|
|
Volume 28 : Issue 202 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Re: Walter's Telephones
Re: Walter's Telephones
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
Message Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:00:10 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <4A67E04A.2080505@thadlabs.com>
On 7/22/2009 8:13 PM, Steven Lichter wrote:
> [...]
> A few years ago the NHTC did a study on cell phone usage while driving
> and found out that it made no difference if it was hands free or holding
> the phone. The director at the time withheld the report for political
> reasons. It was recommended that cell phone usage by the driver be
> banned nationwide; how many people died because of this action by a
> political hack?
1000s. As I posted yesterday:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/technology/21distracted.html>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:55:21 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <c67.59ea9832.3799c5c9@aol.com>
In a message dated 7/22/2009 9:46:57 PM Central Daylight Time,
hornetd@verizon.net writes:
> Here [in Maryland] our firefighters, including yours truly, can
> ticket for hydrant and fire lane violations. Hydrants are thirty
> dollars and fire lanes are two hundred fifty dollars. I have seen
> several repeat hydrant offenders but never a repeat fire lane
> offender.
The cops often park in the fire lanes when they're going in a store or
restaurant. So do fire trucks when they're shopping at a supermarket.
--
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:19:04 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Message-ID: <op.uxh592xwo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:11:22 -0400, after what tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
wrote, Moderator added:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Use the Myth player.
Thanks for the tip. But: care to elaborate?
Decoding one-liners like that isn't my forte :-) .
TIA; and cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
***** Moderator's Note *****
GIYF: http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/MythDVD
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:21:58 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Message-ID: <pan.2009.07.23.08.21.57.570552@myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:11:22 -0400, tlvp wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:18:51 -0400, David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
> wrote:
.......
>> The whole (physical) book publishing industry worldwide is essentially
>> corrupt, with ancient "Regional rights" creating virtual monopoly
>> markets that protect the industry.
>>
>> The new e-book paradigm will eventually dismantle the 19th century way
>> things are still done in the publishing industry. Even Internet sales
>> have dented the geographic control the publishing industry clings to.
>
> Nowhere is "geographic control" more evident than in DVD (and DVD
> player) sales. Both discs and players are coded for one of six
> "regions", or may under circumstances be "region-free" or "all-region",
> respectively.
>
> Must be meant to discourage, for example, a US tourist to down under
> from bringing back any Aussie DVDs -- they won't play on a US player.
>
> ['Cuz it sure won't *encourage* me to bring back an Aussie player :-) .]
>
> How that "helps" the industry is beyond me -- they're *discouraging*
> sales!
>
The great pity of the HD-DVD vs BlueRay battle was that HD-DVD was Region
free, whereas BlueRay retains the same bogus Region system as DVDs.
A lot of people here have "Region 0" DVD players that will play anything,
I myself have heaps of US & UK DVDs that just are not available on Region
4 release or are significantly cheaper to import from places like Amazon
(I just finished my "Barney Miller" S3 for those old enough to remember
it..... and my "Baa Baa Black Sheep" DVD collection consists of a UK, US
and French mix of sets! - that WW2 based TV show should stump most
readers).
The trouble with these industries that have virtual total control of
certain geographical areas is their version of self-interest, either do it
their way or do without. It's the same attitude in Telecom, DVDs, printed
books etc. hiding behind legislative walls and only allowing more
competition ever seems to change things in favour of the consumer.
The weird thing is that while removing this sort of protection may well
impact on the incumbents who cling to the past, those who embrace the new
environment can prosper along with the rest of us ordinary customers.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:11:56 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <h48res$u02$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <4A67D765.6090604@annsgarden.com>,
Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>But "public interest, convenience, and necessity" is a pretty high
>standard.
Not particularly. Home shopping stations and satellators meet the
PICON standard as the FCC interprets it today.
>The applicant would have to prove (this is the _bureaucratic_ reason)
>that such use of an FM broadcast channel would be a better use for
>the channel than a separately-programmed FM broadcast station.
The FCC does not consider the nature of the programming in making its
licensing decisions, and has not used the "comparative hearing" system
in two decades. If an application is technically feasible, not
mutually exclusive with other pending applications, and would not
cause the licensee to exceed the station ownership limit in the
market, then it will be granted.
>Furthermore, the number of available FM channels is limited. At the
>very minimum, signals should be separated by 0.4 MHz (alternate FM
>channels); this imposes a maximum of 50 channels in a given market.
Actually, 0.8 MHz is the spacing. FM stations are required to protect
first-, second-, and third-adjacent channels, and the standard for
second- and third-adjacent spacing are the same. See sections 73.207,
73.213, and 73.215 of the FCC Rules. Other taboos include the 10.7
MHz IF (intermediate frequency) used in superheterodyne FM receivers
and various (mostly obsolete) requirements for the protection of
nearby analog TV channel 6 operations.
>Adjacent- and co-channel interference to or from distant stations
>imposes further restrictions. These factors severely restrict what can
>"_physically/technically_" be done.
Actually, the spacing restrictions are primarily
political/administrative; stations could be spaced more closely (in
frequency and in space) without impinging on any technical limitations
of the FM broadcasting system. FM, especially here in the crowded
northeast, is already interference-limited. (Modern FM receivers are
as sensitive as they can possibly be: low-cost receivers can
demodulate signals in the nanovolt range, deep into the thermal noise
floor.)
>Finally there's a _financial_ reason. Do you have any idea what an FM
>broadcast license is worth in a major market like Philadelphia?
A very great deal less than they were ten years ago.
>A related issue concerns the consumer electronics industry. If a market
>actually existed for a TV-audio-over-FM service, radio manufacturers
>could certainly incorporate TV tuners into FM radios. Some high-end
>multiband receivers incorporate such capability, but most
>consumer-market FM radios/tuners/receivers don't.
Actually, many low-end Radio Shack tuners did include TV, since the
electronics to tune mono wideband FM is the same for 81.75 MHz as it
is for 107.9 MHz. (Plus, most IC-based FM tuners are made for sale in
Japan as well as the U.S., so there is a simple strapping option on
the chip to select either the Japanese or the ITU FM band. The
Japanese FM band overlaps Region II channels 5 and 6.)
>- "In January 1996, WWDB was purchased by Mercury Broadcasting for $48
> million."
None of those stations are worth remotely what they were valued at
back then. A full-class-B station in New York is in the process of
being sold for $45 million; a station in Philadelphia would have a
"stick value" much less than that. CBS recently sold a group of three
full-class-C FMs in Denver for $19.5 million total. You need to
understand station prices in the late 1990s as part of an asset
bubble, inflated by easy access to credit and the rapid consolidation
of the industry after passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
(Sound familiar?)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Wilson <mcs6502@gmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <d9096355-20b5-4cd6-8167-182f8713fa1f@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 23, 1:58 pm, Neal McLain <nmcl...@annsgarden.com> wrote:
> A related issue concerns the consumer electronics industry. If a market
> actually existed for a TV-audio-over-FM service, radio manufacturers
> could certainly incorporate TV tuners into FM radios. Some high-end
> multiband receivers incorporate such capability, but most
> consumer-market FM radios/tuners/receivers don't.
Interestingly, at least one manufacturer did make a TV-audio receiver
- Tandy/Radio Shack.
1988: 12-613 A$49.95 AM/FM/VHF TV Sound Radio
"Don't miss your favorite program when your (sic) away from your TV"
Realistic(R) Pocket Porta-Vision with VHF-TV sound.
Ceramic filter cuts interference on FM and TV CHs 2 to 11.
5.6cm speaker, earphone. Requires 9V battery.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 02:18:09 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <lVV9m.25103$YU5.5304@newsfe21.iad>
Thad Floryan wrote:
>>They have a committee of industry, PUC staff, and sometimes even a
>>member of the public. I was a public member for a period of time, but
>>got bored when I realized the wireline carriers keep much from happening.
>
>
> Seems you could tell some interesting stories. :-)
>
A few. The most interesting story I can't tell because I signed a
non-disclosure agreement in settlement of a formal complaint.
I can say this much: I don't know about today but some 20 years ago the
"local phone company" tried to make the DMS-100 and 5ESS appear to be
identical as to feature performance, particularly in a Centrex
environment. Such was simply not the case, and even my LEC's switch
engineers didn't realize it at the time.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:32:35 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <siegman-342C3F.08320523072009@news.stanford.edu>
In article <4A67D1FF.2030608@thadlabs.com>,
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> On 7/22/2009 7:15 PM, Tom Horne wrote:
> > [..]
> > And _I_ don't want them to know they've [even] _had_ a call until they
> > next set their parking brake. I just don't know how to make that
> > happen. -- Tom Horne
>
> Ditto.
>
As the OP on this, I'd still suggest that there are legitimate (and even
a number of serious) reasons why people might want to alert someone on
the road that someone else is trying to reach them -- i.e., an "On the
road" button on the cellphone that allows an **unanswerable** "beep"
alert, so the driver can pull off the road and call back if they want to.
And, I believe this *known to be unanswerable* aspect would stop the
distraction of scrambling for the phone, to get the call before it stops
ringing, that I suspect is a big part of the accident hazard.
And I'd add that some substantial (viral?) publicity of the point that
police can (and may well) pursue cellphone records following an incident
or accident would help make this an accepted and widely understood
technology.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:43:21 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <Iq0am.31073$O23.14333@newsfe11.iad>
AES wrote:
> In article <4A67D1FF.2030608@thadlabs.com>,
> Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 7/22/2009 7:15 PM, Tom Horne wrote:
>>
>>>[..]
>>>And _I_ don't want them to know they've [even] _had_ a call until they
>>>next set their parking brake. I just don't know how to make that
>>>happen. -- Tom Horne
>>
>>Ditto.
>>
>
>
> As the OP on this, I'd still suggest that there are legitimate (and even
> a number of serious) reasons why people might want to alert someone on
> the road that someone else is trying to reach them -- i.e., an "On the
> road" button on the cellphone that allows an **unanswerable** "beep"
> alert, so the driver can pull off the road and call back if they want to.
>
> And, I believe this *known to be unanswerable* aspect would stop the
> distraction of scrambling for the phone, to get the call before it stops
> ringing, that I suspect is a big part of the accident hazard.
>
> And I'd add that some substantial (viral?) publicity of the point that
> police can (and may well) pursue cellphone records following an incident
> or accident would help make this an accepted and widely understood
> technology.
>
My car has a built-in hands-free link that has an answer button on the
steering wheel. My wireless service also has voice mail, which I let
the call go to if we are in a difficult driving situation.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:51:55 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <YbWdnRRm2vmxLPXXnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@posted.visi>
AES wrote:
> And I'd add that some substantial (viral?) publicity of the point that
> police can (and may well) pursue cellphone records following an incident
> or accident would help make this an accepted and widely understood
> technology.
I think it should be a moving violation to use a cellphone while
you're driving.
I don't want to encourage Big Brother to watch us any more closely
than he does already, but it seems like it should be technically
feasible to 1) detect where a cellphone is, 2) over time, which tells
you if it's moving, and 3) if a conversation is in progress while that
happens. Voila, like a speed camera, instant automated tickets!
Won't be long before that idea occurs to the city fathers. It's to
save the children, don't'ya'know.
Dave
***** Moderator's Note *****
You forgot the part where you detect _which_ of the car's occupants is
using the phone. Usually, it's for the children. ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:09:07 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <MPG.24d263401b8d1fdc989b10@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <SHN9m.576$646.342@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, hornetd@verizon.net
says...
>
> AES wrote:
> > In article <Fbt2m.22142$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,
> > [or] 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.
> >
>
> And _I_ don't want them to know they've [even] _had_ a call until they
> next set their parking brake. I just don't know how to make that
> happen. -- Tom Horne
>
> "This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
> for general use." Thomas Alva Edison
Pretty easy to implement with Bluetooth connectivity. If the car senses
a cell phone just have it jam the cell phone band or send an instruction
to turn the cell phone off when the car is in motion.
***** Moderator's Note *****
This is like debating what the most effective oral contraceptive is:
if you think about it, it's the word "No".
The solution is to tell people to stop, and fine them if they don't.
------------------------------
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) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of The Telecom digest (11 messages)
******************************
|
or 