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

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 


The Telecom Digest for November 19, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 312 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:

AT&T mobile data growth eases -- to 30x(Thad Floryan)
Re: History--computer based information operator terminal system (unknown)
Re: History--computer based information operator terminal system (John David Galt)
Re: History--computer based information operator terminal system (John Levine)
Re: History--computer based information operator terminal system (Wes Leatherock)
Re: History--computer based information operator terminal system (Lisa or Jeff)
Re: History--computer based information operator terminal system (John Levine)
John's Phone Launched for Technophobe's(Thad Floryan)
[OT] Public Interest Registry whois date stamp error(Adam H. Kerman)
US may disable all in-car mobile phones(Thad Floryan)


====== 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: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:33:48 -0800 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: AT&T mobile data growth eases -- to 30x Message-ID: <4CE49E9C.5090200@thadlabs.com> http://www.itworld.com/mobile-amp-wireless/127888/atampt-mobile-data-growth-eases-30x AT&T mobile data growth eases -- to 30x by Stephen Lawson November 17, 2010, 10:34 AM IDG News Service The estimated growth in data traffic on AT&T's mobile network has slowed, the carrier's CTO said Tuesday, though it remains explosive at more than 3,000 percent over the past three years. The volume of mobile data traffic grew from just over 1 billion megabytes in the third quarter of 2007 to about 30.3 billion megabytes in the third quarter of this year, CTO John Donovan told an audience of developers at the Sencha Conference in San Francisco. That growth rate of about 30 times is down from three-year growth of about 50 times earlier this year, he said. However, expansion is hardly screeching to a halt. "If you look in absolute numbers, it's still a tremendous growth rate," Donovan said. He attributed the change to the difficulty of an already very large number to keep increasing rapidly. AT&T has come under much criticism over the past few years for not keeping up with the demand for data capacity from the popular iPhone and other mobile devices. The carrier continues to upgrade its network to meet that demand, deploying HSPA+ this year and planning a LTE (Long-Term Evolution) rollout next year. Eighty percent of AT&T's mobile network has been upgraded to HSPA+, which will offer two or two-and-a-half times the performance of HSPA 7.2, AT&T's current top-end cellular technology, Donovan said Tuesday. The carrier recently introduced USB modems that can use HSPA+ as well as LTE. It is also upgrading the backhaul from its cell sites to Ethernet on fiber links. Backhaul improvements do not proceed in lockstep with base-station upgrades but are ongoing across the whole network, said AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel. The HSPA+ technology has a theoretical maximum speed of 21M bps (bits per second), Siegel said, though he cautioned that individual subscribers won't experience that type of speed. T-Mobile USA also uses an HSPA+ system rated for that speed, and refers to it as a "4G" network because it represents a significant jump up from its older 3G system. (T-Mobile says its HSPA+ delivers up to 5M bps downstream to a phone and 12M bps to a USB modem.) AT&T believes such speed comparisons are less important to consumers than the overall user experience, Siegel said. Part of what is driving data growth is the growing popularity of "integrated devices," which AT&T defines as handsets with QWERTY keyboards and voice capability, typically smartphones. Today, 57 percent of AT&T's postpaid subscribers have integrated devices, up from 23.3 percent in 2008, he said. Donovan also told the developers about AT&T's efforts to aid in development of mobile applications, which he believes are just beginning to proliferate. Sencha, which sponsors the conference, is a provider of application frameworks based on Web standards. AT&T is working on making it easier for small software houses to deal with a large carrier, avoiding delays that come from being referred back and forth among different groups, Donovan said. The aim is to help get applications onto AT&T's network in one-third the time, or quickly turn down those it's not interested in, he said. "We're trying to de-clutter our organization," he said. AT&T has invested "tens of millions of dollars" in the effort, he said. The carrier has established innovation centers in Palo Alto, California, Plano, Texas, and near Tel Aviv, Israel to work more closely with software creators, he said. The carrier wants to talk to 400 developers per year; it has met with 150 so far this year and expects to talk with 100 more this quarter. The next big opportunity for mobile developers is in enterprise tools, Donovan said. Business applications require different skills than consumer mobile software because components such as security, privacy and device control are basic requirement. But enterprises are now embracing personal mobile devices, he said. "CIOs have stopped fighting the concept that someone would rather bring a $500 device that's their own into the business and use it, rather than carry it alongside a $100 device that the enterprise gave you," Donovan said. Overall, software needs to become more standardized, in the same way that networks converged around IP (Internet Protocol) over the past decade, Donovan said. For example, software needs to talk to other software and share data now. "The vertical stacks which were so great to rapidly stand up the Web have become insufficient to drive really rich applications," he said. As part of this trend, AT&T strongly supports HTML5, but there is more work to be done before that next-generation Web development language can be used for rich mobile applications, Donovan said. HTML5 applications will need access to services on a device such as cameras and location, and access to information that provides context. AT&T is working with Sencha to prioritize the many elements that HTML5 applications will need, he said.
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:19:06 -0800 From: Bob <RBF1147-UN@YAH0O.C0M> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: History--computer based information operator terminal system Message-ID: <ic2d04$2dp$1@news.eternal-september.org> On 11/16/2010 21:26, Lisa or Jeff wrote: > On Nov 15, 11:22 pm, Richard <r...@richbonnie.com> wrote: > > The Bell Labs history (published in 1975) says they already forsaw the > need to do away with that old rule and were converting switches. But > it obviously wasn't a rush thing, I think NJ didn't require a 1 prefix > until the mid 1980s. (Today NJ has plenty of area code splits but > still only 7 digit dialing for within the area code). In 1972, 1+10D dialing was first required in the 213 area (Los Angeles) for calls outside the area. Shortly afterward, n0x and n1x office codes were introduced. Since then, many area code splits have occurred, and in recent years overlays have replaced splits. 1+10D dialing in the home area is permissible throughout California, but required only in overlay areas. -- My email address has no numeric zeroes
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:02:58 -0800 From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: History--computer based information operator terminal system Message-ID: <ic2fiu$deq$1@blue.rahul.net> Neal McLain wrote: > The dial-1-first was a "temporary" artifact of SxS (and possibly other) > switching equipment that wasn't capable of examining a second digit to > route a call. Dialing the 1 switched the call to some other more-capable > switch. Thus, thousands of communities across the US and Canada got used > to the idea of dial-1-first. Is that why so many rural places had you dial 1 first for all calls outside a few local exchanges? This, and not the "1 means an area code" method, was standard in most of California until about 1977, when the state PUC mandated "1 means an area code" statewide. Maybe in metro Los Angeles, "1 meant an area code" much earlier than that, but not in the Bay Area, which allowed 7-digit dialing between its portion of 408 and all of 415 (but required "1" + 7 digits to reach the rest of 408, roughly the part that is now the 831 area code plus Morgan Hill and Gilroy). After 1977, we went to "1 does not break dial tone" until preparation for NXX area codes began in the '80s. > In due time, the initial 1 took on cultural significance. Unfortunately, > the cultural significance wasn't consistent from state to state. Not to mention GTE areas, where common services like directory assistance, repair, and time were 11X numbers rather than N11. I don't know if any exchanges like that still exist.
Date: 18 Nov 2010 15:11:36 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: History--computer based information operator terminal system Message-ID: <20101118151136.26960.qmail@joyce.lan> >> The dial-1-first was a "temporary" artifact of SxS (and possibly other) >> switching equipment that wasn't capable of examining a second digit to >> route a call. >Is that why so many rural places had you dial 1 first for all calls outside >a few local exchanges? Yes. SxS switches were common in rural areas, and they needed 1+ for toll. Panel and later crossbar switches were more common in urban Bell areas, and they could route calls without the 1+ hint. >repair, and time were 11X numbers rather than N11. I don't know if any >exchanges like that still exist. They're long gone. The N11 numbers have been standardized for quite a while. R's, John
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:59:07 EST From: Wes Leatherock <wesrock@aol.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: History--computer based information operator terminal system Message-ID: <97755.5f906cc7.3a16993b@aol.com> In a message dated 11/18/2010 8:06:42 AM Central Standard Time, jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us writes: > Not to mention GTE areas, where common services like directory > assistance, repair, and time were 11X numbers rather than N11. I > don't know if any exchanges like that still exist. That was true in many Bell areas, too. How about Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Fort Worth, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Wichita plus all the less urban areas in Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri? Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:38:56 -0800 (PST) From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: History--computer based information operator terminal system Message-ID: <b40ee3b8-6551-4972-be0e-839ad4cea3d6@fj16g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> On Nov 18, 9:59am, Wes Leatherock <wesr...@aol.com> wrote: > > Not to mention GTE areas, where common services like directory > > assistance, repair, and time were 11X numbers rather than N11. I > > don't know if any exchanges like that still exist. > > That was true in many Bell areas, too. How about Dallas, Houston, > Austin, San Antonio, Fort Worth, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Wichita plus > all the less urban areas in Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas and > Missouri? Yes, some Bell places in Pennsylvania and NJ also used 11n. I think it was that step-by-step used 11n and panel/crossbar used n11. I think 11n today is used for test codes. Anyone have a list? As to toll dialing prefixes, the Bell Labs history mentions there were various ways to tie SxS into the toll network, depending on the traffic and the toll switch. Sometimes intermediate registers were used to store dial digits until a trunk and receiver became available. As time went on, some SxS were 'senderized' in various ways to get more efficiency and extend their life. In the 1970s, I recall reading in some small towns a more elaborate toll dialing prefix was required and sometimes a wait for a second dial tone.
Date: 18 Nov 2010 04:41:09 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: History--computer based information operator terminal system Message-ID: <20101118044109.72793.qmail@joyce.lan> >> (Today NJ has plenty of area code splits but >> still only 7 digit dialing for within the area code). > >Are you sure? NJ has three overlays, and FCC rules require 10D (or >1+10D) dialing for all calls within an overlay. It's 7D in 609, 908 and 856 which are not overlaid. In the overlaid areas it's supposed to be 10D within the same area (regardless of toll) and 1+10D elsewhere. R's, John
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:44:43 -0800 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: John's Phone Launched for Technophobe's Message-ID: <4CE4A12B.1020003@thadlabs.com> http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/johns-phone-launched-for-technophobes-13591 picures at the above URL John's Phone Launched for Technophobes November 17, 2010 by Pichayada Promchertchoo A Dutch company has launched what it calls "the world's simplest phone', targeting users who are sick of new-generation models Only capable of making and receiving calls, John's Phone is dubbed the world's simplest mobile phone, specifically designed for anti-smartphones users. It does not provide any hi-tech features. No apps. No Internet. No camera. No text messaging. All you have to do -- in fact, all you can do -- is call, talk and hang up. Named after the company that created it -- John Doe, a full-service advertising agency in Amsterdam -- the phone is designed for users who are fed up with smartphones and their hi-tech functions. Its extreme simplicity is designed to appeal to technophobes, the elderly and young kids buying their first phones. "John's Phone is easy to use wherever you go. It's the no-contract cell phone you've been waiting for, without any frills or unnecessary features", the company stated. Retro Look In an effort to make it extremely retro, John Doe also provides a small paper-based address book and a pen for storing contacts. They can be slid into the back of the phone. Other features include a 1200 mAh battery with three weeks stand-by time, a single ringtone, speed dial with enough memory to store ten numbers and a hands-free kit. It is 10.5 x 6 x 1.5 cm and weighs in at 95 grams. The phone is available in five colours: white, black, brown, greyish-green and pink. The prices range from around 60 to 80. ***** Moderator's Note ***** God does hear our prayers! Bill "GodDammit, where are my glasses? W@#)($W@_(* text message!" Horne Moderator
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:15:21 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: [OT] Public Interest Registry whois date stamp error Message-ID: <ic1k5o$i9i$1@news.albasani.net> ************************************************************************ * Moderator's Note: Although OT, I think this post will help some poor * * sod to avoid the same mistake my sisters made when they lost the * * domain name for their business. Followups have been set to * * net.internet.dns.policy, which is a better place for this thread. * ************************************************************************ Public Interest Registry is the current holder of root DNS of .org . An organization I am associated with lost control of its domain name. godaddy.com has a backorder process that monitors changes in domain status to put in bids immediately upon a domain becoming available for registration by anyone. I am using this process to reclaim the domain. Domain names must be renewed in advance by the registrant. When that doesn't happen, the name is renewed for a year by the root registry. The old registrar retains control of the domain for 45 days (or shorter, but they all sit on it for the maximum period) waiting for the old registrant to renew it. If the old registrant has not renewed it, there is a 30 day redemption grace period during which the old registrant still has an opportunity to renew the domain through the old registrar. If the old registrant still hasn't renewed the domain, it goes into redemption hold period for five days, and then is released. The old registrant cannot renew the domain during RHP. I knew that today was the 75th day since the domain's registration expired, so I was expected to note that it was now in RHP status. I didn't get an automated message from godaddy.com and the log of status message changes had not been updated. Registrars rely upon the whois server maintained by PIR for notice of status changes. When I checked PIR's whois server myself, I found that the domain is in RHP but the date stamp was October 17. I brought this to godaddy's attention, concerned that godaddy.com won't put the bid in at the correct time and I'll miss the opportunity to reclaim the name on the off chance that someone else awaits it. Alas, godaddy.com said they would not send a query to PIR. I contacted PIR. I was surprised that someone took my call. However, she said PIR relies on the old registrar to report status changes on a timely basis and the PIR cannot correct false information. She invited me to use ICANN's dispute resolution process. Finally, I contacted the old registrar and found someone who would write up notes and pass it along to the person in charge of domains, so we'll see if the status's date stamp gets corrected. Given the political pitfalls and potential for favoritism in registering domain names, it's very curious indeed one of the root registries lacks basic safeguards against receiving status changes with a false date stamp. Should a date stamp 31 days in the past cause the submission to be rejected and sent back to the registrar? I assume this was a glitch that will be corrected now that I've brought it to the registrar's attention. Nevertheless, if someone was trying to gain unfair advantage in order to obtain a domain name with potentially significant commercial value, with no safeguards to check on date stamps, this might be an invitation to cause trouble.
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:59:50 -0800 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: US may disable all in-car mobile phones Message-ID: <4CE5CC06.1020203@thadlabs.com> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/17/mobile_phone_shutoff_in_cars/ {I've inlined the URLs to coincide with flanking article text} US may disable all in-car mobile phones By Rik Myslewski, 17th November 2010 22:46 GMT The US government may require cars to include scrambling tech that would disable mobile-phone use by drivers, and perhaps passengers. "I think it will be done," US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood said on Wednesday morning, according to The Daily Caller. http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/16/secretary-of-transportation-lahood-were-looking-into-technology-to-disable-cell-phones-in-vehicles/ "I think the technology is there and I think you're going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles to disable these cell phones." LaHood is on a self-described "rampage" http://fastlane.dot.gov/2010/02/dot-crafts-sample-bill-for-states-model-languagesupports-efforts-to-ban-texting-while-driving.html against distracted driving, and if making it impossible to use a mobile phone while in a car can save lives, he's all for it -- although, according to TDC, LaHood also emphasized the role of "personal responsibility." In a Tuesday blog post http://fastlane.dot.gov/2010/11/faces-of-distracted-driving-video-series-tells-the-stories-behind-the-statistics.html announcing an online video series, "Faces of Distracted Driving", http://www.distraction.gov/faces/index.html which presents first-person accounts of distracted-driving tragedies, LaHood noted that "Just last year, nearly 5,500 people were killed and 500,000 more were injured in distracted driving-related crashes. "These lives, and too many others like them, were cut short -- not because of malice, but because of carelessness," he added. The problem is that the average driver doesn't think that he or she is an average driver: nearly two-thirds of drivers think of themselves as safer and more skillful http://www.ambulancedriving.com/research/WP65-rateaboveav.html than a driver of median safety or skills -- a statistical impossibility, of course. When faced with the prospect of automotive mobile phones being disabled, we'd be willing to bet that most drivers, suffused with confidence in their own skills, will think in terms of personal inconvenience and a restriction on personal freedom. Perhaps it might be better to think of the guy texting in the lane to your left, or the gal yelling at her ex on her iPhone in the lane to your right, and think not of your own inconvenience, but of some distracted dolt killing you. Remember one unassailable statistic, as explained by the late, great George Carlin: http://thinkexist.com/quotation/just-think-of-how-stupid-the-average-person-is/348028.html "Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!" LaHood may be right. Disabling mobile phones in cars should not be looked at as a way of protecting you from yourself, but instead as a way of protecting you from the stupid.
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