|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 336 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Senate Bill S. 2881 would add technical expertise to FCC Commissioners' offices
Re: Senate Bill S. 2881 would add technical expertise to FCC Commissioners' offices
Re: Verizon femtocell user report
Re: Verizon femtocell user report
====== 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, 22 Dec 2009 21:52:28 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Message-ID: <weiYm.29283$_b5.18158@newsfe22.iad>
Steven wrote:
>
> In 2000 and 2001, Pacific Bell, U.S. West and Verizon were installing
> DSL as fast as they could, [and] they are now starting to use those,
> [but] now they are pushing U-Verse and FIOS, only this time the
> companies are only putting more units in as they sell the [existing]
> ones. We are putting [in] frames and power, but that is all. The
> same thing appears to be what is happening with upgrades in outside
> plant and [Fiber?] Nodes.
>
AT&T in California is cherry picking their installation of U-Verse. We
live in an old neighborhood so I doubt we will ever see them in this
part of town. OTOH, the local cable company (Cox) spent the bucks to
bring fiber into every neighborhood in town.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:47:01 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Message-ID: <hgtoj5$jvl$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Sam Spade wrote:
> Steven wrote:
>
>>
>> In 2000 and 2001, Pacific Bell, U.S. West and Verizon were
>> installing DSL as fast as they could, [and] they are now starting
>> to use those, [but] now they are pushing U-Verse and FIOS, only
>> this time the companies are only putting more units in as they sell
>> the [existing] ones. We are putting [in] frames and power, but
>> that is all. The same thing appears to be what is happening with
>> upgrades in outside plant and [Fiber?] Nodes.
>>
>
> AT&T in California is cherry picking their installation of U-Verse.
> We live in an old neighborhood so I doubt we will ever see them in
> this part of town. OTOH, the local cable company (Cox) spent the
> bucks to bring fiber into every neighborhood in town.
The area I live in has U-verse, it is just that the cable is really
bad, we have wind today and nothing but noise on the line.
I got a call from AT&T with the company line, I guess they forgot to
tell the person who called me that I have over 40 years of telephone
experience.
I talked to the PUC yesterday and follwed it up with a Formal written
complaint today. It is not just the U-verse; it is also problems with
DSL as well a voice. I also contacted the city because I believe they
have a franchise agreement. All they have to do is replace about 900
feet of old lead cable and make sure that there are no more bridge
taps; for you that do not know what a bridge tap is, it is a splice
where the cable goes in two directions, so that it can be used at 2
points.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:43:28 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Message-ID: <ROyYm.12484$ft1.10451@newsfe10.iad>
Steven wrote:
>
> I talked to the PUC yesterday and follwed it up with a Formal written
> complaint today. It is not just the U-verse; it is also problems with
> DSL as well a voice. I also contacted the city because I believe they
> have a franchise agreement. All they have to do is replace about 900
> feet of old lead cable and make sure that there are no more bridge
> taps; for you that do not know what a bridge tap is, it is a splice
> where the cable goes in two directions, so that it can be used at 2
> points.
>
I suspect you filed an written informal complaint. ;-)
A formal complaint is a legal pleading, has to conform the PUCs rules
of procedure and practice, and must allege, among other things, that
an informal complaint was first filed. I've done a few formal
complaints. They can be done without an attorney but you have to know
how to walk through the minefield.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:59:30 -0600
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Senate Bill S. 2881 would add technical expertise to FCC Commissioners' offices
Message-ID: <4B3292C2.60406@annsgarden.com>
Senate Bill S. 2881 would add technical expertise to FCC Commissioners'
offices
A bill introduced on Monday [12/14/2009] in the U.S. Senate would
potentially add one electrical engineer or computer scientist within
each of the offices of the five FCC Commissioners.
Introduced by Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and co-sponsored by
Senator Mark Warner (D-Virginia), Senate Bill 2881 would authorize
each FCC Commissioner to add one staff assistant position to the three
that are currently authorized. The new position of "staff engineer"
would require that the holder either have a degree in electrical
engineering or be a computer scientist. If eventually passed, the new
authorization would effectively undo a loosening of requirements for
technical staff at the highest level of the FCC that began more than
25 years ago.
http://sbe.org/SenateBill.php
Neal McLain
***** Moderator's Note *****
In the world of Washington shadow-boxing, this is as close as a
federal agency ever gets to a rebuke. The F.C.C., annoyed by a
Congressional demand to plan for upgrading the nation's
telecommunications infrastructure, put out a notice that asked for
input on converting the nation's phone system to VoIP. Of course, that
can't happen, and apparently the word has reached the Congress, so
Senators Snow and Warner are firing a shot across the FCC's
bureaucratic bow.
Time will tell if the commission gets the message "loud and clear".
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:43:42 -0800
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Senate Bill S. 2881 would add technical expertise to FCC Commissioners' offices
Message-ID: <mvr5j5tokf8p9o1uiiu05ug667i2007ckc@4ax.com>
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:59:30 -0600, Neal McLain
<nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
> Senate Bill S. 2881 would add technical expertise to FCC Commissioners'
> offices
>
> A bill introduced on Monday [12/14/2009] in the U.S. Senate would
> potentially add one electrical engineer or computer scientist within
> each of the offices of the five FCC Commissioners.
>
> Introduced by Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and co-sponsored by
> Senator Mark Warner (D-Virginia), Senate Bill 2881 would authorize
> each FCC Commissioner to add one staff assistant position to the three
> that are currently authorized. The new position of "staff engineer"
> would require that the holder either have a degree in electrical
> engineering or be a computer scientist. If eventually passed, the new
> authorization would effectively undo a loosening of requirements for
> technical staff at the highest level of the FCC that began more than
> 25 years ago.
>
> http://sbe.org/SenateBill.php
The text of the bill reads: "`Each commissioner MAY also appoint an
electrical engineer or computer scientist to provide the commissioner
technical consultation when appropriate ..." [emphasis added]
So, each commissioner may appoint one, but is not required to do so.
I predict that no commissioner will appoint an electrical engineer or
computer scientist.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:20:42 -0500
From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Verizon femtocell user report
Message-ID: <29a43$4b327b9c$adce602a$23051@PRIMUS.CA>
AES wrote:
> Comcast gives us typically a 10 to 20 MB Internet connection. Users
> guide for the femtocell claims it should work OK with a 300 to 400
> KB DSL connection.
A voice connection doesn't require much bandwidth, so it should work
with just about any wired or fixed wireless broadband service, but
voice connections are very sensitive to latency, and whether you have
256 kilobits per second or 10 megabits per second, one poorly
configured BitTorrent client might render your calls intolerable...
***** Moderator's Note *****
Why?
Bill Horne
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:13:24 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Verizon femtocell user report
Message-ID: <pan.2009.12.24.01.13.23.409118@myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:20:42 -0500, Geoffrey Welsh wrote:
> AES wrote:
>> Comcast gives us typically a 10 to 20 MB Internet connection. Users
>> guide for the femtocell claims it should work OK with a 300 to 400 KB
>> DSL connection.
>
> A voice connection doesn't require much bandwidth, so it should work with
> just about any wired or fixed wireless broadband service, but voice
> connections are very sensitive to latency, and whether you have 256
> kilobits per second or 10 megabits per second, one poorly configured
> BitTorrent client might render your calls intolerable...
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Why?
Unless the underlying IP infrastructure has more than adequate
capacity or gives priority to voice traffic, other high demand traffic
can saturate a node and delay the voice packets.
--
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.
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 