29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for March 24, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 75 : "text" Format
====== 29 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 Bill Horne 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, 22 Mar 2011 19:13:12 +0000 (UTC)
From: Koos van den Hout <koos+newsposting@kzdoos.xs4all.nl>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: AT&T buys T-Mobile USA
Message-ID: <imasc8$9uh$13@kzdoos.xs4all.nl>
John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote in <alpine.BSF.2.00.1103201549400.24982@joyce.lan>:
> In a deal that makes a lot more sense than the ones that have been
> rumored, AT&T is buying T-Mobile USA
The best response I read:
FARK.com headline submitter wins the Internets: "AT&T is getting married
to T-Mobile. There will be no reception afterwards."
Koos
--
Koos van den Hout, PGP keyid DSS/1024 0xF0D7C263 via keyservers
koos@kzdoos.xs4all.nl IPv6: Think ::/0, act ::1.
http://idefix.net/ Are you ready to switch to IPv6?
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:56:44 +0000
From: Stephen <stephen_hope@xyzworld.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Information on small scale optical systems
Message-ID: <sf2io6dhee7mum54abb21ghhb1o6f7914p@4ax.com>
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 9:26:22 -0700, "Martin Bose" <martyb@sonic.net>
wrote:
>
>I work in a shipyard that is 19th century as far as telecom goes. It's
>served by a couple of 50 pair cables with a couple of T-1 lines for
>data. They need over a hundred phone lines and better data service,
>plus the ability to provide customers with short-term phone and data
>service to ships that are pierside or in our drydock. Some of the
>customers want Gigabit-level data service, along with the ability to
>have a block of phone lines with a call director for a secretary.
>
>When I worked in Telecom 10 years ago it was fairly common to put a
>compact OC-48 box on a customer premise and lease them whatever
>bandwidth and configuration they wanted. I'm guessing the technolgy
>has progressed a lot since then.
you might be offered pt - pt microwave access - a shipyard may have
issues with getting easy duct access for fibre.
>
>What I imagine is a redundant fiber ring around the complex, with
>terminals in the main buildings and the shops where our CNC equipment
>is, and additional weather-proof terminals in several locations in our
>Syncrolift area, our drydock and our pier space. We have a
>climate-controlled server room in our main building that would be
>termination point for the incoming fiber link. On one hand it would be
>nice to be able to run fiber to a remote box onboard the ship and
>break everything out at that point, but I'm not so sure that running
>exposed fiber is a good idea in a shipyard environment. Everything
>would probably have to be AC-powered.
>
>There have been discussions with our carrier about bringing fiber in,
>so that part is probably doable. I'd like to get some pointers on what
>kind of equipment is available that might meet our needs, as well as
>an idea of the cost. I'm thinking that an OC-12 might be enough, but
>would consider an OC-48 if the equipment wasn't much more expensive.
>
optics / interface costs on muxes mean not much cost uplift from STM-1
/ OC-3 -> OC-12 -> OC-48 - except that you tend to need a bigger box
:)
work uses the ex Marconi / Ericsson muxes (OMS range) - but i suspect
non european suppliers may dominate in the US.
>Anyone have any suggestions?
physically running in the cable is most of the cost, so a few extra
glass cores to allow you to run several parallel services is not going
to cost much for the cable (hardware might be different of course).
my experience is in europe where the carrier will either want 1 clean
handover point or to provide voice service all the way to the end
points so you need to think about what you want and how to get it.
you need to think about where the service will split between the
private and public networks, which runs which bits and so on.
all the PBX suppliers have Voip / IP telephony offerings (and many
dont have traditional TDM / copper stuff any more) - Cisco / Avaya/
Mitel and plenty of others, so you may be better off with LAN type
connections around the site.
if you need data as well, then you might think about using IP deliverd
voice and building a "converged" network using Gigabit Ethernet.
Also many companies now make "industrial" style LAN kit, IP phones and
so on - no recommendations though for you on suppliers.
Note you should build it using IP kit which is QoS capable if you want
a network mixing voice and data. You might want to look for a local
company that can build or rent you a service?
--
Regards
stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:28:49 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: bye, bye T-Mobile
Message-ID: <imd031$i0p$3@news.albasani.net>
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>[press release]
>>http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110320005040/en/ATT-Acquire-T-Mobile-USA-Deutsche-Telekom
>>Dallas and Bonn, Germany (Business Wire)- AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) and
>>Deutsche Telekom AG (FWB: DTE) today announced that they have entered
>>into a definitive agreement under which AT&T will acquire T-Mobile USA
>>from Deutsche Telekom [Moderator snip]
>> ------
>>I'm not happy.
>It's not a Great Day at T-Mobile, sigh. I am a subscriber too.
Hahahaha
T-Mobile's dreadful ad campaign versus AT&T Wireless, ripped off of Mac
versus PC, is still running on tv.
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:48:48 -0500
From: Jim Haynes <jhaynes@cavern.uark.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: What to do with a switchboard
Message-ID: <4dqdnQu9gL_tuRfQnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@earthlink.com>
On 2011-03-23, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> A friend has just bought an old house. Therein, among sundries too
> numerous to enumerate, is a telephone switchboard. Wooden case, about
> 30 plug cables, new enough to have a 50s-type (?) dial on a pedestal
> to operator's right, hand crank to operate a ringer magneto(?). Maybe
> 6' tall by 24" wide. No immediately obvious external maker's tag.
>
> Is anyone here eager to buy such a thing? If not, are there many
> people elsewhere known to be keen to have one? Any advice on how my
> friend could profit from disposing of this lovely but unwanted object?
>
> Or should he just procede directly to eBay?
>
There is a Yahoo group named singingwires devoted to telephone collectors.
Switchboards get traded fairly often there.
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:29:59 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Regarding that proposed ATT takeover of TM
Message-ID: <ime6qn$c3r$1@dont-email.me>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I thought that Sprint used PCS, not CDMA. Is that correct? Also, I
> was under the impression that T-Mobile's GSM used a different
> frequency band than does AT&T's GSM.
>
> In any case, I feel that the technical differences are not a factor:
> no matter which handset a former T-Mobile user has, it's the ability
> to set rates for calls that counts.
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
>
Sprint uses CDMA, it is just called PCS by them, I have Sprint service
and have installed switches for Sprint and Verizon, both are the same.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2011 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
***** Moderator's Note *****
We've gotten lost in the technology here. The point I was trying to
make is that Sprint's PCS phones aren't compatible with the "CDMA"
phones used by Verizon, i.e., that even if that both use CDMA, they
are not inter-operable.
In other words, I don't think that the issue of AT&T/T-Mobile having
one island of users, stranded by their GSM technology, and
Verizon/Sprint having another, is as significant as some of the
readers have opined. While it's true that if Verizon Mobile merges
with Sprint, and if AT&T merges with T-Mobile, users wouldn't be able
to just plug in a SIM card and switch from one to the other, that
isn't the important factor in my way of thinking.
Handsets are disposable, and cost (generally) less than three month's
worth of cellular billing fees, so the most important thing to me is
that the merged companies would be much more likely to raise rates and
(as someone else pointed out) to sell "their" customers as digital
cattle in each company's data corral.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:08:23 -0500
From: rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Regarding that proposed ATT takeover of TM
Message-ID: <w_2dnaiTjo0KOhfQnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@speakeasy.net>
Doug McIntyre <merlyn@geeks.org> wrote:
+---------------
| >***** Moderator's Note *****
| >I thought that Sprint used PCS, not CDMA. Is that correct? Also, I
| >was under the impression that T-Mobile's GSM used a different
| >frequency band than does AT&T's GSM.
|
| T-Mobile's different frequency band is only for its 3G data features.
|
| It uses the same frequency bands as AT&T for its voice and Edge
| (ie. 2G) Data Features.
|
| You can mix-and-match AT&T and T-Mobile phones, although if you want
| 3G data speeds, then you need to use the correct hardware on the
| correct network. Ie. I swapped my SIM regularly between the phone AT&T
| issued, and the phone T-Mobile issued.
+---------------
Also, a generation of phones are hitting the market that are compatible
with both data bands, e.g.:
http://phandroid.com/2011/03/23/t-mobile-g2x-equipped-with-atts-4g-bands/
T-Mobile G2X Equipped With AT&T's 4G Bands
by Rob Jackson on March 23rd, 2011 at 1:07 am
Either T-Mobile is already requesting manufacturers produce their
phones to future-proof them for the AT&T acquisition or LG realizes
the benefits of economies of scale. While I'd predict the latter,
either way it seems the latest hot handset from T-Mobile will be
equipped not only with T-Mobile 4G but also with AT&T 4G.
...
And while this doesn't say it does both, it's implied:
http://phandroid.com/2011/03/23/lg-optimus-3d-passes-fcc-with-t-mobile-3g-bands/
LG Optimus 3D Passes FCC with T-Mobile 3G Bands
by Kevin Krause on March 23rd, 2011 at 7:46 am
-Rob
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Rob Warnock <rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue http://rpw3.org/
San Mateo, CA 94403
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:22:33 -0400
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Annoyance Calls
Message-ID: <op.vstsvvq0itl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:21:46 -0400, Fred Atkinson <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com> wrote:
> Well, I got a reply from the Texas PUC.
>
> They mailed it to me at my home address in New Mexico.
>
> They told me that I have to contact the Colorado PUC since I live in
> Colorado.
>
> Did they miss something?
Maybe in their book Colorado and New Mexico are the same state?
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 19:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: What to do with a switchboard
Message-ID: <2808bfec-e534-4a38-a054-995f638fa9e2@d28g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 22, 8:05 pm, Mike Spencer <m...@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> Is anyone here eager to buy such a thing? If not, are there many
> people elsewhere known to be keen to have one? Any advice on how my
> friend could profit from disposing of this lovely but unwanted object?
> Or should he just procede directly to eBay?
One challenge with selling is shipping as these things are very heavy
and bulky (been there, done that).
If you do post it for sale, could you let us know where it was
posted? Thanks.
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Sound like a WE 555 cord board.
How could you tell it was a 555?
Very generally speaking, there were five types of Bell non-multiple
PBX's. (This doesn't count specialty boards, answering service
boards, or boards used in a C.O.).
--551--cords arranged in two rows, front and back, with two rows of
little levers plus lights; manual service-- station jacks had lights
-- 552--cords arranged in two rows, front and back, with two rows of
little levers plus lights; dial service-station jacks did not have
lights and there was an attendant strip.
--555-- cords arranged in one row, a row of knobs, and a row of push
buttons plus lights; manual service-- station jacks had lights
--556-- cords arranged in one row, a row of knobs, and a row of push
buttons plus lights--dial service--station jacks did not have lights
and there was an attendant strip
--608 beige instead of black background, push buttons.
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:43:12 -0700
From: "Martin Bose" <martyb@sonic.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Regarding that proposed ATT takeover of TM
Message-ID: <0C0AAF15451CAA3E2A113E84870AF5E@sonic.net>
Telecom Digest Moderator said:
> (snip) I thought that Sprint used PCS, not CDMA. Is that correct?
> (snip)
One of the notches on my belt was being the Project Manager for the
first Sprint PCS network to go live, Fresno, California. At least on
the west coast all of the initial Sprint installations were 1900 mHz
CDMA; later on they started roaming on other networks. Somewhere in a
box I still have the prototype Qualcomm handset that I used while we
were checking the Sprint billing system before we could put paying
customers on it.
Marty
***** Moderator's Note *****
OK, I'm very confused now. I thought PCS systems could not
inter-operate with others: i.e., that the Sprint network's customers
always had to get a new handset to switch to Verizon Mobile or AT&T.
Let's just get that much clear, and I'll try to keep up. ;-)
Bill Horne
Moderator
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.
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 (9 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues