For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
TELECOM Digest Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:14:00 EST Volume 24 : Issue 118
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Vonage Number Portability (John Schmerold)
WQN, Inc. Announces the Introduction of RocketVoIP, an (Jack Decker)
Rep. Fred Upton Apparently Sold Out to Incumbent Telcos (Jack Decker)
My Apologies to Rep. Upton, I Misunderstood!!! (Jack Decker)
Bush Chooses Martin as Next FCC Chairman; Jeff Pulver's (Jack Decker)
Sending Ringtones via a Web Service (absolutemcv)
Re: E-Mail Paranoia (Wesrock@aol.com)
Re: E-Mail Paranoia (Thomas A. Horsley)
Re: E-Mail Paranoia (hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com)
Re: Iridium II: Is Satellite Radio Doomed? (J Kelly)
Re: Iridium II: Is Satellite Radio Doomed? (Gene S. Berkowitz)
Re: What Happened To Channel 1 (Paul Coxwell)
Re: What Happened To Channel 1 (Robert Bonomi)
Re: What Happened To Channel 1 (Tim@Backhome.org)
Re: 3 Verizon Phones - Throw Away or What? (Mark Crispin)
Re: 3 Verizon Phones - Throw Away or What? (Steve Sobol)
Re: Lifespan of a Desktop PC? (David)
Re: Lifespan of a Desktop PC? (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Lifespan of a Desktop PC? (Peter R Cook)
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:48:09 -0600
From: John Schmerold <john@katy.com>
Subject: Vonage Number Portability
We had problems with Vonage, so I thought "Let's give Callvantage a
shot".
I put in our order, a week later, I get a note from ATT stating that
they could not port my number, so I phone ATT. They tell me they
cannot use number portability to transfer a number from Vonage, if I
want to move my number to Callvantage, I'll need to port it back to
SBC, then move it to ATT from SBC.
Hmmm, now I've heard everything. Anyone know of a way around this BS ?
If the VOIP can transfer numbers from SBC, it seems to me that fairness
would dictate that they must transfer the number to any wireless,
landline or VOIP carrier I choose.
John Schmerold
Katy Computer & Wireless
20 Meramec Station Rd
Valley Park MO 63088
636-861-6900 v
775-227-6947 f
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But, by the terms of this 'fairness'
you speak about, according to AT&T, Vonage will port the number back
to SBC on your request. What I have heard, but will not vouch for, is
that there is some technical hangup at present involved with porting
a number between two VOIP services. Its not that they will not, but
that for some technical reason they _cannot_ move the number directly.
Any other comments on this? PAT]
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:35:26 -0500
Subject: WQN, Inc. Announces the Introduction of RocketVoIP
[Comment: I have looked over this company's web site a little bit and
while they are so new that I can't find any customer reviews of their
service, I can say that even if they do give decent service they don't
have as many features as some of their longer-established competitors,
and they only have Michigan numbers in some ratecenters in the Detroit
LATA. In my personal opinion, the only reason I would ever consider
this company would be if I made a lot of international calls to the
locations covered by their unlimited plan -- otherwise, as someone who
generally only makes calls within the United States, I'd be much more
attracted to a company with more features, a record of good customer
service, and numbers in or near my ratecenter.]
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-16-2005/0003201139&STORY&EDATE=
WQN, Inc. Announces the Introduction of RocketVoIP, an Expanded
Broadband Phone Service http://www.wqn.com http://www.rocketvoip.com
The First to Offer Broadband Users Unlimited International Calling
From a Mobile Phone
DALLAS, March 16 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- WQN, Inc. (Nasdaq:
WQNI), a leading provider of international long distance telephony
services utilizing Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), today
announced the introduction of its next generation VoIP technology
service, RocketVoIP.
With RocketVoIP, subscribers can use their broadband service to
make and receive unlimited domestic and international calls using a
home phone, mobile phone or personal computer. This service is being
introduced to WQN's current customer base and other ethnic groups.
RocketVoIP has unique features and advantages over competing products:
* Unlimited local, long distance and international calling to
50 countries, for a low monthly fee of $24.95 a month
* The ability to use a mobile phone to access RocketVoIP's network for
high quality unlimited international calls
* Free RocketVoIP in-network calling
* Free features including Caller-ID, Call-Waiting, Call-Forwarding,
3-Way Calling, Voice Mail, and more
* A total calling solution enabling travelers to make and receive
phone calls from anywhere in the world using a personal
computer and high- speed internet access, including Wi-Fi
hotspots
"Over the last four years we have invested a significant amount of
time, energy and resources in both research and development to create
an international VoIP network which currently services over 300,000
retail customers," said Mike Adler, WQN's President and Chief
Executive Officer. "RocketVoIP allows us to leverage this existing
infrastructure to provide a next generation converged broadband phone
service that we believe will save customers 70 percent on their total
calling needs."
"A significant number of our customers already use their mobile phones
to access our VoIP network and make international calls," said Victor
E. Grijalva, WQN's Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. "We
believe many of these customers will prefer RocketVoIP, as it is the
first service to offer unlimited international calling from a mobile
phone."
For more information on RocketVoIP, please visit
http://www.rocketvoip.com .
About WQN, Inc.
WQN, Inc. is a Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephony
company providing international long distance services. WQN's
customers utilize the company's enhanced VoIP services platform to
make and receive calls using their home phone, business phone,
personal computer and mobile phone. The Company is headquartered in
Dallas, Texas and has offices in Los Angeles, California, and New
Delhi, India. For more information about WQN Inc., please visit the
company's Web site at http://www.wqn.com .
SOURCE WQN, Inc.
Web Site: http://www.wqn.com http://www.rocketvoip.com
How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home:
http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html
If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:09:52 -0500
Subject: Rep. Fred Upton apparently sold out to incumbent telcos
A disturbing final paragraph in this article, which starts out telling
the oft-told story of how a Houston family apparently didn't
understand that their VoIP service doesn't come with 911 service
(probably didn't bother to read the numerous warnings most VoIP
companies give when you sign up), but then progresses to say this:
[Begin quote:]
Since then, the FCC has ruled that VoIP is an interstate service not
subject to state rules and regulations, and that companies providing
Internet telephony must comply with federal wiretap requirements. The
agency is still studying the 911 obligations of VoIP carriers and the
potential contributions carriers might be required to make to the
Universal Service Fund.
"VoIP is still in its infancy and the regulatory ground upon which
VoIP stands is not as firm as I think it needs to be in order that it
reaches its projected potential," Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman
of the subcommittee, said. "I would note that only seven individuals
-- five FCC commissioners and two federal district court judges --
stood in the way of VoIP potentially being regulated by 51 state
public utility commissions." [End quote from end of article at
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3490701 ]
The fortunate thing is that Rep. Upton's views are probably in the
minority, but I fear that the incumbent telco lobbyists are working
furiously behind the scenes to try and get VoIP hobbled by state
regulations. That would kill many of the smaller VoIP companies, and
maybe all of them that don't have a presence in every state. We do
NOT need regulation by state public utility regulators, and given the
way the Michigan Public Service Commission has f***ed up expanded
local calling, there is no way in hell I want them regulating VoIP.
As far as I am concerned, the FCC is absolutely on the right track in
exercising federal oversight of VoIP and pre-empting the states - it
would be a disaster to VoIP to be subjected to individual state
regulation.
Those of you who live Rep. Upton's district in southwest Michigan
(basically the Kalamazoo area and southwest) might want to write him
or e-mail him and ask him to stop selling out to the incumbent
telcos. Let him know that you don't want additional regulation and
costs added to VoIP. His contact info is on this page:
http://www.house.gov/upton/contact.html
The issue of 911 is important but it will not be resolved immediately
-- it took the cellular telephone industry a couple of decades to get
the kinks worked out (some cell phone companies still don't offer
"enhanced" 911), and since talks are already in progress between the
major VoIP companies and the organization representing 911 centers, I
am sure that most VoIP companies will offer 911 sooner rather than
later. The FCC can facilitate this by putting its blessing on one
nationwide scheme for VoIP connecting to 911, whereas if every state
commission tries to regulate this, a VoIP company located in Nerw
Jersey or California may be told they have to deal with over 50
different 911 connection mandates.
So I believe that Rep. Upton's comments have nothing to do with 911
and everything with who is pumping money into his election campaign.
According to
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00004133&cycle=2004
both SBC and Verizon were among his top contributors (SBC was his top
contributor, while Verizon tied for the #6 slot. Also, Comcast
Corp. and the National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. both tied for
the #3 slot, and even when cable operators offer VoIP they often
register as CLEC's and have a local presence in each state, and
therefore might not oppose regulation that impedes independent VoIP,
which does not have facilities in every state in the union).
One other thing, I have been warning that attempts at individual state
regulation could backfire, since VoIP companies can move offshore and
out of reach of any U.S. regulation. For example, a VoIP company
located in Canada or England could probably still buy U.S. numbers for
incoming calls from CLEC's, and still complete calls to the U.S. at
wholesale rates about the same as what they are paying now. If you
don't think this is true, consider that when the instant messaging
program ICQ first started out, its servers were in Israel, and had the
U.S. attempted to impose excessive regulation or taxation on instant
messaging it's quite likely that the servers (and the company) would
have stayed there.
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 23:58:46 -0500
Subject: My Apologies to Rep. Upton, I Misunderstood!!!
At 10:12 PM 3/16/2005 -0600, R Collinge wrote [in the VoIP News list]:
> Hi Jack,
> Are you reading Rep Upton's comments correctly? I had interpreted
> his quote as something like, "It is scary that we were so close to
> disaster, which could easily have happened if not for a few brave
> commissioners and judges." I read his thought as being that we need
> federal regulation to keep the hungry states permanently at bay.
> Also, I certainly agree with your point about international
> competition holding the power of regulators in check. FWIW, I
> commented to the FCC on the Vonage petition back in November '03,
> and think I mentioned it then, too.
> Bob
Bob and everyone,
Oh, boy, when I blow it I really blow it. I had of course interpreted
it as, "these seven individuals stopped the states from doing what
they ought to be able to do", but when Bob sent the above comment, I
did a Google search to see if Rep. Upton had made any other remarks on
VoIP, and came up with this:
http://www.vonage-forum.com/printout1009.html
"We will never know VoIP's tremendous potential if we saddle it with
unwarranted government regulation," Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., said in
his opening remarks at one of the first hearings to address VoIP
regulation. Upton, who chairs the House telecommunications
subcommittee, warned that "VoIP providers should not be regulated like
common carriers."
So, I apologize to Rep. Upton and to the readers of the MI-Telecom and
VoIP News groups -- apparently he gets it. Actually, I guess I should
have realized that SBC, Verizon, and Comcast would not necessarily
favor regulation of VoIP because they all are getting into it. It's
the smaller rural companies (the second- and third-tier companies)
that really feel threatened by VoIP. What I think misled me was the
fact that the article started out as kind of an anti-VoIP hit piece
(in effect saying that someone could have died because they tried to
use a VoIP line to call 911) and when Rep. Upton's remarks were
included in that type of article, I took them in a negative light.
In fact, I almost have to wonder if the writer of that article
deliberately took that quote out of context in such a way that some
people (like me) might think that Rep. Upton was anti-VoIP. Still, I
feel like an idiot right now -- what was obvious to Bob and probably to
many of you totally went right past me. Mea culpa and all that!
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:35:49 -0500
Subject: Bush Chooses Martin as Next FCC Chairman
http://news.com.com/Bush+chooses+Martin+as+next+FCC+chairman/2100-1036_3-5620520.html
Bush chooses Martin as next FCC chairman
Published: March 16, 2005, 12:43 PM PST
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Update The Federal Communications Commission has a new chairman: Kevin
Martin, who is expected to wield considerable influence during a
period of radical change in the telecommunications and Internet
business.
Martin, an FCC commissioner who was appointed chairman by President
Bush on Wednesday afternoon, will be responsible for shepherding the
agency through a major revision to U.S. telecommunications laws and an
upswing in telephone calling over the Internet.
"I am deeply honored to have been designated as the next chairman of
the Federal Communications Commission, and I thank President Bush for
this distinct privilege," Martin said. Bush's choice of Martin, a
38-year-old lawyer who once worked for the Bush-Cheney campaign, was
expected.
While Martin occasionally clashed with fellow Republican Michael
Powell, the outgoing chairman, observers said the FCC's general
approach toward broadband regulation and voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) is likely to follow the same broad principles.
Full story at:
http://news.com.com/Bush+chooses+Martin+as+next+FCC+chairman/2100-1036_3-5620520.html
Press release from Jeff Pulver:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/03-16-2005/0003201686&EDATE=
VoIP Thought Leader and Industry Pioneer, Jeff Pulver, Comments on
Today's Appointment of Kevin Martin as FCC Chairman
http://www.pulver.com
MELVILLE, N.Y., March 16 /PRNewswire/ -- The following may be
attributed to Jeff Pulver, CEO of pulver.com regarding today's
announcement appointing Kevin Martin as FCC Chairman:
"The new era at the FCC is dawning (alongside the new era in
Communications). Chairman Martin will not exactly be a wild card to
our industry. As a Commissioner for several years he has demonstrated
a keen intellect and savvy political instincts and skills. We're
looking forward to working with him to advance the cause of IP-based
communications and to enable IP-based entrepreneurs and innovators to
continue to transform the ways in which people communicate. Our
experience has been that Martin has an uncanny ability to put all the
pieces together and to bring parties to common ground for mutual
benefit. While Chairman requires a different skill set than
Commissioner, we're confident that, Kevin Martin will prove to be a
savvy, politically astute Chairman with the ability to hammer out
difference and find common ground."
About Pulver.com
Jeff Pulver is the President and CEO of pulver.com, and one of the
true pioneers of the Internet telephony/VoIP industry. Mr. Pulver is
a globally renowned thought leader, author and entrepreneur. He is
the publisher of The Pulver Report and VON magazine, and creator of
the industry standard Voice on the Net (VON) conferences.
Additionally, Mr. Pulver is the founder of Free World Dialup (FWD),
the VON coalition, LibreTel, WHP Wireless, pulverinnovations, Digisip,
and is the co-founder of VoIP provider, Vonage.
Recently, Mr. Pulver's petition for clarification declaring Free World
Dialup as an unregulated information service was granted by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This landmark decision by
the FCC, now referred to as "the Pulver decision," was the first
decision made by the FCC on IP communications, and provides important
clarification that computer-to- computer VoIP service is not a
telecommunications service. For more information, please visit
http://www.pulver.com
Reader Contact Information
Pulver.com Enterprises, 115 Broadhollow Road, Suite 225; Melville, NY
11747; Tel: 631-961-8950, Fax: 631-293-3996, http://www.pulver.com .
Company Contact: PR Agency Contact:
Jonathan Askin Alan Weinkrantz
General Counsel 210-820-3070 ext. 103
631-748-8236 alan@weinkrantz.com
jaskin@pulver.com
SOURCE pulver.com
Web Site: http://www.pulver.com
------------------------------
From: absolutemcv <absolutemcvicar@hotmail.co.uk>
Subject: Sending Ringtones via a Web Service
Date: 17 Mar 2005 03:53:24 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Does anyone know the process involved in sending ringtone's to mobile
phoned via either a web service or other server based system?
------------------------------
From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:28:21 EST
Subject: Re: E-Mail Paranoia
In a message dated 3/16/05 3:56:05 PM Central Standard Time, Pat writes:
> I don't even have a Citibank account, and my PayPal account does not
> go through massis. PAT]
You don't have any credit cards? Citibank is the largest issuer of
credit cards in the country, including retail cards, gasoline credit
cards, and many others. However, they usually have a brand-specific
domain name, such as "www.searscard.com"
I don't have a PayPal account, but I get those messages two or three
times a week.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Of course I have a couple credit cards,
and a couple of debit cards, but they are all handled under their own
individual names, and not as Citibank, and they all have their own
web sites under their own names. PAT]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: E-Mail Paranoia
From: tom.horsley@att.net (Thomas A. Horsley)
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 02:22:24 GMT
Actually, there is a much simpler way to deal with this: Never click on
any links mailed to you :-).
For something like the Toshiba laptop, if I had gotten that mail I
would have gone to the Toshiba web site and searched for information
about the laptop model involved, and if I found a link starting from
Toshiba's official web site, I'd be much more likely to click on it
(although if the problem description also had serial numbers and
wot-not I could check manually, I'd still be more likely to do that
than to run their program).
>>==>> The *Best* political site <URL:http://www.vote-smart.org/> >>==+
email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL |
<URL:http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley> Free Software and Politics <<==+
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: E-Mail Paranoia
Date: 16 Mar 2005 14:07:20 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lisa Minter quoted a newspaper article:
> But just as I was about to click that button, a doubt bubbled up from
> the depths of my digital credulity. Could the whole thing be a scam?
> Was I about to download and install a Trojan horse, backdoor program,
> or worm? ...
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder if most netizens realize the
> serious way in which phishing has proliferated. I must get a dozen or
> more of these daily in my account here at massis.
Many companies I deal with want me to use the 'net to access my bills
or account on-line. Doing so obviously saves them money from having a
real person answer my questions over the phone.
I guess I'm a Luddite, but I shy away from using e-mail or the
Internet for personal business transactions. I feel there aren't
enough protections -- both technical and legal -- to protect consumers.
First, often the Internet does NOT answer questions I have. Sending
emails to a company is often a failure -- either they never answer or
don't answer the question properly (often they refer you back to the
'net page, but if the info was there in the first place I wouldn't
need to ask). Even big companies forget to update their web pages
with the latest information. Other companies change terms and
offerings so rapidly and make them so complex a person is needed to
sort it all out.
Secondly, email is notoriously unreliable. Servers break down and
messages in transit are lost. Messages are accidently deleted along
with the spam. Lastly is the security problem -- emails are easily
forged.
It has long been against the law to use the US Mail for fraud,
and I presume there are still U.S. Postal Inspectors who
investigate and prosecute violations. But does anyone really
know the law as it stands with fraud done by email? Who is
responsible for enforcement and prosecution? My guess is only
the most blatant and biggest violators are prosecuted (and not
necessarily thrown in prison as they deserve) while the vast
majority go unscathed. "Spam" is not just a nuisance, it is
fraud and a host of other law violations, but nothing seems to
be done.
The fact that Congress can't pass an enforceable anti-spam law means
to me the whole email system is just not safe. Too many legal
loopholes, too little enforcement, too many criminals.
The Internet is based upon protocols never intended or designed for
use in public commerce. Remember the 'net was developed as a private
link between users of a very small community and designed to share
information. As such, there was little need for protection since
there was little to be gained by fraud. That became obsolete the
minute the 'net became public. So today we have people at home
hooking their PCs up to broadband networks, blissfully unaware that
criminals are hacking into their PCs searching for weaknesses to
exploit. The network protocols should never permit this kind of
random searching in the first place.
A growing problem with using the 'net is its high powered automation.
When I had my 286 DOS machine, I knew what it was doing because
(normally) only I could start up a program. (Obviously if I took
someone else's program I was at risk). Email attachments back then
didn't automatically start up macros in applications. But today
everything is so automated and fancy most users have no idea what's
going on in their machine. Hard drives spin along, things open and
close on their own. Things intended to be a shortcut and easy for us
make it easier for saboteurs to screw up our machines.
(Shouldn't we call viruses "sabotage"? The word "virus" makes it
sound like it came from mother nature, not an intentional effort to
harm.)
The technocrats out there are partly to blame. They never can sit
still long enough to let a software release settle in before demanding
new features. This constant revisions allows bugs and fraud to creep
in. Stable functionality would get sturdier over time.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If I understand the law correctly, if
you make a false/fraudulent communication by _any_ means -- email, or
web site, or telephone, etc -- in an effort to induce someone
else to deposit something in the US Mail, then you have committed
postal fraud. Example: you apply for a credit card using a web site or
email in someone else's name and with their credentials; this in turn
induces the credit card company to send you a card in the postal mail,
then it is as good as if you had originally corresponded by mail, you
still committed postal fraud. Or maybe at some point they send you a
bill or a notice in the US mail. In other words, _they_ would not have
used the US Mail had _you_ not encouraged them to do so. PAT]
------------------------------
From: J Kelly <jkelly@*newsguy.com>
Subject: Re: Iridium II: Is Satellite Radio Doomed?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:22:04 -0600
Organization: http://newsguy.com
Reply-To: jkelly@*newsguy.com
On 16 Mar 2005 05:27:14 GMT, Walter Dnes (delete the
'z')<wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> I'm sure that satellite radio went through much the same number
> crunching under the eyes of watchful accountants 10 years ago. Back
> then, we had reached the extreme limit of regular modems at 33.6
> kbits/sec. FM-mono yes, but nowhere near good enough for FM-stereo
> quality, let alone CD quality. Besides, if someone really wanted to
> listen to it a lot, you'd need a second phone line, another $30/month.
I think satellite radio is maily target to a mobile audience that
travels. I do 99% of my music listening while in my vehicle.
------------------------------
From: Gene S. Berkowitz <first.last@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Iridium II: Is Satellite Radio Doomed?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:15:10 -0500
In article <telecom24.116.6@telecom-digest.org>, Walter Dnes (delete the
'z')<wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org> says:
> I was originally going to post this in answer to another posting, but
> this goes off on its own tangent, so I'm giving it a separate thread.
> When the original Iridium was being drawn up on the planning boards,
> the accountants went over the numbers very meticulously. They
> compared the cost of of an inconvenient bulky Iridium receiver with
> the cost of an inconvenient bulky mobile-telephone receiver
> (break-even). They compared the projected worldwide coverage of
> Iridium with the miniscule footprints of mobile-telephone
> transmitters, which were almost all located in a few major city
> centres (advantage Iridium). They compared the horrendously high
> cost-per-minute of Iridium usage with the horrendously high
> cost-per-minute of international long distance (break even). Etc,
> etc. After going through the entire business plan, Iridium looked
> like a winner.
> But the telecom industry changed between the drawing board and launch
> pad. Inconvenient bulky mobile-telephone receivers were replaced by
> dinky little cellphones. Cellphone companies built out their coverage
> area to include almost all potential customers in the 1st world. And
> cellphone and long distance rates plummeted due to competition.
> Iridium was doomed even if it launched on budget and on spec. The
> only major customers now are mineral exploration companies and US DOD
> in really isolated places with no telecom infrastructure.
> I'm sure that satellite radio went through much the same number
> crunching under the eyes of watchful accountants 10 years ago. Back
> then, we had reached the extreme limit of regular modems at 33.6
> kbits/sec. FM-mono yes, but nowhere near good enough for FM-stereo
> quality, let alone CD quality. Besides, if someone really wanted to
> listen to it a lot, you'd need a second phone line, another $30/month.
> Things change. A lot of satellite radio's target households have
> broadband and can get "internet radio" now. Both satellite and
> internet radio have to pay royalties. But internet radio only pays
> incremental bandwidth costs over the net, while satellite radio has to
> pay for a network of satellites to be launched and maintained in
> orbit. Satellite radio requires an antenna or dish of some sort,
> while internet radio is simply another item in your browser's bookmark
> list. The car was supposed to be the last refuge of satellite radio
> that internet radio couldn't touch. But 3G, WiFi, and WiMax are
> showing that it can be done.
> I think that satellite radio will be another "Pola-Vision".
> Interesting technology that was rendered obsolete by other
> developments as it came out.
> Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org
> Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
> the instructions at the end of the 550 message.
You have your bandwidth calculations all wrong. The satellites (and
the US domestic "networks" only have two and three birds,
respectively) are continuously streaming all ~100 channels. When you
make a net connection, you are consuming a large portion of you
available network bandwidth. Should everyone on your neighborhood
subnet attempt this, you'll reach saturation. The satellite broadcast
doesn't care if there's 1 or 1 billion receivers.
Then there's reach. Sure, an automotive WiFi connection might work in
an urban setting, but what about on an interstate, through the New
Mexico desert?
--Gene
------------------------------
From: Paul Coxwell <paulcoxwell@tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:16:01 -0000
> Along this line, and at the risk of perhaps being slightly OT, if anyone
> knows why television uses channels while radio uses frequencies (for the
> most part, that is, the 88 channel) FM Marine Band in the 156 MHz range
> being an exception), I would be interested in hearing about it.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the FCC does actually have
official channel numbers for each allocation in the AM and FM
broadcast bands, even though they're rarely used.
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:35:09 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.117.9@telecom-digest.org>, Michael Quinn
<quinnm@bah.com> wrote:
> Along this line, and at the risk of perhaps being slightly OT, if anyone
> knows why television uses channels while radio uses frequencies (for the
> most part, that is, the 88 channel) FM Marine Band in the 156 MHz range
> being an exception), I would be interested in hearing about it.
There's no intrinsic reason for using one form of naming over another.
However, note that _if_ you assign "channel numbers" to specific
frequency allocations, you are *permanently* fixing the utilization of
that chunk of RF spectrum. e.g. in going from 15khz deviation to 5khz
deviation on FM, you'd have to either completely 're-number'
everything, or you have non- consecutive "channel numbers" as you go
up the band.
When you (the regulatory authority) "haven't decided" what the minimum
allowable spacing between frequency assignments is, or even _if_ the
spacing between assignments will always be a multiple of that minimum
-- it is *really* difficult to come up with a channel 'number'.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is an example of how someone
screwed up when the Citizens Band radio channels were numbered. CB is
allocated the space between 26.965 kc and (originally) 27.255 kc. The
'channels' were 10 kc apart, and there were (originally) 23 channels.
(Well, not originally, when there were 8 channels, but in later
years.) If you look at the difference between 27.255 and 26.965 as
divided in 10 kc increments you get more than 23. That's because the
FCC took three spaces in the middle and reserved them for use on
garage door openers. So we had channel 22 as 27.225 and channel 23
a full 30 kc later, on 27.255. Then the FCC said they would expand the
CB area all the way up to 27.405, or 40 channels, although common
sense would imply actually 43 channels if you take 27.405 minus 26.965
at 10 kc increments. What the FCC did, in an effort to 'tidy up' that
discrepany was run the channels slightly out of order. After channel
22 (27.225) they created channel _24_ at 27.235, channel _25_ at 27.245,
then they had the (already existing) channel _23_ at 27.255 where it
had always been, and then by 10 kc up to channel 40 at 27.405. Having
those two channels out of order in the frequency allocations did make
for some tricky programming of the 'gang switches' (revolving knobs
which select the channels). PAT]
------------------------------
From: Tim@Backhome.org
Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:37:38 -0800
Organization: Cox Communications
An NTSC analog "channel" is called such because it is allocated to AM video
and FM audio.
These channels will soon be just a part of television history as they are
phased out and replaced by the digital "channels."
Michael Quinn wrote:
> Along this line, and at the risk of perhaps being slightly OT, if anyone
> knows why television uses channels while radio uses frequencies (for the
> most part, that is, the 88 channel) FM Marine Band in the 156 MHz range
> being an exception), I would be interested in hearing about it.
> Regards,
> Mike
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: On radio, there are also 'channels', as
> you point out for example in the FM Marine Band, also the Citizens
> Band has 'channels'. I think the difference is where 'frequencies'
> refers to a general range of spaces in the spectrum for general
> categories of service (radio or television), 'channels' further
> divides that group of frequencies into into specific allocations. For
> example, we say the 'eleven meter band' (of frequencies) is divided
> into forty channels. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Subject: Re: 3 Verizon Phones - Throw Away or What?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:21:37 -0800
Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, John Levine wrote:
> They're locked to Verizon's network, but VZ shouldn't
> care if someone else wants to use them on a different VZ account.
Verizon phones are not locked, and can be re-programmed for any CDMA
network if that network will accept an "outside" phone (Sprint PCS, for
example, will not).
If your Verizon phone requires a password to get into the
programming/service menu, the password is 000000.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
------------------------------
From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: 3 Verizon Phones - Throw Away or What?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:49:44 -0800
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com
Paintblot wrote:
> I'm permanently leaving the USA in a few weeks. I have a Verizon
> account with 3 telephones, 2 of which are almost new. These phones
> have 2 year contracts. When we leave, what should I do? I cannot take
> them back to Verizon, because all they'll want is the big dollar
> contract buyout, which I won't pay (let them attack my credit, who
> cares, I'm not coming back here). Sell the phones? Aren't they banned
> from continuing to work on the Verizon network, and locked into the
> Verizon network? Just destroy them and throw them away?
Not locked to Verizon, unless they're prepay phones, but they may be
blacklisted from use on Verizon's network if you have no intention of
paying the bill.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My personal advice, for whatever it is
> worth, is sell them for a few dollars each and get what you can out of
> them. If you know anyone you can generally trust, sell them a phone
> (for ten or twenty dollars?) with the understanding that _they_ can
> continue to pay the bill for the remainder of the contract (or until
> they get tired of paying the bill and/or the phone gets turned off,
> whichever comes first. PAT]
The buyer has to be willing to take financial responsibility for the
account and has to pass Verizon's credit checks, etc., and fill out a
form accepting financial responsibility for that to happen.
What *I* am curious about is why Paintblot is refusing to pay the early
termination fees.
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The buyer of the phone sends in his
payment each month under Paintblot's name. Then, no credit check, etc
because at that point all the carrier cares about is getting the
money. Paintblot already passed their credit check, and as he noted,
he does not care what happens to his credit standing. PAT]
------------------------------
From: David <FlyLikeAnEagle@United.Com>
Reply-To: FlyLikeAnEagle@United.Com
Subject: Re: Lifespan of a Desktop PC?
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:02:13 GMT
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:24:27 UTC, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Would anyone know what is the average/typical physical lifespan of a
> desktop PC? That is, how many years do they run before components
> start failing?
I've seen batteries go bad after 5-10 years. That takes very little
to fix. Hard drives might fail after a few years if you buy the
common, cheap machines. At work the monitors probably go next as they
can fade out. You might then have a power supply problem. The
motherboards and cards don't fail all that often.
All of my machines are still working. I have an Apple ][ with
floppies and hard drives, a 286 24Mhz PC, 486 DX2-66Mhz PC, and a PIII
Xeon 500Mhz PC. The PIII with its non-Windows GUI will outrun my 2Ghz
Windows 2000 machine at work. I prefer to move drives to new machines
and copy the drives, or just leave them in the new machine. I also
leave my machines on, but they have drives that are made for
continuous use.
My car mechanic has several Best Buy PCs at his shop and they are fine
after several years. He usually runs out of space on his HD first. A
UPS is also very helpful in keeping a PC physically healthy.
> When buying a new PC, how do people typically transfer the contents
> from the old PC hard drive to the new PC? At work, people move stuff
> out onto the LAN server or move the old drive into the new box; but
> others say old drives are not compatible with new technology. How do
> home users without a LAN handle it?
Buy your new PC. If the new PC can't handle your old drives, just add
a card for that. Install the old drive(s) in your new machine and
copy the data over. When you're done just put the old PC back
together and erase it if you plan to get rid of it.
Another modern solution to the need for a LAN is just a CDR/W and
a pack of disks.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have here a Toshiba Satellite 220-CDS
> sine 1995. It started life as Win 95, has since been converted to Win-98
> (which I am sorry I did, really, it seems to be running a little
> slower than it did as a 95). But it _never_ freezes up, _never_ locks
> out; just sits there all day long as part of my network doing its
> thing, the same as it did as a 95. Is ten years a rather good life
> span? PAT]
David
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Lifespan of a Desktop PC?
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:22:54 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.117.5@telecom-digest.org>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> Would anyone know what is the average/typical physical lifespan of a
> desktop PC? That is, how many years do they run before components
> start failing?
"Way back when", disk drives were the most frequent point of failure.
They had expected lifetimes equivalent to a few years of continuous
operation. For today's hard drives, the expected lifetimes are on the
order of 20-40 years.
Floppy drives are prone to go 'out of alignment' after a number of
years. This matters *only* if you are using floppies to transfer stuff
_between_ different machines. An out-of-alignment drive can read
material written on _that_ drive w/o problems, although trying to read
those disks on a different machine, or reading disks from a different
machine _on_ the out- of-alignment drive, results in 'data error'
failure messages. How long it takes a drive to go out of alignment
depends on the quality of the drive construction, and the physical
abuse that the system containing it is subjected to. It's usually
_much_ cheaper to replace the drive, than pay for the labor to have it
're-aligned'.
The 'electronics', assuming they make it past the 'infant mortality'
stage (the first 100 hours or so, of operation) are easily good for 20
years, and probably _much_ more.
> When buying a new PC, how do people typically transfer the contents
> from the old PC hard drive to the new PC? At work, people move stuff
> out onto the LAN server or move the old drive into the new box; but
> others say old drives are not compatible with new technology. How do
> home users without a LAN handle it?
If they can't do it themselves, they _pay_ somebody to do it. <grin>
There are software tools that let you transfer via a serial port, or
parallel port, or even USB or Firewire, between two computers.
Drive 'compatibility' is pretty much a "non-issue". *Very* old PCs
used, primarily, what were called MFM drives, Or sometimes a cousin
thereof, called RLL. Newer generations -- meaning most 386/486 class
machines, and everything past that -- use what is called IDE. IDE has
gone through a number of changes, adding higher-performance options to
the base technology.
You cannot use a MFM or RLL drive in a machine that has support only
for IDE drives. HOWEVER, the earliest IDE drive _will_ work in the
most modern IDE machine. And, if one is sufficiently determined to
use the 'antique' drive, it is usually possible to drop an appropriate
'controller' card into the newer machine to run it -- this approach
may not be viable if you have a machine with *only* PCI expansion
slots.
Then there is the issue of any software installed on the old drive.
If that drive was in a machine running a MS operating system that
includes the "Registry", most software will _not_ be usable if the
disk is simply installed in a new machine, nor if the software is
'copied' from the old machine to the new one. Because the required
"Registry" settings are not propagated to the Registry on the new
system. General practice is to 'reinstall software from the original
distribution media', then copy any _data_ files over. It's a real
time-waster, but Microsoft doesn't think user's time has any
value. *snarl*
I've got _twenty-year-old_ PC equipment that's still running today.
One example being a "TI Business PRO 286" box. I still use it because
I haven't found anything that can replace it, at an affordable price.
Notably because it has *fourteen*(!!) usable expansion slots in it.
And I've got them _all_ full with various specialized goodies. It
would take at least 3 'semi-modern' machines to provide the same
number of 'usable' expansion slots.
Well, maybe not. I just saw an ad for an odds-and-ends dealer, that
has a 14 slot rack-mount box, with a 486 processor card, for about
$300. That's a *LOT* of money for a 486 box, though. <grin>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:28:50 +0000
From: Peter R Cook <PCook@wisty.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Lifespan of a Desktop PC?
Organization: Personal
In message <telecom24.117.5@telecom-digest.org>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
writes:
> Would anyone know what is the average/typical physical lifespan of a
> desktop PC? That is, how many years do they run before components
> start failing?
> When buying a new PC, how do people typically transfer the contents
> from the old PC hard drive to the new PC? At work, people move stuff
> out onto the LAN server or move the old drive into the new box; but
> others say old drives are not compatible with new technology. How do
> home users without a LAN handle it?
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have here a Toshiba Satellite 220-CDS
> since 1995. It started life as Win 95, has since been converted to Win-98
> (which I am sorry I did, really, it seems to be running a little
> slower than it did as a 95). But it _never_ freezes up, _never_ locks
> out; just sits there all day long as part of my network doing its
> thing, the same as it did as a 95. Is ten years a rather good life
> span? PAT]
Define a desktop PC. Which bits count? My machines evolve rather than
get replaced.
I am typing this on a machine that I put together at the end of 1999
The case, memory and display were new, the motherboard was second-hand
(so probably started life in 1997/8). The processors were upgraded (to
a set of second-hand 1Ghz units) at the end of 2001. The disks have
been regularly upgraded and added to . The latest upgrade (this month)
is a USB2 card (see off-line backup below) for speed.
When transferring "stuff" from one machine to another I have always used
as "crossover LAN cable" to connect one to the other -- its a long time
since I saw a machine without an ethernet port!
Easiest way to do the transfer is probably to "restore" your off-line
backup to the new machine - you do _have_ a backup of all the stuff
you might want to transfer (i.e. not loose) don't you?
Best bet today is probably to get a USB hard drive enclosure (US$35?),
pull the old drive and drop it into the box. Two benefits.
You can transfer the stuff easily.
You now have an off-line backup that you can keep up to date.
Peter R Cook
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have two older IBM Think Pad 770
machines. One with a working CD Drive, the other without. I wanted to
put them both on Win 98. What I did was get the one machine up and
running with Win 98, then I swapped hard drives (put the one with no
associated CD drive into the machine that did have a CD drive.) Then
I used the Win 98 update CD to load Win 98 on the other hard drive.
Once Win 98 was working on that hard drive as well, then I swapped
the hard drive back to the other machine. Now I have Win 98 on both
machines. PAT]
------------------------------
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and
other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the
moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 50
Independence, KS 67301
Phone: 620-402-0134
Fax 1: 775-255-9970
Fax 2: 530-309-7234
Fax 3: 208-692-5145
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from *
* Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate *
* 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. *
* http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com *
* Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing *
* views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. *
*************************************************************************
ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.
One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com
Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
************************
DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !
************************
Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.
The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum. Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.
Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu
************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of TELECOM Digest V24 #118
******************************
| |