Pat, the Editor

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

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 
 
Message Digest 
Volume 28 : Issue 132 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
  Call Silencer 
  Re: Call Silencer 
  Re: Call Silencer 
  Verizon selling off phone lines 
  Re: Verizon selling off phone lines 
  Re: Verizon selling off phone lines 
  Re: Verizon selling off phone lines 
  Re: Verizon selling off phone lines 
  Re: Verizon selling off phone lines 
  update on the "warranty" robocalls 
  Re: Waveguide (was "size a major consideration...") 
  Re: CO backup power (was Re: FiOS in MDU Buildings       
  Re: CO backup power (was Re: FiOS in MDU Buildings      
  Re: CO backup power (was Re: FiOS in MDU Buildings
  Re: CO backup power (was Re: FiOS in MDU Buildings
  Re: CO backup power (was Re: FiOS in MDU Buildings
  Re: CO backup power (was Re: FiOS in MDU Buildings


====== 27 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 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: Wed, 13 May 2009 19:27:17 -0700 From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Call Silencer Message-ID: <bkLOl.29977$YU2.16761@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com> Does anyone know about this product. My old CID box I got 10 years ago from Radio Shack is starting to fail. This one claims it train by itself buy detecting if you answer the phone or not, but no out going message, just not ringing phone. http://www.callsilencer.com/ ***** Moderator's Note ***** Steven, Please contact me offline. Bill at horne dot net. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 06:33:06 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Call Silencer Message-ID: <n4VOl.41507$Rf7.20503@newsfe21.iad> Steven Lichter wrote: > Does anyone know about this product. My old CID box I got 10 years ago > from Radio Shack is starting to fail. This one claims it train by > itself buy detecting if you answer the phone or not, but no out going > message, just not ringing phone. > > > http://www.callsilencer.com/ > Don't know anything about it, but I suspect it doesn't do a great job. If you are in an AT&T service area, the network based Privacy Manager, used in conjunction with network based voice mail, does a fantastic job. The pests that do get through because they have caller id are left to go to my Meridian 9516's mail box. The identified pests almost never leave a message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 15:14:35 -0700 From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Call Silencer Message-ID: <LF0Pl.7092$Lr6.6429@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com> Sam Spade wrote: > Steven Lichter wrote: > >> Does anyone know about this product. My old CID box I got 10 years ago >> from Radio Shack is starting to fail. This one claims it train by >> itself buy detecting if you answer the phone or not, but no out going >> message, just not ringing phone. >> >> >> http://www.callsilencer.com/ >> > > Don't know anything about it, but I suspect it doesn't do a great job. > If you are in an AT&T service area, the network based Privacy Manager, > used in conjunction with network based voice mail, does a fantastic job. > > The pests that do get through because they have caller id are left to go > to my Meridian 9516's mail box. The identified pests almost never leave > a message. > I have the Privacy Manager and it works pretty good, but I want to be able to block some numbers; that is what i like about the Radio Shack CID box. It looks like the until works on what calls you answer but with a Voice Mail system I have it might treat it like a good call. I bought several of those CID boxes when they were closing them out. -- The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 06:53:55 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Verizon selling off phone lines Message-ID: <e03e27fd-f2e0-4e92-9e14-90733cec1135@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> There was an article that Verizon is selling off some of its landline territories to Frontier. (Unfortunately I lost the URL). From the states mentioned, these appear to be those it acquired when it bought GTE. I always wondered why Verizon bought out GTE in the first place. ***** Moderator's Note ***** I'm going to see where those areas are, and apply to Frontier: I guess everybody moves South or West, sooner or later, and it's getting really hard to be a sole proprietor. I don't know why Verizon bought GTE: maybe they needed the Strowger pattents. ;-) Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 15:27:46 -0700 From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Verizon selling off phone lines Message-ID: <7S0Pl.7093$Lr6.6268@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > There was an article that Verizon is selling off some of its landline > territories to Frontier. (Unfortunately I lost the URL). From the > states mentioned, these appear to be those it acquired when it bought > GTE. > > I always wondered why Verizon bought out GTE in the first place. > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > I'm going to see where those areas are, and apply to Frontier: I guess > everybody moves South or West, sooner or later, and it's getting > really hard to be a sole proprietor. > > I don't know why Verizon bought GTE: maybe they needed the Strowger > pattents. ;-) > > Bill Horne > Temporary Moderator All of the states that they are selling, except for the Carolinas, are all GTE service areas. They are keeping California. I retired in 1996 from GTE and in 2000 when merged I know myself and others could never understand the merger since they operated very differently. I do contract work for them at times and have seen many changes. With GTE almost everything was done in house and that included its own CO Construction forces which I was part of. Now they just have a few and those for the most part just make sure contractors don't burn the buildings down. I was sent to Washington state and my job was to train 18 year old CO Installers right out of school: they gave me 30 days to do it, [but] I explained it took 3 to 7 years. These were Verizon people, I got a couple of them up and running to the point that they could read what they needed, and went on my way. When _I_ started I was not allowed near powered equipment for a year. The news was on AP's web page, here is a link from Verizon. http://investor.verizon.com/news/view.aspx?NewsID=987 -- The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 23:07:22 GMT From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Verizon selling off phone lines Message-ID: <kv8p055khecij2gsseloo0fa7dieb4nor9@4ax.com> On Thu, 14 May 2009 17:49:03 -0400 (EDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >There was an article that Verizon is selling off some of its landline >territories to Frontier. (Unfortunately I lost the URL). From the >states mentioned, these appear to be those it acquired when it bought >GTE. > >I always wondered why Verizon bought out GTE in the first place. > >***** Moderator's Note ***** > >I'm going to see where those areas are, and apply to Frontier: I guess >everybody moves South or West, sooner or later, and it's getting >really hard to be a sole proprietor. > >I don't know why Verizon bought GTE: maybe they needed the Strowger >pattents. ;-) > >Bill Horne >Temporary Moderator Here's Verizon's Press release. http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2009/verizon-to-divest-wireline.html E. Tappert ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 20:43:01 -0500 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Verizon selling off phone lines Message-ID: <6645152a0905141843q19c60ee6r66f31f018c5a827a@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:53 AM, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > > I always wondered why Verizon bought out GTE in the first place. > I thought Bell Atlantic and GTE merged to form Verizon? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTE#Merger_with_Bell_Atlantic -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 20:20:54 -0700 From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Verizon selling off phone lines Message-ID: <sc5Pl.30057$YU2.5311@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com> John Mayson wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:53 AM, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> I always wondered why Verizon bought out GTE in the first place. >> > > I thought Bell Atlantic and GTE merged to form Verizon? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTE#Merger_with_Bell_Atlantic That is what was said, but in fact the company that came out of it was more Bell Atlantic than GTE, and from what I remember [of] the way they ran things it [was] more Bell that GTE. In some areas nothing has changed much because old GTE managers are in place like California, and that includes the Company President; but then the GTE company in California was always run differently. We had our own construction forces as well [for] just about anything we did, [and] very rarely did they contractp [outside companies] until we started converting to full Electronic, [and] then contractors were needed to remove the old offices: my last few years was making sure that it was done right. -- The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 22:50:40 -0500 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Verizon selling off phone lines Message-ID: <6645152a0905142050m70feb103h9ac84168879b337@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> wrote: > John Mayson wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:53 AM, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >>> >>> I always wondered why Verizon bought out GTE in the first place. >>> >> >> I thought Bell Atlantic and GTE merged to form Verizon? >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTE#Merger_with_Bell_Atlantic > > That is what was said, but in fact the company that came out of it was > more Bell Atlantic than GTE, and from what I remember [of] the way > they ran things it [was] more Bell that GTE. My dad was former GTE (former as of 1991). He said the same thing. Technically it was a merger, but it was pretty much Bell Atlantic swallowing GTE. -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:25:31 -0400 From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: update on the "warranty" robocalls Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0905141624350.2281@panix5.panix.com> Well, the FTC didn't listen to me. Nor to gazillions of complaints people made. But a week after Sen. Schumer called them up... ------- [from the FTC web page] For Release: 05/14/2009 FTC Files Suit to Stop Illegal Robocalls Pushing Vehicle Warranty Extensions Companies Charged With Making Hundreds of Millions of Deceptive Calls to Consumers The Federal Trade Commission is asking a federal court to shut down a telemarketing campaign that has been bombarding U.S. consumers with hundreds of millions of allegedly deceptive "robocalls" in an effort to sell them vehicle service contracts under the guise that they are extensions of original vehicle warranties. In two related complaints filed in federal court, the Commission took action against both the promoter of the phony extended auto warranties, as well as the telemarketing company that it hired to carry out its illegal, deceptive campaign. In its complaints, the agency contends that the companies are operating a massive telemarketing scheme that uses random, pre-recorded phone calls to deceive consumers into thinking that their vehicle's warranty is about to expire... rest: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/05/robocalls.shtm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:58:38 -0400 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Waveguide (was "size a major consideration...") Message-ID: <MPG.2476500babd415f1989a10@reader.motzarella.org> In article <MPG.246ee2b6f4bf61f2989a0b@reader.motzarella.org>, kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net says... > > In article <gu1dc4$1ti$1@panix2.panix.com>, kludge@panix.com says... > > > > Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote: > > > > > >Given the cost of Heliax, and the losses of generic coax at 70cm, is > > >it possible/advisable to homebrew waveguide? A previous post mentioned > > >circular waveguide, and I wonder if I could feed 70cm or 23cm antennas > > >with waveguide made from copper pipe. > > > > You could, but copper pipe is very expensive. It's cheaper to move the > > transceiver up closer to the antenna in most cases today. > > > > I'm not sure where the price breakeven point between hardline and waveguide > > is. You look at all those 2GHz Bell microwave towers with the cornucopia > > antennae, and you see waveguides coming down from all of them. These days > > that would all be done very differently. > > --scott > > Back a couple years ago I worked for the Sec. State's office. We had > three locations in the city of Providence. > > The Admin Director asked how we could cut costs on the VAN circuits we > employed. > > I mentioned that the clock tower at the facility we were in had line of > sight to the State House and the State House had line of sight to our > other location in downtown Providence. Proposed an 802.11 based system. > > The State House was the sticky wicket. I explained we'd have to run > fiber from the 2nd floor to the top of the dome along with power so that > the transcievers could be near the dish, actually Yagi's would have > worked too but a little harder to conceal. > > Did out the costing and then submitted it. It never came to fruition. > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > That's surprising: these days, every government-owned structure that > offers more than ten feet of HAAT (Height Above Average Terrain) is > festooned with antennas from every cellular provider, every paging, > and every trunked repeater service - sometimes even, believe it or > not, antennas for government use! > > Bill Horne > Temporary Moderator No antennas on this building. I jokingly said we could hand a small dish off the Indpendent Man's spear. http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/73/38273-004-0D86EB1D.jpg The Independent Man (Stands about 17' tall and is perched on top of the central dome of the State House. http://www.statecapitols.tigerleaf.com/images/RI-statue2-maynard.jpg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 18:25:39 -0400 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: CO backup power (was Re: FiOS in MDU Buildings Message-ID: <MPG.2476646e7778c6c1989a11@reader.motzarella.org> In article <c74.4ecffdbb.373779df@aol.com>, Wesrock@aol.com says... > > In a message dated 5/9/2009 8:54:13 AM Central Daylight Time, jt@jt-mj.net > writes: > > > IIRC ESS1 (Morris Ill.) had minimal batteries, and a system that was > > supposed to start the diesels within 1/3 sec after a primary power > > failure. > > Several seconds--maybe a minute or more--are required for sirens or > horns to notify persons near a generator that it is getting ready to > autostart. No way it could start in 1/3 sec. > > Wes Leatherock > wesrock@aol.com > wleathus@yahoo.com The 125kW generator we used to power the I.T. infastructure (Server room and entire I.T. space) would spin up withing 10 seconds. No sirens, no horns. Just a brief flash as the overhead lights went to generator power. The server room itself had an APC Symmetra to keep power up while the generator spun up. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 20:29:16 -0400 (EDT) From: "Julian Thomas" <jt@jt-mj.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: CO backup power (was Re: FiOS in MDU Buildings Message-ID: <100.48c407005cb70c4a.010@jt-mj.net> On Sun, 10 May 2009 19:26:02 -0700 (PDT) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > >Again, I respectfully disagree. As I recall the history, "a few years >before Morris went live" there wasn't much of anything, just designs >on paper. I'd have to check the Bell Labs history. Once again, >Morris was _not_ a production installation, but a special test site. >They knew at the onset the hardware would not be used in production; >it was more of testing the concept of stored program control. I was there (BTL) for a few months in 1954. > >Once again, in electronic terms, 1/3 of a second is a very long time, Yes, but a lot of capacitance or a small battery might have been contemplated. -- Julian Thomas: jt@jt-mj.net http://jt-mj.net In the beautiful Genesee Valley of Western New York State! -- -- ... File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 23:20:07 -0400 From: Bill Horne <billQRM@horneQRM.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: CO backup power (was Re: FiOS in MDU Buildings Message-ID: <20090515032007.GG20758@telecom.csail.mit.edu> On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 08:29:19PM -0400, Wesrock@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/9/2009 8:54:13 AM Central Daylight Time, jt@jt-mj.net > writes: > > > IIRC ESS1 (Morris Ill.) had minimal batteries, and a system that was > > supposed to start the diesels within 1/3 sec after a primary power > > failure. > > Several seconds--maybe a minute or more--are required for sirens or > horns to notify persons near a generator that it is getting ready to > autostart. No way it could start in 1/3 sec. > > Wes Leatherock > wesrock@aol.com > wleathus@yahoo.com Times have certainly changed: when I was on working Toll Test, on the night shift at Back Bay in 1973, the turbine came on every Wednesday night, just like clockwork, and no alarms or horns or other warnings were ever sounded. The turbine was in the area next to the Toll frame and testboards, separated by only a standard set of double-doors, and the unit at Back Bay was rated for 500KW. After the first couple of times, when I and my teammate went home with our ears ringing, we would call the night forman and tell him we were retreating to another floor: we'd do what work we could at the MDF, but we refused to work with the generator running next to us, and our boss never said anything about it. Bill Horne (Filter QRM from my address for direct replies.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 20:25:36 -0700 From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: CO backup power (was Re: FiOS in MDU Buildings Message-ID: <Rg5Pl.30058$YU2.14535@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com> Bill Horne wrote: > ... we refused to work with the generator running next to us, and > our boss never said anything about it. They were too cheap to buy ear protection? -- The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 22:56:57 -0500 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: CO backup power (was Re: FiOS in MDU Buildings Message-ID: <6645152a0905142056t4c44b1f5reecc7f98c95477ea@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> wrote: > Bill Horne wrote: > >> ... we refused to work with the generator running next to us, and >> our boss never said anything about it. > > They were too cheap to buy ear protection? I worked for a non-telco employer in Florida. Our tester required a vacuum pump which they placed right next to the tester instead of the machine room to save on installation costs. It was LOUD. We demanded our safety department come out. It was the nurse who came out and said she measured the volume level and it was within OSHA guidelines. We all brought in our own hearing protection paid for with our own money and were told we were forbidden from wearing it because it would imply the volume levels were dangerous when they weren't. IIRC it was merely 1 or 2 dB away from requiring hearing protection. I ended up having a dumb terminal (remember those?) installed in my office and only worked in the lab when absolutely necessary. John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 23:56:59 -0400 From: Bill Horne <billQRM@horneQRM.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: CO backup power (was Re: FiOS in MDU Buildings Message-ID: <20090515035659.GD21974@telecom.csail.mit.edu> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 08:25:36PM -0700, Steven Lichter wrote: > Bill Horne wrote: > > >... we refused to work with the generator running next to us, and > >our boss never said anything about it. > > They were too cheap to buy ear protection? That's a more complicated question than you'd think: New England Telephone was never big on that, and I never figured out why. As a pilot, I had access to noise-cancelling neadsets and to ordinary ear protectors, both considered essential for pilots, but I didn't use them on the job because there was a very pronounced "everyone or noone" attitude among we union men. Not even the power room techs, who worked on the generators for hours at a time, had hearing protection provided to them. Bill Horne (Filter QRM from my address for direct replies.) ------------------------------ 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 Patrick Townson. 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 currently being moderated by Bill Horne while Pat Townson recovers from a stroke. Contact information: Bill Horne Telecom Digest 43 Deerfield Road Sharon MA 02067-2301 781-784-7287 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) 2008 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. End of The Telecom digest (17 messages) ******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues