30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for September 02, 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, 1 Sep 2011 12:00:46 +0000 (UTC) From: danny burstein <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Dep't of Justice filing suits to stop AT&T takeover of T-Mobile Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> In <1314827797.4050.16.camel@Thinkpad> Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> writes: >On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 11:12 -0400, danny burstein wrote: >> [Forbes] >> >> Department Of Justice Files To Block AT&T-T-Mobile Deal, Reports Say >If the DOJ didn't prevent CenturyLink gobbling up QWEST, they have no >business objecting to at&t taking over T-Mobile. Maybe it took a while to finally get them snapped out of their previous mindsets and to start doing their jobs? (Now if only the FCC/FTC would do the same for, as an example, Rachel of Cardholder Services) -- Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key email@example.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 07:33:06 -0700 (PDT) From: MB <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Porting number into Comcast Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Hi- I'm trying to port two numbers into Comcast from Vonage, one being in the 856-461/RIVERSIDE, NJ, originally a Verizon number, the other one being 856-735/RIVERTON, NJ, which has always been a Vonage number. Comcast is stating that they can port over the 856-461 number since the Riverside, NJ switch in which it resides is my 'home' switch, which the 856-461 number would be served from if I had Verizon. They are stating that they can't port 856-735 since the Riverton, NJ switch is not in my locale (its 2 towns over, roughly 3 miles away). Does this make sense to anybody? They originally said sure we can port it, however after all is said and done (8 calls later with 15 different reps...not exaggerating), i get a resounding "no". Thanks Matt
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 12:23:19 -0600 From: email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Porting number into Comcast Message-ID: <email@example.com> > Hi- > I'm trying to port two numbers into Comcast from Vonage, one being in > the 856-461/RIVERSIDE, NJ, originally a Verizon number, the other one > being 856-735/RIVERTON, NJ, which has always been a Vonage number. > > Comcast is stating that they can port over the 856-461 number since > the Riverside, NJ switch in which it resides is my 'home' switch, > which the 856-461 number would be served from if I had Verizon. They > are stating that they can't port 856-735 since the Riverton, NJ switch > is not in my locale (its 2 towns over, roughly 3 miles away). > > Does this make sense to anybody? They originally said sure we can > port it, however after all is said and done (8 calls later with 15 > different reps...not exaggerating), i get a resounding "no". > Matt, I wouldn't be the first time a VOIP company has told someone wrong. They've told me wrong more than once. Ideally, all numbers should be portable. Most of them are now. But some aren't. Find out who the carrier is that was assigned that exchange. Call that carrier and ask them if the number can be ported. They are you best source of information. For example, when I moved to Las Cruces, I set up a local number to a QWEST voice mail account. QWEST confirmed it is portable. I've ported it three times since I moved here. I ported it to who was my current VOIP provider in Georgia when I moved to New Mexico. The quality of their support deteriorated and I got another one on a two year contract. They support failed me when I needed it. I broke contract two months early because they couldn't fix the problem (yes, I got credit for those two months they charged me extra for) and changed to another one (who promised to fix my problem if I'd go with them but never did even after two months of their service. I ended up purchasing a new VOIP unit (which both carriers said wasn't the problem and pointed their finger at my Cisco router instead)) and replacing it blindly. Problem solved). I wouldn't put too much faith in what the VOIP carriers tell you. Their service saves money. But their technical support and customer service often stink. Regards, Fred
Date: 01 Sep 2011 14:26:18 GMT From: Doug McIntyre <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Where does digital phone service hand off toll-free calls? Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> "Adam H. Kerman" <email@example.com> writes: >On another topic, what is the correct term for these servers that provide >VoIP service? Packet routing is done Internet style and won't even hit >the telephone network till it gets to the switch serving the dialed number. >And if that number is also VoIP, a telephone call hasn't even been made. There are two functions in VoIP, and they are usually separate and distributed. The actual one you are asking for is a VoIP Gateway. Cisco has turned their general purpose router platforms into a huge range of them. Other vendors (Quintum, AudioCodes, Patton to name a few) have dedicated boxes. Usually ISDN PRI in/out and an ethernet port. The small user boxes that turn VoIP back to POTS can be called this too. Then there are also the servers that function as a soft switch with additional services bundled in. Usually a VoIP provider's gateways all register back to the soft switch so it can determine the best routing plan. After the call setups, the VoIP gateways usually are the ones that talk directly to one another in a big mesh. The big players probably run their own code for this function. There are some open source variants such as Freeswitch. Cisco's CallManager software would do this function.
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 15:10:02 -0700 (PDT) From: firstname.lastname@example.org To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Disconnected POTS (Cable phone service disrupted from power outage) Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Aug 31, 7:42~pm, "Gary" <bogus-em...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "Adam H. Kerman" ~wrote in messagenews:email@example.com... > > > Does that mean a subsequent subscriber at the same service address would > > be > > able to order POTS and not FiOS? > > My understanding is the copper line is basically dead and has been removed > from Verizon's list of provisioned, active and maintained lines. ~If I or a > subsequent resident of my house wants to bring back the copper, it will > probably require a significant amount of money; if it is even an option. > However, if that's what I wanted I wouldn't have switched to FiOS. I'm not sure I agree with that. [ moderator snip ] ** Moderator note: Verizon has an established policy of decommissioning the copper when FiOS is installed. It locks the location into Verizon service, since a CLEC cannot get a 'copper pair' to that location, and can't 'ride the fiber', either. See the Digest archives for prior discussion about that policy.
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.