From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Dec 19 01:25:51 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iBJ6Pp204439; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 01:25:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 01:25:51 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200412190625.iBJ6Pp204439@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #607 TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 Dec 2004 01:26:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 607 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson VoicePoint - VoIP (Lou Jahn) A.C.L.U.'s Search for Data on Donors Stirs Privacy Fears (Monty Solomon) Re: VOIP (Tony P.) Re: Is 'Transitional Fair Use' The Wave Of The Future? (Dave Close) Re: Is 'Transitional Fair Use' The Wave Of The Future? (Tony P.) Re: Vonage Voice Quality Getting Worse? (DevilsPGD) Re: AFA (Flight Attendants) Opposes In-Flight Cell Phone Use (DevilsPGD) Re: AFA (Flight Attendants) Opposes In-Flight Call Phone Use (Joseph) Re: Wireless in Cherryvale (Joseph) Re: Cell Phone Motorists Are Dangerous (Dave Close) Re: Airborne Cell-Phone Ban Likely to Remain For Now (Mark Crispin) Re: Airborne Cell-Phone Ban Likely to Remain For Now (Gene S. Berkowitz) Re: Access of Calling Card Dial in Number From Prepaid Cell (E. Parrish) 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; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lou Jahn Subject: VoicePoint - VoIP Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:42:30 -0500 Organization: Info Partners Corp. I am using VoicePoint and have several questions: 1) How do I get my number listed within Verizon's Directory Assistance, I think there was a prior post, but could not find it. 2) Every once and awhile - the incoming voice discussions become garbled -- or fade off (like early Cell phones) - anyone know why this occurs? I have not noticed any thing around that might cause it. 3) Recently (within the past 10 days) callers tell me that at times my speech on my VoIP line sometime sounds as though I have been given a shot of Novocain. Could this be a reverse version of item 2? Also -- I have tried a second VoIP line to forward my Faxes, but it does not work in a consistent fashion. People sending might get 2-3 of a 5 page fax through and have to resubmit 2-3 times before I receive a full 5 page Fax. So if there any tricks to make Fax operate "okay", I'd love to hear them. Overall ... my judgment of VoicePoint is it has promise, but still needs loads of improvement before any LEC selling true landline service needs to worry if buyers need an equal level of quality. The best part is their clever extra features where I can control them via Internet and also getting email notice on calls and Voicemail. However, if I call into voicemail for messages, it does not let me know when the message arrived. If it matters my ISP is Comcast using a Toshiba cable modem and Syslink Router/Hub. If I had to grade the service, I guess it would be a C+. Lou Jahn Info Partners Corp. [TELCOM Digest Editor's Note: The answer to your first question (regards listing in Directory Assistance) is you speak to *your carrier*, they are the ones who handle it. They are the 'agents' (both for placement and monthly collection of fees) with the national DA database which Verizon and the others use. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 14:29:07 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: A.C.L.U.'s Search for Data on Donors Stirs Privacy Fears By STEPHANIE STROM The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders' commitment to privacy rights. Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization's frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes. Daniel S. Lowman, vice president for analytical services at Grenzebach Glier & Associates, the data firm hired by the A.C.L.U., said the software the organization is using, Prospect Explorer, combs a broad range of publicly available data to compile a file with information like an individual's wealth, holdings in public corporations, other assets and philanthropic interests. The issue has attracted the attention of the New York attorney general, who is looking into whether the group violated its promises to protect the privacy of its donors and members. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/18/national/18aclu.html ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: VOIP Organization: ATCC Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 23:06:03 -0500 In article , RickMerrill@comTHROWcast.net says: > jim@giganews.com wrote: >> I'm considering VOIP for my home but realistically, how many phones >> can it support? I've read from 2 sites, 3 and 5 phones so I was >> hoping what your experience has been? Does it matter who the provider >> is to answer this question? I presume the phones are the same used as >> before voip. Just in case, can you buy one base unit with multiple >> hand sets ? > It matters what TA (telephone adapter) you use: some only support 1 > REN and some support 3 REN (ringer equivalency number). Remember that > these are the base sets only, so if you have a cordless baseset it can > support multiple handsets. The providers will tell you (most likely) > "one phone". - RM The Linksys RT31P2 supports 5 REN. In article , spamtrap100@comcast.net says: > jim@giganews.com wrote: >> I'm considering VOIP for my home but realistically, how many phones >> can it support? I've read from 2 sites, 3 and 5 phones so I was >> hoping what your experience has been? Does it matter who the provider >> is to answer this question? I presume the phones are the same used as >> before voip. > Most VOIP Terminal Adapters (TAs) that I have seen will support > between 3-5 REN. > REN stands for ringer equivilence number. A REN of 1.0 is roughly > equal to the current needed to drive 1 mechanical bell ringer in an > old 500 style telephone. Modern electronic "chirp" ringers are in the > neighborhood of 0.3 REN, so driving multiple phones is usually not a > problem. > That said, I think someone here recently reported that their VOIP > service had lowered the max REN of their TA through a config > option. It apparently took a phone call to get it raised. That would have been me. But in my case the ring voltage was set to 60VAC instead of 90VAC. 90VAC hasn't stressed the unit any but I do note it gets a little warm. ------------------------------ From: dave@compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: Is 'Transitional Fair Use' The Wave Of The Future? Date: 18 Dec 2004 16:29:34 -0800 Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California Tony P. writes: >> I don't think much of cable news networks because they spew out raw >> facts that are _out of context_ and thus not newsworthy. Good news >> reporting is more than just reporting isolated facts -- it is putting >> them together in a logical fashion, eliminating contradictions, and >> putting in a wider context. Despite all the time they have they still >> put everything in brief sound bites. > But that costs money. It's the same thing that ruined prime time > television. Reality television is so much cheaper to produce but you > get absolute lowest common denominator television. The only reason I > watch the local evening news is to if anyone I know has gotten > ambushed which has happened a couple of times. :) When CNN first started Headline News, back before Gulf War One, they were still a bootstrap operation and very short of money. HLN used a single anchor and no remote correspondents. Video was bought from local stations and presented with the anchor's voice-over. That was much less expensive than the present programming. And not only was it less costly to produce, it was a better product as well. The original HLN presented two or three times as many stories in a half-hour as they do today, and didn't use "human interest" filler. They truly presented just the headlines. As their cost has gone up, their quality has gone down. HLN today is a local newscast in a small market, without the local coverage. The best network news today is Univision, though it is necessary to tolerate Spanish. They actually cover international stories (with a heavy concentration on Latin America, of course), and squeeze in many more stories than any of the English language networks. The best part is that, while understanding Spanish helps, if you have a good idea what's going on in the world, you can get a lot from their broadcast without that. And what you don't understand, you can follow-up on through the Web since, like everyone else, a banner gives you the location of the story. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA +1 714 434 7359 dave@compata.com dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu "Political campaigns are the graveyard of real ideas and the birthplace of empty promises." -- Teresa Heinz Kerry Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Is 'Transitional Fair Use' The Wave Of The Future? Organization: ATCC Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 23:05:42 -0500 In article , devilspgd@crazyhat.net says: > In message Tony P. > wrote: >> I love how the cable companies harp on the fact that satellite >> transmission can be interrupted by rain, and then one of their own >> carried stations goes off the air because you guessed it, weather >> interfered with the cable companies OWN satellite reception. > While true, it takes a lot more weather to take out a 6' dish then a > 20" dish. It can be misting here and we lose channels. Anytime water is involved you can kiss centimeter or lower bands goodbye. ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: Vonage Voice Quality Getting Worse? Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:32:24 -0700 Organization: Octanews In message John Levine wrote: >> A number of people 'think' they have a problem with their VoIP >> provider, BUT the problems only occur when talking to someone on a >> CELL phone. > In my case, I have observed lousy voice quality when picking up my > Vonage voice mail on the voice prompts which are, I presume, coming > directly from Vonage's servers. I haven't noticed cell phone voice > quality being much worse than it is elsewhere. > I do have one more clue: people tell me that even when I can barely > understand them, they can understand me fine, so the problem is on the > inbound side. I don't understand that at all, since my net connection > is equally fast in both directions (it's a T1) and I usually have more > outbound traffic from web servers than inbound. It could be that Vonage is having issues on their side, or that some router/link on the path Vonage's traffic takes to get to you is having problems but the reverse is stable. ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: AFA (Flight Attendants) Opposes In-Flight Cell Phone Use Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:32:25 -0700 Organization: Octanews In message John David Galt wrote: >>> The Association of Flight Attendants warns widespread use of wireless >>> devices in the confined space of an aircraft cabin potentially could >>> interfere with an aircraft's communications and navigation systems, >>> compromise safety and increase conflicts between passengers and crew >>> member. >> Well, as has been written many times before it's unlikely that use of >> cell phones will interfere with avionics. >> It's more likely the second part "increase conflicts between >> passengers and crew member." > Why would they expect conflicts? Do they intend to try to enforce rules > against cell phone use after those rules are repealed, or what? 1) Just because the FCC doesn't have rules against it doesn't mean that the airline's rules and/or FAA rules have changed. 2) IIRC, CRTC rules don't allow cell calls from airlines -- Imagine trying to explain that distinction to your typical obnoxious idiot as the plane flies from US soil to Canada. 3) Flight attendants will have to deal with drunk confined retards yelling into their cellphone and complaints from nearby passengers. ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: AFA (Flight Attendants) Opposes In-Flight Cell Phone Use Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 21:40:23 -0800 Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 09:14:10 -0800, John David Galt wrote: > If they're talking about complaints from other passengers, perhaps > they should divide the plane into "phoning" and "non-phoning" > sections, now that the smokers are gone. At least phoning won't > pollute the breathing air of the people in the non-phoning section. More than likely that's just what they're afraid of. Considering that some people haven't got the good sense their Lord gave them to be considerate of others I'd be worried too. ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Wireless in Cherryvale Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 21:45:10 -0800 Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com On 18 Dec 2004 21:02:18 -0000, John Levine wrote: > The A-side AMPS carrier is Alltel with CDMA and analog, and the B side > is US Cellular with TDMA and analog. There's also some 1900 MHz > carriers, but your 5165 is 800 MHz only. Sorry you have incorrect information. The Nokia 5165 is 800/1900 TDMA and 800 AMPS. The Nokia 5120 is 800 TDMA only. http://www.nokiausa.com/phones/5165/0,2803,feat:1,00.html ------------------------------ From: dave@compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: Cell Phone Motorists Are Dangerous Date: 18 Dec 2004 16:48:56 -0800 Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California Phil McKerracher writes: > But I completely agree that people should pull over or at least use a > hands-free kit. There are far too many roads on which it is impossible to "pull over". Consider most central business districts: the only potential pull-over spots are turn lanes or bus stops. Even if an empty parking space were nearby, you couldn't get into it while answering a call. When people talk about pulling over, they seem to think that all calls happen while driving on highways. It may be more likely to find a good spot along a highway or freeway, but many of those don't have an extra lane, either. That fact is that, many times it is less distracting to answer an incoming call, speak for a minute or two, and continue on. Extended conversations are a different matter, I'd agree. A hands-free kit is nice, but again not always practical. One is not likely installed in your rental car, for example. And putting on a headset for every short drive, most of which will not involve a phone call, seems overkill. But blaming the phone is all the rage, as is blaming blood alcohol levels. (I've seen studies showing that people with /one/ drink are safer drivers than those with no drinks.) It seems we just can't bring ourselves, as a society, to put the blame where it really belongs: on the person misbehaving. -- Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA +1 714 434 7359 dave@compata.com dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu "Political campaigns are the graveyard of real ideas and the birthplace of empty promises." -- Teresa Heinz Kerry ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: USATODAY.com - Airborne Cell-Phone Ban Likely to Remain For Now Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:07:08 -0800 Organization: University of Washington On Sat, 18 Dec 2004, AES/newspost wrote: > * And of course finally the "Charles Bronson response": Bring a large > battery-powered "boombox" tape deck with a really annoying musical > selection as your carryon, and if the cellphone noise pollution around > you gets too annoying just turn it on LOUD and decline to turn it off, > pointing out politely to neighbors and cabin crew that if the cellphone > guys can noise pollute, so can you. There's a better way. It's what I do with excessively long/personal cell phone conversations on the ferries. I start mocking their conversation, in a loud enough tone of voice that they can hear me. Be it lawyers plotting or trophy wives babbling, I have the appropriate offensive comments at hand to offend them enough to tone down their conversation, terminate it, or move away from my vicinity. A short and/or obviously necessary phone conversation does not elicit this response. After all, I use a cell phone myself. I would not think of harassing someone arranging to be picked up, or learning errands to do on the way home, etc. It's only when they drag it out long beyond what is necessary (and worse, use the walkie-talkie mode), to the point that it disturbs others; and especially when the topic is inappropriate for a public setting. It's quite effective. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. ------------------------------ From: Gene S. Berkowitz Subject: Re: USATODAY.com - Airborne Cell-Phone Ban Likely to Remain For Now Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:12:12 -0500 In article , siegman@stanford.edu says: > In article , Clark W. Griswold, > Jr. wrote: >> AES/newspost wrote: >>> I've read news stories in the past about cellphone jammers or blockers >>> for use in restaurants, theaters, library reading rooms, etc. >>> Anyone have any leads on portable, battery-powered versions? >> I share your implied problem with inconsiderate cell users. However, >> based on your address, you should know that these devices are illegal >> in the US. While the odds of getting caught using them are quite >> small, especially if used in a mobile situation (ie, in your pocket), >> people have been prosecuted in other countries (a dealer in Scotland & >> a church in Mexico). > You correctly sensed the implied (and in fact primary) message behind > my post: I have very little interest in sitting through a five-hour > transcontinental flight, trying to read, sleep, or just relax, while > multiple cellphone users all around me do deals in penetrating voices > all through the flight. I suspect others will feel similarly, and > wonder how the airlines will deal with the issue. > Assuming that the airlines probably won't deal straightforwardly with > the problem, or will be unwilling to forgo the add'l revenue in flight > cellphone service can offer, I've tried to think of realistic > solutions and/or counter-measures, but haven't come up with much that > seems promising in the list: > * Earplugs or noise-cancelling headphones for all the other passengers > [uncomfortable, and more seriously don't really work all that well] > * Airlines set up a couple of enclosed "phone booths" somewhere on the > plane, for those who have to play this game [unlikely, because of > revenue seating lost, but maybe.] > * Cellphoners required to use some kind of silent throat mikes and > whisper [technically feasible?] > * Limiting cell phoning to first class? [Maybe some would pay extra > for the opportunity, driving up FC sales -- but other FC opponents > might squawk equally loudly.] > * Jammers, as per initial query [which I suspect will happen, if the > problem gets bad enough.] > * And of course finally the "Charles Bronson response": Bring a large > battery-powered "boombox" tape deck with a really annoying musical > selection as your carryon, and if the cellphone noise pollution around > you gets too annoying just turn it on LOUD and decline to turn it off, > pointing out politely to neighbors and cabin crew that if the cellphone > guys can noise pollute, so can you. [Unfortunately I have more in > common with Walter Mitty than Charles Bronson, so it's not likely to > happen]. > Inflight cellphone use does seem to me one of those problems where some > number of passengers will certainly be rude and inconsiderate enough to > make it a problem; the airlines will be craven and greedy enough not to > deal with it; and air travel will deteriorate even more than it already > has [Dulles main terminal at 4:30 pm yesterday afternoon was a sight not > to be believed]. Wait until the first corporate weenie causes a stock stampede by incidently sharing confidential corporate information with the 10-15 people within earshot. The opportunities for easy airborne corporate espionage are great too, especially when laptops get plugged into the network. This would all be moot if seatback calls were even remotely reasonable in price. --Gene ------------------------------ From: Earl F. Parrish Subject: Re: Access of Calling Card Dial in Number From Prepaid Cellular Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 03:38:26 GMT Marek Tomczyk wrote in message news:telecom23.544.4@telecom-digest.org: > Hi, > I'm posting this for a friend (Juergen). Find his contact address at > the bottom of this post. Thanks. > Marek > =========== > Hi Telecom Digest, > This October I stayed three weeks in the bay area. I like it a lot, > and this time I even had a GSM1900 (Nokia 6100) phone from my German > provider T-Mobile with me. > The phone worked fine, but I never ever used it to place phone > calls home to Germany and I never ever answered any incoming call. > Why? Quite simple, the charges for outgoing and esspecially inbound > calls are outrageous. Just imagine to pay $1.70 for incoming calls > per minute!!! > So I have decided now to get an American mobile phone on my next > trip to the USA. > I like the offer of AT&T Wireless very much as it provides a long > validity of one year for balances starting at $100. Domestic calling > with the Free2Go service is very reasonable priced, but calling > foreign countries is still expensive. > So the idea is to use a calling card service for this matter. The > AT&T documents say that prepaid calling card service is not possible > with Free2Go. Besides this AT&T says in its terms that certain > numbers can be blocked if "abuse" to the network happens. > Is calling a local dial in number from a mobile phone in America, in > particular from a free2Go phone, abusive usage of the network? > Do you know if calling of local (regular) dial in number from > American, in particular prepaid aka "pay as you go" services is > possible? > Can such providers block access to those numbers? > Unfortunately I could not find definitive information about this > issue on the web. > Thanks, > Juergen-Usenet@web.de Click on this link for information about one of the Locus Mobile affiliates which piggybacks on the TDMA network of the former AT&T Wireless network: http://www.ecallplus.com/ Pay special attention to the link for International Calls on the page you reach. Earl F. Parrish ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 TELECOM Digest V23 #607 ******************************