The Telecom Digest Fri, 27 Nov 2015
Volume 34 Issue 216

Table of contents:

* 1 - [telecom] Strange noise on my monitored fios phone line - Michael
  Muderick 
* 2 - [telecom] Verizon Commercial Suggests a Thanksgiving Without Phones -
  Monty Solomon 
* 3 - [telecom] China Cuts Mobile Service of Xinjiang Residents Evading
  Internet Filters - Monty Solomon 
* 4 - Re: [telecom] Different handling of local and 844? - Fred Goldstein
  
* 5 - [telecom] AT&T, Verizon try to prevent ban on text message blocking -
  Bill Horne 
* 6 - [telecom] AT&T, Verizon Tell FCC That They Should Be Able To Block Texts
  - Bill Horne 

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

Message-ID:
 
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 04:59:00 -0500
From: Michael Muderick 
Subject: [telecom] Strange noise on my monitored fios phone line

Subject: Strange noise on my monitored fios phone line

I recently switched to fios. Verizon turned on voice mail which I did not
want and so they turned it off.  No more stutter dialtone.   But there is a
sound that I hear on the monitored phone line, about once / hr.   It sounds
like what may turn on a MESSAGE WAITING lamp.   Any idea what this is?  Are
they polling the lines?   Here's the sound, and TIA.

https://soundcloud.com/mike-muderick/phone-line-noise

Michael Muderick
michael@muderick.com

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

If you listen to it at 33 1/3, it says "Happy Thanksgiving"!

Bill Horne
Moderator


------------------------------
Message-ID: 
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:07:44 -0500
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: [telecom] Verizon Commercial Suggests a Thanksgiving Without Phones

Verizon is introducing a television ad encouraging people to enjoy family and
friends rather than their small screens.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/26/business/media/verizon-commercial-suggests-a-thanksgiving-without-phones.html


------------------------------
Message-ID: <0BDE3ED7-8829-4476-8031-54CC3FC16847@roscom.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 01:10:51 -0500
From: Monty Solomon 
Subject: [telecom] China Cuts Mobile Service of Xinjiang Residents Evading
 Internet Filters

People who had downloaded foreign messaging services and other software were
said to be targeted, as part of a new measure in the country's fractious
western territory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/business/international/china-cuts-mobile-service-of-xinjiang-residents-evading-internet-filters.html


------------------------------
Message-ID: <5657465E.70104@ionary.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 12:50:22 -0500
From: Fred Goldstein 
Subject: Re: [telecom] Different handling of local and 844?

On 11/24/2015 5:34 PM, Mike Spencer wrote:
> ...
> >
> > If you give specifics of the local carrier (including NPA-NXX-D), a more
> > specific answer might be possible.
>
> The originating number is 902-543-nnnn, POTS, copper, a Bell Aliant
> number, our local ILEC.
>
> The destination number for the failing connection is 902-530-nnnn, an
> Eastlink number. Eastlink is our local cableco & CLEC.  902-530 is a
> Bridgewater (NS) local number.  The ISP's NOC is in Kentville (NS).  I
> think the modems/portmaster are in Kentville.  I don't know what that
> implies in telecom switching/forwarding terms.

That makes it harder... you're so close to where the world drops off
into the dragons that the usual assumptions may not apply. :-)

Eastlink's switch is in Halifax. Most CLECs have a switch or
switching-complex that serves a large area. For instance, Comcast serves
its entire Vermont territory out of Massachusetts. They backhaul both
the PacketCable "lines" and the TDM trunks. Kentvile to Halifax or
Bridgewater is not as far. So your local call probably goes from the
Aliant switch in Bridgewater to the Halifax tandem, or directly to
Eastlink's switch in Halifax. Then they deliver it to wherever.

If the ISP actually put a NOC in Kentville, then the quality of its
service depends on the backhaul provided by Eastlink. As a cableco, they
probably deliver the service across their own fiber. They are unlikely
to use twisted pair copper, and bulk service rarely even goes over coax.
A typical PortMaster (antique today) takes a PRI or other T1 from the
carrier. So the ISP probably should talk to Eastlink about whatever
their feed is.


--
Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred "at" interisle.net
Interisle Consulting Group
+1 617 795 2701


------------------------------
Message-ID: 
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 20:21:06 -0500
From: Bill Horne 
Subject: [telecom] AT&T, Verizon try to prevent ban on text message blocking

Carriers say they're just trying to block spam, critics disagree.

by John Brodkin

AT&T, Verizon, and other wireless carriers are urging the Federal
Communications Commission to reject a petition that would impose
common carrier regulations on text messaging.

The FCC this year reclassified both fixed and mobile Internet access
as common carrier services under Title II of the Communications Act
and used the new classification to impose net neutrality rules that
prevent Internet providers from blocking or throttling
traffic. Wireless carriers already faced Title II common carrier
regulation of mobile voice, but the status of text messaging has
remained unsettled, along with the question of whether carriers can
block text messages.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/11/att-verizon-try-to-prevent-ban-on-text-message-blocking/
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)


------------------------------
Message-ID: 
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 20:27:50 -0500
From: Bill Horne 
Subject: [telecom] AT&T, Verizon Tell FCC That They Should Be Able To Block
 Texts

AT&T, Verizon Tell FCC That They Should Be Able To Block Texts When
They Want To, For Your Own Good

By Kate Cox

Texting isn't just the purview of teenagers. Bulk texting is a huge
business. Sometimes they're scam spam in about the same category of
usefulness as emails from a wealthy Nigerian prince who doesn't exist,
granted, but sometimes they're useful blasts from businesses or public
entities that let a whole bunch of people get useful information quickly
in a low-bandwidth way. But what they aren't, quite yet, is clearly
regulated. A case moving through the FCC right now, however, may change
that.

Phone lines, including mobile, are common carriers, subject to Title II
regulation. That's been true for decades, and it means wireless carriers
have to treat all phone calls the same way, without providing priority
to one caller over another. Calls from grandma come through to you in
the exact same way as calls from "Rachel in cardholder services," for
better or worse.

http://consumerist.com/2015/11/25/att-verizon-tell-fcc-that-they-should-be-able-to-block-texts-when-they-want-to-for-your-own-good/

--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)


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

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

End of telecom Digest Fri, 27 Nov 2015