|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 73 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Re: ISDN (was Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT))
Re: ISDN (was Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT))
Re: TV/ Steam Railroads, was: Telex
Re: To Bury or Not to Bury
Re: To Bury or Not to Bury
Re: To Bury or Not to Bury
Re: To Bury or Not to Bury
====== 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: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:10:55 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Message-ID: <MPG.2423b4e5755177b9989954@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <6rhul.2775$gm6.172@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, fake-email-
address@bogus.hotmail.com says...
>
> > ***** Moderator's Note *****
> >
> > I have always been puzzled by Ma Bell's distaste for ISDN: if there's
> > someone reading this that knows The Real Truth(tm), PLEASE tell us
> > why.
>
> While you've gotten "The Real Truth(tm)" about the service, you haven't
> gotten it about the name. No, ISDN does NOT stand for "Integrated Services
> Digital Network." It really stands for (take your pick):
>
> I See Dollars Now
> I Still Don't Know
> It Still Does Nothing
> Innovation Subscribers Don't Need
>
> and I'm sure there are more that I can't recall....
>
> -Gary
The key difference between ISDN and DSL is that ISDN was actually a
circuit card in the central office that gave you digital access to the
switch and data network.
DSL rides on top of the copper pair and terminates into a DSLAM that is
not attached to the telecom switch.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT)
Message-ID: <a590d762-48f5-4f69-97f4-4aefc9956a3b@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> Ma Bell is dead, but her ghost haunts the minions of the Baby Bells,
> and the attitudes that led to rise and fall of the world's biggest
> paramilitary organization are still deeply ingrained and still being
> put into practice by (thankfully, a few) of the orphans: arrogance,
> intractability, and (most damaging of all) the deeply set notion that
> the way "we" do things is the only way that matters.
P.S.
Back in the 1960s, many U.S. businesses operated, or wish they
operated, on the business model of regimentation--"the deeply set
notion that the way "we" do things is the only way that matters". It
wasn't just the Bell System.
For instance, when a private company hired a PBX operator, they
typically required "Bell Trained", that is, the operator had
previously worked for Bell. This was not because of familiarity with
the keys and cords, indeed, a PBX was different than a C.O.
switchboard. Rather, the private company sought the regimented
attitude that Bell System employment instilled in a person. Likewise,
back in the days when most young men served in the military via the
draft, many companies sought veterans for the same reason.
As a result of the social turmoil of the 1960s, regimentation slipped
away in the business world. Some companies fought against that
change, others accepted it, some embraced it as a means toward higher
productivity by encouraging employees to "think" (as we say today, "to
think outside the box").
For myself, I didn't care to work in a regimented environment and I
believe it's best when employees are encouraged to think and there is
flexibility. However, it's also quite true that not all employee
groups or populations respond well to that atmosphere, rather, some
populations simply are more productive in a regimented environment.
Many workers prefer a tight structure and don't want to think, they
prefer being told exactly what to do.
As stated before, the old Bell System was not perfect, and its
regimentation certainly led to frustration by subscriber's needing
special services, support, or assistance. But generally, given the
world of 1975 and earlier, the highly structured and uniform Bell
System worked out extremely well for employees, subscribers, and
stockholders.
***** Moderator's Note *****
P.P.S.
I wasn't alluding to the internal regimentation of the former Bell
companies: I'm sure the various business schools have published many
works that cover the topic completely. What I _was_ discussing is the
way that those attitudes colored, indeed, splilled over into, every
aspect of the Bell System's dealing with both its customers and its
regulators.
I once had a phone call from an N.E.T. technician who was moonlighting
at an insurance company in Boston: he was a competent, reliable
central office tech, but he needed more money than N.E.T. was paying
and took the second job even though it was "forbidden". He called me
concerning a problem at the insurance company's PBX, and when I
explained his options, he got exasperated and yelled "You people are
so arrogant!". It was the best training I could have received on
customer relations: I respected the man, and therefore had to respect
his opinion. I tried to do better after that.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 08:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ISDN (was Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT))
Message-ID: <38c85184-7952-4494-aec2-35080940c16b@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 12, 11:33 pm, Fred Goldstein
<fgoldstein.SeeSigSpamb...@wn2.wn.net> wrote:
> BUT the [Baby] Bells *hated* Internet with a purple passion (and still
> do).
Could you elaborate on these statements? WHY did they hate it back
then, and why today? Is there any published literature describing
their feelings?
Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 05:57:27 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ISDN (was Re: 2 phone numers on one landline? (Slightly OT))
Message-ID: <gpfh07$kcl$1@reader1.panix.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>On Mar 12, 11:33 pm, Fred Goldstein
><fgoldstein.SeeSigSpamb...@wn2.wn.net> wrote:
>> BUT the [Baby] Bells *hated* Internet with a purple passion (and still
>> do).
>Could you elaborate on these statements? WHY did they hate it back
>then, and why today? Is there any published literature describing
>their feelings?
First of all, because they didn't control it. They were left sitting at
the side of the road watching their customers err subscribers do as they
wished; NOT as Ma told them.
--
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: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 08:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: TV/ Steam Railroads, was: Telex
Message-ID: <4d0c9d45-bea1-40e9-b903-90cae76a9d42@l39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 12, 10:53 pm, Neal McLain <nmcl...@annsgarden.com> wrote:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I'll have to pass: I use rabbit ears and I've just gotten a DTV
> converter so that my ~5 year old tv can keep chugging along.
OT Aside:
Based on NYT articles and some broadcast history books . . .
This isn't the first time broadcast TV converted its signal and
requried all home sets to be modified.
The present 525 line picture and FM sound was standardized in June
1941, replacing an earlier standard of fewer lines and AM sound.
Existing sets (about several hundred thousand out there at that time
if my source is correct) had to be modified. Unlike today with tiny
IC chips, TV sets had very large chassis of individual components and
tubes and required a modification. It appears manufacturers came out
and did this for free (keep in mind those early sets were extremely
expensive and undoubtedly owners would've been quite upset at
obsolescence).
It appears that experimental broadcast TV began in the late 1930s and
was not standardized, each TV set maker (e.g. RCA, Philco, Farnsworth)
had their own standard which meant a set could only get one station.
Finally there were standardized around 1939 and more broadcasting
began (albeit very limited). It was mostly in New York, but it
appears other large cities may have had an experimental station as
well.
After Pearl Harbor broadcasting was significantly reduced, but AFAIK
there was still an hour or so every night.
One history suggests AT&T's TV transmission rate structure hurt
smaller networks. That is, the smaller DuMont network paid almost as
much as CBS and NBC despite its much smaller size, and this
contributed to DuMont's failure.
I am vague on the history of coaxial and microwave transmission of TV
signals and the FCC's involvement. But I get the impression the FCC
was favorable to AT&T getting a monopoly on it. This very well might
have been because, unlike other common carriers or newcomers, AT&T was
in the best position to provide national service quickly, and TV took
up substantial bandwidth. AFAIK, while it wasn't cheap, AT&T's TV
transmission services did provide quality service.
The early TV history is influenced by aggressive jockeying by the TV
set manufacturers, networks, advertising sponsors, and independently
owned TV stations for the biggest piece of the pie and control. Each
entity wanted public policy to work out in its own favor. (RCA, for
instance, wanted only the VHF band utilized since it had strong
patents, and not the UHF band. Networks did not want sponsors to have
the control over an entire show as they had on radio.)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:15:04 GMT
From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: To Bury or Not to Bury
Message-ID: <mvblr415oc0pum7d6h1farnunp0h6j69vh@4ax.com>
T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
>I know here in RI it was like pulling teeth to get them to bury the HV
>wires that ran over India Point Park. The only way they'd do it was if
>they could pass off costs to the rate base.
So who is supposed to be the additional costs of burying the HV power lines? The
local or state tax payers?
>BTW, our per kWH cost has doubled since National Grid took over.
Most of these power transmission companies go in front of a provincial or state board
and say how their expenses go up and now they need more money. Including the fixed
profit percentage. They have no incentive to reduce costs and become more efficient.
OTOH it could be argued that cutting costs and becoming more efficient in the rail
industry, to use one example, is reducing preventative maintenance causing more train
derailments and deaths.
So I don't know where the middle ground lies on this topic.
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: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 09:19:46 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: To Bury or Not to Bury
Message-ID: <pan.2009.03.13.22.19.44.321280@myrealbox.com>
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:47:59 -0400, Tony Toews [MVP] wrote: ......
> Most of these power transmission companies go in front of a provincial
> or state board and say how their expenses go up and now they need more
> money.
> Including the fixed profit percentage. They have no incentive to
> reduce
> costs and become more efficient.
>
> OTOH it could be argued that cutting costs and becoming more efficient
> in the rail industry, to use one example, is reducing preventative
> maintenance causing more train derailments and deaths.
>
> So I don't know where the middle ground lies on this topic.
>
The same place in all Essential service areas - Telecom, power, transport,
water, health services etc - particularly where there is a "Natural
monopoly" and no realistic alternative:
There must be clear and enforced Standards of Performance - like 99.9% (or
whatever) overall availability of the service in normal conditions, as
well as enforceable conditions for other various contingencies.
All of these must be enforced by significant financial penalties so these
companies have a clear and substantial incentive to do maintenance and
continually improve their operations.
The trouble is (and probably always has been) getting the people who set
the conditions to set the appropriate ones, and then actually enforce
them.
--
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: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: To Bury or Not to Bury
Message-ID: <a36b0b0d-af6c-4aff-92b9-cfd9e821450a@a12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 13, 6:37 pm, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> There must be clear and enforced Standards of Performance - like 99.9% (or
> whatever) overall availability of the service in normal conditions, as
> well as enforceable conditions for other various contingencies.
. . .
> The trouble is (and probably always has been) getting the people who set
> the conditions to set the appropriate ones, and then actually enforce
> them.
I can't for outside the U.S. but one weakness of US regulation has
been not keeping up standards and requirements up to date to reflect
changing conditions. The regulators will insist upon maintaining an
obsolete service that only a few use and is costly to provide "for the
public interest". (Some states may still require party line service
even though that is now technically obsolete and today a nusiance to
provide.)
Another problem is that regulators will be very slow in authorizing a
new service until they figure out what standards to apply. The Bell
System had developed cellular service and was ready to try it out but
the FCC sat on it for two years. I believe US television was ready to
expand circa 1948 and again the FCC sat on that for several years.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: To Bury or Not to Bury
Message-ID: <8d94fdbb-e795-4d29-b881-6989daed3984@a12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 13, 4:47 pm, "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <tto...@telusplanet.net>
wrote:
> Most of these power transmission companies go in front of a
> provincial or state board and say how their expenses go up and now
> they need more money. Including the fixed profit percentage. They
> have no incentive to reduce costs and become more efficient.
By reducing costs and improving efficiency--without sacrificing
service--a utility will attract more customers and more usage and do
more business as a result. [Sorry to sound like a broken record, but]
the old Bell System did just that. They did not have to build
microwave or coaxial cables after WW II that allowed them to
significantly lower the price of long distance service--by the above
way of thinking--they would not have done so.
> OTOH it could be argued that cutting costs and becoming more
> efficient in the rail industry, to use one example, is reducing
> preventative maintenance causing more train derailments and deaths.
>
> So I don't know where the middle ground lies on this topic.
In the U.S., some areas have deregulation and competition for their
electric power (it varies by state). While on the one hand rates have
dropped slightly, on the other hand service quality, such as the
ability to recover after a bad storm, has declined. Some power
companies in the new situation have drastically cut back on reserve
(stand-by) crews and preventive tree-trimming for example. Other
companies cut back on developing new generating sources (the
California disaster a few years ago).
IMHO, we were better served by the old model of electricity
regulation.
The issue is NOT "regulation is good or bad". The issue IS "finding
the most effective kind of regulation. The U.S. generally did a good
job regulating telephone service until about 1980, but a bad job
regulating railroads and telegraph service. Telephone service
flourished, but telegraph and railroads whithered.
IMHO, bad regulation of passenger rail service in the US resulted in a
much faster decline in psgr trains than would've occured if they had
smart regulation. Railroads were terribly heavilly taxed--to
subsidize their highway and airway competition. Stupid and unfair.
The railroads were forced to keep running lightly used and very costly
branch line trains far longer than necessary. Again, stupid and
unfair. Had regulation and tax policy been fair, light psgr trains
would've been removed, but the heavy main line trunk trains--which
still made some money--would've been kept on. But given the oppresive
environment, railroads decided it was best to kill off all psgr runs
as fast as possible even if it still made money.
------------------------------
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 (9 messages)
******************************
|
or 