From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Feb 26 21:07:22 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i1R27Mm16193; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:07:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:07:22 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200402270207.i1R27Mm16193@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 #92 TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:07:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 92 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Vonage Troubles (Rich Greenberg) Re: Vonage Troubles (Tony P.) Re: Vonage Troubles (John Schmerold) VoIP Phone (Brian E. Williams) Re: Walkie-Talkies Get A Makeover (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Walkie-Talkies Get A Makeover (Nick Landsberg) Anyone Know of a ISDN/PRI or SIP to GR-303 'Converter' ?? (Brett) Re: Verizon Land Line International Rates (Steven J Sobol) Re: Verizon Land Line International Rates (Tony P.) Re: Memories: Old Fashioned Three Slot Coin Phones (jbl) Re: Memories: Enterprise -vs- Zenith Numbers (Nick Landsberg) Coin Phones (Charles G Gray) Outsourcing From OTHER Perspective (grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk) GarrettCom, Inc. Industrial Ethernet & Carrier Ethernet (garrettcom) 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 is 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: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Vonage Troubles Date: 26 Feb 2004 14:32:58 -0500 Organization: Organized? Me? In article , wrote: > I've had Vonage for 11 months now, and have used it at two different > locations (Cable modem and DSL). > I lose dial tone occasionally and have found, every time, that if I > reboot the Cisco and perhaps the cable modem, it comes back just fine. And if you do nothing but wait about the same length of time, does it still come back? Rich Greenberg Work: Rich.Greenberg atsign worldspan.com + 1 770 563 6656 N6LRT Marietta, GA, USA Play: richgr atsign panix.com + 1 770 321 6507 Eastern time zone. I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val(Chinook,CGC,TT), Red & Shasta(Husky,(RIP)) Owner:Chinook-L Atlanta Siberian Husky Rescue. www.panix.com/~richgr/Asst Owner:Sibernet-L ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Vonage Troubles Organization: ATCC Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:34:16 GMT In article , Sammy@nospam.biz says: > I've had Vonage for 11 months now, and have used it at two different > locations (Cable modem and DSL). > I lose dial tone occasionally and have found, every time, that if I > reboot the Cisco and perhaps the cable modem, it comes back just fine. Hmmm ... I really want to know more about how Vonage actually works. For instance, if it's just pure IP most of the time (which right now it's not because eventually the call lands on a PSTN number) it should work ALL the time. The only reason I can see that rebooting everything would bring the service back is because I note that cable providers of internet service frequently loose DNS services. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:54:03 -0600 From: John Schmerold Subject: Re: Vonage Troubles We spent the last 45 minutes off-line due to a "momentary server problem". It sure would be nice if someone would offer a monitor service kind of like DSLReports offers for ISPs, perhaps this would shame Vonage into doing something. Then again, we may need to go back to SBC ... > From: Nick Landsberg > Reply-To: hukolau@NOSPAM.att.net > Subject: Re: Vonage Troubles > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:11:18 GMT > Organization: AT&T Worldnet > William Van Hefner wrote: >> I've had the same problem myself. I have the sneaking suspicion that >> Vonage only has so many ports that can operate at once, and that if >> too many people are using the service, others aren't going to get a >> dialtone. It's much like during an emergency (earthquake, tornado, >> etc.) when everyone tries to pick up the phone and call at once, some >> people won't be able to get a dialtone immediately. In Vonage's case, >> I think that this is due to them overselling capacity. They probably >> just don't have the capacity to handle the number of customers they >> have at the moment, since they are expanding so rapidly. Remember a >> few years ago when AOL customers ranted because all of their dial-up >> lines were constantly busy? This smells like the same type of >> situation. > If it is a case of "once in a while" we don't get no dial tone, then > it may be a case of nont doing proper traffic engineering. > Traditionally, there is something called an "Erlang Blocking Factor" > which is used to determine the number of resources required based on a > percentage of blocked calls. This is based on the probability of call > arrivals within a time period and the expected holding time of the > calls. > For example, if you want to handle a base 100 simultaneous calls on > average and provide a level of service where 1% of the calls get > no-dial-tone, you would provide maybe 100 + x ports. If you wanted > only 0.1% of the calls to get NDT, you would provide 100+y (where y>x) > and so forth. If the base is 200, then both x and y are a smaller > percentage of the base number based on probability and statistics. > Note that the erlang factor is used for "normal" call arrival > distribution rates. Once a special event occurs, like an earthquake > in San Francisco where everyone starts calling their relatives there, > these factors go out the window. > Thus, bad/no traffic engineering (or setting the factor to something > like 5%, i.e. 1 out of every 20 calls gets NDT) would account for > someone getting NDT 2-3 times a week. It would not account for > conditions where there was NDT for prolonged periods unless you were > particularly unlucky, in which case you should sue Maxwell's Demon :) > (Oh, I'm sorry, Maxwell's Demon only applies to thermodynamics, but > his cousins probably haunt the phone networks :) >> My own Vonage box (Cisco ATA) is plugged into a Linux router, which >> flawlessly handles countless thousands of website requests each and >> every day, which is plugged into an Adtran CSU/DSU and then a Cisco >> router, which plugs into our T-1. We are nowhere near capacity on our >> T-1, and have experienced maybe 10 minutes of downtime in the past >> year. It definitely is not our equipment, nor the excellent T-1 >> service we receive from Sprint. It is definitely a "Vonage problem". >> I will say this for Vonage. When it works, it WORKS. Call quality on >> our T-1 is not telco quality. It is superior to telco quality. I have >> also tried using Vonage on SDSL and a cable modem. I get quality >> roughly equivalent to a cellphone using those. Anyone looking at using >> SIP phone service right now might want to take a look at some of the >> other players, until Vonage can get its act back together. >> iConnectHere.com is still catching up to Vonage, when it comes to >> adding local phone numbers, but their rates are pretty good. They've >> been doing SIP for a lot longer than Vonage has, as well. If the >> situation with Vonage gets much worse, I may consider giving them a >> spin. >> William Van Hefner >> Editor - TheDigest.Com >> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:22:03 -0600 John Schmerold >> wrote about Vonage Troubles: >>> We've been using Vonage and find that 2 - 3 times per week we pick up >>> the phone and get dead air. When we call Vonage support during these >>> outages, there are no available support personell. >>> Internet connectivity is flawless during these outages (we have a >>> lightly loaded T1.) >>> Anyone else having this problem? >>> Any suggestions? >>> Has anyone figured out a way to monitor remote Vonage boxes (we were >>> provided the Motorola VT1000 boxes) with What's Up Gold? This would >>> be somewhat helpful if we could inform the users that there is a >>> problem. >>> TIA >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: After following the tech advice given >> to me by Vonage last night, nothing -- thus far -- has broken down >> or gone wrong here; the firewall is not leaking as of yet so I am >> going to again suggest the mods the tech told me about Vonage and >> Linksys firewalls to eliminate (supposedly all) of that problem of >> periodic no-Vonage dial tone and Vonage unable-to-locate user for >> incoming call: Implement the 'punctures' in your firewall as was >> described in issue 89 on this topic. Let Vonage and me know if it >> works for you as well. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sorry_no_email@yahoo.com (BrianEWilliams) Subject: VoIP Phone Date: 26 Feb 2004 13:42:24 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com I am looking to add a second phone line to use in my home office. Since the phone company charges a setup fee, and then every little extra is more money, I thought I might use one of the new Voice over IP phones/systems that are available. I looked at Vonage (www.vonage.com), and the features are nice at a decent price, but my home network makes it a little awkward. The cable modem is in my basement, which then feeds into a router that feeds all the rooms. Having the Vonage device in my home office means that Vonage can't ensure service quality by prioritizing phone traffic over other traffic. Having the Vonage device in the basement doesn't work at all. If you are interested, here are some schematics: http://www.vonage.com/installation_multiple.php http://www.vonage.com/installation_multiple_alternate.php Anyway, I thought there might be a phone that just plugs into my USB port, which would be pretty slick if it works, although it means leaving my computer on if I want to get calls. Any suggestions? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you want to prioritize traffic to make the phone work better, then a USB port where it will be fighting all the time with the other stuff (on that computer) is NOT the way to go. And what does your *home office* have to do with it (as opposed for example to an 'office' office? And why is the cable modem in the basement? Or conversely why can't you use a somewhat longer ethernet connection in order to put the Cisco ATA box (or whatever kind of adapter you would get with Vonage) at some place that was more conven- ient for you to use. And instead of running off that box a relatively short distance to the nearest phone connection (which if it were in the basement would be more awkward for you) use the modular connecting plug on the back of the ATA box to a spare addtional pair to your incoming phone terminal box, then tie that pair all around your house so you used it at your convenience, as a line appearance on various phones. And there is a 'bandwidth adjustment' on the Vonage website which you can reach from the Vonage dashboard. But it is confusing the way it appears on your screen: Mine defaulted exactly in the center of the gauge with 'more bandwith' being to the right and 'less bandwidth' being to the left (on this slider thing which ran from 30 Kbs on the left up to 120 Kbs on the right side.) People would complain they could not hear/understand me, so I (I thought logically) kept cranking the slider to the right: more bandwidth! More! More!! But it just kept getting worse. Then the Vonage people explained to me I had to move it to the *left*, not right. "Move it all the way to the left, at 30 Kbs, reboot the Cisco ATA and wait a few minutes (like 15-20) for everything to catch up you, then try it, and don't forget to install the TFTD and SIP things in your firewall." When I did all that, and waited a few minutes for Vonage to 'catch up with me' it all worked *much better*. Not certain it would work correctly, I put in a call to the one chronic complainer I talk to a lot who *always* knows when I am on Vonage 'because it always sounds so crappy' and even he this time said 'It sounds a lot better now, what did you do to it?' before I told him I had done anything at all. He said that before I made the adjustments Vonage gave me, whenever my weather station via the Windows 95 would let loose with an FTP transfer to my display at http://weatherforecast.us.tf or http://weatherforecast.n3.net it would always blank out my voice talking on the Vonage. Now, he says, it only ever so occassionally 'clips' a word here and there. Of course I am running not only the weather station and its camera to the net, but also a camera view of my computer room all the time for anyone who gets their kicks by spying on me http://patricktownson.us.tf so I do put a load on the cable, yet I do not have that much trouble with it since I made the recommended (by Vonage) adjustments. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Walkie-Talkies Get A Makeover Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:43:00 -0600 TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Eric Friedebach : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Am I correct (at least in the case of > Nextel) as I was told this is not a true 'walkie talkie' function in > terms of using radio frequencies but merely a sort of fancy one-button > speed dial type thing? That is, you press the button and speak, but > the delay in getting a response from the other end is because the > phone is silently setting up the call, ringing and getting the other > end to answer via the 'walkie talkie' function. I've never seen a > small handheld radio that could get that far in its talking without > a lot of static and interference (which you don't hear on a Nextel at > least.) PAT] Nextel's isn't. iDEN, the protocol they use, is a protocol that combines SMR radio frequency usage (for the push-to-talk) and cellular usage. Verizon and Sprint's are services that ride over IP technology, if I'm remembering correctly. I don't think the call setup is the same as for a cellular call. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Reply-To: hukolau@NOSPAM.att.net Subject: Re: Walkie-Talkies Get A Makeover Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:54:13 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Eric Friedebach wrote: > Aude Lagorce, 02.25.04, Forbes.com [SNIP] > Walkie-talkies are not exactly the latest technology. But as Nextel > will attest, the oldest recipes sometimes make the best cakes. The > company may not have snazzy picture phones or a third-generation > network, but at $69 per month, it still boasts the highest revenue per > user in the industry. [SNIP] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Am I correct (at least in the case of > Nextel) as I was told this is not a true 'walkie talkie' function in > terms of using radio frequencies but merely a sort of fancy one-button > speed dial type thing? That is, you press the button and speak, but > the delay in getting a response from the other end is because the > phone is silently setting up the call, ringing and getting the other > end to answer via the 'walkie talkie' function. I've never seen a > small handheld radio that could get that far in its talking without > a lot of static and interference (which you don't hear on a Nextel at > least.) PAT] As far as I know you are correct. The same (or similar) kinds of network databases are queried as for 800 calls. Ring-tone back to the caller is suppressed. It IS just speed-dialing with a fancy name, conceptually. (The above is based on one particular implementation with which I have a passing familiarity. It may or may not be that everyone uses a similar implementation.) "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch ------------------------------ From: brett@nemeroff.com (Brett) Subject: Anyone Know of a ISDN/PRI or SIP to GR-303 'Converter' ?? Date: 26 Feb 2004 11:36:13 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi there, I know this may seem silly, and I know it's much more complicated than I'm making it, but here's my situation. I have a Sonus softswitch and I want to provide GR-303 trunk groups. I'm not opposed to an external solution, however I want to be able to provide service to traditional GR-303 RDTs. Multiple groups are prefered. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Brett Please reply to list or: brett+dated+1079033735.ccdfd2@nemeroff.com ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Verizon Land Line International Rates Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:44:33 -0600 Roman wrote: > To make a long story short: My girlfriend is in Spain for the > semester, and I have a Verizon landline in my house. I went on their > website to see how much it would cost to call, and it said $0.10 a > minute and a $4 fee. Sounded very cheap to me, so I made several hours > of phone calls. I got my bill yesterday: $630. Called Verizon. They > told me that I needed to call them and agree to pay the $4 to activate > the international calling for that price. Since I did not, I was > charged $3.09 a minute. They refused to charge me the $4 and then how > much I would have paid, saying it was my fault I didn't pay the $4 > even though on their website there is no mention of calling them to > pay it or that there is a different rate if you don't pay it etc ... > Has anyone had this problem or know a way to get out of it / convince > them that they should charge me the price it would have been had it > been $4. I'm a poor college student who simply can't afford that type > of payment. I have no idea what to do. File complaints with your state attorney general and public service/ public utilities commission. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Verizon Land Line International Rates Organization: ATCC Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:41:26 GMT In article , johnl@iecc.com says: >> To hell with Verizon LD to Europe. USADataNet has connectivity to most >> major European nations for .08 a minute and there's no call setup fee. > USA Datanet's rates aren't particularly low any more. > My Cognidial dialaround service charges 6.7 cpm. If you're really > cheap and have a PC with a DSL or better connection and a headset, > net2phone's rate to Spain is 3.9 cpm. In my case, my domestic calls constitute more than 98% of my calling and I like the way USADatanet caps the max on the call depending on the region, particularly considering most of my calls are on the eastern seaboard .99 max region. My rate for those calls effectively drops to .02 a minute or less. For international calls that usually last < 10 minutes the .08 a minute doesn't break the bank. ------------------------------ From: jbl Subject: Re: Memories: Old Fashioned Three Slot Coin Phones Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:38:21 -0700 Organization: On the desert Reply-To: jbl@spamblocked.com In , Nick Landsberg wrote: > TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: >> Sixteen years ago, in January, 1988, John Levine and other >> participants here including myself got into a discussion of >> 'Enterprise' phone numbers, the pre-1970 forerunner to what >> are now toll-free 800 numbers. In Intermountain Bell land (a large part of the future USWest and then Qwest) we didn't have Enterprise numbers, we had Zenith numbers. > Part of the reasoning for putting lots of 9's and 0's on coin lines > was that they would not be called often. Back in the days of rotary > dial, dialing a "9" would use up 9 times the time on the equipment as > a "1" . Since coin lines were less likely to be dialed, they usually > got the high numbers. As I remember it, businesses paid a premium for > numbers such as MU(rray Hill) 5-1000 because of all those zeros. > Nowadays it doesn't matter. Here in the west the premium numbers were more likely to end in two or three "1"s, e.g. MAin 4-8411. Nobody had the patience to pull all those zeros, so the highly valued numbers ended in the shortest possible pulls. Thousand-ending numbers were not very common in the areas I lived. /JBL ------------------------------ From: Nick Landsberg Reply-To: hukolau@NOSPAM.att.net Subject: Re: Memories: Enterprise -vs- Zenith Numbers Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:43:12 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Al Gillis wrote: > Hi All... [SNIP] > And here's a couple of bonus questions ... Who can name all the 22 > Operating Companies of the Bell System? What was the name of the > metal recovery company the Bell System used to recover copper, lead > and other metals resulting from their disconnects? I'm guessing about the ones with ? after them. New England Telephone New York Telephone NJ Bell Bell of PA Chesapeake and Potomac of Virginia C & P of DC C & P of Maryland C & P of W. Va. (or were all of these considered one company?) Diamond State Telephone Southern Bell South Central Bell Illinois Bell Indiana Bell Michigan Bell Ohio Bell? (I think Cincinatti Bell was an independent, but I'm not sure) Wisconsin Bell? Don't know about Minnesotta? :( Southwest Bell Pacific Tel and Tel (wonder if Nevada Bell counts as a separate company?) Mountain Bell Northwest Bell. Totally lost on which company served the great plains states. And a portion of SNET (about 20%) was also owned by AT&T, I think. (Southern New England Telephone) and the answer to the bonus question is ... Nassau Smelting! > Thanks, Pat! > Al > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To answer your first question, Enterprise > and Zenith were the same thing basically; Bell used Enterprise and (I > think) the GTE and other 'independent' telephone companies used > Zenith. In either case they each had four trailing digits. Either they > could reverse-charge call other numbers on the same exchange only; or > other numbers in the same state; or other numbers only in *other* > states; or all numbers from anywhere, just as 800 numbers are handled > today. The operator had all the details on her flip chart for the > most commonly used Enterprise/Zenith numbers, other less well known > Enterprise/Zenith numbers had details on file at Rate & Route which > was 815+161 in Morris, Illinois most of the time, a function provided > for AT&T under contract with Illinois Bell. > AT&T contracted out most of its smaller 'back office' functions such > as Rate & Route (to Illinois Bell), 'non-subscriber calling cards' (to > Cincinnati Bell); Separations and Settlements (to New York Telephone > and Pacific Telephone), etc. I hear your question: how could someone > who was NOT a subscriber to a *specific* telephone company (which we > know almost always meant X Bell and AT&T) have a calling card (or as > they called them in those days, credit cards)? Well there were the > military personnel on active duty; traveling salesman who always > stayed in various hotels, etc, but had no specific home base of > operations, and so forth. They all recieved 'non-sub' style credit > cards from the phone company if they ask for one. And there were the > 'special billing' style accounts, HUGE corporations and government > agencies where the bills were all handled from one or another central > location. Special billing style 'non (specific telco)-sub credit > cards' were handled on contract for AT&T by Southwestern Bell I > think. > I think also -- just cannot remember for sure -- that any police or > sheriffs who had a large enough coverage area that some of their > citizens would be required to call 'long distance' to reach the police > or sheriff (and for all offices of the FBI!) were given a Zenith > number for their (out of toll free local calling area) citizens to > use. I did see a very ancient (1950-ish) phone book for here in > Independence where the FBI (located in Wichita) was listed as > 'subscribers in Indpce and C'ville, ask Operator for Zenith xxxx' > Please note, even though this is a Southwestern Bell (and thus, > under the old system, AT&T) region those were cases where they used > Zenith instead of Enterprise. I think maybe the federal government > required the use of Zenith for their accounts, even though it was > ultimatly via Bell/AT&T. > Please recall that the independent telcos (of which GTE (an amalga- > mation of other independent telcos) was the largest, originally > had refused to give in or 'sell out to the Bell' right after the > start of the 20th century largely because of Ted Vail's (original > AT&T's Chairman) tactics. Every one of them hated Bell with a passion, > but dealt with Ma Bell when they had to. They did their own thing, > but copied Bell business practices by and large. Thus the Zenith > versus Enterprise label. They even formed their own national > association (USITA - United States Independent Telephone Association) > to act as a 'watchdog' on Bell. Do times change? Well in the > last USITA national convention prior to divestiture (1981) the > principal speaker at USITA was none other than Charles Brown, AT&T > chairman, By then they had all gotten to be bosum buddies! PAT] "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious" - A. Bloch ------------------------------ Subject: Coin Phones From: Charles G Gray Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:10:43 -0600 Further to the discussion on why so many coin phones were assigned NXX-8/9XXX. For companies/corporations that used a PBX or CCSA they invariably used 9 to access an "outside line". In many cases, an entire NXX would be assigned to the company. Some used 8 for access to their private network. Sometimes they would use 99 for outside, and 98 for private network access. In either case, since 9XXX could never be used as part of the company's internal dial plan, the telco used these number blocks for pay phones. Otherwise, they might not have been assigned at all. Regards, Charles G. Gray Senior Lecturer, Telecommunications Oklahoma State University - Tulsa (918)594-8433 ------------------------------ From: grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk Subject: Outsourcing From OTHER Perspective Reply-To: grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:32:11 +0000 Organization: Customer of PlusNet > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/opinion/26FRIE.html > "How can it be good for America to have all these Indians doing our > white-collar jobs?" I asked 24/7's founder, S. Nagarajan. > Well, he answered patiently, "look around this office." All the > computers are from Compaq. The basic software is from Microsoft. The > phones are from Lucent. The air-conditioning is by Carrier, and even > the bottled water is by Coke, because when it comes to drinking water > in India, people want a trusted brand. On top of all this, says Mr. > Nagarajan, 90 percent of the shares in 24/7 are owned by U.S. > investors. This explains why, although the U.S. has lost some service > jobs to India, total exports from U.S. companies to India have grown > from $2.5 billion in 1990 to $4.1 billion in 2002. What goes around > comes around, and also benefits Americans. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Benefits American shareholders. Does it benefit American workers ? Or do American workers own so many shares in outsourced companies, they don't need a job ? Best newsgroup for debates on the topic of Job Outsourcing & Job Sorcery alt.computer.consultants ------------------------------ From: mktg@garrettcom.com Subject: GarrettCom, Inc.: Industrial Ethernet and Carrier Class Ethernet Date: 26 Feb 2004 11:25:43 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com NEW COMPACT CONVERTER SWITCH PRODUCTS PROMISE CONVENIENT, COST-EFFECTIVE EDGE CONNECTIVITY IN INDUSTRIAL ETHERNET NETWORKS GarrettCom Introduces Family of Products that Combine Media Converter and Switch Functionality to Reduce Costs and Increase Reliability February 12, 2004 Fremont , Calif. GarrettCom, Inc., has made edge-of-the-network connectivity for industrial applications easier, more reliable, and less expensive. The company's Magnum CS Ethernet Converter Switch family is the only set of products on the market today that offers the convenience of a two-port edge switch plus a media converter in one compact and modular package smaller than a typical PDA. In a CS product, one 10 Mb or 100 Mb fiber port connects to the fiber backbone, while the two 10/100 copper switch ports provide convenient access to PLCs, IEDs, sensors, and other devices in the industrial plant or at remote industrial sites. By improving upon the traditional stand-alone media converter, GarrettCom offers a flexible, cost-effective connectivity solution and eliminates one point-of-failure in the system for more reliable operation. The ability to select fiber port types, various DC and AC power input options, and any of three levels of temperature ratings enables users of the Magnum CS products to get the best price-to-value ratio for each application. A companion Convenient Switch product, the Magnum S14, offers four 10/100 copper ports in the same small package as the Converter Switch products. "Space and money are always at a premium in a utility installation," said Rick Hillis, Manager Communications Engineering Electronic Systems. Salt River Project, Phoenix , Ariz. GarrettCom's Converter Switch solution allows us to connect our copper-ported equipment into our Ethernet backbone in an extremely convenient and cost-effective manner. It's good to work with a company that understands the realities and economies of the environment in which we operate." The Magnum CS products are ideal for any location where a small number of PLCs or other industrial devices need to be connected upstream over a fiber cable, or where two or three devices need to be aggregated and connected over copper cable. There are no wasted ports; when expansion is needed, it is easy to drop in an additional Converter Switch or Convenient Switch device. The Magnum CS products are designed to allow the user to select the best package for the application. Like most GarrettCom products, the Magnum CS products come in multiple levels of hardiness to cover the entire range of industrial edge-switch application requirements. GarrettCom's three-tier YOR hardiness ratings range from the "yellow" office and wiring closet model to the "orange" hardened model for factory floor and the "red" premium-rated model to withstand outdoor temperature extremes. Where the choice of power type previously has been conditioned upon the temperature rating of the application, the new Magnum CS line allows users to have any power input type in any temperature rating. "The Converter Switch product is a new type of industrial Ethernet device," said Frank Madren, GarrettCom president. "Not only does a Converter Switch device do the traditional copper-to-fiber translation, but it also offers multiple copper ports. It is economical, too, costing no more than traditional Media Converters." Product Specifications The Magnum CS14 Converter Switch products come with one 100 Mb fiber port and two RJ-45 copper ports. The Magnum CSN14 Converter Switch products come with a 10 Mb fiber port and two RJ-45 copper ports. Both Converter Switch models handle standard media distances on all connected media segments. The Magnum S14 Convenient Switch product comes with four RJ-45 copper ports. All three models are packaged in the same type of enclosure, and can be mounted and used together for application convenience. All fiber ports can be configured with any standard or Small Form Factor (SFF) multi-mode or single-mode connector. Power source choices are 110 or 220 VAC, or 12V, 24V or -48V DC. Dual source power is supported. All products can be ordered to meet office (Yellow), factory floor ( Orange), or outdoor (Red) levels of hardening, and come with panel-mount brackets; DIN-Rail is optional. For more information, go to http://www.garrettcom.com/converter_switches.htm Contact GarrettCom, Inc. Email: mktg@garrettcom.com Tel: 1-510-438-9071 Tel: 1-510-438-9072 Web Site: www.GarrettCom.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: 620-330-6774 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 second 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 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 #92 *****************************