29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for July 08, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 168 : "text" Format
====== 29 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ====== |
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Bill Horne and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. - Geoffrey Welsh
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
|
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:31:34 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon confirms unlimited iPhone data plans no longer offered come Thursday
Message-ID: <Qa-dnR29kJvokYjTnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Monty Solomon wrote:
> Verizon confirms unlimited iPhone data plans no longer offered come Thursday
>
> By Neil Hughes
>
> Starting Thursday, new smartphone customers with Verizon Wireless,
> including those who buy an iPhone, will no longer be able to purchase
> the carrier's unlimited data plan, AppleInsider has confirmed.
>
> This Thursday, July 7, is when Verizon will begin offering its
> "usage-based" billing for mobile customers, spokeswoman Debra Lewis
> said. The change will not affect current smartphone customers of
> Verizon.
>
> In addition, current smartphone customers who are upgrade-eligible
> will be allowed to move to another smartphone and retain their plan.
> But new customers or current customers who do not have a smartphone
> plan will only be able to buy a "usage-based" plan, Lewis told
> AppleInsider on Tuesday.
>
> ...
>
> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/07/05/verizon_confirms_unlimited_iphone_data_plans_no_longer_offered_come_thursday.html
>
Proves once again, how fragile the wireless data system is.
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:52:26 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon confirms unlimited iPhone data plans no longer offered come Thursday
Message-ID: <CALtjCnK4ihU4sfpBm7tMik_871oeRE8Ej_ouAXZgJXZqPz=_bg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
> Proves once again, how fragile the wireless data system is.
I don't know if this is related.
I'm with AT&T Mobility and was always puzzled by the AT&T hate. I've
always had great speeds, good call quality, and no dropped calls.
I've recently visited New England and the Atlanta areas with my phone
and it was HORRIBLE. I had EDGE speed most of the time and missed
calls (they just never came through). The sort of issues I've had
with other providers in the Austin area.
I'm still confused how I can have so much better service in a
hilly/mountainous country like Malaysia for half the price. Maybe
fewer people using the bandwidth? If they can do it, why can't we?
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:42:29 -0400
From: "T. Keating" <tkusenet@ktcnslt.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: "Underground" demarc?
Message-ID: <hge917l55a2cni5ms0etmuoq8k7e2bi7ol@4ax.com>
On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 10:59:42 -0700 (PDT), grumpy44134
<grumpy44134@gmail.com> wrote:
>My friend is having an intermittent problem with her home phone. I
>told her to find the gray demarc/Telephone Network Interface (Ohio)
>box. After not being able to find it, she reminded me her power and
>telephone wires were underground to her house. Question - where is
>the demarc for underground telephone service (in Ohio)?
Look for the electric service meter and power main disconnect.
The teleco demarc should be close to it, (for grounding/bonding
purposes).
Date: 7 Jul 2011 14:52:28 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: "Underground" demarc?
Message-ID: <20110707145228.71637.qmail@joyce.lan>
>Look for the electric service meter and power main disconnect.
>
>The teleco demarc should be close to it, (for grounding/bonding
>purposes).
Often, but not always. On our house the meters (day/night) are on the
front, the phone is on the side with its own ground spike, and the main
breaker is in the basement, but there's no phone wire down there.
Admittedly, both phone and power were retrofitted in this house
probably 50 years after it was built, and in new construction it's
more typical for it all to be together.
R's,
John
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:20:50 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: "Underground" demarc?
Message-ID: <ju-dnYmQ5-Y_XonTnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <78a08c2d-f52e-4363-82b2-786d7fe76889@e7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,
Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Jul 4, 3:18 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>> IF there is no NID, per se, then, generally, the telco 'legal liability'
>> is up to the first splice point in the wiring, 'at or inside' the building.
>> Things can get complicated if the structure is something like a townhouse.
>
>What is the definition of the "first splice piont in the wiring"? Is
>that where the house line branches out of the cable, where the line
>splits to serve various extension telephones in the dwelling, or
>something else?
For [those] who cannot read, I repeat: "'at or inside' the building." This
clearly eliminates the first alternative in the [above] question.
As for the rest, "it depends'. On how the wiring is done, and where
the end of the wire to the building is.
>What is the policy for older multi-family housing? Ours has a large
>junction box that serves many dwelling units. In a sense, this
>junction box could be seen as a demarc, but since many people are
>served by it, I would think access is restricted to phone co personnel
>only (to avoid accidental or intentional disruption to someone else's
>service, plus, the terminals could be poorly labeled.)
What you think is 'immaterial and irrelevant'. There is an old saying
that "logic and the law have nothing in common."
The telco liability, in all probability does end at that junction box.
IN GENERAL, the unit owner is responsible only for all the in-unit wiring,
the building owner is responsible for the in-building wiring before it
reaches the individual unit, and the telco responsibility at the main junction
box. Condo's can be more complicated -- the assn. may be responsible for
everything that is 'inside a wall'.
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: "Underground" demarc?
Message-ID: <bdb64fca-361d-4f6c-b1fd-11d49657f59d@b21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 6, 11:10 am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >In my (limited) experience, even if there's no official demarc,
> >there's invariably a lightning protection block, with four or more
> >screw terminals, cylindrical fuses, and a ground wire.
>
> That block is, for all legal purposes, the demarc. You own the wiring
> after it, they own the wiring before it.
Ok, but how does it work if above "block" handles a group of dwelling
units (as does the unit where I live)? I don't think it would be a
good idea for individuals to be fooling around in a junction box that
serves multiple customers.
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 08:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John C. Fowler" <johnfpublic@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: "Underground" demarc?
Message-ID: <1310050918.6215.YahooMailClassic@web34206.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:09:52 -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa or Jeff) wrote:
> Ok, but how does it work if above "block" handles a group of dwelling
> units (as does the unit where I live)? I don't think it would be a
> good idea for individuals to be fooling around in a junction box that
> serves multiple customers.
We're talking about the law, not what is or is not a good idea. :-)
The demarc is just where "Telephone Company" responsibility ends and
"someone else owns this" begins. If you're in an apartment complex,
the complex is responsible from that point (and getting something
fixed from the demarc to your jack depends on how nice the apartment
complex is). If it's a condo, then the association is probably
responsible.
I once lived in an apartment that gave all of its tenants keys to the
closet containing the main punchdown block for the whole facility, so
that anyone could let the phone company in for maintenance. Of
course, that also meant anyone could go in and mess up someone else's
wiring, or make outgoing calls on someone else's line, etc. Needless
to say, I got 900-number call blocking while living there. There
weren't any real problems, though, just theoretical ones.
--
John C. Fowler, johnfpublic@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:28:21 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Battery power support today
Message-ID: <ju-dnYiQ5-b4WInTnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <iuv24k$c35$1@reader1.panix.com>,
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>In <b19be6af-9e2a-4bdf-a63e-f54edfaad978@gh5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
>Tom Horne <hornetd@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>You seem to be leaving out the fact that the outside linemen that
>>maintain these lines are exposed at very close proximity to them and
>>have been since the first AC transmission lines were built. If there
>>was a health effect from exposure to EMF, at power distribution
>>frequencies, then it would have shown up by now. Add to that the
>>Union operation of the linemens' health plans in many areas since
>>just after WWII and you can see that any trend of increased morbidity
>>or mortality would have become known by now.
>
>Or, for that matter, the various crew members
>aboard a diesel-electric train locomotive. They'd
>be spending pretty much their entire workdays
>pretty close to a big generator...
>
>
>--
>_____________________________________________________
>Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
> dannyb@panix.com
>[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>Ah, but it's a DC generator! No changing fields!
Railroads have been using AC traction, for some units, since the 1970s or
maybe even earlier.
A LOT of overhead catenary service is also AC. This facilitates transmission
at high voltage (multiple kilovolt) with 'on-board' reduction to levels
more suitable for drive motors.
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Battery power support today
Message-ID: <a702738b-a993-4ab1-b7ee-ccdf78d107ae@gv8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 5, 8:53 pm, Wes Leatherock <wleat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Many of the newer locomotives are built with alternators. It's a
> growing trend. DC is better in some cases, but AC in others,
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> Another preconceived notion destroyed! If a man can't make up the
> truth, what's the world going to come to?!
Historically, diesel-electric railroad locomotives used DC motors for
traction. But new electronic control technology allows the use of AC
motors which apparently offer superior low speed service, such as
moving a heavy train up a mountain. I understand there are other
advantages to AC motors (fewer wearing parts?) but I'm not sure what
they are.
I believe such locomotives generate AC, rectifier to DC, then convert
it back to AC for traction usage; apparently the frequency is varied
to drive the motor. (There are others who can explain modern AC
traction better than I can). What confuses me is why bother to
convert to DC and back to AC instead of merely generating at AC and
using that?
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:49:49 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Battery power support today
Message-ID: <zN-dndor7MrwV4nTnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <pan.2011.07.05.12.15.31.627471@yahoo.com.au>,
David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 13:39:01 -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>.........
>> The simple fact is that a toaster, electric waffle-iron, electric
>> refrigerator, window air-conditioner, or _especially_ an electric stove,
>> generates a stronger field within the room it is in than an electric power
>> line at 1000' does.
>
>Not to mention electric blankets - imagine the amount of field strength
>virtually surrounding you for an extended period for those who disregard
>the warnings and have them powered up whilst they sleep!
Electric blankets are a non-issue, even relatively speaking. They are
relatively low-power devices (i.e. around 150 watts) to start with, and
that power is split across something like 20 or 30 separate wires running
the length of the blanket. So you're looking at maybe 5-10 watts from
each wire in the blanket, assuming it's all the way on. At a typical
mid-range (or lower) setting for 'on all night' use, it's more like 2 watts
per wire. Despite the relatively close proximity, This pales into
insignificance relative to the 1500 watts powering a toaster, or the 5
kilowatts or so feeding an electric stove.
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 09:42:15 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Battery power support today
Message-ID: <iv4gkb$6u8$1@dont-email.me>
On 7/6/2011 3:49 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> Electric blankets are a non-issue, even relatively speaking. They are
> relatively low-power devices (i.e. around 150 watts) to start with, and
> that power is split across something like 20 or 30 separate wires running
> the length of the blanket. So you're looking at maybe 5-10 watts from
> each wire in the blanket, assuming it's all the way on.
All the electric blankets I've seen had a single wire per control
unit, that ran in a serpentine fashion lengthwise. So the current is
the same everywhere (about 800 ma, if the blanket or side is 100W). I
believe that field strength will be related to current, rather than
wattage. The traditional controller (don't know about modern ones,
but the one on my elderly electric blanket) is an on-off device that
varies heat by varying duty cycle, a clever design from the days
before semiconductors.
One thing that does reduce the field is that modern electric blankets
have the wire run in pairs, so that the "up" and "down" wires are very
close together, which would tend to cancel the field. ISTM that's a
relatively new feature, in response to concerns about the electric fields.
At a typical
> mid-range (or lower) setting for 'on all night' use, it's more like 2 watts
> per wire. Despite the relatively close proximity, This pales into
> insignificance relative to the 1500 watts powering a toaster, or the 5
> kilowatts or so feeding an electric stove.
>
The blanket's conductors are very close to you, though, less than a
half inch at closest approach. And the exposure time (4 hr/day
assuming a 50% duty cycle and 8 hours in bed) is much longer than a
toaster (a few minutes/day).
I'd guess a toaster would also have a lot of field cancellation, since
the heating elements run back and forth. And it's usually got a steel
case, which would provide some shielding.
Dave
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 07:42:10 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: System Clock Apparently Gaining One Second Every 30 Minutes
Message-ID: <siegman-B5122E.07421007072011@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>
Re mysterious computer time glitches, and the NERC 60 Hz story:
In article <slrnj1acpi.9at.gsm@cable.mendelson.com>,
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote:
> There may have been a telephone based service where you got clock pulses
> from the atomic clock (I think there is only one in the country that is
> available to civilians), but those days are long gone.
>
Just for the record, a few days ago I found in a drawer one of those
Oregon Scientific battery-powered weather gadgets with a couple of
remote temperature gauges. Changed the batteries, set it on a shelf in
my office, within a day or so it had accurately self-synched it's date
and time to somebody's broadcasts out of the ether . (Except it won't
and I can't push its Year beyond 2004; it had been in that drawer for a
while.)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of The Telecom Digest (12 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues