The Telecom Digest for August 08, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 214 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 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
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 18:10:16 -0400
From: danny burstein <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: EFF: Court Rejects Warrantless GPS Tracking
- this gets into the telecom field because, among other issues,
we've got all those cell phones and related communications
instruments that include geo-tracking capability...
[EFF press release]
August 6th, 2010
Court Rejects Warrantless GPS Tracking
EFF-ACLU Arguments Against Always-On Surveillance Win The Day
Washington, D.C. - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit today firmly rejected government claims that federal agents have an
unfettered right to install Global Positioning System (GPS) location-tracking
devices on anyone's car without a search warrant.
In United States v. Maynard, FBI agents planted a GPS device on a car while it
was on private property and then used it to track the position of the
automobile every ten seconds for a full month, all without securing a search
The court agreed that such round-the-clock surveillance required a search
warrant based on probable cause. The court expressly rejected the government's
argument that such extended, 24-hours-per-day surveillance without warrants was
constitutional based on previous rulings about limited, point-to-point
surveillance of public activities using radio-based tracking beepers.
Recognizing that the Supreme Court had never considered location tracking of
such length and scope, the court noted: "When it comes to privacy...the whole
may be more revealing than its parts."
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 22:49:04 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein.SeeSigSpambait@wn2.wn.net>
Subject: Re: Do rate centers cross state lines?
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:40:09 -0500 (CDT), jsw <email@example.com> wrote,
> >Sandy Valley NV in Clark County, SDVYNV11RS2, 702-723, also used to
> >cover the handful of customers on the California side,
>Hmmmm ... This reminds me of a situation in the same general
>The community known as Primm, NV, is right on the state line
>between Nevada and California. The Nevada side has three
>casinos and a shopping mall.
>IIRC, Primm is served from the Jean, NV CO, a few miles up
>There is, however, a small bodega or convenience store just
>a few feet across the California line, whose main business
>is selling California Lottery tickets. I'm sure this place
>has wireline phone service. IIRC it's only reachable, road
>wise, from Nevada and there's no civilization of anything
>meaningful on the California side for miles, except for
>ranches and such.
>I'm curious if they have a Nevada phone number, or if some
>kind of arrangements have been made for a California number.
>Next time I'm in the area I'll stop in and see if I can
Primm Valley Lotto Store
31900 S Las Vegas Blvd
Primm, NV 89019
So it's a Nevada number and postal address. Per the Google map,
Lotto Store Road is entirely in Nevada, with the state line along one
side. The store is on the California side.
I suggest, however, that the store's Nevada telephone number is not
an example of a rate center crossing state lines. The Califunny side
of the line is pretty remote and is probably not part of any ILEC's
certificated territory. The Mountain Pass rate center is nearby but
it just touches Nevada at a point (I think Nipton) and this appears
to be outside of that area.
A customer has the right to deliver their own phone service wherever
they want it, even if it crosses state lines. The classic case on
point here happened when Jim 'n' Tammy Faye Bakker opened up their
theme park, Heritage USA, near Fort Mill, SC, with the property
straddling the state line. Most of the park was in SC but they
ordered phone service from BellSouth to be delivered to a hut on the
NC side. (This made it a local call to Charlotte.) They then used
an inside-the-park PBX to connect their buildings. The local ILEC in
SC objected, but lost, since the customer demarcation was within
BellSouth's NC territory.
The Carowinds amusement park, very close to the former Heritage USA
site, straddles the state line; it has a North Carolina street
address and telephone number. Some of the businesses now occupying
the Heritage USA site have SC phone numbers, but it appears that The
Broadcast Group, which produces a religious-themed TV show from an
office less than a mile into SC, has an NC phone number.
So the Primm Valley Lotto Store probably gets its phone service from
a demarc at the road side (in NV), and claims ownership of the wire
into the building. Hence no "Primm, CA" rate center is needed.
HOWEVER, the official California PUC rate center map does show a
couple of places where the "Nevada LATA" crosses into
California. One is Sandy Valley, which counts as a California rate
center in LATA 721. Dial tone there comes from the Sandy Valley
remote off of the Pahrump host, on the Las Vegas tandem. ATT
(PacBell/Nevada Bell) is the ILEC.
But another is Pahrump, a Nevada city along the state line. There is
no Pahrump, CA rate center. A handful of buildings are on the
California side of the line, nearby, and not near any other
California towns. (The nearest California rate centers are Sandy
Valley, Shoshone and Death Valley.) So it may well be that the
states have agreed to treat the California sites as if they were in
Nevada, for rating purposes at least. Or perhaps they get Sandy
Valley numbers, though that's not what the map shows. Since Sandy
Valley is served out of the Pahrump host, it would be no effort at
all to have Sandy Valley numbers there.
Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701
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
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
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: firstname.lastname@example.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: email@example.com?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
End of The Telecom Digest (2 messages)