For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:53:00 EST Volume 24 : Issue 126 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Website Rouses Informants' Fear, Investigators' Ire (Monty Solomon) Is it Net Assistance ... or Cyberstalking? (Monty Solomon) Let's Focus on the Theft, Not the Identity (Monty Solomon) iPod-Like Cellphone Music Still Evolving (Monty Solomon) Some Concerned About Privacy Implications of E-ZPass (Monty Solomon) Source: FCC to Dress 'Naked' DSL (Jack Decker) Vonage Says Its Calls Are Still Being Blocked (Jack Decker) Level 3 Withdraws Request for VoIP Fee Ruling (Jack Decker) Who's the Owner of the Dim-and-Burst Signaling? (Hilbert) New Long Range Cordless Phones? (Dave) Re: What Happened To Channel 1 (Robert Bonomi) Re: What Happened to FM Channels 1-199? (Garrett Wollman) Re: What Happened To Channel 1 (Paul Coxwell) Re: Walkie Talkie (Steve Watt) Re: Hackers Target U.S. Power Grid (Daniel J McDonald) Re: Feds: Criminals Luuuuv Those Open 802.11 Networks (Steve Sobol) Re: VoIP and Bell DSL: Is it Ready For Prime Time? (Lisa Hancock) Re: Cell Phone ATT (Lisa Hancock) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:27:08 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Website Rouses Informants' Fear, Investigators' Ire By Kathleen Burge, Globe Staff | March 21, 2005 When a team of police, federal agents, and a drug-sniffing dog burst through the front door and scoured every corner of the house, the woman and her boyfriend figured they knew who had turned them in. So she struck back: In the shadowy realms of cyberspace, she publicly identified the informant who she suspected had ratted on her boyfriend, landing him in court on drug possession charges. On a website launched seven months ago from the North Shore, the woman posted a note saying her alleged informant, a 27-year-old man from the Tewksbury area, was a 'narc' who made a practice of snitching on others to minimize his own legal problems. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/03/21/website_rouses_informants_fear_investigators_ire/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:37:30 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Is it Net Assistance ... or Cyberstalking? By Associated Press | March 21, 2005 A Cambridge start-up is offering a service it says gives a measure of control over the personal data the Internet disgorges, giving new meaning to a practice commonly termed 'ego surfing' or 'Googling yourself.' The practice of typing your name into an Internet search engine and seeing what pops up is now common, but the results can be unpredictable. The Internet holds surprising amounts of personal information, and some of it may be outdated, inaccurate, or embarrassing. ZoomInfo's computers have compiled individual Web profiles of 25 million people, summarizing what the Web publicly says about each person. The service, launched today, allows Web surfers to search for their profile, then change it for free. http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/03/21/is_it_net_assistance____or_cyberstalking/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:55:36 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Let's Focus on the Theft, Not the Identity By Hiawatha Bray | March 21, 2005 Identity theft is a nasty crime with a catchy name -- too catchy for our own good. Identity theft, though important, isn't the root problem, and focusing on it may distract us from real solutions. And we need solutions badly. For a month or so, we've fretted over the news that careless database companies had sold crooks a couple hundred thousand Social Security numbers. Meanwhile, Boston College warns about 120,000 graduates that a computer hacker may have gained access to their personal information by raiding a computer that contained the alumni database. It's bad enough that crooks can steal our personal data, or even purchase it. But it gets worse: They can often find the same stuff with Google. At least they can if they're as smart as Latanya Sweeney, an associate professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University. In a paper she will present this week in California, Sweeney describes a program of hers that scans Google search results for files containing names and Social Security numbers. In her test of the software, Sweeney tracked down 140 job hunters who had posted resumes on the Web. For some odd reason, they included their Social Security numbers -- easy pickings. Sweeney's motives are pure; she wrote another program to e-mail the 140 people and warn them of the threat. Nearly all cleaned up their resumes. Sweeney has proposed a service called Internet Angel that would automatically scour the Net and alert people if their Social Security numbers are online. http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/03/21/lets_focus_on_the_theft_not_the_identity/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:01:39 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: iPod-Like Cellphone Music Still Evolving Carriers' profits said to be a crucial issue By Peter J. Howe, Globe Staff | March 21, 2005 With more than 8 million sold last year and a popular buzz to die for, Apple Computer Inc.'s iPod has proven there's a big appetite for a portable, battery-powered, Internet-connected digital device that makes sound. And that's drawing plenty of attention from the businesses behind another kind of portable, battery-powered, Internet-connected digital device that makes sound: cellphone companies. The save-a-pocket logic of offering consumers iPod-like music capability built into a wireless handset seems obvious. But industry insiders warn that it could be a long wait for true iPod-rivaling devices to hit the market -- unless they come with some clear way for carriers like Cingular Wireless, Verizon Wireless, and Sprint PCS to get a cut of the profits. Sprint this month began offering a $280 Sanyo MM-5600 camera phone with enough memory to store about one hour's worth of MP3-format music. For another $75, Sprint subscribers can buy a 512-megabyte memory disk for the phone that can store roughly 400 songs, a far cry from the 5,000 that can be stored on the $300 iPod. Sprint customers buying the Sanyo device get a cable to transfer songs from their computer into the phone, which also comes with stereo earphones. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications is also rolling out a line of music-playing cellphones this year that sport the Sony Walkman name, which dates back to the original portable music players of the late 1970s. But a more ambitious effort by phone maker Motorola Inc. has apparently been slowed down. This month, Motorola was set to unveil at a big industry trade show in Hanover, Germany, a phone that downloads music from Apple's iTunes service. Trade reporters had been briefed on the phone's capabilities just days before Motorola canceled the announcement. http://www.boston.com/business/personaltech/articles/2005/03/21/ipod_like_cellphone_music_still_evolving/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:06:56 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Some Concerned About Privacy Implications of E-ZPass System CONCORD, N.H. --The E-ZPass system that will soon make it easier to pay tolls in New Hampshire will make it easier to track people's movements, privacy advocates warn. State officials say strict policies are in place to prevent that, and stress that E-ZPass will be voluntary. They also say the system will reduce traffic congestion and put off the need to expand the current toll plazas. http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2005/03/21/some_concerned_about_privacy_implications_of_e_zpass_system/ ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:09:53 -0500 Subject: Source: FCC to Dress 'Naked' DSL Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://news.com.com/Source+FCC+to+dress+naked+DSL/2100-1037_3-5627726.html By Ben Charny Staff Writer, CNET News.com U.S. regulators are expected to up-end state public utility rules that force BellSouth to let customers buy its high-speed Internet service without having to also sign up for its local phone offering. As early as Monday, said a source familiar with the situation, the Federal Communications Commission could suspend public utility commission regulations in California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky and Louisiana that forced BellSouth to sell DSL, or digital subscriber line, service separate from its local phone service. In the past, the two services had been inextricably linked. Such a decision would send a strong message to other state utility commissions that might be considering similar rules, the source said. The expected FCC decision would have a profound effect on the few thousand people in the four states who now get "naked" DSL from BellSouth. It would also affect the millions of homeowners who would go with a separate DSL offering given the chance, insiders believe. The possible precedent for the Bells -- BellSouth and the nation's three other top phone and DSL providers -- could even affect cable operators that sell broadband and telephony on fiber-optic networks, services that are much faster than the Bells' DSL. Full story at: http://news.com.com/Source+FCC+to+dress+naked+DSL/2100-1037_3-5627726.html How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:30:32 -0500 Subject: Vonage Says its Calls are Still Being Blocked http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-5628564.html By Ben Charny, CNET News.com Published on ZDNet News: March 21, 2005, 11:24 AM PT Two broadband providers are causing problems for Vonage's Internet phone traffic, a spokeswoman said Monday, suggesting that a recent federal fine for blocking Vonage calls may not have had its intended impact. A cable operator and what Vonage spokeswoman Brooke Schulz would only describe as a "wireless broadband provider" are the two alleged culprits. The problems include Vonage calls not getting through and Vonage home phone adapters not working, she said. The complaints surface about three weeks after a Mebane, N.C., telecommunications provider, Madison River Communication, said it would "refrain from blocking" voice over Internet Protocol calls and pay a $15,000 fine to the government. Vonage, a VoIP provider, brought Madison River to the Federal Communications Commission's attention, and may do so with providers involved in these latest problems. Full story at: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-5628564.html ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 01:54:54 -0500 Subject: Level 3 Withdraws Request for VoIP Fee Ruling http://news.com.com/Level+3+withdraws+request+for+VoIP+fee+ruling/2100-7352_3-5629045.html By Declan McCullagh Staff Writer, CNET News.com One of the most important Internet telephony rulings of the year was expected from federal regulators Tuesday, but now it won't happen. In a surprise move, an Internet telephony company that had asked the Federal Communications Commission for the ruling said late Monday that it was withdrawing its request. Level 3 Communications had been telling the FCC that the company should be able to pay lower fees to local telephone companies to begin or end voice calls on their networks. The decision from the FCC was expected to have a far-reaching impact on the voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP, industry. If Level 3 had lost, the prices for some VoIP calls could have jumped. But because FCC Chairman Michael Powell had left last week, the timing was no longer right for a ruling, Level 3 CEO James Crowe said in a statement. "The appointment of new leadership only three business days before the statutory deadline for ruling on the petition" made it "inappropriate to ask the agency to resolve this important issue in the timeframe required by law," Crowe said. Full story at: http://news.com.com/Level+3+withdraws+request+for+VoIP+fee+ruling/2100-7352_3-5629045.html ------------------------------ From: geunbsong@yahoo.com (Hilbert) Subject: Who's the Owner of the Dim-and-Burst Signaling? Date: 21 Mar 2005 16:20:39 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hello, I'm a graduate student in Korea. Now I'm wondering who's the owner of the dim-and-burst signaling method in IS-95? Qualcomm or Motorola or else? Or could you give me a good hint for finding the answer? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Dave <newsgroups@dave!!!christense!!n.o!!!r!!!g> Subject: New Long Range Cordless Phones? Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:46:17 -0900 I saw a link earlier for this on Slash Dot. Its a cordless phone that supposedly works 100km from the base station (under ideal conditions). http://www.goodbyelongdistance.com/catalog/item/1441280/975984.htm Other then the obvious potential for grief from the FCC, anyone else have any thoughts? I'm living in a rural Alaskan town and traditional cell service is spotty to none, even with an old bag phone and roof antenna so I was thinking that this could be an interesting approach to local mobile phone service. Thanks, -Dave ------------------------------ From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 04:30:18 -0000 Organization: Widgets, Inc. In article <telecom24.124.8@telecom-digest.org>, Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote: > Michael D. Sullivan <userid@camsul.example.invalid> wrote: >> Television, on tho other hand, started out in two discontiguous >> VHF bands, with somewhat variable spacing between channels and >> a need for precise tuning, and tuning in on a single band by >> twiddling an analog variable tuning capacitor to the right >> frequency would have been difficult. This tuning method was >> used on some early TVs; I don't know whether they were tuned >> by numeric frequency or by channel number, but >> it would not have been very convenient. The TV industry >> instead standardized on TV tuners that had 12 discrete fixed >> settings, pre-tuned to channels 2-13, with a fine tuning >> control that allowed one to tune the frequency higher or lower >> to account for offsets.... > Whereupon Robert Bonomi (bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com) wrote: >> Plausable, just 'false to fact'. <wry grin> >> In the early days of TV receivers, they were equipped with >> continuous-tuning knobs/dials, just like an AM radio receiver. >> For the TV band, however the indicator assembly was marked by >> "channel", *not* by frequency. >> I used to have a 1930's Crosley TV that had that kind of >> continuous tuner. *BIG* gap on the dial, between channel 6 and >> 7, It actually tuned across that entire 'midband' space -- with >> all kinds of interesting results. You could "see" aircraft >> band transmissions, and hear stuff on broadcast FM, 2m Ham, and >> business-band. > Sullivan is correct. His recitation of history is factual. He is *NOT* accurate with regard to 'cause and effect' of 'detent' tuners leading to "channel number" common-usage. Detent tuners were at least 'second generation'; the prior generation (analog continuous-tune) sets all used _numbered_ channels, Crosley, in those days, was a "high end" manufacturer. If a high-tech, 'detent' tuner design had been available, they *would* have been using it. Thus we've got numbered channels (_without_ frequency numbers) in "common use" well before any 'detent' (turret switching, or other) tuners were in vogue. In the -very- early days stations _were_ identified by the frequency/ frequencies they transmitted on, There wasn't any option on the matter, since it was being done under experimental provisions of _amateur_radio_ licenses, and where they were broadcasting could change from day to day. :) But this is WW-I era. > As Sullivan acknowledged, some old TV sets did work like Bonomi's > 1930s Crosley: they required "tuning in on a single band by twiddling > an analog variable tuning capacitor to the right frequency [which] > would have been difficult." Actually it was surprisingly easy. Not even as hard as tuning an AM receiver. Or use the markings on the dial to get 'close', then you ignore the markings and tweak for maximum clarity. All it takes is "reasonable" gearing. :) Add in two-stage gearing -- the first few revolutions in either direction were moved the frequency in small increments, once the 'limit' in either direction was reached, things went much faster. Thus, when you overshot a "little bit" on the first attempt, you had "automatic" fine-tuning as you started going in the other direction. Somewhat complex mechanically, but amazingly easy to _use_. > But by the 1950s, TV set manufacturers were installing "turret tuners" > to simplify VHF tuning. A single knob rotated a cylindrical mechanism > fitted with twelve little hand-wired circuit boards, one for each > channel. Each circuit board had a bunch of capacitors, some > hand-wound coils, and a row of metal contacts that mated with metal > springs. As each circuit board was brought into position by the > rotating mechanism, the springs mated with the contacts on the board, > placing that board in the circuit. > After the introduction of UHF, turret tuners were manufactured with 13 > circuit boards, one for each VHF channel + one that switched to a > separate UHF tuner. The UHF tuner was tuned in one continuous-tuning > dial. Yuppers. 'Practicality' strikes again. 70 UHF channels would have meant a detent roughly every 5 degrees of rotation. A 70-sided turret, with circuit strips that were only 1/2" wide, would have had to be nearly a _foot_ in diameter. Gotta wait for a better technology. :) > Sullivan continued: >> Later on, [turret] tuners had separate fine- tuners for each channel >> so one wouldn't need to retune when switching from station to >> station. > On each channel, the fine-tuning control engaged a tuning slug inside > one of the little hand-wound coils. Sometimes a tuning slug in a coil, often a trimmer capacitor. Either way, it provides a frequency adjustment over a limited range, with relatively high precision and stability. Sets with this kind of fine tuning could _almost_always_ be identified by the fact you had to 'push in' the fine-tuning knob/ring to engage the adjustment mechanism on the 'active" turret segment. > Here's a link to a picture showing a turret VHF tuner (left) and > what appears to be a continuous-tuning UHF tuner (right). This > particular photo happens to be on a British website, but the basic > structure of the turret mechanism is the same in the USA. > http://www.thevalvepage.com/valvetek/guidgrid/GGRID2.JPG > Back in my cable TV days during the 70s, turret tuners used to drive > us nuts. There was only one VHF TV station in the market (Channel 3), > so if a viewer wasn't hooked to cable, the only exercise the tuner got > was from getting flipped back and forth between UHF and 3. This kept > the contacts on UHF, 2, and 3 clean, but the rest of the contacts got > pretty dusty and/or corroded. If this viewer then connected to cable > (just 12 channels in those days), suddenly, all 12 VHF circuit boards > were needed. We spent a lot of time explaining, "I'm sorry, sir, your > TV set's tuner needs to be cleaned ... please take it to the TV repair > shop of your choice ... no we do not repair television sets ... our > franchise agreement specifically prohibits it." > Things got even worse when we introduced our first pay service (HBO) > in 1978. We "hid" it in the midband on cable channel 17, "in the > clear" (not scrambled, not trapped). We provided each HBO sub with > a primitive converter: a little box with a single two-position > switch: > - One position converted channel 17 to channel 2 for HBO. > - One position passed the incoming cable signal through > unaltered for channels 2-13. > It wasn't very good security, but the powers-that-were considered it > to be good enough, since turret tuners couldn't tune it. > Well, it wasn't long before local TV shops discovered a new line of > business: retuning one of the lesser-used turret circuit boards (like > public access) to channel 17. > Of course, Bonomi's old Crosley would have tuned to it. B&W only, a roughly 11" _round_ tube, medium-lousy contrast range, moderately long-persistence phosphor, and a few other drawbacks -- hardly worth the trouble. :) And, of course, no 75-ohm coax input. Would have had to use a balun on the twin-lead screw terminals. ;) *nice* audio, though. > 1970s, virtually all TV sets used turret VHF tuners. Varactor tuners > with digital displays were just coming on the market, and the old > continuous-tuning models had just about disappeared. I don't think anybody selling into the U.S. market at the end of WW-II was making a continuous-tuning model. Turret tuners were simpler/easier/ cheaper to manufacture, once you worked out the right combinations of resonant frequencies and band-pass filters. And *much* more "user-friendly". > A few years later, we moved HBO to channel 2 (so we could sell HBO to > hotels and motels), installed negative traps to secure it, ..... What science can take away, science can put back. Those traps did _not_ *completely* eliminate the signal getting into the customer premises, they just made it so weak that a conventional TV set couldn't amplify it enough to make a decent picture. A decent high-gain single-channel pre-amp, on the other hand, installed 'in front of' the TV receiver, could do a surprisingly good job of resurrecting the 'killed' signal. <grin> ------------------------------ From: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: What Happened to FM Channels 1-199? Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:21:21 UTC Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article <telecom24.125.17@telecom-digest.org>, <BobGoudreau@withheld at request> wrote: > Now that we've covered the history of VHF Channel 1, can anyone > explain why the official FM channel numbers are in the range 200-300 > instead of 1-101? I believe it was simply to avoid confusion with the TV channels 2-83. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every wollman@csail.mit.edu | generation can invoke its principles in their own Opinions not those | search for greater freedom. of MIT or CSAIL. | - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003) ------------------------------ From: Paul Coxwell <paulcoxwell@tiscali.co.uk> Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:50:02 -0000 Joe Morris <jcmorris@mitre.org> wrote: > [*] I get a number of questions at the office when my wallpaper changer > pops up with the original WDSU-TV test pattern. It makes me feel old when > I turn out to be the only person there who remembers when test patterns > were routinely incorporated into the station ID slides ... Any chance of a copy of that? It would be interesting to see. You can find many examples of old (and not-so-old) test patterns and idents for British TV here: http://www.meldrum.co.uk/mhp/ > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I seem to recall when I was about five > years old my parents had a television set with a tiny little screen > which was maybe two or three inches round. And it had a _huge_ > magnifying glass attached to the front of it. PAT] I never saw it, but my father built a set in the late 1940s/early 1950s using a VCR97 tube, which, if I recall correctly, was about 5 inches. The VCR97 had been a very common CRT in radar sets and was available cheaply as government surplus at the time. Of course, the resulting monochrome picture would have been green! - Paul. ------------------------------ From: steve@Watt.COM (Steve Watt) Subject: Re: Walkie Talkie Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:28:58 UTC Organization: Watt Consultants In article <telecom24.103.8@telecom-digest.org>, jason <cheanglong@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > I need to know more about walkie talkie and how the frequency range > work. Let'say a walkie talkie with frequency range work from 2400 to > 2500 Mhz, while the IF is 5 Mhz. > So how will the channels be allocated for transmitting and receiving > if it is a single duplex type? The IF doesn't have anything to do with the channel spacing at all; many older handheld transceivers have IFs of 455KHz, and that has no impact on the channel spacing. In simplified terms, minimum channel spacing is determined by the modulation bandwidth. If you've got FDMA (i.e. normal AM, SSB or FM modulation) then the channels are slightly more than the modulation bandwidth apart. So if you have a 3KHz modulation bandwidth, the channel center frequencies would be 5KHz apart. If your modulation scheme is based on spread-spectrum techniques, then basically everything changes, and everyone shares the same frequency band with separation of signals provided by receive correlation. Now, to your other question of how the channels will be allocated? That's only barely a technical issue. The regulators in the particular country you intend to operate that transmitter in have regulations and band plans that say what can be transmitted where. They usually specify bandwidths and center frequencies for FDMA, add slot timing to TDMA, and specific spreading codes or classes of spreading codes for CDMA. So, in the US, the FCC controls channel spacing for duplexing, and I don't remember (and don't have at hand) the spacing in that frequency band in the US. -- Steve Watt KD6GGD PP-ASEL-IA ICBM: 121W 56' 57.8" / 37N 20' 14.9" Internet: steve @ Watt.COM Whois: SW32 Free time? There's no such thing. It just comes in varying prices... ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Hackers Target U.S. Power Grid From: djmcdona@fnord.io.com (Daniel J McDonald) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:35:58 -0600 In article <telecom24.114.13@telecom-digest.org>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > Power grids existed long before networked-computers came out. Why > would the grid be so vulnerable now? Because it is more efficient to control a grid froma central location, rather than sending men out to substations to throw breakers. > Shouldn't those critical networks be isolated from outside access > altogether? Information sharing can be gathered for non-control systems from the intelligent devices at grid control points. Meters are not only useful for determining load and deciding when to switch to a different circuit, but for billing as well. information about voltage and frequency support is used to demonstrate "more stability" and thus gain a higher retail price, in addition to giving the control board operators information on what they need to do to support the grid. Also, the grid has become more complicated, with "distributed generation". With people looking for alternative sources of power, there are many additional complexities. For example, in my city, Austin Texas, there are solar, fuel-cell, and small-package combined chiller/generators distributed around the city that feed into the grid, along with a couple of methane burners at the dumps. Coordinating all of those small generators takes extensive instrumentation that wasn't necessary 20 years ago, and wouldn't be possible without networks. > Secondly, they should be more worried about grid overloads from all the > power source shifting done today. The grids were not designed to > handle that kind of loads and problems like the recent NYC-NE blackout > will occur again. Yup. The real solution, assuming we can't upgrade the grid, is to build more powerplants closer to the load (that is, closer to population centers). Of course, that is very popular and people are overjoyed to welcome new jobs into their neighborhoods. ;-) Daniel J McDonald CCIE # 2495, CNX Visit my website: http://www.austinnetworkdesign.com ------------------------------ From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> Subject: Re: Feds: Criminals Luuuuv Those Open 802.11 Networks Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:56:27 -0800 Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com Tim@Backhome.org wrote: > It is so easy to secure WiFi, at least against most intruders. I can > receive four other home WiFi signals in my condo. Like mine, all the > others are secured. So, I guess me and my neighbors are smarter than > some of these dummies. ;-) Are you using 802.11b or g? g, with WPA, is far better than WEP, due to the way WPA handles encryption keys. JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free" --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle" ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com Subject: Re: VoIP and Bell DSL: Is it Ready For Prime Time? Date: 22 Mar 2005 07:18:14 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Lisa, what do you do in a case > like Brooklyn, New York where by the dispatcher's own admission, > "we do not answer this phone after 10 PM"? I don't understand the context of your statement. You mean they say in NYC they don't answer 911 calls after 10PM? I don't know the story, but I suspect perhaps the call was routed to a business office instead of an emergency line where such calls wouldn't be answered after hours. > ... If a small town can arrange its police department to serve the > public efficiently, without a lot of sass-back to the public they > are expected to serve, then why can't your so-called county of > 880,000? That is a good question. But we are speaking of two separate issues: (1) what exists now and how we consumers are best to deal with it and (2) what we'd like to exist. As to (1) -- what exists now: public safety dispatching has become more centralized, covering a wider area and multiple jurisdictions. This is in part due to making 911 service available in suburban areas. The modern 911 services lock onto your line, provide your number, and access a database showing your address and other information. The problem is that VOIP, being a "floating" kind of service, doesn't necessarily input into these databases (does it charge for this as regular phones do -- we pay a "911 surcharge" of $1/month?) You seem to be upset than the existing 911 infrastructure doesn't support newcomer VOIP. As the newcomer, shouldn't VOIP have the obligation to make itself support the existing infrastructure and pay for the costs thereof? For 2 -- in an ideal world each local town would have on duty a 24/7 dispatcher even though overnight they'd handle very few calls. But even this has limitations because the central dispatch knows where all police/fire/rescue units are and their availability and in case of a big problem, neighboring units are immediately dispatched. There's no need to relay phone calls from one jurisdiction to another. We had an unexpected bad flood and the response was quick and efficient. There are always tradeoffs between local specialized service and reginal mass-market service. Each has pros and cons. > Maybe you, or one of the other Bell System apologists in our > readership can tell me why it is that VOIP carriers are expected to > be the ones to have to do the twisting and turning and maneuvering > to get their ways in line to make it easier for the public servants? Because in the last two decades considerable infrastructure has been invested in an E911 structure based on wireline service. Suddenly this new technology comes along and they want everyone to conform to it. Why can't the new technology confirm to the existing? It's not like E911 has been a secret. The govt and telephone subscribers have foot the bill for these enhancements. Why should some newcomer get a free ride? The cable TV industry grew up by laying its own cable at its own expense and building its own receiver buildings. Then they upgraded on their own replacing with coaxial with fibre-optic and now they're free to do as they wish. But if they wish to mix in with existing networks, they have to conform to existing networks. Part of that conformity requirement is E911 service. In other words, suppose we invent a cheap and easy to fly helicopter. Now we're upset that supermarkets and housing developments don't have landing platforms on their roofs to accomodate us. > What the hell did any of those people do back in the 1960's when our > nation was crossbar with no immediate ID on calls? In big cities you dialed zero and the operator gave you the police dept. In rural areas it was rather cumbersome and took extra time. Don't forget, not too long ago suburbanites had to know the specific numbers for fire/police/rescue for their town. In rural areas, these changed years since you called the home of the police or fire chief (and the phone books of rural areas said this). Phone CO service boundaries and town boundaries do not always mesh in suburban areas. > You want a job as a police dispatcher? Then you, by-God, either get > an encyclopedic knowledge of streets and intersections and addresses > in your town or don't get in the way of the people who do; if your > worker's "union" insists you have to have a job you are probably not > qualified for anyway, is that the public or VOIP carriers at fault? > PAT] Having that "encyclopedic knowledge" of a wide suburban region is not so easy. Unlike a city with its grid streets, a suburban county has much more land area and crazy patchwork developments with overlapping names and towns and jurisdictions. The police officials years back decided that computerized reference would be superior. If someone wasn't able to talk or a call got cut off, they could still send help which they couldn't before. They supposedly can send help faster. They supposedly have up-to-date information about new construction or changed situations. Again, like it or not, this is the present system, and it's up to the VOIP carriers to make it work for them, not for the existing system to assume costs to make it work for VOIP. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com Subject: Re: Cell Phone ATT Date: 22 Mar 2005 09:31:20 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com absmith3@hotmail.com wrote: > I have an ATT contract dated in Oct- 2004- before Cingular bought > ATT. Now Cingular is saying that I owe it $170 for cancellation fee > if I transfer service to Verizon. As all the others mentioned, you are still liable to fulfill the contract. My question is: why do you want to switch? Were you dissatisfied with AT&T service before the merger? Has the merger caused your service quality to deteriorate? ------------------------------ 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 ! ************************ Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management (MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35 credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including data, video, and voice networks. The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum. Classes are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning. Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at 405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at http://www.mstm.okstate.edu ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 V24 #126 ****************************** | |