From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu May 27 23:58:23 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i4S3wNm26387; Thu, 27 May 2004 23:58:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 23:58:23 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200405280358.i4S3wNm26387@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 #263 TELECOM Digest Thu, 27 May 2004 23:58:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 263 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson New Free World Dialup Services Need Some Testing (VOIP News) 8x8 Announces Fourth Quarter and Year End 2004 Results (VOIP News) Comcast's Virile VOIP Story (VOIP News) Re: DSL vs. Cable Modem? (Kenneth P. Stox) Re: DSL vs. Cable Modem? (Tony P.) Re: DSL vs. Cable Modem? (John McHarry) Re: Why Would I Want a Local T1? (John McHarry) Re: Why Would I Want a Local T1? (William Warren) Re: The Strike Goes On (Curtis CCR) I Need: 48 & 96 Count RIBBONIZED, Armored Cable; 4,000 Feet + (Sourcing) California Adopts New Wireless Cell Phone Regulations (Monty Solomon) 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: VOIP News Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 13:44:55 -0400 Subject: New Free World Dialup Services Need Some Testing Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com This message was found at: http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,10351842~mode=flat edguy3 Loc:Melville, NY VoIPers, We at FWD have a few new features which we could some help testing: 1) FWD Pounce - call a user when they come on line. 2) vmail2email - voice mail delivery via email 3) SIP URI forwarding - set a forwarding address for your FWD number. 4) FWD Instant Communication System (ICS) -- web control of your FWD phone with integrated conferencing. Access these features by logging into your fwd account on www.fwdnet.net and selecting from the 'My Account' Menu. (N.B: these features are not yet in full production, but your testing will help them get there.) Thanks! /ed guy 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: VOIP News Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 18:18:57 -0400 Subject: 8x8 Announces Fourth Quarter and Year End 2004 Results Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-27-2004/0002183309&EDATE= SANTA CLARA, Calif., May 27 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- 8x8, Inc. (Nasdaq: EGHT) today announced financial results for its fourth quarter and fiscal year ended March 31, 2004. Total revenues for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2004 were $2 million, compared with $2.9 million for the same period of the prior year. The net loss for the quarter was $1.5 million, or $0.04 per share, compared with a net loss of $3.8 million, or $0.13 per share for the same period last year. Total revenues for the year ended March 31, 2004, were $9.3 million, compared with $11 million for fiscal 2003. The net loss for fiscal 2004 was $3 million, or $0.09 per share, compared with a net loss of $11.4 million, or $0.40 per share for fiscal 2003. The decline in total revenues for the quarter and fiscal year ended March 31, 2004, as compared to the comparable periods in 2003, was attributable to the Company's transition from its legacy semiconductor business to the Packet8 voice over internet protocol (VoIP) and videophone service. Total revenues for the Company's Packet8 VoIP service and related equipment sales increased to $672,000 for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2004, compared with $363,000 for the third quarter of fiscal 2004. For the year ended March 31, 2004, Packet8 service revenues and related equipment approximated $1.3 million. As of March 31, 2004, the Company had approximately 11,000 activated Packet8 subscriber lines in service. The Company's cash position increased to $14 million as of March 31, 2004, compared with $13.2 million for the third quarter of fiscal 2004 due to proceeds received from the exercise of warrants issued in the November 2003 private placement. For detailed financial results and other disclosures, see 8x8's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2004. About 8x8, Inc. 8x8, Inc. offers the Packet8 voice over internet protocol (VoIP) and videophone communications service and Packet8 Virtual Office (http://www.packet8.net). For additional company information, visit 8x8's web site at http://www.8x8.com. About Packet8 and Packet8 Virtual Office Packet8 enables anyone with high-speed access to the Internet to sign up for voice over internet protocol (VoIP) and videophone communications service at http://www.packet8.net . Customers can choose a direct-dial phone number from any of the more than 270 area codes offered by the service, and then use an 8x8-supplied terminal adapter to connect any telephone to a broadband internet connection and make or receive calls from a regular telephone number. For $19.95/month, Packet8 subscribers can make unlimited calls to any telephone number in the United States and Canada, and unlimited calls to any other Packet8 subscriber anywhere in the world. Calls to non-Packet8 numbers outside the United States and Canada are charged at the additional per-minute rates available at http://www.packet8.net/about/international.asp . All Packet8 accounts come with voice mail, caller ID, call waiting, call waiting caller ID, call forwarding, hold, line-alternate, 3-way conferencing, web access to account controls, and real-time online billing. Packet8 Virtual Office allows business users anywhere in the world to be part of a virtual PBX that includes auto attendants, conference bridges, extension-to-extension dialing, ring groups and a host of other business class PBX features, while still enjoying unlimited phone calls anywhere in the United States and Canada and the same low, per-minute international rates available in Packet8's residential plans. With Packet8 Virtual Office, each extension has its own direct dial telephone number which can be any telephone number on the Packet8 network, regardless of geographical location, and can make unlimited extension-to-extension calls anywhere in the world. NOTE: 8x8, the 8x8 logo, Packet8, the Packet8 logo and Packet8 Virtual Office are trademarks of 8x8, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Full press release (includes financial data) at: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-27-2004/0002183309&EDATE= ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 19:37:33 -0400 Subject: Comcast's Virile VOIP Story Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=53568 Comcast Corp. (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK) announced its voice-over-IP (VOIP) plans yesterday, and if you didn't read the fine print the effort sounded like a world beater. But the hard numbers tell another story. Comcast announced that, by year's end, the company plans to be able to offer VOIP service to half of the 40 million homes its cables pass. By the end of next year, it plans to be able to offer the service to 95 percent of those 40 million homes (or 38 million homes). Several papers, including The Wall Street Journal, ran broad descriptions of the announcement, each noting that Comcast plans to offer VOIP service to all the 40 million households served by its cable systems by the end of 2006. Comcast shares climbed 12 cents to $29.69 on the news (see Comcast Directors Re-Elected ). However, the difference between "offer" and "provide" is mighty big. Full story at: http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=53568 ------------------------------ From: Kenneth P. Stox Organization: Imaginary Landscape, LLC. Subject: Re: DSL vs. Cable Modem? Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 19:31:34 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As long as DSL is effectively the 'property' > of the established, traditional telephone companies, (that is, give up > your traditional telephone service and you cannot have DSL), then a lot > of subscribers are left high and dry. Telco seems to be betting that > this 'all from us or nothing from us' approach will work to their benefit. > In fact, it may hasten the demise of Bell even more. FYI: Verizon is now offering stand-alone DSL: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=582&e=5&u=/nm/20040526/wr_nm/telecoms_verizon_dc ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: DSL vs. Cable Modem? Organization: ATCC Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 20:45:04 GMT In article , hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says: > My local telephone company (Verizon) and cable TV company (Comcast) > have been running an aggressive TV ad campaign pushing their > respecting high speed data services. Verizon is pushing DSL while > Comcast is pushing cable modem. Each says they're far superior > (faster data and more reliable) and cheaper than the other. > Any opinions on cable modems vs. DSL in today's world? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As long as DSL is effectively the 'property' > of the established, traditional telephone companies, (that is, give up > your traditional telephone service and you cannot have DSL), then a lot > of subscribers are left high and dry. Telco seems to be betting that > this 'all from us or nothing from us' approach will work to their benefit. > In fact, it may hasten the demise of Bell even more. Take my case, > which I think is sort of typical: I was spending a hundred dollars > plus per month on phone and DSL from Southwestern Bell, and extra for > what little long distance I use. Cable was another $50-60 per month, > for a limited package of basic stuff only (60 channels). By > eliminating Bell totally (I use Prairie Stream in a combined local > phone and LD package) which costs $25 per month and cable internet > which includes all the 'premium' cable television channels for $100 > per month, I save a little money on the total bill. If Bell ever released > their tight grip on DSL as a general rule, it might be different, but > for those of us who are disabled and with fixed incomes from Social > Security, we just cannot afford to get huge packages from Bell in > order to use our computers effeciently *and* a package from cable as > well. PAT] Verizon now offers naked DSL. I think SBC is doing it now too. Far as I know, you can't get consumer cable IP feed without subscribing to cable television. Ran into that when I was working for state government. We needed a cheap point to point solution. When I talked to the Cox rep they mentioned they couldn't sell us just the data, that we'd have to be a basic cable subscriber too. Luckily we were. ------------------------------ From: John McHarry Subject: Re: DSL vs. Cable Modem? Organization: BellSouth Internet Group Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 22:35:49 -0400 Lisa Hancock wrote: > My local telephone company (Verizon) and cable TV company (Comcast) > have been running an aggressive TV ad campaign pushing their > respecting high speed data services. Verizon is pushing DSL while > Comcast is pushing cable modem. Each says they're far superior > (faster data and more reliable) and cheaper than the other. > Any opinions on cable modems vs. DSL in today's world? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As long as DSL is effectively the > 'property' of the established, traditional telephone companies, > (that is, give up your traditional telephone service and you cannot > have DSL), then a lot of subscribers are left high and dry. Telco > seems to be betting that this 'all from us or nothing from us' > approach will work to their benefit. In fact, it may hasten the > demise of Bell even more. Take my case, which I think is sort of > typical: I was spending a hundred dollars plus per month on phone > and DSL from Southwestern Bell, and extra for what little long > distance I use. Cable was another $50-60 per month, for a limited > package of basic stuff only (60 channels). By eliminating Bell > totally (I use Prairie Stream in a combined local phone and LD > package) which costs $25 per month and cable internet which includes > all the 'premium' cable television channels for $100 per month, I > save a little money on the total bill. If Bell ever released their > tight grip on DSL as a general rule, it might be different, but for > those of us who are disabled and with fixed incomes from Social > Security, we just cannot afford to get huge packages from Bell in > order to use our computers effeciently *and* a package from cable as > well. PAT] Well put, but my experience is that it depends on where you are and what is on offer locally. I had a cable modem for a couple years in Northern VA, and was quite satisfied; although they kept trying to force me to also buy their TV service, which I didn't want since I had Echostar, which was cheaper and better quality. When I moved to Southeastern NC I tried cable modem, but it was too unreliable, and the cable company didn't seem to much care. I have had DSL for a couple years now, and it is rock solid, but they are playing with the rates, so I plan to give cable modem another try. ------------------------------ From: John McHarry Subject: Re: Why Would I Want a Local T1? Organization: BellSouth Internet Group Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 19:27:01 -0400 xasdfg123456@yahoo.com wrote: > I am confused about something: why would I want my own local T1 into > my office? It seems like it would be less expensive to use the local > carrier's lines that are already in place in the building then having > our own dedicated circuit installed. Why do people do this? Thanks. > BR > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Because everyone in your building would > share the same T1. Some people, for various reasons, do not like to > share, either because they need the bandwidth or they have security > concerns, or maybe they are just greedy. Shared facilities are always > cheaper, if that's your only concern. PAT] I don't know what he wants it for, but if it is for access to an interexchange carrier, it could well be cheaper than paying the the LEC origination and termination charges. If it is just back to the LEC, there could be issues of features. Most likely it is bandwidth, or grade of service, which is much the same thing. Oh, another would be to get a connection to a second or remote CO. ------------------------------ From: William Warren Subject: Re: Why Would I Want a Local T1? Organization: Comcast Online Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 01:48:34 GMT wrote in message news:telecom23.262.12@telecom-digest.org: > I am confused about something: why would I want my own local T1 into > my office? It seems like it would be less expensive to use the local > carrier's lines that are already in place in the building then having > our own dedicated circuit installed. Why do people do this? Thanks. > BR > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Because everyone in your building would > share the same T1. Some people, for various reasons, do not like to > share, either because they need the bandwidth or they have security > concerns, or maybe they are just greedy. Shared facilities are always > cheaper, if that's your only concern. PAT] BR, There are several factors to consider here: 1. Your usage pattern. If most of your traffic is incoming to your business, and represents essential information (most printing firms, for example, now receive their copy electronically, directly from ad agencies or corporate Graphic Arts departments), then you might choose to enjoy the extra speed a DS-1 represents. Shared capacity, while less expensive, will "bottleneck" during busy hours, and you'll have to decide if you want to risk alienating your customers. 2. The type of traffic. If you're doing a lot of VoIP, you might want a DS-1 because it gives you enough bandwidth to predict VoIP quality metrics. There is no "minimum transit time" in the IP protocol, and although packets can be marked as time-sensitive, there's no specification for how long an IP datagram will take to go from point A to B. Remember, TCP/IP was designed to maximize the throughput of unreliable links, and has very good mechanisms for assuring reliable transport, but at the heart of the protocol suite is the notion of time-insensitivity, i.e., the fundamental assumption that packet transit times can be sacrificed in exchange for reliable transport. Works great for email, not so well for VoIP, Multicast streaming video/audio, or other "real time" info. 3. Access to experts. DS-1 lines are very profitable for the ILECs and CLECs, and they get top-notch technicians, with much better training, equipment, and budgets than the consumer-grade services such as DSL. Since DS-1 circuits are provisioned with "Special Service Protection", they're less likely to be interrupted by cable swaps, linemen looking for dial tone, etc. 4. Simplified maintenance and accountability. A DS-1 circuit going from your business to a backbone provider is much easier to maintain than a shared line with an unknown owner, unclear bandwidth, or unpredictable error rates. It's a straight pipe from you to the Major League data transfer points (assuming you order it wisely), and so will obviate any possible choke points caused by other customers. 5. All the eggs are in one basket. A DS-1 is a single point of failure if that's all your business has. More sophisticated customers pay for dual DS-1 feeds, with diverse routing, backup power, etc., but that's almost always for police, fire, or other 27/7 shops. You can get backup capacity that'll carry you through an outage, for example by using several multi-link PPP dialup circuits, but you'll have to bargain for this and set it up well in advance. HTH. YMMV. Bill ------------------------------ From: curtisccr@sbcglobal.net (Curtis CCR) Subject: Re: The Strike Goes On Date: 27 May 2004 16:04:32 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com TELECOM Digest Editor wrote in message news:: > According to the Independence Reporter for Sunday, May 23, the labor dispute > at SBC continues. There was a time in the United States when a strike at the > telephone company meant bad news. Now, all it seems to amount to is a slight > delay in getting an answer from Directory Assistance or the operator. Here > at our central office in Independence, over at 6th and Maple, there was no > sign of any action other than back on Friday (when the strike started) two > guys with picket signs on the sidewalk in front for a short time, but then > they went away and there was nothing. The other tenants, with co-location > cages, came and went normally. Telco may just allow this strike to linger > on and make no real effort to settle it anytime fast. What is the reaction/ > response in other communities? My understanding is it is not just SBC on > strike, but all the (remnants of) Baby Bells. This was a sweetheart strike. They pre-planned to walkout for only four days. So where was the pressure on SBC if they knew everyone was coming back in four days? There was no pressure -- the reason the "srike" was only four days long because the union and the company agreed in advance that if the strike lasted no longer than 4 days, the workers wouldn't be locked out and their benefits would continue. In the end, what happened. SBCs "final offer" was accepted. The workers will get some modest raises but SBC retained the right to layoff some workers. The company is still paying medical insurance premiums, but the employee co-pays are going from something like $10 to $25. I read an analysis on the medical coverage issue saying that it sort of screws both sides later. SBC will save a couple of billion dollars in the immediate future by raising co-payments, but the rising cost of insurance will quickly overtake the savings again. All they did was buy time -- both sides are going to be facing this issue again in 5 years. And the workers will likely be at an even bigger disadvantage because most of the general public will not feel sorry for employees that don't have to contribute to tehir health insurance premiums. ------------------------------ From: True Sourcing, Inc. Subject: I need: 48 & 96 Count RIBBONIZED, Armored Cable; 4,000 - 15,000 Feet Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 20:21:29 -0400 I need: 48 & 96 count RIBBONIZED, armored cable. 4,000 - 15,000 Feet Must be corning, pirelli, or Alcatel. Will take a bunch of shorts. Stuff from boneyards. Applcation Calls for cutting into 200 foot sections. Must buy today. Please advise. ----- Matthew Denton ph: 404.759.9041 ----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 23:38:12 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: California Adopts New Wireless Regulations By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business Writer SAN RAMON, Calif. - California on Thursday became the first state in the nation to adopt consumer protections for cell phone customers, after a four-year tussle with the industry. The state Public Utilities Commission adopted the so-called Telecommunications Consumer Bill of Rights on a 3-2 vote. The commission said it received more than 5,000 complaints from consumers last year about wireless companies; nationally, the Council of Better Business Bureaus said wireless carriers are the No. 2 topic of complaints filed with its bureaus, second only to auto dealers. The regulation passed after an acrimonious debate about whether the reforms represented enlightened regulation or ham-handed meddling into the free market. http://www.latimes.com/business/nationworld/wire/ats-ap_business10may27,1,6443663.story ------------------------------ 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 ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #263 ******************************