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 Tue, 3 May 2005 20:47:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 195
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Unstable SS7 Links and G.703 Baluns (sarkar.abhik@gmail.com)
Time Warner: Computer Back-Up Tapes Lost (Monty Solomon)
Multi-Tech Offers No Risk VoIP Solutions (Jack Decker)
Discussion of MPSC Order on VoIP on BroadbandReports.com (Jack Decker)
Chicago, Chicago... (Jim Haynes)
State of CT Sues Vonage Over 911 (Jack Decker)
Qwest Drops MCI Bid (Telecom DailyLead from USTA)
Re: Inmates Use Intermediaries to go Online (no one)
Re: Inmates Use Intermediaries to go Online (Scott Dorsey)
Re: Megachurch Leader Says Microsoft is no Match (Steve Sobol)
Re: Google Eyes (Greg Skinner)
Re: Who Answers 911? Cell Phones and VoIP Put Responders (Justin Time)
Re: Who Answers 911? Cell Phones and VoIP Put Responders (John Levine)
Re: Spam Mentioning "242 W. 36th St" (Scott Dorsey)
Re: Still Waiting for an Answer (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Still Waiting for an Answer (Justin Time)
Re: Still Waiting for an Answer About Podcasting (Colin)
Re: Still Waiting for an Answer (anonymous)
Cheap Vacation SPAM With a Toll Free Number (Steve Lichter)
Digest Woes (Lee Sweet)
Last Laugh! http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen (nynwo_7729)
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sarkar.abhik@gmail.com
Subject: Unstable SS7 Links and G.703 Baluns
Date: 2 May 2005 23:34:43 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Hi,
We are connecting some Cisco SS7 equipment (ITP) to a GSM network using
Black Box G.703 balun modules. Attached is a schematic diagram of the
connections.
The links work fine most of the time. But, occasionally all the E1
links on the Cisco SS7 equipment go down. We haven't yet found what
causes the problem. Usually the only way for the links to come up is
to reboot the equipment or sometimes to shutdown and startup the E1
controllers.
We have some connections going straight to another SS7 equipment
through a couple of baluns. We suspect these connections might be
causing some problem because we haven't got the grouding configuration
correct for the balun's involved in these connections. Ever since we
have disconnected these connections the problem seems to have
vanished.
Can someone suggest anything or has someone seen any problem like this
before?
Thanks,
Abhik.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Abhick's schematic diagram was _not_
included with his message. Perhaps any of you who know about this
topic can commuicate direct with him as needed. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 01:10:48 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Time Warner: Computer Back-Up Tapes Lost
NEW YORK (AP) -- Media and entertainment company Time Warner Inc.
said Monday that computer back-up tapes containing data on 600,000
individuals were lost by an outside data storage firm.
The data were on current and former employees going back to 1986, as
well as some of their dependents and beneficiaries, said Kathy
McKiernan, a Time Warner spokeswoman. The tapes did not include
personal data on Time Warner customers, the company said.
- http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=48820133
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 11:25:27 -0400
Subject: Multi-Tech Offers No Risk VoIP Solutions
This is a press release. Multi-Tech has been around for a long time
but their equipment has always been a bit pricey (though not horribly
so). For some multi-location businesses that are not quite ready to
replace their old phone equipment, but still want the cost savings of
VoIP, there may be an interim solution here.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-03-2005/0003539219&STORY&EDATE=
Multi-Tech Offers No Risk VoIP Solutions
MINNEAPOLIS, MN USA 05/05/2004
http://www.multitech.com http://www.interop.com
Add VoIP Gateways to Existing Phone Equipment and Routers
MINNEAPOLIS, May 3 /PRNewswire/ -- Virtually any multi-location
business that wants to reduce toll charges between frequently called
or faxed locations can do it without replacing existing equipment.
All you have to do is add a VoIP gateway to each location connected to
existing phone equipment and routers. Now Multi-Tech(R) Systems,
Inc., a leading data communications and telecommunications technology
company based in suburban Minneapolis, can make that a "no risk"
proposition by letting qualified users try out a pair of MultiVOIP(TM)
voice over IP gateways free of charge (U.S. only) for a 60 day
evaluation period. There is no need to buy expensive new phone or
router equipment, because MultiVOIP VoIP gateways will operate with
most existing equipment.
Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20040505/MTSLOGO )
"We have been providing add-on voice over IP solutions for over seven
years and were one of the very first companies to offer it," states
Chip Harleman, Vice President of Sales and Marketing for Multi-Tech
Systems, Inc. "It has always seemed very natural to us that users who
are satisfied with their phone systems and data networks should add an
application like VoIP to that existing equipment rather than taking
the more expensive route of replacing it. The return on investment
can be very short even with a company using the most inexpensive long
distance calling plans.
For instance, a company with a central site in California and remote
sites in Chicago and the UK can pay for a MultiVOIP gateway in each
location in less than six months with typical business phone usage.
With ROIs like that it is easy to see why investing in VoIP technology
is a smart business decision." The MultiVOIP voice over IP gateways
provide toll-free voice and fax communications over the Internet or
Intranet. By integrating voice and fax into an existing data network,
businesses can realize substantial savings on inter-office long
distance toll charges.
The MultiVOIP family is available in analog and digital models ranging
from one to 60 ports. MultiVOIP products connect directly to phones,
fax machines, key systems, PSTN lines or a PBX to provide real-time,
toll-quality voice connections to any office on a VOIP network. The
MultiVOIP gateway is designed to help maximize investments already
made in the existing data and voice network infrastructure.
Multi-Tech Systems is an ISO 9001:2000 certified global manufacturer
of award-winning telephony, Internet and device networking products
that connect voice and data over IP networks, add connectivity to
equipment using embedded technologies, and provide the latest in
cellular wireless technologies.
With a 34-year history of inventing products known for their
reliability and performance, Multi-Tech Systems still employs the same
mission on which the company was founded: to provide solutions that
solve real business problems. To reinforce this philosophy,
Multi-Tech Systems prides itself on developing and fostering mutually
beneficial long-term relationships with its worldwide network of
technology partners, sales channels and customers. Privately held,
Multi-Tech Systems has over 60 U.S. patents and numerous international
patents. The company's intellectual property portfolio includes
patents covering transmission of multiplexed voice, data and video
packets used in technologies such as Internet telephony, PC telephony,
voice over IP or frame relay, and DSVD modems.
For additional information, contact Multi-Tech in the U.S. at
800-328-9717 or +763-785-3500, via fax at +763-785-9874, EMEA at T:
+(44) 118 959 7774 (UK) or T: +(33) 1 64 61 09 81 (France), and via
fax at F: +(44) 118 959 7775 (UK) or F: +(33) 1 64 61 09 71 (France)
or browse the company's World Wide Web home page at
http://www.multitech.com . Multi-Tech and Multi-Tech product names
referred to in this news release are either registered trademarks or
trademarks of Multi-Tech Systems, Inc. Other company names and their
products mentioned in this news release may be the trademarks of their
respective companies.
SOURCE Multi-Tech Systems, Inc.
Web Site: http://www.multitech.com http://www.interop.com
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 11:53:24 -0400
Subject: Discussion of MPSC Order on VoIP on BroadbandReports.com
See this thread:
http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,13309798
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/
------------------------------
Subject: Chicago, Chicago ...
Reply-To: jhaynes@alumni.uark.edu
Organization: University of Arkansas Alumni
From: haynes@alumni.uark.edu (Jim Haynes)
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 20:09:44 GMT
When I travel I take along a laptop to keep up with the email. My ISP
has local access numbers in lots of places, so most of the time I can
connect with a local call. Not so around Chicago, where it seems that
to call from one suburb to another, or maybe from one prefix to
another, you get dinged for a small fixed charge. A motel that gives
free local calls can't cope with the fixed charge, so I have to use
the ISPs 800 number, for which there is a substantial per-minute
charge.
Whereas if I go over to Michigan there are dozens of local phone
numbers listed for each of the places I am likely to stay.
No news in all this, just wanted to get my gripe up in the air.
jhhaynes at earthlink dot net
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The situation was like this: Chicago,
for some sixty or seventy years, had 'local area' calling for just
one 'unit' or call. Illinois Bell had that system over the entire
northern Illnois area. Local, or one-unit, untimed calls within the
_corporate city limits_ where you lived. You could call from Howard
Street on the north to 145th and Avenue M on the far south side for
one unit, talk as long as desired. To be extreme about it, the limits
of the city of Chicago can stretch for _35 miles_ in a few instances.
But, going outside the city limits, even a block or so, and you began
a multiple unit, timed situation. When I worked on Howard Street on
the far north end of town, I could all anywhere I wished south of me
for one unit. But to call _across the street_ literally, since at that
point 'across the street' was the City of Evanston, IL -- to the
McDonald's to order my lunch, it was two units for five minutes and
counting. Now, provincial people in the center of town who seldom
traveled anywhere thought that was a good deal, and it was. A 'unit'
cost about two cents, and the typical residential service plan gave
80 such units free as part of your telephone subscription.
Where I could call to downtown Chicago for 'free', someone who lived
in one of the outer suburbs had to pay five or six units for a three
minute call. Even though downtown Chicago was part of their 'community
of interest' (as it was mine) _they_ had to pay a slight fortune to
call the same places, often times because a simple street and a city
boundary line got in the way.
Sometime in the early 1980's, Illinois Bell -- I think it was
Ameritech by then -- decided to redefine 'local' so the term came
closer to reality for most of the area. In reality, my 'community of
interest' did not go way out to the far south side of Chicago; like
everyone else I was much more interested in things closer to me. And
that new system 'evend the score' considerably for the suburbs, many
of which are quite rinky-dink in size (for instance the little town of
'Golf' is about four blocks long by two or three blocks wide; it sits
in the southeast corner of a bigger suburb called Glenview [thus named
because it was founded a hundred years ago by the members of the
Glenview Country Club and golf course which sits in that area], but I
digress.) Instead of being able to call 'locally' for one thin unit,
the new local system allowed for an eight mile radius _of your central
office_ as your 'local area' and one untimed unit. Now, the only
people who really got screwed were the folks in the highrises along
Sheridan Road and (in general) the EDGewater phone office. Sitting as
they do along the lake, an eight mile radius of them would put many of
them out in Lake Michigan. But Bell knew they could not please
everyone with any scheme. So no matter what area code you are in
(around Chicago) you call your own central office or any contiquous
ceentral office and it is a 'local call'; further away it is a 'unit'
(time plus mileage) call.
Oh, one other small small-print 'gotcha': the above only applies to
_residential_ service. For business service (essentially anything that
does not apply as residential is business) the new system said every
call is timed, even the one unit 'local' calls. So, hotels/motels/
dormitories/hospitals -- any place with a switchboard for residents
-- pays every time a phone goes off hook and a connection is estab-
lished. 'Business' in this context is not just the 7000 station PBX at
First National Bank. So you may see how small motels, etc would have
a devilish time keeping up with it all. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 17:55:14 -0400
Subject: CT Sues Vonage Over 911 - States Bitter They Can't Tax To Death
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are so many links in this latest
report from Jack that I am leaving them all in the article as we go
along, with apologies to the _text only_ readers. To get the full
benefit of seeing/relating to all these links, you may wish to read
this article in the online 'latest issue' file via the web site at
http://telecom-digest.org 'Latest issue' comes out as often as this
Digest is published. Consider reading the Digest there daily. PAT]
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/63207
CT Sues Vonage Over 911
States bitter they can't tax to death, sue over 911 Suing Vonage is
the new black! Houston sued the company,
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/61967 claiming they don't
make it clear users need to set up their 911 service.
http://www.broadbandreports.com/r0/download/800075~433b0c31ec1520970b77229393b7d713/vonage.png (This screen is apparently too confusing).
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/63110 Michigan may sue the
company claiming the limitations of its 911 services are not clear.
Now Newsday http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--911callslawsuit0503may03,0,20771.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut>
reports that Connecticut is suing Vonage for violating the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act, by "misrepresenting" their 911
service. Vonage advises users maintain an alternative way to contact
911, as VoIP 911 is still in its infancy.
[Comments: There is a slight error in the above, as one reader pointed
out in a comment: "Actually the City of Houston did not sue
Vonage. While the incident with 911 was in Houston, it is the office
of Texas (state) Attorney General (who is in Austin, the TX capital)
that sued Vonage." And in case you wondered, yes, Connecticut is a
SBC state.]
Article + reader comments at:
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/63207
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 12:45:09 EDT
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: Qwest Drops MCI Bid
Telecom dailyLead from USTA
May 3, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21272&l=2017006
TODAY'S HEADLINES
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Qwest drops MCI bid
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* France Telecom sells stake in Germany's MobilCom
* Cablevision to sell Sprint wireless service via online store
* VoDSL market expected to soar
* Satellite TV tops cable in rural homes, study says
* Qwest reports earnings
USTA SPOTLIGHT
* Newton's Telecom Dictionary -- 21st Edition
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* AT&T plans enterprise VoIP offering
* Korea: World's first TV service for cell phones begins
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Michigan may sue Vonage
Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21272&l=2017006
------------------------------
From: noone@nowhere.com
Subject: Re: Inmates Use Intermediaries to Go Online
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 16:38:18 -0400
Organization: NETPLEX Internet Services - http://www.ntplx.net/
On 30 Apr 2005 18:43:17 -0700, Lisa Minter <lisa_minter20012yahoo.com>
wrote:
> 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]
I don't see how they can prevent a person outside the system from
using a two-line phone to conference two calls on two separate analog
lines.
------------------------------
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Inmates Use Intermediaries to Go Online
Date: 3 May 2005 15:21:12 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
TELECOM Digest Editor noted in a comment to Lisa Minter
<lisa_minter20012yahoo.com>:
> 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]
It is, because the person who is assigned to monitor the telephone
call will disconnect it when they hear this happening. Not a
technological solution but an effective one.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
Date: 3 May 2005 19:41:17 -0000
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: Google Eyes / The Company Everyone Loves Knows More About You
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
> Google Eyes
> The company everyone loves knows more about you than you might realize.
> BY DAN KENNEDY
> Google knows. According to Lauren Weinstein, an internet activist and
> privacy expert based in southern California, Google keeps track of
> every search that's made, as well as the internet location of the
> computer from which the search is taking place -- and then it stores
> that information for possible future use. Moreover, he said, it would
> not be terribly difficult to trace those searches to the person who
> made them. That's you and me.
> http://www.fwweekly.com/issues/2005-02-02/feature.asp
This is old news. In fact, for quite some time, search engines,
portals, and other large information-oriented sites have kept track of
this information.
Perhaps Google should put a disclaimer on their usage policy stating
something like "your IP address may be linked to you through the use
of address registries and/or your ISP usage records," but would it
matter? (It's not as if the vast majority of Google's or any other
search engine's users read the privacy policies.)
People have decided (for whatever reasons) that it is worth releasing
some of their "personal" information in exchange for the "free" use of
search engines, portals, etc. I don't expect this to change anytime
soon. Furthermore, I don't think law-abiding individuals have
anything to worry about.
At the very least, if Google is going to be the target of such
criticism, it should be applied to other large search engines and
portals as well.
------------------------------
From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: A Megachurch's Leader Says Microsoft Is No Match
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 15:02:49 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com
Lisa Minter wrote:
> By SARAH KERSHAW
> Ken Hutcherson claims to be the person who forced Microsoft to
> withdraw its support of a gay rights bill before the Washington State
> Legislature.
IMHO there is a disconnect here. Reverend Hutcherson is a member of an
ethnic group that has endured far, far too much hate and
discrimintation. He's old enough that he may even, unfortunately, have
been the target of such hate himself (though hopefully, he didn't have
to deal with it directly). Yet he's engaging in discrimination against
another group ...
**SJS (this isn't the first time I've seen this phenomenon; won't be
the last)
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
------------------------------
From: Justin Time <a_user2000@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Who Answers 911? Cell Phones and VoIP Put Responders to Test
Date: 3 May 2005 06:05:18 -0700
Pat,
I'm not certain what this word from your comment is: athenema, but if
you strip the first three letters it does get the point across about
the feelings between VoIP and the telco providers.
Rodgers
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you have athenema, you have feelings
of much hostility and anger toward someone else, or some group, etc.
And 'enema', well, that means ... uh ... PAT]
------------------------------
Date: 3 May 2005 14:57:55 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: Who Answers 911? Cell Phones and VoIP Put Responders to Test
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
> Not exactly. AMPS licenses were granted to *two* carriers in every
> market: one "wireline" (incumbent LEC) telephone company, and one
> independent carrier. So it is only right to say that *half of* the
> original cell phone carriers were the telcos.
Pat is right -- most of the A carriers were LECs from somewhere else,
or perhaps for the first 15 minutes someone who bought a kit to bid in
the cellular auction and then turned around and sold his ticket to SBC
or Bell Atlantic.
R's,
John
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But SBC in those days was Southwestern
Bell, and its eastern boundary was Missouri. Please correct me as
needed, but weren't all or most of the -A- or 'competing' carriers
in fact one 'Celluar One' (as a brand name) or another? I know here
in southeast Kansas the A/B thing got screwed up somehow; where Sprint
(the old United Telephone) is the 'B' or established telco in the
northern part (old 913 area code) of the state and 'Alltel' is the
'A' carrier when you get south where I am (the old 316 and now 620
area code) Alltel is the 'B' carrier and Cingular Wireless is the 'A'
carrier, which they inherited when they took over AT&T's old territory
here. But in the 1980's SBC would have never dared to go up to
Chicago to hawk their wares. It just wouldn't do. That's why they had
to have their make believe company 'Cellular One' do it for them. I
know our local 'Cell One' is a Dobson thing, and they are on the 'B'
side here along with Alltel. PAT]
------------------------------
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Spam Mentioning "242 W. 36th St"
Date: 3 May 2005 10:30:08 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
<NOTvalid@surplus4actors.INFO> wrote:
> The only messages I left was telling them which payphone I was at and
> for them to change their OGM to give correct address.
> Tomorrow I will be in midtown Manhattan again, so I will call to let
> them know that I am within walking distance of their office. As I get
> closer to address they gave I may keep calling until I get correct
> address.
Why would you ever get a correct address?
They are spammers. It is their _business plan_ to keep their address
secret.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Still Waiting for an Answer
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 04:44:00 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.194.14@telecom-digest.org>,
David B. Horvath, CCP <dhorvath@withheld_on_request> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2005 17:12:51 EDT, ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
> (TELECOM Digest Editor) wrote:
>> A week or so ago here, I asked a question about the distinction -- if
>> any -- between 'podcasting' and audio/video 'streaming' which is a
>> technique which has been on the net for a long time.
>> No one has yet replied! Is 'podcasting' just a new name for an old
>> technique? Is it thus named because the (rather specialized) computers
>> which are used for receiving 'podcasts' do not typically do any other
>> functions like 'normal' computers? Is it because 'podcasters' often
>> times do not have any 'regular, over-the-air' type broadcasts to
>> accompany their computerized streaming presentations?
>> Can anyone answer these questions, or is 'podcasting' just much ado
>> about nothing new?
> PLEASE remove my email address, too much SPAM as it is.
> Podcasting is the process of creating audio files that will be downloaded
> into iPods and listened to at the convenience of the downloader. It isn't
> much different from downloading a WAV to a Windows PC and listening to it
> on a laptop during a long flight.
> Actually, the big difference is the iPod is a lot smaller than a
> laptop and the batteries should last longer.
> For streaming, you have to have connectivity for the entire length of
> the artifact (1 hour for an hour long show). With the WAV/podcast, you
> only need to be connected long enough to download the file.
> - David
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But, if I download the entire file to
> whatever system I intended to use to listen, then iPod= 'streaming' in
> that case, doesn't it? And if I were so inclined, I could use a
> search engine to go around all over the net looking for .wav files,
> download them all as found to my jillion GB hard drive and play them
> off as desired. Apparently, if I understand your message, podcast is
> a way of doing that same thing, but 'more effeciently' and 'quicker'?
> PAT]
'Streaming' is "real-time" transfer from the server to the
user-machine, at the rate needed for presentation to the user. And
only that fast.
"Podcasting" is just high-speed file-transfer, for _later_ listening.
second-cousin to napster, kazaa, etc. The audio content is packaged
in a format optimized for iPod use. It's *not* 'real time' transfer,
the whole idea being that you can download much faster than the
listening rate, and you can then be listening _after_ you have
disconnected the 'pod' from the Internet.
It's "off-line" audio listening; like off-line mail-reading, back in
the days of dial-up. You download a bunch of stuff, _fast_, and then
wade through it 'at your leisure', without being tied to the phone
line.
------------------------------
From: Justin Time <a_user2000@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Still Waiting for an Answer
Date: 3 May 2005 06:00:26 -0700
If you want to use the streaming analogy, then streaming is live,
podcasting is dead -- just like having a tape of a "live concert."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 23:02:45 +1000
From: Colin <colin@sutton.wow.aust.com>
Subject: Re: Still Waiting for an Answer About Podcasting
TELECOM Digest Editor wrote:
> A week or so ago here, I asked a question about the distinction -- if
> any -- between 'podcasting' and audio/video 'streaming' which is a
> technique which has been on the net for a long time.
Podcasting is a subscription service like RSS. indeed it uses RSS for
audio files. You select the content, e.g. the daily radio program you
want to listen to, and it is downloaded in the background, ready for
you to listen to when you want to, rather than when it was originally
broadcasted. Download ipodder and try it!
http://ipodder.sourceforge.net/faq/index.php
Podcasting is a subscription service like RSS. indeed it uses RSS for
audio files. You select the content, e.g. the daily radio program you
want to listen to, and it is downloaded in the background, ready for
you to listen to when you want to, rather than when it was originally
broadcasted. Download ipodder and try it!
http://ipodder.sourceforge.net/faq/index.php
Regards,
Colin
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But I do that now. I go to a web site
with audio/visual content and click on a link which says 'listen to
what this man said on the radio last week'. Either I listen to it then
and there as it is pushed out to me, or I 'right click' and save the
file to my jillion Gb hard drive and play it later. Is ipod just
another thing similar to Real Player or Windows Media or QuickTime?
And for convenience in use, I can always fire up my laptop with
the 802.11 card can't I? And you may pay for RSS content; I do not.
I use many java scripts in td-extra which go all around the net
looking for things it (meaning me, of course) wants to see, and brings
it back to my web site. There are countless numbers of 'syndicate our
news for free' pages everywhere on the net. Why do people pay? Maybe
they are too dumb (or not brain-diseased enough like me) to get what
they want for free? PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 18:19:15 -0500
From: Anononymous Reader
Subject: Re: Still Waiting for an Answer
<private response to you>
Podcasting is unloading playlists from (usually) iPod like devices
and the station plays those lists. Effectively the listeners are
providing the playlists.
Streaming is distribution of signal over an IP network.
Essentially, one has nothing to do with the other.
Podcasting could have been done by listeners sending postcards
to the station giving a hour's worth of music they would like
played and the order in which they would like the music played.
The stations would pick lists they liked (or at least did not
mind) and build their station playlists that way.
------------------------------
From: shlichter1@aol.com <shlichter1@aol.com>
Subject: Cheap Vacation Spam With a Toll Free Number
Date: 3 May 2005 15:55:40 -0700
Got this piece of junk. Looks interesting. Give them a call at their
toll free telephone number as its much easier to use a payphone since
it costs you nothing and helps others.
============================
The promotion is almost over and we did not want you to miss out.
Please call us as soon as possible as there are very few packages
available at this special promotional rate. (866) 702-0972 - THIS IS A
TOLL FREE NUMBER.
Sincerely,
Gary Rogers
Promotions Director
Florida Travel Bureau / Coral Beach Travel, Inc.
Celebrating 13 years as Travel Leader
Florida Licensed Seller of Travel Reg. No. ST15053
------------------------------
From: Lee Sweet <lee@datatel.com>
To: editor@telecom-digest.org
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 13:08:07 -0400
Subject: Digest woes?
Pat, I've been catching up with about ten days of TD (out of town and
then a cold... :-) ), and was wondering what was up, and didn't see
you discuss it (I could have missed it ...).
I got about 6-10 issues with no 'number' information in the subject,
and each was exactly 30K long. These were about numbers 184-190
(from the inside info), I think.
Then/and, other issues before that had the sender in various formats.
More issues from being spam-overloaded or something else?
Thanks for your illuminating info, as always!
Lee Sweet
Datatel, Inc.
Manager of Telephony Services
and Information Security
How higher education does business.
Voice: 703-968-4661
Cell: 703-932-9425
Fax: 703-968-4625
lee@datatel.com
www.datatel.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ah, so you noticed ... well, I at first
thought that maybe John Levine, who administers the mailing list
through majordomo had fallen asleep at the switch(board) ... although
I did think it a bit unusual that my volume of hate mail had fallen
off a little (although the amount of spam and viri had stayed
constant or maybe increased a little.) Then I discovered that about 6
or 7 issues (184 through 190 I think) had not made it though the
sendmail here at massis. I do (at least) two things here: a script
of mine, from years back when I still had all my marbles intact,
called 'posterd&' (the ampersand means to run in the background) which
in turn calls 'nntpxmit' (a process which posts comp.dcom.telecom on
several sites at the same time, message by message) and 'hypermail'
(a script which posts the individual messages in each issue 'usenet
style' message by message on http://telecom-digest.org/TELECOM_Digest_Online
_AND_ I also run 'send-telecom' (which itself calls up a background
job called 'send.now', the purpose of which is to (1) make up the
latest-issue.html file on the fly and (2) preserve a copy of the
Digest in our archives in numerical order and last but not least,
(3) invoke [or would you say PROvoke] an instantiation of sendmail to
get this out to the mailing list readers, with a few clever tricks
out of sendmail which I am allowed to use as a priviledged user
at MIT [such as the -f flag allowing sendmail to refer to me as
'editor@telecom-digest.org' rather than just as 'any old sap user@
lcs.mit.edu'. [Quite aside, but now and then some other site somewhere
on a spam-fighting tangent discovers that our sendmail here allows me
to make 'those adjustments' and it kicks my stuff back or shreds it
undelivered, whatever].
In the process of doing these two jobs, I sometimes grow impatient,
since hypermail -xp takes fu---- forever it seems, now that I have
those Google ads in there, and the larger my stash of messages gets,
the more ads I get people to look at, etc. So my diseased brain, in
its wisdom thought of an 'improved' way of handling things: I would
invoke posterd& and after seeing it get happily on its way doing its
job I would then invoke send-telecom, letting them both run at the same
time, while I went to have a cigarette and feed the cats. Ah, but this
new scheme of mine, this shortcut led straight to hell, an express
lane so to speak; it failed, miserably, as diseased brains are want to
do; the sendmail (portion) of the send-telecom job got broken, because
sendmail could not find a couple files it insisted on having, since
the earlier script (posterd&) had not yet had a chance to create them
for sendmail to find. _Not all_ scripts running in the background
which invoke sendmail bother to tell the invoker when something goes
wrong, so I sat here blissfully assuming that things were going along
fine.
I still have not figured it all out yet, although transparently 'it'
works the way it should from the reader's perspective. You cannot write
a Unix script without lavish commenting to remind yourself what you
did [and no _real man_ ever bothers to document his scripts] then go
back twenty years, two heart attacks and one brain aneurysm later and
understand what you wrote or how to fix it if it gets broken. By purely
hook and crook, I found out one thing (after I had manually forced
those six or eight issues you got all at once through the sendmail
slot at the postoffice): the regularly scheduled issue got through
okay! But I had done it _exactly, precisely_ as I had done it in the
past when posterd& and one of its components hypermail -xp only took
a few minutes to run instead of the twenty minutes it takes now with
all those God Damned Google ads that have to be on each page it
creates. So ... if I do it in _this_ order (posterd& _then_ send-telecom)
by George, John Levine gets it, the readers get it, etc. So, there
has to be one or more files _in common_ to both scripts which send-
telecom needs (but posterd& has not yet created or has created but
is working on them when send-telecom comes looking for them or maybe
posterd& had the audacity to rm them while send-telecom was using
them or looking for them, etc), I dunno. I have the scripts back to
where they mostly work, but I still have to do some manual 'tidy up'
afterward on them. Ah, if we could have only known twenty (even ten!)
years ago what we know now about mailing lists, interaction with the
web and stuff like that. Maybe someday my hero will come along and
work all the inconsistencies and bugs out of my scripts so I can do
this in a modern way. I know I sure cannot do all that any longer.
Enjoy it and use me while you can. Someday I won't be around to get
kicked any longer. PAT]
------------------------------
From: nynwo_7729 <nynwo_7729@msn.com>
Subject: Last Laugh! http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen
Date: 3 May 2005 13:13:35 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Just to show you the kind of crap I have to deal with each day I
submit now this entry from a user at Microsoft Mail about our
good friend Mr. BinLaden. You know, BinLaden is the surname,
or 'Family Name' for a good many decent people in the USA and
elsewhere. I understand, that like the Townsend people, some
of them have changed their last name out of disgrace for things
that happened in the past. PAT]
==== here is what my correspondent said ====
my indication show that the 9/11 hijackers on thiswebsites
http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen can take out the 911 phone bank
system acrossing the united state.nynwo_7729@msn.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mr. nynwo_7729, thank you very much for
your intelligent analysis of world events. I needed that. 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 #195
******************************
| |
