|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 177 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Cellphones and driving
====== 27 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: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:04:36 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <MPG.24b1eb412b34f4e9989a8e@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <h25oas$ejd$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
diespammers@ikillspammers.com says...
> Some years ago there was talk of adding one number to phone numbers;
> xxx-xxxx-xxxx, but was dropped because everyone in the US and Canada
> plus other countries in the NPA would have to get new advertising plus
> at the time the network was Analog. To me it would have been worth it;
> look at all the work that has to be done now with all the area codes
> that are the same as phone exchanges, I think the extra number would
> have been the best, since it would have added millions of new numbers
> within an area code, adding, 2 numbers would have been even better in
> the long run.
Thing is that right now it's purely political. I recall reading a
simplified "Add 9" that someone on c.d.t. had brought up though I can't
recall who.
You could simply roll that out and do a massive ad blitz reminding
people to dial the additional digit.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:32:53 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <h2aqh3$bde$1@news.eternal-september.org>
T wrote:
> In article <h25oas$ejd$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> diespammers@ikillspammers.com says...
>
>> Some years ago there was talk of adding one number to phone numbers;
>> xxx-xxxx-xxxx, but was dropped because everyone in the US and Canada
>> plus other countries in the NPA would have to get new advertising plus
>> at the time the network was Analog. To me it would have been worth it;
>> look at all the work that has to be done now with all the area codes
>> that are the same as phone exchanges, I think the extra number would
>> have been the best, since it would have added millions of new numbers
>> within an area code, adding, 2 numbers would have been even better in
>> the long run.
>
> Thing is that right now it's purely political. I recall reading a
> simplified "Add 9" that someone on c.d.t. had brought up though I can't
> recall who.
>
> You could simply roll that out and do a massive ad blitz reminding
> people to dial the additional digit.
>
Years ago when full SATT was implemented there was a major media blitz
to remind callers they must dial 1 before the area code and with some
offices that were SATT Access they had to dial a 1 before a 7 digit
number that was not within their local dialing. Those were the days
[when] we could dial the last 5 or 4 digits to reach a local number.
--
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: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:19:43 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <c5e.5a28effe.377ab41f@aol.com>
In a message dated 6/29/2009 11:07:32 AM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> Many private PBX vendors were unprepared, in a variety of ways, to
> properly track rapid new code assignments and get their PBX tables
> properly updated.
Why should PBX's have tables or any information about what area codes
exist? As a general rule, I mean, unless they have their own private
systems and private lines that they want certain area codes routed
over?
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:05:27 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <MPG.24b1eb6f38bf221989a8f@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <20090627232452.2225.qmail@simone.iecc.com>, johnl@iecc.com
says...
>
> >Because every switch in the NANP area is digital (well, at least in
> >Canada and the U.S.) it should be no big deal to go to 4 digit NPA
> >(area) codes. The big deal would be the public outcry.
>
> If you consider upgrading the software in every switch in the
> continent to be no big deal, I suppose you're correct.
Most of the software already supports international numbering plans.
Even small switches like the Definity series have European ARS plans.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <e98b203d-0055-469a-92f8-728505ea0a22@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 28, 12:56 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >Remember 1999, every switch needed a software update, it went with
> >very little trouble.
>
> My employer at the time had a Rolm PBX and had a nightmare getting the
> update done properly. For over a year, folks at one office were having
> to call the operator to place calls to the new area codes.
Are you talking about Y2k changes or the explosion in new area codes
and exchanges that occured at that time?
Many private PBX vendors were unprepared, in a variety of ways, to
properly track rapid new code assignments and get their PBX tables
properly updated.
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jun 2009 16:05:07 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <h2b6pj$q6k$1@panix2.panix.com>
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Jun 28, 12:56 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> >Remember 1999, every switch needed a software update, it went with
>> >very little trouble.
>>
>> My employer at the time had a Rolm PBX and had a nightmare getting the
>> update done properly. For over a year, folks at one office were having
>> to call the operator to place calls to the new area codes.
>
>Are you talking about Y2k changes or the explosion in new area codes
>and exchanges that occured at that time?
We got new area codes, and the new area codes didn't have a 0 or a 1
in the middle digits. This is what finally convinced GTE to get us
off of a mechanical switch and onto something modern that actually
works.
BUT, in the cases of PBXes, many of them depended on that 0 or 1 to
identify an area code and the actual algorithm for splitting the number
apart had to be changed.
This was unrelated to Y2K and occurred a bit before the Y2K changes, and
it was a big set of headaches for everyone involved.
>Many private PBX vendors were unprepared, in a variety of ways, to
>properly track rapid new code assignments and get their PBX tables
>properly updated.
Yes, but this was more than just a code assignment change.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:07:38 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <MPG.24b1ebf3aed9e84c989a90@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <h26jno$br$1@reader1.panix.com>, dwolffxx@panix.com says...
>
> In article <siegman-E9C484.06444427062009@news.stanford.edu>,
> AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
> > In article <pan.2009.06.27.04.46.29.687962@myrealbox.com>,
> > David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Places like the UK (and probably every single other major western
> >> country) have also migrated their telephone systems over time.
> >
> > And, for much of Western Europe, their entire currency system (i.e., the
> > conversion to the Euro) -- and many of us in the U.S. admire how quickly
> > and efficiently they did it, and the benefits this has obviously
> > brought, even to us as tourists or visitors there.
>
> Converting currency is probably easier. There's no hardware involved,
> and the software changes are probably easier than changing from a
> fixed-length number to a variable-length number.
No hardware you say? How about the zillion little point of sale
terminals at gas pumps, etc.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:10:19 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <MPG.24b1ec931d2ceb7e989a91@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <OKK1m.1694$NF6.168@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, wgeary@verizon.net
says...
> In the USA, we have had quite a number of "conversions" in the past decade
> or three ... [Moderator snip]
>
> Needless to say, the currency-handling industry managed these changes in the
> USA more-or-less without any major problems. By comparison, just think of
> the "fun" in the telecom industry if, say, SS7 had a "significant" change
> every two or three years...
If anything the new currency is simpler to detect denomination than the
old. Shine a UV light on it and look for the color and position of the
return reflection.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <e421b2c1-a423-49bf-bfa7-e834b255c24b@g1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 28, 12:55 pm, David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
> Let me relate a story I was told. A engineer was tasked to retrain
> skilled mainframe COBOL programmers to the modern world. His part was to
> teach them assembler/ some machine architecture; so they'd have some clue
> as to what what going on Within the Beast. Later would come C, Java, etc.
>
> As some point he was explaining CPU registers, and how it was faster to
> have a variable in one vs fetching it from elsewhere. Whereby, one of the
> smarter students asked "Why don't you just declare more registers..?" and
> he realized they did not grasp the basics.
That story seems questionable because:
1) Most IBM mainframe COBOL programmers are already somewhat familiar
with internal architecture even if they're not full-fledged assembler
programmers. They already know about registers, and certain other
techniques (such as various arithmetics).
2) Back in the 1960s and early 1970s assembler programmers knew little
tricks to minimize storage needs and use the fastest instruction(s) to
perform a task. Certain instructions ran faster than others and
certain data movements were faster than other; programmers back then
knew about them.
But computers are so fast these days that only in rare highly
specialized situations are such assembler techniques necessary today.
It would seem strange to teach those things today. It would be like
going into heavy detail about No. 5 crossbar to a new group of ESS
programmers, there's no point to it.
3) Many people who transitioned between mainframes and newer
technologies say it's best to "forget everything you knew about
mainframes and start afresh". According, it would seem strange to go
backward in teaching.
4) One of the points of a high level language is to be independent of
what goes on internally. Non-IBM mainframes were very different. In
the new world the underlying platform won't necessarily be an WinTel
x86. IBM mainframe is not the same as x86. (If they really want to
teach hardware, at least teach the x86 internals.)
5) COBOL developers were _application_ oriented. From your narrative,
it sounds like they were being taught systems-software development (eg
compilers, browsers, operating systems), which is very different.
It'd be like taking a pathologist and making him into a psychiatrist.
Both are MDs, but different.
> Ain't so. The switch is HARDWARE, the 10-digit long registers are, like
> every part, highly optimized for speed, reliability, and low loading. It
> has man-years of engineering and code and testing and upgrades to keep it
> going. You start forklift upgrading parts and stand back...
>
> (And that is ONLY Ma's switchers. You also need to replace every dialer
> program that stores numbers, & you name it on the customer's premises.)
This is correct.
I will note one thing. Back in the early 1970s the Bell System
recognized the growth and at that time (in publishing writings) began
to plan for switches to handle area codes and exchanges of today's
configuration.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:38:19 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <f_62m.4243$xH4.2022@newsfe04.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> But computers are so fast these days that only in rare highly
> specialized situations are such assembler techniques necessary today.
> It would seem strange to teach those things today. It would be like
> going into heavy detail about No. 5 crossbar to a new group of ESS
> programmers, there's no point to it.
What about the processing power of a DMS-100 installed in circa 1984?
There are a whole lot of those.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:15:10 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <MPG.24b1edb795a4f213989a92@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <8nL1m.16287$Xw4.9247@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
for.address.look@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc says...
>
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> > Over the years, there have been many cases were 'hard core techies'
> > pushed hard for something new and greatly exaggerated the merits and
> > ease of use. Example: historically IBM lagged behind on technology
> > but became and held the market leader because of _application_ and
> > support, not technology. The first Univac was technologically
> > superior to the first IBM computer, but IBM's people were better at
> > making the new computer do useful work for people, which is what
> > counted.
>
> In fact, there is "techie snobbery" which looks down on anything easy to
> use. A lot of the disparagement of Windows in favor of UNIX comes from
> peole with that mindset. It's popular and easy to use, so it must be bad.
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> (Full disclosure: I'm a member of the Boston Linux & Unix User Group)
>
> No disrespect, but I believe it's not that simple.
>
> I started using Linux in the late 90's, because I had a technical
> problem to solve and I couldn't afford to buy a pre-packaged solution
> for Windows. I continued to use Linux because I'm able to set it up
> myself, configure it for what _I_ want, and update/upgrade features,
> security, and basic functions without giving up my Christmas vacation
> to do it.
>
> The laptop I'm using now has Autocad on it, which isn't available for
> Linux, so I'm constantly shifting back and forth between the Unix and
> the Windows world, which is a PITA. I don't like Windows, because it's
> too prone to viruses and because it requires very expensive upgrades
> every 3~4 years. Microsoft has achieved every monopolist's dream: a
> self-fulfilling prophecy where everyone uses Windows because everyone
> uses Windows, and that has allowed the company to lock-in most
> software houses to the Microsoft model.
>
> FWIW. YMMV.
>
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderator
For server side applications nothing beats Unix/Linux. That's why I run
VMWare on my machine and I have a standard Debian LAMP setup running in
a Virtual Machine.
There is also an Ubuntu VM but I don't use that as much as the Debian
VM.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I'm allowing this post because "Sauce for the goose," etc. However,
let's not turn this into a OS war, OK?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:15:39 -0500
From: "John F. Morse" <xanadu@example.invalid>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <f2bcb$4a4831db$4aded8bf$28752@EVERESTKC.NET>
MC wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> Over the years, there have been many cases were 'hard core techies'
>> pushed hard for something new and greatly exaggerated the merits and
>> ease of use. Example: historically IBM lagged behind on technology
>> but became and held the market leader because of _application_ and
>> support, not technology. The first Univac was technologically
>> superior to the first IBM computer, but IBM's people were better at
>> making the new computer do useful work for people, which is what
>> counted.
>
> In fact, there is "techie snobbery" which looks down on anything easy
> to use. A lot of the disparagement of Windows in favor of UNIX comes
> from peole with that mindset. It's popular and easy to use, so it
> must be bad.
[Full disclosure: I have 60 computers in my house. Besides three Apple
][ class computers (Apple ][, Apple II+ and Apple //e), and an IBM PC
5150, the installed, working and fully-networked PCs include the
following OSes: 38 Linux/BSD, 13 Mac, 18 Windows (3.1 through Vista). I
don't work for anyone (disabled and retired), and I don't own any stock
other than AT&T's ESOP.]
You blame "snobbery" because you simply don't understand. I call that
"Microsoft FUD": Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. I'll not use the term
"ignorance" because you will likely misinterpret that word to imply you
are "stupid" when all it indicates is not yet [having] learned.
You claim Windows is easy to use? With all the multitudes of security
problems, requiring bloated add-on software to stop viruses, Trojans,
malware, spyware, crackers, etc.? Windows IS bad! Microsoft is a liar
and a thief, and there are court documents to prove that fact. I won't
associate with a thief nor give them my money.
You should try a Unix/Linux OS and see the difference. I'm speaking from
32 years of experience with "PCs" Apple, Mac, Windows, Unix/Linux.
Anyone who badmouths *nix and praises Windows just doesn't have the
first-hand wisdom to make such claims.
Windows is "popular" like a Chevrolet is "better" than a Rolls Royce,
eh? Numbers mean very little, especially when Windows was forced on the
buyer by Microsoft. You had no choice but Windows, or buying expensive
Mac hardware to run the Mac OS. And there is absolutely no way to count
the numbers of Linux installs. Plus you need to believe the numbers the
convicted liar feeds to you! ;-)
There is noting easier to use than Linux. It can do far more than
restrictive Windows could ever do. You are just ignorant to the
possibilities, or you have no needs beyond playing solitaire while not
connected to any network. But that is your choice, and I am not implying
I should take your power of choice away.
Get it and use it and see the difference for yourself. It is free of
cost and free of restrictions, something you cannot claim for Windows or
the Mac OS.
Here's a link to download what is probably the easiest OS in the
universe for a new user: http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download
You will discover that computing is fun again!
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> (Full disclosure: I'm a member of the Boston Linux & Unix User Group)
>
> No disrespect, but I believe it's not that simple.
> I started using Linux in the late 90's, because I had a technical
> problem to solve and I couldn't afford to buy a pre-packaged solution
> for Windows. I continued to use Linux because I'm able to set it up
> myself, configure it for what _I_ want, and update/upgrade features,
> security, and basic functions without giving up my Christmas vacation
> to do it.
Exactly! Set it up to do what *YOU* want, instead of what [Microsoft]
forces upon you.
> The laptop I'm using now has Autocad on it, which isn't available for
> Linux, so I'm constantly shifting back and forth between the Unix and
> the Windows world, which is a PITA. I don't like Windows, because it's
> too prone to viruses and because it requires very expensive upgrades
> every 3~4 years. Microsoft has achieved every monopolist's dream: a
> self-fulfilling prophecy where everyone uses Windows because everyone
> uses Windows, and that has allowed the company to lock-in most
> software houses to the Microsoft model.
>
> FWIW. YMMV.
>
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderator
I have AutoCAD 12, 13, 14, LT 97, 2000, 2000I, 2002. I am running
AutoCAD 2000I under Wine 1.0 on Ubuntu 8.04 LTS just fine (I think I
also ran it on older Ubuntu 7.04). I haven't tried any of my old LISP
stuff though, so I can't say if that works or not. If you don't need
LISP, then go for it. Heck, go for it anyway, and let me know how it
works. ;-)
I also run FileMaker Pro on Wine, and occasionally 40tude Dialog for
testing news servers. It's been months since I last turned on a Windows
PC, and that was to grab some old data files to use on a Linux box.
I was surprised AutoCAD worked because I had read it wouldn't, and had
retained a Windows XP PC just for AutoCAD.
Just goes to show you that if you want to know whether a computer can or
can't do something, there is nobody better to ask than the computer
itself: The ultimate authority! (That might also be read as "don't trust
what somebody says.") ;-)
--
John
.
***** Moderator's NOte *****
I repeat: "Sauce for the Goose," etc. Today _ONLY_.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:09:49 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <pan.2009.06.29.07.09.48.428856@myrealbox.com>
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:30:26 -0400, MC wrote:
........
> The laptop I'm using now has Autocad on it, which isn't available for
> Linux, so I'm constantly shifting back and forth between the Unix and the
> Windows world, which is a PITA.
Just download and install the (free) VMWare Server product and you can run
Windows *inside* Linux accessing it in a much more convenient manner than
"switching" (which I assume means rebooting).
You can even download their free tool to convert an existing Windows
install into a VM - no need to do reinstalls etc.
There are many other VM options but I have been using VMWare Server (I
prefer the 1.0.x over 2.x) for a few years now and it is most functional.
--
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.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I may have recrated TTTWD. Sorry. I started it, so everybody gets a
free pass... _today_.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:18:41 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <MPG.24b1ee8b9fa66f2e989a93@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <c26.5ec61e6a.37795b32@aol.com>, Wesrock@aol.com says...
>
> In a message dated 6/28/2009 12:04:05 PM Central Daylight Time,
> kludge@panix.com writes:
>
> > I am not sure what you're referring to here. Is this a television
> > set or an IBOC radio?
>
> A television set. I am not familiar with "an IBOC radio". Another of
> those techie terms like in the manual for my new digital TV.
>
> Wes Leatherock
> wesrock@aol.com
> wleathus@yahoo.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBOC
It's just using the sideband carriers to transmit digital signals.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:24:29 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <MPG.24b1efebad611dfa989a94@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <20090627232321.2204.qmail@simone.iecc.com>, johnl@iecc.com
says...
>
> >Again, a person is a person and despite all the arguments along these
> >lines, many (many) other countries have managed such a change without
> >too much trouble at all - certainly far less trouble than the
> >opponents of theses things said would occur.
>
> Once again, you are (wilfully?) missing the main point. The
> technology in North American phone switches is different from that in
> the rest of the world.
>
> The inter-switch signalling in Australia was already set up to handle
> numbers of differing lengths, so it was not a big deal to change
> lengths of numbers incrementally, since those longer numbers didn't
> affect the switches that don't handle the numbers being changed. In
> North America, the 3+3+4 format is wired into the hardware (and now
> into the switch software.) Like it or not, longer numbers will
> require changes to every phone switch in the continent. That's the
> real issue, not the consumer answering machines, stationery, and other
> junk.
>
> We'll have to make numbers longer at some point, perhaps 30 years from
> now, and the telcos are thinking about how to do it, but it'll be a
> huge project.
>
> R's,
> John
No it is not wired into the software. Do you think switch manufacturers
only want to sell their gear in the U.S.? Of course they
don't. They want to sell all over the world.
But here's the game that Lucent/Avaya plays. You pay for software
features to be enabled on your swtich. It's there already, they just
have to dial in and switch the feature on.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:09:12 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <SeeSigForEmail@wn6.wn.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <20090629030715.000E7481A6@mailout.easydns.com>
Wes Leatherock asks,
> ? writes:
> > I am not sure what you're referring to here. Is this a television
> > set or an IBOC radio?
>
>A television set. I am not familiar with "an IBOC radio". Another of
>those techie terms like in the manual for my new digital TV.
IBOC stands for "in band on channel", and is the digital radio
broadcating system used in the US. It is marked as "HD Radio" (for
hybrid digital, not that other HD) and is licensed from Ibiquity, a
CBS-affiliated company. It uses compressed digital streams on
subcarriers via the regular AM or FM transmitter.
Digital audio broadcasting has been rather a flop in the UK, where it
uses its own frequencies. IBOC (HDR) is not selling all that well in
the US either, but the same radios do receive analog broadcasts, AM
and FM, too. I don't know why so few HD radios are on the market;
perhaps the license fee is too high.
***** Moderator's Note *****
In relation to telecom, I wonder if digital radio sales are flat
because music players are being integrated into cell phone/PDA
devices?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:27:23 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <h2b12b$22ij$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <20090629030715.000E7481A6@mailout.easydns.com>,
Fred Goldstein <SeeSigForEmail@wn6.wn.net> wrote:
>Digital audio broadcasting has been rather a flop in the UK, where it
>uses its own frequencies.
News to me. The UK is often cited as one of the few countries in
which digital radio actually has significant market penetration. (I
don't know, however, how much of the market is listening via DVB-T
digital-television receivers versus actual Eureka-147.)
>IBOC (HDR) is not selling all that well in the US either, but the
>same radios do receive analog broadcasts, AM and FM, too. I don't
>know why so few HD radios are on the market; perhaps the license fee
>is too high.
Actually, it's probably more to do with a lack of demand on the
consumer side, and power consumption on the device-maker side. There
still aren't usable battery-powered, portable HD tuners in stores.
The one market that seems to be doing very well with the iBiquity
system is public radio. They received grants from NTIA to upgrade
their transmission facilities, and NPR's "Tomorrow Radio" project led
the drive for "multicast" facilities. In many communities where there
is only one public radio station, this makes it possible for the
broadcasters to provide multiple streams of programming, and the
existing $100-200 radios make a good high-value pledge premium. Since
commercial classical has almost completely disappeared, multicasting
allows pubcasters to serve that wealthy niche audience without
compromising their more popular news and talk programs.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:07:25 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <MPG.24b1f9cb6d66d735989a95@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <khL1m.797$Ei4.512@newsfe13.iad>, sam@coldmail.com says...
>
> John Levine wrote:
>
> >>Again, a person is a person and despite all the arguments along these
> >>lines, many (many) other countries have managed such a change without
> >>too much trouble at all - certainly far less trouble than the
> >>opponents of theses things said would occur.
> >
> >
> > Once again, you are (wilfully?) missing the main point. The
> > technology in North American phone switches is different from that in
> > the rest of the world.
> >
> > The inter-switch signalling in Australia was already set up to handle
> > numbers of differing lengths, so it was not a big deal to change
> > lengths of numbers incrementally, since those longer numbers didn't
> > affect the switches that don't handle the numbers being changed. In
> > North America, the 3+3+4 format is wired into the hardware (and now
> > into the switch software.) Like it or not, longer numbers will
> > require changes to every phone switch in the continent. That's the
> > real issue, not the consumer answering machines, stationery, and other
> > junk.
> >
> > We'll have to make numbers longer at some point, perhaps 30 years from
> > now, and the telcos are thinking about how to do it, but it'll be a
> > huge project.
> >
> > R's,
> > John
> >
> The hard-wired switches are gone from the U.S. and (for the most-part)
> Canada.
>
> How long have we had stored program controlled end office switches now?
> They became common by 1980. And, they enabled subscriber dialing of
> international numbers of varying length with delimiting by timeout or
> DTMF "#"
Yeah but # still gives the switch the ok to process the call as
dialed. I know on my VoIP service from Vonage if I terminate all
dialed numbers with # it puts the call right through instead of
[after] a few seconds timeout [interval].
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:35:48 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <oI82m.990$KM3.779@newsfe02.iad>
T wrote:
>>How long have we had stored program controlled end office switches now?
>>They became common by 1980. And, they enabled subscriber dialing of
>>international numbers of varying length with delimiting by timeout or
>>DTMF "#"
>
>
> Yeah but # still gives the switch the ok to process the call as
> dialed. I know on my VoIP service from Vonage if I terminate all
> dialed numbers with # it puts the call right through instead of
> [after] a few seconds timeout [interval].
>
As will the international call go through without a "#" if you wait a
few seconds, perhaps 5.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <bc958be1-89b2-4ae5-9e22-679b947849de@l31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 28, 1:33 pm, AES <sieg...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> I'm sorry -- I find the following views somewhere between heavily
> Luddite and a little bit paranoid.
In a previous thread I cited several books that went into solid detail
on the problems described. One important point was that "competition"
was not an _end_, but rather a _means_ to an end, the end.
> I'm with you all the way on being fearful of unregulated commercial
> interests and unregulated free-market capitalism distorting and
> exploiting technology for their benefit, to the detriment of all the
> rest of us. That's an endless threat, in every facet of society.
> But cell phones are great inventions; digital cameras are great
> inventions; cell phones with built-in cameras are great inventions;
> fiber optics and the internet and widespread broadband access are great
> inventions -- they, and many other technological advances like them,
> make all our lives better, at every level of society.
Yes, all of those things are great inventions. But like other great
inventions, such as the automobile, there are substantial costs, too.
In the case of the automobile, it took fifiy years for anyone to even
notice there were problems with safety, air pollution, and
environmental destruction. It took another 25 years for any measures
to take place
The Internet has obviously brought many benefits, but also many
problems. Many techies and early advocates simply buried the problems
blissfuly saying they'll work themselves out. But today Internet
users must deal with spam and sabotage and spend quite a bit of money
doing so.
Now, the automobile was invented in a simpler time. But the public
Internet was invented in a sophisticated era and its problems were
predicted early on.
New inventions are supposed to make our lives _better_. One part of
'better' is 'cheaper'. For many people, the total monthly carrying
charges of a cell phone are far higher than what they'd spend even on
heavy pay phone use. That's a minus, not a plus.
I have no problem with new inventions; I make use of them myself.
However, most new inventions of drawbacks and too often they're
glossed over. That is wrong. Techies bear some of the blame.
I stand by my post with digital cameras. To get the equivalent
quality offered by film cameras, one must spend serious money, more
money than what an equivalent film camera would cost.
I do not have kind words for whoever invented the autodialer allowing
mass solicitation calls. Politicians and charities make good use of
them to make our lives miserable.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Every invention has costs, and the definition of "curse" vs.
"blessing" is, of necessity, left to the user. From the
perspective of a plowman, mechanized tractors are a curse.
The farmer feels they're a blessing.
The issues I see with the Internet is not spam or viruses: both _will_
work themselves out with time. From my perspective, the Internet's
greatest strengh and weakness is that it allows widely-separated
groups of peoples with common interests (such as this one) to keep in
touch. That sword cuts both ways: when my wife asked me what state
Mieczyskaw Mil lived in, after I told her of his electrocution, I
did a Google search to find out (New York, btw). The Google results
included a neo-nazi site which subjected the unfortunate man to
ridicule ("gives new meaning to electric pole") and racism
("considering his name, ...").
The Internest is the world's biggest open-shelf library. That means
that the Bible and On The Origin of Species sit next to Mein Kampf,
available for all to read, and I'm not sure if that's a blessing or a
curse.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <d2b9f143-4c8c-48c2-8a57-fd79a7fe622a@l34g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Every invention has costs, and the definition of "curse" vs.
> "blessing" is, of necessity, left to the user. From the
> perspective of a plowman, mechanized tractors are a curse.
> The farmer feels they're a blessing.
I strongly believe more thought must be given to the _negative_
impacts of any new technology, and that responsibility belongs to both
the inventors and marketers. Admittedly that is not an easy task, esp
in a free market economy.
The automotive industry was, for the most part, resistant to mandatory
safety applicances the government enacted in the late 1960s, such as
seat belts and certain protective hardware. What troubles me is that
it was known back in the 1950s such stuff would save lives but it took
so long to get them into cars and get people to use them.
Historically the old Bell System gave strong thought to benefits and
problems of new technology. One thing they did (which sadly has been
been lost) was a trial of new technology in one region before rolling
it out nationally. Usually they learned of problems that were
corrected before the national rollout. (For instance, the Princess
Phone required a redesign so it wouldn't slide around).
Note that the Bell System DID move forward despite finding problems.
They worked hard to solve them. To me, it is inexcusable that VOIP
was initially rolled out with terrible transmission quality or
incompatibility with 911 databases.
As mentioned before, stuff like sabotage (viruses, malware, etc),
hacking, and spam are very costly and disruptive, and protections
thereof should've been installed before the Internet was rolled out in
a big way. The Internet _has_ been responsible for ruining a number
of people's lives (even killling a few), and I resent it that 'e-
world' advocates blithely refuse any responsibility. If someone
allows a 12 year old kid to drive my car and he kills someone with it,
that adult certainly is morally responsible for the act, even if not
legally; the adult should've known better. Those who aggressively
pushed the growth of the e-world, and push they certainly did, ignored
the risk of unprotected proxy servers and abusive or dangerous users.
Someone was fired and arrested for having illegal laptop content, and
it turned out the content was placed there by malware that slipped
through anti-virus software. These things seem to happen often, yet
it seems extremely rare that the perpetrators of such sabotage are
punished or barriers placed to block overseas submissions.
I suspect almost all readers of this newsgroup are savy enough to keep
their protection software up-to-date and wouldn't be victimized like
that. But sometimes techies forget that lay people out there don't
think about those things, especially under the hood stuff like caches,
and can get burned.
[snip]
As to being a Luddite, it's ironic that two new technologies I feel
have no negative drawbacks--CDs for music and ICs for home
electronics--are ones where people spend a great deal of money to be
'retro'. People still like vinyl records and tubes for high-end
stereos; both of which are very expensive to support. I like the fact
that even a basic TV set or radio/CD player has much higher quality
and fancy features for a modest price, especially compared to units a
decade ago; thanks to cheap electronics.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <d4cc92f8-b737-47ed-8938-9b9f7bc1ae6d@j3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 28, 5:42 pm, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > Advanced equipment, such as key systems, modems, PBXs, etc., will
> > require customer power.
>
> As to key systems, true once they got fancy. But, the good old
> 25-pair 1A2 systems only lost lights and hold when the customer power
> was lost. You could punch a line button and still get dial tone.
I was in an office that had a power failure. We could call out
(admittedly an important feature), but that was it.
Ringing of incoming calls could be messed up. Many key systems
intercepted the incoming ringing signal and relayed its own ringing
signal only to specified sets. Many keysets had an appearance of a
particular line for convenience but did not ring for that line. I'm
pretty sure ringing was independent of whether the line button was
depressed or even if the phone was off-hook.
Power supplies for key systems included DC and ringing AC.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:12:26 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <MPG.24b1fb22ed3293bd989a96@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <FHQ1m.1001$hB1.906@newsfe11.iad>, sam@coldmail.com says...
>
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> > Advanced equipment, such as key systems, modems, PBXs, etc., will
> > require customer power.
>
> As to key systems, true once they got fancy. But, the good old
> 25-pair 1A2 systems only lost lights and hold when the customer power
> was lost. You could punch a line button and still get dial tone.
Indeed. I have a 551C hooked to a 2851 and a flakey 2565HKM (Won't hold
lines and doesn't present A-Lead activity so it appears to the line card
that there's nothing there!)
But if I disconnect power you can still dial out.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <7f51a63a-2dac-4d39-8a37-a5354ebc6109@m19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 28, 9:30 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
wrote:
> Many of us fought the switch to DTV for years, not out of "Luddism" (a
> motive I ascribe to the Greens -- but I digress) but because the real
> purpose of the DTV switch was to impose two forms of unwarranted and
> excessive controls in the name of "intellectual property"* protection:
> the "broadcast flag", which allows broadcasters to make some content
> unrecordable; and the shorter effective range of DTV broadcasts, which
> for many of us makes it no longer possible to bring in stations we used
> to be able to get.
> Weigh that against the one noticeable benefit of DTV -- better hi-res
> pictures for those who want to spend a mid-four-figures sum on a big
> screen TV -- and it's a very bad bargain. Let the rich get their super
> signal from cable or satellite, as most of them do anyway.
Thanks for pointing those things out. Very good points.
This makes for an example, per my earlier post, some of these changes
benefit a very narrow group.
I didn't [give] much thought to it since I have cable and the change was
transparent to me. But somewhere I heard that cable will only provide
analog service for three years, then it goes digital too. The cable
company is pushing customers now to switch to digital, which is free.
(Although one needs a box for each set and recorder and there is a
rental charge. . . )
> * I use quotes around "intellectual property" here not because I reject
> the concept -- I don't -- but because in both these examples (and many
> other cases of DRM, such as on DVDs), the content producers' legitimate
> rights do not include prohibiting the conduct that the controls
> actually block. DRM systems enforce a lot more wrongs than rights.
>
> I call for a boycott of Hollywood until it stops cheating artists with
> one hand while blaming infringers for its lack of profits with the
> other, and starts producing decent content again and making it fully
> usable by buyers.
Good points, too.
I was curious about how motion pictures are made and got a book from
the library. It mostly dealt with the fnancials, and I was shocked at
the mishigosh that goes on between proposal and actual filming of a
feature motion picture; none of which has anything to do with the
entertainment or artisitic merits of the film.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:57:01 GMT
From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <7joi45pfiq98lqkeg5giug07hck2juooa8@4ax.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>I was curious about how motion pictures are made and got a book from
>the library. It mostly dealt with the fnancials, and I was shocked at
>the mishigosh that goes on between proposal and actual filming of a
>feature motion picture; none of which has anything to do with the
>entertainment or artisitic merits of the film.
Please post the title of the book.
A number of years ago I read a very long web page on legal shenanigans
with startup bands by record labels. I think it was The Problem With
Music by Steve Albini
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:05:23 GMT
From: tlvp <PmUiRsGcE.TtHlEvSpE@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <op.uwahfbl5wqrt3j@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:25:18 -0400, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote, in part:
> Newer alternatives is a forced obsolence of perfectly good hardware
> before its worn out because new software, imposed on the marketplace,
> won't run on it. Example: old computers can't support the latest web
> browsers and old web browsers can't access most sites on the web.
> Example: people are forced to get broadband access instead of dial up
> because the 'bit bloat' is so large dial-up becomes too slow. ..[snip]..
Further example(s): omission on newer computers of "legacy" ports (RS-232,
SCSI, parallel printer ports; and dual PCMCIA slots). Perfectly good serial
and parallel printers, serial modems, SCSI external ZIP, Syquest, and hard
drives, and PCMCIA devices of all sorts become "doorstops" once the ports
they need to connect to become unavailable on new machines.
I'd have thought that *inclusion* of legacy ports would have become
the selling point -- instead, it's their *omission* that's being
touted as the "good thing".
(Sigh!) Cheers, -- tlvp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:03:19 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <4A492C17.9090404@thadlabs.com>
On 6/29/2009 10:06 AM, tlvp wrote:
> [...]
> Further example(s): omission on newer computers of "legacy" ports (RS-232,
> SCSI, parallel printer ports; and dual PCMCIA slots). Perfectly good serial
> and parallel printers, serial modems, SCSI external ZIP, Syquest, and hard
> drives, and PCMCIA devices of all sorts become "doorstops" once the ports
> they need to connect to become unavailable on new machines.
Solutions are available. I have many devices that require RS-232 for usage
and/or firmware updating such as astronomical telescopes, postal scale/meter,
[EP/EA]ROM burners, label printers, my weather station, etc. PCI and PCIe
cards are available for desktops (and PCMCIA cards for laptops). One PCIe
dual RS-232 card that works well for my newer desktops can be seen here:
< http://thadlabs.com/PIX/SYBA_dual_RS-232.jpg
Another solution, even more general, is an Ethernet "terminal server" such as
this small one I've had for over 10 years:
http://thadlabs.com/PIX/Etherlite_EL-2.jpg
Drivers for the EL-2 are for (all) Linux, Solaris, UNIX, Windows, AIX, HP-UX,
and more. Central Data was acquired by Digi, more info here:
http://www.digi.com/products/serialservers/etherlitespecs.jsp
Here's something new, a Linux-based Ethernet USB hub for sharing printers,
scanners, USB thumb drives, external USB drives, etc. on one's network:
http://www.belkin.com/uk/networkusbhub/
which is identical to the Silex SX-5000U2. Only works for Windows (so far) but
we're pushing for source code per GPL which is just a matter of time per:
http://www.belkin.com/support/gpl.asp
SCSI, parallel and about eleventy-seven bazillion other interfaces are readily
available for PCI and PCIe desktop expansion slots from Fry's, Newegg, MWave,
and many others.
> I'd have thought that *inclusion* of legacy ports would have become
> the selling point -- instead, it's their *omission* that's being
> touted as the "good thing".
Dell Latitude (business) laptops still have a DB-9 serial port last time I
checked; no other laptop manufacturer supplies RS-232 serial AFAIK.
USB appears to be a preferred interface nowadays, but be aware that some
chipsets used in USB-to-<whatever> converters are "troublesome" (to put
it kindly).
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:46:57 -0500
From: "John F. Morse" <xanadu.bbs@example.invalid>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <55028$4a483932$4aded8bf$1035@EVERESTKC.NET>
John Levine wrote:
>> Could you recommend some very low-cost VoIP devices that would
>> convert the Asterisk VoIP to POTS, so common 2500 telsets could be
>> used?
>>
>
> You can get single line SIP terminal adapters (TAs) like the
> Grandstream HT486 for under $40 from dealers, and often for about $20
> on ebay. These connect one phone to one wired Ethernet, so you need
> Ethernet cabling and a hub to plug all the Ethernet cables into.
>
What do you mean by "one wired Ethernet"?
In my home I have a 3Com 24-port SuperSwitch II, a 24-port standby
switch, a 12-port hub, two 8-port switches, two 5-port switches, a
4-port hub, five routers, and miles of CAT-5 cable (and a new box of
500' of CAT-5E). It's all one "network" and only wired.
Perhaps you were implying the TA had an "RJ-45" jack to connect to a LAN?
> If you'd rather run your analog phone wires to your Asterisk PBX, I'd
> look at the cards from Digium, the company that wrote and maintains
> Asterisk, or the plug compatable replacements. I see on ebay four
> port PCI cards for $170.
>
Well, I have a WECo 1A1 4-line w/dial intercom KTS, and a smaller 4-line
1A2 KTS (551?), and many 2564 and 2565 telsets, plus 6040/6041/6050/6051
keys. So I could feed the KTS and run 25-pair to each telset.
I would also probably use standard 2500 (2554 and even older 500/554)
sets. I presume the TA and Asterisk can accommodate dial pulses?
> I'd suggest getting a couple of the cheap TAs to fool around, but get
> adapter cards if you want something that works reliably. The adapter
> cards can also be set up as FXO using daughterboards to connect to
> analog trunks.
>
> R's,
> John
Sounds like a plan. My only concern is expense, since I really don't
"need" a phone, but did want to "tinker" with my old love.
--
John
No Microsoft, Apple, AT&T, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.
The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.
.
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jun 2009 20:45:14 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <20090629204514.54338.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>> Grandstream HT486 for under $40 from dealers, and often for about $20
>> on ebay. These connect one phone to one wired Ethernet, so you need
>> Ethernet cabling and a hub to plug all the Ethernet cables into.
>Perhaps you were implying the TA had an "RJ-45" jack to connect to a LAN?
Right. Since you have all the hubs and cables, that should work OK.
>I would also probably use standard 2500 (2554 and even older 500/554)
>sets. I presume the TA and Asterisk can accommodate dial pulses?
I wouldn't count on it, since I doubt there's much demand for it.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:50:28 GMT
From: tlvp <PmUiRsGcE.TtHlEvSpE@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <op.uwagqgwgwqrt3j@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:35:54 -0400, David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
> There is also another tiny "Box" PC device that has been around for a
> while:
>
> http://www.fit-pc.com/new/
Thanks for that pointer, David. And cheers, -- tlvp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:52:34 GMT
From: tlvp <PmUiRsGcE.TtHlEvSpE@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: VoIP devices, was: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <op.uwagtyg7wqrt3j@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:03:13 -0400, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> On 6/27/2009 4:50 AM, tlvp wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:18:29 -0400, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
>> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> "Green" computing is clearly here. :-)
>>
>> Both the Sheeva and the Marvell devices look very intriguing!
>>
>> The Marvell, I see, has a VGA output port, and can, I'd imagine,
>> serve as CPU for a full linux system with USB kb & mouse and
>> VGA monitor.
>
> Correct! For US$200 ($250 with case), fanless, physically small
> and operating using minimal power, it's quite a deal.
>
>> But the Sheeva? Or is that just a "headless" server?
>
> Right, a headless server. I intend using one of mine for DHCP, tftp
> booting, local DNS, syslogging, email, weather station data capture,
> and possibly NTP (time) replacing an old desktop which uses too much
> power running 24/7. The other will be used for product development.
>
>> Thanks, Thad, for bringing these to our attention here! And cheers,
>
> You're welcome! I hope these and similar other ones give you some ideas!
> These should be capable of running asterisk, too; something to try.
Thanks, Thad, for the further details. Cheers, -- tlvp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:25:37 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <6W52m.2684$wM5.2600@newsfe19.iad>
David Lesher wrote:
>
> Ain't so. The switch is HARDWARE, the 10-digit long registers are, like
> every part, highly optimized for speed, reliability, and low loading. It
> has man-years of engineering and code and testing and upgrades to keep it
> going. You start forklift upgrading parts and stand back...
Why does direct dialing of international calls work?
>
> (And that is ONLY Ma's switchers. You also need to replace every dialer
> program that stores numbers, & you name it on the customer's premises.)
>
My Meridian 9516 (10 years old, I believe) single-line set's repertory
dialer will store up to 24 digits per entry. I haven't checked my
latest cordless phones, but I suspect they are similar.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:53:11 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <h2av27$f5d$1@reader1.panix.com>
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> writes:
>David Lesher wrote:
>> Ain't so. The switch is HARDWARE, the 10-digit long registers are,
>> like every part, highly optimized for speed, reliability, and low
>> loading. It has man-years of engineering and code and testing and
>> upgrades to keep it going. You start forklift upgrading parts and
>> stand back...
>Why does direct dialing of international calls work?
Because Ma recognized early-on the value of exception handling/
special cases; you deal with them separately.
Once you dial "011"; it is a different ball game. You can afford
to dedicate special facilities to coping with same.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jun 2009 16:09:31 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <h2b71r$dtg$1@panix2.panix.com>
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>David Lesher wrote:
>
>> Ain't so. The switch is HARDWARE, the 10-digit long registers are,
>> like every part, highly optimized for speed, reliability, and low
>> loading. It has man-years of engineering and code and testing and
>> upgrades to keep it going. You start forklift upgrading parts and
>> stand back...
>
> Why does direct dialing of international calls work?
In most cases it works pretty damn poorly. When you see the prefix
indicating it's an international call, you EITHER then go to an
algorithm that contains some information about number lengths for a
given country and the areas inside that country, which are sometimes
wrong, OR you just wait until the user has finished entering digits
with a preset timeout.
The latter has real problems if the user is dialing very
slowly.... and it also has problems because you spend a long time
doing nothing but waiting with the line held.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:35:40 -0500
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <cZadnfaiy7DhlNTXnZ2dnUVZ_o1i4p2d@supernews.com>
David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> writes:
>As some point he was explaining CPU registers, and how it was faster to
>have a variable in one vs fetching it from elsewhere. Whereby, one of the
>smarter students asked "Why don't you just declare more registers..?" and
>he realized they did not grasp the basics.
I find this story lacking credibility for lots and lots of reasons. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <77851.97461.qm@web52703.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:32:46 EDT Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
> I got my first DTV over-the-air radio for Father's Day and just
> programmed it. It was very tedious and intimidation to read through
> the 15-page manual going into all the options you had to select,
> many of them with names that only TV techies know what they mean. I
> almost gave up and asked one of grandkids to program it, it appeared
> so intimidating.
Your use of the word "radio" confused me at first, but I'm guessing
you're referring to a analog to digital TV converter.
I put off connecting converters to both of my TVs to the 11th of June
:) partly because after doing so I lost the ability to program my VCR
to record different programs.
Basically all that was required is to attach the input from the
antenna to the antenna F connector and feed the output from the
converter to the TV or VCR. Then I pointed the antenna towards the
broadcast towers (there are two different locations for the broadcast
towers in my area so I chose the direction that gave me the most
channels.) I then chose scan for channels and it found all the
channels and sub-channels. The only thing I found that was to get all
the channels I'd have to re-scan every time I wanted to watch certain
channels. But all in all it's very simple.
If you have "old" technology (e.g. VCRs) you lose the ability to
record different channels automatically. But then again, with VCRs
you've lost other usability such as adjusting for daylight or standard
time automatically as well when the guvmint mandated that we change
begin and end dates for standard and daylight time.
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jun 2009 16:00:09 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <h2b6g9$knv$1@panix2.panix.com>
MC <for.address.look@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc> wrote:
> In fact, there is "techie snobbery" which looks down on anything
> easy to use. A lot of the disparagement of Windows in favor of UNIX
> comes from peole with that mindset. It's popular and easy to use, so
> it must be bad.
Pardon me?
[Windows] is not easy to use, not by a long shot.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:40:32 -0500
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Should legacy technologies be allowed to remain forever?
Message-ID: <cZadnfGiy7A9l9TXnZ2dnUVZ_o1i4p2d@supernews.com>
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>Yes... but what if there is no NID? They are going to charge to install
>a new one.
If there's no NID, there's still a demarcation point between inside and
outside wiring. It might be a knock-out panel in your wall where the screw
connectors were.
I will also note, my rather old house had a NID box installed about 15
years ago when I got a second phone line. How much did it cost? Nothing.
The technician ran wires through the wall from the old box to a shiny
new NID.
I think this is a massively bogus issue. It is not the customer's right to
demand that the telco install and/or maintain an outside line that serves
no purpose. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:45:03 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <siegman-188E84.15443329062009@news.stanford.edu>
The San Jose Mercury reports today on the order of 200,000+ tickets
(possibly twice that number) issued in California to date for
cellphone use while driving.
Many of us would like to get a message through -- safely! -- via
cellphone to a relative or colleague whom we know may be on the road
at the time we call.
I suppose one solution would be if future cellphones could have an "on
the road" mode, activated by a button that drivers could punch as they
fastened their seatbelts.
Doing so would activate a mini answering-machine plus speaker-phone
mode that would respond to an incoming call by giving an audible beep;
allowing a **brief** (electronically time-limited) audible voice
message from the caller ("Sam, this is Sally, call me back when you
have a chance") through the speaker phone: giving the caller some
return indication that this has been done -- and then disabling
further use of the phone in any way for, say, 5 minutes.
Up to the driver whether they want to pull off the freeway and return
the call from some safe place where they can park briefly.
It's probably true that the beep and the message itself would be a
minor distraction and hence hazard for drivers -- but a lot less than
having the driver scrambling to dig a ringing cell phone out of their
purse, jacket pocket, or the clutter in the front seat.
Could even have the phone keep a record of the timing of the "on the
road activiation", in case there were ever some kind of legal inquiry
into a subsequent accident or other event.
Now, where did I file the name of that patent attorney . . .?
------------------------------
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 Patrick Townson. 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 currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
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) 2008 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 (39 messages)
******************************
|
or 
