30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for September 03, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 220 : "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: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 04:45:04 -0400
From: David Chessler <chessler@usa.VALID-IF-THIS-IS-ELIDED.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Smartphone patent lawsuits' impact will trickle down to developers - FierceWireless
Message-ID: <201109020844.BGV46318@mr16.lnh.mail.rcn.net>
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/smartphone-patent-lawsuits-impact-will-trickle-down-developers/2011-08-30
Useful chart in the original
Published on FierceWireless (http://www.fiercewireless.com)
Smartphone patent lawsuits' impact will trickle down to developers
By Sue
Created Aug 30 2011 - 10:40am
Sue marek
Mobile developers are certainly not immune to the ramifications of
all the ongoing patent disputes that are plaguing the wireless
industry. All the top smartphone makers, mobile operating system
platforms and chip makers are currently involved in some form of
patent litigation. In fact, Verizon Wireless (NYSE:VZ) recently
released the below chart to FierceWireless, which cleverly maps out
all the pending patent lawsuits.
http://assets.fiercemarkets.com/files/wireless/fierceimages/smartphone_chart_big.jpg
What is the message behind this infographic? For developers, this
chart should send a warning call about the future of the platforms
and devices they are developing for. Although developers aren't the
target for these patent battles, they are impacted by the outcome. In
fact, one ramification of these patent lawsuits is that they could
make developers think twice before they develop apps for certain
platforms and devices.
Developers want to develop their applications and services for
platforms that have the most growth potential. "Developers want
volume," said Iain Gillott, founder of iGR Research. "They want to
develop one time for many devices. They want audience and the ability
to scale and a very stable platform."
Is any platform safe from patent litigation? Not really, said
Gillott. However, some of the platforms with the fewest patent suits,
such as Research in Motion's (NASDAQ:RIMM) BlackBerry, also have
a smaller reach among consumers, which isn't necessary a goal for
many developers.
So what should developers do? Probably the best thing, Gillott said,
is to develop applications across multiple devices and platforms in
order to obtain the most possible options. Of course, that advice
isn't always doable, particularly for small developer shops that
can't afford to expand to multiple platforms--at least not right away.
But Verizon's infographic should serve as a wakeup call to developers
who might not be following these patent disputes as closely as they
should. This much litigation isn't likely to be resolved any time
soon. --Sue
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 04:22:11 -0400
From: "Michael D. Sullivan" <mds@camsul.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Porting number into Comcast
Message-ID: <CA+K-LfZu7qWczYKAxEMDLDf6NEuQr9sfzL6Ob=z0+rM-A7W6VA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 07:33:06 -0700 (PDT), MB <mattb19020@yahoo.com>
wrote, in Message-ID:
<c772a45d-44e0-4851-a7e6-3be396c348cb@er4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>:
> Hi-
> I'm trying to port two numbers into Comcast from Vonage, one being in
> the 856-461/RIVERSIDE, NJ, originally a Verizon number, the other one
> being 856-735/RIVERTON, NJ, which has always been a Vonage number.
> Comcast is stating that they can port over the 856-461 number since
> the Riverside, NJ switch in which it resides is my 'home' switch,
> which the 856-461 number would be served from if I had Verizon. They
> are stating that they can't port 856-735 since the Riverton, NJ switch
> is not in my locale (its 2 towns over, roughly 3 miles away).
> Does this make sense to anybody? They originally said sure we can port
> it, however after all is said and done (8 calls later with 15 different
> reps...not exaggerating), i get a resounding "no".
The bottom line is that a number can be ported only within the same
"wire center" -- which may be a single switching office, a part of a
switching office (if several WCs share a CO), or several swtiching
office.
In these days of flat rate calling long-distance plans and "buckets"
that don't distinguish between local and long-distance, the notion of
having a physical location as a wire center for toll rating purposes
may seem a bit anachronous. However, our entire inter-carrier
compensation system is premised on determining where a call begins and
ends geographically, largely based on the NPA-NXX prefix of the phone
numbers. Moreover, there are many different end-user "toll" rates
that depend on distance, including not only interLATA but also
intraLATA (or "short distance") tolls.
It's my understanding that New Jersey is perhaps the most extreme case
of highly localized wire centers and inter-office tolls (or varying
message units even within "local" calling areas). As a result, it
might matter considerably whether your phone number is terminated at a
switch that is present in the local wire center, or one that is
present only in a wire center a few miles away from the one that
normally services your area.
But I agree that you should be persistent in trying to get what you
want, for at least a while. You might get someone who can make it
work, even by bending some rules.
--Mike Sullivan
--
Michael D. Sullivan
Bethesda, MD
Date: 2 Sep 2011 14:51:25 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Porting number into Comcast
Message-ID: <20110902145125.36407.qmail@joyce.lan>
>> I'm trying to port two numbers into Comcast from Vonage, one being in
>> the 856-461/RIVERSIDE, NJ, originally a Verizon number, the other one
>> being 856-735/RIVERTON, NJ, which has always been a Vonage number.
>> Comcast is stating that they can port over the 856-461 number since
>> the Riverside, NJ switch in which it resides is my 'home' switch,
>> which the 856-461 number would be served from if I had Verizon. They
>> are stating that they can't port 856-735 since the Riverton, NJ switch
>> is not in my locale (its 2 towns over, roughly 3 miles away). ...
>The bottom line is that a number can be ported only within the same
>"wire center" -- which may be a single switching office, a part of a
>switching office (if several WCs share a CO), or several swtiching
>office.
Comcast has a prefix in Riverton, so they should be able to port
numbers there. This looks to me like a limitation of Comcast's
ordering system, not a fundamental inability to port.
R's,
John
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 19:12:46 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Porting number into Comcast
Message-ID: <j3r9re$8eq$1@news.albasani.net>
Michael D. Sullivan <mds@camsul.com> wrote:
>The bottom line is that a number can be ported only within the same
>"wire center" -- which may be a single switching office, a part of a
>switching office (if several WCs share a CO), or several swtiching
>office.
So many different polygons...
A wire center can contain a small portion of a neigbhoring rate center.
Isn't the polygon being regulated the rate center and not the wire center?
I cannot imagine that public notice is required or that the public utility
commission would issue a finding or a certificate of public convenience
before the boundaries of this polygon were changed.
So shouldn't porting be among numbers in the same rate center and not
wire center? And if a portion of the rate center is in a neighboring
wire center, shouldn't porting be allowed regardless?
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 22:13:33 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein.SeeSigSpambait@wn2.wn.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Porting number into Comcast
Message-ID: <20110903021354.2253D5336@mailout.easydns.com>
On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 07:33:06 -0700 (PDT), MB <mattb19020@yahoo.com> wrote,
>Hi-
>I'm trying to port two numbers into Comcast from Vonage, one being in
>the 856-461/RIVERSIDE, NJ, originally a Verizon number, the other one
>being 856-735/RIVERTON, NJ, which has always been a Vonage number.
>
>Comcast is stating that they can port over the 856-461 number since
>the Riverside, NJ switch in which it resides is my 'home' switch,
>which the 856-461 number would be served from if I had Verizon. They
>are stating that they can't port 856-735 since the Riverton, NJ switch
>is not in my locale (its 2 towns over, roughly 3 miles away).
>
>Does this make sense to anybody? They originally said sure we can
>port it, however after all is said and done (8 calls later with 15
>different reps...not exaggerating), i get a resounding "no".
They're right. You can't port it.
You're apparently in the Riverside rate center area. So you can port
any Riverside number to your home phone. But Riverton is a different
rate center. So if you were to port it to a fixed line, then that
fixed line would become a foreign exchange line.
Vonage is "nomadic VoIP". Under the applicable rules, there is no
penalty to being foreign exchange -- they do not control where you
plug in your ATA into the Internet, so you can take your number with
you when you travel. You are supposed to update the E911 location,
but otherwise it's okay.
Comcast is a fixed line, same as Verizon. Ignore the detail that
there are VoIP headers used in the transmission medium -- that is
totally irrelevant. It is not a "VoIP" service; it is a local
exchange line, covered by local rules. You can't take your cable with
you; Comcast installed the EMTA (cable modem), and thus knows where
you are, and the E911 is fixed to that too.
This all matters for two reasons. Both stupid, but they're the
rule... One is tax. The FCC has a 15% (more or less, it varies by
quarter) Universal Service tax on interstate communications. For a
fixed line, they can tax your LD calls or your LD calling plan. For
a nomadic line, they don't know how much is really interstate so
unless the provider demonstrates otherwise, they assume that 64.9% of
calls are interstate, and tax that percentage of the plan's
price. Of course two towns in the same state don't change that item.
The second reason is intercarrier compensation -- what Comcast,
Paetec (Vonage's CLEC there), Verizon, et al pays another carrier for
its half of the call. In most caes, Verizon charges totally
different rates for "local" and "long distance" calls. Comcast, as a
CLEC, is essentially bound by contract to install only "local"
numbers for its customers, or they would be required to pay high LD
terminating charges for what are really local calls. This is a
totally obnoxious practice that Verizon is now allowed to get away
with, but the price for a call varies depending on whether it is
"local", intrastate toll, interstate toll, VoIP (nomadic), wireless,
"ISP-bound", etc. So Comcast has reason to not want to install an FX
line. They could, but it could cost you.
Because of this, the local number portability rules do not require,
or nominally even allow, a number to be ported outside of its rate
center. VoIP doesn't care because it's nomadic, but porting Riverton
numbers to Riverside would be "geographic portability", which is not
currently allowed, as it breaks the sacred local/LD billing system.
Welcome to the 1930s, brought to you by the ILECs and their friends at
the FCC.
--
Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701
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 (5 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues