30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for April 9, 2012
Volume 31 : Issue 90 : "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: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 01:26:57 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Ohio bill could doom landlines
Message-ID: <j_WdndrKrt8sshzSnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <1333673007.74308.YahooMailNeo@web162105.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>,
Mark Smith <marklsmith@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, April 5, 2012 5:37PM, From: Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>> [Ohio news]
>
>>> [An] Ohio bill could doom landlines. With the steady stream of
>>> innovations to wireless phones, many companies are regarding the
>>> traditional landline as obsolete.
>
>>> The [Ohio] bill addresses Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) obligations
>>> that previously required franchises to serve everyone who wanted
>>> service in a franchise territory.
>
>> I'm confused. What were all the subsidies for universal service for?
>> Will they be returning those subsidies if universal service is no
>> longer provided?
>
>They're giving out cell phones instead. Tracphone is a major player
>in Maryland. They advertise on TV that if you're getting assistance
>you can have a free phone. Great if you can get cell service.
Tracfone was the -first- cellphone operator to provide USF-supported
cell-phone service. They pioneered the entire concept, under their
'Safelink' brand. It is only relatively recently that other operators
(almost exclusively 'pre-paid' services) have managed to clear the
required regulatory hoop-jumping -- which must be done on a state-by-state
basis -- and started offering 'competing' service.
There are distinct advantages over the land-line 'lifeline' subsidy
service -- the cell service provides a 'limited use' (roughly 2-4 hrs
airtime/month) phone at no cost to the subscriber, while the 'lifeline'
service for landlines provides only a partial reduction in the cost of
a landline The landline usually provides unlimited 'local' calling,
however.
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 01:13:46 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Fax Modem gadgets
Message-ID: <e4ydndcEyKAHsRzSnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <jlqhti$sn5$1@blue-new.rahul.net>,
John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>
>Every "all-in-one" I've seen, including the one I use today, is really a
>"not-quite-all-in-one". The gadget can take documents from the PC and
>print them or fax them someplace; it can copy a paper document; or it can
>send or receive a fax to/from a paper document. It can even scan a paper
>document and send it to the PC. But it canNOT receive a fax and send the
>result to the PC. I have to receive the incoming fax as a paper document,
>then scan it in manually before the PC will accept it.
>
>Why are there no true All-in-Ones?
There are. grin
The Brother MFC-8690 (and cousins), for example, can be configured to send
received faxes to a computer. A full-blown 'fax to email' capability.
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 01:49:34 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Ohio bill could doom landlines
Message-ID: <AIadnT07wpVjqRzSnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <jlpu15$u21$7@news.albasani.net>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>Mark Smith <marklsmith@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>>>[Ohio news]
>
>>>>[An] Ohio bill could doom landlines. With the steady stream of
>>>>innovations to wireless phones, many companies are regarding the
>>>>traditional landline as obsolete.
>
>>>>The [Ohio] bill addresses Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) obligations
>>>>that previously required franchises to serve everyone who wanted
>>>>service in a franchise territory.
>
>>>I'm confused. What were all the subsidies for universal service for?
>>>Will they be returning those subsidies if universal service is no
>>>longer provided?
>
>>They're giving out cell phones instead. Tracphone is a major player
>>in Maryland. They advertise on TV that if you're getting assistance
>>you can have a free phone. Great if you can get cell service.
>
>But the universal service subsidy is in a different pot than the cell
>phone subsidy, right?
Wrong. Or, more politely, 'false to fact'.
The USF is split into 4 'pots' -- 'high cost' service areas, service
for 'low income' persons, 'rural health care' service', and 'schools
and libraries'.
USF fees apply to cell service, so a cell operator (Tracfone) made the
case that they should be able to offer their service on a subsidy basis.
After several years of 'threshing out the details', the FCC certified
Tracfone's purpose-built subsidiary 'safelink' as a cell-based 'lifeline'
services provider.
>I don't see how the government subsidy can make cell phones any more
>available. Anyone can afford a $5 phone without a government program.
You, sir, simply "don't know what you don't know".
Many of the very destitute have absolutely -zero- income. The $5-10
that prepaid providers charge for a phone on their service =is= a
nearly insurmountable barrier for them. And, without airtime 'minutes'
such a phone is usable only to call 911.
The 'subsidy' service provides (*one*time*) an 'el cheapo' cell-phone at
no cost, and a (limited) bundle of minutes. typically 250/mo for domestic-
only calls, with no 'roll-over', or 125 minutes (domestic only), with roll-
over, or 63 min/mo. including international calling
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 15:10:19 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Ohio bill could doom landlines
Message-ID: <jls9or$a0o$4@news.albasani.net>
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Mark Smith <marklsmith@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>[Ohio news]
>>>>>[An] Ohio bill could doom landlines. With the steady stream of
>>>>>innovations to wireless phones, many companies are regarding the
>>>>>traditional landline as obsolete.
>>>>>The [Ohio] bill addresses Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) obligations
>>>>>that previously required franchises to serve everyone who wanted
>>>>>service in a franchise territory.
>>>>I'm confused. What were all the subsidies for universal service for?
>>>>Will they be returning those subsidies if universal service is no
>>>>longer provided?
>>>They're giving out cell phones instead. Tracphone is a major player
>>>in Maryland. They advertise on TV that if you're getting assistance
>>>you can have a free phone. Great if you can get cell service.
>>But the universal service subsidy is in a different pot than the cell
>>phone subsidy, right?
>Wrong. Or, more politely, 'false to fact'.
The question was binary, so providing correct information isn't rude,
it's expected. On Usenet, people stand in line to post additional
information, clarifications, and especially corrections. From now on,
I shall be handing out bakery numbers to keep the queues managable.
I had no idea that you believed your refrain "false to fact" and your
overuse of quotes around phrases attributed to no one appeased anyone.
>The USF is split into 4 'pots' -- 'high cost' service areas, service
>for 'low income' persons, 'rural health care' service', and 'schools
>and libraries'.
Thank you for the information.
>>I don't see how the government subsidy can make cell phones any more
>>available. Anyone can afford a $5 phone without a government program.
>You, sir, simply "don't know what you don't know".
>Many of the very destitute have absolutely -zero- income. The $5-10
>that prepaid providers charge for a phone on their service =is= a
>nearly insurmountable barrier for them. And, without airtime 'minutes'
>such a phone is usable only to call 911.
>The 'subsidy' service provides (*one*time*) an 'el cheapo' cell-phone at
>no cost, and a (limited) bundle of minutes. typically 250/mo for domestic-
>only calls, with no 'roll-over', or 125 minutes (domestic only), with roll-
>over, or 63 min/mo. including international calling
I made no comment on the cost of monthly service. My comment was limited to
the up-front cost of the instrument itself, a cost so minor it shouldn't
require government subsidy.
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 08:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: SaskTel ending rotary dial service
Message-ID: <b0dc521f-3692-4763-a564-085aa2b9f86b@l7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 7, 7:18 pm, Mike Spencer <m...@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> We developed 60 hz hum on the POTS line 8 years ago when the Aliant
> line and service guys were on strike. Several visits from "crews"
> composed of accountants, marketing guys and managers failed to solve
> the problem. Finally, one manager type went tearing off in the truck
> to the big cabinet 5 miles away on the main road. Claimed to have
> yanked out a circuit board and stuck in a new one. The hum was
> gone. Off they go, happy and proud of theirselfs.
Could it be that remote "concentrators" interpret the dial signals?
In old Bell System days, I believe the concentrators would switch the
call locally without going to the C.O. if the called party was served
by the concentrator (per the Bell Labs history 1925-1975). Perhaps
the modern circuit cards in the concentrator do not handle rotary
signals.
> Only now our dial phones no longer work. Oy.
> Well, I'd been collecting up Nortel 2500 sets from junk stores for a
> few years so we just swapped a couple of them in and all was well.
> Returned two 500-type phones to Aliant. Our bill went down. No new
> charge for "touch-tone" but no longer rental for the dial sets.
Was it common eight years ago to be still renting phones in your
area? In the US, at the time of Divesture, they gave subscribers the
option to buy their in-place telephone sets at a very reasonable
price. New manufacturers made very inexpensive sets, too, and the
payback against rental was less than a year.
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 15:15:17 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Ohio bill could doom landlines
Message-ID: <jlsa25$fr5$1@news.albasani.net>
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>[Ohio news]
>>Ohio bill could doom landlines
>>With the steady stream of innovations to wireless phones, many companies
>>are regarding the traditional landline as obsolete.
>> ....
>>The [Ohio] bill addresses Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) obligations that
>>previously required franchises to serve everyone who wanted service in a
>>franchise territory.
>> ...
>>According to a copy of the bill provided by the Ohio state legislature, to
>>discontinue basic telephone service a company must prove there are at
>>least two other telecommunications companies providing services within the
>>area. Those companies, however, do not have to provide service through the
>>entire area serviced by the phone company.
>>For rural areas like Washington County, that can lead to some people being
>>unable to acquire a basic phone service.
>> ------
>>rest:
>>
>>http://www.mariettatimes.com/page/content.detail/id/543092
>>
>I'm confused. What were all the subsidies for universal service for?
>Will they be returning those subsidies if universal service is no longer
>provided?
My main question remains outstanding. Significant subsidy has been provided
to wire areas with low population densities, to install switches and to
replace them with modern switches, and to maintain services. If utilities
that benefited from these subsidies withdraw service from areas they don't
wish to serve, will they be returning the subsidies?
I await my refund.
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 (6 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues