|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 186 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Rating cell phone calls
What was the question about "LG" (light ground) leads?
====== 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: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:13:50 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <pan.2009.07.08.05.13.49.936097@myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:09:34 -0400, tlvp wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:18:35 -0400, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
........
>> In the campaigns against drunk driving, it was often noted that 30% to
>> 40% of the must serious collisions involved drunken driving. We have a
>> great deal to fear from all the sober people on the road who don't give
>> a damn about the other guy.
>
> LOL! Love it! How to lie with statistics, 101. Thank you! :-) .
>
> Cheers, -- tlvp
> --
> Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> May I recommend "A Mathemetician Looks at the Newspaper"?
>
> Bill
> P.S. Half the people in America are below average!
And about 40% of all sick days taken are on Monday or Friday - slackers!
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:07:56 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <ce1.4f488b90.3786023c@aol.com>
In a message dated 7/7/2009 6:55:31 PM Central Daylight Time,
wgeary@verizon.net writes:
> Somehow, I suspect different standards for outside-the-USA telephone
> hardware (codecs and line characteristics), line behavior (ringing,
> supervision) and "proprietary considerations" (i.e. tariff and other
> barriers to protect local equipment vendors) has a much stronger
> effect on relative costs of CO equipment...
Before allowing international dialing by subscribers, the Bell Labs
did extensive tests with real customers to determine if they would
be able to understand tones from foreign countries for such things as
busy signals, ringing tones, etc. They found U.S.A. customers were
usually able to understand them without much difficulty.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:17:57 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls
Message-ID: <ZL6dnfzWRKB4bcnXnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <h3167v$let$1@news.albasani.net>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>>John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>
>>>>For the fifth time, the subscriber wasn't expected to know his rate center.
>
>>>In places like Chicago with large local calling areas, I agree that
>>>you don't care which of umpteen rate centers that are all local to
>>>each other you were assigned to.
>
>>Chicago _doesn't_ have "large" local calling areas. the local calling area
>>for a Chicago land-line is one where the destination _C.O._ is 8 miles or
>>less from the origin _C.0._
>
>>Within that 8-mile radius, residential calls are 1 billing unit, regardless
>>of time, out to 15 miles, they're still a 'local' call, but you _are_ billed
>>for time, beyond 15 miles, it is an "Intra-LATA" _toll_ call, until you cross.
>>the LATA boundary, then you're looking at "Inter-LATA" toll.
>
>Let me embellish this, for the plan you describe was implemented
>pre-divestiture, so there was no concept of LATA in tariff.
The _original_ was implemented way back then, yup. What I was talking about
was essentially current -- from dealing with the swamp for business telecom
as recently as 4 years ago.
[ snip accurate historical detail ]
>
>>You can actually have _three_ phone companies for your phone (residential or
>>business) -- the LEC (ILEC or CLEC), the "intra-LATA toll carrier", and the
>>"Inter-LATA toll carrier".
>
>>In the Chicago market, cell phones are subject to the _same_
>>distance-related charge scheme, but the distance is taken from the point
>>where the call _enters_ the PSTN. Cell carriers generally have enough
>>POP that they can back-haul an outgoing call on _their_ network to a
>>point where the PSTN ingress _is_ within "Band A" 8 mi., C.O.-to-C.O.,
>>of the destination -- a cost that is 'cheap enough' they can eat it on
>>the monthly minutes fee.
>
>I have no idea how inter-carrier compensation worked let alone charges
>to terminate calls. Cell phone subscribers didn't see those charges, for
>their plans defined a very large local calling area with calls rated for
>time, never distance.
>
>The concept of competition for pre-subscribed intra-LATA toll carriers
>on Illinois Bell land lines is from, what, mid '90's? At that point,
>we had another change in local calling rates.
Early 90's, I think. It was in place before I was dealing with telecom mgmt.
>Between 1982 and the mid '90's, calls from each rate center were subject
>to one of three distance rating bands. A was 8 miles. Calls from
>residential numbers were untimed, but timed from business. B was 8 to 15
>miles, timed. C was over 15 miles.
There is/was a fourth band 'D', as well. I don't remember the distance
boundary for it -- it was in the 30-45 mile range. Wasn't a whole lot
of 'D' traffic unless you were calling 'clear across' the metro area., e.g.
north suburbs to far south suburbs.
> There were also time of day charges.
>Peak was calls during the middle of the business day, shoulder peak at
>the beginning and end of the business day and right around lunch time,
>and off peak (nights and weekends).
>
>Calls were still rated in units for a couple of years, perhaps for
>transition terminology since so many of the old rate plans had unit
>charges, but this didn't make sense as new fractional unit charges for
>time of day were introduced and it made rate calculation too
>complicated. By 1985 or 1986, there were no more references to units.
>
>After the mid '90's, the three calling bands were eliminated. A and B
>were merged into an untimed calling area for residential, or in some
>plans, a pre-paid calling area.
Sorry, that's _NOT_ true. I had a fight with AT&T last year (spring 2008)
over the matter. AT*T pay phone advertising 'unlimited-length local calls'
for the initial 50 cent coin drop. Got a 'please deposit more money' demand
after 3 minutes on a circa 10-mile call. After much discussion with multiple
operators, it turns out that those 'untimed' local calls are 'band A' (less
than 8 miles) *ONLY*. Band B (8-15) mile calls are still timed for that use.
> Former Band C was now competitive, so
>subject to presubscription and whatever your carrier's in state long
>distance rates were.
Nit: band C and D.
> But this still left the problem of North Antioch
>and northwest Indiana if your presubscribed intraLATA toll provider was
>SBC/Illinois Bell.
>
>>Land-lines calling _to_ a cell-phone are a different story. Making sure the
>>C.O. access point for your cell phone _is_ within the 8 mi. C.O.-C.O. of the
>>people who will be calling you *is* a significant concern -- at least *if*
>>you care about costs to people who call you. :)
>
>I don't know if this is a correct statement. Cell phone providers had to
>declare rate centers to be assigned prefixes for 10,000-block pools of
>line numbers, but I've never read that interfacing with the LEC at each
>rate center was a pre-requisite for declaring a rate center. Wouldn't one
>point of interface per rate center be a needless amount of equipment to
>maintain for traffic needs?
"yeah but" applies. <wry grin>
It's not so much as for interfacing with the LEC, as with the various IXCs.
For an IXC to get paid for delivering a call _to_ that rate center, the IXC
has to deliver *TO* that rate center. If they deliver it "somewhere else",
they will expect to get paid for delivering it somewhere else (i.e. that
other rate center). This is, to belabor the obvious, the _definition_ of a
rate center -- by definition, one could say. :) the wireless carrier may
be willing to 'eat' the cost of the back-haul from 'distant' interface to the
the actual rate-center locale, but the 'upstream' (presumably wireline)
carrier who has to carry the call _past_ the rate-center to reach the
interface point is -not- likely to look favorably on that 'excess' cost that
they are incurring. That 'cost' issue will rear it's ugly head, regardless of
whether the 'upstream' for the call is a IXC delivering a foreign call, or a
LEC with a presence in that rate center. Thus the LECs do have a 'dog in
that fight' (albeit a small one :) as well.
Sometimes the 'equipment cost' is a piddling amount, in the greater scheme
of things. <grin>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 18:32:42 -0600
From: "Bob Peticolas" <bobp@bobvette.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: What was the question about "LG" (light ground) leads?
Telecom Digest Moderator said:
> And, nobody has said anything about my question on "LG" leads. I am
> _eagerly_ awaiting the answer!
Bill,
What was the question? The "A1" and "LG" leads are basically grounds. In
some systems, they are tied together at the equipment box and only the "A1"
and "LG" leads for the first line is brought to the telset. The second
through last line buttons shared the ground leads from the first line.
Now, there were some systems that needed the "LG" leads to be separate from
the telset to the equipment. This was when the lamp was to "wink" rather
than "flash". (Usually a phone being called from another station on a
two-path intercom unit (6A?). Then the ground to the lamp would be opened
briefly to effect the "wink". Thus, the "LG" leads had to be unique to each
lamp.
bob
***** Moderator's Note *****
The question was: did only N.E.T. use the "LG" leads as the "HOT" lead
for the lamp? I tried to wire a 660 com panel to a KTU, but I assumed
that the LG leads were Lamp Ground, and tied them all together. It
didn't work, and then I was told "LG" meant "Lamp Gain", i.e., that
the LG leads were the power feed for each lamp, and the "L" leads were
the ground.
I think you've answered it: only N.E.T. had it backwards. I still
wonder, though, if it was a Boston-area fluke, or if the practice was
common throughout New England.
Bill
------------------------------
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 (4 messages)
******************************
|
or 