[VoIP] (no subject)

[Ivor Jones]

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:31:16 -0400
From: Kirt Stanfield <kirtley.stanfield at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [VoIP] (no subject)
To: Jayson Smith <ratguy at bellsouth.net>,        Voice Over IP Tandem for
       Analog Switches <voip at ckts.info>
Message-ID: <460687B4.2050900 at comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

>Jayson,
>
>I was not saying this particular issue would shut down CNET (except for
>PSTN acces from/to it) - I am just saying that the current climate might
>lead to something that might. Hopefully I am worrying too much.
>
>Kirt


That's all very well, but my concern is with other VoIP providers'
outgoing access to PSTN. I have accounts with several here in the UK
and I'd hate to lose PSTN access from them, as I don't have a
landline..!

Ivor


On 25/03/07, voip-request at ckts.info <voip-request at ckts.info> wrote:
> Send VoIP mailing list submissions to
> 	voip at ckts.info
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	voip-request at ckts.info
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	voip-owner at ckts.info
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of VoIP digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: (no subject) (Kirt Stanfield)
>    2. Re: VT1005 config (John Novack)
>    3. Re: (no subject) (Ben Jackson)
>    4. New Evan Doorbell recording (Jayson Smith)
>    5. Temporary old busy and reorder tones up on 366 (Doug Alderdice)
>    6. Re: Temporary old busy and reorder tones up on 366 (Jayson Smith)
>    7. Re: Temporary old busy and reorder tones up on 366
>       (Doug Alderdice)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:31:16 -0400
> From: Kirt Stanfield <kirtley.stanfield at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [VoIP] (no subject)
> To: Jayson Smith <ratguy at bellsouth.net>,	Voice Over IP Tandem for
> 	Analog Switches <voip at ckts.info>
> Message-ID: <460687B4.2050900 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Jayson,
>
> I was not saying this particular issue would shut down CNET (except for
> PSTN acces from/to it) - I am just saying that the current climate might
> lead to something that might. Hopefully I am worrying too much.
>
> Kirt
>
> Jayson Smith wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >Okay, I'm not a legal expert or anything, but if their problem is with ways
> >of routing Voip traffic to the PSTN, then as far as I know, CNET would
> still
> >be able to exist, as long as nobody allows any sort of access to the PSTN
> >through their switches. Just my $0.02 worth. Oops, forgot to add the $0.99
> >dialtone fea to that. So that's my $1.01 worth!
> >Jayson
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Kirt Stanfield" <kirtley.stanfield at comcast.net>
> >To: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
> >Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 10:02 AM
> >Subject: Re: [VoIP] (no subject)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Personally I found the report I read about this in the Washington Post a
> >>bit alarming. A jury has agreed with Verizon, and so has a judge. I see
> >>it as something I have been fearing, the re-emergence of Ma Bell and her
> >>monopoly. If this ruling stands,  then I imagine it won't be long before
> >>they cook up a way to stop all VOIP that isn't run by a Bell - and then
> >>it is bye-bye CNET, and of course competition in the phone industry.
> >>
> >>In the Judge Green era, the solution would probably ahve been to say OK
> >>Verizon, you have the patent, but in the interests of competition you
> >>must license it at a reasonable fee. I can't see that happening today.
> >>
> >>Unfortunately  if the shoe was on the other foot, Vonage probably
> >>wouldn't have a chance against Verizon. Shades of Armstrongs battle
> >>against RCA over FM.
> >>
> >>Kirt
> >>
> >>John R. Covert wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>If you haven't been following this, yesterday the judge ordered Vonage
> >>>to stop infringing the patents.  He found (as Verizon had requested)
> >>>that paying royalties would not be sufficient to "prevent erosion of
> >>>[Verizon's] customer base."  Vonage must stop operating gateways from
> >>>the Internet into the PSTN.  The judge did not immediately sign his
> >>>order and scheduled another hearing for April 6th at which Vonage
> >>>will argue against the shutown.
> >>>
> >>>I've gotten the details of the specific claims and patents that the
> >>>jury found to have been infringed, and it's really ridiculous.
> >>>Basically, the claims in first two patents are the supposed invention
> >>>of using ENUM to route a call to a PSTN gateway, and the claims in the
> >>>third are the supposed invention of using a SIP or IAX REGISTER command
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>from a device using wireless access to the Internet.  Everything they
> >>
> >>
> >>>claim is covered by the relevant internet RFCs.  Of course, simply
> >>>being in an RFC doesn't make the patent invalid.  Construction, whose
> >>>art is the earliest, and other elements all come into play.
> >>>
> >>>If these claims hold up, they appear to me to be sufficiently broad
> >>>that the would require all VoIP egress from the Internet into the PSTN
> >>>to stop.  I think that is unlikely.
> >>>
> >>>Specific claims infringed:
> >>>6,104,711
> >>>
> >>>20. A method as in claim 15; wherein:
> >>>the first and second destination address includes a numeric Internet
> >>>
> >>>
> >Protocol
> >
> >
> >>>address; and the second destination address further includes information
> >>>relating to call routing via a public switched telephone network.
> >>>
> >>>[15 not listed as infringed, but needed to understand 20]
> >>>15. A method comprising:
> >>>receiving a name translation request at a server coupled to a public
> >>>
> >>>
> >packet
> >
> >
> >>>data network; executing a conditional analysis in response to the name
> >>>translation request; if the conditional analysis produces a first result,
> >>>translating a name included in the name translation request into a first
> >>>destination address; if the conditional analysis produces a second
> >>>
> >>>
> >result,
> >
> >
> >>>translating the name included in the name translation request into a
> >>>
> >>>
> >second
> >
> >
> >>>destination address; and transmitting a response message containing the
> >>>first or the second destination address to a calling device for use in
> >>>establishing communication at least partially through the public packet
> >>>data network.
> >>>
> >>>6,282,574
> >>>
> >>>27. A method as in claim 26, wherein the address is an Internet Protocol
> >>>address.
> >>>
> >>>[26 not listed as infringed, but needed to understand 27]
> >>>26. A method comprising:
> >>>receiving a name translation request at a server coupled to a public
> >>>
> >>>
> >packet
> >
> >
> >>>data network; translating a name included in the request into a
> >>>
> >>>
> >destination
> >
> >
> >>>telephone number associated with a name included in the request; and
> >>>transmitting a reply containing both the destination telephone number
> >>>and a packet data network address of a telephone gateway coupled between
> >>>the public packet data network and a telephone network through the public
> >>>packet data network to a calling device.
> >>>
> >>>6,359,880
> >>>
> >>>1. A method comprising:
> >>>registering a wireless telephone terminal in a localized wireless gateway
> >>>system; transmitting registration data identifying the gateway system
> >>>
> >>>
> >from
> >
> >
> >>>the localized wireless gateway system to a home location register
> >>>
> >>>
> >database
> >
> >
> >>>through a public packet data communication network; receiving a request
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>from a calling computer coupled to the public packet data communication
> >>
> >>
> >>>network for a call to the wireless telephone terminal; in response to the
> >>>request, accessing the home location register database and obtaining a
> >>>
> >>>
> >packet
> >
> >
> >>>data address for the localized wireless gateway system; using the address
> >>>
> >>>
> >to
> >
> >
> >>>set up a voice communication through the public packet data communication
> >>>network and the localized wireless gateway system between the calling
> >>>
> >>>
> >computer
> >
> >
> >>>and the wireless telephone terminal.
> >>>
> >>>6. A method as in claim 1, wherein the public packet data communication
> >>>network is a packet switched network.
> >>>
> >>>7. A method as in claim 6, wherein the packet switched network comprises
> >>>
> >>>
> >a
> >
> >
> >>>system of interlinked data networks using TCP/IP protocol.
> >>>
> >>>8. A method as in claim 7, wherein the system of interlinked data
> >>>
> >>>
> >networks
> >
> >
> >>>comprises the Internet.
> >>>
> >>>/john
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>VoIP mailing list
> >>>VoIP at ckts.info
> >>>http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> >>>Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>VoIP mailing list
> >>VoIP at ckts.info
> >>http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> >>Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
> >>
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >VoIP mailing list
> >VoIP at ckts.info
> >http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> >Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:02:36 -0400
> From: John Novack <jnovack at stromberg-carlson.org>
> Subject: Re: [VoIP] VT1005 config
> To: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches <voip at ckts.info>
> Message-ID: <46068F0C.2020302 at stromberg-carlson.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
>
> I have one running with Asterisk
> I just returned from a phone show, perhaps I can send more information
> later today, and/or give you a call
>
> What is a good, if any, CNET number to reach you??
>
> John Novack
>
>
> David Josephson wrote:
> > Still trying to get some Motorola VT1005's running. I have Doug's latest
> > version of John Jones' config file, tweaked and compiled as needed,
> > cannot get the phone to upload it from the tftp server.  Any more info
> > on what's needed to make these run, including a working sip.conf entry
> > for them?
> > Thanks
> > David Josephson
> > _______________________________________________
> > VoIP mailing list
> > VoIP at ckts.info
> > http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> > Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:18:35 -0400
> From: Ben Jackson <bbj at innismir.net>
> Subject: Re: [VoIP] (no subject)
> To: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches <voip at ckts.info>
> Message-ID: <460692CB.40208 at innismir.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Kirt Stanfield wrote:
> > Personally I found the report I read about this in the Washington Post a
> > bit alarming. A jury has agreed with Verizon, and so has a judge. I see
> > it as something I have been fearing, the re-emergence of Ma Bell and her
> > monopoly. If this ruling stands,  then I imagine it won't be long before
> > they cook up a way to stop all VOIP that isn't run by a Bell - and then
> > it is bye-bye CNET, and of course competition in the phone industry.
>
> While yes, there is reason to be concerned, a lot of people are seeing
> this as "End of VoIP as we know it" type thing. Here's what has happened
> so far:
>
> VZ: "Judge, we have patents on X, Y, and Z. Vonage is infringing"
> Vonage: "No we're not. o/~ Woo hoo, woo hoo hoo o/~"
> Judge: "Yes Vonage, you are"
> Jury: "Yup, we agree"
> Vonage: "Oh Sh*t..."
>
> That's it. The /validity/ of these patents have not been discussed at
> all. Sadly, AFAIK there is no legal recourse for that, just a
> quasi-appeal system at the US Patent Office. Unfortunately, the patent
> office has a "approve first, ask questions later" and their appeals
> process is slow as molasses going uphill on a cold day. Hooray government!
>
> Vonage is screwed, IMHO, however, I wouldn't be surprised to see AT&T
> leading the charge to get the patent overturned.
>
> - --
> Ben Jackson - N1WBV - New Bedford, MA
> bbj <at> innismir.net - http://www.innismir.net/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQEVAwUBRgaSygQiWVsfSvVvAQLLXAf/b3x7kQ5CYGAYekemn+a5Ijmg2Rxe4Do1
> iIxpItCKkgQwP4sGK5MBzMxEMAWnZrA2E35WKrDQ4dxb4Ts4BNCdAJzxNNJ3lUwe
> rZwsqobWFEdFeidwJN+TrHooIdQhdGzf2Ldpj8w37h2a9avTzuuUq1uFS+yPYHf6
> XGMyp+3lAWclmouV3SOh+h2a5P6Ax66xA7mmvoQamOpN557mfBuzsqIc9EFfgnLE
> qfNo5eRycHGMaHMVAQMT1695B1lU0oSu1vOE7XAPWcji49L6wrEBOpYfKANHRjEJ
> cKH2CUa+NjlP4k2bkUg5iUD6aLjN5pIWFEtDOcFM/F6f+JLOSgtySw==
> =rDvr
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:45:27 -0400
> From: "Jayson Smith" <ratguy at bellsouth.net>
> Subject: [VoIP] New Evan Doorbell recording
> To: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
> Message-ID: <000901c76ef4$9c1a66c0$0600a8c0 at bluegrasspals.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi all,
> I just checked the FTP site, and "How Evan Doorbell Became a Phone Phreak,
> Part 6" is now available. I really enjoy these recordings!
> Jayson
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:40:39 -0500
> From: Doug Alderdice <ka2wft at arrl.net>
> Subject: [VoIP] Temporary old busy and reorder tones up on 366
> To: Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches <voip at ckts.info>
> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20070325163156.025c4708 at incoming.verizon.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Hey gang,
>
> Trying out putting "old" dial tone (600/120), busy and reorder on my switch
> through the use of an ISD digital recording chip.  Jayson Smith some time
> back made me a .wav file of 600/120 which I recorded into a 10-second
> capacity ISD chip.  I set the chip for looped playback and there is very
> little, if any, "pop" where the chip cycles around from the end of the
> recording back to the beginning.
>
> I have modified the program in the PIC 16F84 that serves as interrupter and
> (single) tone generator to also provide 60 IPM and 120 IPM outputs so I can
> gate a 4066 chip to provide the right interrupter rate for busy tone and
> reorder.
>
> At the moment the mess is clip-leaded into my switch.  You can check out
> "old" busy on 366-3214 and reorder at 366-34XX.
>
> This is a limited time offer, as it currently exists on a plug-in
> breadboard.  I will leave it up until around 1900 ET (2300 UTC) tonight and
> then I will connect back the original single tone dial tone and busy
> tones.  With proof of concept I now need to build a permanent perf board to
> hold all this.
>
> Eventually I also want to use a second ISD chip to supply 420/40 ringback
> tone on my ringing supply as well.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Doug.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:41:42 -0400
> From: "Jayson Smith" <ratguy at bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: [VoIP] Temporary old busy and reorder tones up on 366
> To: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
> Message-ID: <000301c76f26$60dec100$0600a8c0 at bluegrasspals.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi all,
> I just called into Doug's switch. I don't know if it's volume level, or the
> characteristics of the Step or what, but the tones sound a bit different
> from what I sent. Also, there's a 120-cycle hum, especially on Reorder tone.
> Doug, I'm not putting down your efforts, I just wanted you to know what IMHO
> they sound like. For Doug and anybody else, a sample is at
> http://www.bluegrasspals.com/doug.wav
> Here, the first few seconds are a sample of the tone that I sent him. I
> actually sent him two different frequencies, and this is the one he chose to
> use. After that, we dial Busy, then we dial Reorder. Enjoy!
> Jayson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Alderdice" <ka2wft at arrl.net>
> To: "Voice Over IP Tandem for Analog Switches" <voip at ckts.info>
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 5:40 PM
> Subject: [VoIP] Temporary old busy and reorder tones up on 366
>
>
> > Hey gang,
> >
> > Trying out putting "old" dial tone (600/120), busy and reorder on my
> switch
> > through the use of an ISD digital recording chip.  Jayson Smith some time
> > back made me a .wav file of 600/120 which I recorded into a 10-second
> > capacity ISD chip.  I set the chip for looped playback and there is very
> > little, if any, "pop" where the chip cycles around from the end of the
> > recording back to the beginning.
> >
> > I have modified the program in the PIC 16F84 that serves as interrupter
> and
> > (single) tone generator to also provide 60 IPM and 120 IPM outputs so I
> can
> > gate a 4066 chip to provide the right interrupter rate for busy tone and
> > reorder.
> >
> > At the moment the mess is clip-leaded into my switch.  You can check out
> > "old" busy on 366-3214 and reorder at 366-34XX.
> >
> > This is a limited time offer, as it currently exists on a plug-in
> > breadboard.  I will leave it up until around 1900 ET (2300 UTC) tonight
> and
> > then I will connect back the original single tone dial tone and busy
> > tones.  With proof of concept I now need to build a permanent perf board
> to
> > hold all this.
> >
> > Eventually I also want to use a second ISD chip to supply 420/40 ringback
> > tone on my ringing supply as well.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Doug.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > VoIP mailing list
> > VoIP at ckts.info
> > http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
> > Project Web Page: http://www.ckts.info/
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:03:06 -0500
> From: Doug Alderdice <ka2wft at arrl.net>
> Subject: Re: [VoIP] Temporary old busy and reorder tones up on 366
> To: Jayson Smith <ratguy at bellsouth.net>,	Voice Over IP Tandem for
> 	Analog Switches <voip at ckts.info>
> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20070325174821.027035b8 at incoming.verizon.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> At 05:41 PM 3/25/2007 -0400, Jayson Smith wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >I just called into Doug's switch. I don't know if it's volume level, or the
> >characteristics of the Step or what, but the tones sound a bit different
> >from what I sent. Also, there's a 120-cycle hum, especially on Reorder
> tone.
> >Doug, I'm not putting down your efforts, I just wanted you to know what
> IMHO
> >they sound like. For Doug and anybody else, a sample is at
> >http://www.bluegrasspals.com/doug.wav
> >Here, the first few seconds are a sample of the tone that I sent him. I
> >actually sent him two different frequencies, and this is the one he chose
> to
> >use. After that, we dial Busy, then we dial Reorder. Enjoy!
>
> I am not surprised that the tones may sound a bit different.  The sample
> file that was sent to me was played through the sound card of my computer,
> connected to the analog input of the ISD chip.  The sample rate of the chip
> is hardly CD quality, it's only 6.4 kHz.  There's going to be a bit of a
> difference to discerning ears right there.  I didn't check any levels, I
> just hooked it up and recorded it, so I suspect that the recording may be a
> bit "hot" in the chip and a bit distorted.  I know the recording of 420/40
> that I put into a second chip for ringback definitely has that problem and
> needs to be re-recorded in the chip.
>
> Wired into the switch, the output from the recorder chip is coupled through
> transformers to the dial tone and reorder circuits, which will introduce
> some more change in characteristics.
>
> I haven't heard 120-Hz hum in my tests, but I haven't been in a quiet
> setting, either.  The fans in my computer are really loud so calling from
> the phones by the computer are not in a quiet environment, and working next
> to the switch in the basement I have loud 60-cycle hum from the power
> supply on the switch, as well as from my key systems, and then there's the
> fluorescent light fixtures in the cellar. I'll have to listen to your
> recording with headphones.  Seems like you mentioned some hum in your calls
> to Lee's switch, could it be something in your setup that's introducing the
> hum?
>
> Thanks for the comments.  I know this isn't going to result in an
> absolutely perfect simulation of a real rotary tone generator, but I can
> try to tweak things that aren't quite right.  I'm interested in what others
> have to say as well, either publicly on the list or privately.
>
> Doug.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoIP mailing list
> VoIP at ckts.info
> http://lists.ckts.info/mailman/listinfo/voip
>
>
> End of VoIP Digest, Vol 25, Issue 31
> ************************************
>