30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for October 7, 2011
====== 30 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 that person, or email address
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of that address. 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: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 05:27:08 -0400 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Steven Paul Jobs, 1955-2011 Message-ID: <email@example.com> Another longish obituary: http://gma.yahoo.com/steve-jobs-dies-apple-chief-created-personal-computer-231337236.html R.i.P. And cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:23:12 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mark J. Cuccia" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: CenturyLink-Qwest Merger ALREADY Effective (was, Moving Forward) Message-ID: <1317766992.54875.YahooMailClassic@web31105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> CenturyLink-Qwest Merger ALREADY Effective (was, Moving Forward) On Monday 03-October-2011, Bill Horne wrote: > This is from the "Telecom News" section of a website called > "lowt1rates" >> The pending $22.4 billion CenturyLink Inc.- Qwest Communications >> International Inc. merger is on its way to being a foregone >> conclusion. 9 States Down, 12 to Go. This week, the two companies >> said they've received approvals from nine states and the District >> of Columbia, as well as antitrust clearance from the Justice >> Department and Federal Trade Commission. So far, regulators in >> California, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, >> New York, Ohio and West Virginia all have given CenturyLink and >> Qwest their blessing, with no conditions. >> >> "Obtaining these state approvals not only signifies that we have >> met the requirements in these states, it also demonstrates that >> the commissions recognize this transaction is very much in the >> public interest," Glen F. Post III, CenturyLink's president and >> CEO, said in a prepared statement. Bill, I realize that you are quoting from some other webpage, the actual URL that I was re-directed to being: http://www.lowt1rates.com/telecomnews/article.php/CenturyLink-Qwest-Merger and it also continues as follows: >> CenturyLink and Qwest still must get 3 more states to sign off on >> their deal, which will create a new "super LEC" and that article does seem to be dated 03-October-2011. BUT THIS IS OLD NEWS! CenturyLink and Qwest officially merged in late March/early April 2011 this past Spring, after all necessary regulatory and shareholder hurdles had all been met! BTW, I had made several posts here and to other telecom related Yahoo groups between April 2010 (when the intended merger was first announced) and March/April 2011 (when the merger was finalized), regarding various developments. Anyhow, here is the chronology of most of the major regulatory and shareholder approvals and other events leading up to the merger: 22-April-2010 ------> Merger ANNOUNCED ; and also the SEC filing 14-June-2010 -------> California (Filed 14-May-2010) 15-June-2010 -------> Hawaii (Filed 03-June-2010) 16-June-2010 -------> North Carolina (informational filing ONLY) 29-June-2010 -------> Ohio (Filed 28-May-2010) 06-July-2010 -------> Nevada (Filed 27-May-2010) 07-July-2010 -------> Maryland (Filed 08-June-2010) 15-July-2010 -------> FTC/DOJ/HRS-Act-IRS (Filed 12-May-2010) 16-July-2010 -------> Alaska (Filed 04-June-2010) 28-July-2010 -------> Georgia (Filed 25-May-2010) 03-August-2010 -----> West Virginia (Filed 04-June-2010) 24-August-2010 -----> New York State (Filed 04-June-2010) 24-August-2010 -----> SHAREHOLDERS of BOTH Qwest and CenturyLink 30-August-2010 -----> District of Columbia (Filed 04-June-2010) 14-September-2010 --> Mississippi (Filed 25-May-2010) 17-September-2010 --> Louisiana (Filed 28-May-2010) 24-September-2010 --> Virginia (Filed 18-June-2010) 14-October-2010 ----> Pennsylvania (Filed 18-May-2010) 03-November-2010 ---> Iowa (Filed 25-May-2010) 14-December-2010 ---> Montana (Filed 28-May-2010) 15-December-2010 ---> Colorado (Filed 13-May-2010) 16-December-2010 ---> New Jersey (Filed 19-May-2010) 04-January-2011 ----> Nebraska (Filed 04-June-2010) 05-January-2011 ----> Utah (Filed 19-May-2010) 01-March-2011 ------> Arizona (Filed 13-May-2010) 03-March-2011 ------> Minnesota (Filed 14-May-2010) 14-March-2011 ------> Washington State (Filed 13-May-2010) 18-March-2011 ------> FCC (Filed 10-May-2010) 24-March-2011 ------> Oregon (Filed 24-May-2010) 01-April-2011 ------> MERGER/TAKEOVER FINAL/COMPLETE Note though, that Oregon's state regulatory agency approved the pending merger AFTER the FCC gave their approval. The CenturyLink name and logo has been replacing the Qwest name and logo throughout the legacy Qwest/US-West 14-state territory (old Northwestern Bell, old Mountain Bell, old Pacific Northwest Bell) for several months now already. And if you try to go to qwest.com you will be re-directed to centurylink.com as well. Mark J. Cuccia markjcuccia at yahoo dot com
Date: 6 Oct 2011 10:10:42 -0400 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Scott Dorsey) To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Apple Launches iPhone 4S, iOS 5 & iCloud Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Bob Goudreau <BobGoudreau@nc.rr.com> wrote: >Moderator Bill Horne wrote: > >> I've never used an iPhone, or felt the need to have a "1080P" screen >> in the palm of my hand. > >I think you've misread this feature, and thereby missed its point. The >screen on an iPhone is not 1080p (think of it as "640p", since the display >resolution is 640 by 960). Rather, the new model's camera is able to >capture video at 1080p resolution. You can then play such video back on a >1080p device (such as an HDTV or a computer monitor) at that device's >highest resolution. > >We've come a long way since Super 8. Have we? A 6mm wide frame of Kodachrome 40 gives you about 800 resolvable lines (what video people call line pairs), or about the same resolution as 1600p would. Mind you, most home movie stuff looked terrible, mostly due to the limitations of poor lenses and operators. But unfortunately... those remain severe limitations on cellphone cameras today.... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 08:44:41 +1100 From: David Clayton <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Apple Launches iPhone 4S, iOS 5 & iCloud Message-ID: <email@example.com> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 10:10:42 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote: > Bob Goudreau <BobGoudreau@nc.rr.com> wrote: >>Moderator Bill Horne wrote: >> >>> I've never used an iPhone, or felt the need to have a "1080P" screen in >>> the palm of my hand. >> >>I think you've misread this feature, and thereby missed its point. The >>screen on an iPhone is not 1080p (think of it as "640p", since the >>display resolution is 640 by 960). Rather, the new model's camera is >>able to capture video at 1080p resolution. You can then play such video >>back on a 1080p device (such as an HDTV or a computer monitor) at that >>device's highest resolution. >> >>We've come a long way since Super 8. > > Have we? A 6mm wide frame of Kodachrome 40 gives you about 800 resolvable > lines (what video people call line pairs), or about the same resolution as > 1600p would. > > Mind you, most home movie stuff looked terrible, mostly due to the > limitations of poor lenses and operators. But unfortunately... those > remain severe limitations on cellphone cameras today.... --scott C'mon people, don't you know that the main use of phone cameras is to provide "I was there" pictures for the nightly TV news? Now with higher-res recording the jumpy, blurry vids will now be high-res jumpy, blurry vids - and that's gotta be a good thing, innit???? ;-) -- 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: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:36:43 +0200 From: Marc Haber <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Nine facts about SIP Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote: >Nine Facts about SIP >By John > > >I'm curious if others agree with "John". SIP/RTP is a protocol which concentrates all mistakes that have been made in protocol design in the last 30 years into a single protocol. "30 years of experience, all ignored." This has brought crutches like STUN, makes security harder to do and does not do well with current network design. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 13:41:43 -0600 From: email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Centurylink ISDN? Message-ID: <email@example.com> This week, I called Centurylink [to find out about getting ISDN service for a customer I know]. When I reached their business office and asked who I needed to call to find out about ISDN services, they told me they had never heard of ISDN (they actually asked me what ISDN stood for. So I told them it stood for Integrated Services Digital Network). Then she asked me if I meant VOIP. I said no. Then she asked me if I meant DSL. Again I said no. They even went so far as to tell me that I needed to call the company that provides ISDN because Centurylink does not provide it. Excuse me? Someone I know gave me the number to the ISDN bureau at Centurylink (I'm fortunate that he had it). I called and told her that I couldn't get pre-sales information about ISDN. I told her that their business office told me that they didn't know what ISDN was or who handled it. I told her that their business office denied that Centurylink even offered it. She was appalled. So she put me on hold and called the business office herself. When she picked me up again, she told me that she was told the same thing when she called the business office. But the lady from the ISDN bureau did refer me to an account rep that was able to answer my questions and get me a written quote for possible service. I think it is very sad how poorly Telco CSRs are trained. I had a very similar issue when I was a kid and wanted to get a QKT coupler installed on my home line [so I could plug a phone patch into it for use with my ham station]. They knew what a QKT coupler was but their supervisor had the nerve to tell me that what I wanted to use it for was against Telco's tariffs. I kept having exchanges with the business office which never resulted in them agreeing to put one on my line. I only got it resolved because I had a ham radio friend that worked at the Telco marketing office. Once I told them to call him, the problem got resolved. Then I got my QKT coupler on my line. I've had so many horror stories dealing with different Telco business offices simply because they provide inferior training to their CSRs. I've published a number of horror stories on Telecom Digest about not being able to get foreign listings without resorting to calling PSCs in the different states I've lived in. And I have had to do that in SC, NC, and GA to get my foreign listings. I even went round and round with the NM PUC without success. And I've had to contact PSCs to resolve order issues with Telcos a number of times over the years. If their people knew what they were doing, I wouldn't have had to resort to that. And they are always upset because I called the PSC and never mind that I couldn't get it resolved any other way. I was renting a room in Maryland years ago. My landlord was bad about mailing them the monthly check. He had the money but he'd forget to put it in the mail. I paid him for my share of the utilities on time every month. Twice, our phone service was interrupted for non-payment. The first time my grandmother died and my family had to call the county police to have someone come to the house and have me call home. The second time, my first niece was about to be born any day. After the second time, I called Telco and ordered my own line. They told me I'd have to pay a two hundred dollar deposit and never mind that I had a perfect record of payment on my previous phone in Maryland, my phone in SC, and my phone in NC. So I called the PSC and then Telco decided I didn't need to pay any deposit after all. So they came out and put my phone in. That was the only way I could resolve the issue with them. And I could tell more horror stories. Do I have a problem with Telco business offices? Sadly, I think I do. Fred ***** Moderator's Note ***** I had a disappointing session with a Verizon CSR who insisted that I had to buy both caller-id and caller-id-with-name if I wanted the former, and who also told me that I couldn't get call-forwarding or conference calling unless I bought a package that included call-waiting. I'm not sure it's a matter of poor training, though: I suspect that CSR's are being taught that customers are sheep who'll believe anything they're told, and that they should lie like the devil to bump their sales. It's the wrong kind of training, but I've seen and heard too many stories like yours to believe that it's not intentional. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 19:21:02 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Steve Jobs: Imitated, Never Duplicated Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Steve Jobs: Imitated, Never Duplicated David Pogue OCTOBER 6, 2011 Wednesday evening, Apple broke the news that Steve Jobs had died. Since that moment, tributes, eulogies and retrospectives have poured over the world like rain. He changed industries, redefined business models, fused technology and art. People are comparing him to Thomas Edison, Walt Disney, Leonardo da Vinci. And they're saying that it will be a very long time before the world sees the likes of Steve Jobs again. Probably true. But why not, do you suppose? After all, there are other brilliant marketers, designers and business executives. They're all over Silicon Valley - all over the world. Many of them, maybe most of them, have studied Steve Jobs, tried to absorb his methods and his philosophy. Surely if they pore over the Steve Jobs playbook long enough, they can re-create some of his success. But nobody ever does, even when they copy Mr. Jobs's moves down to the last eyebrow twitch. Why not? Here's a guy who never finished college, never went to business school, never worked for anyone else a day in his adult life. So how did he become the visionary who changed every business he touched? Actually, he's given us clues all along. Remember the "Think Different" ad campaign he introduced upon his return to Apple in 1997? "Here's to the crazy ones. The rebels. The troublemakers. The ones who see things differently. While some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius." In other words, the story of Steve Jobs boils down to this: Don't go with the flow. Steve Jobs refused to go with the flow. If he saw something that could be made better, smarter or more beautiful, nothing else mattered. Not internal politics, not economic convention, not social graces. Apple has attained its current astonishing levels of influence and success because it's nimble. It's incredibly focused. It's had stunningly few flops. ... http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-imitated-never-duplicated/
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 19:22:55 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Bank of America web site disrupted by heavy traffic, new system Message-ID: <email@example.com> Heavy Traffic and New Computer System Disrupted Web Site, Bank of America Says By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ October 5, 2011 After nearly a week of interruptions and slowdowns that made its Web site inaccessible at times, Bank of America said Wednesday the problems stemmed from a combination of heavy traffic along with the rollout of a new computer system. With nearly 30 million online banking customers and the nation's busiest bank Web site, the failures spurred consumer anger, with account holders in some cases unable to pay bills electronically or check their balances. "Our priority is delivering the speed and functionality our customers expect," said David Owen, senior vice president and head of online and mobile banking for Bank of America. "We take this very seriously, and this has been very disappointing in terms of not meeting those expectations this week." While the site seemed to be functioning normally by Wednesday evening, Mr. Owen was not declaring victory. "We're taking this day by day," he said. The problems first cropped up on Friday, a day after the bank, the nation's largest, announced it would impose a new $5 a month charge for some debit cardholders. But Mr. Owen insisted the problems were not caused by hackers unhappy with the new fee or by efforts to flood the site with traffic as a protest, a strategy called a denial-of-service attack. ... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/business/bank-of-america-explains-web-site-problems.html
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 23:14:33 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Appeals Court Approves Cell Phone Search During Traffic Stop Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> California: Appeals Court Approves Cell Phone Search During Traffic Stop California: Appeals Court Approves Cell Phone Search During Traffic Stop Appellate court rules California cops can look through a Blackberry during a traffic stop. The California Court of Appeal on September 26 approved a police officer's rifling through the cell phone belonging to someone who had just been pulled over for a traffic violation. ... http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3603.asp
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.
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
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) 2011 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.