|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 182 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Rating cell phone calls (was: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?)
Re: Rating cell phone calls
Re: Rating cell phone calls
Re: Rating cell phone calls
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
Q.: 10-button deskset w/ 50-conductor line-cord
Re: Q.: 10-button deskset w/ 50-conductor line-cord
Re: Q.: 10-button deskset w/ 50-conductor line-cord
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: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cable TV Broadcast Retransmission Consent Feuds "Ease Up"
====== 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: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 05:25:28 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <h2mp48$mgj$2@news.albasani.net>
Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
> Repeated studies have shown their is no difference in the
> distraction caused by cellphone to your ear or hands-free. It's
> apparently the conversation, not the holding of the phone to your
> ear.
In some cases, hand free is even more distracting if the caller gestures
a lot while conversing. Such people are wont to take their hands off the
wheel. Holding a cell phone prevents gesturing.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 06:18:32 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <IEI3m.2987$dd4.1060@newsfe10.iad>
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> In some cases, hand free is even more distracting if the caller
> gestures a lot while conversing. Such people are wont to take their
> hands off the wheel. Holding a cell phone prevents gesturing.
>
In some cases people don't use their turn indicators and run stop
signs. I see women putting on makeup while driving. I see men
drinking coffee and eating pastries while driving. I see men turned
completely around yelling at their kids in the back seat.
Then, there are some people who know how to use a hands-free
telephone, don't get engaged in heated or distracting conversations
and, in the process, actually use some common sense.
I had my first amps telephone installed in a car in 1984. It was
mounted to a large transceiver which, in turn was mounted to the floor
to my right on the front seat floor. In order to place or receive a
call I had to take my right hand and press two clamps on [each] side
of the handset, then lift it and use it like a wireline phone.
Holding it and dialing out was a hoot.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 22:02:30 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <h2ojhm$2pj$3@news.albasani.net>
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>>>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.
>>In some cases, hand free is even more distracting if the caller
>>gestures a lot while conversing. Such people are wont to take their
>>hands off the wheel. Holding a cell phone prevents gesturing.
>In some cases people don't use their turn indicators and run stop
>signs. I see women putting on makeup while driving. I see men
>drinking coffee and eating pastries while driving. I see men turned
>completely around yelling at their kids in the back seat.
>Then, there are some people who know how to use a hands-free
>telephone, don't get engaged in heated or distracting conversations
>and, in the process, actually use some common sense.
No one has any clue how much attention is required for any given task. As
someone can be killed if one is inattentive while driving, I don't want
him to be using a cell phone no matter how loudly he's assured me that
that he can do both at the same time.
Gesturers may gesture regardless of whether a conversation is particularly
heated.
>I had my first amps telephone installed in a car in 1984. It was
>mounted to a large transceiver which, in turn was mounted to the floor
>to my right on the front seat floor. In order to place or receive a
>call I had to take my right hand and press two clamps on [each] side
>of the handset, then lift it and use it like a wireline phone.
>Holding it and dialing out was a hoot.
How could you possibly do that safely whilst driving?
I remember car phones, but I recall that they could be dialed while
mounted, with the dial at the back of the corded handset. Hehehe. I
almost wrote "on hook", which doesn't apply to cellular of course.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls (was: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?)
Message-ID: <4574ae48-df35-4f23-9c3f-53f6057bdfc2@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 3, 11:52 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> 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.
Not exactly. In the early days of cellphones it was different.
Subscribers did have to pay for long distance and extra-charge roaming
territories were much smaller. The assigned rate center of the phone
was significant. It did make sense, because of the cell subscriber
was far away from his home exchange he had to pay roaming for the
call.
Now of course things are much different--charges for roaming or long
distance in the U.S. are rare.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:46:06 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls
Message-ID: <3PK3m.28348$ml7.15955@newsfe18.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jul 3, 11:52 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> Not exactly. In the early days of cellphones it was different.
> Subscribers did have to pay for long distance and extra-charge roaming
> territories were much smaller. The assigned rate center of the phone
> was significant. It did make sense, because of the cell subscriber
> was far away from his home exchange he had to pay roaming for the
> call.
>
> Now of course things are much different--charges for roaming or long
> distance in the U.S. are rare.
>
It went in increments. In 1984 all long distance calls were toll. All
roaming was toll.
The, roaming within California's wireless carrier's territory was no
longer toll.
Then, you could cross boundaries of the wireless carrier's territories
without the call dropping off.
And, so on and so forth.
My second vehicle to have an AMPs phone was the "ultimate." By then you
could get a full-power 0.1 to 3.0 watts bag phone. I had a roof-mount
perfectly cut antenna on that vehicle (an off-road SUV so the antenna
looked "normal.") I could really reach out with that set up.
On a long trip in that car my techie teen-age son has a scanner and
would find every one of my calls. ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 21:43:01 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls
Message-ID: <h2oid5$2pj$1@news.albasani.net>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Jul 3, 11:52 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>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.
>Not exactly. In the early days of cellphones it was different.
>Subscribers did have to pay for long distance and extra-charge roaming
>territories were much smaller. The assigned rate center of the phone
>was significant. It did make sense, because of the cell subscriber
>was far away from his home exchange he had to pay roaming for the
>call.
>Now of course things are much different--charges for roaming or long
>distance in the U.S. are rare.
The concepts of "rate center" and "roaming" aren't related. If on the
edge of territory and the subscriber had the misfortune to have his call
picked up by a tower for which roaming charges would be imposed, he'd
have to pay them even if his assigned rate center happened to be in the
same area. Rate center is a concept for distance rating of local calls
from land lines only. Roaming is a time and physical location concept.
Rate Center isn't the basis of rating long distance calls anyway.
"Rate center" is a concept strictly applicable to rating local calls
from land lines for distance charges. It doesn't apply to rating long
distance calls for distance which, in metropolitan areas at least, were
always calculated between given points within a consolidation of rate
centers. Sorry, I don't recall the correct term. This had some relation
to how long distance calls were routed, as they had to be handed off to
toll offices for completion.
If a cell phone subscriber has a local plan, calls within the plan's
area are never rated for distance, only time. Therefore, "rate center"
has no application whatsoever to rating cell phone calls.
When a long distance call was made from a cell phone, it was handed off
to a long distance provider. I recall having to make a choice among four
long distance providers. These calls were rated for distance, but like
long distance calls made from land lines, never rated between rate
centers themselves. To rate a long distance call from a cell phone for
distance, the call's origin need be a single point in the metropolitan
area the caller happens to be standing in.
Few subscribers to cell phone service would have had any idea what a
rate center was, so there was never a need for a cellular provider to
offer prefixes in each rate center, or even most rate centers, in a
market they were signing up customers in. Cellular providers were not
competing on the basis of who had the most rate centers and subscribers
wouldn't even consider any distance-related cost imposed on land line
subscribers making distance-rated local calls to the cell phone number.
Furthermore, new subscribers were assigned to rate centers seemingly
randomly, never on the basis of billing address. One might live in the
northern suburbs and not be assigned to a nearby rate center, instead
being assigned to a rate center in the western, eastern, or southern
suburbs or even in the central city. If a subscriber knew to ask AND the
salesman knew how to write up the request, yeah, one could choose a rate
center, but this would be an unusual situation.
Furthermore still, cellular providers used area code-prefix combinations
of any area code in that metropolitan area for rate centers, ignoring
area code boundaries within the metropolitan area that land line
providers would generally obey. It's possible that a cellular provider
could have assigned area code and prefix combinations for area codes
outside the metropolitan area, but I'll assume this wasn't done.
Rate center assignment of cell phone numbers was exceedingly wasteful of
scarce numbering resources. If this had to be done, then the line
numbers should have been assigned neutrally from area code/prefix
combinations already in use for land lines at that rate center, but I
don't see why this had to be done at all. Each cell phone provider
should have used a single rate center per metropolitan area, allowed to
assign numbers in any area code in the metropolitan area without
geographic restrictions, with incoming calls from landlines rated
without a distance component.
And no, I wouldn't have favored cellular only area codes as attempted in
New York, which fails to address the only issue that incoming local calls
from land lines shouldn't have been distance-rated.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 18:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Rating cell phone calls
Message-ID: <a4926241-cbbf-428d-8d2d-167441e9639b@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 4, 8:16 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> The concepts of "rate center" and "roaming" aren't related. If on the
> edge of territory and the subscriber had the misfortune to have his call
> picked up by a tower for which roaming charges would be imposed, he'd
> have to pay them even if his assigned rate center happened to be in the
> same area.
Actually, I believe they made a point of assigning the serving
exchange location in the middle, not on the edges, to avoid that
problem.
Under the system that existed at the time, it all made sense.
But as mentioned, the point is moot since roaming and long distance
charges on cell phones today are very rare.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <dd969539-048f-4c03-8846-8a3e9f132156@b9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 3, 6:34 pm, T <kd1s.nos...@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
> That's what I love about VoIP. It doesn't care where you are
> geographically, your phone numbers is always the same.
Not everyone has unlimited long distance and can freely make multiple
or chatty long distance calls. The meter is running and the bill adds
up.
If you're out of your home area and you want someone to call you,
through your home area, it could be a toll call for them.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:40:41 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <ZJK3m.13881$wE4.10439@newsfe02.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jul 3, 6:34 pm, T <kd1s.nos...@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>That's what I love about VoIP. It doesn't care where you are
>>geographically, your phone numbers is always the same.
>
>
> Not everyone has unlimited long distance and can freely make multiple
> or chatty long distance calls. The meter is running and the bill adds
> up.
>
> If you're out of your home area and you want someone to call you,
> through your home area, it could be a toll call for them.
>
Although my primary number is in Washington, DC, I have a virtual number
that is local to my actual location. And, unlike the local LEC I could
select a virtual number that is local to my town and to a friend 30
miles away who otherwise would have to make a local toll call to reach me.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <c640f9d0-ffd1-4fff-9ba6-9f7e39a15e40@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 3, 10:47 pm, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> With cellphones, a (rough) location can be gleaned knowing which tower(s)
> is/are being used.
I thought modern cellphones had GPS location which was always
transmitted to a 911 center. (Whether the 911 centers have the
ability to use this info is another question that needs to be asked.)
Cellphone towers aren't much help in determining location--even in
dense areas the call could be handled by a distant tower. (I made a
calll shown as using a tower in New York City even though I was no
where near NYC. I make numerous calls from a fixed location and they
show up as handled by at least _four_ different towers, that is one
day it's point 1, another day it's point 2, etc.)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:34:47 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <XmF3m.28217$ml7.4673@newsfe18.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
>
Another thing Bill, [unlike] when you lived here, cars with 4 or 5
probable gang members involved in an traffic violation on the freeway
will likely not be stopped. During the day there is only one highway
patrolman in a squad car. He needs at minimum, two backup cars, which
often aren't sufficently close to be there in the short time necessary
for a traffic stop.
In a city like Santa Ana, however, with lots of local police and lots
of gangs, the police won't hesitate to make a traffic stop of a car
with suspected gang members. First, the Santa Ana Police always field
mostly two man cars, and second back ups are always very close by.
Yes, a very different state than 30 years ago.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:03:21 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Q.: 10-button deskset w/ 50-conductor line-cord
Message-ID: <op.uwi1nvwro63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
I'm hoping someone here can help me identify the following item.
Amongst the assorted telecom bric-a-brac I've amassed over the years
there's a DTMF deskset, looking for all the world like a broad-hipped
2500 set, with ten station- or line-select buttons across the top, the
left-most one of these in clear red plastic, others just in clear, and
the line cord is a fifty-conductor jobbie terminating in what I'd be
tempted to call an old 50-pin Centronics-like connector.
Comes with a handset, and a bolted-on handset cradle on the LH side.
Rubber-stamped on the underside: 845 13 (BA) 42 M 3 76 . No actual
documentation available.
Full set of questions I have about this:
What is it? (type of device, model, function) Advice how to use it on
basic 2-conductor, single-line POTS service Accessory equipment needed
to put it into service (KSU? other?) Anything else I ought to be
asking, if only I were well-enough informed?
TIA; and cheers, -- tlvp
[PS: if a little jpeg image would help, and isn't frowned upon
here, I can provide that in a follow-up, upon request. -- tlvp]
--
Now posting from the new Motzarella servers.
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
***** Moderator's Note *****
We don't publish images in messages (sorry), but I'll be glad to put
it on the TD website for a day or two.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:14:13 -0500
From: "John F. Morse" <john@example.invalid>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Q.: 10-button deskset w/ 50-conductor line-cord
Message-ID: <h2no3l$apm$1@optima5.xanadu-bbs.net>
tlvp wrote:
> I'm hoping someone here can help me identify the following item.
>
> Amongst the assorted telecom bric-a-brac I've amassed over the years
> there's a DTMF deskset, looking for all the world like a broad-hipped
> 2500 set, with ten station- or line-select buttons across the top, the
> left-most one of these in clear red plastic, others just in clear, and
> the line cord is a fifty-conductor jobbie terminating in what I'd be
> tempted to call an old 50-pin Centronics-like connector.
>
> Comes with a handset, and a bolted-on handset cradle on the LH side.
> Rubber-stamped on the underside: 845 13 (BA) 42 M 3 76 . No actual
> documentation available.
>
> Full set of questions I have about this:
>
> What is it? (type of device, model, function) Advice how to use it on
> basic 2-conductor, single-line POTS service Accessory equipment needed
> to put it into service (KSU? other?) Anything else I ought to be
> asking, if only I were well-enough informed?
>
> TIA; and cheers, -- tlvp
>
> [PS: if a little jpeg image would help, and isn't frowned upon
> here, I can provide that in a follow-up, upon request. -- tlvp]
Sounds like a 10-button KTS wall set. Seems WECo used the 8xx designation.
I don't recognize the "hipped" description though.
Post a picture in x.binaries and I'll have a look-see.
***** Moderator's Note *****
We don't publish images in messages (sorry), but I'll be glad to put
it on the TD website for a day or two.
Bill Horne
Bill, would you please post a URL for this site?
TIA.
--
John
***** Moderator's Note *****
tlvp, please send me a the image(s) and I'll put them online.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:04:23 -0600
From: Reed <reedh@rmi.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Q.: 10-button deskset w/ 50-conductor line-cord
Message-ID: <KYmdnbdrteSrT9LXnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@earthlink.com>
tlvp wrote:
> I'm hoping someone here can help me identify the following item.
>
> Amongst the assorted telecom bric-a-brac I've amassed over the years
> there's a DTMF deskset, looking for all the world like a broad-hipped
> 2500 set, with ten station- or line-select buttons across the top, the
> left-most one of these in clear red plastic, others just in clear, and
> the line cord is a fifty-conductor jobbie terminating in what I'd be
> tempted to call an old 50-pin Centronics-like connector.
>
> Comes with a handset, and a bolted-on handset cradle on the LH side.
> Rubber-stamped on the underside: 845 13 (BA) 42 M 3 76 . No actual
> documentation available.
>
> Full set of questions I have about this:
>
> What is it? (type of device, model, function) Advice how to use it on
> basic 2-conductor, single-line POTS service Accessory equipment needed
> to put it into service (KSU? other?) Anything else I ought to be
> asking, if only I were well-enough informed?
>
> TIA; and cheers, -- tlvp
>
> [PS: if a little jpeg image would help, and isn't frowned upon
> here, I can provide that in a follow-up, upon request. -- tlvp]
>
Does it look like this ??
http://phonebooth.us/phones/images/tn_2852.JPG
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:49:51 GMT
From: "Gary" <fake-email-address@bogus.hotmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <36J3m.767$P5.355@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
"Thad Floryan" <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote in message
news:4A4E93A5.8020703@thadlabs.com...
>
> How can (or does) a 911 call using VoIP provide a useful location?
Vonage requires uses to enter their physical address into their system
before allowing 911 calls. This is used to route 911 calls to the proper
PSAP based on location, not phone number. The provided address is also
passed to PSAPs that have e911, so the emergency services show up in the
right place.
In my opinion, Vonage goes to a reasonable effort to make sure subscribers
know they must go through this step to allow proper 911 operation, and to
make sure subscribers know to update the address if they move the VoIP
terminal. You can read their TOS and see for yourself.
I'm not sure how other VoIP providers take care of this, but I suspect it
isn't too different.
-Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:40:17 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <4A4FB021.1070108@thadlabs.com>
On 7/4/2009 7:45 AM, Gary wrote:
> "Thad Floryan" <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote in message
> news:4A4E93A5.8020703@thadlabs.com...
>> How can (or does) a 911 call using VoIP provide a useful location?
>
> Vonage requires uses to enter their physical address into their system
> before allowing 911 calls.
> [...]
> In my opinion, Vonage goes to a reasonable effort to make sure subscribers
> know they must go through this step to allow proper 911 operation, and to
> make sure subscribers know to update the address if they move the VoIP
> terminal. You can read their TOS and see for yourself.
>
> I'm not sure how other VoIP providers take care of this, but I suspect it
> isn't too different.
and
On 7/4/2009 11:13 AM, Sam Spade wrote:
> Thad Floryan wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> The subscriber has to have sufficient brain power to understand that the
> VOIP location has to be kept current with Vonage.
And that's the present flaw with VoIP and emergency calls: action by the
user is required to establish present location. Assuming a user will always
update the location is, well, an assumption, and most of us are probably
aware what Benny Hill said about assumptions. :-)
A passive system, perhaps using an embedded GPS chip, would seem "best", but
my experiences with GPS reveal the signals don't penetrate much of today's
infrastructures (e.g., steel-framed buildings, thick masonry, etc.) and, thus,
cannot be relied upon. Perhaps a combination of GPS and inertial sensors such
as these http://www.pnicorp.com/ could infer the location based on detected
movement since the last successful GPS acquisition as we read on PNI's site:
" PNI sensor modules allow autonomous and remote-operated vehicles to navigate
" accurately underground, indoors, and anywhere GPS is compromised or
" unavailable.
Something for the next generation of VoIP devices. Technology is a moving
target.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:55:29 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <siegman-581D47.07545904072009@news.stanford.edu>
In article <Ust3m.18934$Xl4.6356@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
MC <for.address.look@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc> wrote:
> Gary wrote:
> >
> > The challenges are that most people are not trained in how to use
> > radio communication while operating a vehicle. Further, your
> > radio communications when flying are on very specific topics
> > related to the safe operation of the aircraft and are between you
> > and others who are also well trained in the proper use of radios
> > in flight.
Plus which, situations requiring active and near-instantaneous response
by the vehicle operator (child runs into street, or guy in front of you
slams on brakes) are a h-ll of a lot more common and frequent on the
road than in the sky.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:48:40 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <pan.2009.07.04.23.48.39.306468@myrealbox.com>
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 11:20:35 -0400, AES wrote:
> In article <Ust3m.18934$Xl4.6356@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> MC <for.address.look@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc> wrote:
>
>> Gary wrote:
>> >
>> > 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.
>
> Plus which, situations requiring active and near-instantaneous response by
> the vehicle operator (child runs into street, or guy in front of you slams
> on brakes) are a h-ll of a lot more common and frequent on the road than
> in the sky.
It is a bit incongruous that for an environment many, many times more
hazardous than flying we allow people to control a vehicle with only a
fraction of the training and skills required to pilot an airplane.
In theory some people could be allowed to use cellphones while driving,
provided they can pass some sort of test clearly demonstrating their
exceptional abilities to do this as well as remain in full control of
their vehicle - then they can have the special endorsement allowing them
to use a phone on that vehicle that particular vehicle (like flying, you
need specific endorsements for specific vehicle types).
Perhaps the many hours of training and hundreds (thousands?) of dollars of
costs in obtaining this special qualification may put a few people off the
desire to have a chat while driving?
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:41:29 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <h2ot2v$jhr$1@news.eternal-september.org>
David Clayton wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 11:20:35 -0400, AES wrote:
>
>> In article <Ust3m.18934$Xl4.6356@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
>> MC <for.address.look@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc> wrote:
>>
>>> Gary wrote:
>>>> 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.
>> Plus which, situations requiring active and near-instantaneous
>> response by the vehicle operator (child runs into street, or guy in
>> front of you slams on brakes) are a h-ll of a lot more common and
>> frequent on the road than in the sky.
> It is a bit incongruous that for an environment many, many times
> more hazardous than flying we allow people to control a vehicle with
> only a fraction of the training and skills required to pilot an
> airplane.
>
> In theory some people could be allowed to use cellphones while
> driving, provided they can pass some sort of test clearly
> demonstrating their exceptional abilities to do this as well as
> remain in full control of their vehicle - then they can have the
> special endorsement allowing them to use a phone on that vehicle
> that particular vehicle (like flying, you need specific endorsements
> for specific vehicle types).
>
> Perhaps the many hours of training and hundreds (thousands?) of
> dollars of costs in obtaining this special qualification may put a
> few people off the desire to have a chat while driving?
Forty years ago, when I was going through Reserve Sheriffs training,
my instructor told me to forget that I know how to drive and learn the
way we were trained: I would say that because of this I became a much
better driver. Over the years I have had to drive at very high speed
and even in my own car I was able to avoid things; with the exception
of a drunk driver driving a large Ram truck who ran a red light and
t-boned me.
--
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: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 21:03:38 -0500
From: gordonb.a230q@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <-qadnWaPD_lnlM3XnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
>In theory some people could be allowed to use cellphones while driving,
>provided they can pass some sort of test clearly demonstrating their
>exceptional abilities to do this as well as remain in full control of
>their vehicle - then they can have the special endorsement allowing them
>to use a phone on that vehicle that particular vehicle (like flying, you
>need specific endorsements for specific vehicle types).
This would need to include a number of stressful calls that
the person being tested believes are real (obviously, this
depends on the situation):
- A call from his wife asking for a divorce and full custody of the kids.
- A call from his kid's school saying the kid had murdered another student
and might survive 4 gunshot wounds from the police.
- A call from his boss saying that the workplace was being raided by
<insert relevant government agency here> and suggesting that he head to the
nearest airport and leave the country immediately.
- An announcement over the radio that Nigerian paratroopers are invading
the USA, particularly in <insert area where he is>.
- A call from his homeowner's insurance company saying his insurance had
been cancelled because his check had bounced, followed by a call from
the fire department saying his house had burned down.
If the phone supports multiple calls at once, preferably he gets two
of these calls at once.
At the same time, you have other members of his family tied down
to the road just beyond the crest of a hill, so he'll run over them
if he's not paying attention. Also, he has to dodge artillery fire
at his vehicle.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:38:01 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Number length, was Goodbye to copper?
Message-ID: <tHK3m.13880$wE4.11484@newsfe02.iad>
Thad Floryan wrote:
> 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.
>
The subscriber has to have sufficient brain power to understand that the
VOIP location has to be kept current with Vonage.
In any case, I also have an LEC wireline phone, so that is a non-issue
at my residence.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 22:20:49 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <h2okk1$2pj$4@news.albasani.net>
Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> wrote:
>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.
You have to wonder? He'll cause a serious collision including traumatic
injury and death, but will walk away with cuts and bruises. Then, he'll
set up his next car the same way.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 22:23:21 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <h2okop$2pj$5@news.albasani.net>
Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> wrote:
>AES wrote:
>>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.
In the campaigns against drunk driving, it was often noted that 30% to
40% of the must serious collisions involved drunken driving. We have a
great deal to fear from all the sober people on the road who don't give
a damn about the other guy.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 22:25:04 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <h2oks0$2pj$6@news.albasani.net>
Gary <fake-email-address@bogus.hotmail.com> wrote:
>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.
If I have to take a call, I pull over, then answer the phone, or let it
go to voice mail, pull over, then call back. I just won't take a chance.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:52:11 -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: <4A4FF93B.1010400@annsgarden.com>
"Adam H. Kerman" ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>> "Adam H. Kerman" ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
I'm not aware on any government rule that requires HD to be transmitted
in HD even on the main channel. Stations are free to transcode it to
SD. However, program suppliers may include HD requirements in their
license agreements.
>
>> 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.
Your understanding is correct.
Under current rules, cable TV systems must carry ALL full-power local
stations in analog AND digital formats until June 12, 2012. This
requirement ensures that analog-only subscribers continue to have access
to broadcast programming. It also allows the cable companies to avoid
the cost of providing converters to all analog subscribers.
An exception exists for cable TV systems that convert ALL analog
channels (broadcast, non-broadcast, and PEG access) to digital format
AND provide digital-to-analog converters to all analog-only subscribers.
See footnote [1] and scroll down to NOT-SO-SMALL STUFF.
> I'll assume this applies only to [broadcast] channels that made the
> must-carry election, and that the rules for negotiated carriage are on
> a per contract basis.
True.
> 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.
True. That's the exception I noted above.
> 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.
True. That's the exception I noted above. Of course, subscribers hate
settop boxes because of the inconvenience. And they *really* hate it if
the cable company charges a rental fee. Just ask Lisa.
Nevertheless, as I've noted in previous posts here, the day is coming
when everything will be digital [2]. It probably won't be on June 13,
2012; indeed, some pundits think analog will be around for years. See
footnote [1] and scroll down to DECADES OF ANALOG.
>
>> 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?
AFAIK, yes.
>
>> 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.
On Day One, broadcast stations were the only programming sources
available. That's how the cable TV industry got started: entrepreneurs
in places like Astoria Oregon, Tuckerman Arkansas, and Mahanoy City
Pennsylvania built cable systems because the nearest broadcast stations
were either too far away or blocked by terrain.
These entrepreneurs owned hardware/furniture/appliance stores; they
built cable systems so they could sell TV sets. Although they soon
discovered that all of their competitors were suddenly selling TV sets
too, they also discovered that they were making more money from their
cable TV operations than from their hardware/furniture/appliance stores.
So they sold the stores, became full-time cable TV operators, and
founded an industry.
Even today, there are millions of viewers who can't receive any
broadcast stations off-the-air. Case in point: Tehachapi, California.
Even the cable TV company in Tehachapi can't get anything off-the-air;
the headend doesn't even have a tower. All broadcast signals are
received via satellite or imported by microwave.
Before satellite program delivery started in 1975, the only
non-broadcast programming available to cable companies were access
channels and "local origination" (LO) programming produced by the cable
companies themselves. Most LO programming consisted of a character
generator running most of the day, with an occasional live or taped
event (high school sports; city council meeting,
interview-with-the-mayor, church service).
The first must-carry rules were promulgated by the FCC, not Congress.
They defined the area of applicability as a 50-mile radius around each
broadcast station's city of license (without regard for the actual
location of the transmitter). That rule was overturned in court. In
1992, Congress got into the act with the grotesquely misnamed "Cable
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992." This act
created the must-carry/retransmission consent model that exists today.
It defined each station's service area as its DMA (Designated Market
Area) as determined by Nielsen Media Research based on viewer surveys in
non-cable homes. The cable industry sued to overturn it; it went all
the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld it.
So, yeah, must-carry rules were -- and still are -- a burden on cable.
But carrying broadcast stations was the industry's bread and butter from
1948 until 1975. In the court cases over must-carry, the cable industry
never questioned the fact that it should/would carry some broadcast
stations; the issue was over *which* stations it had to carry. The
cable industry wanted to carry only popular local stations and whatever
distant independent stations as it could pick up off the air (many cable
systems built 1000-foot towers to get distant stations off the air, or
imported them by microwave).
This battle still rages today. Case in point: the PADUCAH CAPE
GIRARDEAU MARION CARBONDALE MCLEANSBORO POPLAR BLUFF MT. VERNON DMA, an
enormous geographic area in Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, and Missouri
[3]. Every broadcast station located anywhere in that DMA has
must-carry rights with respect to every cable TV system in the DMA.
Fortunately (for the cable industry), there's a loophole: the station
has to provide a usable signal at the cable system's headend. If the
cable system can't pick up the station's broadcast signal off-the-air
with its normal facilities, the station has to provide the signal by
some other means or forgo carriage.
Satellite program delivery began in 1975, when Time, Inc. launched HBO
nationwide. In the years that followed, hundreds of non-broadcast
channels were launched, and most of the cable industry's programming now
comes from satellite-delivered non-broadcast sources. But the industry
was built on carrying broadcast stations, and broadcast stations are
still an important part of the industry's offerings.
So I'm not defending the must-carry rules; I'm simply pointing out that
without broadcast stations, the cable industry wouldn't exist.
As for your suggestion that a cable system could exist without carrying
any broadcast stations, back in 1964, a California company known as
Subscription Television, Incorporated (STV) tried to do exactly that.
They built a distribution network and were ready to start offering
service, but the "save free TV" folks (underwritten by the motion
picture and broadcast industries) pushed through 1964 California
Proposition 15 to outlaw it. The proposition passed. The courts
eventually overturned it, but it was too late for STV. Of course, had
it passed, it would have outlawed HBO, Showtime, etc.; indeed, it might
even have outlawed basic cable TV! See footnote [4].
Kerman continued:
> This statement wouldn't apply to CATV situations.
I don't understand that statement. CATV *is* cable TV. Back when the
industry started, CATV stood for "community antenna television" because
that's all it did: act like a big antenna for broadcast stations. But
after CATV systems started carrying non-broadcast satellite-delivered
programming, the term "cable TV" replaced "CATV". I still use "CATV"
and "cable TV" interchangeably.
Footnotes:
[1] "Analog is Dead. Long Live Analog"
By Todd Spangler -- Multichannel News, 2/18/2008
http://tinyurl.com/kov3yf
[2] "A-la-carte v. Tiering"
By Neal McLain -- Telecom Digest, 4/9/2004
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/archives/reports/alacarte-cable-service
Scroll down to (or search) CATV ACCESS CONTROL
[3] "Paducah ... DMA map"
TruckAds.com
http://tinyurl.com/Paducah-DMA
[4] "Darn That Pay TV!": STV's Challenge to American Television's
Dominant Economic Model. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media.
Fall, 2000
http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/print/70451817.html
Neal McLain
------------------------------
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 
