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 Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:49:00 EST Volume 24 : Issue 134
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Major Hangups Over the iPod Phone (Monty Solomon)
This Shark Is Missing Some Teeth (Monty Solomon)
Comcast Does Digital Video Recording (Monty Solomon)
'Mommy, I'm Losing You. Pick Me Up at Brownies' (Monty Solomon)
FCC: Phone Companies Don't Have to Sell DSL Stand-Alone (Jack Decker)
Communications Companies Form Security Alliance (Telecom dailyLead USTA)
Re: Cell Phone Jammer For Sale MONIX MGB-1S (Fred Atkinson)
Re: Cell Phone Jammer For Sale MONIX MGB-1S (Joseph)
Re: Cell Phone Jammer For Sale MONIX MGB-1S (Isaiah Beard)
Re: Grounding a Vonage System (Isaiah Beard)
Re: Grounding a Vonage System (Scott Dorsey)
Re: What Happened To Channel 1 (Dan Lanciani)
Re: OT/Tangent (was Re: We Don't Need no Steenkin Line Sharing) (P Lee)
Re: Some Concerned About Privacy Implications of E-ZPass (Isaiah Beard)
Re: Time for the Recording Industry to Face the Music (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem (Justin Time)
Re: New Long Range Cordless Phones? (John Bartley)
Re: Lingo Referral (John Levine)
Employment Opportunity or Scam Opportunity? (TELECOM Digest Editor)
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: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 23:08:28 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Major Hangups Over the iPod Phone
NEWS ANALYSIS :TECH
By Roger O. Crockett
Cellular carriers such as Verizon and Cingular are hesitant to sell
the Apple-Motorola gizmo. Here's why:
It seemed like a sure thing: the iPod mobile phone. What could be more
irresistible than a device combining the digital-music prowess of
Apple Computer (AAPL ) with the wireless expertise of Motorola (MOT )?
Motorola sent its buzz machinery into overdrive in January when it
leaked word that the product would debut at a cellular-industry
conference in New Orleans in mid-March.
Well, hold the phone. At the New Orleans confab, a frustrated Edward
Zander, Motorola's chief executive, stood before a roomful of analysts
and reporters and said the handset's debut would have to wait.
Why? Zander said Motorola and Apple want to hold off until the phone
is closer to hitting store shelves. But three industry sources say a
lack of support from such giant cellular operators as Verizon Wireless
and Cingular Wireless was instrumental in delaying the unveiling. So
far, the wireless companies are reluctant to promote the
Motorola-Apple phone.
Behind the clash are two very different views of the future of music
on mobile phones. Motorola and Apple would let customers put any
digital tune they already own on their phones for free. That would
help Motorola sell more phones, and it would help Apple expand its
dominance of digital music.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2005/tc20050324_7462_tc024.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 23:15:51 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: This Shark Is Missing Some Teeth
PRODUCT REVIEW
By Stephen Baker
Griffin's gizmo records and downloads audio broadcasts. But it can't
handle Internet radio, so you're limited to local fare.
The Good Like TiVo for radio, it records favorite shows The Bad
Reception can be iffy, and program slows the computer The Bottom Line
Improvements are needed before it's ready for mainstream listeners
A sleek white fin rises from the clutter on my desk. Salsa music pours
out of the computer speakers. Only five minutes after unpacking
Griffin Technology's RadioSHARK -- a TiVo-like service for radio --
it's up and running. Great start.
RadioSHARK, which retails for $69.95, promises just the type of
time-shifting service that radio-lovers have been clamoring for. It
captures radio signals the old-fashioned way, through that fin-like
antenna, and its software puts a radio tuner right on the computer
screen, whether it's a PC or Macintosh. It records programming on a
hard drive and even dumps it into iPod and MP3 music players. In this,
RadioSHARK mimics podcasting. That's the current rage in audio, in
which listeners download programming from the Internet and listen to
it on the go.
What's not to like? Unfortunately, a few things. The biggest problem
is that RadioSHARK relies on over-the-air signals for its feed. This
means that reception is only as good as it is on a normal transistor
radio. On our 43rd floor office in Manhattan, the FM signal is strong,
AM picks up nothing. No Yankee broadcasts for me.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2005/tc20050328_5522_tc117.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 23:25:51 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Comcast Does Digital Video Recording
Cable company offers a TiVo alternative -- but can this device compete?
Liane Cassavoy, PC World
Friday, March 18, 2005
If you can't stand to leave home knowing you might miss an episode of
Lost or 24, you need a digital video recorder. Gone are the days of
the VCR -- today's DVRs let you schedule recordings of your favorite
shows and replay them at your convenience. And you don't have to
shell out big bucks to get one.
Several big-name cable companies, including Comcast, are offering DVRs
to subscribers for a monthly fee. So how do these "rental" DVRs stack
up to ReplayTV and TiVo? I put Comcast's DVR to the test and found
that, while the price may be right, the device is certainly not
perfect.
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,120090,00.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:56:31 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: 'Mommy, I'm Losing You. Pick Me Up at Brownies'
By WALTER S. MOSSBERG
If you think there are already way too many people talking way too
much, in way too many places, on mobile phones, brace yourself: a
whole new demographic is about to join the mobile phone-toting army.
Apparently, some parents think it's a good idea to give a cellphone
to their preteen children. And, ever anxious to please, the
technology industry is ready with just such a gadget.
A new company, Firefly Mobile Inc., has introduced a small, colorful,
cellphone that fits comfortably into the hands of kids aged 8 through
12, and is greatly simplified so kids can easily use it. But the
phone is also designed to strictly limit what the kids can do with it
and to give parents control.
For instance, there is no key pad for dialing; out of the box, the
phone can dial only numbers programmed into its phone book and large
direct-dial buttons, presumably by parents.
My assistant Katie Boehret and I have been testing this mini phone,
and we liked its kid-oriented features. Among other things, Firefly
has a 911 button on its side for emergencies and its battery isn't
removable because, according to the company's CEO, kids put their
tongues on batteries.
http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/solution-20050323.html
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:10:56 -0500
Subject: FCC: Phone Companies Don't Have to Sell DSL as a Stand-Alone
Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com
http://www.detnews.com/2005/technology/0503/27/tech-129887.htm
By Yuki Noguchi / The Washington Post
WASHINGTON -- The Federal Communications Commission announced Friday
that states cannot require regional phone companies to sell high-speed
Internet service as a stand-alone product.
The 3 to 2 decision along party lines, voted on last week and released
Friday, was a victory for BellSouth Corp., which had asked the
commission for a ruling in 2003.
The ruling effectively gives BellSouth and other regional giants an
advantage over competitors trying to sell alternative phone service.
Democratic Commissioners Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps
dissented, calling the practice of "tying" phone service to high-speed
Internet service anti-competitive.
In doing so, Copps and Adelstein echoed the concerns of smaller
carriers and Internet phone providers such as Vonage Holdings Corp.,
which have argued that requiring customers to buy Internet access and
phone service from a single provider limits consumers' choices.
"If it is permissible to deny consumers DSL if they do not also order
... voice service, what stops a carrier from denying broadband
service to an end-user who has cut the cord and uses only a wireless
phone?" the Democrats wrote in a joint statement.
Full story at:
http://www.detnews.com/2005/technology/0503/27/tech-129887.htm
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/
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have said before that the best
thing to do, IMO, is go with cable internet _whenever possible_ and
try to avoid Bell and its DSL completely, for just these same
reasons. Bell has a long, sordid history of being very tricky and
difficult to deal with. If cable internet is not available, then of
course take Bell service and its DSL, but watch for any possible
opportunity -- such as cable being installed or expanded in your area --
to break away to a competitive CLEC and cable internet, such as I
have done, now two years ago with Prairie Stream and Cable One. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:31:23 EST
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: Communications Companies Form Network Security Alliance
Telecom dailyLead from USTA
March 28, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=20388&l=2017006
TODAY'S HEADLINES
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Communications companies form network security alliance
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* It's decision time for MCI
* Huawei seeks to clarify report
* WiMAX startup raises Vonage's ire
* NTP pursues wireless e-mail patent disputes
USTA SPOTLIGHT
* Announcing Phone Facts Plus 2005
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Network DVRs could alter business in a heartbeat, study says
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* FCC backs BellSouth in stand-alone DSL ruling
* File-sharing case goes before U.S. Supreme Court this week
Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=20388&l=2017006
------------------------------
From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Jammer For Sale MONIX MGB-1S
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 23:52:56 -0500
> But cell phones are a curse to some degree. A local University that
> shall remain nameless instituted a no cell phone policy for students.
> That quickly went downhill when professors cell phones would ring during
> class time, etc.
That's nothing. Trevecca Nazarene University in Nashville, Tennessee
has an interesting policy to allow interconnect to the campus network.
When my first niece went off to school, several family members gave me
money to purchase the parts needed for me to put a nice computer
together for her to take off to school with her. In addition to a
number of other pieces of hardware, I put a dial up modem and a NIC
card in it. It was a fairly common one (in fact my PC has the same
model in it).
When she got there, she called me and said that the folks at TNU said
her NIC card was no good and they wanted to charge her ninety dollars to
install a 3Com card in it.
I didn't believe it was defective and told her not to pay them to
install that card. After a couple of days, she called me again and
told me that they wouldn't hook her up until a 3Com card was
installed.
I called the I.T. department at TNU and asked what was going on. I
was told that the school policy said that only 3Com NIC cards could be
used to connect to the campus network. Needless to say I was a little
upset that they were going to make me drop another ninety dollars into
that computer.
But, I wasn't going to let them get the money. I called around and
found a deal on a 3Com card and had them ship it to her at school.
Fortunately, she had a classmate that was a Saturday afternoon PC
tech. He installed it for her and got her connected to the network.
I spoke to the dean at the school where I was taking computer
networking classes. He told me that while this was completely
unorthodox, that TNU was far from being the only school doing
something so ridiculous. His own daughter went to a school that
required a specific brand (and I don't remember what he said it was
except that it wasn't a 3Com card). She had to fork out fifty dollars
for the card and sold it to another student when she graduated.
I wish someone in a position to do so would blow the whistle on this
practice of soaking the students for the money for these cards. It's
unethical at best.
Fred
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Other than the fact that she apparently
was not able to hook herself up to the network, I wonder how the
school would know what was or wasn't there. In other words, if she now
were to open the computer and install the original card in there
instead, how would the school ever find out, or do they search dorm
rooms looking for contraband hardware, etc? PAT]
------------------------------
From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Jammer For Sale MONIX MGB-1S
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:09:25 -0800
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:28:02 -0500, Tony P.
<kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net> wrote:
> Anyone know if Bell Mobility charges the subscriber for incoming calls?
> Hmmmm ... we could give this the same treatment we give to those who post
> their 800 numbers trying to sell wares that are offensive to us.
All North American mobile providers charge for incoming as well as
outgoing calls except for some Nextel and Fido plans. It's been that
way for the last twenty years.
The same thing will happen to you if you call from your phone. The
subscriber who you called files a complaint with his provider and they
come after you and slap the law on you for harrassment.
------------------------------
From: Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Jammer For Sale MONIX MGB-1S
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:42:38 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Tony P. wrote:
> In article <telecom24.128.7@telecom-digest.org>, donestuardo@yahoo.com
> says:
>> I have a nearly new cell phone jammer for sale -- range is
>> approximately 30 metres in radius. Model MONIX MGB-1S cellular Jammer.
...
>> 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.
> What is really amusing about this is that Stew has posted a Bell
> Mobility cell number.
> Anyone know if Bell Mobility charges the subscriber for incoming calls?
From their website, Bell Mobility in Ontario appears to use "bucket"
minute plans, with a limited peak bucket of minutes that are used for
incoming and outgoing calls, similar to the US, and a per minute
charge for incoming and outgoing calls once you exceed that limit.
The bucket is VERY limited though, on the order of 30 to 200 minutes
depending on how much you want to spend. On the other hand, nights
and weekends are free and unlimited.
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
------------------------------
From: Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com>
Subject: Re: Grounding a Vonage System
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:45:20 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Alex Batson wrote:
> Greetings:
> I've just subscribed to Vonage and just hooked everything up. When I
> press a key to clear the dial-tone, the empty line has a bit of snowy,
> white-noise in the background. This isn't anything that sounds like
> electrical interference, and there's no 'hum' in the line actually.
> It's not 99% silent like my Verizon land-line is, but then again, that
> demarc is grounded, and my Vonage isn't.
Actually, it *should* be grounded in a sense, through the electrical
connection it requires.
Are you using a Linksys PAP2? There is a known issue with some of these
units where background "static" is heavy. You should call either Vonage
or Linksys and complain, or if you bought the unit retail and are still
within your return period, go back and exchange the unit. Other users
have gotten their PAP2s replaced for this same problem.
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
------------------------------
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Grounding a Vonage System
Date: 28 Mar 2005 14:05:32 -0500
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
Alex Batson <batsona@comcast.net> wrote:
> I've just subscribed to Vonage and just hooked everything up. When I
> press a key to clear the dial-tone, the empty line has a bit of snowy,
> white-noise in the background. This isn't anything that sounds like
> electrical interference, and there's no 'hum' in the line actually.
> It's not 99% silent like my Verizon land-line is, but then again, that
> demarc is grounded, and my Vonage isn't.
Yes, this is there so that you know something is connected up.
> Question: 1.)How can I tell which lead is Tip, and which is Ring, and
> which one, if either, can I connect to a good earth-ground?
DO NOT DO THIS. The phone line is balanced. If you connect either leg
to ground, you will screw the balancing up.
What is grounded in the demarc is a surge suppression device, NOT the line.
> If I'm still off in left field, can someone give me a pointer or two,
> on how to lessen the snowy white-noise on a empty line?
Don't use the Cisco VoIP boxes.
--scott
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 01:21:17 EST
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1
kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net (Tony P.) wrote:
> In article <telecom24.130.20@telecom-digest.org>, bonomi@host122.r-
> bonomi.com says:
>> 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.
> Thank you for that. Of course it runs clear somewhere in the set -- all
> you need to do is tap that signal.
Except that (according to the original proposal) it won't run in the
clear anywhere you can "tap" without relatively sophisticated die
probing equipment. Are you aware of some change in the approach or
are you just assuming that the manufacturers will screw up the
implementation? If the latter, remember that the original proposal
also incorporates key revocation for compromised device families.
> Funny you mention the camcorder. A coworker and I are geeks to the nth
> and considered that the only thing they can never stop.
Except that that has nothing to do with defeating the broadcast flag.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
------------------------------
From: Paul A Lee <palee@riteaid.com>
Subject: Re: OT/Tangent (was Re: We Don't Need no Steenkin Line Sharing)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:49:22 -0500
Organization: Rite Aid Corporation
In TELECOM Digest V24 #133, henry999@eircom.net (Henry) wrote (in part):
> Greetings. With his title 'We Don't Need no Steenkin Line
> Sharing', Danny Burstein is of course playing on the popular
> quote 'We Don't Need no Steenkin Badges'. This line is
> supposedly from the classic Bogart film _The Treasure of the
> Sierra Madre_ -- but it's not. Or, not quite.
> I watched this picture on video a year or so ago, and when the
> steenkin badges scene came I stopped the tape and carefully
> transcribed the dialogue. Here is what they really said.
> Fred C. Dobbs: If you're the police, where are your badges?
> Bandito leader: Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need
> no badges! I don't have to show you any steenkin badges!
The actual "Badges? We don't need no steenking badges!" line came from
Mel Brooks' classic, "Blazing Saddles", and was perhaps an homage to
the "Sierra Madre" dialog.
As Hedley Lamarr (Harvey Korman) interviewed and "deputized" an array of
villains, he offered deputy's badges to a group of
stereotypical Mexican banditos. The bandito leader's response was,
"Badges...!? We don' need no steenking badges! manos!"
Paul A Lee Sr Telecom Engineer <palee@riteaid.com>
Rite Aid Corporation HL-IS-COM (Telecomm) V: +1 717 730-8355
30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 F: +1 717 975-3789
P.O. Box 3165, Harrisburg, PA 17105-3165 W: +1 717 805-6208
------------------------------
From: Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com>
Subject: Re: Some Concerned About Privacy Implications of E-ZPass System
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:36:18 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Stuart Barkley wrote:
> other purposes.
> There should also be an off switch on the unit although I can see that
> causing more problems with people forgetting to turn it back on before
> traveling through EZ-pass lanes.
There actually is a rather low-tech measure that works very well:
there's a plastic container bag that comes with every ez-pass
transponder, and is coated with RF-blocking material. It looks a lot
like very sturdy, semi-trasparent foil. The EZ-pass instruction
booklets tell users that if they are concerned for any reason that
their transponder might be read in an instance where they don't want
it to be, they can remove the transponder from its windshield mount
and place it in the bag, ensuring that the transponder will not be
read.
Not as convenient as an off switch, but it does solve the problem of
people not being aware of the unit being "off" when they in fact want
it "on." If it's in the bag, it's off. If it's on the windshield,
then it's on.
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Time for the Recording Industry to Face the Music
Date: 28 Mar 2005 10:00:52 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Monty Solomon wrote:
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blogs/cooper/archives/BENEFITSofPEERtoPEER.pdf
> TIME FOR THE RECORDING INDUSTRY TO FACE THE MUSIC: THE POLITICAL,
> SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF PEER-TO-PEER COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS
The popular view of this issue seems to be "screw the recording
companies". I don't agree.
People have a Constitutional right (and a moral one too) to be
compensated for their creative efforts. Like it or not, the recording
industry provides a conduit for artists to distribute their works to a
widespread general public and be compensated accordingly. Any system
that would lead to so much free copying that would crimp that
compensation is wrong and some sort of control is needed.
So, the issue isn't whether there should be controls, but what kind of
controls are appropriate.
I, for example, copy music from a CD or phonograph record onto a tape
cassette that is easier for me to listen to. I wouldn't want to be
prohibited from making such copies since I properly paid for the music
in the first place.
The challenge of the Internet is that the technology makes it really
easy to make perfect copies and distribute them widely. Sure, in the
past one could borrow a record and tape it and plenty of people did
just that. But that still took some effort and quality suffered;
often it was easier just to buy your own record. Today it's no effort
at all and quality is perfect.
The recording industry isn't blameless either. In the past, one could
buy inexpensive 45s of a single song they liked, that's hard and more
expensive today. The cost of CDs seem to be much more than records
were even allowing for inflation. Given that it's easy and cheap to
make CDs today, they should sell singles just like 45s of the old
days.
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem
Date: 28 Mar 2005 10:38:28 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Tony P. wrote:
> 'The Bells say they want to fix the problem but that the integration
> with the Internet is technically complex. They flatly deny dragging
> their feet. "Safety and security have to be the primary concern," says
> Verizon's vice president of regulatory affairs.'
I am not a technical expert, but I do agree that security is a much
more serious issue today than in years past.
The fact is we have hackers and saboteurs (virus writers) out for
harm. They spend hours of time trying to penetrate networks, to gain
any foothold they can and worm their way as far inside as they can.
This isn't anything new, but the potential for damage has increased as
society is more dependent than ever on open networks that are
penetrable.
To give one example, there was an Internet scam that secretly had a
user's modem turn off sound and dial very expensive foreign countries
to generate huge phone receipts. We don't want VOIP to be used for
scams.
> This whole thing reeks of anti-competive behavior on the part of the
> incumbent carriers. ... and that the technical issues are only
> monopoly games.
I have strong doubts whether this charge is true.
During the 1970s I heard this charge filed many times against the old
Bell System about competing long distance service and customer owned
equipment. But at the same time, I also saw many situations where the
competing long distance failed or the customer equipment failed and
the Bell System got the blame or was expected to somehow make it
right. I saw many naive computer users get angry at Bell for refusing
to fix their broken terminal because it was a non-Bell modem on it --
people certainly should not have expected Bell to fix someone else's
product! Yet they did. Likewise when MCI failed to complete a call
(as it did often) Bell got wrongly blamed. After divesture many
people bought cheapo phones that broke easily and had lousy sound
quality, making communiation impossible. (I finally told some friends
I wouldn't talk to them over their cheapo phone and they agreed).
Anyway, today the cable companies lay their own fibre cable and has
their own broadband infrastructure fully independent of Bell. They
offer phone service. So today there is no need to hook up with the
old Bell company at all.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And something else I thought was a
pretty bad abuse was MCI and Sprint getting companies to sign up on
*their* networks and then the companies would encourage people to use
MCI/Sprint, ... "but for directory assistance, just use Bell and dial
555-1212 since it is 'free'; Sprint/MCI will charge us for their
network." so people were to get free directory from Bell but use the
cheaper carriers to place the actual calls. And people wonder why Bell
started charging for calls to D.A. ! PAT]
------------------------------
From: Justin Time <a_user2000@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem
Date: 28 Mar 2005 12:02:03 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Aside for a minute the fact that I do
> not approve of 311 or the idea of police acting as the Answering
> Service for the entire government, which is what they would like,
> let's just talk about your cellular comparison. Yes, if you came here
> to visit from wherever, your cellular call to 911 would get routed as
> you say. But you have had a stroke, or for some other reason are
> unable/unwilling to speak, what _display_ will the 911 person _here_
> receive? Your east coast address/phone number ID will be useless ...
> will it give the outgoing phone number of the local tower? What good
> will that do?
To answer the question about what number is shown at the PSAP. I
would have to say it depends on what the PSAP is capable of receiving.
Now, before you say that is a cop-out, in this city all cellular calls
come in on dedicated trunk groups. So immediately the operator knows
it is a cellular call. The location given, and this is from memory
from working with it a couple of years ago is that of the cell tower.
As far as locating a cell phone from a cell tower, it takes a while
but it can be done through triangulation. One has to assume the
signal is being seen by multiple towers, but the tower having the best
reception will be the primary tower for handling the call.
> By using GSM, I suppose _your_ phone could transmit to
> _our_ tower some string to be used as your 'temporary location' to be
> passed along as the 'ID' to _our_ dispatcher ... that might work.
As far as GSM, or CDMA or IDEN transmitting your location by using
GPS, this is possible. But not all phones are GPS enabled nor have
all cellular carriers upgraded all their equipment to handle reporting
of GPS data and not all PSAPs have been upgraded to receive the data.
This is a technology that is very much in progress and is being
deployed. The deployment isn't as quick as some would like, but it is
being rolled out. In fact I am currently testing one of the latest
converged devices from a major manufacturer and it is not GPS enabled
even though it was released within the past 90 days.
> Maybe VOIP could do something similar: A call on a VOIP phone to 911
> would be intercepted by the broadband carrier handling your traffic
> and routed _from that point_ over a phone line to the local 911 spot.
> I do not honestly know _how_ Vonage handles it; only that they warn
> you repeatedly prior to getting the adapter turned on that "if you
> wish to use 911 from this adapter, you _must_ tell us the main address
> (house number, apartment number, etc) where the police or firemen or
> doctor or whoever is to go to find you and your distress. We need
> that information to make 911 work. It is _not_ optional." Then two or
> three days later they advise you the work is finished.
Yes, the issue with getting 911 turned on with VOIP, whether it be
Vonage or one of the other carriers is something that has to be worked
out. With your statement above you are beginning to see some of the
technical issues with attempting to tie everything back to a telephone
number. If you take your Vonage adapter and a telephone from
Independence to Tulsa and make a 9-1-1 call, what PSAP is going to get
the call? From the description you have provided it will be the one
tied to the location information given when you enabled the service.
This isn't much help in Tulsa. If you had the boundary router or some
other device route the call based on where it was first received, how
would you track it back to the physical location? Unlike a cell phone
you aren't hitting different points with different signal strengths
that can be triangulated, and the last time I checked, GPS doesn't
work indoors.
> I should also point out that a 911 call is a rarity here; there are
> one or two per _day_ between the various places they respond for,
> including Independence PD, 'Independence Rural', Montomgery County
> Sheriff, Cherryvale, KS PD (overnight, when the one officer on duty
> there is the only staff person on duty in the town of 2000 people).
> And, she answers the City Hall centrex, and is the receptionist for
> the Police Department which is in the basement of our City Hall.
> And, on the occassion of a 911 call arriving, she _immediatly_ says
> on the radio 'nine one one call, stand by ... ' which means all the
> officers on the street, etc who may be chattering on the radio know
> to shut up and wait and listen. Using my scanner, I will hear her
> sometimes 'patching in her headset line' and a one-way conversation
> while she questions the caller: 'which way did you see them go? what
> kind of car was it, etc' and she will repeat back to the caller (and
> over the air of course) whatever the caller told her; officers all
> over southeast Kansas listening in and ready to move out if it
> involves their area. The overwhelming majority of our 'crime' around
> here involves teenagers and other young guys who are rowdy and very
> possibly had been drinking. They (police) also claim there is a
> 'terrible problem with drugs' here; my local attorney just laughs
> and says "that is the usual police BS; they find some kid with a bunch
> of old cola bottles and the powder that _could_ be used to make
> meth so police claim the kid has a 'meth lab' going on". The usual
> give and take you find between police and defense lawyers everywhere.
> PAT]
While Independence handles 1 or 2 emergency calls per day, this city
handles between 20 and 40 an hour with more, up to 200, during peak
periods. This includes the true emergencies where a police or fire &
EMS response is needed to the calls about potholes, trash, illegally
parked cars, and time-of-day requests. With 20 operators on duty and
over 100 calls in an hour means a call is coming in about every 100
seconds. Now, add a mix of numbers coming in on the administrative
lines, like 3-1-1, and you have a good chance the emergency on the
non-emergency line is not going to be answered, sometimes for several
minutes. You can imagine the hew and cry that would be raised because
their emergency, however legitimate, wasn't answered immediately.
Now to give you an idea of call flow, the call is taken by a trained
operator. The operator asks the diagnostic questions to determine the
type of emergency, takes necessary data to fill in the Computer Aided
Dispatch (CAD) entries and the computer sends the call to the
appropriate dispatcher. The dispatcher, based on the CAD data selects
the closest unit for response and assigns the call a priority. If the
call is for medical services or the fire department, once the call
data is logged it is transferred to Fire / EMS for dispatch. The call
taker remains on the line to be certain a police response is not
required before disconnecting (like an auto accident with injuries).
If police response is also required, the CAD data is then sent to the
police dispatcher for action as well. If police response is not
required the call taker is then available to take the next call in
queue, 9-1-1 calls first.
While it is the responsibility of the government to protect its
citizens and visitors, the costs of the equipment and personnel
handling emergency calls are _partially_ offset by the fees collected.
This is where the VOIP callers end up on the wrong queue. As they
refuse to collect and pay the fees, their calls are not priority but
administrative.
Rodgers Platt
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:07:28 -0800 (PST)
From: John Bartley <johnbartley3@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: New Long Range Cordless Phones?
First poster:
>>> I'm living in a rural Alaskan town and traditional cell service is
>>> spotty to none, even with an old bag phone and roof antenna so I was
>>> thinking that this could be an interesting approach to local mobile
>>> phone service.
Sorry, if it uses frequencies illegal for use in the US, its use is
illegal. Indiscriminate use of the "230-450MHz" band described for
that device elsewhere:
http://www2.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12419431~mode=flat~days=9999~start
could trash a lot of navigation devices. How well received would you
be if you trashed a nav beacon, in AK where bush pilots are a
necesssity?
I would be *very* specific with anyone selling such a device that you
want to know what frequencies *specifically* are used, and have them
show you in the FCC regs how they are exempt. Ask them for the 'FCC ID'
number for the equipment. Then, check with the FCC field office, or
confirm at the FCC website:
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm
>> I highly doubt that it is legal in the U.S. However, modifying your
>> 802.11 gear and using say a PalmOS type machine with an 802.11 card
>> you could probably cobble together a VoIP solution that has a linear
>> range of 11 miles or so, depending on what type and pattern of
>> radiator you decide to use.
However, again, if the modifications exceed what's permissible under
Part 15 rules, you're again violating FCC regs. Adding a high-gain
antenna can, under some circumstances, require reducing power on your
wireless access point. A complex formula determins what's
permissible.
http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/1428941
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Dave <newsgroups@dave!!!christense!!n.o!!!r!!!g>
wrote:
<snip>
> Other then costs and time involved in getting a tech class ham
> license, can someone estimate what the costs and legalities involved
> in setting up a mobile radio system with a (pseudo-encrypted) PSTN
> gateway?
Encryption or pseudo-encryption is not allowed under FCC regs for the
amateur bands. Although inverted-modulation is permitted in GPRS
devices, phone patches for them are not.
> Then I could 'legally' do what these devices do. The
> terrain is pretty open and flat and I have a barn that I could mount
> my equipment on which is above the treeline. At least if i'm going to
> burn additional dead dinosaurs I can have a higher 'gee-whiz' factor.
> Or should I just say forget this idea and go back to Iridium?
There's another possibility which would be cheaper and more reliable
than anything else mentioned so far; better antennas for your bag
phone. Just because the antenna's on the roof does not mean it's got
adequate gain for what you need. Here's one high gain store-bought
antenna:
http://www.antennaworld.com/eshop/Default.ASP?WCI=ItemDetails&WCE=CLR-83514Y
http://www.arcelect.com/High_gain_Yagi_and_High_gain_antenna.htm
And, if there's a mountain in the way, set up a passive repeater in a
location which can see both your home and the cell tower you're trying
to hit. A passive antenna is just two antennas, attached to each
other, with no electronics; one aimed at your home QTH and another at
the cell tower you are trying to hit. Then, aim the home antenna at
the passive repeater.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mike Sandman has a similar antenna
device in his catalog http://sandman.com and I have one of them but
never much need it these days. Its an indoor antenna mounted on a
tripod which you set next to a window then plug it into the external
antenna jack on your cellular phone. Back in my early days this time
around here in Independence, when I was using the AT&T phone which
always seemed to look for a Tulsa-based tower whenever it could, that
external antenna on a tripod helped quite a bit. Mike also has a
device which is mounted outdoors somewhere with a good clear line of
sight to the base, then it 'repeats' its signal all around your home
or office. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: 28 Mar 2005 03:27:06 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: Lingo Referral
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
> I recently signed up with Lingo and am very pleased with
> service. I'm saving a lot of money. I frequently make long distance
> calls from the East Coast to Australia and the sound quality is very
> clear.
> If anyone is interested in more information or a referral I can give
> one.
I like Lingo too, and I'm equally happy to give referrals.
Regards,
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711
johnl@iecc.com, Mayor, http://johnlevine.com,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: John, how does their referral plan
work? Is it anything like Vonage? I am _still_ living off those
'next month free' coupons I accumulated. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:34:27 +0000
From: Mayra TABOR <descaling@pormexico.com>
Subject: Job Opportunity
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Readers, perhaps you can tell me if
this is a _legitimate_ employment opportunity or just another scam
intended to get you to do a quick shuffle of money outbound before
the excrement hits the propeller blades?
In my limited examination of this company I note a few things:
(1) They are looking for licensees to help them in their
'shipping and freight forwarding' business.
(2) They seem quite eager to find people with a USA bank account; in
fact a question on their online employment application asks about
your USA bank routing number.
(3) Their 'home office' (of which they show lots of pictures of happy
industrious employees) is in St. Petersburg, _Russian Federation_. I
do not intend to besmirch their character and accuse them of being a
bunch of crooks, however I do recall reading somewhere of two Russian
'hackers' who were from St. Petersburg, Russia who the United States
FBI wanted very badly but could not get them extradited.
Anyway, I pass this along in the event any one or more of you feel
like applying for the job, and are quick witted enough to hang onto
your purse (and only provide accurate ABA routing numbers, etc) in the
event you absolutely must. Here is the message I got a few days ago,
and you can check out the corresponding web page. PAT]
===========================
Hi,
Would you like to earn some extra money working from home? We offer
you a great opportunity!
Our company Ship & Pay International is looking for reliable and
trustworthy people to be our representatives in your country!
This is not a sales gimmick requiring you to pay setup fees or sign up
to a mailing list. You will need no money and no special skills to
start. Anyone can work with us!
If you are interested, don't hesitate to visit our website:
http://www.shipandpay.com/jobs.html
Requirements:
1. A computer with access to the Internet, e-mail
2. 3-5 hours free during the week (mainly in the non-business hours)
3. Check your e-mail several times a day (each hour is welcome)
4. Be able to repeatedly lift 5-20 pound boxes.
5. Reply to e-mails immediately
6. We don't work with persons under 21
7. Bank account to receive payments
8. Account in: PayPal, E-gold (if possible)
9. Be able to answer phone calls
10. Be responsible, hard working and communicable
If you would like to join our team please visit
http://www.shipandpay.com/jobs.html and fill in the online application
form.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Ship & Pay International
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Now, it all appears to be an honest
company trying to get started with a worldwide presence. But something
leaves me feeling a bit queasy, even with those nice pictures on their
web site, and happy, smiling employees; the picture of their office
building, etc. What is going on? 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 #134
******************************
| |