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

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

The Telecom Digest for August 25, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 212 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re:VOIP Technical Support (or lack thereof)(David Clayton)
The future of "femtocells"?(Peter R Cook)
Re: The future of "femtocells"?(AES)
Re: The future of "femtocells"?(keithday)
Why Amazon Can't Make A Kindle In the USA(Monty Solomon)
NE US Earthquake--cell phones stop, landlines ok(Hancock4)
Re: NE US Earthquake--cell phones stop, landlines ok(Wes Leatherock)
Re: NE US Earthquake--cell phones stop, landlines ok(Mark Smith)
Email spam getting to me(AES)
Re: Email spam getting to me(daryl.gibson@gmail.com)
Re: Email spam getting to me(AES)
I'm taking a vacation(Bill Horne)
Why Software Is Eating The World(Monty Solomon)
Re: The future of "femtocells"?(David Clayton)
Re: The future of "femtocells"?(AES)
Why Shutting Down Cell Service Is Not Just Against The Law,(Monty S)
Re: Why Shutting Down Cell Service Is Not Just Against The Law,(AES)
Re: Why Shutting Down Cell Service Is Not Just Against The Law,(Rich G)
Re: Why Shutting Down Cell Service Is Not Just Against The Law,(Hancock4)
AT&T streamlining individual messaging plans August 21..(Monty Solomon)
Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service(John David Galt)
Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service(David Scheidt)
Sprint to Get iPhone 5(Monty Solomon)

====== 29 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 Bill Horne 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: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:49:14 +1000 From: David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re:VOIP Technical Support (or lack thereof) Message-ID: <pan.2011.08.23.06.49.11.462470@yahoo.com.au> On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 19:56:38 -0600, Fred Atkinson wrote: ......... > After two months with no resolution, I purchased another of that > same Linksys PAP2T VOIP devices. It was strictly a shot in the dark > (which is not the way to troubleshoot (buy this and replace it. If that > doesn't work, buy that and replace it, etc.)). > > It cleared the problem immediately. Neither one of those providers > could isolate the problem and it took four months to resolve it. If > they had determined the device was bad in the first place, I could've > replaced it a lot sooner. ........... > Fred As the Dilbert cartoon (paraphrased) once said: "Why is it always the last thing that you try that ends up fixing the problem, if you'd only choose that option first then you wouldn't be so incompetent". -- 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, 23 Aug 2011 10:12:42 +0100 From: Peter R Cook <PCook@wisty.plus.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: The future of "femtocells"? Message-ID: <2Bg$DrBK82UOFwFd@wisty.plus.com> In message <siegman-B9462A.18142522082011@sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>, AES <siegman@stanford.edu> writes >OK, I'll ask a predict-the-future question of the gurus on this NG: > >What's likely to be the future of "femtocells" (aka residential >"network extenders")? -- that is, gadgets which connect to a cellphone >provider over the Internet and provide a good cellphone signal within >the residence and portions of the yard? [ Moderator snip ] I would think that the future is fairly strong. 3G & 4G frequencies are more line of sight than earlier ones, so small no signal zones (no-zones) are likely to get more common. The technology itself will/can only get cheaper (Moore's law). Fibre based broadband roll out makes the backhaul cheaper and more reliable. The economics for filling small no-zones using conventional masts are less and less compelling/viable. The smaller the no-zone the less compelling the argument. $150K+ operating costs to offer cellphone coverage to a 1 sq mile low population density residential area - few visitors or transient traffic; most residents will already have a contract with free minutes that they can't use at home so giving them the capability would drive call cost but not revenue. The payback would be fairly long! A cellphone operator in the UK is experimenting with "community femtocells". They are installing a bigger version of the home units with public access and "hand in" in our village - two so far - one in the top of the telephone kiosk ( already has power and a phone line) and one on the side of the village hall. Others are apparently planned for utility poles around the village. Sounds like your "faculty ghetto" would be a typical target. -- Peter R Cook
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:20:42 -0700 From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: The future of "femtocells"? Message-ID: <siegman-8A790B.07204224082011@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu> In article <2Bg$DrBK82UOFwFd@wisty.plus.com>, Peter R Cook <PCook@wisty.plus.com> wrote: > In message <siegman-B9462A.18142522082011@sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>, > AES <siegman@stanford.edu> writes > >OK, I'll ask a predict-the-future question of the gurus on this NG: > > > >What's likely to be the future of "femtocells" (aka residential > >"network extenders")? -- that is, gadgets which connect to a cellphone > >provider over the Internet and provide a good cellphone signal within > >the residence and portions of the yard? > > [ Moderator snip ] > > I would think that the future is fairly strong. Thanks for helpful reply. That's what I'd hope to hear. [But at the same time, all too many products and services these days evolve in whatever direction gives the most commercial revenue or advertising opportunities or monopolistic potential, not what best serves the ultimate consumers.]
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:07:51 +0000 From: keith.day_at_ubiquisys_dot_com@foo.com (keithday) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: The future of "femtocells"? Message-ID: <47833$4e538a07$42bb6765$3616@news.flashnewsgroups.com> keithday had written this in response to http://forums.cabling-design.com/telecom/The-future-of-femtocells-79596-.htm : The supply of residential femtocells are forecast to grow rapidly across the world over the next few years. There are several reasons: - they provide a really simple fix to poor indoor coverage - they help reduce congestion on the macro mobile network - device prices are falling, and femto will increasingly be an embedded function rather than a separate device - Emerging next gen wireless networks (like LTE) will be deployed with femtocells as an integral part of the design So your proposed solution makes sense for the long term, not just as an immediate fix. Keith Day [disclaimer - I do work for a femtocell company] AES wrote: > OK, I'll ask a predict-the-future question of the gurus on this NG: > What's likely to be the future of "femtocells" (aka > residential > "network extenders")? -- that is, gadgets which connect to a > cellphone > provider over the Internet and provide a good cellphone signal within > the residence and portions of the yard? (I don't mean rooftop > gadgets that pick up signals from a nearby towers and rebroadcast them > inside a residence.) > That is, are major cellphone providers likely to continue making these > network extender devices and service available, at reasonable cost, > for the foreseeable future? Or are there commercial or political > factors that might lead to them dropping this kind of connectivity in > the future? > Reason for asking: I live in a "faculty ghetto" on a major > university > campus: 850 fairly upscale residences in a mile-square area, heavily > wooded, fairly hilly. Cellphone coverage within much of this area, > provided by cell towers in surrounding cities and suburban areas, > ranges from poor to lousy. Proposed improvements in coverage using a > half dozen low-power distributed antennas hidden inside 30' to 50' > high poles about 12" in diameter, located within the area but > generally shielded by surrounding trees, are rousing the usual fervid > nimby response from a vocal minority. > All the residences in this area have or can get good Comcast Internet > service; Google 1 Gig fiber is being installed right now. So, why not > bypass this entire distributed antenna controversy, and tell everyone > to just buy their own femtocell? (I've had a Verizon model for a year > or more myself, and it's been excellent.) > I'm just attempting to check: are these femtocells likely to remain > available indefinitely? Or are there good reasons they might go away? > Thanks for any insights.

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:01:11 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Why Amazon Can't Make A Kindle In the USA Message-ID: <p062408d0ca7961d5027f@[192.168.181.129]> Why Amazon Can't Make A Kindle In the USA Steve Denning Forbes 8/17/2011 An economist is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Old joke based on Oscar Wilde's quip about a cynic. Yesterday I noted how conventional cost accounting inexorably focuses attention of executives on increasing short-term profits by cutting costs. The same thing happens in economics. Take a recent economic study that set out to shed light on role of Chinese businesses vis-a-vis American consumers. Galina Hale and Bart Hobijn, two economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, did a study showing that only 2.7 percent of U.S. consumers purchases have the "Made in China" label. Moreover, only 1.2% actually reflects the cost of the imported goods. Thus, on average, of every dollar spent on an item labeled "Made in China," 55 cents go for services produced in the United States. So the study trumpets the finding that China has only a tiny sliver of the U.S. economy. So no problem, right? Well, not exactly. The tiny sliver happens to be the sliver that matters. What economists miss is what is happening behind the numbers of dollars in the real economy of people. ... http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/08/17/why-amazon-cant-make-a-kindle-in-the-usa/
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:30:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Hancock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: NE US Earthquake--cell phones stop, landlines ok Message-ID: <8fa0111f-74df-4a89-8963-8b4c5b70e839@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> After the 8/22 earthquake felt all over the northeast US, cell phones were not working in our area, apparently due to the flood of calls of people checking with their friends. However, landlines worked fine. While an earthquake is very surprising in the east, this was very minor in the grand scheme of things. What would happen to the telecom network (all modes--landline voice, internet/email, cell phone) if there was a serious event? I believe on 9/11/2001 telecomm service in the NYC area was disrupted due to the flood of calls.
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:09:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: NE US Earthquake--cell phones stop, landlines ok Message-ID: <1314194960.39583.YahooMailClassic@web111711.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 8/23/11, Hancock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote: > From: Hancock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> > Subject: NE US Earthquake--cell phones stop, landlines ok > To: redacted@invalid.telecom-digest.org. > Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2011, 1:30 PM > After the 8/22 earthquake felt all > over the northeast US, cell phones > were not working in our area, apparently due to the flood > of calls of > people checking with their friends. However, > landlines worked fine. > > While an earthquake is very surprising in the east, this > was very > minor in the grand scheme of things. What would > happen to the telecom > network (all modes--landline voice, internet/email, cell > phone) if > there was a serious event? > > I believe on 9/11/2001 telecomm service in the NYC area was > disrupted > due to the flood of calls. Whenever there is a tornado warning in Oklahoma City, and I assume in other tornado prone areas, the cellular network immediately becomes overloaded and maybe no practical access for an hour or two. If a tornado strikes, the landline network will be overloaded, too. Wes Leatherock wleathus@yahoo.com wesrock@aol.com
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:41:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Mark Smith <marklsmith@yahoo.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: NE US Earthquake--cell phones stop, landlines ok Message-ID: <1314211280.43825.YahooMailNeo@web65714.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> I was able to make a cell phone call to a cell phone and a landline soon after the earthquake [2:12 PM] Later the cell would not reach the tower. My girlfriend was able to call from cell to my work landline at 3:00 PM. We have had must worse outages with hurricanes. The ironic one was when the telephone pole was down accross from my house and electricity was off. The landline still worked with the cable pinned to the ground. Noisy but it worked! Mark Mark L. Smith~ marklsmith@yahoo.com http://smith.freehosting.net
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:16:02 -0700 From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Email spam getting to me Message-ID: <siegman-F42FFF.12160223082011@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu> I know that John Levine reads this group and is also involved with the whole spam issue. Maybe he, and others, can provide some therapeutic responses for the following ramblings on solutions for email spam. The email spam problem on my university email account (which is the only personal email account I have or ever want to have) is at this point really getting to me. Despite pre-filtering by the best filters that Stanford IT can provide for its university servers, followed by further filtering by numerous filters I've created in my own Eudora POP client and years of training of Eudora's Junk filter, an ever-growing amount of egregious spam has been showing up in my IN box in recent months. After looking at a lot of online discussions of this issue, I've come to believe that (a) searching for ever more intelligent recipient-end filtering methods to cope with every more ingenious spam attacks, or (b) waiting for global solutions to this problem to emerge from higher management levels in the Internet or from governmental agencies, are both equally hopeless endeavors. Given this, I'm seriously thinking of a ruthless two-part response which will not depend on any actions by anyone else: 1) I'll discard any and all of these intelligent filtering techniques and convert to a ruthless "pure whitelist" filtering approach: nothing gets through to my IN box that doesn't come from a sending address that's already in my address book, or otherwise on my whitelist. (I do realize that this will still be vulnerable to some extent, but at least it's simple and straightforward). 2) But at the same time, I'd still like to be reachable, at least once, by distant or unknown colleagues, students at distant universities, and other potential new correspondents who aren't already on my whitelist. So, I'll also post prominently on my university web page a code phrase which, if put in the Subject: line of an email message or somewhere similar, will ensure that a email message will also get through to me. This code phrase will change from time to time, may be described in a way that will hinder robotic capture, may even be Captcha-protected. Pretty much anyone who wants to reach me (or whom I want to reach) is likely to know how to search for my personal or institutional web page to get my email address. If this technique of adding a code phrase on your web site or FaceBook page become a widespread email convention, it could go a long way to solving the "initial contact" problem for those of us who use whitelist filtering. Reactions to this? Is there any better way? [ Moderator Note: If you implement your 'whitelist only' approach, realize that Telecom Digest/comp.dcom.telecom readers will not be able to send you responses to anything you post. Please consider including a way to let those messages in. :) ]
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:32:06 -0700 (PDT) From: "daryl.gibson@gmail.com" <daryl.gibson@gmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Email spam getting to me Message-ID: <14bb28f6-3e60-4d8f-b663-edaecf42a96b@x21g2000prd.googlegroups.com> On Aug 23, 1:16~pm, AES <sieg...@stanford.edu> wrote: > The email spam problem on my university email account (which is the > only personal email account I have or ever want to have) is at this > point really getting to me. ~ May I suggest you get a Gmail account and pop the mail off your university email server with that? Gmail will filter out the spam, and does so in a remarkable way. When using pop, there is a small time lag, and if that bothers you, forward the university mail instead of popping it. You can set up the university email address as a "from" address within Gmail, and filter as needed with Gmail's filters. I've found that Google's spam filters are remarkable, with few false positives.
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:41:03 -0700 From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Email spam getting to me Message-ID: <siegman-CE8DAF.13410324082011@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu> In article <14bb28f6-3e60-4d8f-b663-edaecf42a96b@x21g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "daryl.gibson@gmail.com" <daryl.gibson@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 23, 1:16~pm, AES <sieg...@stanford.edu> wrote: > > > The email spam problem on my university email account (which is the > > only personal email account I have or ever want to have) is at this > > point really getting to me. ~ > > May I suggest you get a Gmail account and pop the mail off your > university email server with that? Gmail will filter out the spam, and > does so in a remarkable way. When using pop, there is a small time > lag, and if that bothers you, forward the university mail instead of > popping it. You can set up the university email address as a "from" > address within Gmail, and filter as needed with Gmail's filters. I've > found that Google's spam filters are remarkable, with few false > positives. Thanks for suggestion. Haven't tried Gmail -- and, to be honest, probably won't want to expend enough free time and effort to give it a fair trial. But, I guess I'm also skeptical that the good guys (filter designers) will ever be able to keep ahead of the bad guys (spammers) over time. Nonetheless, thanks -- that wasn't an approach that I'd encountered previously
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 15:27:21 -0400 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.VALID-IF-THIS-IS-ELIDED.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: I'm taking a vacation Message-ID: <4E53FF19.80902@horne.net> To the readers: I'm taking a couple of weeks off from the Digest. Robert Bonomi will moderate while I'm gone: please be nice to him. Bill Horne -- "Looking back, it's all so clear - Wherever we were going, well, we're here. Glory, glory, hallelujah - Welcome to the future!" - Brad Paisley
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:36:09 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Why Software Is Eating The World Message-ID: <p062408e1ca7a138791b1@[192.168.181.129]> Why Software Is Eating The World By MARC ANDREESSEN AUGUST 20, 2011 This week, Hewlett-Packard (where I am on the board) announced that it is exploring jettisoning its struggling PC business in favor of investing more heavily in software, where it sees better potential for growth. Meanwhile, Google plans to buy up the cellphone handset maker Motorola Mobility. Both moves surprised the tech world. But both moves are also in line with a trend I've observed, one that makes me optimistic about the future growth of the American and world economies, despite the recent turmoil in the stock market. In short, software is eating the world. More than 10 years after the peak of the 1990s dot-com bubble, a dozen or so new Internet companies like Facebook and Twitter are sparking controversy in Silicon Valley, due to their rapidly growing private market valuations, and even the occasional successful IPO. With scars from the heyday of Webvan and Pets.com still fresh in the investor psyche, people are asking, "Isn't this just a dangerous new bubble?" I, along with others, have been arguing the other side of the case. (I am co-founder and general partner of venture capital firm Andreessen-Horowitz, which has invested in Facebook, Groupon, Skype, Twitter, Zynga, and Foursquare, among others. I am also personally an investor in LinkedIn.) We believe that many of the prominent new Internet companies are building real, high-growth, high-margin, highly defensible businesses. ... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903480904576512250915629460.html
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:23:08 +1000 From: David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: The future of "femtocells"? Message-ID: <pan.2011.08.24.09.23.03.471787@yahoo.com.au> An Australian carrier (Optus) has just released a home product based on 3G femtocell technology: http://www.optus.com.au/dafiles/OCA/OptusHome/HomeRedesign/mobile-phones/homezone/ You have to register up to 11 3G handsets to access the device and the user gets a decent deal for calls on one handset. I still find the whole concept a little bizarre given the opposition to cell towers and their radiation in some quarters - now people are going to add more RF sources in their homes to the Wi-Fi emitters that they probably already use! Oh well, it will probably reduce their handset RF power when in use so it may well balance out. -- 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: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:29:53 -0700 From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: The future of "femtocells"? Message-ID: <siegman-2308B0.10295324082011@sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu> In article <pan.2011.08.24.09.23.03.471787@yahoo.com.au>, David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > An Australian carrier (Optus) has just released a home product based on 3G > femtocell technology: > > http://www.optus.com.au/dafiles/OCA/OptusHome/HomeRedesign/mobile-phones/homezone > > You have to register up to 11 3G handsets to access the device and the > user gets a decent deal for calls on one handset. > > I still find the whole concept a little bizarre given the opposition to > cell towers and their radiation in some quarters - now people are going to > add more RF sources in their homes to the Wi-Fi emitters that they > probably already use! Thanks for the pointer; the video is particularly useful in explaining to nontechnical types how a "femtocell" operates. In the situation of current interest to me, the opposition is stemming primarily from aesthetic rather than health concerns (though the latter may also come along later on). The "towers" that are proposed to be installed are actually DAS (distributed antenna system) poles, from which the radiated powers are apparently in the tens rather than hundreds of watts. The poles themselves -- essentially simple black monolithic tubes about 18" diameter and 30 to 50 feet tall -- are a bit brutal in appearance, but all the antenna junk is totally hidden inside them. The top 2 meters of the pole is apparently fiberglass rather than steel, although the entire pole appears completely seamless.
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:55:07 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Why Shutting Down Cell Service Is Not Just Against The Law, It's a Really Bad Idea Message-ID: <p062408eeca7ab2e2e953@[192.168.181.129]> Why Shutting Down Cell Service Is Not Just Against The Law, It's a Really Bad Idea By Harold Feld August 23, 2011 I suppose I am really a telecom lawyer at heart. My reaction to the news that the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police shut down cellphone networks in a number of stations on August 11 had nothing to do with democracy, the First Amendment, Tahrir Square, etc. With all deference to the importance of these concerns, my reaction was WHAT DO YOU MEAN THESE IDIOTS MESSED WITH THE PHONE SYSTEM? From my perspective, and the perspective of traditional telecom law, BART could just as well have turned off the local central office and all this chatter about whether or not BART is a public forum is just a distraction. Obviously, however, no one at BART thinks of cell phones as the phone system. In BART's open letter explaining what they did and why it was cool, BART focuses on the First Amendment /public forum issue and completely skips the fact that they shut off a phone system. Mind you, I suppose I can't blame them - much. A number of folks are asking if there is a right to cell phone service as if this were a novel question rather than something settled by decades of telecom law. Also missed by most: this goes well beyond BART. If BART gets away with including "we can shut down cell phone service" in its tool box you can guarantee that other local law enforcement agencies will start copying this - and all for the best of reasons. Because what could possibly go wrong when you pull the plug on a critical piece of infrastructure whenever some local police chief or city council person or whoever decides they need to do something about these "flash mobs" or "rioters" or whatever? BART emphasizes the narrowness of the impact. But Montgomery County, MD, where I live, is worried about an outbreak of flash mobs of teenagers that materialize to raid local stores. Suppose they decide to start turning off the phone grid in neighborhoods they believe are "at risk?" Sure, lets just knock out phone service for a neighborhood for a few hours. What could be the harm - and it's all for a good cause, right? There is a reason we do not mess with the phone system, and why that doesn't change when the phone system is wireless. I elaborate on the legal reasoning below. ... http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/why-shutting-down-cell-service-not-just-again
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:03:01 -0700 From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Why Shutting Down Cell Service Is Not Just Against The Law, Message-ID: <siegman-A6FD41.11030124082011@sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu> In article <p062408eeca7ab2e2e953@[192.168.181.129]>, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote: > Obviously, however, no one at BART thinks of cell phones as the phone > system. In BART's open letter explaining what they did and why it was > cool, BART focuses on the First Amendment /public forum issue and > completely skips the fact that they shut off a phone system. Mind > you, I suppose I can't blame them - much. A number of folks are > asking if there is a right to cell phone service as if this were a > novel question rather than something settled by decades of telecom > law. Suppose I have a femtocell or cellphone extender in my residence (where cellphone service is otherwise dead), and I'm hosting some kind of big semi-public community event (or my teenage kid is having a big bash). Maybe I don't entirely trust some of the attendees not to run up big charges on my dime -- or call uninvited or unwanted attendees to crash the event. So, I just unplug my connection for the duration of the event. Am I "shutting down a phone system"? If BART is required by law or contract to provide phone connectivity inside its facilities -- or to let the phone company have access to their property set up, maintain and operate such facilities -- that's one thing. The resulting facilities would definitely seem to be part of "the phone system". But if BART, more or less voluntarily, as a service to its patrons, installs, maintains and operates at its own expense facilities that allow its patrons to "connect to the outside phone system" -- well, that seems like another matter. [Not expressing any factual assessment either way of how BART's facilities are really provided. But if they're to be considered "part of the phone system", rather than just some private facilities that connect to the phone system at some demarc on the outside wall, that should be very clearly understood by all concerned.]
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:35:15 +0000 (UTC) From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Why Shutting Down Cell Service Is Not Just Against The Law, Message-ID: <j33na3$1i4$1@reader1.panix.com> In article <siegman-A6FD41.11030124082011@sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>, AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote: [...] >Suppose I have a femtocell or cellphone extender in my residence >(where cellphone service is otherwise dead), and I'm hosting some kind >of big semi-public community event (or my teenage kid is having a big >bash). Maybe I don't entirely trust some of the attendees not to run >up big charges on my dime -- or call uninvited or unwanted attendees >to crash the event. This actually 2 seperate problems. As far as charges on your dime, I don't think this would be a problem. Each phone has its own esn/cell number and would be charged accordingly. The second could be a problem, but if the femtocell is dead, can they get service by just stepping outside? Incoming calls should not be a problem, because a phone must register itself with the femtocell to tell the system that calls to it can be routed over the femtocell. BTW, the term "femtocell" is a registered trademark of (I think) AT&T. I have one from Sprint and its called an "AirAve". -- Rich Greenberg Sarasota, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 941 378 2097 Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines: Val, Red, Shasta, Zero & Casey (At the bridge) Owner:Chinook-L Canines: Red & Cinnar (Siberians) Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:08:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Hancock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Why Shutting Down Cell Service Is Not Just Against The Law, Message-ID: <5e5b5836-7e94-4c37-a543-822de546e669@1g2000vbu.googlegroups.com> On Aug 24, 9:55~am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote: > WHAT DO YOU MEAN THESE IDIOTS MESSED WITH THE PHONE SYSTEM? From my > perspective, and the perspective of traditional telecom law, BART > could just as well have turned off the local central office and all > this chatter about whether or not BART is a public forum is just a > distraction. Apples and pretzels comparison. BART did not turn off a "central office", nor had any intention of doing. The suspension was confined to restricted areas within only limited certain areas (subway portions) of its own property. Note that a business does not violate free speech or anything else if it shuts off telephone service to its employees or forbids them to use their cell phones within the building. Here is the BART statement. It makes sense. http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2011/news20110820.aspx
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:00:22 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: AT&T streamlining individual messaging plans August 21.. Message-ID: <p062408f0ca7ab42835d0@[192.168.181.129]> AT&T streamlining individual messaging plans August 21st, leaving unlimited as the sole survivor By Brad Molen Aug 17, 2011 Do not adjust your computer screen, because the screenshot you're seeing above is real. Confirmed by multiple sources, we've exclusively learned that AT&T -- the protagonist of choice -- is trimming its individual messaging packages from two to one on August 21st. The remaining survivor? The Messaging Unlimited plan for $20, which means the $10 bundle that offers 1000 messages is riding into the sunset. If you aren't keen to do much communicating within 160 characters, you'll be left with no other choice besides the pay-per-message option at twenty cents each (thirty cents for MMS). Fortunately, the Family Unlimited Messaging is left unscathed, continuing to offer all-you-can-eat texts for $30. Tend to do only an average bit of texting and looking to move to Ma Bell? Our friend, you'd best be making that transition before the end of this week. ... http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/17/atandt-streamlining-individual-messaging-plans-august-21st-leavin/
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:17:43 -0700 From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service Message-ID: <j33f8l$4be$1@blue-new.rahul.net> David Scheidt wrote: > The contract is not the only controlling document. The terms of the > licenses that the carriers operate on matter; they're not allowed, by > regulation, which overrides the contract, to cede authority over their > licensed spectrum to third parties. So BART don't get to shut off > servcie whenever they feel like it. There needs to be a real pressing > reason to do so. It's not clear that existed; if it didn't, BART's > actions were illegal. It's not clear there's any recourse against > them, though. A threat of having trains, or passengers getting on/off, deliberately blocked by a mob is a good enough reason. Not only to shut down cell service, but for mass arrests.
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:59:18 +0000 (UTC) From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@panix.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service Message-ID: <j33l6m$ct7$1@reader1.panix.com> John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: :David Scheidt wrote: :> The contract is not the only controlling document. The terms of the :> licenses that the carriers operate on matter; they're not allowed, by :> regulation, which overrides the contract, to cede authority over their :> licensed spectrum to third parties. So BART don't get to shut off :> servcie whenever they feel like it. There needs to be a real pressing :> reason to do so. It's not clear that existed; if it didn't, BART's :> actions were illegal. It's not clear there's any recourse against :> them, though. :A threat of having trains, or passengers getting on/off, deliberately :blocked by a mob is a good enough reason. Not only to shut down cell :service, but for mass arrests. That's not what the courts and Congress have said for the last 75 years. Common carriers don't get to decide who they provide service to based on the claims of cops. End of Story. There is a procedure protecting the due process rights of the people who are having their service disconnected, and it's not 'some cop, claims, on evidence that may, or may not have been made up, that some nameless person might, or might not, cause some bad thing to happen.'. That's the standard BART used. -- sig 23
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:08:16 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Sprint to Get iPhone 5 Message-ID: <p062408f8ca7b42bca0ee@[192.168.181.129]> Sprint to Get iPhone 5 By JOANN S. LUBLIN And SPENCER E. ANTE The Wall Street Journal August 24, 2011 Sprint Nextel Corp. will begin selling the new version of the Apple iPhone in mid-October, people familiar with the matter said, filling a huge hole in the No. 3 U.S. carrier's lineup and giving Apple Inc. another sales channel for its popular gadget. The timing, however, indicates Apple's new iPhone, which is expected to be called iPhone 5, will hit the market later than expected and too late to contribute to sales in Apple's fiscal fourth quarter, which ends in September. Most observers had expected the device to arrive next month. ... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903327904576526690675657466.html
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.

Return to Archives ** Older Issues