From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Aug 20 20:51:18 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i7L0pIj19834; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 20:51:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 20:51:18 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200408210051.i7L0pIj19834@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 #391 TELECOM Digest Fri, 20 Aug 2004 20:50:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 391 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Copper Remains Golden for Legacy Networks (Jack Decker - VOIP News) VoIP Firm Tussles With States Over Phone Numbers (Jack Decker - VOIP) U.S. FCC Issues Rate Freeze For Phone Networks (Monty Solomon) Re: Choosing AT&T Wireless Worst Mistake (Ankur Shah) Re: Choosing AT&T Wireless Worst Mistake (Isaiah Beard) Re: Choosing AT&T Wireless Worst Mistake (Steven J Sobol) Re: Internet Patent Claims Stir Concern (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: Internet Patent Claims Stir Concern (Robert Bonomi) Re: Internet Spam Claims Stir Concern (John Levine) Re: Microsoft Pays Dear For Insults Through Ignorance (Steven J Sobol) Re: Microsoft Pays Dear For Insults Through Ignorance (William Warren) Misplaced Ugliness, was Re: Microsoft Pays Dear For Insults (D Burstein) Re: How Do I Get "Kewlstart" From my Phone Company? (Doug McIntyre) Re: Vonage Will Drive You Crazy - Beware Vonage (Isaiah Beard) Re: Rotary Step Relays (Lisa Hancock) Re: Transmission Time Calculation & Impact of Distance (G Novosielski) Re: Number Not in Use (Wes Leatherock) 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: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:18:12 -0400 Subject: Copper Remains Golden for Legacy Networks Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3397121 By Roy Mark When three of the four Baby Bells decided in May to walk out of a telecom industry summit crafting a new interconnection access fee system, they dealt a serious blow to reforming a 20-year-old scheme that generates $14 billion a year for the incumbent networks. Meeting at the explicit suggestion of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell, a tenuous coalition of Baby Bells and their local rivals, long distance carriers and rural telecom providers agreed to call a truce in their internecine wars and to produce an industry consensus rate reform solution to the FCC. The new odd bedfellows all agreed access fee reform was necessary for long-term survival against the competitive threats to long distance and local voice traffic posed by cable, wireless and Internet-based telephone services. Access fees are charges between traditionally defined phone companies for originating and terminating calls on the legacy copper Bell networks. Most of the fees flow one way to the Bells. Long distance provider AT&T has frequently complained that access charges are its single largest expense. The fees also help fuel the Universal Service Fund, which subsidizes the cost of rural phone service and forces carriers to engage in fee negotiations with 50 separate state utility commissions. The regime is based on the 20th Century telecom economics of time and distance, creating a system where it can cost more to send a call one mile than it does 10,000 miles but has fostered low, albeit subsidized, local rates for consumers. Internet telephony-based phone services, by contrast, currently operate in a virtually fee free, regulation free world. They pay low to no connection fees since there are no current laws or regulations classifying Voice over IP (define) service. In the absence of an FCC classification or federal law, the courts have rebuffed both Minnesota and New York when they attempted to regulate VoIP as a traditional carrier. VoIP providers are also currently not required to pay into the Universal Fund. Full story at: http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3397121 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: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:25:01 -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?part=rss&tag=5316368&tag&subj=news.7352.20 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. Full story at: http://news.com.com/VoIP+firm+tussles+with+states+over+phone+numbers/2100-7352_3-5316368.html?part=rss&tag=5316368&tag&subj=news.7352.20 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:39:53 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: U.S. FCC Issues Rate Freeze For Phone Networks WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - U.S. communications regulators on Friday issued interim rules that would freeze for six months wholesale rates for leasing access to the major U.S. local telephone networks to try to preserve competition. The Federal Communications Commission had required the four major local telephone carriers, known as the Baby Bells, to lease network access to rivals at government-set rates in order to promote competition for local service, but an appeals court in March threw out the rules. The FCC has been trying to draft new regulations and in the interim ordered the Bells to keep the rates at the present prices while final rules are hashed out. The Bells had argued the prices were below cost and have sought to eliminate them. After the first six months, if final regulations have not been set, the FCC said lease rates for existing customers could rise as much as 15 percent and new customers would have to negotiate new lease rates with the Bells. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=43245933 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:54:22 -0400 From: Ankur Shah Subject: Re: Choosing AT&T Wireless Worst Mistake Joseph wrote: > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:18:29 -0400, Ankur Shah > wrote: >> 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. > Not *yet* they don't! AT&T has hardly turned over the keys at this > time. They are still two distinct companies and are still doing > business independently even though there are reports that some AT&T > subscribers are able to use the cingular network in *some* locations. From all the hoopla around the two companies, I thought Cingular had already started the process of acquisition of ATTWS back in February. I also remember reading that the "acquisition" was to be finalized in September and is just waiting for a final approval from the FCC. Not too sure how one is not unrelated to the other? And you're correct, a friend of mine in New Jersey is able to switch between AT&T and Cingular networks (though, he's a ATT sub) without problems. I think its just that ATTWS permits free roaming on Cingular, whereas Cingular prohibits doing the same on ATTWS or any other carrier's network. John Levine wrote: > Cingular has an agreement to buy AT&T Wireless, but it's waiting for > regulators to OK it. Until then, the two companies are operating > separately. It's not out of the question that the regulators will > turn them down, since that'd be a merger of two of the three largest > wireless companies in the country. You're probably correct, although I hear mixed things about their whole merger/acquisition (see my previous post). This post from alt.cellular.* http://tinyurl.com/48wgs , for instance says: "Eventhough Cingular has bought AT&T the merger is not complete when it comes to infrastructure consolidation.". So Cingular has "bought" ATTWS, but is just waiting for a nod from the FCC to consolidate the shares? Nevertheless, this yahoo post from 8/13 seems to suggest that the deal may get the Federal approval sooner than what people had initially expected: http://tinyurl.com/5dxu8 Regards, -- Ankur ------------------------------ From: Isaiah Beard Subject: Re: Choosing AT&T Wireless Worst Mistake Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:00:18 -0400 John Levine 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. > Nope. > Cingular has an agreement to buy AT&T Wireless, but it's waiting for > regulators to OK it. Until then, the two companies are operating > separately. It's not out of the question that the regulators will > turn them down, since that'd be a merger of two of the three largest > wireless companies in the country. So basically, you're hedging your bets on regulatory hurdles. During a pro-big business administration, no less? > When AT&T spun of AT&T Wireless, part of the deal was that AT&T > woudn't compete with their namesake under the AT&T brand. Since the > plan is that ATTWS will be absorbed into Cingular and use the Cingular > name, after that AT&T is free to start using the AT&T name for > wireless service, which they say they will. True, but as you so keenly point out, AT&T wireless is still the same AT&T wireless it has been, and barring the regulatory hurdles you appear to be banking on, it *will* be absorbed into Cingular. E-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Choosing AT&T Wireless Worst Mistake Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:47:12 -0500 Joseph wrote: > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:18:29 -0400, Ankur Shah > wrote: >> 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. > Not *yet* they don't! AT&T has hardly turned over the keys at this > time. They are still two distinct companies and are still doing As I understand it, we're looking at roughly six months to complete the transaction if everything goes smoothly and regulators approve it. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Internet Patent Claims Stir Concern Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:08:17 GMT In article , JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com says: > The New York Times may be originator of some things but it's hardly > the originator of spam. Unless you can prove otherwise you are > slandering the company unduly. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They certainly willingly sell their > subscriber list (computer subscribers at least) to all sorts of > outfits who *do* spam us. I am sure they don't personally send out > spam, but they close their eyes to spam from companies which buy > their mailing list. And why do they need to give cookies out to > people who read their web pages? PAT] The Times's privacy policy says this about email: E-Mail: If you so elect at registration or in the E-mail Preferences section of our Member Center, The New York Times on the Web will periodically send you promotional e-mail about services offered by The New York Times on the Web and its advertisers. Additionally, the e-mail address provided by you at registration may be used by The New York Times on Web to contact you regarding (1) account status (including confirmation of registration), (2) major changes to the Web site and or to the Subscriber Agreement and Privacy Policy, and (3) participation in user surveys, asking for feedback on the Web site and existing or prospective products and services, as well as information to better understand our users. User surveys greatly help us to improve our Web site, and any information we obtain in such surveys will not be shared with third parties, except in aggregate form. (Effective as of August 21, 2002). The E-Mail This Article feature is an easy way for New York Times on the Web users to send articles through e-mail. The e-mail address(es) that you supply to use this service will only be used to send the requested article. We use e-mail links located in the Site Help area our Member Center to allow you to contact us directly with any questions or comments you may have. We will use your e-mail address to respond directly to these questions or comments. Except as permitted by this policy, The New York Times on the Web does not send unsolicited e-mail. The site also says: Programs From Our Partners: During the registration process, new users who select to register for certain featured offers from our partners will begin receiving e-mail from these companies. You will only receive e-mail messages from these companies if you elect this opt-in service. In addition to providing these partners with your e-mail address, certain partners may also receive other information collected on the The New York Times on the Web registration form but this will be noted on the Additional Information page, linked from the Programs from our Partners area of the Registration page. The New York Times on the Web may use this information as set forth in this privacy policy. Should you decide to discontinue your e-mail subscription or would like more information on these companies, please see our list of partners that have participated in this program. YesMail: Users who selected to register for YesMail during The New York Times on the Web registration process became YesMail members. If you selected this option, YesMail uses the information collected on The New York Times on the Web registration form to provide targeted e-mails to you on behalf of its advertisers. The New York Times on the Web may use this information as set forth in this privacy policy. You will only receive e-mail messages from YesMail if you elected this opt-in service. Please contact membercare@yesmail directly if you no longer wish to receive e-mail messages from them. In other words, they will give your name to spammers IF YOU TELL THEM TO. Otherwise, they will not. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Any number of times I have received spam where the sender (a) claims it is not spam or (b) it *might* be considered spam but you 'obviously' must have opted-in to recieve it, just go back and read what you agreed to when you signed up with us; read it closely, you will see where you agreed. I have at one point subscribed to NY Times paper edition, where it showed up on my front steps each day, delivered by their Tulsa newspaper agency. (Actually, the same carrier who brings the Independence Reporter each day also delivers the NY Times.) When the paper was coming each day (it was a gift subscription), it came with a unique spelling of my name, and presently I started getting junk mail to that same unique spelling of my name. If NY Times sells their print edition mailing list, I cannot see why they would not sell their internet mailing list. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: Internet Patent Claims Stir Concern From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:41:05 +0000 In article , Joseph wrote: >On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:47:12 -0400, Telecom Digest Editor opined: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To read NY Times articles, many Digest >> readers use our group reading name: operator10 and password >> operator10 in order to preserve their own privacy and prevent spam. >> PAT] > The New York Times may be originator of some things but it's hardly > the originator of spam. Unless you can prove otherwise you are > slandering the company unduly. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They certainly willingly sell their > subscriner list (computer subscribers at least) to all sorts of > outfits who *do* spam us. I am sure they don't personally send out > spam, but they close their eyes to spam from companies which buy > their mailing list. Data point: *I* have _never_ gotten any spam to an e-mail address given only to the NYT. Going on 4 years now. NO ONE _I_ know has ever gotten any spam traceable to having given an address to the NY Times. This encompasses 40+ NYT-online subscribers. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 2004 06:35:38 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Internet Spam Claims Stir Concern Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > The New York Times may be originator of some things but it's hardly > the originator of spam. Unless you can prove otherwise you are > slandering the company unduly. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They certainly willingly sell their > subscriner list (computer subscribers at least) to all sorts of > outfits who *do* spam us. I don't think so. I gave the Times a unique e-mail address, and I've never gotten mail to that address from anyone else. I hardly get any from the Times, either, other than the daily headline newsletter I asked for. It's quite rare for legit companies to sell e-mail address lists. If the list is any good, the pittance they could get from selling it isn't worth the hatred of their soon-to-be-ex-customers. Big company marketers may be venal, but they're not totally stupid. Some sites do "co-registration" which means selling your address, but it's usually pretty obvious who they are, sweepstakes, free lame joke of the day, stuff like that. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies, Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Microsoft Pays Dear For Insults Through Ignorance Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:45:16 -0500 Pat said, > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Anyone could tell you how downright > awful American citizens when it comes to geography American citizens (as a group, in general) seem to think that the US is the only important country on this planet and that other countries are not worth even thinking about. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is correct, and our politicians, with a few exceptions think it is our job to be police officers for the entire world. That is known as arrogance, IMO. PAT] ------------------------------ From: William Warren Subject: Re: Microsoft Pays Dear For Insults Through Ignorance Organization: Comcast Online Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:37:14 GMT Monty Solomon wrote in message news:telecom23.390.2@telecom-digest.org: > Paul Brown, environment correspondent > Insensitive computer programmers with little knowledge of geography > have cost the giant Microsoft company hundreds of millions of dollars > in lost business and led hapless company employees to be arrested by > offended governments. [snip] > http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,1286066,00.html > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Anyone could tell you how downright > awful American citizens when it comes to geography. Do the schools > even bother to teach geography any longer? [snip] Pat, Although I came from a generation that _does_ know where the Pacific Ocean is, and the Indian as well, I disagree with your assessment of our nation's schools vis-a-vis Geography and its relevence in the 21st century. Although I'm as nostalgic as anyone for the "good old days" when children were taught to the tune of a Hickory Stick, my resentment about the ways teenagers wear their trousers must be tempered by my wisdom about the world they are going to inherit. The rote memorization we were burdened with as children (Johnny points to map and says "This is Columbia. The capitol city is Bogota. They export Medicines.") must give way to more enlightened ideas about Geopolitics: location is not nearly as important as attitude when it comes to other peoples and ways of life. Frankly, I feel you're confusing Geography with Political Science. It may be important to know that there is a border dispute between India and Pakistan, but exactly _where_ the disputed borders are is relevant only to aid workers, missionaries, spies, and surveyors. It might be important to know that Argentina exports beef and wine, but it's more important to know if their government is stable and if contracts will be enforced. It may be important to know where the Pacific Ocean is (why?), but it's more important to know that Hawaii is separated from the Mainland, not the U.S. Johnny needs to know that Columbia exports medicines with a higher value now, and that the percentage of drug adicts in the populations of industrialized countries is almost a constant, no matter what -- or where -- the U.S. proposes to eliminate the problem. Johnny needs to know that there are as many dialects of Spanish as there are countries speaking it, and to consult with natives in all of them before advertising a car labelled "Nova" (which loosely translates to "no balls") in those places. Johnny needs to know that business depends on making friends and asking for advice instead of just faxing a price sheet and a FedEx schedule. Johnny needs to know that his is not the only view of world events, and that people he wants as customers like to be talked with instead of down to. Geography is important to navigators, but if we make the mistake of confusing navigation with human nature, then we wind up with Mercator Projections on all our schoolroom walls, and children who think Greenland is as big as Africa. The question is not why M$ didn't know about a border in Asia or the meaning of a certain word in a certain dialect of Spanish. The question is "Why did they assume they couldn't ask the people who live there?" FWIW. William (Filter noise from my address for direct replies.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your points are all very good, but I believe a person, to be well rounded or knowledgeable in political science needs to have a geography background as well. Now I do not expect American troops to all be well-verse in political science, but I *would* expect that before they get dispatched to host countries (like Saudi Arabia for example) to be instructed on the types of lifestyles, etc which offend their hosts, when the soldiers have free time. Here is a more 'at home' example: Many people know that I smoke cigarettes. I *DO NOT* smoke in someone else's home unless they invite me to do so. I *DO NOT* smoke in their car. I try to be considerate of the sensibilities of others, as I expect them to be considerate of my sensibilities or wishes, etc. I do not even smoke in *my own home* when there are invited guests here who may object to it. That is simply being courteous. If I were a guest in a foreign country, either physically, in person or through commerce (selling things) I would want to learn about my hosts and as nearly as possible, work along with them, not start right out like gangbusters, and offend them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Danny Burstein Subject: Misplaced Ugliness, was Re: Microsoft Pays Dear For Insults Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 06:18:54 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In Monty Solomon writes: [ full snip ] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: [snip] > I am reminded of a book from several years ago which > was entitled 'The Ugly Americans' where some tourists from USA went > to some country and proceeded to act like rude, ignorant pigs, and > made fun of the local customs and things like that. The book was "The Ugly American," by William J. Lederer and Eugene Burdic. It was published in the mid 1950s (I found a reference to 1956, but that seems like it might be a year or two early. I can't get to my copy right now to check). The book is a series of vignettes showing American (US) mistakes, arrogance, and indifference in a thinly veiled Southeast Asia. However, the title refers to an American engineer (and his wife) who actually mix in with the countryside, get their hands very, very, dirty, do a lot of good things, and are warmly appreciated by everyone. Oh, that is, appreciated by everyone in the country. Not by the American professional politicians, the business interests, or the French ... In short, "the ugly American" is actually the good guy. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: How Do I Get "Kewlstart" From my Phone Company? From: Doug McIntyre Date: 20 Aug 2004 13:53:47 GMT Organization: VISI.com bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) writes: > In article , Kyler Laird > wrote: >> I'm trying to set up a home PBX and I decided to just take a crack at >> getting kewlstart/calling party control/disconnect supervision on my >> home line. I called Verizon and got bounced around until I hit >> someone "with 31 years of experience" who had never heard of such a >> thing. I was told that Verizon certainly doesn't offer it. >> I suspect that someone in Verizon knows how to provision the switch >> and can twiddle a few bits to give it to me. Is that reasonable? How >> do I find that person? > No it is _not_ reasonable. Not for a _residential_ POTS phone line. > If you want to pay for a 'commercial rates' _trunk_ line, Then you can > start talking about things like "wink start" vs "ground start" vs > "loop start", "E&M" vs "T&R", "MF" vs "DTMF" signalling, etc., etc., > ad nauseum. FWIW: kewlstart isn't a telco line type like a loopstart or groundstart trunk line. Its a special mode of the Asterisk soft PBX system that takes a normal loopstart line (ie. a POTS line) and watches for a certain event on it to handle line drops (ie. remote disconnect detection) better than normal loopstart signalling. (ie. a posting on the Asterisk users archives from the main author kewlstart is what we call loopstart with battery drop. this is also known as "far end disconnect supervision" to some people. Basically when the switch hangs up on you, it drops battery for a fraction of a second to signal that you've been hung up on. As such, you won't find any telco offering it, because its a special mode that Asterisk has for its FXO cards on a plain old loopstart telephone line. Its not surprising at all that nobody at any telco has heard of it, and the OP is barking up the wrong tree for nothing. Doug McIntyre merlyn@visi.com Network Engineer/Jack of All Trades Vector Internet Services, Inc. ------------------------------ From: Isaiah Beard Subject: Re: Vonage Will Drive You Crazy - Beware Vonage Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:54:57 -0400 Levi wrote: >> When I read drivel like that, I say, damned right you're looking >> elsewhere! Vonage has its place, but not yet as a utility, and >> certainly not a replacement to five-nines service. Right now it's a >> convenient way to save money in applications that *aren't* critical. > Hey guy, this wasn't a personal attack on your choice to use Vonage. > I agree it has a place as a prototype experimental technology and > that's why I am registering my complaint and looking to spark > discussion. [snip] I'm not one to perpetuate arguments on fine forums like this, but if you'll read my post, you'll find that I was referring to comments by people *not even on this forum* who had completely dumped POTS for their business and then relied entirely on Vonage, and then had a fit when the service went down. Clearly you're an intelligent fellow who knows that "experimenting" and dumping a reliable service for an experimental one are two very different things ... right? > My opinion is no more or less "drivel" than yours. Let's keep this > kind of unwarrented criticism off the boards. Gladly agreed. But I must also kindly ask that you fully read the post before you immediately ASSuME that the attack was a personal one. E-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) Subject: Re: Rotary Step Relays Date: 20 Aug 2004 07:38:31 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com John Schuch wrote > Does anyone know of a source for rotary stepping relays? AKA Step > relays, sequencing relays, Strowger relays. I need several that have > at least two poles, and 10 positions. Yea, I know I could accomplish > the same thing fairly simply with electronics, but this is an "art > project", and the coolness is the sound and action of the old relays. There are two organizations that may be of help to you: 1) ATCA The Antique Telephone Collectors Association 2) TCI Telephone Collectors International. I'm not sure of their web address, but try searching altavista "Telephone collectors" and relevant stuff should come up for you. Those groups have newsletters where you could put in an ad for what you seek; their members have that kind of stuff. Some even have miniature step exchanges working in their basements. At their shows, there are working SxS demos on display--as you dial the number, you see the step go up and around. Fortunately, many collectors saved the guts of step offices when they were converted. ------------------------------ From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Transmission Time Calculation & Impact of Distance on it Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:58:54 GMT John McHarry wrote: > The reference has to be to photons, or any emf for that matter (lower > frequency photons are rather porcine and more wave like at our scale) > in a vacuum. They are always somewhat slower in media, since, like > dogs, they tend to pause to sniff things as they pass. Transmission > lines tend to give 65-80% of c as velocity constants. It is my understanding that higher frequency photons are slowed down more by passing through a given medium than are lower frequency photons. This is somewhat counterintuitive, since higher frequency photons are also higher energy photons. Nevertheless, this slowing ratio (also known by the name refractive index) accounts for the fact that violet light is refracted more than red light on passing an optical boundary where the speed of light differs on either side. This is all very different from the speed of electrons in a wire. Although the signal may travel at a large fraction of /c/, electrons themselves move very sluggishly by comparison. In a sub-ampere DC current in a wire several meters long it might take a week or so for a given electron (on average) to complete the trip. Of course DC currents have a frequency of zero, and so can't be understood to comprise "photons" in the first place. In an AC current, of course, a given electron would make no overall progress at all, on average. ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 20:38:30 EDT Subject: Re: Number Not in Use In a message dated Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:14:12 GMT, Nick Landsberg writes: > By the way, I had heard an urban legend that "ring back tones" were > established in order to try to prevent what the Telco termed "theft of > service." Consider the following example: > "Mom, I'll call you when I get there and hang up after exactly two > rings. I should be there around 8 PM or so." Some say that the > Telco's were concerned that they were losing money because the > customers were communicating "out of band" but never completing a > billable call. > Can anyone confirm this (or deny this)? Can anyone put an approximate > date when they started using "ring back tones" rather than you hearing > the electrical buzz from the actual ringer on the far end phone? > Thanks, NPL With step euipment originally some of the ringing current was fed back to the calling party. So you did hear the actual ringing and that form of code calling was indeed not uncommon. Even after they used a separate ringing tone, it was usually operated by the same relay that applied ringing current to the called party. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com ------------------------------ 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 #391 ******************************