Previous Issue (Only one)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 28 : Issue 63 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: new price offer from t-mobile Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Telex and TWX rates 1970s Re: Telex and TWX rates 1970s Inaguration cell phone service Re: Inaguration cell phone service VoIP and wireless networking Re: VoIP and wireless networking Re: VoIP and wireless networking ====== 27 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, 3 Mar 2009 01:04:53 -0500 (EST) From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: new price offer from t-mobile Message-ID: <200903030604.BAA00456@ss10.danlan.com> dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) wrote: |disclosure: I'm a user and a shareholder. | |This new plan doesn't make sense for me, but it might |be of some interest to other folk - especially if you |can use your cellphone in place of a business line. | |And with some luck it'll inspire some new reductions in |charges from the other cellcos. | |from DSLREPORTS.COM: | --- |New T-Mobile Loyal Customer Pricing Goes Live |$49.99 for unlimited minutes, $24.99 for unlimited data... I'm currently paying $19.99 for unlimited data in conjunction with the cheapest voice plan. I hope my cost won't be going up in a few months when the contract ends... Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:33:54 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 Message-ID: <pan.2009.03.03.06.33.52.615367@myrealbox.com> On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:30:35 -0500, hancock4 wrote: ....... > Despite the load, it's still relatively easy to carry phone and cable > since they're low voltage. But there is a big shortage of carrying > capacity for very high voltage power lines that interconnect generating > stations. Neighbors fight those lines out of health worries. About 20 years ago there was a lot of agitation here about running new above surface high-voltage transmission lines in urban areas, with the eventual outcome that some were turned into underground cables. It cost more initially, but in the long run they will be more reliable and generally beneficial to the community in many ways. -- 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: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:55:04 GMT From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 Message-ID: <3ruqq4h04i778c5a824gcm8t247ts4lubt@4ax.com> David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote: >> Despite the load, it's still relatively easy to carry phone and cable >> since they're low voltage. But there is a big shortage of carrying >> capacity for very high voltage power lines that interconnect generating >> stations. Neighbors fight those lines out of health worries. > >About 20 years ago there was a lot of agitation here about running new >above surface high-voltage transmission lines in urban areas, with the >eventual outcome that some were turned into underground cables. > >It cost more initially, but in the long run they will be more reliable and >generally beneficial to the community in many ways. How will underground cables be more reliable and generally beneficial to the community? For example see 1998 Auckland power crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Auckland_power_crisis Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can read the entire thread of messages. Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 09:38:21 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 Message-ID: <pan.2009.03.03.22.38.19.938774@myrealbox.com> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:25:54 -0500, Tony Toews [MVP] wrote: > David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote: > >>> Despite the load, it's still relatively easy to carry phone and cable >>> since they're low voltage. But there is a big shortage of carrying >>> capacity for very high voltage power lines that interconnect generating >>> stations. Neighbors fight those lines out of health worries. >> >>About 20 years ago there was a lot of agitation here about running new >>above surface high-voltage transmission lines in urban areas, with the >>eventual outcome that some were turned into underground cables. >> >>It cost more initially, but in the long run they will be more reliable >>and generally beneficial to the community in many ways. > > How will underground cables be more reliable and generally beneficial to > the community? > Vehicles can't crash into power poles that aren't there, winds can't affect power lines that are underground, and the visual pollution of underground power distribution is limited to the access ports on the pavement. > For example see 1998 Auckland power crisis > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Auckland_power_crisis > Using an example of poorly maintained infrastructure is hardly a justification for a particular type of infrastructure (if it was then the thousands of outages caused by above ground lines would all be highlighted). That particular example is a prime lesson in what occurs when a public utility is privatised and the new owner does nothing but claw cash out of it at the price of letting things degrade up to breaking point. New Zealand went through an aggressive phase of utility privatisation in the 1980's (when the fashion was in full swing) and enjoyed all the short-term benefits that these things bring, until enough time passes and all the unprofitable, pesky things like neglected maintenance come back to bite you in the bum. > Tony -- 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: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 20:48:18 +0000 (UTC) From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 Message-ID: <gok52i$m2k$1@reader1.panix.com> In article <pan.2009.03.03.06.33.52.615367@myrealbox.com>, David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote: >About 20 years ago there was a lot of agitation here about running new >above surface high-voltage transmission lines in urban areas, with the >eventual outcome that some were turned into underground cables. People feared that living close to high tension lines caused cancer, and this time the statistics confirmed a higher cancer rate close to the lines. But furthur investigations determined that the cancers were not caused by the electric fields, but were caused by the herbecides used under the wires to keep the right-of-way clear. They now use mechanical means rather than chemicals to clear the vegitation. -- Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 1353 Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val, Red, Shasta & Casey (RIP), Red & Zero, Siberians Owner:Chinook-L Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:36:38 -0600 From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 Message-ID: <49AD4076.1080503@annsgarden.com> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Around here the wooden poles are loaded down, to the > extent that some poles are "doubled", there is a second > pole alongside, apparently to help with the weight. A more common reason for poles being "doubled" is unfinished pole transfers. When a pole owner (typically power) replaces a pole, it sets a new pole next to the old one; transfers its facilities to the new pole; "tops" the old pole (cuts the top off above the highest communications cable); and notifies the communications companies (CATV, telco, whatever). The comm companies are supposed to transfer their facilities to the new pole, then notify power so it can come back and remove the old pole. This process frequently breaks down, and you can probably guess why. > Historically around here the lines were--top electric, > middle phone, lower cable. Actually, it's top electric, middle cable TV, and phone in the lowest position. That's the standard arrangement for joint poles everywhere in the United States. See "Joint Pole" in any recent edition of Newton's Telecom Dictionary. An expanded (if somewhat obsolete) version of the same definition is at http://www.annsgarden.com/poles/poles.htm > The electric lines do not appear to have changed, but the > rest of them are heavy. I don't know which kind they are. Multi-pair telco cables are indeed heavy. To keep them from sagging, the supporting strand is placed under tension, sometimes several hundred pounds. CATV cables aren't as heavy, so strand tensions can be lower. But they're usually placed under high tension ("fiddle-string tight") anyway to prevent sag. > They've also added buried FIOS cable. Many polelines also support fiber-optic cables. Since all fiber cables have the same general appearance, they're usually labeled by a red plastic sleeve at each pole. The label indicates the owner and provides a contact number. Fiber cables are usually placed above copper telco cables on poles. > Despite the load, it's still relatively easy to carry > phone and cable since they're low voltage. It's not as easy as it looks. Strands supporting phone and CATV cables have to be placed under tension so that they don't contact each other under extreme weather conditions. A severe ice storm, combining heavy icing and heavy wind, greatly increases the tension on the strands. But the strands still have to be placed under sufficient tension that they don't sag on hot summer days when high ambient temperatures and direct sunlight combine to heat them. Electrical conductors have an even bigger hot-summer-day problem: high I-squared-R losses (all those air conditioners draw a lot of current). But that 30-inch-at- midspan spec shown in Newton's book still applies. Sag calculations can be extremely complicated. > But there is a > big shortage of carrying capacity for very high voltage > power lines that interconnect generating stations. > Neighbors fight those lines out of health worries. I think you mean substations. Neal McLain ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 17:32:59 +0000 (UTC) From: Paul <pssawyer@comcast.net.INVALID> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 Message-ID: <Xns9BC37FEC5DF89Senex@85.214.105.209> Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote in news:49AD4076.1080503 @annsgarden.com: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > > Historically around here the lines were--top electric, > > middle phone, lower cable. > > Actually, it's top electric, middle cable TV, and phone in > the lowest position. With municipal fire alarm (and other city communications) next under electric, where such systems still exist. -- Paul ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 09:50:29 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 Message-ID: <1d7989b7-64a4-461c-865c-16a07b36a270@a39g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> On Mar 3, 11:32 am, Neal McLain <nmcl...@annsgarden.com> wrote: > Actually, it's top electric, middle cable TV, and phone in > the lowest position. The phone lines were relatively high up, and when new cable lines were installed to provide cable TV, the only place for them to go was lower. Unless of course the whole pole was redone. > Multi-pair telco cables are indeed heavy.  To keep them > from sagging, the supporting strand is placed under > tension, sometimes several hundred pounds. The problem is it's not just one cable, as there was in the old days. Now there are many cables. (Don't know who they belong to.) [I think power generation and distribution is on-topic as it is a closely related public utility to telphones. What happens to one utility effects the other.] >  > But there is a >  > big shortage of carrying capacity for very high voltage >  > power lines that interconnect generating stations. >  > Neighbors fight those lines out of health worries. > > I think you mean substations. No, I meant generating stations. Running power to homes from the substation is not a major problem. Running power to the substations from the generating plant is somewhat of a problem due to insufficient capacity. But the electric companies can usually install intermediate range lines without too much opposition. The big problem these days is the national 'grid' and interconnections. The power grid was orginally designed and construction to provide backup in case of a generating station or system failure; other systems would sell power so as to avoid a blackout. These are the "high tension" wires on very high poles, usually on their own right of way. But in recent years power became a commodity and is traded. Power distribution managers seek the cheapest power, regardless if it's home grown or imported from far away. That 'trading' puts a huge strain on the interconnections of the grid. I don't believe the grid has much margin for error. that is, when power is needed, it is needed instantly, otherwise the overload demand will trip out breakers causing a mess. Presumably, power demands in the aggregate do not zoom up suddenly, but gradually as individual customers turn on stuff. Of course, when a major transmission line or generating station suddenly fails, that puts a significant dent in the grid, and the ripple effect is very nasty (as in the NYC power failure not long ago). I always wondered if there was any feasible way to temporarily store power in such cases, to act as a buffer. Also, I wondered how can re-start times be improved if a plant shuts down totally. If a power failure does hit, apparently it can take hours or even days to bring plants on line again. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:57:31 GMT From: David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: TTY 33 and 35 case and cover composition? Message-ID: <irrpq4hqkt6cihua05kn9qrvdkpcd1cu91@4ax.com> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:55:17 -0500 (EST), Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: <snip other points> > > Further, computers require more printing characters and special > > control characters which Baudot had no room for. > > Computers, per se, didn't require them: peripherals did. Most of the > control characters in ASCII were intended for use with automated > typesetting equipment and high-speed printers, which needed form > control characters, such as form-feed, to work efficiently. > Not typesetting; that had its own 6-bit 2-shift code, rather unimaginatively named TeleTypeSetter aka TTS. And its format controls aren't TAB and BS etc., but rather things like 'quad left' -- and officially the end-line code was 'elevate', because that's what actually happened on a Linotype, although by the '70s when I was involved most people called it 'return'. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 09:57:24 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Telex and TWX rates 1970s Message-ID: <96beb696-68b4-4127-9379-4d7dfc4cbc58@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> Some of my past employers have had Telex machines in the office (a 3- row model 32 TTY), but they were very rarely used. I was wondering if anyone knew the domestic and overseas rates for Telex and TWX services, such as the monthly fee, time charge, character charge, distance charge. I get the impression that by the 1970s Telex was more used for overseas messages than domestically. By the mid 1970s domestic long distance charges had dropped quite a bit, making it practical to use the telephone for business more than before. However, at that point in time overseas toll rates were still very high (I think $12 for three minutes), so for international messaging Telex was better. As an aside, would anyone remember when overseas rates started to drop significantly? I think in the 1980s they became around a $1/minute, depending on country, which was a huge drop from $12. (Did MCI or Sprint ever lay any of their own overseas cables or put their own satellite into orbit?) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:44:04 -0800 From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Telex and TWX rates 1970s Message-ID: <Fwhrl.13619$W06.7414@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Some of my past employers have had Telex machines in the office (a 3- > row model 32 TTY), but they were very rarely used. > > I was wondering if anyone knew the domestic and overseas rates for > Telex and TWX services, such as the monthly fee, time charge, > character charge, distance charge. > > I get the impression that by the 1970s Telex was more used for > overseas messages than domestically. By the mid 1970s domestic long > distance charges had dropped quite a bit, making it practical to use > the telephone for business more than before. However, at that point > in time overseas toll rates were still very high (I think $12 for > three minutes), so for international messaging Telex was better. > > As an aside, would anyone remember when overseas rates started to drop > significantly? I think in the 1980s they became around a $1/minute, > depending on country, which was a huge drop from $12. > > (Did MCI or Sprint ever lay any of their own overseas cables or put > their own satellite into orbit?) > Both companies laid there own cables many years ago, or at least had them done for them. -- The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:02:12 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Inaguration cell phone service Message-ID: <8d4486d8-a790-45ee-883f-796288157c4a@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> FWIW: Several friends who attended the Inauguration reported that Verizon cell phones still worked, but AT&T cell phones did not. Would anyone know of how cell phone service responded to the huge crowds that day, either by anectote or actual statistics? Thanks [public replies, please] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:45:44 -0800 From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Inaguration cell phone service Message-ID: <cyhrl.13620$W06.7305@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > FWIW: Several friends who attended the Inauguration reported that > Verizon cell phones still worked, but AT&T cell phones did not. > > Would anyone know of how cell phone service responded to the huge > crowds that day, either by anectote or actual statistics? > > Thanks > > > [public replies, please] > I know that both Verizon and Sprint brought in COWS to handle the extra traffic. I'm sure at&t also did, but maybe their system was overloaded. -- The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 11:48:43 -0800 (PST) From: 1506 <adrian_auerhudson@yahoo.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: VoIP and wireless networking Message-ID: <2b144141-f11a-4cd5-a33f-03fe2eee9943@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com> I am considering running my VoIP system on the far side of a wireless link. i.e. My internet service comes thru a cable interface into which I plug a router with wireless capability. I plan to use a remote wireless bridge into which I will plug my TPAs/ATAs. Does anyone know if I should anticipate any issues with this arrangement? Thanks ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 09:44:03 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: VoIP and wireless networking Message-ID: <pan.2009.03.03.22.44.01.902167@myrealbox.com> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:28:20 -0500, 1506 wrote: > I am considering running my VoIP system on the far side of a wireless > link. i.e. My internet service comes thru a cable interface into which > I plug a router with wireless capability. I plan to use a remote > wireless bridge into which I will plug my TPAs/ATAs. > > Does anyone know if I should anticipate any issues with this > arrangement? > VoIP is very sensitive to latency, and adding Wireless links just makes this sort of thing worse. You may also need to ensure that all your network equipment has QoS capability to ensure that your voice packets get priority otherwise that could be another quality issue when you are on calls. -- 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, 4 Mar 2009 00:42:23 +0000 (UTC) From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: VoIP and wireless networking Message-ID: <gokipf$qum$1@reader1.panix.com> In article <2b144141-f11a-4cd5-a33f-03fe2eee9943@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, 1506 <adrian_auerhudson@yahoo.com> wrote: >I am considering running my VoIP system on the far side of a wireless >link. i.e. My internet service comes thru a cable interface into >which I plug a router with wireless capability. I plan to use a >remote wireless bridge into which I will plug my TPAs/ATAs. > >Does anyone know if I should anticipate any issues with this >arrangement? Use the strongest encryption your hardware will support. WEP is useless, WPA good, WPA2 better. -- Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 1353 Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val, Red, Shasta & Casey (RIP), Red & Zero, Siberians Owner:Chinook-L Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L ------------------------------ 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 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. The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while Pat Townson recovers from a stroke. 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 Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html For syndication examples see http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecomDigest Copyright (C) 2008 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 (16 messages) ******************************