrv.exe: Started device:dxxxB6 StartDrv.exe: Started device:dxxxB7 StartDrv.exe: Started device:dxxxB8 StartDrv.exe: Started device:dxxxB9 5. sctsdtdx : 2.0 (Build 2) sctsdtdx : dxxxB1 :- Assigned 4 time slots for VOICE device dxxxB1 sctsdtdx : dxxxB2 :- Assigned 4 time slots for VOICE device dxxxB2 sctsdtdx : dxxxB3 :- Assigned 4 time slots for VOICE device dxxxB3 sctsdtdx : dxxxB4 :- Assigned 4 time slots for VOICE device dxxxB4 sctsdtdx : dxxxB5 :- Assigned 4 time slots for VOICE device dxxxB5 sctsdtdx : dtiB1 :- Assigned 30 time slots for DIGITAL device dtiB1 sctsdtdx : dxxxB6 :- Assigned 4 time slots for VOICE device dxxxB6 sctsdtdx : dxxxB7 :- Assigned 4 time slots for VOICE device dxxxB7 sctsdtdx : dxxxB8 :- Assigned 2 time slots for VOICE device dxxxB8 sctsdtdx : dxxxB9 :- Assigned 4 time slots for VOICE device dxxxB9 sctsdtdx : dxxxB10 :- Assigned 4 time slots for VOICE device dxxxB10 sctsdtdx : dxxxB11 :- Assigned 4 time slots for VOICE device dxxxB11 sctsdtdx : dxxxB12 :- Assigned 4 time slots for VOICE device dxxxB12 sctsdtdx : dxxxB13 :- Assigned 4 time slots for VOICE device dxxxB13 sctsdtdx : dtiB2 :- Assigned 30 time slots for DIGITAL device dtiB2 sctsdtdx : dxxxB14 :- Assigned 4 time slots for VOICE device dxxxB14 sctsdtdx : dxxxB15 :- Assigned 4 time slots for VOICE device dxxxB15 sctsdtdx : dxxxB16 :- Assigned 2 time slots for VOICE device dxxxB16 sctsdtdx : CTBus time slot assignment completed successfully 6. BRISTART Application Version 66.0 Build(0) Data Driver not Installed on any BRI/2 Board. 7. BriStart.exe -LBriStart.log returned fatal error. Dialogic System Service stopping 8. BRISTOP Application Version 66.0 Build(0) Data Driver not Installed on any BRI/2 Board. 9. StopDrv.exe: Stopping device:dtiB1 successful StopDrv.exe: Stopping device:dtiB2 successful StopDrv.exe: Stopping device:dxxxB1 successful StopDrv.exe: Stopping device:dxxxB10 successful StopDrv.exe: Stopping device:dxxxB11 successful StopDrv.exe: Stopping device:dxxxB12 successful StopDrv.exe: Stopping device:dxxxB13 successful StopDrv.exe: Stopping device:dxxxB14 successful StopDrv.exe: Stopping device:dxxxB15 successful StopDrv.exe: Stopping device:dxxxB16 successful StopDrv.exe: Stopping device:dxxxB2 successful StopDrv.exe: Stopping device:dxxxB3 successful StopDrv.exe: Stopping device:dxxxB4 successful StopDrv.exe: Stopping device:dxxxB5 successful StopDrv.exe: Stopping device:dxxxB6 successful StopDrv.exe: Stopping device:dxxxB7 successful StopDrv.exe: Stopping device:dxxxB8 successful StopDrv.exe: Stopping device:dxxxB9 successful 10. CTBBAPI.exe 01.50 bld 3 (release). 0x20000000 : CTBB_ERROR_SUCCESS: Function completed properly. Exit value : 0x0. 11. Dialogic System Service stopped 12. The Proces "Dialogic" ended with error 16383. ############## I need everything for developments on this card. Thanks for helping a newbie. Chris "sorry for my bad english" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 00:00:37 -0500 From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Reply-To: nospam@crashelectronics.com Organization: Crash Electronics Subject: Re: Fires and Telecommunications Pat wrote: > (4) I dunno what the batteries had in them; they were big giant things > also, already burning by the time the firemen reached them. PAT] When I worked for a telecom company (American Satellite Company, later "Contel/ASC") at about that time, our satellite and microwave sites floated on banks of batteries that held a gallon or two of sulfuric acid per 1.5 volt cell. AC came in, was rectified and regulated to -48vdc, and dumped onto the power bus. Much of the equipment ran directly off the -48vdc bus, for other stuff inverters (redundant, of course) produced clean 117vac. If the input power failed, the batteries could hold the site up for at least half an hour, long enough to start the generator (theoretically that was automatic). The generator had a 30-day minimum fuel supply and was rated for continuous duty. Since we always ran off the batteries, a power failure would not cause any glitches. Pretty sure our CO had the same kind of power system, but I didn't do maintenance there, they had their own guys. I'm guessing Amsat "borrowed" the idea from Ma Bell, so that, or something quite similar, is probably what was in the Hinsdale Office. Gordon S. Hlavenka http://www.crashelectronics.com "If we imagined he could _find_ the car, we could pretend it might be fixed." - Calvin [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is Sulphuric Acid the stuff that smells very much like rotten eggs when it gets disturbed? When it catches on fire or gets disturbed is it the thing which goes up in the atmosphere in a plume like cloud? Would a release of same into the atmosphere as the result of an explosion or disturbance be the kind of thing you would evacuate the neighbors for? Then that may have been what it was. The firemen broke out a couple of windows and doors to let this stuff vent into the atmosphere, then the 'rotten egg' smell got bad everywhere. And it was still raining heavily much of the early evening. And there was also quite a bit of what appeared to be fiberglass cabling in large rolls which had melted and also made quite a mess of 'glop' everywhere, and the firemen said 'that stuff is quite dangerous also'. Early May, so the outside temperature combined with humidity from the heavy rain and the intense heat from the fire made an awful mess. The fire was most intense in an area on the first floor near a cable vault where they say it started, but due to incompetence of phone company in getting it reported and attended to, the entire building was in flames and gutted by the time it got under control. The firemen would not allow anyone to go near the building once the fire had been 'struck' until that rotten egg smell went away. PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #236 ******************************