|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 230 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Re: Cutting the cord
Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
40th Anniversary of UNIX this month (August 2009)
Re: Cutting the cord
Re: Cutting the cord
Re: Cutting the cord
====== 27 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: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:19:45 -0700
From: Mike Wilcox <mjwilcox12@gmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Message-ID: <C6B200D1.1BC42%mjwilcox12@gmail.com>
On 8/18/09 7:58 PM, in article
MPG.24f4beea34ce1f12989b4a@news.eternal-september.org, "T"
<kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
> In article <C6AC60BB.1B341%mjwilcox12@gmail.com>, mjwilcox12@gmail.com
> says...
>>
>> On 8/15/09 9:52 AM, in article
>> siegman-791B4B.08195715082009@news.stanford.edu, "AES"
>> <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <5c7a9547-83c3-4757-a139-0fcca6185b1d@j21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> !!! FREE THE BSTJ !!!
>>>>> Efforts to make all the *publicly supported* knowledge in these journals
>>>>> available to the public who paid for it have thus far been unavailing.
>>>>
>>>> The Bell System Technical Journal was NOT a publicly supported
>>>> document. It was "paid for" by a private corporation and subscribers
>>>> to it, not the general public.
>>>>
>>>> However, it IS available for study in major libraries.
>>>
>>> My words above are -
>>>
>>> "to make the *publicly supported* knowledge in these
>>> journals available to the public who paid for it"
>>>
>>> The research and the resulting knowledge reported in BSTJ, along with
>>> the preparation and editing of the resulting articles (plus, I would
>>> guess, a substantial fraction of the publication costs), were paid for
>>> by what was in essence, or for all intents and purposes, a very small
>>> "tax" imposed on every individual in the US who had or used a
>>> telephone - a tax collected by the Bell System and used to support
>>> Bell Labs.
>>>
>>
>> [SNIP]
>>
>> Customers of any private enterprise always pay for the research that
>> produced the product they are consuming. I did not, and do not now, pay a
>> tax for Bell System Research. If I do not wish to pay for Bell System
>> research I simply no longer consume their services and products.
>>
>> A look at any P&L sheet will clearly show R&D as an expense by the company
>> and it also feeds the company's intellectual property asset. So the Bell
>> System or other company should just give those assets away for free?
>>
>> Mike Wilcox
>
> You may not pay a tax for Bell System research - instead you just dump
> money into the coffers of the big telecom carriers in the form of FUSG
> and other fees tacked onto telecom bills.
>
And how much of those fees stayed with AT&T to fund Bell Labs research? I
would guess precious little, if any. I didn't say I paid no tax on my bill,
just no tax the funded Bell Labs research.
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:08:22 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Message-ID: <pan.2009.08.20.09.08.21.285953@myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:26:31 -0400, John Levine wrote:
.......
> ... We also have the ability to port numbers between mobile and
> landline, which you'll never see outside North America, so we can
> drop your landline, keep your number, and your callers don't notice
> anything changed.
>
That is indeed something that doesn't happen anywhere else AFAIK, but it
sort of makes a mockery of a geographical based numbering system because
it breaks the link between service and location.
The original article at the start of this thread seemed to say that the
cost of incoming calls was an issue, the responses here seem to say that
it is not.
--
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: 20 Aug 2009 15:21:45 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Message-ID: <20090820152145.8415.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>> ... We also have the ability to port numbers between mobile and
>> landline, ...
>That is indeed something that doesn't happen anywhere else AFAIK, but it
>sort of makes a mockery of a geographical based numbering system because
>it breaks the link between service and location.
No more than it already does. Now that most mobile service in the US
is from national providers, it is quite common for people to move
around the country and keep the same mobile number. I know people in
California with Virginia mobile numbers. Since mobiles invariably
charge the same for calls anywhere in the country, it's easier than
telling their friends about a new number.
Portability, on the other hand, is local only. If you have a New York
number, you can only port it among New York providers. In practice
that doesn't matter since pretty much all of the inter-service
portability is from landlines to mobiles rather than the other way,
but if the person in California wanted to port his Virginia mobile to
his California landline, he couldn't.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 07:27:13 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Message-ID: <53djm.175214$3m2.118809@newsfe06.iad>
David Clayton wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:26:31 -0400, John Levine wrote:
>
> .......
>
>>... We also have the ability to port numbers between mobile and
>>landline, which you'll never see outside North America, so we can
>>drop your landline, keep your number, and your callers don't notice
>>anything changed.
>>
>
> That is indeed something that doesn't happen anywhere else AFAIK, but it
> sort of makes a mockery of a geographical based numbering system because
> it breaks the link between service and location.
I believe local number portability is limited as to rate centers, or
approximately so.
***** Moderator's Note *****
That's something that has always confused me with CLEC and Cellular
providers: they have much wider "local" calling areas than most
ILEC's, and I don't think they're using the ILEC rate centers, or are
simply defining an entire LATA as their "Rate center".
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 05:38:20 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cutting the cord
Message-ID: <0tbjm.134593$qx1.119761@newsfe04.iad>
Ron wrote:
> Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote:
>
>>An article in The Economist says that the Negroponte Switch has hit
>>the "knee point" on the curve: from here, it's all downhill for the
>>wireline carriers.
>
>
> The article fails to address the counter-trend. Using FIOS to bring
> high-speed internet and TV to the home gives landlines a foot in the
> door and the ability to set a special price for a triple combo.
>
That, however, is far from ubiquitous. Around here AT&T is only placing
fiber where it is easy to do.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:21:35 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
Message-ID: <qtbr85dtr260js8c01hop5ml6q1238eaf3@4ax.com>
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:09:45 -0400 (EDT), Neal McLain
<nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>Richard wrote:
>
> > Watching a show today on a Las Vegas local TV channel, I
> > saw a new ad for a law firm. Its number was 400-0000. I
> > didn't think an office code could end in 00.
>
>How is it pronounced? "702 four million"?
>"702 ... four-oh-oh ... oh-oh-oh-oh"?
Four-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh with an emphasis on each -oh.
It was an ad on local TV, so no area code is necessary.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:23:14 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: 40th Anniversary of UNIX this month (August 2009)
Message-ID: <4A8DB0B2.9070505@thadlabs.com>
Not directly telephony-related, but UNIX arose from Bell Labs.
" Work on Unix began at Bell Labs after AT&T, (which owned the lab),
" MIT and GE pulled the plug on an ambitious project to create an
" operating system called Multics.
"
" The idea was to make better use of the resources of mainframe
" computers and have them serve many people at the same time.
"
" "With Multics they tried to have a much more versatile and
" flexible operating system, and it failed miserably," said
" Dr Peter Salus, author of the definitive history of Unix's
" early years.
Full article here:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8205976.stm>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:09:24 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cutting the cord
Message-ID: <MPG.24f7afbd95ca950a989b4e@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <ABTim.161164$eS5.58594@newsfe25.iad>, sam@coldmail.com
says...
> Wireless doesn't work in my concrete and steel condo with a hill between
> me and the closest cell site.
>
> Seems like the PUC should regulate and require ubiquitous signal access
> if wireless is to become the primary carrier.
>
> More seriously, the masses have no idea how poor the grade of service is
> with their little toy radios.
>
>
Totally agree. They're providing what I consider sub-par service. Put it
this way, I can set my Vonage service to 64kbps and still get decent
quality service. A cell phone still sounds like a bad sideband
transmission.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:10:06 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cutting the cord
Message-ID: <MPG.24f7afe8d1c884df989b4f@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <h6hud5$251m$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>,
wollman@bimajority.org says...
>
> In article <ABTim.161164$eS5.58594@newsfe25.iad>,
> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In fact, I think we have cell phones to thank for the success of VoIP:
> >cellular lowered the bar so dramatically that VoIP's latency,
> >dropouts, and poor voice quality seem like an improvement by
> >comparison.
>
> Huh?
>
> I've never experienced "latency, dropouts, and poor voice quality" on
> any of the VoIP systems I've used (two at work and Comcast's at my
> parents' house). Methinks you are confusing the technology with some
> particularly poor implementation.
>
> -GAWollman
I use Vonage, Skype and MagicJack. All sound fantastic compared to a
cell phone.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:16:26 -0400
From: Ron <ron@see.below>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cutting the cord
Message-ID: <jtsr85hklj2l3h54hviljugph29hstno44@4ax.com>
Moderator noted::
>I think the article's author is contending that landline service, via
>FiOS or any other physical layer, is losing out to cellular. I don't
>understand why you feel there is a counter-trend.
I though it went without saying. Cellular shares a
heavily-used radio spectrum. What kind of speed
will your internet connction via cellular give you?
How great is that streaming video functionality,
especially in HD?
Cellular is fine for phone calls and texting and
for someone with really light internet use.
Meanwhile, both cable and FIOS keep upping
the bandwidth they provide to their users.
>Bill Horne
>P.S. I saw below, but didn't see your address.
Oops, missed.
--
Ron
(Email to tlcnom.of.plume in domain antichef.com)
------------------------------
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 Patrick Townson. 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 currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
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 (10 messages)
******************************
|
or 