|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 181 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
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: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cable TV Broadcast Retransmission Consent Feuds "Ease Up"
Re: Cable TV Broadcast Retransmission Consent Feuds "Ease Up"
Rating cell phone calls (was: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?)
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Usenet newsgroups
====== 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: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 01:23:36 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <MPG.24b75fe64f14f15f989a9f@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <HKednTgabJ-
GYNHXnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>, bonomi@host122.r-
bonomi.com says...
>
> In article <c5e.5a28effe.377ab41f@aol.com>, <Wesrock@aol.com> wrote:
> >In a message dated 6/29/2009 11:07:32 AM Central Daylight Time,
> >hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> >
> >> Many private PBX vendors were unprepared, in a variety of ways, to
> >> properly track rapid new code assignments and get their PBX tables
> >> properly updated.
> >
> >Why should PBX's have tables or any information about what area codes
> >exist? As a general rule, I mean, unless they have their own private
> >systems and private lines that they want certain area codes routed
> >over?
>
> There are lots of reasons. e.g.:
>
> You may have trunk service from multiple carriers, with different
> rates to common destinations -- you want to route the call via the
> 'cheapest' carrier, obviously.
>
> You may have multiple 'local' area-codes, and want people to be able
> to do 'local' dialing but *not* be able to dial 'long distance'
> calls. or international calls.
>
> You may want to restrict access to '900' type numbers, because they
> can cost a *lot* extra. (Care to guess how much in charges a few
> employees can run up, when they discover they can call dial-a-porn
> from the phone in the break room?)
>
> You may have multiple locations, in multiple area-codes, and implement
> an 'integrated dialing plan' where you can reach a desk at a remote
> location _without_ dialing the full phone number. This does not
> require dedicated trunks between locations, it can be done over the
> PSTN, with appropriate digit absorption and insertion in the dialing
> process. *BUT*, you gotta know which area-code to insert for a
> cross-NPA call. :)
>
> The more 'smarts' you have in the local equipment, the more
> flexibility you have in controlling operations. Many people don't
> "absolutely NEED" all of that flexibility, but a surprisingly large
> number _can_ "put it to good use" (i.e., do things that save
> themselves money) to greater or lesser degree.
I still remember the command for the G3iV11 system I used to run.
change ars-analysis
That simple. You tabbed to the field, added the dial string pattern and
you were good to go.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:34:19 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <vgk3m.6339$K24.3475@newsfe19.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jun 29, 10:09 pm, Wesr...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>>Why should PBX's have tables or any information about what area codes
>>exist? As a general rule, I mean, unless they have their own private
>>systems and private lines that they want certain area codes routed
>>over?
>
>
> Automated routing over the most cost effective trunk lines. Should a
> call go out over a regular line, an instate WATS line, outstate WATS
> line, FX line, tie-line, etc.? If the primary choice isn't available,
> what is the best second choice?
>
> I suspect these choices were more significant in 1999 than they are
> now.
I would say so. My Vonage primary number is in Washington DC. I am in
Southern California. This arrangement is the fucntional equivalent of a
transcontinental FX line, which would have cost several thousand dollars
before the Internet blossomed.
***** Moderator's Note *****
That's a great idea: whenever you're feeling down, you can dial the
local weather. ;-)
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:17:42 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <MPG.24b83175bf8a7300989aa0@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <vgk3m.6339$K24.3475@newsfe19.iad>, sam@coldmail.com says...
>
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 10:09 pm, Wesr...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Why should PBX's have tables or any information about what area codes
> >>exist? As a general rule, I mean, unless they have their own private
> >>systems and private lines that they want certain area codes routed
> >>over?
> >
> >
> > Automated routing over the most cost effective trunk lines. Should a
> > call go out over a regular line, an instate WATS line, outstate WATS
> > line, FX line, tie-line, etc.? If the primary choice isn't available,
> > what is the best second choice?
> >
> > I suspect these choices were more significant in 1999 than they are
> > now.
>
> I would say so. My Vonage primary number is in Washington DC. I am in
> Southern California. This arrangement is the fucntional equivalent of a
> transcontinental FX line, which would have cost several thousand dollars
> before the Internet blossomed.
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> That's a great idea: whenever you're feeling down, you can dial the
> local weather. ;-)
>
> Bill
That's what I love about VoIP. It doesn't care where you are
geographically, your phone numbers is always the same.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:26:29 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <4A4E93A5.8020703@thadlabs.com>
On 7/3/2009 3:34 PM, T wrote:
> [...]
> That's what I love about VoIP. It doesn't care where you are
> geographically, your phone numbers is always the same.
There's a downside to that: ascertaining the location in an emergency.
Let me clarify.
One evening at work I was interrupted by the Building Manager accompanied
by two local Police Officers claiming someone had made a 911 call from our
floor. Surprised (thinking I was the only one still in the building), I
asked them for the number, then ran to the phone closet where I had a floor
map with the location of every phone (in the NorTel/BCM system) and found
it to be in a conference room.
Running over to that room with the officers, we found the auditors still
at work and claiming they made no phone calls. Satisfied there was no
emergency, the officers left.
But I checked the phone logs and a call was made, recorded as 911. What I
believe happened is the auditors thought they had to dial "9" to get an
outside line, then dialed some digits beginning with "11" (probably a typo
since I cannot think of any valid long distance or international number
beginning with "11").
Point being: knowing the number, I knew the hardwired location.
With cellphones, a (rough) location can be gleaned knowing which tower(s)
is/are being used.
How can (or does) a 911 call using VoIP provide a useful location? I ask
because that same company, after they were "forced" to "upgrade" to a VoIP
provider halfway across the USA, had their VoIP phones' IP addresses
assigned by DHCP from the provider 1500 miles away. The provider wasn't
clueful, noone else shared my concern for 911 handling, the company soon
went belly-up, and I ceased worrying about them.
But I do worry about 911 handling in the general sense after an episode
years earlier when I "made the rounds" of another client before leaving
for the night and discovered one person on the floor in his cubicle. 911
brought immediate response and the paramedics stated the person had
passed-out from appendicitis and my call saved his life. Ever since, I
always "walk through" a client's suite, floor, or building before leaving
for the day because I'm usually the last person out the door.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:41:44 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <tnk3m.1769$%02.936@newsfe15.iad>
Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 6/30/2009 5:00 AM, Gordon Burditt wrote:
>
>>[...]
>>And making
>>911 an exception doesn't change the fact that not all emergency
>>calls need to go to 911.
>
>
> As a cellphone user since the early 1990s, here are two tips I've
> picked up over the years:
>
> 1. program-in the landline equivalents of 911 for all the cities and
> areas you expect to be in. For some locales the landline equivalent
> goes to the 911 dispatch center, for others there are separate land-
> line numbers for police and fire/medical. Check the front "Government"
> pages of the locales' phone books for FIRE and for POLICE, For example,
>
I've got you beat. I have had cellular service since it was launched in
Los Angeles for the Oylmpics in 1984. I programmed the directory
numbers for the Orange County Sheriff where I live and have the same set
up for the Sedona area of Arizona.
Even if I am in a town in Orange County that has its own police
department, the Sheriff's dispatch center can reroute that in a flash.
Having said all this, just simply dialing 911 on a cell phone today
usually works quite well, far better than just a few years ago. What is
important is to be able to provide a accurate description of your
location. Some agencies can now accept GPS coordinates but that concept
is seriously lacking as a rule. Highway number and mile post marker
works everywhere.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:03:55 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <d49.4bcae733.377f77db@aol.com>
In a message dated 7/3/2009 9:15:12 AM Central Daylight Time,
sam@coldmail.com writes:
> I think a first-rate hands free system, although of some
> distraction, is far, far less hazardous than holding a phone to
> one's
Repeated studies have shown their is no difference in the
distraction caused by cellphone to your ear or hands-free. It's
apparently the conversation, not the holding of the phone to your ear.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:35:10 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <2rq3m.4479$%R2.3641@newsfe07.iad>
Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 7/3/2009 9:15:12 AM Central Daylight Time,
> sam@coldmail.com writes:
>
>
>>I think a first-rate hands free system, although of some
>>distraction, is far, far less hazardous than holding a phone to
>>one's
>
>
> Repeated studies have shown their is no difference in the
> distraction caused by cellphone to your ear or hands-free. It's
> apparently the conversation, not the holding of the phone to your ear.
>
>
> Wes Leatherock
> wesrock@aol.com
> wleathus@yahoo.com
>
Sometimes studies aren't all they claim to be. The California
legislature certainly perceived a difference.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:44:24 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <Ypk3m.1770$%02.827@newsfe15.iad>
Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>Why not just use a hands-free unit which is legal in California.
>
>
> They shouldn't be, for all the same reasons using a handsful cellphone
> while driving is dangerous.
>
But, they are, and my car has a great linking system to my cell phone;
it will accept up to five of them.
I think a first-rate hands free system, although of some distraction, is
far, far less hazardous than holding a phone to one's ear.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:01:28 -0500
From: gordonb.161jv@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <77-dnRj88tH1pNPXnZ2dnUVZ_hNi4p2d@posted.internetamerica>
>>>Why not just use a hands-free unit which is legal in California.
>>
>> They shouldn't be, for all the same reasons using a handsful cellphone
>> while driving is dangerous.
>>
>But, they are, and my car has a great linking system to my cell phone;
>it will accept up to five of them.
>
>I think a first-rate hands free system, although of some distraction, is
>far, far less hazardous than holding a phone to one's ear.
There have been quite a few studies on the subject that do not agree
with that conclusion. It's not the hands being tied up, it's the
mind.
How on earth do you use FIVE cell phones at once? One bluetooth
earbud on each of five ears?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:38:26 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <h2lqet$jc4$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>>> Why not just use a hands-free unit which is legal in California.
>>> They shouldn't be, for all the same reasons using a handsful cellphone
>>> while driving is dangerous.
>>>
>> But, they are, and my car has a great linking system to my cell phone;
>> it will accept up to five of them.
>>
>> I think a first-rate hands free system, although of some distraction, is
>> far, far less hazardous than holding a phone to one's ear.
>
> There have been quite a few studies on the subject that do not agree
> with that conclusion. It's not the hands being tied up, it's the
> mind.
>
> How on earth do you use FIVE cell phones at once? One bluetooth
> earbud on each of five ears?
>
A few years ago I came up to a car and looked over to see him with 2
phones to his ears, a laptop on his dash, eating something and smoking
all at once and he was steering with his knee, I pulled past him and
got as far ahead as I could. That guy really scared me he was doing
40 plus miles an hour on the road. I wondered if he ever hit
something.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:15:55 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <Liw3m.10177$iU7.6871@newsfe01.iad>
Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>But, they are, and my car has a great linking system to my cell phone;
>>it will accept up to five of them.
>>
>>I think a first-rate hands free system, although of some distraction, is
>>far, far less hazardous than holding a phone to one's ear.
>
>
> There have been quite a few studies on the subject that do not agree
> with that conclusion. It's not the hands being tied up, it's the
> mind.
>
> How on earth do you use FIVE cell phones at once? One bluetooth
> earbud on each of five ears?
>
The concept is:
1. Husband
2. Wife
3. Mother-in-Law
4. Adult Child #1 Living at Home
5. Adult Child #2 Living at Home
If all five get in the car at once you have to tell the link which one
is its phone for the day. The other 4 phones will then be ignored.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:47:31 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <Tsk3m.1018$Il.470@newsfe16.iad>
Steven Lichter wrote:
> AES wrote:
>
>> In article <Fbt2m.22142$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.
>
I've been using radios all my professional life as a pilot. I feel I
have the discipline to use a hands-free cell phone without becoming an
idiot like you (and I) see out there. We normally use the cell phone on
trips, where we forward our home phone. A brief conversation on a rural
interstate or backwater road is quite safe.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:08:17 GMT
From: "Gary" <fake-email-address@bogus.hotmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <5Wq3m.2178$9l4.2012@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
"Sam Spade" <sam@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:Tsk3m.1018$Il.470@newsfe16.iad...
>
> I've been using radios all my professional life as a pilot. I feel I have
> the discipline to use a hands-free cell phone without becoming an idiot
> like you (and I) see out there. We normally use the cell phone on trips,
> where we forward our home phone. A brief conversation on a rural
> interstate or backwater road is quite safe.
The challenges are that most people are not trained in how to use radio
communication while operating a vehicle. Further, your radio communications
when flying are on very specific topics related to the safe operation of the
aircraft and are between you and others who are also well trained in the
proper use of radios in flight.
Unfortunately, the pilot's 1st rule ("fly the plane"), does not appear to be
understood by most drivers; let alone those who talk on the phone at the
same time.
I used to think I could talk and drive at the same time with no degradation.
After paying attention to it for years, I do believe telephone conversations
(handsfree or not) do impact my ability to operate a car. Now, if I have to
take a call while driving, I keep it short and change my driving procedures
to be even more defensive than normal. Unfortunately, as we all can
observe, most people do not follow these rules.
-Gary
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:11:32 -0400
From: MC <for.address.look@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <Ust3m.18934$Xl4.6356@bignews5.bellsouth.net>
Gary wrote:
> "Sam Spade" <sam@coldmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Tsk3m.1018$Il.470@newsfe16.iad...
>> I've been using radios all my professional life as a pilot. I feel I have
>> the discipline to use a hands-free cell phone without becoming an idiot
>> like you (and I) see out there. We normally use the cell phone on trips,
>> where we forward our home phone. A brief conversation on a rural
>> interstate or backwater road is quite safe.
>
> The challenges are that most people are not trained in how to use radio
> communication while operating a vehicle. Further, your radio communications
> when flying are on very specific topics related to the safe operation of the
> aircraft and are between you and others who are also well trained in the
> proper use of radios in flight.
>
> Unfortunately, the pilot's 1st rule ("fly the plane"), does not appear to be
> understood by most drivers; let alone those who talk on the phone at the
> same time.
Well said. An important technical difference is that telephones are
full duplex -- people expect to be able to interrupt each other.
Another important difference, which you are touching on, is that
telephone conversations are usually of a format not designed to be
compatible with doing anything else.
I see lots of people who can't even *walk* safely while on the cell
phone (they step in front of buses or bump into people). My daughter
saw a college girl get trapped by an automatic door, and instead of
stepping out of the trap or pushing on the door, all she did was squeal
into her phone that the door was closing on her!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 18:36:15 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <6645152a0907031636v5a10aa0do42115b331d76dde@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, MC wrote:
I hear the comparison to pilots and police a lot. An airplane is a
lot different from a car in that it can move (or rather it's supposed
to move) in all three axes. There are two people flying it. There's
a lot more spacing. Pilots are far more trained than drivers.
With police, yes, they are better trained than the average person
behind the wheel. But police do die in car crashes. They are not
immune.
> I see lots of people who can't even *walk* safely while on the cell phone
> (they step in front of buses or bump into people). My daughter saw a
> college girl get trapped by an automatic door, and instead of stepping out
> of the trap or pushing on the door, all she did was squeal into her phone
> that the door was closing on her!
I was [at] work and someone called me. When I finished the call I looked
up and said, "Where the &@!! am I?!?" My feet went on auto pilot and
I ended up behind a bunch of environmental chambers. It's amazing I
didn't trip on the cables. And I too have people walk into me while
on a cell phone and they're totally oblivious.
I personally think that rather than a bunch of barely enforceable
nit-picky laws we need better training. We need stricter penalties.
And we need to stop treating crashes as random accidents and hold
people accountable for their actions behind the wheel.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:51:15 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <nwk3m.1020$Il.944@newsfe16.iad>
Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 6/30/2009 5:00 AM, Dave Garland 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.
>>>
>>>Many of us would like to get a message through -- safely! -- via
>>>cellphone to a relative or colleague whom we know may be on the road
>>>at the time we call.
>>
>>My cellphone goes through to voicemail if either I don't answer in 5
>>rings, or I hit "cancel", or I turn it off. So if I'm driving I have
>>the option of immediately knowing a call went to voicemail, or just
>>having the phone quietly collect messages until I check.
>>
>>Hard to imagine that cellphones in California don't have those features.
>
>
> California is "special":
> (1) cars don't have turn signals,
> (2) drivers with 10 DUI convictions/accidents retain their licenses, and
> (3) full-feature cellphones are surgically bonded to hands and faces.
>
> Just kidding, but seriously:
> (1) false, but one wonders ...
> (2) sadly, TRUE
> (3) probably not yet, but it sure "seems" true just looking around.
>
> :-)
>
I don't think your kidding is too far off. Add to that 50% of the
drivers are "me first" and feel they are being impeded by me doing 70 on
the freeway.
California has a zillion terribily serious problems, one of which is a
terrible lack of traffic enforcement on the metro freeways. I recently
spoke with an Arizona State trooper who readily admitted that he has a
special eye out for cars with California plates because they know that
lack of traffic enforcement has created a lot of horrible drivers. As
he said, "Most of us go to California on a fairly reqular basis, so we
see it all firsthand."
***** Moderator's Note *****
I'm very surprised to see your post: I lived in California during the
70's, and traffic enforcement was _incredibly_ strict. Of course, I
grew up in Boston, so the bar wasn't all that high to start with, but
California seemed like a much more rigorous environment.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:20:23 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <MPG.24b83214f8abc569989aa1@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <nwk3m.1020$Il.944@newsfe16.iad>, sam@coldmail.com says...
>
> Thad Floryan wrote:
>
> > On 6/30/2009 5:00 AM, Dave Garland 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.
> >>>
> >>>Many of us would like to get a message through -- safely! -- via
> >>>cellphone to a relative or colleague whom we know may be on the road
> >>>at the time we call.
> >>
> >>My cellphone goes through to voicemail if either I don't answer in 5
> >>rings, or I hit "cancel", or I turn it off. So if I'm driving I have
> >>the option of immediately knowing a call went to voicemail, or just
> >>having the phone quietly collect messages until I check.
> >>
> >>Hard to imagine that cellphones in California don't have those features.
> >
> >
> > California is "special":
> > (1) cars don't have turn signals,
> > (2) drivers with 10 DUI convictions/accidents retain their licenses, and
> > (3) full-feature cellphones are surgically bonded to hands and faces.
> >
> > Just kidding, but seriously:
> > (1) false, but one wonders ...
> > (2) sadly, TRUE
> > (3) probably not yet, but it sure "seems" true just looking around.
> >
> > :-)
> >
>
> I don't think your kidding is too far off. Add to that 50% of the
> drivers are "me first" and feel they are being impeded by me doing 70 on
> the freeway.
>
> California has a zillion terribily serious problems, one of which is a
> terrible lack of traffic enforcement on the metro freeways. I recently
> spoke with an Arizona State trooper who readily admitted that he has a
> special eye out for cars with California plates because they know that
> lack of traffic enforcement has created a lot of horrible drivers. As
> he said, "Most of us go to California on a fairly reqular basis, so we
> see it all firsthand."
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I'm very surprised to see your post: I lived in California during the
> 70's, and traffic enforcement was _incredibly_ strict. Of course, I
> grew up in Boston, so the bar wasn't all that high to start with, but
> California seemed like a much more rigorous environment.
>
> Bill Horne
Been on I-95 lately? It is marked 55PMH in most locations but I
regularly see 70MPH or higher on it.
The local cops on the other hand have gotten much more strict. I
actually saw a district commander pull someone over. Prior to this you
rarely even saw your DC out on patrol. But cities are hurting for
revenue.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:21:52 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <kow3m.1211$Il.633@newsfe16.iad>
T wrote:
> The local cops on the other hand have gotten much more strict. I
> actually saw a district commander pull someone over. Prior to this you
> rarely even saw your DC out on patrol. But cities are hurting for
> revenue.
The towns in California that have their own police departments are
doing the same.
Where the enforcement is spotty (at best) is in a town like mine that
has contract sheriff for policing. The city buys the absolute
minimum. We used to have our own police department. Unlike today, the
city was well policed then by cops who cared about the city.
The freeways are terrible because the California Highway Patrol has
about 60% of the staffing level needed to really do the job like in
Arizona.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:18:09 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <Rkw3m.10178$iU7.2878@newsfe01.iad>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I'm very surprised to see your post: I lived in California during the
> 70's, and traffic enforcement was _incredibly_ strict. Of course, I
> grew up in Boston, so the bar wasn't all that high to start with, but
> California seemed like a much more rigorous environment.
>
> Bill Horne
>
Bill,
It is a far different state today.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:39:01 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cable TV Broadcast Retransmission Consent Feuds "Ease Up"
Message-ID: <4A4DFBE5.5060707@annsgarden.com>
I wrote:
> This article (including comments from me writing as texascableguy)
> continues at:
>
http://www.multichannel.com/article/talkback/295393-Retrans_Feuds_Ease_Up.php
> In 1992, Congress enacted the Cable Television Consumer Protection
> and Competition Act of 1992. This act gave broadcast station
> licensees control over cable-system carriage of their signals. Under
> this Act, each licensee has the right to choose two options with
> respect to any given cable system:
> - MUST CARRY: The cable system must carry the signal under technical
> rules specified by the FCC. However, the station cannot charge for
> the use of its signal.
> - RETRANSMISSION CONSENT: The cable system is required to obtain the
> permission of the licensee. The licensee is free to demand
> compensation or impose other requirements.
> Most large regional independent stations and major network
> affiliates usually elect retransmission consent. Less popular
> stations usually elect must carry.
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> How do these rules apply to each multi-plexed programming stream of
> a digital broadcaster choosing [to invoke the] "must carry"
> [option]? Or does it apply only to the first subchannel?
The must-carry rule applies only to the main channels of full-power
stations -- the channels typically numbered X-1 or X.1. Stations that
elect retransmission consent are free to demand just about anything.
> If that subchannel is HD and the cable system offers HD channels,
> must it be carried as HD?
If "that subchannel" is the main channel (and if the station is a
full-power station, not an LPTV), then yes, it must be offered in
digital format. Furthermore, for a period of three years following
the 06/12/09 DTV transition date, cable TV systems must carry it
simultaneously in analog AND digital for the benefit of subscribers
who do not own DTV sets. (This requirement does not apply to
satellite companies because their signals [are] all already carried
digitally.) http://saveaccess.org/node/2171
Note that "digital" is not necessarily the same as "HD." All high-def
signals are digital, but the reverse is not necessarily true.
Although the must-carry rules do not apply to subchannels, a cable or
satellite company may carry any subchannel voluntarily. Full-power
stations electing retransmission consent may demand carriage of some
or all subchannels in their retrans-consent agreements. In theory,
these are free-market negotiations between the broadcasters and
cable/satellite companies, although (in my not-unbiased opinion), the
law is stacked in favor of the broadcasters.
> An independent broadcaster in Chicago owns a full power license and
> several low power licenses. It has mixed and matched programming
> over the years, typically introducing new program concepts on one of
> the low power stations before simulcasting it or moving it [to] a
> subchannel of the full power digital station.
> Does simulcasting via one of their low power stations give them
> additional clout when negotiating carriage because the law gives
> them additional privileges for owning more licenses?
The rules governing carriage of LPTV stations are murky.
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title47/47-4.0.1.1.4.4.3.5.html
In general, LPTV stations have no must-carry rights with respect to
either cable TV or satellite. As to "additional clout," I would say
that LPTV stations have approximately zero clout.
It's certainly possible that an LPTV could do such a good job that a
cable TV company would carry it voluntarily, particularly in small
markets in which the LPTV is the only local station. But that's a
free-market decision between the LPTV and the cable company.
> They've complained for years that DirecTV and Dish won't carry all
> programming streams, even the ones simulcast on one of the low power
> stations.
The must-carry rules apply only to the main channels of full-power
stations. The rules do not require carriage of full-power station
subchannels or to any LPTV channels.
Neal McLain
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 15:27:50 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cable TV Broadcast Retransmission Consent Feuds "Ease Up"
Message-ID: <h2l81m$p7o$1@news.albasani.net>
Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>How do these rules apply to each multi-plexed programming stream of
>>a digital broadcaster choosing [to invoke the] "must carry"
>>[option]? Or does it apply only to the first subchannel?
>The must-carry rule applies only to the main channels of full-power
>stations -- the channels typically numbered X-1 or X.1.
Thanks. That's what I had assumed.
>>If that subchannel is HD and the cable system offers HD channels,
>>must it be carried as HD?
>If "that subchannel" is the main channel (and if the station is a
>full-power station, not an LPTV), then yes, it must be offered in
>digital format.
But my question is whether the digital format must be HD, specifically,
as it could be SD to save bandwidth.
>Furthermore, for a period of three years following the 06/12/09 DTV
>transition date, cable TV systems must carry it simultaneously in analog
>AND digital for the benefit of subscribers who do not own DTV sets.
My understanding of the rule: If the cable company offers ANY analogue
channels, then it must offer ALL local broadcast channels in analogue.
I'll assume this applies only to channels that made the must-carry
election, and that the rules for negotiated carriage are on a per
contract basis. It's entirely possible that there are cable systems that
dropped analogue channels altogether and are thus not subject to the
rule requiring analogue translation of local broadcast stations.
Also, the analogue channels need not be available to subscribers with
cable-ready analogue tuners in their tvs. The cable company could
require subscribers to use a set-top box to make an analogue signal
available. In my area, many local broadcast stations have been on the
digital tier. Basic-only subscribers who wish to receive these in
addition to the still-analogue stations require a special set-top box
that I'll guess is capable of receiving clearQAM only.
>Although the must-carry rules do not apply to subchannels, a cable or
>satellite company may carry any subchannel voluntarily.
If the main channel is offered on a must-carry basis, can the cable
company elect to offer any other subchannel without retransmission
consent?
>Full-power stations electing retransmission consent may demand carriage
>of some or all subchannels in their retrans-consent agreements.
>In theory, these are free-market negotiations between the broadcasters
>and cable/satellite companies, although (in my not-unbiased opinion),
>the law is stacked in favor of the broadcasters.
Heh. From Day One, must carry rules were a burden on cable. Not that
anyone asked me when I was a kid, but it wouldn't have been unreasonable
to continue to expect viewers to have proper outdoor antennas to receive
local stations, with cable providing supplemental television service.
This statement wouldn't apply to CATV situations.
>In general, LPTV stations have no must-carry rights with respect to
>either cable TV or satellite. As to "additional clout," I would say
>that LPTV stations have approximately zero clout.
I didn't know that; thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 15:10:11 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Rating cell phone calls (was: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?)
Message-ID: <h2l70j$o0q$1@news.albasani.net>
Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>thad@thadlabs.com writes:
>>And for those scratching their head about "billing location", I mean
>>the cellphone-equivalent location of a CO for toll-charge
>>determination.
>A "rate center," which may or may not be the location of a CO.
A number of years ago, my cell phone carrier used a community as a rate
center that was served by a central office in a neighboring community. I
never understood the point of that. Rate center is an artificial concept
to begin with, so why make interconnecting telephone companies make an
unnecessary additional entry into their rating tables?
Rate centers were an attempt to impose inapplicable concepts of rating
land line calls onto cell phones. In land lines, there is allegedly
some relationship between pricing and routing of a call, but to call
a cell phone from a land line, the actual interface between the two
carriers could be anywhere. Cell phone providers really only needed one
rate center per market they were selling service in, because really,
their subscribers would be unaware of the concept and wouldn't care and
wouldn't know to ask for a number associated with a specific rate center.
Cell phone rate centers were used strictly for the purpose of rating
inbound calls from land line subscribers local to that rate center who
themselves didn't subscribe to a local service plan that was unrated
with respect to distance.
When cell phones plans had local calling areas and long distance billed
by a carrier of the subscriber's choice, I assume rate centers weren't
used to rate distance, but instead a single point in the metropolitan
area was used to rate the origin of long distance calls. But that may
have varied.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:10:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Julian Thomas" <jt@jt-mj.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <100.18f00100822d4e4a.009@jt-mj.net>
On 27 Jun 2009 23:24:52 -0000 John Levine wrote:
>
>
>If you consider upgrading the software in every switch in the
>continent to be no big deal, I suppose you're correct.
Especially considering that there's no way it could be done as a "big bang" so
that the software would need to
work in dual mode during the transition period.
--
Julian Thomas: jt@jt-mj.net http://jt-mj.net
In the beautiful Genesee Valley of Western New York State!
-- --
A computer with COBOL and FORTRAN is
like a piece of chocolate cake with ketchup and mustard.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:59:37 GMT
From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <rfdt451pgcgi0uco3l9vhu365n82nks4dt@4ax.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Y2K was an overrated scare - many computer systems needed no
> modification at all, and others needed very little modification.
> But I knew of one highly vaunted system developed by a "Big 8"
> accounting firm consultant that was so bad it had to be scrapped
> altogether. So much for the glory of 'consultants'.
Umm, no. Many PC based systems did not need modifications. However I
discovered an obscure Y2K bug within Access in about late 1998. MS
did fix the bug.
However most/all mainframe/mini based systems did need a *LOT* of
work. And very thorough testing. I know this because all the code
and systems I built in the 1980s were *not* Y2K compliant and would've
needed every program to be examined. And I know that in the 1980s and
even to the mid 1990s very little attention was paid to Y2K work.
Given a choice between building new systems, or making enhancements to
systems vs Y2K remediation which has no visible impact (other than the
survivability of your employer in a few years) which option do you
think most IT managers took in the early to mid to even late 1990s?
"Nah, let my successor worry about it. Oh, and when I take a new job
I'll just blame my predecessor."
Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:49:05 GMT
From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <v5dt45d9crnn89ks7ke0i6lh97ajuafqgq@4ax.com>
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
And Google screwed up even more the last few days.
Google has screwed up yet again
So I go to do my favourite technical question search method which involves searching
just the microsoft.public.access newsgroups and it totally fails. Worked just fine a
few days ago.
Start at groups.google.com and enter your search term. For example "access books
vba" but without the double quotes.
Now if you just click on Search Groups you get many, many useless, duplicate hits.
The problem is that there are many web sites out there mirroring the NNTP Usenet and
Microsoft newsgroups. All so they can sell Google advertising.
I should note that there are a few genuine online forums such as Utter Access and,
think, the Access World forums. However the vast majority are bottom feeding, scum
suckers whose only interest is advertising revenue.
So as to limit the search just to the Microsoft newsgroups I would then click on
Advanced Search go down to the Group name field and enter microsoft.public.access.*
And that doesn't find any hits. I *KNOW* a few days ago this worked just fine.
So Google has screwed up the NNTP newsgroup search interface yet again. Ahh, for
the good old days of dejanews.com and deja.com. They did only one thing and did it
well.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/archive/2009/07/02/google-has-screwed-up-yet-again.aspx
Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/
------------------------------
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 (25 messages)
******************************
|
or 