|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 340 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
====== 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, 28 Dec 2009 03:05:09 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Message-ID: <Fh0_m.43789$_b5.29808@newsfe22.iad>
Steven wrote:
> Well the problem I'm having with the DSL is directly related to the
> condition of the cable from their cross connect box. It is over 30
> years old and has all kinds of problems because of bad splices and
> other problems, like leaks; the cable is regulated and the voice
> service for my regular telephone has suffered with noise. AT&T has
> a Franchise agreement with the city and if the PUC can't do anything
> then the city should be able to since they agreed to supply the
> service to the whole city. I'm well aware of how the communications
> business has changed; I have spent more then 40 years in it, 30 with
> GTE.
The telephone voice is fully regulated prior to the demarc. With this
fancy set up, can you still isolate the telephone service at a NID to
prove the problem is on their side?
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:31:54 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Message-ID: <hhbilr$82n$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Sam Spade wrote:
> Steven wrote:
>
>> Well the problem I'm having with the DSL is directly related to the
>> condition of the cable from their cross connect box. It is over 30
>> years old and has all kinds of problems because of bad splices and
>> other problems, like leaks; the cable is regulated and the voice
>> service for my regular telephone has suffered with noise. AT&T has
>> a Franchise agreement with the city and if the PUC can't do
>> anything then the city should be able to since they agreed to
>> supply the service to the whole city. I'm well aware of how the
>> communications business has changed; I have spent more then 40
>> years in it, 30 with GTE.
>
> The telephone voice is fully regulated prior to the demarc. With
> this fancy set up, can you still isolate the telephone service at a
> NID to prove the problem is on their side?
I, as well as AT&T, have proved that the problem is between the demarc
and their cross connect that goes to the main (CO Cable).
I must have gotten someones attention: I got a call from Texas today as
well as a call from the Manager of CORE (DSL). He looked at the 15
trouble tickets and also had the cable checked and found 4 more bridge
taps. He also agrees with me that the reason for U-verse was to get
around the distance problems with DSL. Once they are able to fix the
cable, things should work: if my DSL comes back to what it is rated at
I might not even go to U-Verse. All the cable in my house is CAT 4
and checks out fine. Besides when I first started having problems I
got the cable plan, they replaced a couple of my in house cables using
my Cat 5 cable. I was told that both the PUC as well as the city have
some control over AT&T. Maybe they can get the cable replaced. The
Core Manager is trying to get his engineer to go Fiber to the curb or
house since our cables are so bad and have been for some years. It
all goes back to the U-verse cable conditioning that was done last
year, before that there was no problem with my DSL.
--
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: 28 Dec 2009 10:35:35 -0500
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Message-ID: <hhaj87$hqc$1@panix2.panix.com>
Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
> Well the problem I'm having with the DSL is directly related to the
> condition of the cable from their cross connect box. It is over 30
> years old and has all kinds of problems because of bad splices and
> other problems, like leaks; the cable is regulated and the voice
> service for my regular telephone has suffered with noise. AT&T has
> a Franchise agreement with the city and if the PUC can't do anything
> then the city should be able to since they agreed to supply the
> service to the whole city.
AHA! THAT is different. Time to call the mayor.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:33:43 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Upgrade from DSL to U-verse
Message-ID: <hhbip7$82n$2@news.eternal-september.org>
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
>
>> Well the problem I'm having with the DSL is directly related to the
>> condition of the cable from their cross connect box. It is over 30
>> years old and has all kinds of problems because of bad splices and
>> other problems, like leaks; the cable is regulated and the voice
>> service for my regular telephone has suffered with noise. AT&T has
>> a Franchise agreement with the city and if the PUC can't do anything
>> then the city should be able to since they agreed to supply the
>> service to the whole city.
>
> AHA! THAT is different. Time to call the mayor.
That may not [do] much good, I tried to get him recalled last year, he
has been in several offices for over 25 years.
--
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, 28 Dec 2009 08:59:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Justin Goldberg <justgold79@gmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <40d6d1a4-b1e8-4db7-bdba-b50b8abdd2ca@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
I know this is a total newbie question, but I see many switches which
have more than one area code, where those numbers are not local to
each other, even though they seem to be on the same physical switch.
For example switch NWORLAMODS0 in New Orleans houses the 985-801
exchange as well as 504-212, according to localcallingguide.com.
Rate centre New Orleans, LA Covington, LA
Rate centre V/H 08483/02638 08383/02692
LATA 490 490
Distance* 36 miles 58 km
Local call+ N
Or does a number being on the switch irrevelant with number
portability? Or is there something else I'm missing?
I think the US should keep the old circuit switched system around for
hospitals, 911 and other emergency services, and eliminate long
distance altogether.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:56:49 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <hhav1h$gda$1@reader1.panix.com>
Justin Goldberg <justgold79@gmail.com> writes:
> I know this is a total newbie question, but I see many switches which
> have more than one area code, where those numbers are not local to
> each other, even though they seem to be on the same physical switch.
> For example switch NWORLAMODS0 in New Orleans houses the 985-801
> exchange as well as 504-212, according to localcallingguide.com.
> Rate centre New Orleans, LA Covington, LA
> Rate centre V/H 08483/02638 08383/02692
> LATA 490 490
> Distance* 36 miles 58 km
> Local call+ N
> Or does a number being on the switch irrevelant with number
> portability? Or is there something else I'm missing?
A switch may host a number of remotes, of various smarts. SLC's and
such are dumb mux's, sending all calls back to the host.
ORM's such as BRRDMDBR are more independent; they do much of what the
full 5E does, but still lean on the host that can be up to ?150 miles?
away.
--
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: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:45:43 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <4B394327.2000804@coldmail.com>
David Lesher wrote:
> A switch may host a number of remotes, of various smarts. SLC's and
> such are dumb mux's, sending all calls back to the host.
>
> ORM's such as BRRDMDBR are more independent; they do much of what
> the full 5E does, but still lean on the host that can be up to ?150
> miles? away.
Then, there are the metro end-office switches that are rated both for
the community in which they are located and they also contain a
downtown rated office code to keep down an otherwise high demand for
FEX service.
These may have all but died out by now. But, they were a hot item in
the Los Angeles area for many years.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 02:50:06 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <hhbqou$q6f$1@reader1.panix.com>
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> writes:
>> ORM's such as BRRDMDBR are more independent; they do much of what
>> the full 5E does, but still lean on the host that can be up to ?150
>> miles? away.
> Then, there are the metro end-office switches that are rated both
> for the community in which they are located and they also contain a
> downtown rated office code to keep down an otherwise high demand for
> FEX service.
The ORM above has 2 prefixes; one with DC Metro calling, one local.
It not only spans a county (& calling area) border but also a telco
district. THAT must make their paperwork phun.
--
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: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:08:09 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long Distance On Same Physical Switch
Message-ID: <f3d99cd4-0fd6-4ec9-85a7-ca0871dd2d61@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 28, 11:59 am, Justin Goldberg <justgol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know this is a total newbie question, but I see many switches
> which have more than one area code, where those numbers are not
> local to each other, even though they seem to be on the same
> physical switch.
It's nothing new.
For decades certain urban city switches handled nearby suburban
exchanges, even though the suburban exchange had different calling
plans and was in a different rate center.
Today we can have a situation where a single area code covers multiple
LATAs. People can dial with only 7 digits, but it is handled and
charged as a long distance call when crossing the LATA. Of course
today we [have] many places where two neighbors will have two
different area codes, and we have legacy situations where a cross-
LATA call between two adjacent exchanges (against the border) are
handled as a local call.
Keep in mind that many local and short-haul toll calling plans are
based on ancient legacy practices. While there might not be physical
message-unit registers connected by timer-relay to a phone line, the
billing remains the same in certain areas.
Today many people have unlimited domestic long distance on their home
land line. When I was a kid, that concept was laughable, outward WATS
lines were terribly expensive and only for large companies. I wonder
what percentage of homes [have] that service today. I bet quite a few;
it's not that expensive.
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 (9 messages)
|
or 