33 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Copyright © 2015 E. William Horne. All Rights Reserved.
The Telecom Digest for May 1, 2015
|The laws and the entire scheme of our civil rule, from the town meeting to the State capitals and the national capital, is yours. Your every voter, as surely as your Chief Magistrate, under the same high sanction, though in a different sphere, exercises a public trust.|
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details.
|Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 09:00:12 -0700 (PDT) From: firstname.lastname@example.org To: email@example.com. Subject: proxim western multiplex tsunami radios Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Hi Folks: We have quite a few of these radios and I think I just discovered a quirk.. We're running Ethernet and T1 circuits to a remote site using a total of 4 radios, because of the distance. The radios on the outside ends are configured as 'A' and the inner two as 'B'. The signals are not that bad, and the Ethernet is reliable, but the T1's are not. I just discovered that when I disable the second T1 from an 'A' radio (radios have two T1 circuits), the Ethernet goes down hard. I thought it was a radio problem, but the spare does the same thing. Looking at the T1's with a T-Berd, I have slipping clocks. I'm beginning to think the 'A' radio is a sync source to the T1 in the radio, but the 'B' radio is not. So, the T1 device on the far end, that has no other sync source outside the radio other than the Tsunami, can't 'get' a sync from the opposite end, because the 'B' radios are tied together in the middle. We did this because the radio transmitting will knock down the receiving radio at the center location if they were on the same channel frequency. These radio's seem to be so old now that I can't even get documentation for the exact model, which is 301-31190-1A1 and 1A2's. Anyone have experience with these? Thanks! Harry|
|Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:48:29 -0500 From: Gordon Burditt <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Caller ID is my own name/number? Message-ID: <h5udnWlm-MuACN_InZ2dnUU7-XudnZ2d@posted.internetamerica> > It's ALREADY against the law. What can passing more laws accomplish? (a) put teeth in it, (b) make it a crime unto itself, and (c) allow private lawsuits. > Specifically, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, aka Public Law > 111-331, says: > > 111-331> It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, > 111-331> in connection with any telecommunications service or > 111-331> IP-enabled voice service, to cause any caller identification > 111-331> service to knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller > 111-331> identification information with the intent to defraud, cause > 111-331> harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value, unless such > 111-331> transmission is exempted pursuant to paragraph (3)(B). I propose a different law: It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, in connection with any telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service, to cause any caller identification service to knowingly (that's the person knowing, not the service knowing) transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information for any or none of the following reasons: (a) as a joke, or (b) not as a joke, or (c) for free, or (d) for pay, or (e) to cause the recipient to answer the phone, or (f) to cause the recipient to not answer the phone, or (g) to attempt sell a product or service, or (h) to attempt to communicate advertising, or (i) to attempt solicit a donation or contribution, or (j) to attempt to get the recipient to vote, or to vote in a particular way, (k) to impersonate any person, including government authorities or the recipient him/her self, or (l) to impersonate a non-law-enforcement-officer (cops beware!), or (m) to prove you could do it, or (n) to prove you could not do it, or (o) to collect a debt, or (p) to not collect a debt The minimum penalty shall be $1,000 multiplied by the number of calls raised to the 10th power, and doubled for each clause (a) thru (p) that applies, plus confiscation of any telephone equipment owned or leased by the offender. Anyone receiving a call with forged caller-id may sue for 10% of the penalty, with the remainder going to the state. It shall be illegal for a person convicted of the crime above to attempt to originate a phone call from anywhere (*NO* exception for other countries) to a destination other than 911 (*NO* exception for countries where the emergency number is other than '911') for a period of one year times the number of phone calls made (during which time the offender is on probation and should not be allowed to leave the country anyway).|
|Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:13:08 -0700 (PDT) From: HAncock4 <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Verizon cellphone time - accurate? Message-ID: <email@example.com> My Verizon LG cellphone has an automatic time display. I have no control over its settings. I noticed it was about a minute slower than another supposedly reliable time source. I was wondering if Verizon's time was off. (There are various cable and TV screens that offer time of day, but they're wildly inconsistent so I don't bother with them.) Thanks. [public replies, please].|
|Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 23:47:01 -0400 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Verizon caught upselling customers higher data rates with promises of "smoother" NetFlix Message-ID: <email@example.com> Verizon caught upselling customer to excessive Internet plans for "smoother" Netflix by Chris Leo Palermino Verizon sales associates should be careful about who they try to upsell. When Dan Rayburn, a streaming video analyst, went to renew his Verizon FiOS internet service, he was recommended to upgrade his service to 75 Mbps because his 50 Mbps service wouldn't provide the smoothest Netflix experience. It's a ridiculous claim that Rayburn was in a unique position to dispute. While most consumers would take Verizon's word at face value, Rayburn knew that upgrading his service simply couldn't change his Netflix speed. The average Netflix streaming speed on Verizon's FiOS service tops out at 3.5 Mbps, a clip better than all other major ISPs according to Netflix's own Speed Index tables, but a far cry below 50 (or 75) Mbps. After Rayburn explained this to Verizon sales reps, they argued that more bandwidth is needed given the demands of multiple users in a household. http://www.digitaltrends.com/movies/verizon-says-customer-needs-75-mbps-for-smoother-netflix/ -or- http://goo.gl/ZQbQya -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)|
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 educational service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne.
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 © 2015 E. William Horne. All rights reserved.
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself. Thank you!
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.