The Telecom Digest for December 26, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 349 : "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: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 00:35:17 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Fortifying Phones From Attackers
Message-ID: <p062408efc93b2c06f431@[192.168.180.133]>
Fortifying Phones From Attackers
AT&T Hires Ph.Ds for Security Lab; Verizon Wireless Teams With
Start-Up on Data-Security App
By SPENCER E. ANTE
DECEMBER 22, 2010
As consumers and companies embrace smartphones to do more of their
computing, the wireless industry is taking its first steps to beef up
security on mobile devices.
A trader talked on his cellphone outside the New York Stock Exchange
in October. The wireless industry aims to beef up mobile security.
Carriers are deploying new services and cutting deals with start-ups
to help protect people from malicious attacks and misuse of their
personal data stored on a smartphone. Meanwhile, handset makers and
chip firms are taking steps to fortify their hardware as the number
of attacks on mobile devices grows larger and more sophisticated.
...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704774604576035960449272404.html
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 00:35:17 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: No Signal: Homes Often Baffle Wi-Fi From Routers
Message-ID: <p062408f2c93b2d774b01@[192.168.180.133]>
No Signal: Homes Often Baffle Wi-Fi From Routers
By GEOFFREY A. FOWLER
DECEMBER 23, 2010
Technology companies are touting wireless homes, where we can
download a book in the tub and beam a movie from a tablet to the
television set. But too often, that potential doesn't live up to the
reality of sluggish and flaky wireless networks.
My apartment has more than a dozen devices that feed off the network:
two laptops, a printer, an e-reader, wireless speakers, two
smartphones, an iPad and more. Yet getting gadgets to connect to my
two-year-old wireless router is a dark art. I can surf the Web on the
street in front of my house, yet can't get a signal sitting in bed.
In desperation, I even tried dangling a router-the equipment that
takes your Internet connection and shares it with the devices in your
home-from the ceiling in an effort to distance it from interfering
walls.
Surely, covering a whole apartment is a problem that the decade-old
Wi-Fi industry can solve. So I tested four top-of-the-line home
wireless routers, each of which features the latest generation
dual-band "wireless N" technology designed to increase performance.
The result was disappointing. None of the routers could deliver a
100% consistent wireless experience that could take advantage of the
latest technology, like Apple's AirPlay media-streaming service.
...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704774604576035691589888786.html
http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20101222/no-signal-homes-often-baffle-wi-fi-from-routers/
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 00:15:22 -0600
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Number portability and the demise of line number pools in bankruptcy
Message-ID: <if423l$okk$1@news.eternal-september.org>
On 12/24/2010 4:43 PM, Dan Lanciani wrote:
> How does portability interact with caller name delivery?
My recent experience with VoIP was interesting. A number issued by
the voip company (voip.ms) had CID "Minnesota Call". The voip vendor
said that they were unable to change that, apparently the CNAM record
was not under their control. So we ported a number from Qwest. The
voip vendor said that CNAM might stay the same but they could not
guarantee it. For an additional fee, I could have CNAM set to
whatever I wanted, and the likelihood of success would be higher, but
still not guaranteed (although if they were not successful I would not
be charged the fee).
Dave
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 06:57:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: ZIP Codes and barcodes (was: Telstra loses directory copyright appeal)
Message-ID: <423386.86684.qm@web111706.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
--- On Fri, 12/24/10, Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> For instance, the return envelope of bills often has a similar bar
> code on it, presumably to get it to the delivery address faster.
>
> Thanks.
But the return envelopes for bills also has a "Facing Identifing Mark"
FIM just to the left of the space for the stamp which tells the
equipment it has a Zip code already.
There is a different FIM for "Business Reply Envelopes" (for sending
orders and the like) that tells the machine the postage is to be
collected (or charged to the account of the reciieent) on delivery.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:09:24 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Please don't hit me with your modem
Message-ID: <pan.2010.12.25.08.09.20.979177@myrealbox.com>
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 21:09:59 -0700, Reed wrote:
> On 12/23/10 9:31 PM, David Clayton wrote:
>> http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2010-12-23/
>>
>> C'mon, how many of you does this also apply to? :-)
>>
>>
> I saw that strip in the paper and about fell out of my chair...will have
> it enlarged and framed...
>
> Repaired or sold modems from 1966 to 1998 Rixon, Lenkurt, Codex, UDS,
> Milgo, Racal
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> The Sword Of Satire [tm] cuts both ways: I still have a modem, and I
> still remember a couple of Hayes commands, and I have been in the
> business for more than thirty years. I'm going to put the strip up
> over my desk to remind me that when it comes to technology, the rule
> is "Never Look Back".
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
I couldn't resist ordering a T-shirt from the web site with the
cartoon on it - well worth the postage to Australia and about 15 years
since my last order from the Dilbert web site (IIRC it was one of the
first places you could buy techy merch on-line - that and the "Wired"
site).
--
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: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 10:18:31 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: ZIP Codes and barcodes
Message-ID: <if4gdn$h9c$1@news.albasani.net>
Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>The bar code in MS Word (vers 6, c 1994) seems to just be taken from
>either a plain five digit zip code or a zip+4 nine digit zip code. It
>isn't one of the extended bar codes with the carrier route, etc, data,
>and doesn't seem to be dependent on the actual address, just the zip
>code. In other words, it appears to just convert the five or nine
>digits into a bar code.
>Are you saying this barcode is obsolete and no longer has any meaning
>to the post office?
Checking the standard, ZIP+4 barcodes are no longer allowed for business
reply mail, even though the ZIP+4 is unique to the account.
If other than a POSTNET or Intelligent Mail barcode is used in the address
block, it should be ignored by sorting equipment. If it's placed in the
lower right-hand corner, I doubt it'll get sorted, but looped back to be
remotely encoded and then labeled with a correcting POSTNET barcode to
the delivery point.
There was a very brief period in which 5-digit barcodes were used by
sorting equipment, but it would be used for sorting purposes only on
presorted mail. I don't think it would have been used for sorting if
on a single-piece letter with FIM.
Right now, the post office is sequencing flats in delivery point order,
although I don't know if it's fully deployed nationwide yet. Where it is
deployed, ZIP+4 barcodes would be ignored, and I don't think barcodes
on single-piece flats are used for sorting. Engineering on flats is
rather tricky as it's never been a requirement to orient the delivery
address parallel to the longest dimension and the label the post office
applies to add a delivery point barcode can be applied in a number
of places. I have no idea which location is the priority location for
correcting purposes, or if a mail handler has to obliterate barcodes
and remove labels in order for a correcting label to be applied.
>I'm not talking about getting a postal discount, rather, just to expedite
>the processing of the mail. For instance, the return envelope of bills
>often has a similar bar code on it, presumably to get it to the delivery
>address faster.
Those are called "courtesy reply envelopes", and they are required to have
POSTNET barcodes on them when included in presorted mailings.
Here's what happens with single-piece mail. There is something of a mixed
mail stream of letters and flats, although if there's time, mail handlers
will segregate outbound mail at the delivery unit before sending it to the
plant. Letters and flats have separate mail streams. Then letters hit the
facer-canceller machine. This machine checks for postage. Luminescent and
phosphor tags are used on stamps, and flourescent ink for postage meter
indicia. The facer-canceller also checks for FIM (facing identification
mark) which is adjacent to the postage area. Such mail has a separate
processing stream that skips encoding steps as it has a POSTNET barcode
already.
Significantly, the facer-canceller does not check for the POSTNET barcode
itself, so if it was applied without the FIM, the letter does not skip
encoding steps. Therefore, there is no point in barcoding single-piece
letters if the FIM isn't applied as well.
>2) Anyone remember the old postal zones, eg "Brooklyn 15, NY"? I
>think they were introduced in WW II in cities. In many cases the old
>zone became the last two digits of the zip code when zip codes came
>out, eg "Brooklyn NY 11215"
A city had zones as soon as multiple stations with delivery units
were created. The zones might have been drawn in anticipation of the
construction of future stations as soon as population warranted, and
in the meantime those areas would have been delivered from an existing
station in a neighboring zone, possibly as a rural route. These zones
must have been numbered upon creation and would have gone back decades
prior to WWII, but it's always seemed strange to me that mailers weren't
instructed to use them until later. Three-digit numbering of sectional
center facility areas was also proposed around the same time period,
but not implemented as part of the familiar five-digit ZIP Code till 1963.
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 08:57:35 -0800
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: ZIP Codes and barcodes
Message-ID: <ho7ch6h0aoceh48s6s1phd32r7vdtj7bc7@4ax.com>
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 19:42:42 -0800 (PST), Lisa or Jeff
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>2) Anyone remember the old postal zones, eg "Brooklyn 15, NY"? I
>think they were introduced in WW II in cities. In many cases the old
>zone became the last two digits of the zip code when zip codes came
>out, eg "Brooklyn NY 11215"
That's the way it was in greater Boston. We lived in Medford 55,
Mass. (no two-letter abbreviations then) When 5-digit ZIP codes came
in, we became Medford, Mass. 02155.
The more rural areas did not have the two-digit zone numbers. When
5-digit ZIP codes came, they were assigned to those communities in
alphabetic order. If you arrange the names of the communities which
did not have 2-digit zones in alphabetic order, the ZIP codes are
sequential.
The old two-digit zones were not assigned to the communities in
alphabetic order. So an alphabetic listing would not have sequential
ZIP codes.
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 13:45:22 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Number portability and the demise of line number pools in bankruptcy
Message-ID: <if4shh$44e$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <201012242243.RAA11942@ss10.danlan.com> Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com> writes:
>How does portability interact with caller name delivery? My
>understanding is that typically the terminating office does the name
>lookup, i.e., the name is not usually sent along with the call setup
>information. So is a dip to determine who owns the number required
>before the dip to get the name? Or is there a single name database
>that takes care of this? I noticed that when my uncle ported from
>Verizon to the cable company I stopped getting his name on caller ID.
>Now I just get "Massachusetts."
In most (certainly not all) cases this is a result of the
recipient telco utilizing a cheaper data base supplier than
the originating telco's (or the contracted reps, of course).
In some... the originating folk have, either through cheapness
or through a conscious "we'll keep our subcribers' names
confidential unless they opt in - oh and we won't necessarily
provide an opt-in method..." only a limited amount of info
that they send out.
Ask your uncle to call some other friends, including if at
all possible someone else getting service from the cableco,
and see what they get...
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
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 (8 messages)
|
| |
or 