The Telecom Digest for August 18, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 223 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 28 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 Patrick Townson 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 the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. 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, 16 Aug 2010 22:58:28 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Blackberry vs. World: Tech Freedom?
Message-ID: <p06240839c88faaf1b18d@[10.0.1.3]>
Blackberry vs. World: Tech Freedom?
Monday, August 16, 2010 at 10:00 AM EDT
The Blackberry saga. The businessman's handheld organizer is facing
the heat from intelligences bosses worldwide. High tech vs. high
security. Plus, Net neutrality and the Google-Verizon proposal.
...
http://www.onpointradio.org/2010/08/mobile-freedom-blackberry
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:33:47 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Need text therapy? / Some drivers will have trouble
Message-ID: <pan.2010.08.17.06.33.43.912920@myrealbox.com>
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:30:21 -0400, Monty Solomon wrote:
>
> Need text therapy?
> Some drivers will have trouble training antsy thumbs to be idle
>
> By Linda Matchan, Globe Staff | August 15, 2010
>
> Ian Lathrop has given a lot of thought to how he will comply with the
> state law banning texting while driving, which takes effect Oct. 1.
>
> "I won't lie,'' confessed Lathrop, 24, who lives in Somerville. "I've
> gotten texts and responded to them.''
>
> To kick the habit, he has tried setting the ringer of his smartphone to
> vibrate or silent. He has turned the phone upside down in the cupholder so
> the message light is obscured. He has thought about putting it in the
> glove box or on the floor.
..........
Is it time that schools taught methods to help people ignore technology?
The Pavlovian response so many have a ringing/chirping phone seems to
indicate that too many of us are slaves to these things and need urgent
"deprogramming" to rectify the situation.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:51:41 EDT
From: Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Model 15 RO Teletype available (OT)
Message-ID: <b6101.c07f7ce.399a9c6d@aol.com>
In a message dated 8/14/2010 12:43:17 PM Central Daylight Time,
wb8foz@panix.com writes:
> Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com> writes:
>>> b) They all restarted together [They had been patched
>>> together...], and simoutanously printed out the same message....
>
>>I don't know where there would be the physical capoability to patch
>>together AP, UP and INS wires. (INS was a third service then and had
>>not yet been acquired by UP.)
>
> Well, this IS a telcom forum. It would be technically trivial
> to do so at the wire center. And then and now, there are pool
> arrangements. I can't say that's what happened; it's also
> possible that they ran the same tape, started at the same time.
You must be referring to something other than the first report Japan
was going to surrender. Perhaps the actual signing aboard the
battleship.
The "flash" message in such a case is really only ceremonious.
As you say, tying the circuits together at the telegraph testboard
somewhere is physically trivial. But the testboard isn't going to do
it without an order--perhaps three orders--and the paperwork (whether
actually on paper of simply oral) is certainly non-trivial and would
take some time, including the consent of all three bitter competitors,
and their agreement as to what text would be transmitted. Almost
certainly would require review by the lawyers, too.
I could offer the story of the "real" flash when Japan announced it
would surrender, but I think it may be one of several such tales and
nothing near as neat as you describe. All breaking news is messy at
first, at least all really breaking real news.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:58:10 GMT
From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Model 15 RO Teletype available (OT)
Message-ID: <i4f0li$6hi$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com> wrote:
>I could offer the story of the "real" flash when Japan announced it
>would surrender, but I think it may be one of several such tales and
>nothing near as neat as you describe. All breaking news is messy at
>first, at least all really breaking real news.
Wasn't this message received at the RCA maritime station in San Francisco?
RCA had been operating coast stations in the Point Reyes area (originated by
Marconi, but taken over by the U.S. government from the Italians after World
War I and then sold to RCA), with a control point and personnel in San
Francisco at Mission and South Van Ness Avenue I believe.
Ah, I found it. Here is a web page about the station and the surrender:
http://www.sfmuseum.org/war/jum.html
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:55:07 EDT
From: Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Model 15 RO Teletype available (OT)
Message-ID: <b64e9.762355a5.399a9d3b@aol.com>
In a message dated 8/16/2010 8:39:05 AM Central Daylight Time,
jhaynes@cavern.uark.edu writes:
> That's only when the Model 19 set was in "Keyboard-Tape" mode, so that
> the keyboard ran the signal generator as well as the punch. (Which
> is necessary if you want to get local copy on the printer of what you
> are punching) If you put the set in "Tape" mode then the keyboard
> runs the punch alone, punching "blind", and can go considerably faster
> than the signal generator. There are also keyboard perforators that
> don't do anything else, and they can run pretty fast.
In the ap[plications I am familiar with, the copy was not printed when the
tape was punched. If the tape was actually transmitted, that was the
printed copy.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 18:09:42 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Overlay acceptance
Message-ID: <i4ej96$i6f$1@news.albasani.net>
David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> wrote:
>"Mark J. Cuccia" <markjcuccia@yahoo.com> writes:
>>On Tuesday 20 July 2010, the CRTC announced that Toronto ON will likely
>>need an additional area code to its already existing 416/647 overlay,
>>by or during 2015.
>MD did one of the first overlays, and there was a hue & cry not
>to be believed; you have thought the state's children were being
>bundled up & sent to the Soylent Green plant.
>But now, does anyone even raise their voice? My pet theory is
>coincident with splits/overlays was the saturation of users with
>cell phones. Most cell phone calls are dialed with 10D; and the
>users seem to cope. That coping seems to translate back to
>wireline, even if the 2500 pad lacks a SPEND key to push.
I don't agree.
While nearly no cell phone user cares about where the cell phone number is
rated to (which could mean distance-based charges on an incoming caller's
local calling plan), generally they care about area code, especially in
situations in which 7 digit home NPA dialing exists.
If proper care were taken with numbering space, I don't believe for a
moment that Toronto requires three area codes, any more than I believe
that the Chicago area requires (hold the phone while I use both fingers
and toes to count) eleven area codes. Yes, we have eleven, up from the
original two, remembering that a good number of exchanges in NPA 815 were
part of the Chicago LATA and included in some local rate plans. NPA 464
has been open since 1999 but unassigned, awaiting exhaustion of NPA 708.
Influenced by a comment Linc Madison made years ago, proper conservation
of numbering space would mean that line number that requires rating to
a particular exchange would be assigned from a common pool of line numbers
available to any telephone company with a physical presence in that exchange.
The technology to route calls to any phone company is the basis of
number portability, so why isn't it being used to conserve numbers?
Telephone numbers that don't require ratings should be assigned from
common pools of numbers in non-geographical area codes.
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 18:14:30 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Overlay acceptance
Message-ID: <i4eji6$i6f$2@news.albasani.net>
David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:43:03 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>>David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>Back in the 1990's in Australia the whole numbering plan was rationalised
>>>to a standard 2 digit area code + 8 digit local area number (for
>>>"Geographic numbers")
>>Old numbers were preserved or not?
>The vast majority of people had one extra digit added to the start of
>their existing 7 digit number, those few with shorter old numbers had
>a few more added to get them to the standard 8 digit local number.
Sorry, David, but I sure don't see how the old system wasn't more rational,
if low population density areas used shorter telephone numbers.
Totally irrational is the UK dialing plan in which everyone is required to
use a dialing prefix to call domestically, with the dialing prefix stated
as part of the telephone number, confusing us calling internationally who
would never use the dialing prefix.
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 18:20:25 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Overlay acceptance
Message-ID: <i4ejt9$i6f$3@news.albasani.net>
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1002@zugschl.us> wrote:
>Europe does it differently. Shorter numbers are allowed here, and
>the exchanges are equipped to handle them. This used to be an
>advantage, giving us more flexibility, and is a disadvantage now,
>since VoIP equipment needs to employ a time out to find out when the
>user has finished dialing.
VoIP calls are unswitched, so the excuse that a time out costs 10s of
millions of dollars annually of dialing register time in switches across
the NANP isn't applicable.
If the VoIP provider thinks it costs money, then all it has to do is
allow a "send" sequence, like the # key that those of us dialing
internationally from the NANP to a country outside the NANP would
expect to use to avoid the timeout.
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:35:56 +0000 (UTC)
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Overlay acceptance
Message-ID: <i4f9tc$23bj$1@gal.iecc.com>
>If the VoIP provider thinks it costs money, then all it has to do is
>allow a "send" sequence, like the # key that those of us dialing
>internationally from the NANP to a country outside the NANP would
>expect to use to avoid the timeout.
FYI, it's fairly common for VoIP phones to use # as a send key.
Mine does.
R's,
John
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.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
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) 2009 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 (9 messages)
|
| |
or 