|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 152 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: OneSuite (was Re: AT&T to discontinue CallVantage voip service)
Re: Payphones Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: Texting May Be Taking a Toll
Re: Texting May Be Taking a Toll
Re: Texting May Be Taking a Toll
Re: Apt buildings--where is the demarc box?
Re: Apt buildings--where is the demarc box?
Re: Apt buildings--where is the demarc box?
Google and privacy (was Payphones was Re: ANI vs. Caller ID)
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: 1984 All Over Again?
Re: Apt buildings--where is the demarc box?
====== 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: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:13:41 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: OneSuite (was Re: AT&T to discontinue CallVantage voip service)
Message-ID: <WMKdncvVMvY4nrrXnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <918245.3183.qm@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com>,
Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Tue, 2 Jun 2009 00:38:13 -0700 (PDT) <zzaldy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You may want to check out Onesuite.com pay as you go VoIP service.
>> It's $2.95 monthly for the service that includes free incoming calls
>> and a phone number. If you want to use your previous number then
>> porting is free. Outgoing rate is 2.5 cents to a US number and 1.9
>> cents to Canadian numbers.
>
>Something I've never understood is pricing for OneSuite. I note that
>making calls to US numbers is 2.5 cents/minute, 1.9 cents/minute to
>Canada and 2.4 cents/minute to call Israel.
>
>Why would it be cheaper to make a call to Canada or to Israel than it
>would be to make a domestic US call?
There are at least two answers to that:
1) "what the market will bear." <wry grin>
2) "what they have to pay the terminating LEC."
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 20:17:09 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Payphones Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <d4c.41b56137.37586c85@aol.com>
In a message dated 6/3/2009 1:08:55 AM Central Daylight Time,
PmUiRsGcE.TtHlEvSpE@att.net writes:
800 free 411 (800 3733411) ; 800 411 free (800 3733411) ;
800 goog 411 (800 4664411) ; 800 411 goog (800 41146
--------------------------------Reply-------------------------------
Most of them use voice recognition software, and I never could get
the software to understand a relative named Dzierla.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 20:24:46 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Texting May Be Taking a Toll
Message-ID: <bd0.5410a0dd.37586e4e@aol.com>
In a message dated 6/3/2009 6:54:07 AM Central Daylight Time,
dcstar@myrealbox.com writes:
Maybe with the current acceleration of data overload from so many
sources we are seeing more and more people suffering from it?
------------------------Reply----------------------------------------
Much of the overload is "tuned out" by most peole. I also never pay
attention to advertising on the internet except to notice how intrustive
it is.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:49:42 GMT
From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Texting May Be Taking a Toll
Message-ID: <9m5g25htjvrlafoo5nh3o9oi9l84vh5v0f@4ax.com>
Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
> Much of the overload is "tuned out" by most peole. I also never pay
>attention to advertising on the internet except to notice how intrustive
>it is.
[Moderator snip]
You can use a HOSTS file to block ads, banners, 3rd party Cookies, 3rd party page
counters, web bugs, and even most hijackers. This is accomplished by blocking the
connection(s) that supplies these little gems.
[Moderator snip]
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/
***** Moderator's Note *****
There are a number of ways to limit unwanted ads on web browsers: I
use the "NoScript" JavaScript blocker to good effect, and there are
other options too. Just be aware that you can't "solve" the problem
once and for all: avoiding intrusive ads and the associated cookies is
analogous to identifying telemarketeers by using caller ID, or to
suppressing spam, because there is never a magic bullet that works
forever. It's an arms race, and the driving force is money: each
anti-whatever measure ups the bar, and then there are countermeasures,
and the cycle keeps repeating.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 20:27:01 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Texting May Be Taking a Toll
Message-ID: <c1b.50f09231.37586ed5@aol.com>
In a message dated 6/3/2009 6:54:54 AM Central Daylight Time,
ttoews@telusplanet.net writes:
Given that I'm of a certain age I recall similar comments about the
Beatles and Elvis Presley. And read a newspaper from 1890. Not 1990
but a century before that. Remarkable how similar the comments about
the youth back then.
-----------------------------Reply---------------------------------
I have seen similar quotations running down youth from one of the Greek
philowophers. Far before 1890.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
***** Moderator's Note *****
I once saw a sign on the Boston Subway:
"Socrates was a Greek philosopher who used to go around giving people free advice."
"They poisoned him."
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Apt buildings--where is the demarc box?
Message-ID: <dde76620-875c-48c3-8962-81f1b6a15d08@z5g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 3, 7:03 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> In a number of jurisdictions, the telco is responsible *ONLY* to the point
> where their big multi-pair cable terminates inside the _building_. The
> the building management is responsible for the 'house' wiring to the
> individual units, and the unit is responsible for the wiring inside their
> premises. In such situations, when there's a building wire problem, you
> are at the mercy of whomever the building's "selected contractor" is, for
> length of time, and price you'll have to pay, to get the problem fixed.
Thanks to all who responded.
Our telco says their responsibility ends at their outside junction box
on the building wall.
But this is a catch-22 since that junction box is for telco use only
and the public can't get into it. If there was a wire problem that
could not be resolved within a unit (and many _can_ be fixed within a
unit), then the phoneco would have to be paid to fix it.
I was asked to order phone service on behalf of a resident in a
nursing home. The nursing home was quite adamant--they said wiring
had to be run from a junction box to the patient room and they would
only allow the phoneco to do so. (patient phones were all private
lines, not part of their system.)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:17:19 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Apt buildings--where is the demarc box?
Message-ID: <h08afu$vp0$1@news.albasani.net>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Jun 3, 7:03 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>>In a number of jurisdictions, the telco is responsible *ONLY* to the point
>>where their big multi-pair cable terminates inside the _building_. The
>>the building management is responsible for the 'house' wiring to the
>>individual units, and the unit is responsible for the wiring inside their
>>premises. In such situations, when there's a building wire problem, you
>>are at the mercy of whomever the building's "selected contractor" is, for
>>length of time, and price you'll have to pay, to get the problem fixed.
>Thanks to all who responded.
>Our telco says their responsibility ends at their outside junction box
>on the building wall.
>But this is a catch-22 since that junction box is for telco use only
>and the public can't get into it. If there was a wire problem that
>could not be resolved within a unit (and many _can_ be fixed within a
>unit), then the phoneco would have to be paid to fix it.
>I was asked to order phone service on behalf of a resident in a
>nursing home. The nursing home was quite adamant--they said wiring
>had to be run from a junction box to the patient room and they would
>only allow the phoneco to do so. (patient phones were all private
>lines, not part of their system.)
That's to be expected. Both the phone company and nursing home are
treating it as building wire, a fixture of the nursing home. They own
the building, so they can instruct the resident/patient to use their
designated contractor, in this case, the phone company.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:26:23 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Apt buildings--where is the demarc box?
Message-ID: <lpudnXyPELpCgrXXnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <dde76620-875c-48c3-8962-81f1b6a15d08@z5g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Jun 3, 7:03 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>> In a number of jurisdictions, the telco is responsible *ONLY* to the point
>> where their big multi-pair cable terminates inside the _building_. The
>> the building management is responsible for the 'house' wiring to the
>> individual units, and the unit is responsible for the wiring inside their
>> premises. In such situations, when there's a building wire problem, you
>> are at the mercy of whomever the building's "selected contractor" is, for
>> length of time, and price you'll have to pay, to get the problem fixed.
>
>Thanks to all who responded.
>
>Our telco says their responsibility ends at their outside junction box
>on the building wall.
If that's what the law says, then they *are* correct.
Beyond that point, it is the responsibility of the *BUILDING* management.
>I was asked to order phone service on behalf of a resident in a
>nursing home. The nursing home was quite adamant--they said wiring
>had to be run from a junction box to the patient room and they would
>only allow the phoneco to do so. (patient phones were all private
>lines, not part of their system.)
>
Welcome to the wonderful world of de-regulation.
That's the way things are. Within the building, you're at the mercy
of the whims of the building management as to whom *THEY* will let
do the 'in-building' wiring. And you have to pay whatever 'rape' rates
that 'selected contractor' chooses to bill.
That _is_ the way things work, in todays world.
You have a very simple choice. "live with it", or "live *WITHOUT* it".
The building mgmt, and the telco "don't care" which option you choose.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Google and privacy (was Payphones was Re: ANI vs. Caller ID)
Message-ID: <b452a9d2-1d4c-40f7-a4f2-8333f8ba4581@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 3, 7:52 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> As it's Google, one always assumes they are adding to their massive
> database of personal profiles. Now they know your buying habits, as
> linked to a particular phone number. Also, they offer to place the call
> for you, which will undoubtably be recorded then run through voice
> recognition software.
In order to do this Google needs a very high economy of scale, which
tends to limit competition. Google's size has caused concern in some
quarters; I don't know if that's legitimate or not. In issues like
definitions of the total marketplace are key. Back in the 1950s the
govt correctly claimed IBM had a near monopoly in the _punched card_
business, but IBM correctly claimed it was a small player in the
_accounting machine_ business.
Sometimes in order to effect standardization and economies of scale,
especially in the technology world, bigness is very helpful. The
television broadcast industry common standards lagged far behind the
technology level because the players couldn't agree and had to wait
forever for the FCC to mandate to them--this goes back to 1941.
> Soon that pizza will be delivered to your door minutes before you start
> to get really hungry.
I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, I would like that
convenience, and I do admire Google's ability to select ads of
interest. On the other hand, there are serious privacy concerns. I'm
not only worried about Google collecting information for itself, but
others, like the govt, snoopy lawyers, or noisy employers, getting
their paws in it.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:02:34 -0800
From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <h079ta$9as$1@blue.rahul.net>
Gordon Burditt wrote:
> Do carriers have any immunity against lawsuits for incorrect or
> spoofed caller-ID when their marketing department makes no mention
> of this? (assuming, for the moment, that they can't lay it off on
> some OTHER telco providing the bad information). Consider a
> worst-case situation, where the lawsuit is a wrongful death suit,
> and the one (suspected of) spoofing the caller-ID is a homicidal
> stalker, who only managed to get through because of spoofed caller-ID.
> I think a case could happen where it seems quite plausible that the
> telco is responsible.
It seems to me that this problem is a close analog of source address
spoofing in TCP/IP -- a method of denial-of-service attack that has
mostly disappeared from the civilized world, now that well-behaved ISPs
insist on validating the source addresses before sending the packets out.
Is there any reason telcos can't similarly validate, at the very least,
that any CLID they forward during call setup (with or without the
privacy flag set) is that of an existing line in the area served by the
first telco switch the call passes through?
If the "common carrier" rules prohibit telcos doing this, they should be
changed. If telcos could but just won't, they need more competition.
The next step, of course, would be for well-behaved telcos to block or
flag (for possible filtering) calls originating from badly-behaved telcos.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:55:51 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <cKqdncMgWoBau7XXnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <h079ta$9as$1@blue.rahul.net>,
John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>
>Is there any reason telcos can't similarly validate, at the very least,
>that any CLID they forward during call setup (with or without the
>privacy flag set) is that of an existing line in the area served by the
>first telco switch the call passes through?
Yeah.
1) nobody beyond the second switch knows who the first switch is.
2) there are *LOTS* of legitimate cases where the 'correct' call-back
number does _not_ match the locale from which the call originated.
3) The correct 'call back' number may not even be with the same telephone
company as the line the outgoing call is placed on.
The place the CLID string _should_ be validated is at the point where the
end-user connects to the LEC. Some carriers _do_ do this, even for their
"big" clients. Some do not. The reason is 'money'. It costs extra to do
so, and by _not_ doing so, they can still be profitable, while charging
that customer a lower price (compared to what they would have to charge if
they were validating). That 'small difference' *IS* enough to make non-
trivial numbers of customers change dial-tone providers.
>If the "common carrier" rules prohibit telcos doing this, they should be
>changed. If telcos could but just won't, they need more competition.
Erm. There's one thing you're overlooking. *WHO*PAYS* for that extra work
that said telco is doing? People _will_ switch dial-tone providers to
save the small amounts of money a thing like this costs.
>The next step, of course, would be for well-behaved telcos to block or
>flag (for possible filtering) calls originating from badly-behaved telcos.
Common-carrier rules -do- prohibit doing _that_.
And, believe me, you _don't_ want that rule changed. Ask anybody who
remembers what it was like when there were competing telephone companies
that were _not_ interconnected. When you had to have a phone for _each_
phone company, so that _their_ subscribers could reach you; when you had
to advertise _all_ those *different* phone numbers, _and_ which number
went with which phone company, so as to tell everybody how you could be
reached by phone.
(Either the phone company can decide -- on whatever basis -- whom they
want to accept calls from, or they *cannot*. there is no middle ground
on the matter.)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:42:45 -0500
From: gordon@hammy.burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <vp6dna65Srco37rXnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
>Can you find _any_ representation, anywhere, that the telco promises
>that the information *is* accurate? <wry grin>
Yes, in the *name* of the service, Caller-ID (it's not called
Caller-Guess for a reason). A two-sentence description of what it
does would also let them hang themselves.
I'm one of those people who think ads should be (but hardly ever
are) the literal truth, so if you say your cookies are made by
elves, they darn well better be made by elves, not Teamsters with
Spock ears. And if I happen to be allergic to cookies made by
Teamsters with Spock ears, expect a lawsuit for some very large
medical expenses.
>
>_Some_ telcos that have customers who have the capabilities to supply
>their own caller-id data *do* filter the customer-supplied data against
>the telco's understanding of what numbers that customer has/owns.
>
>Others do _not_. They don't see a reason to spend the money for something
>that brings _them_ "little to no" benefit, as they see things.
>
>As long as _anybody_ allows non-trustworthy data into the system/network,
>*nobody* can =rely= on the data provided to be accurate.
>
>Sad, but true, nonetheless.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 07:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <7bdc62dc-6f1b-41cb-8f06-dd2d0567b8d5@j20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 4, 6:14 am, gor...@hammy.burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
> I'm one of those people who think ads should be (but hardly ever
> are) the literal truth, so if you say your cookies are made by
> elves, they darn well better be made by elves, not Teamsters with
> Spock ears. And if I happen to be allergic to cookies made by
> Teamsters with Spock ears, expect a lawsuit for some very large
> medical expenses.
At one time the telepone industry was strictly 'what you see is what
you get'. If you called them to ask the price of a service or to make
a particular call, they would tell you. Today if you call to ask
about most services you'll get a different answer each time you call,
from a retail outlet, or from their web page. Cell phone plans and
high speed data services have 'official' costs that few people pay and
all sorts of 'specials' that vary by the roll of a dice. Likewise,
the quality of said services varies quite a bit; they might promise "
'up to' 500 terabytes per nanosecond' but actually deliver 300 baud.
Note the "up to" in the claim. I will note that in their data service
and cellphone ads they do offer lots of disclaimers in the fine print.
If it were up to me, all the "FCC line charge" and other 'special
fees' they collect and keep should not be allowed; all of that should
be included in the stated monthly price. It bugs me that 'fees' and
taxes add 30% to the claimed price.
They all do it, so it's not like 'competition" helps; indeed, it make
things worse.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:32:00 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <lpudnX-PELqtvLXXnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <vp6dna65Srco37rXnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
Gordon Burditt <gordon@hammy.burditt.org> wrote:
>>Can you find _any_ representation, anywhere, that the telco promises
>>that the information *is* accurate? <wry grin>
>
>Yes, in the *name* of the service, Caller-ID (it's not called
>Caller-Guess for a reason).
"ID" can be 'whatever the party chooses to identify themselves as'.
that name does not restrict it to being their telephone number.
I agree with you about what it _should_ be, but there is no legal leg,
at present, to -force- it to be that way.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 07:23:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <1f6559a2-6dda-4e76-8bef-b91a27e53f82@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 3, 6:58 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> Can you find _any_ representation, anywhere, that the telco promises
> that the information *is* accurate? <wry grin>
Can you find any representation where the telco acknowledges that the
information may not be accurate?
Many advertising claims today are accompanied with fine print on the
TV screen or in an advertisement with disclaimers. Things like
"professional driver on closed course" or "subject to availability" or
"some restrictions apply".
The telcos always have stated that some calls might not have a caller
ID associated with them (eg "out of area"). But AFAIK they never said
it could be wrong.
Note that while the traditional telephone companies publish a
directory which includes disclaimers; newcomer phone companies do not
have a directory. So if a subscriber dumps the baby bell and switches
to Joe's Phone Company, where does "Joe" explain his services and
limitations?
I'm not a lawyer, but I would think if someone's caller ID displayed
the correct name and phone number of someone's bank, and because of
seeing that, a subscriber gives out personal information and gets
robbed as a result, a telco might be liable. I don't think a jury
would be very sympathetic to a telco if the victim was an elderly
person and the caller ID display was offered in evidence.
> As long as _anybody_ allows non-trustworthy data into the system/network,
> *nobody* can =rely= on the data provided to be accurate.
IMHO, this greatly increases the chance that hackers would break into
the network and causes all sorts of problems. Say a troubled or
malicious technical person is employed at a large concern and has
access to the firm's PBX.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:37:21 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <lpudnX6PELrsv7XXnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <1f6559a2-6dda-4e76-8bef-b91a27e53f82@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Jun 3, 6:58 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>> Can you find _any_ representation, anywhere, that the telco promises
>> that the information *is* accurate? <wry grin>
>
>Can you find any representation where the telco acknowledges that the
>information may not be accurate?
I don't have to. They promise to deliver an ID string for the caller.
They do that. If the caller provides his own ID string they 'accurately'
pass it on.
The calling party _is_ free, under the law, to identify themselves "however
they d*mn well please". It is not a crime to do so, _unless_ one is doing
it to defraud. Note well, the operative word is "defraud", not 'deceive'.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:03:08 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul <pssawyer@comcast.net.INVALID>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 1984 All Over Again?
Message-ID: <Xns9C2070C67198DSenex@85.214.105.209>
Bruce L.Bergman <bruceNOSPAMbergman@gmail.com> wrote in
news:40ad255pt6pig08s0erilb52kuc6mfjlk3@4ax.com:
> I will always keep at least one line on Legacy Copper for
> emergency
> service reliability. One voice line on Copper all the way back
> to the Central Office so the alarm system dialer can always get to
> the Central Station receiver, and when you need to dial 911 there
> will most likely be working dialtone there.
I once thought this way, but now the copper from my house only goes
across the street to a SLIC, which seems to have less battery backup
than the cable company's "digital voice" product.
> Fiber and CATV Coax systems can NOT meet even a four-nines
> reliability, let alone five. Both services are dependent on
> utility power at the customer end point AND at several amplifiers
> and repeaters and concentrator cabinets along the way.
The same holds for the phone company of today, unless you are across
the street from the CO.
> Backup batteries only last so long, and they dont have enough
> portable generators to cover them all. They would have to park a
> craft truck with a generator set at each point.
This is exactly what Fairpoint (formerly Verizon) has to do at the
aforementioned SLIC and elsewhere during an extended outage.
There is no more POTS; there is no more "copper all the way back to
the CO."
> --<< Bruce >>--
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Copper isn't a panacea: it's trivial to disconnect a copper POTS
> line before entering a home, thus disabling any "dial in" burglar
> alarm system.
>
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderator
Having once maintained alarm systems, I could not claim reliability
of a dial-up 30 years ago, and certainly not today. No supervision,
no security.
--
Paul
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:55:44 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Apt buildings--where is the demarc box?
Message-ID: <RMUVl.1040$y42.344@newsfe21.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> In apartment, condo, and co-op multi-family buildings there is often
> no individual "demarc" box for individual units. Rather, the lines
> consolidate in large junction boxes which are maintained by the
> telco. All an individual unit has is a plain phone jack.
>
> In the event there is trouble on the line where is the 'cut off' point
> to determine responsibility for repair? To the subscriber, the cut
> off point would appear to be in their own apt since they obviously
> don't have (nor should have) access to the central junction box.
>
> Thanks.
>
> (Any other information about line maintenance in multi-family housing
> would be appreciated.)
>
I can only speak to California.
1. In an apartment building (rentals) the landlord is responsible for
the inside wiring from the telco panel to the apartment jacks.
2. In condos the association is responsible for the wire from the telco
panel until it enters the owner's unit. The common area wire is the
responsibility of the association. We have a common-area wire
maintenance contract with AT&T (Pacific Bell).
------------------------------
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 (18 messages)
******************************
|
or 