|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 160 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: 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: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 04:42:05 +0000 (UTC)
From: Joseph Pine <josephpine@invalid.invalid>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <Xns9C27F11B2B602mailnomailorg@85.214.105.209>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> Is The Well still in business?
http://www.well.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <bc705374-ffb6-4cc7-b5ac-05d72e1c95c8@p5g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 11, 9:32 am, "Who Me?" <hitchhi...@dont.panic> wrote:
> If the "big guys" don't care about spam, it's because biger routers
> and fatter pipes are cheaper than the cost of controlling it.
This is a very important point in the communications and information
processing world. Electronics for hardware has become incredibly
cheap while labor continues to go up.
If an ISP were to _properly_ verify its users' identity and monitor
usage to avoid abuse, it would have to expend considerable human time
to do. That's very expensive.
But now hardware is so cheap and powerful we don't have to worry about
that stuff as much (we still should to some extent).
Thus, it becomes simpler and easier, especially in the short run, to
simply buy a bigger disk and pipe than truly deal with a problem.
Compounding the problem is that there's no coordination or resolve.
That is, even if one ISP works hard at it, he will still get flooded
with spam from others, so he'll _still_ need the bigger pipe.
From the birth of information processing machines software developers
have always devoted considerable effort to shaving off bits and
processing cycles to squeeze out as much productivity from the machine
as possible. In the very beginning this effort was extremely
intensive--programmers worked in assembler/machine language (the
lowest level) to carefully optimize performance. Later, faster and
bigger machines allowed higher level languages (eg COBOL, FORTRAN),
but even then programmers still need optimization techniques. For
instance, computers have several ways of doing arithmetic, and
programmers used the most appropriate way for the circumstances. The
wrong way would greatly increase run time. Likewise with memory--
early computer screens and reported made heavy use of coded
abbreviations to save space.
It is this cheap hardware that gives us unlimited long distance
telephone service and very cheap wireless service. These services
require massive amounts of computing power (both switches and carrier
terminals), but the computers are cheap.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:45:43 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <h0tt7a$9p9$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Gary wrote:
> "John Mayson" <john@mayson.us> wrote in message
> news:6645152a0906101234v6d65271pd05488eaac666b5d@mail.gmail.com...
>> I really hope USENET isn't dying. My first taste of the Internet was
>> via USENET in 1987 and I've been hooked every since.
>
> It isn't dying. It's dead. All of the groups I used to frequent have long
> lost quality, relevant discussions.
>
> Even this group, which still has some good discussions, is a pale shadow of
> it's past glory. It is very rare that we'll see a discussion of current
> issues or technology here; when many years ago it was the norm. This group
> used to get well over 200 messages a day.
>
> All of the other comp.* groups that I used to read have gone silent, except
> for the occasional spam.
>
> If you want further proof, ask anyone under the age of 30 if they know about
> Usenet. Chances are you'll have better luck playing Powerball...
>
> As to why I'm still here? Good question. Mostly because I'm stubborn and I
> general don't like web interfaces for forums. I haven't found any web based
> forums that provide anywhere near SNR that used to exist in the good USENET
> forums. So, I stick around Usenet mostly out of habit.
>
> -Gary
>
It might be the newsgroups you read. The old Apple 2 in popular again
and busy.
As to the posting here, you are right there are not as many, that maybe
because Pat only did the newsgroup, plus he posted a lot of posting
that repeated themselves.
--
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: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:38:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <200906121938.n5CJcAVK022470@mail.r-bonomi.com>
In article <35826016-93e5-4732-93e6-ef465309857c@z20g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Jun 11, 3:43 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> It takes longer. It's holding the line up... and you can't bill the use
>> of the line until the call supervision kicks in. So you have equipment
>> and lines tied up for something you can't bill.
>
>The revenue loss from this must be inconsequential.
>
>Here's why: First, it would only apply to toll colls where there is a
>usage charge, not local calls.
Do you have *any* idea how much of the country now has _usage-based_billing_
for *LOCAL* calls as well as for 'long-distance' calls?
Hint: in terms of 'number of lines', the figure is in the 70-80% range.
[[ remainder of argument based on false premise removed ]]
The issue is the length of time, _PER_CALL_PLACED_, that the appropriate
'digit decoding' gear has to be attached to the customer circuit. The shorter
that time-period, the fewer instances of such gear it takes to handle a
given call volume, and the *lower* the 'cost' of handling each call becomes.
This applies whether the decoding gear is outboard hardware, or a 'polling'
pure software routine.
>In the terms above--wasteful occupancy of equipment--requiring ten
>digit dialing for all calls is far more wasteful.
FALSE TO FACT.
How long does it take, on average, to 'pulse dial' a 7 digit number?
How long does it take, on average, to 'tone dial' a 7 digit number?
(the ratio of those numbers -- over 400%(!!) for manually-dialed calls --
shows how wasteful it is to use pulse dialing. include 'machine-dialed'
calls, e.g. dial-out modems, fax machines, etc. and it is over _1000%_)
How long does it take, on average, to 'dial' a 7 digit number?
How long does it take, on average, to 'dial' a 10 digit number?
[use the same form of dialing -- tone *OR* pulse -- for both timings]
(the ratio of those numbers -- about 42%, regardless of the dialing method
used -- shows how "wasteful" it is to use 10-digit dialing when it is not
required. )
Thus, pulse-dial over tone dial is some 400+% more expensive in digit-decoder
resource time requirement, while 10-digit dialing is only about about 42%
more than 7-digit dialing. Thus, 10-digit vs 7-digit dialing is about
_one-tenth_ the extra overhead of pulse vs tone.
> That is, if the desire is to reduce equipment occupancy, then ten
> digit dialing ought to be eliminated. In a great many cases it was
> unnecessary and only introduced as a matter of _social policy,_ not
> technical need, so as to make it easier for newcomer companies to come
> in.
FALSE TO FACT.
The primary motivation for 10-digit dialing was to provide "parity of
service" between numbers in the 'pre-existing' areacode and the new
one. For businesses, this 'parity' _is_ a *BIG*DEAL* -- it has a large
impact on "retaining" customers.
The 'people who pay the bills', i.e. the cusomters of the phone company,
raised a big stink about (in the case of overlay codes) people _within_
the same geographic area getting a 'new' number and having to dial
differently to reach them at their 'old' number. Suppose a competitor
opened a new office in the area, and got "their" number in the new areacode;
just dialing the 'local' (7-digit) number in the same geograph area got
you different companies, depending on which number you were calling from.
*NOT*GOOD* from a business standpoint. Either you give the company all
"their" numbers in the new area-code -- almost totally defeating the purpose
of adding a new areacode; or you have to make everybody dial the same way
to reach anybody/anything within the area.
The only alternative to an areacode overlay is an areacode "split" -- which
only makes -half- the people change their dialing pattern. Why should the
half (that stayed in the old AC) get better treatment than those who were
'forced' into the new one? Plus the fact that the -next- time you split,
you similarly inconvenience half the people in the (original) half that is
currently being split.
>Further, the requirement of ten digits introduces more chance of
>subscriber error which means wasted use of equipment and subscriber
>annoyance from wrong numbers.
"Assume" 1 call in 10 is mis-dialed -- reality is more like 1:200-1:500,
or less, but assume 1:10 for the sake of argument.
That boosts the penalty for 10-digit vs 7-digit dialing (within the same
method) from 42% to just over 46%, vs. the 400+% penalty for pulse dialing
over tone.
Wow, the 'pulse penalty' is greater than the '10-digit penalty' by only a
factor of 9:1 instead of 10:1.
Factor in the share of calls that are placed by various kinds of 'auto-dial'
equipment (which use short tones, and minimal inter-digit spacing) -- things
like modems, fax machine, push-button speed-dialers, etc. -- and the advantage
("on average") of DTMF over pulse dialing is up in the 7-800% range. (Auto-
mation can speed up DTMF dialing more than it is possible to speed up pulse
dialing.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <a2fd25bd-a733-4394-bbd1-a6aba1447c8d@j18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 12, 6:51 pm, Robert Bonomi <bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
> Do you have *any* idea how much of the country now has
_usage-based_billing_
> for *LOCAL* calls as well as for 'long-distance' calls?
>
> Hint: in terms of 'number of lines', the figure is in the 70-80% range.
You are saying 70-80% of landlines have local usage based billing?
Where did you come up with that figure?
What is the percentage of subscribers still using rotary service? My
guess it's about 10% for residential lines, if that much, and 1% for
business lines. In terms of percentage of submitted calls, it's even
less. Even if there were hardware devices as you describe, the
traffic of rotary calls must be extremely low.
> The issue is the length of time, _PER_CALL_PLACED_, that the appropriate
> 'digit decoding' gear has to be attached to the customer circuit.
AFAIK, there is no such thing _today_ as "digit decoding gear". As
mentoined before, all lines must be scanned often for on-off hook
status. Dial pulsing is collected as part of that scanning. No extra
hardware is required. The translation from dial pulses or Touch Tone
signals to whatever the switch uses internally is done by software.
If there is a citation describing that modern switches have a hardware
device for digit decoding, could you share it?
> This applies whether the decoding gear is outboard hardware, or a 'polling'
> pure software routine.
Software is not "tied up" on a computer when it is waiting for input.
The CPU goes on to do something else. (Interrupt handling is beyond
the scope of the discussion).
> How long does it take, on average, to 'pulse dial' a 7 digit number?
> How long does it take, on average, to 'tone dial' a 7 digit number?
When you visit a website, the server is not "tied up" while it waits
for you to think or type in stuff. It only acts when you're finished.
> FALSE TO FACT.
>
> The primary motivation for 10-digit dialing was to provide "parity of
> service" between numbers in the 'pre-existing' areacode and the new
> one. For businesses, this 'parity' _is_ a *BIG*DEAL* -- it has a large
> impact on "retaining" customers.
You confirmed my statement. "Parity of service" was so that newcomer
phonecos would not be at a disadvantage in attracting subscribers.
Likewise, so was number portability, which also adds unnecssary load
and expense to swtiching--which we all had to pay for, just to benefit
newcomers.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <c9cddda6-b749-4731-8ef7-14a79c3b3b37@c20g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 8, 10:12 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.
I think one reason users are abandoing Usenet is the increased
politics of discussions ("politicization"?). Unmoderated groups are
gettings lots of off topic posts (many crossposted) in support of or
in criticism of various politicians. Further, even in on-topic posts
people can't seem to resist including a little dig at the party/
politician they don't like. All sides (left-wing, right-wing and
nutcase-wing) do it equally.
There are of course times political policy is relevant to a
discussion, but now it's gotten ridiculous. The world is not gonna
come to the end 'cause Obama is now president, nor would've if McCain
was elected. If your pizza delivery is late today it's not Obama's
fault, nor if it was late last year it's not Bush's fault; no matter
how much you're convinced their meddling or lack thereof is
responsible. Further, there are many decisions made by govt that
would've been made _regardless_ of the party in power.
Another reason is web-forums that are moderated, which seem to attract
more people than Usenet. On one newsgroup I participate in, from time
to time someone references a post from a moderated web forum, and I'm
surprised to see that that forum has much more activity than the
Usenet newsgroup.
------------------------------
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 (6 messages)
******************************
|
or 