29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for August 16, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 205 : "text" Format
====== 29 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ====== |
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Bill Horne and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. - Geoffrey Welsh
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
|
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 16:24:45 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon strike
Message-ID: <j29lft$ppm$1@dont-email.me>
On 8/14/11 1:45 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 09:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Lisa or Jeff
> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in comp.dcom.telecom:
>
>
>
> Charter certainly offers internet-only.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Love the domain name!
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
Charter is the most hated company in the US. They billed me for service
10 months after their installer removed everything from my house.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2011 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I was referring to the domain name that the OP uses: "nofreelunch.us".
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: 14 Aug 2011 23:56:25 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon strike
Message-ID: <20110814235625.7236.qmail@joyce.lan>
>I got rid of Vonage as it required a PC be powered on all the time to
>have continuous phone service, same as Skype (no adapter, just
>software).
Huh? When I had Vonage, they provided me a Cisco ATA-186 with one
jack for the RJ-45 from the router and another jack with the RJ-11 to
the phone. I couldn't have run it through my PC if I wanted to.
R's,
John
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 17:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Extensions to pay phones?
Message-ID: <1313367658.34014.YahooMailClassic@web111717.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
"John F. Morse" <john@example.invalid>
wrote in news:pan.2011.08.14.12.49.19.149297@example.invalid:
> Coin class phones had two USOC codes:
>
> 1PC = one party Public Coin
>
> 1SP = one party Semi-Public
>
> There were no 2xx (two-party) coin lines, which would have, think
> about it, created all kinds of problems.
>
> The 1PC was a phone the telephone company owned, installed in a
> public place, and the phone company kept all the money it generated.
>
> Public meaning streets, airports, and any other place the phone
> company saw a chance for revenue and had permission from the owner
> to install the phone.
>
> The 1SP was the phone company's phone too (weren't they all?!), but
> it was installed in a semi-public place. Actually a private place
> that the public was permitted to visit, such as a store, barber
> shop, etc. The owner of the private property had to initiate an
> service order request for a 1SP line.
>
> In the 1960s-1970s the 1SP class carried with it a 41-cent per day
> guarantee. That was because the phone was not accessible 24/7 in
> most cases, and meant the proprietor had to "pay" 41 cents per day
> for the phone service. It would be credited from the total income
> the coin box took in during every collection cycle.
>
> So, that 1SP line and coin set cost the proprietor $12.30 per month,
> which was comparable to a 1FR (one party flat-rate residential) line
> (which he couldn't get inside a business), but cheaper than a 1FB
> (one party flat-rate business) line.
A semi-public telephone also had a directory listing in the name of
the business. That was one reason a business would have s semi-public
telephone, to have a phone that the public also partly paid for.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 17:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Extensions to pay phones?
Message-ID: <1313368257.51592.YahooMailClassic@web111721.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
--- On Sun, 8/14/11, Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> Years ago businesses were very fussy about employees and guests
> making personal calls on business phones and pay phones were
> provided as described above for that reason. But today phone
> service is so cheap it doesn't matter (a 7 cent local call fee was
> significant in 1965, not so today). Indeed, many businesses (like a
> law firm) offer a free phone for guests to use in their waiting
> rooms.
Some businesses were fussy in those days, others were not. In areas
where 1FB service was common, many businesses had phones for customer
use, others had no objection to allowing customers or others from
using their regular business phones.
With 1FB service, there is no marginal cost for customers' calls.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
***** Moderator's Note *****
1FB means "Single party Flat-rate Business"
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 13:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Extensions to pay phones?
Message-ID: <b2d5fc81-86c1-4308-a852-272d0bca31d8@r12g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 14, 8:30 pm, Wes Leatherock <wleat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Some businesses were fussy in those days, others were not. In areas
> where 1FB service was common, many businesses had phones for customer
> use, others had no objection to allowing customers or others from
> using their regular business phones.
> 1FB means "Single party Flat-rate Business"
I can understand that if a business didn't have to pay a message unit
charge for a call, then it wouldn't mind as much people using the
phone.
How common was it to offer flat rate to business subscribers? I can't
help but suspect the majority of business subscribers (those within
cities and larger towns) had message rate service.
The other issue regarding customers or employees using a business
phones was that it tied up a line (and perhaps) an extension which may
have blocked an incoming business call. Further, if one person does
it, then everyone expects to do it, causing problems.
In some businesses, employees were expected to take any incoming calls
over the pay phone so as to keep the business lines clear.
Now, obviously a customer who might be buying a new automobile is
worth more goodwill than a kid buying a candy bar. Places like candy
stores and drugstores often had pay phones. Indeed, going very far
back, the phone served as a neighborhood line, and kids hanging out
earned a tip passing a message to a neighbor.
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 07:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <b1622b96-eeac-451b-87a1-a3181fb9508c@a7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
>From MSNBC:
SAN FRANCISCO . Bay Area Rapid Transit district officials said
they were attempting Sunday to shut down a hacker's group website
that lists the names of thousands of San Francisco Bay area
residents who are email subscribers of a legitimate BART
website. ... Besides the names of the subscribers, the group,
known as Anonymous, also posted the names, street addresses,
email addresses and phone numbers.
... The posting comes in response to BART officials on Thursday
cutting off underground cellphone service for a few hours at
several stations to thwart a planned protest over the recent
fatal shooting of a 45-year-old man by police. BART spokesman
Jim Allison has said that the cell phone disruptions were legal
as the agency owns the property and infrastructure.
full article at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44139412/ns/technology_and_science-security/
IMHO, since BART owns the cell phone infrastructure on its subway, it
has the right to suspend cell phone service.
The use of cell phone technology by mobs to coordinate attacks has
created disturbances in London and Philadelphia where property has
been damaged and people injured.
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 17:31:30 -0700
From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon strike
Message-ID: <206mh8-pmk.ln1@radagast.org>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>If I wanted to use my DSL line for phone service, what brand(s) of
>phone could I get that I could plug in to an Ethernet port? What do
>the phones cost, and how do I get service for them?
Grandstream, Aastra, Polycom, Gigaset, and quite a few other companies
which make VoIP phones... most have two Ethernet ports and a built-in
switch, and most speak SIP. Cisco makes VoIP phones as well, but many
of these come preconfigured to use Cisco's own VoIP protocol rather
than SIP.
Various Aastra models seem to be selling for between $65 and $200,
depending on features. Prices vary a lot depending on brand, model,
and where you buy from.
If you are willing to buy used kit, you can often find real deals.
I've bought several SIP phones and analog-telephone adapters through
electronics recyclers and at a local electronics flea-market, and I
don't think I spent more than $15 on the most expensive one.
To get full service for these phones, you'd deal with a telephony
provider who will handle both VoIP origination, and can terminate a
DID phone number and route the call to you via SIP. There are many
such providers... some cheap and some expensive, some fly-by-night and
some with long histories of stability. Plans range anywhere from flat
rate "all you can use" (up to a large limit per month) for a flat
rate, down to pay-as-you-go-by-the-minute. Ask around for
recommendations from existing VoIP customers.
It's possible to have an existing DID number "ported" over to a VoIP
provider, just as you can port them to alternative analog dialtone
providers or to cellphone providers. The FCC has made it clear that
VoIP providers are bound by the same rules w.r.t porting of existing
numbers.
You can quite easily "buy" DIDs in two or more cities (or overseas)
and have the calls terminated to your same SIP phone or adapter or
gateway/proxy. This can be very handy if you travel a lot or do work
in several cities... you can have a local number in many places at not
much expense.
For what it's worth - I recently ported my wife's low-usage business
line over from analog (about $15/month) to VoIP, with the existing
number being terminated by Vitelity. Cost per month is under $2 for
the DID, plus about a penny and a half per minute for calls (inbound
or outbound).
I've got another line with no DID, but outbound servide through Future
Nine... about a penny a minute. Oddly, it's cheaper by a hair to call
landlines in London, than landlines here in the U.S.
Both of these use our existing home DSL service, so there's no
incremental data cost.
A word of caution... VoIP running on consumer-grade DSL will probably
not provide call service that's entirely as reliable and glitch-free
as standard switched-circuit "analog" from your telco, because very
little of the TCP/IP backbone that the calls traverse will carry any
sort of quality-of-service guarantee. Occasional stutters in the
voice are to be expected (but I don't find them as common or severe as
the artifacts present in most cellphone calls.)
I do recommend keeping at least one analog land-line with a phone that
requires no separate electrical power to operate... it's good to have
a plain and simple fallback in an emergency (natural disaster, network
outage, etc.).
--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do not wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 06:33:12 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon strike
Message-ID: <1badneCXqMVlntTTnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <4893fd4b-5be2-4a53-9d01-7cd1bcaab489@p5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Aug 11, 5:13 pm, Steve Stone <spfl...@citlink.net> wrote:
>
>> The company I work for is telling employees who work from home offices
>> that they should keep their total cost for a work voice telephone line
>> under $40 per month. The preferred solution is a company VoIP system
>> which does not require POTS. This supports the thought that Verizon
>> and other wireline telcos might be losing business to alternate lower
>> cost providers.
>
>How would the workers get a VOIP line? I thought one had to have
>either DSL (on top of a landline), or, digital cable on top of cable
>TV service.
>
>Can one get a data line _by itself_ without anything else attached to
>it--and one that would be cheaper than a landline?
>
In most areas you can get a 'naked' (no dial tone) DSL circuit.
The cost of such a circuit is -- almost always -- higher than the
cost of DSL when it is bundled with an existing voice circuit.
This is -not- surprising, if you think about it. The telco has 'costs'
(maintenance, etc.) associated with the physical circuit that are included
with the first service provisioned on the pair. any additional service
that 'piggy-backs' on the the same pair does not have to include those
costs, since they're already paid for.
There is also a 'nuisance' factor associated with a naked DSL pair. Unlike
a pair with 'dial tone', a field tech cannot tell that whether pair is 'in
use' (meaning 'active', not 'off hook') by simply hooking a butt-set onto
the pair, and 'listening' for voice, or dial-tone. There have been lots
of 'naked' DSL circuit outages because a field tech unwittingly 'stole' an
active pair to fix another problem.
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:35:46 -0400
From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon strike
Message-ID: <1d16c$4e49911f$d1b712bc$1299@PRIMUS.CA>
Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In most areas you can get a 'naked' (no dial tone) DSL circuit.
I usually see it labeled as a "dry line" (i.e., no battery.)
> The cost of such a circuit is -- almost always -- higher than the
> cost of DSL when it is bundled with an existing voice circuit.
In Bell Canada territory, the cost depends on your area, and varies
from $7.25 per month to $25.10 per month. Obviously, the low end is a
fraction of what the most basic POTS service costs, but by the time
you add the DSL service, dry line fee, and VoIP service you're saving
little if anything. However, VoIP may an economical option for a
second phone line, which may be very desirable if you work from home.
VoIP service also usually includes features that cost extra to add to
POTS service. It may also permit you to connect to your company's
phone service so that your direct number or extension rings wherever
you want it... but that's another story.
Date: 14 Aug 2011 23:59:13 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon strike
Message-ID: <20110814235913.8013.qmail@joyce.lan>
On 14 Aug 2011 20:07:32 -0000, John Levine wrote:
>In the past ILECs were supposed to sell bare DSL but I gather that
>since the FCC no longer enforces the rules, you can order it but you
>can't get it, or if you can, it's more expensive than voice+DSL.
... and Telecom Digest Moderator responded:
>Do you mean that the rules are no longer in effect, that the FCC is no
>longer responsible for enforcing the rules, or that the FCC chooses
>not to?
Some combination of the first and the third.
xR's,
John
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of The Telecom Digest (10 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues