From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Aug 19 16:13:55 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i7JKDtj03968; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:13:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:13:55 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200408192013.i7JKDtj03968@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 #389 TELECOM Digest Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:13:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 389 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson VOIP Phone Firm Tussles With States Over Phone Numbers (Decker-VOIP) Covad Releases White Paper: Future of Voice Over Internet (Decker-VOIP) AT&T: Gold-Medal Hyperbole (Jack Decker - VOIP News) AT&T Dials Up VoIP Service With Cable Deals (Jack Decker - VOIP News) Vonage(R) Offers 311 Dialing For City Information Services (Decker-VOIP) Re: Vonage(R) Offers 311 Dialing For City Information (Paul Timmins) Considering VoIP For Home? Think Twice About AT&T CallVantage (Chip G) Choosing AT&T Wireless a Big Mistake (Ankur Shah) Re: Transmission Time Delay (Wolfgang R.) Free World Dialup: Configuration Tool FWD With Asterisk on MacOSX (BK) Re: DSL Steel or Copper (Scott Dorsey) Re: Number Not in Use (T. Sean Weintz) Re: Anyone Know Anything About RTP and NAT Traversal? (T. Sean Weintz) 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: Jack Decker Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:12:30 -0400 Subject: VoIP Firm Tussles With States Over Phone Numbers Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://news.com.com/VoIP+firm+tussles+with+states+over+phone+numbers/2100-7352_3-5316368.html By Ben Charny Staff Writer, CNET News.com A dispute between SBC IP Communications and state utility agencies over how to distribute phone numbers promises to shape regulations that are key to the future of the fledgling Net telephony industry. SBC IP Communications, a subsidiary of SBC, wants to sidestep the usual procedures and get telephone numbers directly from the North American Numbering Plan Administration, without first obtaining a state telephone operator's license. Last month, SBC IP asked the Federal Communications Commission for a temporary waiver of the licensing requirement. Without an unfettered supply of phone numbers from NANPA, SBC IP argues, it and other carriers' rollouts of Net phone service will be hampered. NANPA is the organization that maintains the comprehensive telephone-numbering plan for the United States, its territories, Canada and the Caribbean. Several state regulators have since vigorously objected to SBC IP's plan, saying the licensing process is necessary to keep carriers from gobbling up the dwindling supply of phone numbers assigned to North America. They told the FCC earlier this week that NANPA isn't required to enforce federal or state telephone number conservation measures. That task is left to the states, which impose restrictions on carriers as part of the licensing process. Federal agencies estimate that the United States, Canada, Guam, Bermuda and Trinidad will run out of 10-digit numbers, which include area codes, by 2025. "The lack of certification will frustrate (our) ability to directly enforce any number of conservation requirements," the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio told the FCC in a statement. "By requiring state certification, the Ohio commission and FCC are able to ensure that numbers are assigned to carriers only when the carrier has made a commitment to serve and the company is authorized to operate." Full story at: http://news.com.com/VoIP+firm+tussles+with+states+over+phone+numbers/2100-7352_3-5316368.html 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: Jack Decker Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:47:20 -0400 Subject: Covad Releases White Paper on Future of Voice over Internet Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/Aug/1066714.htm SAN JOSE, Calif. --(Business Wire)-- Aug. 19, 2004 -- Industry Innovation and Facilities-Based Competition Can Turn the VoIP Revolution into Reality Covad Communications Group, Inc. (OTCBB:COVD), a leading nationwide provider of integrated voice and data communications, today released a white paper offering recommendations for the future of regulations for Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and on key social policy issues facing this technology. The paper, the second in a series, concludes that VoIP can and should be free of excessive retail-level regulation provided that competition is maintained by assured access to underlying facilities. "Facilities-based providers like Covad are poised to make the VoIP revolution a reality," said Charles Hoffman, president and chief executive officer of Covad. "VoIP should be viewed as an unregulated information service, free from outdated and excessive regulations that may stunt its growth. Important social policy challenges should be met by industry-led efforts, while competition and innovation are best maintained by ensuring access to the local loops that connect America's homes and businesses." Full story at: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/Aug/1066714.htm 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: Jack Decker Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:47:14 -0400 Subject: AT&T: Gold-Medal Hyperbole Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.nwfusion.com/weblogs/layer8/006025.html OK, we admit it -- we've been watching the Olympics. Hey, nothing's on and we're in between Netflix rentals. Anyway, we almost spit out our Coco Puffs last night when we saw this . These three ridiculous AT&T engineers pull up a chair and try to explain VoIP to we stupid Americans. It actually starts out with one of them sighing, saying, "How can I explain this?" then it shows two tin cans connected with string. Ay yi yi. Full story at: http://www.nwfusion.com/weblogs/layer8/006025.html ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:41:39 -0400 Subject: AT&T Dials Up VoIP Service With Cable Deals Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/techcorporatenews/2004-08-19-att_x.htm By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY AT&T is teaming with America's big cable TV operators to offer phone service over their broadband Internet lines, marking the telecom giant's first big move since it announced plans to abandon its traditional consumer long-distance business. To drive deployment of its CallVantage Internet-phone service, AT&T has struck marketing agreements with Comcast, Time Warner, Cox and Charter Communications. Mediacom, a New York-based cable TV operator with 1.5 million customers in 23 states, also is participating. The five cable operators together have more than 40 million customers. Under the plan, AT&T will refer callers seeking to sign up for its CallVantage package to the appropriate cable operator to set up broadband Internet access. With Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) calling, the phone is connected to a broadband line rather than a traditional copper phone line. AT&T sales representatives will ask for the caller's ZIP code and direct them accordingly. "As many customers as they'll drive our way, we'll take them," says Dave Andersen of Charter. [Comment: I feel it is worth noting that once the first six months of service (the introductory period) have gone by, AT&T's service is among the most expensive of the VoIP services. Is it really worth $5 to $15 per month extra to have the AT&T brand name? I'm sure that it will sway some people, but anyone who knows even a little bit about VoIP would doubtless do well to at least investigate other options.] Full story at: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/techcorporatenews/2004-08-19-att_x.htm ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:32:22 -0400 Subject: Vonage(R) Now Offers 311 Dialing For City Information Services Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/08-18-2004/0002233919&STORY&EDATE= EDISON, N.J., Aug. 18 /PRNewswire/ -- Vonage, the leading broadband telephony provider today announced it is now offering its subscribers 311 dialing for city information services. Calls dialed to 311 are routed to the public information center in the customer's area enabling them to receive information such as public transit and garbage collection schedules, as well as tourism and parks and recreation information. "Vonage is pleased to offer its customers the convenience of 311 dialing for city information services. This is just another example of Vonage answering its customers needs," stated Jeffrey A. Citron, chairman and CEO of Vonage. The 311 dialing feature is available at no charge to all customers who have activated their dialing 911 service. Vonage customer access to 311 services is available in 13 markets across the US including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Dallas and Washington DC. [COMMENT: Is it my imagination, or is Vonage really using the wrong code for this purpose? I always thought that city information services were supposed to be on 211, while 311 was reserved as a non-emergency alternative to 911. So is Vonage wrong here or am I?] Full press release at: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/08-18-2004/0002233919&STORY&EDATE= ------------------------------ Organization: Timmins Technologies, LLC From: Paul Timmins Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:20:12 -0400 Subject: Re: Vonage(R) Now Offers 311 Dialing For City Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.nanpa.com/number_resource_info/n11_codes.html 211 Community Information and Referral Services (US) 311 Non-Emergency Police and Other Governmental Services (US) 411 Local Directory Assistance 511 Traffic and Transportation Information (US); Reserved (Canada) 611 Repair Service 711 Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) 811 Business Office 911 Emergency -Paul On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 12:32, Jack Decker wrote: > http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/08-18-2004/0002233919&STORY&EDATE= > Vonage(R) Now Offers 311 Dialing For City Information Services > [COMMENT: Is it my imagination, or is Vonage really using the wrong > code for this purpose? I always thought that city information > services were supposed to be on 211, while 311 was reserved as a > non-emergency alternative to 911. So is Vonage wrong here or am I?] Paul Timmins Timmins Technologies, LLC ------------------------------ From: Chip G Subject: Considering VoIP For Home? Think Twice About AT&T CallVantage Organization: Comcast Online Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:01:57 GMT I share this experience with you because there has been a lot of conversation about various VoIP providers. I truly appreciate all the comments that I have seen in this forum and hope that my contribution will help you if you are considering VoIP for your home. I requested the AT&T CallVantage service in response to a promotional program that I received in the mail. The representative seemed to be fairly knowledgable and handled my request for the service. I received a D-Link terminal adapter a couple of weeks later via FedEx. My experience has always been very good with FedEx regarding timely delivery so I can only guess that it took AT&T a little less than a couple of weeks to get the device into FedEx for delivery. The device came with quick start instructions which very clearly delineated the process to connect the device and included color coded cables to connect the device between my cable modem and my router. This is where I discovered my first surprise. I periodically ask people to "call" me on my PC via my IP Address provided from my ISP in order to use Netmeeting or to conduct large file transfers using FTP. Due to the required architecture using the D-Link adapter between my router and the cable modem, my router now gets allocated a private IP address from the D-Link adapter. This makes it impossible for people to reach my router directly from the Internet. Next, I spent many hours getting bounced through various AT&T representatives and getting transferred with very long waits between them trying to get the service working. After talking to 5 different representatives, I was informed that they had no record that I am a customer and that their records did not indicate that I had requested any services from AT&T CallVantage not withstanding the multiple pieces of mail I have received explaining the various billing requirements and the miscellaneous charges that I would incur (which had never been discussed or articulated to me during the sign-up process). I was transferred through a couple more people who could not help. After bouncing around through a variety of very friendly but not helpful representatives, I connected with a gentleman who explained to me that they had setup my phone services on a certain telephone number and the AT&T CallVantage program on a different number so that the two could not work together. According to him, this was part of the reason why the services were not working. He explained that it should not have been setup in that way and that he would make sure to get the problem corrected within two months. I explained that this was not acceptable and requested that everything be cancelled. At this point, I am a little gun-shy but back to evaluating potential alternative providers ... Lingo and Vonage are in the running but I will keep watching this group for more experiences before taking the leap again. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I can assure you that for all the bad feelings there are about Vonage by some people, one thing you never get is 'bounced around between various reps.' If your name is not Patrick Townson and you don't have a screen full of 'next month free' credits waiting on your account when they pull it up to awe them with as they say they have never seen anyone with that many credit memos, then you prolly have to wait a while for service. One of the to be expected problems in life is that as a company grows faster than new employees can be trained the time spent waiting is bound to get miserable. Then because you get miserable while waiting in the queue, you cuss them out and write them off for their 'miserable service'. And if you think the customer service at Vonage is bad news, then you should try the queue for tech service sometime. But I do think overall, Vonage is better than AT&T almost always. Maybe I am prejudiced a little. I've never had long waits in line there, nor do I have any 'special numbers' to call in on which bypass the queue. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:18:29 -0400 From: Ankur Shah Subject: Re: Choosing AT&T Wireless Worst Mistake MR wrote: > Go to Cingular or T-Mobile!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AT&T s@#ks. Umm, hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Cingular *owns* AT&T. > first two statements have been incorrect by HUNDREDS of dollars. I > have wasted hours sorting this out on the phone with their reps. And > after these corrections the website still reflects the wrong billing > amounts. > Every time I make a call I get a very loud static ticking before > connection. The minutes usage portion of the website is > indecipherable even to their service reps. After ten minutes of > explaining and back pedaling the rep only made things worse by making > me realize I have a two year contract with a@#holes. I've a few friends who use AT&T wireless, and though they haven't had any billing issues (yet), they're not too happy with the overall service. That said, you may be able to "break" the contract by paying a preset amount (usually ~$250). It should be in your contract, you may wanna actually read your contract this time :P -- Ankur ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Transmission Time Calculation & Impact of Distance on it From: wolfgang+gnus20040819T111755@dailyplanet.dontspam.wsrcc.com Organization: W S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Fremont CA Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:48:33 GMT a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) writes: > Electrons move at the speed of light. Not really, and we should be very glad that they don't. TV's of old already had a problem with X-rays being emitted when the relatively slow-moving electrons from the cathode slammed into something hard at the front of the CRT. Now picture what would happen if an electron moving at *relativistic* velocities did that. The energy released would be immense. (Edward Teller is probably smiling in his grave just thinking about the "interesting" uses such an electron would have.) I suspect you might be thinking the speed of an electrical *signal* in wire. The speed of a signal in typical electronic wiring is anywhere between half of the speed of light in a vacuum to just short of the speed of light in a vacuum. Substances with very low propagation velocities (eg. much slower than the speed of light in a vacuum) also exist and are heavily studied. -wolfgang ------------------------------ From: akabeni@gmail.com (BK) Subject: Free World Dialup: Configuration Tool With Asterisk on MacOSX Date: 18 Aug 2004 15:09:16 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com FYI: just out -- pre-release of FWD Assistant, for automated FWD configuration of Asterisk on MacOSX. This is open source GPLed software. For further details see the Wiki ... http://www.voip-info.org/tiki-index.php?page=Asterisk+Assistants+for+MacOSX ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: DSL Steel or Copper Date: 19 Aug 2004 11:07:53 -0400 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) Paul A Lee wrote: > In TELECOM Digest V23 #338, ruddager99@hotmail.com (rud) wrote (in part): >> Does anyone know if you can use steel communication wire to >> run a DSL line? The cable is Belden LL7874/E108998/9504. I've >> got a brand new 500' spool of the stuff ... > Not likely it's steel. About the only places you'll find steel wire in > communication, control, or electronic cables are as a messenger > (supporting) wire or cable, or as a copper-clad center conductor in > some coaxial constructions. Actually, Army field wire is copper-clad steel, in order to make it much more mechanically strong than a copper cable. Big deal if you are running it on the ground beside a road in an improvised install. And it is just fine for DSL. --scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ From: T. Sean Weintz Subject: Re: Number Not in Use Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:00:27 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Owain wrote: > Ned Protter wrote: >> I dialed it. After two rings I got three shrill tones and an >> announcement that the number was not in service. I dialed >> again with the same result. >> How could I receive a call from an out-of-service number? > Are you sure the announcement was a genuine telephone company > announcement, or had the telemarketer put an answering machine on the > line with a fake annoucement? I'd expect a genuine announcement not to > ring first. > Owain Likely was a real telco recording. Back here, the recorded "not in service" messages ALWAYS ring first -- sometimes as many as five or six times before the message plays (one time I counted 8 times!) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Five or six times? Eight times? By that point most people would be ready to assume their party was not at home, rather than had the phone turned off. I am reminded of when Chicago-Wabash central office was very old, back in the panel/step-switch days. If you called someone whose line was busy only occassionally would you get a busy signal right away; usually it would ring one or two times *then* cut into busy. If the handful of 'busy noise makers' were all in use, you could wait four or five 'rings' before you got cut into one. PAT] ------------------------------ From: T. Sean Weintz Subject: Re: Anyone Know Anything About RTP and NAT Traversal? Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:06:17 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com JustSomeGuy wrote: > How do RTP packets travers a NAT? Same way UDP packets do. Nothing special about it. The address just gets translated. Now since RTP is basically UDP, which is connectionless, some NAT boxes will have problems. (It's harder to track NAT tables for a connectionless protocol.) I remember back in the mid 90's, most nat solutions wouldn't handle UDP at all. Nowadays most do, but some do better than others. ------------------------------ 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. 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 #389 ******************************