|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 199 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: The RISK that is Amazon's Kindle
Re: The RISK that is Amazon's Kindle
Re: The RISK that is Amazon's Kindle
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
AT&T U-verse (was: Home and small office VoIP services)
Re: AT&T U-verse (was: Home and small office VoIP services)
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Re: When Texting Is Wrong
Re: When Texting Is Wrong
Re: When Texting Is Wrong
Re: When Texting Is Wrong
Re: When Texting Is Wrong
Re: Catching Spammers in the Act / Researchers show how spammers harvest e-mail addresses and send out bulk messages [TELECOM]
Re: One Example of Cell Phone Domination
Walter's Telephones
Re: Walter's Telephones
Re: When Texting Is Wrong
Re: 911 service center troubles
Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Re: Driven to Distraction / Drivers and Legislators Dismiss Cellphone Risks
====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:25:22 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <d04.5bab07ee.3795ca42@aol.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Let's back up a step, and be sure we're not comparing apples to
> oranges. Is the U-verse service the same as Verizon's FIOS
> offering, or does it DSL to transport data? Since the original
> poster put "TV" after the first mentionof U-verse, I'd like to
> get it clear if he's talked about a bundled cable offering, FIOS,
> or DSL.
U-verse, I believe, is provisioned over a video signal to a device
called a VRAD (I forget what the acronym stands for), the big
refrigerator-sized boxes, which have to be within a certain distance
(I believe 2,400 feet, although that would seem to require an awful
lot of boxes), where it goes over the copper loop to the subscriber.
--
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:48:10 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <h42vnp$7v3$4@news.albasani.net>
Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>>***** Moderator's Note *****
>>Let's back up a step, and be sure we're not comparing apples to
>>oranges. Is the U-verse service the same as Verizon's FIOS offering,
>>or does it DSL to transport data? Since the original poster put "TV"
>>after the first mentionof U-verse, I'd like to get it clear if he's
>>talked about a bundled cable offering, FIOS, or DSL.
>U-verse, I believe, is provisioned over a video signal to a device
>called a VRAD (I forget what the acronym stands for),
According to dslreports, Video Ready Access Device, which terminates
FTTN (fiber to the node)
>the big refrigerator-sized boxes, which have to be within a certain
>distance (I believe 2,400 feet, although that would seem to require an
>awful lot of boxes), where it goes over the copper loop to the subscriber.
Uh, yeah, when U-Verse comes to your part of town, there are a hell of a
lot of them.
Here's a lot of images of them: http://images.google.com/images?q=vrad
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:17:13 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <be2.52ebe38a.37966309@aol.com>
In a message dated 7/20/2009 12:32:16 PM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> But if business people are discussing important stuff, or someone is
> talking to their doctor, those .9999s >of landline reliability
> BETTER be there with VOIP
When Telcos were required to route 800 etc. numbers to the carrier
of the called party's choice, [each] 800 call then required a data
dip, [and this] was on every call to a toll free number. DEC
(remember them?) was the contractor who originally won the bid, but
they only promised the usual reliability that was customary in
computere installations, but the telcos balked saying that wasn't good
enough considering the amount of paying traffic that would be lost in
the failed dips. As I recall, the telcos (by then perhaps represtned
by BellCore) insisted on a reliability guarantee of something like
.9999. I don't recall the outcome.
--
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:20:46 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <bb8.5736783e.3795c92e@aol.com>
In a message dated 7/19/2009 10:15:19 PM Central Daylight Time,
sam@coldmail.com writes:
> Why does it become like VoIP? Can't they continue to provision
> dial-tone on a copper pair?
>From what I have read on some telco employee and retiree groups, they
use a single copper pair for both TV (U-verse) and the phone.
--
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 23:44:27 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: The RISK that is Amazon's Kindle
Message-ID: <op.uxckodxso63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:38:28 -0400, John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
> ... [snip] ... But it's
> tales like these that make me thankful for the free and open source
> movement.
>
> John
... and for just plain ink-on-paper *books* :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
***** Moderator's Note *****
The Holy Grail of the publishing industry has always been finding a
way to reduce the uncertainty of putting paper and ink on a retailer's
shelf. This is why "brand name" authors command such high royalties,
and why sequel after sequel appear in lockstep just before the
Christmas buying season and the summer vacation season.
Kindle, and all the copycats to come later, is the end of the
publisher's rainbow. It reduces the risk of publishing, i.e., the
investment required in editing staff, typesetters, bookbinders, and
truck drivers, to zero. Consider the implications:
1. The cost of distributing an e-book is essentially zero: after all,
the readers have paid for the display device and the transport
channel.
2. The cost of editing staff is dramatically reduced: since the
publisher can revise works which have already been "published", it
can economize on the editing chore, push the goods out the door in
time for the major shopping seasons, and "edit" them later, at
their leisure.
3. The cost of insurance is also cut: if an author like Gail Sheehy
loses a lawsuit that claims "Passages" was plagiarized, then it's
a simple matter to re-assign some part of the authorship to
Roger Gould, re-apportion future royalties as needed to make up for
the judgement, and pretend that someone wasn't asleep at the
"prior art" switch.
4. Libraries become relics of the past(I). The publishers want to
be able to control every aspect of every work they've paid for,
including who gets to read it. With paper, it's impossible; with
e-books, it's a trivial coding change.
5. Censorship becomes routine. E-books will be licensed in such a way
that parents who choose not to allow their kids to see "Lady
Chatterley's Lover" will be able to lock the child's Kindle device
to prevent it. Moreover, they'll be able to prevent schools from
downloading e-books they don't like into their children's' machines,
so that requiring children to read Darwin becomes a practical
impossibility as soon as the cost of paper copies exceeds the
budget of the school library.
I'm sure you get the idea. All of the steps I've listed above will be
taken for sound business reasons, and all of them will insinuate
themselves into our public mind "for the good of the children" or
other fashionable excuse, and all of them will have the effect of
limiting education to those who can afford to pay the publishers for
the privilege. Don't assume that classic works like "1984" will be
exempted when their copyright expires: copyright laws are amazingly
malleable in a world of billion-dollar political campaigns, and the
U.S. Congress has been very receptive to the idea that highly
profitable movies and songs deserve special extensions. That will
soon apply to e-books as well.
FWIW. YMMV. IANAL.
Bill Horne
I.) As with copying of music and other artworks, pundits have always
debated whether libraries help or hurt the publishing industry. On
one side, the publishers, who want to sell more books: on the
other, the sociologists who say that only a literate and well-
educated populace buys books, ergo they must have libraries to
encourage them to read. Carnegie and other library benefactors were
not being charitable: they simply knew that poor children with
curious minds make excellent managers when they have access to
knowledge.
Time, however, has marched on: I predict that in the future, the
elites of our society will act to limit the lower classes' access
to knowledge, on the theory that a strong back is a terrible thing
to waste and that there are plenty of well-educated people in India
who can be hired for a few rupees. The fact is that stupid voters
are a lot easier to manage than intelligent ones.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:59:58 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: The RISK that is Amazon's Kindle
Message-ID: <h42bau$9iq$1@reader1.panix.com>
[moderator wrote:]
>Kindle, and all the copycats to come later, is the end of the
>publisher's rainbow. It reduces the risk of publishing, i.e., the
>investment required in editing staff, typesetters, bookbinders, and
>truck drivers, to zero. Consider the implications:
.....
>3. The cost of insurance is also cut: if an author like Gail Sheehy
> looses a lawsuit...
- I guess it also extends to reducing the number of prufweeders...
("loses", not "looses"). [Corrected in original copy above - bh]
--
_____________________________________________________
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 *****
Everyone's a critic ...
... but you make my point for me. If I'm publishing the digest as a
web page, I can change typos and grammatical errors before most
viewers see them. If a powerful politician objects to some
inconvenient truth that's in an e-book, the publisher can delete it
from the book _after_ it has been sold.
Bill "but I used ispell!" Horne
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:39:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: The RISK that is Amazon's Kindle
Message-ID: <alpine.LN8.2.00.0907201533590.2875@tintin.mayson.us>
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009, tlvp wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:38:28 -0400, John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>
>> ... [snip] ... But it's
>> tales like these that make me thankful for the free and open source
>> movement.
>>
>> John
>
> ... and for just plain ink-on-paper *books* :-) .
Now that's just crazy talk. :-)
> Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Mais bien sur!
> FWIW. YMMV. IANAL.
Clipped, but all well said and valid points.
> I.) As with copying of music and other artworks, pundits have always
> debated whether libraries help or hurt the publishing industry. On
> one side, the publishers, who want to sell more books: on the
> other, the sociologists who say that only a literate and
> well-educated populace buys books, ergo they must have libraries to
> encourage them to read. Carnegie and other library benefactors were
> not being charitable: they simply knew that poor children with
> curious minds make excellent managers when they have access to
> knowledge.
The authors I read, well many of them, encourage use of libraries because
they want their stories to be read. I got hooked on Dean Koontz by
checking out a couple from the library and then have bought many of his
books. Without the library I probably would never have read anything of
his.
> who can be hired for a few rupees. The fact is that stupid voters
> are a lot easier to manage than intelligent ones.
I could write an essay on this topic. :-)
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 23:52:55 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <op.uxck2hc3o63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 23:31:25 -0400, after what Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote, the Moderator, in a Note, asked:
> Let's back up a step, and be sure we're not comparing apples to
> oranges. Is the U-verse service the same as Verizon's FIOS offering,
> or does it DSL to transport data? Since the original poster put "TV"
> after the first mentionof U-verse, I'd like to get it clear if he's
> talked about a bundled cable offering, FIOS, or DSL.
I can only paraphrase what I think I understood from a local AT&T
U-verse telephone CS agent, but that was this: that U-verse offers
internet access, telephony, and TV, over a delivery system that is
fiber to the "refrigerator-box" out on the street nearby, and either
fiber or copper to the household from there, "all depending."
Perhaps others will offer better detail.
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <992dfa3b-000a-41fc-ac7d-293a84599a47@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 19, 11:20 am, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> And, features that are network sensitive, such as Call Return, Selective
> Call Forwarding, or Call Rejection, work only intra-LATA, which makes
> them basically useless.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Why are the features you mention limited to Intra-LATA?
Limited to intra-LATA? Are you sure? That hasn't been my experience;
that is, I have used those features nationally.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:39:06 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <KB49m.14908$8B7.5402@newsfe20.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jul 19, 11:20 am, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>And, features that are network sensitive, such as Call Return, Selective
>>Call Forwarding, or Call Rejection, work only intra-LATA, which makes
>>them basically useless.
>>
>>***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>>Why are the features you mention limited to Intra-LATA?
>
>
> Limited to intra-LATA? Are you sure? That hasn't been my experience;
> that is, I have used those features nationally.
>
I can only speak to AT&T in California. They most certainly are limited
to intra-LATA.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:28:08 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <Gj59m.22701$O23.16792@newsfe11.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jul 19, 11:20 am, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>And, features that are network sensitive, such as Call Return, Selective
>>Call Forwarding, or Call Rejection, work only intra-LATA, which makes
>>them basically useless.
>>
>>***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>>Why are the features you mention limited to Intra-LATA?
>
>
> Limited to intra-LATA? Are you sure? That hasn't been my experience;
> that is, I have used those features nationally.
>
This got me curious. I tried Call Return on my Vonage line, which is
in Washington, DC. It identified and offered to return a call from my
California AT&T line.
So, it seems to *perhaps* only be a former Pacifc Bell limitation.
Too bad we don't have any current AT&T network engineers on this
forum.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:40:52 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <8g79m.13946$qx1.7582@newsfe04.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Limited to intra-LATA? Are you sure? That hasn't been my experience;
> that is, I have used those features nationally.
>
You guys got me going, especially when I found out that call return
works nationwide on my Vonage service.
The only feature on my AT&T line (formerly Pacific Bell/SBC) that is of
this type is Select Call Forwarding. I tried to set up an inter-LATA
number and it wouldn't take. So, I called 611 and got a sharp features
guy. He told me my feature was not set up correctly (it's been there
since SBC days). He said it would be "repaired" within two hours.
Now, it takes nation-wide numbers. Must have been a Pacific Bell thing.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:38:15 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <bpT8m.9236$0e4.2275@newsfe19.iad>
Sam Spade wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> Why are the features you mention limited to Intra-LATA?
>>
>
> Good question. It's not easy to find a rep who even knows that. Then,
> when you do the rep has no idea why they are limited to intra-LATA.
>
> Here's what it says on the AT&T web site for call return:
>
> "Call Return may not be available in all areas or on all calls."
>
> Very terse and sufficiently uninformative that it can be considered
> deceptive.
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Well, the question should really be "Is this caused by a technical
> restriction, or a political one?". Call Return depends on SS7
> delivering Calling Party data, which can't be guaranteed for all
> calls, so that may be a technical problem. OTOH, ILECs & CLECs might
> be demanding extra payment for enabling the service on IXC
> (Inter-LATA) calls, and the IXCs might not want to pay the freight.
>
I am sure it's something like that. Nonetheless the customer is the one
that is sold a bill of goods.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:58:04 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: AT&T U-verse (was: Home and small office VoIP services)
Message-ID: <h40q0c$9ae$1@news.albasani.net>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
> Let's back up a step, and be sure we're not comparing apples to
> oranges. Is the U-verse service the same as Verizon's FIOS
> offering, or does it DSL to transport data? Since the original
> poster put "TV" after the first mentionof U-verse, I'd like to
> get it clear if he's talked about a bundled cable offering, FIOS,
> or DSL.
AT&T U-verse doesn't deliver video, data, nor voice via DSL. Verizon FiOS
uses a different protocol.
With video, it's nothing like cable. No television channel is sent to
the viewer until he tunes in a channel. It's comparable to cable's
Video On Demand services, but entirely different technology. For
residential services, there is one main set-top box installed (which
incorporates a DVR) plus receivers for other tvs and recording
devices. There can be up to four television streams per residence (no
matter how many receivers), only one or two of which can be HD, and
all four can be recorded on the single DVR. The receivers at the other
devices can tune in a channel or recorded program on DVR.
U-verse and FiOS are exempt from CableCARD, but I don't know if it's
because they are defined in the Telecom Act as switched digital video
or because neither was a consumer service when the legislation was
written.
Data: up to 18 Mbps down, 1.5 up.
I have no idea what the digital voice protocol is.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:06:16 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: AT&T U-verse (was: Home and small office VoIP services)
Message-ID: <MPG.24ceb466e0f668bc989b01@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <h40q0c$9ae$1@news.albasani.net>, ahk@chinet.com says...
> With video, it's nothing like cable. No television channel is sent to
> the viewer until he tunes in a channel. It's comparable to cable's Video
> On Demand services, but entirely different technology. For residential
> services, there is one main set-top box installed (which incorporates a
> DVR) plus receivers for other tvs and recording devices. There can be up
> to four television streams per residence (no matter how many receivers),
> only one or two of which can be HD, and all four can be recorded on the
> single DVR. The receivers at the other devices can tune in a channel or
> recorded program on DVR.
>
This explains that while the FiOS adapter seems to have provisions for a
bunch of phone lines, net connections, etc. they put multiple boxes on
apartment buildings.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 08:22:59 -0500
From: "David" <someone@somewhere.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <h41rhl$p5d$1@news.eternal-september.org>
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:h40nlu$69j$2@news.albasani.net...
> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>>Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>
>>> There are now some concerns expressed over AT&T's U-verse (TV)
>>> service because your landline phone now becomes VoIP and people
>>> are >>>comcerned about when the power fails you're without
>>> landline phone >>>service, likely in an emergency when you're
>>> likely to need it most >>>and the cell phone service is
>>> overwhelmed with calls.
>>
>> Why does it become like VoIP? Can't they continue to provision
>> dial-tone on a copper pair?
>
> I'm sure they'd be willing to continue to sell separate
> telephone service to a U-Verse subscriber.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Let's back up a step, and be sure we're not comparing apples to
> oranges. Is the U-verse service the same as Verizon's FIOS offering,
> or does it DSL to transport data? Since the original poster put "TV"
> after the first mentionof U-verse, I'd like to get it clear if he's
> talked about a bundled cable offering, FIOS, or DSL.
I have Uverse which is delivered as a high speed DSL-like service
running at ~25MB/2MB on the copper pair. I also have POTS on the same
line. There is an option to drop battery/dial tone on the line and use
VOIP which has two RJ11 interfaces already provided on the
gateway/modem they provide. In my case, I kept the old POTS service
instead and it coexists just fine with Uverse.
David
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 06:27:35 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <h41rc9$spn$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>> Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>
>>> There are now some concerns expressed over AT&T's U-verse (TV)
>>> service because your landline phone now becomes VoIP and people are
>>> comcerned about when the power fails you're without landline phone
>>> service, likely in an emergency when you're likely to need it most
>>> and the cell phone service is overwhelmed with calls.
>
>> Why does it become like VoIP? Can't they continue to provision
>> dial-tone on a copper pair?
>
> I'm sure they'd be willing to continue to sell separate telephone
> service to a U-Verse subscriber.
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Let's back up a step, and be sure we're not comparing apples to
> oranges. Is the U-verse service the same as Verizon's FIOS offering,
> or does it DSL to transport data? Since the original poster put "TV"
> after the first mentionof U-verse, I'd like to get it clear if he's
> talked about a bundled cable offering, FIOS, or DSL.
The U-verse service is almost the same as FIOS, except the last 1,000
feet of U-verse is on copper where FIOS is Fiber-to-the-door. My
understanding from talking to AT&T techs [is] that in new areas
[U-verse does] have Fiber-to-the-door. I would guess that you could
get U-verse TV and Internet along with a copper phone line. I can't
get it in my area since I'm over 10,000 feet from the nearest
CO/Remote/Fiber Ring and the cable in my area is over 30 years old and
has many bad pairs; I know that since the last year or so I have had
phone/DSL outages which took from a day to a week to get fixed.
--
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: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <82001391-5bbd-4367-88fe-36ba38744f09@c1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 18, 11:10 pm, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> Given the apparent widespread acceptance of VoIP, I wonder what's
> going to happen with all the TelCos? I haven't seen any innovative
> new services from any local ones in decades. The big thing for me
> way back when was Touch Tone in the mid-1960s in New Mexico. I gave
> myself Touch Tone service when I moved to California by
> "accidentally" reversing the green and red wires. :-) :-) :-)-
I'm not sure how wiedspread VOIP acutally is.
For a low-use business or residential customer who does not have
computer broadband, VOIP would cost them _more_ (as I understand it).
VOIP requires sevearl things a great many people do not have, such as
a full service UPS and adapter eqiupment. Accordingly, I'm not sure
'widespread' acceptance is accurate.
Further, many cable offerings seem to be significantly going up in
price. Some deals are a cheap introfuctory rate that goes up after
six months or a year, which might not make it so attractive.
Lastly, the traditional wireline companies may offer their own VOIP
services. Isn't that what FIOS basically is? The FIOS offered around
here is very attractively priced compared to alternatives for the save
package of services.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:24:16 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <4A64E080.2030804@thadlabs.com>
On 7/20/2009 10:29 AM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jul 18, 11:10 pm, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
>> Given the apparent widespread acceptance of VoIP, I wonder what's
>> going to happen with all the TelCos? I haven't seen any innovative
>> [...]
>
> I'm not sure how wiedspread VOIP acutally is.
I see it (by recognizing the phone instruments) at many old and most
new businesses.
Though I don't actually know anyone with VoIP service in their home,
anecdotes here and on the Costco site strongly sugggest a lot of folks
have it.
> For a low-use business or residential customer who does not have
> computer broadband, VOIP would cost them _more_ (as I understand it).
Because they'd have to order/install/use broadband; that's the entry point
for VoIP. Specs I see suggest 500Kbps (or more) inbound and at least
300Kbps outbound.
> VOIP requires sevearl things a great many people do not have, such as
> a full service UPS and adapter eqiupment.
Once one has broadband internet to the home, that's it. Simply plug the
VoIP device onto the Ethernet and dial away. A UPS is required only for
runtime during power outages and wouldn't help if the broadband provider's
service is down during a power failure.
A business VoIP would likely have both a UPS and "adapter equipment" (e.g.,
a PRI feeding something like an asterisk system running on a dedicated
computer).
> Accordingly, I'm not sure 'widespread' acceptance is accurate.
I don't have "the numbers" so I'd agree. However, it seems that nearly
everyplace I look (at businesses) I see VoIP; I didn't see as many just
a few years ago, so clearly its acceptance has expanded.
> Further, many cable offerings seem to be significantly going up in
> price. Some deals are a cheap introfuctory rate that goes up after
> six months or a year, which might not make it so attractive.
Do cable prices EVER go down? :-)
> Lastly, the traditional wireline companies may offer their own VOIP
> services.
VoIP ostensibly works over basic ADSL to the home. Perhaps competition
will lower prices.
> Isn't that what FIOS basically is? The FIOS offered around
> here is very attractively priced compared to alternatives for the save
> package of services.
I don't know. AFAIK, FIOS is unavailble in California, or it might be
available in certain service areas. Weekly fliers I receive from PacBell
are still "pushing" 768Kbps DSL for what seems the same price I'm paying
for 30x faster cable.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <52afac94-517c-4dfe-8824-c8920acb6bcb@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 19, 11:19 am, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> Just curious: anyone here with a crystal ball who can "predict" the
> next advance we can expect from the TelCos? Or will TelCos become a
> vanishing act with the onslaught of digital technology?
IBM was once primarily a hardware company. Now it is primarily a
services company (though it still sells plenty of hardware and
software).
I have no idea of what's in the traditional telco future box. But
like IBM, I suspect they've been moving away from the old time
landline into other areas, such as wireless, data transmission, and
other services.
One thing about VOIP I forget to mention: What happens if everybody
decides to drop the traditonal landline and go VOIP. So there's a
bunch of COs with dead No 5 ESS boxes. But will there be enough VOIP
'capacity' in whatever it takes to collect calls from individual homes
and businesses, switch them, and route them to destinations? Will the
lines and switches become overcrowded with an unmanaged network?
Regularly while being on line sometimes there's a momentary pause in
response. While playing on Usenet it's no big deal. While talking on
the phone such a pause would be intolerable.
If someone is b/s-sing with a friend and the calls are dropped, no one
really cares too much. But if business people are discussing
important stuff, or someone is talking to their doctor, those .9999s
of landline reliability BETTER be there with VOIP.
I think regulated carriers are protected by tarrifs from litigation.
But VOIP providers have [no] such protection, and in our litigous
society, a failure of an important call _would_ result in nasty
lawsuits (cell phone providers got hit hard in their early days for
their lofty promises).
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:49:12 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <4A64E658.7050205@thadlabs.com>
On 7/20/2009 10:32 AM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> [...]
> One thing about VOIP I forget to mention: What happens if everybody
> decides to drop the traditonal landline and go VOIP. So there's a
> bunch of COs with dead No 5 ESS boxes. But will there be enough VOIP
> 'capacity' in whatever it takes to collect calls from individual homes
> and businesses, switch them, and route them to destinations? Will the
> lines and switches become overcrowded with an unmanaged network?
The same question could be asked of conventional TelCos.
>From memory, and the warnings in newspapers and on radio/TV when we have
an "event" (e.g., earthquake, fire, etc.) here, they say stay off the phone
because the system's capacity is a small percentage of all installed phone
instruments. The number 5% comes to mind and I don't recall where I first
heard that decades ago along with AT&T's alleged army of statisticians who
conjured up that number after examining calling patterns.
A broadband Internet connection is basically always on.
With POTS, one does not always receive dial tone (especially during "events").
My cellphone service has been generally reliable over the 17 years I've had
it so far (same account: Cellular One -> Cingular -> AT&T).
> Regularly while being on line sometimes there's a momentary pause in
> response. While playing on Usenet it's no big deal. While talking on
> the phone such a pause would be intolerable.
The question is: do such pauses occur in the real world? I've setup a
number of business VoIP systems and voice quality is comparable to POTS.
> If someone is b/s-sing with a friend and the calls are dropped, no one
> really cares too much. But if business people are discussing
> important stuff, or someone is talking to their doctor, those .9999s
> of landline reliability BETTER be there with VOIP.
Does such a level ".9999" exist? In my experience, it doesn't. One
client who was located in Cupertino CA would lose power and phones at
what seemed a weekly basis due to a (drunken?) backhoe operator severing
undergrounded wires. The company finally abandoned Cupertino and moved
to San Jose CA. True, that problem was not caused by PacBell -- they're
subject to the whims of Mother Nature and other people like any entity.
> I think regulated carriers are protected by tarrifs from litigation.
> But VOIP providers have [no] such protection, and in our litigous
> society, a failure of an important call _would_ result in nasty
> lawsuits (cell phone providers got hit hard in their early days for
> their lofty promises).
Interesting point, but looking right now at the front pages of my local
AT&T phone book, there are absolutely NO guarantees of service level or
even dial tone. They give a number to call for repair, but if the phone
and/or line isn't functioning, ... d'Oh! :-)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:44:17 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Message-ID: <op.uxcnf3bko63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:57:46 -0400, after what Monty Solomon
<monty@roscom.com> wrote, the Moderator asked:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> The question is: how much does it _cost_ to put a hardcover book on
> store shelves, and how much of the price goes to the vendor?
I'm privy only to *some* information that goes into answering this
question: the distributor's nominal discount below publisher's SRP (or
"suggested list price"), the distributor-to-bookseller markup, and the
final bookseller's likely markup to the consumer. Publishers' markups
to distributors are largely unknown to me, except in one case (my
own).
So:
For Baker & Taylor (B&T): standard nominal discount below publisher's
SRP is 55%. This means publisher will receive $4.50 for providing B&T
a [book which sells at a Suggest Retail Price (SRP) of] $10 per book.
For Amazon.com: same as B&T, above, except that Amazon may also order not
from the publisher directly but from B&T or other distributors.
Distributor-to-bookseller markup: roughly 40% to 80%, all depending ... .
Booksellers' likely markup: anywhere from 15% to 40% of the SRP is markup,
just how much or how little depending on their relations with their distributor.
Publisher's markup to distributor? Ya got me. In our own little publishing venture,
we try to mark up enough over our production costs to cover the postage to the
distributor, if at all possible, and far prefer selling direct through amazon.
[We strongly *suspect* professional publishers aim for 100% markup, or more,
including in their "costs" not just production costs, but royalties & publicity.]
For a $10 paperback of *ours*, B&T will pay $4.50, probably get $6.50 from Amazon,
and the final buyer will likely pay Amazon the full $10 *plus* shipping.
Our own production costs (not counting amortized printer expense) on that $10 book
(of 64 pages, produced using 16 half-sheets of legal paper with duplex printing)
probably come to about $2 (paper, toner, pro-rata share of printer consumables).
Clearly, when selling to B&T, we barely break even :-) .
But we do proofread our books more carefully than I proofread this post, so
please forgive me my typos, as I forgive those who typo against me :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:11:28 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Message-ID: <h42q2f$p8q$1@reader1.panix.com>
tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> writes:
> Publisher's markup to distributor? Ya got me. In our own little
> publishing venture, we try to mark up enough over our production
> costs to cover the postage to the distributor, if at all possible,
> and far prefer selling direct through amazon. [We strongly *suspect*
> professional publishers aim for 100% markup, or more, including in
> their "costs" not just production costs, but royalties & publicity.]
With an academic fulfillment house, it was 10-12%; i.e. we [publisher]
got 88-90% of what the distribution house took in.
Note that there's a BIG difference between such and a wholesaler. The
wholesaler *buys* books from you, and stores them to sell to
retailers.
The distributor does not own any books. You ship your books to them,
they store them for you, they ship them out when ordered, they collect
the money, and split it with you.
Amazon acted like their own wholesaler; they would buy books from the
distributor only as they needed the, (+ a small cushion) and ship them
as sold. But if Amazon bought the books from us directly; I think we
got a mere 20% rate; i.e. on a $10 book, we saw $2.00.
The REAL gotcha is "returns" -- a wholesaler can and would order
dozens of copies of a title, and return however many were
unsold. Mass-market titles [say Harry Potter] could easily have 75%
returns, and were 'sold' 4-5 times. No distributor grants volume
discounts on a title because if they did; wholesalers and stores would
overbuy to get a lower price, and return most...
--
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
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:14:36 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Message-ID: <c87.549521ca.3795c7bc@aol.com>
In a message dated 7/19/2009 9:58:12 PM Central Daylight Time, Bill wrot in
a moderator's note to a post by _monty@roscom.com_
(mailto:monty@roscom.com) :
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> The question is: how much does it _cost_ to put a hardcover book on
> store shelves, and how much of the price goes to the vendor?
Also how much does it cost for marketing it on Amazon, and how much of
that goes to the publisher?
--
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:55:30 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Message-ID: <op.uxcnysiro63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 23:16:29 -0400, Gordon Burditt <gordonb.480j8@burditt.org>
wrote, in part, at the end:
>> ... Amazon.com, which sells electronic editions for its Kindle device,
>
> No, it sells receipts. Nothing more. And if they figure out a way
> to make the receipt vanish ...
Staples, office Max, and other stores which accept returns for refund
if accompanied by a valid sales receipt, have indeed figured out a way to
make the receipt vanish: print it thermally, on unstable thermal paper.
On occasion, I've had their receipts fade to virtual illegibility
within the two weeks they allow for returns.
And I've certainly learned to photocopy whichever of their receipts I
might later need as tax documentation, using a laser-toner photocopy device.
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:50:37 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: When Texting Is Wrong
Message-ID: <pan.2009.07.20.07.50.36.217058@myrealbox.com>
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:23:38 -0400, T wrote:
> In article <pan.2009.07.18.23.57.51.789075@myrealbox.com>,
> dcstar@myrealbox.com says...
.......
>> In my city a RFID based "chip" fare system for the public transport
>> system (trams, trains and buses) is currently being rolled out (at a
>> cost of 3+ times the original estimate and 4 years late....) and we
>> already have draconian regulations that smash users who don't get the
>> current system 100% correct.
.......
> Interestingly our state wide transit agency RIPTA rolled out a new e-
> fare system a couple years back. Includes magnetic card reading, cash
> acceptance (Up to $20), issues change card, and reads rfid cards.
>
> Works just fine. They phased it into existence over a two or three
> months and it went off without a hitch.
Unfortunately my state government went with an over-ambitious custom
starry-eyed "Burger with the lot" system promised for an unrealistic low
price despite all expert advice that a) It wasn't necessary and there
were already adequate systems available to purchase at a fraction of the
cost; and b) That it just could not be done at that low price.
It was supposed to happen with all the risk held by the company that won
the tender, but because it is so important (sort of) the government kept
pumping more and more money into it - as well as costing hundreds of
millions in now keeping the old technology going way past the expected
retirement date.
It is the classic IT project initiated and run by morons that makes you
believe that Dilbert cartoons are a documentary as well as
entertainment.....
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:29:23 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: When Texting Is Wrong
Message-ID: <h42de7$m7j$1@news.eternal-september.org>
David Clayton wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:23:38 -0400, T wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2009.07.18.23.57.51.789075@myrealbox.com>,
>> dcstar@myrealbox.com says...
> .......
>>> In my city a RFID based "chip" fare system for the public transport
>>> system (trams, trains and buses) is currently being rolled out (at a
>>> cost of 3+ times the original estimate and 4 years late....) and we
>>> already have draconian regulations that smash users who don't get the
>>> current system 100% correct.
> .......
>> Interestingly our state wide transit agency RIPTA rolled out a new e-
>> fare system a couple years back. Includes magnetic card reading, cash
>> acceptance (Up to $20), issues change card, and reads rfid cards.
>>
>> Works just fine. They phased it into existence over a two or three
>> months and it went off without a hitch.
>
> Unfortunately my state government went with an over-ambitious custom
> starry-eyed "Burger with the lot" system promised for an unrealistic low
> price despite all expert advice that a) It wasn't necessary and there
> were already adequate systems available to purchase at a fraction of the
> cost; and b) That it just could not be done at that low price.
>
> It was supposed to happen with all the risk held by the company that won
> the tender, but because it is so important (sort of) the government kept
> pumping more and more money into it - as well as costing hundreds of
> millions in now keeping the old technology going way past the expected
> retirement date.
>
> It is the classic IT project initiated and run by morons that makes you
> believe that Dilbert cartoons are a documentary as well as
> entertainment.....
Funny thing, the cartoonist that writes Dilbert was an engineer with
Pacific Telephone. I have been in several offices that had some of his
artwork in it.
--
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.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Shortly after he was forced out of the ISDN lab at Pactel, Adams
promised readers they would see a new character wearing suspenders,
representing his old boss. Such a character _did_ appear, but in only
one strip that I ever saw, so I assume that the bureaucrat in question
had his lawyers make a phone call.
I met actually met Scott Adams before he started at Pactel, when he
was working at a bank in California. I remember complementing him on
his cartoons, which were taped to the walls of his cubicle, and
suggesting that he should publish them. He told me that "a lot of
people say that".
Adams actually wrote a few strips from a suggestion I made in the
90's, about a new employee who invites everyone to go on ski trips
with her, but tells Dilbert he's got to stay behind to get the work
done. Needless to say, we all knew he worked for Ma Bell long before
it was disclosed: some of his cartoons had me looking for hidden
cameras in the corners of the NYNEX Engineering center.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:08:09 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: When Texting Is Wrong
Message-ID: <h42j7d$4e3$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Steven Lichter wrote:
> David Clayton wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:23:38 -0400, T wrote:
>>
>>> In article <pan.2009.07.18.23.57.51.789075@myrealbox.com>,
>>> dcstar@myrealbox.com says...
>> .......
>>>> In my city a RFID based "chip" fare system for the public transport
>>>> system (trams, trains and buses) is currently being rolled out (at a
>>>> cost of 3+ times the original estimate and 4 years late....) and we
>>>> already have draconian regulations that smash users who don't get the
>>>> current system 100% correct.
>> .......
>>> Interestingly our state wide transit agency RIPTA rolled out a new e-
>>> fare system a couple years back. Includes magnetic card reading, cash
>>> acceptance (Up to $20), issues change card, and reads rfid cards.
>>>
>>> Works just fine. They phased it into existence over a two or three
>>> months and it went off without a hitch.
>>
>> Unfortunately my state government went with an over-ambitious custom
>> starry-eyed "Burger with the lot" system promised for an unrealistic low
>> price despite all expert advice that a) It wasn't necessary and there
>> were already adequate systems available to purchase at a fraction of the
>> cost; and b) That it just could not be done at that low price.
>>
>> It was supposed to happen with all the risk held by the company that won
>> the tender, but because it is so important (sort of) the government kept
>> pumping more and more money into it - as well as costing hundreds of
>> millions in now keeping the old technology going way past the expected
>> retirement date.
>>
>> It is the classic IT project initiated and run by morons that makes you
>> believe that Dilbert cartoons are a documentary as well as
>> entertainment.....
>
> Funny thing, the cartoonist that writes Dilbert was an engineer with
> Pacific Telephone. I have been in several offices that had some of his
> artwork in it.
I can attest to actions the company will take for articles they do not
like.
Some years ago Pat published and article that I sent in; with in a few
hours of the article being on the Digest, Pat had received e-mails as
well as phone calls from upper level management from GTE Calif. I was
threatened also, but since the articles were public and I sent them
from my own computer on my own time, there was nothing they could do,
thought they did try, bringing National CWA running a defense which
pretty much ended the actions, but years later I met managers that
were involved in it as well as seeing what was in my files.
This also caused others from within the company to send in more on
this item, though Pat kept the posters names from the article
including mine. I did a search of the article and found it in the
archives.
--
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: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:37:21 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: When Texting Is Wrong
Message-ID: <h42v3h$7v3$3@news.albasani.net>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>I met actually met Scott Adams before he started at Pactel, when he
>was working at a bank in California. I remember complementing him on
>his cartoons, which were taped to the walls of his cubicle, and
>suggesting that he should publish them. He told me that "a lot of
>people say that".
Wow, Bill. If you'd immediately syndicated his strips, you'd have made a
small but steady commission for a few decades!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:13:40 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: When Texting Is Wrong
Message-ID: <MPG.24ceb6202e1c6367989b03@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <pan.2009.07.20.07.50.36.217058@myrealbox.com>,
dcstar@myrealbox.com says...
>
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:23:38 -0400, T wrote:
>
> > In article <pan.2009.07.18.23.57.51.789075@myrealbox.com>,
> > dcstar@myrealbox.com says...
> .......
> >> In my city a RFID based "chip" fare system for the public transport
> >> system (trams, trains and buses) is currently being rolled out (at a
> >> cost of 3+ times the original estimate and 4 years late....) and we
> >> already have draconian regulations that smash users who don't get the
> >> current system 100% correct.
> .......
> > Interestingly our state wide transit agency RIPTA rolled out a new e-
> > fare system a couple years back. Includes magnetic card reading, cash
> > acceptance (Up to $20), issues change card, and reads rfid cards.
> >
> > Works just fine. They phased it into existence over a two or three
> > months and it went off without a hitch.
>
> Unfortunately my state government went with an over-ambitious custom
> starry-eyed "Burger with the lot" system promised for an unrealistic low
> price despite all expert advice that a) It wasn't necessary and there
> were already adequate systems available to purchase at a fraction of the
> cost; and b) That it just could not be done at that low price.
>
> It was supposed to happen with all the risk held by the company that won
> the tender, but because it is so important (sort of) the government kept
> pumping more and more money into it - as well as costing hundreds of
> millions in now keeping the old technology going way past the expected
> retirement date.
>
> It is the classic IT project initiated and run by morons that makes you
> believe that Dilbert cartoons are a documentary as well as
> entertainment.....
I know we're drifting off subject but having been a state government
employee I can tell you about how retarded some administrations are.
I got to see one administration through transition for nine months. In
the prior 2.5 years I'd been there I actively campaigned for and got
project management schemes built into all our projects. That did two
things, it got the upper administration to sign off on what they thought
was critical, and it got us breather room.
We had that, a central versioning system, used dotProject for tracking,
etc.
New administration came in and took a wrecking ball to all that. Which
is precisely why nine months later I just couldn't take it anymore.
I swear there should be vetting for candidates to office beyond the age
limits and things like that. An IQ test might be sufficient.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:17:41 -0400
From: Matt Simpson <net-news69@jmatt.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Catching Spammers in the Act / Researchers show how spammers harvest e-mail addresses and send out bulk messages [TELECOM]
Message-ID: <net-news69-B61549.12174120072009@news.toast.net>
In article <p06240807c68664dcc4a8@[10.0.1.3]>,
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
> Researchers have shed new light on the methods by which spammer
> harvest e-mail addresses from the Web and relay bulk messages through
> multiple computers. They say that findings could provide additional
> ammunition in the fight against junk e-mail campaigns.
>
Project Honeypot has been working on this for some time
http://www.projecthoneypot.org/
Anyone with a website can help by adding a link that the Honeypot people
provide. This link produces a page with unique spamtrap addresses.
Whenever a crawler requests one of those pages, the IP that requested it
is logged along with the email addresses that were presented on the page.
If one of those email addresses later receives spam, they can trace
which crawler harvested that address.
I'm helping their project, both by putting their links on my websites
and by "donating" hostnames for them to use in their spamtrap
addresses. If you own a domain, you can create a subdomain and point
the MX for that to the honeypot servers, so that all mail sent to
addresses in that subdomain go to Honeypot. That lets them have a
diverse range of addresses to use for spam traps.
Occasionally I get mail from them saying "Congratulations, you helped
catch a spammer." This happens when either spam is sent to a spamtrap
address that was displayed on one of my sites, or an address at one of
my donated subdomains that was displayed somewhere else.
Aside from putting it in their database, I'm not sure what they do
with a spammer when they catch one.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tim Shoppa <shoppa@trailing-edge.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: One Example of Cell Phone Domination
Message-ID: <2754bd47-efbd-4ffd-a442-eb0c1c03d1ef@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 16, 8:09 am, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> A lot of Germans visit Death Valley and, according to the resort
> manager, they take it in stride. Their view is why does anyone need
> these inane gadgets when visiting such a remote area? In other words,
> the Germans don't seem to be obsessed nearly to the extent Americans are.
The apocryphal story is told of a psychology researcher who ran IQ
tests on those in prisons. His conclusion was that criminals have a
markedly lower IQ than the general population. When he submitted his
study to an academic journal for publishing, the editor simply
returned it, noting that the study did not show that criminals have a
lower IQ; it only showed that those who were caught and imprisoned had
a lower IQ.
I think it's likely that Germans who make the effort to go to Death
Valley are making a true effort to get away from gadgets that connect
them to civilization. Americans can get there with just a few hours
drive from several major population centers (Las Vegas, Los Angeles,
and San Francisco being the nearest).
Tim.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:47:39 -0700
From: "Al Gillis" <al.1020@hotmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <4a649fab$0$86454$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net>
Last weekend the television was full of news and historical looks at
Walter Cronkite, who passed away Friday. (RIP, Walter)
Did you notice some of the unusual, or at least infrequently seen,
Bell System equipment? I saw what looked to me like several
Receive-Only Model 19 Teletype machines! And one clip, played
repeatedly, featured the familiar sound of a Teletype clunking out the
latest hot news with Walter announcing over the top of that sound. I
also noticed one scene with a 564 Keyset along with the equivalent
300-type keyset as well as a 500-type set with no dial but with a
"beehive" lamp holder mounted on the dial blank cover plate! Other
scenes revealed lots of beige telephones, a 10 button keyset or two
and lots of rotary dial equipment. I was surprised that more headsets
weren't seen - I'm sure lots of them were used by those who may have
had to write or type as they received news from distant
correspondents. Many manual typewriters were evident, of course!
None of the discussion associated with these scenes focused on the
telephones, of course. Maybe someone reading this can help us better
understand how this equipment played into the development of the
Evening News? I'm sure telephones, Teletypes and the Bell System
played a major part in conveying the day's happenings to America.
***** Moderator's Note *****
The machines you saw were Teletype Model 15RO devices. They were the
standard of the Associated Press and United Press International well
into the 1970's: the sounds you heard were of an actual Teletype
machine. Small radio stations, such as WMLO in Beverly, Massachusetts,
where I worked in 1976, still used them: to this day, newscasters
refer to "Rip-'N-Read" as a derogatory term for any quickly or
carelessly produced news broadcast. The term comes from the wire
services' hourly printout of a news summary, which DJ's could rip from
the Teletype machine and read directly on the air.
When I worked at WRKO in Boston during 1977, I found out that the
banks of Teletypes shown in the background of every newscast were
actually just empty Model 15 covers with pieces of paper taped to
them: the actual Teletypes had been replaced by either computerized
receivers or dot-matrix printers, but the news department felt that
the public expected to see Teletypes on a news set, so they retained
the old covers as props.
As to the telephones shown on Cronkite's set and offices, they were
actually instruments, and actually in use: Cronkite had been a war
correspondent and a press reporter, so he was an old hand at making
effective use of telephones (or radiotelephones, when he was in
Europe). Of course, they could have been hidden out of sight, but the
networks found that the public liked to have an image of an informal
setting where actual work could be done, because it made viewers feel
they were receiving more recent reports instead of a staged
presentation.
By the 1980's most TV stations had revised their sets to show glitzy
video graphics and monitors: public tastes had changed so that viewers
were more attracted to stations which portrayed new technology.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:52:00 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <c7c.531cf609.37966b30@aol.com>
In a message dated 7/20/2009 1:52:46 PM Central Daylight Time,
al.1020@hotmail.com writes:
> Last weekend the television was full of news and historical looks at
> Walter Cronkite, who passed away Friday. (RIP, Walter)
>
> Did you notice some of the unusual, or at least infrequently seen,
> Bell System equipment? I saw what looked to me like several
> Receive-Only Model 19 Teletype machines!
Thewe were not "infrequtnly seen" in nespapers, radio and TV
newrooms and wire service offices. I believe we havd 14 Teletypes in
the United Pres bureau in Dallas, not counting a couple of machines
for TWX and a WUX printer from Western Union. I forget how many there
were in the newsroom when I worked for The Daily Oklahoman and the
Oklahoma City Times, but it was a bunch, both for Associated Press and
United P{ress.
Radio stations and most TV newsrooms got their news the same
way--from receive only Teletypes receivng the news reports put out by
the wire services' bureaus such as the one I worked in in Dallas.
Each service had a number of different wires, general news, sports,
radio, local or other state news, financial reports.
The Teletypes became almost univeral after their development made
them sufficiently reliable. Before that Morse operators with keys and
souders sent and received the reports, but with Teletypes there was no
operator needed at the receive end.
The Teletypes were connected to the same leased telegraph
circuits that the Morse operators had used. These were provided
mostly by telecos, although a few ran on W.U. circuits
originally. Each circuit was operated either with customer-owned
equipment or Bell equipment, all one owneership on one circuit. Of
couse if you had a patch board you could patch one of either ownership
to any wire in case of a failure. Our patchboard in Dallas also had
an unmarked TWX jack, so we could patch an ASR machine in to avoid
slow and tiresome hand punching.
> And one clip, played repeatedly, featured the familiar sound of a
> Teletype clunking out the latest hot news with Walter announcing
> over the top of that sound. I also noticed one scene with a 564
> Keyset along with the equivalent 300-type keyset as well as a
> 500-type set with no dial but with a "beehive" lamp holder mounted
> on the dial blank cover plate! Other scenes revealed lots of beige
> telephones, a 10 button keyset or two and lots of rotary dial
> equipment. I was surprised that more headsets weren't seen - I'm
> sure lots of them were used by those who may have had to write or
> type as they received news from distant correspondents. Many manual
> typewriters were evident, of course!
The Teletype background noise was used on many radio and TV news
shows.
I don't remember headsets being used very much...most people
propped their phone on their shoulder while they were taking
dictation. Many times you were getting information rather than
dictation and had to write the story from your notes. In some cases a
dispatcher phone arrangement with the transmitter on a pantagraph
mounting was used, sometimes with a single hearset (no transmitter)
was used, sometimes hung on the hookswitch when not in use.
> None of the discussion associated with these scenes focused on the
> telephones, of course. Maybe someone reading this can help us
> better understand how this equipment played into the development of
> the Evening News? I'm sure telephones, Teletypes and the Bell
> System played a major part in conveying the day's happenings to
> America.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> The machines you saw were Teletype Model 15RO devices. They were the
> standard of the Associated Press and United Press International well
> into the 1970's: the sounds you heard were of an actual Teletype
> machine. Small radio stations, such as WMLO in Beverly,
> Massachusetts, where I worked in 1976, still used them: to this day,
> newscasters refer to "Rip-'N-Read" as a derogatory term for any
> quickly or carelessly produced news broadcast. The term comes from
> the wire services' hourly printout of a news summary, which DJ's
> could rip from the Teletype machine and read directly on the air.
>
> As to the telephones shown on Cronkite's set and offices, they were
> actually instruments, and actually in use: Cronkite had been a war
> correspondent and a press reporter, so he was an old hand at making
> effective use of telephones (or radiotelephones, when he was in
> Europe). Of course, they could have been hidden out of sight, but
> the networks found that the public liked to have an image of an
> informal setting where actual work could be done, because it made
> viewers feel they were receiving more recent reports instead of a
> staged presentation.
>
> By the 1980's most TV stations had revised their sets to show glitzy
> video graphics and monitors: public tastes had changed so that
> viewers were more attracted to stations which portrayed new
> technology.
>
> Bill Horne
I could cynically suggest the it was not public taste but the
stations' search for ratings that let to the graphics and glitz. I
still remember fondly the weatherman with a chalk or crayon board and
a stick, often making the weather more clear then they do now with
their electronic gadgets.
--
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
***** Moderator's Note *****
On the first day of my honeymoon in 1987, I awoke in an English
cottage which had a TV set that looked like it had been assembled by
Philo T. Farnsworth himself.
I turned it on - it was a Monday morning at about 9 AM - and I watched
as a mechanical engineer explained the method used for stress testing
industrial bolts. He was very pleased that the bolts he was testing
hadn't broken until stressed at 150 percent of their rated strengh.
To this day, the memory delights me: I hope the British have retained
what was, to me, an obvious sense of television's limits and how it
should most appropriately be used.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:10:38 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: When Texting Is Wrong
Message-ID: <MPG.24ceb567e65cc5a5989b02@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <MPG.24cc6df618e59aa1989963@news.verizon.net>,
first.last@verizon.net says...
>
> In article <pan.2009.07.18.23.57.51.789075@myrealbox.com>,
> dcstar@myrealbox.com says...
> > On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:44:01 -0400, hancock4 wrote:
> > .........
> > > In the railroad newsgroup we've been talking about automated ticket
> > > vending machines and I've pointed out that in some cases they've caused
> > > passengers to miss trains and wait a long time till the next one, or fail
> > > to have a ticket and get arrested by the ticket inspectors on 'proof of
> > > payment' systems.
> > >
> > > My feeling is that automation must make things better for the customer
> > > than they were before. As a trolley passenger, in the old days I'd merely
> > > drop my fare in a farebox when I boarded. Now I have to arrive well in
> > > advance and go through a series of menus of a ticket machine.
> > >
> > > If I err I get arrested. I don't consider that an improvment but
> > > apparently I'm alone in that opinion.
> >
> > In my city a RFID based "chip" fare system for the public transport system
> > (trams, trains and buses) is currently being rolled out (at a cost of 3+
> > times the original estimate and 4 years late....) and we already have
> > draconian regulations that smash users who don't get the current system
> > 100% correct.
> >
> > What will occur when this new technology mixes with these already tough
> > regulations is a worry, there could be a lot of ordinary people virtually
> > turned into criminals because of inflexible technology combined with
> > an inflexible ideology (expressed by these rules and regulations).
>
>
> Here in the backwater of Boston, Massachusetts, our subway and bus
> systems (the MBTA) converted from coin boxes to the "Charlie Card", an
> RFID system based on the European OysterCard. The plastic card is free,
> you then (re)load it with $$ value with cash or debit/credit card at a
> touchscreen kiosk.
>
> The same kiosks also dispense paper "Charlie Tickets", intended for
> occasional riders. These mag-stripe cards can also be reloaded, but
> tend to get used for single trips, and end up as litter in every
> station.
>
> The MBTA system doesn't employ ticket-takers; you either tap your
> Charlie Card, or insert your Charlie Ticket at a turnstile; the
> appropriate fare is deducted and you proceed through. Buses and
> trolleys have the reader where the old coin boxes used to be, adjacent
> to the motorman/conductor.
>
> Because regular commuters load up their cards, they only have to visit
> the kiosk when their balance is low (which is helpfully displayed as you
> pass through the turnstile).
>
> My only real complaints with the system are that the kiosk GUI could be
> better, and occasionally it refuses to handle debit cards.
>
> --Gene
I noticed that issue with the debit cards. One MBTA kiosk wouldn't take
mine but the next did. And I note they still don't have kiosks here in
Providence even though MBTA stretches service all the way down to
Warwick, RI now or very soon now.
When I bought passes I'd just get the paper version because you can't
use the RFID pass on the commuter rail as yet.
But the RIPTA system - I see discarded change cards, transfers, etc. all
over the place. The system they use isn't saving them any money on
printing costs. However it is convenient that the fare boxes will accept
up to $20 in cash and give you a change card.
The rub is that RIPTA gets to play with the float on that remaining
money.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:36:38 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 911 service center troubles
Message-ID: <slo965l434fgngc4u43khm6oibuk1hll9a@4ax.com>
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 01:03:28 -0400 (EDT), jsw <jsw@ivgate.omahug.org>
wrote:
>>In the mid 1960s NYC oganized all police dispatch (let's not talk
>>about fire...) into one office, using a single seven digit phone
>>number.
>
>>(Ok, you old timers, dust off those memory cells.)
>
>{dusting off old rusty memory cells and showing my real age}
>
>440-1234. ;-)
When I was growing up in suburban Boston circa 1955, I noticed that
the police departments in the area had -1234 as the last four digits
of their phone numbers.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:25:42 -0400
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Message-ID: <barmar-BAA982.20254220072009@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <hZ-dnYCbTP5Wff7XnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
gordonb.480j8@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
> >A New World: Scheduling E-Books
> >
> >By MOTOKO RICH and BRAD STONE
> >The New York Times
> >July 15, 2009
> >
> >Dan Brown's fans have waited six long years for "The Lost Symbol,"
> >his follow-up to the megablockbuster novel "The Da Vinci Code" that
> >is being published in hardcover on Sept. 15.
> >
> >Will those who want to read it in e-book form wait a little longer?
>
> Why would I want to read it in e-book form, which may evaporate at
> any time (This Means You, Amazon)? I don't see that as being worth
> 9.99 microcents, including "shipping" and tax.
This has happened one time, so you've decided the entire technology is
worthless? [This is a way to] blow something out of proportion.
You can also lose books, but I doubt that stopped you from buying them.
And if that happens, you don't get your money back, like it did with the
deleted Kindle e-books.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:22:51 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Driven to Distraction / Drivers and Legislators Dismiss Cellphone Risks
Message-ID: <MPG.24ceb845ddc19e2a989b04@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <p06240824c68880404e64@[10.0.1.3]>, monty@roscom.com says...
> A disconnect between perception and reality worsens the problem. New
> studies show that drivers overestimate their own ability to safely
> multitask, even as they worry about the dangers of others doing it.
>
This gives me hope that autonomous vehicles would be an easy sell to the
insurance industry. You take out the last wildcard from the safety
equation.
And yes, I hear it from people all the time. What happens when the
computer has a fatal error. A correctly engineered system will have
both systems checks and a default state so that the car won't careen
off the road. Maybe just a system to move to the right most portion of
road or some such would be necessary.
Like it or not, we're going to see autonomous vehicles withing the
next ten to twenty years. Bits and pieces of the technologies are
already making their way into high end vehicles today.
------------------------------
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) 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 (38 messages)
******************************
|
or 