30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for February 21, 2012
Volume 31 : Issue 49 : "text" Format
====== 30 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 Bill Horne 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 that person, or email address
owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of
that address. 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: 20 Feb 2012 07:01:15 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How does a "Trunked" line between two 5ESS CO's work?
Message-ID: <20120220070115.2064.qmail@joyce.lan>
>Evidently nobody remembers that Ma Bell has been extracting money from
>customers for years, calling it "Number Portability."
It's LNP, Local Number Portability. You can certainly port your
number among COs in the same rate center. Telcos will not port your
number from one rate center to another; in many cases it isn't even
technically possible.
I concur with the people who suggest porting the number to a VoIP
carrier who doesn't care where your VoIP box is. My "portable" number
is a little box with an Ethernet plug on one side and a phone plug on
the other. It has an Ithaca NY number but it spent a pleasant year in
England, same number, worked fine.
R's,
John
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:23:43 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How does a "Trunked" line between two 5ESS CO's work?
Message-ID: <20120220142343.GA20847@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 07:01:15AM -0000, John Levine wrote:
> I concur with the people who suggest porting the number to a VoIP
> carrier who doesn't care where your VoIP box is. My "portable" number
> is a little box with an Ethernet plug on one side and a phone plug on
> the other. It has an Ithaca NY number but it spent a pleasant year in
> England, same number, worked fine.
This leads me to a question about the future, and I'm not sure that I
know how to ask it clearly, so please bear with me.
I wonder, given that the VoIP an Cellular systems are gradually
divorcing exchange codes from "their" rate centers, at what point the
existing "V&H" billing concept will break down?
The Cellular networks, which routinely forward calls from a "home" CO
in Maine to a cell tower in New Mexico, have formed a - I'm not sure
"bypass" is the right word - parallel path that logically duplicates
the "last mile" connection to a cell cite in the traditional network
view, but have replaced that "last mile" with a "last cloud" or "last
point where the traditional view holds true".
In like manner, VoIP offerings have replaced last mile circuits with a
sort of workaround, which allows Ma Bell to "deliver" a call to a Rate
Center, but then replaces any physical circuit with a virtual
connection that can be, literally, anywhere.
So, here's the question: will some other method of distance-sensitive
billing take the place of V&H? I suppose that cellphones could be
programmed to deliver their latitude and longitude when connecting a
call, but I doubt there's any such capability in VoIP devices.
And, come to think of it, is the V&H concept so ingrained in the
network's design that it can't be replaced? I think cell plans come
with long distance service included because the cellular providers
realized that it costs more to bill for it than to provide it as part
of a monthly package, but will the costs of providing it ever return
to a distance-based model?
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Please remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:09:21 -0500
From: Arnie Goetchius <arnie.goetchius@nogood.dummy>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How does a "Trunked" line between two 5ESS CO's work?
Message-ID: <jhtnn1$dk0$1@dont-email.me>
John Levine wrote:
> I concur with the people who suggest porting the number to a VoIP
> carrier who doesn't care where your VoIP box is. My "portable" number
> is a little box with an Ethernet plug on one side and a phone plug on
> the other. It has an Ithaca NY number but it spent a pleasant year in
> England, same number, worked fine.
>
> R's,
> John
>
Just to confirm: when you make a call using your VOIP box, does the Ithaca
number show up on the recipient's Caller ID no matter where you make the
call from?
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:09:38 +0000 (UTC)
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How does a "Trunked" line between two 5ESS CO's work?
Message-ID: <jhu291$243b$1@leila.iecc.com>
>Just to confirm: when you make a call using your VOIP box, does the Ithaca
>number show up on the recipient's Caller ID no matter where you make the
>call from?
Yes. What other number would it show? The connection from my box
back to the rest of the phone network is over whatever IP network it's
plugged into, which doesn't have a phone number.
R's,
John
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
http://jl.ly
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:02:12 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How does a "Trunked" line between two 5ESS CO's work?
Message-ID: <jhu8s3$d3$1@reader1.panix.com>
"John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> writes:
>It's LNP, Local Number Portability. You can certainly port your
>number among COs in the same rate center. Telcos will not port your
>number from one rate center to another; in many cases it isn't even
>technically possible.
An exception seems to be FIOS customers of some ilk. A friend
moved from A to B, and then soon after to C; all in Montgomery
Cty MD and in three different CO's.
Ma allowed him to keep his A directory number at B & C
locations. Now there are 2-3 different offerings for "phone
service" over FIOS; I don't know which he had at the time.
One is an unregulated ""VOIP"" called Digital Voice.
Given that even the regulated FIOS phone customers are served
by one regional CO; from a facilities standpoint, it makes no
difference.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Date: 21 Feb 2012 00:25:49 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How does a "Trunked" line between two 5ESS CO's work?
Message-ID: <20120221002549.2296.qmail@joyce.lan>
>An exception seems to be FIOS customers of some ilk. A friend
>moved from A to B, and then soon after to C; all in Montgomery
>Cty MD and in three different CO's.
Different CO or different rate center? As I recall, Maryland is a
crazy quilt of overlapping and inconsistent rate centers, which have
very little to do with the actual wiring to COs.
R's,
John
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:59:28 -0500
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: AT&T's wireless bandwidth throttling: the backlash has begun
Message-ID: <1a8aaogq9dyo4.16p5uzuzy8q74.dlg@40tude.net>
AT&T's throttling, from PC World:
| AT&T Wireless Bandwidth Throttling: The Backlash Has Begun
| AT&T has begun throttling its biggest bandwidth hogs. Now (big
| surprise) customers are tearing into AT&T with complaints.
http://lm.pcworld.com/t/3425157/6178268/289287/0/
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:00:03 -0500
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Challenge/Response: The Only Way?
Message-ID: <ct4zmsccy91c$.vrrzrckz1nyp.dlg@40tude.net>
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:23:42 -0500, Pete Cresswell wrote:
> As robocalls increase (up to 6x per day on my land line, enough
> times per week on my cell to be a PITA - yes, all phones are on both
> the national and state Do-Not-Call lists...) I keep coming back to
> EarthLink's solution to spam: challenge/response.
My approach: let an answering machine answer each call whose Caller-ID
display means nothing to me. Legitimate callers will start to leave a
message, and I'll pick up (if I'm available); illegitimate callers
(and all those shy of answering machines) won't.
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
--
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:25:52 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul <pssawyer@comcast.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FCC gently tightens rules on "robot calls".
Message-ID: <Xns9FFFBB7FF924FSenex@88.198.244.100>
John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in
news:jhp6fj$2d0$1@blue-new.rahul.net:
> On 2012-02-17 15:38, Paul wrote:
>> To make enforcement and reporting easier and more efficient, we
>> need a vertical service code which would work similarly to *57,
>> which could be dialed after receiving such a call. Giving
>> details and followup might be by AVR right after dialing the
>> code, or through a web site at some time afterwards.
>
> I don't know about wherever you live, but here in California, even
> if you pay for *57 it has no effect because the telco won't
> cooperate with law enforcement against junk callers. at&t company
> policy seems to be that junk = revenue and is therefore good.
*57 is supposedly for reporting criminal (threatening) type calls,
that could require local police action. They had better be handling
these properly. It would probably take a new code and/or FCC ruling
to define a process to make an effective spam call reporting system.
--
Paul
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.
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) 2012 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 (9 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues