|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 157 : "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: Melted coax (was: ANI vs. Caller ID)
Re: Melted coax (was: ANI vs. Caller ID)
Fiber optic transmission
Re: Melted coax (was: ANI vs. Caller ID)
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Pulse vs. touch tone, was ANI
Re: Pulse vs. touch tone, was ANI
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Faxes and other obsolete technology
====== 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: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 22:31:04 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <bdd.50709495.375f2368@aol.com>
In a message dated 6/8/2009 9:47:49 AM Central Daylight Time,
kludge@panix.com 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?
I know a major car rental company that sold spare capacity on its
private line network.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
***** Moderator's Note *****
I think a telco is any regulated public utility providing access to
the PSTN. You become a telco the moment your tariffs are approved.
You may own your own PBX, and still be a telco, so long as you're
willing to use the PBX to provide dial tone to all who apply. You'll
need connections to the E-911 network, CALEA capability, a way to
settle long-distance and local copayment charges, access to either the
ILEC's infrastructure or your own, adequate capital reserves to cover
losses from non-paying customers, and the patience of a saint.
The "private line network" case is out of my league: I'll ask others
to answer that question.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:15:05 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <hPCdnYG0tqYEBbPXnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <bdd.50709495.375f2368@aol.com>, <Wesrock@aol.com> wrote:
>In a message dated 6/8/2009 9:47:49 AM Central Daylight Time,
>kludge@panix.com 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?
>
> I know a major car rental company that sold spare capacity on its
>private line network.
Ah. They had some extra Hertz available?
>
>
>Wes Leatherock
>wesrock@aol.com
>wleathus@yahoo.com
>
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>I think a telco is any regulated public utility providing access to
>the PSTN. You become a telco the moment your tariffs are approved.
>
>You may own your own PBX, and still be a telco, so long as you're
>willing to use the PBX to provide dial tone to all who apply. You'll
>need connections to the E-911 network, CALEA capability, a way to
>settle long-distance and local copayment charges, access to either the
>ILEC's infrastructure or your own, adequate capital reserves to cover
>losses from non-paying customers, and the patience of a saint.
>
>The "private line network" case is out of my league: I'll ask others
>to answer that question.
Yup. a 'real' telephone company is a regulated common carrier. They get
legal immunity from certain kinds of actions being brought against them,
in exchange for a commitment to provide service to _anyone_ who can pay
the costs, and some regulatory oversight of their pricing structure.
You =can= play in the telephony biz, on a limited scale, _without_ being
a regulated common carrier. There are some advantages to this, and some
*BIG* disadvantages to this. There -are- people who do it, and make a
reasonable business of it
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 22:40:02 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <c26.5ce02792.375f2582@aol.com>
In a message dated 6/8/2009 5:01:54 PM Central Daylight Time,
wb8foz@panix.com writes:
> 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.
And businesses have to pay taxes to Disney.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
***** Moderator's Note *****
Not exactly telecom, but I'm allowing it because it touches on other
threads and raises interesting questions.
Such as:
1. Is the Walt Disney Corporation the government in Disneyworld?
If I commit a crime there, will I be arrested by a Disney
employee and thrown into a Disney jail?
2. Is the phone company in Disneyworld owned by Disney? Could they
refuse to allow/accept calls to/from other businesses, cities,
or countries that they don't choose to?
3. Is Disney the ISP for Disneyworld? Could/do they monitor/censor
the sites I visit or the emails I send and receive while I'm
there?
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 22:47:27 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <c02.5d2c9151.375f273f@aol.com>
In a message dated 6/8/2009 5:12:18 PM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> 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.
Dial pulsing takes longer to complete (usually) than Touch-Tone
and so there is longer holding time for the equipment and software
receiving the called number, and more registers have to be provided to
accomodate the longer times [during which] that equipment is held up
[because of] dial pulsing.
Probably much less significant that in the early days of touch
tone when most phones were dial pulse. The traditional backward
compatibilty for the phone network requires dial puling to still be
supported.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 22:16:16 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <d60.4e513f80.375f1ff0@aol.com>
In a message dated 6/8/2009 7:45:38 AM Central Daylight Time,
sam@coldmail.com writes:
> I disconnected my fax line recently. It is an obsolete technology.
It may be obsolete technology but it is used by probably millions of
businesses.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
***** Moderator's Note *****
I think fax machines have become a "gap" technology which allows their
users to see a signed document even though they don't have time to
wait for an original document to arrive via snail mail.
Fax machines served their purpose, by giving those who couldn't afford
a TELEX or TWX a lower-cost way to send a written message, and (as we
all know) eventually replaced both services. However, fax machines are
not yet obsolete, for two reasons:
1. Not everyone has access to email, and fax goes wherever there is a
phone.
2. People want to see a signed document, even if they're holding a
copy.
Although public-key-authentication allows electronic documents to be
signed - with greater ease, less expense, and in a way which can't be
forged or denied - adoption of the Public-Key Infrastructure (PKI)
will take another generation or two. This is because the pace of
change has slowed, at least temporarily, while we all catch a breath
and get used to having the world at our fingertips.
Fax machines give us something to hold onto, both literally and
figuratively, which is why they're going to be around for the
foreseeable future.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFKLm8Va3Nozp/ED8MRAoeJAJ9umhhrny0h/RAzXcSiBS65elMfbACfXbPE
hMmD1OfbfIQBJ/3fffwRX8E=
=lQPx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 13:38:55 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <h0lolf$jdp$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <c02.5d2c9151.375f273f@aol.com> Wesrock@aol.com writes:
> Probably much less significant that in the early days of touch
>tone when most phones were dial pulse. The traditional backward
>compatibilty for the phone network requires dial puling to still be
>supported.
Most... of the VOIP adapters don't recognize
rotary dial phones but require Touch Tone.
(Hmmm, anyone know about FIOS?)
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 06:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <81bf66d1-f980-4bd3-b714-d52a0e16047a@o36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 9, 9:35 am, Wesr...@aol.com wrote:
> Dial pulsing takes longer to complete (usually) than Touch-Tone
> and so there is longer holding time for the equipment and software
> receiving the called number, and more registers have to be provided to
> accomodate the longer times [during which] that equipment is held up
> [because of] dial pulsing.
I don't think there is any more "equipment". As mentioned, the only
"equipment" for each line is a relay to indicate switch hook status
and this is always being scanned (as all other all lines) for
supervisory status. If dial pulses come through they are passed on to
the CPU, just as if on-hook and off-hook changes are passed on. It's
all done by software.
A telephone switch is a computer and the high speed of the CPU does
many different things while it is waiting for one action to finish.
It's similar to when you start printing a document and go on to
something else on your PC at the same time (or when you download a
file and do other work while it's downloading). The switch is not
sitting idle while you dial, it is handling other calls.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 11:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <7120ddbb-3554-4ce8-b983-a60a029ebc04@f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 9, 10:20 am, Wesr...@aol.com wrote:
> It may be obsolete technology but it [fax] is used by probably millions of
> businesses.
For reasons described elsewhere plenty of people still use fax.
One way of transmitting signed documents is creating a .pdf file and
sending that.
There are many technologies that might be "obsolete" but still in
use. What happens is that the usage simply goes down, but does not
stop. Plenty of people still post transactions and do calculations
using a No. 2 pencil, it's just a much smaller percentage of those
doing so in the distant past. (Sometimes it's just easier to add up
some numbers by hand than dig out a calculator or bring up a
spreadsheet program.)
In some cases obsolete technology represents an investment and the
equipment is still functioning. People with a perfectly good old
television set aren't trashing them, they're using cable or a
converter box. Many people have hard wired dial phones in their homes
or business, they still work and don't hurt anything, so they're left
in service. They're no longer a primary phone, but available for
convenience.
Sometimes "obsolescence" is exaggerated by marketers or techies
interested in pushing their product rather than true conditions.
There were some who saw VOIP as making other phone lines totally
obsolete, IMHO, they were jumping the gun.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:58:18 -0600
From: Robert Neville <dont@bother.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <qrst2558o1dl575squ75rhhashkeaad6k9@4ax.com>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>
>1. Is the Walt Disney Corporation the government in Disneyworld?
> If I commit a crime there, will I be arrested by a Disney
> employee and thrown into a Disney jail?
No, of course not. Government is a broad term. WDW is in the State of Florida,
and the County of Orlando. Depending on the nature of the infraction, either
could be called upon to assist with a criminal investigation. That said, just
like many other private educational and commercial facilities, Disney maintains
it's own security force and can enforce it's own security rules. I haven't
checked, but it wouldn't surprise me if Disney's security people weren't also
deputized by the county or state such that if they observed a law being broken,
they could detain the individual until government law enforcement arrived.
>2. Is the phone company in Disneyworld owned by Disney? Could they
> refuse to allow/accept calls to/from other businesses, cities,
> or countries that they don't choose to?
Certainly - just as with any other company, Disney can do what it likes with
it's internal phone system. If there are any private payphones on property,
Disney can set whatever rules it likes for their use, just as any other private
payphone operator can, subject to whatever rules Florida imposes on that type of
business.
I wouldn't be surprised if Disney operates it's own common cell tower system,
just like the Phoenix Cardinals do in their new stadium. Companies wishing to
serve the property bring their line to a common interface point and Disney takes
it from there. Keeps antennas from springing up like barncles all over the place
and ensures a quality signal reaches everywhere.
>3. Is Disney the ISP for Disneyworld? Could/do they monitor/censor
> the sites I visit or the emails I send and receive while I'm
> there?
That rather depends on who you are using as an ISP while you are there, doesn't
it? If you have a broadband card, no. If you just fire up your wifi card and
connect to a Disney AP, then yes, they probably could. Still no different than
anywhere else off Disney property.
I think a lot of the confusion stems from the previous reference to Reedy Creek
Improvement District. IIRC, Disney set that up to operate certain services that
area traditionally provided by local government (water, sewer, fire, etc.).
Since the Disney propery is so huge, those services weren't available.
Presumably by making RCID a quasi public group, they qualified for the same
funding and tax authority that a local government would have.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:39:05 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Melted coax (was: ANI vs. Caller ID)
Message-ID: <siegman-2B077A.19383508062009@news.stanford.edu>
In article <4A2D6E81.9000100@annsgarden.com>,
Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
> 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...
For many of us in the optics trade, it's fairly common to speak of
infrared wavelengths from the red edge of the visible, around 7000
Angstroms or 0.7 microns, out to a few microns, maybe 2 or 3 microns, as
the "near IR"; and the longer infrared wavelengths, out around 10 or 20
microns and beyond, as the "far IR" or the long-wave infrared region.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Which wavelength(s) of light are used for fiber-optic transmission? Do
single-mode and multimode fibers require different wavelengths?
Sorry if this is Optical Sci 101.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:47:06 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Melted coax (was: ANI vs. Caller ID)
Message-ID: <Md6dnd39-ZmHPbPXnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <siegman-2B077A.19383508062009@news.stanford.edu>,
AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
>In article <4A2D6E81.9000100@annsgarden.com>,
> Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>
>> 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...
>
>For many of us in the optics trade, it's fairly common to speak of
>infrared wavelengths from the red edge of the visible, around 7000
>Angstroms or 0.7 microns, out to a few microns, maybe 2 or 3 microns, as
>the "near IR"; and the longer infrared wavelengths, out around 10 or 20
>microns and beyond, as the "far IR" or the long-wave infrared region.
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>Which wavelength(s) of light are used for fiber-optic transmission?
Whatever works best for the particular fiber deployed. <grin>
As I recall, something around 640nm is very common for fiber in the 'visible'
spectrum. Easy to get laser diodes for, and easy to get _safety_ gear (eye
protctors) for.
> Do
>single-mode and multimode fibers require different wavelengths?
In theory, "no"; in practice, because of other differing optical
characteristics between the two types of fiber, "yes".
>
>Sorry if this is Optical Sci 101.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:49:51 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Fiber optic transmission
Message-ID: <siegman-76C883.10492109062009@news.stanford.edu>
Moderator asked:
>
> Which wavelength(s) of light are used for fiber-optic transmission? Do
> single-mode and multimode fibers require different wavelengths?
>
If by "fiber-optical transmission" you mean for _telecom_ applications,
the answer is, wavelengths from around 8000 A (0.8 microns) in the near
IR out to about 1.5 microns, with heavy preference for the 1.3 to 1.5
micron bands.
Reason is, even if you can get rid of all kinds of attenuation
associated with absorbing impurities in glass (and current fiber
technology is really just astoundingly good at doing that), you are left
with an unavoidable (though pretty small) scattering loss in glass
fibers, which decreases rapidly with increasing wavelength out to just
beyond 1.5 microns, beyond which some other absorption mechanisms in the
glass rapidly turn on.
This inherent scattering loss is associated with the fact that the local
index of refraction in glass (or any transparent material) has minute,
but inherent,and unavoidable, randomly time-varying local variations
associated with thermal vibrations of the molecules in the glass; and
this produces a correspondingly minute but unavoidable scattering loss.
So, with very good sources (diode lasers), photodetectors, and
amplifiers (EDFAs: Erbium Doped Fiber Amplifiers) now available in the
1.3 to 1.5 micron range (and plenty of bandwidth available just within
that range), that's the region of choice, at least for high data rate,
long distance transmission.
Whether a fiber at any wavelength is single-mode or multimode depends
entirely on the diameter of the fiber core relative to the wavelength,
and the index difference between core and cladding. Small enough core
diameter (down around a few wavelengths): single mode. Larger core
diameter (many wavelengths): multimode, with number of modes increasing
rapidly with increasing diameter beyond that.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 11:42:26 -0500
From: Doug McIntyre <merlyn@geeks.org>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Melted coax (was: ANI vs. Caller ID)
Message-ID: <20090609164226.GA10388@themcintyres.us>
***** Moderator's Note *****
> Which wavelength(s) of light are used for fiber-optic transmission? Do
> single-mode and multimode fibers require different wavelengths?
Its different for different technologies.
SONET (ie. OC-x) uses 1550nm.
CWDM/DWDM is popular ways to use more capacity on fiber, and those
frequencies are centered around 1550nm, and branch out either direction.
(ie. 8-band CWDM is 1470nm to 1610nm)
Ethernet over single-mode fiber is 1310nm.
Ethernet over multi-mode fiber is 850nm.
There are a few obscolecent ones (ie. 1300nm multimode).
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 00:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: monkeysaunt <kmakhl@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <e70b1391-7b54-4a4b-b4ca-cd2a1833a107@h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 8, 7:12 pm, Steven Lichter <diespamm...@ikillspammers.com>
wrote:
> 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.
Why are they dropping it? The same reason my ISP dropped the Usenet -
very few users.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Given that the Digest is gatewayed to Usenet and receives many of its
contributions via NNTP servers, I disagree in our particular case. ;-)
This touches on a larger issue, though: attempts being made to
privatize sections of the Internet such as Usenet. Various telco's
have already attempted to carve out a share of the revenue generated
by ISP's and search engines and various other portals, claiming that
they own the wires and are therefore entitled to install electronic
toll gates on them. Usenet itself, although viable now, is being
pushed aside by advertiser-supported venues such as yahoo and google,
both of which have large, and growing, "groups" sections that users
must register to use.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:07:04 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <JTvXl.19474$pr6.9785@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com>
monkeysaunt wrote:
> On Jun 8, 7:12 pm, Steven Lichter <diespamm...@ikillspammers.com>
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Why are they dropping it? The same reason my ISP dropped the Usenet -
> very few users.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Given that the Digest is gatewayed to Usenet and receives many of its
> contributions via NNTP servers, I disagree in our particular case. ;-)
>
> This touches on a larger issue, though: attempts being made to
> privatize sections of the Internet such as Usenet. Various telco's
> have already attempted to carve out a share of the revenue generated
> by ISP's and search engines and various other portals, claiming that
> they own the wires and are therefore entitled to install electronic
> toll gates on them. Usenet itself, although viable now, is being
> pushed aside by advertiser-supported venues such as yahoo and google,
> both of which have large, and growing, "groups" sections that users
> must register to use.
>
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderator
>
I tried to find either a new ISP with the Usenet or someone that
supplies Usenet, both either don't carry it or charge extra, trying to
get an answer from AT&T is a waste since the support is in India.
--
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: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:12:16 -0400
From: Steve Stone <spfleck@citlink.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <h0m8ma$93p$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Here is a free text only newsgroup source..
> http://news.motzarella.org/
> Welcome to news.motzarella.org
>
> news.motzarella.org is a private project providing free access to
> text-only Usenet News. The server has a 100MBit connection to several
> Internet backbones and is integrated into the Usenet via more than
> 60 peers.
>
> Free access to the news server
> news.motzarella.org provides free read and write access to all
> text newsgroups. It requires a registration that can be done online.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:12:06 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <tmzXl.12925$im1.623@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>
Steve Stone wrote:
> Here is a free text only newsgroup source..
>
>> http://news.motzarella.org/
>
>> Welcome to news.motzarella.org
>>
>> news.motzarella.org is a private project providing free access to
>> text-only Usenet News. The server has a 100MBit connection to several
>> Internet backbones and is integrated into the Usenet via more than 60
>> peers.
>>
>> Free access to the news server
>> news.motzarella.org provides free read and write access to all text
>> newsgroups. It requires a registration that can be done online.
>
I logged on and signed up, now all I have to do is configure it to my
reader which happens to be theirs; Thunderbird.
--
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: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 10:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <b63e00ce-8562-40ca-ae4d-690a776adce8@z19g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
***** Moderator's Note *****
>Usenet itself, although viable now, is being
> pushed aside by advertiser-supported venues such as yahoo and google,
> both of which have large, and growing, "groups" sections that users
> must register to use.
There is no registration to read Usenet via Google.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Nor on Yahoo, but those who want to post on either system have to go
through a vetting process. In either case, as much as half the screen is
taking up by ads, many keyed to the subject matter in the post(s) a
viewer chooses to read.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:02:13 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <cdzXl.12921$im1.7743@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>
>> Usenet itself, although viable now, is being
>> pushed aside by advertiser-supported venues such as yahoo and google,
>> both of which have large, and growing, "groups" sections that users
>> must register to use.
>
> There is no registration to read Usenet via Google.
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Nor on Yahoo, but those who want to post on either system have to go
> through a vetting process. In either case, as much as half the screen is
> taking up by ads, many keyed to the subject matter in the post(s) a
> viewer chooses to read.
>
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderator
I have used Google [and I] don't really like the way it runs, plus you
can't block your address: I used it a long time ago and my g-mail
account is still usless. Don't know anything about Yahoo, guess I'll
look.
--
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: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:04:29 +0000 (UTC)
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Pulse vs. touch tone, was ANI
Message-ID: <h0l52d$22t8$1@gal.iecc.com>
>Pulse costs them more than Touch Tone? Why?
Because it's slower. When you're dialing a number, the switch needs
to allocate a digit buffer (which has some other telco name I forget)
until you've dialed all the digits, and that takes several times
longer with pulse dialing. The switch needs to include enough buffers
to handle the peak hour number of simultaneously dialed calls.
Switches don't have pulse to tone converters. Old switches were
retrofitted with tone->pulse converters, but that was only because the
switches predated the invention of tone dialing.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 11:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Pulse vs. touch tone, was ANI
Message-ID: <a93baf60-0030-4dd5-80ed-9769be124637@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 9, 9:53 am, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
> Because it's slower. When you're dialing a number, the switch needs
> to allocate a digit buffer (which has some other telco name I forget)
> until you've dialed all the digits, and that takes several times
> longer with pulse dialing. The switch needs to include enough buffers
> to handle the peak hour number of simultaneously dialed calls.
I believe a switch has some sort of status word containing various
details of the call, and this exists for the duration of the call. It
is built as the call progresses.
In any event, computer memory is so incredibly cheap these days the
cost of a some extra memory is trivial relative to the total cost of
the switch. Think about how cheap PC memory has become and how much
you get today compared to just ten years ago, let alone 20 years ago.
There is no extra cost to provide pulse dialing.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:45:00 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <MPG.249893d26ae9018989a46@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <Cd3Xl.21039$IP7.4488@newsfe23.iad>, sam@coldmail.com says...
>
> 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 $6,000 a second and can't drop off.
> >
>
> I disconnected my fax line recently. It is an obsolete technology.
I'm working with the Marriage Equality RI group and one of the issues
that came up was fax. We asked how often they fax and couldn't get an
answer so no fax machine was installed.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:57:52 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <MPG.249896dc25d3e816989a47@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <X0iXl.5745$fD.4450@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com>,
diespammers@ikillspammers.com says...
>
> 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.
I don't know, I've been using Motzarella for some time and it's fairly
reliable.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 22:45:44 -0400
From: Randall <rvh40@insightbb.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Faxes and other obsolete technology
Message-ID: <396E0707-E0C1-4BB1-9863-42AF4E3A689E@insightbb.com>
>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>
>I disconnected my fax line recently. It is an obsolete technology.
Of course it is obsolete. So is newsprint - but the New York TImes
still buys an awful lot of it.
We probably get 50-100 pages of faxes a day, for seven lawyers.
--
The war on privilege will never end. Its next great campaign will be
against the privileges of the underprivileged. H. L. Mencken
------------------------------
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 (24 messages)
******************************
|
or 