29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for June 11, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 148 : "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: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 08:53:52 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Plumbers and other artisans
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=c5mVtyMz4APVhgx_=jkNb8Ozgug@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 19:06:38 -0400, John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>
>> ... in 1995 BellSouth installed phone service to my house. The
>> static was horrendous. They came out, claimed to have fixed it, but
>> didn't. Finally I went out, fixed it myself, and then called them
>> offering to let their techs know how to fix a static-filled line.
>
> I did not know that Bell South ever served or tried to serve Austin.
> It was Southwestern Bell since, I believe, 1917.
I never said I was living in Austin in 1995. :-)
I was in Florida.
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:57:38 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Early BSTJ submarine cable article
Message-ID: <siegman-53229B.15573809062011@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>
While digging into the July 1964 issue of BSTJ for some classic early
Bell Labs papers on lasers -- sorry, optical masers -- I noted that it
was also a special issue on submarine cables, with the opening paper
being
The SD Submarine Cable System
Page(s) 1155-1184
Ehrbar, R.D.; Fraser, J.M.; Kelley, R.A.; Morris, L.H.;
Mottram, E.T.; Rounds, P.W.
Submarine cable systems of a new design have reccently been
installed between Florida and Panama, between New Jersey and
Cornwall, Englund, and between Hawaii and Japan. Using a single
lightweight armorless cable for most of the route, with electron
tube amplifiers encased in rigid containers at 20-mile intervals,
this type of system will carry 128 channels in each direclion.
More detailed discussion of cable , repeaters, and power
equipment will be found in companion articles. This article
outlines the system development objectives, gives an over-all
system description, and describes the equalization plan and
terminal equipment ...
My OCRing is not too good, but anyone is interested the original is
available at
http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol43-1964/bstj-vol43-issue04.html
Each of the 128 channels in each direction had a 3 kc bandwidth by the
way.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I corrected the quote as best I could. For the future, if an OCR
program makes too many errors, please leave out the quote or type it
by hand. TIA.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 18:20:52 -0500
From: GlowingBlueMist <GlowingBlueMist@truely.invalid.dotsrc.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: New telephone area-code 431 in Winnipeg area?
Message-ID: <4df15556$0$316$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
On 6/8/2011 5:39 PM, Some Guy wrote:
> Strange. We got a blank voicemail on our Google Voice phone-line today:
>
> New voicemail from (431) 536-63xx at 8:49 AM
>
> When I search for info about that area code, I get this:
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------+
> http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/Area-code-431-being-added-in-2012-99469374.html
>
> The CRTC also confirmed that a new area code, 431, will be introduced as
> of Nov. 3, 2012.
> +--------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> So, is the 431 area-code active now (contrary to the above article) ?
>
Most likely it was a spammer faking the caller ID and wanted to use a
number that people had not started blocking yet.
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:38:40 +0000 (UTC)
From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: New telephone area-code 431 in Winnipeg area?
Message-ID: <isthag$tqc$2@pcls6.std.com>
GlowingBlueMist <GlowingBlueMist@truely.invalid.dotsrc.org> writes:
>On 6/8/2011 5:39 PM, Some Guy wrote:
>> So, is the 431 area-code active now (contrary to the above article) ?
>>
>Most likely it was a spammer faking the caller ID and wanted to use a
>number that people had not started blocking yet.
Like what "Rachel" of the Card Services scam has been doing for years
now.
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 23:27:45 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Cable rates are rising, but don't blame your provider - entirely
Message-ID: <p06240807ca173f75990d@[10.0.1.3]>
Cable rates are rising, but don't blame your provider - entirely
By Johnny Diaz
Globe Staff / June 5, 2011
Cable subscribers in Boston are fuming about rising bills, and many
blame what they see as Comcast Corp.'s virtual monopoly in the city.
The renewed focus on cable prices has come as Mayor Thomas M. Menino,
outraged by a recent 19 percent jump in the charge for basic cable,
or the lowest service tier, petitioned the Federal Communications
Commission to give the city the power to determine basic cable rates,
now $15.80. That's about double the cost in communities that already
set those rates.
But since few households settle for basic cable, essentially limited
to local broadcast stations and community access channels, the
authority to set these rates would have little effect on the vast
majority of subscribers, who purchase more extensive packages of
cable and premium channels. In Boston, only 15,000 of the city's
170,000 customers have basic service: The average cable bill in
Boston is $65 a month, up from $62 last year, and $58 in 2009,
according to the city.
For most subscribers, the biggest driver of these rising cable bills
is the increased cost of programming - the result, ironically, of
competition with satellite companies, Internet TV, movie rental
providers, and Verizon Corp.'s FiOS network, analysts said. As these
services bid for programming, sports, entertainment, and local
channels demand - and receive - higher fees from cable companies,
which ultimately get passed on to consumers.
...
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/06/05/cable_rates_are_rising_but_dont_blame_your_provider__entirely/
***** Moderator's Note *****
Comcrap is the most arrogant, intractable, intransigent, and
incompetent telephone service provider in the world: I know, because I
had the misfortune of paying them for telephone service years ago.
Having said that, I'll also say that cable TV viewers who don't cancel
overpriced or substandard television offerings get little sympathy
from me: it's an entertainment service, not a food or fuel monopoly,
so nobody is forced to put up with prices they find inconvenient.
Just tell Mayor Menino that he's a pretentious blow-hard, and organize a
boycott of Comcast: they'll get the message. Better yet, turn it off,
get a library card, and read a book.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: 9 Jun 2011 21:30:05 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: New telephone area-code 431 in Winnipeg area?
Message-ID: <20110609213005.8555.qmail@joyce.lan>
Nope, not for another year.
http://www.nanpa.com/planning_letters/planning_letters_2011.html
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 12:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: markjcuccia@yahoo.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: New telephone area-code 431 in Winnipeg area?
Message-ID: <422db697-6374-4604-8d5d-1d1f5c9a13fa@p20g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
On Wednesday 08-June-2011, "Some Guy" wrote:
> Strange. We got a blank voicemail on our Google Voice phone-line
> today:
>
> New voicemail from (431) 536-63xx at 8:49 AM
>
> When I search for info about that area code, I get this:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/Area-code-431-being-added-in-2012-99469374.html
> The CRTC also confirmed that a new area code, 431, will be
> introduced as of Nov. 3, 2012.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, is the 431 area-code active now (contrary to the above
> article) ?
The 431 area code is NOT active yet.
The Winnipeg Free Press article mentions 03-November-2012 (Saturday)
as the effective date for the new area code.
If you go to the CRTC or CNA or NeuStar-NANPA website (I don't know
if MTS has anything re 204/431 yet at their website), they all will
say the same thing, that the 204/431 Manitoba overlay is effective on
Saturday 03-November-2012.
As for 10-digit local dialing...
Saturday 20-October-2012 is when ten-digit local dialing in Manitoba
becomes mandatory.
Sunday 29-July-2012 is actually the date when a REMINDER recording
will be played (with call completion following the recording) on
local calls still dialed as just seven-digits.
Thursday 01-December-2011 is when ten-digit dialing must be made
permissive (alongside seven-digit dialing) where it isn't already
possible. MOST-if-not-ALL wireless providers in North America already
allow ten-digit local dialing (alongside seven-digit local dialing
unless one is in an overlay area). It MIGHT be possible that MTS
(incumbent landline) or some landline CLECs already allow such
permissive ten-digit local dialing.
All of the dates for permissive or mandatory ten-digit dialing are
when a week long "phase-in" period begins for the service providers
to open permissive ten-digit local dialing, or introduce the reminder
recording (with call completion) for calls still dialed as just
seven-digits, or convert to mandatory ten-digit local dialing.
There will be a pair of test-numbers -- one for routing purposes, and
one for billing test purposes both provided by the MTS incumbent
landline side of MTS-Allstream:
431-610-TEST (8378) (NOT "supposed" to return billing supervision)
431-610-BILL (2455) (is "supposed" to return billing supervision)
At this time, Bell West CLEC, Telus CLEC, and the Allstream CLEC side
of MTS-Allstream have not announced plans for any 431 test-numbers.
Rogers Cable CLEC and Rogers "CallNet" CLEC don't seem to have any
presence in Manitoba, thus no test-numbers have been announced for
Rogers neither.
The test announcement will be English "only", although it was
originally intended that the test announcement (and 10-digit reminder
or mandatory recordings as well) be English-then-French, but the
bi-lingual plans were dropped.
The test-announcements are scheduled to begin by Monday 30-April-2012,
and be disconnected (or at least access to the MTS test-numbers by
long distance carriers throughout the US and Canada) no earlier than
Monday 03-December-2012. It's possible that the MTS test-numbers and
even access to them via IXCs in the US and Canada could continue
through early January 2013.
NeuStar-NANPA issued the Planning Letter (prepared by the CNA), #419,
on Friday 06-May-2011, the pdf file can be downloaded from NANPA's
website at: http://www.nanpa.com/pdf/PL_419.pdf
As to WHY you got a call with the 431 area code indicated this early,
it's likely that some telemarketer has been spoofing calls with this
(at present) inactive North American area code. $cammers and
Tele-$pammer "marketers" are known to spoof and hi-jack unused (and
even used) numbering space from not only North American telephone
numbers, but even other countries' numbering plans.
Mark J. Cuccia
markjcuccia at yahoo dot com
Lafayette LA, formerly of New Orleans LA pre-Katrina
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:42:53 -0400
From: Some Guy <Some@Guy.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: New telephone area-code 431 in Winnipeg area?
Message-ID: <4DF2579D.E927FA74@Guy.com>
markjcuccia@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Strange. We got a blank voicemail on our Google Voice
> > phone-line today:
> >
> > New voicemail from (431) 536-63xx at 8:49 AM
> >
> > So, is the 431 area-code active now (contrary to the above
> > article) ?
>
> The 431 area code is NOT active yet.
>
> As to WHY you got a call with the 431 area code indicated this early,
> it's likely that some telemarketer has been spoofing calls with this
> (at present) inactive North American area code. $cammers and
> Tele-$pammer "marketers" are known to spoof and hi-jack unused (and
> even used) numbering space from not only North American telephone
> numbers, but even other countries' numbering plans.
How exactly can someone inject their own caller-ID information into the
phone system?
The caller ID info is injected during the space between the first and
second rings - right? Do telco's allow customers to inject their own
info somehow to over-ride the real data?
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:27:41 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Here's a legal question
Message-ID: <20110610212741.GA10005@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
Here's a legal question: if there are any lawyers reading the group,
I'd like to hear your views on this.
What, if any, restrictions are there on the things an ILEC can do when
one of it's own employees requests a tariffed service that the ILEC is
unwilling to supply? In other words, can an employee of an ILEC be
punished for requesting a tariffed service if the ILEC doesn't want
to supply it?
Replies offline, please. TIA.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM for direct replies)
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