The Telecom Digest for December 02, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 325 : "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: 1 Dec 2010 02:38:15 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Mobile Phone Forwarding Question
Message-ID: <20101201023815.39987.qmail@joyce.lan>
>>My wife owns an AT&T mobile phone. This weekend she'll get a T-Mobile
>>phone at LAX before she flies to Australia with Oprah Winfrey. Her
>>existing number is and her new number will be +1-512 numbers. I'm
>>considering forwarding her AT&T phone to her T-Mobile phone so she can
>>receive calls at her known, existing number while in Australia. My
>>question is which phone will take the hit on the bill? The AT&T or
>>T-Mobile phone?
As far as AT&T is concerned, the forward is just a domestic call. Any
call your wife answers in Australia on her T-Mo phone, whether
forwarded from the AT&T phone or otherwise, gets charged T-Mo's
roaming rate which their web site says is $1.69 per minute.
Getting a prepaid phone in oz with an Australian phone number is not a
bad idea. If you get the World Connect add-on to her AT&T plan for
the period when she's away ($4/mo, prorated to the number of days you
have it active) forwarded calls to her mobile are only 24 cents/min.
Australian mobiles don't charge for incoming calls, so that's the only
cost for the call. If you have a decent long distance plan on your
landline, their rate for calling her mobile should be about the same
price.
R's,
John
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 13:58:37 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Mobile Phone Forwarding Question
Message-ID: <pan.2010.12.01.02.58.34.196495@myrealbox.com>
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:01:23 -0600, Robert Bonomi wrote:
........
> NOTE: If, as you indicated, the T-Mobile phone will have a U.S. phone
> number calls to it, when in Australia will be charged international
> 'roaming' rates. These rates can be, depending on carrier, etc,
> described as 'extortionate'. as in multi-dollar _per-minute_. It may
> make good sense to wait until arrival in AU, and buy a local phone
> once there. Then forward the AT&T phone to the AU number. Ideally,
> you'll only get hit for the 'basic' international call rate to AU, that
> way, because there is no 'roaming' involved. The -possible- 'gotcha' to
> that arrangement is if AU is "Caller pays" to cell numbers, and they
> charge excessive premiums for foreign origins.
>
Calls from Australian networks to US numbers seem to be charged at the one
rate regardless of the destination.
Looking at the T-mobile site is says roaming in Australia costs $1.69/min
with "*Roaming charges do not include local tolls or long distance
charges." (whatever that actually means).
The T-mobile rates to Australia are 25c/min, so the call forwarding option
may well be the better option. Mobile call rates from Australia to the US
from a mobile are around $A0.29c/min + 40c flagfall (Optus).
This website can help in finding a cheap mobile pre-paid service in
Australia:
http://www.phonechoice.com.au/index.cfm?Section=Mobile
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:37:43 -0800
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <43rbf6589kt8r28plnmovsijg1egga3tsa@4ax.com>
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:02:56 -0800 (PST), Lisa or Jeff
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Nov 23, 4:54 pm, Stephen <stephen_h...@xyzworld.com> wrote:
>
>> >It's not holding the cellphone, but the conversastion itself. Thus,
>> >hands-free phones are not the answer.
>>
>> If this is true (rather than shades of gray) then it isnt the
>> cellphone that is the problem, but the distraction.
>>
>> time to ban talking in cars, kids in the back seat and all the other
>> distractions that have caused accidents.........
>
>Those distractions you mention are separate issues.
>
>The issue at hand is cell phone conversations while driving a car.
No, the issue is the distraction from the main task of driving,
whether it's talking on a cell phone, changing the station of the
radio, or scolding the kids. There may be different levels of
distraction, but they all impact negatively on driving ability.
Dick
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 06:44:07 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Screw terminals (was: How Ma Bell Shelved the Future for 60 Years)
Message-ID: <id4qrm$pc0$1@news.albasani.net>
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>>>Not those specific deficiencies, as much as inductive pick-up due to the
>>>lack of 'twist'.
>>>Some years back I lived in a 1964 construction 32-unit (8 units/floor, 4
>>>floors) apt building, about 6,000 wire-feet from the C.O.. One 50-pair
>>>drop to the building, terminated on screw terminals. The 'house' wiring
>>>was "quad" (J-K), _in_conduit_, with the 4 vertically aligned units sharing
>>>a common conduit.
>>In the days when I was more ignorant, I bought a spool of this kind of wire.
>>It was twisted. I have no idea if the twisting was tested and avoided any
>>kind of antennuation. Was it?
>'quad' wire has the four conductors stacked in a square arrangement, with
>a gradual (guessing at circa 1 'turn' per 8",-- don't have any handy to
>check) twist of all 4 wires as_a_unit -- a 4-strand helix, as it were.
>Thus, with respect to the other wires in the cable, its just as if it
>was absolutely straight conductors. Even if there is 'nothing' on the
>other wires in the cable, you've got inductive coupling from the linear
>'single- turn transformer".
I take it that's for nothing more than preventing kinks when going around
corners inside walls. I sort of assumed that it didn't address interference
at all.
>>Is there an actual problem with screw terminals, other than the amount of
>>space the consume versus a punch-down block? Is oxidation a concern?
>It is, as they say "performance limiting". when the "terminals' for a 'pair'
>are more than an inch apart, it is very difficult to maintain, say, the
>Cat 5 required 'twist rate' to within 1/2" of the connection point (which
>_has_ to be an 8P8C, per the standard). <wry grin>
But that standard is for data, not voice. I figured it would work for voice.
>Also, "as installed", the cross-connects between the termination of the
>50-pair drop to the building and the termination block for the 'house'
>wiring was all _single-strand_ hook-up cable. easily 6'-plus lengths.
That's what I figured.
>Oxidation, as such, was not an issue. While the feed cable was underground
>all the way from the C.O., each pair went through a 'protector' before
>reaching the cross-connect terminals.
Thanks.
>>A friend says he used to have a DSL line at his house to help him monitor
>>computer networks at his business on this kind of ancient inside wiring.
>It's -not- all that 'ancient'. I don't have a hard date for when the
>industry shifted to using 'twisted pair' for most/all _residential_ wiring,
>but 'quad' was still being commonly installed in the mid- to late- 1980s.
>_Commercial_ installations had -- mostly, if not entirely -- cut over to
>'twisted pair' in the prior decade, for wiring installs, driven by digital
>phone systems, the explosion of computer terminals that could use a
>'common' structured wiring system -- e.g. IBM 3270 over twisted-pair, vs.
>dedicated coax. The cost advantage of 'structured' wiring in a commercial
>environment was a very "compelling" argument.
Sure.
It's interesting that AT&T didn't switch over early for residential. After
all, in the quanties they consumed, that would have driven down the per unit
cost right off.
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 (4 messages)
|
| |
or 