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 Sun, 1 May 2005 18:00:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 191 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Disconnecting Phones and Tumors (Monty Solomon) How President's News Conference Ended Up Live on Four Networks (Solomon) A Plan to Offshore ... Just 3 Miles Out (Monty Solomon) Cell Phone Triangulation Data - Calulating Location Distances (jason) Inmates Use Intermediaries to Go Online (Lisa Minter) Verizon Pulling Plug on Free NYC Wi-Fi (Lisa Minter) Re: VOIP: 911 - Vonage vs Time-Warner Roadrunner (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Michigan Threatens to Sue Vonage; Claims 911 Limitations (DevilsPGD) Re: The End of Analog TV (Gene S. Berkowitz) Re: Is There a Device to Block Selected Incoming Numbers (Tim@Backhome) Re: A Phone That Takes Dictation: Testing Voice-to-Text (Wesrock) 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: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 22:12:43 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Disconnecting Phones and Tumors By NICHOLAS BAKALAR Good news for cellphone users: a new study published in the April issue of the journal Neurology shows no connection between cellphone use and the risk of developing a brain tumor. A Danish survey of 427 people with brain tumors and 822 with no tumors found no difference in their frequency of cellphone use or the number of years they had used a cellphone. In addition, in the patients who had brain tumors, there was no correlation between the location of the lesion and the side of the head they usually used for talking on the phone. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/26/health/26cell.html?ex=1272168000&en=c60fc0d304516de4&ei=5090 NOTE: To read New York Times online daily with no registration or login requirements, go to http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/nytimes.html for this and about a hundred other articles in the Times each day. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 03:16:33 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: How the President's News Conference Ended Up Live on Four Networks By JACQUES STEINBERG In a showdown that featured inside-the-Beltway lobbying and bare-knuckle boardroom negotiating, Donald J. Trump and President Bush effectively squared off yesterday in pursuit of the same parcel of real estate -- a piece of the NBC-TV prime-time lineup. And it was the president who blinked first. But in the end, the president's aides appeared to be every bit as canny as those representing Mr. Trump. The decision by the White House to move up the starting time of its news conference by a half-hour -- a move that NBC sought, at least in part to protect the starting time of Mr. Trump's "Apprentice" show -- set off a chain of events that wound up garnering the president live coverage on all four major broadcast networks. The decision, announced in the evening, had the effect of putting sufficient pressure on CBS-TV and Fox Broadcasting, to prompt them to announce that they, too, would carry the news conference live on their main networks, reversing decisions that they had announced publicly earlier in the day. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/29/politics/29tvbox.html?ex=1272427200&en=853726429c6fce6d&ei=5090 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 11:41:20 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: A Plan to Offshore ... Just 3 Miles Out By Hiawatha Bray | April 25, 2005 Don't start with the pirate gags -- eye patches, pieces of eight, Johnny Depp with a cutlass. David Cook and Roger Green have heard them all. Still, it is hard to resist the analogy. Here we are, with thousands of American software engineers clamoring for more work, and these two guys have a plan to carry even more jobs offshore. Not to India this time, or to China. Just ... offshore. They figure three miles out in the Pacific should be far enough. Roger Green is a software entrepreneur. David Cook was once a supertanker skipper who spent 15 years hauling crude oil through the world's sea lanes. Now the two men have announced a remarkable venture called SeaCode, a company that plans to hire 600 superb software designers from every corner of the world and house them in a luxury cruise ship just out of reach of US immigration law -- but close enough to bid on multimillion-dollar US software contracts. It sounds goofy, but Cook and Green say that since news of their plan got out last week, their website's nearly been hammered flat by engineers around the world who are eager to sign on. Of course the SeaCode concept isn't nearly as popular with Americans worried about the loss of jobs to foreign competitors. http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/04/25/a_plan_to_offshore____just_3_miles_out/ NOTE: For today's technology news and hundreds of other news headlines of interest, and links to read them, look at our web site: http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html and the various pages which connect from it. ------------------------------ From: jason@cyberpine.com Subject: Cell Phone Triangulation Data - Calculating Location Distances Date: 1 May 2005 07:20:22 -0700 Are there currently any cell phones or carriers that allow a cell phone to access and store location (based on tower triangulation) information? I know there are many phones that now allow download/install of java freeware aps. Can java on new fancy phones (like the Motorola A630) get access to this information? Or, would a subscribed service be required? email me direct at: sales (((at)))) cyberpine ((((dot)))) com ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 2005 18:43:17 -0700 From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter20012yahoo.com> Subject: Inmates Use Intermediaries to Go Online Very few prisons/jails allow inmates any use of computers at all because the authorities assume the prisoners will use them for no good. Why, who knows, they may even use web sites to try and drum up sympathy for their cause. http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050501/ap_on_hi_te/internet_inmates [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would like to know one thing about prison phone systems, which are notoriously rip-off systems. The prison authorities _claim_ the recipients of phone calls from prisoners are not allowed to use _call transfer_ or _call forwarding_ or _three way calling_ on calls from prisoners. I guess that is because the end result -- the person with whom the prisoner wound up conversing with -- would possibly not be on the 'approved' list at the prison. Does the prison phone system have the technical capability to restrict the called party's phone in that way? For example, I forward my phone somewhere, then you, in prison, call me as we agreed on. Or, you call me from the prison, I flash the hook and bring someone else on the line with me. The prison says in their literature that is impossible. Is it really? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 2005 18:46:03 -0700 From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com> Subject: Verizon Pulling Plug on Free NYC Wi-Fi Anyone know what the reasoning was on this? http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050430/ap_on_hi_te/verizon_nyc_wi_fi ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: VOIP: 911 - Vonage vs Time-Warner Roadrunner Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 01:10:50 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article <telecom24.190.10@telecom-digest.org>, Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net> wrote: > In article <telecom24.189.8@telecom-digest.org>, tls@panix.com says: >> All you need to see that that's not true is the example of more >> responsible, and less politically adept, VOIP carriers who have done >> the right thing instead of cutting corners, and who therefore *do* >> provide E911 service: Packet8, the cable companies' in-house VOIP >> telcos, and so forth. Surprise, surprise: their services cost more -- >> because being irresponsible about 911 service gives Vonage lower >> costs. But it is ridiculous to blame anyone but Vonage for the fact >> that Vonage has refused to pay the costs of traditional 911 >> interconnection and therefore does not provide actual 911 service. > You can cast the VoIP providers as the demons but in reality it's the > incumbents. You can twist what I said if you like, but in reality the passage you quote above doesn't say what you claim it does -- after all, it says quite clearly that to see how sleazy Vonage is acting here, you need only look at the example of _other VoIP providers_ who have chosen to not act sleazy. > Pretty much every switch made for the past decade or more has been IP > aware. Hell, even my G3i has a TCP/IP address, as does my Intuity LX. It is not clear to me what you think "being IP aware" is, or what that has to do with trunk and switch provisioning for basic or enhanced 911 service. As far as I know, every Nortel DMS ever built has had a TCP/IP stack on the control processor, but so what? That has nothing at all to do with doing packet voice over IP, and even less to do with the actual service design of E911, which is mandated by agreements between the LECs and the regulatory authorities in most states. You'll probably try to twist my words again, so let me just be wholly plain about throwing down the gauntlet, here. Please explain *exactly* what you think the fact that your G3i has a TCP/IP address has to do with how carrier switches are trunked to PSAPs in existing E911 service implementations. In article <telecom24.190.10@telecom-digest.org>, Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net> wrote: > And in case you didn't know here is how Vonage works: > They use Paetec and Focal switches to hand off to the PSTN. These are > fully featured 5ESS and the like switches, and both those carriers are > fully regulated. This is just a little side business to utilities a > glut of switching capacity. Precisely. They don't actually use their own switches as gateways to the PSTN, because they don't want to pay for SS7-capable software loads or SS7 interconnection. The result is that the call enters the PSTN from a carrier who doesn't actually have the LIDB data required to do proper 911 service -- thus (part of) the reason for the special hacks Vonage wants all the existing 911 services to implement to accomodate Vonage. Why should anyone but Vonage pay for Vonage's choice to cut costs by implementing their interconnection to the PSTN as if they were a giant corporate PBX? Certainly nobody forced Vonage to do it that way; but certainly they saved a pretty penny on SS7-capable software loads for their Cisco SIP gateways -- which *are* available, if you choose to pay for them -- or real gateway switches, not to mention all the those trunks they decided not to pay for that 911 service would have required. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> Subject: Re: Michigan Threatens to Sue Vonage - Claims 911 Limitations Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:53:09 -0600 Organization: Disorganized In message <telecom24.190.5@telecom-digest.org> Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request> wrote: > http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/63110 > Michigan Threatens to Sue Vonage Claims 911 limitations not clear > The Michigan attorney general is threatening to sue Vonage, claiming > the company doesn't make the 911 limitations of its VoIP service > clear. A lawsuit has already been filed by the Texas Attorney General, > who claims Vonage does not make it clear that users need to manually > set-up their 911 service. Of course this welcome screen, and other > warning screens are posted frequently; most Vonage users don't > understand how you could miss the warning. Maybe folks in Michigan (and Texas ...?) just aren't that smart to begin with? ------------------------------ From: Gene S. Berkowitz <first.last@comcast.net> Subject: Re: The End of Analog TV Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 23:23:03 -0400 In article <telecom24.186.12@telecom-digest.org>, Tim@Backhome.org says: > Anyone have any idea what the converter boxes for NTSC sets will > cost? I would find it amazing if they retail for more than US$99. The technology is just too cheap. This task could be handled by the equivalent of a Tivo or Xbox, and reduced to an ASIC, you're looking at sub-$50. A perfect example of this is DVD players. I paid $200 for my first one; now they're $30 "door-buster" specials at the local BigBox. --Gene ------------------------------ From: Tim@Backhome.org Subject: Re: Is There a Device to Block Selected Incoming Numbers Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 06:12:15 -0700 Organization: Cox Communications Jim Kennedy wrote: > Is there a home/home office telecom device, eg. answering machine, > caller id unit, etc, that allows you to program in particular numbers > to be blocked or to receive a custom message? I would like all other > calls to go through as is. > Thanks. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The telcos (Traditional Bell at least) > offers a blocking service. You have to get *60 turned on by telco, > then you can do what you are asking -- theoretically -- and get rid > of the nuisances. I say _theoretically_ since SBC at least claims as > often as not 'that call cannot be blocked', i.e. outside of LATA, or > people who send bogus numbers for caller ID. Once you ask telco to > turn on *60 you can enter numbers you do not wish to hear from any > further, and that person gets a recorded intercept saying 'the party > you are calling is not accepting calls at this time.' You can also > 'block last call recieved, whether or not you know the number,' by > dialing (I think) '01' at the internal prompt, even if the caller > deliberatly withheld their number via *67. You can hear a recitation > of the numbers on your blocked list as part of the *60 process also, > and to protect the privacy of those persons who used *67 when calling > you, the recitation refers to them as 'private entries' . > You can also get 'block the blockers' service from telco using *77 > and when someone does do *67 when calling you, _they_ get a recorded > message that they have to unblock delivery of their ID and dial the > call again. So, if you sign up for both these features, (*60 and *77) > you get rid of most or all the pests. But, one caveat with certain > telcos, like SBC Southwestern Bell, they don't go out of their way to > make this work correctly. With some of these telcos, calls which are > out of LATA cannot be blocked, and calls where the caller gives you > a bogus string for ID cannot be blocked. And of course, if the caller > moves from one payphone to another, he _will_ get through to you. Now > in years past, when Illinois Bell existed and had this service, you > _could_ block out of LATA calls, and maybe you could not, if the place > originating the phone call had an old fashioned switch. But you could > at least 'ping' it first and see if it would work or not (from out of > LATA). Locally, it would come back immediatly and say okay; but if > out of LATA it would go away for a few seconds and then come back > and say okay but sometimes your request would time out and you would > back an answer saying "cannot be added right now, try again in a few > minutes" or else it would just say "cannot be added" (period.) But > SBC won't deal with any out of LATA that I know of. So maybe this > service from your telco will help you eliminate many of the pests. > PAT] As I recall, the service is called "Selective Call Rejection" by SBC in California. It will only hold a list of up to 10 numbers at a time, which is virtually useless. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's what they call it here also, and what Illinois Bell called it in Chicago. And the limit is ten numbers, which I think _should_ be enough if you use it in a judicious fashion; in other words, only on the worst, most hopeless cases. You should not rush to do *60 everytime some drunk in a bar somewhere calls you; only for the really persistent and sort of stupid callers. It's hard for me to imagine you have _that many_ total jerks in your life to deal with. And bear in mind, all the problems with the service (such as out of LATA in the case of Southwestern Bell) and people sending bogus ID (again, Southwestern Bell) and people who walk around from one pay phone to another. I still maintain though that for the 'average phone user' it pretty much does what the original correspondent requested, especially if used in conjunction with *77 (reject all 'anonymous' [deliberatly blocked ID] callers). Although I am no longer with SBC -- I find Prairie Steam much better and far less expensive -- I still get both those features (*60 and *77) through Prairie Stream now. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 10:37:42 EDT Subject: Re: A Phone That Takes Dictation: Testing Voice-to-Text Function In a message dated 29 Apr 2005 07:21:57 -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > Voice recognition technology still has a long way to go before it > works. I don't like automated answering systems, but I much prefer > working with Touch-Tone signals than voice commands which seem to be > often misunderstood and less precise. The Bank of America changed its customer account information audio response system a few months ago to all voice recognition. A week or two ago they changed it, "because we listened to you," they changed it to where you can select either voice recognition or Touch-Tone entry. Like you, I dislike voice recognition systems and for the same reason. (Most voice recognition systems can be used with Touch-Tone entry, but you usually have to use trial-and-error to guess the corresponding buttons to push.) Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ 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 #191 ****************************** | |