From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Sep 25 03:04:43 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i8P74gi25022; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:04:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:04:43 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200409250704.i8P74gi25022@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 #445 TELECOM Digest Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:03:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 445 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Vies for VoIP (Jack Decker - VOIP News) State Utility Commissioners Listening to VoIP (Jack Decker - VOIP News) Re: Verizon bundles DSL and VoIP (Aswath Rao) Re: The Wal-Mart Supremacy (Lisa Hancock) International Long Distance Termination Buyers (Frank Kathleen Erickson) Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains (jmayson@nyx.net) Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains (Mark Atwood) Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains (Clarence Dold) Re: BUSH Leaked Documents to CBS (Michael A. Covington) Re: BUSH Leaked Documents to CBS (Thomas A. Horsley) Re: BUSH Leaked Documents to CBS (Dave Close) Re: No Call Ref ID in SS7/C7 Why? (Phil Anderton) Re: Out of Area Calls (jmayson@nyx.net) Re: Out of Area Calls (John R. Covert) Re: Out of Area Calls (Robert Bonomi) Re: LNP For a Move (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: LNP For a Move (Tony P.) Re: Rotary Phones in TV Shows (Michael Muderick) Re: Rotary Phone Props in New TV Shows (Joseph) 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, 24 Sep 2004 13:33:29 -0400 Subject: AT&T Vies for VoIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117896,00.asp Better tools for telecommuters and travelers are in the works, company says. Laura Rohde, IDG News Service AT&T is announcing a number of voice over Internet Protocol initiatives, such as a program to develop common standards for the technology and an expansion of its international VoIP remote worker pilot project. But as the company tries to draw more users to VoIP, its own research shows that concerns about the quality of service continue to dog the market as a whole. "We are trying to answer some of the questions as to 'so what?', accelerate what can be brought in from the future, and bring forward initiatives that can be wrapped around VoIP," said Jeff Ace, vice president for global business development at AT&T, in a press briefing in London. Full story at: http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117896,00.asp 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, 24 Sep 2004 13:27:37 -0400 Subject: State Utility Commissioners Listening to VoIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com This article is slightly dated, but I just came across it and figured it might be of interest to some readers. http://www.newtelephony.com/news/818.html Sept. 1, 2004 Vol. 3, No. 19 By Mary Glass The voice-over-IP community extended an olive branch to state utility regulators at the recent Winter Meeting March 7-10 of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) in Washington, D.C., trying to build bridges with that group and increase its understanding of VoIP. A panel representing the VoIP industry and the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), as well as local telephone companies, addressed the NARUC Telecommunications Committee to discuss voice over IP technology and regulation. Although the presentation was specifically for that committee of NARUC, the room was packed with about 200 participants, including many commissioners not on the committee. The panel discussion brought together two groups that have sometimes been at odds over VoIP regulation. The session, however, had a collaborative tone that represents a shift from previous meetings and seems to indicate growing understanding of VoIP applications, not to mention the larger regulatory issue that the states have limited ability to establish rules on Internet service, because of federal preemption. Understanding and Collaboration Although state regulators have been cut out of the VoIP regulatory process by FCC actions and a federal court decision last fall, panel speakers emphasized, the VoIP industry wishes to reach out to the states and understand the concerns of state governments about the new technology. The meeting began with background on the capabilities and potential of voice over IP. Jeff Pulver, president and CEO of Pulver.com, explained the recent, rapid expansion of voice over IP, emphasizing the differences from traditional telephony to the more than 100 state commissioners in attendance. [.....] Spanning the Credibility Gap Adding credibility to the panel for the state regulators was Dave Svanda, a former state utility commissioner in Michigan who now represents the recently reformulated VON Coalition. He emphasized that members of the VoIP industry are sensitive to the states' concerns regarding consumer protection and other social policy issues. The VON Coalition, he says, wants to "look at policy approaches that facilitate rather than inhibit market development." These would include "meeting in the middle" on social policy, even if the industry is not legally required to do so. He said, it would not include acceptance of the "old" switched-network regulation for VoIP, which is considered a completely different world of communication. Full story at: http://www.newtelephony.com/news/818.html ------------------------------ From: Aswath Rao Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:15:04 -0400 Subject: Re: Verizon Bundles DSL and VoIP Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com I also wonder about the idea behind virtual numbers. Since most of the traffic will be incoming to these virtual numbers, I suspect that access charges is the motivation. But I could be wrong on this one. Aswath ----Original Message Follows---- To: MI-Telecom Mailing List Subject: Verizon Bundles DSL and VoIP Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:46:39 -0400 What I find interesting about this is that Verizon's VoIP service seems to be offering numbers (for incoming calls) in areas served by other ILEC's first, at least in Michigan. If you Check Area Code Availability at Verizon's web site , in Michigan they show numbers in the Ann Arbor-Wayne Area, Detroit Area, Flint-Port Huron Area, Lansing Area, Pontiac-Troy Area, and Sterling Heights-Warren Area. But these are all SBC exchanges, and they show nothing in their own exchanges such as Muskegon (Muskegon is the largest Verizon exchange in Michigan, and Verizon has a relatively high number of exchanges in the Grand Rapids LATA). One has to wonder why Verizon would not offer their VoIP service with numbers in their own exchanges, but will offer it with numbers primarily in another ILEC's exchanges, particularly since they can't offer DSL in those exchanges. Something about this doesn't quite make sense to me. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: The Wal-Mart Supremacy Date: 24 Sep 2004 08:37:50 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Lisa, I think all of us suffer from > these 'blind spots' in our logic and thinking. While some people feel what happened in the past is not relevent to today, it really is. Many times new technologies (whatever they may be) bring bad things as well as good. The speed and convenience of the automobile has dramatically improved our standard of living and countless saved many lives through quick transport. But the automobile also kills 40,000 people a year and spews out tons of air pollution. It took years after the auto got popular for pollution control and safety to catch up. Geez, I saw an ad in the mid 1950s for seatbelts for cars, yet it took another decade until they were mandated, and decades more before most people used them regularly. > I used to be a great Bell System fan, and more than once I damned > Judge Greene for facilitating the breakup; just ask any pre-1985 > reader here in the Digest about my earlier attitudes on Bell System > divestiture (and there are a few of them still around.) Because -- at the time -- the level of technology was such that it was not a good idea and many telephone subscribers (not to mention Bell System employees and suppliers) ended up paying more for less. I also remember what people had to say, and the loudest cheers for the breakup were from people who gonna personally make money off of it. That's fine for them, but ignores the rest of us. > After my brain aneurysm I moved back here to s.e. Kansas, where I was > born in 1942 (the anniversary of which is two days from now, [hint! > hint!]) because I could no longer deal with 'big city' problems and > lifestyles. I loved our old fashioned soda fountain syle drugstore, > our quaint downtown stores, etc. The first hint however, that things > were not as I remembered them (think now if you will about Thomas > Wolfe's novel "You Can't Go Home Again" -- remember it?) came when > our sister city to the south, Coffeyville, announced that taxes had > remained unpaid for several years on about *500 vacant houses*; [snip] This is not a new problem and it applies to telecom as well as society at large. I had interviewed the former telephone operator of my town. In her day, the exchange was in the house and she was a teenager. Later on (mid 1950s) they built a new building and put in dial and she, as an adult, was transferred to a nearby city to continue working as an operator. It was a vast change for her. We've all read about the informality of the small town exchanges and ours was no different. Lesser known is city exchanges where operators were under quasi-military discipline under strict supervision. She said every response to a caller was structured; it was a totally different world and a big change for her. This was back in the 1950s, and small towns all over the country were changing as well. You mention Independence MO, and much has been written about that through biographies of Harry Truman. Truman, as a young politician in the 1920s, championed the construction of public roads to get his farmer neighbors out of the mud. He built a good system for Jackson County, and he loved his cars and to take drives. Yet after he retired from the presidency and retired back to Independence he had problems from the very same roads and motoring he supported. Even in the 1950s traffic noise past his house became a problem, and he had to go out every morning and pick up litter thrown on his lawn. This shows that disrepect and carelessness are not new problems. > So Lisa, maybe we better all begin to accept the Walmart Supremacy. Or > are you like me and wish we could go back to 1950 to live while > retaining our 2004 level of sophistication? What is the saying, 'old > too soon, wise too late? PAT] I often point out the problems of new technology (see my posts on VOIP, for example). Advocates of new technology get upset (see the responses). I have no objections to new technology in itself, what I want is it to be a true benefit to me, not just something that ends up costing me more and giving me less. I like the convenience of my car, but I don't like traffic jams or crazy drivers. I also find using _good_ mass transit systems easier than drivers and that they take up far less land than highways do. We don't need a telephone operator to connect each and every call, not even to places overseas. But we always should have a well-trained operator promptly available to us in case we have questions on rates or technical difficulties. I don't mind using automated systems IF they do the job, but far too many do not. (See my post on NJT and MNRR information centers). Unfortunately, too many technology advocates--both the engineers and marketers -- see things from only their perspective and not enough from the customers. For example, I've tried out VIOP several times and the quality stinks. Maybe down the road they'll get it better, but TODAY it's not there, but they refuse to accept it. Maybe some of the business people know it but still want to sell the product anyway. There are advantages of chain stores, as mentioned, the CVS gives me greater selection and is open much longer hours than the pvt drugstore. But on the other hand there are disadvantages, too. CVS runs lots of TV ads proclaiming their personal customer service and pharmacist-patient support and in reality they don't come anywhere close to what I had before. (Maybe if they kept the same pharmacists working in one store instead of constantly rotating them and if they had more pharmacists instead of high school airheads things would be better.) I just wish we didn't have to give up so much for new technology and I wish technology advocates were more honest about it. ------------------------------ From: Frank and Kathleen Erickson Subject: International Long Distance Termination Buyers Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:30:31 -0700 Patrick, What a great site! I ws browsing through, but have run out of time, it is so large. I am trying to locate who at AT&T buys the international long distance termination minutes to and from India, the Philippines, Afghanistan and Mexico. Any ideas on how I can ID that person, or persons? Frank Erickson frankerickson@msn.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your kind message about the Digest. After being around for so many years, the web site is bound to be huge. Maybe a reader here, possibly someone from AT&T, will be able to answer your question. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jmayson@nyx.net Reply-To: jmayson@nyx.net Subject: Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:41:29 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com >> This reminds me when they ordered people to turn off receivers or face >> jail years earlier. At the time they claimed their own radios were >> "special" and so could be used on trains. I later verified with their >> own radio shop that there was nothing special about their radios. I had a similar experience at the hospital where my son was born. There were signs up all over the hospital notifying us that cell phones could not be used in the building due to the possibility of interfering with medical equipment. Okay, I didn't want to kill anyone because I *HAD* to check my stock prices. But two things bothered me: 1. The county uses a 800 MHz radio system. Those handhelds are more powerful than a cell phone. Paramedics and police roamed the halls of the hospital. Why didn't their radios interfere? 2. The doctors and nurses used their cell phones in the building. It became clear to me what was probably going on. There was a 75 cent surcharge on all out-going calls using the hospital's phone system. I really believe the cell phone prohibition had more to do with revenue than safety. I seriously doubt the doctors had "special" cell phones that could be used in a hospital environment. John Mayson Austin, Texas, USA ------------------------------ Subject: Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains From: Mark Atwood Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:35:52 GMT Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 writes: > Some amusement parks have banned personal 2 way radios at times, since > they say that gangs use them to avoid security. That's not going to fly very well, I know a fair number of parents that give all their kids FRSs (especially the ones with GPS receivers with locators) when they go on family outings. Do said parks try to ban cellphones too? They do the same thing, especially the ones with PTT. Are their any FCC rules (or other national equivalents) about preempting rules against possession of radios, similar to the ones preempting local laws and homeowner rules about ham radios? Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure mra@pobox.com | you've done anything at all. http://www.pobox.com/~mra | http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus ------------------------------ From: dold@XReXXBARTX.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: BART Cop Orders Radio Turned Off to Protect Trains Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:46:34 UTC Organization: a2i network Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 wrote: > Some amusement parks have banned personal 2 way radios at times, since > they say that gangs use them to avoid security. And they've have been > banned at the Olympics in the US and in France, IIRC. At Yosemite Park in California, climbers camping for the night on the sides of mountains with a view of the valley floor talk to lots of people they don't know via FRS. You'll see people on the floor with FRS and binoculars, trying to locate the person they're chatting with. Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ From: Michael A. Covington Subject: Re: BUSH Leaked Documents to CBS Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:40:13 -0400 Organization: Speed Factory (http://www.speedfactory.net) Michael D. Sullivan wrote in message news:telecom23.444.8@telecom-digest.org: > In article , yenc@sucks.com says: >>> As CBS News faces one of the worst public embarrassments in its >>> history, experts say that the damage to the network's news division >>> could be significant -- and costly. >> BUSH "leaked" the fake documents to Viacom/CBS because Bush has been >> after them for a long time. Then he "leaked" that the documents were >> fake, and now instead of the attention being on BUSH for lying about >> serving in the military, the attention is on DAN RATHER. (1) Any evidence? (2) Nobody "leaked that they were fake" - nobody needed to. They were very inept fakes, on the level of what a high-school student might do. They had centered proportional type at the top -- impossible on 1970s office machines -- and have been shown to match Microsoft Word + Times New Roman extremely well, while they don't resemble any 1970s office machine very closely (not even the Selectric Composer). I would bet they were faked by someone who had not been using office machines more than a very few years and was simply unaware that before Windows 95, they were quite different! More at: http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/michael/blog/index.html#040911 and one of the more recent entries. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: BUSH Leaked Documents to CBS From: tom.horsley@att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Organization: AT&T Worldnet Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:44:47 GMT > BUSH "leaked" the fake documents to Viacom/CBS because Bush has been > after them for a long time. Then he "leaked" that the documents were > fake, and now instead of the attention being on BUSH for lying about > serving in the military, the attention is on DAN RATHER. Even if true (though I don't think even Karl Rove is that smart) it still comes down to CBS not paying attention to their own experts. Over on ABC, they had a veritable parade of document experts saying they had been hired by CBS, informed CBS they documents were at best unverifiable, and at worst fakes, then were amazed to see them show up on the air anyway. Apparently CBS just kept hiring experts until they found one who would tell them what they wanted to hear (there's a thought -- maybe Dan Rather should resign so he can take over as head of the CIA, he certainly seems to be highly qualified for that position :-). >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics <<==+ ------------------------------ From: dave@compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: BUSH Leaked Documents to CBS Date: 24 Sep 2004 20:15:58 -0700 Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California Truth writes: > BUSH "leaked" the fake documents to Viacom/CBS because ... I'm a bit confused. I thought I was supposed to believe that W is an idiot, a moron, too ignorant to manage his own affairs let alone those of our country. Yet you seem to imply that he was capable of a brilliant dirty trick which, aside from your suspicions, has not been detected by anyone yet. Please clarify. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA +1 714 434 7359 dave@compata.com dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." - Pericles ------------------------------ From: Phil Anderton Subject: Re: No Call Ref ID in SS7/C7 Why? Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:41:16 +0200 Organization: Peoples' Front of Judaea Ariel Burbaickij wrote: > Could someone explain to me why it was decided not to have call > reference ID in at least plain ISUP (i.e. not B-ISUP where it could be > present)? There is call ref id in DSS1, in SIP and again transaction > id in SCCP/TCAP (with transaction being defined as series of queries > and responses), so why no call ref ids in ISUP? I don't think this was *decided*. The thing about ISUP is, it doesn't handle calls, at least not in the end to end sense. It deals with connections between switches, and such a connection is uniquely identified by the signalling point codes (SPCs) of the two switches, plus a circuit identification code (CIC). A call between two parties might consist of several such connections. ISUP does have mechanisms for end to end signalling, but in normal use it's almost exclusively link by link signalling, and for that all you need is OPC+DPC+CIC. Phil ------------------------------ From: jmayson@nyx.net Reply-To: jmayson@nyx.net Subject: Re: Out of Area Calls Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:41:08 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com > "There are some exemptions, for example, as you might expect, > telephone companies can still call you to solicit you and so can banks > and credit card companies," Cohen said. Also still allowed to call > are: charities, insurance companies and politicians." What does the law say about when you ask a charity to stop calling and they refuse? The Texas Paralyzed Veterans keeps calling asking for donations. I have called their office, spoken to a supervisor, and explcitly asked that my number be removed from their call list. They always promise, but three or four times a week I continue to receive calls from them. I had the campaign of a major party presidential candidate (the one I support over the other) continue to call asking for a $75 donation. I kindly asked they remove me but I kept getting calls. I finally told them, "If you call me one more time I will donate $75 to your opponent and vote for him in November." The calls immediately stopped. I would've done it too. John Mayson Austin, Texas, USA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:02:03 -0400 (EDT) From: John R. Covert Subject: Re: Out of Area Calls A newbie calling himself "Truth" doubted the esteemed telecoms expert John Levine and flamed: > People like you, who don't even bother to do research or CHECK > before they call someone wrong never cease to amaze me. Then the provided an unattributed and erroneous quote. Mr Truth (may I call you Falsehood for short?), please check out https://www.donotcall.gov/FAQ/FAQConsumers.aspx#Exceptions which states: > Placing your number on the National Do Not Call Registry will stop > most, but not all, telemarketing calls. You may still receive calls > from political organizations, charities, telephone surveyors or > companies with which you have an existing business relationship. And there, Mr Falsehood, you have the ONLY exceptions. /john ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: Out of Area Calls From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:59:52 +0000 In article , Truth wrote: >>> So you think. This is nothing more than coincidence. The biggest >>> telemarketers (such as long distance phone companies) are EXEMPT from >>> these lists. >> Could you point to the section of the law or FTC regulations that >> provides the exemptions? Because there is no such exemption, and >> you're just wrong. > People like you, who don't even bother to do research or CHECK before > they call someone wrong never cease to amaze me. > Next time, go to google.com and CHECK before you call someone a liar. OK. I _did_ go check. You really should take you own advice, before posting. Because, you see, you *are* a liar. (note: your assertation _was_ correct at one time, but is false-to-fact, in today's world.) The presently-implemented DNC list is a _joint_ operation of the FTC and the FCC. The list of activities proscribed by each agency is _not_ identical. If *either* agency proscribes a kind of call, you cannot legally make that call. Here is the status of telemarketing calls by telephone companies: Exempt under FTC rules but included under FCC rules: * Long-distance phone companies are exempt under FTC rules but FCC rules will not exempt these calls Good write-up at: > "There are some exemptions, for example, as you might expect, > telephone companies can still call you to solicit you and so can banks > and credit card companies," Cohen said. Also still allowed to call > are: charities, insurance companies and politicians." FALSE TO FACT, for nearly a year now. Charities, political calls, and legitimate survey calls, and 'existing business relationship' calls, are the _only_ exemptions, =now=. >> The only significant exemptions are for established business >> relationship and non-profits. > Bullshit. Not Bullshit. Factually Accurate. > Check the FCC or FTC websites for the complete law and read > through all the exemptions as I did a long time ago when I was active > in promoting to the public what a farce this stupid law was, and how > MOST of the telemarketers we get calls from are EXEMPT for the do not > call list. Doesn't matter if you have an established relationship > with them or not. "Sorry, Charlie." Your 'knowledge' is out-of-date, and obsolete. There have been _significant_ changes to the rules, _as_implemented_ vs. what was originally proposed. >> FYI, I haven't gotten a call from a long distance company in years, > Because you are probably one of the stupid people that HAS a long > distance company connected to your phone line so that you can pay > hundreds of dollars a year even if you never make one single long > distance phone call. Intelligent people have NO long distance company > connected with their home phone lines at all, and use one of the > THOUSANDS of 10-10 numbers that have NO MONTHLY FEES or charges and > you can change companies for each call made, just by using a different > 10-10 number. > If you canceled the long distance company you have now, you will > indeed get several calls a day for MONTHS from that company trying to > get you back. This is a FACT that I, and everyone I know has gone > through. If you try to say this is not true, then you can only be one > of their employees or a telemarketer yourself. When I cancelled my long-distance carrier, I got exactly *two* 'we want you back' calls. The *second* call cost them $500, which I _did_ collect. You see, I told the first caller to add my number to do-not-call call list that the company itself must maintain. Any express request to the company to be placed on their internally-maintained do-not-call list, supersedes any 'implicit' permission _to_ call that is generated by a 'prior business relationship'. They told me that they would do so, but that it would take something like 30 days to take effect. I pointed out that the law made *no* such provision for delay on an -internally-maintained- list, and required that they update my _customer_record_ with a note that 'customer has ordered us -never- to make marketing calls to him', and the date/time. Three days later, somebody "didn't read" the notes, and called me. I promptly demanded a supervisor, had them read the account 'notes', and asked if they wanted to pay the statutory $500 minimum, or if I needed to go to court, in which case I would allege 'knowing and wilful' violation, and award of the legally allowed 'treble damages'. The $500 check was _in_my_hand_ within a week. >> There's a lot more reasons than telemarketers for a call to come >> up out of area. > The only reason you get that anymore is from telemarketers, and one > other exception with calling cards or using some 10-10 numbers which > don't pass your number through. Or people in _very_ rural areas, serviced by _old_ switching gear that doesn't understand SS7, and *doesn't* pass caller information out to the outside world. There _is_ a fair amount of such gear still in service, even in the U.S. ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: LNP For a Move Date: 24 Sep 2004 15:30:57 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Fred R. Goldstein wrote: > Before LNP, Verizon could only provision a number that way via Foreign > Central Office service, running a leased line from the old CO to the > new one. That's not strictly true, either -- pre-LNP Intelligent Network feature sets could easily do this sort of thing, too, with a trigger either in the tandem switch (and remember, Verizon North has a much "deeper" switch network than the other RBOCs retained in the breakup) or in the called party's end-office switch. Even in the called-party's-switch implementation it's far more efficient that actually running a leased line from one CO to another; indeed, this kind of "virtual FCO" service was an _example_ in some early documents on IN of what could easily be done even with existing pre-standard switch functionality, many years before LNP was something anyone had ever thought about. It's always, in other words, been something they _could_ do but didn't want to. Why, when they could charge customers for FCO? I wouldn't be surprised to hear that some RBOCs had cut costs by doing virtual FCO internally using IN triggers but retained the old tarrif pricing to customers; from their point of view, cutting costs on existing services was _precisely_ the point of all this expensive intelligent switch technology (and indeed, AT&T's original plans for it went well beyond anything the baby bells ever did, all justified by cost reduction). The problem now of course is that the existence of LNP has woken people up to the idea that this sort of thing can be done in the telephone network, and they're starting to ask why it can't be done _for them_ unless they jump through hoops like switching telcos. I spent several years of my life in the IN trenches, trying to build exactly those kinds of slightly-variant services and arrange to get them deployed, at a nice profit to the telco, too; let me tell you, it's a path to a great deal of frustration. 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 ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: LNP For a Move Organization: ATCC Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:43:43 GMT In article , fgoldstein@withheld says: > Hi Pat, > I accidentally sent you a message last night -- a reply to Tony P's > question about local number portability -- and didn't mask the From > field. Can you please mask the address (leave the name) so the spambots > don't devour me? Just turn my real address into something false. > On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:18:09 GMT, Tony P. wrote, >> 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. > Before LNP, Verizon could only provision a number that way via Foreign > Central Office service, running a leased line from the old CO to the > new one. It was costly, but sometimes worthwhile to a business. With > LNP, it's a matter of entering a simple entry into a database, and > telling the old switch that the number was ported out. > Which means that Verizon's as likely to do that for you as the Queen > of England is likely to come to tea with you. > They don't do rational, nice things like that for residential > subscribers. For a large Centrex customer, sure. But you don't > deserve it. They have nine ways to hell of saying that the tariff > doesn't allow it, their procedures don't allow it, their systems don't > allow it. They're lying, of course, but then at Verizon, telling the > truth is the firing offense. I find it interesting that the service rep was eager to sell a second phone line which I specifically did not want and told her so several times. Clearly it is technically possible - I pay that little LNP fee every month. But their damned tariff is a nice little obstacle. Like I said, I know PUC people and I might follow it up through them. > On the other hand, any CLEC can do what you want. Even Cox, if they > offer phone service, can take your old Providence number and install > it at your new Providence (rate center) location. Verizon's wire > center boundaries are meaningless to a CLEC, since CLECs have one > switch serving a wider area, and most will do LNP to the customer's > spec if that's what it takes to make a sale. I expect that there are > other CLECs who can take over the number too. I do not want Cox for my phone service. I just don't trust them to do that. ------------------------------ From: Michael Muderick Subject: Re: Rotary Phones in TV Shows Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:08:51 -0400 Correction: The 302 sets in multi-line version ( not sure of the model number) had black buttons in the earlier style. Later they had clear buttons that had lights in them. I have a few in my collection. Michael Muderick ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Rotary Phone Props in New TV Shows Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:09:26 -0700 Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com On 24 Sep 2004 10:17:04 -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) wrote: > Earlier this year, "What I like about you" (WB) had a scene in > a hospital and a payphone in the background was rotary dial. > Curiously, other background payphones seen and used in the show > (such as the airport) were TT. > Not too long ago "Angel" (WB) had a 302 set with modern multi-line > keyset (lighted small square line buttons) added to the bottom. While > 302s did have multi line versions, the buttons were black and tiny, Some of the early multi line 300 series did indeed have clear buttons that could be lit (sometimes they weren't.) > One exception where old phones were sometimes used was a related show > (B/VS). The girls had a blue Princess rotary phone in their dorm > room. It rang with a modern electronic sound. IIRC they used it, but > I never saw them dial. The school library _on occassion_ had a rotary > set and the librarian was seen speaking on it, but on most other > occassions it had a modern phone. Well, I think it's assumed that most people don't know the difference between what something is "supposed" to sound like. It's a fairly common practice that when they'd show a Trimline phone "ringing" you'd hear the double-gong ring of a 500/2500 type phone. Or if you see someone making a call from a single slot pay phone you'd see them insert money and hear the "ding-ding" which single slot pay phones never had and the ding or ding-ding or bong was only on the triple slot pay phones. Or having a candlestick phone ring with modern dual gong ringers which were in the 500/2500 series phones. When you hear a phone ring on a series it's an almost 100% surety that the phone isn't actually ringing and that they've got a sound effect filling in for a real phone ringing. Depending on how serious the people are on the series about making something authentic will determine whether it's "realistic" and face it other than phone nerds like you'll find here will be the only ones to notice that something's not authentic. > I remember the old "All in the Family" show had a 302 set in their > living room at a time (1971) they were becomming pretty rare in > service. I believe the older style was purposely chosen to give the > home a poorer look to it. At some point in the show or its successor > the house got a 2500 TT phone. ------------------------------ 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 #445 ******************************