telecom digest Wed, 25 Nov 2015
Volume 34 Issue 214

Table of contents:

* 1 - Re: [telecom] Different handling of local and 844? - Fred Goldstein
  
* 2 - Re: [telecom] Different handling of local and 844? - tlvp
  
* 3 - Re: [telecom] NYT editorial:  911 system is technologically obsolete -
  Pete Cresswell 
* 4 - Re: [telecom] ISIS Has Help Desk for Terrorists Staffed Around the Clock
  - Dave Garland 
* 5 - Re: [telecom] Different handling of local and 844? - David Clayton
  

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message-ID: 
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 09:36:50 -0500
From: Fred Goldstein 
Subject: Re: [telecom] Different handling of local and 844?

On 11/23/2015 2:46 PM, Mike Spencer wrote:
> What is the difference between how local-exchange and 844 toll-free
> numbers are handled?  Here's why I ask:
>

In both cases, a telephone number is just a name, in a familiar numeric
format that can be "dialed" on a telephone.  In both cases, a
name-to-address translation takes place before the call is routed.

In the case of an 800 (844) number, the lookup is performed at or near
the originating exchange, and the database is owned by SMS/800.  This
identifies the carrier who owns the number, and returns its 4-digit
Carrier Identification Code.  A special case is pseudo-CIC 0110. That
applies to numbers that are only for intra-LATA use, and in that case it
returns a 10-digit number that the 800 number points to.

In the case of a local number, the lookup is performed at the "n-1"
exchange, just before the destination implied in the geographic number.
(In practice it is also often performed at the origin, to optimize
routing, but that is optional.) The database has been owned by Neustar,
but Ericsson iConnective (f/k/a Telcordia) won the FCC's bid for the new
national LNP contract, and will go there once the lawsuits are ironed
out (Neustar tries to scare people that national security is harmed when
the contract goes to a company owned by furriners - scary Swedes!).

So while the details differ, nothing about either type of number per se
impacts call quality one bit. But where the call is actually directed
does matter.

> I still have dial-up net access through two ISPs.  ISP-A has a local
> exchange number, ISP-B an 844 number.
>
> In wet weather, my USR 56K modem cannot make a successful connection
> to ISP-A while connection to ISP-B works as expected.  (In dry
> weather, both work as expected.) We don't hear any exceptional audible
> static on the phone in wet weather.
>
> Both connections go through the same interior lines, demarc, rural copper
> at least as far as the telco's roadside cabinet 6 miles away.
>
> Where might I look for a problem sufficiently well defined that
> someone would fix it?
>

The modem bank used by ISP A is obviously served by defective wire that
degrades in wet weather. It's not your phone line, it's theirs.

Almost every dial-up ISP puts their modems inside some kind of network
building, either a "carrier hotel" or other collocation offered by a
CLEC or non-ILEC. Often the modem bank itself is rented from a CLEC or
large ISP. But some rural carriers, detesting that damned Internet
thingie that spoilt their subsidy milk, block local-rated calls to such
facilities, so the occasional ISP may still be stuck sticking a rack of
modems in back of the drugstore. And even the big Bells get away with
this idiocy in some states. In such cases telco wires have typically
deteriorated and water gets in.

If you give specifics of the local carrier (including NPA-NXX-D), a more
specific answer might be possible.


------------------------------
Message-ID: <12u6dngcdlmpw.1j6axrtguv1kc$.dlg@40tude.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 02:15:25 -0500
From: tlvp 
Subject: Re: [telecom] Different handling of local and 844?

On 23 Nov 2015 15:46:28 -0400, Mike Spencer wrote:

> What is the difference between how local-exchange and 844 toll-free
> numbers are handled?  Here's why I ask:
>
> I still have dial-up net access through two ISPs.  ISP-A has a local
> exchange number, ISP-B an 844 number.
>
> In wet weather, my USR 56K modem cannot make a successful connection
> to ISP-A while connection to ISP-B works as expected.  (In dry
> weather, both work as expected.) We don't hear any exceptional audible
> static on the phone in wet weather.
>
> Both connections go through the same interior lines, demarc, rural copper
> at least as far as the telco's roadside cabinet 6 miles away.
>
> Where might I look for a problem sufficiently well defined that
> someone would fix it?

One conjecture: porous insulation on the copper between CO and local ISP.
Another: porous insulation on weather-exposed copper anywhere between your
CO and the CO of your local ISP.
Yet another: ill-sealed fiber-optic splicing, negatively affected by
moisture, anywhere between your CO and that of your local ISP.

(Ages ago, my AT&T Mail service had intermittent connectivity problems that
were only resolved once AT&T cable techs found, and replaced, such a
defective fiber-optic splice somewhere in NJ (Bridgewater, perhaps? -- but
not your Bridgewater :-) ) that interfered intermittently with my
connection to the AT&T Mail servers, elsewhere in NJ (Parsippany,
probably), for my AT&T Mail account. Buried, but it let excessive
rain-water seep in, that then gunched the optical communications until it
dried out again.)

HTH. Cheers, and my best to Peggy's Cove, if you get a chance, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.


------------------------------
Message-ID: <9va75bd7efmrllptd83qs48pqcord2o0ab@4ax.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 19:20:45 -0500
From: Pete Cresswell 
Subject: Re: [telecom] NYT editorial:  911 system is technologically obsolete

Per HAncock4:
>Second, is the system has _dangerously_ obsolete as described?

It was a few years ago, but I assume it's the same system....

I was going into anaphylactic shock after coming back to a training
course after lunch break.

Called 911.

"What's your name?".....

(plus more irrelevant-to-the immediate situation) bullshit from the 911
operator)

Finally,  "What is your location"

"123 XYZ Road, Malvern PA"

"What township is that in?"

(to myself 'WTF ????? The post office gets stuff here, why can't
you?...)

Then I started passing out and somebody else took the phone.

Dunno what they did or said, but somebody finally got there.

After it was all over, two docs took me aside to tell me that I came
*that* close to dying - the time taken to get IV fluid into my veins
being the critical factor.

So a few more minutes of 911 incompetence could have cost me my life.

I've got three more.... but you get the idea: I would concur that 911
isn't all that wonderful.
--
Pete Cresswell


------------------------------
Message-ID: 
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 18:43:25 -0600
From: Dave Garland 
Subject: Re: [telecom] ISIS Has Help Desk for Terrorists Staffed Around the
 Clock

> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Television networks *invented* fear-based marketing. This is what
> happens when the producers and ad execs become afraid that their
> chokehold on public opinion is starting to slip.

Nah, politicians invented that eons ago. "Those swine in the
city-state next door are going to kill us all, if you don't give me
the power to get them first."

P.S. What's happened to the [telecom] tag, has it become optional?


***** Moderator's Note *****

The "[telecom]" tag is not *currently* used to route messages: we had
a meltdown at digest central, and I haven't had time to put the
routing code back into the procmail scripts. Frankly, John Levine's
spamassassin filter and the email obfuscation that we use has cut spam
down to one or two posts a week, so right now, it's not enough of a
problem to require separate processing here.

However, please keep using it: many readers have filters in their news
or email clients that route digest emails to a specific folder, and
although the reflector at John's system adds it to posts sent to
mailing-list subscribers, Usenet readers only see it if you or I add
it at the start.

Bill Horne
Moderator


------------------------------
Message-ID: 
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 09:19:23 +1100
From: David Clayton 
Subject: Re: [telecom] Different handling of local and 844?

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:46:28 -0400, Mike Spencer wrote:

> What is the difference between how local-exchange and 844 toll-free
> numbers are handled?  Here's why I ask:
>
> I still have dial-up net access through two ISPs.  ISP-A has a local
> exchange number, ISP-B an 844 number.
>
> In wet weather, my USR 56K modem cannot make a successful connection to
> ISP-A while connection to ISP-B works as expected.  (In dry weather, both
> work as expected.) We don't hear any exceptional audible static on the
> phone in wet weather.
.........
Local ISP-A might be connected using lines that are also affected by wet
weather, ISP-B may be located somewhere else and have reliable lines at
their end.

--
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.


------------------------------

*********************************************

End of telecom Digest Wed, 25 Nov 2015