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

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

The Telecom Digest for July 05, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 165 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Battery power support today(Sam Spade)
Re: Battery power support today(Sam Spade)
New mobiles study doubts cancer risks(David Clayton)
Re: Battery power support today(Sam Spade)
Re: "Underground" demarc?(Wes Leatherock)

====== 29 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 Bill Horne 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: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 16:48:41 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Battery power support today Message-ID: <LPydnQuNiOBHYo3TnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@giganews.com> David Scheidt wrote: > Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote: > :David Lesher wrote: > :> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> writes: > :> > :> > :>>The exception was a pair-gain provision such as the Bell Systems SLC 96, > :>>which was used in rural areas and in areas of rapid residential > :>>construction. I believe the terminating SLC 96 box had to have local > :>>power. Anyone know differently? > :> > :> > :> Oh yes, SLC's need power. > :> > :> > :>>I imagine SLC 96s are long gone for residential suburban areas > :>>but they likely still exist in some rural areas. > :> > :> > :> I was just in Aptos/Watsonville CA region, and there are > :> SLC-96's on every other corner. The giveway is the line of > :> shiny T1 repeater cans feeding same. > > :Both of those areas are a mix of suburban and remote rural areas. I can > :understand the SLC 96 on a road back in the hills of Aptos where the > :there are long distances with no houses, then a cluster of house. But, > :if pair gain is being used in the suburban part of Aptos I would think > :AT&T would be getting heat from the CPUC. > > Why? Modern nodes support all the services that are expected, like > DSL, television, etc. They're fed with high speed backhaul (often > fiber in dense areas). One word: concentration. It's been a long time, but my recollection is that the concentration ratio is 6:1. So, no more than 16 subscribers out of the 96 that are likely connected in a suburban area will get dial tone at any given time. For suburban areas SLC 96s were only suppose to be used until the LEC could provide dedicated subscriber loop. ***** Moderator's Note ***** IIRC, SLC-96's in "Mode 2", at least the way N.E.T. used them, were able to provide 100% dialtone (within the limits of the associated CO, of course), because they used "half rate" sampling to allow 48 channels per T-1 span. SLC-96 units had special common boards, and if they were inserted into "Mode 3" SLC-96 carriers by mistake, a 1000 Hz test tone would be received at 2000 Hz. I don't think N.E.T. ever concentrated subscriber lines going through SLC-96 in a way that would deny dial tone at any time, but that may have been only in Massachusetts: in the 1960's, the company had installed electromechanical concentrators to maximize cable usage in low-profit areas, but the DPU made N.E.T. remove them because of political backlash. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 16:50:50 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Battery power support today Message-ID: <LPydnQqNiODHnYzTnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@giganews.com> David Lesher wrote: > The CPUC regulates phone service. They have no control over DSL > & beyond. It's up to PacBell [1] how they get get dialtone to > 28 Barbary Line or similar. And since the DS1 fed SLC's are sunk > cost; why would they change them out? Thus, they regulate local loop for voice services.
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:27:07 +1000 From: David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: New mobiles study doubts cancer risks Message-ID: <pan.2011.> http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/new-mobiles-study-doubts-cancer-risks-20110702-1gvyo.html New mobiles study doubts cancer risks Kristen Hallam July 3, 2011 MOBILE phones may not increase the risk of brain cancer, a study has found, just a month after the World Health Organisation said using the devices may cause tumours. Studies from several countries have failed to show an increase in brain tumours, up to 20 years after mobile phones were introduced and 10 years after the technology became widespread, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection's committee on epidemiology wrote in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. The findings of the committee, which included scientists from Australia, challenge those of an International Agency for Research on Cancer review. However, the debate is likely to continue because data is limited and researchers cannot prove the complete absence of an impact on the world's 4.6 billion mobile users. ''This is a really difficult issue to research,'' David Spiegelhalter, the Winton professor of the public understanding of risk at the University of Cambridge, said. ''This report is clear that any risk appears to be so small that it is very hard to detect.'' The International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection sets guidelines for exposure limits to radiation, including radio frequency fields emitted by mobile phones. The panel reviewed all previous studies on the link between mobile phone use and brain tumours, including the largest epidemiological study to date, known as Interphone, which could not find a definite link between mobile use and certain types of brain tumours. Last month the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the Geneva-based WHO that classifies cancer risks, said exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields was greater from handsets than phone towers and base stations. Bloomberg
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 01:31:49 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Battery power support today Message-ID: <NICdnYhY28br54zTnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@giganews.com> Lisa or Jeff wrote: > .. Things were even worse going further back in time. (IMHO, the > above-ground nuclear testing of the 1940s and 1950s didn't help us > any, but I don't know if anything, such as increased leukemia rates, > have been documented.) The late 1940s saw a few tests. The 1950s is where we went nutso, but in Nevada and the Marshall Island. There was a lot of payoffs and coverups on the damage caused at the Nevada test site. Hard core radioactivity is still a great problem there. Not airborne any longer, but mostly harmless in the soil unless you work there and are unlucky enough to get some into your lungs.
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 16:57:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: "Underground" demarc? Message-ID: <1309737476.83461.YahooMailClassic@web111714.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 7/1/11, grumpy44134 <grumpy44134@gmail.com> wrote: > My friend is having an intermittent problem with her home phone. I > told her to find the gray demarc/Telephone Network Interface (Ohio) > box. After not being able to find it, she reminded me her power and > telephone wires were underground to her house. Question - where is > the demarc for underground telephone service (in Ohio)? I couldn't tell you about Ohio, but the buried drop serving me in Oklahoma rises out of the ground and comes up to the conduit holding the electric meter (to which it is grounded) and the demarc is at about eye level, accessible to the customer, as it's supposed to be. Wes Leatherock wleathus@yahoo.com wesrock@aol.com
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
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

End of The Telecom Digest (5 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues