30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for September 01, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 218 : "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: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:52:04 +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: <j3llb4$i9l$1@reader1.panix.com>
In article <26988a3d-543b-41ee-89b7-d50a61b690a7@ft29g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
>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.
That's simply not true of wireline telephony.
Nor, in most states, of any entity providing anything that looks
sufficiently like fixed location, wired telephone service -- for example,
the cable TV companies in-house telcos. If the power went out and
you lost phone service supplied by your local cableco even though you
arranged for your terminal equipment to be powered -- you should complain
to the state regulator. By deciding to play telephone company, the cable
companies incurred all the same responsibilites to keep their network
elements powered during emergencies that Ma Bell had.
Perhaps they are hoping customers don't know that, or tell each other
it is not so.
--
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: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:42:46 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Where does digital phone service hand off toll-free calls?
Message-ID: <4E5E5676.1080406@horne.net>
On 8/31/2011 12:40 AM, John Levine wrote:
> They [Neustar -- ed] also run most if not all of the LNP databases,
> since all POTS calls require a database dip now, too.
All calls? There must be a exchange code somewhere that doesn't have any
numbers ported out: doesn't that still mean that the calls to that
exchange don't have to be dipped?
** Moderator Note: the 'dip' is done at the originating end. They "don't know"
that the exchange doesn't have any ported numbers.
Consider the stiuation where a number from LEC 'A' is ported to LEC 'B'.
Now, another customer of LEC 'B" calls that number. If they presented the
call to 'A', who did the dip, ound the call needed to go to B, and
'forwarded' it there, there's be two inter-LEC trunks tied up for a call
that was entirely local to a single LEC.
Similarly, if somebody from LEC 'C' calls, you end up with two trunks
tied up at 'A', one in (C->A), one out(A->B). The 'direct' route (C->B)
is much preferable.
Date: 31 Aug 2011 17:05:45 -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: <20110831170545.58202.qmail@joyce.lan>
>> They [Neustar -- ed] also run most if not all of the LNP databases,
>> since all POTS calls require a database dip now, too.
>
>All calls? There must be a exchange code somewhere that doesn't have any
>numbers ported out: doesn't that still mean that the calls to that
>exchange don't have to be dipped?
Well, OK. A call within the same switch doesn't have to be dipped if
the switch knows the number hasn't been ported. Other than that, if
there are still exchanges that don't support LNP, they must be very
far out in the boondocks.
Our RLEC has supported it for several years, and Time-Warner even has
a prefix assigned so they can assign and port numbers to digital
cable.
R's,
John
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 22:25:42 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@panix.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: <j3mcd6$9fc$1@reader1.panix.com>
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
:>> They [Neustar -- ed] also run most if not all of the LNP databases,
:>> since all POTS calls require a database dip now, too.
:>
:>All calls? There must be a exchange code somewhere that doesn't have any
:>numbers ported out: doesn't that still mean that the calls to that
:>exchange don't have to be dipped?
:Well, OK. A call within the same switch doesn't have to be dipped if
:the switch knows the number hasn't been ported. Other than that, if
:there are still exchanges that don't support LNP, they must be very
:far out in the boondocks.
It used to, when LNP was first being rolled out at the end of the 20th
century, be possible to have a table that listed NPA-NXX pairs that
had ported numbers (not just supported them, but which had at least
one number ported). That's just a few thousand records, so examining
that would save a look up for numbers that you could tell weren't
going to have been ported. I doubt it's worth keeping such a table
these days, because it would have so many records (save so few look-ups),
but I no longer worry about such things, so maybe it is.
--
Movable type was evidently a fad. --Amanda Walker
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:46:57 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Where does digital phone service hand off toll-free calls?
Message-ID: <1314827217.4050.14.camel@Thinkpad>
On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 11:42 -0400, Bill Horne wrote:
> On 8/31/2011 12:40 AM, John Levine wrote:
> > They [Neustar -- ed] also run most if not all of the LNP databases,
> > since all POTS calls require a database dip now, too.
>
> All calls? There must be a exchange code somewhere that doesn't have any
> numbers ported out: doesn't that still mean that the calls to that
> exchange don't have to be dipped?
>
>
> ** Moderator Note: the 'dip' is done at the originating end. They "don't know"
> that the exchange doesn't have any ported numbers.
>
> Consider the stiuation where a number from LEC 'A' is ported to LEC 'B'.
> Now, another customer of LEC 'B" calls that number. If they presented the
> call to 'A', who did the dip, ound the call needed to go to B, and
> 'forwarded' it there, there's be two inter-LEC trunks tied up for a call
> that was entirely local to a single LEC.
>
> Similarly, if somebody from LEC 'C' calls, you end up with two trunks
> tied up at 'A', one in (C->A), one out(A->B). The 'direct' route (C->B)
> is much preferable.
In the original LNP implementation, an originating exchange keeps a list
of all other exchanges in the NANP, and they're marked as "lookup
needed" or "no lookup needed". The originating exchange only dips the
national LNP DB if an exchange code is marked "lookup needed", i.e., if
at least one phone number has been ported out of that exchange code.
Ergo, my question, which stands.
** Moderator note: Very early LNP was done via the 'call forwarding'
mechanism, and did result in 2 trunks busy, per above (except in the
case of a call originating in the 'home' exchange). This was an
incentive for the telcos to get the data-base up, running, and in
use. A friend had ported a number very early on, and had some issues
with multiple simultaneous calls, due to that mechanism. :)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:12:00 -0400
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Dep't of Justice filing suits to stop AT&T takeover of T-Mobile
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.1108311110001.6339@panix5.panix.com>
[Forbes]
Department Of Justice Files To Block AT&T-T-Mobile Deal, Reports Say
On a day where things to be looking good for AT&T, and its proposed
acquisition of T-Mobile from Deutsche Telekom, reports that the Department
of Justice's antitrust division filed to block the deal rained on the
parade.
Spreading like a wildfire across news wires, television, and the internet,
the report that regulators had sued to stop the proposed merger sent
AT&T's stock nose diving down.
----------
rest (lots of other reports, including rumors of a pending
DOJ press conference):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2011/08/31/department-of-justice-files-to-block-att-t-mobile-deal-reports-say/
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:56:37 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Dep't of Justice filing suits to stop AT&T takeover of T-Mobile
Message-ID: <1314827797.4050.16.camel@Thinkpad>
On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 11:12 -0400, danny burstein wrote:
> [Forbes]
>
> Department Of Justice Files To Block AT&T-T-Mobile Deal, Reports Say
If the DOJ didn't prevent CenturyLink gobbling up QWEST, they have no
business objecting to at&t taking over T-Mobile.
Bill
--
"I've been up and down this highway, far as my eye can see
No matter how fast I run, I can never seem to get away from me"
- Jackson Browne
Date: 31 Aug 2011 15:46:46 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Incoming Calls: Charged?
Message-ID: <20110831154646.36631.qmail@joyce.lan>
>** 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.
You always have the option of not answering the phone. (I realize
there are people who are believe that they can't do that, but trust
me, it's possible.)
Back when mobile phones were new, US users would get all worked up
about incoming calls, not list their numbers, and tell people never
ever to call them unless it was really REALLY important. Now most
users have minute bundles, so they don't care. I only object to
incoming calls on my mobile when it's a junk call, same as I object to
them on my home phone.
R's,
John
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:53:22 -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: <4E5E58F2.8020603@horne.net>
On 8/31/2011 12:42 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> "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.
Not with Comcast: I had a phone from them for a year, as past of a trial
offer, and I was extremely disappointed with their service.
* Frequent cutouts lasting as long as ten seconds
* Cutoffs
* Call quality was highly variable, even to/from the same phone line,
dialed at the same time of day
> 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.
With Comcast, the cable modem had a battery in it that would run the phone
for about four hours. It automatically shut down Internet and TV when
running on the battery.
Bill
Date: 31 Aug 2011 15:27:55 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Touch Tone Trademark Status
Message-ID: <20110831152755.31480.qmail@joyce.lan>
>I think, but not sure, that "Flipphone" was the Trimline equivalent
>from GTE. Not as sleek.
No, that was an early folding phone. The Trimline-alikes were
Trendline and Styleline:
http://www.frillfreephones.com/trphhi.html
R's,
John
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:09:47 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re:Cable phone service disrupted from power outage
Message-ID: <j3lmcb$7vv$3@news.albasani.net>
Gary <bogus-email@hotmail.com> wrote:
>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.
Does that mean a subsequent subscriber at the same service address would be
able to order POTS and not FiOS?
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:42:32 -0400
From: "Gary" <bogus-email@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re:Disconnected POTS (Cable phone service disrupted from power outage)
Message-ID: <j3mguo$9kj$1@dont-email.me>
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote in message news:j3lmcb$7vv$3@news.albasani.net...
> Does that mean a subsequent subscriber at the same service address would
> be
> able to order POTS and not FiOS?
My understanding is the copper line is basically dead and has been removed
from Verizon's list of provisioned, active and maintained lines. If I or a
subsequent resident of my house wants to bring back the copper, it will
probably require a significant amount of money; if it is even an option.
However, if that's what I wanted I wouldn't have switched to FiOS.
I also understand that any tariffed phone service should be available
through the ONT. I believe I can cancel all FiOS services except phone and
switch to a low cost plan with unbundled long distance and no features.
I think the only significant user cost difference between FiOS and copper is
the back-up battery. When it dies, I'll have to pay to replace it. I
expect that any other issues with the ONT would be fixed by Verizon.
-Gary
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:14:44 +0100
From: "Graham." <me@privacy.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Who pays for mobile phone calls
Message-ID: <j3lj57$heu$1@profound-observation.eternal-september.org>
"John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote in message news: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 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/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
Thanks for the interesting insight John.
The differences are as much cultural than anything else. Here in the UK
companies like to use non geographic numbers which cost more for their
customers to dial than regular area codes. They do this for various reasons
such as revenue share, and to have a "national" perception. There is a
new range of non geographic numbers that cost the same to dial as a
regular area codes but they are not so popular.
Of course in the US these companies would be using 800 numbers to service
their customers, but "service" is still a developing concept over here as
you will have discovered.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:14:52 +0100
From: "Graham." <me@privacy.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Incoming Calls: Charged?
Message-ID: <j3lfku$oef$1@profound-observation.eternal-september.org>
"David Scheidt" <dscheidt@panix.com> wrote in message news:j3kf6k$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.
Here, calling party fees are not determined by the contract or plan the
user chooses, it is the originating carrier that determines these. As the
termination fees vary depending on which mobile network the called phone
is using, some originating carriers pass on this differential to the caller.
There was a time when a savvy user could know which network they were
calling by looking at the number (All UK cell phones have non geographic
area codes) but because of number porting between networks it is no longer
possible to determine the network with certainty. Having said that, this
hasn't become an issue with the general public, few are even aware of it.
In any case when I call a cellphone from home I use a VoIP provider that
charges 5 US cents per min irrespective of which UK network I call, so go
figure.
In the UK you can buy a basic cellphone for $10 and that includes some
pre-pay credit. You could then use it to receive incoming calls only, at
no cost to you. You would just need to make a single call or SMS every
3 months to keep the SIM active.
What I would like to ask is this, why does it have to be either/or, why
can't both systems be offered as alternative plans? Is there something
fundamentally different about our systems or cultures that would preclude
this? One benefits the caller, the other the callee.
Date: 31 Aug 2011 17:34:45 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Incoming Calls: Charged?
Message-ID: <20110831173445.66142.qmail@joyce.lan>
>What I would like to ask is this, why does it have to be either/or, why
>can't both systems be offered as alternative plans? Is there something
>fundamentally different about our systems or cultures that would preclude
>this? One benefits the caller, the other the callee.
I suppose European systems could add mobile pays numbers if there were
some demand since they can add new number ranges, but in North
America, we don't have number space to waste on them. Anyway, the few
experiments carriers have tried have shown no demand for caller pays.
We do have some number ranges for calls that cost the caller extra,
the 1-500 and 1-900 ranges. Ask anyone in the US how likely they'd be
to call a mobile with a 500 or 900 number.
R's,
John
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:28:12 -0500
From: jsw@ivgate.omahug.org
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Email spam getting to me
Message-ID: <ada49dc613d221cdf18858d283c6ccb7.squirrel@ivgate.omahug.org>
>Despite pre-filtering by the best filters that Stanford IT can provide
>for its university servers, followed by further filtering by numerous
>filters
I might presume that Stanford is using something based on SpamAssassin for
spam filtering.
We use SpamAssassin here, have for several years, and have discovered a
few tricks to make in incredibly effective. You may have to work with the
IT folks if you don't have shell access to the machine hosting your e-mail
account.
The real trick to get SpamAssassin to work is to properly train it to
recognize ham and spam from your personal perspective. This typically
takes a few months of normal e-mail, and SpamAssassin will not use the
Bayesian filtering until it's been properly trained.
You need to train this on samples of YOUR ham and spam.
Some make the mistake of feeding well-known spam corpora to it, and the
results are ineffective. Likewise, it needs a good dose of your ham as
well as your spam.
For some users we've created batches to routinely feed their spam and ham
to the sa-learn utility, and for some very troublesome accounts it's been
quite effective.
Hope this helps.
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 22:56:50 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein.SeeSigSpambait@wn2.wn.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Where does digital phone service hand off toll-free calls?
Message-ID: <20110901025734.C3A4B5364@mailout.easydns.com>
On 31 Aug 2011 04:40:09 -0000 "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> noted,
> >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.
Not exactly. The 800 database is not run by Neustar, but by SMS/800,
a joint venture of the seven RBOC interests, and thus now of ATT, VZ,
and CenturyHell. It's based in Bismarck, ND and the database is
distributed among multiple servers.
SMS/800 directs the originating network to the appropriate
destination carrier, who internally routes the call. In the special
case of intraLATA calls using pseudo-CIC 0110, the SMS database
provides a translate-to number, so the call is delivered to that
number on the carrier who owns it.
The ability to write into the SMS database is granted to Responsible
Organizatons (RespOrgs). They are essentially the 800 registrars,
while SMS/800 is the registry.
--
Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 06:18:56 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.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: <j3n84g$vm4$1@news.albasani.net>
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>>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.
On another topic, what is the correct term for these servers that provide
VoIP service? Packet routing is done Internet style and won't even hit
the telephone network till it gets to the switch serving the dialed number.
And if that number is also VoIP, a telephone call hasn't even been made.
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 (18 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues