Pat, the Editor

27 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 
 
Message Digest 
Volume 28 : Issue 214 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
  Re: 'Take Back the Beep' Campaign 
  Re: 'Take Back the Beep' Campaign 
  Re: 'Take Back the Beep' Campaign 
  Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song) 
  Re: 'Take Back the Beep' Campaign 
  Re: 'Take Back the Beep' Campaign 
  Verizon WiFi
  Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs 
  Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs 
  Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs 
  Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs 
  Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security 
  More on distracted drivers 
  Re: More on distracted drivers 
  Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song) 


====== 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: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:00:21 -0400 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 'Take Back the Beep' Campaign Message-ID: <op.ux37uvzeo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:42:30 -0400, Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote: > Monty Solomon wrote: > >> >> * AT&T: "To page this person, press five now. At the tone, please >> record your message. When you are finished, you may hang up, or press >> one for more options." > > My wife and I have two phones on a family plan in California. > > Mine is an iPhone, so there is no carrier message taggeed to my greeting. > > Her's is an old Motorola so tagged to her personal greeting is a very > short "To page this person, press five now." Even that doesn't make > sense, though, because there is no way to page her. One way for a sellular company to "page" a customer is by sending an SMS. That's what T-Mo does when I leave a paging call-back number after getting diverted to T-Mo's voicemail. Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 05:38:12 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 'Take Back the Beep' Campaign Message-ID: <TYVdm.126961$zq1.1127@newsfe22.iad> tlvp wrote: > On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:42:30 -0400, Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote: > > >>Monty Solomon wrote: >> >> >>>* AT&T: "To page this person, press five now. At the tone, please >>>record your message. When you are finished, you may hang up, or press >>>one for more options." >> >>My wife and I have two phones on a family plan in California. >> >>Mine is an iPhone, so there is no carrier message taggeed to my greeting. >> >>Her's is an old Motorola so tagged to her personal greeting is a very >>short "To page this person, press five now." Even that doesn't make >>sense, though, because there is no way to page her. > > > One way for a sellular company to "page" a customer is by > sending an SMS. That's what T-Mo does when I leave a paging > call-back number after getting diverted to T-Mo's voicemail. > > Cheers, -- tlvp We have text messaging blocked on our account. ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 19:51:27 EDT From: Wesrock@aol.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 'Take Back the Beep' Campaign Message-ID: <bb8.587fb5af.37a8d1ff@aol.com> In a message dated 8/3/2009 10:13:36 AM Central Daylight Time, bill@horneQRM.net writes: > ... not just a profit pack for the carriers, but they're much more > likely to stretch your cellular bill, since I think most people call > for messages from their cell phone, not from their office or home. If you call your mailbox from another number, including a landline, you are still charged on your cell bill for the minutes you spend listening to your msssages. My carrier is AT&T. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ***** Moderator's Note ***** AFAIK, that's not the case with Virgin Mobile. Does anyone have a list of which carriers charge mobile minutes for landline calls to retrieve messages? Do any of them charge mobile minutes for calls when someone _leaves_ a message? Bill Horne ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:47:39 -0400 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song) Message-ID: <op.ux369pylo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:27:34 -0400, Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Sat, 01 Aug 2009 03:43:49 -0400 tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote: > >> One five-second component of my own OGM has always been: > >> "No collect or 3rd party billings, please." > >> Perhaps that's because my first answering machine purchase was for >> the purpose of putting an end to multiple 3rd party billings >> "authorized" during moments when no one was actually at home to >> authorize them. :-) (That strategem worked, BTW.) > > It shouldn't have to be there at all since you can tell your LEC to > put blocks on your line to prohibit third party billing or collect. So I thought too, back around 1967, when that problem (and solution) first arose. But SNET, my local loop provider at that time, begged to differ, on the grounds that they were always willing simply to credit back the charges. Easier than arguing with them was getting the TAD. > The only addition you might want to add to your outgoing announcement > might be to inform your caller how to immediately go direct to leave a > message on your voicemail (or if you have an answering machine.) Thanks for that thought. But my OGM manages to include the quote above, a request for name, number, and purpose of call, and faxing instructions, all in one twelve-second message, which I'd rather keep that short, lest I confuse the auto-transfering fax machine that shares that line too :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:55:48 +0100 From: Steve Hayes <steve@red.honeylink.blue.co.uk> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 'Take Back the Beep' Campaign Message-ID: <h597k5$1158$1@energise.enta.net> Matt Simpson wrote: > In article <p062408b3c69c9540ce30@[10.0.1.3]>, > Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> (quoting David Pogue) wrote: > >> Second, we're PAYING for these messages. These little 15-second waits >> add up-bigtime. If Verizon's 70 million customers leave or check >> messages twice a weekday, Verizon rakes in about $620 million a year. >> That's your money. And your time: three hours of your time a year, >> just sitting there listening to the same message over and over again >> every year. > > I don't quite understand how the companies think they profit from this, > unless they're in collusion with each other to help each other. > [snip] > It appears that the way a company could benefit from its own voice mail > instructions are when the caller is also one of their customers. And, > with the prevalence of free mobile-to-mobile plans for customers on the > same network, they probably don't even benefit in this case. > [snip] Here in the UK with present interconnect rules, they most certainly do benefit, and not just mobile/cellular operators. When a call passes between two operators, the receiving one gets paid something. This is a big problem if it's a mobile network. The receiving customer is never charged airtime. Effectively, the caller pays this in the rate charged by their provider for the call. Their provider has to cover that cost and there is no effective competition since the caller isn't the mobile network's customer. (Avoiding this situation is a huge advantage of the US approach of charging airtime.) If the call goes to voice mail, the caller is being charged effective airtime for a call that isn't touching the airwaves and the amount can be bumped up by making the messages go on forever... Needless to say, the person called often pays again when they call to pick up the voicemail. Even with landlines, BT has a nice scam going with their "free" voicemail system. The caller gets charged when it answers and this happens instantly if the called line is busy. If the caller is also using BT and doesn't have their inclusive call package, there goes about 12 pence / 20 cents. Keep calling in the hope that the line is now free and it gets expensive very quickly. I'm so glad I ditched BT for outgoing calls - my cost per call is at most 10% of theirs now. We have another unbelievable ripoff. If you take your phone to the continent and switch it on so it registers on a network there, all calls to it get forwarded at a high per-minute charge. Apparently if you don't answer or have switched off the phone, the foreign network forwards the calls back to voice mail in the UK and that is charged on top at an even higher rate. The only protection is to call your network to switch off voicemail before leaving the country. -- Steve Hayes, South Wales, UK ----Remove colours from reply address---- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:44:40 +1000 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 'Take Back the Beep' Campaign Message-ID: <pan.2009.08.04.22.44.39.646785@myrealbox.com> On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:03:25 -0400, Steve Hayes wrote: .......... > We have another unbelievable ripoff. If you take your phone to the > continent and switch it on so it registers on a network there, all calls > to it get forwarded at a high per-minute charge. Apparently if you don't > answer or have switched off the phone, the foreign network forwards the > calls back to voice mail in the UK and that is charged on top at an even > higher rate. The only protection is to call your network to switch off > voicemail before leaving the country. In Australia - when international GSM roaming finally got going properly - you could take your phone to somewhere like New Zealand and you could receive calls on your Aust. number via whatever network had the roaming agreement. The caller would still pay the usual rate calling a mobile in Australia, but you would pay the extra international call cost for connected calls (which wasn't cheap). The way around the big costs was to set the phone to divert "All calls" (not just "No Answer" and/or "Busy") to voicemail (which cost you nothing), which would then send you an SMS (zero cost again) to check the message, which you could do in the most cost-effective method at your disposal. I believe that this is still how it works (but I could be wrong). -- 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: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 22:03:25 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Verizon WiFi Message-ID: <p062408bdc69d422736d9@[10.0.1.3]> Verizon now offers [Redacted] Wi-Fi to eligible residential Internet customers [Exclamation point] Verizon Wi-Fi allows you to connect to the Internet using your own laptop from thousands of Wi-Fi hotspots in airports, hotels, bookstores and more [Exclamation point] New and existing Verizon residential Internet customers are eligible. Included with Verizon High Speed Internet plans up to 3 Mbps download or faster (Power and Turbo plans) and FiOS Internet Faster and Fastest plans. ... http://www22.verizon.com/Residential/WiFi/ ***** Moderator's Note ***** I'm reluctant to post PR notices like this one, because I dislike spreading the gushy promises that Verizontal makes to their favorite customers: Tweenty-somethings who never bother to read the fine print. However, since some of the readers might actually be interested, I pass this one along with some free advice. Here's a clue, Tweenty-somethings: Verizon doesn't give _anything_ away. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:19:10 -0700 From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs Message-ID: <9j8f75loeel12oomv1acaqu85abqvbqcph@4ax.com> >***** Moderator's Note ***** > >Ham antennas _are_ different, but (much as we hams may wish >otherwise), local governments are only required to make reasonable >accomodations for ham antennas: the FCC doesn't usurp local >authorities outright. Moreover, ham operators have _no_ relief from >the provisions of "CC&R" agreements, which are becoming the norm on >nearly all new construction, and which routinely forbid exterior >antennas. Paradoxically, the FCC _has_ usurped CC&R restrictions on TV >antennas, feeling that the public's right to watch the Bachelor show >is more important than contractual restrictions against eyesores. Hams have asked the FCC to usurp CC&R's for ham antennas like they did for TV receiving antennas. The FCC refused. The FCC argued that CC&R's are private agrements that they have no basis to strike down. But they had no problem doing just that for TV antennas. I guess the broadcasters had more money to fight these restrictions than hams have. However, in the decision refusing to override CC&R's for hams,the FCC indicated that they would be open to usurp CC&R's for ham antennas if Congress orders them to. In the current legislative session, HR 2160, the "Amateur Radio Emergency Communications Enhancement Act of 2009", http://www.arrl.org/govrelations/HR2160.pdf ... directs the The Secretary of Homeland Security to: "(2)(A) identify unreasonable or unnecessary impediments to enhanced Amateur Radio communications, such as the effects of private land use regulations on residential antenna installations; and (B) make recommendations regarding such impediments; and (3)(A) include an evaluation of section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 3 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996)); and (B) make a recommendation whether that section should be modified to prevent unreasonable private land use restrictions that impair the ability of an amateur radio operator licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to conduct, or prepare to conduct, emergency communications by means of effective outdoor antennas and support structures at reasonable heights and dimensions for the purpose, in residential areas." ***** Moderator's Note ***** At first glance, this might not seem related to telecom per se, but I allow posts about some Amateur Radio issues, for several reasons: 1. Governmental actions that limit Ham Radio antennas give clues to the current administration's views about radio use by other services, such as WiMax. 2. Federal and local governments who allow private contracts to take the place of the (often unpopular, and always noisy) lawmaking process are subletting their jobs to corporations, and I think such laziness should be brought to light. 3. Ham radio is sometimes a bellwether for other, commercial uses of radio: e.g., hams developed the first practical packet data transfer networks using radio. FCC treatment of hams sometimes reflects the biases and fears of the industries which lobby the FCC to vote their way. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 05:34:54 -0700 (PDT) From: "harold@hallikainen.com" <harold@hallikainen.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs Message-ID: <bf5c1ac6-2487-47e4-ae15-785ce147e7eb@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com> > Just curious: do you have any why the Feds, and not local governments (with > the exception I noted above), are the regulators of the structures? I'm not > having any success Googling an answer to this question. > > I fully understand why the FCC would regulate devices using radio spectrum > in compliance with international agreements. > > > Once constructed, you can hang pretty much _any_ other transmitting/receiving > > gear off it without needing any additional 'permission' as regards the tower. > > If it is TX gear that requires a license, yes, you do still have to get that > > operating license -- but the 'transmitter/antenna location' part of that license > > application is just a formality; consisting essentially of "on the site of > > {callsign} transmitter/antenna". > > I'm still bewildered why the FCC wouldn't insist knowing the locations of all > carriers' cell phone transceivers regardless of tower or other mounting. :-) The Antenna Structure Registration Number issued by the FCC is only required on structures that require FAA notification (generally those higher than 200 feet, see http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2009/17/7/.) This requirement is in part 17 of the rules, which regulates tower lighting, painting, etc. to minimize the hazard to aircraft. It APPEARS that cellular systems are licensed on a market or other geographic area basis. Licensees are allowed to add transmitters within that area (see http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2009/22/165/.) All the cellular rules are listed at http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2009/22/ . Harold ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:20:28 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs Message-ID: <4A7851BC.1070801@thadlabs.com> On 8/4/2009 7:24 AM, harold@hallikainen.com wrote: >> [...] >> I'm still bewildered why the FCC wouldn't insist knowing the locations of all >> carriers' cell phone transceivers regardless of tower or other mounting. :-) > > The Antenna Structure Registration Number issued by the FCC is only > required on structures that require FAA notification (generally those > higher than 200 feet, see > > http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2009/17/7/.) > > This requirement is in part 17 of the rules, which regulates tower > lighting, painting, etc. to minimize the hazard to aircraft. > > It APPEARS that cellular systems are licensed on a market or other > geographic area basis. Licensees are allowed to add transmitters > within that area (see http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2009/22/165/). > All the cellular rules are listed at http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2009/22/ Great references! Thank you very much. Upon thinking more about it, it's somewhat analogous to placing more WiFi WAPs in one's home or office to provide better "local" coverage. In other words, it's the service, not specific cell phone transceivers, that's regulated. And for those of us who are really curious, we rely on the efforts of others, such as the operator of sfocellsites.com, to locate the transceivers. comp.dcom.telecom is really a great resource! :-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:55:08 -0500 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs Message-ID: <bqydnYv004Fh6OXXnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <4A765080.70207@thadlabs.com>, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: >On 8/2/2009 7:07 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote: >> In article <4A6FBBF0.1050606@thadlabs.com>, >> Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: >> >> [[.. munch ..]] >> >>> ..... It's odd (to me) the FCC wouldn't have ALL >>> cellphone (tower) transceivers in their database given how tightly they >>> seem to regulate the spectrum. >> >> The _tower_sites_ database is just that. It idents the places where special >> construction has gone on. RF 'towers' are not subject to local zoning, etc. >> restrictions -except- as the Feds allow. (Ask _any_ community that has tried >> to 'outlaw' ham radio antennas :) > >I'm not disputing what you wrote, but my observations locally differ. It seems >every time a communications tower is proposed it has to be reviewed and signed- >off by the local cities after public review as I read in the local newspapers. I repeat, "Except as the Feds _allow_." They can choose to allow local review for some kinds of stuff. >With that written, when I erected this tower http://thadlabs.com/PIX/LX200/ >in 1967, no permits were required. A neighbor has a similar tower and AFAIK no >permit was required. Neither of us have been hassled over our towers to date. Yup. The rules get _messy_, but that unit is clearly under the limits at which any Fed agency gets "interested". There's a watershed point at something like 50' (100'??) above the highest point in the 'immediately surrounding terrain'. >A HAM friend, John Cronin (K6LLK, http://www.mvara.com/), erected a 100' >tower for his HAM rig and I don't recall him ever mentioning any legal or >other hassles. Hams _do_ have special dispensation in a _lot_ of the FCC rules. The _FAA_ requirements for tower lighting, and height restrictions near airports =do= apply in full, however. >It still seems truly odd the FCC would regulate (and place in the database) >the tower structure and not the actual carriers' (cell phone) transceivers. > >> You have to get "permission" from the Feds to build a tower (over a specified >> height) in the first place. And (again, over specified height) 'operate' that >> tower in accord with Fed requirements (mostly as regards lighting the >> structure). > >Just curious: do you have any why the Feds, and not local governments (with >the exception I noted above), are the regulators of the structures? I'm not >having any success Googling an answer to this question. "Why the Feds" is because the Federal government claims _exclusive_ authority over the regulation of RF spectrum, _licensed_ station equipment and the operation thereof. RF towers are considered 'part' of the station equipment, and thus under exclusive Fed control. Prevents local governments from attempting things like 'taxing out of existence' an operation that is 'politically unpopular'. It's the _same_ authority that allowed the Feds to rule that local govt and/or private associations could _not_ ban or other- wise restrict the placement of 'small dish' satellite receivers. There are multiple Fed agencies with applicable regulatory authority. With _rare_ exceptions (i.e. amateur radio service), anybody putting up a tower has to go through FCC licensing hoopla, so -- since they're 'already handling it' -- they got stuck as the point-of-contact/coordinating agency. A lot of the requirements/restrictions on towers actually come from the FAA. They're the ones that require lighting at 300', and limit the buildable height within many miles of an airport, etc. >I fully understand why the FCC would regulate devices using radio spectrum >in compliance with international agreements. > >> Once constructed, you can hang pretty much _any_ other transmitting/receiving >> gear off it without needing any additional 'permission' as regards the tower. >> If it is TX gear that requires a license, yes, you do still have to get that >> operating license -- but the 'transmitter/antenna location' part of that >license >> application is just a formality; consisting essentially of "on the site of >> {callsign} transmitter/antenna". > >I'm still bewildered why the FCC wouldn't insist knowing the locations of all >carriers' cell phone transceivers regardless of tower or other mounting. :-) Who says they don't know? <grin> "Knowing", and "publishing", are two _very_ different things. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:11:58 -0500 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security Message-ID: <R_SdneNOQp5z5OXXnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <h55jkn$ab6$1@reader1.panix.com>, David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> wrote: >bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) writes: > >[Clipper] > > >>Since the 'back door' could be 'boarded up', as it were -- and thus rendered >>'unusable' to law-enforcement -- the political backing for the government- >>created methodology evaporated. The fact that it was 'breakable' with a >>"reasonable" amount of computing effort -- when an 'unconventional' attack was >>employed -- meant that -nobody- would voluntarily trust anything sensitive to >>it. > >>And _that_ was what really killed Clipper. > > >That was surely the biggest nails but there were others. It was >very expensive to deploy, and of limited throughput. In short, >its bang/buck ratio sucked. 'Expense' to the end-users is irrelevant to the government that is mandating the use of a thing. The throughput _was_ fast enough to handle ISDN voice channels in real-time, which made it 'good enough' for the envisioned uses of the day. The Fortezza card implementation was deployed as the 'key' for the then-new generation of the Fed's STU (Secure Telephone Unit). Successor Fortezza cards -- employing different algorithms -- are used as the operating key for current generation STUs. >What Matt's work also did was [that it] shined enough daylight in [so] >that not [only] his cracks, but [those] others [had found] as well, >got impossible to handwave away. Yup. NSA tried for somewhat over two years to find a fix for Matt's 'discovery', before concluding it wasn't doable. At _that_ point, the entire 'program' -- that of a universally-used, _government-supplied_, encryption system -- was formally pronounced dead. ***** Moderator's Note ***** Opponents of government-key-escrow point to Clipper as "proof" that a "one size (pun intended) fits all" solution can't work, and cryptologists agree. Security researchers concur that public examination of the code is essential to robust performance. That is why the Advanced Encryption Standard was derived from a public competition between competing algorithms. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:20:15 -0700 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: More on distracted drivers Message-ID: <h5a240$hfn$1@news.eternal-september.org> Aug 4, 2:25 PM EDT LaHood calls summit on distracted driving By JOAN LOWY Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Tuesday he will convene a summit of experts to figure out what to do about driver cell phone use and texting, practices that studies - and a growing number of accidents - show can be deadly. LaHood said he intends to gather senior transportation officials, safety advocates, law enforcement representatives, members of Congress and academics who study distracted driving for the summit next month in Washington. "The public is sick and tired of people being distracted and causing accidents," LaHood told a news conference. "We all know texting while driving is dangerous and we are going to do something about it so that responsible drivers don't have to worry about it when they or a loved one get on the road." http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DISTRACTED_DRIVING_SUMMIT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:29:04 +1000 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: More on distracted drivers Message-ID: <pan.2009.08.05.03.29.04.363412@myrealbox.com> On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 19:32:18 -0400, Steven wrote: > Aug 4, 2:25 PM EDT > > LaHood calls summit on distracted driving ....... > "The public is sick and tired of people being distracted and causing > accidents," LaHood told a news conference. "We all know texting while > driving is dangerous and we are going to do something about it so that > responsible drivers don't have to worry about it when they or a loved > one get on the road." Just on this topic, in my city a trial just ended where a truck driver who slammed into another truck (stopped on the side of the road with a flat tyre) in a tunnel in 2007 - killing and injuring many people in the fireball that resulted - was found guilty of one particular driving offence and is awaiting sentence (IIRC). This "professional" driver ignored the many signs in the tunnel warning motorists that there was breakdown ahead, sped past the rest of the traffic that actually had slowed down and basically ploughed into a car between the tow trucks (crushing it) as he finally hit the brakes at the last moment. In this particular trial the jury did not convict him of a more serious offence, and i was reported that evidence presented in an earlier hearing that this truck driver answered a call on his mobile phone seconds before the collision was not allowed to be presented. This comes after another trial where another "professional" truck driver was found not guilty after colliding with a passenger train in the country on a day with perfect, sunny conditions with the crossing lights working correctly - also killing multiple people and maiming others. It seems that some juries containing drivers are extremely forgiving of other drivers - and if those on trial may have been using a phone, well we all do it, don't we?...... :-( - - 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: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 19:53:18 -0800 From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song) Message-ID: <h5as31$9om$1@blue.rahul.net> >> "No collect or 3rd party billings, please." > It shouldn't have to be there at all since you can tell your LEC to > put blocks on your line to prohibit third party billing or collect. I agree, but this hasn't worked since 1984. IXCs and CLECs either don't know about your prohibition or just ignore it, and nothing can be done. Similarly, when AT&T issued "one number cards" (supposed to be good only for calls to you, the card owner), IXCs and CLECs could accept them for calls to any number. I believe for this reason, AT&T no longer issues them. This gaping hole in financial security is unacceptable. Therefore, the FCC needs to make these types of billing opt-IN (by the billed party). ------------------------------ 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 (15 messages) ******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues