Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 28 : Issue 156 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: 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: 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: ANI vs. Caller ID Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Re: 1984 All Over Again? Re: Melted coax (was: ANI vs. Caller ID) Usenet newsgroups ====== 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: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:28:02 -0700 From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <TG_Wl.20095$hc1.13510@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com> On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 06:59:20PM -0700, Steven Lichter wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >On Jun 7, 4:13 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > > >>***** Moderator's Note ***** > >> > >>In the end, we agree. Such changes need backing from those in power, > >>but powerful people do not obtain their position by tilting at > >>windmills. > >> > >>Forcing major corporations to bear the expense of verifying CLID > >>information is asking for trouble, and savvy politicians never make > >>an enemy when they don't have to. > > > >I remembered a current example. In our town, the municipal utility > >charges a very high fixed charge, even if you use no services. Some > >of us feel that it is unfair to small users who end up paying more per > >unit than other users. When asked to go to a more usage-based rate > >system (with no change in overall revenues), some commissioners dug in > >their heels and made a long speech how that would be fiscally > >imprudent, violate the bond holder convenants, etc. It was all B/S. > >Some new commissioners were appointed and the rates will be changed. > >It does NOT affect the bond holders as was claimed. > > > >Now certain users will be upset since they will pay more, but they've > >been getting a big break for some years. The point is that the > >commissioners know they'll upset those users, but other users will be > >happy. > > > >So what we were told for years was "impossible" suddenly became quite > >easily done. > > > >***** Moderator's Note ***** > > > >I'm very surprised that a municipality would assess a flat fee for > >services which vary by household: please tell me what town this is. > > > >Bill Horne > >Temporary Moderator Our city electric and water has a customer charge for each service even though it is read at the same time and on the same bill, also have all kinds of fees including tax on the usage even though it is city owned. What I have told them they should just list those fees and pick our pockets so the city can have more money to spend on it office holders going all over the world for things that have nothing to do with their jobs. -- The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:09:24 -0500 From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <adedndQBA8zQ2LDXnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@posted.visi> Steven Lichter wrote: >> >***** Moderator's Note ***** >> > >> >I'm very surprised that a municipality would assess a flat fee for >> >services which vary by household: please tell me what town this is. > Our city electric and water has a customer charge for each service even > though it is read at the same time and on the same bill, also have all > kinds of fees including tax on the usage even though it is city owned. This is not surprising. There is a fixed cost per account (billing, meter reading, and some of the amortization of the physical plant). E.g. my water bill includes charges for water testing on a per-account basis, and stormwater runoff control, on the basis of the permeable area of my lot. Those things are not related to how much water I use. Then there is a variable cost (determined by how much you consume). It would be a matter of law whether the taxes apply to services operated by a municipality, but usually they do. (Private utilities would scream bloody murder if their customers had to pay tax but municipal customers did not.) Dave ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 07:13:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Sam Spade <samspade@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <290794.90337.qm@web44804.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Steven Lichter wrote: > Our city electric and water has a customer charge for each service > even though it is read at the same time and on the same bill, also > have all kinds of fees including tax on the usage even though it is > city owned. What I have told them they should just list those fees > and pick our pockets so the city can have more money to spend on it > office holders going all over the world for things that have nothing > to do with their jobs. I believe you live in California. They need all the revenue they can get so public "service" employees can make more than private sector employees, have better medical, dental, and eye care, and retire at 100%, with continuing COLAs, at age 50. ***** Moderator's Note ***** Gentlemen, Let's stick to telecom, OK? Bill ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:38:08 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <Cd3Xl.21039$IP7.4488@newsfe23.iad> Steven Lichter wrote: >> > The Fax Spammers are already on the network; using spoofed CID. I made > an error the other day and left the fax link on my computer open and > came home to 200 faxes on my hard drive, most were just trash and one > was porn, the number to get removed was one of those numbers you call > overseas and get charged $6,000 a second and can't drop off. > I disconnected my fax line recently. It is an obsolete technology. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:23:58 -0700 From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <OV9Xl.5719$fD.2602@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com> Sam Spade wrote: > Steven Lichter wrote: > >>> >> The Fax Spammers are already on the network; using spoofed CID. I >> made an error the other day and left the fax link on my computer open >> and came home to 200 faxes on my hard drive, most were just trash and >> one was porn, the number to get removed was one of those numbers you >> call overseas and get charged $6,000 a second and can't drop off. >> > > I disconnected my fax line recently. It is an obsolete technology. > I use e-mail and attachments most of the times. But with my work I still have to send a fax once in a while. -- The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:45:56 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <Vk3Xl.21040$IP7.12180@newsfe23.iad> Gordon Burditt wrote: >>***** Moderator's Note ***** >> >>A government could "require" that caller-id be accurate, but that >>won't stop telemarketeers and/or dunning agencies from spoofing it: >>there's money at stake, and the fines that _might_ be imposed are >>likely to be less than the profit to be had. > > > I propose that anyone caught spoofing caller-ID would not be allowed > to send caller-ID. They are permanently stuck on "private call" > mode. The calls themselves will go through, but perhaps no one > will answer them. Caller ID works for our residence. I have all our friend's and other known contacts Caller ID voice tagged in our Meridian 9516 telephone set. They are announecd in my voice. With occasional calls where we don't recognize the Caller ID we let it go to the Meridian's answering machine. Most of the clowns won't leave a message except for those recorded missives. And, even those, we only hear a few seconds before we use the erase function. ***** Moderator's Note ***** I've added SIT tones to my incoming message. Problem solved. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:49:00 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <Nn3Xl.21041$IP7.15580@newsfe23.iad> Richard wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 00:35:58 -0400 (EDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > >>In the pre-divesture days, it was public policy to offer the cheapest >>policy bare bones phone service so as to make a phone affordable to as >>wide a range of possible. Today many places won't even offer a party >>line which was the way to save money; a private line is in essence >>"bundled", along with other 'extras'. > > > As late as 2001, long after divestiture, in Massachusetts there was a > separate charge of 47 cents/month to equip a residential telephone > line for touch-tone dialing as well as pulse dialing. In > http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2001/page.jsp?itemID=29740684 > Verizon asked the Public Utilities Commision to eliminate the separate > touch-tone charge and roll it into the basic rate. > I don't know whether this request was granted. That's long gone in California. But, it was still around for several years after all the end offices were electronic. As we all know, it costs more to process a dial pulse than a DTMF call origination. ***** Moderator's Note ***** If it costs more to process DP than DTMF, why doesn't DP access cost more? Wasn't the increased cost the basis for charges when DTMF first appeared? Bill, who is playing Devil's Advocate Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 06:09:08 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <U38Xl.30873$VL5.4111@newsfe22.iad> Sam Spade wrote: > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > If it costs more to process DP than DTMF, why doesn't DP access cost more? > Wasn't the increased cost the basis for charges when DTMF first appeared? > > Bill, who is playing Devil's Advocate > > Bill Horne > Temporary Moderator No Bill. DTMF was more valuable to the subscriber, according to Pacific Bell; thus a premium service. That was the line for quite a few years. And, DTMF did cost more on SxS offices. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 08:43:01 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <83f58a2b-73fa-419d-9d2b-6a47cd1ce23c@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com> On Jun 8, 8:49 am, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote: > As we all know, it > costs more to process a dial pulse than a DTMF call origination. Pulse costs them more than Touch Tone? Why? As I understand the technology, there is no hardware involved, just _existing_ software. The switch scans every line very often (in milliseconds) to scan for off or on hook and to act accordingly. Dial pulses would be interpreted during that scan process. That process is needed to know when people are making or terminating a call so it's not going anywhere. Now perhaps some new PBX with newly written software might not support pulse phones or even traditional phone sets. As to party lines, I understand that they required separate _hardware_ to apply the proper ringing current* to the line, and that is obsolete. Further, the ringing current variations (four types on baby bell systems) may not be compatible with modern loop concentrators. (*They vary grounding and bias, I believe, to get four combinations.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 09:02:38 -0700 From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <3uaXl.5723$fD.3486@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com> Sam Spade wrote: > Richard wrote: > >> On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 00:35:58 -0400 (EDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> >> >>> In the pre-divesture days, it was public policy to offer the cheapest >>> policy bare bones phone service so as to make a phone affordable to as >>> wide a range of possible. Today many places won't even offer a party >>> line which was the way to save money; a private line is in essence >>> "bundled", along with other 'extras'. >> >> >> As late as 2001, long after divestiture, in Massachusetts there was a >> separate charge of 47 cents/month to equip a residential telephone >> line for touch-tone dialing as well as pulse dialing. In >> http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2001/page.jsp?itemID=29740684 >> >> Verizon asked the Public Utilities Commision to eliminate the separate >> touch-tone charge and roll it into the basic rate. >> I don't know whether this request was granted. > > That's long gone in California. But, it was still around for several > years after all the end offices were electronic. As we all know, it > costs more to process a dial pulse than a DTMF call origination. > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > If it costs more to process DP than DTMF, why doesn't DP access cost more? > Wasn't the increased cost the basis for charges when DTMF first appeared? I would guess the cost at first was for the costs involved in the extra hardware that was needed to Touch Tone., now as all have said it is software driven. It might cost more for DP now. -- The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:51:56 -0500 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <XpGdnbcY54dRwLDXnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <Nn3Xl.21041$IP7.15580@newsfe23.iad>, Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote: >Richard wrote: > >> On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 00:35:58 -0400 (EDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> >> >>>In the pre-divesture days, it was public policy to offer the cheapest >>>policy bare bones phone service so as to make a phone affordable to as >>>wide a range of possible. Today many places won't even offer a party >>>line which was the way to save money; a private line is in essence >>>"bundled", along with other 'extras'. >> >> >> As late as 2001, long after divestiture, in Massachusetts there was a >> separate charge of 47 cents/month to equip a residential telephone >> line for touch-tone dialing as well as pulse dialing. In >> >http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2001/page.jsp?itemID=29740684 >> Verizon asked the Public Utilities Commision to eliminate the separate >> touch-tone charge and roll it into the basic rate. >> I don't know whether this request was granted. > >That's long gone in California. But, it was still around for several >years after all the end offices were electronic. As we all know, it >costs more to process a dial pulse than a DTMF call origination. > >***** Moderator's Note ***** > >If it costs more to process DP than DTMF, why doesn't DP access cost more? To quote Tevye: "Tradition!" *grin* > >Wasn't the increased cost the basis for charges when DTMF first appeared? Yup. > >Bill, who is playing Devil's Advocate Early-generation equipment to process DTMF cost more than the already in place electro-mechanical stuff. With the price of "electronics" in those days, a _lot_ more. These days, pulse dialing costs more, because they have to stick an additional 'pulse to DTMF converter' on the front of the line before the call hits the DTMF-only switch. Politically, however, it is a 'no sale' to try to charge a premium, now, for what was the 'basic' service -- over what was hyped for years, if not decades as the premium ('worth paying extra for') services. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 05:09:05 GMT From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <ug6p25p0hajqigqkodablshql3rsc5h1bc@4ax.com> Wesrock@aol.com wrote: > Denial of service attacks have been used, or at least threatened, by >union members during labor negotiations with telcos. They have large >numbers of people who will participate. I'm told, by a friend who is a staunch Liberal, that opponents of the gun registry in Canada brought in by the Liberal government in 1995 did exactly that. These folks would call the 800 information number and ask basic questions repeatedly. As soon as they heard more operators had been called and wait times had decreased more folks would start calling in. My suggestion was quite simple. Give callers a limited number of minutes or calls per month from the same phone number. And mail out the brochures. Then hang up on them or have an automated system tell them they've exceeded the limit. [Moderator snip] Tony -- 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 ***** N.B.: We are _NOT_ going to have a debate about gun control! Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:55:44 -0500 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <XpGdnbYY54ctw7DXnZ2dnUVZ_i1i4p2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <ug6p25p0hajqigqkodablshql3rsc5h1bc@4ax.com>, > >***** Moderator's Note ***** > >N.B.: We are _NOT_ going to have a debate about gun control! > "If debaters are controlled, then -= soon -- only controllers will have debates!" *SMIRK* ***** Moderator's Note ***** Sigh. :~ ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 2009 10:22:57 -0400 From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <h0j6s1$75j$1@panix2.panix.com> Gordon Burditt <gordonb.nrwq3@burditt.org> wrote: > >Or how about a real simple solution: if you're not a telco, you >DON'T get to send your own caller-ID, and if you try, it doesn't >matter, because the telco isn't paying attention to it. This doesn't >prevent collection agencies from becoming rogue telcos, but it could >prevent a lot of the problems. Who is a telco? Who isn't a telco? If I own my own PBX, am I a telco? What if I own a bunch of PBXes around the country on a private line network? What if I own a private line network and sell service on it? At what point do I become a telco? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:40:00 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <khaXl.6917$Dr4.1721@newsfe24.iad> Scott Dorsey wrote: > Gordon Burditt <gordonb.nrwq3@burditt.org> wrote: > >>Or how about a real simple solution: if you're not a telco, you >>DON'T get to send your own caller-ID, and if you try, it doesn't >>matter, because the telco isn't paying attention to it. This doesn't >>prevent collection agencies from becoming rogue telcos, but it could >>prevent a lot of the problems. > > > Who is a telco? Who isn't a telco? If I own my own PBX, am I a telco? > What if I own a bunch of PBXes around the country on a private line network? > What if I own a private line network and sell service on it? At what point > do I become a telco? > --scott How about [defining it as a] local exchange carrier? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 08:46:25 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <0b131409-3d4e-4fa5-bf31-8d1147aae87d@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> On Jun 8, 10:47 am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: > Who is a telco?  Who isn't a telco?  If I own my own PBX, am I a telco? > What if I own a bunch of PBXes around the country on a private line network? > What if I own a private line network and sell service on it?  At what point > do I become a telco? All good questions. In my opinion, it is very important to have these lines crystal line and the responsibilities of each clearly defined legally and by technical standards so as the network is protected. But, IMHO, when the end-goal was competition and to make it as easy as possible for newcomers to enter the business, they intentionally blurred those lines. I've heard all sorts of horror stories from people who tried alternative carriers and had to switch back due to lousy service or false price claims. The established carriers end up eating a lot of unnecessary cost. IMHO, that's money wasted and ought to be used for the service protections everyone says is too expensive to do. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 17:58:36 +0000 (UTC) From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <h0jjgc$g5i$1@reader1.panix.com> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes: >Who is a telco? Who isn't a telco? If I own my own PBX, am I a telco? >What if I own a bunch of PBXes around the country on a private line network? >What if I own a private line network and sell service on it? At what point >do I become a telco? And in the penultimate example, suppose you buy all the land and the telco; so you own it and the local police dept. and everything else. That's what Disney did in the Reedy Creek Improvement District. -- 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: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:00:14 -0500 From: gordon@hammy.burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <D5OdnQkU_bgjwrDXnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica> >>Or how about a real simple solution: if you're not a telco, you >>DON'T get to send your own caller-ID, and if you try, it doesn't >>matter, because the telco isn't paying attention to it. This doesn't >>prevent collection agencies from becoming rogue telcos, but it could >>prevent a lot of the problems. > >Who is a telco? Who isn't a telco? I'm sure the FCC has an adequate legal definition of what a telco is, at least within the United States, and all sorts of regulations that telcos have to follow that others don't, like filing lots of reports with the FCC. One guideline: you'd interact with other telcos as a peer, not a customer. You'd participate in the complicated call-rating system that divides call revenues between the originating and terminating telco. You'd also probably have to have CALEA automated wire-tapping equipment connected to the NSA. >What if I own a bunch of PBXes around the country on a private line network? No, that by itself doesn't make you a telco. And if these PBXs don't interconnect with the public telephone network, it's irrelevant anyway. >What if I own a private line network and sell service on it? At what point >do I become a telco? ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 2009 10:20:13 -0400 From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 1984 All Over Again? Message-ID: <h0j6mt$g6k$1@panix2.panix.com> Richard <rng@richbonnie.com> wrote: >On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 00:49:33 -0400 (EDT), bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com >(Robert Bonomi) wrote: > >>People are keeping the POTS dial-tone -- to minimize the cost of >>having the DSL on the 'shared' cost-basis -- *and* using VoIP (or >>CELLULAR!!) for almost all their 'billable' calling. They've >>'effectively' switched to VOIP, but maintain the POTS line anyway, >>because it's cheaper to have it than not have it. > >Another reason to keep POTS: in an disaster (earthquake, widespread >power failure, etc.), VOIP or cellular systems may stop working, but a >wired POTS line almost always will work. You may not be able to call >out of town, but at least you can call the local police or fire >departments. Not any more. With the distribution of switching that started with the SLC-96, the landline telcos are rapidly working their way toward a much lower standard of reliability during disasters. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:03:13 -0500 From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Melted coax (was: ANI vs. Caller ID) Message-ID: <4A2D6E81.9000100@annsgarden.com> I wrote: > This, of course, depends on the reflectivity of the reflector. For > this reason, the reflector has a "matte" finish that will > (hopefully) scatter the long-wavelength infrared light but > accurately reflect the shorter wavelengths of the satellite signal > into the feedhorn. Flat exterior latex paint works well for this > purpose. Richard <rng@richbonnie.com> wrote: > Actually, it's the other way around. Infrared light has a _shorter_ > wavelength (750 nanometers to 100 micrometers) than satellite > television signals (1 centimeter or longer). The longer wavelength > TV signal is oblivious to the matte pattern. Richard is correct. Don't know what I was thinking... Neal McLain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:37:43 -0700 From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Usenet newsgroups Message-ID: <X0iXl.5745$fD.4450@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com> Below was posted all over the AT&T Usenet server today, what is the use of having the service if they are dropping it, any 3rd party ones suck. Please note that on or around July 15, 2009, AT&T will no longer be offering access to the Usenet netnews service. If you wish to continue reading , access is available through third-party vendors. Posted only internally to AT&T Usenet Servers. -- The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co. ------------------------------ 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 (21 messages) ******************************