From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Aug 22 19:09:42 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i7MN9gX06271; Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:09:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:09:42 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200408222309.i7MN9gX06271@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 #395 TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:09:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 395 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Begins Phone Trials in New Zealand (Jack Decker - VOIP News) Re: Microsoft Pays Dear For Insults Through Ignorance (John McHarry) Re: Microsoft Pays Dear For Insults Through Ignorance (Dave Close) Re: How Do I Get "Kewlstart" From my Phone Company? (John McHarry) Re: How Do I Get "Kewlstart" From my Phone Company? (Tony P.) Re: Internet Patent Claims Stir Concern (Steven J Sobol) Re: Number Not in Use (Paul Coxwell) Re: Info Re: NorVergence and the Salzanos? (Lisa Hancock) Re: Last Laugh! was Re: VoIP Firm Tussles With States (Steven J Sobol) 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: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:52:47 -0400 Subject: AT&T Begins Phone Trials in New Zealand Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3010966a28,00.html By ADRIAN BATHGATE New Zealand will be one of the first places outside the United States to experience AT&T's consumer internet telephone product, CallVantage. CallVantage consists of a desktop unit which connects a standard telephone to a DSL or cable modem and lets people make calls over the internet through AT&T, avoiding regular toll charges. A pilot of the product is just beginning in the Asia-Pacific region. Between 200-to-300 units will be trialled in Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand among staff of AT&T's corporate customers. "The trial will be complete by the years' end then a decision will be made on roll-out," says Steve Lowe, AT&T's vice-president responsible for the Asia Pacific. Full story at: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3010966a28,00.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: John McHarry Subject: Re: Microsoft Pays Dear For Insults Through Ignorance Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:13:31 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Joseph wrote: > But people live in places! And just to inform the country in South > America is *not* Columbia it is Colombia!!!!! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A lady in Colombia called me on the > phone once and in our discussion (about something else) she complained > to me that "most people in the USA think our country is spelled > the same as 'District of Columbia' because they do not know better." > PAT] Last year during a hurricane the public radio station I volunteer for was called by a station in Colombia. I took the call and told them to wait a bit for the real storm to move in, then call the next NPR station up the coast, which was right in the boresite. I gave them the number and told them to call back if they couldn't get what they wanted from them. At the end I asked again where they were calling from, and the lady said Bogota. I was a bit amazed. Her English was good enough I had thought Columbia, MD, or some such. I don't think she was offended. ------------------------------ From: dave@compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: Microsoft Pays Dear For Insults Through Ignorance Date: 21 Aug 2004 11:28:36 -0700 Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... 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. As a non-smoker, I appreciate your consideration. But when I am a guest in the home or office of a smoker, I do not feel it is my right to deny that person his own right to smoke. The beginning of your argument makes sense, but the conclusion is contradictory. Should a guest impose on his host, as you claim US troops do in Arabia, or should a host modify his behavior when he has guests, as you do but Arabians do not? This is the Golden Rule paradox. If I believe you should not smoke and you believe that I should, how can we reconcile? If I changed to do as you wanted and you changed to do as I wanted, would either of us be any better off? Wouldn't we both be worse off, in fact, as now we would be committing the offensive behavior ourselves instead of observing it in someone else? (I understand that you don't believe I should smoke. Like- wise, I don't care if you do.) The key to getting along is to accept the choices of others. Unfortunately, that rule can't be absolute or we'd have to accept the moral choices of a murderer. And some religions teach that a non-believer is morally equivalent to a murderer. Where is the boundary between those differences we accept or tolerate and those we don't? And is the boundary the same for everyone? Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You raise some good points I am not in a good position to answer, even though the Digest is known to get off topic now and then and even though this is Sunday and I know and then have been known to give Sunday Sermons of some length in this column. The fact is, I just do not know the answer. I only know what works best for me. I am not pleased with the decision I made, now some 48 years ago to smoke cigarettes, but at the time I started, at age 13, I knew that smoking cigarettes made me more glamorous and showed I was very sophisticated. And the *huge* amount of money I have spent on my filthy habit over the years causes me much depression also. Recall, when I started smoking the cost was twenty-four *cents* per package at the drug store. If you got them out of a cigarette machine, the machine would not take pennies so you put in a quarter and the machine returned a penny wrapped in the cellophane on the cigarettes along with a book of matches. I told myself I 'could quit anytime I wanted' but I just did not want to quit, however I would force myself to do so when the cost reached a dollar per package. The last time I was in Chicago -- about three years ago -- the price was in excess of four dollars per package, with the vast majority of that money going for taxes. I smoked Pall Mall most of those 48 years, but now that I am on a *very* fixed income from Social Security Disability I smoke a much cheaper brand called 'Echo' for $1.80 per pack which comes from our native American neighbors at their reservation in Pryor, OK. I think I am one of the few remaining people in the world -- err, I meant to say United States -- who smoke cigarettes. I wish it is something I had never started. I still rely on that 'glamorous and sophisticated' argument when people ask me why do I smoke, and they think it is very odd that 'three out of every four doctors' prefer Chesterfield' but 'Pall Mall is the choice where particular people congregate', and I am as particular as they come. To get back to your question/observation, I do not smoke when I have guests in my home unless *they wish to smoke also*, and many/most of them do not want to. Mostly I sit on my patio behind my house and smoke (now improved conditions, with a Think Pad wireless laptop computer to use [as I am right now] to work on this Digest or otherwise check out the net.) I am mindful of the fact that many teenagers or young adults mimick or follow the examples set by older adults, and I *do not* wish to be the example they choose to follow with my filthy habit. If anything, Dave, I prefer to be imposed on rather than imposing on others. I just have to do what works best for me, although my ideas have certainly caused me to endure some abuse in the past few years, mostly around Chicago instead of here in my new home in Independence, Kansas. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John McHarry Subject: Re: How Do I Get "Kewlstart" From my Phone Company? Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:08:41 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Ken Abrams wrote: > Tony P. wrote >> What ever happened to CPC? I forget exactly how it worked but the >> switch would actually reverse polarity on the line to indicate the >> call had dropped or some such. Not exactly. It just interrupted the talk battery for a short period. This was sufficient to drop a hold relay if the other party dropped off. > On a pots, loop start line, the reversal occurs at answer (on an > outgoing call). This indicates answer supervision to a connected PBX. A pots line, as opposed to some PBX trunks, offers no indication of answer supervision. A caller is supposed to recognize the greeting from the callee. Back in the bad old days, this was the cause of a number of long distance calls getting billed that never went through. All the carrier could do was assume the call was answered if it lasted over a certain period of time. Wait too many ringy-dingies and you got billed. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But that never happened with AT&T, only with MCI and Sprint in their earliest years. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: How Do I Get "Kewlstart" From my Phone Company? Organization: ATCC Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 04:18:54 GMT In article , k_abrams@[REMOVETHIS] sbcglobal.net says: > Tony P. wrote >> What ever happened to CPC? I forget exactly how it worked but the >> switch would actually reverse polarity on the line to indicate the >> call had dropped or some such. > On a pots, loop start line, the reversal occurs at answer (on an > outgoing call). This indicates answer supervision to a connected PBX. Ah yes ... that's it. Been some time since I've even seen it offered anywhere as most PBX's around these parts are now using PRI circuits. All the supervision info comes down the D channel. From what I recall though, CPC was active on all lines. You don't have to ask for it. One of these days I'll throw my scope on the line and watch the polarity when answer occurs. ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Internet Patent Claims Stir Concern Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:21:36 -0500 Monty Solomon wrote: > In 2002, the company began sending out letters demanding licensing > fees See, what I wonder is this: Trademark law says that if you don't defend your trademark vigorously you lose the legal protection of the trademark registration. Does a similar rule apply with patents? I'm sorry, but this would have been a groundbreaking technology in '92, and I would *think* that they'd have been pursuing licensing fees back then if they seriously had the patents. 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: Paul Coxwell Subject: Re: Number Not in Use Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:15:08 +0100 >> Even after they used a separate ringing tone, it was usually >> operated by the same relay that applied ringing current to the >> called party. > Of course, "not anymore." The reference was to how the ringing tone > was changed on step-by-step switches. On electronic switching, > which is all there is around these days, the ring voltage and ring > tone have always been independent functions, since circa 1965. > Even back in the days when SxS was the main switching system over here in Britain, there was no guarantee that ringback tones would be in phase with the applied ringing on the line. Ringing machines typically had two or three different outputs for actual ring voltage and for tone, and each final selector (connector in U.S. terminology) could be wired to any combination of outputs. Many people tried the fixed-number-of-rings trick, not realizing that the tones they heard back might or might not correspond with the actual ringing depending upon which selector they happened to hit for the last two digits. Paul ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) Subject: Re: Info re: NorVergence and the Salzanos? Date: 21 Aug 2004 19:01:11 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com dor@writeme.com (Satchel Paige) wrote: > Does anyone know what is happening with NorVergence and it's former > executives, specifically the Salzano brothers? Many libraries have access to powerful on-line business article indexes in which you could search for information, both past and present. I would recommend checking that out so you could find their history as well as current situation. Also, check the Wall Street Journal carefully, sooner or later they should have something. ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Last Laugh! was Re: VoIP Firm Tussles With States Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:07:52 -0500 John Levine wrote: >>> Without an unfettered supply of phone numbers from NANPA, SBC IP >>> argues, it and other carriers' rollouts of Net phone service will be >>> hampered. >> Employees of Vonage, VoicePulse and other VoIP services would laugh >> at that. SBC continues as the absolute lamest telecom company in >> existence. > Oh, you just don't understand. The RBOCs have always had a > sooper-sekrit agreement that they won't invade each other's > territories. Well, if it's between *them*, I fail to see how whining to the government will do any good at all. And I remain skeptical of SBC's claim. > For example, a few years back they were all complaining that the > wholesale rates for CLECs that wanted to resell local phone service > were so low that they were below cost. So someone asked the obvious > question: If they're that low, why aren't you making big buck$ > reselling each other's services, since you just told us that would > be more profitable than selling your own? The only answer was a > fairly sniffy "we don't do that." Is it because they really have that agreement, or because it was easier to tell the Feds that they don't do that? > They sure don't want to buy service through existing CLECs > as Vonage et al do, since those are the very same CLECs they've been > shafting for the past decade or two who would be unlikely to pass up > an opportunity to turn the tables. I have little sympathy. As far as I'm concerned ... well, I've not had any trouble with Verizon to date, but SBC is run by a bunch of criminals. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Was anyone else as amused as I was by > hearing SBC referred to in the header as a 'VOIP Firm'? So now that > they have called the shots for so many years, all of a sudden they > want to be known as an underdog? Poor, pitiful, put upon SBC! PAT] Exactly!! 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: The absolutely worst thing that ever happened to Illinois Bell Telephone Company was when SBC bought them out. 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. ************************ 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 #395 ******************************