OT - Got broadband?
 

Got broadband?

You are supposed to have it.

TMT


Study: US broadband goal nearly reached By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated
Press Writer
Wed Jan 30, 6:41 PM ET



In 2004, President Bush pledged that all Americans should have
affordable access to high-speed Internet service by 2007. A report to
be released Thursday by the administration says it has succeeded --
mostly.

"Networked Nation: Broadband in America" is an upbeat assessment of
the administration's efforts to spur growth and competition in the
high-speed Internet market. Critics said the report's conclusion is
too rosy.

The report was prepared by the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, an agency within the Commerce Department
that acts as the president's principal adviser on telecommunications
and information policy issues.

The report concludes that "a reasonable assessment of the available
data indicates" that the objective of affordable access to broadband
for all has been realized "to a very great degree."

Richard Russell, deputy director for technology in the executive
office of the president, also answered the question in the
affirmative, but with a caveat.

"The answer is by most metrics yes," he said. "However, there's still
a lot more that needs to be done."

Broadband penetration has been a sore point for the government and
industry as international surveys have shown that the United States,
the birthplace of the Internet, lags behind other nations. The
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranked the U.S.
in 15th place for broadband lines per person in 2006, down from No. 4
in 2001.

The NTIA report drew its conclusion using data from the Federal
Communications Commission and other sources. The FCC reported that
more than 99 percent of all U.S. ZIP codes received broadband service
from at least one provider by the end of 2006.

Critics say the FCC's data is misleading. A broadband provider has to
serve only a single residence in a ZIP code for it to be counted. The
agency has launched its own inquiry into how it can "develop a more
accurate picture" of broadband deployment.

"More data is necessary," Meredith Attwell Baker, acting chief of
NTIA, said in an interview. "We support the FCC's current efforts to
produce better data."

A bill sponsored by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., that would develop an
annual inventory of existing broadband services has passed the House
and awaits action in the Senate.

The report paints a picture of a broadband environment that is
becoming increasingly competitive, for which it credits the
president's policies. Bush has promoted polices that created "an
environment in which broadband innovation and competition can
flourish," the report states.

Among them: a freeze on state and local taxes on Internet access; a
policy of clearing airwaves for use by commercial providers of
wireless broadband service; and continuing efforts to "clear away
regulatory obstacles" that might thwart investment in new
technologies.

"If you look at the administration policies from the beginning,
there's been a comprehensive set of technology, regulatory and fiscal
economic policies that have laid the foundation for the robust
competitive environment that we are enjoying today," Baker said.

The FCC numbers indicate that the total number of broadband lines has
grown from 6.8 million in December 2000 to 82.5 million in December
2006.

But defining broadband is a highly subjective exercise. The FCC
defined it as 200 kilobits per second. That's about four times the
speed of a good dial-up connection and barely fast enough to stream
video.

"The notion that a 200-kilobit connection is broadband is itself
ludicrous," said Derek Turner, research director for Free Press, a
nonprofit public interest group that studies media and technology
issues. Turner wrote a report critical of the FCC's data analysis.

Turner said there have been great strides in the growth of broadband,
but said there is still a digital divide.

"In rich suburban areas they're getting broadband," he said. "But in
many poor and many rural areas we're not seeing the same kind of
competitive marketplace that President Bush outlined in his speech in
2004."

OT - Got broadband?
 

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:06:03 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

Got broadband?

No. I pay about $110 per month for 128K ISDN. The next step up is a T1
for $650 per month. Well, there is satellite, if you can tolerate the
latency and don't need any of the applications they can't support. And
if you happen to have been in line long enough to get to the top of
their waiting list, and if you're willing to pay for a service that
imposes "FAP" speed limits for an average rate much lower than my
128K.

Critics say the FCC's data is misleading. A broadband provider has to
serve only a single residence in a ZIP code for it to be counted. The
agency has launched its own inquiry into how it can "develop a more
accurate picture" of broadband deployment.

The government report calls the puny, FAP limited satellite providers
"broadband", and since I'm potentially served by two of them, they've
declared "Mission Accomplished".

Loren

OT - Got broadband?
 

Loren Amelang wrote:

Got broadband?

No. I pay about $110 per month for 128K ISDN. The next step up is a T1
for $650 per month. Well, there is satellite, if you can tolerate the
latency and don't need any of the applications they can't support. And
if you happen to have been in line long enough to get to the top of
their waiting list, and if you're willing to pay for a service that
imposes "FAP" speed limits for an average rate much lower than my
128K.

Ouch that sucks. I'd hate to connect to my shell sessions on net bsd boxes
using satellite. I guess I'll keep being happy paying 45 bucks for 384K U/D
with static ip from the phone company.

I want to know why my phone bill pays for the dispatch function of the
sheriffs office (911) since they already nick me for county property taxes
and why my land line should pay for interernet in the schools. Maybe it
would be better for used for 10M U/D for ME the guy paying for this chit.

Wes

OT - Got broadband?
 

Wes wrote:

Loren Amelang wrote:


Got broadband?

No. I pay about $110 per month for 128K ISDN. The next step up is a T1
for $650 per month. Well, there is satellite, if you can tolerate the
latency and don't need any of the applications they can't support. And
if you happen to have been in line long enough to get to the top of
their waiting list, and if you're willing to pay for a service that
imposes "FAP" speed limits for an average rate much lower than my
128K.


Ouch that sucks. I'd hate to connect to my shell sessions on net bsd boxes
using satellite. I guess I'll keep being happy paying 45 bucks for 384K U/D
with static ip from the phone company.

I want to know why my phone bill pays for the dispatch function of the
sheriffs office (911) since they already nick me for county property taxes
and why my land line should pay for interernet in the schools. Maybe it
would be better for used for 10M U/D for ME the guy paying for this chit.

Wes


DON'T aske what the extra charges on your phone bill are for.

I did once.

I guarantee you won't like the answers.

In San Antonio, one of the riders pays for sidewalks downtown.

Or so tehy claim...

OT - Got broadband?
 

"Loren Amelang" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:06:03 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

Got broadband?

No. I pay about $110 per month for 128K ISDN. The next step up is a T1
for $650 per month. Well, there is satellite, if you can tolerate the
latency and don't need any of the applications they can't support. And
if you happen to have been in line long enough to get to the top of
their waiting list, and if you're willing to pay for a service that
imposes "FAP" speed limits for an average rate much lower than my
128K.

Critics say the FCC's data is misleading. A broadband provider has to
serve only a single residence in a ZIP code for it to be counted. The
agency has launched its own inquiry into how it can "develop a more
accurate picture" of broadband deployment.

The government report calls the puny, FAP limited satellite providers
"broadband", and since I'm potentially served by two of them, they've
declared "Mission Accomplished".

Loren

Typical. It's just like in the Vietnam War days. They tell you what sounds
good but isn't near the truth. In this case they call minimal service in an
area "serving the area", they call slow service "broadband, and they call
service you can get but can't afford "providing broadband". That's what you
get from people who are basically dishonest. All they care about is whether
the business is profitable or not and the kind of service means nothing as
long as money is being made. When corporations rule the world that's what
you get.

Take my case. I'm told by the phone company that I'm 20,000 ft. from the
nearest switching station. To get DSL I need to be 15,000 ft. or less so I'm
5,000 ft. away from getting the service. I might as well be 1,000 miles
because they aren't going to provide the service. They won't put in the
equipment to serve my area because it costs money and they won't get enough
customers to justify it. So I sit here with ridiculously slow dialup and
there is nothing I can do but order satellite service that is way too
expensive. If I was 5,000 ft. closer I could get DSL for 15.00 a month. The
bottom line is that me and plenty of others are left out. So much for
providing the service to everyone. They're full of ****.

Hawke

OT - Got broadband?
 

On Jan 31, 10:32*pm, "Hawke" wrote:
"Loren Amelang" wrote in message

...





On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:06:03 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

Got broadband?

No. I pay about $110 per month for 128K ISDN. The next step up is a T1
for $650 per month. Well, there is satellite, if you can tolerate the
latency and don't need any of the applications they can't support. And
if you happen to have been in line long enough to get to the top of
their waiting list, and if you're willing to pay for a service that
imposes "FAP" speed limits for an average rate much lower than my
128K.

Critics say the FCC's data is misleading. A broadband provider has to
serve only a single residence in a ZIP code for it to be counted. The
agency has launched its own inquiry into how it can "develop a more
accurate picture" of broadband deployment.

The government report calls the puny, FAP limited satellite providers
"broadband", and since I'm potentially served by two of them, they've
declared "Mission Accomplished".

Loren

Typical. It's just like in the Vietnam War days. They tell you what sounds
good but isn't near the truth. In this case they call minimal service in an
area "serving the area", they call slow service "broadband, and they call
service you can get but can't afford "providing broadband". That's what you
get from people who are basically dishonest. All they care about is whether
the business is profitable or not and the kind of service means nothing as
long as money is being made. When corporations rule the world that's what
you get.

Take my case. I'm told by the phone company that I'm 20,000 ft. from the
nearest switching station. To get DSL I need to be 15,000 ft. or less so I'm
5,000 ft. away from getting the service. I might as well be 1,000 miles
because they aren't going to provide the service. They won't put in the
equipment to serve my area because it costs money and they won't get enough
customers to justify it. So I sit here with ridiculously slow dialup and
there is nothing I can do but order satellite service that is way too
expensive. If I was 5,000 ft. closer I could get DSL for 15.00 a month. The
bottom line is that me and plenty of others are left out. So much for
providing the service to everyone. They're full of ****.

Hawke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I too have only dialup.

I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.

Like the implementation of the Interstate system in the 60's within
the United States, I consider a true broadband connection to each and
every home would revolutionize this culture far beyond where it is
today in ways that we cannot yet imagine.

TMT

OT - Got broadband?
 

We finally got broadband here in a small Sierra Nevada Mountain community
about 6 months ago. We had the last dial phone system in the state, and no
"caller ID" until 2 years ago. We still cant get callers blocked here.
DSL lines run past but there aren't enough paying customers here for them to
tap the line for us.
Next week i am going to Comcast phone service, and throwing Ma Bell out on
her lazy ass.
--
Stupendous Man,
Defender of Freedom, Advocate of Liberty

OT - Got broadband?
 

Stupendous Man wrote:
We finally got broadband here in a small Sierra Nevada Mountain
community about 6 months ago. We had the last dial phone system in the
state, and no "caller ID" until 2 years ago. We still cant get callers
blocked here.
DSL lines run past but there aren't enough paying customers here for
them to tap the line for us.
Next week i am going to Comcast phone service, and throwing Ma Bell
out on her lazy ass.
Ma Bell, back in 1981 in Wichita my dad and I were trying to call
England and kept getting a message saying all international line were
busy, made sense it was Christmas, after about 2 weeks we called the
operator and were told that was because we didn't have international
direct dialing from our location so she dialed and we got straight
through. All that technology and they couldn't provide a correct message.

OT - Got broadband?
 

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:28:06 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
snip
I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.
snip
=============
If the "brave new world order" and "global economy" is a reality,
and the U.S. is to successfully compete, the failure to construct
adequate broadband facilities, at least equal to those in Europe
and the "Asian Tigers" is the height of folly and negligence"

Unfortunately, it's not just Bush [he will be gone in a year] and
it's not just broadband.

Both Republicans and Democrats must shoulder responsibility for
the total failure to improve or even maintain much of the
American infrastructure, including not only broadband, but roads,
bridges, airports, air traffic control, etc., going back at least
30 years.

While much has been written about the "hollowing out" of
America's manufacturing and technology, comparatively little has
been said about our "patch and pray" infrastructure maintenance
policy. Huge sums are being spent to construct the NAFTA
interstate from Mexico to Canada, but pittances are spent on our
existing bridges, roads, tunnels, etc.

We are eating our seed corn, and now most of it is gone…

OT - Got broadband?
 

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:40:40 -0800, "Stupendous Man"
wrote:


Next week i am going to Comcast phone service, and throwing Ma Bell out on
her lazy ass.
Be careful when you do that - I did it a year ago. I got the new
provider on line, then returned their rental phone to their phone
centre. Next day I called to cancel Ma Bell's service and got told al
97 reasons why I was a total F*****g idiot for signing on with an
alternate provider, Then I got the final billing including a $60.00
charge for a lost telephone set. It took me three months and numerous
phone calls to get my $60 back, so a bit of advise - If you are
going to cancel Ma Bell, make certain you kill auto payment first.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

OT - Got broadband?
 

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.

It isn't governments job to provide you with broadband. Hell, next thing
you will want is free health care.

Wes

OT - Got broadband?
 

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:38:39 -0500, Wes wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.

It isn't governments job to provide you with broadband. Hell, next thing
you will want is free health care.

Wes


Arnt broadband providers private entities? Along with phone
companies?

So if you dont have a cell phone, its Bush's fault?

Typical leftard bliss ninny nanny state socialism.

Gunner

OT - Got broadband?
 

On 2008-02-01, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jan 31, 10:32*pm, "Hawke" wrote:

[ ... ]

I too have only dialup.

I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.

Like the implementation of the Interstate system in the 60's within
the United States, I consider a true broadband connection to each and
every home would revolutionize this culture far beyond where it is
today in ways that we cannot yet imagine.

You mean allow *everyone* to share in the full flood of spam for
body part enhancement, phishing scams, and 419 scams?

Frankly, I wish that all congressmen and senators would be
required to handle their *own* e-mail, instead of passing the task off
to an overworked staff member. If that were to happen, then we could
get anti-spam legislation with *teeth*. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

OT - Got broadband?
 

On Feb 1, 6:38*pm, Wes wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.

It isn't governments job to provide you with broadband. *Hell, next thing
you will want is free health care.

Wes

Well you may have a point...where does government's responsibility end
and the free market begin?

Just because I have a car doesn't mean that it is the government's job
to provide roads.

Just because I have a house doesn't mean that it is the government's
job to provide fire protection.

Just because...well one can go on and on but again you may have a
point. ;)

TMT

OT - Got broadband?
 

On Feb 1, 11:25*pm, "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
On 2008-02-01, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Jan 31, 10:32*pm, "Hawke" wrote:

* * * * [ ... ]

I too have only dialup.

I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.

Like the implementation of the Interstate system in the 60's within
the United States, I consider a true broadband connection to each and
every home would revolutionize this culture far beyond where it is
today in ways that we cannot yet imagine.

* * * * You mean allow *everyone* to share in the full flood of spam for
body part enhancement, phishing scams, and 419 scams?

* * * * Frankly, I wish that all congressmen and senators would be
required to handle their *own* e-mail, instead of passing the task off
to an overworked staff member. *If that were to happen, then we could
get anti-spam legislation with *teeth*. :-)

* * * * Enjoy,
* * * * * * * * DoN.

--
*Email: * * | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
* * * * (too) near Washington D.C. |http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
* * * * * *--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Actually I consider the failure to control spam is a good indicator of
how secure America's infrastructure is from cyber attack.

And of how good the Government's ability to protect its databases with
our SS numbers and financial data.

TMT

TMT

OT - Got broadband?
 

On Feb 1, 11:25*pm, "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
On 2008-02-01, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Jan 31, 10:32*pm, "Hawke" wrote:

* * * * [ ... ]

I too have only dialup.

I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.

Like the implementation of the Interstate system in the 60's within
the United States, I consider a true broadband connection to each and
every home would revolutionize this culture far beyond where it is
today in ways that we cannot yet imagine.

* * * * You mean allow *everyone* to share in the full flood of spam for
body part enhancement, phishing scams, and 419 scams?

* * * * Frankly, I wish that all congressmen and senators would be
required to handle their *own* e-mail, instead of passing the task off
to an overworked staff member. *If that were to happen, then we could
get anti-spam legislation with *teeth*. :-)

* * * * Enjoy,
* * * * * * * * DoN.

--
*Email: * * | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
* * * * (too) near Washington D.C. |http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
* * * * * *--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

I should add that I strongly agree with you on the "their own email"
issue.

Politicians need to live in the world we do instead of the bubble they
call Washington, D.C.

TMT

OT - Got broadband?
 

On Feb 1, 11:25*pm, "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
On 2008-02-01, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Jan 31, 10:32*pm, "Hawke" wrote:

* * * * [ ... ]

I too have only dialup.

I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.

Like the implementation of the Interstate system in the 60's within
the United States, I consider a true broadband connection to each and
every home would revolutionize this culture far beyond where it is
today in ways that we cannot yet imagine.

* * * * You mean allow *everyone* to share in the full flood of spam for
body part enhancement, phishing scams, and 419 scams?

* * * * Frankly, I wish that all congressmen and senators would be
required to handle their *own* e-mail, instead of passing the task off
to an overworked staff member. *If that were to happen, then we could
get anti-spam legislation with *teeth*. :-)

* * * * Enjoy,
* * * * * * * * DoN.

--
*Email: * * | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
* * * * (too) near Washington D.C. |http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
* * * * * *--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Don...I was thinking....isn't the flood of spam for body part
enhancement, phishing scams, and 419 scams just the free market in
action?

Does a person want the Government to protect us from it?

In fact if one considers the "Do Not Call" list, its effect is the
Government limiting the actions of the free market.

I really do miss those dinner calls I used to get.... ;)

TMT

OT - Got broadband?
 

Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Just because I have a house doesn't mean that it is the government's
job to provide fire protection.

There it is, you got it. Fire protection is a local service provided by
local government paid for by the residents.



Have a good night,

Wes

OT - Got broadband?
 

Gerald Miller wrote:

If you are
going to cancel Ma Bell, make certain you kill auto payment first.
Gerry :-)}

Auto payment is for trusting souls. The only automatic payment I have setup
is strangely enough for my auto ;)

Wes

OT - Got broadband?
 

Holy **** - he's starting to get it!

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Feb 1, 6:38 pm, Wes wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.

It isn't governments job to provide you with broadband. Hell, next thing
you will want is free health care.

Wes

Well you may have a point...where does government's responsibility end
and the free market begin?

Just because I have a car doesn't mean that it is the government's job
to provide roads.

EXACTLY! You are not entitled to a road going to wherever you want to go.
those roads exist and my tax dollars or tolls are paying for them.

Just because I have a house doesn't mean that it is the government's
job to provide fire protection.

IT IS NOT! They choose to in many locations.
Not here in rural Pennsylvania. I support my local VFD.

Mark

OT - Got broadband?
 

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
On 2008-02-01, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jan 31, 10:32 pm, "Hawke" wrote:

[ ... ]

I too have only dialup.

I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.

Like the implementation of the Interstate system in the 60's within
the United States, I consider a true broadband connection to each and
every home would revolutionize this culture far beyond where it is
today in ways that we cannot yet imagine.

You mean allow *everyone* to share in the full flood of spam for
body part enhancement, phishing scams, and 419 scams?

Frankly, I wish that all congressmen and senators would be
required to handle their *own* e-mail, instead of passing the task off
to an overworked staff member. If that were to happen, then we could
get anti-spam legislation with *teeth*. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---


I don't need help from legislators on Spam.
They're already Fkcuing up too many other things.

Mark

OT - Got broadband?
 

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:38:47 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:38:39 -0500, Wes wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.

It isn't governments job to provide you with broadband. Hell, next thing
you will want is free health care.

Wes


Arnt broadband providers private entities? Along with phone
companies?

So if you dont have a cell phone, its Bush's fault?

Typical leftard bliss ninny nanny state socialism.

Gunner

Broadband providers are in a gray area between private enterprise and
regulated monopoly. ATT owns the only fiber cable within about 50
miles of my rural area. If you want to connect a competing broadband
system to it, they act like a private company and ask for a price no
other profit-dependent enterprise could afford to pay. If you want
them to sell you an end-user sized connection, they fall back on their
regulated monopoly status and quote you the government-regulated
tariff for a (copper - metal content!) T1 - $650 per month plus
"construction costs".

Would I have broadband if there was no FCC and no California Public
Utilities Commission? I think the chances would be better... Without
the artificial, government sanctioned tariffs, bandwidth prices here
would be more likely to converge to big city rates.

I suspect I'll see EV-DO or WiMax from a cellular company long before
ATT gets off its butt here. As we see in the current 700 MHz spectrum
auctions, the future of wireless broadband is intimately intertwined
with the actions of Bush's FCC. If Google succeeds in imposing some
openness and neutrality on the C block, and honors its pledge to "not
be evil", it will be a rare triumph of private enterprise despite
government obstacles.

Once in awhile government actually does something that helps the
consumer. Forcing ATT to sell Californians "naked DSL" (without
requiring you to buy a voice plan to get it) as a condition to
gobbling up what was once Pacific Bell is an example. But even that
shows how what you pay for broadband depends directly on government
action.

Loren

OT - Got broadband?
 

Heard of the Sat up/down link ? Hughes provides. No phone service needed.
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Got broadband?

You are supposed to have it.

TMT


Study: US broadband goal nearly reached By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated
Press Writer
Wed Jan 30, 6:41 PM ET



In 2004, President Bush pledged that all Americans should have
affordable access to high-speed Internet service by 2007. A report to
be released Thursday by the administration says it has succeeded --
mostly.

"Networked Nation: Broadband in America" is an upbeat assessment of
the administration's efforts to spur growth and competition in the
high-speed Internet market. Critics said the report's conclusion is
too rosy.

The report was prepared by the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, an agency within the Commerce Department
that acts as the president's principal adviser on telecommunications
and information policy issues.

The report concludes that "a reasonable assessment of the available
data indicates" that the objective of affordable access to broadband
for all has been realized "to a very great degree."

Richard Russell, deputy director for technology in the executive
office of the president, also answered the question in the
affirmative, but with a caveat.

"The answer is by most metrics yes," he said. "However, there's still
a lot more that needs to be done."

Broadband penetration has been a sore point for the government and
industry as international surveys have shown that the United States,
the birthplace of the Internet, lags behind other nations. The
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranked the U.S.
in 15th place for broadband lines per person in 2006, down from No. 4
in 2001.

The NTIA report drew its conclusion using data from the Federal
Communications Commission and other sources. The FCC reported that
more than 99 percent of all U.S. ZIP codes received broadband service
from at least one provider by the end of 2006.

Critics say the FCC's data is misleading. A broadband provider has to
serve only a single residence in a ZIP code for it to be counted. The
agency has launched its own inquiry into how it can "develop a more
accurate picture" of broadband deployment.

"More data is necessary," Meredith Attwell Baker, acting chief of
NTIA, said in an interview. "We support the FCC's current efforts to
produce better data."

A bill sponsored by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., that would develop an
annual inventory of existing broadband services has passed the House
and awaits action in the Senate.

The report paints a picture of a broadband environment that is
becoming increasingly competitive, for which it credits the
president's policies. Bush has promoted polices that created "an
environment in which broadband innovation and competition can
flourish," the report states.

Among them: a freeze on state and local taxes on Internet access; a
policy of clearing airwaves for use by commercial providers of
wireless broadband service; and continuing efforts to "clear away
regulatory obstacles" that might thwart investment in new
technologies.

"If you look at the administration policies from the beginning,
there's been a comprehensive set of technology, regulatory and fiscal
economic policies that have laid the foundation for the robust
competitive environment that we are enjoying today," Baker said.

The FCC numbers indicate that the total number of broadband lines has
grown from 6.8 million in December 2000 to 82.5 million in December
2006.

But defining broadband is a highly subjective exercise. The FCC
defined it as 200 kilobits per second. That's about four times the
speed of a good dial-up connection and barely fast enough to stream
video.

"The notion that a 200-kilobit connection is broadband is itself
ludicrous," said Derek Turner, research director for Free Press, a
nonprofit public interest group that studies media and technology
issues. Turner wrote a report critical of the FCC's data analysis.

Turner said there have been great strides in the growth of broadband,
but said there is still a digital divide.

"In rich suburban areas they're getting broadband," he said. "But in
many poor and many rural areas we're not seeing the same kind of
competitive marketplace that President Bush outlined in his speech in
2004."

OT - Got broadband?
 

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:04:05 -0800, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:

Those tones signal 'Not A Working Number' to an automatic dialer.
Before the Do Not Call list came out, I wrote a program to generate
them and practiced with it until I could whistle the sequence, to get
myself off telemarketers' call lists.

They are 985Hz, 1428Hz, 1776Hz +/- about 25Hz, each for 380mS.

There are about 32 different official ITU combinations with slight
variations on the tones, 8 in use in the USA - so a machine making
automated test calls can record WHY it failed. The most common one is
the 'vacant number intercept', but they have them for 'all circuits
busy' in the originating and terminating switchrooms and other
oddities. The Incumbent Telco you use doesn't want to take blame for
something that's another Telco or Competitive Carrier's fault.


Are the miltitary/government tones still in effect? Certain tones
would automatically switch into governmental phone networks?


Gunner, one time black boxer in his Much younger days.




"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

OT - Got broadband?
 

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:44:32 -0800, Loren Amelang
wrote:


Broadband providers are in a gray area between private enterprise and
regulated monopoly. ATT owns the only fiber cable within about 50
miles of my rural area. If you want to connect a competing broadband
system to it, they act like a private company and ask for a price no
other profit-dependent enterprise could afford to pay. If you want
them to sell you an end-user sized connection, they fall back on their
regulated monopoly status and quote you the government-regulated
tariff for a (copper - metal content!) T1 - $650 per month plus
"construction costs".

Would I have broadband if there was no FCC and no California Public
Utilities Commission? I think the chances would be better... Without
the artificial, government sanctioned tariffs, bandwidth prices here
would be more likely to converge to big city rates.

I suspect I'll see EV-DO or WiMax from a cellular company long before
ATT gets off its butt here. As we see in the current 700 MHz spectrum
auctions, the future of wireless broadband is intimately intertwined
with the actions of Bush's FCC. If Google succeeds in imposing some
openness and neutrality on the C block, and honors its pledge to "not
be evil", it will be a rare triumph of private enterprise despite
government obstacles.

Once in awhile government actually does something that helps the
consumer. Forcing ATT to sell Californians "naked DSL" (without
requiring you to buy a voice plan to get it) as a condition to
gobbling up what was once Pacific Bell is an example. But even that
shows how what you pay for broadband depends directly on government
action.

Don't give up hope quite yet - AT&T has been deploying DSL in the
remote areas recently, much to the chagrin of their more desperate
customers - the ones who many years ago shelled out the $3,000 -
$10,000 setup and $600 a month to get a T-1 line to the top of their
mountain several years ago.

And now there's a new Remote DSLAM cabinet next to the Pair Gain
cabinet near the top of that hill, and DSL service available for a
whole lot less - because they can use two spare channels on the same
unloaded and repeatered T-1 span system that the desperate person paid
to have installed, and split it up between 50 DSL users at the top of
the hill.

The one thing you do get with a T-1 that you don't get with DSL is a
service level guarantee - if it fails, they get on it pronto because
you stop paying till it works again. With DSL it's a "Best Effort"
service level, as in "Please leave a message, and we'll check it out
next Tuesday between 1 and 5 PM..."

If you want to go "Fixed Wireless", check out the EVDO Rev-A
offerings from Verizon Wireless - they work well. But be advised that
there is a defacto limit on the "Unlimited" service, unless you pay
extra for "business rates" they will squawk when usage goes over a
certain point - IIRC it's somewhere around 5 or 10 GB a month.

-- Bruce --

OT - Got broadband?
 

"Loren Amelang" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:38:47 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:38:39 -0500, Wes wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I consider the fact that every American does not have true broadband
to be one of the Bush Administration's greatest failures.

It isn't governments job to provide you with broadband. Hell, next
thing
you will want is free health care.

Wes


Arnt broadband providers private entities? Along with phone
companies?

So if you dont have a cell phone, its Bush's fault?

Typical leftard bliss ninny nanny state socialism.

Gunner

Broadband providers are in a gray area between private enterprise and
regulated monopoly. ATT owns the only fiber cable within about 50
miles of my rural area. If you want to connect a competing broadband
system to it, they act like a private company and ask for a price no
other profit-dependent enterprise could afford to pay. If you want
them to sell you an end-user sized connection, they fall back on their
regulated monopoly status and quote you the government-regulated
tariff for a (copper - metal content!) T1 - $650 per month plus
"construction costs".

Would I have broadband if there was no FCC and no California Public
Utilities Commission? I think the chances would be better... Without
the artificial, government sanctioned tariffs, bandwidth prices here
would be more likely to converge to big city rates.

I suspect I'll see EV-DO or WiMax from a cellular company long before
ATT gets off its butt here. As we see in the current 700 MHz spectrum
auctions, the future of wireless broadband is intimately intertwined
with the actions of Bush's FCC. If Google succeeds in imposing some
openness and neutrality on the C block, and honors its pledge to "not
be evil", it will be a rare triumph of private enterprise despite
government obstacles.

Once in awhile government actually does something that helps the
consumer. Forcing ATT to sell Californians "naked DSL" (without
requiring you to buy a voice plan to get it) as a condition to
gobbling up what was once Pacific Bell is an example. But even that
shows how what you pay for broadband depends directly on government
action.

Loren

If the government didn't regulate it providers like AT&T would only sell the
product where it was the most profitable and wouldn't offer it at all to
small towns or rural areas. They would do like the airlines. They only fly
to big metro areas where lots of passengers want to go and would not go to
any smaller markets. Without regulation big business doesn't compete. It
looks for monopoly and tries to avoid competion. Be glad for the
government's help. Without it you would get nothing.

Hawke

OT - Got broadband?
 

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

You mean allow *everyone* to share in the full flood of spam for
body part enhancement, phishing scams, and 419 scams?

Frankly, I wish that all congressmen and senators would be
required to handle their *own* e-mail, instead of passing the task off
to an overworked staff member. If that were to happen, then we could
get anti-spam legislation with *teeth*. :-)


ICASMs? (Inter-Continental Anti Spammer Missiles) ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

OT - Got broadband?
 

Loren Amelang wrote:

Broadband providers are in a gray area between private enterprise and
regulated monopoly. ATT owns the only fiber cable within about 50
miles of my rural area. If you want to connect a competing broadband
system to it, they act like a private company and ask for a price no
other profit-dependent enterprise could afford to pay. If you want
them to sell you an end-user sized connection, they fall back on their
regulated monopoly status and quote you the government-regulated
tariff for a (copper - metal content!) T1 - $650 per month plus
"construction costs".


I have over 3.5 times the bandwidth of a T1 over the roadrunner backbone
for $45 a month. Even with multiple computers online, and streaming
music it just tested as:

Time:

Download time (milliseconds): 4437
Download time (seconds): 4.437
Start Time: 1202141510906
End Time: 1202141515343
Data:

Download size (bits): 24576000
Download size (bytes): 3072000
Download size (kilobytes): 3000
Speed (bits/second): 5538877.620013522
Speed (bytes/second): 692359.7025016902
Speed (kilobytes/second): 676.1325219743069

using http://web.tampabay.rr.com/giis/

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

OT - Got broadband?
 

Hawke wrote:

Take my case. I'm told by the phone company that I'm 20,000 ft. from the
nearest switching station. To get DSL I need to be 15,000 ft. or less so I'm
5,000 ft. away from getting the service. I might as well be 1,000 miles
because they aren't going to provide the service. They won't put in the
equipment to serve my area because it costs money and they won't get enough
customers to justify it. So I sit here with ridiculously slow dialup and
there is nothing I can do but order satellite service that is way too
expensive. If I was 5,000 ft. closer I could get DSL for 15.00 a month. The
bottom line is that me and plenty of others are left out. So much for
providing the service to everyone. They're full of ****.


Yeah, but for $15/Mo they are not going to put an RT in your neighborhood to
bring you DSL until somebody else (competitor) has a viable way. I was
paying $79/Mo for a commercial static-IP DSL from Covad, when my local
phone co decided they didn't want their lines used by somebody else, so
they started lengthening my copper loop. I started out at 12,600' and
ended up at about 18,000'. My DSL still worked marginally, but Covad
didn't want to deal with it anymore. They told me they'd keep the line
up as much as they could, but I'd get no more service on the modem or line.

I eventually had to switch to cable modem, which works, but it is a
shared service, and also Charter Comm. is running an extreme low-budget
business, and their 1st tier backbone providers have them throttled.
There are times in the evening where it takes 5 seconds+ to ping a IP
address some distance away. So, now I pay $89 /Mo for a service that
can actually be WORSE!

AT&T's new high-speed package seems to be mostly for video streaming,
and so the IP performance doesn't look much better. And, more money
again, as you have to buy the whole bundle. And, we are not a
Verizon-served area.

Jon

OT - Got broadband?
 

David Billington wrote:
Stupendous Man wrote:

We finally got broadband here in a small Sierra Nevada Mountain
community about 6 months ago. We had the last dial phone system in the
state, and no "caller ID" until 2 years ago. We still cant get callers
blocked here.
DSL lines run past but there aren't enough paying customers here for
them to tap the line for us.
Next week i am going to Comcast phone service, and throwing Ma Bell
out on her lazy ass.

Ma Bell, back in 1981 in Wichita my dad and I were trying to call
England and kept getting a message saying all international line were
busy, made sense it was Christmas, after about 2 weeks we called the
operator and were told that was because we didn't have international
direct dialing from our location so she dialed and we got straight
through. All that technology and they couldn't provide a correct message.

I had a crazy one some years ago. I was calling a manufacturer in
southern California that I'd called a few months before. I dialed the
number, and got the three rising tones and then a recorded message
"We're sorry, the number you dialed 123-456-7890 is not on the system
(pause) 4 (pause) 5 (pause) 7". The pauses are like when a computer is
saying a number from recorded sound snips. Well, such a message
obviously was NEVER intended to be heard by the public, it meant nothing
to me, and I know something about how phone systems work. The next day
I got the same, and decided to see if the are had gotten a new area
code, and got through when I tried that. But, how could an entire
area code be giving out such a totally non-informative message?

I assume what was happening is the long-distance switching router has
a table of all possible exchanges for each area code, and either a
pointer to how to route to that exchange, or a pointer to a message to
please check your number and try again. So, the table must have had an
error in it, and the router did the only thing it could do and produced
that bizarre message.

Jon

OT - Got broadband?
 

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
I have over 3.5 times the bandwidth of a T1 over the roadrunner backbone
for $45 a month. Even with multiple computers online, and streaming
music it just tested as:

Roadrunner seems to be a great outfit! My wife and kids moved to the
east edge of the Tamps area (Brandon) while she was going to school down
there, and I was very impressed by the performance and stability of
their system (resold by a local outfit BrightHouse).


using http://web.tampabay.rr.com/giis/


I see you are in that area, too. Really CHEAP service for 6 Mb/sec!
We were paying $19 for most of the contract, I pay $89 in the St. Louis
are for 1.5 Mb/sec cable but with static IP.

OT - Got broadband?
 

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

You mean allow *everyone* to share in the full flood of spam for
body part enhancement, phishing scams, and 419 scams?

Frankly, I wish that all congressmen and senators would be
required to handle their *own* e-mail, instead of passing the task off
to an overworked staff member. If that were to happen, then we could
get anti-spam legislation with *teeth*. :-)



ICASMs? (Inter-Continental Anti Spammer Missiles) ;-)



I could really get behind such an effort! Actually, there is a method,
and it needs to be pushed forward. All ISPs would need to require all
email senders to validate their connection by password. Many in the
3rd world don't require this. Then, only documented subscribers could
send email, and the bevy of compromised machines that are currently
being exploited to send most of the CRAP would be disabled.

The second phase would be that these non-complying ISPs would be givven
a severe ultimatum: First warning, you have a month to get your
subscribers in line and using the passwords, second time you have a
week, next time 24 hours, and if you don't comply, your entire range of
IP addresses will be blocked from accessing the entire world - basically
the top level routers would be set to just block you out. In many
cases, that would mean an entire country would just drop off the internet.

First, if you actually LOOK at this stuff, much of the SPAM is not
actually effective, ie. there is no link at all to any service or
on-line store, or the link is no longer operational, and hasn't been for
MONTHS!
So, it is actually a mystery to me who sends this stuff or why - is it
compromised machines that are autonomously broadcasting crap all over
the world, long after the original exploiter had moved on? I kind of
think so!

Jon

OT - Got broadband?
 

On Feb 5, 4:57*pm, Jon Elson wrote:
...
I had a crazy one some years ago. *I was calling a manufacturer in
southern California that I'd called a few months before. *I dialed the
number, and got the three rising tones and then a recorded message
"We're sorry, the number you dialed 123-456-7890 is not on the system
(pause) 4 (pause) 5 (pause) 7". *...
Jon

Those tones signal 'Not A Working Number' to an automatic dialer.
Before the Do Not Call list came out, I wrote a program to generate
them and practiced with it until I could whistle the sequence, to get
myself off telemarketers' call lists.

They are 985Hz, 1428Hz, 1776Hz +/- about 25Hz, each for 380mS.
Radio Shack sold a TeleZapper for about $50 that made the first tone
only.

Jim Wilkins

OT - Got broadband?
 

On 2008-02-05, Jon Elson wrote:

[ ... ]

I could really get behind such an effort! Actually, there is a method,
and it needs to be pushed forward. All ISPs would need to require all
email senders to validate their connection by password. Many in the
3rd world don't require this. Then, only documented subscribers could
send email, and the bevy of compromised machines that are currently
being exploited to send most of the CRAP would be disabled.

Note that most of the spam comes from compromised machines which
run programs which are marginal SMTP servers. They don't bother looking
at error reports (which is why I get several hundred delivery attempts
in spite of refusing each one), and they don't use the ISP's mail
servers at all, so the requirement for a password is rather bypassed.

This *could* be fixed by blocking all connections via port 25
(the SMTP port), and only allowing the users to pass mail to the ISP's
mail server via a totally different protocol on a different port.

Those which *do* use the ISP's mail server can find the user's
password in the computer in a standard place (so the user's mail can go
out normally).

The second phase would be that these non-complying ISPs would be givven
a severe ultimatum: First warning, you have a month to get your
subscribers in line and using the passwords, second time you have a
week, next time 24 hours, and if you don't comply, your entire range of
IP addresses will be blocked from accessing the entire world - basically
the top level routers would be set to just block you out. In many
cases, that would mean an entire country would just drop off the internet.

If the ISPs would block port 25 for any system with dynamic IPs
(which thus should be using the ISP's mail server, not running their
own, which should only be done from a static IP), it would eliminate a
lot of the spam.

For the systems with static IPs (such as mine), you do need to
allow running a genuine mail server (which I do), but you should require
that it not be run on a system which is easily compromised and thus
usable to send out spam (such as Windows systems). I will not net a
Windows system touch the net from my block of IP addresses, and I limit
which ones can connect via the smtp port to the ones which *I* know to
be running a mail server -- and one which is configured to minimize the
chances of it being used to send spam via tricks.

First, if you actually LOOK at this stuff, much of the SPAM is not
actually effective, ie. there is no link at all to any service or
on-line store, or the link is no longer operational, and hasn't been for
MONTHS!

What addresses are you looking at? The links in spam are
typically set up to look as though they are connecting to one system,
while really connecting to another one -- often via a raw IP address
(which usually means another compromised system, which can be contacted
only until the ISP forces a new IP address onto the system, thus
rendering the links invalid.

The "From: " addresses are almost always forged -- and often in
such a manner to make trouble for those whose systems are protected
from actually sending out spam.

So, it is actually a mystery to me who sends this stuff or why - is it
compromised machines that are autonomously broadcasting crap all over
the world, long after the original exploiter had moved on? I kind of
think so!

Spamer (or a virus writer acting as his agent) compromises a
number of machines.

Those machines are then used to compromise more machines,

Those machines are then used to compromise yet more machines,
which actually send out the spam or viruses. Usually, these machines
are set up to watch ISP channels for encrypted sets of instructions, so
once the machine is compromised, the person who compromised it never
needs to connect to it again. s/he just posts encrypted instructions and
spam to an ISP channel, and the machines check in every so often to
pick up their latest orders.

A lot of this would not be happening if Windows XP had not
included the libraries giving ability to act as servers as defined by
programs on the system. I don't know whether Vista has the same
problems or not. But here are a *lot* of XP systems out there being
turned into botnets and spewing out spam.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

OT - Got broadband?
 

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:45:05 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Feb 5, 4:57*pm, Jon Elson wrote:
...
I had a crazy one some years ago. *I was calling a manufacturer in
southern California that I'd called a few months before. *I dialed the
number, and got the three rising tones and then a recorded message
"We're sorry, the number you dialed 123-456-7890 is not on the system
(pause) 4 (pause) 5 (pause) 7". *...
Jon

Your local or long-distance provider had a routing error - this was
probably in the days before they did a "database dip" on every dialed
number to find out which phone company and switch to route it to.

They used to just go by the prefix and assume that "213 555 XXXX"
belonged to Pacific Bell at a certain switchroom, and route it there.
Now that people can change a wireline number to cellular, or vice
versa, or keep their old number and move to the other end of town, or
the other end of the state... That doesn't work.

If you had called your phone company with the "message code" and
those numbers it spit out, it would have made perfect sense to them,
and that's what counts. The number got routed to the wrong local
carrier and their switch went "Not one of ours..."

Those tones signal 'Not A Working Number' to an automatic dialer.
Before the Do Not Call list came out, I wrote a program to generate
them and practiced with it until I could whistle the sequence, to get
myself off telemarketers' call lists.

They are 985Hz, 1428Hz, 1776Hz +/- about 25Hz, each for 380mS.

There are about 32 different official ITU combinations with slight
variations on the tones, 8 in use in the USA - so a machine making
automated test calls can record WHY it failed. The most common one is
the 'vacant number intercept', but they have them for 'all circuits
busy' in the originating and terminating switchrooms and other
oddities. The Incumbent Telco you use doesn't want to take blame for
something that's another Telco or Competitive Carrier's fault.

Radio Shack sold a TeleZapper for about $50 that made the first tone
only.

And the telemarketers figured that one out almost immediately, and
within weeks reprogrammed their predictive dialers to ignore the
TeleZapper single tone fake-out attempt. They had to put some teeth
into the Do Not Call List to get them to stop - mostly.

I flat out will not answer an "ID Blocked" or "ID Unavailable"
or an obviously faked "000 000 0000" CID. Let the machine screen it.

With an Unavailable or Faked, it's almost always a telemarketer for
a politician or an (alleged) charity going "We're exempt from the DNC
List!" Get a clue, if the number is on the list, we don't want to
hear your spew, period. You aren't engendering any good will that way
- I put up a "No Soliciting, No Trespassing" sign (w/ barbed wire and
guard dogs for emphasis), and you barge in and bang on the front door
anyway.

-- Bruce --

OT - Got broadband?
 

Jon Elson wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
I have over 3.5 times the bandwidth of a T1 over the roadrunner backbone
for $45 a month. Even with multiple computers online, and streaming
music it just tested as:

Roadrunner seems to be a great outfit! My wife and kids moved to the
east edge of the Tamps area (Brandon) while she was going to school down
there, and I was very impressed by the performance and stability of
their system (resold by a local outfit BrightHouse).


Brighthouse, AKA 'Time Warner' owns part of the road runner backbone.


using http://web.tampabay.rr.com/giis/


I see you are in that area, too. Really CHEAP service for 6 Mb/sec!
We were paying $19 for most of the contract, I pay $89 in the St. Louis
are for 1.5 Mb/sec cable but with static IP.


My IP is Dynamic, but it hasn't changed in three years.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

OT - Got broadband?
 

Jon Elson wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

You mean allow *everyone* to share in the full flood of spam for
body part enhancement, phishing scams, and 419 scams?

Frankly, I wish that all congressmen and senators would be
required to handle their *own* e-mail, instead of passing the task off
to an overworked staff member. If that were to happen, then we could
get anti-spam legislation with *teeth*. :-)



ICASMs? (Inter-Continental Anti Spammer Missiles) ;-)



I could really get behind such an effort! Actually, there is a method,
and it needs to be pushed forward. All ISPs would need to require all
email senders to validate their connection by password. Many in the
3rd world don't require this. Then, only documented subscribers could
send email, and the bevy of compromised machines that are currently
being exploited to send most of the CRAP would be disabled.

The second phase would be that these non-complying ISPs would be givven
a severe ultimatum: First warning, you have a month to get your
subscribers in line and using the passwords, second time you have a
week, next time 24 hours, and if you don't comply, your entire range of
IP addresses will be blocked from accessing the entire world - basically
the top level routers would be set to just block you out. In many
cases, that would mean an entire country would just drop off the internet.

First, if you actually LOOK at this stuff, much of the SPAM is not
actually effective, ie. there is no link at all to any service or
on-line store, or the link is no longer operational, and hasn't been for
MONTHS!
So, it is actually a mystery to me who sends this stuff or why - is it
compromised machines that are autonomously broadcasting crap all over
the world, long after the original exploiter had moved on? I kind of
think so!

Jon


I think there needs to be a 'handshake' between mail servers to
verify the IP address matches the server name.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

OT - Got broadband?
 

On Feb 2, 10:15*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
...
Are the miltitary/government tones still in effect? *Certain tones
would automatically switch into governmental *phone networks?

Gunner, one time black boxer in his Much younger days.

Remember the Flash Override tone pair?

OT - Got broadband?
 

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:04:05 -0800, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:45:05 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Feb 5, 4:57*pm, Jon Elson wrote:
...
I had a crazy one some years ago. *I was calling a manufacturer in
southern California that I'd called a few months before. *I dialed the
number, and got the three rising tones and then a recorded message
"We're sorry, the number you dialed 123-456-7890 is not on the system
(pause) 4 (pause) 5 (pause) 7". *...
Jon

Your local or long-distance provider had a routing error - this was
probably in the days before they did a "database dip" on every dialed
number to find out which phone company and switch to route it to.

They used to just go by the prefix and assume that "213 555 XXXX"
belonged to Pacific Bell at a certain switchroom, and route it there.
Now that people can change a wireline number to cellular, or vice
versa, or keep their old number and move to the other end of town, or
the other end of the state... That doesn't work.

If you had called your phone company with the "message code" and
those numbers it spit out, it would have made perfect sense to them,
and that's what counts. The number got routed to the wrong local
carrier and their switch went "Not one of ours..."

Those tones signal 'Not A Working Number' to an automatic dialer.
Before the Do Not Call list came out, I wrote a program to generate
them and practiced with it until I could whistle the sequence, to get
myself off telemarketers' call lists.

They are 985Hz, 1428Hz, 1776Hz +/- about 25Hz, each for 380mS.

There are about 32 different official ITU combinations with slight
variations on the tones, 8 in use in the USA - so a machine making
automated test calls can record WHY it failed. The most common one is
the 'vacant number intercept', but they have them for 'all circuits
busy' in the originating and terminating switchrooms and other
oddities. The Incumbent Telco you use doesn't want to take blame for
something that's another Telco or Competitive Carrier's fault.

Radio Shack sold a TeleZapper for about $50 that made the first tone
only.

And the telemarketers figured that one out almost immediately, and
within weeks reprogrammed their predictive dialers to ignore the
TeleZapper single tone fake-out attempt. They had to put some teeth
into the Do Not Call List to get them to stop - mostly.

I flat out will not answer an "ID Blocked" or "ID Unavailable"
or an obviously faked "000 000 0000" CID. Let the machine screen it.

With an Unavailable or Faked, it's almost always a telemarketer for
a politician or an (alleged) charity going "We're exempt from the DNC
List!" Get a clue, if the number is on the list, we don't want to
hear your spew, period. You aren't engendering any good will that way
- I put up a "No Soliciting, No Trespassing" sign (w/ barbed wire and
guard dogs for emphasis), and you barge in and bang on the front door
anyway.

-- Bruce --
I have had the same number for over24 years, about three years ago I
started getting important message calls for J** F** and no amount of
talking would convince them that they were calling a wrong number.
About six month ago I started getting "please hold" repeated every few
seconds, finally I'd had enough and did hold, when a real warm body
asked for J** F**, I blew it and blistered the wallpaper in her
vicinity and I'm certain she heard some new words in my explanation of
why she couldn't speak to J** F**. When she final hung up, I called
back on the displayed 888 number and repeated my explanation. For some
reason, I haven't had a "please hold" call for over a month. Almost
reminded me of the time several years ago when a collection agency
started calling at 7 AM and hounding me to get hold of one of the
sons, after while, she quit calling due to all the nasty harassment
she got after being told he wasn't available and she would call back
every couple minutes.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

OT - Got broadband?
 

I flat out will not answer an "ID Blocked" or "ID Unavailable"
or an obviously faked "000 000 0000" CID. Let the machine screen it.

Yep, and when you place a 'for sale' ad, I can't respond because my
phone is blocked. Reminds me of an HR person who worked for the US
Department of Agriculture. She would try to call an applicant to come in
for an interview, they would block calls with blocked numbers. But since
the Dept of Ag shared a phone system with a hush hush FBI office, no
amount of unblocking codes would work. So the HR person called the next
person on the list.