Pat, the Editor

27 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

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 <> To: Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving Message-ID: <> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:09:34 -0400, tlvp wrote: > On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:18:35 -0400, Adam H. Kerman <> 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: To: Subject: Re: NANP ten digit dialing, was Goodbye to copper? Message-ID: <> In a message dated 7/7/2009 6:55:31 PM Central Daylight Time, 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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:17:57 -0500 From: (Robert Bonomi) To: Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls Message-ID: <ZL6dnfzWRKB4bcnXnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <h3167v$let$>, Adam H. Kerman <> wrote: >Robert Bonomi <> wrote: >>John Levine <> 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" <> To: 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 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: 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) ******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues