AT&T offer's VOIP
 

wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 3:03 pm, HK wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 7:12 pm, BAR wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
message
news:MZmdnUKGHs4SuMXanZ2dnUVZ_uDinZ2d@comcast. com...
JimH wrote:
The actual phone service is not bad. It all depends on the
quality
of
your internet service. When speeds drop in my area (Time Warner
sucks)
then the voice quality degrades to unacceptable.
Vonage needs to improve tech support and stop routing these calls
through
India.
You are correct. I am also concerned that the infringement lawsuit
might
be the death of them, so I am glad others are getting into the VOIP
market
at competitive prices.
Indeed.
I could care less if Vonage goes under as there are plenty of other
options
available.
In the end I could do without any sort of home based phone service
and
it
may eventually get to the point with us relying only our cell
phones.
Bad move. Keep the land-line for emergencies. It only costs about $10
a
month.

Maybe we are just stuck in our old habits................after all,
how
does
the younger generation living on their own survive with *only* a
cell
phone?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
What emergency would a land line handle that a cell phone won't?

When AC power is down. Landline phones run off large battery banks.
One of
the reasons that you should have at least one, old fashioned non
wireless
phone in the house. If the power goes out, ou can not call for help of
service.

Bingo.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've never had a problem with my cell phone. Our area was without
power for four days because of an ice storm three years ago.

Is area covered by 911 locating service of cell phones?

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 7:12 pm, BAR wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
message
. ..
JimH wrote:
The actual phone service is not bad. It all depends on the quality
of
your internet service. When speeds drop in my area (Time Warner
sucks)
then the voice quality degrades to unacceptable.
Vonage needs to improve tech support and stop routing these calls
through
India.
You are correct. I am also concerned that the infringement lawsuit
might
be the death of them, so I am glad others are getting into the VOIP
market
at competitive prices.
Indeed.
I could care less if Vonage goes under as there are plenty of other
options
available.
In the end I could do without any sort of home based phone service and
it
may eventually get to the point with us relying only our cell phones.
Bad move. Keep the land-line for emergencies. It only costs about $10 a
month.



Maybe we are just stuck in our old habits................after all,
how does
the younger generation living on their own survive with *only* a cell
phone?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
What emergency would a land line handle that a cell phone won't?

When AC power is down. Landline phones run off large battery banks. One
of the reasons that you should have at least one, old fashioned non
wireless phone in the house. If the power goes out, ou can not call for
help of service.

Why couldn't you use your cell phone?


911 locating service does not work in all areas.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:28:48 -0500, wrote:



Why couldn't you use your cell phone?

Cell sites need power to run, as well. They may have a small UPS, but
that likely won't keep it operational for very long.

I don't know the infrastructures, but when we had a 36 hour
power/cable/cable phone outage a few months ago, the cell was fine.

--Vic

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

" JimH" ask wrote in message
...

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 7:12 pm, BAR wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
message
. ..
JimH wrote:
The actual phone service is not bad. It all depends on the
quality of
your internet service. When speeds drop in my area (Time Warner
sucks)
then the voice quality degrades to unacceptable.
Vonage needs to improve tech support and stop routing these calls
through
India.
You are correct. I am also concerned that the infringement lawsuit
might
be the death of them, so I am glad others are getting into the VOIP
market
at competitive prices.
Indeed.
I could care less if Vonage goes under as there are plenty of other
options
available.
In the end I could do without any sort of home based phone service
and it
may eventually get to the point with us relying only our cell
phones.
Bad move. Keep the land-line for emergencies. It only costs about $10
a
month.



Maybe we are just stuck in our old habits................after all,
how does
the younger generation living on their own survive with *only* a
cell phone?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
What emergency would a land line handle that a cell phone won't?

When AC power is down. Landline phones run off large battery banks.
One of the reasons that you should have at least one, old fashioned non
wireless phone in the house. If the power goes out, ou can not call
for help of service.

Why couldn't you use your cell phone?


911 locating service does not work in all areas.


So do it the old fashioned way and tell the dispatcher your address.

What if you're disabled or some other reason are unable to speak?

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 16:35:12 -0500, " JimH" ask wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:24:14 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

The power of competition is amazing. I have been using Vonage for a few
years, and can not tell the difference between Vonage and BellSouth
except for the lower price and substantially more features offered by
Vonage.

Today, I got an offer in the mail from AT&T offering VOIP and similar
features at the same price as Vonage. As long as Vonage continues to
provides excellent service, I will not change, but it is nice to see the
market place working.

VOIP is a diaster waiting to happen and when it does, all you VOIP
losers...er...users are going to be stuck with no way to communicate.

You heard it here first.

It has been around for over 10 years and it will be around for a while.

If Vonage goes under, no big deal. If Time Warner VOIP goes under, no big
deal. If all VOIP providers go under, no big deal. In the end I will still
have a cell phone and will always be able to transfer back to my money local
grabbing telephone company (although that will never happen, regardless of
what happens with VOIP). I will also have saved over $500/year using VOIP
while it was up.

It's not about price - it's about complexity and inter-relationship of
digital systems.

Eventually the system will break because of the load - in particular
as the backbone carriers are not putting a lot of money into fiber
anymore because of costs and ROI.

You have to remember that cell phones are also digital - you don't
have analog cells anymore. All it takes is a node to collapse under
load and you can't communicate - like happened here in NE CT last year
when the only people who could communicate were those who had land
lines. I admit it was only for two hours, but it proves the point.

Plus, we have Charter and they can't keep the system up when Mother
Nature decides to fart loudly. Local thunderstorms - forget it - the
system is down for at least four/five hours. The speeds are never
consistent and it sounds horrible even on good days.

Good old analog phone line - the only way to go.

And further proof - when Katrina hit and the Feds needed to find out
what happened to the LOOP, they did it by land line because the cell
phone system collapsed - no Internet.

Keep your VOIP, save the money and try not to think about the
vulnerability of the system - it's way too fragile.

And don't even get me started on this digital TV fiasco.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...


And don't even get me started on this digital TV fiasco.

I spent several hours trying to explain to my son why going to digital TV is
good.
All I got was glassy eyed stares.

But, sometime's it's better to read it. He sent me the following link the
next day with an acknowledgement that he now, "got it".

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar04/3811

Eisboch

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 17:39:19 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .


And don't even get me started on this digital TV fiasco.

I spent several hours trying to explain to my son why going to digital TV is
good.
All I got was glassy eyed stares.

But, sometime's it's better to read it. He sent me the following link the
next day with an acknowledgement that he now, "got it".

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar04/3811

I understand the issue - I disagree with the conclusion.

I'll make the same argument that most people seem to be missing. It's
the same kind of blind spot that JimH has.

Eventually, with the lack of systems through put improvement and
increasing complexity of the digital "system" (which is becoming more
and more integrated) one failure point will cause system collapse.

Without the ability to bypass the digital system with analog signals
receivable by simple devices, the ability to communicate emergency
information is severely compromised.

With the increasing use of wireless everything, even simple tasks now
become vulnerable if the power grid fails. You have people who don't
understand why their wireless phones don't work when the power goes
out, how will you get them to understand that their TV won't work
because it's wirelessly connected to the digital cable box.

I'm telling you - the whole move to digital is going to lead to a
diaster and a big one.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 3:03 pm, HK wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 7:12 pm, BAR wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
message
news:MZmdnUKGHs4SuMXanZ2dnUVZ_uDinZ2d@comcast. com...
JimH wrote:
The actual phone service is not bad. It all depends on the
quality
of
your internet service. When speeds drop in my area (Time Warner
sucks)
then the voice quality degrades to unacceptable.
Vonage needs to improve tech support and stop routing these calls
through
India.
You are correct. I am also concerned that the infringement lawsuit
might
be the death of them, so I am glad others are getting into the VOIP
market
at competitive prices.
Indeed.
I could care less if Vonage goes under as there are plenty of other
options
available.
In the end I could do without any sort of home based phone service
and
it
may eventually get to the point with us relying only our cell
phones.
Bad move. Keep the land-line for emergencies. It only costs about $10
a
month.

Maybe we are just stuck in our old habits................after all,
how
does
the younger generation living on their own survive with *only* a
cell
phone?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
What emergency would a land line handle that a cell phone won't?

When AC power is down. Landline phones run off large battery banks.
One of
the reasons that you should have at least one, old fashioned non
wireless
phone in the house. If the power goes out, ou can not call for help of
service.

Bingo.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've never had a problem with my cell phone. Our area was without
power for four days because of an ice storm three years ago.

You have been lucky.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:40:26 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:16:32 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:28:48 -0500, wrote:



Why couldn't you use your cell phone?

Cell sites need power to run, as well. They may have a small UPS, but
that likely won't keep it operational for very long.

I don't know the infrastructures, but when we had a 36 hour
power/cable/cable phone outage a few months ago, the cell was fine.

--Vic

As I pointed out elsewhere, this could be due to something as simple as you
being in range of a cell tower that was in an area that had power.

Not so simple. I did a quick google and found that cell providers
often have emergency generators to maintain service, and then of
course as you said many power outages are local enough that cell
provider isn't even affected.
From what I read - again, it was cursory - the big issue with
widespread power outages is that the cell service can get overwhelmed
with calls, making getting a connection difficult.
OTOH, my Comcast phone was dead, dead, dead.

--Vic

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:01:17 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 7:12 pm, BAR wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:

The actual phone service is not bad. It all depends on the quality
of
your internet service. When speeds drop in my area (Time Warner
sucks)
then the voice quality degrades to unacceptable.

Vonage needs to improve tech support and stop routing these calls
through
India.
You are correct. I am also concerned that the infringement lawsuit
might
be the death of them, so I am glad others are getting into the VOIP
market
at competitive prices.

Indeed.

I could care less if Vonage goes under as there are plenty of other
options
available.

In the end I could do without any sort of home based phone service and
it
may eventually get to the point with us relying only our cell phones.

Bad move. Keep the land-line for emergencies. It only costs about $10 a
month.



Maybe we are just stuck in our old habits................after all, how
does
the younger generation living on their own survive with *only* a cell
phone?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What emergency would a land line handle that a cell phone won't?

When AC power is down. Landline phones run off large battery banks. One of
the reasons that you should have at least one, old fashioned non wireless
phone in the house. If the power goes out, ou can not call for help of
service.


Use a cell phone!
--
John H

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:14:01 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:36:55 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 7, 3:28 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:05:16 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"





wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 7:12 pm, BAR wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
news:MZmdnUKGHs4SuMXanZ2dnUVZ_uDinZ2d@comcast .com...
JimH wrote:
The actual phone service is not bad. It all depends on the quality
of
your internet service. When speeds drop in my area (Time Warner
sucks)
then the voice quality degrades to unacceptable.
Vonage needs to improve tech support and stop routing these calls
through
India.
You are correct. I am also concerned that the infringement lawsuit
might
be the death of them, so I am glad others are getting into the VOIP
market
at competitive prices.
Indeed.
I could care less if Vonage goes under as there are plenty of other
options
available.
In the end I could do without any sort of home based phone service and
it
may eventually get to the point with us relying only our cell phones.
Bad move. Keep the land-line for emergencies. It only costs about $10 a
month.

Maybe we are just stuck in our old habits................after all, how
does
the younger generation living on their own survive with *only* a cell
phone?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
What emergency would a land line handle that a cell phone won't?

When AC power is down. Landline phones run off large battery banks. One of
the reasons that you should have at least one, old fashioned non wireless
phone in the house. If the power goes out, ou can not call for help of
service.

Why couldn't you use your cell phone?

Cell sites need power to run, as well. They may have a small UPS, but
that likely won't keep it operational for very long.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We was without power for four days in our area because of an ice
storm, which by the way took phone lines out, too, and my cell phone
worked the whole time.

Hasn't anyone ever told you that you can't prove anything with that small of a
sample?

It is entirely possible that from where you were located, there was a reachable
cell site that DIDN'T lose power, so your cell phone continued to work. Not a
situation I would bet my life on. Then again, in a bad ice storm your land lines
might have been brought down too.

Occasionally an ambulance carrying someone with a broken arm or other non-life
threatening problem gets in an accident and the passenger dies. So what?




Another reason to wear a motorcycle helmet.
--
John H

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:20:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:



I'm telling you - the whole move to digital is going to lead to a
diaster and a big one.

I won't disagree. Everything's gone to hell since Morse was dropped.
Well, something like that.
And forget about EMP and solar activity.
Me? Wife got me one of those flashlights that you shake to power it.
So I'll be okay. But what about the children?

--Vic

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 18:46:53 -0500, " JimH" ask wrote:

Let me tell you once again (for the 3rd time).........I could care less if
VOIP dies. Until then, I will spend my $500 annually on more important
things than overpaying MaBell.

And i'll tell you again, for THE THIRD ****ING TIME, that isn't the
issue.

Jesus - how ****ing dense are you?

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 01:10:30 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 18:46:53 -0500, " JimH" ask wrote:

Let me tell you once again (for the 3rd time).........I could care less if
VOIP dies. Until then, I will spend my $500 annually on more important
things than overpaying MaBell.

And i'll tell you again, for THE THIRD ****ING TIME, that isn't the
issue.

Jesus - how ****ing dense are you?

I apologise for my intemperate comments - I can't figure out how to
cancel them.

My sincerest apologies - seriously. :)

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:17:53 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:40:26 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:16:32 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:28:48 -0500, wrote:



Why couldn't you use your cell phone?

Cell sites need power to run, as well. They may have a small UPS, but
that likely won't keep it operational for very long.

I don't know the infrastructures, but when we had a 36 hour
power/cable/cable phone outage a few months ago, the cell was fine.

--Vic

As I pointed out elsewhere, this could be due to something as simple as you
being in range of a cell tower that was in an area that had power.

Not so simple. I did a quick google and found that cell providers
often have emergency generators to maintain service, and then of
course as you said many power outages are local enough that cell
provider isn't even affected.

Ummm....no?

In rural areas, like I live in, the system is generator to battery
backup to...nothing. The max operating time is about 6 hours under
emergency conditions.

But that's not the issue. The issue is how the calls are distributed
from the cell site to the land system. That's the vunerable point.
The aquisition and distribution. Plus, a lot of the control points
are done wirelessly by satellite - that's all digital. If that system
fails for any number of reasons, you ain't gonna call no where.

From what I read - again, it was cursory - the big issue with
widespread power outages is that the cell service can get overwhelmed
with calls, making getting a connection difficult.

That is a concern becasue media outlets have contracts for blocks of
cell channels which only leave so many left for the rest of us.

OTOH, my Comcast phone was dead, dead, dead.

Heh - proves the point eh what?

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 01:21:01 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:17:53 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:40:26 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:16:32 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:28:48 -0500, wrote:



Why couldn't you use your cell phone?

Cell sites need power to run, as well. They may have a small UPS, but
that likely won't keep it operational for very long.

I don't know the infrastructures, but when we had a 36 hour
power/cable/cable phone outage a few months ago, the cell was fine.

--Vic

As I pointed out elsewhere, this could be due to something as simple as you
being in range of a cell tower that was in an area that had power.

Not so simple. I did a quick google and found that cell providers
often have emergency generators to maintain service, and then of
course as you said many power outages are local enough that cell
provider isn't even affected.

Ummm....no?

In rural areas, like I live in, the system is generator to battery
backup to...nothing. The max operating time is about 6 hours under
emergency conditions.

I haven't looked into local cell infrastructure, but can only say that
for the 36 hour power outage, the cell worked for the entire period.
The outage was pretty wide, affecting about half a million homes
in my area. I don't know if my cell was generator powered or clear
of the outage, but I didn't hear of widespread cell problems during
the blackout. Maybe there were.

But that's not the issue. The issue is how the calls are distributed
from the cell site to the land system. That's the vunerable point.
The aquisition and distribution. Plus, a lot of the control points
are done wirelessly by satellite - that's all digital. If that system
fails for any number of reasons, you ain't gonna call no where.

From what I read - again, it was cursory - the big issue with
widespread power outages is that the cell service can get overwhelmed
with calls, making getting a connection difficult.

That is a concern becasue media outlets have contracts for blocks of
cell channels which only leave so many left for the rest of us.

OTOH, my Comcast phone was dead, dead, dead.

Heh - proves the point eh what?

Sure does, and I've said I wish I had copper wire, which never
failed all the years I had it. But I live with what I have now, and
the cell proved reliable for the instance I mentioned.
I agree about digital complexity leading to many failure points,
but don't think we'll go back. Just the way the marketplace works.

--Vic

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:01:17 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 7:12 pm, BAR wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
message
...
JimH wrote:

The actual phone service is not bad. It all depends on the quality
of
your internet service. When speeds drop in my area (Time Warner
sucks)
then the voice quality degrades to unacceptable.

Vonage needs to improve tech support and stop routing these calls
through
India.
You are correct. I am also concerned that the infringement lawsuit
might
be the death of them, so I am glad others are getting into the VOIP
market
at competitive prices.

Indeed.

I could care less if Vonage goes under as there are plenty of other
options
available.

In the end I could do without any sort of home based phone service
and
it
may eventually get to the point with us relying only our cell phones.

Bad move. Keep the land-line for emergencies. It only costs about $10 a
month.



Maybe we are just stuck in our old habits................after all,
how
does
the younger generation living on their own survive with *only* a cell
phone?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What emergency would a land line handle that a cell phone won't?

When AC power is down. Landline phones run off large battery banks. One
of
the reasons that you should have at least one, old fashioned non wireless
phone in the house. If the power goes out, ou can not call for help of
service.


Use a cell phone!
--
John H

During some of the fires we have, the cellphone towers get isolated and no
cell. During the earthquakes the cell either goes out or gets overloaded.
And we have several seasons here in California. Mudslide, fire, riot,
earthquake.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 18:14:25 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:01:17 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 7:12 pm, BAR wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
message
...
JimH wrote:

The actual phone service is not bad. It all depends on the quality
of
your internet service. When speeds drop in my area (Time Warner
sucks)
then the voice quality degrades to unacceptable.

Vonage needs to improve tech support and stop routing these calls
through
India.
You are correct. I am also concerned that the infringement lawsuit
might
be the death of them, so I am glad others are getting into the VOIP
market
at competitive prices.

Indeed.

I could care less if Vonage goes under as there are plenty of other
options
available.

In the end I could do without any sort of home based phone service
and
it
may eventually get to the point with us relying only our cell phones.

Bad move. Keep the land-line for emergencies. It only costs about $10 a
month.



Maybe we are just stuck in our old habits................after all,
how
does
the younger generation living on their own survive with *only* a cell
phone?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What emergency would a land line handle that a cell phone won't?

When AC power is down. Landline phones run off large battery banks. One
of
the reasons that you should have at least one, old fashioned non wireless
phone in the house. If the power goes out, ou can not call for help of
service.


Use a cell phone!
--
John H

During some of the fires we have, the cellphone towers get isolated and no
cell. During the earthquakes the cell either goes out or gets overloaded.
And we have several seasons here in California. Mudslide, fire, riot,
earthquake.


Those same things could easily take out a land line.
--
John H

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

" JimH" ask wrote in message
...

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 01:10:30 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 18:46:53 -0500, " JimH" ask wrote:

Let me tell you once again (for the 3rd time).........I could care less
if
VOIP dies. Until then, I will spend my $500 annually on more important
things than overpaying MaBell.

And i'll tell you again, for THE THIRD ****ING TIME, that isn't the
issue.

Jesus - how ****ing dense are you?

I apologise for my intemperate comments - I can't figure out how to
cancel them.

My sincerest apologies - seriously. :)

Hey Tom..........

.....you are not God.......you do not know everything....you are not the
Overlord of this NG and your word is not Gospel. You often (always?)
think otherwise.

You need to understand........you are allowed to make mistakes.....you are
allowed to be wrong. Others can question you and you should not have to
get upset about it.

Believe it or not.........you are a mere mortal Tom. Come back down to
earth and get off your high horse.

With that said...........yes, I accept your apology. ;-)


Actually he was intemperate, but correct. The Digital age is overwhelming
the infrastructure. Especially since they are proposing all the extra TV,
etc over the telephone circuits. The old phone systems allowed a lot of
calls, as the communication was voice and you had TDM so lots of calls over
the same line. An aside, girl I lusted after in junior high and early years
of HS, her father was one of the inventors to TDM. Now, you have to send
lots of packets over a 4400khz line. Phase detection methods allow you to
send more data than an actual 4400 khz line will normally allow. But the
backbone of the system is still the old copper wire and switches. You fail
to realize that the digital age is in its infancy time wise.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 18:14:25 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:01:17 -0800, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 7:12 pm, BAR wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
message
...
JimH wrote:

The actual phone service is not bad. It all depends on the
quality
of
your internet service. When speeds drop in my area (Time Warner
sucks)
then the voice quality degrades to unacceptable.

Vonage needs to improve tech support and stop routing these calls
through
India.
You are correct. I am also concerned that the infringement
lawsuit
might
be the death of them, so I am glad others are getting into the
VOIP
market
at competitive prices.

Indeed.

I could care less if Vonage goes under as there are plenty of other
options
available.

In the end I could do without any sort of home based phone service
and
it
may eventually get to the point with us relying only our cell
phones.

Bad move. Keep the land-line for emergencies. It only costs about $10
a
month.



Maybe we are just stuck in our old habits................after all,
how
does
the younger generation living on their own survive with *only* a
cell
phone?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What emergency would a land line handle that a cell phone won't?

When AC power is down. Landline phones run off large battery banks.
One
of
the reasons that you should have at least one, old fashioned non
wireless
phone in the house. If the power goes out, ou can not call for help of
service.


Use a cell phone!
--
John H

During some of the fires we have, the cellphone towers get isolated and no
cell. During the earthquakes the cell either goes out or gets overloaded.
And we have several seasons here in California. Mudslide, fire, riot,
earthquake.


Those same things could easily take out a land line.
--
John H

Lot less likely. Lots of things take out the AC. And the main feed line to
the VOIP goes, or a feeder circuit to the cable line goes and you are dead.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:36:33 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 01:21:01 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:


OTOH, my Comcast phone was dead, dead, dead.

Heh - proves the point eh what?

Sure does, and I've said I wish I had copper wire, which never
failed all the years I had it. But I live with what I have now, and
the cell proved reliable for the instance I mentioned.
I agree about digital complexity leading to many failure points,
but don't think we'll go back. Just the way the marketplace works.

You know, this reminds me of something else. Bringing frogs to a boil
and pastries. You know about how the frog doesn't know he's dead
until it's too late. Well, concerning pastries, most young people
don't even know what a good sweet roll is. I'm talking Danish,
eclairs, custard and jelly rolls, flaky dough, etc.
Most of these delights involve a couple days preparation, and a
craftsman-like baker.
Into young adulthood, there were German and Swedish bakeries every
quarter mile in Chicago.
I'm not sure of what caused their disappearance, but cheap Dunkin'
Donuts and other chains played a part. It's really a chore finding a
bakery now that can come close to what was common years ago.
Sorry for the digression, but my mouth was watering and I just had to
say it.

--Vic

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 17:39:19 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar04/3811

I understand the issue - I disagree with the conclusion.


I'm telling you - the whole move to digital is going to lead to a
diaster and a big one.



Just think. Your words may forever be considered with a chuckle by future
generations of Google archive viewers, just as Teddy Roosevelt's reluctance
to accept or rely upon the horseless carriage as a replacement for horse
drawn modes of transportation. In 1902 he would ride in a horseless
carriage, but insisted that it be followed by a conventional horse drawn
carriage in case of a breakdown or failure of the new fangled contraption.

-------------------------

The Horseless Carriage
This is very interesting.
A horseless carriage.
What a mysterious thing.

There's a handle in front
That you crank a bit
To wake the contraption up.

There are control things inside
That cause her to start.
Would you care for a ride?

Go ahead. Climb right in.
Crank. Rumble.
We'll give it a spin.

Here we go--a little correction
Of that wheel thing there
Should change our direction.

Well, isn't this fun?
A horseless carriage.
What makes it run?

We're coming to the edge of the lawn.
That's far enough--
Here comes the pond!

Whoa! Oh, no!
What makes it stop?
I said WHOA!

Splash.

(author unknown)

-----------------------------

Eisboch

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...



Actually he was intemperate, but correct. The Digital age is overwhelming
the infrastructure. Especially since they are proposing all the extra TV,
etc over the telephone circuits. The old phone systems allowed a lot of
calls, as the communication was voice and you had TDM so lots of calls
over the same line. An aside, girl I lusted after in junior high and
early years of HS, her father was one of the inventors to TDM. Now, you
have to send lots of packets over a 4400khz line. Phase detection methods
allow you to send more data than an actual 4400 khz line will normally
allow. But the backbone of the system is still the old copper wire and
switches. You fail to realize that the digital age is in its infancy time
wise.



Exactly right ... it is in it's infancy and the transition will take time.
Trying to utilize an infrastructure designed for simpler, but limited analog
communications is what is overwhelming the system. Copper wires will slowly
be replaced with glass and plastic fiberoptics that will be more reliable,
quieter and have an expodential increase in bandwidth capacity. We are
witnessing the dawn of the digital/optical communications age.

Eisboch

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:20:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:



I'm telling you - the whole move to digital is going to lead to a
diaster and a big one.

I won't disagree. Everything's gone to hell since Morse was dropped.
Well, something like that.
And forget about EMP and solar activity.
Me? Wife got me one of those flashlights that you shake to power it.
So I'll be okay. But what about the children?

--Vic


Don't forget. Morse was digital. And it was more reliable and usable in
bad atmospheric conditions.

Eisboch

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 18:45:19 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 18:14:25 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:01:17 -0800, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 7:12 pm, BAR wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
message
...
JimH wrote:

The actual phone service is not bad. It all depends on the
quality
of
your internet service. When speeds drop in my area (Time Warner
sucks)
then the voice quality degrades to unacceptable.

Vonage needs to improve tech support and stop routing these calls
through
India.
You are correct. I am also concerned that the infringement
lawsuit
might
be the death of them, so I am glad others are getting into the
VOIP
market
at competitive prices.

Indeed.

I could care less if Vonage goes under as there are plenty of other
options
available.

In the end I could do without any sort of home based phone service
and
it
may eventually get to the point with us relying only our cell
phones.

Bad move. Keep the land-line for emergencies. It only costs about $10
a
month.



Maybe we are just stuck in our old habits................after all,
how
does
the younger generation living on their own survive with *only* a
cell
phone?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What emergency would a land line handle that a cell phone won't?

When AC power is down. Landline phones run off large battery banks.
One
of
the reasons that you should have at least one, old fashioned non
wireless
phone in the house. If the power goes out, ou can not call for help of
service.


Use a cell phone!
--
John H

During some of the fires we have, the cellphone towers get isolated and no
cell. During the earthquakes the cell either goes out or gets overloaded.
And we have several seasons here in California. Mudslide, fire, riot,
earthquake.


Those same things could easily take out a land line.
--
John H

Lot less likely. Lots of things take out the AC. And the main feed line to
the VOIP goes, or a feeder circuit to the cable line goes and you are dead.


If everything in the world crashes, but does not take out the telephone
land line, then you are correct. That amounts to about $60/month insurance
(by paying Ma Bell) against that kind of catastrophe. That's too high.
--
John H

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 02:06:51 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:20:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:



I'm telling you - the whole move to digital is going to lead to a
diaster and a big one.

I won't disagree. Everything's gone to hell since Morse was dropped.
Well, something like that.
And forget about EMP and solar activity.
Me? Wife got me one of those flashlights that you shake to power it.
So I'll be okay. But what about the children?

--Vic


Don't forget. Morse was digital. And it was more reliable and usable in
bad atmospheric conditions.

Eisboch

Reading the VOIP thread where poles versus buried lines are mentioned
reminded me that I *did* once lose my copper wire phone.
Squirrel chewed through the insulation. Every time after that when I
saw that squirrel running across the line I wondered if he'd cause me
another outage.
But...I didn't have to worry about Injuns or the James' or Youngers
cutting the wires, so considered myself fortunate.

--Vic

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 18:45:19 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 18:14:25 -0800, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:01:17 -0800, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 7:12 pm, BAR wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
message
...
JimH wrote:

The actual phone service is not bad. It all depends on the
quality
of
your internet service. When speeds drop in my area (Time
Warner
sucks)
then the voice quality degrades to unacceptable.

Vonage needs to improve tech support and stop routing these
calls
through
India.
You are correct. I am also concerned that the infringement
lawsuit
might
be the death of them, so I am glad others are getting into the
VOIP
market
at competitive prices.

Indeed.

I could care less if Vonage goes under as there are plenty of
other
options
available.

In the end I could do without any sort of home based phone
service
and
it
may eventually get to the point with us relying only our cell
phones.

Bad move. Keep the land-line for emergencies. It only costs about
$10
a
month.



Maybe we are just stuck in our old habits................after
all,
how
does
the younger generation living on their own survive with *only* a
cell
phone?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What emergency would a land line handle that a cell phone won't?

When AC power is down. Landline phones run off large battery banks.
One
of
the reasons that you should have at least one, old fashioned non
wireless
phone in the house. If the power goes out, ou can not call for help
of
service.


Use a cell phone!
--
John H

During some of the fires we have, the cellphone towers get isolated and
no
cell. During the earthquakes the cell either goes out or gets
overloaded.
And we have several seasons here in California. Mudslide, fire, riot,
earthquake.


Those same things could easily take out a land line.
--
John H

Lot less likely. Lots of things take out the AC. And the main feed line
to
the VOIP goes, or a feeder circuit to the cable line goes and you are
dead.


If everything in the world crashes, but does not take out the telephone
land line, then you are correct. That amounts to about $60/month insurance
(by paying Ma Bell) against that kind of catastrophe. That's too high.
--
John H

My phone runs about $20 a month. Earthlink will supply me unlimited
calling, and DSL for $50 a month. $60 for a wired line seems very high.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 18:45:19 -0800, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 18:14:25 -0800, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:01:17 -0800, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 7:12 pm, BAR wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
message
...
JimH wrote:

The actual phone service is not bad. It all depends on the
quality
of
your internet service. When speeds drop in my area (Time
Warner
sucks)
then the voice quality degrades to unacceptable.

Vonage needs to improve tech support and stop routing these
calls
through
India.
You are correct. I am also concerned that the infringement
lawsuit
might
be the death of them, so I am glad others are getting into the
VOIP
market
at competitive prices.

Indeed.

I could care less if Vonage goes under as there are plenty of
other
options
available.

In the end I could do without any sort of home based phone
service
and
it
may eventually get to the point with us relying only our cell
phones.

Bad move. Keep the land-line for emergencies. It only costs about
$10
a
month.



Maybe we are just stuck in our old habits................after
all,
how
does
the younger generation living on their own survive with *only* a
cell
phone?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What emergency would a land line handle that a cell phone won't?

When AC power is down. Landline phones run off large battery banks.
One
of
the reasons that you should have at least one, old fashioned non
wireless
phone in the house. If the power goes out, ou can not call for help
of
service.


Use a cell phone!
--
John H

During some of the fires we have, the cellphone towers get isolated and
no
cell. During the earthquakes the cell either goes out or gets
overloaded.
And we have several seasons here in California. Mudslide, fire, riot,
earthquake.


Those same things could easily take out a land line.
--
John H

Lot less likely. Lots of things take out the AC. And the main feed line
to
the VOIP goes, or a feeder circuit to the cable line goes and you are
dead.


If everything in the world crashes, but does not take out the telephone
land line, then you are correct. That amounts to about $60/month
insurance
(by paying Ma Bell) against that kind of catastrophe. That's too high.
--
John H

My phone runs about $20 a month. Earthlink will supply me unlimited
calling, and DSL for $50 a month. $60 for a wired line seems very high.

Maybe includes long distance charges. My local service here in Florida
(Embarq) without long distance is about 26 bux a month including tax.

As an ATT retiree I get a perk that pays all but about $50 a year for
unlimited domestic long distance. Don't use much as most all calls are on
my cell phone that includes LD.

Actually the local service is only $16 a month if I count the $5 per
Dishnetwork receiver (2) I'd have to pay if they are not connected to a
phone line.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 01:52:19 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Just think. Your words may forever be considered with a chuckle by future
generations of Google archive viewers, just as Teddy Roosevelt's reluctance
to accept or rely upon the horseless carriage as a replacement for horse
drawn modes of transportation. In 1902 he would ride in a horseless
carriage, but insisted that it be followed by a conventional horse drawn
carriage in case of a breakdown or failure of the new fangled contraption.

So be it and I understand your analogy - it is applicable.

However, consider this. Eventually, the automobile led to tractors
which could pull 40 bottom plows 20 miles in one day - 10 miles out,
ten miles back across the plains of Middle America which eventually
led to the dust bowl and the Depression. What was the cost of
applying the technology in this manner over time?

I'm not playing the role of Ned Ludd nor am I a neo-Luddite although I
do share one belief with them - that the rapid adoption and
application of technology has negative effects on individuals, society
or the planet and can outweigh its benefits by many orders of
magnitude.

For example - just now on the news, they had a segment on outsourcing
personal services. They used the example of one couple who outsources
reading their two children a bed time story to a woman in Croatia -
via the Internet. Or the couple who hired a wedding planner in India
to coordinate a wedding in Milwaukee - he lives in San Diego, she
lives in Phoenix and a gentleman who pays a monthly fee for a "virtual
concierge" in Hungary who handles all his scheduling, travel plans,
business lunches/dinners and a host of other personal services. There
is even a book about it - "The Four Hour Workweek".

http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/

That my friend, is a total misapplication of technology.

While I am concerned about social negative effects, my complaint is
about the vulnerability of the system. For example, take the average
home with a couple of kids, three wireless computers, a TiVO with a
wireless connection and VoIP. Think accident with a cup of coffee or
a fall breaking the router. What happens? Do they have a spare? Did
they think far enough ahead about the potential of failure to purchase
a CAT5/6 cable to connect one computer to the modem?

Think back to what happened in Chicago about ten or so years ago when
that 5 dollar part in a phone switch broke collapsing everything from
air traffic control which shut down O'Hare for eight hours to the
Mercantile Exchange and potentially creating financial havoc because
settlements couldn't be executed for 28 hours - the amount of time it
took to find the break in the system.

The larger the digital system becomes, the more centralized the system
is despite the advantages of distributed systems technology - it's
human nature to condense and consolidate. Tom Barbash's 2003 book "On
Top of the World" details the decision of Cantor Fitzgerald to store
back up data off site in New Jersey - originally, they were going to
store it on secure servers on site in the basement of the WTC. Think
about what might have happened if their decision was to keep it at WTC
- one quarter of the world's treasury bond trading passes through
Cantor Fitzgerald. That one simple decision saved the world from the
potential of economic collapse - or at the least slowed conditions as
they tried to reconstruct trading data going back years.

Put simply, the more complex the system, the more complete the
centralization, the more vulnerable the system becomes.

Modified Opinion Disclaimer:

This opinion is offered as is. No claims of economic knowledge,
technical or otherwise; competence or qualifications are implied.

This opinion may be withdrawn without notice in the interests
of forming a different opinion.

Or not caring anymore.

Especially not caring anymore.

Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.

Consider this opinion only under the direct supervision of an adult
not associated with rec.boats. Do not under any circumstances take
any opinion offered in rec.boats as the final word.

No warranty, expressed or implied applies to this opinion.

Whenever possible, place people on hold.

This opinion may cause reactions including, but not limited to,
headache, constipation, liver damage, drinking to excess, heroin
addiction. Seek medical advice.

For a good time call 867-5309 - ask for Loogy.

If signs of belief in alien invasion occur, immediately consult with
advisors from Area 51, Roswell Division.

Do not request medical advice from anybody on rec.boats.

Hire people with hooks.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 01:52:19 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Just think. Your words may forever be considered with a chuckle by future
generations of Google archive viewers, just as Teddy Roosevelt's
reluctance
to accept or rely upon the horseless carriage as a replacement for horse
drawn modes of transportation. In 1902 he would ride in a horseless
carriage, but insisted that it be followed by a conventional horse drawn
carriage in case of a breakdown or failure of the new fangled contraption.

So be it and I understand your analogy - it is applicable.

However, consider this. Eventually, the automobile led to tractors
which could pull 40 bottom plows 20 miles in one day - 10 miles out,
ten miles back across the plains of Middle America which eventually
led to the dust bowl and the Depression. What was the cost of
applying the technology in this manner over time?

I'm not playing the role of Ned Ludd nor am I a neo-Luddite although I
do share one belief with them - that the rapid adoption and
application of technology has negative effects on individuals, society
or the planet and can outweigh its benefits by many orders of
magnitude.

For example - just now on the news, they had a segment on outsourcing
personal services. They used the example of one couple who outsources
reading their two children a bed time story to a woman in Croatia -
via the Internet. Or the couple who hired a wedding planner in India
to coordinate a wedding in Milwaukee - he lives in San Diego, she
lives in Phoenix and a gentleman who pays a monthly fee for a "virtual
concierge" in Hungary who handles all his scheduling, travel plans,
business lunches/dinners and a host of other personal services. There
is even a book about it - "The Four Hour Workweek".

http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/

That my friend, is a total misapplication of technology.

While I am concerned about social negative effects, my complaint is
about the vulnerability of the system. For example, take the average
home with a couple of kids, three wireless computers, a TiVO with a
wireless connection and VoIP. Think accident with a cup of coffee or
a fall breaking the router. What happens? Do they have a spare? Did
they think far enough ahead about the potential of failure to purchase
a CAT5/6 cable to connect one computer to the modem?

Think back to what happened in Chicago about ten or so years ago when
that 5 dollar part in a phone switch broke collapsing everything from
air traffic control which shut down O'Hare for eight hours to the
Mercantile Exchange and potentially creating financial havoc because
settlements couldn't be executed for 28 hours - the amount of time it
took to find the break in the system.

The larger the digital system becomes, the more centralized the system
is despite the advantages of distributed systems technology - it's
human nature to condense and consolidate. Tom Barbash's 2003 book "On
Top of the World" details the decision of Cantor Fitzgerald to store
back up data off site in New Jersey - originally, they were going to
store it on secure servers on site in the basement of the WTC. Think
about what might have happened if their decision was to keep it at WTC
- one quarter of the world's treasury bond trading passes through
Cantor Fitzgerald. That one simple decision saved the world from the
potential of economic collapse - or at the least slowed conditions as
they tried to reconstruct trading data going back years.

Put simply, the more complex the system, the more complete the
centralization, the more vulnerable the system becomes.


Well structured and thoughtfully expressed.

Here's the "what comes first, the chicken or the egg" question though:

Does the technology produce the vulnerability or does the ever expanding
services made available by the technology make themselves vulnerable?

I don't think you can reign in technology or it's application. We may be
required to rethink what and how much of what we want to make dependent on
it. Those of us that are getting long in the tooth will be satisfied with
less, but imagine explaining to a 16 year old that they really don't need a
cell phone.

Which, I guess, is exactly what your point is.

I doesn't matter though. The genie is out of the lamp and there's no
turning back.

Eisboch

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:06:07 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Here's the "what comes first, the chicken or the egg" question though:

Does the technology produce the vulnerability or does the ever expanding
services made available by the technology make themselves vulnerable?

In my view it's the technology itself that produces the vulnerability.
Complexity follows the rules of unintended consequences - for every
intended expansion or result, you get four unintended consequences.

The problem is that you can't define what those unintended results
will be and that's where the exploitation or fault exists.

I don't think you can reign in technology or it's application. We may be
required to rethink what and how much of what we want to make dependent on
it.

That's a good point and something that I think is missing from the
equation of technological advance.

Access to information is instant. There isn't time to absorb and
process the information - to think and/or ask questions. Last week,
for example, there was a pipeline fire in Michigan which was reported
as "major" - the implication was that all four of the lines from
Canada were involved - the price of oil jumped $3 bucks and change in
seconds. Couple of hours later it was only two involved and finally,
one and it turned out not to be "major" at all - the line was down for
a day. Prices returned down, but the settlement for the day was about
..80¢ higher - restablishing an up trend instead of the prior down
trend based on lack of news.

Back when, it would have taken time to react. Questions would have
been asked, calls made, etc. The event wouldn't have impacted because
time would have been taken to find out what happened. That has
completely changed and is one unintended consequence of instant access
which speculators can exploit to their advantage.

Those of us that are getting long in the tooth will be satisfied with
less, but imagine explaining to a 16 year old that they really don't need a
cell phone.

Agreed.

Which, I guess, is exactly what your point is.

I doesn't matter though. The genie is out of the lamp and there's no
turning back.

I agree with that, but you still have to at least try to anticipate
the results if the Endless Knot we have created dissolves or breaks in
multiple places.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 01:36:36 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:06:07 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Here's the "what comes first, the chicken or the egg" question though:

Does the technology produce the vulnerability or does the ever expanding
services made available by the technology make themselves vulnerable?

In my view it's the technology itself that produces the vulnerability.
Complexity follows the rules of unintended consequences - for every
intended expansion or result, you get four unintended consequences.

The problem is that you can't define what those unintended results
will be and that's where the exploitation or fault exists.

I don't think that's true on the unintended results. Not to say
snowballs don't happen, but most complex systems are well thought out.
Malicious exploitation is another matter entirely.

I don't think you can reign in technology or it's application. We may be
required to rethink what and how much of what we want to make dependent on
it.

That's a good point and something that I think is missing from the
equation of technological advance.

Access to information is instant. There isn't time to absorb and
process the information - to think and/or ask questions. Last week,
for example, there was a pipeline fire in Michigan which was reported
as "major" - the implication was that all four of the lines from
Canada were involved - the price of oil jumped $3 bucks and change in
seconds. Couple of hours later it was only two involved and finally,
one and it turned out not to be "major" at all - the line was down for
a day. Prices returned down, but the settlement for the day was about
.80¢ higher - restablishing an up trend instead of the prior down
trend based on lack of news.

Back when, it would have taken time to react. Questions would have
been asked, calls made, etc. The event wouldn't have impacted because
time would have been taken to find out what happened. That has
completely changed and is one unintended consequence of instant access
which speculators can exploit to their advantage.

That kind of crap happened on trading board floors since people
started yakking and learned the power of rumor. It's simple
irresponsibility and greed, not technology.
Tying the 80 cent gain to that BS is a stretch too. If you listen to
the myriad "reasons" that "analysts" give to any market gains or
losses, it never makes much sense unless it is tied to real
fundamentals. The pipeline didn't even qualify to move the market.
Yak yak yak. Greed, greed, greed.
On the flip side, real info gets to real people, not just insiders,
quickly.

Those of us that are getting long in the tooth will be satisfied with
less, but imagine explaining to a 16 year old that they really don't need a
cell phone.

Agreed.

Which, I guess, is exactly what your point is.

I doesn't matter though. The genie is out of the lamp and there's no
turning back.

I agree with that, but you still have to at least try to anticipate
the results if the Endless Knot we have created dissolves or breaks in
multiple places.

When you consider current complexities and that things aren't breaking
down left and right, it's clear that contingency planning and backup
strategies are well established for most infrastructures.
I know "what ifs" were always a significant part of my job.
It's always going to get down to having thoughtful people in the right
spots. But sometimes the **** will hit the fan anyway.

--Vic

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:14:33 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 01:36:36 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:06:07 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Here's the "what comes first, the chicken or the egg" question though:

Does the technology produce the vulnerability or does the ever expanding
services made available by the technology make themselves vulnerable?

In my view it's the technology itself that produces the vulnerability.
Complexity follows the rules of unintended consequences - for every
intended expansion or result, you get four unintended consequences.

The problem is that you can't define what those unintended results
will be and that's where the exploitation or fault exists.

I don't think that's true on the unintended results. Not to say
snowballs don't happen, but most complex systems are well thought out.
Malicious exploitation is another matter entirely.

I respect your opinion, but even well thought out systems can fail
spectacularly and often for the simplest reasons.

January 28, 1986 - Shuttle Challenger blew up when an O ring failed in
the rocket booster igniting the liquid hydrogen.

February 1, 2003 - Shuttle Columbia disintegrated on reentry after a
piece of foam broke off the hydrogen tank striking the left leading
wing edge.

I'm sure we can agree that space shuttles are very complex systems
with triple and even quadruple system redundancies. Yet, even with
the redundancies, both were laid low by simple mechanical failure.

I don't think you can reign in technology or it's application. We may be
required to rethink what and how much of what we want to make dependent on
it.

That's a good point and something that I think is missing from the
equation of technological advance.

Access to information is instant. There isn't time to absorb and
process the information - to think and/or ask questions. Last week,
for example, there was a pipeline fire in Michigan which was reported
as "major" - the implication was that all four of the lines from
Canada were involved - the price of oil jumped $3 bucks and change in
seconds. Couple of hours later it was only two involved and finally,
one and it turned out not to be "major" at all - the line was down for
a day. Prices returned down, but the settlement for the day was about
.80¢ higher - restablishing an up trend instead of the prior down
trend based on lack of news.

Back when, it would have taken time to react. Questions would have
been asked, calls made, etc. The event wouldn't have impacted because
time would have been taken to find out what happened. That has
completely changed and is one unintended consequence of instant access
which speculators can exploit to their advantage.

That kind of crap happened on trading board floors since people
started yakking and learned the power of rumor. It's simple
irresponsibility and greed, not technology.

Really? Well, allow me to introduce you to something called
programmed trading and specifically October 19, 1987.

While there is still some debate over the exact causes, the most
respected reports on Black Monday (the 1987 one) "Brady Report" by
Nicholas Brady and Mark Carlson's "A Brief History of the 1987 Stock
Market Crash..." state without reservation that programmed trading at
the minimum was responsible for 50% of the total decline and
introduced the negative psychology inherent in any stock/market
fluctuation. Other factors were portfolio insurance selling, the
arbitrage potential between commodity markets and stocks and a flaw in
the European Bourses because of a major weather event.

As you are a "what if" guy and knowledgeable on the subject, I'm sure
you can recognize it as classic cascade failure.

Since then, limits have been placed on programmed trading to limit the
type of cascade failure seen on October 19,1987. but there are still
flaws in the system - fortunately, humans now have the ability to
intervene. Instead of mindless trading, human perspective is brought
into the trading equation.

Tying the 80 cent gain to that BS is a stretch too. If you listen to
the myriad "reasons" that "analysts" give to any market gains or
losses, it never makes much sense unless it is tied to real
fundamentals. The pipeline didn't even qualify to move the market.
Yak yak yak. Greed, greed, greed.

No it's not just greed. It's a case of resetting expectations and
market psychology.

It's instant information that makes the scenario plausible and instant
reaction causes the rise and fall.

And, for the record, yes - rumors have been and continue to be an
important part of any trading cycle - that's a given - can't argue
that.

But, and this is very important, under the old system, it took time to
develop and rationalize a rumor which would affect market movement or
even any particular stock movement - it was "soft" information -
ethereal if you will - that was always suspect. With instant,
theoretically "hard" information, the reactions are also instant and
without buffering. That will establish a higher floor, in particular
in commodities, if only because of the inherent psychology of limiting
losses - a group think gestalt would be another way to put it.

On the flip side, real info gets to real people, not just insiders,
quickly.

Which does what? Think about what you said - real people get "real"
info - or is it "real"? Was that Michigan information that moved the
market "real"? If you are a casual day trader and heard that, what
would be your reaction? Be honest - you are trading commodities and
hear that half of the Midwest's oil supply has blown up - what do you
do?0

Those of us that are getting long in the tooth will be satisfied with
less, but imagine explaining to a 16 year old that they really don't need a
cell phone.

Agreed.

Which, I guess, is exactly what your point is.

I doesn't matter though. The genie is out of the lamp and there's no
turning back.

I agree with that, but you still have to at least try to anticipate
the results if the Endless Knot we have created dissolves or breaks in
multiple places.

When you consider current complexities and that things aren't breaking
down left and right, it's clear that contingency planning and backup
strategies are well established for most infrastructures.

Contingency plans are exactly that - contingencies that we can think
of.

In any complex system, it isn't what you plan for that fails - it's
always the one thing you didn't plan for but in hindsight, was the
most obvious and glaring defect.

It's human nature.

I know "what ifs" were always a significant part of my job.
It's always going to get down to having thoughtful people in the right
spots. But sometimes the **** will hit the fan anyway.

Well, we will probably continue to agree to disagree. :)

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:14:33 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 01:36:36 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:06:07 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Here's the "what comes first, the chicken or the egg" question though:

Does the technology produce the vulnerability or does the ever expanding
services made available by the technology make themselves vulnerable?
In my view it's the technology itself that produces the vulnerability.
Complexity follows the rules of unintended consequences - for every
intended expansion or result, you get four unintended consequences.

The problem is that you can't define what those unintended results
will be and that's where the exploitation or fault exists.

I don't think that's true on the unintended results. Not to say
snowballs don't happen, but most complex systems are well thought out.
Malicious exploitation is another matter entirely.

I respect your opinion, but even well thought out systems can fail
spectacularly and often for the simplest reasons.

January 28, 1986 - Shuttle Challenger blew up when an O ring failed in
the rocket booster igniting the liquid hydrogen.

February 1, 2003 - Shuttle Columbia disintegrated on reentry after a
piece of foam broke off the hydrogen tank striking the left leading
wing edge.

I'm sure we can agree that space shuttles are very complex systems
with triple and even quadruple system redundancies. Yet, even with
the redundancies, both were laid low by simple mechanical failure.

I don't think you can reign in technology or it's application. We may be
required to rethink what and how much of what we want to make dependent on
it.
That's a good point and something that I think is missing from the
equation of technological advance.

Access to information is instant. There isn't time to absorb and
process the information - to think and/or ask questions. Last week,
for example, there was a pipeline fire in Michigan which was reported
as "major" - the implication was that all four of the lines from
Canada were involved - the price of oil jumped $3 bucks and change in
seconds. Couple of hours later it was only two involved and finally,
one and it turned out not to be "major" at all - the line was down for
a day. Prices returned down, but the settlement for the day was about
.80¢ higher - restablishing an up trend instead of the prior down
trend based on lack of news.

Back when, it would have taken time to react. Questions would have
been asked, calls made, etc. The event wouldn't have impacted because
time would have been taken to find out what happened. That has
completely changed and is one unintended consequence of instant access
which speculators can exploit to their advantage.

That kind of crap happened on trading board floors since people
started yakking and learned the power of rumor. It's simple
irresponsibility and greed, not technology.

Really? Well, allow me to introduce you to something called
programmed trading and specifically October 19, 1987.

While there is still some debate over the exact causes, the most
respected reports on Black Monday (the 1987 one) "Brady Report" by
Nicholas Brady and Mark Carlson's "A Brief History of the 1987 Stock
Market Crash..." state without reservation that programmed trading at
the minimum was responsible for 50% of the total decline and
introduced the negative psychology inherent in any stock/market
fluctuation. Other factors were portfolio insurance selling, the
arbitrage potential between commodity markets and stocks and a flaw in
the European Bourses because of a major weather event.

As you are a "what if" guy and knowledgeable on the subject, I'm sure
you can recognize it as classic cascade failure.

Since then, limits have been placed on programmed trading to limit the
type of cascade failure seen on October 19,1987. but there are still
flaws in the system - fortunately, humans now have the ability to
intervene. Instead of mindless trading, human perspective is brought
into the trading equation.

Tying the 80 cent gain to that BS is a stretch too. If you listen to
the myriad "reasons" that "analysts" give to any market gains or
losses, it never makes much sense unless it is tied to real
fundamentals. The pipeline didn't even qualify to move the market.
Yak yak yak. Greed, greed, greed.

No it's not just greed. It's a case of resetting expectations and
market psychology.

It's instant information that makes the scenario plausible and instant
reaction causes the rise and fall.

And, for the record, yes - rumors have been and continue to be an
important part of any trading cycle - that's a given - can't argue
that.

But, and this is very important, under the old system, it took time to
develop and rationalize a rumor which would affect market movement or
even any particular stock movement - it was "soft" information -
ethereal if you will - that was always suspect. With instant,
theoretically "hard" information, the reactions are also instant and
without buffering. That will establish a higher floor, in particular
in commodities, if only because of the inherent psychology of limiting
losses - a group think gestalt would be another way to put it.

On the flip side, real info gets to real people, not just insiders,
quickly.

Which does what? Think about what you said - real people get "real"
info - or is it "real"? Was that Michigan information that moved the
market "real"? If you are a casual day trader and heard that, what
would be your reaction? Be honest - you are trading commodities and
hear that half of the Midwest's oil supply has blown up - what do you
do?0

Those of us that are getting long in the tooth will be satisfied with
less, but imagine explaining to a 16 year old that they really don't need a
cell phone.
Agreed.

Which, I guess, is exactly what your point is.

I doesn't matter though. The genie is out of the lamp and there's no
turning back.
I agree with that, but you still have to at least try to anticipate
the results if the Endless Knot we have created dissolves or breaks in
multiple places.
When you consider current complexities and that things aren't breaking
down left and right, it's clear that contingency planning and backup
strategies are well established for most infrastructures.

Contingency plans are exactly that - contingencies that we can think
of.

In any complex system, it isn't what you plan for that fails - it's
always the one thing you didn't plan for but in hindsight, was the
most obvious and glaring defect.

It's human nature.

I know "what ifs" were always a significant part of my job.
It's always going to get down to having thoughtful people in the right
spots. But sometimes the **** will hit the fan anyway.

Well, we will probably continue to agree to disagree. :)


Add in AOL. Look what that brought us.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:14:33 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 01:36:36 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:06:07 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Here's the "what comes first, the chicken or the egg" question though:

Does the technology produce the vulnerability or does the ever expanding
services made available by the technology make themselves vulnerable?
In my view it's the technology itself that produces the vulnerability.
Complexity follows the rules of unintended consequences - for every
intended expansion or result, you get four unintended consequences.

The problem is that you can't define what those unintended results
will be and that's where the exploitation or fault exists.

I don't think that's true on the unintended results. Not to say
snowballs don't happen, but most complex systems are well thought out.
Malicious exploitation is another matter entirely.

I respect your opinion, but even well thought out systems can fail
spectacularly and often for the simplest reasons.

January 28, 1986 - Shuttle Challenger blew up when an O ring failed in
the rocket booster igniting the liquid hydrogen.

February 1, 2003 - Shuttle Columbia disintegrated on reentry after a
piece of foam broke off the hydrogen tank striking the left leading
wing edge.

I'm sure we can agree that space shuttles are very complex systems
with triple and even quadruple system redundancies. Yet, even with
the redundancies, both were laid low by simple mechanical failure.


Do any of you remember the nation wide telephone problem that occured on
e day in '89? I don't know the specifics of the problem but a bug in SS7
caused all of the major switches across the country on AT&T's network
started shutting down and would not restart. Took a software change to
fix the problem. I believe that the outage lasted about 10 or 12 hours.

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:33:43 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:


Well, we will probably continue to agree to disagree. :)

I don't think we really disagree, more like we view the consequences
of some breakdowns differently.
I think we can agree the shuttle disasters occurred because "simple"
systems failed. Frankly, for all the admiration I have for the teams
that put the shuttles together, the management side let them and
astronauts down. You may feel differently, but I view both failures
as preventable and unnecessary. The o-ring problem was known,
and so was the ice hitting tiles. They took chances they didn't have
to take. Given the tremendous achievements of the shuttle program
it's difficult to come down on them hard, but that's my opinion.
I was really ****ed seeing my heros die, and less so that 40% of the
shuttle fleet was destroyed by an o-ring and a piece of ice.
On the market side, I'm not well versed since I don't trade except
commodity futures on a small-time level, and consider that gambling on
my part. Outside of some floor trader price manipulation to do some
"personal arbitrage" on buy/sell prices, sometimes by hitting stops
- a problem I think has been reduced by computerization - I've had no
complaints since I quit using stops. I've found that supply and
demand always has the final say, and if I'm right I'm right, wrong I'm
wrong.
If you're a day trader, or look at portfolio value fluctuations daily,
that's a psychological issue - and I'm not imputing any of this to
you, BTW, just yakking.
When I first responded to this topic I was thinking of basic
power/communication infrastructures, not Wall Street.
But since I'm here, and you know more this than me, how the hell did
the Great Depression occur, and could it happen again?
Not asking for an essay, as I don't want to put you out and keep you
from testing boats.
My real "economic" concern is that we don't produce our own goods, and
China has us by the balls.

--Vic

AT&T offer's VOIP
 

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 09:47:10 -0500, BAR wrote:


Do any of you remember the nation wide telephone problem that occured on
e day in '89? I don't know the specifics of the problem but a bug in SS7
caused all of the major switches across the country on AT&T's network
started shutting down and would not restart. Took a software change to
fix the problem. I believe that the outage lasted about 10 or 12 hours.

I don't remember that, but used a ma bell then, Ameritech. Don't
remember any work outages either, but maybe I was off.

--Vic