---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <CAJqQ6CjYJFkdaLCWMPf=S8hHTmY-xqjtHKiAmSKxVAXwSiDj0g@mail.gmail.com> Date: 29 Nov 2020 21:30:00 -0500 From: "Adrianne Jeffries" <adrianne@remove-this.selectworks.studio> Subject: Podcast question Hello telecom enthusiasts, I'm a producer with <Underunderstood>, a podcast about questions that can't be answered with a simple Google search. We have over 500,000 downloads and were named to The Verge and HuffPost's best of 2019 podcast lists. I'm working on a story about area codes which was brought to us by a listener. The question is about the area code assignments in Massachusetts. Specifically, when area codes were originally chosen, most metro areas allegedly got low numbers because they were easier to dial. However, in Massachusetts, this rule was notably violated: Boston got 617, whereas rural western Massachusetts got 413. Why did Boston get stuck with the high numbers, especially considering its importance to the history of telephony? This seems to have been a persistent mystery. Mark J Cuccia brought up the question several times but seems to have never quite solved it: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.dcom.telecom/c/ZHJd4UUrtCw/m/4KMkxxsFvwMJ (was it caused by a printing error?). He also wrote about an earlier proposed version of the nationwide numbering plan that was quite different: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.dcom.telecom/c/iH4nOd2LM3E/m/RlG8a0teOX0J?pli=1 I spoke with the author of this Quora answer: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Bostons ... who said his source was a coworker who had previously worked at New England Telephone. The decision seems to have been made between the publication of these two articles: 1946 http://www.historyofphonephreaking.org/docs/nootd1945.pdf 1947 http://doc.telephonecollectors.info/dm/47_48_BTM_win_p180_ Nationwide_Operator_Toll_Dialing.pdf The plan was announced, I believe, in October 1947, although I do not have that document. I'd love to find out whether there is a definitive answer to this as more historical documentation comes online. Thank you for your consideration. You may also email me directly at adrianne@underunderstood.com. Adrianne ------------------------------ Message-ID: <20201130184123.254D773C@telecom2018.csail.mit.edu> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:41:23 +0000 (UTC) From: Moderator <telecomdigestsubmissions@remove-this.telecom-digest.org> Subject: Subsidized broadband program speeds up, but Colorado customers must upgrade to keep discount The federal Lifeline program provides $9.25 to low-income consumers for wireless or broadband service. But the FCC's upgrade on Dec. 1 may leave some CenturyLink or mobile customers behind -- and with higher bills. By Tamara Chuang A national low-income broadband program will get a speed boost on Tuesday as new federal requirements go into effect for the Lifeline service. But not all Lifeline customers will automatically see the upgrade to 25 megabits per second from 20 mbps for fixed broadband service, or an increase to 11.75 gigabytes of data for wireless customers. https://coloradosun.com/2020/11/30/subsidized-broadband-lifeline-digital-divide-centurylink/ ------------------------------ Message-ID: <f56ed713eab1a2d75bfe8ec784f6328c.squirrel@mai.hallikainen.org> Date: 29 Nov 2020 11:11:59 -0800 From: "Harold Hallikainen" <harold@mai.hallikainen.org> Subject: RE: Squeezing Capacity From Copper Networks While Undertaking a Transition to Fiber Broadband On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 16:51:32 +0000 (UTC), Moderator said: > Squeezing Capacity From Copper Networks While Undertaking a Transition to Fiber Broadband The short article on telco provided Internet was interesting. Here in Arvada CO (just west of Denver), we have DSL from CenturyLink. It uses two pairs and delivers 140 Mbps down and 20 Mbps up. I'm really im- pressed with what they can shove down a pair of wires! My first DSL was in San Luis Obispo CA from Pacific Telephone. I think it was about 1.5 Mbps down. About as fast as a T1. Who would ever need more? Then we moved to Santa Maria CA and got 6 Mbps down. Wow! And now 140 Mbps down. NOTE that I am not in any way associated with Century Link, though I do volunteer for the Telecom History Group that has space from ATT and CenturyLink in Denver. I am just impressed with the advances in DSL. They are shoving a lot of data down a pair of wires. The 140 Mbps measured peak speed using Measurement Lab. The speed does vary with time of day. Right now, it's the slowest I've ever seen it at 35.5 Mbps up, 11.5 Mbps down. We are listening to streaming audio right now, so that takes a little. Looking at the status page on the Zyxel C3330Z modem, I see 78.223/11.196 for the first pair and 68.638/11.196 for the second pair. That, of course, is just the links from here to the DSLAM. Looking at my bill, Century Link just calls it "140 Mbps High Speed Internet." I think the use of two pairs is unique, but otherwise it seems to be what current DSL can do over relatively short loops. It looks like the DSLAM is about a block away from us. Harold https://w6iwi.org -- FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com Not sent from an iPhone. ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Tue, 01 Dec 2020