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

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 
 

Message Digest 
Volume 29 : Issue 57 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
 magicJack: Cheap, Way Overhyped, But Really Works 
 Re: Pay phone nostalgia 
 Re: Pay phone nostalgia 
 More about 5E remote from Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland 
 Re: More about 5E remote from Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland 
 Re: More about 5E remote from Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland 
 Re: More about 5E remote from Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland 
 Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told 
 Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told 
 Law enforcement tracking cell phone owners in real time 


====== 28 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: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:44:24 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: magicJack: Cheap, Way Overhyped, But Really Works Message-ID: <p062408e7c7abcc454699@[10.0.0.5]> Personal Technology from The Wall Street Journal magicJack: Cheap, Way Overhyped, But Really Works February 17, 2010 by Walter S. Mossberg When I see a high-tech product that's advertised mainly via frequent hard-sell TV ads, as if it were a diet pill, I tend to assume it can't be very good, especially if its price is absurdly low. So, I haven't paid much attention to a product called magicJack, a small $40 adapter for your computer that claims to let you make unlimited domestic phone calls over the Internet with your home telephone free for a whole year-and for just $20 a year thereafter. But after receiving reader requests to review magicJack, I decided to do so. To my surprise, it worked pretty much as advertised. It has a few drawbacks, and extra fees for added services, such as vanity phone numbers. But I found magicJack easy to set up and easy to use, and it yielded decent, if not pristine, call quality. I even tested customer support-a source of complaints online-and found it friendly, fast and responsive. ... http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20100217/magicjack-review/ ***** Moderator's Note ***** Good grief! When are journalists going to figure out that that vendors always divert their IP addresses onto the "next up" position of the "expert" queue? We had a couple of long threads about MagicJack recently: according to "2600", the company is a bad choice for VoIP. YMMV. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:36:44 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia Message-ID: <0pshn.3590$mn6.2675@newsfe07.iad> T wrote: > In article <v-idnUgKu_drthnWnZ2dnUVZ_g1i4p2d@supernews.com>, > pv+usenet@pobox.com says... > >>hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >> >>> I don't think people minded paying the 50c for a local call. >> >> You would be very, very wrong. Payphones as a market pretty much >> destroyed themselves, cellphones just helped a bit. >> >> As soon as COCOT "money trap" phones started to appear, they were >> no longer trustworthy as a whole, because sometimes the COCOT >> operators worked very hard to make their phones look like telco >> phones, to the point of sometimes using RBOC housings and signage. > > I've got a good mind to stick my 1D2 on the side of the building and > charge 10 cents a call. Hook it up to a VoIP provider and a basic > controller and I'm golden. 10 cents for a call accross the country or even to 60 countries in the case of Vonage? Someone would monopolize the phone sooner or later.
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:54:45 -0800 (PST) From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia Message-ID: <4511.99687.qm@web52708.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:03:29 +0000 (UTC) David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> wrote: <<Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> writes: >Considering that you can get a prepaid wireless account for $10 which >will pay for an account for 90 days and can cost as little as <$1 per >month why would someone opt to pay 50c for a three minute call? Wish I could find such. I have a T-mobile prepaid; it's $10/every ninety days, which buys me in theory 30 minutes of use. Ergo, that 3 minute call you mention will cost me $1 or usually $1.33. I can get cheaper /minute rates but basically only if I pay more per month, or buy a far bigger chunk of time. Neither appeals to me.>> Notice I said can cost as little as <$1 per month. If you have made $100 in deposit of airtime you become part of their "gold rewards" program which gives you 365 day expiration on your account. You may renew for another 365 days with a minimum deposit of $10 which makes your monthly outlay ~83 cents. You will not get the cheapest per minute rate ($100 deposit is needed for that) but you can have a minimal cost phone to use for less than $1 per month. If you are not in the gold rewards program expiration of minutes is every 90 days.
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:44:17 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: More about 5E remote from Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland Message-ID: <5wshn.3591$mn6.174@newsfe07.iad> Would the LEC sink fiber across the 26 miles of sea for the remote/host link, or would they use digital microwave (the elevations are sufficient for one microwave link? I understand that microwave is vunerable to "wiretapping" for those with the wherewithal. ***** Moderator's Note ***** Microwave is vulnerable to rain fading, antenna displacement due to excessive wind loading, foreign objects in the path, solar damage, bird strikes, and (for all I know) mogo on the gogo. I hope they used fiber. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:03:36 -0500 From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: More about 5E remote from Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland Message-ID: <4bldo5100o9vr9otbdna12r18ucsn54jt4@4ax.com> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:44:17 -0800, Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote: > Would the LEC sink fiber across the 26 miles of sea for the > remote/host link, or would they use digital microwave (the elevations > are sufficient for one microwave link? > > I understand that microwave is vunerable to "wiretapping" for those > with the wherewithal. > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > Microwave is vulnerable to rain fading, antenna displacement due to > excessive wind loading, foreign objects in the path, solar damage, > bird strikes, and (for all I know) mogo on the gogo. I hope they used > fiber. The LEC will invariably install the cheaper of the two. I strongly suspect that the microwave link would be cheaper than getting the fiber buried under the channel. Assuming, of course, that satisfactory engineering requirements could be met to deal with Bill's list of impairments. Fiber can also be "wiretapped" (I've heard that LEC's have "special" rooms in certain wire centers for the feds listening connections...), and since the LEC doesn't guarantee privacy of your communications, they don't particularly care about eavesdropping on their radio circuits. Their wiretapping and eavesdropping concerns are with the state and federal laws and staying out of trouble with those governments. Any external eavesdropper would be subject to those laws, but the LEC wouldn't be charged for putting your communication up on a radio link that somebody could listen to. Don't forget that the vast majority of long distance circuits were up on microwave from the early '50's until fiber went big time in the late 80's. ET --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- ***** Moderator's Note ***** ANY radio circuit is subject to wiretapping, the "those with the wherewithal" include anyone who can afford an "unlocked" scanner that receives the cellular networks. This is why the U.S. Department of Defense has a long list of approved encryption devices which may be used with cellular phones to prevent interception of calls when classified matters are being discussed. Of course, fiber can also be tapped, but it's a major effort and would have to be done on dry land unless someone with the resources of a government was involved. It's unlikely, not because I believe in "Security through obscurity", but because it costs a lot less to do by other means. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:32:07 -0800 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: More about 5E remote from Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland Message-ID: <4B8732A7.6070002@thadlabs.com> > [...] > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > [...] > Of course, fiber can also be tapped, but it's a major effort and would > have to be done on dry land unless someone with the resources of a > government was involved. It's unlikely, not because I believe in > "Security through obscurity", but because it costs a lot less to do by > other means. Unless one's tapping the entire AT&T backbone as the NSA is doing in San Francisco per: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/11/07/MNIST7NS9.DTL AFAIK, the NSA, et al aren't cost-conscious and don't put out bids. :-) IIRC, the situation detailed in the above article is still entangled in the legal system in DC; tidbits of info surrounding the case occasionally appear on SFGate (one of the San Francisco Chronicle's web sites). Think "Echelon" in which all Internet, cell phone, radio and any other form of data communication is similarly being tapped 24/7/365 worldwide -- the USA has 6 Echelon facilities (USA, Canada, Australia, UK, and elsewhere). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence) Russia has a system similar to Echelon named "Sorm-IV", and I'm sure other countries have their counterparts. If one's curious, look back in comp.dcom.telecom's archives late-2008 to mid-2009 for all the info URLs I posted concerning Echelon, Sorm, etc. during that period. An interesting factoid: as of 2006, 99% of the world's long-distance voice and data traffic is carried over optical-fiber -- very easy to tap.
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:55:08 -0500 From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: More about 5E remote from Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland Message-ID: <pr9eo5l0nhhoieemm20g6fgh969fgqg49b@4ax.com> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:03:36 -0500, Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:44:17 -0800, Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> >wrote: > >> Would the LEC sink fiber across the 26 miles of sea for the >> remote/host link, or would they use digital microwave (the elevations >> are sufficient for one microwave link? >> >> I understand that microwave is vunerable to "wiretapping" for those >> with the wherewithal. >> >> ***** Moderator's Note ***** >> >> Microwave is vulnerable to rain fading, antenna displacement due to >> excessive wind loading, foreign objects in the path, solar damage, >> bird strikes, and (for all I know) mogo on the gogo. I hope they used >> fiber. > > The LEC will invariably install the cheaper of the two. I strongly > suspect that the microwave link would be cheaper than getting the > fiber buried under the channel. Assuming, of course, that > satisfactory engineering requirements could be met to deal with Bill's > list of impairments. Fiber can also be "wiretapped" (I've heard that > LEC's have "special" rooms in certain wire centers for the feds > listening connections...), and since the LEC doesn't guarantee privacy > of your communications, they don't particularly care about > eavesdropping on their radio circuits. Their wiretapping and > eavesdropping concerns are with the state and federal laws and staying > out of trouble with those governments. Any external eavesdropper > would be subject to those laws, but the LEC wouldn't be charged for > putting your communication up on a radio link that somebody could > listen to. > > Don't forget that the vast majority of long distance circuits were up > on microwave from the early '50's until fiber went big time in the > late 80's. > > ET > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- > > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > ANY radio circuit is subject to wiretapping, the "those with the > wherewithal" include anyone who can afford an "unlocked" scanner that > receives the cellular networks. This is why the U.S. Department of > Defense has a long list of approved encryption devices which may be > used with cellular phones to prevent interception of calls when > classified matters are being discussed. > > Of course, fiber can also be tapped, but it's a major effort and would > have to be done on dry land unless someone with the resources of a > government was involved. It's unlikely, not because I believe in > "Security through obscurity", but because it costs a lot less to do by > other means. Bill, All that is required to wiretap fiber is physical acces to the fiber. That may be a bit more difficult than tuning a radio receiver (remember that microwave has highly directional antennas..), but it is very possible with a lot less than government resources. It is not even necessary to break (a detectable event to the LEC) the fiber to do it... In any event, the LEC is much more concerned with the availability and reliability of the circuits rather than whether anybody is listening. Of course the real issue is whether anybody (other than govenment, of course) wants to wade through all the chaf to get any wheat (assuming that they would recognize the good stuff)... ET --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:07:45 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told Message-ID: <18b42ce3-54ec-4f7c-96ea-0f51c17c408c@f35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> On Feb 19, 11:08 am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote: > US school district spied on students through webcams, court told Thursday, 2/25/10, Philadelphia Inquirer articles: Contradictions in laptop case: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_left_story/20100225_Contradictions_in_L__Merion_Web-cam_case.html Family no stranger to legal disputes: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20100225_Laptop_family_is_no_stranger_to_legal_disputes.html Many schools hesitant with laptops: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20100225_Many_schools_won_t_issue_Web-cam_laptops.html Are free laptops worth the cost? http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/karen_heller/20100224_Karen_Heller__L__Merion_paying_a_price_for_free_laptops.html
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:30:59 -0500 From: Ron <ron@see.below> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told Message-ID: <i9ceo59d6du7gqvd1vont47hjkbrfh7vu0@4ax.com> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >On Feb 19, 11:08 am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote: --snip-- Good cites, but you missed one. Public statements and web presences of the tech guy at Lower Merion in charge of the software on the laptops: http://strydehax.blogspot.com/2010/02/spy-at-harrington-high.html -- Ron (user telnom.for.plume in domain antichef.com)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:13:41 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Law enforcement tracking cell phone owners in real time Message-ID: <dc92eab5-8928-43e2-af53-bb18e485c0d8@a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> Article in Newsweek describing this issue: "The snitch in your pocket" http://www.newsweek.com/id/233916 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ***** Moderator's Note ***** The Newsweek article claims that Federal Law-Enforcement already has access to the content of emails: There are numerous other fronts in the privacy wars - about the content of e-mails, for instance, and access to bank records and credit-card transactions. The Feds now can quietly get all that information. If true, then we have a (pun intended) prima facie case for end-to-end encryption, and the PKI industry will be showing strong growth as the impacts become known. Of course, PKI is nothing new, and all the major email clients already include the capability, but few users have chosen to invest in the cost of a personal email identity certificate: although alternative free programs are available, they're not universally recognized. However, there's an alternative: the PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) program and its variants, which don't depend on a central certificate-issuing authority such as Thawte or Verisign. The PGP trust model is much more "peer to peer", and also free: users have the option of purchasing PGP, or using the free PGP-clone called GPG (Gnu Privacy Guard), which may be downloaded from http://www.gnupg.org/ . Suffice to say, it's easy and convenient to encrypt emails now, and I do it routinely to prevent the FBI from finding out how boring my life is. In the future, we may even see encrypted Usenet groups, and "Walled Garden" work-group encryption systems are already in place, such as W.A.S.T.E. - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WASTE for more info. Bill "Asking an Engineer a question is like taking a drink at a fire hydrant" Horne Moderator (Full disclosure: I'm a GSWoT Introducer - see http://www.gswot.org/ for more info) P.S. I'm going to "sign" this email with the Moderator's PGP signature, just as a demonstration. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFLhxKibGbkwqdxelkRAnpVAJ0bQuVoOZwTYjrAlUUi3z2lN5M5zACfXVGz zBVG1E53NGpuSrjFdwJbIF0= =s1xd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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 Bill Horne. 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 moderated by Bill Horne. 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 (10 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues