|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 322 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals
Re: Jamaica running out of phone numbers
Re: Old Caller ID Info on New Provider Caller ID
Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens
Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens
====== 28 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: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:40:07 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Time Warner Cable Takes Firm Stance on Carriage Deals
Message-ID: <hfklba$7ff$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
> In reply to: <_MPG.25852b48e05dfce6989bf8@news.eternal-september.org_
> (mailto:MPG.25852b48e05dfce6989bf8@news.eternal-september.org) >
>
> In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.0912051605100.15674@panix5.panix.com>,
> dannyb@panix.com says...
>
>> In the good old daze of "One Bell System - It Works", the local
>> operating companies used to justify their need for higher rates
>> because... they had to pay more for the physical instruments.
>>
>> That is, Western Electric, a division of AT&T, was charging
>> the local RBOC, another division of AT&T, more...
>
> As a former Bell employee, I have to disagree with that. Many Bell
> employees thought WE prices were about normal or high. So when we
> acquired two independent company offices with Stromberg-Carlson XY
> switches and a few years later need an addition, they assumed
> Sromger's prices would be in about the same range and wrote estimates
> on the basis of XY additions.
>
> When they got quotations from Stromberg, they found the Stromberg
> prices were so much higher that they could scrap the old office and
> replace in its entirety with a WE step-by-step offices, including the
> cost of new buildings in both places, for less cost than
> Stromberg-Carlson would charge just for the additional XY equipment.
>
> Wes Leatherock
> wesrock@aol.com
> wleathus@yahoo.com
That is the same reason GTE chose to add SXS i an office that they got
from Calif. Water & Telephone. We removed the XY switch and moved it to
another office and later replaced both offices with EAX type switches.
By then Stromberg was owned by General Dynamics and they were pretty
much out of that type of business.
--
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: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:25:40 +1100
From: user@domain.invalid
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Jamaica running out of phone numbers
Message-ID: <hfl62n$1jk1$1@adenine.netfront.net>
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>
[...]
>> Jamaica was assigned eight million usable numbers in 1997, but is
>> now down to one million, according to Maurice Charvis, OUR deputy
>> director general, due largely to the growth in the mobile market.
[...]
> Jamaica has 2.7 million people, about the size of Chicago. Can they
> prove that the 876 allocations were done efficiently without number
> portability? Of course not. But then, this hasn't prevented NANPA
> from assigning new area codes anywhere else.
[...]
Of course, not everyone has a home phone, a mobile and an office phone (or they would have used more
than 8 million numbers already) but PABX's will have a block of numbers with many spares.
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:23:31 -0800
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Old Caller ID Info on New Provider Caller ID
Message-ID: <siegman-0E3079.07230108122009@news.stanford.edu>
I've been reading this thread on Old Caller ID, and realizing just how
much I don't know about Caller ID -- likely because I'm a seriously
old "Old Caller" myself (nearing 8 decades of calling) and have gotten
seriously out of touch.
My uninformed understanding has always been that Caller ID just
delivers the caller's phone number to the callee's phone; but
apparently it can deliver significantly more information than that
. . . ?
So, who inputs this additional information, or is allowed to input
additional information? And how, and when? What and where is this
mysterious database that telcos are allowed to "dip" into to get this
information? When did it come into existence? And who can "poke" new
info into it?
Any tutoring will be much appreciated.
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:25:51 -0500
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens
Message-ID: <MPG.258872478f0f54d8989c01@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <hfih62$4fs$4@news.eternal-september.org>, sfdavidkaye2
@yahoo.com says...
>
> T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > And where was this darkroom? The local Boys Club.
>
> The local Catholic high school I attended had a better darkroom than I
> had at home, so most of the naked photos I took were developed
> there...
Nice! The whole post-Vatican church was awesomely liberal.
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 17:17:08 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens
Message-ID: <f5f2831e-1f17-4367-a5f2-f45f44e465da@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 7, 4:15 am, sfdavidka...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> In fact, the name Polaroid became synonymous with naked photo. "Do
> you have any Polaroids of her?" meant "Do you have any naked photos of
> her?"
>
> As I developed my own photos I never owned a Polaroid camera. I
> produced my own collection of photos, though. It was amazing how many
> people would pose for photos, too.
>
> So, sexting and cell phone photos are nothing new at all.
Actually, it's two very different things, with a critical distinction.
Back then, not everyone owned a Polaroid nor had access to a darkroom.
Polaroid prints weren't cheap, so duplication was difficult. Further,
back then, lots of kids didn't have cameras at all, if they did, they
were quite cheap; only a rare few had good ones. While b&w duplicates
were cheap, they weren't free, and there was still a cost to darkroom
chemicals and photographic paper, as well as the time involved.
Today, in contrast, virtually every kid has a cellphone with a camera
in it which is far easier to use. No film cartridges, no flashcubes,
no developing. Press a button and it's done.
Most significantly, duplication and distribution is very easy and in
most cases free with simply a click. That's a big problem with
sexting--the pictures get shared and shared again. They could even
get posted to the Internet, which didn't exist back then.
It's the incredible ease and low/no-cost of sharing the photos that
makes this a problem. This also applies to embarassing secret
pictures.
We must remember that information that once stayed hidden in the
bottom of a file cabinet is now easily indexed and accessed remotely
via computers and the Internet. To say an element of information was
"always out then, nothing has changed" is not at all accurate; much
has changed thanks to computers.
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
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) 2009 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 (5 messages)
|
or 