The Telecom Digest for December 01, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 324 : "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, 29 Nov 2010 17:21:22 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <alpine.WNT.2.00.1011291713230.3720@AURM106297.americas.ad.flextronics.com>
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, John David Galt wrote:
> I agree that education is the way to fix the problem, but "the problem" is
> nanny-statism, not phoning and driving. Anyone who drives badly while
> phoning probably drives just as badly when not phoning.
And what this doesn't address is people distracted by other devices such
as iPods, laptops, or other passengers.
I think the best solution is aggressively enforce and prosecute reckless
and dangerous drivers. But there are many problems with this. Traffic
enforcement is difficult (ask any traffic cop or state trooper) and often
charges are difficult to prove in court because it comes down to a
judgement call. Two, the public tends to view traffic offenses as minor
and DA offices go easy on drivers because virtually every adult in the
nation is a driver and people can too easily see themselves as a
defendant. Few of us are harden criminals so we have no trouble locking
them away. But scofflaw drivers?
If you're really a glutton for punishment pop over to misc.transport.road
sometime. I've seen people vigorously defend the "right" to drink and
drive. If we have people with that mindset then cell phone usage will
never hit their radar.
As long as we're a nation of "me" instead of a nation of "we" this will
always be a problem. Social pressure isn't working nor are ineffective,
unforceable laws. I think it's time we look at a technical solution to
the problem. Don't like it? Look in mirror and ask if you're
contributing to the problem.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:55:44 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <4CF459A0.5040507@thadlabs.com>
On 11/28/2010 10:16 PM, Richard wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2010 00:55:39 -0000, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>
>> We don't use seatbelt interlocks, because there are too many ways they
>> don't work. I don't see any reason to expect that cell phone
>> interlocks would work any better, but I do expect that combinations of
>> fines and public education can get most people to stop using their
>> phones while driving, just as they've gotten most people to buckle
>> their seatbelts.
>
> I agree. Education and fines is the proper way to fix the problem.
> [...]
> In the 1970's, the USA decreed that autos could not start until the
> seat belt was fastened. Many people defeated that simply by pulling
> out the belt and tying it in a knot so that it would not retract. My
> mother hated belts, so she did that on her car; as a consequence,
> whenever I drove her car, I could not use the belts. And I wanted
> to use a seatbelt.
Education. Education. Education. That's the key.
My parents' 1956 car, a red/white Ford Fairlane, had lap seatbelts from
the dealer and we used them.
When I bought my first car, a 1960 Citroën DS-19, I installed a 3-point
(lap and shoulder) seatbelt system for both front seats because I had
seen a picture of another Citroën wrapped around a tree with the driver
exiting safely because he wore such a belt system -- that convinced me.
All passengers in my cars must wear belts or they get out and walk.
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:42:04 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones ]
Message-ID: <4CF4647C.1000804@thadlabs.com>
On 11/29/2010 10:52 AM, Tom Horne wrote:
> [...]
> For good measure, we add in a statutory presumption, under the "Last
> Clear Chance" doctrine of tort law, that anyone involved in a collision
> while using a cell phone is presumptavly at fault and the cell phone
> use constitutes gross negligence, thus piercing the no fault laws in
> states that have them, and the remedy is then focused solely on the
> persons who are causing the colisions. Do not cry foul, though, when
> insurance carriers walk away from the cell phone user's loss claim,
> because it is a legal absurdity to expect them to pay for wanton or
> grossly negligent actions.
> [...]
Excellent! I wonder how many in this video were using a cellphone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=-qvXbIenivk
Warning, not for the squeamish. Note also this URL appeared in the
San Jose Mercury News' (SJMN) "Road Show" column by Gary Richards as my
contribution for May 7, 2010. It is a short compilation of red-light
running accidents around the USA and, no, I did not produce the video.
The original article in the SJMN was:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mr-roadshow/ci_15032380
but it seems that anything over a week old is moved to the SJMN's
paywall archives for which big bucks are required to retrieve articles.
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 05:58:51 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Screw terminals (was: How Ma Bell Shelved the Future for 60 Years)
Message-ID: <id23qr$jpp$1@news.albasani.net>
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>Not those specific deficiencies, as much as inductive pick-up due to the
>lack of 'twist'.
>Some years back I lived in a 1964 construction 32-unit (8 units/floor, 4
>floors) apt building, about 6,000 wire-feet from the C.O.. One 50-pair
>drop to the building, terminated on screw terminals. The 'house' wiring
>was "quad" (J-K), _in_conduit_, with the 4 vertically aligned units sharing
>a common conduit.
In the days when I was more ignorant, I bought a spool of this kind of wire.
It was twisted. I have no idea if the twisting was tested and avoided any
kind of antennuation. Was it?
I kicked myself as Cat5 was available at the time, although more expensive,
and I would have avoided some misery trying to keep a modem connection up
with a nearby radio station and other sources of interference.
>The Installer's test gear gave a 'stress' reading of "34" at the wall-jack
>in my unit. It read "6" at the 50-pair termination. I don't know just
>_what_ 'deficiencies' it was measuring, or whether the scale was log or
>linear, but it was clear that most of the issues were in the circa 80'
>of quad wiring from the building DMARC to my unit, and not in the 'F1'
>run from the C.O. to the building.
Is there an actual problem with screw terminals, other than the amount of
space the consume versus a punch-down block? Is oxidation a concern?
A friend says he used to have a DSL line at his house to help him monitor
computer networks at his business on this kind of ancient inside wiring.
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:45:53 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Screw terminals (was: How Ma Bell Shelved the Future for 60 Years)
Message-ID: <6-KdnQW_rcssEWjRnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <id23qr$jpp$1@news.albasani.net>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>
>>Not those specific deficiencies, as much as inductive pick-up due to the
>>lack of 'twist'.
>
>>Some years back I lived in a 1964 construction 32-unit (8 units/floor, 4
>>floors) apt building, about 6,000 wire-feet from the C.O.. One 50-pair
>>drop to the building, terminated on screw terminals. The 'house' wiring
>>was "quad" (J-K), _in_conduit_, with the 4 vertically aligned units sharing
>>a common conduit.
>
>In the days when I was more ignorant, I bought a spool of this kind of wire.
>It was twisted. I have no idea if the twisting was tested and avoided any
>kind of antennuation. Was it?
'quad' wire has the four conductors stacked in a square arrangement, with
a gradual (guessing at circa 1 'turn' per 8",-- don't have any handy to check)
twist of all 4 wires as_a_unit -- a 4-strand helix, as it were. Thus,
with respect to the other wires in the cable, its just as if it was
absolutely straight conductors. Even if there is 'nothing' on the other
wires in the cable, you've got inductive coupling from the linear 'single-
turn transformer".
'twisted pair' cable (i.e. 'category 'anything') has twist rates for each
=pair= in the cable, providing far superior 'cancellation' of inter-pair
pick-up. higher 'cat' numbers have higher twist rates, and require subtly
different materials to minimize the capacitance between the conductors
in a 'pair'. 'Cat 1" (voice grade) and "Cat 2" (up to 4-mbit/sec) don't
"formally" exist as standards, although the original classification (by
Anixter, a major wire distributor) did include them. ("quad" wiring is
one type of "cat 1" -- a catch-all for stuff which doesn't meet any higher
specification.) "Cat 2" is adequate for 'ARCnet' and similar (up to 4mbit/sec)
over twisted-pair. Cat 3 for 10-mbit Ethernet. "Cat 4" is needed for 16-20
mbit/second (high-end Token ring, the early "100TX-4" fast Ethernet, etc.
"Cat 5" for modern 100-mbit fast Ethernet, or limited-distance Gig-E. "Cat 6"
for Gig-E or limited-distance 10gig Ethernet. "Cat 6a" lets one run 10gig E
over _unshielded_ pairs, for the full distance of the standard. "Cat 7"
was the original design for 10gig Ethernet, using individually shielded
pairs within the cable. 'Cat 7a' is "theoretically" good for 40gig Ethernet
at up 50m, and 100gig Ethernet at up to 15M.
>I kicked myself as Cat5 was available at the time, although more expensive,
>and I would have avoided some misery trying to keep a modem connection up
>with a nearby radio station and other sources of interference.
>
>>The Installer's test gear gave a 'stress' reading of "34" at the wall-jack
>>in my unit. It read "6" at the 50-pair termination. I don't know just
>>_what_ 'deficiencies' it was measuring, or whether the scale was log or
>>linear, but it was clear that most of the issues were in the circa 80'
>>of quad wiring from the building DMARC to my unit, and not in the 'F1'
>>run from the C.O. to the building.
>
>Is there an actual problem with screw terminals, other than the amount of
>space the consume versus a punch-down block? Is oxidation a concern?
It is, as they say "performance limiting". when the "terminals' for a 'pair'
are more than an inch apart, it is very difficult to maintain, say, the
Cat 5 required 'twist rate' to within 1/2" of the connection point (which
has to be an 8P8C, per the standard). <wry grin>
Also, "as installed", the cross-connects between the termination of the
50-pair drop to the building and the termination block for the 'house'
wiring was all _single-strand_ hook-up cable. easily 6'-plus lengths.
Oxidation, as such, was not an issue. While the feed cable was underground
all the way from the C.O., each pair went through a 'protector' before
reaching the cross-connect terminals.
>A friend says he used to have a DSL line at his house to help him monitor
>computer networks at his business on this kind of ancient inside wiring.
It's -not- all that 'ancient'. I don't have a hard date for when the
industry shifted to using 'twisted pair' for most/all _residential_ wiring,
but 'quad' was still being commonly installed in the mid- to late- 1980s.
_Commercial_ installations had -- mostly, if not entirely -- cut over to
'twisted pair' in the prior decade, for wiring installs, driven by digital
phone systems, the explosion of computer terminals that could use a
'common' structured wiring system -- e.g. IBM 3270 over twisted-pair, vs.
dedicated coax. The cost advantage of 'structured' wiring in a commercial
environment was a very "compelling" argument.
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:20:05 -0500
From: Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein.SeeSigSpambait@wn2.wn.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <20101130142023.A4AAA3430D@mailout.easydns.com>
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:11:06 +1100, David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote,
>On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:51:48 -0500, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>
> > Disabling mobile phones in moving cars must be a good idea because the
> > country is suffering from a scourge of motor vehicle fatalities that has
> > skyrocketed since mobile phones became common. Let's look at the
> > statistics to prove this thesis.
> >
>Creating an exaggerated proposition like that is called a "straw man"
>argument, isn't it? Pretty easy to blow over but essentially useless to
>any sort of rational argument on an issue.
Actually, it's sarcasm. I was saying precisely, and obviously, the
opposite of what I actually meant.
>...
> > Fatalities per 100 million miles traveled has fallen from 1.73 in 1994 to
> > 1.13 in 2009. It has been a fairly steady decline.
> >
>So disregarding all the other factors that decide if a crash results in a
>fatality - like having more a higher percentage of modern vehicles on the
>road reduces them because of their inherently greater overall protection -
>means than idiots clearly behaving dangerously by using handset while
>driving aren't a factor?
>
>It may be that the death rate would be even lower without more crashes
>caused by distracted drivers, the absolute figures prove little unless the
>trend lines show no correlation with increased use of phones and other
>distracting devices.
Most critical car safety improvements happened here by the
1970s: Air bags, bumpers, shoulder belts. Some improvements have
come since then, but I think the worst was behind us before cell
phones came along.
The point I'm making is that there just might be benefits to mobile
telephones too. While some drivers may be distracted, it's possible,
for instance, that mobile phones help people avoid congestion, avoid
unnecessary trips, and make it easier to tell folks that they're on
the way but delayed, so they might not have to hurry (drive like a
nut) so much. Maybe the phone helps highway drivers stay
awake. Maybe talkers drive slower. It's these less-obvious effects
that get ignored. Maybe this needs further study.
You have to take the good with the bad. Simplifying everything to
all good or all bad does not create good policy.
--
Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 08:30:02 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <pan.2010.11.30.21.29.58.152112@myrealbox.com>
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:20:05 -0500, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:11:06 +1100, David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
> wrote,
>
>>On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:51:48 -0500, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>>
>> > Disabling mobile phones in moving cars must be a good idea because
>> > the country is suffering from a scourge of motor vehicle fatalities
>> > that has skyrocketed since mobile phones became common. Let's look
>> > at the statistics to prove this thesis.
>> >
>>Creating an exaggerated proposition like that is called a "straw man"
>>argument, isn't it? Pretty easy to blow over but essentially useless to
>>any sort of rational argument on an issue.
>
> Actually, it's sarcasm. I was saying precisely, and obviously, the
> opposite of what I actually meant.
Sorry, I get a little bit of US culture where I am and the output of
places like "Pox Views" (AKA "Fox News") seem to be corrupting my view
of the attitudes of people in your country these days. It's hard to
tell what is sarcasm and what is serious sometimes.
>...
>> > Fatalities per 100 million miles travelled has fallen from 1.73 in
>> > 1994 to 1.13 in 2009. It has been a fairly steady decline.
>> >
>>So disregarding all the other factors that decide if a crash results in
>>a fatality - like having more a higher percentage of modern vehicles on
>>the road reduces them because of their inherently greater overall
>>protection - means than idiots clearly behaving dangerously by using
>>handset while driving aren't a factor?
>>
>>It may be that the death rate would be even lower without more crashes
>>caused by distracted drivers, the absolute figures prove little unless
>>the trend lines show no correlation with increased use of phones and
>>other distracting devices.
>
> Most critical car safety improvements happened here by the 1970s: Air
> bags, bumpers, shoulder belts. Some improvements have come since then,
> but I think the worst was behind us before cell phones came along.
>
> The point I'm making is that there just might be benefits to mobile
> telephones too. While some drivers may be distracted, it's possible,
> for instance, that mobile phones help people avoid congestion, avoid
> unnecessary trips, and make it easier to tell folks that they're on the
> way but delayed, so they might not have to hurry (drive like a nut) so
> much. Maybe the phone helps highway drivers stay awake. Maybe talkers
> drive slower. It's these less-obvious effects that get ignored. Maybe
> this needs further study.
Yep, I have seen people driving and talking on phones at the same time
driving slower - far slower than they should be driving and therefore
causing traffic congestion and impatience in other drivers and
therefore creating greater chances of collisions because these other
people take risks trying to get pasts these dolts!
Studies have already shown the effects of these distractions, some
studies have shown that the effects are as bad as alcohol impairment
when driving. There is a lot of data already out there.
> You have to take the good with the bad. Simplifying everything to
> all good or all bad does not create good policy.
Agreed, but I would say on all the information I have that people -
who in most cases are just barely competent drivers under the best
conditions - are simply far worse drivers when distracted by using
hand-held devices that were never, ever intended to be used at the
same time someone is in control of a moving road vehicle.
--
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, 30 Nov 2010 07:27:44 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Good news: wait times drop for cellphone 911 calls in California
Message-ID: <7sSdnThJ0IdsimjRnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Thad Floryan wrote:
> <http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-911-calls-20101129,0,1947409.story>
>
> Wait times drop for cellphone 911 calls in California
> By Rich Connell, Los Angeles Times November 28, 2010
>
> After years of call centers not being able to keep up with emergency
> calls from wireless phones, the number of such calls not getting
> through fell to just 5% so far this year.
>
> Millions of California cellphone users are no longer getting busy
> messages, experiencing unconnected calls or being put on hold for
> extended periods when they dial 911.
This article failed to mention the most critical aspect of wireless 911;
that is, it just doesn't have the robustness and safegaurds of wireline
E911.
If you're out and about, fine, you have few options these days other
than wireless 911 (although I have the emergency directory number
programmed into my cell phone for my local area as well as two vacation
areas I frequent.)
What needs to be explained far better to the consumer are the features
of wireline E911 that are not present when using a wireless device in
place of a wireline phone within the person's residence.
A lady friend told me they are beginning to educate consumers about the
differences between wireline E911 and wireless 911 at safety seminars in
some states.
The big differences:
1. Wireline E911 seizes the line until the E911 operator releases it.
2. The wireline phone can be disconnected, have its wire cut, etc, yet
the E911 operator has your exact address trapped.
3. Grade of service: is far better with wireline than wireless; i.e.,
getting connected in the first instance.
4. Wireless is a radio, not a telephone, and unless the reception is
adequate the contection to the PSTN will not be made.
Bottom line, I don't need to speak to the Highway Patrol when some
criminal is coming at me with a knife in my home.
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 10:20:59 -0800
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How Ma Bell Shelved the Future for 60 Years
Message-ID: <siegman-6A8B53.10205929112010@BMEDCFSC-SRV02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>
In article <4CF3496E.1040507@annsgarden.com>,
Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
> Surprisingly, that article doesn't mention Alexander M. Poniatoff, the
> founder of Ampex Corporation. His is an amazing story.
Thanks for telling it.
It has some remarkable parallels to the story of Edward L. Ginzton, who
was one of the co-founders of Varian, developed the high-power klystrons
that power SLAC and lots of radars, and who earlier, as a microwave
engineer and manager at Sperry during WW II, invented Doppler radar in
the form it's presently used.
In fact, it seems likely that Ginzton and Poniatoff would have known
each other, but I don't recall ever seeing any mention of this in my
reviews of Ginzton's career. A memoir of Ginzton's life that I wrote
some years ago is available online at
http://www.stanford.edu/~siegman/ginzton_memoir/
There's brief mention of Poniatoff's connection with Fred Terman in C.
Stewart Gillmor's very detailed biograhy of Terman.
Date: 29 Nov 2010 14:27:01 -0500
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How Ma Bell Shelved the Future for 60 Years
Message-ID: <id0uq5$q2s$1@panix2.panix.com>
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>>For the purposes of DATA use, I would readily believe that in the
>>1950's that "magnetic recording technology wasn't ready".
>
>I wouldn't. In 1951 the UNIVAC I used UNISERVO magtapes as its
>primary I/O device. If you wanted to use cards, they later provided
>offline card to tape and tape to card units.
And... it wasn't really ready. Herman Lukoff's book _From Dits to Bits_
describes a lot of the headaches they had to go through in order to make it
work.
"Perhaps the most radical idea which business is being asked to accept is
that idea that a reel of tape can safely be used to carry information now
being entrusted to visual card files... the adequacy of tape for this
purpose has not been sufficiently demonstrated... we are not quite sure that
[tapes] are sufficiently safe from accidental erasure, loss of information
through breakage, kinks, dimensional instability, flaking, and other such
occurrences. Nor have we been satisfied that the devices currently being
employed to read and write on magnetic tape can be relied to do so with
accuracy."
--- M.E. Davis of Metropolitan Life, at the 1953 Joint Computer Conference
It's got better since then.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:32:33 -0600
From: gordonb.f7568@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <xNudnRCMe9zc_2nRnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
>I wouldn't care one bit if traffic deaths were plummeting. If cell
>phone use is causing even one death of a person who had no control
I suspect that standard would both ban and mandate use of certain
drugs (like aspirin, which for some people is recommended to reduce
the chance of heart attacks, but which can cause Reye's syndrome).
>over the cell phone users actions then I want that use banned. The
If even one 911 call is blocked or delayed by that ban, and the
result is an unnecessary death, I want the banner executed for
first-degree murder. Even if it's the entire Congress. (The same
should apply to someone who intentionally drinks, then goes out
driving and kills someone. Or someone who takes Ambien intentionally
and then goes out sleep-driving and kills someone.) That includes
blocking a call by someone stranded on a freeway with a steady
stream of moving cars surrounding him (which is going to be a problem
with "jammers"). It also includes a driver stuck on a freeway with
the accelerator stuck on full blast (Yes, one such infamous call
was a fake. It still might happen for real, especially given recalls
for such problems.)
I think that restriction pretty much eliminates a ban enforced by
technological means described as "jamming" or "a device you put in
a car". It won't be able to exempt 911 and any jamming will leak
outside the car. It might still be doable if it can be described
as "something you put in a phone" (which means older phones don't
have the ban) or "something you put in a cell tower". That still
puts unnecessary restrictions on bus and train passengers. Perhaps
long sections of inter-city train track could be exempted by
coordinates if there aren't that many roads around.
Now, assuming that you are going 60mph down a freeway with a phone
in your pocket (as driver or passenger), and either you fall (or
get pushed) out of the car or hit a bridge abutment and somehow
manage to survive and have enough unbroken bones to pick up the
phone and dial, how long will it be before you can call 911 for an
ambulance? Just how fast does a cell phone GPS recognize a fast
stop?
Now, would it be appropriate to re-route the call (one intended for
anywhere but 911) to the Three Strikes Driving Hotline, which
automatically adds points to your license (perhaps revoking it) and
informs you of that? Or would it be safer to just add the points
and notify the driver by mail?
It's my opinion that driver distraction caused by a driver calling
911 to report drunk drivers, road hazards, fires, accidents, seeing
the license plate number on those "KIDNAPPED CHILD" or "MISSING
SENIOR" notices on freeway signs, or a passenger having a heart
attack is outweighed by what emergency responders will do about it.
(That even applies to prank 911 calls if emergency responders get
the prankster off the road.)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:22:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Tom Horne <hornetd@gmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <64e4b124-678b-489a-980d-59b73f2fc298@n10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 29, 2:19 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
wrote:
> > John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
> >> We don't use seatbelt interlocks, because there are too many ways they
> >> don't work. I don't see any reason to expect that cell phone
> >> interlocks would work any better, but I do expect that combinations of
> >> fines and public education can get most people to stop using their
> >> phones while driving, just as they've gotten most people to buckle
> >> their seatbelts.
> Richard wrote:
> > I agree. Education and fines is the proper way to fix the problem.
>
> I agree that education is the way to fix the problem, but "the problem" is
> nanny-statism, not phoning and driving. Anyone who drives badly while
> phoning probably drives just as badly when not phoning.
>
> > It is not possible to make you 100% safe by passing laws. Whenever
> > government tries to fix one problem by passing a law, they usually end
> > up creating a worse problem due to unforseen consequences.
>
> Precisely. The time for police to intervene in how someone drives is after
> they crash. Until then, anything the driver does is a victimless crime.
>
> > In the 1970's, the USA decreed that autos could not start until the
> > seat belt was fastened. Many people defeated that simply by pulling
> > out the belt and tying it in a knot so that it would not retract. My
> > mother hated belts, so she did that on her car; as a consequence,
> > whenever I drove her car, I could not use the belts. And I wanted
> > to use a seat-belt.
>
> And as a result, we're stuck to this day with belts that don't do their job
> (which is to stay tight, so you're fixed to one spot on the seat and have
> better control of the vehicle).
"Nanny statism" is now a catch all for any government regulation of
anything. Under the principal that the state should not be protecting
us from ourselves; which I happen to subscribe to; all regulation is
held to be bad no matter what it is intended to mitigate; which I do
not subscribe to. In a democratic society the entire justification
for the exorcise of the police power of the state is to protect
citizens from the wanton negligence and criminal actions of others.
Your neighbor uses great aunt Barbara's Christmas tree lights and
lights his house on fire so the fire department tries to hold the fire
to the building of origin so that your house does not burn down do to
his negligence.
Someone staggers out of a bar heading for the parking lot and the cops
arrest him as soon as he opens the drivers door of an automobile.
Your neighbors kid uses model rockets to learn about physics and
rocketry so the town establishes rules that prevent him from setting
your roof on fire. His parents have to transport him to a range to
fire off his rockets.
You are building a house and the code enforcement official prevents
you from connecting your down spouts to the sanitary sewer so that the
rest of the taxpayers don't have to pay to process your rain water
through the sewage treatment plant.
Each of these state exorcises of the police power has a consequence to
someone.
The firefighters cut large holes in the roof of the building of fire
origin to release the heat and smoke in order to make an effective
attack on the fire. This increases the losses to the building of
origin but lessens the burden of fire protection on the rest of the
community by avoiding expensive injuries to the firefighters and
holding the fire to the building of origin.
The drunk would be driver is jailed and punished for his wanton
negligence of attempting to drive while drunk but other drivers and
passengers make it home alive.
Your neighbors have to transport their son to a model rocket range but
no one had to file an insurance claim for a roof fire caused by an
errant rocket.
You have to build a dry well to dispose of the storm water from your
property, at considerable expense to you, but markedly reduced expense
to the rest of the community.
None of these, In My Un-humble Opinion; for if my opinion were truly
humble would I bother to offer it to others; is an example of a Nanny
State excess. In each case the state is protecting the public at
large from the harmful actions of others that are beyond the public's
ability to control except by state action.
In like fashion the regulators who find a means to prevent you from
driving distracted by a cell phone conversation will be protecting the
other people on the road from the actions of someone who is not
willing to put the safety of the rest of the driving public ahead of
their own convenience. I don't see that as a nanny state excess but
rather as a perfectly legitimate exorcise of the police power of the
state in protecting the public from an individuals negligence. In
each case it would be easier on the individuals being regulated if
they could do what they wanted to do without state interference. In
each case if those individuals are allowed to proceed with their plans
free of state interference there will be real consequences to the rest
of society that; again IMUO; that society has a right to protect
itself from.
--
Tom Horne
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:18:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <0d7e4078-0acb-4afe-a9bb-b1363fa041e7@t8g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 27, 7:02 am, Stephen <stephen_h...@xyzworld.com> wrote:
> before you get too far on this particular justification - is it true?
> In the UK road safety is getting better not worse (measured by deaths)
Thanks to things like seat belt wear, air bags and other safety
features in cars, and less alcohol impaired driving, the death rate is
declining.
But highway deaths are only one of many measures of highway safety.
There is also the accident rate and accident cost, and I believe they
are both going up.
In any event, if any given factor is discovered to be a cause of
accidents, that particular factor should be attacked regardless of the
situation of other factors. It has been widely established that using
cell phones causes accidents, thus it is desirable to eliminate (or
reduce as much as practical) cell phone use.
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:02:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <9345d0f3-aad1-430c-ab8c-08650a6e6b2e@i32g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 23, 4:54 pm, Stephen <stephen_h...@xyzworld.com> wrote:
> >It's not holding the cellphone, but the conversastion itself. Thus,
> >hands-free phones are not the answer.
>
> If this is true (rather than shades of gray) then it isnt the
> cellphone that is the problem, but the distraction.
>
> time to ban talking in cars, kids in the back seat and all the other
> distractions that have caused accidents.........
Those distractions you mention are separate issues.
The issue at hand is cell phone conversations while driving a car.
Date: 30 Nov 2010 02:41:23 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <20101130024123.21516.qmail@joyce.lan>
>Precisely. The time for police to intervene in how someone drives is after
>they crash. Until then, anything the driver does is a victimless crime.
That's ridiculous. People who are staring at their phones are not looking
at the road. They may not be fabulous drivers, but they probably are
able to notice when the light changes.
R's,
John
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:05:39 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Mobile Phone Forwarding Question
Message-ID: <AANLkTikqBCGSYyBkkpf4hXfYHVAq6NVY0jdMDA+bvgz1@mail.gmail.com>
I will soon have a situation and was wondering if folks here could
shed some light on it.
My wife owns an AT&T mobile phone. This weekend she'll get a T-Mobile
phone at LAX before she flies to Australia with Oprah Winfrey. Her
existing number is and her new number will be +1-512 numbers. I'm
considering forwarding her AT&T phone to her T-Mobile phone so she can
receive calls at her known, existing number while in Australia. My
question is which phone will take the hit on the bill? The AT&T or
T-Mobile phone? Her AT&T phone will be turned off and will remain off
her entire trip abroad.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:01:23 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Mobile Phone Forwarding Question
Message-ID: <6bKdnZ7j9_LODWjRnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <AANLkTikqBCGSYyBkkpf4hXfYHVAq6NVY0jdMDA+bvgz1@mail.gmail.com>,
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>I will soon have a situation and was wondering if folks here could
>shed some light on it.
>
>My wife owns an AT&T mobile phone. This weekend she'll get a T-Mobile
>phone at LAX before she flies to Australia with Oprah Winfrey. Her
>existing number is and her new number will be +1-512 numbers. I'm
>considering forwarding her AT&T phone to her T-Mobile phone so she can
>receive calls at her known, existing number while in Australia. My
>question is which phone will take the hit on the bill? The AT&T or
>T-Mobile phone? Her AT&T phone will be turned off and will remain off
>her entire trip abroad.
Authoritative answer: "yes". <wry grin>
Possibly both.
If someone cals the AT&T number they will pay their usual charges (if any)
for that call to the 512 destination. If that number is forwarded to
'somewhere else', where calling that 'somewhere else' results in charges
to the _caller_, those charges will be billed to the AT&T phone's account.
If there are charges to the phone receiving a call, those charges will
(obviously) be billed to the receiving (T-Mobile) account.
NOTE: If, as you indicated, the T-Mobile phone will have a U.S. phone
number calls to it, when in Australia will be charged international
'roaming' rates. These rates can be, depending on carrier, etc,
described as 'extortionate'. as in multi-dollar _per-minute_. It may
make good sense to wait until arrival in AU, and buy a local phone
once there. Then forward the AT&T phone to the AU number. Ideally, you'll
only get hit for the 'basic' international call rate to AU, that way,
because there is no 'roaming' involved. The -possible- 'gotcha' to that
arrangement is if AU is "Caller pays" to cell numbers, and they charge
excessive premiums for foreign origins.
RESEARCH indicated! <grin>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:08:11 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Malaysia's Maxis Q3 supported by non-voice revenue - Reuters
Message-ID: <AANLkTikxO93sME+P-chUFvMmJzYk0s2miU9BzaooZs4b@mail.gmail.com>
It looks like mobile broadband is picking up critical mass around the world.
Malaysia's Maxis Q3 supported by non-voice revenue
Reuters - KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 30 (Reuters) - Malaysia's largest mobile
operator Maxis' third-quarter profit exceeded consensus estimates
supported by non-voice revenue.
Read story on:
http://www.buzzbox.com/preview/update-1-malaysia-s-maxis-q3-supported-by-non-voice-revenue-reut/?id=16861679
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:40:31 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: AT&T goes after copper wire thieves
Message-ID: <4CF58B6F.4040609@thadlabs.com>
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/att-goes-after-copper-wire-thieves
NOTE: There are the proverbial "ton" of embedded links in the following
article at the above URL for additional information and related stories.
I didn't copy them to here because the sheer quantity would complicate
reading the article.
AT&T goes after copper wire thieves
By Layer 8 on Tue, 11/30/10 - 12:28pm.
Copper thieves targeting Atlanta are now being targeted themselves by AT&T
which is now offering $3,000 for information leading to their arrest.
The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that in one recent three day
stretch, nearly 7,000 customers and two schools lost land line phone
service. A cell phone tower also was temporarily knocked out. AT&T saw 11
thefts in a week in one location, including an incredible eight in one
morning. Damage to telephone lines exceeded $500 in each case. Georgia law
makes that a felony, punishable by jail time and fines, the AJC report
states.
The FBI has said in the past that the rising theft of the metal is
threatening the critical infrastructure by targeting electrical
substations, cellular towers, telephone land lines, railroads, water wells,
construction sites, and vacant homes for lucrative profits. Copper thefts
have increased dramatically since 2006; and they continue to disrupt the
flow of electricity, telecommunications, transportation, water supply,
heating, and security and emergency services, and present a risk to public
safety and national security, the FBI stated.
The FBI report shows that industry and local officials are taking
countermeasures to help address the scrapper problem, but apparently much
more needs to be done. For example, while a variety of physical and
technological security measures have been taken there are limited resources
available to enforce these laws, and a very small percentage of
perpetrators are arrested and convicted. Additionally, as copper thefts are
typically addressed as misdemeanors, those individuals convicted pay
relatively low fines and serve short prison terms.
Atlanta isn't the only place seeing copper theft problems. In this report,
Appalachian Power said more than 100 miles of copper wire has been stolen
from the company's southern West Virginia facilities alone. Replacing
stolen wire can cost up to $1 million a year, the utility stated. Other
thefts have been reported all across the country in recent days. One
location in New Jersey has been hit three times in the last two months
seeing some $13,000 worth of copper stolen. A utility in the same state
this week reported a $75,000 theft of the metal.
Experts say copper is up to around $3 per pound making it a lucrative
target for thieves who resell it to scrap yards mostly.
The FBI reported in 2008 that China, India, and other developing nations
are driving the demand for raw materials such as copper and creating a
robust international trade. Copper thieves are receiving cash from
recyclers who often fill orders for commercial scrap dealers. Recycled
copper flows from these dealers to smelters, mills, foundries, ingot
makers, powder plants, and other industries to be re-used in the United
States or for supplying the international raw materials demand. As the
global supply of copper continues to tighten, the market for illicit copper
will likely increase, the FBI stated.
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:06:04 -0500
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <MPG.275f698bb81fd664989d04@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <AANLkTinq+5tc-q-Jr7ueex43G9bm6VKVz9ObZRmPhU1
=@mail.gmail.com>, john@mayson.us says...
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 5:11 PM, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
> >
> >>moving faster than a walking pace could be denied service except for
> >>911.
> >
> > Hmmn. Could you explain exactly why I can't use my phone when I'm
> > on the train?
>
> It's the classic tale of 10% of the population ruining it for the
> remaining 90%. For a decade we've heard time and again that we
> shouldn't talk or text while driving. Instead of seeing the wisdom in
> that we see it as an assault on our rights and this is the end result.
> Congratulations America!
>
> John
Well at least around here there's widespread Wi-Fi on MBTA commuter
rail. Who needs phone service?
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:09:29 -0500
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How Ma Bell Shelved the Future for 60 Years
Message-ID: <MPG.275f6a52d71a39bd989d05@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <160870.95324.qm@web52702.mail.re2.yahoo.com>,
joeofseattle@yahoo.com says...
>
> What would the world be like if fiber optic and mobile phones had been
> available in the 1930's? Would the decade be known as the start of the
> Information Revolution rather than the Great Depression?
>
> The Great Bell Labs
[Moderator snip]
> If any entity could have come up with advanced recording technology by
> the early 1930s it was Bell Labs. Founded in 1925 for the express
> purpose of improving telephony, they made good on their mission
> (saving AT&T billions with inventions as simple as plastic insulation
> for telephone wires) and then some: by the 1930s the laboratories had
> effectively developed a mind of their own, carrying their work beyond
> better telephones and into basic research to become the world's
> preeminent corporate-sponsored scientific body. It was a scientific
> Valhalla, hiring the best men (and later women) they could find and
> leaving them more or less free to pursue what interested them.
>
> When scientists are given such freedom, they can do amazing things,
> and soon Bell's were doing cutting-edge work in fields as diverse as
> quantum physics and information theory. It was a Bell Labs employee
> named Clinton Davisson who would win a Nobel Prize in 1937 for
> demonstrating the wave nature of matter, an insight more typically
> credited to Einstein than to a telephone company employee. In total,
> Bell would collect seven Nobel Prizes, more than any other corporate
> laboratory, including one awarded in 1956 for its most famous
> invention, the transistor, which made the computer possible. Other,
> more obscure Bell creations are nevertheless dear to geeks, including
> Unix and the C programming language.
>
> http://gizmodo.com/5691604/how-ma-bell-shelved-the-future-for-60-years?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gizmodo%2Ffull+%28Gizmodo%29
>
> or:
>
> http://goo.gl/7IvMw
It's a real shame what Bell Labs has now become. They're nothing but a
corporate R&D lab with a specific focus on communications technologies
now.
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 