32 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for May 23, 2014
====== 32 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 that person, or email address
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of that address. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. - Geoffrey Welsh
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 17:28:03 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Cable selection for Overland Ringdown System Message-ID: <537D4493.firstname.lastname@example.org> On 5/21/2014 12:01 PM, Frank Stearns wrote: > I'm looking to put phones between two households with a ringdown box; the houses are > approximately 700 feet apart. (We already have radio links for voice and data; but I > also want a hard-wired back up.) > > Looking for practical advice on cable selection. This wire will go overland, though > it is feasible to put it under 3-6" of soil in a quick little trench most of the > way, but parts perhaps could be exposed, if I found suitable cable. > > I was thinking of some sort of armored CAT5; then I'd have four pairs. But perhaps > there's a better 2 pair cable for this application. (I do want at least two pair; > with one pair as a spare. The cat5 was interesting because I'd have two additionl > pairs for some other future use.) In those exposed sections we'd need something that > the chipmunks, squirrels, rabbits, and other critters would not find tasty. > > Cable suggestions welcome, Hi Frank, Friendly advice: fiber, for electrical safety between different outdoor structures/homes. There may be local codes in your area requiring fiber as there are here (Silicon Valley). I recall when HP was establishing data paths between its buildings along Page Mill Road in Palo Alto that fiber was the only correct and legal solution. This article seems to be a good starting point especially for the types of gear at each end of the fiber: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_mile Googling "fiber endpoint equipment" [without the quotes] will also list the manufacturers and types of gear for fiber endpoints that "should" be suitable for your application. Safety is the operative word here. One of my hobbies is astronomy and many friends have attempted to run CAT5/CAT6 between their homes and their outdoor observatories and the horror stories are legion with ground loops, lightning strikes, and more. Thad
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 17:52:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal McLain <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Net Neutrality 2014: The Regulators Strike Back Message-ID: <email@example.com> By Paul J. Feldman, CommLawBlog, May 21, 2014 Trying to meet conflicting demands of court, Congress and constituency, [FCC] Chairman Wheeler is on the horns of a dilemma. The FCC's May, 2014 monthly meeting was not ordinary. Protestors camped outside the Commission's headquarters and shouted slogans in its meeting room. Democratic Commissioners showed signs of open rebellion against their Chairman. Republican Commissioners stood in blunt opposition to the Chairman. And everyone, including the Chairman, urged fervently that "the future of the Internet" was at stake. Against this backdrop, Chairman Wheeler announced the FCC's latest proposal for Open Internet rules. Caught between the demands of his political constituency and legal requirements set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, he attempted to walk a narrow and difficult path. And by a 3-2 vote (with two of the three Commissioners in the majority expressing serious reservations), the FCC followed the Chairman on that path: it adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) soliciting comments on the latest approach to "net neutrality" regulation. Continued: http://www.commlawblog.com/2014/05/articles/internet/net-neutrality-2014-the-regulators-strike-back/index.html -or- http://tinyurl.com/kff2av5 Neal McLain
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 22:40:41 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Cellphone distraction results in yet another needless train death Message-ID: <537D8DD9.firstname.lastname@example.org> Sad to say, many people here in Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area are frequently killed by Amtrak and CalTrain trains because of distraction and inattention coupled with the at-grade train crossings prevalent in this area which have never been upgraded since the 1960s when Silicon Valley was predominantly huge farms, orchards, vineyards and more between each of the cities on the Peninsula from San Jose CA to San Francisco CA and along the East Bay from San Jose to Berkeley. Both the Peninsula and the East Bay are now a contiguous concrete and road megapolis from San Jose to San Francisco and San Jose along the East Bay where this tragic accident occurred in San Leandro as reported here: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Leandro-teen-s-death-highlights-dangers-of-5493528.php The 18-year-old woman was having an argument with her step father over the cellphone and she neither heard nor felt the oncoming train or the shouts from a person warning her about the train -- she was hit and died. Cellphone and texting distraction-caused "accidents" are becoming too common among walkers, hikers, bikers and drivers. People seem way too wrapped-up within themselves and their cell phones as you may recall from the 12-picture photo essay URL I recently posted -- don't scroll past the 12th picture if vulgar reader comments would offend you: http://dbagging.com/12-smartphone-douchebags/ As I also posted recently, one of the daughters of my best friend was recently rear-ended by an inattentive texting driver while she was stopped at a traffic light. Though both cars were totalled per the insurance companies, incredibly no one was injured. A 31-second video produced as a Public Service Announcement by the National Highway Traffic Safety group is sobering and highlights what frequently happens when using a cellphone while driving and it was recently cited in Gary Richards' ROAD KILL, er, SHOW column in Silicon Valley's San Jose Mercury News on April 13, 2014 in this article: http://www.mercurynews.com/mr-roadshow/ci_25539737/ and here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_-6EoNhitg More people need to see it in the hope they can be wearned-away from their Obsessive Compulsive Dysfunction love affair with cellphones. Thad
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 21:23:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Neal McLain <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Foreign Fake Phones Fetch Forfeiture Forewarning Message-ID: <email@example.com> By Mitchell Lazarus, CommLawBlog, May 21, 2014 No fine, yet, but the company must answer questions and provide documents on hundreds of products -- if the company is still around. Counterfeit Rolexes, sure. Or Coach bags. But cell phones? Blackberrys? Really? Really. Consumer electronics is among the biggest categories of counterfeit imports. (Although that still doesn't explain the Blackberrys.) The Department of Homeland Security, which includes Customs and Border Protection, asked the FCC to check on some suspect Samsung Galaxy and Blackberry devices being imported and marketed by a California company. All cell phones, along with many other electronic devices, must be labeled with an "FCC ID" number specific to the device. The numbers, which evidence compliance with FCC technical rules, are easy to check on this page of the FCC website. Here, the numbers on the Samsung phones turned out to be valid Samsung numbers -- but the devices bearing the numbers didn't match up with the specs tied to those numbers in the FCC's database. Samsung took a look and confirmed they had neither manufactured the devices nor authorized the labeling. The Blackberrys didn't even make it that far: they bore two different, plausible-looking numbers, neither of which was valid for anything. Continued: http://www.commlawblog.com/2014/05/articles/enforcement-activities-fines-f/foreign-fake-phones-fetch-forfeiture-forewarning/index.html -or- http://tinyurl.com/pfpntzr Neal McLain
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 03:37:14 -0500 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Gordon Burditt) To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: 4 major phone carriers providing text-to-911 Message-ID: <o5SdnboIl9mnKuDOnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@posted.internetamerica> > This is very interesting. I can see where texting might be necessary > to remain quiet while observing a robbery in progress in a store or a > burglary in one's home. I can think of other situations where texting 911 might be a significant improvement due to the time needed to get the message across: - High-(acoustic)-noise environments where the background noise makes it difficult for the other end to hear and understand voice calls. Examples: in a tornado or hurricane. In fires with frequent explosions (e.g. the West, Texas fertilizer plant explosion, although a significant problem with that is that the first responders weren't trained for this type of emergency). During/after a robbery where really loud alarms are going off and the only person who can shut it off is unavailable. On the side of a high-traffic road. I once had a tire blow out on a freeway and in order to use my cell phone to call a tow truck (not 911 in this case), I had to climb hills to get away from the freeway noise. I couldn't even tell whether someone answered, much less what they were saying. This delayed the call by about 10 minutes. It could have been a much bigger problem if I was injured and couldn't walk, or trapped in the car. - It's my understanding that texting gets through better than voice calls in a RF-noisy environment or in a peak-load call situation. - Texting may avoid long exchanges where the 911 operator wants the street name spelled and the caller has a thick ethnic accent that the operator has trouble understanding. on the other hand, texting isn't as interactive and it can take time to get necessary questions answered. You also can't tell when you've been disconnected. It may also be difficult to piece all the texts together into one thread in real time. I suppose there will need to be policies about what to do if they get a text that says: Robbery in progress, Chase Bank 7th & Main. and don't get any answers to subsequent texts. Then again, they already need to know how to handle someone's voice call that says the above and then the line goes dead, and calling back doesn't work. Hopefully "Chase Bank 7th & Main" identifies ONE bank in the cities covered. I would hate to try to deliver a baby (with, say, the mother trapped in an elevator) using texted instructions from a doctor relayed by 911 (but it's still better than nothing). I believe this has been successfully done quite a few times using voice calls.
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.
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
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) 2014 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.