|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 179 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: OT: IFRAME exploit was: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: OT: IFRAME exploit was: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Goodbye to copper?
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
====== 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: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:15:43 -0500
From: gordonb.ld6hp@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <ftydnapYAa1ibdfXnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
>Why not just use a hands-free unit which is legal in California.
They shouldn't be, for all the same reasons using a handsful cellphone
while driving is dangerous.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 07:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <446152.82711.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:54:29 -0700 Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
> Why not just use a hands-free unit which is legal in California.
Because the problem is *distraction* and not just fumbling with a
handset. Despite what people think the ability to multtask such as
drive a car and talk on the phone the person talking on the phone
often is giving more priority to the conversation that's being had
between the driver and the person at the other end of the telephone
conversation than to driving.
I'm no longer a car driver for the most part, but I'm amazed at the
number of people who don't have any sense about them what's happening
and almost mow down people who are chatting on their phones oblivious
to what's happening around them.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:03:50 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <siegman-A4410E.06032001072009@news.stanford.edu>
In article <Fbt2m.22142$KQ4.19855@newsfe18.iad>,
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why not just use a hands-free unit which is legal in California.
I want to call a person -- my spouse, say -- who may be on the freeway,
may be at a stop.
If they're at a stop, I'd like them to answer the phone.
But if they're on the freeway, I'd like them to get an audible beep, and
maybe a kind of audio tweet, saying that I've called -- but I DON't want
them trying to answer the phone or take the call, even hands free.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:41:41 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <h2gebr$6ov$1@news.eternal-september.org>
AES wrote:
> In article <Fbt2m.22142$KQ4.19855@newsfe18.iad>,
> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why not just use a hands-free unit which is legal in California.
>
> I want to call a person -- my spouse, say -- who may be on the freeway,
> may be at a stop.
>
> If they're at a stop, I'd like them to answer the phone.
>
> But if they're on the freeway, I'd like them to get an audible beep, and
> maybe a kind of audio tweet, saying that I've called -- but I DON't want
> them trying to answer the phone or take the call, even hands free.
>
I have been using radios of one kind or another since I was in High
School, starting with Ham radio. I don't care if you are using hands
or not: your attention is split, [and it's] even worse with a Cell
Phone. I never use mine, even hands free, on the highway or city
streets, [where] it is even worse. I see people using their phone,
both holding the phone and hands free, and to me it does not seem to
make a difference: they look like they are in another world - many are
moving their hands and arms and screaming into the phone. In stores it
is even worse: I got knocked down by a woman using hers in a
supermarket.
The laws or the fines appear not to make a difference: several years ago
a driver was using his phone and hit a van, killing all in that van. He
was tried for manslaughter and was convicted.
--
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.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:47:53 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <4A4B0699.4060409@thadlabs.com>
On 6/30/2009 9:39 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
> [...]
> One IT client whose infrastructure I literally built from the ground up
> began with Centrex on my recommendation (10 people at the start), later
> upgraded to a really great PBX with the best voice mail I've ever had the
> pleasure to use, ...
> [...]
I was trying to remember what PBX that was and I just found my old notes.
It was a NorTel NorStar/BCM with a T7316E+T24 for the receptionist and 40
each T7316E and T7208 phones for the employees along with two ACUs and 8
analog lines for FAXes and modems.
The software was clunky and not 100% correctly configured by the vendor, but
I was able to correct the oversights and omissions. My biggest gripe with the
software was the inability to "dump" the configuration database -- I had to
tediously extract the info entry by entry and create a spreadsheet, notice the
discrepancies, correct them, and update the spreadsheet.
Now here's a "funny" thing. I noticed there was no entry for the name portion
of outgoing CID, so I entered the company name and thought I was finished.
Several hours later, the Office Manager asked me if there was something wrong
with the phone system since no phone had rung all afternoon. Long story short,
I discovered that a non-blank entry for the name portion of outgoing CID had
somehow disabled the system. After blanking the company name, everything began
working fine again. This was annoying because I explicitly stated to the vendor
when ordering the system that I wanted both the company number and the name to
appear on called-parties' CID displays.
The vendor later stated it was "some problem" with the CO and there was nothing
that could be done. I was dubious because a colleague who installed a DMS-100
at HP in Palo Alto CA was easily able to cause "HEWLETT PACKARD" to appear on
CID displays, but I didn't have time to pursue the matter further.
Does that ("nothing could be done") make any sense? I'm guessing the line to
the CO was a PRI, but the BCM chassis was locked and I never had a chance to
examine what was inside the two cabinets. The CO is in San Mateo CA (El Camino
and 28th) and I'm reasonably certain it's a 5ESS.
The reason I'm asking is because I was easily able to cause any number display
("650-xxx-nnnn") to appear on CID per the requirement of company "main" number
for all except certain sales, marketing and executive personnel who needed to
have their specific extensions appear on CID displays.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:01:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <a1575e58-e59c-4171-9751-8180a4a5d812@l34g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 30, 7:50 am, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> I can provide one reason: anal-retentive management at some companies. :-)
>
> Real example at one client company in the San Francisco Bay Area: they'd
> permit "local" calls from any phone to communities where employees lived,
> restrict long distance dialing to those with passwords in the LD file, and
> restrict international dialing to those with passwords in the INTL file.
Extension restriction is an ancient function of dial-PBXs. The
simplest, of course, is restricting who can dial outside calls. That
feature is still in use today, such as for hallway phones and the like
that. Years ago employees and visitors who wanted to make personal
calls had to use a pay phone. Most large businesses had payphones for
employee or visitor use scattered throughout the building, such as one
near the restrooms on every floor, several in the cafeteria and of
course in the entrance lobby. (Today, when a large building often
won't have a pay phone at all, it's hard to believe how many payphones
were installed in buildings).
According to the Bell Labs history, in the 1950s they developed a toll
restriction, that is, an extension could dial local calls but not toll
calls. This was done in the central office; apparently certain dial-9
PBX trunks were assigned to that class. The central office of course
maintained up-to-date tables. I worked in a large hospital that had
that service. Most extensions could not dial out at all. Some
extensions (and patient room lines) could dial out locally. In those
days all toll calls went through the PBX switchboard where the
attendant requested time & charges and prepared a toll ticket of the
calling extension.
(I suppose one can still ask for time and charges on an LD today, but
the operator handled-surcharge would far exceed the cost of the call.)
One feature of Centrex was that each extension had its own billing, so
that toll calls were automated billed back to the proper extension,
eliminating the need for the PBX attendant to write up toll tickets.
(Some Centrexes were served by ONI offices.)
Since toll calls are so cheap today many of these features are not
significant today, but they still are in use. Business long distance
still has a charge to it, and certainly international calls do.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:58:04 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <4A4BE9FC.70607@annsgarden.com>
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Mexico was never in the NANP. There were special dialing
> procedures to reach northwestern Mexico where telephone systems
> were installed thanks to US investors, and a special dialing
> procedure to reach Mexico city using a dialing sequence that
> fit into NANP dialing.
> There was a long transition period in which these areas could
> be dialed either NANP style or using Mexico's country code.
> Eventually the practice ended when NANPA reclaimed the reserved
> dialing procedures for new area codes.
It took certain phone book publishers a while to figure that out.
On a recent stay at a motel in New Mexico, I examined the 2007 edition
of the Colvis/Portales/Tucumcari telephone directory (a "Five Star Phone
Book" it modestly claimed). It contained the following instructions for
calling Mexico:
| Most locations in Mexico can be reached by using the
| international diallng (011+) instructions. If you cannot use
| international dialing from your telephone, some Mexican cities
| can be dialed using special access codes with city codes (see
| following list for some City Codes).
|
| MEXICO CITY dial:
| 1 + 90 + 5(the City Code) + local numbers
|
| NORTHWEST MEXICO dial:
| 1 + 70 + City Code (2 or 3 digits beginning with "6") + Local
| number
That directory was published in 2007, almost 13 years after 706 and 905
were reclaimed and reassigned as area codes in Georgia and Ontario!
Five Stars indeed.
Neal McLain
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <0f486bfa-ceb4-4b33-ada2-76ad1198a09e@r16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 30, 7:51 am, "Bob Goudreau" <BobGoudr...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> . . . It sounds like you are thinking of the upgrades needed to
> handle NNX area codes, which first made their appearance all the way back
> in 1995. By the time the start of 1999 rolled around, over one hundred of
> those new-style area codes had debuted, so I hope your PBX was able to
> dial them well before that point!
New exchanges and area codes were coming out so fast in that era that
PBX maintainers were unable to update the tables fast enough. Many
new subscribers, upon learning their new phone number looked like an
area code, protested and asked for a more conventional number.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:10:07 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <4A4BDEBF.6090902@thadlabs.com>
On 7/1/2009 9:15 AM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> [...]
> New exchanges and area codes were coming out so fast in that era that
> PBX maintainers were unable to update the tables fast enough. Many
> new subscribers, upon learning their new phone number looked like an
> area code, protested and asked for a more conventional number.
I wonder if protesting or complaining today would have any effect? :-)
I'm reminded of the time (late 1990s) when we (SF Bay Area) lost what
I believe was termed "permissive dialing" to cellphones.
My carrier since 1992, Cellular One (now AT&T Mobility), was based in
South San Francisco (SSF), and my cellphone number was identical to my
landline number but with a different exchange. That was very convenient
and all calls to my cellphone were toll-free from anywhere in the SF Bay
Area.
With the loss of "permissive dialing" (probably a PUC decision, I don't
recall all the facts), I began receiving complaints from clients and
friends regarding the toll-charges they were now paying to call me.
After explaining this problem to Cellular One, they assigned me to a new
prefix whose "billing location" was Redwood City, about 15+ miles south
of SSF. But toll-charge complaints from clients and friends continued.
One more discussion with Cellular One resulted in a new cellphone number
whose "billing location" was Mountain View, toll-free for almost all clients
and friends, and extremely easy to remember: the three exchange digits are
also the first three digits of the remaining 4 digits of the number. And now,
for 10+ years, no more complaints from clients and friends. :-)
And for those scratching their head about "billing location", I mean the
cellphone-equivalent location of a CO for toll-charge determination.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:38:22 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: OT: IFRAME exploit was: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <f8adnVw7y_6zJtbXnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <op.uwc8zcy5o63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
> One just needs a "no IFRAMES, please" option in one's browser.
> Which browsers, apart from IE, offer such an option?
The latest version of the NoScript plug-in for Firefox does. <grin>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 00:38:13 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: OT: IFRAME exploit was: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <h2gvhk$n4o$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <f8adnVw7y_6zJtbXnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) writes:
>In article <op.uwc8zcy5o63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
>tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
>> One just needs a "no IFRAMES, please" option in one's browser.
>> Which browsers, apart from IE, offer such an option?
>The latest version of the NoScript plug-in for Firefox does. <grin>
Otoh, the latest version of Firefox is "location aware", and
can send that info (of where you are) to a website on request.
Yes, it's "opt in", but that's for today. Wat'cha wanna bet there
will soon be other programs using this info w/o your knowledge...
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/geolocation/
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
***** Moderator's Note *****
Mozilla's site says it checks your IP address and nearby WiFi
id's. Unless it presents your address info from the name and address
book, I'd say there's little to worry about. IP addresses have been
mapped for years, and the only WiFi address that's near to me most of
the time just says "PrivateHorneFamily".
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:13:03 -0800
From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <h2gcd8$fdu$1@blue.rahul.net>
Tony Toews [MVP] wrote:
> A number of years ago I read a very long web page on legal shenanigans
> with startup bands by record labels. I think it was The Problem With
> Music by Steve Albini
>
> http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
Carly Simon wrote a good article on this in Salon shortly after DMCA was
enacted, but I can no longer find it on their web site.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:39:18 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <2JGdncMlqYiaeNbXnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@posted.visi>
John David Galt wrote:
> Tony Toews [MVP] wrote:
>> A number of years ago I read a very long web page on legal shenanigans
>> with startup bands by record labels. I think it was The Problem With
>> Music by Steve Albini
>>
>> http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
>
> Carly Simon wrote a good article on this in Salon shortly after DMCA was
> enacted, but I can no longer find it on their web site.
>
Sure you're not thinking of Janis Ian?
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
(although her rants were more about downloading and the failure of the
music industry to adapt to change).
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:21:48 -0800
From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <h2gctm$g6s$1@blue.rahul.net>
AES wrote:
> The San Jose Mercury reports today on the order of 200,000+ tickets
> (possibly twice that number) issued in California to date for
> cellphone use while driving.
I see people doing this tens of times per day. Whatever the safety
effect of this law if it were obeyed, drivers are disregarding it in
numbers not seen since the national 55 mph speed limit.
(Which does not necessarily mean the law is unpopular. Just as most
people won't ride public transit but will vote to build more of it
for other people to ride, so the average driver thinks it's a great
idea to ticket other people for phoning at the wheel. Go figure.)
It seems to me that leaving in place a law that's disobeyed so often
undermines respect for the law, and deservedly so. Legislators
should either repeal it, or increase the fine to the point that the
law will actually deter. $500 might work, $1000 certainly would.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Careful, John: you sound like a spokesman for NORML!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:28:00 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <h2grk7$qev$1@news.eternal-september.org>
John David Galt wrote:
> AES wrote:
>> The San Jose Mercury reports today on the order of 200,000+ tickets
>> (possibly twice that number) issued in California to date for
>> cellphone use while driving.
>
> I see people doing this tens of times per day. Whatever the safety
> effect of this law if it were obeyed, drivers are disregarding it in
> numbers not seen since the national 55 mph speed limit.
>
> (Which does not necessarily mean the law is unpopular. Just as most
> people won't ride public transit but will vote to build more of it
> for other people to ride, so the average driver thinks it's a great
> idea to ticket other people for phoning at the wheel. Go figure.)
>
> It seems to me that leaving in place a law that's disobeyed so often
> undermines respect for the law, and deservedly so. Legislators
> should either repeal it, or increase the fine to the point that the
> law will actually deter. $500 might work, $1000 certainly would.
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Careful, John: you sound like a spokesman for NORML!
How about 150 years in prison?
The city of Riverside has start really enforcing the handicap laws,
they are issuing tickits and booting the vehicle. It can cost up to
$1000 for the fine and boot removal, I'm told it only happens once.
--
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.
------------------------------
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 (15 messages)
******************************
|
or 