The Telecom Digest for October 06, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 268 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 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
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, 4 Oct 2010 09:59:15 -0500
From: "Gray, Charles" <email@example.com>
Subject: ESS Switch Uptime
The reliability target on the WeCo 5ESS was/is 99.999% (the famous "five
nines"). Actually, it comes out to 99.99943% "up time". That calculates to
two hours (not seconds) of down time in 40 years.
Charles G. Gray
Senior Lecturer, Telecommunications
Oklahoma State University - Tulsa
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 11:14:01 -0700
From: Sam Spade <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: ESS Switch Uptime
Gray, Charles wrote:
> The reliability target on the WeCo 5ESS was/is 99.999% (the famous "five
> nines"). Actually, it comes out to 99.99943% "up time". That calculates to
> two hours (not seconds) of down time in 40 years.
> Charles G. Gray
> Senior Lecturer, Telecommunications
> Oklahoma State University - Tulsa
> (918) 594-8433
It also requires a definition of "down time" and "up time." I recall a
line module failure on an early No 1ESS that took three days to
diagnose, then repair. 1,000 customers assigned to that module (frame)
were out of service for those three days. But, the other 20,000-plus
subscribers assigned to that switch were unaffected.
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 05:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <email@example.com>
Subject: 'Robo-call' law in limbo after lawsuit fails
This is a story about a man, a message, a federal lawsuit and some
very unintended consequences.
James Cubbage is an Olympia businessman who came home one day last
year to this prerecorded message on his answering machine: "Hi, it's
Julie calling from Talbots with a reminder that you have only a few
days left to take advantage of your exclusive 20 percent savings pass
and free shipping...
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:07:43 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: 'Robo-call' law in limbo after lawsuit fails
In <email@example.com> Joseph Singer <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>This is a story about a man, a message, a federal lawsuit and some
>very unintended consequences.
>James Cubbage is an Olympia businessman who came home one day last
>year to this prerecorded message on his answering machine: "Hi, it's
>Julie calling from Talbots with a reminder that you have only a few
>days left to take advantage of your exclusive 20 percent savings pass
>and free shipping...
I don't see the (bigger) problem here. For better or worse, the
man's wife was a customer of the store, and they took advantage
of that "pre existing relationship" loophole.
So the law, in general, hasn't been vacated.
(That's not to say the law is anywhere near perfect. It's
pretty lame, and rarely enforced. I just receiver Yet Another
Robot Call from "Rachel of Account Services", a business that's
gazillions of complaints to the FTC and related regulatory
groups, and ain't nothing happening).
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 07:59:23 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Rahm Emanuel leaving white house
Robert Bonomi <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Joseph Singer <email@example.com> wrote:
>>I was under the impression that all 312 numbers were no longer
>>available and you'd have to get another area code which was overlaid
>>on the 312 area.
>"Not Exactly" applies.
>Yes, 312 was "running short" of unassigned numbers, so an overlay area-
>code was allocated, and activated earlier this year.
>However, cell carriers (_and_ wireline carriers, for that matter) get
>"blocks" of numbers assigned to them, which they then dole out one-by-one
>If a cell carrier has a reserve of '312' numbers there's no problem in
>getting a phone with at 312-area number from them.
Another point is that cell phone rating points might have any area code,
ignoring area code geography that would be used by a telephone company
land line number. It's even possible to get 312 numbers at suburban
rating points as the cell phone companies never turned their original
pools back for re-assignment after the 312/708 split. Those of us who
went through it recall that our cell phone providers insisted on forcing
708 numbers on us even though the 312 numbers were never returned
to the pool.
>Secondly, there is a constant 'churn' of phone numbers -- people leave
>the area and discontinue service, just for one example. when this happens,
>that number is available for 're-assignment' to somebody else.
Of course, and numbers tend to be reassigned quickly.
>I recently (last month) signed up for "Google Voice" and had the choice
>of a whole bunch of 312 area numbers. In that respect, I've got at
>least as much 'clout' as Mr. Emmanuel does. <grin>
Google Voice numbers are from Bandwidth.com CLEC, a company that supplies
phone numbers to any VoIP provider. As far as I know, none of the VoIP
providers have their own number pools.
Whoa. Getting line numbers assigned automatically by a neutral third
party upon request. Too bad no one thought of this years ago before Chicago
area got 11 area codes, up from the original two. Bet we could have survived
Date: 5 Oct 2010 20:05:27 -0000
From: John Levine <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid
>In Australia Mastercard are introducing the "Swipe and go" system where
>you just wave your card at a terminal for transactions under under a
>certain amount - no signing, not PIN to enter, just grab your receipt and
>go (TV ads are running now promoting it).
That's called Paypass. My Mastercard debit card here in the US has
it, but I've never used it. If my credit card had it, I would use it.
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:25:27 -0400
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Help needed differentiating email, texting and SMS
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 18:48:37 -0400, Thad Floryan <email@example.com> wrote:
> ... I know for a fact my phone receives email sent to the
> "firstname.lastname@example.org" address, but what is this method termed?
> Is it SMS or simply email? ...
As ever, "that depends" -- does it come through with all characters
that were beyond the first 150 or so truncated away?
If so, that was SMS.
Does it come through in its entirety (except perhaps missing some
graphics components)? If so, that was probably either MMS or real
My own handsets segregate inbound messages into separate IN-boxes,
one for SMS items, one for MMS items. (They don't "do" email.)
(MMS = "MultimediaMessageService", SMS = "ShortMessageService".)
In T-Mobile's service, I have yet to come up with any reliable criterion
for determining whether an email addressed to my "email@example.com"
gets delivered to me as an SMS or an MMS at the handset -- I've received
emails either way, at different times, with neither rhyme nor reason
(nor even T-Mo CS) able to provide any clue as to why :-) .
I can imagine that a suitably set up Blackberry will receive an email
simply as an email.
HTH; and cheers, -- tlvp
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
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
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
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: firstname.lastname@example.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: email@example.com?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
End of The Telecom Digest (7 messages)