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
******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues