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, 24 Mar 2005 15:42:00 EST    Volume 24 : Issue 130

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Internet Phone Service Creating Chatty Network (Marcus Didius Falco)
    Citron: Some Bills Are 'Weirdly Weird' (Jack Decker)
    Texas: Vonage 911 Is a Joke (Jack Decker)
    Re: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem (telcotech)
    Re: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem (John Levine)
    Re: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem (Lisa Hancock)
    Huawei Seeks Deals With Nortel, Lucent (Telecom dailyLead from USTA)
    Re: Our Telephonic Primacy (Dave Garland)
    Re: More 'Tweens' Going Mobile; Long-Term Health Risks Unclear (Hancock)
    Re: Cell Phone Jammer For Sale MONIX MGB-1S (Isaiah Beard)
    Re: Cell Phone Jammer For Sale MONIX MGB-1S (Joseph)
    Re: GSM-900 (Joseph)
    Re: GSM-900 (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: New Long Range Cordless Phones (Marcus Didius Falco)
    Re: New Long Range Cordless Phones? (Michael Quinn)
    Re: Phoning 0870 and 0844 UK Numbers Out of Free Minutes (Rob)
    Re: Mobile IP Networks (Jon Gauthier)
    Re: Some Concerned About Privacy Implications of E-ZPass (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Dangling Broadband From the Phone Stick (jmeissen@aracnet.com)
    Re: What Happened To Channel 1 (Robert Bonomi)
    From the Past: Craft Access Article from '93 (Patrick Moore)
    From the Past: My First Post (Neil McClain)

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: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 03:41:07 -0500
From: Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Internet Phone Service Creating Chatty Network


 From the New York Times --
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/technology/circuits/24skyp.html?8dpc

Internet Phone Service Creating Chatty Network
By ETHAN TODRAS-WHITEHILL

JOHN PERRY BARLOW is pretty free and open, but he's no simpleton. So
when he signed on to Skype, a free Internet phone service, and a woman
identifying herself as Kitty messaged him, saying, "I need a friend,"
he was skeptical. He figured she was "looking for 'friends' to come
watch her 'relax' in her Webcam-equipped 'bedroom.' "

Nevertheless, he took the call. "Will you talk to me?" she said. "I
want to practice my English."

Kitty turned out to be Dzung Vu My, 22, a worker at an oil company in
Hanoi, Vietnam. They spoke for a long time, exchanging text,
photographs and Web addresses, and discussing everything from the
state of Vietnam's economy to Ms. My's father's time in the army.

"One doesn't get random phone calls from Vietnam," Mr. Barlow, 57, the
former Grateful Dead lyricist and co-founder of the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy organization for an
unfettered Internet, wrote on his blog.  "At least, one never could
before."

Mr. Barlow's experience is not unique. Skype users report unsolicited
contacts every day, and contrary to such experiences with phone and
e-mail, the calls are often welcomed.

Skype was founded by Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis, the creators of
Kazaa, a peer-to-peer file-sharing service. Skype is one of a few
hundred companies in the United States that let people talk to one
another over the Internet using just their computers and a headset, a
microphone or a conventional phone.

The technology, known as Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP), is
offered by phone and cable companies like AT&T and Comcast as well as
instant-messaging services like Yahoo's and MSN's.  Skype says that it
has over 2.8 million users in the United States and 30.6 million
worldwide and that it is adding users at a rate of 155,000 a
day. Skype's biggest competitor, Vonage, a paid VoIP service, has
about 550,000 customers.

A reason Skype is so popular is that it is free. Another is that it
works. That may not seem like much, but it matters when calls with
other free VoIP programs sound more like walkie-talkie conversations
than phone calls. Skype also has unusual features: users can search
the database of Skype users by such fields as age, language and
nationality.

When Skype began, in August 2003, this search feature resulted in
unwanted calls for some people. In response, Skype added the Skype Me
feature in 2004. Users can now set their user status to Skype Me if
they are interested in receiving calls from strangers and search for
other users in the same mode.

A preponderance of the random calls involve people "Skyping" one
another to practice a certain language (as with Mr.  Barlow's
experience), but other people seem to be calling simply because they
can.

In February 2004, John Andersen, 57, a software engineer in Juneau,
Alaska, was contacted out of the blue by two retired couples in
Sydney, Australia, planning a cruise through Alaska's Inside Passage
region that summer. They wanted to know the best helicopter glacier
tours and fishing excursions in Juneau, and Mr. Andersen was happy to
send them links through Skype.

They made plans to meet, but Mr. Andersen was away when the couples
visited. "I did get a very nice e-mail from them saying the trip had
gone off without a hitch," Mr. Andersen said. "It's like ham radio for
the Internet."

This was something I had to try. I picked up a $25 headset and
microphone combination, downloaded the free software from the Web site
(skype.com), put a few personal details in my user profile (male, New
York, favorite color green) and set my user status to Skype
Me. Despite what I had heard, I wasn't convinced that I would get any
calls.

Within 15 minutes, I had more callers than I could handle. In the five
days I was in Skype Me mode, I received more than 30 calls and
messages from Morocco, Russia, China, Poland, Argentina, Israel and
several other countries.

One of my most interesting chats was with Billy Einkamerer, 27, a
freelance Web developer in Johannesburg. I messaged him first, the
Skype equivalent of knocking on the door before barging in. He taught
me a little Afrikaans, and we commiserated over our mutual inability
to multitask.

I do some Web design myself, so through Skype's instant-messaging
feature we traded links to sites we had done; he found an error on one
of mine, which I quickly corrected. It was a pretty afternoon in
Brooklyn, so I took a snapshot out the window and sent it to him.

Near the end of our conversation, Mr. Einkamerer got a call from his
friend Gerhard Jacobs, also 27 and from Johannesburg.  Mr. Jacobs runs
an information technology company. Mr.  Einkamerer conferenced him
into the call, and the three of us made jokes about our accents.

It felt like the early days of AOL, another environment in which
people contacted others randomly. But voice brings to life the other
person in a way that typing cannot, like hearing Mr. Einkamerer laugh
at my jokes. The instant-messaging environment is anonymous; with
voice, you cannot hide from the other person.

Moreover, the voice quality over Skype is actually superior to
traditional phone service. Standard telecommunications are restricted
to the 0 to 3.4 kilohertz range to limit the bandwidth consumed; Skype
transmits at 0.5 to 8 kilohertz, according to a Columbia University
study in 2004. It feels intimate because it is; more of the users'
voices reach each other.

There are problems with Skype Me mode. Skype Me users are subject to
the undesirable solicitors familiar to e-mail and phone users:
spammers, scammers and perverts. Skype is starting to see its fair
share of all these groups: one user who contacted me was a Nigerian
"model" who requested my help depositing $4,000 in an American bank
account -- a classic scheme.

In addition, the blogging community is reporting scattered Skype
telemarketers, and women who identify themselves as such in their
profile report a bombardment of unwelcome advances when they enter
Skype Me mode. These problems appear to be growing.

Skype users can limit callers to people on their contact list, so if
the nuisance calls become substantial, the number of users who choose
Skype Me mode -- already only a tiny fraction of users, according to
Kelly Larabee, a Skype spokeswoman - could disappear entirely.

Government intervention is not a likely fix. In February 2004, the
Federal Communications Commission issued the Pulver Order, named after
the VoIP pioneer Jeff Pulver, which states that "pure"
computer-to-computer VoIP services like Skype and Mr.  Pulver's Free
World Dialup are no different from the unregulated instant-messaging
programs and are not subject to the traditional phone service taxes
and regulations.

The Pulver Order is viewed as a victory by many in the VoIP community,
including Skype, but it has potentially negative implications for the
Skype Me callers: no regulation means no do-not-call list, which means
Skype Me users, particularly women, will continue to receive unwanted
and unfriendly calls.

Even without government intervention, however, random Skyping appears
likely to continue in some form. The next phase may be more formalized
Skype-enabled social networks like www.jyve.com, which connects people
with similar interests and desire to practice a certain language, and
www.someonenew.com, which connects people for romantic purposes. Only
a few English-language social networking sites currently use Skype,
but such sites in Asia have been very successful.

Jyve, according to Charles Carleton, a co-founder, will be introducing
a feature in the next few months that Mr. Carleton hopes will protect
the medium's social capabilities: an eBay-like feedback system to help
users reject callers with a track record of inappropriate
conversation. Skype is happy to leave these functions to other
companies. "We're probably never going to run a dating service or
language seminars," Ms.  Larabee said of Skype. "Our business is the
technology, not the networks."

Mr. Barlow, who has been inviting people to Skype him for three
months, with 20 takers, believes that Skype's intimate feel will be
sufficient to keep the Skype Me phenomenon alive.

"There's something confessional about this space," Mr. Barlow said
about Skype. He was in Madrid for a conference, and I was in New
York. "It's like a long over-the-ocean flight where the other guy
starts telling you stuff that you're astonished to hear and you start
talking about stuff you're astonished to say. The combination of
anonymity and intimacy creates a special kind of environment."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use
has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The
'johnmacsgroup' Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a
'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of
the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for
purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission
from the copyright owner, in this instance, New York Times Company.

For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml


                            John F. McMullen

                    http://www.westnet.com/~observer
                   BLOG: http://johnmacrants.blogspot.com/

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

From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:11:01 -0500
Subject: Citron: Some Bills Are 'Weirdly Weird'


http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=70767

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'Vonage order'
exempting VOIP providers from state-level regulation is perhaps the
VOIP industry's biggest regulatory win to date. But state
regulatory agencies are trying to reverse it, and Vonage Holdings
Corp. CEO Jeffrey Citron sees that movement as a huge threat to VOIP
companies (see FCC Shields VOIP From States ).

"If that order gets reversed there will be very serious consequences
for the industry -- it could kill it," Citron tells Light Reading.

That order, issued November 9, preempted an order by the Minnesota
Public Utilities Commission applying to Vonage VOIP service the
state's own long list of 'telephone company' regulations,
which include rules on everything from E911 services to billing
practices.

The California and Minnesota state utilities commissions have now
filed separate appeals in circuit courts, while New York and Ohio are
reportedly considering following suit.

Representatives from the state commissions claim the FCC's Vonage
ruling leaves many regulatory questions unanswered, and opens the door
for traditional carriers to begin VOIP offerings just to skirt state
regulations.

Citron claims Minnesota PUC's regulations were written for wireline
carriers and do not fit the way VOIP providers conduct business. For
instance, the state's rules on billing practices apply only to
after-the-fact payment, Citron says, while Vonage service is all
pre-paid.

The Minnesota regulations also require phone numbers to be closely
associated with physical addresses (for E911 purposes), while Vonage
service can be used anywhere a broadband connection is
available. "They wanted our users to stay in one place," Citron says.

Full story at:
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=70767

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: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:36:40 -0500
Subject: Texas: Vonage 911 Is a Joke


http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=70779

Vonage Holdings Corp. says it intends to quickly settle its legal
tangle with the State of Texas and its Attorney General, Greg Abbott.

Or maybe it will fight back.

"Yes, we are going to try to settle it," says Brooke Schulz, Vonage's
VP of corporate relations. "We are going to sit down with them and try
to reach an agreement that is favorable for everybody. Whether we
settle or defend, they are both ways of settling."

Background: The Texas Attorney General announced this week that it is
suing Vonage, claiming that the VOIP provider is misrepresenting its
service as a real phone service -- allegedly Vonage implies that
dialing 911 from one of its lines would yield the same results as
would using a phone connected to the PSTN.

The lawsuit stems from an incident in Houston when a teenage girl had
to run to a neighbor's house to call 911 while her parents were
assaulted and shot during a robbery. The family were Vonage customers,
but their phone was useless as they didn't properly activate Vonage's
911 service.

But it's not as if they weren't warned, Vonage says.

"There are a lot of disclosures we make to our customers about E911,"
Schulz says. "During the subscription process there are several
reminders that our 911 service is different and that there is a need
for the customer to activate it."

Full story at:
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=70779

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

From: telcotech <telcotech@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem
Date: 23 Mar 2005 20:11:03 -0800


Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:

> In article <telecom24.128.19@telecom-digest.org>, DevilsPGD
> wrote:

> *If* Vonage were willing to pay the same fees other local exchange
> carriers pay for 911 connectivity *in each LATA*, *then* Vonage could
> route 911 calls correctly.  Avoiding this *cost* has been a major
> competitive win for Vonage all along and it is hard to not see it as
> a major reason, if not _the_ reason, why Vonage has fought state
> regulation as a local exchange carrier: by avoiding regulatory mandates
> like 911 service standards Vonage avoids the cost of compliance.

> What is truly irresponsible is to offer a "911" service that does
> not have the same user experience that Americans have been trained
> to expect from 911 for several decades.  In a just world, Vonage
> would pay and pay indeed for their decision to make the provision of
> such a service part of their public-relations effort aimed at
> avoiding service quality regulation.  This is a choice they made,
> not one they had forced on them; there are VoIP providers out there
> that did the right thing.

> People's safety in emergency situations should be quite simply out of
> bounds for this kind of political maneuvering.  Of course, it's not,
> but darn it, it ought to be.

> Thor Lancelot Simon	                         tls@rek.tjls.com

Thanks for the clarification. That's how I remember it.

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

Date: 24 Mar 2005 05:51:42 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA


> No, the ideal solution is to route the calls to the same place as 911
> calls.  They should enter the 911 call center just like every other
> 911-addressed call center comes in.

Indeed, and that is what Packet8 is offering to a large and growing
fraction of their customers.

I can't help but ask why, if Packet8 can do it, why can't Vonage?

Of course, Packet8's E911 costs more.  Surely Vonage wouldn't put
their customers' lives at risk merely to save a few bucks.

R's,

John

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem
Date: 24 Mar 2005 10:15:15 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:

> *If* Vonage were willing to pay the same fees other local exchange
> carriers pay for 911 connectivity *in each LATA*, *then* Vonage could
> route 911 calls correctly.  Avoiding this *cost* has been a major
> competitive win for Vonage all along and it is hard to not see it as
> a major reason, if not _the_ reason, why Vonage has fought state
> regulation as a local exchange carrier: by avoiding regulatory mandates
> like 911 service standards Vonage avoids the cost of compliance.

Excellent points.

The states in my area allow a 911 fee to be tacked on to phone
bills.  The money goes to the run the 911 call centers.

I presume VOIP don't have this charge.  As you say, not having
this (and other charges) give VOIP a cost advantage over traditional
services.  But they want it all -- full connectivity to special services
without paying for it.

IIRC, it was previously discussed here the VOIP fails to send the
calling number for Caller ID displays, so the recipient gets a
meaningless 111-111-1111 display.

As to the editor's comments, there are conventional phone numbers that
will reach the emergency center and will be answered (at least in my
area).  But how would a VOIP know what number to use, esp when the
caller can "float" and be anywhere?  Further, such numbers change when
area codes change or for other reasons; that was a factor in
establishing "911" as a unified constant emergency number in the first
place.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If the caller wishes to travel around,
as for example with a cellular phone, that certainly is not the VOIP
carrier's fault. But Vonage, as far as I know, deliberatly takes two
or three days *after* receiving an email request from someone asking
to be included in the PSAP database to detirmine _where_ to route the
call which gets _aliased_ in dialing to '911'. In larger metropolitan
areas, of course, most everyone gets redirected to the same number. In
smaller, more rural areas like mine, Vonage has to inquire of the
local authorities _exactly where_ the call is to be routed. They found
in their own research that the 'county seat' for Montgomery County,
Kansas is Independence; that the jail and courthouse are here, and
that in fact, Independence has its own police department as well, so
it was easy enough to inquire of local authorities, "which phone
number should calls aliased to our 911 be funneled through?" And Lisa,
they do _not_ get all ones or zeros or some other flaky number on
their caller ID display, they get an actual number, although as the
lady told me, "at first glance, the screen display looks odd; it is 
not what we usually see for an Independence or Independence Rural
location."  When Vonage wrote me email to say it was 'now turned on'
they did include a cautionary note: "this only works correctly if
you are stationary in location. If you travel around or move to
another location it may not be the best way to reach emergency res-
ponders."  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:38:37 EST
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: Huawei Seeks Deals With Nortel, Lucent


Telecom dailyLead from USTA
March 24, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=20312&l=2017006

TODAY'S HEADLINES

NEWS OF THE DAY
* Huawei seeks deals with Nortel, Lucent
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* MCI, Qwest resume merger talks
* Plans for iTunes phone hit a snag
* Adelphia close to $725 million settlement with SEC, Justice Dept.
USTA SPOTLIGHT 
* SUPERCOMM: TIA's and USTA's Premiere Event
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* The phone tree on steroids
* Survey finds growing appetite for on-demand services
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* USTA's South rallies incumbent carriers in speech

Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=20312&l=2017006

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

From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
Subject: Re: Our Telephonic Primacy
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:59:12 -0600
Organization: Wizard Information


It was a dark and stormy night when hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> Recently someone claimed that infant mortality was worse in the
> U.S. than in Cuba, something I find difficult to believe without
> additional explanation.

It's true, but the US has far more heroic interventions among extremely
low birth weight and extremely premature infants than Cuba.  Which, of
course, are far more likely to die than normal births.  I suspect that
in Cuba, those get counted as miscarriages, not infants.

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: More 'Tweens' Going Mobile; Long-Term Health Risks Unclear
Date: 24 Mar 2005 10:26:57 -0800


Monty Solomon wrote:

> By Associated Press  |  March 21, 2005

> CHICAGO -- There were two things 11-year-old Patty Wiegner really,
> really, really wanted for Christmas. One was a furry, playful dog
> that's now filling her parents' home with the sound of barking. The
> other gift makes a different kind of noise -- it has a ring tone that
> mimics rapper 50 Cent's hit song 'Candy Shop.'

My initial knee-jerk reaction would be to object to kids having cell
phones.  But then I remember my teenage days and it seemed the phone
was attached to my ear.  And in my parents' day, the phones in the
corner candy stores were quite busy.

However, this was when I was in high school, not elementary school.

I'm not so thrilled about the idea of "tweens" or younger kids having
cell phones.  (A friend gave his 9-year-old one last Christmas.)

Of course, these days kids are far more isolated than we were.  We
were in the city or more built-up suburbs where there were plenty of
friends within walking distance.  Today kids have to be driven to
practically any kind of activity otherwise they're isolated.  (Also
parents want more control over their kids than ours did.)

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

From: Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Jammer For Sale MONIX MGB-1S
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:54:02 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


donestuardo@yahoo.com wrote:

> Please email me at donestuardo (AT Sign) yahoo.com or call me on my
> cell at (416) 458-0012 and I will be happy to go over details with you.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why is a person who relies on a cell
> phone for their communications a 'loser'? 

Especially considering that he's asking people to call him ... on his
cell. :)

One last note to anyone in the US: yes, it's illegal to buy/import/use
this thing in the US.


E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

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

From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Jammer For Sale MONIX MGB-1S
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:01:05 -0800
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com


On 22 Mar 2005 17:12:24 -0800, donestuardo@yahoo.com wrote:

> I have a nearly new cell phone jammer for sale -- range is
> approximately 30 metres in radius. Model MONIX MGB-1S cellular Jammer.

Are we really down to this?  As far as I know it's very illegal to use
a cell phone jammer in the US.  Maybe it's OK in Canada but I think
advertising such a thing on a legitimate telecom group cheapens the
group and I'm wondering why the moderator even approved it for posting
to CDT/Telecom Digest.

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

From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: GSM-900
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:05:30 -0800
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com


On 22 Mar 2005 17:16:09 -0800, jason <cheanglong@gmail.com> wrote:

> May I know why do we need the number 900 to make GSM900 meaningful?
> Is it because the rf signal is in 900 MHz? or the local oscillator
> used for GSM900 system is at 900 MHz?  Kindly enlighthen.

GSM 900 is basically "shorthand" for the frequency used.  It's the
same way with GSM 1800, GSM 850 and GSM 1900.  Different frequencies
are used to transmit and receive.  The frequencies are *around* those
frequencies i.e. to say GSM 900 has different offsets for transmitting
and receiving as do the other standards.  Matter of fact for some odd
reason it was decided that when GSM was overlayed on "cellular"
frequencies in the US and Canada cellular was always called "800" (as
opposed to PCS at 1900.)  For some reason they decided to call GSM at
cellular frequencies GSM 850.  Reality is that it's the same band of
frequency used for TDMA (IS-136) and CDMA (IS-95.)

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

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: GSM-900
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:19:52 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.128.8@telecom-digest.org>,
jason  <cheanglong@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello All,

> May I know why do we need the number 900 to make GSM900 meaningful?

Because GSM is used on other frequency bands as well.   <grin>

> Is it because the rf signal is in 900 MHz? or the local oscillator
> used for GSM900 system is at 900 MHz?  Kindly enlighthen.

'900' is a nominal figure.  neither the carrier or the LO are on
exactly 900MHz.

_Where_ the _receive_ LO is, depends on the particular set design.  it
may be 'above' the desired carrier frequency, or 'below' it.  it will
be offset from that desired frequency by "whatever" the IF (or 1st IF,
if multiple-state superhet) frequency is.  an offset of 10.7 MHz is
common,

Of course, the _transmit_ LO will generally be on the carrier
frequency, (in _rare_ cases, the xmit LO may run on a sub-multiple,
and then be 'frequency doubled', or 'frequency tripled', before
transmission.  This complicates the design, and for that reason is
"unusual", at best.)

Essentially, the number was picked because it is a "convenient"
round-number _name_, that is "approximately" accurate.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:40:27 -0500
From: Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: New Long Range Cordless Phones


Michael Quinn <quinnm@bah.com> commented on this topic:

> Dave,

> I'm pretty sure these are illegal in the US&P(ossessions).

They are illegal in the US and many other countries. They are in use
in mining, logging, and oil drilling in rural parts of Canada and by
the oil industry in the middle east and elsewhere.

> One of the issues was interference with Air Traffic Control
> communications systems, as I recall.  Someone on the list may be
> able to cite chapter and verse from US Code, or FCC regs. I may have
> saved a Navy Department spectrum management brief on the subject; if
> so, I'll forward off net.

> Regards,

> Mike

>   From: Dave <newsgroups@dave!!!christense!!n.o!!!r!!!g>
>   Subject: New Long Range Cordless Phones?
>   Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:46:17 -0900

> I saw a link earlier for this on Slash Dot.  Its a cordless phone that
> supposedly works 100km from the base station (under ideal conditions).

> http://www.goodbyelongdistance.com/catalog/item/1441280/975984.htm

Not 100 Km. I think they claim 50 Km, which is 30 miles. And there's 
another with a claimed range of 5.5 miles (9 KM)

Try one of these URLs:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rciautomation/p32.htm
http://www.sellcom.com/main.htm
https://www.provantage.com/

> Other then the obvious potential for grief from the FCC, anyone else
> have any thoughts?

> I found a link to the Navy brief of which I was thinking, from about
> three years ago.

> Mike

> http://www.see.asso.fr/ICTSR1Newsletter/No007/LONG%20DISTANCES%20Garmisch.pdf

> From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
> Subject: Re: New Long Range Cordless Phones?
> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:27:58 -0600
> Organization: Wizard Information

> It was a dark and stormy night when Dave
> <newsgroups@dave!!!christense!!n.o!!!r!!!g> wrote:

>> a cordless phone that supposedly works 100km from the base station
>> (under ideal conditions).

>> http://www.goodbyelongdistance.com/catalog/item/1441280/975984.htm

>> Other then the obvious potential for grief from the FCC, anyone else
>> have any thoughts?

> It is true that highly directional antennas (which none of those
> pictured in the ad are) can provide ranges such as they describe.
> Think satellite dishes and clear line-of-sight paths (or even better,
> put one side in orbit).  But highly directional antennas are not going
> to let you "walk or drive around for a radius of around 30 miles"
> without stopping to carefully align *both* antennas every time you
> want to use the phone.  With the antennas shown, even 30 miles over
> unimpeded water seems like it would be pushing it.

> They offer only manufacturer's warranty (and it's not even clear what
> country the vendor is in).  I don't know what Samsung model that is,
> but I'd bet that Samsung doesn't specify performance anything like
> that described.  Don't do it without a full money-back guarantee.

Now if you search around you will find things like linear amplifiers
for cell phones. These could be probably be used by cordless phones in
in the 900 MHz band. Not legally, of course, but that doesn't stop
them from being offered on the internet. Google can often find stuff
like this, but Ask Sam has been getting a lot of publicity lately.

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

Subject: Re: New Long Range Cordless Phones?
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 07:05:43 -0500
From: Michael Quinn <quinnm@bah.com>


These are reported to be the bands where these phones operate -- no
wonder they're illegal in the US, and probably elsewhere as well.

130 - 136 MHz: Commercial Air Traffic Control.
138 - 174 MHz: Primary Land Mobile/2 Meter Ham Band/Civil/Marine, etc.
225 - 400 MHz: US Military, NATO/Air Traffic Control, Comm/Data Links,
SATCOM, Telemetry, etc.

Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net> also noted:

> From what I've read about these units they operate in the amateur radio
> band so I take sort of strong offense to that.

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

From: Rob <r.a.sutton@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Phoning 0870 and 0844 UK Numbers Out of Free Minutes
Date: 24 Mar 2005 05:36:22 -0800


polinaskulski@aol.com wrote:

> Does anyone know of any UK mobile phones companies/plans which allow
> to phone 0870 and 0844 numbers out of the free minutes.

I believe Orange allow non-geographic numbers to be called out of
their free minute allowance, but try uk.telecom.mobile for more, and
better, advice.

HTH!

Rob

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

From: Jon Gauthier <jon.gauthier@ieee.deletethis.org>
Subject: Re: Mobile IP Networks
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:44:07 -0500
Organization: The MITRE Organization


Rick,

Can you describe what standard is used to change the IP address of the
mobile router's rf link back to the bus depot? I have a similar
problem involving a mobile LAN, not just a single mobile node, which
is what Mobile IP.

(http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~jain/refs/wir_refs.htm#mobileip-rfcs)
was designed for. Moving a whole LAN around means your gateway router
external interface's IP address is always changing.

For our solution, our developers hacked the Linux Mobile IP to support
IPSec for registration (of course, the advertisements are still
broadcast in the clear). What I'm not clear on is how they maintain
routing updates and integrity (I haven't seen that part of the code
yet). And my talks with Cisco indicate they're toying with different
methods of doing mobile adhoc routing, but this scenario is really
mobile infrastructure routing where the "access point" moves around
from cell to cell.

Any pointers on how you implement it would be appreciated!

rick.lenhart@gmail.com wrote:

> I can help, I have a great Cisco based solution for you.
> rlenhart@icinetworks.net www.miptac.com

> 007 wrote:

>> I need to investigate some solutions for a true mobile wireless
>> networks and I'm looking for anyone's input.

>> The situation is as follows: I need to design a network that will
>> supporting IP traffic on a public bus transport system. Wireless
>> terminals on each bus will communicate through a router onboard each
>> bus (ie each bus is a mobile wireless LAN). At the bus depot there is
>> a gateway for internet and telephony. The range of each LAN on each
>> bus is limited to no more than 3km and there are no more than 10
>> busses within the network.

>> What are some considerations for the planning, design and architecture
>> of such a network?

>> Thanks.

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Some Concerned About Privacy Implications of E-ZPass System
Date: 24 Mar 2005 10:02:28 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


John Levine wrote:

> The potential for privacy problems is severe, but to their credit I
> don't think I've ever heard reports of abuses.  Besides the
> possibility of tracking people by tag use, there's the violation
> tracking issue.  If you drive through an E-ZPAss booth in NY with no
> tag or an invalid tag, a camera takes a picture of your car and they
> will ask the state DMV to look up the license plate number so they can
> send you a ticket.

The original private contractor for the NJ EZP system was notoriously,
sending out many violation notices that weren't deserved.  That
strongly discouraged motorists from adopting EZP.  Of course, now the
NJTpk intends to eliminate the EZP discount, which is a stupid move
since it removes the incentive for motorists to use EZP, esp
occassional drivers.  Result is more overcrowding in cash lanes.

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

From: jmeissen@aracnet.com
Subject: Re: Dangling Broadband From the Phone Stick
Date: 24 Mar 2005 08:27:16 GMT
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com


In article <telecom24.128.16@telecom-digest.org>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> It seems to me you contradicted your own post and have a double
> standard.

> Your clipping stated that cable companies offer broadband as an
> alternative.  So consumers DO have an alternative and don't have
> to walk six blocks in bad weather to get it.

Not true. There are many places where cable Internet access is not
available. Also, there are many situations where cable isn't
appropriate. For instance, I need a DSL circuit to connect to a local
independent ISP. I can't use Comcast for that. I shouldn't have to
also have incumbent telco service, too, just to get that circuit.

john-

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

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:07:58 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.129.7@telecom-digest.org>,
Dan Lanciani  <ddl@danlan.com> wrote:

> kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net (Tony P.) wrote:

>> Sort of how the FCC has pretty much admitted that anyone with a
>> modicum of technical knowledge will be able to defeat the broadcast
>> flag.

> I think you've mentioned this before, but what does it mean?  The
> system as originally conceived requires the digital representation of
> flagged content to be protected by encryption on bus and media.  I
> have more than a modicum of technical knowledge and I don't see an
> easy way around the proposed system in concept.  Has the original
> system been abandoned?  Or are you aware of some implementation flaw?

*Somewhere*  in the TV set, the signal has to get decrypted, before it
can be presented to the CRT, or other actual 'display'.

Thus there *is* a "cleartext" signal running around inside the box.

Thus, someone with a reasonable amount of skill can 'tap' the cleartext
signal, and "voila!"

And there's always the "idiot method" -- just point a camcorder at the TV.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:46:50 PST
From: Patrick M. <staplesdcc@yahoo.com>
Subject: Craft Access article from '93


Hi, I'm very interested in the Craft Access System and came across an
old article in Telecom Digest, Tue 9 Nov '93.
http://www.phreak.org/archives/The_Hacker_Chronicles_II/td/td13_748.txt
It says you moderated, is this accurate?
	 
If I do have the right person, would you have any information
on the article by "Eric Kiser" regarding the old Craft Access
Terminals?
	 
Thanks a million, 

Patrick Moore

Yes, I was and am the editor of Telecom Digest. I think the article
you are referring to is the one printed below. I'll reprint it again
in the Digest on Thursday morning and we will see if any of the 
current readers have any information. Who knows, Eric Kiser may still 
be around and may have information. 

  Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 00:06:01 -0600
  From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu>
  To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
  Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #748

  TELECOM Digest     Tue, 9 Nov 93 00:06:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 748

  Inside This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Computer CNID Solution Summary Sought (Scott Coleman)
    Apple Newtons Recalled in Australia (Mark Cheeseman)
    Signaling System #7 Cost/Performance Information (Dave Munsinger)
    Re: Caller ID-Blocking Unblocking (Mark Steiger)
    Cordless Phone Systems (Delavar K. Khomarlou)
    Information on Mobile Data Systems/Technologies (Peter Chan)
    Landline Telegraph Service (Gabe M Wiener)
    Tech Job Available (Ian Eisenberg)
 ===> AT&T Craft Access Butt-Sets (Eric Kiser) <===
    Re: Analog Telephone Interfaces For Computers (Andy Behrens)
    Re: Nationwide GTE 800 Outage? (Brian Nunes)
    Re: Brush Fires in Southern California (Stephen Friedl)
    Re: Preparing My Case Against Sprint (Chris Labatt-Simon)
    Re: Busy Signal Strangeness (John Desmond)
    Re: My Meeting With the Commish (Christopher Zguris)

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

  Date: Mon, 8 Nov 93 22:14:12 EST
  From: kiser@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
  Subject: AT&T Craft Access Butt-Sets

I'm sure you've all seen them advertised recently, surplus. The
safety-yellow AT&T craft-access butt sets are available new, in the
box with two batteries, charger and manual for $60 (how's that for
pennies on the dollar, AT&T?). Well ... I broke down and bought one
(ok -- I bought three).

Even the standard TALK and MONITOR are swanky on this thing. The
entire thing is menu driven on a 3"x3" LCD, with user input through a
four-way plus button joystick and the standard 3x4 DTMF keypad. (Alpha
input is via the keypad -- press 1 once for 1, twice for Q, thrice for
Z, etc.)  The dialed number is menu driven, or you can do it manually.
MONITOR and TALK modes have digital volume access, and MONITOR has a
QUIET mode for extra sensitive noise hunting. I got all that working ...

The trick is these were used by AT&T folk to access the work
scheduling computer system, and they have a 1200 baud Bell 212 modem
and terminal program built in. But I can't seem to figure out the
protocol used by the terminal program. On CONNECT, the butt-set sends
tildes (~) until the remote system sends ACK, and then some five-digit
something that I can't figure out; every time I enter the fifth digit,
it goes back to tildes. I took the thing apart (a real trick, since it
had #10 TORX screws with the security restriction post in place all
the way around) and yanked the uP program EPROM. It disassembled to
more than 20000 lines of 8031 (Intel MCS-51 series) assembly language.
I've been able to wade througha lot of it, but isn't there an easier
way?

Does anyone have access to / references on the protocol used by these
things? I'd hate to reprogram it from scratch; I'd like to write a
small BBS for my PC that would interact with the screen, joystick and
keypad using the current protocol, if I could find out what it is.


Thanks,

Eric Kiser 
74007.303@compuserve.com 
kiser@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil

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

  End of TELECOM Digest V13 #748
  ******************************

You are welcome. Anyone with any up to date information to share
with Mr. Moore?   

Patrick Townson
ptownson@telecom-digest.org   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 00:15:44 EST
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
Subject: My First Post


As of this year, I've been a reader and intermittent contributor to
this list for ten years.  I guess I'm still a newbie compared to many
of the other readers, but I've learned a lot from this list during the
past decade.  Thanks to all of you readers for the information you've
contributed, and a special thanks to PAT for his efforts!

My first post, dated March 24, 1995, is at http://tinyurl.com/6ar7l.
In re-reading it now, I find it interesting to note how things have
changed -- especially my statement that "an area code and a central
office code can't be the same."  I guess 847-847-XXXX proves that
wrong, even though it may be confusing to non-Chicagoans.

Neal McLain



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As long as I am digging up old postings
for today's issue, I decided to get yours out and review it also. It
is reprinted below. And thank you also, Neal, for your many
contributions over the years. You have been a good friend over the
past decade also. Your kind words very much appreciated. 

  Date: Fri, 24 Mar 95 23:16:21 CST
  From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson))
  To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
  Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #169

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 24 Mar 95 23:16:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 169

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Book Review: "The Information Superhighway: Beyond the Internet" (R Slade)
    800 Numbers, and FLOWERS Again (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Outsourcing of International Telecom Services (Victor Prochnik)
    Re: Your 500 Number and International Access (Tony Harminc)
    Re: X.25/ISDN Prices: Global Information Wanted (Andy Lochridge)
    Re: Interesting Telemarketing, Sad Actually (William Wood)
    Re: Keypad Letter Pattern (was Re: U.S. 800 Users Alert) (Mark Brader)
    Re: Recommendations Wanted on Voice Mail Systems (Paul Hanson)
  ===>    New Area Code Assignments (Neal McLain) <===
    800 Service Costs and ISDN Rates (Arthur Greenwald)

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

  Date: Fri, 24 Mar 95 22:30 CST
  From: Neal McLain <NMCLAIN@macc.wisc.edu>
  Subject: New Area Code Assignments


A recent issue of TELECOM Digest raised a question about how "new" (since
1/1/95) area codes are assigned.
 
A partial answer certainly has to be this: an area code and a central
office code can't be the same.  And, if at all possible, an area code
shouldn't be the same as any nearby central office code in any adjacent 
area code.
 
Consider how these requirements affect the selection of the new area
code when an existing area code is split:
 
 -  Avoiding a conflict with any existing central office code means that the
    new area code must be selected from the list of presently-unused central
    office codes.  That list is likely to be fairly short: if an area code
    needs to be split, it's already running out of central office codes.
 
 -  Avoiding a conflict with any existing central office code in any nearby
    community in adjacent area codes makes that short list even shorter.
 
A case in point: the 205/334 split in Alabama:
 
 -  334 is not used as a central office code anywhere in Alabama.  Thus,
    there will be no 205-334 or 334-334.
 
 -  With one exception, 334 is not used as a central office code in any
    nearby city in any adjacent area code: 404-334 doesn't exist;
    601-334 is in Greenville; 615-334 is in Decatur; 706-334 is in
    Ranger; and 904-334 is in Tallahassee.
 
 -  The one exception which proves the rule: 912-334 is in Georgetown,
    Georgia, right across the Chattahoochee River from Eufaula,
    Alabama.  This will no doubt cause some confusion for the 900 or
    so residents of Georgetown.
 
That confusion notwithstanding, it seems obvious that Bellcore and the
local telephone companies went to considerable effort to select the
code which would cause the least amount of confusion.
 

Neal McLain     nmclain@macc.wisc.edu

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #169
******************************

You are correct: 847-847 is a situation none of us ever thought in
those days would be possible. Of course, none of from those days
ever thought there would be a 708 code to split up 312 either, and
certainly not a 773 to further divide it all, nor a 630. The times,
they are a changing ... and in case you did not know it, one's skin 
has to be very thick to stay in this racket for a long time, also. 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 #130
******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues