30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for August 31, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 217 : "text" Format
====== 30 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 that person, or email address
owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of
that address. 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, 29 Aug 2011 20:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cable phone service disrupted from power outage
Message-ID: <0234e657-1515-4078-8334-4e154b4185c3@t3g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 29, 7:43 pm, Wes Leatherock <wleat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is there any particular advantage to "digital" telephone service? Most
> interoffice and toll trunks are "digital" now, and it would seem that for
> the subscriber loop to be "digital" just adds one additional thing that
> could go wrong.
Probably price. My neighbors who got Comcast service apparently pay
less for national flat rate (in a cable TV combo bundled package) than
I pay Verizon for phone service alone.
I'm no expert on pricing, but it seems paying a la carte for services
is more expensive these days. I think I'd like FIOS, but my condo
won't allow it 'cause they think the boxes would be ugly.
But pricing is very tricky because the carriers constantly change
their pricing. They also have deep discounted intro offers that go up
steeply after a while. Some of the plans have a time committment
I've also heard numerous horror stories that customer service or
repair can be very difficult to reach once they have you signed up.
Verizon landline isn't as good as the old Bell System days, but you
can reasonably reach someone.
I don't know anyone who has FIOS who lost power in this particular
storm, so I don't know how well they held up. I do know FIOS users
who lost power for a long time in other storms and they lost service
after a few hours. As mentioned, my landline never stopped working.
For my cable TV service (Comcast), they advertise they have great
customer service but my experiences were not so great. My neighbors
and I had a strange problem of some stations coming through but not
others. Since my neighbors had the exact same problem it obviously
wasn't a problem within my own home but rather in their lines.
However, the customer service rep treated it as my problem and refused
to deviate from the script she was reading--are my cables connected,
etc. I also get tired of them constantly pushing their premium
packages on me.
[public replies, please]
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 06:55:26 -0600
From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject:Cable phone service disrupted from power outage
Message-ID: <20110830125504.73916.qmail@gal.iecc.com>
>Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Hancock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
>To: redacted@invalid.telecom-digest.org.
>Subject: Cable phone service disrupted from power outage
>Message-ID: <20c42b05-99ce-407a-86ef-9930476c953a@p19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
>
>Our area lost power from Hurricane Irene. Those of us with
>traditional landline Verizon phones (and plain wired phones, not
>cordless) never lost service. However, our neighbors with cable phone
>service (Comcast) lost phone service as soon as the power went out. I
>don't know why.
>
>My cheapo electronic answering machine has battery backup (2 AA
>cells), and that worked fine for 18 hours. My clock radios have a 9V
>battery backup but they needed to be reset. (They work okay for brief
>power outages).
>
>Being without power is not fun, especially at night. I had
>flashlights, but I need a lantern type light that shows a broad light
>as opposed to the narrow spotlight of a flashlight.
My father had a VOIP phone towards the end of his life. I was
concerned that he might not be able to call for assistance if there
was a power outage. So I got him a UPS and set it up.
I plugged only the cable modem and his Linksys VOIP router into
it. Since I did not plug the PC or any other device(s) into it, it
would support those two devices for quite a while during a power outage.
He'd be able to call the electric company or emergency services in
the event that power was out.
Before I did it, I spoke with Comcast. They insisted that if the
local power went out that their system would remain in operation.
Fortunately, we never had to put it to the test.
Regards,
Fred
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:47:25 -0400
From: Pete Cresswell <nobody@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re:Cable phone service disrupted from power outage
Message-ID: <fr4q57liq1n3eknh4mepag93a48q62inn2@4ax.com>
Per Fred Atkinson:
>My father had a VOIP phone towards the end of his life. I was
>concerned that he might not be able to call for assistance if there
>was a power outage. So I got him a UPS and set it up.
>
> I plugged only the cable modem and his Linksys VOIP router into
>it. Since I did not plug the PC or any other device(s) into it, it
>would support those two devices for quite a while during a power outage.
My LinkSys SPA3102 allows for "Dial Plans" - basically a text
string that tells the box what to do depending on the number
dialed.
Mine is set to dial out on the POTS line for "911".
I've been keeping up the POTS phone account and only using VOIP
for outgoing - but it's finally dawned on me that 911 is supposed
to work even on an inactive phone.
Once I can verify that (and establish that I'm not paying minutes
for incoming VOIP calls), I'll probably migrate the POTS number
so VOIP and discontinue the POTS service.
--
PeteCresswell
** Moderator Note: I may be confused, but I thought that being able to
call 911 from an 'inactive' phone applied to cell phones only.
Does anybody know if wireline companies really have to keep a 'pair',
provisioned with battry, hand dial-tone, to every location that has
ever had POTS service installed? What about if the copper has been
pulled/cut and replaced with FTTH? Does 'somebody' have to keep the
CPE powered? If so, who?
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:20:05 -0400
From: "Gary" <bogus-email@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re:Cable phone service disrupted from power outage
Message-ID: <j3jup4$i5a$1@dont-email.me>
>** Moderator Note: I may be confused, but I thought that being able to
> call 911 from an 'inactive' phone applied to cell phones only.
>
> Does anybody know if wireline companies really have to keep a 'pair',
> provisioned with battry, hand dial-tone, to every location that has
> ever had POTS service installed? What about if the copper has been
> pulled/cut and replaced with FTTH? Does 'somebody' have to keep the
> CPE powered? If so, who?
I can tell you I had my copper replaced with FiOS over two years ago. The
copper is still in place, but it is dead. No dial tone, no nothing. This
is in suburban Philadelphia, however I suspect it's the same everywhere.
My phone backup plan is a combination of the battery in the FiOS ONT, a UPS
to power one cordless phone and the ONT, a basic phone or two, cell phones
with car chargers, and in the worst case I'll hook up a 12V battery to the
ONT's aux battery input.
-Gary
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:08:43 -0400
From: Pete Cresswell <nobody@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re:Cable phone service disrupted from power outage
Message-ID: <logq57h7ui699sn4foqarj87ecsm8an5c2@4ax.com>
Per Pete Cresswell:
>** Moderator Note: I may be confused, but I thought that being able to
> call 911 from an 'inactive' phone applied to cell phones only.
If anybody's confused, it's Yours Truly.
Thanks for the elucidation.
** Moderator Note: Shucks, drat, and PHOOEY!! Do you know how hard
I was wishing I was wrong. grin
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:25:23 +0000 (UTC)
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re:Cable phone service disrupted from power outage
Message-ID: <j3j9ui$gvr$1@reader1.panix.com>
In article <fr4q57liq1n3eknh4mepag93a48q62inn2@4ax.com>,
Pete Cresswell <nobody@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
>
> I've been keeping up the POTS phone account and only using VOIP
> for outgoing - but it's finally dawned on me that 911 is supposed
> to work even on an inactive phone.
>
>** Moderator Note: I may be confused, but I thought that being able to
> call 911 from an 'inactive' phone applied to cell phones only.
>
> Does anybody know if wireline companies really have to keep a 'pair',
> provisioned with battry, and dial-tone, to every location that has
> ever had POTS service installed? What about if the copper has been
> pulled/cut and replaced with FTTH? Does 'somebody' have to keep the
> CPE powered? If so, who?
The answer is pretty much "no" (as one would expect)! However, any pair
with dial tone on it will have working 911 service, generally speaking.
The regulated wireline companies do (in most states, must) have special
"lifeline" tarrifs for lines intended to be used only in emergencies,
though in some cases only the elderly or infirm are eligible for this
class of service.
Another alternative, in some states, is to have a line "suspended", such
that it cannot receive incoming calls and, though dialtone is provided,
can only dial 911 and 611. This carries a small monthly charge usually
calculated to sum to the disconnect/reconnect fee over a period of a
few years, and historically was basically intended to save the telco the
hassle of disconnecting and reconnecting service once or twice per year at
infrequently used summer/vacation homes.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.com
"All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
at once." -Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Touch Tone Trademark Status
Message-ID: <4e334da3-24e5-45e6-8531-d3a8b0ae06fb@i21g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 29, 4:31 pm, "Mark J. Cuccia" <markjcuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lisa Hancock asked in a reply:
>
> > When did Touch Tone lose its trademark status?
>
> According to the US Patent and Trademark Office website search, it was
> officially cancelled due to "total surrender" by the (legacy) holder
> of the trademark (AT&T), on 13-March-1984. Note that this is shortly
> after the official start of divestiture (01-January-1984), some 27+
> years ago.
This suprises me. Often companies hold on to old trademarks even if
they're obsolete; perhaps some time in the future they may have some
value. Sometimes years later an old name may be brought back to
market a new product. Railroad companies keep logos of old lines (eg
the Pennsylvania Railroad PRR-keystone) even if they freely license it
out. IBM trademarks old computers long out of production.
Bell once offered a paging service, I think called Bell Boy and I
think that was trademarked. I wonder if Trimline was trademarked. I
think it's later line of PBX's and key systems (eg Dimension, Merlin)
were trademarked.
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:00:14 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Touch Tone Trademark Status
Message-ID: <siegman-112DB0.07001430082011@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>
In article
<4e334da3-24e5-45e6-8531-d3a8b0ae06fb@i21g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
> > According to the US Patent and Trademark Office website search, it was
> > officially cancelled due to "total surrender" by the (legacy) holder
> > of the trademark (AT&T), on 13-March-1984. Note that this is shortly
> > after the official start of divestiture (01-January-1984), some 27+
> > years ago.
>
> This suprises me. Often companies hold on to old trademarks even if
> they're obsolete; perhaps some time in the future they may have some
> value. Sometimes years later an old name may be brought back to
Is there a legal principle involved here, something along the lines of
"defend it, or lose it"?
If you hang onto an unused trademark, and someone else then begins
using it without permission in some particularly visible fashion, you
may have to initiate some substantial action to assert your rights in
that instance, or face losing those rights in any future instances.
The hassle and expense of keeping track of and responding to such
unauthorized uses may cost more than any possible future value.
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Touch Tone Trademark Status
Message-ID: <4781edc0-8012-4317-80ed-3f016b260eee@s7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 30, 10:00 am, AES <sieg...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Is there a legal principle involved here, something along the lines of
> "defend it, or lose it"?
> If you hang onto an unused trademark, and someone else then begins
> using it without permission in some particularly visible fashion, you
> may have to initiate some substantial action to assert your rights in
> that instance, or face losing those rights in any future instances.
I understand that in the railroad world, some sloppyness in
maintaining old trademarks caused problems in that new people grapped
an old logo and starting charging others to use it. So, companies
maintain old trademarks for the very reason you state.
It's hard to imagine someone appropriating or misusing "Touch Tone",
but on the other hand, anything is possible when someone wants to make
a buck.
The 'baby bells' don't use the former modern Bell 'bell' logo very
much, but I suspect they're not about to surrender that. It still
appears on the few remaining pay phone kiosks next to the Verizon logo
and also appears on the pay phone instruction card.
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 02:43:40 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Touch Tone Trademark Status
Message-ID: <j3k74s$p4k$1@reader1.panix.com>
>It's hard to imagine someone appropriating or misusing "Touch Tone",
>but on the other hand, anything is possible when someone wants to make
>a buck.
Back around 1980, when the first cracks (soon to be deluge) began
in regards to private phone ownership, there was a big advertising
campaign for the "Fliphone, the brand new phone you can own!"
I vaguely recall it as being from GTE, but could easily
be misremembering.
About a decade later I noticed other companies using that
name and/or description. Seems the original company let
the trademark lapse.
Ah, the following website has the advertising jingle.
Not much other info, though:
http://www.genecowan.com/blog/index.php/weblog/permalink/jingle_hell/
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Touch Tone Trademark Status
Message-ID: <1a414b57-73cf-4ee0-8adf-5aca3e845542@a27g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 30, 10:43 pm, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Back around 1980, when the first cracks (soon to be deluge) began
> in regards to private phone ownership, there was a big advertising
> campaign for the "Fliphone, the brand new phone you can own!"
> I vaguely recall it as being from GTE, but could easily
> be misremembering.
> About a decade later I noticed other companies using that
> name and/or description. Seems the original company let
> the trademark lapse.
I think, but not sure, that "Flipphone" was the Trimline equivalent
from GTE. Not as sleek.
The "Trimline" styling* was very popular and many phone makers made
phones that looked like it. However, I recall nobody used the name
"Trimline" for their competing sets, but names like "Slimline".
I think GTE developed the "Starlite" to compete with the Princess
phone, but by the 1980s the Princess fell out of style.
* I don't like using a Trimline phone these days. Many calls to
businesses involve keying in extensions, multiple menu requests, or
account numbers. Having the keys in the handset makes it cumbersome
moving the phone back and forth from your hear. But they were a
popular 1980-90s landline model.
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Touch Tone Trademark Status
Message-ID: <1314748667.16133.YahooMailClassic@web111707.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
--- On Tue, 8/30/11, AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Is there a legal principle involved here, something along the lines of
> "defend it, or lose it"?
>
> If you hang onto an unused trademark, and someone else then begins
> using it without permission in some particularly visible fashion, you
> may have to initiate some substantial action to assert your rights in
> that instance, or face losing those rights in any future instances.
>
> The hassle and expense of keeping track of and responding to such
> unauthorized uses may cost more than any possible future value.
The Union Pacific Railroad is very diligent in defemding the trademarks
of the various railroads it has acquired over the years. It has a number
of locomotives it has painted in the colors of thos railroads, and pursues
anyone who uses any of those trademarks or logos, even for what seems
trivial reasons. It apparently thinks it is worth it in the long run, and
defending it means going after every infringer.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:08:37 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Touch Tone Trademark Status
Message-ID: <4E5D0B05.7050902@horne.net>
On 8/29/2011 11:48 PM, HAncock4 wrote:
> On Aug 29, 4:31 pm, "Mark J. Cuccia"<markjcuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Lisa Hancock asked in a reply:
>>
>>> When did Touch Tone lose its trademark status?
>> According to the US Patent and Trademark Office website search, it was
>> officially cancelled due to "total surrender" by the (legacy) holder
>> of the trademark (AT&T), on 13-March-1984. Note that this is shortly
>> after the official start of divestiture (01-January-1984), some 27+
>> years ago.
> This suprises me. Often companies hold on to old trademarks even if
> they're obsolete; perhaps some time in the future they may have some
> value. Sometimes years later an old name may be brought back to
> market a new product. Railroad companies keep logos of old lines (eg
> the Pennsylvania Railroad PRR-keystone) even if they freely license it
> out. IBM trademarks old computers long out of production.
>
> Bell once offered a paging service, I think called Bell Boy and I
> think that was trademarked. I wonder if Trimline was trademarked. I
> think it's later line of PBX's and key systems (eg Dimension, Merlin)
> were trademarked.
Sometimes, trademarks can get in the way of understanding even the most
basic things, and sometimes I think they should be declared "generic"
when that happens.
For example, many years ago, when widespread famine first hit Africa,
news teams assigned to the refugee camps reported that there were
widespread shortages of "Cooking Oil", which (at least in the U.S.)
means "Vegetable Oil", i.e., the oil used to fry food in a skillet.
Activists condemned the U.S. public's ho-hum attitude about the problem
until they realized that the average citizen in the U.S. thought that
doing without vegetable oil wasn't that much of a hardship.
What the reporters meant to say, however, was that there was no Kerosene
- that the refugees couldn't cook their food at all, and that therefore
they were suffering from food-born illness. It took an amazingly long
time to correct the problem, because news editors routinely cut
trademarks our of stories, and "Kerosene" is still a trademark in some
parts of the world.
In time, the reporters came up with "cooking fuel" as a less-confusing
alternative, but the refugees would have gotten more help sooner if
everyone had just said "Kerosene", which has a consistent meaning
worldwide.
BIll
** Moderator note: If whomever wrote the stuff had just clearly stated
what the actual problem was -- e.g., 'people getting sick from uncooked
food because of a widespread shortage of the fuel needed to cook it' --
EVERYBODY would have understood. Color me cynical, but I suspect that
'cooking oil' language originated from amateurs -- probably local relief-
organization staffers or volunteers, putting out a 'press release' -- and
not professional journalists. Things like this are not-infrequent
occurrences, when somebody 'too close to the problem' writes about a
thing and assumes things that 'everybody knows, _locally_". In, say, s
semi-technical discussion group like this one) that's not necessarily
unreasonable, but when speaking to/writing for the 'general public',
_especially_ it is a 'stand alone' presentation, it is vital to
explain the 'possibly ambiguous' terms. "Cooking oil', vs 'fuel for
cooking', does fall into that category, even though the 'local's probably
weren't aware of it.
</rant hat="editor"> :)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:44:58 +0000 (UTC)
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Touch Tone Trademark Status
Message-ID: <j3jb3a$4m1$1@reader1.panix.com>
In article <4E5D0B05.7050902@horne.net>, Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote:
>
>In time, the reporters came up with "cooking fuel" as a less-confusing
>alternative, but the refugees would have gotten more help sooner if
>everyone had just said "Kerosene", which has a consistent meaning
>worldwide.
Actually, the problem's worse than that. Generically, in the rest of the
English-speaking world, Kerosene is "paraffin". But in American English,
"paraffin" refers exclusively to synthetic wax, like candle wax -- not
any sort of liquid fuel or solvent.
So a parrafin/kerosene/... shortage is really a particularly vexing thing
to communicate to the world of "English" speakers, whether trademarks are
involved or not.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.com
"All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
at once." -Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: References Sought--GTE, Automatic Electric
Message-ID: <2919bed5-a4f3-4f83-a706-525e492cc64d@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
There are a number of web pages talking about AE and GTE, but they're
pretty brief. I was wondering if anyone knew of any books or more
substantive references that describe the history of those
organizations, before and after they merged. I'm particularly
interested in AE/GT during the war years and post war era. Also
things like when they first introduced DTMF and non SxS (common
control) switching.
(Automatic Electric was an independent (non Bell System) maker of
telephone sets and switchgear, specializing in step by step. General
Telephone was an independent telephone company and later owned AE. It
merged with Verizon a few years ago. The Independents were a proud
bunch of companies, but served high cost less populated areas. IMHO,
AE sets aren't as good as Western Electric phones.)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:11:37 +0000 (UTC)
From: snorwood@redballoon.net (Scott Norwood)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Boston time-of-day service dead?
Message-ID: <j3ir2o$ku4$1@reader1.panix.com>
It appears that the venerable time-of-day number for the metro
Boston (US) area is dead. Calling 617-637-1234 now fails in one
of at least three possible ways: busy signal after the 617-637
part (on my POTS line at home), an old error message about dialing
"1" before the area code, along with a "thank you for using Bell
Atlantic" message (POTS line at work), or a "number disconnected"
error (PRI at work).
The second error is curious, as it obviously dates from the time
before 10-digit dialing was introduced in the Boston area (circa
y2k).
The former weather number (which has not worked reliably for the
last year) at 617-936-1234 now fails in a similar manner.
I am curious as to when the time service was officially disconnected
(if such is the case). Does anyone know? It seems to have been
done without advance notice, as it worked within the last few months
(though the time was never particularly accurate).
Both the time and weather services were operated by Verizon (nee
Bell Atlantic nee New England Telephone) for many decades.
** Moderator note: I seem to recall that as part of the MFJ that broke up
'Ma Bell', that ILECS were forbidden from offering 'value added, non-
telecom' services. 'Time and temperature', and the like, were
considered to be such 'proscribed' services, at least in a number of
PUC jurisidctions. Anybody know if this was a local PUC decision,
or was there Federal 'guidance' on the matter?
I know telco-provided 'time and temp' disappeared in (at least parts of)
NW Bell and Ameritech territory at divestiture time, replaced by 3rd-
party 'commercial' services -- sometimes with more than one 'competing'
offering -- many of which had advertiements before the 'good stuff'.
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Boston time-of-day service dead?
Message-ID: <1314749093.3700.YahooMailClassic@web111716.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
--- On Tue, 8/30/11, a moderator note to a post by Scott Norwood <snorwood@redballoon.net> said:
> ** Moderator note: I seem to recall that as part of the MFJ that broke up
> 'Ma Bell', that ILECS were forbidden from offering 'value added, non-
> telecom' services. 'Time and temperature', and the like, were
> considered to be such 'proscribed' services, at least in a number of
> PUC jurisidctions. Anybody know if this was a local PUC decision,
> or was there Federal 'guidance' on the matter?
>
> I know telco-provided 'time and temp' disappeared in (at least parts of)
> NW Bell and Ameritech territory at divestiture time, replaced by 3rd-
> party 'commercial' services -- sometimes with more than one 'competing'
> offering -- many of which had advertiements before the 'good stuff'.
It was not a local rule. I believe it was part of the decree that broke up
the Bell System, or it may have been an FCC interpretation of the decree.
It disappeared in all parts of Southwestern Bell territory, replaced by
ones with commercial messages and the physical Auditron equipment physically
moved to the customers' premises.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:16:26 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Where does digital phone service hand off toll-free calls?
Message-ID: <j3inra$klq$1@news.albasani.net>
If a subscriber has digital phone service, where would calls to toll-free
numbers be handed off? Are they handed off to the local telephone company
at the closest co-lo to the physical location of the digital server that
provides service to its subscriber? Are they handed off to the central
office serving the polygon of the rate center (or wire center if different)
based on (what the digital phone service provider thinks is the) service
address, which could involve back-hauling traffic? Or do digital phone
service networks interface directly with some long distance providers
offering toll free service?
20 years ago, I recall working in an office in which we used "9" as a
trunk prefix to make long-distance calls, but "8" for local and toll-free
calls.
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Where does digital phone service hand off toll-free calls?
Message-ID: <1314748216.69606.YahooMailClassic@web111725.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
--- On Tue, 8/30/11, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> If a subscriber has digital phoneservice, where would calls to toll-free
> numbers be handed off? Are they handed off to the local telephone company
> at the closest co-lo to the physical location of the digital server that
> provides service to its subscriber? Are they handed off to the central
> office serving the polygon of the rate center (or wire center if different)
> based on (what the digital phone service provider thinks is the) service
> address, which could involve back-hauling traffic? Or do digital phone
> service networks interface directly with some long distance providers
> offering toll free service?
There is no guessing at all. By FCC order, every 800 etc. call has to be
routed over the carrier that provides the 800 service to the destination
phone. Yes, this requires a data dip on every call. There is a database
which shows the carrier for every 800 number. The database used to be
located in Kansas City. I do not know where it is located now or who
administers it.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: 31 Aug 2011 04:40:09 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Where does digital phone service hand off toll-free calls?
Message-ID: <20110831044009.50042.qmail@joyce.lan>
>There is no guessing at all. By FCC order, every 800 etc. call has to be
>routed over the carrier that provides the 800 service to the destination
>phone. Yes, this requires a data dip on every call. There is a database
>which shows the carrier for every 800 number. The database used to be
>located in Kansas City. I do not know where it is located now or who
>administers it.
It's run by Neustar and it's geographically distributed, but it's still
a reasonable question to ask where the local non-ILEC hands the call
to the IXC.
They [Neustar -- ed] also run most if not all of the LNP databases, since
all POTS calls require a database dip now, too.
R's,
John
Date: 31 Aug 2011 01:30:53 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Where does digital phone service hand off toll-free calls?
Message-ID: <20110831013053.97944.qmail@joyce.lan>
>If a subscriber has digital phone service, where would calls to toll-free
>numbers be handed off?
For the service provided by cable companies, the cableco is a CLEC
with its own switch, and the calls are handed off from the CLEC
switch. In Illinois, for example, Comcast's CLEC is "Comcast Phone of
Illinois LLC" which has a bunch of switches. Given that the cableco's
internal bandwidth cost is close to zero, the switches don't have to
be anywhere near the customers. I think the one that serves customers
in Chicago is in Joliet.
For parasitic Vonage-style VoIP, I've never been able to figure it
out. Vonage et al. get phone numbers from a variety of different
CLECs, and from the packet traces I've done, it's pretty clear that
for incoming calls, they have an IP gateway on the CLEC's switch which
is somewhere in the LATA to which the phone number is assigned.
(Around here, the CLEC switches are all in Syracuse, even for rate
centers 150 miles north.)
But for outgoing calls, I can't tell whether each customer's terminal
adapter is programmed to route traffic to the switch that handles its
incoming traffic, or they just send all the traffic to the VoIP
carrier's switch and it sorts it out.
>20 years ago, I recall working in an office in which we used "9" as a
>trunk prefix to make long-distance calls, but "8" for local and toll-free
>calls.
Sure. They probably had lines to an IXC for the toll calls and POTS
lines for local, and the PBX wasn't sophisticated enough to analyze
the digits and route calls on its own.
R's,
John
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:56:07 -0500
From: gordonb.ey9nz@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Where does digital phone service hand off toll-free calls?
Message-ID: <rZadnbl7zfRKLcDTnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
> But for outgoing calls, I can't tell whether each customer's terminal
> adapter is programmed to route traffic to the switch that handles its
> incoming traffic, or they just send all the traffic to the VoIP
> carrier's switch and it sorts it out.
As I recall from some experiments with Asterisk and completely
providerless VoIP, both Asterisk and some of the under-$100 VoIP
phones I was experimenting with could be set up to use E.164 lookups
to route calls. E.164 essentially uses DNS queries to find a gateway
for a phone number. I could actually find gateways for some of my
employer's 800 numbers, and use them. The phone would go down a
list of possibilities and give an error if it got to the end without
succeeding. Just plug it into any Internet jack (or a WiFi client)
anywhere.
Since this is providerless VoIP, this phone didn't have an incoming
number. I had to provide a semi-reasonable caller-ID number or it
didn't work (123-456-7890 caused the call to be unceremoniously
dropped). Since the call was to an 800 number, there was no billing.
If an actual provider set up their terminals this way (using E.164,
and using it before going to the provider's own gateway) before
shipping them to customers, they would have no records of 1-800
calls made (unless they are also on the receiving end). I wonder
what the CALEA folks would think of this? (Well, they could track
it by IP address and time like other Internet stuff.)
My employer did not have a PBX with a Internet/VoIP gateway, but
at the time it was being considered. If they registered it, or
privately gave out the gateway information to employees or programmed
it into employee/customer phones, it would then be possible to go
direct to it without involving any telco phone lines at all (except
to the extent that the Internet runs on telco lines).
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:27:38 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Has anyone else noticed a change in Google Voice?
Message-ID: <4E5D1D8A.8060707@horne.net>
I've been using Google Voice for almost a year, with good results, but
it seems that something has changed.
Since Hurricane Irene, however, there seems to have been a change:
1. Calls fail about 50% of the time: my dialing attempts seem to
succeed, but Google Voice never rings my POTS line.
2. Voice quality has degraded markedly, as if they VoIP system is using
"quarter rate" sampling.
Has anyone else noticed this?
Bill
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 00:09:12 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Has anyone else noticed a change in Google Voice?
Message-ID: <j3ju38$sfm$1@reader1.panix.com>
Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> writes:
>I've been using Google Voice for almost a year, with good results, but
>it seems that something has changed.
>Since Hurricane Irene, however, there seems to have been a change:
> 1. Calls fail about 50% of the time: my dialing attempts seem to
> succeed, but Google Voice never rings my POTS line.
> 2. Voice quality has degraded markedly, as if they VoIP system is using
> "quarter rate" sampling.
I have occasional troubles on #1 but no more now that
usually. What aggravates me is often it is because I've dropped
off/been logged out but not realized it -- the Google AJAX etc
does so much locally that I don't even know I am not connected.
With #1, if your GV # is a local call; you can call it and hit
*[PIN]2 to dial out.
--
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: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:48:26 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cable phone service disrupted from power outage
Message-ID: <4E5D064A.7070408@horne.net>
On 8/29/2011 7:43 PM, Wes Leatherock wrote:
> Is there any particular advantage to "digital" telephone service? Most
> interoffice and toll trunks are "digital" now, and it would seem that
> for the subscriber loop to be "digital" just adds one additional thing
> that could go wrong.
I once had a chance to use ISDN BRI service for my home phone, and I was
surprised at how much better it sounded than the POTS line it replaced.
I had the same instruments, the same house wiring, etc.: the only thing
added was a Motorola BitSurfer ISDN converter.
I had a career as a broadcast engineer in between Ma Bell's layoffs, so
I'm particular about audio quality. The advantage of digital is that
there's better sound.
FWIW. YMMV.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:20:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: grumpy44134 <grumpy44134@gmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cable phone service disrupted from power outage
Message-ID: <9e160cc7-31df-403b-a7d9-805cdfd8b684@n12g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
> I always thought it was a PUC requirement to provide service during a power
> outage if at all possible.
Maybe they assumed 'analog' service . . . . .
John
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:48:51 -0400
From: Pete Cresswell <nobody@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Incoming Calls: Charged?
Message-ID: <215q57t2rkdj415imudai6pj7jhgk7ba6n@4ax.com>
Is there a common practice among VOIP providers vis-a-vis
charging for incoming calls?
My provider is CallCentric - and I guess I ought to call them.
OTOH, maybe it's a no-brainer for this group's expertise....
--
PeteCresswell
Date: 31 Aug 2011 01:35:06 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Incoming Calls: Charged?
Message-ID: <20110831013506.99134.qmail@joyce.lan>
In article <215q57t2rkdj415imudai6pj7jhgk7ba6n@4ax.com> you write:
>Is there a common practice among VOIP providers vis-a-vis
>charging for incoming calls?
>
>My provider is CallCentric - and I guess I ought to call them.
>OTOH, maybe it's a no-brainer for this group's expertise....
Wouldn't it be easier to look at the price list on their web site?
http://www.callcentric.com/products/
R's,
John
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 23:27:29 +0100
From: "Graham." <me@privacy.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Incoming Calls: Charged?
Message-ID: <j3jo55$7fi$1@profound-observation.eternal-september.org>
"Pete Cresswell" <nobody@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote in message news:215q57t2rkdj415imudai6pj7jhgk7ba6n@4ax.com...
> Is there a common practice among VOIP providers vis-a-vis
> charging for incoming calls?
>
> My provider is CallCentric - and I guess I ought to call them.
> OTOH, maybe it's a no-brainer for this group's expertise....
Hi Pete,
I think any VoIP provider that adopted such a policy wouldn't get many
customers.
Can I expand this into a discussion of the relative merits of the US and
Canadian cell phone models where the receiving party pays, verses the
almost-rest-of-the-world model where the originating party pays, as long
as they are not roaming on a "foreign" network. The down side of course
is calling our cell phones is more expensive than calling a landline.
Here in the UK most people by far prefer our method and I suspect that
preference is expressed by people on the European continent too, but I am
interested to hear arguments in favour of the North American system.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
>From news@eternal-september.org Tue Aug 30 18:30:04 2011
Return-path: <news@eternal-september.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on
telecom.csail.mit.edu
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI,RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED autolearn=ham version=3.2.5
Envelope-to: redacted@invalid.massis.lcs.mit.edu
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:30:04 -0400
Received: from gal.iecc.com ([64.57.183.53])
by telecom.csail.mit.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <news@eternal-september.org>)
id 1QyWom-0006v7-4W
for redacted@invalid.massis.lcs.mit.edu; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:30:04 -0400
Received: (qmail 73329 invoked by uid 1014); 30 Aug 2011 22:30:03 -0000
MBOX-Line: From news@eternal-september.org Tue Aug 30 22:30:03 2011
Delivered-To: virtual-telecom-redacted@invalid.telecom-digest.org
Received: (qmail 73319 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2011 22:30:02 -0000
Received: from moderators.individual.net (moderators.individual.net
[130.133.4.7]) by mail1.iecc.com ([64.57.183.56]) with ESMTP via TCP
id 2476724536; 30 Aug 2011 22:30:01 -0000
Received: from mail.eternal-september.org ([88.198.244.97]) by
moderators.individual.net (Exim 4.69) for
redacted@invalid.moderators.isc.org with esmtp (envelope-from
<news@eternal-september.org>) id <1QyWob-00057W-Ve>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011
00:29:57 +0200
Received: by mail.eternal-september.org (Postfix, from userid 9) id
E08A8921B7; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 00:29:52 +0200 (CEST)
To: redacted@invalid.moderators.isc.org
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Incoming Calls: Charged?
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:29:02 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <j3jo90$80a$1@dont-email.me>
References: <215q57t2rkdj415imudai6pj7jhgk7ba6n@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812
Thunderbird/6.0
In-Reply-To: <215q57t2rkdj415imudai6pj7jhgk7ba6n@4ax.com>
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1/Edq3oxoLTuUOs4BXfCYSAedJz6BbRIo5F4hDdM35L2w==
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tz5FIst6BjjYpmGnFy/W1B0jqgs=
X-DCC-iecc-Metrics: gal.iecc.com 1107; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1
Status: RO
Content-Length: 585
Lines: 13
On 8/30/2011 11:48 AM, Pete Cresswell wrote:
> Is there a common practice among VOIP providers vis-a-vis
> charging for incoming calls?
Mine (voip.ms) does. With slightly different rates, depending on
whether the call is incoming or outgoing, the service level selected,
the DID number (the rate is higher for my ported phone number than it
would have been if I'd just picked a new number from the available
pool), and whether CID name lookup is turned on (name lookup and 911
locator are optional, at additional charge). Or there's the option of
a flat-rate incoming charge.
Dave
Date: 31 Aug 2011 04:37:28 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Who pays for mobile phone calls
Message-ID: <20110831043728.49296.qmail@joyce.lan>
>Can I expand this into a discussion of the relative merits of the US
>and Canadian cell phone models where the receiving party pays, verses
>the almost-rest-of-the-world model where the originating party pays,
>as long as they are not roaming on a "foreign" network. The down
>side of course is calling our cell phones is more expensive than
>calling a landline.
Short answer: people like what they're used to, and tend to consider
the alternative to be an abomination against nature.
Mobile pays has the advantage for the mobile user that it's very cheap
to have a phone for occasional use (I have a UK phone into which I
load 5 pounds Sterling twice a year), and you get to foist off a lot of
the cost on your friends.
Here in North America, due to our fixed length numbering system, there
weren't enough unused area codes to provide a separate numbering space
for mobiles, so the numbers are integrated into the same numbering
space as landlines. (Please save the fixed vs. variable length number
argument for later.) That meant that there was really no alternative
to mobile pays, since a system where some calls cost extra and you
couldn't easily tell which were which from the phone numbers would be
a disaster. There were a few attempts to do caller pays mobile with
special exchange codes, all of which failed, since it turned out that
the number of people who thought they were important enough that
people would pay extra to call them greatly exceeded the number who
actually were.
Also, the US and Canada are much larger in area than European
countries, and when mobile phones were new in the 1980s, mobile users
paid domestic long distance charges just like landline users, as well
as roaming charges using the phone away from home within the country.
(That was also due to the decision in the US to divide up the country
into several hundred service areas and to hand out separate licenses
for each.) These days, US mobile carriers treat all calls within the
US as local, but Canadian carriers still charge long distance unless
you get an add-on package.
So anyway, the biggest advantage of mobile pays is that there is
actual price competition for all mobile calls, not just outgoing ones.
As a result, US phone users use a lot more minutes than European ones,
and particularly for heavy users, the rates are quite low. Even for
us low-volume prepaid users, it's not hard to find rates of 10 cents/min
and no monthly fee. My UK prepaid is about three times that.
Another advantage is that we can port numbers not just between mobile
carriers, but between landline and mobile. If you decide to ditch
your landline in favor of mobile, you can take your number with you,
and if you change your mind, you can take your number back. You'll
never see that in caller pays countries.
R's,
John
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 05:01:08 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Incoming Calls: Charged?
Message-ID: <j3kf6k$c5k$7@reader1.panix.com>
Graham. <me@privacy.com> wrote:
:Can I expand this into a discussion of the relative merits of the US and
:Canadian cell phone models where the receiving party pays, verses the
:almost-rest-of-the-world model where the originating party pays, as long
:as they are not roaming on a "foreign" network. The down side of course
:is calling our cell phones is more expensive than calling a landline.
:Here in the UK most people by far prefer our method and I suspect that
:preference is expressed by people on the European continent too, but I am
:interested to hear arguments in favour of the North American system.
The basic problem with calling party pays is that calling party has no
idea what, exactly, it'll cost him until he gets his bill, and it
provides an incentive for people expecting to receive more calls than
they make (like, say, plumbers, electricians, drug dealers) to pick a
plan that carries abnormally high calling party fees, with low fees to
him.
Called party pays encourages the cell phone owner to pick the
cheapest plan, and has better competitive results, with lower fees for
everyone as a result.
** Moderator Note: Of course, a downside to 'mobile owner pays' is that
'other people' can spend the owner's money, without the owner having
any say in the matter.
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:17:09 -0700
From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Incoming Calls: Charged?
Message-ID: <53tvi8-9qq.ln1@radagast.org>
>Is there a common practice among VOIP providers vis-a-vis
>charging for incoming calls?
>
>My provider is CallCentric - and I guess I ought to call them.
.... or just check their web page.
>OTOH, maybe it's a no-brainer for this group's expertise....
Most of the providers have checked out, offer two separate sorts of
plans per DID:
- Unmetered - no charge for incoming calls. In some cases there's
an upper limit to the no-charge calls (e.g. 2000 minutes/month),
which seems to be intended to separate "residential and small
business" usage, from "call-center" applications... the latter
end up over the limit.
- Metered - a set rate per minute for all incoming calls.
The "metered" accounts are cheaper - e.g. $2 for a metered DID, $4-$5
for an unmetered DID.
CallCentric offers "pay per minute" DIDs for $1.95/month plus $0.015
per minute, as well as "residential unlimited" DIDs for $5.95 and
"office unlimited" for $8.95. Outbound calls are billed separately
(and, once again, they have "pay by minute" and "unlimited" plans, at
significantly different prices per month).
If you receive only a small number of calls, the per-minute plans are
a better deal. If you receive many (or long) calls, the flat-rate
plans make sense.
--
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: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 09:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mark J. Cuccia" <markjcuccia@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: GTE, Automatic Electric, etc.
Message-ID: <1314721767.57900.YahooMailClassic@web31103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
On 29-August-2011, Lisa Hancock wrote:
> There are a number of web pages talking about AE and GTE, but
> they're pretty brief. I was wondering if anyone knew of any books
> or more substantive references that describe the history of those
> organizations, before and after they merged. I'm particularly
> interested in AE/GT during the war years and post war era. Also
> things like when they first introduced DTMF and non SxS (common
> control) switching.
Automatic Electric was actually the manufacturing unit that was part
of the Theodore Gary Company, a long-time independent telco (and
equipment manufacturing entity).
General Telephone, which was a separate independent telco (which was
also once known as "Associated Telephone") purchased the Theodore
Gary Company including AE in 1955. (Remember too, that General Tel
was always picking up individual telcos and various telco "groups"
all along as well. The Theodore Gary telco was just one company that
General acquired throughout its history).
Five years earlier, General purchased Leich Electric, another
telephone equipment manufacturing company that sold to the independent
telcos. (I don't think that Leich was also a telco, maybe it was at one
time that I'm not aware of?, but it was indeed an equipment manufacturing
company).
By 1962, GT&E (the new name after General bought Sylvania Electronics
in 1959) consolidated the operations of Leich into AE.
In 1988/89, GTE's equipment entity (now known as GTE Communications Systems)
and AT&T Technologies (legacy Western Electric) went into a joint-venture
known as AGCS. The 'A' stood for AT&T, the 'G' for GTE, and the 'C' and
'S' for Communications Systems. AT&T actually now owned 49% of what had
been GTE-AE. The terms of the contract also stipulated that GTE (or its
successor) could require AT&T (or its successor) to buy the remaining 51%
of what had been GTE-AE within 15 years.
In 1996, AT&T spun-off what had been WECO (and Bell Labs) into Lucent.
Thus, Lucent was now involved with AGCS, owning 49% of the old GTE-AE,
and could be required to buy the remaining 51% by 2004.
And in 2004, this did happen. Lucent bought the remaining 51% of what
had been GTE-AE from VeriZon (which was the merger of Bell Atlantic/
NYNEX, taking over what remained as GTE/Contel as of 2000).
And then in 2006, Lucent and Europe's Alcatel -- which had already bought
out much of what had been IT(&)T's c.o. switch and PBX manufacturing (not
including station equipment manufacturing, located at the old ITT plant in
Corinth MS, which had been sold off earlier to former ITT executives, and is
now known as Cortelco) -- merged into what is now known as "Alcatel-Lucent".
(Also remember that the "new" -- as of the 1920s, that is -- IT&T acquired
much of the pre-1920s AT&T/Bell/WECO operations in Europe, Latin America,
and the Caribbean).
Mark J. Cuccia
markjcuccia at yahoo dot com
Lafayette LA, formerly of New Orleans LA pre-Katrina
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: ray <ray@aarden.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Tablet Interface to Cell Phone
Message-ID: <856713aa-cacf-4dcb-81a1-817d144ab26c@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>
I would like to use a tablet with contact info, to dial my cell phone over
Bluetooth, and then let me pick up the call on a BT headset. All without
having to touch my cell phone. I would like to use an Android tablet.
Is this possible and what features would it take on the phone and tablet
to do this? Any ideas on what application would support this?
Thanks,
ray
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:28:07 -0500
From: Doug McIntyre <merlyn@geeks.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cable phone service disrupted from power outage
Message-ID: <20110830212807.GA10532@geeks.org>
Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> writes:
>Is there any particular advantage to "digital" telephone service? Most
>interoffice and toll trunks are "digital" now, and it would seem that for the
>subscriber loop to be "digital" just adds one additional thing that could go
>wrong.
"Digital phone" to the cable companies is likely VoIP with features
and somewhat like pricing. Not a digital ISDN line. They terminate it
over the cable network as Voice over IP, and the cable box takes it
back to POTS to plug into the house wiring.
Comcast in Minnesota has their digital phone line with unlimited
long-distance, call-waiting, caller-ID, Voice-mail, webpage review of
calls, web voice-mail retrieval, caller_ID overlay on the cable box,
etc. for about $42/month.
Qwest, the ILEC here, gives you the traditional "analog" line full
package deal for closer to $60/month with most of this set of features
(ie. unlimited long distance, call waiting, voice-mail, etc, minus any
online access).
Although, all those premium features and especially the unlimited long
distance adds quite a bit. A basic line is closer to $15 plus taxes.
If you do make alot of long distance calls from your home instead of
using your cell-phone, and bundling the premium features usually gives
you better discounts, and is usually is a pretty good deal. If you
don't use hardly any features (ie. no long distance, no call waiting,
no voice-mail, etc). The iLEC traditional analog line tends to be the
better deal.
The tradeoffs besides the pricing are that all services come over one
wire, if that one wire goes down, all the rest goes down (not too
different than DSL/Phone), and that they don't usually have battery
backup in the field for their nodes...
>From news@google.com Tue Aug 30 17:30:30 2011
Return-path: <news@google.com>
Envelope-to: redacted@invalid.massis.lcs.mit.edu
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:30:30 -0400
Received: from gal.iecc.com ([64.57.183.53])
by telecom.csail.mit.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <news@google.com>)
id 1QyVt8-0005kq-LW
for redacted@invalid.massis.lcs.mit.edu; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:30:30 -0400
Received: (qmail 44222 invoked by uid 1014); 30 Aug 2011 21:30:30 -0000
MBOX-Line: From news@google.com Tue Aug 30 21:30:30 2011
Delivered-To: virtual-telecom-redacted@invalid.telecom-digest.org
Received: (qmail 44215 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2011 21:30:30 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on gal.iecc.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=4.4 tests=AWL,BAYES_00
shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
Received: from four.schnuerpel.eu (moderators.schnuerpel.eu
[178.63.61.184]) by mail1.iecc.com ([64.57.183.56]) with ESMTP via TCP
id 2476716285; 30 Aug 2011 21:30:29 -0000
Received: from mail-yi0-f69.google.com (mail-yi0-f69.google.com
[209.85.218.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No
client certificate requested) by moderators.schnuerpel.eu (Postfix)
with ESMTPS id C17C5790 for <redacted@invalid.moderators.isc.org>;
Tue, 30 Aug 2011 23:30:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by yib2 with SMTP id 2so119694yib.8 for
<redacted@invalid.moderators.isc.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:30:26
-0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.77.131 with SMTP id d3mr29236680yhe.2.1314739826798;
Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from yws13.prod.google.com (yws13.prod.google.com
[10.192.19.13]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id
q31si7544525yba.1.2011.08.30.14.30.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3
cipher=OTHER); Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from news@localhost) by Google Production id p7ULUOok000427
for redacted@invalid.moderators.isc.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:30:24
-0700
X-Authentication-Warning: yws13.prod.google.com: news set sender to
news@google.com using -f
To: redacted@invalid.moderators.isc.org
Path: w28g2000yqw.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Touch Tone Trademark Status
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:28:25 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <4643c06b-a7ed-4bb2-90f6-6cb50e47515b@w28g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>
References: <1314649882.1863.YahooMailClassic@web31104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
<4e334da3-24e5-45e6-8531-d3a8b0ae06fb@i21g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
<4E5D0B05.7050902@horne.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 160.93.149.23
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1314739824 426 127.0.0.1 (30 Aug 2011
21:30:24 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:30:24 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: w28g2000yqw.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=160.93.149.23;
posting-account=WKyNOQkAAACNglsCZiIox1kdy9R-66KH
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: ARLUEHNKC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1;
Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR
3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe)
X-DCC-iecc-Metrics: gal.iecc.com 1107; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1
Status: RO
Content-Length: 3235
Lines: 67
On Aug 30, 12:08 pm, Bill Horne <b...@horneQRM.net> wrote:
> What the reporters meant to say, however, was that there was no Kerosene
> - that the refugees couldn't cook their food at all, and that therefore
> they were suffering from food-born illness. It took an amazingly long
> time to correct the problem, because news editors routinely cut
> trademarks our of stories, and "Kerosene" is still a trademark in some
> parts of the world.
Journalism magazines routinely have notices reminding people to be
careful about trademarks. There's nothing wrong with using a
trademark as long as it's used in the proper context. For example:
Wrong: "I made a xerox of the document."
Right: "I made a copy of the document on a Xerox machine".
(Xerox is probably one of the most misused trademarks, people using it
as a noun for 'photocopy' or a verb for 'to make a copy of' as opposed
to a particular brand of copying machine. Unfortunately, the Xerox
company isn't that big these days.)
If the news story said "Kerosene cooking oil" the trademark would've
been respected and the proper information conveyed. (I didn't know
Kerosene was even a trademark.)
Other misused trademarks include Band-Aid, Jello, and Kleenex,
especially in oral speech.
I understand years ago "escalator" was once a trademark for a brand of
moving stairs. I've seen old signs in train stations saying "moving
stairs".
> ** Moderator note: If whomever wrote the stuff had just clearly stated
> what the actual problem was -- e.g., 'people getting sick from uncooked
> food because of a widespread shortage of the fuel needed to cook it' --
> EVERYBODY would have understood. Color me cynical, but I suspect that
> 'cooking oil' language originated from amateurs -- probably local relief-
> organization staffers or volunteers, putting out a 'press release' -- and
> not professional journalists. Things like this are not-infrequent
> occurrences, when somebody 'too close to the problem' writes about a
> thing and assumes things that 'everybody knows, _locally_". In, say, s
> semi-technical discussion group like this one) that's not necessarily
> unreasonable, but when speaking to/writing for the 'general public',
> _especially_ it is a 'stand alone' presentation, it is vital to
> explain the 'possibly ambiguous' terms. "Cooking oil', vs 'fuel for
> cooking', does fall into that category, even though the 'local's probably
> weren't aware of it.
So true.
I think many journalists these days are more interested in writing
catchy prose to grab a reader's interest as opposed to conveying
actual facts. When I read or hear a news report about something I
know about, I amazed at the inaccuracies or failure to stress
important information. For instance, just last night I heard a TV
news reporter say "two commuter lines will still be out Tuesday" when
they showed a title card contradicting what he said (and the title
card was at least right).
I'm still amazed at my neighbors who were utterly suprised I had
working telephone service during the power outage. Totally uninformed
about communications options. (IMHO, today's carriers like it that
way so they can sell people premium packages even if they don't need
them.)
Date: 31 Aug 2011 04:42:20 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cable phone service disrupted from power outage
Message-ID: <20110831044220.50647.qmail@joyce.lan>
>"Digital phone" to the cable companies is likely VoIP with features
>and somewhat like pricing. Not a digital ISDN line. They terminate it
>over the cable network as Voice over IP, and the cable box takes it
>back to POTS to plug into the house wiring.
It's PacketCable, which means it's VoIP, but unlike Vonage et al, it
has dedicated bandwidth on the cable system, so the voice quality
should be as good or better than analog POTS. The main disadvantage
is that it's not powered from the head end so when the power goes out,
your phone is only as good as your battery or UPS.
R's,
John
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cable phone service disrupted from power outage
Message-ID: <26988a3d-543b-41ee-89b7-d50a61b690a7@ft29g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 29, 3:19 pm, "ABLE1" <royboynos...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> I always thought it was a PUC requirement to provide service during a power
> outage if at all possible. Guess that theory went out the window with the
> digital age.
Almost all communications services these days are deregulated and all
the rules of the old world no longer apply. (The same applies to
banking).
I think the very basic POTS line is still regulated, but I'm not sure
if that still includes service quality. The stuff in the front of the
phone book seems more oriented toward protecting subscribers from
losing their basic local phone service, from a Baby Bell, for lack of
payment.
When the old Bell System was a monopoly, they always feared it would
be taken away from them, and thus worked hard to maintain high service
quality. Obviously that's no longer true, and it appears the Baby
Bells don't care too much about old style landline service.
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) 2011 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 (37 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues