The Telecom Digest for October 27, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 289 : "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
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, 25 Oct 2010 12:31:22 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones
Message-ID: <4CC5DB0A.30101@thadlabs.com>
On 10/24/2010 7:38 PM, Jason wrote:
> On 24-Oct-10 19:10, joeofseattle@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> With more than 28,000 commercial flights in the skies over the United
>> States every day, there are probably few sentences in the English
> <<<SNIP>>>
>> Flight attendants are required to make their preflight safety
>> announcement by the Federal Communications Commission because of
>> potential interference to the aircraft's navigation and communication
> <<<SNIP>>>>
>
> See http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/unsafe-at-any-airspeed/0
> for additional research.
And as I posted back in April, the NASA document mentioned in that IEEE
Spectrum article appears to be this one:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20010066904_2001108092.pdf
"Personal Electronic Devices and Their Interference with Aircraft Systems"
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:37:48 +0800
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones
Message-ID: <AANLkTikS1eyP-9xHd0fd4RNfw8+PiZ7euKhfFWXZ8yKe@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Richard <rng@richbonnie.com> wrote:
> I heard that the reason they don't want you to use mobile phones in
> airplanes is because you might bring up several cell sites at once.
> Don't know how true that is.
I have heard from so many "experts" that I don't know what to believe
any more.
My college roommate's dad was an airline pilot. He continually had a
problem during major sports events such as The World's Series, March
Madness, hockey playoffs, etc. A passenger would fire up a portable
radio trying to tune in the game. He knew it was happening because
his instruments would wobble. I've also have had pilots tell me it's
a bunch of hooey and my roommate's dad didn't know what he was talking
about.
Experts I've read claim the problem is a cell phone at such an
altitude would light up too many cell towers and the towers couldn't
handle the hand offs of such a fast moving phone. Others say this is
nonsense and the plane would have to be moving close to the speed of
light for any of that to be an issue.
Personally I wouldn't want to sit anywhere near someone using the cell
phone on a plane. It was irritating enough when they had the phones
in planes. I was not upset to see those go. I've been traveling a
lot lately and it amazes me how people immediately fire up their
phones and start dialing as soon as the wheels hit the ground. Is it
that necessary to be that connected?
> About 6 years ago, I was visiting my mother in a hospital. Lots of
> electronic monitoring equipment all around, and signs telling you to
> turn off the cell phone. Her physician used a cell phone while in
> mother's room. I questioned him, he said that cell phones were not a
> problem any more.
My son was born at Holmes Regional Medical Center in Florida. There
were "no cell phones" signs everywhere suggesting using one would kill
patients connected to life support and monitors. Yet the county's 800
MHz trunked radios didn't cause a problem nor did the staff's cell
phones. I suspect the real issue was the surcharge they collected
when the phone in the room was used and perhaps money they collected
from the pay phones scattered throughout the hospital.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
***** Moderator's Note *****
OK, let's separate cases and talk about each one in its own context.
I'm not surprised that your roommate's father saw his needles "wobble"
when someone turned on a portable AM receiver, since aircraft
sometimes use "Non Directional Beacons" for navigation, and the
beacons transmit in the 190-540 kHz band, which is just below the AM
broadcast band in the U.S.
Almost every receiver has a transmitter in it. It's called a "Local
Oscillator", but it's a miniature transmitter, which can interfere
with other receivers if they're close enough and share the same
bands. I won't go into the esoterica of intermodulation: just remember
that the receivers do not need to be tuned to the same frequency to
interfere with each other. Close enough is "close enough" for trouble.
Cell phones are a different case: they probably won't interfere with
NDB's: there's too large a difference in the operating frequencies for
that to be likely.
Aircraft also use a VHF system for navigation, called VOR, which
operates in the 108-118 MHz band, just above the FM broadcast band
in the U.S. Since cell phones are mostly in the 700-1910 MHz range,
interference between these two is also unlikely.
BUT ...
Aircraft ALSO use part of a military navigation system, called
"TACAN", which provides them with distance information (i.e., the
space between an aircraft and the TACAN system it is tuned to). In
civilian aviation, aircraft use "VOR" for bearing information (i.e.,
"which way" the navigation system is from the perspective of the
airplane pilot), and the Distance-Measuring-Equipment (DME) part of
TACAN for distance information. These systems, which are simply
co-located VOR and TACAN sites, are called VORTACs in the civilian
aviation world.
Now, the frequencies get close again:
TACAN 960-1215 MHz
CDMA AMPS, GSM, IS-95 (CDMA), IS-136 (D-AMPS), 3G Cellular
824-849, 869-894, 896-901, 935-940
GSM uplink ~890-914 MHz
PSC-1900 uplink 1850.0.1910.0
... which means that two cellular phones, both transmitting at the
same time, can produce a "mixing" result in the same range that an
aircraft's "DME" receiver is using.
Even if that weren't the case, it's just not something anyone wants to
fool around with. The standard for aviation is, and must be, "PROVEN
SAFE" - not "likely to be safe", nor "never proven unsafe", etc. It's one
thing to have a dropped cell call, and quite another to have a dropped
airliner.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:20:00 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones
Message-ID: <ia764g$unp$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <AANLkTikS1eyP-9xHd0fd4RNfw8+PiZ7euKhfFWXZ8yKe@mail.gmail.com>,
Bill Horne wrote:
>Even if that weren't the case, it's just not something anyone wants to
>fool around with. The standard for aviation is, and must be, "PROVEN
>SAFE" - not "likely to be safe", nor "never proven unsafe", etc.
Nonsense. If that were the standard, then aviation would not be
permitted (or every flight would cost as much as a Space Shuttle
launch). Do not doubt that the people who do aviation safety know
very well that safety can never be guaranteed, and their job is to
minimize the probability of catastrophic failure, knowing that the
world is too unpredictable ever to get it to zero. I think they're
pretty happy that commercial airlines are several orders of magnitude
safer (per passenger-mile traveled) than automobiles. Engineering,
like life, rarely gives guarantees.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
***** Moderator's Note *****
I disagree; I'd qualify my statement by saying that it's limited to
cases where consumer-grade electronics are in use, but that presumes
that the aircraft's internal electronics - NAV/COM, GPS, Inertial
Navigation, etc. - aren't known to be safe while operating
side-by-side, and they are.
In the case of cellphones, the "worst outcome" test has to apply.
Until and unless the aviation community agrees that cellphones
don't increase the risk of a "worst outcome", the most conservative
approach - that of banning them - must be used.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:47:02 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones
Message-ID: <4CC73E46.3000805@thadlabs.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I disagree; I'd qualify my statement by saying that it's limited to
> cases where consumer-grade electronics are in use, but that presumes
> that the aircraft's internal electronics - NAV/COM, GPS, Inertial
> Navigation, etc. - aren't known to be safe while operating
> side-by-side, and they are.
>
> In the case of cellphones, the "worst outcome" test has to apply.
> Until and unless the aviation community agrees that cellphones
> don't increase the risk of a "worst outcome", the most conservative
> approach - that of banning them - must be used.
There are other issues at play here, especially with cellphones.
In the USA, cellphones using:
CDMA (Sprint, Verizon) can transmit at 0.2 to 0.75 Watts
GSM (AT&T, T-Mobile) can transmit at up to 2 Watts
In the past 12 months here in comp.dcom.telecom we've read numerous
articles illustrating (specifically) GSM interference.
Besides the clearly-known cases of GSM affecting hearing aids up to
100 feet (30m) http://tap.gallaudet.edu/voice/DigitalCellFAQ.asp
and 10000s of anecdotes, there are reports in the New York Times of
GSM phones turning-on several models of electronic stoves (Maytag,
Samsung, etc.) with the attendant fire hazard; one of several such
articles is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/nyregion/23about.html
Yesterday an IEEE Spectrum article was cited and I followed up with
the URL to a NASA article demonstrating how cellphones perturb air
navigation systems; I had a "hmmmm" moment afterwards thinking that
wasn't the article cited in the IEEE article. So I did a Google
search and, WHOA!, I'm finding 100s of PDF articles by Lockheed-Martin,
NASA, et al describing cellphone and WiFi interference to airplane
navigation systems such as:
NASA/TP-2003-212446, Wireless Phone Threat Assessment and New Wireless
Technology Concerns for Aircraft Navigation Radios
Langley Research Center
NASA IVHM Project (2007) Aviation Safety Program, EMI Environmental
Hazards for Commercial Aircraft
Lockheed-Martin, Electromagnetic Interference and Assessment of CDMA
and GSM Wireless Phones to Aircraft Navigation Radios, research
funded by the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center and by NASA
Aviation Safety Program (Single Aircraft Accident Prevention
Project).
NASA/TM-2004-213010, Portable Wireless LAN Device and Two-Way Radio
Threat Assessment for Aircraft VHF Communication Band Radio
DOT/FAA/AR-06/41 In-Flight Radio Frequency Spectrum Measurements
of Commercial Aircraft Cabins
W911NF-07-R-0001-05, FY 2007 - FY 2011, Army Research Laboratory
and 100s, perhaps 1000s, more all summarizing that cellphones should
NOT be used in aircraft.
There's no doubt in my mind now. And when the cellphone manuals,
as mine do, contain statements they shouldn't be used by those wearing
medical electronics (e.g., pacers, pacemakers, defibrillators, etc.)
even though there's no legal requirement for them to do so, I don't
see how anyone can continue to ignore the obvious: cellphones are not
safe. Period.
Date: 26 Oct 2010 16:47:27 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones
Message-ID: <ia7eov$lj1$1@panix2.panix.com>
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>
>My college roommate's dad was an airline pilot. He continually had a
>problem during major sports events such as The World's Series, March
>Madness, hockey playoffs, etc. A passenger would fire up a portable
>radio trying to tune in the game. He knew it was happening because
>his instruments would wobble. I've also have had pilots tell me it's
>a bunch of hooey and my roommate's dad didn't know what he was talking
>about.
That's FM radio. Local oscillator on an FM receiver is apt to throw
junk in the aviation band... you will see VOR errors when you have
a cheap consumer radio that is leaking turned on nearby.
Cellphones aren't like FM radio.
>Experts I've read claim the problem is a cell phone at such an
>altitude would light up too many cell towers and the towers couldn't
>handle the hand offs of such a fast moving phone. Others say this is
>nonsense and the plane would have to be moving close to the speed of
>light for any of that to be an issue.
The issue is altitude, not speed. Line of sight at 30,000 feet is a
long way... with a 20 watt VHF radio you can talk halfway across the
country. Likewise with an FM radio you can pick up stations from halfway
across the country.
Needless to say your cellphone can see cells halfway across the country
too, and vice-versa. And the systems do not handle this gracefully,
at all.
>Personally I wouldn't want to sit anywhere near someone using the cell
>phone on a plane. It was irritating enough when they had the phones
>in planes. I was not upset to see those go. I've been traveling a
>lot lately and it amazes me how people immediately fire up their
>phones and start dialing as soon as the wheels hit the ground. Is it
>that necessary to be that connected?
About the only nice thing about commercial aviation is that people put
their cellphones away.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:48:27 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid
Message-ID: <8g5cc6d6m1gle5rabkvgkpma6ih8ou9aim@4ax.com>
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:40:23 -0700, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
wrote:
>Today's technology facilitates theft. I will not use something like
>this (proximity chip on cellphone or card) as I posted here earlier
>this month:
A few months ago, Citicards issued my a new card. Today, I noticed a
logo for "Paypass" on it. According to Wikipedia
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMasterCard&ei=dBbGTJLAK8WSswaaldHaDQ&usg=AFQjCNHExkCnf8OUDQoNn735fm42ECy5Vw
it is an RFID scheme.
Now, how to disable it? I notice lots of stuff on Youtube about
defeating the chip. I'm going to study this stuff.
Richard
Date: 26 Oct 2010 18:13:37 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid
Message-ID: <20101026181337.84300.qmail@joyce.lan>
>A few months ago, Citicards issued my a new card. Today, I noticed a
>logo for "Paypass" on it. According to Wikipedia it is an RFID
>scheme.
Not really. It's an EMV chip. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMV
If you're thinking it's like an inventory tag, and it just broadcasts
what's on the mag stripe on your card, it's not like that at all. EMV
cards run a complicated crypto protocol, and even if a bad guy could
eavesdrop on the conversation, he could only steal money using a rather
complex man in the middle attack that you're not likely to see on a
random gas station terminal.
The Wikipedia article has a good overview, and a discussion of some
of the security issues (with contact EMV chips, which use the
same protocol) found by people at Cambridge U. in England.
R's,
John
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:38:58 -0500
From: gordon@hammy.burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid
Message-ID: <A-SdneHCG8YP-1rRnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
>>A few months ago, Citicards issued my a new card. Today, I noticed a
>>logo for "Paypass" on it. According to Wikipedia it is an RFID
>>scheme.
>
>Not really. It's an EMV chip. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMV
>
>If you're thinking it's like an inventory tag, and it just broadcasts
>what's on the mag stripe on your card, it's not like that at all. EMV
>cards run a complicated crypto protocol, and even if a bad guy could
>eavesdrop on the conversation, he could only steal money using a rather
>complex man in the middle attack that you're not likely to see on a
>random gas station terminal.
How vulnerable is it to a paid-the-wrong-bill "attack"? (Or
paid-the-other-guy's-bill-too "attack"?) I'm not sure there's much
profit in doing this, or that it can be done deliberately with any
consistency, but it's still a headache. I saw this happen at one
gas station, I think with Mobil Speedpass. Two people were paying
for their gas at two very-close-together registers, and I was waiting
behind them to pay with one of those insecure magstripe cards. One
grabbed his receipt and took off for his 18-wheeler. The other one
looked at his receipt, then complained that he couldn't possibly
put that much gas in his compact car. The clerk flagged the guy
who had left and straightened out the bill, which had gotten swapped
between the two. I am not sure either were above the limit where
they needed to enter a PIN.
The main problems with these systems are that the burden is on the
customer to prove that he didn't deliberately reveal his PIN, and
it's impossible to prove a negative.
I like to think that I can't accidentally pay something I don't know
about any time I open my expensive Faraday-cage wallet (say, to remove
cash).
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:22:58 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones
Message-ID: <pan.2010.10.26.04.22.55.877645@myrealbox.com>
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 04:08:56 +0000, John Levine wrote:
.........
> The airlines like Ryanair that allow mobile phone use in the plane have a
> microcell in the plane. The microcell's signal is stronger than any
> ground signal so the phones on the plane all register with it, and it can
> tell the phones to turn down the transmit power so the ground stations
> can't even see them. The microcell uses some other scheme to communicate
> with the ground.
.........
And because the microcell is close to the handset, the handset only
transmits a tiny amount of power compared to trying to reach a base
station a great distance away, so the potential problem of localised EMI
in the cabin potentially causing issues is massively reduced.
Of course the complete lack of understanding by the general nuff-nuff
airline passenger of the difference between the two scenarios will not
stop a lot of 'em trying to uses their phones on a non-microcell flight.
--
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: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:30:14 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones
Message-ID: <pan.2010.10.26.04.30.11.505692@myrealbox.com>
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:33:06 -0700, Richard wrote:
..........
> About 6 years ago, I was visiting my mother in a hospital. Lots of
> electronic monitoring equipment all around, and signs telling you to turn
> off the cell phone. Her physician used a cell phone while in mother's
> room. I questioned him, he said that cell phones were not a problem any
> more.
>
They are probably more of an annoyance to others with their ringing and
inappropriate conversations - most patients don't have the option to move
away.
> Three years ago, I had heart-bypass surgery. While still in intensive
> care, I was permitted to use a cell phone from my bed, even though I was
> wired up with heart-monitoring probes and a portable unit which
> transmitted my heart beat to a central monitoring room.
>
As someone who used to work in a hospital environment, I am pretty sure
that the known problem - from back in the 1990's - of EMI causing problems
has been addressed by all medical equipment manufacturers over the last
decade. If you ask any Medical Electronics department these days you
should get a good idea of how "immune" the hardware now is to this sort of
thing.
> On the other hand, they would not allow me to plug the charger for the
> phone into the wall socket because the electrician had not approved the
> device. :-( My wife had to carry my phone out to her car to charge it for
> me.
Yep, where I am located you see every power cable in a hospital these
days tagged with a safety check and woe be on anyone who tries to plug
something in without a tag.
--
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: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones
Message-ID: <388285e0-3f97-485f-a2f7-4de6f3bf598d@30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 26, 12:30 am, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> As someone who used to work in a hospital environment, I am pretty sure
> that the known problem - from back in the 1990's - of EMI causing problems
> has been addressed by all medical equipment manufacturers over the last
> decade. If you ask any Medical Electronics department these days you
> should get a good idea of how "immune" the hardware now is to this sort of
> thing.
Recently I visited someone in the hospital. I was surprised that the
P.A. system was still frequently used to page doctors ("Dr Jones call
1234"). I would've thought by now that would've been replaced by
beepers or cellphones. Indeed, a hospital I worked at 35 years ago
was transitioning to beepers.
As an aside, back then the Bell System introduced a feature "meet me
page" when an outside call wanted to talk to a doctor. The page
operator put the caller on hold and paged the doctor to call a
specific extension. When the doctor dialed the extension, he was
directly connected to the outsider caller. This eliminated a
cumbersome cord operation at the switchboard.
Regarding cell phones on airplanes, years ago they told us not to play
our transistor radios as they'd interfere with equipment. The reason
was that radios apparently retransmit the incoming signal internally
as part of the superhyterdone circuit, and this tiny retransmission
could interfere with navigation eqiupment. If this truly was a
problem I don't know, but airlines did discourage radio playing.
Regarding cell phones in hospitals, perhaps back in the days of more
powerful analog phones, especially 'bag phones', the stronger
transmitted signal may have interfered with equipment. Or, there was
a risk of interference and administration did not want to take the
chance, especially with critical gear.
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:01:31 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones
Message-ID: <toqec6dfg686v1fsl4icrdt8uoub7784rs@4ax.com>
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:30:14 +1100, David Clayton
<dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:33:06 -0700, Richard wrote:
>> On the other hand, they would not allow me to plug the charger for the
>> phone into the wall socket because the electrician had not approved the
>> device. :-( My wife had to carry my phone out to her car to charge it for
>> me.
>
>Yep, where I am located you see every power cable in a hospital these
>days tagged with a safety check and woe be on anyone who tries to plug
>something in without a tag.
I also had to use CPAP machine for sleep apnea. At one hospital (the
one for the heart-bypass), they provided me their own breathing-asist
machine. At another hospital, they had the electrician OK my own CPAP
machine.
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:03:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: jsw <jsw@ivgate.omahug.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Happy anniversary cellphone!
Message-ID: <201010192103.o9JL3g8e004050@ivgate.omahug.org>
>Would anyone know how much it cost for the equipment, installation,
>and service back then, and how did the prices compare to traditional
>mobile phone service?
I can answer ca. 1986 for the Omaha area.
My first 'cell' phone (AMPS) was a Mitsubishi two-piece auto
model. Rather large unit in the trunk, control head up front
on the console between the seats.
It ran almost $600 including installation.
I actually had the same unit re-installed in two subsequent
vehicles before I went to the 'shoe' phone, then the Motorola
flip phone, then various LG and Samsung models.
I was the 500-something-th cell customer they had in the area.
At first I was on a three-tier plan. Business hours it was
something like $.25 per minute, evening was $.15, nights and
weekends were $.10 per minute.
It was significantly lower than IMTS in the area. IIRC, the
independent IMTS provider in the area was something like $.35
per minute.
The cell service was from Vector One Cellular, soon to become
QWest Cellular, soon to become {mumble}, soon to become
Verizon Wireless, which it has been for some time.
Yes, I've had the same cell number since 1986. I think that's
some kind of a record, or close to it. ;-)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:04:29 -0400
From: "Michael D. Sullivan" <mds@camsul.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Le90Aei_h5SNnYEXMEUUgXx-edWdTYzBLFsmU@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:10:57 -0400, joeofseattle@yahoo.com said in
Message-ID: <E1PAAeP-0003gw-Th@telecom.csail.mit.edu>:
> Flight attendants are required to make their preflight safety
> announcement by the Federal Communications Commission because of
> potential interference to the aircraft's navigation and communication
> systems.
No, no, no. The FCC does not require any such thing. The FCC forbids
the use of cellphones (not all electronic devices) aboard aircraft
because of potential interference to cellular systems on the ground.
The FAA, on the other hand, allows (but does not require) airlines to
require turning off electronic devices that the aircraft wants turned
off because of the potential for interference with avionics. The
airline gets to decide which devices can and cannot be operated during
various segments of the flight and can enforce that decision because
the FAA backs it up.
A couple of years ago, the FCC considered doing away with its rule
against cellphone use while airborne. There were very few commenters
who favored the elimination of this rule, but there were innumerable
opposing comments, including thousands from flight attendants. Some
of the comments focused on interference to terrestrial cellular
systems, some on potential interference to aircraft systems, but the
overwhelming opposition was based on how damn annoying it would be to
have people jabbering away in loud voices in an enclosed space. The
FCC terminated the rulemaking.
> In our civilized times, there are only a few things imaginable which more
> likely lead to direct physical conflict with the person in the seat
> next to you than turning on your cellphone during takeoff and
> nonchalantly calling your hairdresser to reschedule that appointment
> next Wednesday. In Great Britain, a 28-year-old oil worker was
> sentenced to 12 months in prison in 1999 for refusing to switch off
> his cellphone on a flight from Madrid to Manchester. He was convicted
> of recklessly and negligently endangering an aircraft.
I'm not sure I understand whether the reckless and negligent
endangerment of which he was convicted based on potential physical
conflict, or on the belief that there might be interference to
aircraft electronics?
> Yet with people losing their freedom over the rule, it may come as a
> bit of a surprise that scientific studies have never actually proven a
> serious risk associated with the use of mobile phones on airplanes. In
> the late 1990s, when cellphones and mobile computers became
> mainstream, Boeing received reports from concerned pilots who had
> experienced system failures and suggested the problems may have been
> caused by laptops and phones the cabin crew had seen passengers using
> in-flight. Boeing actually bought the equipment from the passengers
> but was unable [to] reproduce any of the problems, concluding it had
> not been able to find a definite correlation between passenger-carried
> portable electronic devices and the associated reported airplane
> anomalies.
There were some studies conducted in England a few years ago that
showed some interference to aircraft systems from GSM phones, but the
principal conclusion was that more study was needed.
--
Michael D. Sullivan
Bethesda, MD
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:26:17 -0700
From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones
Message-ID: <ia7v3t$vue$2@blue.rahul.net>
Michael D. Sullivan wrote:
> A couple of years ago, the FCC considered doing away with its rule
> against cellphone use while airborne. There were very few commenters
> who favored the elimination of this rule, but there were innumerable
> opposing comments, including thousands from flight attendants. Some
> of the comments focused on interference to terrestrial cellular
> systems, some on potential interference to aircraft systems, but the
> overwhelming opposition was based on how damn annoying it would be to
> have people jabbering away in loud voices in an enclosed space. The
> FCC terminated the rulemaking.
Why not have no-phoning sections, the way they used to have no-smoking
sections? It's a lot easier to block the spread of sound than smoke.
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:33:30 -0600
From: Robert Neville <dont@bother.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones
Message-ID: <4CC613CA.8020009@bother.com>
joeofseattle@yahoo.com wrote:
>Flight attendants are required to make their preflight safety
>announcement by the Federal Communications Commission because of
>potential interference to the aircraft's navigation and communication
>systems.
No. No. No. Sigh. Typical garbage that passes for reporting these days.
The FCC has zero authority over what flight attendants do or say on
board the aircraft. The FCC does regulate radio devices and can specify
that certain devices only be used on the ground, but they can't require
flight attendants figure out if someone was violating that rule or
taking any action against the user.
>Yet with people losing their freedom over the rule, it may come as a
>bit of a surprise that scientific studies have never actually proven a
>serious risk associated with the use of mobile phones on airplanes.
The FAA (which has the authority over electronics in the cabin, not the
FCC) operates on a "prove it's safe" model. Either the manufacturer or
the operator has to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there won't be
any interference. Furthermore, that has to be done on every model
aircraft, inlcuding the ones that were designed before cell phones were
a gleam in anyone's eye.
So far, the only companies willing to underwrite the costs of those
studies are the ones putting picocells inside the aircraft cabin, which
also deal with the FCC restrictions on cell use at altitude.
Now, do cell phones interfere with the navigation instruments onboard
the aircraft? Empirical evidence would suggest not - given the number of
people I've observed that ignore the prohibition on cell use and the
years they've been in use. That said, if that prohibition weren't in
place, you can bet the trial lawyers would be falling over themselves to
file wrongful death lawsuits after the next crash.
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 23:00:33 -0600
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Kerry outlines bill to resolve TV disputes
Message-ID: <4CC66071.9020708@annsgarden.com>
gordonb.9qvz9@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
> I keep seeing ads claiming that Dish has dropped
> these channels, and they're about to drop these
> November 1, (including, interestingly, a local
> channel) go to this web site to find another
> provider who still carries them. Obviously, they
> are trying to drum up complaints about distributor
> dropping these channels.
If, by "a local channel," you're referring to WNYW (the Fox affiliate in
the New York DMA), then I agree: it is interesting. After all,
broadcast licensees have legal carriage rights with respect to MVPDs
(multichannel video programming distributors) that non-broadcast
programmers do not enjoy.
Under federal law:
- A broadcast licensee can elect must-carry or retransmission-consent
with respect to any MVPD that distributes its signal within its home DMA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multichannel_video_programming_distributor
- A broadcast licensee has exclusive market protection within its DMA.
- A broadcast licensee (or its parent company) is permitted to bundle
broadcast programming with non-broadcast programming.
- Every MVPD must deal with the licensee serving the DMA in which said
MVPD distributes the licensee's signal.
- If a MVPD cannot reach a retransmission-consent agreement with a given
licensee, it is prohibited from carrying
same-network programming from any other broadcast station.
In any other business, this arrangement would be called a market
monopoly. In the upside-down world of broadcast television, it's called
"consumer protection."
In the case of the New York DMA, consider News Corporation. Among other
things, NewsCorp owns:
- Fox Broadcasting Company (broadcast television network)
- WNYW Channel 5, the Fox affiliate broadcast station.
- Numerous non-broadcast program services. See list at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation#Cable
This situation gives NewsCorp the market power to charge whatever it
wants for retransmission-consent for WNYW, and to demand its carriage
on the basic tier, and to require carriage of some/all of its
non-broadcast programming services, also on the basic tier. If a given
MVPD cannot reach a retransmission-consent agreement for WNYW, NewsCorp
then has the right to withhold carriage of WNYW and some/all
non-broadcast programming.
So, yeah, if Dish Network and NewsCorp can't reach a retrans-consent
agreement for WNYW, Dish will have to drop WNYW and drop whatever
non-broadcast programming NewsCorp demands.
All in the name of consumer protection, of course.
Neal McLain
Retired Cable TV Engineer
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 01:29:56 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Kerry outlines bill to resolve TV disputes
Message-ID: <ia7vak$1rgp$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <4CC66071.9020708@annsgarden.com>,
Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>- If a MVPD cannot reach a retransmission-consent agreement with a given
>licensee, it is prohibited from carrying
>same-network programming from any other broadcast station.
Really? When did this change? I remember some years ago, in the
second or third round of these negotiations, that an MSO in the Boston
area was preparing to take a Providence affiliate if no carriage deal
could be reached with the Boston affiliate of the same network.[1] (Of
course, in big chunks of the Boston DMA, second[2] affiliates are
carried on cable, and always have been -- but this was much closer to
Boston.) If I could remember when this was, I'd know which network
and stations were involved. (Boston currently has two network O&Os,
WBZ-TV (CBS) and WFXT (Fox), plus CBS-owned independent WSBK and
Hearst-owned ABC affils WCVB and WMUR. Providence for most of its
history had no O&Os, but for a brief time had two -- WPRI (CBS) and
WJAR (NBC) when Boston had none.)
If Congress acted today to eliminate or severly restrict
retrans-consent (fat chance, I know), what effect would it likely have
on cable bills? I know back in 1994, WBZ-TV (then an NBC affiliate)
was getting a dollar a month from the local MSOs for every CNBC
subscriber.
-GAWollman
[1] We used to have Cablevision, Continental Cablevision, TCI, Time
Warner, and Adelphia, all in their own territories; now we have
Comcast, RCN, and Verizon, but most communities[3] have only Comcast
available.
[2] In the southern part of the market, WJAR (NBC) and WPRI (CBS); in
New Hampshire, WMUR (ABC); and in far northern New Hampshire, WNNE
(NBC). Both WMUR and WNNE are owned by Hearst.
[3] Probably not most households -- I think between the two
overbuilders we have competition for a majority of households.
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:14:57 -0500
From: gordon@hammy.burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones
Message-ID: <RpydnbyBrauc8lrRnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
>The FAA (which has the authority over electronics in the cabin, not the FCC)
>operates on a "prove it's safe" model. Either the manufacturer or the operator
>has to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there won't be any interference.
>Furthermore, that has to be done on every model aircraft, inlcuding the ones
>that were designed before cell phones were a gleam in anyone's eye.
>
>So far, the only companies willing to underwrite the costs of those studies are
>the ones putting picocells inside the aircraft cabin, which also deal with the
>FCC restrictions on cell use at altitude.
I suspect that the main practical safety hazard of cellphones is
damage to revenue.
Who paid the cost of the studies to prove that these are safe?
- Flashlights, including non-obvious LED lights on keyrings
- Electronic wristwatches (no, I'm not referring to watches with internet
connectivity, or that sync to an atomic clock, just ones with batteries
to power the timekeeping). These generally don't have an OFF switch.
- Passengers with pacemakers. These generally don't have an OFF switch.
- Passengers with other electronic medical gadgets, such as an insulin pump
for diabetics, oxygen equipment with electronic flow regulators, or
implanted electronic defibrillators (some of those defibrillators
"phone home").
- "electronic" cigarettes
I realize you said *electronic* devices, but what idiot thought these were
ever safe to allow on an airplane, even by Wilbur Wright:
- Cigarettes (I don't care about the cancer risk, I'm worried about fires)
- Cigarette lighters (probably all forbidden now, but I don't think so 20
years ago).
- Passengers who smoke (and tend to smuggle in the above two).
- Guns (even in the hand of law enforcement officers only).
- Equipment to heat/cook food (fire hazard).
- Hot coffee (useful as a weapon, can accidentally injure nearby
passengers).
- Utensils (choking hazard. Even plastic ones may be usable as a weapon).
- Conscious passengers (sometimes subject to "plane rage". Also occasionally
spread dangerous plagues.)
Date: 25 Oct 2010 11:46:15 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: BPL
Message-ID: <ia48o7$d3o$1@panix2.panix.com>
Are there any broadband over power line systems still running in the US?
I have noticed (by the dramatic improvement in the RF noise floor throughout
northern VA) that Manassas seems to have shut their system down. Are there
any that are actually still operating?
I still can't get over the fact that anyone managed to convince the FCC
that this was a good idea.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
***** Moderator's Note *****
I don't know if all PBL is gone, but Manassas has certainly gotten
out of it:
http://www.arrl.org/news/city-of-manassas-to-end-bpl-service .
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:14:59 -0400
From: Chris Hiner <chiner@quark.didntduck.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Bell System Technical Journal
Message-ID: <20101026211459.A27869@quark.didntduck.org>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Actually, the Blackberry's "numbers only" keypad is a devious test to
> determine if you're old enough to remember which keys had which
> letters. If you are, then they know that you're too smart to believe
> the prerecorded tripe, and they pass you through to a human!
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
Or just hold down the alt key and use the qwerty keyboard on the
Blackberry to spell things in DTMF instead of trying to remember.
Chris
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 (21 messages)
|
| |
or 