|
|
The Telecom Digest for June 23, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 169 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: One nation, online (John Mayson)
Re: One nation, online (Scott Dorsey)
Re: Inside the mind of the anonymous online poster (David Clayton)
Re: Inside the mind of the anonymous online poster (Garrett Wollman)
Re: Inside the mind of the anonymous online poster (David Clayton)
Vuvuzela = dial tone? (Joseph Singer)
Re: Vuvuzela = dial tone? (David Clayton)
at&t/BellSouth Retiring Two More 1AESS C.O.Switches (Mark J. Cuccia)
Re: FTC: say goodbye to "Stacey at Account Holder Services" (Scott Dorsey)
====== 28 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, 21 Jun 2010 18:36:25 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: One nation, online
Message-ID: <AANLkTil8iZ61UKzmiWwv8YTeQNONG95bIb0v726qVGIr@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>
> One nation, online
>
> The push to make broadband access a civil right
What would this mean exactly?
Free speech is a civil right in the United States, but the government
is under no obligation to pay for airtime or billboards for citizens.
We have to pay for it ourselves. Would broadband providers be forced
to offer their services to every corner of America as long as citizens
are willing to pony up the hundreds of dollars per month it would cost
to string it out to their locations?
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: 22 Jun 2010 13:30:07 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: One nation, online
Message-ID: <hvqruv$rtj$1@panix2.panix.com>
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>>
>> One nation, online
>>
>> The push to make broadband access a civil right
>
>What would this mean exactly?
>
>Free speech is a civil right in the United States, but the government
>is under no obligation to pay for airtime or billboards for citizens.
>We have to pay for it ourselves. Would broadband providers be forced
>to offer their services to every corner of America as long as citizens
>are willing to pony up the hundreds of dollars per month it would cost
>to string it out to their locations?
In an ideal world, it would mean that broadband network services would become
tariffed in the same way POTS lines are.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:59:11 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Inside the mind of the anonymous online poster
Message-ID: <pan.2010.06.22.08.59.07.925315@myrealbox.com>
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:11:05 +0000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <p0624084dc8446b4b86f6@[10.0.1.3]>, Monty Solomon
> <monty@roscom.com> cut-and-pasted a Boston Globe article which said in
> part:
>>Not long after that, Boston.com staffers take the drastic and relatively
>>rare step of turning off the comments function on that particular
>>article. (For certain types of stories, such as those involving personal
>>tragedies, the comments section is turned off from the start.) Poof -
>>hundreds of comments about Obama's aunt disappear.
>
> I don't understand why any serious news organization would allow anonymous
> comments on its Web site (with the exception, perhaps, of its editorials).
Because all old-media organisation are desperate to remain relevant and of
interest to the general population - and anything to increase the amount
of hits on the website helps in selling on-line advertising.
Damned if they do, further irrelevant if they don't in this age when any
mug (like me) can have their opinions spread world-wide at the touch of a
button.
Come the Revolution they'll explode the chip in our heads....
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:16:51 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Inside the mind of the anonymous online poster
Message-ID: <hvqnli$1lgh$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <pan.2010.06.22.08.59.07.925315@myrealbox.com>,
David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:11:05 +0000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>> I don't understand why any serious news organization would allow anonymous
>> comments on its Web site (with the exception, perhaps, of its editorials).
>Because all old-media organisation are desperate to remain relevant and of
>interest to the general population - and anything to increase the amount
>of hits on the website helps in selling on-line advertising.
How does throwing your credibility out the window increase hits? Or
are you saying that anonymous paranoiacs are a better audience for
online advertising than traditional newspaper readers?
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:26:50 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Inside the mind of the anonymous online poster
Message-ID: <pan.2010.06.22.22.26.47.969606@myrealbox.com>
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:16:51 +0000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <pan.2010.06.22.08.59.07.925315@myrealbox.com>, David Clayton
> <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:11:05 +0000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>
>>> I don't understand why any serious news organization would allow
>>> anonymous comments on its Web site (with the exception, perhaps, of its
>>> editorials).
>
>>Because all old-media organisation are desperate to remain relevant and
>>of interest to the general population - and anything to increase the
>>amount of hits on the website helps in selling on-line advertising.
>
> How does throwing your credibility out the window increase hits? Or are
> you saying that anonymous paranoiacs are a better audience for online
> advertising than traditional newspaper readers?
I'd think that they work on the premise that for all the "anonymous
paranoiacs" going to the site there are still more people that don't
bother to post like they do, so if the controversy appeals to "the masses"
then the more the merrier.
Not a good situation, but the way of the world these days when some
organisations are forced into a "race to the bottom" to survive.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Vuvuzela = dial tone?
Message-ID: <972212.6243.qm@web52708.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuvuzela the
Vuvuzela plays a single b-flat tone. If this is transposed down an
octave isn't it basically the same frequency of old style Bell System
city dial tone (also WECO 355/356 CDO's)? It's almost but not quite
the dial tone in some PBX's as well.
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:31:08 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Vuvuzela = dial tone?
Message-ID: <pan.2010.06.22.22.31.05.508474@myrealbox.com>
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:29:17 -0700, Joseph Singer wrote:
> According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuvuzela the
> Vuvuzela plays a single b-flat tone. If this is transposed down an
> octave isn't it basically the same frequency of old style Bell System
> city dial tone (also WECO 355/356 CDO's)? It's almost but not quite the
> dial tone in some PBX's as well.
Working on the principle that extremely loud sounds of one frequency will
actually deafen you to that frequency (by basically wearing out the part
of the hearing mechanism in your ear that is sensitive to that frequency),
then enough exposure to these horrendous things may prevent you from
hearing dial tone!
One hopes that no safety alarms etc use that same frequency as it would be
inconvenient to have part of the population insensitive to them.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mark J. Cuccia" <markjcuccia@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: at&t/BellSouth Retiring Two More 1AESS C.O.Switches
Message-ID: <989705.21443.qm@web31102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
at&t/BellSouth Retiring Two More 1AESS C.O.Switches
at&t-ILEC is replacing two more 1AESS central office switches during
1st-Q/2011. Both are in legacy BellSouth states, one in Southern Bell
in West Palm Beach FL, the other in Southern Bell in Birmingham AL.
The two network disclosure documents can be found at the at&t website
of such documents, http://www.att.com/gen/public-affairs?pid=3137
click on the link to the southeast (BellSouth) states to scroll down.
http://www.att.com/public_affairs/regulatory_documents/ATT20100622L.1_Web.doc
dated Tuesday 22-June-2010, announces the retirement and replacement of
the currently existing Alcatel-Lucent BRHMALEW95E 1AESS, "Eastwood" in
Birmingham AL, scheduled for Friday night 11-February-2011. The 205-NXX
c.o.codes that are "default" served by this switch for at&t/BellSouth
are 205-951,956,957. All are associated with the Birmingham AL ratecenter.
The SS7 Point Code for the current 1AESS is 252-134-004. A Genband-Nortel
(Genband is the successor to most of Nortel's c.o.switch division)
MG9000-ABI-Remote (digital packet remote) BRHMALEWRPA will replace the
existing 1AESS, to be hosted by the Nortel DMS-100/200 tandem BRHMALMTDS0/0GT.
This tandem is indicated in the at&t ILEC network/technical disclosure
document as a DMS-500, but other sources show this switch as a DMS-200.
The tandem does NOT presently serve any local subscriber loops for dial-tone,
its CLLI right now is only BRMHALMT0GT, so it will need to be expanded
as such -- the DMS-100 function added along with the end-office CLLI
extension -DS0, so that it can "host" the new Genband-Nortel digital
packet remote that is replacing the retiring 1AESS. The SS7 Point Code
for the tandem/host is 252-134-023, which will also be the same
SS7 Point Code for the new digital packet remote switch.
http://www.att.com/public_affairs/regulatory_documents/ATT20100618L.1_Web.doc
dated Friday 18-June-2010, announces the retirement and replacement of
the currently existing Alcatel-Lucent WPBHFLRB84E 1AESS, "Riviera Beach"
in West Palm Beach FL, scheduled for Friday 18-March-2011. The 561-NXX
c.o.codes that are "default" served by this switch for at&t/BellSouth
are 561-494,840,841,842,844,845,848,863,881,882. All are associated with
the West Palm Beach FL ratecenter. It seems that during the old 2L-5N
EXchange NAme days, those 84x codes which did exist back then were known
as "VIctor (x)". Also note that the 561 area code for this part of
Florida had split from the 407 area code back in 1996, and even the
407 area code (which still includes the Orlando area) had split from
the original 305 area code back in 1988. The SS7 Point Code for the
current 1AESS is 252-046-033. A Genband-Nortel MG9000-ABI-Remote
(digital packet remote) WPBHFLRBRP0 will replace the existing 1AESS,
to be hosted by the Nortel DMS-100/200 tandem WPBHFLGRDS2/02T, "Gardens"
in West Palm Beach. This tandem does NOT presently serve any local
subscriber loops for dial-tone, its CLLI right now is only WPBHFLGR02T,
so it will need to be expanded as such -- the DMS-100 function added
along with the end-office CLLI extension -DS2, so that it can "host"
the new Genband-Nortel digital packet remote that is replacing the
retiring 1AESS. The SS7 Point Code for the tandem/host is 252-046-029,
which will also be the same SS7 Point Code for the new digital packet
remote switch.
Some of the 1AESS switches that at&t/Ameritech/Michigan-Bell is retiring
later this year (and early next year), and which the very last 1AESS in
the New Orleans area (Aurora, NWORLAAR---) when retired earlier this
year (January 2010) by at&t/BellSouth/South-Central-Bell, are being
replaced with those Genband-Nortel MG9000-ABI digital remote packet
switches. I don't know what the 'MG' stands for, but 'ABI' stands for
"Access Bridging Interface".
Assuming that there are no further announcements of retirements of 1AESS
switches (being replaced with digital or digital-packet switches) for
this year (2010) or early next year (2011), after the retirement and
replacement of the four at&t/MI-Bell and two at&t/BellSouth 1AESS
offices is completed, there will be around 55 remaining 1AESS offices
still within the US, as follows:
VeriZon/Bell-Atlantic/C&P will still have their three 1As remaining,
one each in: Baltimore MD, Richmond VA, Norfolk VA;
at&t/SBC/Ameritech/MI-Bell will still have their three remaining 1As,
one each in: Pontiac MI suburb of Detroit, Lansing MI, Grand Rapids MI;
at&t/SBC/Ameritech/IL-Bell will still have their two remaining 1As,
both in the Chicago IL area: Chicago "AUStin", Oak Park IL;
at&t/BellSouth/Southern-Bell will still have 18 remaining 1As, eight in
the Atlanta GA Metro and four more scattered about central/southern GA
(one each in Savannah GA, Waycross GA, Augusta GA, Warner-Robbins GA),
as well as six in Florida -- two in the Jacksonville FL Metro area and
four more still in the Miami/Ft.Lauderdale FL Metro area;
at&t/BellSouth/South-Central-Bell will still have eight 1As remaining,
one in Nashville TN, three more in the Birmingham/Bessemer AL metro
area, two in Shreveport LA, and the two c.o.switches here in Lafayette LA;
at&t/SBC/Southwestern-Bell will still have 21 remaining 1As, seven in
the St.Louis MO metro area, three in the Dallas TX metro area, four in
the Ft.Worth TX metro area, four in the Houston TX metro area, and three
more scattered about Texas (one each in Beaumont TX, Odessa TX, El Paso TX).
Further details on these 55 remaining 1AESS offices (CLLIs, default BOC
NPA-NXX office codes, switch-name, etc) as well as details on the four
1As in the Detroit MI area which are being retired and replaced with
digital/packet switches later this year or early next year (2011), can
be found in my posts on this topic from earlier this year.
Mark J. Cuccia
markjcuccia at yahoo dot com
Lafayette LA, formerly of New Orleans LA pre-Katrina
Date: 22 Jun 2010 13:29:04 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FTC: say goodbye to "Stacey at Account Holder Services"
Message-ID: <hvqrt0$qam$1@panix2.panix.com>
John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>Sam Spade wrote:
>> I explored the FTC's role in Do Not Call violations some years ago. I
>> managed to speak with someone who was knowledgeable. She told me that
>> their mandate on that list was simply to gather statistics; that they
>> had neither the resources nor the Congressional mandate to enforce the
>> list. But, she added, Congress had included the provision to give
>> individuals the option to file a civil lawsuit for any individual
>> violators. So, if you're really, really rich, there is recourse.
>
>OK, I'll bite: Whom do I sue if Caller ID says XXX-XXX-XXXX? The courts
>won't accept a suit against "John Doe" unless there is some other named
>defendant who can be subpoenaed to tell the judge who and where John Doe
>is.
There is.
>I suppose I could name the phone company as a codefendant, but (a) which
>one? (I'll bet only the caller's own LEC knows who he/she/it is), and
>(b) I have AT&T and they use an arbitration agreement that makes it
>impossible to sue them. And I hear they have a policy of never releasing
>the information from Call Trace (#57) even if you get them to turn it on.
Nope. If you send a subpoena to your local telco, they will provide ANI
information. You set up a suit against Jon Doe in order to get the subpoena
issued, then once the telco provides the ANI data it turns into a suit against
the party responsible.
You must send a subpoena, nothing else will extract the information. Unless
a court requests the information, the telco will not provide it.
>Only the FCC can cut this Gordian knot, but it doesn't look to me like
>they care about doing their job anymore. They'd rather spend their time
>going after "indecent" TV shows and looking for ways to silence
>conservative talk radio.
There's no knot. Try it, it works. I have used it against anonymous fax
scammers.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
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.
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) 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 (9 messages)
|
or 