|
|
Message Digest
Volume 29 : Issue 49 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
Crippled pay phones
Re: Crippled pay phones
Pay phone nostalgia
Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Re: 40% lack home broadband access
Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Re: ISDN
Re: ISDN
Re: ISDN
Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
819/873 Area Code Overlay in Quebec, CRTC Press Release issued Wed-17-Feb-2010
Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. 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, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:04:55 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
Message-ID: <bGLen.41787$3W2.32636@newsfe14.iad>
David Clayton wrote:
> It's all about using a limited resource to its maximum effectiveness,
> and while a few of the "face to face" customers may walk out, they'd
> probably lose more phone customers if they didn't answer all the calls
> - so it works out as a nett gain.
>
Business before manners.
I don't mind the clerk that answers and says, "I'll be with you in a
moment when I through with another customer."
But, that is seldom the way it works.
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:42:51 +0000 (UTC)
From: ranck@vt.edu
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
Message-ID: <hlhgrr$bnb$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu>
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
> David Clayton wrote:
> > It's all about using a limited resource to its maximum effectiveness,
> > and while a few of the "face to face" customers may walk out, they'd
> > probably lose more phone customers if they didn't answer all the calls
> > - so it works out as a nett gain.
> Business before manners.
> I don't mind the clerk that answers and says, "I'll be with you in a
> moment when I through with another customer."
> But, that is seldom the way it works.
My wife runs a small business. We have instructed all the sales
clerks that they are to let the answering machine take the call if
they are already dealing with a customer. The machine is set to
answer on the second ring, and the outgoing message gives the hours
and location of the shop, which is almost always what they are asking.
We still get some people who are upset because someone did not answer
the phone when they called, so we'll answer if it's reasonable to do
so and they can leave a message and get a call back.
It is sometimes hard to explain to a college age person that answering
the phone is secondary to dealing with a face-to-face customer, but
they eventually get it.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:37:40 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
Message-ID: <pan.2010.02.17.21.37.36.430985@myrealbox.com>
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:04:55 -0800, Sam Spade wrote:
> David Clayton wrote:
>
>> It's all about using a limited resource to its maximum effectiveness,
>> and while a few of the "face to face" customers may walk out, they'd
>> probably lose more phone customers if they didn't answer all the calls -
>> so it works out as a nett gain.
>>
>>
> Business before manners.
>
> I don't mind the clerk that answers and says, "I'll be with you in a
> moment when I through with another customer."
>
> But, that is seldom the way it works.
But that is probably more a reflection on the modern world rather than
business practices.
It can be tough to convince an under-30 to ignore a piece of
technology that they have now basically had since birth......
- -
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
***** Moderator's Note *****
No pun intended, but I've always wondered why children have that
Pavlovian response: after all, they not only grew up with telephones,
but also with cheap long-distance rates, so I'd think they be able to
shrug their shoulders and let it go to the voice mail.
Then again, they also grew up with movies and TV that invariably
portray cell phone calls as important, and show actors always
answering them without any hesitation. It's almost as if they were
being paid to promote not only the product, but also a mode of use
that made more money for the cellular industry.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:22:34 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Crippled pay phones
Message-ID: <6645152a1002162322y28174393r2a958fb81a834d7c@mail.gmail.com>
I recently got a new computer and I am moving my archives to the new
one. I was scanning through the old telecom postings and saw this
from November 15, 1992:
"According to a UPI story, Ohio Bell has announced plans to cripple
some pay phones in Cleveland. They have already started converting
pay phones from tone dial to rotary, and restricting them to outgoing
calls only. Now they will also be disallowing coin calls (credit card
and collect will still be allowed) at certain hours of the day, and
disabling the tone pad after dialing on those phones that still have
tone dials. They claim that this will limit the use of pay phones for
illegal purposes."
Something I long noticed but never asked about was the situation with
Texas pay phones. I lived in the state from 1986-1987 and 1998 to
present. I lived/visited areas with GTE (and successors),
Southwestern Bell (and successors), and third party pay phones. None
of them accepted incoming calls. I found this strange as pay phones
in other states I had lived in accepted calls.
According to this page:
http://www.puc.state.tx.us/ocp/telephone/telefacts/payphs.pdf pay
phone operators must indicate if a pay phone can accept calls. This
tells me there was no blanket law prohibiting this. Yet it seemed to
be the rule.
Further searching doesn't reveal anything. I'm guessing with pay
phones being so passé this just doesn't come up. I'm curious if
anyone here knows the story of Texas pay phones and why they didn't
like incoming calls.
If you're ever bored or nostalgic it's worth a visit to the archives
to see just how far we've come (or how bad we've gotten depending on
your perspective). http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/archives/back.issues/
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jmayson
***** Moderator's Note *****
The pay phones were changd to outgoing only and dial-pulse to prevent
them being used to order drugs or by dealers. An outgoing-only phone
can't be used as an "order desk", and with dial-pulse phones, you
can't put "order codes" into the dealer's pager.
BTW: the archives changed to a new format in 2009, with each day's
posts presented in "digest" format as they would be for a mailing-list
subscriber who chooses to receive a daily digest.
I'd like to make the "old", threaded digest available again, and
welcome help from the readers to do it. In the meantime, GIYF.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:16:01 EST
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Crippled pay phones
Message-ID: <1b6a9.7694050.38adeed1@aol.com>
In a message dated 2/17/2010 8:05:48 AM Central Standard Time,
john@mayson.us writes:
> I recently got a new computer and I am moving my archives to the new
> one. I was scanning through the old telecom postings and saw this
> from November 15, 1992:
>
> "According to a UPI story, Ohio Bell has announced plans to cripple
> some pay phones in Cleveland. They have already started converting
> pay phones from tone dial to rotary, and restricting them to
> outgoing calls only. Now they will also be disallowing coin calls
> (credit card and collect will still be allowed) at certain hours of
> the day, and disabling the tone pad after dialing on those phones
> that still have tone dials. They claim that this will limit the use
> of pay phones for illegal purposes."
This was common in many places. Quite a few years go I encountered
this at a grocery store in an area of Oklahoma City which I would say
was borderline. What I found disconcerting was that you had to give
your credit card number aloud to an operator.
> Something I long noticed but never asked about was the situation
> with Texas pay phones. I lived in the state from 1986-1987 and 1998
> to present. I lived/visited areas with GTE (and successors),
> Southwestern Bell (and successors), and third party pay phones.
> None of them accepted incoming calls. I found this strange as pay
> phones in other states I had lived in accepted calls.
This depends on the situation. At one group of pay phones at Tinker
Air Force Base, workers on break would call their home number and when
it rang once or twice, would hang up. This would be a signal for the
called party to call them back. Hence a heavy trafficked group of pay
phones that did not generate any revenue for the phone company. Those
phones were changed to outgoing only and the abuse stopped. I would
guess this was done in many places.
(..snip..)
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> The pay phones were changd to outgoing only and dial-pulse to
> prevent them being used to order drugs or by dealers. An
> outgoing-only phone can't be used as an "order desk", and with
> dial-pulse phones, you can't put "order codes" into the dealer's
> pager.
An earlier reason, as noted, was to try to stop cheating the phone
company.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:31:24 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Pay phone nostalgia
Message-ID: <6645152a1002162331o76ee69fl633171fc9e4fd073@mail.gmail.com>
I last flew in and out of Atlanta's airport in 2005. I pointed out
something to my son and I still find it amazing. When I lived in
Atlanta (1987-1992) it seemed every bare section of wall in the
various concourses had pay phones. I would love to know how many
Southern Bell had crammed in there. Even more amazingly I found
myself at times having to wait for a phone to become available to make
a call. In 2005 every phone was gone. If there were any pay phones I
couldn't find them. I couldn't even tell they had even existed.
Lately around Austin I've made it a point to search for pay phones. I
have been in malls, airports, supermarkets, and hospitals and haven't
seen any.
To make this a worthwhile post and not the ramblings of a telephone
geek with insomnia I found this page to be interesting:
http://www.payphone-project.com/. It appears there are at least a few
pay phones still out in the wild.
John
- -
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jmayson
***** Moderator's Note *****
Telephone geek? Insomnia? Remind you of anyone? ;-)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:04:14 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Message-ID: <26fd40b4-52db-4e8c-ab60-ac678e368f5b@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 17, 2:31 am, John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote:
> I last flew in and out of Atlanta's airport in 2005. I pointed out
> something to my son and I still find it amazing. When I lived in
> Atlanta (1987-1992) it seemed every bare section of wall in the
> various concourses had pay phones. I would love to know how many
> Southern Bell had crammed in there. Even more amazingly I found
> myself at times having to wait for a phone to become available to
> make a call. In 2005 every phone was gone. If there were any pay
> phones I couldn't find them. I couldn't even tell they had even
> existed.
In Pennsylvania Station NYC there are some pay phones and people using
them.
The Trenton NJ railroad station had a whole wall of payphones as you
describe. When the station was rennovated these were removed, but a
few payphones were installed at major entrances, and I've seen them in
occasional use.
A number of Verizon payphones in the NYC metro area, including at
train stations, take coins for station long distance calls at a rate
of 25c per minute, $1 minimum. This is a very useful feature. There
are still people who don't own cellphones, and plenty of people who
forgot theirs or the battery is dead. People lose lots of cellphones.
At many railroad stations there is a payphone on the platform which
mainly serves as a 911 emergency phone. The carrier pays the phoneco
the cost of the phone--this is cheaper than a dedicated line help
phone, and of course lets passengers call anyone they want if they
wish. I see them in use occassionally.
> Lately around Austin I've made it a point to search for pay
> phones. I have been in malls, airports, supermarkets, and hospitals
> and haven't seen any.
I was at an old shopping mall and noticed that where there was once a
battery of pay phones near a main entrance there was now only one, and
the rest of the wall covered with plywood.
Your post reminded me how ubiquitous payphones used to be. Almost
every public place had at least one payphone, often more, at each
entrance. There would also be payphones scattered throughout the
facility, such as in the hallway near restrooms or elevators on every
floor. Shopping malls had them in fancy kiosks, some malls built in
the 1970s had Touch Tone payphones (a novelty at the time).
Many small businesses, such as luncheonettes and gas stations, had
"semi-public" pay phones. Sometimes these had an answer-only blank-
dial extension in a back room; in those cases the payphone would have
a plastic flip top over the coin slots to warn users to listen first.
The village where I live used to have outdoor payphones at numerous
locations; the last ones (at the convenience store) were recently
pulled out. One remains at the train station as described above.
New York City still has many pay phone kiosks on street corners. The
reason is that the kiosk enclosure holds advertising cards which
couldn't be out there otherwise; and the ad revenue pays for the
phone. According to the NYT, there are one or two remaining real
phone booths on the street.
In thinking about it, it appears the old Bell System usually was
rather liberal about installing pay phones. I remember lots of
locations where I was surprised there were multiple phones that never
seemed to be used. I knew of many isolated locations in buildings
(e.g., at the end of a little used corridor) that had a pay phone. If
someone wanted a payphone in a marginal location the property owner
would have to ensure a minimum revenue and make up the difference, a
policy that continues to this day (see above for railroad stations).
In the past, I wonder if some businesses paid to have extra payphones
installed so as to avoid employees and guests using company phones for
personal calls.
Many years ago in large places like major railroad stations there
would be a payphone center with an attendant with a switchboard. The
attendant would place the calls for patrons and direct them to a booth
when the connection was made. In the late 1970s Pennsylvania Station
in NYC still had an attended payphone center, but I don't know if the
attendant still connected the calls given dialed direct (TSP/TSPS) for
everything was common by that point. The attendant may have assisted
with overseas calls.
Many years ago Western Union would have a desk at the largest train
stations and airports and these would handle a lot of traffic in the
1950s.
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:31:50 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Message-ID: <H%_en.31$Ab2.27@newsfe23.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2:31 am, John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote:
> The Trenton NJ railroad station had a whole wall of payphones as
> you describe. When the station was rennovated these were removed,
> but a few payphones were installed at major entrances, and I've seen
> them in occasional use.
I don't know which did in public pay stations quicker:
1. Wireless phones
2. Private pay phones that quickly became notorious, making a one-arm
bandit in Las Vegas look like a gift machine by comparison.
***** Moderator's Note *****
People are funny: a shopkeeper who finds out he can make 25¢ or 50¢
per call will often do the magical mental dance that allows him to
think Ma Bell was making just as much and keeping it for herself.
Of course, Ma Bell had an army of statisticians where could predict
the affect any price increase would have, but, well, it's human nature
to assume that a pay phone that used to be used 30 times per day will
always be used 30 times per day. Those who (briefly) benefitted from
the COCOT craze soon found out that people resent being ripped off
more than they resent paying extra for cell phones: as I said, people
are funny.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:45:49 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Message-ID: <pan.2010.02.18.03.45.44.617799@myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:31:50 -0800, Sam Spade wrote:
..........
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> People are funny: a shopkeeper who finds out he can make 25¢ or 50¢ per
> call will often do the magical mental dance that allows him to think Ma
> Bell was making just as much and keeping it for herself.
>
> Of course, Ma Bell had an army of statisticians where could predict the
> affect any price increase would have, but, well, it's human nature to
> assume that a pay phone that used to be used 30 times per day will
> always be used 30 times per day. Those who (briefly) benefitted from the
> COCOT craze soon found out that people resent being ripped off more than
> they resent paying extra for cell phones: as I said, people are funny.
How many hotel chains are now regreting the decades ripping-off guests
with exorbitant outgoing call costs which basically kick-started the
business mobile phone industry as an alternative?
Talk about "biting the hand that feeds you", I wonder how much revenue
hotels get now from guests using their own phones now that virtually
everyone has a mobile?
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:48:16 GMT
From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 40% lack home broadband access
Message-ID: <hlge11$eqm$1@news.eternal-september.org>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>What bothers me is that the techies of the world think everyone has
>convenient broadband access and design their websites and other
>services accordingly.
The "people who matter" probably do. I have the occasional customer with
dial-up and they're not the typical consumer of the hotshot websites. Usually
they just use their connection for email and can't be bothered with Facebook
or other fancy sites.
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:59:47 GMT
From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
Message-ID: <hlgemj$eqm$2@news.eternal-september.org>
David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> When you are on the other end of a voice connection you can't see
> why the phone is not being answered [....]
I'd prefer that to get a busy signal than to get an answer and a
facetious "Your call is important to us" message. At least with the
busy signal I'm aware that everybody is engaged. With a hold queue
I'm not so sure.
> Those on-hold messages like "You are X in the queue" are designed to
> provide some visibility and let the caller decide what to do with at
> least some information.
Until one day I called Microsoft and the voice said, "The average wait
time is 75 minutes." That was excessive.
> Commerce knows that the initial answering of a call - even if it is
> just "Hold the line please" - makes the eventual [....]
When I was in the "call center" business (we called it the "answering
service" business at the time, we never told a caller to hold. We'd
say, "Just a moment" and then put them on hold. People reacted much
more positively to that phrase.
> It's all about using a limited resource to its maximum
> effectiveness, and while a few of the "face to face" customers may
> walk out, they'd probably lose more phone customers if they didn't
> answer all the calls - so it works out as a net gain.
If there isn't enough staff to do a job effectively, it's not the
customer's fault. Also, when it comes to phone calls versus in-person
visits, I'd take the human presence immediately. The possibility of a
sale is so much higher. In retail, callers are usually fishing for
information when they phone. Such questions are: how late are you
open, do you have x product, where are you located, etc. In fact, in
most retail stores, they sales clerk is not prepared to take an order
for something via the phone. So, there's not much sales potential
there.
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:44:02 -0500
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Message-ID: <barmar-21AFEA.08440217022010@news.eternal-september.org>
In article
<6645152a1002162016x37b926b6g57a35ff0844bcabb@mail.gmail.com>,
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
> I understand the need to prevent prisoners from conducting "business"
> from their cell, ordering hits, etc. But on the other hand prisoners
> who keep in touch with their families, even if it's sending an "I love
> you" to a child every night via text, helps to prevent convicts from
> returning to prison. Surely there's a compromise here without going
> down this path?
Can't they keep in touch with their families using land-line phones?
The article says that cellphones are forbidden in prisons.
- -
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
***** Moderator's Note *****
The prison staff has no way to monitor cellphones, whereas the
landlines may be recorded, and sometimes have an announcement warning
the person being called that the call originated in a correctional
facility.
OTOH, cellphones don't contribute to the profits of the (pun intended)
well-connected companies which run prison pay-phone services.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:36:00 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Message-ID: <6645152a1002170636m16f656fyb561feed834ba4c6@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 7:44 AM, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Can't they keep in touch with their families using land-line phones?
>
> The article says that cellphones are forbidden in prisons.
They are. My concern is we're effectively using a tactical nuke to
kill a housefly. How much of a problem is cell phones in prison?
What does that say about our prison system if these can be smuggled in
and used?
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> The prison staff has no way to monitor cellphones, whereas the
> landlines may be recorded, and sometimes have an announcement
> warning the person being called that the call originated in a
> correctional facility.
>
> OTOH, cellphones don't contribute to the profits of the (pun
> intended) well-connected companies which run prison pay-phone
> services.
I've never been in prison either as a visitor or a "guest". I
question if they can monitor ALL legal phone calls in and out. And
I also question if this is more about lost revenue with their pay
phone service than anything else. Are we responding appropriately or
overreacting like we have with buying cold medicine or boarding an
airplane?
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jmayson
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 04:42:25 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Message-ID: <hligfh$ib1$1@reader2.panix.com>
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> writes:
>> The article says that cellphones are forbidden in prisons.
> They are. My concern is we're effectively using a tactical nuke to
> kill a housefly. How much of a problem is cell phones in prison?
> What does that say about our prison system if these can be smuggled
> in and used?
Not much good, I agree, but it is a major problem.
> I've never been in prison either as a visitor or a "guest". I
> question if they can monitor ALL legal phone calls in and out.
You'd be wrong. They can and do, with one exception: attorney-client
communication.
> And I also question if this is more about lost revenue with their
> pay phone service than anything else.
No one objects more to the prison phone ripoff; it hurts those
famalies outside more than the inmates, for one thing. But I do
believe they have a problem with cell phones that thus far has evaded
other solutions.
Suggestions?
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 04:02:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: ISDN
Message-ID: <201002170902.EAA11755@ss10.danlan.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> My DSL is about 600k/100k, and I think that qualifies as really
> sucky: too slow even for Vonage.
Until recently I had 768k/128k. Eventually I was able to upgrade to a
whopping 1M/384k but the service still does not seem suitable for
VOIP. The funny thing is that the problem appears to be mainly in the
downstream direction. The various web sites that offer tests for VOIP
suitability seem to concentrate on the upstream path. I'd really like
to understand better what is going on...
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.com
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:05:32 -0500
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: ISDN
Message-ID: <MPG.25e61617d15d1512989c8f@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <201002170902.EAA11755@ss10.danlan.com>, ddl@danlan.com
says...
>
> > ***** Moderator's Note *****
> >
> > My DSL is about 600k/100k, and I think that qualifies as really
> > sucky: too slow even for Vonage.
>
> Until recently I had 768k/128k. Eventually I was able to upgrade to a
> whopping 1M/384k but the service still does not seem suitable for
> VOIP. The funny thing is that the problem appears to be mainly in the
> downstream direction. The various web sites that offer tests for VOIP
> suitability seem to concentrate on the upstream path. I'd really like
> to understand better what is going on...
>
> Dan Lanciani
> ddl@danlan.com
Who is providing your DSL service? I've often suspected the likes of
Verizon and other companies of deliberately blocking VoIP traffic if
it isn't destined for THEIR servers.
***** Moderator's Note *****
In the case of Comcast, port blocking has already been proven. I wrote
an article some time back, asking readers to contact their congressmen
and support the "net neutrality" doctrine.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:41:14 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: ISDN
Message-ID: <pan.2010.02.17.21.41.09.123215@myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 04:02:09 -0500, Dan Lanciani wrote:
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> My DSL is about 600k/100k, and I think that qualifies as really sucky:
>> too slow even for Vonage.
>
> Until recently I had 768k/128k. Eventually I was able to upgrade to a
> whopping 1M/384k but the service still does not seem suitable for VOIP.
> The funny thing is that the problem appears to be mainly in the downstream
> direction. The various web sites that offer tests for VOIP suitability
> seem to concentrate on the upstream path. I'd really like to understand
> better what is going on...
On assumes that your VoIP connection directly connects into the last
piece of network equipment that connects to the ADSL modem and that it
has QoS working correctly?
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:23:46 +0100
From: Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1002@zugschl.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
Message-ID: <hlhc7i$vfu$1@news1.tnib.de>
sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
>Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>> I find a ringing phone an intrusion. Getting up to answer it is
>> still a bigger intrusion which I accept if it is a friend or
>> family.
>
> I just realized how quaint the concept of "getting up" to answer a
> phone has become. I have not had landline service in nearly 9
> years, so the idea of having to go across the room to answer a phone
> is becoming a distant memory. People who are 18 or 20 today
> probably never have had to get up to answer a phone in their lives.
I get up regularly to answer the phone since [due to the] Internet I
get so few private phone calls that I regularly [don't] bother to have
the cordless or cell phone in reach.
Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:13:53 -0800 (PST)
From: "Mark J. Cuccia" <markjcuccia@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: 819/873 Area Code Overlay in Quebec, CRTC Press Release issued Wed-17-Feb-2010
Message-ID: <37761.40007.qm@web31105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (the
Canadian Federal Government's telecom/radio/TV/etc. regulatory agency
similar ot the US' FCC) issued a press release today, Wed-17-Feb-2010,
regarding the forthcoming area code overlay in central and western/
northwestern Quebec, NPA 819 to be overlaid with new NPA 873.
The 819, 450, and 514 area codes in Quebec went to mandatory ten-digit
local dialing back in Fall 2006, even though at that time, the only
area code to be overlaid with 514 (with 438) for Montreal and the
IMMEDIATE vicinity itself. Later this year (2010), 450 for the outer
areas of southwestern Quebec outside of the immediate Montreal metro
area, will be overlaid with 579.
Now, 819 will finally be overlaid.
The CRTC documentation can be found from:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2010/r100217.htm
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-94.htm
At the time the CRTC initially uploaded their documentation on
Wednesday morning, regarding the Quebec 819/873 overlay, there was an
error! The CRTC press release originally stated that the new 873
overlay is to take effect on (Saturday) 19-March-2011. This date shown
is WRONG! That date is when the 249 overlay to 705 in
eastern/northeastern Ontario will officially take effect.
Later during the day, the CRTC corrected the date for 819/873 in the
press release at their website.
The official-start-date for the 819/873 Quebec overlay (according to
the CNA, Canadian Numbering Administrator) is for Saturday
01-June-2013. This is also the corrected date now shown in the CRTC's
press notice at their website.
Central Office Codes can be requested under the new 873 NPA code from
SAIC-CNA as early as Saturday 01-December-2012.
Ten-digit local intra-819 dialing is already mandatory throughout the
entire 819 NPA region in Quebec (since Fall 2006), so any permissive/
mandatory 10-digit dialing transition is MOOT!
Test-Number Effective date (NO LATER THAN) Friday 01-March-2013.
Test-Number discontinue date (NO EARLIER THAN) Monday 01-July-2013.
873-610-TEST/BILL for 8050 Bell Canada QC
873-810-TEST/BILL for 8304 MTS-Allstream (CLEC)
873-510-TEST/BILL for 8377 Rogers-CallNet? 743B Rogers-Cable? (CLEC)
(Rogers CallNet does have a presence at Hull QC)
There might be an 873-710-TEST/BILL for 8239 Telebec at Val-d'Or QC,
for their DMS-200 tandem, but that hasn't yet been determined.
The CLEC-side of Telus-Quebec might possibly have a test/bill number
pair for the new 873 NPA, but that hasn't yet been determined.
Verbage/text for the test-number announcements will be
French-then-English:
"La communication a été établie avec succès au numéro de
vérification de l'indicatif régional 8-7-3, à
[NOM DU TÉLÉCOMMUNICATEUR], Québec, Canada."
"You have successfully completed a call to the 8-7-3 Area Code Test Number
at [CARRIER NAME] in Québec, Canada."
More details to come later... there will obviously be a NeuStar-NANPA
Planning Letter at a later date.
The SAIC-CNA's website is: http://www.cnac.ca/
Mark J. Cuccia
markjcuccia at yahoo dot com
Lafayette LA, formerly of New Orleans LA pre-Katrina
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:27:32 +0100
From: Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1002@zugschl.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
Message-ID: <hlhcek$vki$1@news1.tnib.de>
David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:20:13 +0000, David Kaye wrote:
>> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>>> An anology are the rude retail staff who cut off face-to-face
>>> conversation with me to answer the phone. The smart retailers
>>> (the minority) do not do that.
>>
>> I have been to retail stores where the clerk has stopped my
>> transaction to answer a call. I've walked away. The clerk usually
>> chases me down and I tell them, "I'm sorry, your call was more
>> important than me, so I let you take your call." The apologize but
>> I continue to walk. No retail transaction is worth that much to
>> me. I can always buy at another time.
>
> Interesting how we have been trained to respond to the demands of a
> piece of technology over a real human in front of our faces, innit?
This morning, I was in the middle of a medical exam when my cell phone
rang. The nurse actually asked me whether I wanted to answer it and
was genuinely surprised when I said "no, that call can wait until
you're finished".
> Those on-hold messages like "You are X in the queue" are designed to
> provide some visibility and let the caller decide what to do with at
> least some information.
Back in the day when the information given was real. Currently, it is
regularly the case that one is getting the "You're first in the queue,
the next agent will be with you soon" message for half an hour.
> Commerce knows that the initial answering of a call - even if it is
> just "Hold the line please" - makes the eventual
> conversation/transaction more likely than just letting the call ring
> out, so people in that situation are instructed to answer every call
> no matter if they are dealing with someone in front of them.
Unfortunately, this method of operation came to Europe well before
telephone flat rates. So we had to pay for the "Hold the line please"
message instead of having it ring through for free, and we still pay
for that if the company being called is using a "service number". For
most of these the flat rates don't apply.
Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:48:12 +0000 (UTC)
From: ranck@vt.edu
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Message-ID: <hlhh5s$bnb$2@solaris.cc.vt.edu>
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
> ANNAPOLIS, Md - Equipment that jams cellphones will get its first
> federally sanctioned test inside a prison in Maryland this week, as
Sigh! Can't they just RF sheild the damn buildings? Then they don't
risk interfering with people outside. Churches and theatres certainly
have that option. Jammers are a bad idea.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Passive shielding is really hard to install and maintain, even in
environments (e.g., a computer data center) where all the players are
on the same page and want it to work. It can't go on the outside of
the building because copper thick enough to withstand the elements
would cost too much. On the inside, it must be overlaid on all the
windows and vents, and all the doors have to have special bonding
strips (like weather strips or refrigerator seals) to close the shield
when the door swings shut.
Of course, in a prison, the inmates have a vested interest in
defeating the shielding. It's just not a viable solution for a
corrections environment.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:27:26 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Message-ID: <6645152a1002171927n5c81f8a3ub44dd8a5d60686af@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 1:48 PM, <ranck@vt.edu> wrote:
> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> ANNAPOLIS, Md - Equipment that jams cellphones will get its first
>> federally sanctioned test inside a prison in Maryland this week, as
>
> Sigh! Can't they just RF sheild the damn buildings? Then they
> don't risk interfering with people outside. Churches and theatres
> certain ly have that option. Jammers are a bad idea.
That was my first thought but it would never fly. Bill gave some
valid reasons but another huge one is passive shields can't be turned
off. Prison staff, medical services, law enforcement, etc. need for
their radios to work and perhaps even their cell phones. The prison
could turn off a jammer temporarily in those instances.
They could design that feature into new prisons, but it would create
issues for the staff if they needed to radio for help.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jmayson
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:03:58 -0500
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Message-ID: <MPG.25e615b682d92719989c8e@news.eternal-september.org>
In article
<6645152a1002162016x37b926b6g57a35ff0844bcabb@mail.gmail.com>,
john@mayson.us says...
>
> And here it starts... anyone in a betting mood? I'm going out on a
> limb and saying in 2020 there will be fierce debate if churches and
> movie theaters should employ this technology and dropped calls due to
> jamming while driving past certain businesses will be the newest
> complaint.
>
> I understand the need to prevent prisoners from conducting
> "business" from their cell, ordering hits, etc. But on the other
> hand prisoners who keep in touch with their families, even if it's
> sending an "I love you" to a child every night via text, helps to
> prevent convicts from returning to prison. Surely there's a
> compromise here without going down this path?
>
> I can't wait for the first lawsuit when a surgeon can't be reached
> due to cell phone jamming.
>
> John
You make an excellent point. There will come a moment in time where
the signal of someone's phone will be jammed in the case of a
legitimate emergency.
Here is a solution for places like churches, et al. Put in little
cubbyholes in the vestibule. Eveybody places their device in the
cubbhole before services and retrieves after service.
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition 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 Bill Horne. 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.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
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
Copyright (C) 2009 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.
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 The Telecom digest (23 messages)
|
or 