36 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Copyright © 2018 E. William Horne. All Rights Reserved.

The Telecom Digest for Wed, 08 Aug 2018
Volume 37 : Issue 186 : "text" format

Table of contents
Re: New Jersey gets new area codeJohn Levine
Re: Backup Power for Cox [or other] ISP [Telecom]HAncock4
Re: Backup Power for Cox [or other] ISPDoug McIntyre
Please send posts to telecom-digest.org, with userid set to telecomdigestsubmissions, or via Usenet to comp.dcom.telecom
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <20180806171033.6B7F520034FCB8@ary.qy> Date: 6 Aug 2018 13:10:32 -0400 From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Subject: Re: New Jersey gets new area code In article <5B67AF17.1070204@panix.com> you write: >The only "pain" of an overlay is 10D dialing. I don't know where to find >a cellphone using Millennial who knows how to dial 7D. My daughter certainly does. Our area code 607 was one of the earlier splits, hacked out of 315 and 716 in 1954, and we've been snoozing ever since. (We proudly call ourselves Centrally Isolated.) All 607 exchanges have 7D dialing, even the mobile ones, even though the area is split between two LATAs, so the price for a 7D call from a landline might be free (local), cheap (intra-LATA toll) or fairly cheap (inter-LATA toll.) The NANPA exhaust analysis says we will never need an overlay. So there. R's, John ***** Moderator's Note ***** John, I envy you: here in western North Carolina, most landlines can dial 7D, but cellphones have to dial 10D, and it's very common to see phone numbers advertised without the "828" area code. Not only does this confuse many new arrivals who bring cell phones, but if there's ever an overlay here, there'll be a meltdown. Bill Horne Moderator ------------------------------ Message-ID: <df60db22-e293-44bd-a38e-f67e92fd45d5@googlegroups.com> Date: 6 Aug 2018 10:28:15 -0700 From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> Subject: Re: Backup Power for Cox [or other] ISP [Telecom] > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > In Massachusetts, the legislature was more concerned with *where* the > concentrators were being placed: mostly in low-income, high-crime > sections. They were known as "two-man areas" to the outside plant > crews, because there were always two employess on any truck dispatched > there. > > My aunt lived in such an area - the Columbia Point housing project in > Dorchester. I lifted her phone once when I was visiting, and heard a > busy signal: she explained that it meant there weren't any wires > ready to place the call, and that I'd have to wait. I told her that it > was unfair and that she should complain. She thought that was very > funny. The 1960s and 1970s were tough time for both Bell and the independents. Below is a link to a discussion from January about payphone vandalism: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.dcom.telecom/vandalism%7Csort:date/comp.dcom.telecom/Ep_q_jJscJg/n4vNANCJAAAJ IMHO, the excessive time and money phone companies had to spend to repairing vandalism to its infrastructure and security (like two-man crews) contributed to the service crises of the 1970s. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <s4idnQlDXZ2XLfTGnZ2dnUU7-TPNnZ2d@giganews.com> Date: 7 Aug 2018 09:43:22 -0500 From: "Doug McIntyre" <merlyn@dork.geeks.org> Subject: Re: Backup Power for Cox [or other] ISP "Fred Atkinson" <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com> writes: > How many of you continue to push antiquated technology to your >customers? Many of the "new" technology isn't better, it is just shuffling the money to somebody else now. Eg. my company decided my hybrid digital PBX wasn't worth it, so for even more MRC, they pushed VoIP on us, and if I get more employees in this office, the MRC will go up even more. It has less features. Eg. we used to be able to do modem testing and FAX's. Now we have to buy an external crappy FAX service whose website looks and acts like it will only work with Internet Explorer 6. We used to have crystal clear conference calling, now we have to again buy external conference bridges that sound like crap and have major delays. (I'm not the one buying these services unfortunately). So, for far more money monthly, we shuffled the money onto the "new players" in the market, for far less reliability, usability, etc. because everybody has to be VoIP. > We should be able to rely on the new technology and the providers >should provide backup power so that their service continues to operate >in the event of a power failure. Its all about the profit margin now-a-days. We aren't going back to the time when things were built to last forever, and be as robust as possible. You say providers *should* do this, but we live in the age of "it works good enough most of the time", and this is never going to happen because there isn't enough demand for it. > If the customer wishes to provide a UPS or other means of keeping >his/her hone network devices going in the event of a power failure, >that would be their responsibility. The maintenance of keeping a UPS for communication services at a typical residence is way beyond the capabilities of most consumers. ie. UPS batteries need to be replaced every 3 to 5 years, and most UPSs are horrible at methods used to say when the battery needs to be replaced (ie. APC units tend to just drop power on the protected side). What would the typical consumer do? Probably unplug the UPS and throw it away, leaving them without any of it. -- Doug McIntyre doug@themcintyres.us ***** Moderator's Note ***** As has been pointed out in the past, "UPS" devices are *NOT* intended to provide power for any longer than it takes to shut the computer down gracefully, i.e., without losing data. Anything longer than a few minutes requires a power source, such as a generator, that can run indefinitely. Bill Horne Moderator ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Wed, 08 Aug 2018

Telecom Digest Archives