|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 87 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Railway Post Office Service -
Re: Railway Post Office Service -
Re: Railway Post Office Service -
Re: To Bury or Not to Bury
HELP PLEASE! When switchboards call my Phone Number, all they get is a busy signal
Re: HELP PLEASE! When switchboards call my Phone Number, all they get is a busy signal
Where is members.dandy.net/~czg now?
Re: Where is members.dandy.net/~czg now?
Re: Where is members.dandy.net/~czg now?
Re: Where is members.dandy.net/~czg now?
Re: Joint utility poles
Re: Joint utility poles
Aussie Telco brings back the 30 second rip-off
====== 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, 27 Mar 2009 21:51:52 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Railway Post Office Service -
Message-ID: <siegman-90E299.21512227032009@news.stanford.edu>
In article
<4ce84eb5-cc7b-4a44-a52a-e3745a8c858e@r18g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> Back when long distance was expensive people wrote letters.
>
In my childhood (the 1930s) the cost of a long-distance call was large
enough that I clearly recall my parents writing letters to relatives
across the country, alerting them that we'd be telephoning them some
specific evening at some specific time.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Railway Post Office Service -
Message-ID: <0a151887-42e4-4f7f-8eac-1744943cf93e@z15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 28, 12:02 pm, AES <sieg...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> In my childhood (the 1930s) the cost of a long-distance call was large
> enough that I clearly recall my parents writing letters to relatives
> across the country, alerting them that we'd be telephoning them some
> specific evening at some specific time.
For decades my mother and her sister sent frequent postcards to each
other; they were about 60 miles apart. My mother occassionally did
call, but used a 3 minute egg timer to ensure she kept to the minimum
time, or even used the corner pay phone since when the money dropped
time was up. It was 40 cents for three minutes, about $4.00/3 minutes
in today's dollars.
In the 1990s the toll rates went down so much ("5c a minute Sundays")
that stopped writing cards and talked on the phone for an hour even
though they were now 1,000 miles apart. (Lowered airfares allowed
visits from time to time, as well.)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:11:37 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Railway Post Office Service -
Message-ID: <siegman-DE310D.22110127032009@news.stanford.edu>
In article
<4ce84eb5-cc7b-4a44-a52a-e3745a8c858e@r18g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> I have a question about railway postal operations: In addition to
> RPOs, where mail was sorted on board the train, there were also many
> trains where mail was simply carried. Mail was carried on fast
> passenger trains and was profitable for the railroads. But in the
> late 1960s the post office pulled the mail off. That sudden loss of
> business hurt many trains and the railroads ceased running them.
> Would anyone know where I could find out more information about the
> Post Office's decisions in that era? (I wrote the Postal Service but
> got only a very general booklet in response.)
The increasing use of jet engines in commercial airlines at about that
time may be at least partially to blame.
That is, I believe that beginning in about that era, jet engines became
so powerful, efficient, and reliable that airliners of any given size
could readily lift and transport a total weight substantially larger
than the total weight of all the passengers that could conceivably be
stuffed into the total volume of the fuselage,
That left a lot of additional volume that was, and still is, ideally
suitable for carrying relatively dense, easily handled, and regularly
scheduled freight -- like regular mail, (Of course, this also helps in
accounting for the unpleasantly overcrowded airline passenger
accommodations that prevail today.)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 05:22:52 -0600
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: To Bury or Not to Bury
Message-ID: <49CE088C.4090200@annsgarden.com>
Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In my neighborhood the utility easement is at the back
> property line, which the telco used a number of years ago
> to place buried cable replacing the existing aerial
> plant.
>
> The cable company remains on the pole line, shared with
> the power company. Is the cable company permitted to use
> the easement?
Yes, under 47 U.S.C. 541(a)(2).
I wrote about this issue in August 2005 in a thread "Re: Broadband
Competition Must Surely be Working." Following is a reprint of the
relevant section:
The right of a franchised CATV operator to occupy land stems from three
sources:
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT. A franchise agreement grants a CATV company the
right to occupy (install and maintain its facilities on) right-of-way
owned by the (one or more) municipal and/or county government(s) that
constitute the LFA (local franchising authority). But a franchise does
not grant the right to occupy:
- Other government property (parks, recreation facilities, schools,
government buildings, etc.) unless specifically so stated in the
franchise agreement.
- Property owned by any municipal or county government that is not a
constituent government of the LFA.
- Property owned by any separate governmental entity (federal or state
government; school district; public college or university, etc.).
- Railroad right-of-way.
- Private property.
PRE-EXISTING RECORDED UTILITY EASEMENT. Franchised CATV operators have a
federal right to occupy existing recorded utility easements "which have
been dedicated for compatible uses." The term "compatible uses" is
usually construed to mean easements dedicated for electric power and/or
telephone facilities. http://tinyurl.com/84syy
Many states also have similar provisions; for example, Texas Utilities
Code 181.101 - 181.104. http://tinyurl.com/byzeu
NEGOTIATED EASEMENT or PERMIT. If a CATV company wishes to occupy any
property not covered by a franchise agreement or by an existing recorded
utility easement, it must negotiate a separate easement or permit with
the property owner.
My original post is at http://tinyurl.com/2rdmju
Neal McLain
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 07:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: mattmcco <mattmcco@gmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: HELP PLEASE! When switchboards call my Phone Number, all they get is a busy signal
Message-ID: <9070208d-115a-460c-af91-94d9a5cfcb3e@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>
Hello, Telecom professionals,
I have a cell phone number: 269-692-3692. I am discovering that when
people try to call me (only from businesses with switchboards that
is), all they get is a busy signal. What happens is that business
people end up calling me on their personal cell phones, which is not
always comfortable for me.
This is never a problem from people calling me from home land-lines,
cell phones, or small businesses with just one line.
I'm thinking that the "69" or "6" is some sort of a switchboard code
which prevents calls from being placed out, but I know NOTHING about
telecom.
Any ideas from this talented group of men and women? I'm wondering if
I should change my number, or what.
Thanks for any help you can offer.
Matthew McCormick
mattmcco@gmail.com
***** Moderator's Note *****
I spoke with Mr. McCormick about this issue, and he told me that the
failed call attempts all seem to be from the ILEC exchange which
used to serve his cellular number.
I told Matthew that the local exchange might not be handling the
portability correctly, and suggested he complain to the ILEC (in his
case, Son-Of-Deathstar®) and ask them to check the translations.
Are there other possibilities?
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:41:48 -0500
From: "Who Me?" <hitchhiker@dont.panic>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: HELP PLEASE! When switchboards call my Phone Number, all they get is a busy signal
Message-ID: <Lbuzl.22244$c45.11470@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>
mattmcco wrote:
> I told Matthew that the local exchange might not be handling the
> portability correctly, and suggested he complain to the ILEC (in his
> case, Son-Of-Deathstar®) and ask them to check the translations.
>
> Are there other possibilities?
Yes but the odds of it being one of those other possibilities is pretty
close to ZERO.
It _IS_ the ILEC's problem and he should not take "no" for an answer.
Chances are that they have a class-of-service screen screwed up.
It really makes no difference what the cause of the problem _IS_, the
ILEC is the only one in the position to trace the problem and get it
fixed ... even on the off chance that it is not their problem.
Mathew should find out how to contact the State PUC. Should all else
fail, contacting them with the facts and not emotion (similar to his
post here) should bring swift action. He should consider doing this
after the _FIRST_ "duh" response from the ILEC ... not the
second ... or 10th ... or ...
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:59:26 GMT
From: Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Where is members.dandy.net/~czg now?
Message-ID: <87vdpttwkb.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
There was once (as recently as a year ago) a web site with a useful
collection of telecom info at:
http://members.dandy.net/~czg/
Dandy.net now reports that this customer "has since changed providers. "
Anybody know where czg's web site is now? Google returns many hits on
the dandy.net URL, indicating its (former) popularity.
(In particular, this time, I'm looking for an updated list of locales
and service providers for all nnn exchanges in 902-nnn-xxxx.)
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:10:27 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where is members.dandy.net/~czg now?
Message-ID: <Hr6dnZV35PfOPVPUnZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d@speakeasy.net>
Mike Spencer wrote:
> There was once (as recently as a year ago) a web site with a useful
> collection of telecom info at:
>
> http://members.dandy.net/~czg/
>
> Dandy.net now reports that this customer "has since changed providers. "
>
> Anybody know where czg's web site is now? Google returns many hits on
> the dandy.net URL, indicating its (former) popularity.
>
> (In particular, this time, I'm looking for an updated list of locales
> and service providers for all nnn exchanges in 902-nnn-xxxx.)
>
GIYF: a seach on "local calling guide" produced over 16,000 hits, with
http://www.localcallingguide.com/ among them. I entered "902" in the
search page, and it brought up a what looks like a complete list.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
Telecom Digest
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:58:15 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where is members.dandy.net/~czg now?
Message-ID: <6645152a0903281658h7df8ac81i4e6c9cbc7e4b8b39@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Mike Spencer
<mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> There was once (as recently as a year ago) a web site with a useful
> collection of telecom info at:
>
> Â http://members.dandy.net/~czg/
Is this it? http://www.localcallingguide.com
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:34:16 GMT
From: Bruce <news2009@ewr.bac.us.example.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where is members.dandy.net/~czg now?
Message-ID: <5egts4pgl6pmc2veunrcdojeo5neo5sdar@4ax.bac.us>
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:43:19 -0400 (EDT), Mike Spencer
<mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>There was once (as recently as a year ago) a web site with a useful
>collection of telecom info at:
>
> http://members.dandy.net/~czg/
>
>Dandy.net now reports that this customer "has since changed providers. "
>
>Anybody know where czg's web site is now? Google returns many hits on
>the dandy.net URL, indicating its (former) popularity.
>
>(In particular, this time, I'm looking for an updated list of locales
>and service providers for all nnn exchanges in 902-nnn-xxxx.)
Not sure if this is the successor, but it should give you want you
want:
<http://www.localcallingguide.com/lca_prefix.php?npa=902&nxx=&x=&ocn=®ion=&lata=&switch=&pastdays=0&nextdays=0
Bruce
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:09:33 -0600
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Joint utility poles
Message-ID: <49CE920D.3070907@annsgarden.com>
Tom Horne <hornetd@remove-this.verizon.net> wrote:
> Are there actually installations that can withstand three inches of
> radial ice? Once the ice passes 0.3 inches here we're heading for a
> major power and communications failure with ordinary residential
> streets looking like plates of spaghetti.
I plead guilty of hyperbole. Even in northern states ("heavy loading"
district), the specified maximum ice loading is 0.5 inches of ice with a
wind pressure of 4 psf.
My point, however, stands: in a crosswind, communications cables can put
large lateral forces on utility poles. With or without radial ice,
these forces can equal, or even exceed, the forces caused by the action
of the wind on electric power conductors.
Of course, a lot depends on the relative size and quantity of
electrical conductors vis-à-vis the communications cables and the
relative wind speeds at different elevations above ground.
In any case, the lateral forces caused by communications cables produce
lower bending moment at the base of the pole simply because they're
closer to the base of the pole.
I should add that these observations are based on field experience, not
empirical research. There's virtually no published research on the subject.
Neal McLain
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 19:55:34 -0400
From: Steve Stone <spfleck@citlink.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Joint utility poles
Message-ID: <gqmdds$ss5$1@news.motzarella.org>
I walked out to the mail box Friday morning and a work crew was
standing around the telephone pole near the edge of my property. I
asked what they were up to. They were contracted out by the local
power company to ensure the poles in my area were not rotting below
the surface. First time I had seen anything like this in 20 years at
this location. The crew also told me they still see poles in good
shape in regular use that were first planted in the 1930's.
Steve
73 de N2UBP
***** Moderator's Note *****
I wonder if utilities still use Creosote as a wood preservative.
Wikipedia seems to indicate they do, but I know there have been
concerns about the carcinogenic risks for a long time.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:13:13 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Aussie Telco brings back the 30 second rip-off
Message-ID: <pan.2009.03.29.05.13.13.38245@myrealbox.com>
After all major telcos in Australia were forced (by competitive pressure)
to introduce per-second billing years ago, now the dominant player is
returning to 30-second block billing:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/03/10/1236447225985.html
Telstra rings up higher charges
Kelly Burke
March 11, 2009
TELSTRA landline customers will collectively pay tens of millions of
dollars more for short STD and overseas phone calls from the end of this
month, because of a new billing system.
Millions of Telstra customers have received notification of the changes,
which involve a switch from charging per second to charging in 30-second
blocks.
This means that when customers ring an STD or international number and
hang up because the call is answered by a machine, the customer will pay
for 30 seconds instead of the few seconds charged at present.
Because of the proliferation of voicemail and answering machines, 20 to 30
per cent of all calls consumers make last less than 30 seconds. So with an
estimated 6 million landline customers, the changes could deliver Telstra
extra revenue of tens of millions of dollars, according to an independent
telecommunications analyst, Paul Budde.
"It's just another way for Telstra to boost revenue. There's no other
explanation for it," Mr Budde said.
Under the existing system, a customer paying 20 cents a minute for an STD
call would be charged 5 cents for a call lasting 15 seconds. Under the new
system, the same 15-second call would cost twice as much, because the
minimum charge would be 10 cents for 30 seconds.
A 35-second call previously costing about 12 cents will jump to 20 cents,
because the consumer will be charged for 60 seconds.
Mr Budde said that with younger consumers increasingly abandoning fixed
lines in favour of mobiles, the new system would boost Telstra's stagnant
landline revenue significantly.
Telstra has defended the move, saying the new system will bring more
consistency to its billing and bring landline charges into line with
existing charges on fixed-to-mobile calls which were moved to 30-second
billing last year.
The executive director of consumer marketing at Telstra, Jenny Young, said
most retail customers were on plans that contained STD caps, with deals
such as $2 for up to three hours on an STD call.
"It's just not that much of an issue," she said. "We offer many
cost-effective home plans which have caps on STD calls, and there are no
changes [to the cost] of local calls, which have remained steady for
years."
But such caps kick in only after the $2 limit has been reached, so calls
of a few minutes' duration are likely to cost significantly more.
Another Telstra change will arguably make it harder for customers to
remember they are even making a timed STD or international call.
The long-standing five-beep signal heard at the beginning of most
Telstra-connected STD and international calls will be abolished at the end
of this financial year.
David Luff, formerly John Howard's press secretary but now the telco's
spokesman, said Telstra was the last carrier in the world to drop pip
tones, which were introduced in 1956 to alert customers to the fact that
they were making a timed, long-distance call.
"As our networks are upgraded over time, the feature will become obsolete
and it isn't available in newer technologies," he said.
------------------------------
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
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 (13 messages)
******************************
|
or 