What are some that didn’t

here check this out found this

http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/05/27/phone-companies-allowed-wiretaps-shouldnt-get-immunity

where can I find a catalog company that supplies, Telecom professional clothing, tools, ladders,, safety equip, pumps air and water, umbrellas, cable joints,test equip,cables, steel/galv aerial wire, etc etc. I tried a internet search, anyone have a link or know a good supplier

You can also try:http://www.wholesaledeals.co.uk if you are looking for wholesale deals to resell on eBay UK and Amazon UK. They basically research for you which current wholesale offers are selling successfully and at good margins on eBay and Amazon, and you can join their service to find out where you can buy those deals today. Hope this helps.

Can someone please explain this — i’m having problems understanding it.

If a system I am looking at is alarming with AIS, is it broke or is it receiving that from a remote part of the system?

Thanks

In the telephone system if there is a break in a cable or other service affecting problem, the two devices that are at the ends of the connection will send out an AIS signal to indicate to devices farther down stream in both directions that there is a problem with the link.
The two end points of the circuit when they receive the AIS signal, will send out a RDI or Remote Defect Indication on their transmit. This will continue until the defect is fixed.
When the circuit is working then there is framing information that is sent to indicate that the connection is good. When the connection is repaired the framing is sent, and the AIS and RDI signals will be stopped and the framing will be then sent again.

Since privatisation the capacity for water storage in the UK has decreased due to water companies selling state assets, risks are being taken with our power needs and mobile phones make children a target for crime and the potential harm of microwaves on a childs brain is one big corporate experiment.

Given that ‘New Labour’ are now working for the Neo cons, & to think they once claimed to stand for the people of this country, should we lobby parliament to buy back our utilities and say ‘I’m sorry, we made a mistake, Thatcher convinced us selling off our countries assets to America (the main shareholders of UK Ltd) would make things better, sadly, we can’t trust big business with our lives, Telcom tower needs to belong to the post office again.’?

NB; As the inventor of The Fast Dial Telephone (Not to be confused with speed dial, Windows or I Phones ‘no stylus’ nonsense.) I confirm my position (renationalise BT + our utilities) in the interest of propriety.

I do think you have a point.

No need to nationalise in the 1970’s terms, but certainly create and enforce some form of national strategies for anyone that wants to play in these businesses.

water is in a highly visible mess, we all know that.

Power, i’m not sure we can trust people who are interested in short term gain to plan such long turn alternative strategies.

telecoms, i can talk more about this as i own a telecoms business.

Once again the infrastructure is failing us. The freeing up the last mile has just disenfanchised BT from trying to maintain it. They have just moved it to an seperate company. OpenReach cannot afford, not do they have the will, to address the copper issues.

Whitehall claims they understand the need for national comunications infrastructure but there is nothing in any incentives to ensure the country is wired up.

I’ve had a few letters printed in telecoms mags about this:
i think we are moving again to a market where people have to migrate to the cities. more and more we reply on broadband and network for business to work. How does this help the people who are stuck at 512K in the countryside, who’s going to have the drive to sort that out ? The countryside almost caught up over the last 20 years, but once again it will be sidelined because the comms infrastructure cannot cope, just like the roads could not cope in the past.

I won’t repeat all my arguements here, but , yes i agree, its about time someone grabbed the nettle and sorted this stuff out.

Why did Canada put laws against other countries owning Canadas telecommunications companies? I need a benefit to Canada by laws like this being created, a disadvantage to Canada, and an international benefit (benefit to the global community.

In a large, mostly empty country like Canada, telecoms are a vital service, so it seems in the national interest to keep them in Canadian hands. The idea is that the big Canadian players offer nationwide service, even though it’s very expensive for them to do so, while foreign companies might be tempted to only offer service in lucrative urban markets like Toronto or Montréal while ignoring the less lucrative northern and rural areas.

The downside is that it hasn’t worked at all. Rogers has very limited coverage outside urban centers. Bell does offer better coverage, but they do not cover the whole territory. Most northen and rural communities still have no cellular service and no high-speed internet. In this day and age, this is ludicrous !

Another downside of this law is that we now have the world’s most expensive wireless service and one of the least advanced (ex. we didn’t get Apple’s iPhone until at least a year after it became available worldwide). I guess it was an unintended consequence that Bell and Rogers decided to not really compete with each other… prices are high, service is poor and profits are maximized while we, the consumer, get sr*w*d royally.

What can be there purpose for sending such SMS’s. Please guide me…

Configure your mail account to dump such mails that are received without you first addressing the mail to spam folders. Immediately on receipt such mails you delete them and do not click on the links provided therein or try to reply.

Ex-White House officials lobby for telecoms over spying

Sep. 20- The nation’s biggest telecommunications companies, working closely with the White House, have mounted a secretive lobbying campaign to get Congress to quickly approve a measure wiping out all private lawsuits against them for assisting the US intelligence community’s warrantless surveillance programs.

The campaign — which involves some of Washington’s most prominent lobbying and law firms — has taken on new urgency in recent weeks because of fears that a US appellate court in San Francisco is poised to rule that the lawsuits should be allowed to proceed.

If that happens, the telecom companies say, they may be forced to terminate their cooperation with the US intelligence community — or risk potentially crippling damage awards for allegedly turning over personal information about their customers to the government without a judicial warrant.
"It’s not an exaggeration to say the US intelligence community is in a near-panic about this," said one communications industry lawyer familiar with the debate who asked not to be publicly identified because of the sensitivity surrounding the issue.

But critics say the language proposed by the White House — drafted in close cooperation with the industry officials — is so extraordinarily broad that it would provide retroactive immunity for all past telecom actions related to the surveillance program. Its practical effect, they argue, would be to shut down any independent judicial or state inquires into how the companies have assisted the government in eavesdropping on the telephone calls and emails of US residents in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"It’s clear the goal is to kill our case," said Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
(continued…)
…a San Francisco-based privacy group that filed the main lawsuit against the telecoms after The New York Times first disclosed, in December 2005, that President Bush had approved a secret program to monitor the phone conversations of US residents without first seeking judicial warrants.

"They are trying to completely immunize this [the surveillance program] from any kind of judicial review," added Cohn. "I find it a little shocking that Congress would participate in the covering up of what has been going on."

Among those coordinating the industry’s effort are two well-connected capital players who both worked for President George H.W. Bush: Verizon general counsel William Barr, who served as attorney general under Bush Sr., and AT&T senior executive vice president James Cicconi, who was the elder Bush’s deputy chief of staff.

Working with them are a battery of major DC lobbyists and lawyers who are providing strategic advice to the companies on the issue.
Among the players: powerhouse Republican lobbyists Charlie Black and Wayne Berman (who represent AT&T and Verizon, respectively), former GOP senator and US ambassador to Germany Dan Coats (a lawyer at King & Spaulding who is representing Sprint), former Democratic Party strategist and one-time assistant secretary of State Tom Donilon (who represents Verizon), former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick (whose law firm also represents Verizon) and Brad Berenson, a former assistant White House counsel under President George W. Bush who now represents AT&T.

Source: Newsweek

Blue, thanks for the news digest.

I truly think that most Americans agree with you that enough is enough. Good luck to the cause of democracy in the US.

Your leaders though, will no doubt fail you. The Democratic Congress is working very hard to prove its alliance to corporate America and the Police State. The Republicans are entrenching themselves in the same non-political issues that allowed them to get into power in the first place.

A third party with a third way! To vote is never to trash your vote. If you don;t vote for the winning party, you are taking your support away from them. If you just don;t vote, they can claim you are part of some silent majority.

Good luck, Blue.

i filled the questionaire for remortage next tag using amajority of false information and still got matched with a company so all the questions do not or are not needed all your doing is gathering information on people why

ok

Sometime in 05′-06′ we were hearing reports that they would be the next big thing in Malaysian telecoms scene…..the fourth mobile operator - with the ‘015′ prefix…. first MVNO….etc…..what happened….I checked their site recently it seems their founders have relinquished their majorities…company went bust…..anyone knows more??

Check on line in the archives of money magazine. Use the Asian Pacific addition. They keep all there old stuff up in archives.

(answering my own question - but he’s Head of Commercial at the Talktalk Group..)

The ones in his head!