From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 22 01:32:52 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i8M5WpJ19929; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:32:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:32:52 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200409220532.i8M5WpJ19929@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 #440 TELECOM Digest Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:33:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 440 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson LNP For a Move (Tony P.) Telephone Museums (was: Any Old Mechanical Systems Still) (Al Gillis) Re: Vonage and SIP (DevilsPGD) Re: Vonage and SIP (Steve Sobol) Re: Paper, was: What is the Name of #? How did # Get its Name (R Bonomi) Re: Cannot Switch Local Telco Without Disconnecting Comcast (J Levine) Re: VOIP: How is it Done? (John McHarry) Re: Digital Age 'May Mean no TV For Poor' [UK] (Gene S. Berkowitz) Re: DIRECWAY VPN Accelerator (John McHarry) Re: DIRECWAY VPN Accelerator (Thor Lancelot Simon) 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: Tony P. Subject: LNP For a Move Organization: ATCC Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:18:09 GMT I'll be moving from a true Providence rate center in Providence, to a Providence rate center in Cranston. (401-621 to 401-46x or 401-94x). Here is my question. Since they're both the same rate center could I request to keep my current numbers under LNP? It'd work the same as real LNP that being when someone dials a number it looks at a database to see what switch the call should be passed to. In essence it makes Foreign Exchange service a thing of the past but I'll be it's still tarrifed that way. ------------------------------ From: Al Gillis Subject: Telephone Museums (was: Any Old Mechanical Systems Still in US?) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:41:18 -0700 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Anthony Bellanga wrote in message news:telecom23.439.11@telecom-digest.org: (Much snippage...) > There are some actual telephone equipment museums (the most famous one > in Seattle), which have working examples of Step, Panel, and Crossbar, > but I don't think that these are reachable via the "real" public > switched network though. These are working but "standalone" museum > central office switching systems. Another nice telephone museum is on the Netherlands Antilles island of Curacao. It's run by Cable & Wireless as I recall (I was there about 6 or 7 years ago). While the museum is nice and has many interesting exhibits it's small. The really nice thing about going to that museum is that you're in the Caribbean! (Possibly, now that Ivan passed by the place it's not as charming as when I was there!) Al ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: Vonage and SIP Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 03:33:11 GMT In message Steve Sobol wrote: > Does Vonage work with IAX or SIP devices? Specifically, does the > service work with the Asterisk PBX system? No. Well, at least not officially. Rumour has it that if you purchase a softphone (in addition to your hardware ATA) you can use Asterisk or other IP phone software (or hardware) if you want. Americans couldn't be any more self-absorbed if they were made from equal parts water and papertowel. -- Dennis Miller ------------------------------ From: Steve Sobol Subject: Re: Vonage and SIP Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:10:36 -0700 Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com Stanley Cline wrote: > Like pretty much all other consumer VoIP services, Vonage uses SIP -- > but Vonage only allows use of hardware devices and softphones that > they provide. :( Vonage sucks, then. Unfortunately, they are the one and only VoIP provider that offers local numbers in the Victor Valley region of California. Unless someone else can tell me of a service that has local numbers available in the Victorville/Apple Valley rate center, that is. > kludge. Other VoIP providers, such as VoicePulse and BroadVoice, are > much more friendly to Asterisk users. Broadvoice offers area-code 760 prefixes, but from what I can tell they're all closer to San Diego than here. 760 is a weird area code that includes suburbs of San Diego and runs north up the eastern edge of California. I chose 760-217 (Victorville prefix), and was told by VoicePulse that the available rate centers are Vista, Oceanside and (coming soon) Escondido. Those are all greater San Diego rate centers. But nothing in the rate center 760-217 is in. 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. John R. Covert wrote: > The main Vonage line will work only with the Vonage-supplied ATA. > However, once you have a Vonage main line, you may order (for $10 plus > the $1.50 regulatory fee) additional "Softphone" numbers (each has its > own number) with 500 minutes/month each. The Softphone will work with > Asterisk PBX, and allows multiple simultaneous incoming and outgoing > calls. Each one may only be registered to one softphone client (or > PBX) at any one point in time, at least for incoming calls. That may be an option, then! Thanks 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. ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: Paper, was: What is the Name of #? How did # Get its Name? From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 04:44:11 +0000 In article , Danny Burstein wrote: > In Michael A. Covington > writes: >> I can, however, clear up one other detail. # is called "pound sign" >> not because of any connection with British pounds, but because, in >> industrial use 75 or so years ago, it denoted pounds of weight. To >> this day "24#" means 24-pound paper, for instance. The poundage of >> paper, in turn, is the weight of some specified quantity - I don't >> recall at the moment exactly how much. > One ream (500 sheets) of "size C" (17 x 22 inches), which could be > more commonly thought of as four reams (2,000 sheets) of 8.5 x 11 inch > stuff. That is *NOT* necessarily correct. The 'basis size' for for the weight calculation depends on the type of paper involved. Example: 'cover' stock has a much larger sheet size. I don't have access to the actual dimensions at the moment, but it is more than twice the size of the 17x22 sheet. '65#' cover stock is about the same weight as 28# writing paper. There are a _bunch_ of different 'basis' sizes in 'relatively common' use. I don't, off-hand, recall anything smaller than 17x22. 22x28 is another common size, as is 28x34. Also, sizes like 23x35, which is basically a 22x34 (8.5x11, 8-up) plus 'margins'. The European community has a *MUCH* more sensible method. They rate _everything_ in 'grams per square meter', for _one_ sheet. ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Cannot Switch Local Telco Without Disconnecting Comcast Date: 22 Sep 2004 01:00:46 -0400 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Michael Sullivan responded to the original question in part: >> per month (Verizon's prices are quite high). Cavalier techs tell me >> that they can't switch me because Verizon won't release my number >> until I disconnect from Comcast HSI. Is Cavalier lying? > It sounds like Comcast, in your area, may be reselling Verizon DSL, > carried on your phone line, under the name of Comcast high speed > internet. Considering that Comcast is the largest CATV company and the largest cable ISP in the world, it's a wee bit unlikely that they're reselling DSL. I'd encourage the original person to call Cavalier back and make sure they understand that he wants their normal phone service, not the VoIP thing. Maybe he can ask them what their connection with (or aversion to) Comcast is. ------------------------------ From: John McHarry Subject: Re: VOIP: How is it Done? Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:04:54 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Shabam wrote: > In order for VOIP to work, there must be a PBX switch at most > locations around the country, in order to convert the data packets > back into analog and be routed through the local phone lines. That > way VOIP customers can call analog phone customers. Disclaimer: I am not an expert on this. I think it is not a PBX, which is a private phone system, but an interconnect with a CLEC or ILEC. There has to be one of these in each LATA, or a deal with a carrier who has such connections. It could be a mixture. > Second question. For internal routing, such as when VOIP user A calls > VOIP user B, the signal is obviously not being converted back into > analog and passed through the local phone company. My question is, > how is the signal able to find its way to user B? By IP address? > What if user B's IP is dynamic or he moves his IP phone to another > network connection? I'm guessing that whenever the phone is plugged > in, it's sending a signal back to the company telling it its IP > address. Well, it could be, but you are probably correct. In that case, the VoIP company must be translating phone numbers to IP addresses and letting the end users do their thing. That would require that the end user equipment recognize when its IP has changed and tell the VoIP company. It has to do that to receive incoming calls anyway. That should elicit any necessary corrections, for which I thank the posters. ------------------------------ From: Gene S. Berkowitz Subject: Re: Digital Age 'May Mean no TV For Poor' [UK] Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:53:18 -0400 In article , monty@roscom.com says: > WILLIAM CHISHOLM > MANY low-income families across the south of Scotland will be without > television three years from now as the cost of converting sets from > analogue to digital reception will be beyond their financial reach, it > has been claimed. > A consultation document published by Ofcom, the media regulator, has > confirmed that the Border ITV area is in line to become the first > region in the UK to lose analogue signals in 2007 as broadcasters and > the government embark on a four-year programme to switch to an > all-digital system. > http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1095472004 Oh, please. In three years, a digital->analog set top converter box will cost less than a Colour TV license. --Gene ------------------------------ From: John McHarry Subject: Re: DIRECWAY VPN Accelerator Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:37:09 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > If it were "standard IPsec", it'd talk to _any_ vendor's head-end gear. > But the entire _point_ of the Cisco and Nortel "IPsec" VPNs is to get > you to turn off the actual standard IPsec installation that's built in > to your operating system and install in its place one that will only > talk to their own head-end gear, so that if you ever try to migrate to > some other brand of head-end gear the installed base of nonstandard > software will make it prohibitively expensive to do so. > This is one area in which the Bell standards folks are, and always have > been, miles ahead of the IETF. Not always, I am afraid. For quite some time there was an "AT&T standard" ISDN that was not compatible with National ISDN. That, of course, had some differences from ITU-T ISDN, and the ETSI implementation. While I am on it, the US "standards" adopted by the BOCs are mostly non standard by ITU-T and ETSI interpretations. SS7 is different from C7, although there are a lot of national variants of C7 as well; cell phones are not world standard GSM; the NANP makes standard trunk dialing unimplementable and variable length international numbers a complete kludge; the digital hierarchy is heterodox below a certain level; I am sure the list goes on. I have fallen into inveighing, but there is a reason for this, and not just in telephony. If you have enough market power to lock customers into your kit by being non standard, or by "embrace and extend", or by claiming something is standard that isn't, you have a responsibility to your stockholders to do so. ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: DIRECWAY VPN Accelerator Date: 21 Sep 2004 23:57:12 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , wrote: > Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: >> No, it very much is *not*. It says "IPsec" and it's not IPsec, much >> less "standard IPsec" (and no, putting the word "industry" in front >> does not in any meaningful way to dilute the claims that it is "IPsec" >> and "standard IPsec"). > I don't see "standard IPsec" in their blurb. I see "standard Nortel > IPsec". Looks like standard marketspeak to me. Who says that they > should be compatible with someone else's security package? "IPsec" is not "someone else's security package". It is the name of a particular set of standards from the IETF. Nortel's VPN products do _not_ conform to those standards; they "embrace and extend" them in a way that makes it, in fact, impossible to cleanly interoperate products that _do_ conform to the IPsec standards -- actual "IPsec" implementations -- with them. In other words, "Who says?" The obvious answer is "Nortel does, or they have no right to call what they're selling `IPsec'; because false advertising is quite justifiably illegal." Not, mind you, that they haven't managed to get away with it thus far; and I expect that they will continue to get away with it in the future. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel! You plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud ------------------------------ 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 #440 ******************************