We're receiving several calls a week from "card holder services" as I'm
sure all of you are who still have landlines. Instead of just hanging up
I've been pressing 1 for more info and setting the phone down. I hang it
up when the phone beeps at me. Since there's often a several minute wait
to get to a scammer ("You're number 27 in line - please wait") I figure
I've at least tied up their line for that long.
Occasionally I actually wait for an answer and keep the scammer going for
a while before I tell him/her what I'm doing. I've gotten some very
creative cussing that way :-).
I wonder. If all of us afflicted by this scam did the same, would we
make their scam unprofitable? Or at least less profitable? Seems they'd
have to rent more phone lines to keep up their volume.
--
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
On 15/12/2015 7:22 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:20:28 +0000 (UTC), Trenbidia
>
>>
>> I have fun with the guys who call and want to fix my computer. I can go
>> a long time describing my screen before they catch on that I don't run
>> windows - nobody can cuss better than a Spanish speaker :-).
>
> I had one on the line for 45 minutes. I was not even at the computer
> but strung him along. He had me reboot the computer and did not
> flinch when I told him the screen now said Windows 95. He did not
> flinch when I suggested we pray for the computer and chant. Finally
> hung up when I told him to wait while I lit the incense to burn.
>
> I'd have thought these guys would make there own Do Not Call List.
> Actually, it would be Do Not Call This Asshole list.
>
> The home security guy gave up after a half hour. I told him I wanted
> just the equipment, not the contract for service and I was going to
> hook it up to call Jared next door. He would come over if I had a
> problem. I even cried when I told him I really, really, wanted it.
>
When the pseudo-Microsoft techies call, I usually ask them: "Does your
Mother know what you do for a living?"
Graham
--
On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:20:28 +0000 (UTC), Trenbidia
>
>I have fun with the guys who call and want to fix my computer. I can go
>a long time describing my screen before they catch on that I don't run
>windows - nobody can cuss better than a Spanish speaker :-).
I had one on the line for 45 minutes. I was not even at the computer
but strung him along. He had me reboot the computer and did not
flinch when I told him the screen now said Windows 95. He did not
flinch when I suggested we pray for the computer and chant. Finally
hung up when I told him to wait while I lit the incense to burn.
I'd have thought these guys would make there own Do Not Call List.
Actually, it would be Do Not Call This Asshole list.
The home security guy gave up after a half hour. I told him I wanted
just the equipment, not the contract for service and I was going to
hook it up to call Jared next door. He would come over if I had a
problem. I even cried when I told him I really, really, wanted it.
Trenbidia <[email protected]> wrote:
>We're receiving several calls a week from "card holder services" as I'm
>sure all of you are who still have landlines. Instead of just hanging up
>I've been pressing 1 for more info and setting the phone down. I hang it
>up when the phone beeps at me. Since there's often a several minute wait
>to get to a scammer ("You're number 27 in line - please wait") I figure
>I've at least tied up their line for that long.
>
>Occasionally I actually wait for an answer and keep the scammer going for
>a while before I tell him/her what I'm doing. I've gotten some very
>creative cussing that way :-).
>
>I wonder. If all of us afflicted by this scam did the same, would we
>make their scam unprofitable? Or at least less profitable? Seems they'd
>have to rent more phone lines to keep up their volume.
I like the way Tom Mabe deals with cold calls ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAb8vGSRBoE
I've been using 'Phonetray Free' call blocker software for about 3
years and absolutely love it!
A forum discussion with screen shots:
http://800auxiliary.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&p=1490#p732
Clean, free copy available for download:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8mswptxvxbl1a4k/PhoneTrayFree.exe
(Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>Spalted Walt <[email protected]> writes:
>>Trenbidia <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Clean, free copy available for download:
>>https://www.dropbox.com/s/8mswptxvxbl1a4k/PhoneTrayFree.exe
>>
>>
>
>wow! People actually download executables from dropbox and
>run them? No wonder we have such a horrible problems with
>virii and spam.
The copy of 'Phonetray Free v1.39' that I downloaded from
http://www.traysoft.com (the creators of Phonetray) back in 2012 has a MD5 checksum of:
MD5: 238655BDA5B26B3FD532E3693824C5B7
https://web.archive.org/web/20120628083015/http://www.traysoft.com/
The dropbox link is the EXACT 'Phonetray Free v1.39' w/same checksum
that was freely available from Traysoft's website until they started
charging $30, for essentially the same product.
HTH
John <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>
> Card services evidently is trying a new bizarre way to scam us.
>
> The wife said she got a call yesterday from them on our land line and
> the caller ID showed *our home phone number* --- WTF?
>
> Its over my head as I don't see the logic in that. Other than to get
> you to pick up whats the point?
>
> John
>
Perhaps that's the point. Once they start talking, it's harder to hang
up.
People look up caller ID too. You can do a Google search for a phone
number and confirm whether the number is scammy or not. Sometimes they
call from a number within the area codes I'm likely to answer.
Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.
Spalted Walt <[email protected]> writes:
>Trenbidia <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Clean, free copy available for download:
>https://www.dropbox.com/s/8mswptxvxbl1a4k/PhoneTrayFree.exe
>
>
wow! People actually download executables from dropbox and
run them? No wonder we have such a horrible problems with
virii and spam.
On 12/17/2015 1:48 PM, Bill wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 12/17/15 11:48 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Spalted Walt <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, you feel that pirating the software is the answer to their
>>>>> desire to profit from their labor?
>>>>
>>>> What is it about "FREE VERSION SOFTWARE" that you can't quite
>>>> grasp? Pirating freeware? You need to get a fucking grip.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You claimed they no longer offer the free version, it being replaced
>>> by a for-pay version.
>>>
>>> Did they grant permission for you to subsequently distribute the free
>>> version when you downloaded it? Or, more likely, was the 'free
>>> download' intended to be used only by the individual downloading it.
>>>
>>> As someone who makes a living developing software, I'm quite careful
>>> when other peoples software is concerned.
>>>
>>> Now, if it were open-source and covered by a license like the BSD,
>>> MIT, Apache or GPL, then there would be no issue with your subsequent
>>> distribution.
>>>
>>
>> People don't give a crap anymore.
>
> How about Microsoft and Windows 10 (not giving a crap about the user's
> privacy)? Is Microsoft leading by example?
I highly suspect that if you allow any cookies on your computer at all,
your privacy is open. This is nothing new.
On 12/16/2015 4:22 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> Trenbidia <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> We're receiving several calls a week from "card holder services" as I'm
>> sure all of you are who still have landlines. Instead of just hanging up
>> I've been pressing 1 for more info and setting the phone down.
>
> Better still... go to nomorobo.com and sign up for their robocall blocking service. We did that
> more than a year ago, and haven't received ANY calls from "cardholder services" since.
>
> Not. One.
>
But then what would every one in this thread have to talk about if they
did that. ;~)
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:20:28 +0000 (UTC), Trenbidia
>
> >
> >I have fun with the guys who call and want to fix my computer. I can go
> >a long time describing my screen before they catch on that I don't run
> >windows - nobody can cuss better than a Spanish speaker :-).
>
> I had one on the line for 45 minutes. I was not even at the computer
> but strung him along. He had me reboot the computer and did not
> flinch when I told him the screen now said Windows 95. He did not
> flinch when I suggested we pray for the computer and chant. Finally
> hung up when I told him to wait while I lit the incense to burn.
>
> I'd have thought these guys would make there own Do Not Call List.
> Actually, it would be Do Not Call This Asshole list.
>
> The home security guy gave up after a half hour. I told him I wanted
> just the equipment, not the contract for service and I was going to
> hook it up to call Jared next door. He would come over if I had a
> problem. I even cried when I told him I really, really, wanted it.
I like the ones who call me at work--there seem to be two kinds, the
"Police Association" looking for a handout and the ones selling an
extended car warranty.
"This is about your warranty" "Excuse me but who exactly are you trying
to reach". "MAY I SPEAK TO THE VEHICLE OWNER". "Of course, but you're
going ot have to help me out--there are more than 4000 private vehicles,
a dozen security vehicles, an assortment of construction machines, and
two aircraft at this location--to which vehicle owner do you want to
speak". Usually the response at this point is "click", but occasionally
I get "I NEED TO TALK TO THE PERSON IN CHARGE". "That would be the CEO,
I can transfer you to his secretary". At that point they generally go
away while I'm looking up the number.
"I'm calling on behalf of the AFPO . . ."
"You have reached the headquarters of one of the 100 largest businesses
in the world--all of our charitable donations are made through our
foundation. Would you like me to transfer you?"
Again they generally either give up at that point or go away while I"m
looking up the number.
I would think that they would recognize at some point that they were
getting a corporate office.
John <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> Card services evidently is trying a new bizarre way to scam us.
>
> The wife said she got a call yesterday from them on our land line and
> the caller ID showed *our home phone number* --- WTF?
>
> Its over my head as I don't see the logic in that. Other than to get
> you to pick up whats the point?
Not new. And getting you to pick up is exactly the
point - many people will ignore a number they don't
know, but almost everyone will respond to their own
number.
The root cause of the problem is a technical flaw in
the phone system that let's scammers appear to be
calling from any number they like. It would not be
especially hard to correct that flaw, but the phone
companies have no incentive to do so (no money in
it).
John
Trenbidia <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> We're receiving several calls a week from "card holder services" as I'm
> sure all of you are who still have landlines. Instead of just hanging up
> I've been pressing 1 for more info and setting the phone down.
Better still... go to nomorobo.com and sign up for their robocall blocking service. We did that
more than a year ago, and haven't received ANY calls from "cardholder services" since.
Not. One.
Trenbidia <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:22:19 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>> We're receiving several calls a week from "card holder services" as I'm
>>> sure all of you are who still have landlines. Instead of just hanging
>>> up I've been pressing 1 for more info and setting the phone down.
>>
>> Better still... go to nomorobo.com and sign up for their robocall
>> blocking service. We did that more than a year ago, and haven't received
>> ANY calls from "cardholder services" since.
>
> Hey Doug, didn't you see the "landline" in my post?
I'm using it on my landline.
>Nomorobo says:
>
> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog landlines
> or wireless phones at this time."
Works just fine on digital landlines.
On 12/17/2015 4:25 PM, Bill wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 12/17/2015 1:48 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> -MIKE- wrote:
>>>> On 12/17/15 11:48 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Spalted Walt <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>> (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you feel that pirating the software is the answer to their
>>>>>>> desire to profit from their labor?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is it about "FREE VERSION SOFTWARE" that you can't quite
>>>>>> grasp? Pirating freeware? You need to get a fucking grip.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You claimed they no longer offer the free version, it being replaced
>>>>> by a for-pay version.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did they grant permission for you to subsequently distribute the free
>>>>> version when you downloaded it? Or, more likely, was the 'free
>>>>> download' intended to be used only by the individual downloading it.
>>>>>
>>>>> As someone who makes a living developing software, I'm quite careful
>>>>> when other peoples software is concerned.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, if it were open-source and covered by a license like the BSD,
>>>>> MIT, Apache or GPL, then there would be no issue with your subsequent
>>>>> distribution.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People don't give a crap anymore.
>>>
>>> How about Microsoft and Windows 10 (not giving a crap about the user's
>>> privacy)? Is Microsoft leading by example?
>>
>>
>>
>> I highly suspect that if you allow any cookies on your computer at
>> all, your privacy is open. This is nothing new.
>>
>
> Windows 10 is different than that. FWIW, my cookies are deleted every
> time I close the browser.
> Who says my "privacy is open" (where does it say that)?
When you use the internet, your privacy is gone.
If cookies show up it is a done deal. Deleting them simply means that
they will be loaded again the next time you visit that site again.
On 12/15/2015 12:39 PM, Trenbidia wrote:
> We're receiving several calls a week from "card holder services" as I'm
> sure all of you are who still have landlines. Instead of just hanging up
> I've been pressing 1 for more info and setting the phone down. I hang it
> up when the phone beeps at me. Since there's often a several minute wait
> to get to a scammer ("You're number 27 in line - please wait") I figure
> I've at least tied up their line for that long.
>
> Occasionally I actually wait for an answer and keep the scammer going for
> a while before I tell him/her what I'm doing. I've gotten some very
> creative cussing that way :-).
>
> I wonder. If all of us afflicted by this scam did the same, would we
> make their scam unprofitable? Or at least less profitable? Seems they'd
> have to rent more phone lines to keep up their volume.
>
>
>
>
>
There will always be a line of people willing to make cold calls and the
cost is pretty darn low compared to most other methods.
If it makes you feel better playing games with these people have fun.
If I answer the phone and there is silence I hang up and don't waste any
more of my time. If you call me you better say something when I say hello.
Spalted Walt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>The copy of 'Phonetray Free v1.39' that I downloaded from
>http://www.traysoft.com (the creators of Phonetray) back in 2012 has a MD5 checksum of:
>
>MD5: 238655BDA5B26B3FD532E3693824C5B7
>
>https://web.archive.org/web/20120628083015/http://www.traysoft.com/
>
>The dropbox link is the EXACT 'Phonetray Free v1.39' w/same checksum
>that was freely available from Traysoft's website until they started
>charging $30, for essentially the same product.
>
>HTH
the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine download works as well...
https://web.archive.org/web/20120510101529/http://www.phonetray.com/ptfree_download.htm
On 12/15/2015 1:39 PM, Trenbidia wrote:
> We're receiving several calls a week from "card holder services" as I'm
> sure all of you are who still have landlines. Instead of just hanging up
> I've been pressing 1 for more info and setting the phone down. I hang it
> up when the phone beeps at me. Since there's often a several minute wait
> to get to a scammer ("You're number 27 in line - please wait") I figure
> I've at least tied up their line for that long.
>
> Occasionally I actually wait for an answer and keep the scammer going for
> a while before I tell him/her what I'm doing. I've gotten some very
> creative cussing that way :-).
>
> I wonder. If all of us afflicted by this scam did the same, would we
> make their scam unprofitable? Or at least less profitable? Seems they'd
> have to rent more phone lines to keep up their volume.
Card services evidently is trying a new bizarre way to scam us.
The wife said she got a call yesterday from them on our land line and
the caller ID showed *our home phone number* --- WTF?
Its over my head as I don't see the logic in that. Other than to get you
to pick up whats the point?
John
Spalted Walt <[email protected]> writes:
>(Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>>So, you feel that pirating the software is the answer to their
>>desire to profit from their labor?
>
>What is it about "FREE VERSION SOFTWARE" that you can't quite grasp?
>Pirating freeware? You need to get a fucking grip.
>
>
You claimed they no longer offer the free version, it being replaced
by a for-pay version.
Did they grant permission for you to subsequently distribute
the free version when you downloaded it? Or, more likely,
was the 'free download' intended to be used only by the
individual downloading it.
As someone who makes a living developing software, I'm quite
careful when other peoples software is concerned.
Now, if it were open-source and covered by a license like the
BSD, MIT, Apache or GPL, then there would be no issue with
your subsequent distribution.
On 16 Dec 2015 20:36:18 GMT, Puckdropper
<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>John <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>>
>> Card services evidently is trying a new bizarre way to scam us.
>>
>> The wife said she got a call yesterday from them on our land line and
>> the caller ID showed *our home phone number* --- WTF?
>>
>> Its over my head as I don't see the logic in that. Other than to get
>> you to pick up whats the point?
>>
>> John
>>
>
>Perhaps that's the point. Once they start talking, it's harder to hang
>up.
>
>People look up caller ID too. You can do a Google search for a phone
>number and confirm whether the number is scammy or not. Sometimes they
>call from a number within the area codes I'm likely to answer.
>
>Puckdropper
Spoofing caller id is rather easy, the info is of course available
upon the net.
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:05:40 -0600, Steve Barker wrote:
> I led a guy on once a long time ago for an hour and 15 minutes selling
> aluminum siding. Then I told him my mobile home lot number and address.
> He was one pissed off mofo.
I have fun with the guys who call and want to fix my computer. I can go
a long time describing my screen before they catch on that I don't run
windows - nobody can cuss better than a Spanish speaker :-).
--
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
John McCoy wrote:
>
> Not new. And getting you to pick up is exactly the
> point - many people will ignore a number they don't
> know, but almost everyone will respond to their own
> number.
>
> The root cause of the problem is a technical flaw in
> the phone system that let's scammers appear to be
> calling from any number they like. It would not be
> especially hard to correct that flaw, but the phone
> companies have no incentive to do so (no money in
> it).
>
That is completely correct. The capability currently exists, and has for a
very long time, for the phone company to accurately reflect the calling
number. Think billing - they have to know the real calling number in order
to bill for toll calls, etc. It all falls apart when member telephone
companies in the network do not capture or transfer that number with the
call. There's no reason they can't, but there is no compelling reason for
them each to cooperate in this way. All it would take would be a simple
little law, but the phone companies have a lot more clout than you and I do.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:22:19 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>> We're receiving several calls a week from "card holder services" as I'm
>> sure all of you are who still have landlines. Instead of just hanging
>> up I've been pressing 1 for more info and setting the phone down.
>
> Better still... go to nomorobo.com and sign up for their robocall
> blocking service. We did that more than a year ago, and haven't received
> ANY calls from "cardholder services" since.
Hey Doug, didn't you see the "landline" in my post? Nomorobo says:
"Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog landlines
or wireless phones at this time."
--
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
(in article<[email protected]>):
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
> > > > 4ax.com:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
news:n4ssk5$48t$1
> > > > @dont-
> > > > > > email.me:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Trenbidia wrote:
> > > > > > > > "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
> > > > > > > > landlines or wireless phones at this time."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
is
> > > > > > what I have.
> > > > >
> > > > > Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
> > > >
> > > > No, it's not.
> > > >
> > > > > DSL uses normal
> > > > > "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
> > > >
> > > > Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires,
> > > > not fiber.
> > > >
> > > > > DSL is as much "analog" as any
> > > > > other modem technology.
> > > >
> > > > What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
> > >
> > > Ok, asshole, define "digital".
> >
> > In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
> > following 2 links as references only ;-)
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
>
> I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
> "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
> "digital".
While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is no other
kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between digital
signals and analog signals.
A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets blurrier, and
information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is no loss of
information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not so severe
that one cannot make the letters out. If one retypes the text before the
blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number of times
without loss.
This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
Joe Gwinn
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 00:19:02 +0000 (UTC), Trenbidia
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 17:03:20 -0500, clare wrote:
>
>>>I started playing with microcomputers with 2 8" floppies - then 5.25" -
>>>then 3.5". Each time either the capacity or the speed went down. I
>>>knew they couldn't last :-).
>> Actually both speed and capacity went UP. The first 5.25 disks I
>> used were somethink like 80kb Shugart hard sectored, then 360kb soft
>> sectored, then up to DSDD 1.2mb.
>> The 3.5" disks started at 280 (which never went anywhere) then 360
>> single sided, 720 double sided, and 1.44mb DSDD (or HD).
>
>Close, but no cigar. My 8" drives were 1.2mb and were faster than the
>5.25" because they stored more data on a "cylinder" so the head didn't
>have to be stepped as often. Also, they had a higher transfer rate.
>
>That's not to say that a good software type couldn't fudge a little on
>all 3 types :-).
I didn't say anything about the 8 inch.. From early 5.25 to late 3.5
the capacity just went up and up - as did the data rate.
On Dec 26, 2015, krw wrote
(in article<[email protected]>):
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
> > (in article<[email protected]>):
> >
> > > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > krw <[email protected]> wrote in
news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
> > > > > > 4ax.com:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:n4ssk5$48t$1
> > > > > > @dont-
> > > > > > > > email.me:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Trenbidia wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional
analog
> > > > > > > > > > landlines or wireless phones at this time."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse --
which
> > is
> > > > > > > > what I have.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, it's not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > DSL uses normal
> > > > > > > "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper
wires,
> > > > > > not fiber.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > DSL is as much "analog" as any
> > > > > > > other modem technology.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, asshole, define "digital".
> > > >
> > > > In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
> > > > following 2 links as references only ;-)
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
> > >
> > > I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
> > > "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
> > > "digital".
> >
> > While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is no
other
> > kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between digital
> > signals and analog signals.
>
> OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
> >
> > A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
> >
> > Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets blurrier, and
> > information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
> >
> > However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is no loss
of
> > information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not so severe
> > that one cannot make the letters out.
>
> ...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
> as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
> have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it "digital"
> or "analog".
>
> > If one retypes the text before the
> > blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
> > regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number of times
> > without loss.
>
> It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's not
> lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
> least not one used by anyone I know.
> >
> > This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
> Nonsense.
Hmm. Please provide a better definition, with sources cited.
Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 12/26/2015 10:56 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> krw wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:52:47 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:24:28 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
>>>>>>> (in article<[email protected]>):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>>>>>>>>>>> 4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>>>>>>>>>>> @dont-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what I have.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> DSL uses normal
>>>>>>>>>>>> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are
>>>>>>>>>>> copper wires,
>>>>>>>>>>> not fiber.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> DSL is as much "analog" as any
>>>>>>>>>>>> other modem technology.
>>>>>>>>>>> What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>>>>>>>>>> Ok, asshole, define "digital".
>>>>>>>>> In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
>>>>>>>>> following 2 links as references only ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
>>>>>>>> I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
>>>>>>>> "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
>>>>>>>> "digital".
>>>>>>> While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is
>>>>>>> no other
>>>>>>> kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between
>>>>>>> digital
>>>>>>> signals and analog signals.
>>>>>> OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
>>>>>>> A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets
>>>>>>> blurrier, and
>>>>>>> information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is
>>>>>>> no loss of
>>>>>>> information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not
>>>>>>> so severe
>>>>>>> that one cannot make the letters out.
>>>>>> ...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
>>>>>> as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
>>>>>> have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it
>>>>>> "digital"
>>>>>> or "analog".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If one retypes the text before the
>>>>>>> blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
>>>>>>> regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number
>>>>>>> of times
>>>>>>> without loss.
>>>>>> It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
>>>>>> least not one used by anyone I know.
>>>>>>> This is the core difference between digital signals and analog
>>>>>>> signals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>> The difference between digital and analog is one is digital, the
>>>>> other is analog.
>>>> OK, I'm all for tautologies as arguments. ;-)
>>>>> Analog signals are signals af varying frequency and intensity.
>>>>> You can get a good signal, a weak signal, or a bad signal
>>>> IOW, DSL, ADTV, Satellite TV, Cell phones, and just about everything
>>>> else that's considered "digital". You will get errors, retries, data
>>>> drop, freezes, and all that jazz before it drops the connection
>>>> completely.
>>>>
>>>>> Digital signals are a pulse train of ones and zeroes. There is error
>>>>> checking built in - and you either get a signal or you don't. No such
>>>>> thing as "fringe reception" If you get the sinal the digital to
>>>>> analog converters decipher the code, and/or codecs in firmware decode
>>>>> the signal to audio and video signals,
>>>> OK, so the question remains, is v.90 digital or analog?
>>>>
>>>> Your "distinction" isn't, either.
>>> As something of an "expert", I say that if the data is abstractable to a
>>> sequence of 0's and 1's,
>>> then even if it is transmitted in an analog fashion, then it's
>>> *digital*. E.g. Computer files are digital. A paper tape is digital.
>>> While, not an expert about them, I would say that a cassette recording
>>> is not digital.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well what about cassette tape backups of data on a hard drive?
> That's different (troublemaker!) ;)
>
LOL. :-)
On 1/4/2016 8:49 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> krw <[email protected]> writes:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:n4ssk5$48t$1@dont-
>>> email.me:
>>>
>>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>
>>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>
>>> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which is what I have.
>>
>> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all). DSL uses normal
>> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not. DSL is as much "analog" as any
>> other modem technology.
>
> That varies by region. In this region, AT&T U-Verse is delivered over
> POTS wiring.
I think my son is in a neighborhood like that, he can get Uverse but
would be limited to "6" Mbps.
>
> I assume Doug was referring to VOIP.
>
On 12/24/2015 8:10 AM, krw wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:n4ssk5$48t$1@dont-
>> email.me:
>>
>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>
>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>
>> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which is what I have.
>
> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all). DSL uses normal
> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not. DSL is as much "analog" as any
> other modem technology.
>
IIRC and I could be wrong, while DSL does come over the normal phone
wires, DSL is digital Subscriber Line IIRC. And not all Uverse comes
over total fiber optics especially in older established communities.
IIRC Swingman had/has Uverse many years ago with problems from squirrels
eating through twisted pairs of wires up on the poles.
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:03:43 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 12/26/2015 5:14 PM, krw wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:51:35 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/26/2015 4:20 PM, krw wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:02:58 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/26/2015 11:37 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/26/2015 8:22 AM, Jack wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/24/2015 7:01 PM, krw wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I haven't had a landline phone in almost a decade. We had a line
>>>>>>>> once, because they refused to sell "naked" DSL (required a phone line)
>>>>>>>> but there was never a phone attached to the line. About a year later
>>>>>>>> they allowed us to drop the phone "service".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My daughter just switched from dish to comcast. They never owned a
>>>>>>> phone other than cell. She gets the comcast triple play as I do,
>>>>>>> because it cost MORE not to have the LL. Her phone line ends with
>>>>>>> nothing attached, nothing to ring. People under 40 have no use for old
>>>>>>> style phones, and neither do people over 40, but old habits are hard to
>>>>>>> break I guess. I probably should just disconnect my LL so no more
>>>>>>> salesmen, politicians etc. but for some dumb reason, we haven't been
>>>>>>> able to do it. When I say "we" I mean my wife.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Comcast is anything like Uverse works, an area outage will leave you
>>>>>> with out TV, telephone for those that opt for that, and internet. The
>>>>>> major reason that most of our new neighborhood switched to Comcast for
>>>>>> internet and phone, and DirecTV for TV. It is not necessarily a good
>>>>>> thing to have all your eggs in one basket. Discounts are great until
>>>>>> you are with out all services for 4~5 days at a time, thank you Uverse.
>>>>>> Thank goodness cell phones were not some how connected.
>>>>
>>>> I can live without TV for a few days. What pissed me off about
>>>> DirectTV was that it went out whenever it rained. Missing a show is
>>>> much better than missing two half shows. "We can fix that now" was
>>>> always the answer from DirectTV but "can" and "will" are two entirely
>>>> different things. They were also a PITA when equipment died.
>>>> Actually, they're still a PITA. They've called at least two dozen
>>>> times, trying to get us back. Good riddance!
>>>
>>> I'm sure location has a lot to do with the rain being a problem. I have
>>> had them all and DirecTV has been the most reliable. In the last two
>>> years we probably have not missed 2 hours of recording because of rain.
>>
>> I've had a clear shot to the birds in both of the last houses. Neither
>> service (Dish in the last house, and D-TV in this) worked worth a damn
>> in bad weather. How bad the weather had to be to blank out the
>> service varied over time, too.
>
>But if the satellite is higher in the sky, through the clouds is a
>thinner slice than if you were aimed lower and had to receive the signal
>through a long/wider low cloud.
>
Sure, DirectTV's bird is at about 47-degrees, so it's fairly high. As
I said, there is nothing around.
>
>
>>>
>>> BUT we many years ago had cable and never very long because of it not
>>> working very long. Then I installed Dish Network and use that for a few
>>> years. And then I went to DirecTV Tivo before HD and it was bullet
>>> proof. Then upgraded to DirecTV HD DVR and the soft ware was a POS for
>>> 2 years as they worked out the bugs. Five years ago we built a new home
>>> in a new neighborhood and went with Uverse. That lasted until summer of
>>> 2013 and we went back to DirecTV. No problems so far.
>>>
>>> BUT avoid at all cost talking to DirecTV. If you cant fix a problem it
>>> cant be fixed by them. ;~)
>>>
>> Oh, they can sure fix the monthly rate.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> My cell phone works for an Internet connection, too. If it gets that
>>>> bad and I need an Internet fix, I can always do lunch at Panera. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And one other thing with Uverse. If you have a DVR with recordings, it
>>>>> does not work if the service is down.
>>>>
>>>> This was true with Comcast, at least a couple of years ago, too.
>>>>
>>> Oh crap!
>>>
>>> Well there is Chanel Master.
>>
>> ;-) I've thought about that, too. I'm told we can get a lot of stuff
>> out of Atlanta, these days.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> We're going to give NetFlix a shot, soon, too. When the teaser rates
>> for the premium channels is over, we'll probably unplug them and go
>> with some Internet video source. The kid gave us a gift certificate
>> for NetFlix, so we'll give that a shot for a few months. I think they
>> just use Hulu and NetFlix and don't have cable TV at all.
>>
>>
>
>
>I'm looking to do that one day, netflix is good, the mail service has a
>LOT of stuff including TV shows and pretty current movies. Streaming is
>pretty good to catch up on series that have been going on for years.
Fortunately, the networks put their recent shows online, as well.
We've been using them to catch up (and stay current) with the outages
we've been having. The gym we go to has Netflix. Seems to have some
pretty good movies, though they tend to play the same ones over and
over (and over...).
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:58:44 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/26/2015 10:01 PM, krw wrote:
>
>> To be fair, in the previous house the power went out a couple of times
>> a week. Not long but long enough to take Dish down for five minutes
>> (and force us to go around the house resetting everything). It was
>> like living in a third world country. The power company was owned by
>> the city, so it's the same thing. Our power here is getting just as
>> bad. It went out twice on Christmas Eve, though DTV would have been
>> out all day anyway.
>>
>
>I used to get occasional power blips, just long enough to trip out the
>receiver. Reboot takes forever. Finally put in on a UPS and problem
>solved.
I thought about that. ...every time we had a power blip. That would
be a bunch of UPSs, though. I still might.
BTW, so far UVerse hasn't been perfect either. The WiFi signal no
longer gets to the TVs in the back bedrooms and I'm not happy turning
over control of my router to AT&T (it's theirs and I don't have the
admin password).
krw <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 27 Dec 2015 14:43:37 GMT, Puckdropper
> <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>krw <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 27 Dec 2015 01:06:01 GMT, Puckdropper
>>> <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>I've got a Hauppauge HD-DVR that records over the component connection
>>(YPbPr). Channels are changed by a channel change script that goes
>>over a serial to USB adapter to talk to the H24 and now Genie Mini.
>>(It's better than an IR blaster, but that's a common option as well.)
>
> Sounds like a lot of manual setup and management.
It does require a good bit of manual setup, but management pretty much
takes care of itself. If you don't make system changes, it pretty much
handles things itself. (Sometimes I have to press the red reset button
on the directv box.) The system handles schedule management (and you
can set priorities to make sure Norm records before Roy if they happen
to conflict).
>>
>>Yes, the receiver has to be "watching" to record.
>>
>>One channel per tuner/receiver pair.
>>
>>In practice conflicts are minimal. It's something like 1 or 2 a
>>month. Most TV shows are reruns anyway, so it's not a big deal.
>
> My wife was disappointed that the UVerse receiver "only" records four
> things at once. We do have conflicts.
I guess it depends on what you watch... In a month, I'd estimate between
10 and 50 recordings are scheduled for later showings. I'm not sure how
good Uverse's conflict handler is, but MythTV gets everything it
possibly can.
Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.
On 27 Dec 2015 14:43:37 GMT, Puckdropper
<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>krw <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 27 Dec 2015 01:06:01 GMT, Puckdropper
>> <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:JrmdnZf4zo31S-
>>>[email protected]:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And one other thing with Uverse. If you have a DVR with recordings,
>>>> it does not work if the service is down.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's part of the beauty of a home-built Linux DVR. You don't need
>>>service or even the same service to watch your recordings. My Dish
>>>Network recordings play just fine even though we've had DirecTV for
>>>years. When I run out of storage, I can buy a bigger drive without
>>>asking the provider if it's ok.
>>
>> How do you record from DTV to your DVR? Does a TV have to be
>> "watching" to record? How many channels at once?
>>>
>>>Freedom like this comes with a cost, but it's worth it. I have to do
>>>a little reading to do things like add a new hard drive, and drop to
>>>the command line to copy recordings but it's been worth it. LinHES in
>>>case anyone's wondering which one I use.
>>>
>>>Puckdropper
>>
>
>I've got a Hauppauge HD-DVR that records over the component connection
>(YPbPr). Channels are changed by a channel change script that goes over
>a serial to USB adapter to talk to the H24 and now Genie Mini. (It's
>better than an IR blaster, but that's a common option as well.)
Sounds like a lot of manual setup and management.
>
>Yes, the receiver has to be "watching" to record.
>
>One channel per tuner/receiver pair.
>
>In practice conflicts are minimal. It's something like 1 or 2 a month.
>Most TV shows are reruns anyway, so it's not a big deal.
My wife was disappointed that the UVerse receiver "only" records four
things at once. We do have conflicts.
>
>Puckdropper
I'll add the 300 gallon fish tank, the Electronic organ, all TV's and
all computers and all Sat units as well as the modem and two routers.
I put shoe boxes on a number of items that can take it - some are
protected and some are battery backed up.
Martin
On 12/27/2015 2:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:58:44 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 12/26/2015 10:01 PM, krw wrote:
>>
>>> To be fair, in the previous house the power went out a couple of times
>>> a week. Not long but long enough to take Dish down for five minutes
>>> (and force us to go around the house resetting everything). It was
>>> like living in a third world country. The power company was owned by
>>> the city, so it's the same thing. Our power here is getting just as
>>> bad. It went out twice on Christmas Eve, though DTV would have been
>>> out all day anyway.
>>>
>>
>> I used to get occasional power blips, just long enough to trip out the
>> receiver. Reboot takes forever. Finally put in on a UPS and problem
>> solved.
> I've got ups on the cable modem, the router, the VOIP appliance, the
> cordless phone base and bothDTV boxes - as well as both computers.
>
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:58:44 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/26/2015 10:01 PM, krw wrote:
>
>> To be fair, in the previous house the power went out a couple of times
>> a week. Not long but long enough to take Dish down for five minutes
>> (and force us to go around the house resetting everything). It was
>> like living in a third world country. The power company was owned by
>> the city, so it's the same thing. Our power here is getting just as
>> bad. It went out twice on Christmas Eve, though DTV would have been
>> out all day anyway.
>>
>
>I used to get occasional power blips, just long enough to trip out the
>receiver. Reboot takes forever. Finally put in on a UPS and problem
>solved.
I've got ups on the cable modem, the router, the VOIP appliance, the
cordless phone base and bothDTV boxes - as well as both computers.
On 12/26/2015 10:36 PM, krw wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:58:44 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 12/26/2015 10:01 PM, krw wrote:
>>
>>> To be fair, in the previous house the power went out a couple of times
>>> a week. Not long but long enough to take Dish down for five minutes
>>> (and force us to go around the house resetting everything). It was
>>> like living in a third world country. The power company was owned by
>>> the city, so it's the same thing. Our power here is getting just as
>>> bad. It went out twice on Christmas Eve, though DTV would have been
>>> out all day anyway.
>>>
>>
>> I used to get occasional power blips, just long enough to trip out the
>> receiver. Reboot takes forever. Finally put in on a UPS and problem
>> solved.
>
> I thought about that. ...every time we had a power blip. That would
> be a bunch of UPSs, though. I still might.
>
> BTW, so far UVerse hasn't been perfect either. The WiFi signal no
> longer gets to the TVs in the back bedrooms and I'm not happy turning
> over control of my router to AT&T (it's theirs and I don't have the
> admin password).
>
I still have Uverse internet, they let me get into the router/gateway
through my computer. IIRC the password is on the unit.
AND you can change the antenna with a software setting.
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:55:11 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 12/26/2015 10:36 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 12/26/15 8:22 AM, Jack wrote:
>>> On 12/24/2015 7:01 PM, krw wrote:
>>>
>>>> I haven't had a landline phone in almost a decade. We had a line
>>>> once, because they refused to sell "naked" DSL (required a phone line)
>>>> but there was never a phone attached to the line. About a year later
>>>> they allowed us to drop the phone "service".
>>>
>>> My daughter just switched from dish to comcast. They never owned a
>>> phone other than cell. She gets the comcast triple play as I do,
>>> because it cost MORE not to have the LL. Her phone line ends with
>>> nothing attached, nothing to ring. People under 40 have no use for old
>>> style phones, and neither do people over 40, but old habits are hard to
>>> break I guess. I probably should just disconnect my LL so no more
>>> salesmen, politicians etc. but for some dumb reason, we haven't been
>>> able to do it. When I say "we" I mean my wife.
>>>
>>
>> I still have reason for it. I still like having 911 feature tied to my
>> home address for one.
>> But a couple more practical reasons for still having a "land line" is
>> the lousy reception for cell phones around my house and the fact that
>> cell phones are still too "walkie-talkie" for my taste in most cases.
>> One person has to completely stop talking in order for the other to be
>> heard. I don't know if this is a digital transmission thing or what,
>> but with land lines and even the cable VOIP lines, you can still hear
>> what's on the other line when speaking.
>> That's very important for having a more natural discussion.
>>
>>
>Time to get an iPhone. ;~) Every one can talk and hear at the same
>time and create all kinds of noise. LOL
Or a room full of women. ;-)
Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>Thanks Walt, very helpful. Thinking more about it, I assume, since the
>voice modem plugs into the PC, the PC must be on for the phones to work
>at all?
Not sure I understand the question... but whether your PC is on or off
should have absolutely no effect on the functionality of the phones in
your house. Obviously, Phonetray would not intercept unwanted calls if
the PC is turned off but there would be no adverse effect to your
home's phone system. (At least there isn't on a POTS)
>I don't turn my PC off often, but put it in sleep mode when
>not using it. Would this setup work with the PC in sleep mode?
Good question. I can't answer because I've got all sleep/hibernate disabled.
A quick Google found this:
http://blog.traysoft.com/2015/02/phonetray-pro-2-4/
Michael Rakita answers a laptop question:
"If your laptop supports USB wake-up you can keep
it in sleep mode and the modem will wake it up
when a call comes in. Your laptop has to be fast
enough to wake up in 2-3 seconds, otherwise it
will miss caller id. If your laptop is not that
fast it will be better to turn the sleep mode off."
>Also, I'm wondering now if there would be a noticeable delay when someone
>calls that I want to get the call?
No delay what so ever. None.
>When I ran a BBS, the modem had to
>go through a significant procedure when answering a call, belching out
>beautiful digital talk to the calling modem. I guess that's what a
>"voice" modem doesn't do, now that I think about it, although that would
>be good for salesman and politicians...
No, Phonetray doesn't make that sound.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsNaR6FRuO0
It will, after 1 complete ring, vocalize the Caller ID information
through the PC speakers.
That feature can easily be disabled, however I find it useful.
Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> My daughter just switched from dish to comcast. They never owned a
> phone other than cell. She gets the comcast triple play as I do,
> because it cost MORE not to have the LL. Her phone line ends with
> nothing attached, nothing to ring. People under 40 have no use for old
> style phones, and neither do people over 40, but old habits are hard to
> break I guess. I probably should just disconnect my LL so no more
> salesmen, politicians etc. but for some dumb reason, we haven't been
> able to do it. When I say "we" I mean my wife.
>
I almost dropped the land-line. If it wasn't for AT&T's lack of signal
where we live, I would have.
Actually, AT&T has this thing called something like "wireless home
phone" or something like that. It's cellular in nature, but looks and
feels like a home phone. They suggested that when I was making a few
account changes.
Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.
On 12/26/2015 8:48 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> My daughter just switched from dish to comcast. They never owned a
>> phone other than cell. She gets the comcast triple play as I do,
>> because it cost MORE not to have the LL. Her phone line ends with
>> nothing attached, nothing to ring. People under 40 have no use for old
>> style phones, and neither do people over 40, but old habits are hard to
>> break I guess. I probably should just disconnect my LL so no more
>> salesmen, politicians etc. but for some dumb reason, we haven't been
>> able to do it. When I say "we" I mean my wife.
>>
>
> I almost dropped the land-line. If it wasn't for AT&T's lack of signal
> where we live, I would have.
>
> Actually, AT&T has this thing called something like "wireless home
> phone" or something like that. It's cellular in nature, but looks and
> feels like a home phone. They suggested that when I was making a few
> account changes.
We dropped our landline a number of years ago. My wife and I each have
a cellular phone with good signal strength at home.
We still liked the "convenience" or familiarity of the land line
cordless phones so, after disconnecting from the grid, I installed a
Siemens Gigaset Blue Tooth unit.
You connect the Gigaset to your house wiring and a wall wart for power.
Once programmed, once you enter the residence with your cell phone the
phone is automatically linked via Gigaset and you can make and receive
your phone calls using either a traditional POTS hooked to the household
phone wiring as in days of yore, or just use the cordless handsets.
The Gigaset we have is capable of simultaneous connection with three
cellular phones and when you call out, you can select which cell phone
you use for the call or let it default to the phone connected at
position #1.
Siemens is not the only such device out there. Panasonic, in fact,
makes a cordless phone set with this technology built in that you can
use with either the regular wired landline and/or the cellular BT feature.
Really nice not having to carry the cell phone around with me in the
house. If I'm out in the shop - separate building from the house -
there's a cordless phone on the wall.
OTOH, what Puckdropper wrote about from AT&T (and Verizon Wireless
offered a similar deal) requires you to pay a monthly fee to the
carrier. Nuts! I paid about $60 for my Siemens unit. The carrier will
sock you $20 a month or so for that convenience. LOL!
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:JrmdnZf4zo31S-
[email protected]:
>
>
> And one other thing with Uverse. If you have a DVR with recordings, it
> does not work if the service is down.
>
That's part of the beauty of a home-built Linux DVR. You don't need
service or even the same service to watch your recordings. My Dish
Network recordings play just fine even though we've had DirecTV for
years. When I run out of storage, I can buy a bigger drive without
asking the provider if it's ok.
Freedom like this comes with a cost, but it's worth it. I have to do a
little reading to do things like add a new hard drive, and drop to the
command line to copy recordings but it's been worth it. LinHES in case
anyone's wondering which one I use.
Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.
Bill <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Leon wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well what about cassette tape backups of data on a hard drive?
> That's different (troublemaker!) ;)
Not really... Except we didn't have hard drives in those days. If we had
diskette drives we were doing good. (Everyone seemed to have the 1541 if
they had a Commodore 64, though.)
I've always wondered if we'd be successful playing an old computer's
cassette "recording" over the phone line to another computer that was
listening for it. Basically, convert the cassette ports in to a modem. I
know it's an extremely convoluted and pathetic way to do it, but sometimes
that's reason enough to do it!
Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.
Leon is right - I have ADSL advanced it is digital and my Cisco GIG
routers are hooked on and run just fine.
Martin
On 12/24/2015 10:54 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 12/24/2015 8:10 AM, krw wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:n4ssk5$48t$1@dont-
>>> email.me:
>>>
>>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>
>>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>
>>> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
>>> is what I have.
>>
>> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all). DSL uses normal
>> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not. DSL is as much "analog" as any
>> other modem technology.
>>
>
>
> IIRC and I could be wrong, while DSL does come over the normal phone
> wires, DSL is digital Subscriber Line IIRC. And not all Uverse comes
> over total fiber optics especially in older established communities.
>
> IIRC Swingman had/has Uverse many years ago with problems from squirrels
> eating through twisted pairs of wires up on the poles.
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:52:47 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:24:28 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
>>>(in article<[email protected]>):
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>>>> > > > 4ax.com:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > > "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>>>> > > > @dont-
>>>> > > > > > email.me:
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > Trenbidia wrote:
>>>> > > > > > > > "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>> > > > > > > > landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
>>>is
>>>> > > > > > what I have.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > No, it's not.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > DSL uses normal
>>>> > > > > "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires,
>>>> > > > not fiber.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > DSL is as much "analog" as any
>>>> > > > > other modem technology.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Ok, asshole, define "digital".
>>>> >
>>>> > In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
>>>> > following 2 links as references only ;-)
>>>> >
>>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
>>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
>>>>
>>>> I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
>>>> "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
>>>> "digital".
>>>
>>>While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is no other
>>>kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between digital
>>>signals and analog signals.
>>
>>OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
>>>
>>>A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
>>>
>>>Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets blurrier, and
>>>information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
>>>
>>>However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is no loss of
>>>information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not so severe
>>>that one cannot make the letters out.
>>
>>...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
>>as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
>>have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it "digital"
>>or "analog".
>>
>>>If one retypes the text before the
>>>blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
>>>regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number of times
>>>without loss.
>>
>>It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's not
>>lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
>>least not one used by anyone I know.
>>>
>>>This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
>>>
>>Nonsense.
> The difference between digital and analog is one is digital, the
>other is analog.
OK, I'm all for tautologies as arguments. ;-)
>
>Analog signals are signals af varying frequency and intensity.
>You can get a good signal, a weak signal, or a bad signal
IOW, DSL, ADTV, Satellite TV, Cell phones, and just about everything
else that's considered "digital". You will get errors, retries, data
drop, freezes, and all that jazz before it drops the connection
completely.
>Digital signals are a pulse train of ones and zeroes. There is error
>checking built in - and you either get a signal or you don't. No such
>thing as "fringe reception" If you get the sinal the digital to
>analog converters decipher the code, and/or codecs in firmware decode
>the signal to audio and video signals,
OK, so the question remains, is v.90 digital or analog?
Your "distinction" isn't, either.
On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>@dont-
>>>email.me:
>>>
>>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>
>>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>
>>>*Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which is what I have.
>>
>> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>
>No, it's not.
>
>> DSL uses normal
>> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>
>Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires, not fiber.
>
>>DSL is as much "analog" as any
>> other modem technology.
>
>What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
Ok, asshole, define "digital".
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:08:28 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 17:24:05 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:20:27 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:32:39 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:52:47 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:24:28 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
>>>>>>>(in article<[email protected]>):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>>> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > > krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>>>>>>>> > > > 4ax.com:
>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>>> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > > > "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>>news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>>>>>>>> > > > @dont-
>>>>>>>> > > > > > email.me:
>>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > > > *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>> > > > > > what I have.
>>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > > Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > No, it's not.
>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > > DSL uses normal
>>>>>>>> > > > > "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires,
>>>>>>>> > > > not fiber.
>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > > DSL is as much "analog" as any
>>>>>>>> > > > > other modem technology.
>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>> > > > What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > Ok, asshole, define "digital".
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
>>>>>>>> > following 2 links as references only ;-)
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
>>>>>>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
>>>>>>>> "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
>>>>>>>> "digital".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is no other
>>>>>>>kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between digital
>>>>>>>signals and analog signals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets blurrier, and
>>>>>>>information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is no loss of
>>>>>>>information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not so severe
>>>>>>>that one cannot make the letters out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
>>>>>>as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
>>>>>>have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it "digital"
>>>>>>or "analog".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If one retypes the text before the
>>>>>>>blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
>>>>>>>regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number of times
>>>>>>>without loss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's not
>>>>>>lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
>>>>>>least not one used by anyone I know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nonsense.
>>>>> The difference between digital and analog is one is digital, the
>>>>>other is analog.
>>>>
>>>>OK, I'm all for tautologies as arguments. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>Analog signals are signals af varying frequency and intensity.
>>>>>You can get a good signal, a weak signal, or a bad signal
>>>>
>>>>IOW, DSL, ADTV, Satellite TV, Cell phones, and just about everything
>>>>else that's considered "digital". You will get errors, retries, data
>>>>drop, freezes, and all that jazz before it drops the connection
>>>>completely.
>>>>
>>>>>Digital signals are a pulse train of ones and zeroes. There is error
>>>>>checking built in - and you either get a signal or you don't. No such
>>>>>thing as "fringe reception" If you get the sinal the digital to
>>>>>analog converters decipher the code, and/or codecs in firmware decode
>>>>>the signal to audio and video signals,
>>>>
>>>>OK, so the question remains, is v.90 digital or analog?
>>>>
>>>>Your "distinction" isn't, either.
>>>>
>>>V 90 was strictly analog. Any "modem" is analog because it modulates
>>>and demodulates (MODulatorDEModulator) the signal at each end.
>>>Modulation is the hallmark of an alalog signal.(modulation also
>>>described, as I did in my "simplified" reply as varying frequency and
>>>intensity.
>>
>>The "modulator" was a D/A converter and the demodulator was an A/D
>>converter and it was analog in the middle, so the phone line is
>>analog. How is the communications link digital?
>
>No, a "modulator" is not a DA converter, and nobody ever said "modem"
>communication was digital.
OK, there is a DSP running the ADC. The second phrase is exactly the
discussion here.
>>>
>>>A digital signal does not use a "modem" It uses a "codec" (coder
>>>decoder) which converts a binary chain of data to "tokens" and
>>>transmits those "tokens" digitally across the network, and then at the
>>>other end "decodes" the "tokens" to a digital binary data stream
>>>again. All computers today are "digital devices", working with and
>>>understanding ONLY binary digital data.
>>
>>A distinction without a difference. So you're saying that a v.90
>>modem is analog? DSL is analog? Cable Internet is analog?
>
>Nope. V90 is straight analog. DSL? I'm not sure. By my definition,
>since it uses a Modem, the transmission is a modulated signal - which
>means it is an analog signal.
Agreed WRT v.90. Since DSL is *very* similar, I'd say so too but
we're definitely in the minority.
>The cable internet uses DOCSIS and QAM, which is technically a CODEC,
>not a simple MODEM. QAM is quadrature amplitude modulation - which is
>a 4 state "digital" implementation instead of a binary digital - and
>ises "tokens" or "symbols" for upstream QAM, but uses MPEG for
>downstream.
Well, QAM can be more than four state. Forty years ago, we used
9600bps, 1200baud QAM modems (and Motorola called them "modems"), over
dedicated copper phone lines. That's a three-bit (eight state)
symbol.
MPEG isn't a transmission protocol, rather a compression algorithm.
>
>Thats as much as I know about HOW it works - and it's different in
>north america (6mhz) DOCSIS and 8mhz EuroDOCSIS. - and the fiber optic
>backhaul works differently than the coax "last mile" section.
>Cable internet is digital - at least mine is. There is no modem. It
>runs with a digital router.
It may be inside your house but it's using "TV channels" on the pole.
On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
<[email protected]> wrote:
>krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>>>4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>>>@dont-
>>>>>email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>>>
>>>>>*Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which is what I have.
>>>>
>>>> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>>>
>>>No, it's not.
>>>
>>>> DSL uses normal
>>>> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>>>
>>>Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires, not fiber.
>>>
>>>>DSL is as much "analog" as any
>>>> other modem technology.
>>>
>>>What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>>
>>Ok, asshole, define "digital".
>
>In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
>following 2 links as references only ;-)
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
"digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
"digital".
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 10:08:08 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/27/2015 8:52 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>> Bill <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well what about cassette tape backups of data on a hard drive?
>>>> That's different (troublemaker!) ;)
>>>
>>> Not really... Except we didn't have hard drives in those days. If we had
>>> diskette drives we were doing good. (Everyone seemed to have the 1541 if
>>> they had a Commodore 64, though.)
>>>
>>> I've always wondered if we'd be successful playing an old computer's
>>> cassette "recording" over the phone line to another computer that was
>>> listening for it. Basically, convert the cassette ports in to a modem. I
>>> know it's an extremely convoluted and pathetic way to do it, but sometimes
>>> that's reason enough to do it!
>>>
>> Actually in the late 70's early 80's I ordered parts from GM/GMPD using
>> a thermal heat print terminal/computer terminal. With a keyboard and a
>> dual cassette deck on top I would communicate with our inventory control
>> service provider, Reynolds and Reynolds. I would run a routine from
>> that terminal to generate a stock order, get the results, and record
>> them on a cassette, they looked like the common cassette. From there I
>> flipped a series of toggle switches and typed in a phone number to
>> GMPD's computer and their computer communicated with my terminal and
>> read the cassette. The response of their computer was sent back and
>> recorded on the other cassette on my terminal. And finally my terminal
>> read the cassette and answer from GMPD and printed the results on that
>> terminals thermal heat print paper.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Puckdropper
>>>
> The Reynolds and Reynolds and ADP systems used modems to send and
> recieve the data - which implemented error checking and correction.
Even then I thought the R&R service was archaic. A few years later we
switched to ADP and it was like we switched to the current century. Then
we built a new facility and had ADP in house. I loved that system.
>
> A lot of those early modems used "accoustic couplers" - you placed the
> handset of the phone onto the coupler and it "talked" to the phone to
> transmit the modulated signals. I think that worked all the way up to
> about 200 baud. - mabee 300.
> That was about the limit for data transmission on the audio tape too.
>
The R&R mentioned above terminal was. TI. When we opened that dealership I
had to temporarily use the handset coupler, the regular modem had not yet
arrived. IIRC one or the other accomplished 300.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 10:08:08 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 12/27/2015 8:52 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>> Bill <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well what about cassette tape backups of data on a hard drive?
>>> That's different (troublemaker!) ;)
>>
>> Not really... Except we didn't have hard drives in those days. If we had
>> diskette drives we were doing good. (Everyone seemed to have the 1541 if
>> they had a Commodore 64, though.)
>>
>> I've always wondered if we'd be successful playing an old computer's
>> cassette "recording" over the phone line to another computer that was
>> listening for it. Basically, convert the cassette ports in to a modem. I
>> know it's an extremely convoluted and pathetic way to do it, but sometimes
>> that's reason enough to do it!
>>
>Actually in the late 70's early 80's I ordered parts from GM/GMPD using
>a thermal heat print terminal/computer terminal. With a keyboard and a
>dual cassette deck on top I would communicate with our inventory control
>service provider, Reynolds and Reynolds. I would run a routine from
>that terminal to generate a stock order, get the results, and record
>them on a cassette, they looked like the common cassette. From there I
>flipped a series of toggle switches and typed in a phone number to
>GMPD's computer and their computer communicated with my terminal and
>read the cassette. The response of their computer was sent back and
>recorded on the other cassette on my terminal. And finally my terminal
>read the cassette and answer from GMPD and printed the results on that
>terminals thermal heat print paper.
>
>
>
>> Puckdropper
>>
The Reynolds and Reynolds and ADP systems used modems to send and
recieve the data - which implemented error checking and correction.
A lot of those early modems used "accoustic couplers" - you placed the
handset of the phone onto the coupler and it "talked" to the phone to
transmit the modulated signals. I think that worked all the way up to
about 200 baud. - mabee 300.
That was about the limit for data transmission on the audio tape too.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 10:48:13 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Puckdropper says...
>>
>> Bill <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > Leon wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Well what about cassette tape backups of data on a hard drive?
>> > That's different (troublemaker!) ;)
>>
>> Not really... Except we didn't have hard drives in those days. If we had
>> diskette drives we were doing good. (Everyone seemed to have the 1541 if
>> they had a Commodore 64, though.)
>>
>> I've always wondered if we'd be successful playing an old computer's
>> cassette "recording" over the phone line to another computer that was
>> listening for it. Basically, convert the cassette ports in to a modem. I
>> know it's an extremely convoluted and pathetic way to do it, but sometimes
>> that's reason enough to do it!
>
>Probably not. A cassette has a good bit more bandwidth than a phone
>line. But sounds like a fun thing to try.
It's been tried. It kinda half works - but 99%accuracy in digital
communication without error correction is virtually useless - and the
best results were well jnder 99%. (If I remember correctly we achieved
better than 80% -)so we went to "plan b" with the Telex tape
duplicator and "sneakernet" to distribute the programs.
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 10:36:09 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 12/26/15 8:22 AM, Jack wrote:
>> On 12/24/2015 7:01 PM, krw wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't had a landline phone in almost a decade. We had a line
>>> once, because they refused to sell "naked" DSL (required a phone line)
>>> but there was never a phone attached to the line. About a year later
>>> they allowed us to drop the phone "service".
>>
>> My daughter just switched from dish to comcast. They never owned a
>> phone other than cell. She gets the comcast triple play as I do,
>> because it cost MORE not to have the LL. Her phone line ends with
>> nothing attached, nothing to ring. People under 40 have no use for old
>> style phones, and neither do people over 40, but old habits are hard to
>> break I guess. I probably should just disconnect my LL so no more
>> salesmen, politicians etc. but for some dumb reason, we haven't been
>> able to do it. When I say "we" I mean my wife.
>>
>
>I still have reason for it. I still like having 911 feature tied to my
>home address for one.
>But a couple more practical reasons for still having a "land line" is
>the lousy reception for cell phones around my house and the fact that
>cell phones are still too "walkie-talkie" for my taste in most cases.
>One person has to completely stop talking in order for the other to be
>heard. I don't know if this is a digital transmission thing or what,
>but with land lines and even the cable VOIP lines, you can still hear
>what's on the other line when speaking.
>That's very important for having a more natural discussion.
The lousy reception thing can be taken care of with a picocell.
Basically, you have your own cell station that connects to "Ma" over
the Internet. The "half-duplex" voice is certainly an issue with cell
phones. 911 for home shouldn't be an issue though. They should be
able to locate you, without any problems.
The cell phone issue that you didn't mention was disaster recovery.
Cell phones aren't of much use if the tower loses power and their
backup power isn't anything like the POTS COs of years gone by. OTOH,
in many disasters, the cell system was the only communications that
did survive.
If you want it all, I guess belt and suspenders is the way to go,
though if you don't use things, they tend to not work when they're
really needed.
On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>@dont-
>>>email.me:
>>>
>>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>
>>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>
>>>*Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which is what I have.
>>
>> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>
>No, it's not.
>
>> DSL uses normal
>> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>
>Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires, not fiber.
>
>>DSL is as much "analog" as any
>> other modem technology.
>
>What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
Direct
Direct Subscriber Line
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:13:42 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 12/26/15 4:06 PM, krw wrote:
>>> I still have reason for it. I still like having 911 feature tied to my
>>> home address for one.
>>> But a couple more practical reasons for still having a "land line" is
>>> the lousy reception for cell phones around my house and the fact that
>>> cell phones are still too "walkie-talkie" for my taste in most cases.
>>> One person has to completely stop talking in order for the other to be
>>> heard. I don't know if this is a digital transmission thing or what,
>>> but with land lines and even the cable VOIP lines, you can still hear
>>> what's on the other line when speaking.
>>> That's very important for having a more natural discussion.
>>
>> The lousy reception thing can be taken care of with a picocell.
>> Basically, you have your own cell station that connects to "Ma" over
>> the Internet. The "half-duplex" voice is certainly an issue with cell
>> phones. 911 for home shouldn't be an issue though. They should be
>> able to locate you, without any problems.
>>
>
>Silly me, I think if I'm paying for a service, the service should work
>without me having to buy extra stuff to make it work. :-)
Well, you're paying for a mobile phone. If you want it to work at
home, you may have to pay extra. ;-)
At least with Verizon, it's a one-time charge. They don't charge for
the Internet->POTS connection. I think AT&T does the same.
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 09:22:07 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/24/2015 7:01 PM, krw wrote:
>
>> I haven't had a landline phone in almost a decade. We had a line
>> once, because they refused to sell "naked" DSL (required a phone line)
>> but there was never a phone attached to the line. About a year later
>> they allowed us to drop the phone "service".
>
>My daughter just switched from dish to comcast. They never owned a
>phone other than cell. She gets the comcast triple play as I do,
>because it cost MORE not to have the LL. Her phone line ends with
>nothing attached, nothing to ring. People under 40 have no use for old
>style phones, and neither do people over 40, but old habits are hard to
>break I guess. I probably should just disconnect my LL so no more
>salesmen, politicians etc. but for some dumb reason, we haven't been
>able to do it. When I say "we" I mean my wife.
Yeah, my wife got tired answering politicians' robocalls so didn't
fight when I wanted to dump the phone. I kept one in the kitchen
drawer for a while if she felt she needed to call someone on a land
line she could plug it in. ;-)
I still get political robocalls once in a while but usually for pols I
couldn't vote for if I wanted (different state and I'm not an
illegal).
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:24:28 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
>>(in article<[email protected]>):
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>>> > > > 4ax.com:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>>> > > > @dont-
>>> > > > > > email.me:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Trenbidia wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>> > > > > > > > landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
>>is
>>> > > > > > what I have.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>>> > > >
>>> > > > No, it's not.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > DSL uses normal
>>> > > > > "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires,
>>> > > > not fiber.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > DSL is as much "analog" as any
>>> > > > > other modem technology.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>>> > >
>>> > > Ok, asshole, define "digital".
>>> >
>>> > In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
>>> > following 2 links as references only ;-)
>>> >
>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
>>>
>>> I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
>>> "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
>>> "digital".
>>
>>While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is no other
>>kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between digital
>>signals and analog signals.
>
>OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
>>
>>A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
>>
>>Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets blurrier, and
>>information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
>>
>>However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is no loss of
>>information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not so severe
>>that one cannot make the letters out.
>
>...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
>as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
>have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it "digital"
>or "analog".
>
>>If one retypes the text before the
>>blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
>>regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number of times
>>without loss.
>
>It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's not
>lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
>least not one used by anyone I know.
>>
>>This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
>>
>Nonsense.
The difference between digital and analog is one is digital, the
other is analog.
Analog signals are signals af varying frequency and intensity.
You can get a good signal, a weak signal, or a bad signal
Digital signals are a pulse train of ones and zeroes. There is error
checking built in - and you either get a signal or you don't. No such
thing as "fringe reception" If you get the sinal the digital to
analog converters decipher the code, and/or codecs in firmware decode
the signal to audio and video signals,
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 21:10:13 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 20:11:57 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 18:49:36 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>[email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:21:18 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:52:45 +0000, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Not really... Except we didn't have hard drives in those days. If we
>>>> >> had diskette drives we were doing good. (Everyone seemed to have the
>>>> >> 1541 if they had a Commodore 64, though.)
>>>> >
>>>> >I started playing with microcomputers with 2 8" floppies - then 5.25" -
>>>> >then 3.5". Each time either the capacity or the speed went down. I knew
>>>> >they couldn't last :-).
>>>> Actually both speed and capacity went UP. The first 5.25 disks I
>>>> used were somethink like 80kb Shugart hard sectored, then 360kb soft
>>>> sectored, then up to DSDD 1.2mb.
>>>> The 3.5" disks started at 280 (which never went anywhere) then 360
>>>> single sided, 720 double sided, and 1.44mb DSDD (or HD).
>>>>
>>>> Then came the Flopticals, LS120 and LS240 3.5 disks with 21, 120, and
>>>> 240MB capacity.and a few other nonstandard (Proprietary) systems that
>>>> were ineffective to varying degrees.
>>>
>>>Flopticals were nice at the time. I still have a final-generation
>>>floptical USB drive that gets used occasionally when someone needes to
>>>read a 3-1/2 inch diskette. One neat trick was that with the right
>>>driver they could get something like 16 meg on a standard diskette.
>>>
>>The bad thing is half the time even THEY could not read the data after
>>it was stored ---
>
>Ah, the ol' Write-Only Memory! ;
and the "one way backup" problem in Windows 2-3 period.
On 12/26/2015 4:20 PM, krw wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:02:58 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/26/2015 11:37 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 12/26/2015 8:22 AM, Jack wrote:
>>>> On 12/24/2015 7:01 PM, krw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I haven't had a landline phone in almost a decade. We had a line
>>>>> once, because they refused to sell "naked" DSL (required a phone line)
>>>>> but there was never a phone attached to the line. About a year later
>>>>> they allowed us to drop the phone "service".
>>>>
>>>> My daughter just switched from dish to comcast. They never owned a
>>>> phone other than cell. She gets the comcast triple play as I do,
>>>> because it cost MORE not to have the LL. Her phone line ends with
>>>> nothing attached, nothing to ring. People under 40 have no use for old
>>>> style phones, and neither do people over 40, but old habits are hard to
>>>> break I guess. I probably should just disconnect my LL so no more
>>>> salesmen, politicians etc. but for some dumb reason, we haven't been
>>>> able to do it. When I say "we" I mean my wife.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If Comcast is anything like Uverse works, an area outage will leave you
>>> with out TV, telephone for those that opt for that, and internet. The
>>> major reason that most of our new neighborhood switched to Comcast for
>>> internet and phone, and DirecTV for TV. It is not necessarily a good
>>> thing to have all your eggs in one basket. Discounts are great until
>>> you are with out all services for 4~5 days at a time, thank you Uverse.
>>> Thank goodness cell phones were not some how connected.
>
> I can live without TV for a few days. What pissed me off about
> DirectTV was that it went out whenever it rained. Missing a show is
> much better than missing two half shows. "We can fix that now" was
> always the answer from DirectTV but "can" and "will" are two entirely
> different things. They were also a PITA when equipment died.
> Actually, they're still a PITA. They've called at least two dozen
> times, trying to get us back. Good riddance!
I'm sure location has a lot to do with the rain being a problem. I have
had them all and DirecTV has been the most reliable. In the last two
years we probably have not missed 2 hours of recording because of rain.
BUT we many years ago had cable and never very long because of it not
working very long. Then I installed Dish Network and use that for a few
years. And then I went to DirecTV Tivo before HD and it was bullet
proof. Then upgraded to DirecTV HD DVR and the soft ware was a POS for
2 years as they worked out the bugs. Five years ago we built a new home
in a new neighborhood and went with Uverse. That lasted until summer of
2013 and we went back to DirecTV. No problems so far.
BUT avoid at all cost talking to DirecTV. If you cant fix a problem it
cant be fixed by them. ;~)
>
> My cell phone works for an Internet connection, too. If it gets that
> bad and I need an Internet fix, I can always do lunch at Panera. ;-)
>>
>>
>> And one other thing with Uverse. If you have a DVR with recordings, it
>> does not work if the service is down.
>
> This was true with Comcast, at least a couple of years ago, too.
>
Oh crap!
Well there is Chanel Master.
On 12/26/2015 11:37 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 12/26/2015 8:22 AM, Jack wrote:
>> On 12/24/2015 7:01 PM, krw wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't had a landline phone in almost a decade. We had a line
>>> once, because they refused to sell "naked" DSL (required a phone line)
>>> but there was never a phone attached to the line. About a year later
>>> they allowed us to drop the phone "service".
>>
>> My daughter just switched from dish to comcast. They never owned a
>> phone other than cell. She gets the comcast triple play as I do,
>> because it cost MORE not to have the LL. Her phone line ends with
>> nothing attached, nothing to ring. People under 40 have no use for old
>> style phones, and neither do people over 40, but old habits are hard to
>> break I guess. I probably should just disconnect my LL so no more
>> salesmen, politicians etc. but for some dumb reason, we haven't been
>> able to do it. When I say "we" I mean my wife.
>>
>
>
> If Comcast is anything like Uverse works, an area outage will leave you
> with out TV, telephone for those that opt for that, and internet. The
> major reason that most of our new neighborhood switched to Comcast for
> internet and phone, and DirecTV for TV. It is not necessarily a good
> thing to have all your eggs in one basket. Discounts are great until
> you are with out all services for 4~5 days at a time, thank you Uverse.
> Thank goodness cell phones were not some how connected.
And one other thing with Uverse. If you have a DVR with recordings, it
does not work if the service is down.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 20:02:27 -0600, Unquestionably Confused
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/27/2015 6:21 PM, Trenbidia wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 17:00:44 -0500, krw wrote:
>>
>>> Our computers are laptops, so no UPS needed. I rarely use even my
>>> laptop,
>>> anymore. I have a tablet that I do all things Internet on. It's a lot
>>> easier to carry around than even a laptop (remember Compaq luggables?!).
>>
>> I even remember the Osbourne :-).
>
>
>But, but, but did you ever master the mysteries of the Timex Sinclair? ;)
>
>
>
>
Or the "RatShack MC10?"
I've still got my OS9/A-Dos equippef 6809 CoCo2 with dual DSDD
floppies, composite video output, and built-in eprom programmer and
parallel port (all custom)
And my modified MC10 (set up to run off 12 volt DC instead of AC -
including conversion for true RS232) which we were setting up as a
rallye computer"back in the day" The HP progranmmable calculator we
used was already much faster and better than the Kurta "peppermill" -
the MC10 would have been even better but we couldn't get an accepable
display at the time, and then I got married and quit rallying.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:n4ssk5$48t$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
> > Trenbidia wrote:
> >> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
> >> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
> >
> > Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>
> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which is what I have.
Do you have DSL or do you have U-Verse? They are not the same.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > On 12/24/2015 8:10 AM, krw wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>> news:n4ssk5$48t$1@dont- email.me:
> >>>
> >>>> Trenbidia wrote:
> >>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
> >>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
> >>>>
> >>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
> >>>
> >>> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
> >>> is what I have.
> >>
> >> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all). DSL uses normal
> >> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not. DSL is as much "analog" as any
> >> other modem technology.
> >>
> >
> >
> > IIRC and I could be wrong, while DSL does come over the normal phone
> > wires, DSL is digital Subscriber Line IIRC. And not all Uverse comes
> > over total fiber optics especially in older established communities.
UVerse works on pure fiber, fiber to the node, or in some fring areas
DSL multiplexing. It is not the same as ordinary single-line DSL.
> DSL = Digital Subscriber Loop. That meant something decades
> ago, but now DSL is just a name.
No, it is a technology. People who don't know any better might call
their cable connection "DSL" or their fiber optic connection "cable" but
the people who install it certainly know the difference.
> The difference between DSL and cable modem technolgies is
> that DSL is baseband - if you're sending 10Mbit of data,
> you have a 10Mbit signal on the wires. Cable modem uses
> a radio frequency carrier which is modulated with the 10Mbit
> signal. Both are analog technologies.
Nope. DSL has multiple 4.3 KHz carriers on adjacent bands going from
somewhere between 10 and 100 KHz up to whatever limit the particular
loop can carry. If it's carryine 10 Mb/sec it multiplexes that data
over however many channels are required. But it's bloody rare for DSL
to hit a speed that high.
> The problem with DSL is it's _very_ dependant on the quality
> of the connection it goes over. If you have fiber all the
> way to the house (very uncommon) you get excellent results.
> If you have twisted pair part of the way (the normal case)
> you get indifferent results - mostly because the twisted
> pair is usually ancient and in pretty crappy condition.
>
> Now, as far as landline phones go, if the phone puts the
> voice signal directly on the wire, that is what's called
> "analog landline".
The technology on which DSL is based.
> If the phone converts the voice signal
> to digital data, and then sends it over either DSL or
> cable (where it's an analog signal) it's called "digital
> landline".
I've never seen a DSL connection with phone service in which it is
necessary to plug the phones into some kind of converter box in order to
use them. The filters are needed to make the DSL work, not the phone,
and they do not do signal conversion, they simply isolate the frequency
bands.
DSL with phone uses analog phone service. There may be a repeater at
the street that moves the CO closer to your location, but your
connection is analog to the CO.
And why would a cable company use analog phone signalling? That would
just add complexity to their system and tie up bandwidth that could be
used for other purposes--you seem to have DSL and cable reversed in your
mind.
> If that digital data is additionally formed
> into IP packets and sent over the Internet, then it's
> called VOIP.
>
> John
>
> (who doubts anyone really cares about the technical
> side of phone lines...)
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
> 4ax.com:
>
> > On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:n4ssk5$48t$1
> @dont-
> >>email.me:
> >>
> >>> Trenbidia wrote:
> >>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
> >>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
> >>>
> >>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
> >>
> >>*Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which is what I have.
> >
> > Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>
> No, it's not.
>
> > DSL uses normal
> > "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>
> Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires, not fiber.
Either fiber to the node, which means that the copper runs to a fiber
termination less than a mile away, or multiple copper lines.
>
> >DSL is as much "analog" as any
> > other modem technology.
>
> What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
Not what you think. It's digital carried on multiple analog carriers.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> Leon is right - I have ADSL advanced it is digital and my Cisco GIG
> routers are hooked on and run just fine.
Many Cisco routers have DSL modems built in. That doesn't make the
signalling on the DSL side digital.
> On 12/24/2015 10:54 AM, Leon wrote:
> > On 12/24/2015 8:10 AM, krw wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>> news:n4ssk5$48t$1@dont-
> >>> email.me:
> >>>
> >>>> Trenbidia wrote:
> >>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
> >>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
> >>>>
> >>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
> >>>
> >>> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
> >>> is what I have.
> >>
> >> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all). DSL uses normal
> >> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not. DSL is as much "analog" as any
> >> other modem technology.
> >>
> >
> >
> > IIRC and I could be wrong, while DSL does come over the normal phone
> > wires, DSL is digital Subscriber Line IIRC. And not all Uverse comes
> > over total fiber optics especially in older established communities.
> >
> > IIRC Swingman had/has Uverse many years ago with problems from squirrels
> > eating through twisted pairs of wires up on the poles.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> krw wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:52:47 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:24:28 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
> >>>> (in article<[email protected]>):
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
> >>>>>>>> 4ax.com:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
> >>>> news:n4ssk5$48t$1
> >>>>>>>> @dont-
> >>>>>>>>>> email.me:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Trenbidia wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
> >>>>>>>>>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
> >>>>>>>>>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
> >>>>>>>>>> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
> >>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>> what I have.
> >>>>>>>>> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
> >>>>>>>> No, it's not.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> DSL uses normal
> >>>>>>>>> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
> >>>>>>>> Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires,
> >>>>>>>> not fiber.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> DSL is as much "analog" as any
> >>>>>>>>> other modem technology.
> >>>>>>>> What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
> >>>>>>> Ok, asshole, define "digital".
> >>>>>> In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
> >>>>>> following 2 links as references only ;-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
> >>>>> I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
> >>>>> "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
> >>>>> "digital".
> >>>> While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is no other
> >>>> kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between digital
> >>>> signals and analog signals.
> >>> OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
> >>>> A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
> >>>>
> >>>> Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets blurrier, and
> >>>> information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is no loss of
> >>>> information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not so severe
> >>>> that one cannot make the letters out.
> >>> ...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
> >>> as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
> >>> have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it "digital"
> >>> or "analog".
> >>>
> >>>> If one retypes the text before the
> >>>> blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
> >>>> regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number of times
> >>>> without loss.
> >>> It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's not
> >>> lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
> >>> least not one used by anyone I know.
> >>>> This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
> >>>>
> >>> Nonsense.
> >> The difference between digital and analog is one is digital, the
> >> other is analog.
> > OK, I'm all for tautologies as arguments. ;-)
> >> Analog signals are signals af varying frequency and intensity.
> >> You can get a good signal, a weak signal, or a bad signal
> > IOW, DSL, ADTV, Satellite TV, Cell phones, and just about everything
> > else that's considered "digital". You will get errors, retries, data
> > drop, freezes, and all that jazz before it drops the connection
> > completely.
> >
> >> Digital signals are a pulse train of ones and zeroes. There is error
> >> checking built in - and you either get a signal or you don't. No such
> >> thing as "fringe reception" If you get the sinal the digital to
> >> analog converters decipher the code, and/or codecs in firmware decode
> >> the signal to audio and video signals,
> > OK, so the question remains, is v.90 digital or analog?
> >
> > Your "distinction" isn't, either.
> As something of an "expert", I say that if the data is abstractable to a
> sequence of 0's and 1's,
> then even if it is transmitted in an analog fashion, then it's
> *digital*.
So if I speak into a microphone "one, zero, one, one, zero ..." then
it's "digital"?
> E.g. Computer files are digital. A paper tape is digital.
> While, not an expert about them, I would say that a cassette recording
> is not digital.
And yet a cassette recorder has no trouble storing computer files.
Some signalling systems, the various Ethernets for example, are designed
from the ground up to carry digital information. Others, POTS modems
for example, carry digital information over channels that were
originally intended to carry analog data and do so by modulating a
carrier signal that is compatible with that channel.
That's where the distinction lies.
In article <[email protected]>,
Puckdropper says...
>
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > Leon wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Well what about cassette tape backups of data on a hard drive?
> > That's different (troublemaker!) ;)
>
> Not really... Except we didn't have hard drives in those days. If we had
> diskette drives we were doing good. (Everyone seemed to have the 1541 if
> they had a Commodore 64, though.)
>
> I've always wondered if we'd be successful playing an old computer's
> cassette "recording" over the phone line to another computer that was
> listening for it. Basically, convert the cassette ports in to a modem. I
> know it's an extremely convoluted and pathetic way to do it, but sometimes
> that's reason enough to do it!
Probably not. A cassette has a good bit more bandwidth than a phone
line. But sounds like a fun thing to try.
On 12/26/2015 8:22 AM, Jack wrote:
> On 12/24/2015 7:01 PM, krw wrote:
>
>> I haven't had a landline phone in almost a decade. We had a line
>> once, because they refused to sell "naked" DSL (required a phone line)
>> but there was never a phone attached to the line. About a year later
>> they allowed us to drop the phone "service".
>
> My daughter just switched from dish to comcast. They never owned a
> phone other than cell. She gets the comcast triple play as I do,
> because it cost MORE not to have the LL. Her phone line ends with
> nothing attached, nothing to ring. People under 40 have no use for old
> style phones, and neither do people over 40, but old habits are hard to
> break I guess. I probably should just disconnect my LL so no more
> salesmen, politicians etc. but for some dumb reason, we haven't been
> able to do it. When I say "we" I mean my wife.
>
If Comcast is anything like Uverse works, an area outage will leave you
with out TV, telephone for those that opt for that, and internet. The
major reason that most of our new neighborhood switched to Comcast for
internet and phone, and DirecTV for TV. It is not necessarily a good
thing to have all your eggs in one basket. Discounts are great until
you are with out all services for 4~5 days at a time, thank you Uverse.
Thank goodness cell phones were not some how connected.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 17:46:08 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 17:00:44 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:01:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:36:53 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:58:44 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 12/26/2015 10:01 PM, krw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> To be fair, in the previous house the power went out a couple of times
>>>>>> a week. Not long but long enough to take Dish down for five minutes
>>>>>> (and force us to go around the house resetting everything). It was
>>>>>> like living in a third world country. The power company was owned by
>>>>>> the city, so it's the same thing. Our power here is getting just as
>>>>>> bad. It went out twice on Christmas Eve, though DTV would have been
>>>>>> out all day anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I used to get occasional power blips, just long enough to trip out the
>>>>>receiver. Reboot takes forever. Finally put in on a UPS and problem
>>>>>solved.
>>>>
>>>>I thought about that. ...every time we had a power blip. That would
>>>>be a bunch of UPSs, though. I still might.
>>>
>>>I've got 4 in use. One on my wife's computer, one on mine, one on the
>>>network /phone devices, and one on each DTV box.
>>
>>Our computers are laptops, so no UPS needed. I rarely use even my
>>laptop, anymore. I have a tablet that I do all things Internet on.
>>It's a lot easier to carry around than even a laptop (remember Compaq
>>luggables?!).
>
>The company I worked for for a period of 5 years before going off on
>my own built and sold thousands of "clones" of the Compaq "lunchbox
>computer" (Portable 111)
>Apparently Stirling still makes them???
>We called them "luggables" too. A lot smaller and lighter than the
>Compaq "sewing machine" (Only about 20 lbs)
>
>Remember the Osborne? 5 inch CRT screen. Then tha Kaypro 2 with the
>huge 9 inch screen? The Kaypro "only" weighed a bit less than 30 lbs.
>I think the Osborn was a bit heavier.
Sure I remember them, though had only IBMs for years. My first was a
"first day order" 5150 PC, with a single-sided floppy, 48K DRAM, and a
monochrome monitor (though both video adapters). I didn't own a clone
until '93 or '94.
On 12/26/2015 9:52 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:24:28 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
>>> (in article<[email protected]>):
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>>>>>>> 4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>>>>>>> @dont-
>>>>>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>>>>>>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
>>> is
>>>>>>>>> what I have.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it's not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DSL uses normal
>>>>>>>> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires,
>>>>>>> not fiber.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DSL is as much "analog" as any
>>>>>>>> other modem technology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, asshole, define "digital".
>>>>>
>>>>> In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
>>>>> following 2 links as references only ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
>>>>
>>>> I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
>>>> "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
>>>> "digital".
>>>
>>> While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is no other
>>> kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between digital
>>> signals and analog signals.
>>
>> OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
>>>
>>> A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
>>>
>>> Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets blurrier, and
>>> information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
>>>
>>> However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is no loss of
>>> information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not so severe
>>> that one cannot make the letters out.
>>
>> ...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
>> as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
>> have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it "digital"
>> or "analog".
>>
>>> If one retypes the text before the
>>> blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
>>> regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number of times
>>> without loss.
>>
>> It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's not
>> lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
>> least not one used by anyone I know.
>>>
>>> This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
>>>
>> Nonsense.
> The difference between digital and analog is one is digital, the
> other is analog.
>
> Analog signals are signals af varying frequency and intensity.
> You can get a good signal, a weak signal, or a bad signal
>
> Digital signals are a pulse train of ones and zeroes. There is error
> checking built in - and you either get a signal or you don't. No such
> thing as "fringe reception" If you get the sinal the digital to
> analog converters decipher the code, and/or codecs in firmware decode
> the signal to audio and video signals,
>
Not sure what you are trying to say here but I can assure you a weak
digital signal will come in pixilated and is just about as bad as a bad
analog signal. Been there seen that too many times.
On 12/26/2015 10:56 PM, Bill wrote:
> krw wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:52:47 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:24:28 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
>>>>> (in article<[email protected]>):
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>>>>>>>>> 4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>>>>>>>>> @dont-
>>>>>>>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional
>>>>>>>>>>>>> analog
>>>>>>>>>>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>>>>>>>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>>>>>>>>> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse --
>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> what I have.
>>>>>>>>>> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>>>>>>>>> No, it's not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DSL uses normal
>>>>>>>>>> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>>>>>>>>> Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are
>>>>>>>>> copper wires,
>>>>>>>>> not fiber.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DSL is as much "analog" as any
>>>>>>>>>> other modem technology.
>>>>>>>>> What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>>>>>>>> Ok, asshole, define "digital".
>>>>>>> In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
>>>>>>> following 2 links as references only ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
>>>>>> I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
>>>>>> "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
>>>>>> "digital".
>>>>> While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is
>>>>> no other
>>>>> kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between digital
>>>>> signals and analog signals.
>>>> OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
>>>>> A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
>>>>>
>>>>> Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets blurrier, and
>>>>> information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is
>>>>> no loss of
>>>>> information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not
>>>>> so severe
>>>>> that one cannot make the letters out.
>>>> ...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
>>>> as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
>>>> have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it "digital"
>>>> or "analog".
>>>>
>>>>> If one retypes the text before the
>>>>> blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
>>>>> regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number
>>>>> of times
>>>>> without loss.
>>>> It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's not
>>>> lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
>>>> least not one used by anyone I know.
>>>>> This is the core difference between digital signals and analog
>>>>> signals.
>>>>>
>>>> Nonsense.
>>> The difference between digital and analog is one is digital, the
>>> other is analog.
>> OK, I'm all for tautologies as arguments. ;-)
>>> Analog signals are signals af varying frequency and intensity.
>>> You can get a good signal, a weak signal, or a bad signal
>> IOW, DSL, ADTV, Satellite TV, Cell phones, and just about everything
>> else that's considered "digital". You will get errors, retries, data
>> drop, freezes, and all that jazz before it drops the connection
>> completely.
>>
>>> Digital signals are a pulse train of ones and zeroes. There is error
>>> checking built in - and you either get a signal or you don't. No such
>>> thing as "fringe reception" If you get the sinal the digital to
>>> analog converters decipher the code, and/or codecs in firmware decode
>>> the signal to audio and video signals,
>> OK, so the question remains, is v.90 digital or analog?
>>
>> Your "distinction" isn't, either.
> As something of an "expert", I say that if the data is abstractable to a
> sequence of 0's and 1's,
> then even if it is transmitted in an analog fashion, then it's
> *digital*. E.g. Computer files are digital. A paper tape is digital.
> While, not an expert about them, I would say that a cassette recording
> is not digital.
>
>
Well what about cassette tape backups of data on a hard drive?
On 12/26/2015 2:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>>
>> Leon is right - I have ADSL advanced it is digital and my Cisco GIG
>> routers are hooked on and run just fine.
>
> Many Cisco routers have DSL modems built in. That doesn't make the
> signalling on the DSL side digital.
All you need to remember is that "Leon is right"! ;~)
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:n4ssk5$48t$1@dont-
email.me:
> Trenbidia wrote:
>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>
> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
*Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which is what I have.
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:51:35 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 12/26/2015 4:20 PM, krw wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:02:58 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/26/2015 11:37 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>> On 12/26/2015 8:22 AM, Jack wrote:
>>>>> On 12/24/2015 7:01 PM, krw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't had a landline phone in almost a decade. We had a line
>>>>>> once, because they refused to sell "naked" DSL (required a phone line)
>>>>>> but there was never a phone attached to the line. About a year later
>>>>>> they allowed us to drop the phone "service".
>>>>>
>>>>> My daughter just switched from dish to comcast. They never owned a
>>>>> phone other than cell. She gets the comcast triple play as I do,
>>>>> because it cost MORE not to have the LL. Her phone line ends with
>>>>> nothing attached, nothing to ring. People under 40 have no use for old
>>>>> style phones, and neither do people over 40, but old habits are hard to
>>>>> break I guess. I probably should just disconnect my LL so no more
>>>>> salesmen, politicians etc. but for some dumb reason, we haven't been
>>>>> able to do it. When I say "we" I mean my wife.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If Comcast is anything like Uverse works, an area outage will leave you
>>>> with out TV, telephone for those that opt for that, and internet. The
>>>> major reason that most of our new neighborhood switched to Comcast for
>>>> internet and phone, and DirecTV for TV. It is not necessarily a good
>>>> thing to have all your eggs in one basket. Discounts are great until
>>>> you are with out all services for 4~5 days at a time, thank you Uverse.
>>>> Thank goodness cell phones were not some how connected.
>>
>> I can live without TV for a few days. What pissed me off about
>> DirectTV was that it went out whenever it rained. Missing a show is
>> much better than missing two half shows. "We can fix that now" was
>> always the answer from DirectTV but "can" and "will" are two entirely
>> different things. They were also a PITA when equipment died.
>> Actually, they're still a PITA. They've called at least two dozen
>> times, trying to get us back. Good riddance!
>
>I'm sure location has a lot to do with the rain being a problem. I have
>had them all and DirecTV has been the most reliable. In the last two
>years we probably have not missed 2 hours of recording because of rain.
I've had a clear shot to the birds in both of the last houses. Neither
service (Dish in the last house, and D-TV in this) worked worth a damn
in bad weather. How bad the weather had to be to blank out the
service varied over time, too.
>
>BUT we many years ago had cable and never very long because of it not
>working very long. Then I installed Dish Network and use that for a few
>years. And then I went to DirecTV Tivo before HD and it was bullet
>proof. Then upgraded to DirecTV HD DVR and the soft ware was a POS for
>2 years as they worked out the bugs. Five years ago we built a new home
>in a new neighborhood and went with Uverse. That lasted until summer of
>2013 and we went back to DirecTV. No problems so far.
>
>BUT avoid at all cost talking to DirecTV. If you cant fix a problem it
>cant be fixed by them. ;~)
>
Oh, they can sure fix the monthly rate.
>
>
>
>>
>> My cell phone works for an Internet connection, too. If it gets that
>> bad and I need an Internet fix, I can always do lunch at Panera. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> And one other thing with Uverse. If you have a DVR with recordings, it
>>> does not work if the service is down.
>>
>> This was true with Comcast, at least a couple of years ago, too.
>>
>Oh crap!
>
>Well there is Chanel Master.
;-) I've thought about that, too. I'm told we can get a lot of stuff
out of Atlanta, these days.
We're going to give NetFlix a shot, soon, too. When the teaser rates
for the premium channels is over, we'll probably unplug them and go
with some Internet video source. The kid gave us a gift certificate
for NetFlix, so we'll give that a shot for a few months. I think they
just use Hulu and NetFlix and don't have cable TV at all.
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 20:19:57 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/26/2015 5:20 PM, krw wrote:
>
>>
>> I can live without TV for a few days. What pissed me off about
>> DirectTV was that it went out whenever it rained. Missing a show is
>> much better than missing two half shows. "We can fix that now" was
>> always the answer from DirectTV but "can" and "will" are two entirely
>> different things. They were also a PITA when equipment died.
>> Actually, they're still a PITA. They've called at least two dozen
>> times, trying to get us back. Good riddance!
>
>I've heard stories like that in the past, but my DTV misses maybe one
>show a year due to weather. Could be newer more reliable equipment,
>could be regional too. Overall, I've been hap with them.
>
>Our old cable company went out at least once a month.. They've been
>bought out.
To be fair, in the previous house the power went out a couple of times
a week. Not long but long enough to take Dish down for five minutes
(and force us to go around the house resetting everything). It was
like living in a third world country. The power company was owned by
the city, so it's the same thing. Our power here is getting just as
bad. It went out twice on Christmas Eve, though DTV would have been
out all day anyway.
On 12/26/2015 5:14 PM, krw wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:51:35 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/26/2015 4:20 PM, krw wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:02:58 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/26/2015 11:37 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/26/2015 8:22 AM, Jack wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/24/2015 7:01 PM, krw wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I haven't had a landline phone in almost a decade. We had a line
>>>>>>> once, because they refused to sell "naked" DSL (required a phone line)
>>>>>>> but there was never a phone attached to the line. About a year later
>>>>>>> they allowed us to drop the phone "service".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My daughter just switched from dish to comcast. They never owned a
>>>>>> phone other than cell. She gets the comcast triple play as I do,
>>>>>> because it cost MORE not to have the LL. Her phone line ends with
>>>>>> nothing attached, nothing to ring. People under 40 have no use for old
>>>>>> style phones, and neither do people over 40, but old habits are hard to
>>>>>> break I guess. I probably should just disconnect my LL so no more
>>>>>> salesmen, politicians etc. but for some dumb reason, we haven't been
>>>>>> able to do it. When I say "we" I mean my wife.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If Comcast is anything like Uverse works, an area outage will leave you
>>>>> with out TV, telephone for those that opt for that, and internet. The
>>>>> major reason that most of our new neighborhood switched to Comcast for
>>>>> internet and phone, and DirecTV for TV. It is not necessarily a good
>>>>> thing to have all your eggs in one basket. Discounts are great until
>>>>> you are with out all services for 4~5 days at a time, thank you Uverse.
>>>>> Thank goodness cell phones were not some how connected.
>>>
>>> I can live without TV for a few days. What pissed me off about
>>> DirectTV was that it went out whenever it rained. Missing a show is
>>> much better than missing two half shows. "We can fix that now" was
>>> always the answer from DirectTV but "can" and "will" are two entirely
>>> different things. They were also a PITA when equipment died.
>>> Actually, they're still a PITA. They've called at least two dozen
>>> times, trying to get us back. Good riddance!
>>
>> I'm sure location has a lot to do with the rain being a problem. I have
>> had them all and DirecTV has been the most reliable. In the last two
>> years we probably have not missed 2 hours of recording because of rain.
>
> I've had a clear shot to the birds in both of the last houses. Neither
> service (Dish in the last house, and D-TV in this) worked worth a damn
> in bad weather. How bad the weather had to be to blank out the
> service varied over time, too.
But if the satellite is higher in the sky, through the clouds is a
thinner slice than if you were aimed lower and had to receive the signal
through a long/wider low cloud.
>>
>> BUT we many years ago had cable and never very long because of it not
>> working very long. Then I installed Dish Network and use that for a few
>> years. And then I went to DirecTV Tivo before HD and it was bullet
>> proof. Then upgraded to DirecTV HD DVR and the soft ware was a POS for
>> 2 years as they worked out the bugs. Five years ago we built a new home
>> in a new neighborhood and went with Uverse. That lasted until summer of
>> 2013 and we went back to DirecTV. No problems so far.
>>
>> BUT avoid at all cost talking to DirecTV. If you cant fix a problem it
>> cant be fixed by them. ;~)
>>
> Oh, they can sure fix the monthly rate.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> My cell phone works for an Internet connection, too. If it gets that
>>> bad and I need an Internet fix, I can always do lunch at Panera. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And one other thing with Uverse. If you have a DVR with recordings, it
>>>> does not work if the service is down.
>>>
>>> This was true with Comcast, at least a couple of years ago, too.
>>>
>> Oh crap!
>>
>> Well there is Chanel Master.
>
> ;-) I've thought about that, too. I'm told we can get a lot of stuff
> out of Atlanta, these days.
>
> We're going to give NetFlix a shot, soon, too. When the teaser rates
> for the premium channels is over, we'll probably unplug them and go
> with some Internet video source. The kid gave us a gift certificate
> for NetFlix, so we'll give that a shot for a few months. I think they
> just use Hulu and NetFlix and don't have cable TV at all.
>
>
I'm looking to do that one day, netflix is good, the mail service has a
LOT of stuff including TV shows and pretty current movies. Streaming is
pretty good to catch up on series that have been going on for years.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On 12/26/2015 10:01 PM, krw wrote:
>
> > To be fair, in the previous house the power went out a couple of times
> > a week. Not long but long enough to take Dish down for five minutes
> > (and force us to go around the house resetting everything). It was
> > like living in a third world country. The power company was owned by
> > the city, so it's the same thing. Our power here is getting just as
> > bad. It went out twice on Christmas Eve, though DTV would have been
> > out all day anyway.
> >
>
> I used to get occasional power blips, just long enough to trip out the
> receiver. Reboot takes forever. Finally put in on a UPS and problem
> solved.
For the longest time we were getting fairly regular very short outages--
not enough to even notice the lights blinking but the clocks would reset
and the computers would reboot. We used to joke about "another fried
squirrel".
A couple of years ago there was a very early snowstorm while the leaves
were still on the trees that knocked down a lot of power lines and
caused a widespread power outage that lasted about a week. After that
they put some effort into to trimming the trees back from the power
lines and replaced all the broken lines and it hasn't happened since.
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:14:47 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 12/26/2015 9:52 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:24:28 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
>>>> (in article<[email protected]>):
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>>>>>>>> 4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>>>>>>>> @dont-
>>>>>>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>>>>>>>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> what I have.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it's not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DSL uses normal
>>>>>>>>> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires,
>>>>>>>> not fiber.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DSL is as much "analog" as any
>>>>>>>>> other modem technology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok, asshole, define "digital".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
>>>>>> following 2 links as references only ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
>>>>> "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
>>>>> "digital".
>>>>
>>>> While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is no other
>>>> kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between digital
>>>> signals and analog signals.
>>>
>>> OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
>>>>
>>>> A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
>>>>
>>>> Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets blurrier, and
>>>> information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
>>>>
>>>> However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is no loss of
>>>> information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not so severe
>>>> that one cannot make the letters out.
>>>
>>> ...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
>>> as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
>>> have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it "digital"
>>> or "analog".
>>>
>>>> If one retypes the text before the
>>>> blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
>>>> regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number of times
>>>> without loss.
>>>
>>> It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's not
>>> lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
>>> least not one used by anyone I know.
>>>>
>>>> This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
>>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>> The difference between digital and analog is one is digital, the
>> other is analog.
>>
>> Analog signals are signals af varying frequency and intensity.
>> You can get a good signal, a weak signal, or a bad signal
>>
>> Digital signals are a pulse train of ones and zeroes. There is error
>> checking built in - and you either get a signal or you don't. No such
>> thing as "fringe reception" If you get the sinal the digital to
>> analog converters decipher the code, and/or codecs in firmware decode
>> the signal to audio and video signals,
>>
>
>Not sure what you are trying to say here but I can assure you a weak
>digital signal will come in pixilated and is just about as bad as a bad
>analog signal. Been there seen that too many times.
Pixellation is due to dropout. The signal is either there or it is
not. If it is not there you get a black square in your video stream.
If that particular vireo segment was supposed to have a blue eye in
it, it either had a blue eye or nothing. Not a green eye. Not a brown
eye. Not an ear or a bird, and if there was a blue eye it was
distinct, with no blurring or other distortion.
That is the nature of digital communication. There. Not there. Nothing
in between.
If the error detection/correction detects the lost segment and
requests a resend - and gets it on time to pop it into the data train
on time, there is no dropout. If not, you get the dropout - and most
systems will only allow so many dropouts before they just blank.
On 12/26/2015 10:01 PM, krw wrote:
> To be fair, in the previous house the power went out a couple of times
> a week. Not long but long enough to take Dish down for five minutes
> (and force us to go around the house resetting everything). It was
> like living in a third world country. The power company was owned by
> the city, so it's the same thing. Our power here is getting just as
> bad. It went out twice on Christmas Eve, though DTV would have been
> out all day anyway.
>
I used to get occasional power blips, just long enough to trip out the
receiver. Reboot takes forever. Finally put in on a UPS and problem
solved.
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:32:39 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:52:47 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:24:28 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
>>>>(in article<[email protected]>):
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > > krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>>>>> > > > 4ax.com:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>>>>> > > > @dont-
>>>>> > > > > > email.me:
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>>> > > > > > > > landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
>>>>is
>>>>> > > > > > what I have.
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > No, it's not.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > DSL uses normal
>>>>> > > > > "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires,
>>>>> > > > not fiber.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > DSL is as much "analog" as any
>>>>> > > > > other modem technology.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Ok, asshole, define "digital".
>>>>> >
>>>>> > In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
>>>>> > following 2 links as references only ;-)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
>>>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
>>>>> "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
>>>>> "digital".
>>>>
>>>>While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is no other
>>>>kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between digital
>>>>signals and analog signals.
>>>
>>>OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
>>>>
>>>>A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
>>>>
>>>>Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets blurrier, and
>>>>information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
>>>>
>>>>However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is no loss of
>>>>information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not so severe
>>>>that one cannot make the letters out.
>>>
>>>...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
>>>as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
>>>have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it "digital"
>>>or "analog".
>>>
>>>>If one retypes the text before the
>>>>blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
>>>>regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number of times
>>>>without loss.
>>>
>>>It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's not
>>>lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
>>>least not one used by anyone I know.
>>>>
>>>>This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
>>>>
>>>Nonsense.
>> The difference between digital and analog is one is digital, the
>>other is analog.
>
>OK, I'm all for tautologies as arguments. ;-)
>>
>>Analog signals are signals af varying frequency and intensity.
>>You can get a good signal, a weak signal, or a bad signal
>
>IOW, DSL, ADTV, Satellite TV, Cell phones, and just about everything
>else that's considered "digital". You will get errors, retries, data
>drop, freezes, and all that jazz before it drops the connection
>completely.
>
>>Digital signals are a pulse train of ones and zeroes. There is error
>>checking built in - and you either get a signal or you don't. No such
>>thing as "fringe reception" If you get the sinal the digital to
>>analog converters decipher the code, and/or codecs in firmware decode
>>the signal to audio and video signals,
>
>OK, so the question remains, is v.90 digital or analog?
>
>Your "distinction" isn't, either.
>
V 90 was strictly analog. Any "modem" is analog because it modulates
and demodulates (MODulatorDEModulator) the signal at each end.
Modulation is the hallmark of an alalog signal.(modulation also
described, as I did in my "simplified" reply as varying frequency and
intensity.
A digital signal does not use a "modem" It uses a "codec" (coder
decoder) which converts a binary chain of data to "tokens" and
transmits those "tokens" digitally across the network, and then at the
other end "decodes" the "tokens" to a digital binary data stream
again. All computers today are "digital devices", working with and
understanding ONLY binary digital data.
JPEG, MP3, MP4, GIF, TIFF etc are all compression algorithms that
define what tokens are used and how to code and decode the binary data
for transmission.
The errors and retries in digital communications are the result of the
"error correcting" or "error checking" built into the communication
protocol - if a token arrives damaged, it is rejected and a resend is
requested.
In analog communication there is no way to error check and error
correct, so instead of getting data interruption you get data
corruption - instead of getting pixellation and "digital dropout" you
get "snow" "hiss" and other forms of "corruption" in the signal.
In Digital communications you get latency and dropouts.
On 12/26/2015 9:58 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 12/26/2015 10:01 PM, krw wrote:
>
>> To be fair, in the previous house the power went out a couple of times
>> a week. Not long but long enough to take Dish down for five minutes
>> (and force us to go around the house resetting everything). It was
>> like living in a third world country. The power company was owned by
>> the city, so it's the same thing. Our power here is getting just as
>> bad. It went out twice on Christmas Eve, though DTV would have been
>> out all day anyway.
>>
>
> I used to get occasional power blips, just long enough to trip out the
> receiver. Reboot takes forever. Finally put in on a UPS and problem
> solved.
Ahhhh be careful with UPS. My BIL used UPS and kept ruining DVR's. If
the power is out long enough you end up with a brown out type situation
and the DVR did not do well with that situation. The Dish company
finally told him to not use a UPS and he stopped having problems with
the DVR. Now if your UPS will simply shut off at a certain low voltage
point It may not be a problem.
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 00:50:09 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>Well, I'm not sure how you got out of the bozo bin -- new email addy, maybe? -- but it's time to
>put you back in.
I see you haven't changed a bit. Yours is one killfile everyone
should aspire to. Bye, now.
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 12/24/2015 8:10 AM, krw wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:n4ssk5$48t$1@dont- email.me:
>>>
>>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>
>>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>
>>> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
>>> is what I have.
>>
>> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all). DSL uses normal
>> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not. DSL is as much "analog" as any
>> other modem technology.
>>
>
>
> IIRC and I could be wrong, while DSL does come over the normal phone
> wires, DSL is digital Subscriber Line IIRC. And not all Uverse comes
> over total fiber optics especially in older established communities.
DSL = Digital Subscriber Loop. That meant something decades
ago, but now DSL is just a name.
The difference between DSL and cable modem technolgies is
that DSL is baseband - if you're sending 10Mbit of data,
you have a 10Mbit signal on the wires. Cable modem uses
a radio frequency carrier which is modulated with the 10Mbit
signal. Both are analog technologies.
The problem with DSL is it's _very_ dependant on the quality
of the connection it goes over. If you have fiber all the
way to the house (very uncommon) you get excellent results.
If you have twisted pair part of the way (the normal case)
you get indifferent results - mostly because the twisted
pair is usually ancient and in pretty crappy condition.
Now, as far as landline phones go, if the phone puts the
voice signal directly on the wire, that is what's called
"analog landline". If the phone converts the voice signal
to digital data, and then sends it over either DSL or
cable (where it's an analog signal) it's called "digital
landline". If that digital data is additionally formed
into IP packets and sent over the Internet, then it's
called VOIP.
John
(who doubts anyone really cares about the technical
side of phone lines...)
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:08:47 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 12/26/2015 9:58 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 12/26/2015 10:01 PM, krw wrote:
>>
>>> To be fair, in the previous house the power went out a couple of times
>>> a week. Not long but long enough to take Dish down for five minutes
>>> (and force us to go around the house resetting everything). It was
>>> like living in a third world country. The power company was owned by
>>> the city, so it's the same thing. Our power here is getting just as
>>> bad. It went out twice on Christmas Eve, though DTV would have been
>>> out all day anyway.
>>>
>>
>> I used to get occasional power blips, just long enough to trip out the
>> receiver. Reboot takes forever. Finally put in on a UPS and problem
>> solved.
>
>
>Ahhhh be careful with UPS. My BIL used UPS and kept ruining DVR's. If
>the power is out long enough you end up with a brown out type situation
>and the DVR did not do well with that situation. The Dish company
>finally told him to not use a UPS and he stopped having problems with
>the DVR. Now if your UPS will simply shut off at a certain low voltage
>point It may not be a problem.
The problem is he needs a REAL UPS - not some crappy unit like an APC
Back-UPS. Use a Smart-Ups from the same company, or a real UPS like a
Powerware Elite (dual conversion) and the loads don't even know the
UPS is there.
Absolute minimum protection is a "line interactive" unit that has
buck/boost votage regulation if you are not going to spring for dual
conversion.
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:36:53 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:58:44 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 12/26/2015 10:01 PM, krw wrote:
>>
>>> To be fair, in the previous house the power went out a couple of times
>>> a week. Not long but long enough to take Dish down for five minutes
>>> (and force us to go around the house resetting everything). It was
>>> like living in a third world country. The power company was owned by
>>> the city, so it's the same thing. Our power here is getting just as
>>> bad. It went out twice on Christmas Eve, though DTV would have been
>>> out all day anyway.
>>>
>>
>>I used to get occasional power blips, just long enough to trip out the
>>receiver. Reboot takes forever. Finally put in on a UPS and problem
>>solved.
>
>I thought about that. ...every time we had a power blip. That would
>be a bunch of UPSs, though. I still might.
I've got 4 in use. One on my wife's computer, one on mine, one on the
network /phone devices, and one on each DTV box.
Then I've got another 2 spares sitting in a cabinet.
>
>BTW, so far UVerse hasn't been perfect either. The WiFi signal no
>longer gets to the TVs in the back bedrooms and I'm not happy turning
>over control of my router to AT&T (it's theirs and I don't have the
>admin password).
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:08:47 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 12/26/2015 9:58 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 12/26/2015 10:01 PM, krw wrote:
>>
>>> To be fair, in the previous house the power went out a couple of times
>>> a week. Not long but long enough to take Dish down for five minutes
>>> (and force us to go around the house resetting everything). It was
>>> like living in a third world country. The power company was owned by
>>> the city, so it's the same thing. Our power here is getting just as
>>> bad. It went out twice on Christmas Eve, though DTV would have been
>>> out all day anyway.
>>>
>>
>> I used to get occasional power blips, just long enough to trip out the
>> receiver. Reboot takes forever. Finally put in on a UPS and problem
>> solved.
>
>
>Ahhhh be careful with UPS. My BIL used UPS and kept ruining DVR's. If
>the power is out long enough you end up with a brown out type situation
>and the DVR did not do well with that situation. The Dish company
>finally told him to not use a UPS and he stopped having problems with
>the DVR. Now if your UPS will simply shut off at a certain low voltage
>point It may not be a problem.
Good advice. UPSs tend to be pretty dirty power-wise, too, though I
can't see why a DVR would care. A UPS *shouldn't* allow brown-outs,
either, but I guess you get what you pay for - sometimes.
krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
4ax.com:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:n4ssk5$48t$1
@dont-
>>email.me:
>>
>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>
>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>
>>*Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which is what I have.
>
> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
No, it's not.
> DSL uses normal
> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires, not fiber.
>DSL is as much "analog" as any
> other modem technology.
What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 04:37:11 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>>
>> krw wrote:
>> > On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:52:47 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:24:28 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
>> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
>> >>>> (in article<[email protected]>):
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
>> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>> >>>>>>>> 4ax.com:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
>> >>>> news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>> >>>>>>>> @dont-
>> >>>>>>>>>> email.me:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>> >>>>>>>>>> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
>> >>>> is
>> >>>>>>>>>> what I have.
>> >>>>>>>>> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>> >>>>>>>> No, it's not.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> DSL uses normal
>> >>>>>>>>> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>> >>>>>>>> Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires,
>> >>>>>>>> not fiber.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> DSL is as much "analog" as any
>> >>>>>>>>> other modem technology.
>> >>>>>>>> What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>> >>>>>>> Ok, asshole, define "digital".
>> >>>>>> In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
>> >>>>>> following 2 links as references only ;-)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
>> >>>>> I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
>> >>>>> "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
>> >>>>> "digital".
>> >>>> While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is no other
>> >>>> kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between digital
>> >>>> signals and analog signals.
>> >>> OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
>> >>>> A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets blurrier, and
>> >>>> information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is no loss of
>> >>>> information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not so severe
>> >>>> that one cannot make the letters out.
>> >>> ...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
>> >>> as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
>> >>> have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it "digital"
>> >>> or "analog".
>> >>>
>> >>>> If one retypes the text before the
>> >>>> blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
>> >>>> regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number of times
>> >>>> without loss.
>> >>> It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's not
>> >>> lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
>> >>> least not one used by anyone I know.
>> >>>> This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
>> >>>>
>> >>> Nonsense.
>> >> The difference between digital and analog is one is digital, the
>> >> other is analog.
>> > OK, I'm all for tautologies as arguments. ;-)
>> >> Analog signals are signals af varying frequency and intensity.
>> >> You can get a good signal, a weak signal, or a bad signal
>> > IOW, DSL, ADTV, Satellite TV, Cell phones, and just about everything
>> > else that's considered "digital". You will get errors, retries, data
>> > drop, freezes, and all that jazz before it drops the connection
>> > completely.
>> >
>> >> Digital signals are a pulse train of ones and zeroes. There is error
>> >> checking built in - and you either get a signal or you don't. No such
>> >> thing as "fringe reception" If you get the sinal the digital to
>> >> analog converters decipher the code, and/or codecs in firmware decode
>> >> the signal to audio and video signals,
>> > OK, so the question remains, is v.90 digital or analog?
>> >
>> > Your "distinction" isn't, either.
>> As something of an "expert", I say that if the data is abstractable to a
>> sequence of 0's and 1's,
>> then even if it is transmitted in an analog fashion, then it's
>> *digital*.
>
>So if I speak into a microphone "one, zero, one, one, zero ..." then
>it's "digital"?
It is if you are transmitting binary code. Your baud rate would be
abyssimal though!!!!
>
>> E.g. Computer files are digital. A paper tape is digital.
>> While, not an expert about them, I would say that a cassette recording
>> is not digital.
>
>And yet a cassette recorder has no trouble storing computer files.
>
>Some signalling systems, the various Ethernets for example, are designed
>from the ground up to carry digital information. Others, POTS modems
>for example, carry digital information over channels that were
>originally intended to carry analog data and do so by modulating a
>carrier signal that is compatible with that channel.
>
>That's where the distinction lies.
>
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 17:17:21 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>krw wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:56:05 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> But you're abstracting that cassette recording into '1's and '0's for
>> the computer (unless you changed subject in the middle of the
>> paragraph and are talking about audio cassettes).
>The only point I wanted to make was that whether something is digital or
>not does not depend on the "carrier". For instance, a drawing is not
>digital. It could be digitized, in many different ways...
>
So then it's impossible to tell what a transmission media is because
you don't know what information is being transmitted over it?
>
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 04:37:11 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>>
>> krw wrote:
>> > On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:52:47 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:24:28 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
>> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
>> >>>> (in article<[email protected]>):
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
>> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>> >>>>>>>> 4ax.com:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
>> >>>> news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>> >>>>>>>> @dont-
>> >>>>>>>>>> email.me:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>> >>>>>>>>>> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
>> >>>> is
>> >>>>>>>>>> what I have.
>> >>>>>>>>> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>> >>>>>>>> No, it's not.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> DSL uses normal
>> >>>>>>>>> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>> >>>>>>>> Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires,
>> >>>>>>>> not fiber.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> DSL is as much "analog" as any
>> >>>>>>>>> other modem technology.
>> >>>>>>>> What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>> >>>>>>> Ok, asshole, define "digital".
>> >>>>>> In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
>> >>>>>> following 2 links as references only ;-)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
>> >>>>> I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
>> >>>>> "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
>> >>>>> "digital".
>> >>>> While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is no other
>> >>>> kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between digital
>> >>>> signals and analog signals.
>> >>> OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
>> >>>> A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets blurrier, and
>> >>>> information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is no loss of
>> >>>> information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not so severe
>> >>>> that one cannot make the letters out.
>> >>> ...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
>> >>> as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
>> >>> have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it "digital"
>> >>> or "analog".
>> >>>
>> >>>> If one retypes the text before the
>> >>>> blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
>> >>>> regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number of times
>> >>>> without loss.
>> >>> It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's not
>> >>> lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
>> >>> least not one used by anyone I know.
>> >>>> This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
>> >>>>
>> >>> Nonsense.
>> >> The difference between digital and analog is one is digital, the
>> >> other is analog.
>> > OK, I'm all for tautologies as arguments. ;-)
>> >> Analog signals are signals af varying frequency and intensity.
>> >> You can get a good signal, a weak signal, or a bad signal
>> > IOW, DSL, ADTV, Satellite TV, Cell phones, and just about everything
>> > else that's considered "digital". You will get errors, retries, data
>> > drop, freezes, and all that jazz before it drops the connection
>> > completely.
>> >
>> >> Digital signals are a pulse train of ones and zeroes. There is error
>> >> checking built in - and you either get a signal or you don't. No such
>> >> thing as "fringe reception" If you get the sinal the digital to
>> >> analog converters decipher the code, and/or codecs in firmware decode
>> >> the signal to audio and video signals,
>> > OK, so the question remains, is v.90 digital or analog?
>> >
>> > Your "distinction" isn't, either.
>> As something of an "expert", I say that if the data is abstractable to a
>> sequence of 0's and 1's,
>> then even if it is transmitted in an analog fashion, then it's
>> *digital*.
>
>So if I speak into a microphone "one, zero, one, one, zero ..." then
>it's "digital"?
>
>> E.g. Computer files are digital. A paper tape is digital.
>> While, not an expert about them, I would say that a cassette recording
>> is not digital.
>
>And yet a cassette recorder has no trouble storing computer files.
>
>Some signalling systems, the various Ethernets for example, are designed
>from the ground up to carry digital information. Others, POTS modems
>for example, carry digital information over channels that were
>originally intended to carry analog data and do so by modulating a
>carrier signal that is compatible with that channel.
>
>That's where the distinction lies.
>
So DSL is analog? ;-)
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 17:24:05 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:20:27 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:32:39 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:52:47 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:24:28 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
>>>>>>(in article<[email protected]>):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>>>>>>> > > > 4ax.com:
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>>>>>>> > > > @dont-
>>>>>>> > > > > > email.me:
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>> > > > > > what I have.
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > No, it's not.
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > DSL uses normal
>>>>>>> > > > > "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires,
>>>>>>> > > > not fiber.
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > DSL is as much "analog" as any
>>>>>>> > > > > other modem technology.
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > Ok, asshole, define "digital".
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
>>>>>>> > following 2 links as references only ;-)
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
>>>>>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
>>>>>>> "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
>>>>>>> "digital".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is no other
>>>>>>kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between digital
>>>>>>signals and analog signals.
>>>>>
>>>>>OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets blurrier, and
>>>>>>information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is no loss of
>>>>>>information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not so severe
>>>>>>that one cannot make the letters out.
>>>>>
>>>>>...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
>>>>>as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
>>>>>have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it "digital"
>>>>>or "analog".
>>>>>
>>>>>>If one retypes the text before the
>>>>>>blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
>>>>>>regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number of times
>>>>>>without loss.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's not
>>>>>lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
>>>>>least not one used by anyone I know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Nonsense.
>>>> The difference between digital and analog is one is digital, the
>>>>other is analog.
>>>
>>>OK, I'm all for tautologies as arguments. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>Analog signals are signals af varying frequency and intensity.
>>>>You can get a good signal, a weak signal, or a bad signal
>>>
>>>IOW, DSL, ADTV, Satellite TV, Cell phones, and just about everything
>>>else that's considered "digital". You will get errors, retries, data
>>>drop, freezes, and all that jazz before it drops the connection
>>>completely.
>>>
>>>>Digital signals are a pulse train of ones and zeroes. There is error
>>>>checking built in - and you either get a signal or you don't. No such
>>>>thing as "fringe reception" If you get the sinal the digital to
>>>>analog converters decipher the code, and/or codecs in firmware decode
>>>>the signal to audio and video signals,
>>>
>>>OK, so the question remains, is v.90 digital or analog?
>>>
>>>Your "distinction" isn't, either.
>>>
>>V 90 was strictly analog. Any "modem" is analog because it modulates
>>and demodulates (MODulatorDEModulator) the signal at each end.
>>Modulation is the hallmark of an alalog signal.(modulation also
>>described, as I did in my "simplified" reply as varying frequency and
>>intensity.
>
>The "modulator" was a D/A converter and the demodulator was an A/D
>converter and it was analog in the middle, so the phone line is
>analog. How is the communications link digital?
No, a "modulator" is not a DA converter, and nobody ever said "modem"
communication was digital.
>>
>>A digital signal does not use a "modem" It uses a "codec" (coder
>>decoder) which converts a binary chain of data to "tokens" and
>>transmits those "tokens" digitally across the network, and then at the
>>other end "decodes" the "tokens" to a digital binary data stream
>>again. All computers today are "digital devices", working with and
>>understanding ONLY binary digital data.
>
>A distinction without a difference. So you're saying that a v.90
>modem is analog? DSL is analog? Cable Internet is analog?
Nope. V90 is straight analog. DSL? I'm not sure. By my definition,
since it uses a Modem, the transmission is a modulated signal - which
means it is an analog signal.
The cable internet uses DOCSIS and QAM, which is technically a CODEC,
not a simple MODEM. QAM is quadrature amplitude modulation - which is
a 4 state "digital" implementation instead of a binary digital - and
ises "tokens" or "symbols" for upstream QAM, but uses MPEG for
downstream.
Thats as much as I know about HOW it works - and it's different in
north america (6mhz) DOCSIS and 8mhz EuroDOCSIS. - and the fiber optic
backhaul works differently than the coax "last mile" section.
Cable internet is digital - at least mine is. There is no modem. It
runs with a digital router.
>
>There is no practical difference between a "token" and a "symbol".
>("Baud" is defined as a symbol per second).
>
>>JPEG, MP3, MP4, GIF, TIFF etc are all compression algorithms that
>>define what tokens are used and how to code and decode the binary data
>>for transmission.
>
>No, they are not for transmission, rather they are standardized
>encodings of objects (video, pictures, etc.). Transmission is only
>one use for such things (I bet you save some on your computer, even).
>>
>>The errors and retries in digital communications are the result of the
>>"error correcting" or "error checking" built into the communication
>>protocol - if a token arrives damaged, it is rejected and a resend is
>>requested.
>
>So? Internet over a 300bps modem can't have error checking,
>correction, or retries?
>>
>>In analog communication there is no way to error check and error
>>correct, so instead of getting data interruption you get data
>>corruption - instead of getting pixellation and "digital dropout" you
>>get "snow" "hiss" and other forms of "corruption" in the signal.
>
>Really? I guess analog communications never existed (see above).
>>
>>In Digital communications you get latency and dropouts.
>
>...and you don't in analog communications?
krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
[...]
> UVerse is fiber to the house, at least here.
And therefore everywhere, eh? Perhaps you should learn not to make such hasty
generalizations....
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:MPG.30e5d9da650913c5989d33
@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:n4ssk5$48t$1
@dont-
>> email.me:
>>
>> > Trenbidia wrote:
>> >> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>> >> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>> >
>> > Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>
>> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which is what I have.
>
> Do you have DSL or do you have U-Verse? They are not the same.
True, you're right, it's Uverse. Anyway, nomorobo works with it.
krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:56:47 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:lt1p7b5d19mrb8m0666enaejmigpervf5d@
4ax.com:
>>
>>[...]
>>> UVerse is fiber to the house, at least here.
>>
>>And therefore everywhere, eh? Perhaps you should learn not to make such hasty
>>generalizations....
>
> Miller, you are an ass. I said nothing of the kind, in fact the
> opposite ("...at least here").
>
In *this* post, yes. In an earlier post you made the blanket (and untrue) statement that
Uverse is fiber. And you have the gall to call *me* an ass...
-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> But a couple more practical reasons for still having a "land line" is
> the lousy reception for cell phones around my house and the fact that
> cell phones are still too "walkie-talkie" for my taste in most cases.
> One person has to completely stop talking in order for the other to be
> heard. I don't know if this is a digital transmission thing or what,
> but with land lines and even the cable VOIP lines, you can still hear
> what's on the other line when speaking.
> That's very important for having a more natural discussion.
That "one person at a time" thing (technically called
"half-duplex") is a network problem somewhere between
you and whoever you're talking to. All cell phones are
full-duplex and can receive and transmit simultaneously.
John
krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:8f3u7bptdh2n8805n919imkaplhu18st8q@
4ax.com:
> The lousy reception thing can be taken care of with a picocell.
> Basically, you have your own cell station that connects to "Ma" over
> the Internet.
These have always struck me as one of the greatest
marketting feats ever: get people to use their own
internet bandwidth, that they pay for, to compensate
for inadequate service on the cell system that they're
also paying for. Viola! They get to pay twice for
one thing.
John
krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
Well, I'm not sure how you got out of the bozo bin -- new email addy, maybe? -- but it's time to
put you back in.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:07:27 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:8f3u7bptdh2n8805n919imkaplhu18st8q@
>4ax.com:
>
>
>> The lousy reception thing can be taken care of with a picocell.
>> Basically, you have your own cell station that connects to "Ma" over
>> the Internet.
>
>These have always struck me as one of the greatest
>marketting feats ever: get people to use their own
>internet bandwidth, that they pay for, to compensate
>for inadequate service on the cell system that they're
>also paying for. Viola! They get to pay twice for
>one thing.
The alternative is for others to pay for cell coverage for your area,
which doesn't have enough customers to pay the freight. It's part of
the cost of living where others don't.
On 12/26/2015 10:36 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 12/26/15 8:22 AM, Jack wrote:
>> On 12/24/2015 7:01 PM, krw wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't had a landline phone in almost a decade. We had a line
>>> once, because they refused to sell "naked" DSL (required a phone line)
>>> but there was never a phone attached to the line. About a year later
>>> they allowed us to drop the phone "service".
>>
>> My daughter just switched from dish to comcast. They never owned a
>> phone other than cell. She gets the comcast triple play as I do,
>> because it cost MORE not to have the LL. Her phone line ends with
>> nothing attached, nothing to ring. People under 40 have no use for old
>> style phones, and neither do people over 40, but old habits are hard to
>> break I guess. I probably should just disconnect my LL so no more
>> salesmen, politicians etc. but for some dumb reason, we haven't been
>> able to do it. When I say "we" I mean my wife.
>>
>
> I still have reason for it. I still like having 911 feature tied to my
> home address for one.
> But a couple more practical reasons for still having a "land line" is
> the lousy reception for cell phones around my house and the fact that
> cell phones are still too "walkie-talkie" for my taste in most cases.
> One person has to completely stop talking in order for the other to be
> heard. I don't know if this is a digital transmission thing or what,
> but with land lines and even the cable VOIP lines, you can still hear
> what's on the other line when speaking.
> That's very important for having a more natural discussion.
>
>
Time to get an iPhone. ;~) Every one can talk and hear at the same
time and create all kinds of noise. LOL
On 12/26/2015 8:48 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> My daughter just switched from dish to comcast. They never owned a
>> phone other than cell. She gets the comcast triple play as I do,
>> because it cost MORE not to have the LL. Her phone line ends with
>> nothing attached, nothing to ring. People under 40 have no use for old
>> style phones, and neither do people over 40, but old habits are hard to
>> break I guess. I probably should just disconnect my LL so no more
>> salesmen, politicians etc. but for some dumb reason, we haven't been
>> able to do it. When I say "we" I mean my wife.
>>
>
> I almost dropped the land-line. If it wasn't for AT&T's lack of signal
> where we live, I would have.
>
> Actually, AT&T has this thing called something like "wireless home
> phone" or something like that. It's cellular in nature, but looks and
> feels like a home phone. They suggested that when I was making a few
> account changes.
>
> Puckdropper
>
We have the ATT wireless phone. It is cellular and shows up like
another cell phone on the ATT cell phone bill.
You get a cellular receiver that looks like a wireless modem and it
plugs in to our cordless phone transmitter/message machine.
The ring is distinctly simple and no FAX.
The sound is as good as regular land line.
BUT with taxes, fees and so on it comes out to between $25~$26 per month
and we are about to drop it as almost the only calls we get on it are
from robots.
It is a good deal that works well but we don't need 3 phone numbers for
2 people.
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:54:12 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 12/24/2015 8:10 AM, krw wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:n4ssk5$48t$1@dont-
>>> email.me:
>>>
>>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>
>>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>
>>> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which is what I have.
>>
>> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all). DSL uses normal
>> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not. DSL is as much "analog" as any
>> other modem technology.
>>
>
>
>IIRC and I could be wrong, while DSL does come over the normal phone
>wires, DSL is digital Subscriber Line IIRC.
Nothing is digital, in communications. ;-) The digital data is
encoded on an analog signal, just as it is with a modem so there
really isn't a difference.
>nd not all Uverse comes
>over total fiber optics especially in older established communities.
I believe it is, at least to the curb. That's the only way you're
going to get enough bandwidth to carry Internet and a few hundred
channels of video (plus on-demand).
>
>IIRC Swingman had/has Uverse many years ago with problems from squirrels
>eating through twisted pairs of wires up on the poles.
From the pole to the house, perhaps. It was probably fiber, or
perhaps coax, on the pole.
krw <[email protected]> writes:
>On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:n4ssk5$48t$1@dont-
>>email.me:
>>
>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>
>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>
>>*Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which is what I have.
>
>Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all). DSL uses normal
>"phone" wires, where Uverse does not. DSL is as much "analog" as any
>other modem technology.
That varies by region. In this region, AT&T U-Verse is delivered over
POTS wiring.
I assume Doug was referring to VOIP.
Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>I tried to use the PhoneTray thing-ee as it looked perfect for what I
>wanted, but it doesn't work with Comcast, it needs a voice modem.
Yes it does indeed work with Comcast and you do need a Voice AND
Caller ID capable modem.
See "Neilyum" Comcast explanation here:
http://forums.traysoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=2809
Here is Phonetray's current list of recommended USB modems:
http://www.phonetray.com/modem
From the above link:
"Note: If you have Comcast XFINITY please purchase a Sewell USB modem
(the first modem listed above)."
>I was thinking of trying out a cheap voice modem, found a bunch for
>under $15, but not sure if that would work or not. Has anyone used something like
>this with Comcast? I have an old USRobotics Modem in my shed from the
>pre-internet days, but I don't think I want that answering calls, or
>maybe I do. Not sure I know what a "voice modem" is?
Having a POTS phone line, I can't comment on Comcast modem
requirements but I'm using an older Zoom internal, PCI or PCIe (I've
forgotten which) and it's worked flawlessly for 3 yrs.
As internal modems seem to be a dying breed, I'm considering buying
one of these as a spare/backup before they're discontinued:
http://support.usr.com/support/product-template.asp?prod=5638
In closing, since you've apparently installed Phonetray Free, look in
the install folder for several .wav files that you can use to 'Zap'
unwanted callers:
Program files (x86)\Traysoft\PhoneTray\Zap Messages
You can add to that list with any .wav file you wish. Here are some of
my favs from 'Pat Fleet', the legendary voice of thousands of AT&T
recorded messages since 1981.
http://www.thisisarecording.com/z/z/spam.wav
http://www.thisisarecording.com/z/z/tt-allbusy.wav
http://www.thisisarecording.com/z/z/touchtone3.wav
http://www.patfleet.com/
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 16:09:44 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/24/2015 2:52 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>
>> Now, as far as landline phones go, if the phone puts the
>> voice signal directly on the wire, that is what's called
>> "analog landline". If the phone converts the voice signal
>> to digital data, and then sends it over either DSL or
>> cable (where it's an analog signal) it's called "digital
>> landline". If that digital data is additionally formed
>> into IP packets and sent over the Internet, then it's
>> called VOIP.
>>
>> John
>>
>> (who doubts anyone really cares about the technical
>> side of phone lines...)
>
>I have comcast triple deal, phone, internet and TV. We only have the LL
>because it's cheaper than with out it. We've had the same LL phone
>number forever, so we also for some ungodly, unknown reason, are
>attached to it. We rarely ever get calls other than salesman,
>politicians and so on and they are switched to an answer machine after
>two rings. I keep telling my wife not to answer the thing, everyone we
>know calls our cell phones, but she can't resist, which of course
>results in more calls.
I haven't had a landline phone in almost a decade. We had a line
once, because they refused to sell "naked" DSL (required a phone line)
but there was never a phone attached to the line. About a year later
they allowed us to drop the phone "service".
>
>I tried to use the PhoneTray thing-ee as it looked perfect for what I
>wanted, but it doesn't work with Comcast, it needs a voice modem. I was
>thinking of trying out a cheap voice modem, found a bunch for under $15,
>but not sure if that would work or not. Has anyone used something like
>this with Comcast? I have an old USRobotics Modem in my shed from the
>pre-internet days, but I don't think I want that answering calls, or
>maybe I do. Not sure I know what a "voice modem" is?
On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 21:27:45 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:56:47 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:lt1p7b5d19mrb8m0666enaejmigpervf5d@
>4ax.com:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>> UVerse is fiber to the house, at least here.
>>>
>>>And therefore everywhere, eh? Perhaps you should learn not to make such hasty
>>>generalizations....
>>
>> Miller, you are an ass. I said nothing of the kind, in fact the
>> opposite ("...at least here").
>>
>In *this* post, yes. In an earlier post you made the blanket (and untrue) statement that
>Uverse is fiber. And you have the gall to call *me* an ass...
Yes, you *are* an ass, and will always *be* an ass. It's *YOU*.
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 19:52:57 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 12/24/2015 8:10 AM, krw wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:n4ssk5$48t$1@dont- email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>>
>>>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>>
>>>> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
>>>> is what I have.
>>>
>>> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all). DSL uses normal
>>> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not. DSL is as much "analog" as any
>>> other modem technology.
>>>
>>
>>
>> IIRC and I could be wrong, while DSL does come over the normal phone
>> wires, DSL is digital Subscriber Line IIRC. And not all Uverse comes
>> over total fiber optics especially in older established communities.
>
>DSL = Digital Subscriber Loop. That meant something decades
>ago, but now DSL is just a name.
>
>The difference between DSL and cable modem technolgies is
>that DSL is baseband - if you're sending 10Mbit of data,
>you have a 10Mbit signal on the wires. Cable modem uses
>a radio frequency carrier which is modulated with the 10Mbit
>signal. Both are analog technologies.
>
>The problem with DSL is it's _very_ dependant on the quality
>of the connection it goes over. If you have fiber all the
>way to the house (very uncommon) you get excellent results.
UVerse is fiber to the house, at least here. They said they were
"investigating" copper from curb to house technology but they weren't
offering it. It was either fiber to the house or nothing. It took
them a while for it to sink in that we had fiber in our front yard, so
connecting us wasn't a huge deal (we've had UVerse for a couple of
months).
>If you have twisted pair part of the way (the normal case)
>you get indifferent results - mostly because the twisted
>pair is usually ancient and in pretty crappy condition.
>
>Now, as far as landline phones go, if the phone puts the
>voice signal directly on the wire, that is what's called
>"analog landline". If the phone converts the voice signal
>to digital data, and then sends it over either DSL or
>cable (where it's an analog signal) it's called "digital
>landline". If that digital data is additionally formed
>into IP packets and sent over the Internet, then it's
>called VOIP.
>
>John
>
>(who doubts anyone really cares about the technical
>side of phone lines...)
On 12/24/2015 2:52 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> Now, as far as landline phones go, if the phone puts the
> voice signal directly on the wire, that is what's called
> "analog landline". If the phone converts the voice signal
> to digital data, and then sends it over either DSL or
> cable (where it's an analog signal) it's called "digital
> landline". If that digital data is additionally formed
> into IP packets and sent over the Internet, then it's
> called VOIP.
>
> John
>
> (who doubts anyone really cares about the technical
> side of phone lines...)
I have comcast triple deal, phone, internet and TV. We only have the LL
because it's cheaper than with out it. We've had the same LL phone
number forever, so we also for some ungodly, unknown reason, are
attached to it. We rarely ever get calls other than salesman,
politicians and so on and they are switched to an answer machine after
two rings. I keep telling my wife not to answer the thing, everyone we
know calls our cell phones, but she can't resist, which of course
results in more calls.
I tried to use the PhoneTray thing-ee as it looked perfect for what I
wanted, but it doesn't work with Comcast, it needs a voice modem. I was
thinking of trying out a cheap voice modem, found a bunch for under $15,
but not sure if that would work or not. Has anyone used something like
this with Comcast? I have an old USRobotics Modem in my shed from the
pre-internet days, but I don't think I want that answering calls, or
maybe I do. Not sure I know what a "voice modem" is?
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
krw <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> Our computers are laptops, so no UPS needed. I rarely use even my
> laptop, anymore. I have a tablet that I do all things Internet on.
> It's a lot easier to carry around than even a laptop (remember Compaq
> luggables?!).
I think of the luggable when I try to move my Lenovo Y710 laptop. 17"
screen, quite a bit of dead/useless weight. I replaced it with a 15"
laptop in the Thinkpad line that runs cooler, faster, and has better
battery life. I sure don't miss the extra 2" of screen space.
Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.
On 12/27/2015 6:21 PM, Trenbidia wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 17:00:44 -0500, krw wrote:
>
>> Our computers are laptops, so no UPS needed. I rarely use even my
>> laptop,
>> anymore. I have a tablet that I do all things Internet on. It's a lot
>> easier to carry around than even a laptop (remember Compaq luggables?!).
>
> I even remember the Osbourne :-).
But, but, but did you ever master the mysteries of the Timex Sinclair? ;)
Unquestionably Confused <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> But, but, but did you ever master the mysteries of the Timex Sinclair?
> ;)
>
>
That's one of those machines I'd like to play with for a bit, just to see
what it's all about. Don't know why, perhaps it's the name.
Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:01:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:36:53 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:58:44 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On 12/26/2015 10:01 PM, krw wrote:
>>>
>>>> To be fair, in the previous house the power went out a couple of times
>>>> a week. Not long but long enough to take Dish down for five minutes
>>>> (and force us to go around the house resetting everything). It was
>>>> like living in a third world country. The power company was owned by
>>>> the city, so it's the same thing. Our power here is getting just as
>>>> bad. It went out twice on Christmas Eve, though DTV would have been
>>>> out all day anyway.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I used to get occasional power blips, just long enough to trip out the
>>>receiver. Reboot takes forever. Finally put in on a UPS and problem
>>>solved.
>>
>>I thought about that. ...every time we had a power blip. That would
>>be a bunch of UPSs, though. I still might.
>
>I've got 4 in use. One on my wife's computer, one on mine, one on the
>network /phone devices, and one on each DTV box.
Our computers are laptops, so no UPS needed. I rarely use even my
laptop, anymore. I have a tablet that I do all things Internet on.
It's a lot easier to carry around than even a laptop (remember Compaq
luggables?!).
>
>Then I've got another 2 spares sitting in a cabinet.
>>
>>BTW, so far UVerse hasn't been perfect either. The WiFi signal no
>>longer gets to the TVs in the back bedrooms and I'm not happy turning
>>over control of my router to AT&T (it's theirs and I don't have the
>>admin password).
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 17:00:44 -0500, krw wrote:
> Our computers are laptops, so no UPS needed. I rarely use even my
> laptop,
> anymore. I have a tablet that I do all things Internet on. It's a lot
> easier to carry around than even a laptop (remember Compaq luggables?!).
I even remember the Osbourne :-).
--
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 20:02:27 -0600, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>> I even remember the Osbourne :-).
>
>
> But, but, but did you ever master the mysteries of the Timex Sinclair?
> ;)
I've actually got one of those I picked up at a garage sale a couple of
years ago for $1. I'm not sure it'll hook up to todays TVs so I haven't
got around to trying it yet.
--
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Jack wrote:
> On 12/24/2015 2:52 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>
>> Now, as far as landline phones go, if the phone puts the
>> voice signal directly on the wire, that is what's called
>> "analog landline". If the phone converts the voice signal
>> to digital data, and then sends it over either DSL or
>> cable (where it's an analog signal) it's called "digital
>> landline". If that digital data is additionally formed
>> into IP packets and sent over the Internet, then it's
>> called VOIP.
>>
>> John
>>
>> (who doubts anyone really cares about the technical
>> side of phone lines...)
>
> I have comcast triple deal, phone, internet and TV. We only have the
> LL because it's cheaper than with out it. We've had the same LL phone
> number forever, so we also for some ungodly, unknown reason, are
> attached to it.
For what it's worth, when I switched over to Tracfone, I took my
landline number with me. One just has to wait a day or so for Comcast
to release it (Tracfone will take care of the details). That said, I
noticed yesterday that the price of Tracfone minutes has gone up 17%
over the last few months. I'm still come out far ahead this way. If you
spend a lot of time on your phone, your mileage may vary (but you can
compute it in advance and see!)
Bill
> We rarely ever get calls other than salesman, politicians and so on
> and they are switched to an answer machine after two rings. I keep
> telling my wife not to answer the thing, everyone we know calls our
> cell phones, but she can't resist, which of course results in more calls.
>
> I tried to use the PhoneTray thing-ee as it looked perfect for what I
> wanted, but it doesn't work with Comcast, it needs a voice modem. I
> was thinking of trying out a cheap voice modem, found a bunch for
> under $15, but not sure if that would work or not. Has anyone used
> something like this with Comcast? I have an old USRobotics Modem in my
> shed from the pre-internet days, but I don't think I want that
> answering calls, or maybe I do. Not sure I know what a "voice modem" is?
>
>
On 12/24/2015 7:01 PM, krw wrote:
> I haven't had a landline phone in almost a decade. We had a line
> once, because they refused to sell "naked" DSL (required a phone line)
> but there was never a phone attached to the line. About a year later
> they allowed us to drop the phone "service".
My daughter just switched from dish to comcast. They never owned a
phone other than cell. She gets the comcast triple play as I do,
because it cost MORE not to have the LL. Her phone line ends with
nothing attached, nothing to ring. People under 40 have no use for old
style phones, and neither do people over 40, but old habits are hard to
break I guess. I probably should just disconnect my LL so no more
salesmen, politicians etc. but for some dumb reason, we haven't been
able to do it. When I say "we" I mean my wife.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 17:00:44 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:01:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:36:53 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:58:44 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 12/26/2015 10:01 PM, krw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> To be fair, in the previous house the power went out a couple of times
>>>>> a week. Not long but long enough to take Dish down for five minutes
>>>>> (and force us to go around the house resetting everything). It was
>>>>> like living in a third world country. The power company was owned by
>>>>> the city, so it's the same thing. Our power here is getting just as
>>>>> bad. It went out twice on Christmas Eve, though DTV would have been
>>>>> out all day anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I used to get occasional power blips, just long enough to trip out the
>>>>receiver. Reboot takes forever. Finally put in on a UPS and problem
>>>>solved.
>>>
>>>I thought about that. ...every time we had a power blip. That would
>>>be a bunch of UPSs, though. I still might.
>>
>>I've got 4 in use. One on my wife's computer, one on mine, one on the
>>network /phone devices, and one on each DTV box.
>
>Our computers are laptops, so no UPS needed. I rarely use even my
>laptop, anymore. I have a tablet that I do all things Internet on.
>It's a lot easier to carry around than even a laptop (remember Compaq
>luggables?!).
The company I worked for for a period of 5 years before going off on
my own built and sold thousands of "clones" of the Compaq "lunchbox
computer" (Portable 111)
Apparently Stirling still makes them???
We called them "luggables" too. A lot smaller and lighter than the
Compaq "sewing machine" (Only about 20 lbs)
Remember the Osborne? 5 inch CRT screen. Then tha Kaypro 2 with the
huge 9 inch screen? The Kaypro "only" weighed a bit less than 30 lbs.
I think the Osborn was a bit heavier.
On 12/25/2015 8:37 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
> Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I tried to use the PhoneTray thing-ee as it looked perfect for what I
>> wanted, but it doesn't work with Comcast, it needs a voice modem.
>
> Yes it does indeed work with Comcast and you do need a Voice AND
> Caller ID capable modem.
>
> See "Neilyum" Comcast explanation here:
> http://forums.traysoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=2809
>
> Here is Phonetray's current list of recommended USB modems:
> http://www.phonetray.com/modem
>
> From the above link:
> "Note: If you have Comcast XFINITY please purchase a Sewell USB modem
> (the first modem listed above)."
Thanks Walt, very helpful. Thinking more about it, I assume, since the
voice modem plugs into the PC, the PC must be on for the phones to work
at all? I don't turn my PC off often, but put it in sleep mode when
not using it. Would this setup work with the PC in sleep mode? Also,
I'm wondering now if there would be a noticeable delay when someone
calls that I want to get the call? When I ran a BBS, the modem had to
go through a significant procedure when answering a call, belching out
beautiful digital talk to the calling modem. I guess that's what a
"voice" modem doesn't do, now that I think about it, although that would
be good for salesman and politicians...
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
>> I was thinking of trying out a cheap voice modem, found a bunch for
>> under $15, but not sure if that would work or not. Has anyone used something like
>> this with Comcast? I have an old USRobotics Modem in my shed from the
>> pre-internet days, but I don't think I want that answering calls, or
>> maybe I do. Not sure I know what a "voice modem" is?
>
> Having a POTS phone line, I can't comment on Comcast modem
> requirements but I'm using an older Zoom internal, PCI or PCIe (I've
> forgotten which) and it's worked flawlessly for 3 yrs.
>
> As internal modems seem to be a dying breed, I'm considering buying
> one of these as a spare/backup before they're discontinued:
> http://support.usr.com/support/product-template.asp?prod=5638
>
> In closing, since you've apparently installed Phonetray Free, look in
> the install folder for several .wav files that you can use to 'Zap'
> unwanted callers:
>
> Program files (x86)\Traysoft\PhoneTray\Zap Messages
>
> You can add to that list with any .wav file you wish. Here are some of
> my favs from 'Pat Fleet', the legendary voice of thousands of AT&T
> recorded messages since 1981.
>
> http://www.thisisarecording.com/z/z/spam.wav
> http://www.thisisarecording.com/z/z/tt-allbusy.wav
> http://www.thisisarecording.com/z/z/touchtone3.wav
>
> http://www.patfleet.com/
>
>
>
On 12/26/15 8:22 AM, Jack wrote:
> On 12/24/2015 7:01 PM, krw wrote:
>
>> I haven't had a landline phone in almost a decade. We had a line
>> once, because they refused to sell "naked" DSL (required a phone line)
>> but there was never a phone attached to the line. About a year later
>> they allowed us to drop the phone "service".
>
> My daughter just switched from dish to comcast. They never owned a
> phone other than cell. She gets the comcast triple play as I do,
> because it cost MORE not to have the LL. Her phone line ends with
> nothing attached, nothing to ring. People under 40 have no use for old
> style phones, and neither do people over 40, but old habits are hard to
> break I guess. I probably should just disconnect my LL so no more
> salesmen, politicians etc. but for some dumb reason, we haven't been
> able to do it. When I say "we" I mean my wife.
>
I still have reason for it. I still like having 911 feature tied to my
home address for one.
But a couple more practical reasons for still having a "land line" is
the lousy reception for cell phones around my house and the fact that
cell phones are still too "walkie-talkie" for my taste in most cases.
One person has to completely stop talking in order for the other to be
heard. I don't know if this is a digital transmission thing or what,
but with land lines and even the cable VOIP lines, you can still hear
what's on the other line when speaking.
That's very important for having a more natural discussion.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
-MIKE- wrote:
>
> I still have reason for it. I still like having 911 feature tied to
> my home address for one.
> But a couple more practical reasons for still having a "land line" is
> the lousy reception for cell phones around my house and the fact that
> cell phones are still too "walkie-talkie" for my taste in most cases.
I thought the same thing as far as the sound quality. But suddenly
everyone I was talking to over the landline was using a cell phone, so
it became superfluous. My wife tells people (because she thinks its
funny), " ... he doesn't carry it anywhere, not even around the
house--he never even unplugs it!" Of course, that's not completely
true...but it's mostly true. I even answer it less and less frequently
(particularly, if I don't recognize the area code).
On 12/26/15 12:02 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 12/26/2015 11:37 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 12/26/2015 8:22 AM, Jack wrote:
>>> On 12/24/2015 7:01 PM, krw wrote:
>>>
>>>> I haven't had a landline phone in almost a decade. We had a line
>>>> once, because they refused to sell "naked" DSL (required a phone line)
>>>> but there was never a phone attached to the line. About a year later
>>>> they allowed us to drop the phone "service".
>>>
>>> My daughter just switched from dish to comcast. They never owned a
>>> phone other than cell. She gets the comcast triple play as I do,
>>> because it cost MORE not to have the LL. Her phone line ends with
>>> nothing attached, nothing to ring. People under 40 have no use for old
>>> style phones, and neither do people over 40, but old habits are hard to
>>> break I guess. I probably should just disconnect my LL so no more
>>> salesmen, politicians etc. but for some dumb reason, we haven't been
>>> able to do it. When I say "we" I mean my wife.
>>>
>>
>>
>> If Comcast is anything like Uverse works, an area outage will leave you
>> with out TV, telephone for those that opt for that, and internet. The
>> major reason that most of our new neighborhood switched to Comcast for
>> internet and phone, and DirecTV for TV. It is not necessarily a good
>> thing to have all your eggs in one basket. Discounts are great until
>> you are with out all services for 4~5 days at a time, thank you Uverse.
>> Thank goodness cell phones were not some how connected.
>
>
> And one other thing with Uverse. If you have a DVR with recordings, it
> does not work if the service is down.
Yeah, everything is cloud based, now. Pisses me off.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 12/26/15 4:06 PM, krw wrote:
>> I still have reason for it. I still like having 911 feature tied to my
>> home address for one.
>> But a couple more practical reasons for still having a "land line" is
>> the lousy reception for cell phones around my house and the fact that
>> cell phones are still too "walkie-talkie" for my taste in most cases.
>> One person has to completely stop talking in order for the other to be
>> heard. I don't know if this is a digital transmission thing or what,
>> but with land lines and even the cable VOIP lines, you can still hear
>> what's on the other line when speaking.
>> That's very important for having a more natural discussion.
>
> The lousy reception thing can be taken care of with a picocell.
> Basically, you have your own cell station that connects to "Ma" over
> the Internet. The "half-duplex" voice is certainly an issue with cell
> phones. 911 for home shouldn't be an issue though. They should be
> able to locate you, without any problems.
>
Silly me, I think if I'm paying for a service, the service should work
without me having to buy extra stuff to make it work. :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
krw wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:52:47 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:24:28 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
>>>> (in article<[email protected]>):
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>>>>>>>> 4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>>>>>>>> @dont-
>>>>>>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>>>>>>>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>>>>>>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>>>>>>>> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> what I have.
>>>>>>>>> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>>>>>>>> No, it's not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DSL uses normal
>>>>>>>>> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>>>>>>>> Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires,
>>>>>>>> not fiber.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DSL is as much "analog" as any
>>>>>>>>> other modem technology.
>>>>>>>> What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>>>>>>> Ok, asshole, define "digital".
>>>>>> In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
>>>>>> following 2 links as references only ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
>>>>> I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
>>>>> "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
>>>>> "digital".
>>>> While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is no other
>>>> kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between digital
>>>> signals and analog signals.
>>> OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
>>>> A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
>>>>
>>>> Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets blurrier, and
>>>> information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
>>>>
>>>> However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is no loss of
>>>> information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not so severe
>>>> that one cannot make the letters out.
>>> ...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
>>> as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
>>> have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it "digital"
>>> or "analog".
>>>
>>>> If one retypes the text before the
>>>> blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
>>>> regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number of times
>>>> without loss.
>>> It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's not
>>> lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
>>> least not one used by anyone I know.
>>>> This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
>>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>> The difference between digital and analog is one is digital, the
>> other is analog.
> OK, I'm all for tautologies as arguments. ;-)
>> Analog signals are signals af varying frequency and intensity.
>> You can get a good signal, a weak signal, or a bad signal
> IOW, DSL, ADTV, Satellite TV, Cell phones, and just about everything
> else that's considered "digital". You will get errors, retries, data
> drop, freezes, and all that jazz before it drops the connection
> completely.
>
>> Digital signals are a pulse train of ones and zeroes. There is error
>> checking built in - and you either get a signal or you don't. No such
>> thing as "fringe reception" If you get the sinal the digital to
>> analog converters decipher the code, and/or codecs in firmware decode
>> the signal to audio and video signals,
> OK, so the question remains, is v.90 digital or analog?
>
> Your "distinction" isn't, either.
As something of an "expert", I say that if the data is abstractable to a
sequence of 0's and 1's,
then even if it is transmitted in an analog fashion, then it's
*digital*. E.g. Computer files are digital. A paper tape is digital.
While, not an expert about them, I would say that a cassette recording
is not digital.
Leon wrote:
> On 12/26/2015 10:56 PM, Bill wrote:
>> krw wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:52:47 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:24:28 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
>>>>>> (in article<[email protected]>):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>>>>>>>>>> 4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>>>>>>>>>> @dont-
>>>>>>>>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse --
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> what I have.
>>>>>>>>>>> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DSL uses normal
>>>>>>>>>>> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>>>>>>>>>> Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are
>>>>>>>>>> copper wires,
>>>>>>>>>> not fiber.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DSL is as much "analog" as any
>>>>>>>>>>> other modem technology.
>>>>>>>>>> What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>>>>>>>>> Ok, asshole, define "digital".
>>>>>>>> In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
>>>>>>>> following 2 links as references only ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
>>>>>>> I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
>>>>>>> "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
>>>>>>> "digital".
>>>>>> While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is
>>>>>> no other
>>>>>> kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between
>>>>>> digital
>>>>>> signals and analog signals.
>>>>> OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
>>>>>> A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets
>>>>>> blurrier, and
>>>>>> information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is
>>>>>> no loss of
>>>>>> information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not
>>>>>> so severe
>>>>>> that one cannot make the letters out.
>>>>> ...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
>>>>> as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
>>>>> have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it
>>>>> "digital"
>>>>> or "analog".
>>>>>
>>>>>> If one retypes the text before the
>>>>>> blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
>>>>>> regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number
>>>>>> of times
>>>>>> without loss.
>>>>> It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's
>>>>> not
>>>>> lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
>>>>> least not one used by anyone I know.
>>>>>> This is the core difference between digital signals and analog
>>>>>> signals.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>> The difference between digital and analog is one is digital, the
>>>> other is analog.
>>> OK, I'm all for tautologies as arguments. ;-)
>>>> Analog signals are signals af varying frequency and intensity.
>>>> You can get a good signal, a weak signal, or a bad signal
>>> IOW, DSL, ADTV, Satellite TV, Cell phones, and just about everything
>>> else that's considered "digital". You will get errors, retries, data
>>> drop, freezes, and all that jazz before it drops the connection
>>> completely.
>>>
>>>> Digital signals are a pulse train of ones and zeroes. There is error
>>>> checking built in - and you either get a signal or you don't. No such
>>>> thing as "fringe reception" If you get the sinal the digital to
>>>> analog converters decipher the code, and/or codecs in firmware decode
>>>> the signal to audio and video signals,
>>> OK, so the question remains, is v.90 digital or analog?
>>>
>>> Your "distinction" isn't, either.
>> As something of an "expert", I say that if the data is abstractable to a
>> sequence of 0's and 1's,
>> then even if it is transmitted in an analog fashion, then it's
>> *digital*. E.g. Computer files are digital. A paper tape is digital.
>> While, not an expert about them, I would say that a cassette recording
>> is not digital.
>>
>>
>
>
> Well what about cassette tape backups of data on a hard drive?
That's different (troublemaker!) ;)
Leon wrote:
> On 12/26/2015 10:56 PM, Bill wrote:
>> krw wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:52:47 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:24:28 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
>>>>>> (in article<[email protected]>):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>>>>>>>>>> 4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>>>>>>>>>> @dont-
>>>>>>>>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse --
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> what I have.
>>>>>>>>>>> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>>>>>>>>>> No, it's not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DSL uses normal
>>>>>>>>>>> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>>>>>>>>>> Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are
>>>>>>>>>> copper wires,
>>>>>>>>>> not fiber.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DSL is as much "analog" as any
>>>>>>>>>>> other modem technology.
>>>>>>>>>> What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>>>>>>>>> Ok, asshole, define "digital".
>>>>>>>> In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
>>>>>>>> following 2 links as references only ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
>>>>>>> I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
>>>>>>> "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
>>>>>>> "digital".
>>>>>> While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is
>>>>>> no other
>>>>>> kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between
>>>>>> digital
>>>>>> signals and analog signals.
>>>>> OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
>>>>>> A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets
>>>>>> blurrier, and
>>>>>> information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is
>>>>>> no loss of
>>>>>> information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not
>>>>>> so severe
>>>>>> that one cannot make the letters out.
>>>>> ...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
>>>>> as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
>>>>> have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it
>>>>> "digital"
>>>>> or "analog".
>>>>>
>>>>>> If one retypes the text before the
>>>>>> blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
>>>>>> regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number
>>>>>> of times
>>>>>> without loss.
>>>>> It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's
>>>>> not
>>>>> lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
>>>>> least not one used by anyone I know.
>>>>>> This is the core difference between digital signals and analog
>>>>>> signals.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>> The difference between digital and analog is one is digital, the
>>>> other is analog.
>>> OK, I'm all for tautologies as arguments. ;-)
>>>> Analog signals are signals af varying frequency and intensity.
>>>> You can get a good signal, a weak signal, or a bad signal
>>> IOW, DSL, ADTV, Satellite TV, Cell phones, and just about everything
>>> else that's considered "digital". You will get errors, retries, data
>>> drop, freezes, and all that jazz before it drops the connection
>>> completely.
>>>
>>>> Digital signals are a pulse train of ones and zeroes. There is error
>>>> checking built in - and you either get a signal or you don't. No such
>>>> thing as "fringe reception" If you get the sinal the digital to
>>>> analog converters decipher the code, and/or codecs in firmware decode
>>>> the signal to audio and video signals,
>>> OK, so the question remains, is v.90 digital or analog?
>>>
>>> Your "distinction" isn't, either.
>> As something of an "expert", I say that if the data is abstractable to a
>> sequence of 0's and 1's,
>> then even if it is transmitted in an analog fashion, then it's
>> *digital*. E.g. Computer files are digital. A paper tape is digital.
>> While, not an expert about them, I would say that a cassette recording
>> is not digital.
>>
>>
>
>
> Well what about cassette tape backups of data on a hard drive?
My "paper tape" (used in early years) shows that the medium used to
store the 0s and 1s, is not the issue.
On 12/27/15 8:03 AM, John McCoy wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> But a couple more practical reasons for still having a "land line"
>> is the lousy reception for cell phones around my house and the fact
>> that cell phones are still too "walkie-talkie" for my taste in most
>> cases. One person has to completely stop talking in order for the
>> other to be heard. I don't know if this is a digital transmission
>> thing or what, but with land lines and even the cable VOIP lines,
>> you can still hear what's on the other line when speaking. That's
>> very important for having a more natural discussion.
>
> That "one person at a time" thing (technically called "half-duplex")
> is a network problem somewhere between you and whoever you're talking
> to. All cell phones are full-duplex and can receive and transmit
> simultaneously.
>
> John
>
Thanks for that info, John.
It doesn't happen all the time and your explanation tells me why.
However, it happens way too often to tolerate. I suppose one day the
technology will improve and the issue will disappear. Until then,
however, I'll stick to my "land line" for important calls when I'm at
home.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:52:45 +0000, Puckdropper wrote:
> Not really... Except we didn't have hard drives in those days. If we
> had diskette drives we were doing good. (Everyone seemed to have the
> 1541 if they had a Commodore 64, though.)
I started playing with microcomputers with 2 8" floppies - then 5.25" -
then 3.5". Each time either the capacity or the speed went down. I knew
they couldn't last :-).
--
It's turtles, all the way down!
On 12/26/2015 1:44 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 12/26/15 12:02 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 12/26/2015 11:37 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 12/26/2015 8:22 AM, Jack wrote:
>>>> On 12/24/2015 7:01 PM, krw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I haven't had a landline phone in almost a decade. We had a line
>>>>> once, because they refused to sell "naked" DSL (required a phone line)
>>>>> but there was never a phone attached to the line. About a year later
>>>>> they allowed us to drop the phone "service".
>>>>
>>>> My daughter just switched from dish to comcast. They never owned a
>>>> phone other than cell. She gets the comcast triple play as I do,
>>>> because it cost MORE not to have the LL. Her phone line ends with
>>>> nothing attached, nothing to ring. People under 40 have no use for old
>>>> style phones, and neither do people over 40, but old habits are hard to
>>>> break I guess. I probably should just disconnect my LL so no more
>>>> salesmen, politicians etc. but for some dumb reason, we haven't been
>>>> able to do it. When I say "we" I mean my wife.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If Comcast is anything like Uverse works, an area outage will leave you
>>> with out TV, telephone for those that opt for that, and internet. The
>>> major reason that most of our new neighborhood switched to Comcast for
>>> internet and phone, and DirecTV for TV. It is not necessarily a good
>>> thing to have all your eggs in one basket. Discounts are great until
>>> you are with out all services for 4~5 days at a time, thank you Uverse.
>>> Thank goodness cell phones were not some how connected.
>>
>>
>> And one other thing with Uverse. If you have a DVR with recordings, it
>> does not work if the service is down.
>
> Yeah, everything is cloud based, now. Pisses me off.
>
>
That is what I was thinking but here is the weird thing and maybe it is
a buffering thing. The ATT box outside has a looooong magnetic tape in
it that resembles an 8 track tape IIRC with out the cassette. Looked
pretty fragile to me since I could actually see the tape. So I would
not be shocked if the TV shores are stored on that tape. What ever the
case the service in our relative new area is extremely unreliable. In
2013 the service was down 3 times before August. The last time it was
down it lasted about 4~5 days.
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:02:58 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 12/26/2015 11:37 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 12/26/2015 8:22 AM, Jack wrote:
>>> On 12/24/2015 7:01 PM, krw wrote:
>>>
>>>> I haven't had a landline phone in almost a decade. We had a line
>>>> once, because they refused to sell "naked" DSL (required a phone line)
>>>> but there was never a phone attached to the line. About a year later
>>>> they allowed us to drop the phone "service".
>>>
>>> My daughter just switched from dish to comcast. They never owned a
>>> phone other than cell. She gets the comcast triple play as I do,
>>> because it cost MORE not to have the LL. Her phone line ends with
>>> nothing attached, nothing to ring. People under 40 have no use for old
>>> style phones, and neither do people over 40, but old habits are hard to
>>> break I guess. I probably should just disconnect my LL so no more
>>> salesmen, politicians etc. but for some dumb reason, we haven't been
>>> able to do it. When I say "we" I mean my wife.
>>>
>>
>>
>> If Comcast is anything like Uverse works, an area outage will leave you
>> with out TV, telephone for those that opt for that, and internet. The
>> major reason that most of our new neighborhood switched to Comcast for
>> internet and phone, and DirecTV for TV. It is not necessarily a good
>> thing to have all your eggs in one basket. Discounts are great until
>> you are with out all services for 4~5 days at a time, thank you Uverse.
>> Thank goodness cell phones were not some how connected.
I can live without TV for a few days. What pissed me off about
DirectTV was that it went out whenever it rained. Missing a show is
much better than missing two half shows. "We can fix that now" was
always the answer from DirectTV but "can" and "will" are two entirely
different things. They were also a PITA when equipment died.
Actually, they're still a PITA. They've called at least two dozen
times, trying to get us back. Good riddance!
My cell phone works for an Internet connection, too. If it gets that
bad and I need an Internet fix, I can always do lunch at Panera. ;-)
>
>
>And one other thing with Uverse. If you have a DVR with recordings, it
>does not work if the service is down.
This was true with Comcast, at least a couple of years ago, too.
On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:56:47 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>[...]
>> UVerse is fiber to the house, at least here.
>
>And therefore everywhere, eh? Perhaps you should learn not to make such hasty
>generalizations....
Miller, you are an ass. I said nothing of the kind, in fact the
opposite ("...at least here").
On 12/26/2015 5:20 PM, krw wrote:
>
> I can live without TV for a few days. What pissed me off about
> DirectTV was that it went out whenever it rained. Missing a show is
> much better than missing two half shows. "We can fix that now" was
> always the answer from DirectTV but "can" and "will" are two entirely
> different things. They were also a PITA when equipment died.
> Actually, they're still a PITA. They've called at least two dozen
> times, trying to get us back. Good riddance!
I've heard stories like that in the past, but my DTV misses maybe one
show a year due to weather. Could be newer more reliable equipment,
could be regional too. Overall, I've been hap with them.
Our old cable company went out at least once a month.. They've been
bought out.
krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>>@dont-
>>>>email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>>
>>>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>>
>>>>*Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which is what I have.
>>>
>>> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>>
>>No, it's not.
>>
>>> DSL uses normal
>>> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>>
>>Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires, not fiber.
>>
>>>DSL is as much "analog" as any
>>> other modem technology.
>>
>>What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>
>Ok, asshole, define "digital".
In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
following 2 links as references only ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>Bill <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Well what about cassette tape backups of data on a hard drive?
>> That's different (troublemaker!) ;)
>
>Not really... Except we didn't have hard drives in those days. If we had
>diskette drives we were doing good. (Everyone seemed to have the 1541 if
>they had a Commodore 64, though.)
The 1541 was too rich for my blood back then, I was stuck with the slower,
less expensive, but very reliable 1530 Datasette!
http://bit.ly/1OnkPv0
I still remember spending many hours typing in page upon page of raw
machine language from 'Compute!'s Gazette' magazine and saving it to
the 1530.
http://bit.ly/1Prhv7m
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute!'s_Gazette#/media/File:ComputesGazetteProgramPage.jpg
On 27 Dec 2015 14:52:45 GMT, Puckdropper
<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>Bill <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Well what about cassette tape backups of data on a hard drive?
>> That's different (troublemaker!) ;)
>
>Not really... Except we didn't have hard drives in those days. If we had
>diskette drives we were doing good. (Everyone seemed to have the 1541 if
>they had a Commodore 64, though.)
>
>I've always wondered if we'd be successful playing an old computer's
>cassette "recording" over the phone line to another computer that was
>listening for it. Basically, convert the cassette ports in to a modem. I
>know it's an extremely convoluted and pathetic way to do it, but sometimes
>that's reason enough to do it!
>
>Puckdropper
There were lots of tape backup units in the early hard drive years
that used (basically) an audio cassette type tape for digital data
backup. Everything up untill the advent of DAT was basically an analog
(audio) tape system using modem technology to put the digital data on
the tape using analog technology.
When the moved to helical scan technology the lines started to blurr a
bit more and the data became more digital in it's actual storage -
similar to magneto-resistive recording on "magneto optical drives" and
die sublimation on optical drives. - which were getting awfully close
to the digital technology used for CD ROM and DVD in that there was no
"modulation" used any more.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:21:18 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:52:45 +0000, Puckdropper wrote:
> >
> >> Not really... Except we didn't have hard drives in those days. If we
> >> had diskette drives we were doing good. (Everyone seemed to have the
> >> 1541 if they had a Commodore 64, though.)
> >
> >I started playing with microcomputers with 2 8" floppies - then 5.25" -
> >then 3.5". Each time either the capacity or the speed went down. I knew
> >they couldn't last :-).
> Actually both speed and capacity went UP. The first 5.25 disks I
> used were somethink like 80kb Shugart hard sectored, then 360kb soft
> sectored, then up to DSDD 1.2mb.
> The 3.5" disks started at 280 (which never went anywhere) then 360
> single sided, 720 double sided, and 1.44mb DSDD (or HD).
>
> Then came the Flopticals, LS120 and LS240 3.5 disks with 21, 120, and
> 240MB capacity.and a few other nonstandard (Proprietary) systems that
> were ineffective to varying degrees.
Flopticals were nice at the time. I still have a final-generation
floptical USB drive that gets used occasionally when someone needes to
read a 3-1/2 inch diskette. One neat trick was that with the right
driver they could get something like 16 meg on a standard diskette.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 11:05:07 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Dec 26, 2015, krw wrote
>(in article<[email protected]>):
>
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 20:00:29 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I don't know what you did but you made your post unquotable, so I
>> won't.
>
>Here is the missing bottom of my reply:
>
>> > > >
>> > > > This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
>> > > Nonsense.
>> >
>> > Hmm. Please provide a better definition, with sources cited.
>>
>> Digital is 1's and 0's. Analog is everything in between. You know,
>> like the difference between an analog computer and a digital computer?
>>
>> OK, let me ask you the question I posed a day or so ago: Were V.90 or
>> V.92 modems (over POTS lines, of course) digital or analog? If you
>> consider them to be analog, in what material way do they differ from
>> DSL? If you consider them to be digital, name me one other person who
>> believes this. ;-)
>>
>> Oh, to answer your question, in this area the words "analog" and
>> "digital" have become next to meaningless. Everything is analog
>> (there are A/D and D/A converters at both ends, with the As in the
>> middle, on the wire side - leaning the definition of the communication
>> protocol considerably to the 'A' side, IMO).
>
>All these modems take an incoming bit stream and convert it to a series of
>line symbols on the wire (or fiber or radio wave). These line symbols are
>designed to be easy to tell apart, even after having been distorted and
>corrupted a bit on the line, so the receiving modem can tell with very high
>reliability which line symbol was sent, thus recovering the original bit
>stream.
>
>Because only a known set of line symbols are sent, and nothing in between,
>the receiver can assume that the intended line symbol is that one that is
>closest to one of these known line symbols.
>
>Design of such symbol sets is a career, and there is a large literature, but
>a good place to start is any college textbook on data communications.
>
>Joe Gwinn
>
The V.90/92 modems used phase shift key, detecting a phase shift in
an analog carrier. Only offering a 0 or a 1 whether the carrier is
phase shifted or not. DSL is also PSK.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 21:33:54 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:08:28 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 17:24:05 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:20:27 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:32:39 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:52:47 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:24:28 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
>>>>>>>>(in article<[email protected]>):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>>>> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>>> > > > krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>>>>>>>>> > > > 4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>> > > > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>>>> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>>>> > > > > > "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>>>news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>>>>>>>>> > > > @dont-
>>>>>>>>> > > > > > email.me:
>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>>>> > > > > > *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>> > > > > > what I have.
>>>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>>>> > > > > Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>> > > > No, it's not.
>>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>> > > > > DSL uses normal
>>>>>>>>> > > > > "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>> > > > Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires,
>>>>>>>>> > > > not fiber.
>>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>> > > > > DSL is as much "analog" as any
>>>>>>>>> > > > > other modem technology.
>>>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>>>> > > > What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>>> > > Ok, asshole, define "digital".
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
>>>>>>>>> > following 2 links as references only ;-)
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
>>>>>>>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
>>>>>>>>> "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
>>>>>>>>> "digital".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is no other
>>>>>>>>kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between digital
>>>>>>>>signals and analog signals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets blurrier, and
>>>>>>>>information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is no loss of
>>>>>>>>information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not so severe
>>>>>>>>that one cannot make the letters out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
>>>>>>>as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
>>>>>>>have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it "digital"
>>>>>>>or "analog".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If one retypes the text before the
>>>>>>>>blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
>>>>>>>>regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number of times
>>>>>>>>without loss.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's not
>>>>>>>lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
>>>>>>>least not one used by anyone I know.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nonsense.
>>>>>> The difference between digital and analog is one is digital, the
>>>>>>other is analog.
>>>>>
>>>>>OK, I'm all for tautologies as arguments. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Analog signals are signals af varying frequency and intensity.
>>>>>>You can get a good signal, a weak signal, or a bad signal
>>>>>
>>>>>IOW, DSL, ADTV, Satellite TV, Cell phones, and just about everything
>>>>>else that's considered "digital". You will get errors, retries, data
>>>>>drop, freezes, and all that jazz before it drops the connection
>>>>>completely.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Digital signals are a pulse train of ones and zeroes. There is error
>>>>>>checking built in - and you either get a signal or you don't. No such
>>>>>>thing as "fringe reception" If you get the sinal the digital to
>>>>>>analog converters decipher the code, and/or codecs in firmware decode
>>>>>>the signal to audio and video signals,
>>>>>
>>>>>OK, so the question remains, is v.90 digital or analog?
>>>>>
>>>>>Your "distinction" isn't, either.
>>>>>
>>>>V 90 was strictly analog. Any "modem" is analog because it modulates
>>>>and demodulates (MODulatorDEModulator) the signal at each end.
>>>>Modulation is the hallmark of an alalog signal.(modulation also
>>>>described, as I did in my "simplified" reply as varying frequency and
>>>>intensity.
>>>
>>>The "modulator" was a D/A converter and the demodulator was an A/D
>>>converter and it was analog in the middle, so the phone line is
>>>analog. How is the communications link digital?
>>
>>No, a "modulator" is not a DA converter, and nobody ever said "modem"
>>communication was digital.
>
>OK, there is a DSP running the ADC. The second phrase is exactly the
>discussion here.
>
>>>>
>>>>A digital signal does not use a "modem" It uses a "codec" (coder
>>>>decoder) which converts a binary chain of data to "tokens" and
>>>>transmits those "tokens" digitally across the network, and then at the
>>>>other end "decodes" the "tokens" to a digital binary data stream
>>>>again. All computers today are "digital devices", working with and
>>>>understanding ONLY binary digital data.
>>>
>>>A distinction without a difference. So you're saying that a v.90
>>>modem is analog? DSL is analog? Cable Internet is analog?
>>
>>Nope. V90 is straight analog. DSL? I'm not sure. By my definition,
>>since it uses a Modem, the transmission is a modulated signal - which
>>means it is an analog signal.
>
>Agreed WRT v.90. Since DSL is *very* similar, I'd say so too but
>we're definitely in the minority.
>
>>The cable internet uses DOCSIS and QAM, which is technically a CODEC,
>>not a simple MODEM. QAM is quadrature amplitude modulation - which is
>>a 4 state "digital" implementation instead of a binary digital - and
>>ises "tokens" or "symbols" for upstream QAM, but uses MPEG for
>>downstream.
>
>Well, QAM can be more than four state. Forty years ago, we used
>9600bps, 1200baud QAM modems (and Motorola called them "modems"), over
>dedicated copper phone lines. That's a three-bit (eight state)
>symbol.
>
>MPEG isn't a transmission protocol, rather a compression algorithm.
>
>>
>>Thats as much as I know about HOW it works - and it's different in
>>north america (6mhz) DOCSIS and 8mhz EuroDOCSIS. - and the fiber optic
>>backhaul works differently than the coax "last mile" section.
>>Cable internet is digital - at least mine is. There is no modem. It
>>runs with a digital router.
>
>It may be inside your house but it's using "TV channels" on the pole.
It is a DIGITAL compression algorithm. Impossible to implement in a
strictly analog world.
Docsis is also digital by definition.
ALL TV in Canada is now also digital - whether OTA or cable. Hook up
an analog TV set to any Canadian cable system and just TRY to find a
station you can view. They don't exist - You neet an ATSC tuner or a
digital conversion box.
Try to get a station on an antenna with an NTSC tuner - you won't get
any - they don't exist anymore. ALL digital (atsc) - so just because
it uses a "tv channel" definitely does not preclude it being digital.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:21:18 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:52:45 +0000, Puckdropper wrote:
>
>> Not really... Except we didn't have hard drives in those days. If we
>> had diskette drives we were doing good. (Everyone seemed to have the
>> 1541 if they had a Commodore 64, though.)
>
>I started playing with microcomputers with 2 8" floppies - then 5.25" -
>then 3.5". Each time either the capacity or the speed went down. I knew
>they couldn't last :-).
Actually both speed and capacity went UP. The first 5.25 disks I
used were somethink like 80kb Shugart hard sectored, then 360kb soft
sectored, then up to DSDD 1.2mb.
The 3.5" disks started at 280 (which never went anywhere) then 360
single sided, 720 double sided, and 1.44mb DSDD (or HD).
Then came the Flopticals, LS120 and LS240 3.5 disks with 21, 120, and
240MB capacity.and a few other nonstandard (Proprietary) systems that
were ineffective to varying degrees.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 17:03:20 -0500, clare wrote:
>>I started playing with microcomputers with 2 8" floppies - then 5.25" -
>>then 3.5". Each time either the capacity or the speed went down. I
>>knew they couldn't last :-).
> Actually both speed and capacity went UP. The first 5.25 disks I
> used were somethink like 80kb Shugart hard sectored, then 360kb soft
> sectored, then up to DSDD 1.2mb.
> The 3.5" disks started at 280 (which never went anywhere) then 360
> single sided, 720 double sided, and 1.44mb DSDD (or HD).
Close, but no cigar. My 8" drives were 1.2mb and were faster than the
5.25" because they stored more data on a "cylinder" so the head didn't
have to be stepped as often. Also, they had a higher transfer rate.
That's not to say that a good software type couldn't fudge a little on
all 3 types :-).
--
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
>(in article<[email protected]>):
>
>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>> > > > 4ax.com:
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
>news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>> > > > @dont-
>> > > > > > email.me:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Trenbidia wrote:
>> > > > > > > > "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>> > > > > > > > landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
>is
>> > > > > > what I have.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>> > > >
>> > > > No, it's not.
>> > > >
>> > > > > DSL uses normal
>> > > > > "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>> > > >
>> > > > Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires,
>> > > > not fiber.
>> > > >
>> > > > > DSL is as much "analog" as any
>> > > > > other modem technology.
>> > > >
>> > > > What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>> > >
>> > > Ok, asshole, define "digital".
>> >
>> > In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
>> > following 2 links as references only ;-)
>> >
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
>>
>> I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
>> "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
>> "digital".
>
>While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is no other
>kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between digital
>signals and analog signals.
OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
>
>A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
>
>Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets blurrier, and
>information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
>
>However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is no loss of
>information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not so severe
>that one cannot make the letters out.
...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it "digital"
or "analog".
>If one retypes the text before the
>blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
>regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number of times
>without loss.
It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's not
lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
least not one used by anyone I know.
>
>This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
>
Nonsense.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 20:11:57 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 18:49:36 -0500, "J. Clarke"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] says...
>>>
>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:21:18 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:52:45 +0000, Puckdropper wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Not really... Except we didn't have hard drives in those days. If we
>>> >> had diskette drives we were doing good. (Everyone seemed to have the
>>> >> 1541 if they had a Commodore 64, though.)
>>> >
>>> >I started playing with microcomputers with 2 8" floppies - then 5.25" -
>>> >then 3.5". Each time either the capacity or the speed went down. I knew
>>> >they couldn't last :-).
>>> Actually both speed and capacity went UP. The first 5.25 disks I
>>> used were somethink like 80kb Shugart hard sectored, then 360kb soft
>>> sectored, then up to DSDD 1.2mb.
>>> The 3.5" disks started at 280 (which never went anywhere) then 360
>>> single sided, 720 double sided, and 1.44mb DSDD (or HD).
>>>
>>> Then came the Flopticals, LS120 and LS240 3.5 disks with 21, 120, and
>>> 240MB capacity.and a few other nonstandard (Proprietary) systems that
>>> were ineffective to varying degrees.
>>
>>Flopticals were nice at the time. I still have a final-generation
>>floptical USB drive that gets used occasionally when someone needes to
>>read a 3-1/2 inch diskette. One neat trick was that with the right
>>driver they could get something like 16 meg on a standard diskette.
>>
>The bad thing is half the time even THEY could not read the data after
>it was stored ---
Ah, the ol' Write-Only Memory! ;-)
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 07:50:19 -0600, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 10:08:08 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/27/2015 8:52 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>> Bill <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well what about cassette tape backups of data on a hard drive?
>>>>> That's different (troublemaker!) ;)
>>>>
>>>> Not really... Except we didn't have hard drives in those days. If we had
>>>> diskette drives we were doing good. (Everyone seemed to have the 1541 if
>>>> they had a Commodore 64, though.)
>>>>
>>>> I've always wondered if we'd be successful playing an old computer's
>>>> cassette "recording" over the phone line to another computer that was
>>>> listening for it. Basically, convert the cassette ports in to a modem. I
>>>> know it's an extremely convoluted and pathetic way to do it, but sometimes
>>>> that's reason enough to do it!
>>>>
>>> Actually in the late 70's early 80's I ordered parts from GM/GMPD using
>>> a thermal heat print terminal/computer terminal. With a keyboard and a
>>> dual cassette deck on top I would communicate with our inventory control
>>> service provider, Reynolds and Reynolds. I would run a routine from
>>> that terminal to generate a stock order, get the results, and record
>>> them on a cassette, they looked like the common cassette. From there I
>>> flipped a series of toggle switches and typed in a phone number to
>>> GMPD's computer and their computer communicated with my terminal and
>>> read the cassette. The response of their computer was sent back and
>>> recorded on the other cassette on my terminal. And finally my terminal
>>> read the cassette and answer from GMPD and printed the results on that
>>> terminals thermal heat print paper.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Puckdropper
>>>>
>> The Reynolds and Reynolds and ADP systems used modems to send and
>> recieve the data - which implemented error checking and correction.
>
>Even then I thought the R&R service was archaic. A few years later we
>switched to ADP and it was like we switched to the current century. Then
>we built a new facility and had ADP in house. I loved that system.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> A lot of those early modems used "accoustic couplers" - you placed the
>> handset of the phone onto the coupler and it "talked" to the phone to
>> transmit the modulated signals. I think that worked all the way up to
>> about 200 baud. - mabee 300.
>> That was about the limit for data transmission on the audio tape too.
>>
>The R&R mentioned above terminal was. TI. When we opened that dealership I
>had to temporarily use the handset coupler, the regular modem had not yet
>arrived. IIRC one or the other accomplished 300.
>
The direct wire was likely 300. I think my first "surplus" AC modem
was something like 80 baud? Mabee it was 110 - it was an old Ti, I
think. Went to a wired 300 very quickly.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 18:49:36 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:21:18 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:52:45 +0000, Puckdropper wrote:
>> >
>> >> Not really... Except we didn't have hard drives in those days. If we
>> >> had diskette drives we were doing good. (Everyone seemed to have the
>> >> 1541 if they had a Commodore 64, though.)
>> >
>> >I started playing with microcomputers with 2 8" floppies - then 5.25" -
>> >then 3.5". Each time either the capacity or the speed went down. I knew
>> >they couldn't last :-).
>> Actually both speed and capacity went UP. The first 5.25 disks I
>> used were somethink like 80kb Shugart hard sectored, then 360kb soft
>> sectored, then up to DSDD 1.2mb.
>> The 3.5" disks started at 280 (which never went anywhere) then 360
>> single sided, 720 double sided, and 1.44mb DSDD (or HD).
>>
>> Then came the Flopticals, LS120 and LS240 3.5 disks with 21, 120, and
>> 240MB capacity.and a few other nonstandard (Proprietary) systems that
>> were ineffective to varying degrees.
>
>Flopticals were nice at the time. I still have a final-generation
>floptical USB drive that gets used occasionally when someone needes to
>read a 3-1/2 inch diskette. One neat trick was that with the right
>driver they could get something like 16 meg on a standard diskette.
>
The bad thing is half the time even THEY could not read the data after
it was stored ---
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:n4ssk5$48t$1@dont-
>email.me:
>
>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>
>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>
>*Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which is what I have.
Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all). DSL uses normal
"phone" wires, where Uverse does not. DSL is as much "analog" as any
other modem technology.
On Dec 26, 2015, krw wrote
(in article<[email protected]>):
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 20:00:29 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I don't know what you did but you made your post unquotable, so I
> won't.
Thatâs odd. There are some gremlins in the middle of my reply. Iâll
repost, with the center deleted.
Joe Gwinn
On Dec 26, 2015, krw wrote
(in article<[email protected]>):
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 20:00:29 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I don't know what you did but you made your post unquotable, so I
> won't.
Here is the missing bottom of my reply:
> > > >
> > > > This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
> > > Nonsense.
> >
> > Hmm. Please provide a better definition, with sources cited.
>
> Digital is 1's and 0's. Analog is everything in between. You know,
> like the difference between an analog computer and a digital computer?
>
> OK, let me ask you the question I posed a day or so ago: Were V.90 or
> V.92 modems (over POTS lines, of course) digital or analog? If you
> consider them to be analog, in what material way do they differ from
> DSL? If you consider them to be digital, name me one other person who
> believes this. ;-)
>
> Oh, to answer your question, in this area the words "analog" and
> "digital" have become next to meaningless. Everything is analog
> (there are A/D and D/A converters at both ends, with the As in the
> middle, on the wire side - leaning the definition of the communication
> protocol considerably to the 'A' side, IMO).
All these modems take an incoming bit stream and convert it to a series of
line symbols on the wire (or fiber or radio wave). These line symbols are
designed to be easy to tell apart, even after having been distorted and
corrupted a bit on the line, so the receiving modem can tell with very high
reliability which line symbol was sent, thus recovering the original bit
stream.
Because only a known set of line symbols are sent, and nothing in between,
the receiver can assume that the intended line symbol is that one that is
closest to one of these known line symbols.
Design of such symbol sets is a career, and there is a large literature, but
a good place to start is any college textbook on data communications.
Joe Gwinn
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 20:00:29 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
<[email protected]> wrote:
I don't know what you did but you made your post unquotable, so I
won't.
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:56:05 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>krw wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:52:47 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:24:28 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
>>>>> (in article<[email protected]>):
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>>>>>>>>> 4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>>>>>>>>> @dont-
>>>>>>>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>>>>>>>>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>>>>>>>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>>>>>>>>> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> what I have.
>>>>>>>>>> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>>>>>>>>> No, it's not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DSL uses normal
>>>>>>>>>> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>>>>>>>>> Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires,
>>>>>>>>> not fiber.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DSL is as much "analog" as any
>>>>>>>>>> other modem technology.
>>>>>>>>> What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>>>>>>>> Ok, asshole, define "digital".
>>>>>>> In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
>>>>>>> following 2 links as references only ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
>>>>>> I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
>>>>>> "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
>>>>>> "digital".
>>>>> While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is no other
>>>>> kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between digital
>>>>> signals and analog signals.
>>>> OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
>>>>> A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
>>>>>
>>>>> Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets blurrier, and
>>>>> information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is no loss of
>>>>> information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not so severe
>>>>> that one cannot make the letters out.
>>>> ...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
>>>> as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
>>>> have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it "digital"
>>>> or "analog".
>>>>
>>>>> If one retypes the text before the
>>>>> blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
>>>>> regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number of times
>>>>> without loss.
>>>> It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's not
>>>> lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
>>>> least not one used by anyone I know.
>>>>> This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
>>>>>
>>>> Nonsense.
>>> The difference between digital and analog is one is digital, the
>>> other is analog.
>> OK, I'm all for tautologies as arguments. ;-)
>>> Analog signals are signals af varying frequency and intensity.
>>> You can get a good signal, a weak signal, or a bad signal
>> IOW, DSL, ADTV, Satellite TV, Cell phones, and just about everything
>> else that's considered "digital". You will get errors, retries, data
>> drop, freezes, and all that jazz before it drops the connection
>> completely.
>>
>>> Digital signals are a pulse train of ones and zeroes. There is error
>>> checking built in - and you either get a signal or you don't. No such
>>> thing as "fringe reception" If you get the sinal the digital to
>>> analog converters decipher the code, and/or codecs in firmware decode
>>> the signal to audio and video signals,
>> OK, so the question remains, is v.90 digital or analog?
>>
>> Your "distinction" isn't, either.
>As something of an "expert", I say that if the data is abstractable to a
>sequence of 0's and 1's,
>then even if it is transmitted in an analog fashion, then it's
>*digital*. E.g. Computer files are digital. A paper tape is digital.
>While, not an expert about them, I would say that a cassette recording
>is not digital.
>
Some casette data can be digital. The cassette tapes used on early
computer systems like the RadioShack COCO (Color Computer) were
digital data stored on an analog medium. There were only 2 tones
recorded on the tape. If the frequency was between 2 levels it was a
1, and between two other totally different frequencies, it was a 0.
Just like RS232, 2 voltage ranges -3 to -25 and +3 to +25 - anything
between -3 and +3 was "noise"
A high quality tape duplicator could duplicate the digital tapes
reliably, but trying to do it with a "dubbing" deck was pretty much
destined to fail. When we had the "coco club" we would get programs
published in "hot coco" magazine, and one member would key the program
into his computer and save it to a cassette tape, then I would run off
the tape on the duplicator so each member got a copy. I used a TELEX
Copyette 4 head duplicator that we also used to make copies of sermon
tapes at church for shut-ins who could not get to church.
(now it's all recorded digitally and put on the church website)
There was no ambiguity. So it was (binary) digital data.
Any music or voice or other non-binary data on a cassette tape is
analog.
Then of course, there is DAT (Digital Audio Tape) but that's a
different subject.
krw wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:56:05 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> But you're abstracting that cassette recording into '1's and '0's for
> the computer (unless you changed subject in the middle of the
> paragraph and are talking about audio cassettes).
The only point I wanted to make was that whether something is digital or
not does not depend on the "carrier". For instance, a drawing is not
digital. It could be digitized, in many different ways...
Bill
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:56:05 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>krw wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:52:47 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:24:28 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
>>>>> (in article<[email protected]>):
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>>>>>>>>> 4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>>>>>>>>> @dont-
>>>>>>>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>>>>>>>>>>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>>>>>>>>> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>>>>>>>>> *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> what I have.
>>>>>>>>>> Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>>>>>>>>> No, it's not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DSL uses normal
>>>>>>>>>> "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>>>>>>>>> Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires,
>>>>>>>>> not fiber.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DSL is as much "analog" as any
>>>>>>>>>> other modem technology.
>>>>>>>>> What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>>>>>>>> Ok, asshole, define "digital".
>>>>>>> In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
>>>>>>> following 2 links as references only ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
>>>>>> I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
>>>>>> "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
>>>>>> "digital".
>>>>> While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is no other
>>>>> kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between digital
>>>>> signals and analog signals.
>>>> OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
>>>>> A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
>>>>>
>>>>> Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets blurrier, and
>>>>> information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is no loss of
>>>>> information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not so severe
>>>>> that one cannot make the letters out.
>>>> ...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
>>>> as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
>>>> have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it "digital"
>>>> or "analog".
>>>>
>>>>> If one retypes the text before the
>>>>> blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
>>>>> regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number of times
>>>>> without loss.
>>>> It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's not
>>>> lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
>>>> least not one used by anyone I know.
>>>>> This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
>>>>>
>>>> Nonsense.
>>> The difference between digital and analog is one is digital, the
>>> other is analog.
>> OK, I'm all for tautologies as arguments. ;-)
>>> Analog signals are signals af varying frequency and intensity.
>>> You can get a good signal, a weak signal, or a bad signal
>> IOW, DSL, ADTV, Satellite TV, Cell phones, and just about everything
>> else that's considered "digital". You will get errors, retries, data
>> drop, freezes, and all that jazz before it drops the connection
>> completely.
>>
>>> Digital signals are a pulse train of ones and zeroes. There is error
>>> checking built in - and you either get a signal or you don't. No such
>>> thing as "fringe reception" If you get the sinal the digital to
>>> analog converters decipher the code, and/or codecs in firmware decode
>>> the signal to audio and video signals,
>> OK, so the question remains, is v.90 digital or analog?
>>
>> Your "distinction" isn't, either.
>As something of an "expert", I say that if the data is abstractable to a
>sequence of 0's and 1's,
>then even if it is transmitted in an analog fashion, then it's
>*digital*. E.g. Computer files are digital. A paper tape is digital.
>While, not an expert about them, I would say that a cassette recording
>is not digital.
>
But you're abstracting that cassette recording into '1's and '0's for
the computer (unless you changed subject in the middle of the
paragraph and are talking about audio cassettes).
Yes, there are end-cases that are clearly one or the other. Most of
what we deal with, these days, is not so clear. The distinctions are
mostly just jargon or marketeering, with no real meaning.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:20:27 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:32:39 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:52:47 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:24:28 -0500, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
>>>>>(in article<[email protected]>):
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > krw <[email protected]> wrote in news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>>>>>> > > > 4ax.com:
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>>> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>>>>>> > > > @dont-
>>>>>> > > > > > email.me:
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > Trenbidia wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>>>>>> > > > > > > > landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse -- which
>>>>>is
>>>>>> > > > > > what I have.
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > No, it's not.
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > DSL uses normal
>>>>>> > > > > "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper wires,
>>>>>> > > > not fiber.
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > DSL is as much "analog" as any
>>>>>> > > > > other modem technology.
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > Ok, asshole, define "digital".
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
>>>>>> > following 2 links as references only ;-)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
>>>>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
>>>>>> "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
>>>>>> "digital".
>>>>>
>>>>>While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is no other
>>>>>kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between digital
>>>>>signals and analog signals.
>>>>
>>>>OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
>>>>>
>>>>>A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
>>>>>
>>>>>Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets blurrier, and
>>>>>information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
>>>>>
>>>>>However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is no loss of
>>>>>information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not so severe
>>>>>that one cannot make the letters out.
>>>>
>>>>...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
>>>>as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
>>>>have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it "digital"
>>>>or "analog".
>>>>
>>>>>If one retypes the text before the
>>>>>blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
>>>>>regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number of times
>>>>>without loss.
>>>>
>>>>It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's not
>>>>lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
>>>>least not one used by anyone I know.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
>>>>>
>>>>Nonsense.
>>> The difference between digital and analog is one is digital, the
>>>other is analog.
>>
>>OK, I'm all for tautologies as arguments. ;-)
>>>
>>>Analog signals are signals af varying frequency and intensity.
>>>You can get a good signal, a weak signal, or a bad signal
>>
>>IOW, DSL, ADTV, Satellite TV, Cell phones, and just about everything
>>else that's considered "digital". You will get errors, retries, data
>>drop, freezes, and all that jazz before it drops the connection
>>completely.
>>
>>>Digital signals are a pulse train of ones and zeroes. There is error
>>>checking built in - and you either get a signal or you don't. No such
>>>thing as "fringe reception" If you get the sinal the digital to
>>>analog converters decipher the code, and/or codecs in firmware decode
>>>the signal to audio and video signals,
>>
>>OK, so the question remains, is v.90 digital or analog?
>>
>>Your "distinction" isn't, either.
>>
>V 90 was strictly analog. Any "modem" is analog because it modulates
>and demodulates (MODulatorDEModulator) the signal at each end.
>Modulation is the hallmark of an alalog signal.(modulation also
>described, as I did in my "simplified" reply as varying frequency and
>intensity.
The "modulator" was a D/A converter and the demodulator was an A/D
converter and it was analog in the middle, so the phone line is
analog. How is the communications link digital?
>
>A digital signal does not use a "modem" It uses a "codec" (coder
>decoder) which converts a binary chain of data to "tokens" and
>transmits those "tokens" digitally across the network, and then at the
>other end "decodes" the "tokens" to a digital binary data stream
>again. All computers today are "digital devices", working with and
>understanding ONLY binary digital data.
A distinction without a difference. So you're saying that a v.90
modem is analog? DSL is analog? Cable Internet is analog?
There is no practical difference between a "token" and a "symbol".
("Baud" is defined as a symbol per second).
>JPEG, MP3, MP4, GIF, TIFF etc are all compression algorithms that
>define what tokens are used and how to code and decode the binary data
>for transmission.
No, they are not for transmission, rather they are standardized
encodings of objects (video, pictures, etc.). Transmission is only
one use for such things (I bet you save some on your computer, even).
>
>The errors and retries in digital communications are the result of the
>"error correcting" or "error checking" built into the communication
>protocol - if a token arrives damaged, it is rejected and a resend is
>requested.
So? Internet over a 300bps modem can't have error checking,
correction, or retries?
>
>In analog communication there is no way to error check and error
>correct, so instead of getting data interruption you get data
>corruption - instead of getting pixellation and "digital dropout" you
>get "snow" "hiss" and other forms of "corruption" in the signal.
Really? I guess analog communications never existed (see above).
>
>In Digital communications you get latency and dropouts.
...and you don't in analog communications?
On 12/27/2015 8:52 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Well what about cassette tape backups of data on a hard drive?
>> That's different (troublemaker!) ;)
>
> Not really... Except we didn't have hard drives in those days. If we had
> diskette drives we were doing good. (Everyone seemed to have the 1541 if
> they had a Commodore 64, though.)
>
> I've always wondered if we'd be successful playing an old computer's
> cassette "recording" over the phone line to another computer that was
> listening for it. Basically, convert the cassette ports in to a modem. I
> know it's an extremely convoluted and pathetic way to do it, but sometimes
> that's reason enough to do it!
>
Actually in the late 70's early 80's I ordered parts from GM/GMPD using
a thermal heat print terminal/computer terminal. With a keyboard and a
dual cassette deck on top I would communicate with our inventory control
service provider, Reynolds and Reynolds. I would run a routine from
that terminal to generate a stock order, get the results, and record
them on a cassette, they looked like the common cassette. From there I
flipped a series of toggle switches and typed in a phone number to
GMPD's computer and their computer communicated with my terminal and
read the cassette. The response of their computer was sent back and
recorded on the other cassette on my terminal. And finally my terminal
read the cassette and answer from GMPD and printed the results on that
terminals thermal heat print paper.
> Puckdropper
>
Trenbidia wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:22:19 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>> We're receiving several calls a week from "card holder services" as
>>> I'm sure all of you are who still have landlines. Instead of just
>>> hanging up I've been pressing 1 for more info and setting the phone
>>> down.
>>
>> Better still... go to nomorobo.com and sign up for their robocall
>> blocking service. We did that more than a year ago, and haven't
>> received ANY calls from "cardholder services" since.
>
> Hey Doug, didn't you see the "landline" in my post? Nomorobo says:
>
> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on? Oh yeah...
google phone...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Dec 26, 2015, krw wrote
(in article<[email protected]>):
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:37:40 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 26, 2015, krw wrote
> > (in article<[email protected]>):
> >
> > > On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
> > > > (in article<[email protected]>):
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > krw <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > krw <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
> > > > > > > > 4ax.com:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
> > > > news:n4ssk5$48t$1
> > > > > > > > @dont-
> > > > > > > > > > email.me:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Trenbidia wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on
traditional
> > analog
> > > > > > > > > > > > landlines or wireless phones at this time."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective
on?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse
--
> > which
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > what I have.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, it's not.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > DSL uses normal
> > > > > > > > > "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are
copper
> > wires,
> > > > > > > > not fiber.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > DSL is as much "analog" as any
> > > > > > > > > other modem technology.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ok, asshole, define "digital".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
> > > > > > following 2 links as references only ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
> > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
> > > > > "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
> > > > > "digital".
> > > >
> > > > While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is no
> > other
> > > > kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between digital
> > > > signals and analog signals.
> > >
> > > OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
> > > >
> > > > A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
> > > >
> > > > Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets blurrier, and
> > > > information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
> > > >
> > > > However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is no
loss
> > of
> > > > information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not so
> > > > severe
> > > > that one cannot make the letters out.
> > >
> > > ...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
> > > as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
> > > have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it "digital"
> > > or "analog".
> > >
> > > > If one retypes the text before the
> > > > blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
> > > > regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number of
times
> > > > without loss.
> > >
> > > It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's not
> > > lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
> > > least not one used by anyone I know.
> > > >
> > > > This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
> > > Nonsense.
> >
> > Hmm. Please provide a better definition, with sources cited.
>
> Digital is 1's and 0's. Analog is everything in between. You know,
> like the difference between an analog computer and a digital computer?
>
> OK, let me ask you the question I posed a day or so ago: Were V.90 or
> V.92 modems (over POTS lines, of course) digital or analog? If you
> consider them to be analog, in what material way do they differ from
> DSL? If you consider them to be digital, name me one other person who
> believes this. ;-)
>
> Oh, to answer your question, in this area the words "analog" and
> "digital" have become next to meaningless. Everything is analog
> (there are A/D and D/A converters at both ends, with the As in the
> middle, on the wire side - leaning the definition of the communication
> protocol considerably to the 'A' side, IMO).
All these modems take an incoming bit streamand convert it to a series of
line symbols on the wire (or fiber or radio wave). These line symbols are
designed to be easy to tell apart, even after having been distorted and
corrupted a bit on the line, so the receiving modem can tell with very high
reliability which line symbol was sent, thus recovering the original bit
stream.
Because only a known set of line symbols are sent, and nothing in between,
the receiver can assume that the intended line symbol is that one that is
closest to one of these known line symbols.
Design of such symbol sets is a career, and there is a large literature, but
a good place to start is any college textbook on data communications.
Joe Gwinn
krw <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 27 Dec 2015 01:06:01 GMT, Puckdropper
> <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:JrmdnZf4zo31S-
>>[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And one other thing with Uverse. If you have a DVR with recordings,
>>> it does not work if the service is down.
>>>
>>
>>That's part of the beauty of a home-built Linux DVR. You don't need
>>service or even the same service to watch your recordings. My Dish
>>Network recordings play just fine even though we've had DirecTV for
>>years. When I run out of storage, I can buy a bigger drive without
>>asking the provider if it's ok.
>
> How do you record from DTV to your DVR? Does a TV have to be
> "watching" to record? How many channels at once?
>>
>>Freedom like this comes with a cost, but it's worth it. I have to do
>>a little reading to do things like add a new hard drive, and drop to
>>the command line to copy recordings but it's been worth it. LinHES in
>>case anyone's wondering which one I use.
>>
>>Puckdropper
>
I've got a Hauppauge HD-DVR that records over the component connection
(YPbPr). Channels are changed by a channel change script that goes over
a serial to USB adapter to talk to the H24 and now Genie Mini. (It's
better than an IR blaster, but that's a common option as well.)
Yes, the receiver has to be "watching" to record.
One channel per tuner/receiver pair.
In practice conflicts are minimal. It's something like 1 or 2 a month.
Most TV shows are reruns anyway, so it's not a big deal.
Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.
On 27 Dec 2015 01:06:01 GMT, Puckdropper
<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:JrmdnZf4zo31S-
>[email protected]:
>
>>
>>
>> And one other thing with Uverse. If you have a DVR with recordings, it
>> does not work if the service is down.
>>
>
>That's part of the beauty of a home-built Linux DVR. You don't need
>service or even the same service to watch your recordings. My Dish
>Network recordings play just fine even though we've had DirecTV for
>years. When I run out of storage, I can buy a bigger drive without
>asking the provider if it's ok.
How do you record from DTV to your DVR? Does a TV have to be
"watching" to record? How many channels at once?
>
>Freedom like this comes with a cost, but it's worth it. I have to do a
>little reading to do things like add a new hard drive, and drop to the
>command line to copy recordings but it's been worth it. LinHES in case
>anyone's wondering which one I use.
>
>Puckdropper
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:37:40 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Dec 26, 2015, krw wrote
>(in article<[email protected]>):
>
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:52:42 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 25, 2015, krw wrote
>> > (in article<[email protected]>):
>> >
>> > > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:15:38 +0000, Spalted Walt
>> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:54:48 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > krw <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:vvun7bdcs5vtc5v91p3bqm3n343sbdgf8g@
>> > > > > > 4ax.com:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:47:39 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote in
>> > news:n4ssk5$48t$1
>> > > > > > @dont-
>> > > > > > > > email.me:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Trenbidia wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional
>analog
>> > > > > > > > > > landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > *Digital* landlines, i.e. DSL service such as AT&T U-verse --
>which
>> > is
>> > > > > > > > what I have.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Uverse is fiber, not DSL (or "phone" lines at all).
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > No, it's not.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > DSL uses normal
>> > > > > > > "phone" wires, where Uverse does not.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Well, I have Uverse. And the lines coming to my house are copper
>wires,
>> > > > > > not fiber.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > DSL is as much "analog" as any
>> > > > > > > other modem technology.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > What, exactly, do you suppose the D stands for?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ok, asshole, define "digital".
>> > > >
>> > > > In the spirit of "Peace on earth, good will to men" I offer the
>> > > > following 2 links as references only ;-)
>> > > >
>> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line
>> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
>> > >
>> > > I don't see a definition of "digital", in there. DSL is no more
>> > > "digital" than the old "56K" modems. No one considered them to be
>> > > "digital".
>> >
>> > While digital signals do in fact travel over analog paths (there is no
>other
>> > kind), this does not mean that there is no distinction between digital
>> > signals and analog signals.
>>
>> OK, you haven't given me that distinction.
>> >
>> > A good analogy is a photograph (from the days of silver-based film):
>> >
>> > Every time a photo of say a landscape is copied, it gets blurrier, and
>> > information (sharpness in this case) is forever lost.
>> >
>> > However, it the photo is of for instance a page of text, there is no loss
>of
>> > information (the text) so long as the accumulated blurring is not so severe
>> > that one cannot make the letters out.
>>
>> ...as long as... That's true of the silver photograph, too. As long
>> as the tree looks like a tree, it still looks like a tree. IOW, you
>> have *loads* of redundant information. That doesn't make it "digital"
>> or "analog".
>>
>> > If one retypes the text before the
>> > blurring has gone too far, there is no loss - the text is perfectly
>> > regenerated. This regeneration process can be repeated any number of times
>> > without loss.
>>
>> It's all odds. If you recreate information before it's lost, it's not
>> lost. That's not the difference between "analog" and "digital", at
>> least not one used by anyone I know.
>> >
>> > This is the core difference between digital signals and analog signals.
>> Nonsense.
>
>Hmm. Please provide a better definition, with sources cited.
Digital is 1's and 0's. Analog is everything in between. You know,
like the difference between an analog computer and a digital computer?
OK, let me ask you the question I posed a day or so ago: Were V.90 or
V.92 modems (over POTS lines, of course) digital or analog? If you
consider them to be analog, in what material way do they differ from
DSL? If you consider them to be digital, name me one other person who
believes this. ;-)
Oh, to answer your question, in this area the words "analog" and
"digital" have become next to meaningless. Everything is analog
(there are A/D and D/A converters at both ends, with the As in the
middle, on the wire side - leaning the definition of the communication
protocol considerably to the 'A' side, IMO).
On 12/16/15 5:38 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Trenbidia wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:22:19 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>>> We're receiving several calls a week from "card holder services" as
>>>> I'm sure all of you are who still have landlines. Instead of just
>>>> hanging up I've been pressing 1 for more info and setting the phone
>>>> down.
>>>
>>> Better still... go to nomorobo.com and sign up for their robocall
>>> blocking service. We did that more than a year ago, and haven't
>>> received ANY calls from "cardholder services" since.
>>
>> Hey Doug, didn't you see the "landline" in my post? Nomorobo says:
>>
>> "Unfortunately, Nomorobo is not available on traditional analog
>> landlines or wireless phones at this time."
>
> Holy cow! Just what are they proposing to be effective on? Oh yeah...
> google phone...
>
It's a lot more than google.
Comcast is one of the largest providers of VOIP phone service.
There are many, many others and it is the future of "land line" phone
service. Even traditional analog phone providers are either moving to
VOIP or will be very soon. Some people who have analog land lines are
actually using VOIP without even knowing it, because it gets converted
at the "switch board" head end in many cases.
I'm guessing nomorobo knows this and is just forgoing dealing with
analog for the short time it has left in its existence.
BTW, we have nomorobo and it does work. It's better than any of the DNC
registries.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> John <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> Card services evidently is trying a new bizarre way to scam us.
>>
>> The wife said she got a call yesterday from them on our land line and
>> the caller ID showed *our home phone number* --- WTF?
> The root cause of the problem is a technical flaw in
> the phone system that let's scammers appear to be
> calling from any number they like. It would not be
> especially hard to correct that flaw, but the phone
> companies have no incentive to do so (no money in
> it).
>
it's not a flaw, it's a feature
sometimes I take to trying a *69 callback unavailable #s
are not called
-MIKE- wrote:
>
> It's a lot more than google.
> Comcast is one of the largest providers of VOIP phone service.
> There are many, many others and it is the future of "land line" phone
> service. Even traditional analog phone providers are either moving to
> VOIP or will be very soon. Some people who have analog land lines are
> actually using VOIP without even knowing it, because it gets converted
> at the "switch board" head end in many cases.
>
> I'm guessing nomorobo knows this and is just forgoing dealing with
> analog for the short time it has left in its existence.
>
> BTW, we have nomorobo and it does work. It's better than any of the
> DNC registries.
Yeah - I should have said VOIP, and you are correct in what you say about
VOIP, but the carriers still have access to the real caller ID (CLID) in a
VOIP network.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 12/17/15 11:48 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Spalted Walt <[email protected]> writes:
>> (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>
>>> So, you feel that pirating the software is the answer to their
>>> desire to profit from their labor?
>>
>> What is it about "FREE VERSION SOFTWARE" that you can't quite
>> grasp? Pirating freeware? You need to get a fucking grip.
>>
>>
>
> You claimed they no longer offer the free version, it being replaced
> by a for-pay version.
>
> Did they grant permission for you to subsequently distribute the free
> version when you downloaded it? Or, more likely, was the 'free
> download' intended to be used only by the individual downloading it.
>
> As someone who makes a living developing software, I'm quite careful
> when other peoples software is concerned.
>
> Now, if it were open-source and covered by a license like the BSD,
> MIT, Apache or GPL, then there would be no issue with your subsequent
> distribution.
>
People don't give a crap anymore. People would would never shoplift a
candybar don't give a second thought about stealing software. It's the
same for music. Songwriters and artists live in a completely new world,
now. We have an entire generation that thinks music is free and all you
have to do is download it or copy it from your friend.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
-MIKE- wrote:
> On 12/17/15 11:48 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Spalted Walt <[email protected]> writes:
>>> (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, you feel that pirating the software is the answer to their
>>>> desire to profit from their labor?
>>>
>>> What is it about "FREE VERSION SOFTWARE" that you can't quite
>>> grasp? Pirating freeware? You need to get a fucking grip.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You claimed they no longer offer the free version, it being replaced
>> by a for-pay version.
>>
>> Did they grant permission for you to subsequently distribute the free
>> version when you downloaded it? Or, more likely, was the 'free
>> download' intended to be used only by the individual downloading it.
>>
>> As someone who makes a living developing software, I'm quite careful
>> when other peoples software is concerned.
>>
>> Now, if it were open-source and covered by a license like the BSD,
>> MIT, Apache or GPL, then there would be no issue with your subsequent
>> distribution.
>>
>
> People don't give a crap anymore.
How about Microsoft and Windows 10 (not giving a crap about the user's
privacy)? Is Microsoft leading by example?
> People would would never shoplift a
> candybar don't give a second thought about stealing software. It's the
> same for music. Songwriters and artists live in a completely new world,
> now. We have an entire generation that thinks music is free and all you
> have to do is download it or copy it from your friend.
>
>
On 12/17/15 1:48 PM, Bill wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 12/17/15 11:48 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Spalted Walt <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, you feel that pirating the software is the answer to their
>>>>> desire to profit from their labor?
>>>>
>>>> What is it about "FREE VERSION SOFTWARE" that you can't quite
>>>> grasp? Pirating freeware? You need to get a fucking grip.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You claimed they no longer offer the free version, it being replaced
>>> by a for-pay version.
>>>
>>> Did they grant permission for you to subsequently distribute the free
>>> version when you downloaded it? Or, more likely, was the 'free
>>> download' intended to be used only by the individual downloading it.
>>>
>>> As someone who makes a living developing software, I'm quite careful
>>> when other peoples software is concerned.
>>>
>>> Now, if it were open-source and covered by a license like the BSD,
>>> MIT, Apache or GPL, then there would be no issue with your subsequent
>>> distribution.
>>>
>>
>> People don't give a crap anymore.
>
> How about Microsoft and Windows 10 (not giving a crap about the user's
> privacy)? Is Microsoft leading by example?
>
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't use that crap. :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
-MIKE- wrote:
> On 12/17/15 1:48 PM, Bill wrote:
>> -MIKE- wrote:
>>> On 12/17/15 11:48 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Spalted Walt <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>> (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you feel that pirating the software is the answer to their
>>>>>> desire to profit from their labor?
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it about "FREE VERSION SOFTWARE" that you can't quite
>>>>> grasp? Pirating freeware? You need to get a fucking grip.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You claimed they no longer offer the free version, it being replaced
>>>> by a for-pay version.
>>>>
>>>> Did they grant permission for you to subsequently distribute the free
>>>> version when you downloaded it? Or, more likely, was the 'free
>>>> download' intended to be used only by the individual downloading it.
>>>>
>>>> As someone who makes a living developing software, I'm quite careful
>>>> when other peoples software is concerned.
>>>>
>>>> Now, if it were open-source and covered by a license like the BSD,
>>>> MIT, Apache or GPL, then there would be no issue with your subsequent
>>>> distribution.
>>>>
>>>
>>> People don't give a crap anymore.
>>
>> How about Microsoft and Windows 10 (not giving a crap about the user's
>> privacy)? Is Microsoft leading by example?
>>
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about.
> I don't use that crap. :-)
My point was that we have institutions taking advantage of people. What
is a person to learn from that? As for me, the music issue is a
non-issue...I have loads of old music that I like, already bought and
paid for.
>
>
Leon wrote:
> On 12/17/2015 1:48 PM, Bill wrote:
>> -MIKE- wrote:
>>> On 12/17/15 11:48 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Spalted Walt <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>> (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you feel that pirating the software is the answer to their
>>>>>> desire to profit from their labor?
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it about "FREE VERSION SOFTWARE" that you can't quite
>>>>> grasp? Pirating freeware? You need to get a fucking grip.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You claimed they no longer offer the free version, it being replaced
>>>> by a for-pay version.
>>>>
>>>> Did they grant permission for you to subsequently distribute the free
>>>> version when you downloaded it? Or, more likely, was the 'free
>>>> download' intended to be used only by the individual downloading it.
>>>>
>>>> As someone who makes a living developing software, I'm quite careful
>>>> when other peoples software is concerned.
>>>>
>>>> Now, if it were open-source and covered by a license like the BSD,
>>>> MIT, Apache or GPL, then there would be no issue with your subsequent
>>>> distribution.
>>>>
>>>
>>> People don't give a crap anymore.
>>
>> How about Microsoft and Windows 10 (not giving a crap about the user's
>> privacy)? Is Microsoft leading by example?
>
>
>
> I highly suspect that if you allow any cookies on your computer at
> all, your privacy is open. This is nothing new.
>
Windows 10 is different than that. FWIW, my cookies are deleted every
time I close the browser.
Who says my "privacy is open" (where does it say that)?
Leon wrote:
> On 12/17/2015 4:25 PM, Bill wrote:
>>
>> Windows 10 is different than that. FWIW, my cookies are deleted every
>> time I close the browser.
>> Who says my "privacy is open" (where does it say that)?
> When you use the internet, your privacy is gone.
>
> If cookies show up it is a done deal. Deleting them simply means
> that they will be loaded again the next time you visit that site again.
Yes, but when I visit site A, B, C, D and E and then the next day visit
A again. A won't see my cookies from sites B through E.
On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:48:00 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>Spalted Walt <[email protected]> writes:
>>(Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>
>>>So, you feel that pirating the software is the answer to their
>>>desire to profit from their labor?
>>
>>What is it about "FREE VERSION SOFTWARE" that you can't quite grasp?
>>Pirating freeware? You need to get a fucking grip.
>>
>>
>
>You claimed they no longer offer the free version, it being replaced
>by a for-pay version.
>
>Did they grant permission for you to subsequently distribute
>the free version when you downloaded it?
Perhaps you should direct your question to the actual dropbox account
holder because it certainly isn't mine.
maybe "Herman"?
http://800open.betaboard.net/t61-phonetray-free-1-39-download
or perhaps "BigA"?
http://800notes.com/forum/ta-ccf5cf9c3b247b2-2/you-are-caller-number-80
or maybe "slim"?
http://800auxiliary.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&p=1490#p736
Perhaps the overlords of the highly respected archive.org could
explain why they offer the following direct download links?
https://web.archive.org/web/20120510101529/http://download.traysoft.com/PhoneTrayFree.exe
https://web.archive.org/web/20120510101529/http://www.phonetray.com/downloads/PhoneTrayFree.exe
https://web.archive.org/web/20120510101529/http://www.traysoft.net/downloads/PhoneTrayFree.exe
Spalted Walt <[email protected]> writes:
>(Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>>Spalted Walt <[email protected]> writes:
>>>Trenbidia <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Clean, free copy available for download:
>>>https://www.dropbox.com/s/8mswptxvxbl1a4k/PhoneTrayFree.exe
>>>
>>>
>>
>>wow! People actually download executables from dropbox and
>>run them? No wonder we have such a horrible problems with
>>virii and spam.
>
>The copy of 'Phonetray Free v1.39' that I downloaded from
>http://www.traysoft.com (the creators of Phonetray) back in 2012 has a MD5 checksum of:
>
>MD5: 238655BDA5B26B3FD532E3693824C5B7
>
>https://web.archive.org/web/20120628083015/http://www.traysoft.com/
>
>The dropbox link is the EXACT 'Phonetray Free v1.39' w/same checksum
>that was freely available from Traysoft's website until they started
>charging $30, for essentially the same product.
So, you feel that pirating the software is the answer to their
desire to profit from their labor?
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:39:32 +0000 (UTC), Trenbidia
<[email protected]> wrote:
>We're receiving several calls a week from "card holder services" as I'm
>sure all of you are who still have landlines. Instead of just hanging up
>I've been pressing 1 for more info and setting the phone down. I hang it
>up when the phone beeps at me. Since there's often a several minute wait
>to get to a scammer ("You're number 27 in line - please wait") I figure
>I've at least tied up their line for that long.
>
>Occasionally I actually wait for an answer and keep the scammer going for
>a while before I tell him/her what I'm doing. I've gotten some very
>creative cussing that way :-).
>
>I wonder. If all of us afflicted by this scam did the same, would we
>make their scam unprofitable? Or at least less profitable? Seems they'd
>have to rent more phone lines to keep up their volume.
I led a guy on once a long time ago for an hour and 15 minutes selling
aluminum siding. Then I told him my mobile home lot number and
address. He was one pissed off mofo.
On 12/15/2015 11:39 AM, Trenbidia wrote:
> We're receiving several calls a week from "card holder services" as I'm
> sure all of you are who still have landlines. Instead of just hanging up
> I've been pressing 1 for more info and setting the phone down. I hang it
> up when the phone beeps at me. Since there's often a several minute wait
> to get to a scammer ("You're number 27 in line - please wait") I figure
> I've at least tied up their line for that long.
>
> Occasionally I actually wait for an answer and keep the scammer going for
> a while before I tell him/her what I'm doing. I've gotten some very
> creative cussing that way :-).
>
> I wonder. If all of us afflicted by this scam did the same, would we
> make their scam unprofitable? Or at least less profitable? Seems they'd
> have to rent more phone lines to keep up their volume.
>
Sometimes I tell the caller I'm going to put the phone down and that
when they're done talking to themselves they can hang up.
Occasionally I'll ask if they will give me their home phone number so I
can call and bother them when it's convenient to me.
If a caller has a heavy accent I'll say "I'm sorry, I can't understand
you" and ask him to repeat himself until he gives up.