|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 295 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: RJ11 plug strip (Telecom)
AT&T Wireless data congestion possibly self-inflicted
Raw switch - tt files?
Fairpoint Phone Co bankrupt
Re: Fairpoint Phone Co bankrupt
Re: Fairpoint Phone Co bankrupt
Re: Fairpoint Phone Co bankrupt
Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued)
Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued)
Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued)
====== 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: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:18:12 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: RJ11 plug strip (Telecom)
Message-ID: <op.u2dx0mcgo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:22:06 -0400, Reed <reedh@rmi.net> wrote:
> AES wrote:
>> Thanks for replies to my overblown earlier question, and I realize now
>> that what I want is an RJ11 plug strip (or 5 of them) -- in other
>> words, something that looks and functions exactly like a 110 V plug
>> strip, except that the cord on one end has an RJ11 connector on it
>> instead of 110 V plug on it, and the 4 or 6 or 8 110 V receptacles
>> along its length are replaced by 4 or 6 or 8 RJ11 female jacks, all
>> wired in parallel.
>>
>> Except, looks like nobody seems to make such an object, or any
>> low-cost fully pre-assembled functional equivalent to it. Odd . . .
>>
>
>
> Do you mean like this:
>
> http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3881488
I can't speak for the OP, Reed, but the item in your link,
RS Catalog # 279-012, is exactly what I had in mind.
Glad to know RS still carries it :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
***** Moderator's Note *****
Radio Shack still carries it, but at twice the price of the other
sources that were listed.
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:25:05 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: AT&T Wireless data congestion possibly self-inflicted
Message-ID: <4AE51691.9010300@thadlabs.com>
We've all heard or read stories about how iPhone usage has overloaded
the AT&T Wireless network but it's likely at least some of their
problems are the result of configuration errors -- specifically,
congestion collapse induced by misconfigured buffers in their mobile
core network.
In early September, David Reed sent this interesting message to the
IRTF's "end-to-end" email list. List members include some world
experts on Internet protocols. During the next couple of days, there
were over 40 messages in related threads. While some of these experts
were over-thinking the problem, if you are patient enough to read
through the many messages, what emerges is clear. At least in the
case David measured (from a hotel room in Chicago, while he had 5 bars
of signal strength, using an AT&T Mercury 3G data modem in his laptop),
the terrible throughput and extreme delays he experienced appear to
result from overly large buffers in the routers &/or switches in AT&T's
core network. Note: if you don't want to read all the list messages
the short summary is: >8 second pings times! What's more the effect
was bymodal: either ping times under 200 ms, or over 5 seconds.
[article continues at following URL]
http://blogs.broughturner.com/2009/10/is-att-wireless-data-congestion-selfinflicted.html
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: sanctuary1 <strepxe@yahoo.co.uk>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Raw switch - tt files?
Message-ID: <8a0a4222-e68b-443a-aa4e-b233217cf3b8@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
Hi,
I'm working on a CDR reconcilation solution and have been reading
about toll ticket files generated at the switch level. My
understanding of these files is that they contain records with a large
number of fields and that these records have some equivilance to CDRs.
I'm not sure if this is old terminolgy or not.
The documents where I saw this information on the internet is quite
old. I'd appreciate any guidance on this terminology and also where I
could find out more about it. I'm interested in switch to mediation
and mediation to billing reconcilation.
>From what I can see the tt files provide identifiers in their name to
help identify gaps among other features. I'm hoping the records in
the tt files have sequence numbers to help indicate if individual
records are mislaid. Any assistance is greatly appreciated.
Regards.
Gerard
***** Moderator's Note *****
Gerard,
My experience, which is about 15 years out of date now and US-centric,
is that switches create only AMA (Automatic Message Accounting)
records. Toll billing is (or at least was) handled entirely outside
the switches, in the billing software. IIRC, AMA records were used to
generate files for toll billing which were passed to other systems for
reconciliation/mediation.
HTH.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Fairpoint Phone Co bankrupt
Message-ID: <bdbb5c8b-267b-42d0-a451-3ae1c06651fc@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>
A phone company serving New England has filed for bankruptcy. The
filing was anticipated. Apparently many knew from the start their
business plan was flawed.
see: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FAIRPOINT_COMMUNICATIONS_BANKRUPTCY?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=BUSINESS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
They are asking for concessions from employees and creditors. IMHO,
unless the employees are getting grossly generous compensation, it
seems that it's not fair to hit them. The investors were the ones who
chose to go with a flawed plan; they should bear the losses.
In any event, it is always unfortunate when a large company goes
bankrupt. IMHO the business community, consumers, and investors all
ought to learn from such mistakes.
(Background information and comments appreciated.)
[public replies, please]
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:29:44 -0400
From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Fairpoint Phone Co bankrupt
Message-ID: <qrbce5hh7onidp9jb1ucissu50pnngjih0@4ax.com>
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:23:52 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> A phone company serving New England has filed for bankruptcy. The
> filing was anticipated. Apparently many knew from the start their
> business plan was flawed.
>
> see: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FAIRPOINT_COMMUNICATIONS_BANKRUPTCY?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=BUSINESS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
>
> They are asking for concessions from employees and creditors. IMHO,
> unless the employees are getting grossly generous compensation, it
> seems that it's not fair to hit them. The investors were the ones who
> chose to go with a flawed plan; they should bear the losses.
>
> In any event, it is always unfortunate when a large company goes
> bankrupt. IMHO the business community, consumers, and investors all
> ought to learn from such mistakes.
>
> (Background information and comments appreciated.)
>
> [public replies, please]
OK, I, as a Fairpoint shareholder, have been snookered twice by
Verizon. My Fairpoint shares were a direct result of Verizon's deal
to sell them the New England properties. Similar deal with Idearc.
Seems to me that the Verizon folks are pretty good at getting the most
for their troubled assests and leaving their shareholders holding the
bag....
Could it be that Verizon management knows what they are doing???
In any event, such is life.
ET
PS - I was "retired" due to the mess with the breakup of
Lucent/Western Electric. Maybe someday I'll learn that phones aren't
the way to go...
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:04:56 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Fairpoint Phone Co bankrupt
Message-ID: <hc5o0o$ot2$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Eric Tappert wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:23:52 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> A phone company serving New England has filed for bankruptcy. The
>> filing was anticipated. Apparently many knew from the start their
>> business plan was flawed.
>>
>> see: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FAIRPOINT_COMMUNICATIONS_BANKRUPTCY?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=BUSINESS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
>>
>> They are asking for concessions from employees and creditors. IMHO,
>> unless the employees are getting grossly generous compensation, it
>> seems that it's not fair to hit them. The investors were the ones who
>> chose to go with a flawed plan; they should bear the losses.
>>
>> In any event, it is always unfortunate when a large company goes
>> bankrupt. IMHO the business community, consumers, and investors all
>> ought to learn from such mistakes.
>>
>> (Background information and comments appreciated.)
>>
>> [public replies, please]
>
>
> OK, I, as a Fairpoint shareholder, have been snookered twice by
> Verizon. My Fairpoint shares were a direct result of Verizon's deal
> to sell them the New England properties. Similar deal with Idearc.
> Seems to me that the Verizon folks are pretty good at getting the most
> for their troubled assests and leaving their shareholders holding the
> bag....
>
> Could it be that Verizon management knows what they are doing???
>
> In any event, such is life.
>
> ET
>
> PS - I was "retired" due to the mess with the breakup of
> Lucent/Western Electric. Maybe someday I'll learn that phones aren't
> the way to go...
>
Lets hope the FCC will not allow the next round of sales. I'm retired
GTE and my GTE stock was converted to Verizon and has been diluted so
much. Each time I'm given other stock I converted it back to Verizon.
GTE so much cash and very little debit, its retirement was so well
funded that no funding was needed for over 10 years. The funds are not
under Verizons control so they are safe from plundering from Verizon.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Fairpoint Phone Co bankrupt
Message-ID: <519fa66c-091b-49ef-8ff3-5b6f01b57ea9@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 26, 7:29 pm, Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spam...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
> OK, I, as a Fairpoint shareholder, have been snookered twice by
> Verizon. My Fairpoint shares were a direct result of Verizon's deal
> to sell them the New England properties. Similar deal with Idearc.
> Seems to me that the Verizon folks are pretty good at getting the most
> for their troubled assests and leaving their shareholders holding the
> bag....
Interesting point.
In the case of Idearc, small shareholders could sell their shares back
to the company. Presumably large shareholders could sell them on the
market.
I don't know if shareholders had a choice on whether to take the
sellouts.
Actually, I'm confused. Idearc was a new company created as a spinoff
by Verizon. (Still unclear why they went bellyup). Didn't Fairpoint
already exist?
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:21:37 -0700
From: "John Meissen" <john@meissen.org>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued)
Message-ID: <20091026212137.D73C23415D@john>
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> said:
> Local television stations are hurting financially. Much like
> newspapers their ad revenue is down.
I find that difficult to believe, considering how the number and duration
of commercials has increased over the years. All prime-time slots are now
at least 1/3 commercials (i.e., 20 minutes of commercials in a one-hour
slot).
***** Moderator's Note *****
Actually, that makes sense: less revenue per ad, ergo more
ads. Although I'm no fan of the broadcasting industry, I can
understand that a station has to make its payroll every month.
The FCC used to have a 20 minute limit for ads: stations in resort
areas would always apply for a waiver during tourist season, but I
don't know if that's still in effect.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:59:31 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued)
Message-ID: <6645152a0910261959n242be8b9v84157ca9d566ef7a@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:21 PM, John Meissen <john@meissen.org> wrote:
> John Mayson <john@mayson.us> said:
>> Local television stations are hurting financially. Â Much like
>> newspapers their ad revenue is down.
>
> I find that difficult to believe, considering how the number and duration
> of commercials has increased over the years. All prime-time slots are now
> at least 1/3 commercials (i.e., 20 minutes of commercials in a one-hour
> slot).
Ad rates are based on the station's ratings. Higher rated stations
get more money for their ads. Back when we had three network
affiliates, a PBS station, maybe an independent station and no cable
or Internet distractions, TV ratings were high. Today local stations
have to compete with hundreds of other channels on the cable or
satellite systems. Also people's eyeballs are often looking at a
computer screen and not a TV set. There are only so many advertising
dollars out there and the market is very diluted. Meanwhile costs
continue to climb for TV stations. They're running into the same
problems local papers are struggling with. Their old advertising
model that has benefitted them from the early days of television isn't
working any more.
This out of Canada, but they have a similar setup north of the border
that we have here.
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/05/25/f-broadcasting-local-television-crtc.html
Over the years I have come across more and more articles like these.
I don't know how serious of a threat it was, but Austin risked losing
its CBS affiliate not too long ago when the owner couldn't find a
buyer and announced they would have to shut the station off. About
then CBS stepped in and bought it. I think someone else now owns it.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:35:09 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued)
Message-ID: <hc5ppd$302p$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <20091026212137.D73C23415D@john>, Bill Horne wrote:
>The FCC used to have a 20 minute limit for ads: stations in resort
>areas would always apply for a waiver during tourist season, but I
>don't know if that's still in effect.
Actually, it was voluntary limit of 18 minutes per hour in the NAB
Code.
Any limits the FCC might once have had went away many years ago when
the Commission decided that it wouldn't make decisions on the basis of
program content. As far as the FCC is concerned, a station that airs
all advertising, 24x7, except for television stations' required weekly
half-hour of E/I "core" programming, which may not contain more than
six minutes of advertising. Beyond that, starting in the Reagan era,
the FCC considered the "public interest, convenience, and necessity"
to be adequately served by (almost-)all-informercial stations.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
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 (10 messages)
|
or 