|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 296 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Fairpoint Phone Co bankrupt
Re: Fairpoint Phone Co bankrupt
Re: AT&T Wireless data congestion possibly self-inflicted
Re: AT&T Wireless data congestion possibly self-inflicted
Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued)
Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services
Overlay area code 872 to open, Chicago
====== 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: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:37:07 -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: <hjtde55f64i650tka247nue1c2p6d4hcbe@4ax.com>
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:07:50 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>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?
Idearc was a brand new company invented by Verizon to take over the
yellow pages business, which was being killed by the internet.
Fairpoint was a small independent phone company that purchased
Verizon's rural New England facilities in a stock deal. The size of
Fairpoint increased tremendously and they had severe problems
transferring the records from Verizon's computer system to theirs.
The subsequent muddle cost them dearly in both customers and money.
Then the financial mess hit...
In any event, Verizon dumped businesses that were on the way out in
both cases.
ET
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:04:36 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Fairpoint Phone Co bankrupt
Message-ID: <hc75mo$8hj$1@news.eternal-september.org>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> 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?
>
The did already exist, but were not ready to handle a large expansion
with major updates under way.
--
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: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:29:40 -0700
From: "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless data congestion possibly self-inflicted
Message-ID: <kpqjr6-a6m.ln1@n6wuz.net>
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> ... congestion collapse induced by misconfigured buffers in their
> mobile core network. 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.
Who wants to move forward into the past by using positive end-to-end
control, more small buffers (for improved end-to-end latency), and
request-to-send/clear-to-send hardware signalling at the end-user
interface?
--
In theory there's no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is.
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless data congestion possibly self-inflicted
Message-ID: <f8dc1290-6f54-4d81-a180-87d0abe2b1fa@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 27, 2:29 pm, "Jack Myers" <jmy...@n6wuz.net> wrote:
> Who wants to move forward into the past by using positive end-to-end
> control, more small buffers (for improved end-to-end latency), and
> request-to-send/clear-to-send hardware signalling at the end-user
> interface?
Could this be explained in layman's terms?
That is, what is "end to end control" and the difference between
"positive" and non-positive control of it?
What is "end to end latency" so that we want to improve it?
Why is this considered "into the past"? Is this stuff good or bad?
What is "request-to-send/clear-to-send hardware signalling" and if not
accomplished as described, what are other options for doing so, and
are they better or worse?
Thanks!
[public replies, please]
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:44:12 -0400
From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued)
Message-ID: <e7cc0$4ae785fa$4038ff3f$3476@PRIMUS.CA>
Do advertising limits even make sense in the day of 24/7 shopping channels?
.
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:31:22 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services
Message-ID: <hc83cq$5qr$1@news.albasani.net>
Area code 500 is exhausted, and 533 has been assigned for personal
communications services. I had no idea these featurs were so popular.
Is there any chance that huge chunks of numbering space were wasted and
should have been reclaimed first?
It's announced in Planning Letter 399, dated October 16.
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:03:47 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Overlay area code 872 to open, Chicago
Message-ID: <hc859j$8hj$1@news.albasani.net>
Telecom digest readers will recall the history:
Illinois Commerce Commission (the public utility commission of the state
of Illinois) cracked down on the telephone industry practice of waste
in telephone numbering space by reclaiming unassigned 1000s blocks to
be reassigned to other telephone companies in order to slow down the
proliferation of new area codes.
Overlay codes were assigned, but not opened. 872 overlays 312/773, Chicago,
but no prefixes could be assigned until all prefixes in either 312 or 773
were exhausted.
The state's timeline: Code exhaustion, 30 day notice from NANPA to IllCC
prior to assignment of first prefix in 872. Assignment of first prefix
triggers 90 day notice to telephone subscribers of mandatory dialing date
and 90 day permissive dialing period. The latter is meaningless as we've
long had permissive dialing. But the new prefix will not be activated
till the mandatory dialing date, at the earliest.
Yes, the bastards are STILL making use the 1+ dialing prefix (although not
on cell phones).
Permissive dialing began August 7. Mandatory dialing date is November 7.
Easy to remember test number, available between October 14 and December 7:
872 872-1872
I wasn't following the area code exhaust list till a postcard from Comcast
showed up in today's mail announcing the dialing plan change. Humorously,
I can dial the test number from my cell phone but not from Comcast
Digital Voice.
See PL-390 and 392.
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 (7 messages)
|
or 