|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 101 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Sabotage attacks knock out phone service
Re: Sabotage attacks knock out phone service
Re: Sabotage attacks knock out phone service
Re: Demise of on-line telephone directory databases
Conficker spam bots could send 400 billion emails per day
Re: Conficker C Analysis
Re: Sabotage attacks knock out phone service
Re: Sabotage attacks knock out phone service
Re: Online database for ratting out
Directories
Comcast Triple Play in multi-unit residence: advice sought
====== 27 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 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, and other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:28:02 GMT
From: Stephen <stephen_hope@xyzworld.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sabotage attacks knock out phone service
Message-ID: <aan3u497morisio8dalimsols0ii1q81bo@4ax.com>
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:07:34 -0400 (EDT), David Clayton
<dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:19:47 -0400, Monty Solomon wrote:
>
>>
>> Sabotage attacks knock out phone service
>>
>> Nanette Asimov, Ryan Kim,Kevin Fagan, Chronicle Staff Writers
>>
>> Friday, April 10, 2009
>>
>> (04-10) 04:00 PDT SAN JOSE --
>>
>> Police are hunting for vandals who chopped fiber-optic cables and
>> killed landlines, cell phones and Internet service for tens of
>> thousands of people in Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and San Benito
>> counties on Thursday.
>>
>> The sabotage essentially froze operations in parts of the three
>> counties at hospitals, stores, banks and police and fire departments
>> that rely on 911 calls, computerized medical records, ATMs and
>> credit and debit cards.
You have to wonder about the network design here if this is a major
trunk.
The only place i have to deal with similar single path stuff is where
there is only 1 good route - the microwave links out to Scottish
islands is a good example. But these are isolated communities, not big
suburbs around a major conurbation.
I would get a lot of grief if any of my resilient designs depended on
a single path.
Mind you - other countries get hit as well with similar issues:
http://www.fiercecio.com/techwatch/story/thrust-borer-mishap-results-outage-affecting-70-000-customers/2009-04-07
--
Regards
stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl
***** Moderator's Note *****
It's easy to look back and think "we should have ...", but the
American model of business has always been to get the product on the
shelves first and worry about preventing theft or sabotage
later. Department stores, for example, simply add the cost of
"shrinkage" loses to the price of goods, since it's cheaper than
paying for enough security to prevent theft in the first place.
In the U.S., networks have assured redundancy only in hyper-critical
areas where a failure could stopp _all_ traffic: power, billing and
SS7. Individual ratepayers, or even large groups of them, occasionally
find out that they are not paying for guaranteed levels of service(1).
Bill
1.) They would almost certainly choose not to bear that cost
if they had the option, but that's a moot point - the cost of a
telephone line has always been governed by the "point of pain"
calculation, i.e., by setting it just below the level where ratepayers
consider a telephone line to be an option rather than a necessity.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 07:32:35 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sabotage attacks knock out phone service
Message-ID: <8YmEl.23117$c45.4696@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>
T wrote:
> In article <p06240821c605b3d14247@[10.0.1.6]>, monty@roscom.com says...
>> Sabotage attacks knock out phone service
>>
>> Nanette Asimov, Ryan Kim,Kevin Fagan, Chronicle Staff Writers
>>
>> Friday, April 10, 2009
>>
>> (04-10) 04:00 PDT SAN JOSE --
>>
>> Police are hunting for vandals who chopped fiber-optic cables and
>> killed landlines, cell phones and Internet service for tens of
>> thousands of people in Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and San Benito
>> counties on Thursday.
>
> [Moderator snip]
>
>> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/04/10/MNP816VTE6.DTL
>
> As a ham, I have to ask where was the amateur radio communty in this.
> It's been proven time and again that amateur radio is the only thing
> standing when landline and cell services go down.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Ham radio may be still standing when cell and landlines are down, but
> it's not operational. Short of having hams drive around with
> loudspeakers advertising their presence, there's no way to make the
> citizenry aware of their capabilities.
>
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderator
I don't know about that, but in 1971 after the Sylmar, Calif earthquake
almost everyone in my neighborhood showed up at my door to get in
contact with people in other parts of the country; but working for GTE
at that time I was working 24/7. trying to clear out the CO so we could
rebuild.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I envy you: I grew up during the "TVI" era, and the only people who
showed up at my door were angry about not being able to see their
favorite TV show. I did everything I could to hide the fact that I'm a
ham operator, and now, since I operate AM, I still keep a low profile.
Frankly, I doubt more than one out of one-hundred citizens even know
ham radio still exists. It's just not a valid option for emergency
communication, since too few know that it's availalble.
Bill Horne, W1AC
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:59:46 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sabotage attacks knock out phone service
Message-ID: <UKrEl.4609$im1.232@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>
Steven Lichter wrote:
> T wrote:
>>
>> As a ham, I have to ask where was the amateur radio communty in this.
>> It's been proven time and again that amateur radio is the only thing
>> standing when landline and cell services go down.
>>
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> Ham radio may be still standing when cell and landlines are down, but
>> it's not operational. Short of having hams drive around with
>> loudspeakers advertising their presence, there's no way to make the
>> citizenry aware of their capabilities.
>>
>> Bill Horne
>> Temporary Moderator
>
> I don't know about that, but in 1971 after the Sylmar, Calif earthquake
> almost everyone in my neighborhood showed up at my door to get in
> contact with people in other parts of the country; but working for GTE
> at that time I was working 24/7. trying to clear out the CO so we could
> rebuild.
>
***** Moderator's Note *****
>I envy you: I grew up during the "TVI" era, and the only people who
>showed up at my door were angry about not being able to see their
>favorite TV show. I did everything I could to hide the fact that I'm a
>ham operator, and now, since I operate AM, I still keep a low profile.
>Frankly, I doubt more than one out of one-hundred citizens even know
>ham radio still exists. It's just not a valid option for emergency
>communication, since too few know that it's availalble.
>Bill Horne, W1AC
>Temporary Moderator
I used to give out High Pass Filters until one neighbor came to me a
demanded I pay for a new picture tube that a TV repairman told him the
filter caused to blow. I refused telling him that is not possible and
the tech is either a moron or a crook. He called the police which
laughed at him and then filled a complaint with the FCC which told him
the same thing. From that point on I told anyone that asked that the
manufacturer was responsible since I was within the rules. I did
continue to come through a neighbors electric organ which I cold never fix.
I used to work with the Sheriffs emergency communications unit and
later became a reserve sheriff. So back then Ham radio was known,
[although] many thought it was the same as CB. I handled a lot of
M.A.R.S. traffic, but in the last few years have not even bothered to
set my rig up and have long since had the plates removed from my car.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
***** Moderator's Note *****
As it happened, I grew up during a time when the United States was
encouraging technical education and achievement, so ham operators
received a lot of support from governments at all levels. That support
translated into real-world benefits, both in terms of surplus
equipment distributed to M.A.R.S. members, and in terms of
preferential placements for servicemen with ham licenses: I ran the
Navy M.A.R.S. station at Danang, which entitled me to sit in
air-conditioned comfort while G.I.'s with fewer skills were out in the
sun humping ammo off of trucks.
Times have changed, and many hams feel that they're no longer welcome
at the public-service table: Ham radio can still provide emergency
communmications, although hams must learn to contribute within the
framework of an incident management system that subordinates them to
professional responders.
In the future, I think Ham radio will once again take on a major role
in offering technical training and camaraderie for young proto-geeks,
because it will take up some of the slack as the net becomes less a
technical center and more a trasport pipe for entertainment. The old
days are, of course, gone: there's no magic in having a hand-held
radio when cell phones are ubiquitous, but there are still plenty of
technical challenges to be met, and as the internet/cellular/etc
infrastructure becomes ever-more complicated, there will be a demand
for technicians to keep it running.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:22:37 GMT
From: "Gene S. Berkowitz" <first.last@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Demise of on-line telephone directory databases
Message-ID: <MPG.244bd1495c6ca5f989958@news.verizon.net>
In article <grqaks$520$1@news.motzarella.org>, spfleck@citlink.net
says...
> >> Might as well resume using printed telephone directories.
>
> In my residential area phone books are dropped off in bags at the foot
> of the rural mailbox or thrown to the middle of the driveway. Many are
> never picked up by their intended victims, left to decompose outdoors.
>
> Part of the problem is we get so many phone books.. 6 or 7 at last
> count. Two or three from Frontier, the regional telco, more from
> Verizon which does not serve my area but serves adjacent areas, and
> more from independent yellow page distributors. None of them are
> accurate.
Verizon spun off their directory business as Idearc, which recently
filed Chapter 11, and went from around $36/share to 3 cents/share.
The next Verizon directory will likely come on a 1,000 sheet, single-ply
roll, safe for septic systems.
--Gene
***** Moderator's Note *****
Watch out for those four-color ads!
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:25:56 -0400
From: Will Roberts <oldbear@arctos.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Conficker spam bots could send 400 billion emails per day
Message-ID: <0MKpCa-1Lt2W80IuV-000d4z@mrelay.perfora.net>
COMPUTERWORLD / Security
April 10, 2009
Conficker botnet could flood Web with spam
------------------------------------------
It could send billions of messages daily,
says Russian security researcher
By
Gregg Keizer
April 10, 2009 (Computerworld) Windows PCs infected with the Conficker
worm have turned into junk mail-spewing robots capable of sending
billions of spam messages a day, a security company warned today.
According to Kaspersky Lab, a Moscow-based antivirus firm, yesterday's
update to Conficker, which in some cases was accompanied by the Waledac
spam bot, has resulted in a floodtide of junk e-mail.
"In just 12 hours, one bot alone sent out 42,298 spam messages," said
Kaspersky researcher Alex Gostev in a message Friday. "A simple
calculation shows that one bot sends out around 80,000 e-mails in 24
hours. Assuming that there are 5 million infected machines out there,
the [Conficker] botnet could send out about 400 billion spam messages
over a 24-hour period!"
The spam is pitching pharmaceuticals exclusively at the moment, said
Gostev, primarily erectile dysfunction medications such as Viagra and
Cialis, with message subject headings, including "She will dream of
you days and nights!" and "Hot life -- our help here. Ensure your
potence [sic] today!"
Gostev also noted that almost every message contained a unique domain
in the embedded link, a tactic spammers sometimes use to side-step
antispam filters, which analyze the frequency that any one domain is
used. "We detected the use of 40,542 third-level domains and 33
second-level domains," said Gostev. "They all belonged to spammers
and the companies that ordered these mailings."
Most of the domains are hosted in China, he added.
Conficker, the worm that first appeared in November 2008, exploded
in early 2009 to infect several million machines and set off a
near-panic as an April 1 trigger date approached, was fed a new
version early Thursday that restored its ability to spread and beefed
up its defenses against security tools. If it successfully updated an
already-infected PC, Conficker.e -- as the new variant has been labeled
-- also downloaded and installed a noted spam bot, Waledac.
Waledac has its own checkered history, in that it's assumed to have
been created by some of the same hackers who operated the notorious
Storm botnet during 2007 and 2008.
The spam coming from Conficker.e-infected systems is actually generated
and sent by the Waledac bot Trojan.
Some Conficker bots have also downloaded and installed Spyware Protect
2009, one of the many "scareware" programs in circulation. Scareware
is the term given to fake anti-malware software that generates bogus
infection warnings and then nags users with endless alerts until they
pay to $50 to buy the useless program. According to Microsoft, the
scam -- also called "rogue software" -- is one of the biggest threats
to Internet users. In the second half of 2008 alone, Microsoft's
anti-malware tools cleaned nearly 6 million PCs of scareware-related
infections.
Yesterday, another researcher raised the alarm about the new Conficker
and the software it drops, saying that the spam and scareware angles
were clearly the first solid evidence of how the worm's makers planned
to profit from their crime. "I don't want to be a scaremonger," said
Kevin Hogan, director of security response operations at Symantec Corp.
"But the situation now, as Conficker does go back to propagating, is
actually more serious than a couple of weeks ago."
##
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:31:27 +1000
From: Colin <colins@swiftdsl.com.au>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Conficker C Analysis
Message-ID: <49e198d1$1_9@news.peopletelecom.com.au>
Quoting the article:
"Perhaps in the best case, Conficker may be used as a sustained and
profitable platform for massive Internet fraud and theft. In the
worst case, Conficker could be turned into a powerful offensive weapon
for performing concerted information warfare attacks"
Surely the best case is that Conficker is preventing infected machines
from being infected by (other) malicious worms/viruses/spambots?
Regards,
Colin
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 20:57:30 GMT
From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sabotage attacks knock out phone service
Message-ID: <bik4u49d2q1r7747qdjerag309t4kjje23@4ax.com>
T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
>As a ham, I have to ask where was the amateur radio communty in this.
>It's been proven time and again that amateur radio is the only thing
>standing when landline and cell services go down.
Preparing for disaster: Phone outage tests emergency workers
And officials in Santa Clara and Monterey counties are praising ham
radio operators not only for their quick response, but also for coming
through when state-of-the-art technology failed. Amateur radio
operators, armed with their antennaed boxes - the true wireless -
became the eyes and ears of police and fire on the streets.
They were able to communicate with police and firefighters, who were
using their own two-way radios.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12119261
>Ham radio may be still standing when cell and landlines are down, but
>it's not operational. Short of having hams drive around with
>loudspeakers advertising their presence, there's no way to make the
>citizenry aware of their capabilities.
Where are the citizens going to go in an emergency when the telephone
system doesn't work? Town hall, fire halls, hospitals or similar
sites. So that's where the amateurs would be. In the above story
near a school. In other areas amateurs provided communications to
neighbouring municipalities.
BTW I suspect a number of the radio systems the emergency services [use]
depend on fibre or other telco connections between the various radio
repeater sites around the city. I wonder if they were sitll working.
Amateur radio is very much into new technologies. For example, Winlink
2000 (http://www.winlink.org/) is a distributed, redundant system for
moving emails via amateur radio dozens of miles or thousands of files
without reguiring any other infrustructure other than amateur radio
equipment. Granted these emails won't be large or contain videos but
in a disaster situation they are invaluable for getting messages
through.
Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 20:47:43 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Sabotage attacks knock out phone service
Message-ID: <MPG.244c55b9ead249529899c3@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <MPG.244ad39a76e6bc7d9899b7@reader.motzarella.org>,
kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net says...
>
> In article <p06240821c605b3d14247@[10.0.1.6]>, monty@roscom.com says...
> >
> > Sabotage attacks knock out phone service
> >
>
> As a ham, I have to ask where was the amateur radio communty in this.
> It's been proven time and again that amateur radio is the only thing
> standing when landline and cell services go down.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Ham radio may be still standing when cell and landlines are down, but
> it's not operational. Short of having hams drive around with
> loudspeakers advertising their presence, there's no way to make the
> citizenry aware of their capabilities.
>
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderator
I know standard policy when telecom systems go out here is that hams
are stationed at common communty rally points and at the PD and FD
stations.
Most of it is handled by the Red Cross.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 14:24:03 -0800
From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Online database for ratting out
Message-ID: <grtm4g$6ak$1@blue.rahul.net>
>> http://www.whosarat.com has been repeatedly targeted by state and federal
>> prosecutors for "outing" their informants and dirty cops, but so far the
>> website operator has been able to use the First Amendment to stay online.
>>
>> Valuable public service or dangerous information resource? You decide.
> In general the question you ask on this particular issue is not an
> easy one to answer.
>
> On the one hand, informants do provide the cops with a lot of
> information that results in the rest of us being safer. Indeed, many
> authorities have 800 numbers for citizens to send in tips. Our local
> school board announced such a tip line for any matter regarding school
> safety.
>
> (Or cops pressure an arrested person to rat out others in return for a
> lighter sentence; that's very common.)
>
> On the other hand, such a system can be abused. I'm not sure how I
> feel about such anonymous tip lines. I've heard of feuding
> neighborhoods making nasty untrue accusations via such tip lines
> causing the other neighbor all sorts of grief.
I'm all for the use of informants under well controlled conditions.
But when their testimony is used (even if only as cause for a warrant),
prosecutors should be required to tell the jury everything, including
the informant's entire rap sheet and the whole deal that was made with
him/her. And the government should never be allowed to use informants
as a means to do things they can't do themselves (such as entrap
suspects into committing crimes or bully suspects into confessing).
The same goes for cops who have committed perjury, planted evidence,
taken bribes, or otherwise abused their positions. Federal law now
hides that information from juries, even when it would and should make
them very skeptical of that cop's testimony.
[ObTelecom] And I'd like to see a national version of the law in some
states that forces all interrogations to be videotaped and made
available for defense attorneys to show to juries.
> Let's not forget the news media makes great use of informants, too,
> who may not necessarily be honest or accurate. Back in the 1950s
> certain national columnists would finger communists or ex-communists
> based on confidential informants and ruin the target's life.
The media (and bloggers) should be given more slack than the police
because the media can't use force.
> Politicians and other public servants can have their careers ruined by
> such columnists.
Politicians should be held to a higher standard than ordinary people
because they have the power to destroy people's lives. Cops, too.
But against the media or a blogger, replying in kind or (if you can't)
suing for libel is sufficient remedy.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 22:25:02 -0400
From: Randall Webmail <rvh40@insightbb.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Directories
Message-ID: <fc3ef4ab15166.49e26a3e@insightbb.com>
>From: gordon@hammy.burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
>To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
>Subject: Re: Demise of on-line telephone directory >databases
>Message-ID: ><oI2dnXbL24AQvnzUnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
>> Might as well resume using printed telephone directories. The number of
>> published listings is way down, as the ILEC doesn't carry all telephone
>> numbers from CLEC's, but at least what you find stands a better chance
>> of being accurate.
>
>It's impossible to find my phone number via such searches. I prefer
>it this way. I get nearly zero junk phone calls.
>
>The model I prefer is: if you want your number >listed in a directory,
>then contact a directory company (or several) and >pay for it.
>Telephone companies may not sell data to >directory companies. If
>a telephone company runs a directory company, it >must be done as a
>separate unit with no access to the telephone >company database.
You mean some people don't lie to the telephone company? You can find my
number in the local directory, [but] you will not find my name.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:37:58 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Comcast Triple Play in multi-unit residence: advice sought
Message-ID: <siegman-8888F5.17372812042009@news.stanford.edu>
[This message asks a lot of "Consumer Reports" type questions about a
proposed Comcast bundled installation in my personal residence -- but I
think it's mostly "Telecom" in character (and, any responses might be
useful to others as well).]
My wife & I are currently planning a "Triple Play" (i.e., bundled cable,
Internet & multiple phone line) installation/conversion in a sprawling
4-unit family residence a month or so from now. Any advance words of
wisdom or advice for us about any aspects of this will be appreciated.
[Please pardon lengthy message below; it's partly for me to get some of
the major concerns down for my own education as well.]
Our situation is a mostly one-story 3500 sq ft house on the Stanford
campus that includes an owner's section plus 3 self-contained
studio-type rental units under one roof (the rental units are typically
occupied by grad students or visitors on university fellows programs).
Present connectivity includes Comcast cable TV with 4-way signal
splitting; 5 hardwired phone lines (3 into the rental units, plus
separate "residential" and "home office" lines for the owners); and
AT&T DSL service on one of the owner lines.
The DSL (which has only about 400KB data rate due to excessive
distance from the nearest CO) comes in through an elderly Cayman
router, one of whose 4 Ethernet ports is cabled via Cat 5 to a
centrally positioned Apple Extreme base station. This base station
then provides an in-house WIfI LAN to multiple laptops (mostly Macs)
in all four parts of the house (it does get a bit overloaded at
times). Some other misc Ethernet stuff (printers, etc) is hung off
the other three Ethernet ports of the Cayman.
We're hoping to convert essentially _all_ of this connectivity into
the Comcast bundle, including dumping the DSL service after a testing
and transition period. So, a variety of questions come up:
1) Which of the Comcast-suggested modems should we purchase for the
Comcast Internet service? We're leaning toward a NetGear model -- a
good choice???
2) I assume this modem will then provide both a WiFi LAN throughout
the house, plus some Ethernet ports which can drive the existing Cat 5
cabling that exists through most of the house. This WiFI and the
Ethernet ports will then all form one big Ethernet network -- right?
3) So, should we maybe have the three tenants mostly use the Comcast
WiFI LAN, while we keep the existing Airport Extreme (direct cabled into
the Comcast modem) as a separate password-protected Airport LAN for the
owner's family's Macs?
We're not particularly worried about security vis-a-vis the tenants;
but we also don't normally do any direct file sharing with any of the
tenants' machines either. We might separate things this way partly
for redundancy, partly just to keep our family traffic separate.
Or is there a better way?
4) If we do keep the Airport Extreme in the system, should it be
configured so that it's handing out NAT addresses to the laptops that
talk to it? Or operated in bridge mode, so that the cable modem and the
Airport Extreme LAN are all united into one single Ethernet network?
5) Because of the 4-way splitting of the cable TV signal, we currently
have a powered cable TV amplifier at the point where the current cable
from Comcast enters the house. Will the Internet signals pass through
that amplifier? -- or will they have to be split off and/or bypassed
around it somehow?
6) Part of the overall deal is also supposed to be converting at least
three, maybe four of the existing 5 phone lines over to VOIP, so as
to get substantially reduced cost and and unified billing (might
even drop phone service for the tenants, and let them live with the
individual cell phones they generally come to us with, or with VOIP
they set up on their own).
We have no direct experience of any kind with this Internet phone
technology -- any advice and counsel will be appreciated.
7) Cellphone signal levels are marginal at our location for all the
major carriers, though this is supposed to improve very soon with a new
Distributed Service Antenna going in. But if we were to nonetheless
acquire one of these Internet connected $250 to $300 "femtocell" units
from our family cellphone carrier (Verizon), would this unit also serve
cellphones from other carriers that our tenants might have?
And if so, would using that connectivity incur any kind of special
"roaming" or similar charges, either for us, or for them?
8) Besides all the above, anything else we should be asking ourselves?
Thanks much for any assistance . . .
------------------------------
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 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.
The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
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) 2008 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.
End of The Telecom digest (11 messages)
******************************
|
or 