|
|
The Telecom Digest for April 15, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 104 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Disney World (Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon) (John Levine)
Re: Disney World (Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon) (Paul)
Re: Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon ... (T)
Re: Cell Phones That Protect Against Deadly Chemicals (AES)
Re: Please do not change your password (T)
Re: Please do not change your password (Stephen)
Re: batteries (was Waiting for Verizon..) (Scott Dorsey)
Re: batteries (was Waiting for Verizon..) (David Clayton)
Re: batteries (was Waiting for Verizon..) (Scott Dorsey)
Re: Cellular network no longer just for phones (Harold Hallikainen)
905 to get another overlay (Chris Farrar)
Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon ... (Jeff or Lisa)
An alternative to the Internet Protocol Suite (Bill Horne)
All-digital cellphone - is this good? Or OK? (jerry)
FWD: Area Code Relief for 289 and 905 in Southern Ontario (Mark J. Cuccia)
Re: Disney History (Gray, Charles)
Re: Disney History (Gray, Charles)
====== 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: 13 Apr 2010 18:37:20 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Disney World (Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon)
Message-ID: <20100413183720.56717.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>It has been stated here before that Disney World's telco is the only
>(or first) "known" ILEC in the North American Network that rejects
>dial pulse dialing, accepting ONLY touch tones. I don't know if this
>is actually true or not, ...
It was definitely in the tariff. Never having tried to plug in a pulse
phone in Celebration, I don't know how the switch was programmed.
R's,
John
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:10:57 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul <pssawyer@comcast.net.INVALID>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Disney World (Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon)
Message-ID: <Xns9D5990475BCF1Senex@188.40.43.213>
Wesrock@aol.com wrote in news:d694.7105d982.38f5d20d@aol.com:
>
> In a message dated 4/13/2010 7:42:08 AM Central Daylight Time,
> markjcuccia@yahoo.com writes:
>
>> Maybe it has to do with the fact that (until a few years ago),
>> Disney OWNED the local telephone company in that area! Yes,
>> Disney bought swamp land in the mid-1960s in an uninhabited area
>> which still had NO tariffed or "classified" telephone company
>> as far as the Florida Public Service Commission was concerned.
>> Neither Southern Bell, nor General Telephone, nor whoever
>> another nearby telco that later became part of United (later
>> Sprint, later Embarq, now part of CenturyLink after Embarq merged
>> with CenturyTel).
>
>> Thus, Disney actually became its "own" telephone company for the
>> Walt Disney World area. For many years in the 1980s/90s-era, they
>> were a joint-venture with United though, known as something like
>> "United/ Vista" or "United/Buena Vista" (I forget exactly).
>> Buena Vista is a name that the Disney organization uses,
>> probably because one of the streets in Burbank CA where Disney
>> Studios is located is Buena Vista Blvd; Buena Vista Records is
>> the recording/music arm of Disney.
>
>> In more recent years, Disney and United/Sprint must have ceased
>> their joint-venture as Sprint/Vista in the Disney World area, and
>> Disney either sold their telco, or went into another joint
>> venture, with Smart City Telecom.
>
>> It has been stated here before that Disney World's telco is the
>> only (or first) "known" ILEC in the North American Network that
>> rejects dial pulse dialing, accepting ONLY touch tones. I don't
>> know if this is actually true or not, but considering that Disney
>> owns their own telco, and the only "residential" customers had
>> been employees living at Disney World, Sprint/Vista or
>> United/Vista or whatever they call themselves, "owned"
>> everything, probably including the actual telephone units. The
>> residential units were still Disney property, not the same as
>> regular leased apartments. (And even then, there has also been
>> "shared tenant service" offered in some places, and I wonder if
>> the apartment owner can "dictate" as to what type of telephone
>> the lessees can use? Thankfully, "STS" is not as widespread as it
>> could have been!)
>
> Disney has an unusual situation in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, the
> corporate name of the city. They own the town, including the
> municipal government. Any businesses they allow to locate there
> have to pay municiapl taxes to Lake Buena Vista, which is indeed
> paying taxes to Disney. I believe they own the other utlities,
> too, not just the telephine company.
>
> Wes Leatherock
> wesrock@aol.com
> wleathus@yahoo.com
Reedy Creek Improvement District - runs most everyting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reedy_Creek_Energy_Services
--
Paul
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:17:53 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon, to Join Toll-Free 800, 888, 877, 866 Area Codes
Message-ID: <MPG.262e8d69949af93d989cc7@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <008e01cad96a$2b7ea000$c800000a@mishmash>, fred@remove-
this.remove-this.wb4aej.com says...
> > "DSMI, the FCC's designated Toll Free Administrator, has notified
> > the FCC of the projected exhaust of current toll free numbers and
> > requested approval to release the 855 NPA code. Timeframe for
> > availability of 855 numbers is no later than 4Q-2011."
>
> The thing that seems odd is that [with the cost of long distance very
> low or non-existant on my telephone services] is why there is such a need
> for toll-free numbers any more. When everyone gets flat rate long distance
> [and that day is coming], they will be of no additional value over
> standard numbers.
>
> So why is there such a big rush to growth on them?
The other benefit is that depending on the 800 carrier you're using,
they'll deliver real time ANI as CLID. You get the actually billing
number and they cannot block it.
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:11:07 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cell Phones That Protect Against Deadly Chemicals
Message-ID: <siegman-F13909.11110713042010@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>
In article <4BC317FB.4070408@thadlabs.com>,
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> I feel this is a brilliant idea.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100409162722.htm
I agree, in part.
But given the ubiquitous distribution and the vast number of cellphones,
I suggest an even better approach would be for every cellphone (or any
other phone-capable mobile device) to contain one randomly assigned
sensor from a broader set of simple, non-user-accessible,
non-user-controllable, single-threat sensor devices that would simply
monitor for some single potentially threatening physical quantity in its
local environment -- e.g., it might measure some indicator of low-level
nuclear radiation, or of some specific chemical or even just smoke, or
whatever single indicator it was designed to detect.
If this indicator crossed some threshold (which might be well below the
immediately dangerous level at its location) the phone would (without
user involvement or even awareness) "phone home" to some central number,
give its serial number, location, an indication of what it measured, and
hang up.
The automated home base for this system would likely receive, and expect
to receive, an enormous number of calls that would actually be false
positives, which it would be smart enough to filter and ignore. But if
it began to receive a much larger cloud of such calls from a limited
geographical area for any one specific indicator, it would recognize
this and alert its human operators that there might be a problem here.
In other words, this idea is potentially much more valuable as a very
low cost, highly automated, near ubiquitous early-warning mechanism for
multiple kinds of threats and disasters than it is as a local warning
device for the individual who's carrying the cellphone.
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:25:13 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Please do not change your password
Message-ID: <MPG.262e8f26c7d9c877989cc8@news.eternal-september.org>
In article
<xPCdnVLvvpCZyl7WnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com says...
>
> In article <4BC29BD6.5080402@thadlabs.com>,
> Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> >On 4/11/2010 7:48 PM, Monty Solomon wrote:
> >> Please do not change your password
> >> You were right: It's a waste of your time. A study says much computer
> >> security advice is not worth following.
> >> [...]
> >
> >One can legitimately argue some passwords SHOULD be changed.
> >
> >As a good example of which, consider these cracked passwords which
> >can be seen in the bottom page margin on page 40 of the April 2010
> >hardcopy issue of WIRED:
> >
> > Paris Hilton: TINKERBELL
> > SARAH PALIN: WASILLA HIGH
> > MILEY CYRUS: LOC092
> > SALMA HAYEK: FRIDA
> >LINDSAY LOHAN: 1234
>
>
> Then there is the classical 'good' password:
>
> MickeyMinniePlutoHueyLouieDeweyDonaldGoofySacramento
>
>
> Purportedly used by a blonde, as in "Helloooo -- they said it had to be
> eight characters and a capital!"
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I'm sure that the poster's remark is not made with any malice toward
> any particular person with light colored hair.
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
Or LEETize it. Tinkerbell would become 7iNk3rbE1l
***** Moderator's Note *****
Bad idea! "Leet" speak is a well-known variant of American English,
and therefore subject to dictionary attack.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:08:15 +0100
From: Stephen <stephen_hope@xyzworld.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Please do not change your password
Message-ID: <o14cs559c51k36vf3ncrcaemtqmao7k2up@4ax.com>
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 22:48:15 -0400, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
wrote:
>Please do not change your password
>You were right: It's a waste of your time. A study says much computer
>security advice is not worth following.
>
>By Mark Pothier | April 11, 2010
>
>To continue reading this story, enter your password now. If you do
>not have a password, please create one. It must contain a minimum of
>eight characters, including upper- and lower-case letters and one
>number. This is for your own good.
>
>Nonsense, of course, but it helps illustrate a point: You will need a
>computer password today, maybe a half dozen or more - those secret
>sign-ins that serve as sentries for everything from Amazon shopping
>carts to work files to online bank accounts. Just when you have them
>all sorted out, along comes another "urgent" directive from the bank
>or IT department - time to reset those codes, for safety's sake. And
>the latest lineup of log-ins you've concocted won't last for long,
>either. Some might temporarily stay in your head, others are jotted
>on scraps of paper and stuffed in a wallet. A few might be taped to
>your computer monitor in plain view (or are those are from last
>year's batch? Who can remember?).
>
>Now, a study has concluded what lots of us have long suspected: Many
>of these irritating security measures are a waste of time. The study,
>by a top researcher at Microsoft, found that instructions intended to
>spare us from costly computer attacks often exact a much steeper
>price in the form of user effort and time expended.
>
>...
>
>http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/04/11/please_do_not_change_your_password/
This topic seems to have caught fire - although lots of sites hide the
refs to the original doc.
Maybe the globe refers to this one:
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/cormac/papers/2009/solongandnothanks.pdf
(even if it doesnt - much easier to read without all that ad clutter)
Note - it does not say that passwords are not good security and that
we dont need them.
What it goes on about is that the cost for a user of mucking around
with passwords vastly outwieghs the benefits, so using the same
password in lots of different sites, and choosing simple easy to
remember ones is a sensible tradeoff - for a user.
There is some other discussion of cost benefit to other security
advice as well.
It also concentrates on consumer cost benefits....
... or maybe
http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/74162/hotsec07.pdf
Stephen
--
Regards
stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl
Date: 13 Apr 2010 16:09:29 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: batteries (was Waiting for Verizon..)
Message-ID: <hq2j1p$ppv$1@panix2.panix.com>
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Apr 7, 12:49 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> No, they are not as rugged as any battery gets. They won't last more
>> than two or three deep discharges; the plates will warp and the cells will
>> short out and then you pitch them.
>
>A question about 'deep discharges' for a car battery. If someone
>leaves their headlights on and the 'battery runs down', is that a
>"deep discharge" situation? That is, if someone does that, have they
>ruined their car battery and need a replacement?
Do that two or three times and your battery won't hold a charge at all. Doing
this dramatically shortens the life of your battery.
>One time my alternator died. My mechanic said I'd be ok driving from
>home to his garage for a fix. While there he had to add water to the
>battery (this was some years ago). Did a situation like that
>constitute a "deep discharge"?
Possibly. May have been fine, may not have, depending on how far the battery
voltage dropped. Used to be cars had a voltmeter on the instrument panel so
you could see that you were down below 12V and possibly doing some harm to the
battery.
>Side note 2: I wish I could remember where I read the technical
>description of dry cells intended for magneto local-battery telephone
>service or "intermitent use". I recall seeing such No. 6 cells in
>magneto phones so marked. Such cells had a chemistry intended for
>such service and was able to replenish itself a bit after a brief use,
>extending their lifespan. Said description also explained how they
>made "heavy duty" dry cells.
> Apparently there were various types of carbon-zinc chemistries for
>industrial service dry cell batteries that ordinary consumers wouldn't
>see.
Primary cells and rechargeable accumulator cells are very different things.
I think what you're talking about are "heavy duty" batteries which use a
manganese-dioxide electrolyte and then a zinc chloride layer around the
zinc casing instead of the ammonium chloride that "regular" batteries used.
This reduces self-discharge so the batteries don't go bad as quickly in
intermittent service, and it also increases the current for brief time spans.
> Actually, I haven't seen the old style batteries sold in a long
>time; everything in common consumer stores is alkaline or a newer
>type. However, the old style type are often included with TV remote
>units or packaged with cheap flashlights.
That would be a "heavy duty" battery, which has been pretty much entirely
replaced by alkaline batteries today.
>Side note 3: With cell phone batteries, do the batteries sold today
>have the "memory" problem, that is, is it necessary or prudent to
>discharge them fully before recharging them? It seems most people
>recharge their cell phones at their convenience, not waiting until
>the phone is completely drained, and they get a great many charging
>cycles out of their. (On my current cellphone, a plain vanilla LG, I
>get four hours of talk time per charge, which I guess is good.)
No battery has had memory for the past thirty years or so. You're much
more apt to damage any sort of battery stack by fully discharging it than
not.
Cell phone batteries today usually have computer control inside with a
little processor that equalizes the load between the individual cells
both on charging and discharging, to make the cells last a lot longer,
so none of these issues are a problem.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 08:31:28 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: batteries (was Waiting for Verizon..)
Message-ID: <pan.2010.04.14.22.31.25.138848@myrealbox.com>
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:09:29 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
........
>>Side note 3: With cell phone batteries, do the batteries sold today have
>>the "memory" problem, that is, is it necessary or prudent to discharge
>>them fully before recharging them? It seems most people recharge their
>>cell phones at their convenience, not waiting until the phone is
>>completely drained, and they get a great many charging cycles out of
>>their. (On my current cellphone, a plain vanilla LG, I get four hours of
>>talk time per charge, which I guess is good.)
>
> No battery has had memory for the past thirty years or so. You're much
> more apt to damage any sort of battery stack by fully discharging it than
> not.
Ni-cad batteries that were in my 1990's phone certainly had "memory
effect" issues and would lose capacity quickly if not treated with
care.
Things are better now but that started to turn around about 8-10 years
ago when Ni-MH cells were becoming more common.
As for "no battery has had memory" etc, Duracell say all batteries do
have this characteristic:
http://www1.duracell.com/oem/rechargeable/Nickel/voltdep.asp
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: 13 Apr 2010 16:11:20 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: batteries (was Waiting for Verizon..)
Message-ID: <hq2j58$5mq$1@panix2.panix.com>
Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
>I have a few batteries (12V), they were made for AT&T and we used them
>on remote sites, they are about half the size of a car battery. The
>data on them says they are a 10 year battery, The company would
>replace them about once a year. I use them on my very old and very
>very large UPS. I can run it for 5 plus hours on both of my computers
>and a few other small radios. I guess I'm under using them, but all
>of them are over 10 years old and still hold the same charge as when I
>first got them. I have not seen then [for sale] in years, so I guess
>when [these] do go I'll have to look for something [else] to replace
>them.
These are most-likely lead-iron float cells. Very poor energy density,
but amazingly rugged and they will last a lot longer than ten years if
you're careful. I have seen fifty-year-old lighting systems that still
met original specs.
Float cells are still available for telco applications and emergency lighting
systems, but you don't want to know what they cost.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: "harold@hallikainen.com" <harold@hallikainen.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cellular network no longer just for phones
Message-ID: <4182e23f-3783-4ff2-af28-322367ee02f2@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Does anyone know what cellular networks are charging for data services
when a company has a large number of devices but each uses little
traffic? I see the existing cellular network as a great way to send
low volume data from millions of devices. My wife's Kindle is a great
example. The price of transmission is built in to the books she buys.
There is no monthly charge for cellular access. Other possible
applications include utility time of use metering and load management,
GPS tracking of trucks and buses, etc. I think a great application
would be a voice interface to GPS tracking of buses. Someone waiting
for a bus uses their cellphone to call the number on the bus stop
sign. They key in the stop number from the sign. By voice, the
computer at the other end tells them how many minutes until each bus
arrives and where it's going.
Anyway, what do cellular carriers charge for this type of service? Is
there a web page somewhere with rates?
Thanks!
Harold
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:17:59 -0400
From: Chris Farrar <cfarrar.remove-this@and-this-too.sympatico.ca>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: 905 to get another overlay
Message-ID: <20100413161759.0efh963cgss4okws-psneene@webmail.spamcop.net>
The CRTC today announced that the 905 area code will get a second
overlay, 365. The new area code will go active starting March 2011.
This is the first time in Canada a third area code has been created
for a single region.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/794474--booming-905-gets-365-as-new-area-code?bn1
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon ...
Message-ID: <e5bfc40e-b4f9-4e4e-b789-1c697941e537@u34g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 12, 10:20 am, Wesr...@aol.com wrote:
> I have noticed recently a number of commercials giving only an 800
> (etc.) for a business I believe is a local business and in some
> cases I know it is (a car dealer). In many cases I don't want to
> deal with an 800 number but a local business where I can see their
> product and discuss other questions that would not be appropriate to
> deal with a distant place. I don't see any problem in a business
> that gives its local number and an 800 number (the latter being
> useful for out-of-town potential customers).
In the old days businesses often gave three numbers--toll free for out
of state callers, toll free for in-state callers, and the local
number. But lately a great many businesses give out only the 800 (8xx
toll free) number, not even a local number. I think one reason is to
have less confusion over the number--many businesses have an 800
number that spells out their name or service. Also, as others
mentioned, they get the customer's ANI.
But another reason is that many businesses today want callers to go to
the call service center, not the local outlet; they don't want local
branches bothered by telephone calls. I agree with you that this is
undesirable, but apparently businesses think it saves money by having
a call center. I've seen large banks, department stores, and the US
Post Office all have their directory listing as a national 800 number.
> I can also assure that for many people the costs of long distance are
> not irrelevant, no matter how small, and many of them are not aware of
> the many options available to lower their long distance calls. Not
> everyone is as telecom-savvy as the people in this group.
Making things harder for the average consumer is that carriers
frequently change their calling plans. A consumer gets into a good
plan, but a year later the plan is dropped and the consumer must call
again to sign up for a new plan. Banks do this as well with their
account fee policies. Many modern services are not regulated at all
so carriers can change their plans and rates any time without much or
even any notice. They put so many ads and irrelevent junk in one's
phone bill that it's difficult for the average consumer to keep up.
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:06:12 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: An alternative to the Internet Protocol Suite
Message-ID: <4BC65874.4090504@speakeasy.net>
Fred Goldstein, who is an occasional poster to the Digest, has teamed
up with John Day from Boston University to advocate replacing the
Internet's current protocol suite (which is called TCP/IP although
there are many more parts to it) with a more flexible and secure
architecture.
The full publication is here:
http://www.ionary.com/PSOC-MovingBeyondTCP.pdf.
Bill Horne
--
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: jerry <jjwolf6@verizon.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: All-digital cellphone - is this good? Or OK?
Message-ID: <3d244665-1518-4acd-8808-2d6c0409863d@b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
I was looking at replacement cellphones in the local Verizon Wireless
store recently. On the recommended model (LG Accolade), I read on the
box what I interpret as a warning: "This is an all digital phone.
Digital service is not available in all areas, and when not available
your phone will not operate or be able to make 911 calls." I observed
to the salesdude that my current phone is a dual-mode phone, such that
when it doesn't detect digital service, it defaults to analog service
and works that way. What about a dual-mode phone?
His response was that analog service doesn't exist any more, and "it's
all digital." So one no longer needs a dual-mode phone. If that's
true, then why does the box bear the warning I quoted? Well, that was
his story, and he's sticking to it.
Please enlighten me. Does the need for a dual-mode phone no longer
exist in this country (U.S.A.)? Or does such an all-digital phone now
do everything one needs?
cheers,
jerry
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:21:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mark J. Cuccia" <markjcuccia@remove-this.yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: FWD: Area Code Relief for 289 and 905 in Southern Ontario
Message-ID: <179122.58211.qm@web31102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
On Tue, 4/13/10, Ray <czg.lists at gmail.com> posted the following to
the Yahoo Group "Local Calling Guide":
> CRTC decision, Tuesday, April 13, 2010:
>
> http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-213.htm
>
> In this decision, the Commission determines that relief for area codes
> 289 and 905 is to be provided by overlaying the area served by those
> area codes with new area code 365, starting on 25 March 2013.
The CNA's (Canadian Numbering Administrator) website has some earlier
documents on area code relief planning for the additional 365 overlay
to the already existing 905/289 overlay in southeastern Ontario outside
of Toronto ON "itself", but in the Toronto Metro area and surrounding
such. (NOTE that the extreme southeastern Ontario area of Ottawa ON/etc
is 613, to be overlaid with 343 about this time next month, the second
half of May 2010; And Toronto "itself" is 416 overlaid with 647, more
on that later).
It was previously anticipated that 365 would overlay 905/289 during the
2015 time period, but apparently this has been pushed up earlier due to
an earlier re-projected exhaust of 289.
It was also previously thought that 367 would be an even further future
overlay to 905/289/365 at some future date, BUT the Canadian telco
industry has decided that 742 would be a better further future overlay
to 905/289/365.
Some history...
- 905 split from 416 permissive in Fall 1993, mandatory in Spring 1994.
- 289 overlaid 905 in late-Spring-2001, with ten-digit local intra-905
dialing phased-in to become mandatory earlier during 2001.
- 647 overlaid 416 Toronto "itself" in early-Sprint-2001, with ten-digit
local intra-416 dialing phased-in to become mandatory during the months
preceding.
There were dates that the Canadian telco industry proposed for this
365 overlay to 905/289, but these are being re-adjusted with the
moving up of this overlay by two years.
The earlier proposed effective overlay date, when new (pre-assigned)
365-NXX (non-test) c.o.codes could begin to take effect WAS intended
for Saturday 24-October-2015. That date has now been changed to
Monday 25-March-2013 with the CRTC order.
The earlier proposed date when service providers could begin requesting
(pre) assignment of new 365-NXX (non-test) c.o.codes from SAIC-CNA would
have been Friday 24-April-2015. It is likely that this will now be moved
to Monday 24-September-2012.
Ten-digit dialing has been mandatory within 905 (and 289) ever since
2001, so there is no need to "phase-in" mandatory ten-digit dialing
with this 365 overlay to 905/289.
There will obviously be (at least) three test number "pairs", each pair
consisting of a (NOT "supposed" to) supervise/bill/charge -8378 (TEST)
line-number AND an intended-to-supervise -2455 (BILL) line-number.
- ILEC Bell Canada (OCN 8051) will have 365-610-TEST/BILL.
- CLEC (MTS) Allstream (OCN 8304) will have 365-810-TEST/BILL.
- CLEC Rogers will have 365-510-TEST/BILL
(?Call-Net 8377; ?Rogers-Cable 743B)
It is always possible that additional CLECs in the Toronto Metro area
might request test/bill number pairs for the new 365 area code overlay.
Since the affected area is right outside of Toronto "itself", the CLECs
who implement test-numbers will have their own facility-based c.o.switches
in either Toronto "itself" or additional c.o.switches in the surrounding
communities. Allstream is likely to have an NT-500 (aka DMS-500); Rogers
is likely to have a Lucent-Alcatel 5ESS-2000. Bell Canada (ILEC) obviously
has switches in all communities in the vicinity, mostly all DMS-100.
The verbage for the test-number announcement should be English "only",
bi-lingual with French is not likely for the Toronto Metro area:
"You have successfully completed a call,
to the 3-6-5 Area Code Test Number,
at [CARRIER NAME] in Ontario Canada."
The test/bill numbers/c.o.codes effective date WAS to have been no later
than Saturday 25-July-2015. This should be re-adjusted to no later than
Monday 24-December-2012.
The test/bill numbers/c.o.codes discontinue date WAS to have been no
earlier than Tuesday 24-November-2015. This should be re-adjusted to no
earlier than Thursday 25-April-2013.
ALL ratecenters in the 905/289/365 NPA region (some 94 total) have
Bell Canada (8051) for the ILEC. There are NO independent telcos in
the 905/289 area code region. (There USED to be a batch of "Contel"
ratecenters, the local names being "Central Community Telephone" and
"Dunnville Telephone", until Contel sold both to Bell in the late 1970s.
All of "Bell" is the original "Bell", not anything partitioned into
"Bell-Aliant" for management purposes -- this has happened in more rural
parts of Ontario and Quebec though...
The 416/647 NPA has ONE and ONLY one ratecenter, Toronto ON "itself",
which is obviously Bell for the ILEC. It is currently projected to need
another overlay circa 2016. It is likely to have its OWN UNIQUE NEW
overlay area code, 437, reserved for this further overlay. At this time,
it does NOT seem likely that the Canadian telco industry will propose
to the CRTC to allow 365 to expand to include the 416/647 Toronto ON
ratecenter as well.
Some additional reserved (or POSSIBLY reserved) area codes for specific
existing area codes in Canada:
- NL/709: 879 (not likely to take effect for a LONG time to come!)
- NS-and-PEI/902: 942
- NB/506: 428
- PQ/819/873: 871 (the 819/873 overlay is expected for 2013 as well)
- ON/613/343: 568 (the 613/343 overlay is next month, May 2010)
- ON/519/226: 548
- ON/807: 460 (not likely to take effect for a LONG time to come!)
- SK/306: 474
- AB/403/780/587: 825 (was noted as reserved when 587 was taking effect)
- BC/604/250/778: 236 (was noted as reserved when 778 expanded to overlay
ALL of BC, 604 AND 250)
The Canadian telco industry has NOT recommended a specific code to
overlay Yukon/NWT/Nunavut at some future date, since this date would
probably be several hundred years into the future!
And while not in Canada, the code "guessed at" to overlay 907 Alaska,
which might be in only a few years, could be 560. The Regulatory
Commission of Alaska (ironically RCA, but not Sarnoff's Radio Corporation
of America; and Sarnoff's RCA did own Alascom in the 1970s, sold to PTI
in the 1980s, and then in 1994 was taken over by AT&T), NeuStar-NANPA,
and the telcos operating in Alaska have begun some studies into relief
for 907 which is likely to be needed in another few years!
Finally, note that while the CRTC hasn't yet approved the overlay or the
dates, it is VERY LIKLEY that 431 will overlay 204 (all of) Manitoba
(pending CRTC approval expected within a few months) during 2012. This
is yet another overlay that was previously expected to be needed in 2015
but is now projected to be needed THREE years earlier!
Currently Proposed dates:
Saturday 04-February-2012
Begin the week-long phase-in of the reminder period for any 7-D dialed
local intra-204 calls.
Saturday 21-April-2012
Begin the week-long phase-in of the MANDATORY ten-digit dialing
announcement for any 7-D dialed intra-204 calls.
Saturday 05-May-2012
when (pre-assigned) 431-NXX c.o.codes can begin to take effect in the
network and assignment of -xxxx line-numbers on these new 431-NXX codes.
These codes can begin to be pre-assigned by SAIC-CNA to requesting
service providers as early as Saturday 05-November-2011.
431-NXX Test-Numbers/C.O.Codes start date:
Friday 03-February-2012
431-NXX Test-Numbers/C.O.Codes discontinue date:
Tuesday 05-June-2012
The ILEC, MTS, will have 431-610-TEST/BILL.
MTS' Allstream CLEC/competitive-IXC subsidiary (which MTS acquired about
five years ago -- it had been the old Unitel/AT&T-Canada) also has a
CLEC switch in Winnipeg, but will "both" MTS-ILEC 431-610 AND 431-810
for MTS' Allstream CLEC exist?
At this time, Rogers' CLEC (neither Call-Net formerly Sprint-Canada,
nor Rogers Cable CLEC) has NO landline CLEC presence in 204/Manitoba.
However, Bell's CLEC side, Bell-West, is active in Winnipeg.
It will be interesting to see exactly who has test/bill-numbers for the
431 overlay to 204!
And the Winnipeg MB 431 NPA Overlay Test (and Bill) Numbers are also
quite likely to be English ONLY, and NOT bi-lingual with any French.
Mark J. Cuccia
markjcuccia at yahoo dot com
Lafayette LA, formerly of New Orleans LA pre-Katrina
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:16:18 -0500
From: "Gray, Charles" <charles.gray@okstate.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Disney History
Message-ID: <18AC66D00A844644BF202001BCE0FE26039C32B1F5@STWEXE3.ad.okstate.edu>
Walt Disney bought up the property for Walt Disney World anonymously
(mostly) and named the area the "Reedy Creek Development District"
which is still the legal name today. They have their own security
(police) force and fire department. Sometimes they allow the Orange
County Sheriff on the premises, but Reedy Creek Security handles (that
is, keeps quiet) most incidents. There was an article in (I think)
Smithsonian magzine a couple of years ago that gave a lot of
background.
I have a granddaughter who works in the call center there, and her
mother (my daughter) is an overnight "duty manager".
Regards.
Charles G. Gray
Senior Lecturer - Telecommunications
Oklahoma State University
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:16:18 -0500
From: "Gray, Charles" <charles.gray@okstate.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Disney History
Message-ID: <18AC66D00A844644BF202001BCE0FE26039C32B1F5@STWEXE3.ad.okstate.edu>
Walt Disney bought up the property for Walt Disney World anonymously
(mostly) and named the area the "Reedy Creek Development District"
which is still the legal name today. They have their own security
(police) force and fire department. Sometimes they allow the Orange
County Sheriff on the premises, but Reedy Creek Security handles (that
is, keeps quiet) most incidents. There was an article in (I think)
Smithsonian magzine a couple of years ago that gave a lot of
background.
I have a granddaughter who works in the call center there, and her
mother (my daughter) is an overnight "duty manager".
Regards.
Charles G. Gray
Senior Lecturer - Telecommunications
Oklahoma State University
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 (17 messages)
|
or 