|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 176 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
====== 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: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <d39d31de-1689-486e-9066-a8d6a00f10b6@l31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 27, 10:33 pm, Wesr...@aol.com wrote:
> Many of the "benefits of the newer alternatives" are benefits for
> only certain groups or hard-core techies and by their complexity make
> earlier technology unavailable to many of those used to the older
> technologies, which may fit all their needs, because of the need for
> extensive training needed to make use of either the older or the newer
> technologies.
So true. The breakup of the Bell System was aggressively sought by a
_narrow_ group of business interests. (Many of the benefits claimed
to be from divesture _already_ were on their way, like customer owned
equipment and cheaper long distance).
Newer alternatives is a forced obsolence of perfectly good hardware
before its worn out because new software, imposed on the marketplace,
won't run on it. Example: old computers can't support the latest web
browsers and old web browsers can't access most sites on the web.
Example: people are forced to get broadband access instead of dial up
because the 'bit bloat' is so large dial-up becomes too slow.
Example: As previously mentioned, film and processing is harder to
get, and Kodak discontinued Kodachrome, forcing serious photographers
to spend $$$ on new digital cameras even if they were perfectly happy
with film.
Example: people who had little use for a cellphone were forced to get
one since payphones became so scarce and expensive.
Over the years, there have been many cases were 'hard core techies'
pushed hard for something new and greatly exaggerated the merits and
ease of use. Example: historically IBM lagged behind on technology
but became and held the market leader because of _application_ and
support, not technology. The first Univac was technologically
superior to the first IBM computer, but IBM's people were better at
making the new computer do useful work for people, which is what
counted.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:59:39 -0400
From: MC <for.address.look@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <8nL1m.16287$Xw4.9247@bignews7.bellsouth.net>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Over the years, there have been many cases were 'hard core techies'
> pushed hard for something new and greatly exaggerated the merits and
> ease of use. Example: historically IBM lagged behind on technology
> but became and held the market leader because of _application_ and
> support, not technology. The first Univac was technologically
> superior to the first IBM computer, but IBM's people were better at
> making the new computer do useful work for people, which is what
> counted.
In fact, there is "techie snobbery" which looks down on anything easy to
use. A lot of the disparagement of Windows in favor of UNIX comes from
peole with that mindset. It's popular and easy to use, so it must be bad.
***** Moderator's Note *****
(Full disclosure: I'm a member of the Boston Linux & Unix User Group)
No disrespect, but I believe it's not that simple.
I started using Linux in the late 90's, because I had a technical
problem to solve and I couldn't afford to buy a pre-packaged solution
for Windows. I continued to use Linux because I'm able to set it up
myself, configure it for what _I_ want, and update/upgrade features,
security, and basic functions without giving up my Christmas vacation
to do it.
The laptop I'm using now has Autocad on it, which isn't available for
Linux, so I'm constantly shifting back and forth between the Unix and
the Windows world, which is a PITA. I don't like Windows, because it's
too prone to viruses and because it requires very expensive upgrades
every 3~4 years. Microsoft has achieved every monopolist's dream: a
self-fulfilling prophecy where everyone uses Windows because everyone
uses Windows, and that has allowed the company to lock-in most
software houses to the Microsoft model.
FWIW. YMMV.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:01:55 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <siegman-249A97.10012528062009@news.stanford.edu>
I'm sorry -- I find the following views somewhere between heavily
Luddite and a little bit paranoid.
I'm with you all the way on being fearful of unregulated commercial
interests and unregulated free-market capitalism distorting and
exploiting technology for their benefit, to the detriment of all the
rest of us. That's an endless threat, in every facet of society.
But cell phones are great inventions; digital cameras are great
inventions; cell phones with built-in cameras are great inventions;
fiber optics and the internet and widespread broadband access are great
inventions -- they, and many other technological advances like them,
make all our lives better, at every level of society.
=====================
> > Many of the "benefits of the newer alternatives" are benefits for
> > only certain groups or hard-core techies and by their complexity make
> > earlier technology unavailable to many of those used to the older
> > technologies, which may fit all their needs,
>
> So true. The breakup of the Bell System was aggressively sought by a
> _narrow_ group of business interests. (Many of the benefits claimed
> to be from divesture _already_ were on their way, like customer owned
> equipment and cheaper long distance).
>
> Newer alternatives is a forced obsolence of perfectly good hardware
> before its worn out because new software, imposed on the marketplace,
> won't run on it. Example: old computers can't support the latest web
> browsers and old web browsers can't access most sites on the web.
> Example: people are forced to get broadband access instead of dial up
> because the 'bit bloat' is so large dial-up becomes too slow.
>
> Example: As previously mentioned, film and processing is harder to
> get, and Kodak discontinued Kodachrome, forcing serious photographers
> to spend $$$ on new digital cameras even if they were perfectly happy
> with film.
>
> Example: people who had little use for a cellphone were forced to get
> one since payphones became so scarce and expensive.
>
>
> Over the years, there have been many cases were 'hard core techies'
> pushed hard for something new and greatly exaggerated the merits and
> ease of use. Example: historically IBM lagged behind on technology
> but became and held the market leader because of _application_ and
> support, not technology. The first Univac was technologically
> superior to the first IBM computer, but IBM's people were better at
> making the new computer do useful work for people, which is what
> counted.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:18:36 -0800
From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <h28q5a$nkc$1@blue.rahul.net>
AES wrote:
> I'm sorry -- I find the following views somewhere between heavily
> Luddite and a little bit paranoid.
Many of us fought the switch to DTV for years, not out of "Luddism" (a
motive I ascribe to the Greens -- but I digress) but because the real
purpose of the DTV switch was to impose two forms of unwarranted and
excessive controls in the name of "intellectual property"* protection:
the "broadcast flag", which allows broadcasters to make some content
unrecordable; and the shorter effective range of DTV broadcasts, which
for many of us makes it no longer possible to bring in stations we used
to be able to get.
Weigh that against the one noticeable benefit of DTV -- better hi-res
pictures for those who want to spend a mid-four-figures sum on a big
screen TV -- and it's a very bad bargain. Let the rich get their super
signal from cable or satellite, as most of them do anyway.
I do not count the relinquishing of each station's second channel as a
benefit of the switch, because it was only created as a result of the
law that forced the switch in the first place.
---
* I use quotes around "intellectual property" here not because I reject
the concept -- I don't -- but because in both these examples (and many
other cases of DRM, such as on DVDs), the content producers' legitimate
rights do not include prohibiting the conduct that the controls
actually block. DRM systems enforce a lot more wrongs than rights.
I call for a boycott of Hollywood until it stops cheating artists with
one hand while blaming infringers for its lack of profits with the
other, and starts producing decent content again and making it fully
usable by buyers.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:48:02 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <c26.5ec61e6a.37795b32@aol.com>
In a message dated 6/28/2009 12:04:05 PM Central Daylight Time,
kludge@panix.com writes:
> I am not sure what you're referring to here. Is this a television
> set or an IBOC radio?
A television set. I am not familiar with "an IBOC radio". Another of
those techie terms like in the manual for my new digital TV.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <a5d0640f-8fb6-495e-a52c-f88250869f12@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 27, 1:37 pm, David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
> The poster in Chicago basing what ILBell/Ameritech/SBC/ATT will really
> do, based on a vague statement in the phone book... Good Luck!
I disagree with that. It's not a vague statement, it's a statement of
actual policy and practice.
If the local telephone companies actually were telling people, "sorry,
we don't offer POTS, you MUST buy expensive FIOS instead", there would
be a national outcry and widespread nasty publicity.
As others pointed out there, there is a demarc box and they must serve
it. That part of the business is still regulated.
> Given that only the most starry-eyed libertarian types can keep a
> straight face while proclaiming that Real Soon Now we'll have the 3+
> unregulated fibers to each house that is needed to support bona-fide
> competition....
Having 'three' carriers is _not_ competition.
Certain services--such as utilities--are such that the capital and
infrastructure requrements are so high that it is impractical to have
competition.
They tried 'competition' in electricity in some places and got
blackouts as a result. They have it my state and the power company
significantly cut back its lineman and maintenance staff so as to be
cost competitive. So when there's a thunderstorm and lines get
knocked down people have to wait much longer for service restoration.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:20:35 GMT
From: Dale Farmer <dale@cybercom.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <ncC1m.1664$NF6.1087@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
Field.Ops@Verizon.net wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote in news:379641ef-a865-401e-ba53-
> b659f3f64e6f@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Jun 23, 7:26 pm, jmnormand.removet...@removethistoo.yahoo.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As for forcing customers to "switch", this is just telco propaganda to
>>> scare customers into higher priced plans they don't need.
>> I have heard nothing about any telco propaganda. Around they have
>> FIOS but no pressure at all.
>>
>
> You are absolutley correct with regards to regulation of services, not
> facilities/technologies. How a circuit is designed and how it is carried to
> the subscriber is not a tariff item, unless the customer is an IEC or CLEC.
>
> The average PSC tafiffed consumer orders service, and it is delivered over
> any available means. Metallic (Copper), or optical (Fiber) facilities. The
> argument by end users over how a circuit is built is not new.
>
> When a customer elects to subscribe to FTTP (FiOS), yes the CO line is
> ported over to Digital Voice equipment (VoIP), the conventional line side
> metallic switch interface, and analog loop disconnected (No dial tone).
> However the copper cable is not ripped out!
>
> For example, most Telco's have trouble making their connect due date
> orders. The CO will certainly work the Disconnect order by pulling out the
> cross-connect wire on the MDF. But the field will not chase a disco order.
> The copper cable remains in-place, and the metallic pair is dead unless
> reused for some other operational reason.
>
> In the total optical fiber loop-network world of tomorrow, something none
> of us will live to see, the copper plant network will be pulled out. First
> to recover valuable urban duct space, and through depreciation of cable
> assets it will be removed by regulatory directive. Just as the copper trunk
> network was retired in one major US metropolitan city back in the 1990's.
>
> Copper will probably remain for specialized applications that will be paid
> for by that customer.
>
> Bill
Then why, when I had FIOS installed at my residence last year, the
verizon salesweasel specifically told me that once I switched my phone
service to the FIOS, I would not be able to switch back. And when the
techs came out and installed it, they removed the copper cable that had
carried my phone service from the house to the street pole.
--Dale
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <91f7a0bf-c207-4bbe-9ace-b6efeb89b059@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 27, 10:40 pm, Steven Lichter <diespamm...@ikillspammers.com>
wrote:
> > If you consider upgrading the software in every switch in the
> > continent to be no big deal, I suppose you're correct.
>
> Remember 1999, every switch needed a software update, it went with
> very little trouble.
Did they really? If you're talking about Y2k, most switches were new
enough to have that already included. (Y2k was an overrated scare--
many computer systems needed no modification at all, and others needed
very little modification. But I knew of one highly vaunted system
developed by a "Big 8" accounting firm consultant that was so bad it
had to be scrapped altogether. So much for the glory of
'consultants'.
Anyway, in the caller-id/ANI discussion, everyone made a emphatic
point of saying how difficult and expensive it would be to modify a
switch merely to control caller ID abuse. Changing all the dialing
tables, routing codes and associated software, plus everything and
anything that handles the phone number, would be a far more massive
job.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:52:36 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <mKQ1m.1005$hB1.717@newsfe11.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Anyway, in the caller-id/ANI discussion, everyone made a emphatic
> point of saying how difficult and expensive it would be to modify a
> switch merely to control caller ID abuse. Changing all the dialing
> tables, routing codes and associated software, plus everything and
> anything that handles the phone number, would be a far more massive
> job.
Did the change to in-wats portability require every end office be
modified or was that required only at the tandems?
***** Moderator's Note *****
That's a surprisingly complex subject: 800 portability was implemented
to allow In-WATS subscribers to change their Inter-Exchange Carrier,
so it has to be done at either the originating office or at a "LATA
Access" tandem.
Before the call can be routed to the correct IEC, either the
originating office or the tandem must "dip" the 800 database to
determine the IEC, and then hand off the call to the carrier. It is
the _IEC_ which determines the "POTS" number to which the traffic will
be delivered, and most of them guard that information like a jewel,
lest their competitors gain valuable business intelligence about
time-of-day routings, call center load factors, etc.
Long story short: some offices have to hand off 800 calls to Access
Tandems, some don't. It's not just a routing issue: many WATS numbers
serve both "Band 9" (Intra-LATA) and Inter-LATA traffic, so the
ILEC/CLEC could route many calls directly to the destination, but (as
I said), the IEC's are very reluctant to give away the terminating
numbers, and thus they often demand that _all_ traffic be routed to
them, even if it's Intra-LATA.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:46:37 +0300
From: "Spyros Bartsocas" <spyros@telecom-digest.zzn.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <5F7E482AD6A41554394DC58E19233B61@spyros.telecom-digest.zzn.com>
>Converting currency is probably easier. There's no hardware involved,
>and the software changes are probably easier than changing from a
>fixed-length number to a variable-length number.
Converting currency involves much more hardware than converting phone
number lengths. Think about all the vending machines that need to accept
the new coins. In the past few years, here in Greece we had to go through
both. From local numbers of 7, 6 or 5 digits we went to a country-wide
system where all numbers were dialed as 10 digits. This means that for
most area code they went from 5 to 10 digit dialing.
Going back to telecom, the introduction of the euro meant that the last
payphones that accepted coins were withdrawn.
-scb
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:06:14 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <c01.633fa749.37795f76@aol.com>
In a message dated 6/28/2009 4:31:48 PM Central Daylight Time,
Telecom Digest Moderator wrote:
> Long story short: some offices have to hand off 800 calls to Access
> Tandems, some don't. It's not just a routing issue: many WATS
> numbers serve both "Band 9" (Intra-LATA) and Inter-LATA traffic, so
> the ILEC/CLEC could route many calls directly to the destination,
> but (as I said), the IEC's are very reluctant to give away the
> terminating numbers, and thus they often demand that _all_ traffic
> be routed to them, even if it's Intra-LATA.
Do they all go to listed numbers now? Very large incoming WATS groups
used to be served directly off the 4A or equivalent without tying up a
local switch at all. This had benefits in holding time because the
trunks were not held up all the way back to the originating number
while the call was going through the terminating local office.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:21:47 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <siegman-229815.20211727062009@news.stanford.edu>
In article <h26jno$br$1@reader1.panix.com>,
dwolffxx@panix.com (David Wolff) wrote:
> Converting currency is probably easier. There's no hardware involved,
> and the software changes are probably easier than changing from a
> fixed-length number to a variable-length number.
I really meant the whole conversion process, at all levels, in going
from multiple long-standing national currencies to one unified Euro:
producing and distributing the physical currencies, taking in the old
currency and exchanging for the new, converting vending machines and
even trivial things like coin trays, re-pricing retail goods, and all
the complexities of adjusting credit card accounts, payrolls, tax
calculations, banking transactions, foreign currency exchanges outside
the Euro system, and adjusting everything at every level of the entire
banking system.
It just seems to me to have been a massive and successful changeover.
Maybe it was aided at some levels by the extensive use of post office
operated "giro" systems for so many consumer and personal transactions,
which I believe is or at least was very common in Europe, and near
unknown in the U.S.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Europeans had an advantage: they were used to dealing with multiple
currencies, so the Euro could be treated as a "new nation" in their
computing systems.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:43:03 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <siegman-6C0047.12423328062009@news.stanford.edu>
In article <siegman-229815.20211727062009@news.stanford.edu>,
AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Europeans had an advantage: they were used to dealing with multiple
> currencies, so the Euro could be treated as a "new nation" in their
> computing systems.
Interesting point -- I wonder if that did indeed play a role?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:03:26 GMT
From: "wdag" <wgeary@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <OKK1m.1694$NF6.168@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
"David Wolff" <dwolffxx@panix.com> wrote in message
news:h26jno$br$1@reader1.panix.com...
> Converting currency is probably easier. There's no hardware involved,
> and the software changes are probably easier than changing from a
> fixed-length number to a variable-length number.
There is a surprising amount of "behind the scenes" technology involved in
handling coins and bills. Some of it is in "obvious" places (i.e. ATMs and
bill counters in banks) but the bulk of it is "hidden in plain sight". When
a currency "conversion" takes place, coin and bill acceptors/ dispensers in
vending machines (and pay phones!) have to be changed; if the new coins and
bills are physically different dimensions than the old, these changes
usually require new/ modified hardware. Cash registers also require changes,
including new/ modified tills if bills change size, or a new denomination is
added.
In the USA, we have had quite a number of "conversions" in the past decade
or three, starting with the "Susie" dollar coin and _two_ conversions of
most folding money denominations ("security" upgrade then Monopoly-money
coloring). Because each conversion of the "currency baseline set" was
independent of any (publically) announced program, the "money handling
industry" had to scramble quite a bit each time; because there was no
widespread "beta testing" of the new bills, many sites using
bill-recognition devices (like self-service checkouts) did not accept "new"
bills for weeks after their rollout (until firmware was upgraded).
Needless to say, the currency-handling industry managed these changes in the
USA more-or-less without any major problems. By comparison, just think of
the "fun" in the telecom industry if, say, SS7 had a "significant" change
every two or three years...
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:09:09 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <h26qd5$sti$1@reader1.panix.com>
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> writes:
> Because every switch in the NANP area is digital (well, at least in
> Canada and the U.S.) it should be no big deal to go to 4 digit NPA
> (area) codes. The big deal would be the public outcry.
HorsePockey. Digital smidgital..
Let me relate a story I was told. A engineer was tasked to retrain
skilled mainframe COBOL programmers to the modern world. His part was to
teach them assembler/ some machine architecture; so they'd have some clue
as to what what going on Within the Beast. Later would come C, Java, etc.
As some point he was explaining CPU registers, and how it was faster to
have a variable in one vs fetching it from elsewhere. Whereby, one of the
smarter students asked "Why don't you just declare more registers..?" and
he realized they did not grasp the basics.
He stopped, and explained a register was a special physical memory
location, made up of IC's [well, cells of same] capacitors, etc. If you
wanted more, you designed a new CPU chip. He said the looks on the class
faces was priceless and almost scary -- never before had these skilled
people grasped how things worked inside the box.
The parallel? Mr. Spade seems to think he can declare more digits in
the switch. "Make it so.." said Capt. Picard.
Ain't so. The switch is HARDWARE, the 10-digit long registers are, like
every part, highly optimized for speed, reliability, and low loading. It
has man-years of engineering and code and testing and upgrades to keep it
going. You start forklift upgrading parts and stand back...
(And that is ONLY Ma's switchers. You also need to replace every dialer
program that stores numbers, & you name it on the customer's premises.)
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
***** Moderator's Note *****
Sacrilige! Heresy!! How dare you blaspheme about COBOL?!!
Fall on your knees and ask Lady Grace for forgiveness!!!
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jun 2009 17:50:11 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <20090628175011.66314.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>As some point he was explaining CPU registers, and how it was faster to
>have a variable in one vs fetching it from elsewhere. Whereby, one of the
>smarter students asked "Why don't you just declare more registers..?" and
>he realized they did not grasp the basics.
>Sacrilige! Heresy!! How dare you blaspheme about COBOL?!!
The COBOL programmers understood just fine. Back on computers like
the IBM 1401 and the low-end IBM 360 series, all of the programmer
visible registers were in fact stored in core, so declaring some more
variables in storage was just as fast. It's not their fault that the
hot-shot chip designers figured out a way to make registers faster
than main storage.
Helpfully,
John
PS: And watch those young whippersnappers just try to translate a
simple COBOL picture like Z,ZZ9.99DB into Java.
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jun 2009 09:09:24 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <h27q24$f9u$1@panix2.panix.com>
Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> wrote:
>John Levine wrote:
>>> Because every switch in the NANP area is digital (well, at least in
>>> Canada and the U.S.) it should be no big deal to go to 4 digit NPA
>>> (area) codes. The big deal would be the public outcry.
>>
>> If you consider upgrading the software in every switch in the
>> continent to be no big deal, I suppose you're correct.
>
>Remember 1999, every switch needed a software update, it went with
>very little trouble.
My employer at the time had a Rolm PBX and had a nightmare getting the
update done properly. For over a year, folks at one office were having
to call the operator to place calls to the new area codes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 07:35:29 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <ScL1m.796$Ei4.608@newsfe13.iad>
John Levine wrote:
>Sam Spade wrote:
>>Because every switch in the NANP area is digital (well, at least in
>>Canada and the U.S.) it should be no big deal to go to 4 digit NPA
>>(area) codes. The big deal would be the public outcry.
>
>
> If you consider upgrading the software in every switch in the
> continent to be no big deal, I suppose you're correct.
It wouldn't be the first time.
Just like iPhones. ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:50:08 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <4A4720B0.80709@thadlabs.com>
On 6/26/2009 8:22 PM, John F. Morse wrote:
> Thad Floryan wrote:
>> Cisco developed the PoE concept in 2000 for VoIP telephony. I've setup several
>> asterisk phone systems using Cisco 7960 and Polycom IP4000 devices. The 7960
>> use PoE and the Polycoms have an external power module.
>
> Hi Thad,
>
> Asterisk has always interested me, but I'm not up to speed on available
> hardware products.
>
> Could you recommend some very low-cost VoIP devices that would convert
> the Asterisk VoIP to POTS, so common 2500 telsets could be used?
In theory, any "analog telephone adapter" (ATA) for VoIP should work. At my
last client site, they already had an older asterisk running on Fedora Core 2
(yeah, I know it's ancient) which I upgraded and added the Polycom IP4000
conference room phones, corrected their dialing plans, and updated the
firmware for the Cisco 7960 phones. They had several Sipura SPA-2000 ATAs for
the FAX machines, but they weren't functioning reliably and I never had an
opportunity to determine why (and correct it) since the company went belly-up.
The Sipura device is touted for connecting standard telephones and FAX machines
to IP-based data networks, and it should have worked. Whoever had "messed" with
that asterisk system before me had hosed it to the point their VP Engineering
said it was impossible to make the Polycom IP4000 (they had one) work, but I
proved otherwise and bought/installed several more IP4000s.
> Perhaps even VoIP lines into 1A1 and 1A2 KTS as well?
>From its data sheet, the SPA-2000 "is interoperable with common telephony
equipment like facsimile, voicemail, PBX/KTS and interactive voice response
systems". Hmmm, www.sipura.com now redirects to Cisco here:
<https://www.myciscocommunity.com/community/smallbizsupport>
and apparently the SPA-2000 is now a discontinued product. If you want to see
its data sheet: <http://thadlabs.com/FILES/SPA-2000.pdf>
A Google search on "VoIP analog telephone adapter" returns a number of useful
hits for ATA products whose pricing seems to begin around US$50. Sorry I cannot
offer any specific recommendations.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:07:25 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <4A4724BD.3080608@thadlabs.com>
On 6/27/2009 4:50 AM, tlvp wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:18:29 -0400, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> "Green" computing is clearly here. :-)
>
> Both the Sheeva and the Marvell devices look very intriguing!
>
> The Marvell, I see, has a VGA output port, and can, I'd imagine,
> serve as CPU for a full linux system with USB kb & mouse and
> VGA monitor.
Correct! For US$200 ($250 with case), fanless, physically small
and operating using minimal power, it's quite a deal.
> But the Sheeva? Or is that just a "headless" server?
Right, a headless server. I intend using one of mine for DHCP, tftp
booting, local DNS, syslogging, email, weather station data capture,
and possibly NTP (time) replacing an old desktop which uses too much
power running 24/7. The other will be used for product development.
> Thanks, Thad, for bringing these to our attention here! And cheers,
You're welcome! I hope these and similar other ones give you some ideas!
These should be capable of running asterisk, too; something to try.
:-)
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jun 2009 09:01:55 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <h27pk3$r23$1@panix2.panix.com>
PV <pv+usenet@pobox.com> wrote:
>kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>They will indeed, and they will charge a substantial fee to install a
>>new line to the building.
>
>Maybe other locations are different. But that's definitely NOT true in
>Chicago. It's the telco's responsibility to maintain the connection from
>the pole to the NID. If there's a problem in that line, it's fixed at the
>company's expense, not the customer's.
Yes... but what if there is no NID? They are going to charge to install
a new one.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jun 2009 09:07:08 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <h27pts$pa9$1@panix2.panix.com>
In article <c8d.490564a5.3778142e@aol.com>, <Wesrock@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I got my first DTV over-the-air radio for Father's Day and just
>programmed it. It was very tedious and intimidation to read through
>the 15-page manual going into all the options you had to select, many
>of them with names that only TV techies know what they mean. I almost
>gave up and asked one of grandkids to program it, it appeared so
>intimidating.
I am not sure what you're referring to here. Is this a television set
or an IBOC radio?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 07:40:15 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <khL1m.797$Ei4.512@newsfe13.iad>
John Levine wrote:
>>Again, a person is a person and despite all the arguments along these
>>lines, many (many) other countries have managed such a change without
>>too much trouble at all - certainly far less trouble than the
>>opponents of theses things said would occur.
>
>
> Once again, you are (wilfully?) missing the main point. The
> technology in North American phone switches is different from that in
> the rest of the world.
>
> The inter-switch signalling in Australia was already set up to handle
> numbers of differing lengths, so it was not a big deal to change
> lengths of numbers incrementally, since those longer numbers didn't
> affect the switches that don't handle the numbers being changed. In
> North America, the 3+3+4 format is wired into the hardware (and now
> into the switch software.) Like it or not, longer numbers will
> require changes to every phone switch in the continent. That's the
> real issue, not the consumer answering machines, stationery, and other
> junk.
>
> We'll have to make numbers longer at some point, perhaps 30 years from
> now, and the telcos are thinking about how to do it, but it'll be a
> huge project.
>
> R's,
> John
The hard-wired switches are gone from the U.S. and (for the most-part)
Canada.
How long have we had stored program controlled end office switches now?
They became common by 1980. And, they enabled subscriber dialing of
international numbers of varying length with delimiting by timeout or
DTMF "#"
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jun 2009 19:58:22 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <20090628195822.97180.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>Could you recommend some very low-cost VoIP devices that would
>convert the Asterisk VoIP to POTS, so common 2500 telsets could be
>used?
You can get single line SIP terminal adapters (TAs) like the
Grandstream HT486 for under $40 from dealers, and often for about $20
on ebay. These connect one phone to one wired Ethernet, so you need
Ethernet cabling and a hub to plug all the Ethernet cables into.
If you'd rather run your analog phone wires to your Asterisk PBX, I'd
look at the cards from Digium, the company that wrote and maintains
Asterisk, or the plug compatable replacements. I see on ebay four
port PCI cards for $170.
I'd suggest getting a couple of the cheap TAs to fool around, but get
adapter cards if you want something that works reliably. The adapter
cards can also be set up as FXO using daughterboards to connect to
analog trunks.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:49:42 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <FHQ1m.1001$hB1.906@newsfe11.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Advanced equipment, such as key systems, modems, PBXs, etc., will
> require customer power.
As to key systems, true once they got fancy. But, the good old
25-pair 1A2 systems only lost lights and hold when the customer power
was lost. You could punch a line button and still get dial tone.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:25:49 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <SeeSigForEmail@wn6.wn.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <20090628182350.B3E6848127@mailout.easydns.com>
At 27 Jun 2009 23:23:21 -0000, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote,
> >Again, a person is a person and despite all the arguments along these
> >lines, many (many) other countries have managed such a change without
> >too much trouble at all - certainly far less trouble than the
> >opponents of theses things said would occur.
>
>Once again, you are (wilfully?) missing the main point. The
>technology in North American phone switches is different from that in
>the rest of the world.
>
>The inter-switch signalling in Australia was already set up to handle
>numbers of differing lengths, so it was not a big deal to change
>lengths of numbers incrementally, since those longer numbers didn't
>affect the switches that don't handle the numbers being changed. In
>North America, the 3+3+4 format is wired into the hardware (and now
>into the switch software.) Like it or not, longer numbers will
>require changes to every phone switch in the continent.
John gets the point -- the NANP was built on the assumption of
permanently fixed-length numbers. The rest of the world never made
that assumption, so their networks were designed to allow
variable-length numbers, so changing the length was never a big deal.
So routing *and* billing tables in the US are frequently designed as
3-digit and 6-digit lookups, NPA+NXX. In non-NANP areas, it's more
likely a match-this-prefix lookup table. Neither is right or wrong,
but 3-digit tables don't adapt easily to anything else! Some newer
gear in the US is designed for world markets *and* to work in the US,
and it's possible to treat the NANP as a set of variable-length
prefix strings that just happen to always be 3 or 6 digits long. But
that's new. The NANP was designed around crossbar switches in the
1940s, and they had 3-digit fixed-length translators. They generally
worked better than steppers, which did however have no fixed
assumptions of number size.
And this did go into the signaling. In the olden days, the US used
en-block MF signaling, vs. the compelled (request-more-digits)
signaling in Europe et al. Nowadays it'a almost all SS7, but again
the US usually sends numbers en bloc, though the protocol allows for
compelled/overlap sending of digits.
>That's the real issue, not the consumer answering machines,
>stationery, and other junk.
It's all of those things and more. In the US, 3+3+4 numbering is
ingrained in a lot of places. Store cash registers maintain customer
records by phone number. Utilities look up customers by phone
number. Since we have close to "universal service", it's pretty safe
to assume that most people have a phone number, so they're built into
all sorts of data bases. And again, a data base designed around
fixed-length structured fields (3+3+4) is not the same as one
designed around a variable-length unstructured field. Any change in
the NANP will thus take some years of notice. Think "Y2K".
>We'll have to make numbers longer at some point, perhaps 30 years from
>now, and the telcos are thinking about how to do it, but it'll be a
>huge project.
Ten years ago, area codes were being issued at a prodigious rate, and
the FCC did initiate a proceeding to replace the NANP, whose exhaust
was forecast for some time like, uh, now. But number pooling saved
the day. So very few new area codes are now being issued and the
NANP is safe for decades.
The plan that the advisory committee recommended was to move from 10
to 12 digit numbers, adding two zeroes between NPA and NXX, so for
instance 617-637-1234 would become 6170-0637-1234. And all numbers
would be dialed 12 digits. Ugh.
I did come up with an alternative, which can still be reached via my
web site if you're interested. You can see my collection of rants
;-) at http://www.ionary.com/vis.html , and that specific one at
http://www.ionary.com/NewNANP.htm which introduces
http://www.ionary.com/ExpandingNANP.htm . It ends up with 8-digit
(4+4) local calling, with reconsolidated area codes and a map that
looks more like 1947's than today's.
HOWEVER, it is necessary that during the transition, there be NO cases
where dialing is ambiguous, and that includes relying on time-outs or
octothorpes. And you can't have a "flag day" -- too many numbers are
machine-dialed and that will just break things. And I don't need to
be told that they did it in other countries. This is America, dammit,
and the locals do not tolerate such challenges. (After all, the most
active poster on this mailing list/newsgroup is still pining for the
good old days of 1947 and its strict monopoly.) DTV took a decade and
that was simpler.
So my plan requires six steps. It temporarily use the n9xx reserved
NPA space for the old numbers. So at one stage (D) there would
temporarily be 11-digit dialing across the NANP (6917-637-1234) so
that the old NPAs could be turned off. Then the new NPAs (12xx and
13xx for the US, 14xx for Canada and others) would be turned on with
8-digit local numbers behind them. And the really small NPAs (mostly
the islands) could even keep 7-digit dialing (I'd group the US ones
in 137xx). Once the n9xx transitional NPAs are turned off, 7/8 digit
local dialing returns.
But this is all fantasy speculation. The old NANP may live forever,
as people are starting to migrate off of the PSTN, largely due to
uneven taxation and regulatory friction. But that's another story.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:17:14 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <c3a.54c7c705.3779620a@aol.com>
In a message dated 6/28/2009 4:44:04 PM Central Daylight Time,
SeeSigForEmail@wn6.wn.net writes:
> So routing *and* billing tables in the US are frequently designed as
> 3-digit and 6-digit lookups, NPA+NXX. In non-NANP areas, it's more
> likely a match-this-prefix lookup table
When Waxahacie, Texas, was first cutover to dial with a 5XB and ANI,
no translator was provided and all the translation were done in the
Dallas toll machine. We were especially told not to mention to
Waxahachie customers that they could dial Italy, Texas, a CDO down the
road from Waxahachie that homed on Waxahachie, because this would tie
up a trunk from Italy to Waxahachie to the Dallas 4A, which would then
send the call back through Waxahachie to Italy. Trunks were a
substantial cost then, and using two trunks to and from Dallas and
back was really considered a waste of limited resources.
Waxahachie got 6-digit translation later, well before trunks became so
readily available at much lesser cost.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
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 (27 messages)
******************************
|
or 