30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for January 27, 2012
====== 30 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Bill Horne 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 that person, or email address
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of that address. 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, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:33:36 -0800 From: Thad Floryan <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: The Wired Car Message-ID: <4F20BB80.firstname.lastname@example.org> On 1/25/2012 7:21 AM, Pete Cresswell wrote: > Per Monty Solomon: >> The Wired Car >> [...] >> Cars that are one with the Internet and GPS and your home computer >> and the e-cosmos in the cloud. Cars that watch the road, watch you, >> watch your Facebook page, your heart rate, your smart phone. Cars >> that watch each other, like a flock of birds.... > > ... Cars with dashboards that you watch instead of driving.... > > Sounds like it's gonna get even worse than it is now. Definitely. Tesla is leading the pack with its new distracted-driver deathmobiles as this article and picture essay illustrate: The Almanac is the local paper where Tesla is headquartered in California: http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=9830 Click for all 4 pictures at the above URL, especially the one of the Stanford U. executive director for the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford playing games (or something) from the driver's seat using a console LCD larger than my home office's LCD for my computers. The photo essay here reveals more distracted driving scenarios: http://www.autoblog.com/2011/10/04/2012-tesla-model-s-beta/ My take on the above? Absolute insanity given cellphone-using drivers have already been shown to be more hazardous on the roads than drunk drivers.
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:27:53 -0800 (PST) From: Justin Goldberg <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Early and modern PBX systems--was Telephony on TV Message-ID: <email@example.com> On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 03:57:20 -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Bonomi) wrote: > Before SS7 - and I believe there is still such a capability in SS7 - > there was a capability for a telco to issue a command for the > switches handling a call to 'freeze' the connection, such that the > circuit was not torn down when either party hung up. This > eliminated the need to 'keep the caller on the line' until the trace > was completed. This was a "lock and trace" operation. Is this what the "malicious call trace" feature which is seen on many modern PBXs does? [Moderator snip]
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:06:14 -0600 From: email@example.com (Robert Bonomi) To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Authentic sound of telephone ringers Message-ID: <ovadnYAX4dXLcL3SnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <email@example.com>, HAncock4 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >Do they have universal digital telephone sets that can connect >directly to any FIOS, cable, and VOIP networks without needing a >conversion box? HIGHLY doubtful. physical interfaces are different. logical interfaces are different. call setup/teardown signaling is different. etc., etc. Plus, beyond the phone logic itself, one has to have all the 'smarts' -- for 'node addressing', time-slot management, etc. -- that are in the 'conversion box, AND those smarts have to be compatible the 'head end' gear of the "network" they connect to. The cost of 'all that un-necessary stuff' -- for any specific use -- would run the cost up, far_beyond that of a phone that lives behind a conversion box, -or- a set designed for a specific network. Circa 20 years ago, I saw a phone set that looked like a 2500, but had an Ethernet jack instead of an RJ-11. It was (somehow, I don't know how) pre-programmed with the IP address of the switch that it talked to, and used DHCP to get it's 'own' IP address. You just plugged it into an Ethernet jack, waited about 20 seconds, and when you picked up the handset, you had dial-tone from the 'home' switch, wherever you were. (I saw it in use with the set and the switch on opposite sides of the country.) It was true 'plug and play'. <grin> I'm not sure who made the phone sets themselves (probably the switch mfr.), but the switch was a big Siemens unit -- 30k+ extensions. SS7 trunks, etc.
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:46:03 -0500 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: One policy, one Google experience Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:29:14 -0500, Monty Solomon wrote: > One policy, one Google experience > > We're getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google > and replacing them with one that's a lot shorter and easier to read. > Our new policy covers multiple products and features, reflecting our > desire to create one beautifully simple and intuitive experience > across Google. > > This stuff matters, so please take a few minutes to read ... > ... These changes will > take effect on March 1, 2012. > > > https://www.google.com/policies/ > > > https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/preview/ > > > https://www.google.com/policies/terms/ > > > https://www.google.com/policies/faq/ > Is summarizing this as "All your datums is ours now, as of March 1" oversimplifying it too far :-) ? Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Date: 26 Jan 2012 03:48:26 GMT From: Doug McIntyre <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Authentic sound of telephone ringers Message-ID: <email@example.com> HAncock4 <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: >Do they have universal digital telephone sets that can connect >directly to any FIOS, cable, and VOIP networks without needing a >conversion box? Sure, your 502 or AE40 set could. In the end, digital phone over FIOS, Cable modem (which is VoIP as it is) and some VoIP systems present just a standard POTS interface. Leaving the phone experience the same as ever, and just utilizing the base transport differently than the traditional phone network. If you get digital voice over Comcast for example, they'll take their Arris cable box, plug the POTS jack into the wall, and cut the house wiring away from the LEC demarc and drive it all from their box instead. Most of the "consumer" VoIP services give you an ATA box that you plug a standard POTS telephone into. Ie. MagicJack, Vonage, 8x8 are all like this. Plug ethernet in one end, plug the POTS network in the other and go. There are some VoIP services more orientated towards the techie users that let you do more, and have something like a SIP phone setup to talk over ethernet to the provider, but I haven't seen a phone with both an ethernet and POTS port. The SIP phone then would need programming and setup, which is why it is is only appealing to a techie user. Even more so than my old AT&T ISDN phone set.
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:37:34 +1100 From: David Clayton <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Ratted out by your very own phone ... ? Message-ID: <email@example.com> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:06:35 -0500, tlvp wrote: > "Is your smartphone telling every website you visit your telephone > number?" > > "O2 mobile users in the UK are venting on Twitter today, fuming at their > discovery that their phone number is being shared with every website that > they visit over the network." > > More at: > <http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/01/25/smartphone-website-telephone-number>, > including the suggestion: "If you want to know if your smartphone is > revealing your phone number when you browse websites, you can test for > yourself by visiting this demo page by Collin Mulliner: > > <www.mulliner.org/pc.cgi> " My Android 2.2 phone tests ok on that site, no HTTP headers with the phone number. -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:27:07 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Justices Say GPS Tracker Violated Privacy Rights Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Justices Say GPS Tracker Violated Privacy Rights >By ADAM LIPTAK >January 23, 2012 >The New York Times >WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously ruled that the >police violated the Constitution when they placed a Global >Positioning System tracking device on a suspect's car and monitored >its movements for 28 days. >But the justices divided 5-to-4 on the rationale for the decision, >with the majority saying that the problem was the placement of the >device on private property. That ruling avoided many difficult >questions, including how to treat information gathered from devices >installed by the manufacturer and how to treat information held by >third parties like cellphone companies. Huh. That's a poor summary of the case. There were two different opinions, one written by Scalia and one written by Alito. Because Sotomayor concurred in part with both, parts of both opinions are decisions for the majority of the Court. The only certain outcome of this case is that more litigation is coming and that the US Supreme Court doesn't intend to provide useful guidance at this time. The defendant's conviction was reversed by the circuit court on the basis that the defendant's right against unreasonable search had been violated. The Supreme Court let the reversal stand. The government tried to bring up an argument, disallowed as it was not raised in the lower courts, that there was reasonable suspicion and thus probable cause and therefore the search wasn't unconstitutional. However, the way Scalia wrote his opinion didn't rule out upholding that argument if appropriate in another trial. The government claimed the police had reasonable suspicion to conduct the warrantless search without violating the suspect's rights as it was obvious that the defendant was one of the lead drug trafficking conspirators. It's likely that this argument will be used in future in appeal of another criminal case. If it becomes a majority opinion, who would be above suspicion? The reasonable suspicion was based on [the theory that] "it's obvious that the defendant was one of the lead conspirators in drug trafficking." It's simply an argument that can be used next time. It's always obvious when someone is a criminal, right, so there's always probable cause when the police just don't want to obtain a warrant, right? Scalia's originalist argument in the minority part of his opinion dealt with the issue of whether the defendant had an expectation of privacy as there was no trespass as the concept was understood in 1791. After all, a constable might have tracked a suspect's movements by hiding in his carriage. Alito said that would have been possible only with a tiny constable or an enormous carriage. The search was continuous over a period of nearly a month. The police even had to change the batteries in the tracking device. The troubling part of Alito's opinion, with which Sotomayor kinda/sorta concurred with, making a majority, was that Alito distinguished between the possibility that a short-term warrantless search might not be unconstitutional, in case of an investigation into an extraordinary offense, but that a long-term warrantless search would be. Alito made no specific comment about what types of extraordinary offenses would qualify for this exception. Scalia's minority opinion made no distinction between short term and long term. Scalia's opinion only suggested that warrants should be obtained. Sotomayor kinda/sorta agreed. Unlike what the lead of the New York Times suggests, the US Supreme Court did not uphold the right to privacy against warrantless searches using modern tracking technology. The Court equivocated on the issue and await further litigation. Who knows what privacy rights will survive after the next case is heard?
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:40:49 -0500 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: We need to talk about piracy... Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 23:21:21 -0500, Bill Horne wrote: > We need to talk about piracy (but we must stop SOPA first) > > Much to my happiness, the internets (sic) are in a frenzy about the > "Stop Online Piracy Act" (aka SOPA). ... > > Rest at: > http://goo.gl/wB0I4 > That's the tip of a world-wide iceberg. The European component is called ACTA. What exactly is ACTA, you ask? In a nutshell, ACTA is Europe's SOPA / PIPA. Several days ago I had submitted a truly dreadfully rendered (hence rejected here) GoogleTranslate of a recent Polish piece describing the protests taking place on the streets of major cities across Poland against ACTA. I had even chosen as Subject: "Polish websites to go dark to protest ACTA" and offered the page http://www.wftv.com/ap/ap/top-news/polish-websites-to-go-dark-to-protest-acta/nG7Rr/, or rather, Google's inept translation thereof, as my only reference. But what is ACTA really? And why protest it? For basics, cf. http://www.thedailyaztec.com/2012/01/acta-has-same-dangers-as-pipa-and-sopa/ A year or so ago, ACTA seemed dead in the water. Now, however, see http://www.davidhammerstein.com/article-acta-campaign-rolls-on-in-the-eu-46694931.html . More links: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120125/12034817541/state-union-address-highlights-dirty-trick-hiding-more-draconian-ip-rules-trade-agreements.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120123/11385017516/paulo-coelho-sopa-pirates-world-unite-pirate-everything-ive-ever-written.shtml and, by Marietje Schaake (MEP), http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ow1v5/acta_note_from_marietje_schaake_member_of_the/. Learn much more by searching with search-strings like [ acta vote 2012 ], [ ACTA vote Europe ], [ACTA vote european parliament ], and the like. Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:11:16 -0500 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Ratted out by your very own phone ... ? Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:37:34 +1100, David Clayton wrote: >> ... demo page by Collin Mulliner: >> >> <www.mulliner.org/pc.cgi> " > > My Android 2.2 phone tests ok on that site, no HTTP headers with the phone > number. Non-Android LG CU-400 tests OK too, both the inbuilt browser, and the J2ME-based Opera mini-browser I added in as an aftermarket afterthought. Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:12:50 -0600 From: email@example.com (Robert Bonomi) To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Early and modern PBX systems--was Telephony on TV Message-ID: <foednbZO5M1vQLzSnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <email@example.com>, Justin Goldberg <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 03:57:20 -0500, email@example.com (Robert >Bonomi) wrote: >> Before SS7 - and I believe there is still such a capability in SS7 - >> there was a capability for a telco to issue a command for the >> switches handling a call to 'freeze' the connection, such that the >> circuit was not torn down when either party hung up. This >> eliminated the need to 'keep the caller on the line' until the trace >> was completed. This was a "lock and trace" operation. > >Is this what the "malicious call trace" feature which is seen on many >modern PBXs does? No. All a PBX can do is issue the standard 'Vertical Service Code' for a 'customer originated trace' request. (AFAIK, this is not an actual physical traceback through all the switches, but a capture of the originating 'caller-ID' info (even if the suppress flag is set), and the 'ANI' fields from the SS7 call-set-up packets.) A full-blown 'lock and trace' takes explicit advance arrangement with the LEC, with special CPE to generate the request, and explicit enabling of the 'recognition' for that request at the C.O. The lock & trace is still labor intensive, because it requires a tech to access the console of the destination switch, find the incoming circuit that matches the outgoing circuit to the customer, and then either repeat the process for each 'upstream' switch that that tech can access, or to contact another tech who does have access to that upstream switch. It's a lot easier then when one actually had to 'follow the wires' through an electromechanical C.O., but it's not exactly trivial. There's no telling how may different 'telephone companies' may be involved in handling a single call, and it will take a minimum of one tech from -each- company to complete the actual trace. This just one of the reasons telcos "resist" doing actual lock & trace these days. <wry grin>
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition 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 Bill Horne. 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. The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
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 Copyright (C) 2012 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
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.