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 Sun, 27 Mar 2005 22:42:00 EST Volume 24 : Issue 133 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cell Phone Songs Prompt Control Questions (Monty Solomon) Cyberlaw in the Supreme Court (Monty Solomon) Time for the Recording Industry to Face the Music (Monty Solomon) Lingo Referral (akubird@gmail.com) OT/Tangent (was Re: We Don't Need no Steenkin Line Sharing) (Henry) FCC: We Don't Need no Steenkin Line Sharing (Marcus Didius Falco) Grounding a Vonage System (Alex Batson) Re: What's Historic? (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: Dealing with Vonage (Isaiah Beard) Re: Some Concerned About Privacy Implications of E-ZPass (S Barkley) Re: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem (Tony P.) Re: What Happened To Channel 1 (Tony P.) Re: New Long Range Cordless Phones (Tony P.) Re: More 'Tweens' Going Mobile; Long-Term Health Risks Unclear (Tony P) Re: Cell Phone Jammer For Sale MONIX MGB-1S (Tony P.) Re: 911, Taxes, and Fees, was: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem (Tony) Last Laugh! Field Guide to experts - Oxman et al. (Marcus Didius Falco) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:12:21 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Cell Phone Songs Prompt Control Questions By BRUCE MEYERSON AP Business Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- It's been the great "Whodunit?" of two big technology shows: Who put the gag in Motorola Corp.'s mouth just as it was going to unveil a new cell phone featuring the iTunes music download service from Apple Computer Inc.? Motorola initially said it acted alone, then quickly pointed to Apple, citing the computer company's long practice of never unveiling new products until they're actually available to buy. Many industry players, however, suspect that a wireless service provider intervened, essentially telling Motorola that, `I'll be darned if I'll sell your phones to my customers if it means they can buy songs through Apple and Motorola without giving me a piece of the pie.' Or, some surmise, perhaps a wireless carrier who planned to offer the iTunes phone balked at the last minute? This mystery, which played prominently this month at both the CeBit show in Germany where the phone was to be unveiled and then the CTIA Wireless show in New Orleans, drives right to the heart of an uneasy dynamic simmering in the cellular industry. The rush is on to deliver music and video to mobile phones, with wireless providers and device makers jockeying for position to grab their share of the payday, all parties mindful of the surprising billions being spent on musical ringtones. At the same time, the media companies who produce the entertainment, which also includes video games, are approaching cautiously, determined to avert any Napster-like, file-sharing bonanza among cell phone users. In fact, Motorola also plays a role in a second drama involving these choppy uncharted waters. Earlier this year, a class-action lawsuit was filed in three states involving a Motorola phone sold by Verizon Wireless. The v710 handset was equipped with a short-range wireless technology called Bluetooth and was configured to work with cordless headsets. Only one problem: Its file-transfer capabilities had been disabled. The suit insinuates that Verizon Wireless is obliging subscribers to use its cell network if they wish, for example, to send a photo taken on a camera phone to a computer or another cell phone. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=47934972 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:56:31 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Cyberlaw in the Supreme Court Stanford Law School http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/supreme/ On March 29, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases that together will greatly determine how government can and will regulate the Internet in the future, and the impact that the public interest will have on the development of cyberlaw over the next decade. In MGM v. Grokster, the Court will decide whether copyright holders can veto consumer electronics and computing innovations that upset the content industries' prevailing business models, even where the technology's non-infringing uses provide substantial benefits to consumers. The question is whether consumer demand for new and better products will drive technological development, or copyright owners' demand for control will retard it. In Brand X v. FCC, the Court will decide whether the FCC should retain the option to regulate cable modem services to promote open access to broadband lines, universal service and network neutrality, as it did in the early days of the Internet when most people connected over common-carrier telephone lines. The question is whether tomorrow's communications services will be defined by citizen choices or by the business interests of a handful of cable broadband companies. At Cyberlaw in the Supreme Court, the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society will convene a discussion of these cases, their broader implications, and what effect the pending Supreme Court decisions could have on the public interest. Panels of attorneys litigating and arguing these cases, the parties affected by them, the policy advocates whose work will begin once the Judges rule, and the people thinking about what the legal landscape will look like for the next ten years will discuss both cases and the impact the decisions will have on the future. http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/supreme/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:57:21 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Time for the Recording Industry to Face the Music http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blogs/cooper/archives/BENEFITSofPEERtoPEER.pdf TIME FOR THE RECORDING INDUSTRY TO FACE THE MUSIC: THE POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF PEER-TO-PEER COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS Mark Cooper Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America Fellow, Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society March 2005 ISSUE BRIEF PIRACY PANICS V. THE PUBLIC INTEREST A critical debate over a technological revolution is underway in the U.S. that will have far reaching implications for economic growth and global competitiveness, technological innovation and creativity, and the capacity of an open, democratic society to adapt to breakthroughs in the way we communicate. This debate is over advances in peer-to- peer technologies and whether their growth will be driven by the capacity of human innovation or hindered by special interests reluctant to embrace change. This debate is unfolding in the U.S. court system, the halls of Congress at universities and research organizations, and among entrepreneurs everywhere from corporate boardrooms to the lone innovators looking for next great invention. If vested interests in the recording and movie industries have their way, innovation and progress will be the victim of a public relations campaign intended to paint file sharing as "piracy." Big movie studios and recording companies are attempting to squelch peer-to-peer networks just as their potential to deliver economic growth and technological progress is only beginning to be exploited. However, contrary to the copyright holder claims that peer-to-peer communications networks are copyright infringement schemes, decentralized peer-to-peer networks have become the dominant form of Internet communications because they are vastly more efficient. Peer-to-peer technologies eliminate the congestion and cost of central servers and distribute bandwidth requirements throughout the network. In so doing they become a powerful force to expand freedom of expression and the flow of information, stimulate innovation, and promote the economic interests of consumer and creative artists alike (see Exhibit EX-1). This report explains why public policy should embrace peer-to-peer technologies. It examines the history of technological innovation in communications and the "piracy panics" they cause among entrenched incumbents. For three centuries, in battles over the printing press, telegraphy, mechanical pianos, cinematography, radio, cable television, photocopying, video and audio recorders, and the current generation of digital technologies, public policy has favored technological innovation by refusing to allow copyright to regulate technology. The paper reminds policymakers of the historic lesson that technological innovation promotes political, cultural, and social development, and economic growth. The analysis demonstrates the social and economic harms of the "tyranny of copyright" that recording companies and movie studios seek to impose on peer-to-peer technologies, as well as the legal and public policy grounds for rejecting this tyranny. http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blogs/cooper/archives/BENEFITSofPEERtoPEER.pdf ------------------------------ From: akubird@gmail.com Subject: Lingo Referral Date: 26 Mar 2005 18:27:23 -0800 I recently signed up with Lingo and am very pleased with service. I'm saving a lot of money. I frequently make long distance calls from the East Coast to Australia and the sound quality is very clear. If anyone is interested in more information or a referral I can give one. akubird at gmail (dot) com ------------------------------ From: henry999@eircom.net (Henry) Subject: OT/Tangent (was Re: We Don't Need no Steenkin Line Sharing) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:17:29 +0200 Organization: Elisa Internet customer Greetings. With his title 'We Don't Need no Steenkin Line Sharing', Danny Burstein is of course playing on the popular quote 'We Don't Need no Steenkin Badges'. This line is supposedly from the classic Bogart film _The Treasure of the Sierra Madre_ -- but it's not. Or, not quite. :-) When Woody Allen's _Play It Again, Sam_ came out, everybody thought that this title was also a quote. But in _Casablanca_, Rick (Bogart's character) never actually says these precise words. He says something similar, but not this exact phrase. It is similar with _Sierra Madre_. I watched this picture on video a year or so ago, and when the steenkin badges scene came I stopped the tape and carefully transcribed the dialogue. Here is what they really said. Fred C. Dobbs: If you're the police, where are your badges? Bandito leader: Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any steenkin badges! Cheers, Henry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:52:01 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: FCC: We Don't Need no Steenkin Line Sharing Well, this certainly looks like something close to the deathknell for competition. * Original: FROM..... Dave Farber's list ------ Forwarded Message From: d berns Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:22:57 -0500 Subject: FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing "The Commission has before it a petition for declaratory ruling filed by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth) regarding issues stemming from the Triennial Review Order. As explained below, because the Commissions national unbundling rules in the Triennial Review Order directly address the primary issue raised by BellSouth, we grant BellSouths petition to the extent described in this Order. "Specifically, applying section 251(d)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), we find that a state commission may not require an incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC) to provide digital subscriber line (DSL) service to an end user customer over the same unbundled network element (UNE) loop facility that a competitive LEC uses to provide voice services to that end user. "For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that state decisions that impose such an obligation are inconsistent with and substantially prevent the implementation of the Act and the Commissions federal unbundling rules and policies set forth in the Triennial Review Order that implement sections 251(c) ..... rest at: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.txt [a] http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.doc [b] http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.pdf [c] [a] messy ascii [b] Word Doc [c] PDF (most FCC material is available in all three forms. URLs are identical except for the trailing extension). Further info on the main FCC page: http://www.fcc.gov --- End of Forwarded Message --- Forwarded Message From: Bob Frankston Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:26:37 -0500 To: <dave farber.net> Subject: Re: [IP] FCC: we don't need no steenkin line sharing Am I missing something or is this indeed a battle over whether a given copper line has to support two over-specified protocols? (No pun, as in voice-over-data, this is over as in over-the-top). If so, then wouldn't it make more sense to focus on naked DSL with voice telephony being provided over IP? There are plenty of faux telephony providers, including the carriers themselves, who will give the illusion of line sharing for those who want it. This is an example of where an "IP-only" policy makes sense rather than fighting legacy skirmishes. I don't want to oversimplify the problem but it seems better than continuing to fight the old battles. It reminds me of the two back-to-back panel discussions on the triennial review -- the first was arguing over how it affected the purchase of switches. The second, with most of the same participants, was on VoIP because no one was buying those switches anymore. And I thought lawyers were taught not to argue moot cases outside of class and what is the Regulatorium if not moot? --- End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------ From: Alex Batson <batsona@comcast.net> Subject: Grounding a Vonage System Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:50:24 -0500 Greetings: I've just subscribed to Vonage and just hooked everything up. When I press a key to clear the dial-tone, the empty line has a bit of snowy, white-noise in the background. This isn't anything that sounds like electrical interference, and there's no 'hum' in the line actually. It's not 99% silent like my Verizon land-line is, but then again, that demarc is grounded, and my Vonage isn't. Question: 1.)How can I tell which lead is Tip, and which is Ring, and which one, if either, can I connect to a good earth-ground? If I'm still off in left field, can someone give me a pointer or two, on how to lessen the snowy white-noise on a empty line? Alex ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:53:37 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: Re: What's Historic? It took a bit of searching, but the URL of the full story is: http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-21/1111472186300180.xml > This item forwarded from another list (and which apparently > originated in a newspaper) calls Basking Ridge "historic." > To many of us 195 Broadway would be historic. Basking Ridge was > a johnny-come-lately and I remember the panic among Manhattan workers > and how AT&T held driving lessons for employees from NYC. > Wes Leatherock > wesrock@aol.com > Verizon to pay $125M for AT&T's 'Pagoda' Offspring to buy former > telecom giant's HQ > Tuesday, March 22, 2005 > BY GEORGE E. JORDAN > Star-Ledger Staff > Verizon has agreed to pay about $125 million for the sprawling Basking > Ridge campus that once served as the historic headquarters of AT&T, > according to five people with knowledge of the transaction. > Verizon, the nation's biggest telephone company, eventually could move > its operations center and up to 1,000 employees from Manhattan to the > 10 interconnecting buildings in Somerset County, said the sources. ------------------------------ From: Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> Subject: Re: Dealing with Vonage Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:28:35 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com David B. Horvath wrote: > I finally called again on 3/24, sat on hold for a while and finally > was connected to the "retention department". It took about 5 minutes > (mostly on hold) to handle the actual cancellation. The clerk was very > helpful. When I mentioned my 3/18 call, she told me that they had > over 3,000 tickets in queue waiting for calls back and that it was "a > staffing issue" (they need more people). Oh, you think Vonage is bad? Have a gander at cancelling through Packet8: http://www.scaredpoet.com/packet8sucks In short: I cancel, but they change the TOS so conviently I owe them more money to cancel. They they put me on the wringer because they can't process my credit card for strange reason, then won't take another credit card to charge the fee, yet threatened to send a collection agency after me. Why? Not for security reasons, not becuase they thought I was a deadbeat. Simply because no one was in the mood to actually operate their credit card payment system when I called. After that, I dusted off my old Vonage ATA from a while back, swallowed my pride and had it reactivated, and have not look back. All because I was a cheapskate and wanted to save an extra $5 a month for unlimited calls. I've got a cell phone with free LD too and it does have plenty of extra minutes at the end of every month, but frankly, I prefer the sound quality of a VoIP call (which at its most minimal takes up around 15-30kpbs of bandwidth) to a cell call (which tops out at 13kbps in rare instances, but you're typically lucky to get around 8kbps and tyou can HEAR the difference). I don't think I'll ever dump my cell phone, and am glad to have it when I'm out and about, but if a VoIP or landline phone is nearby, then I'll still use it. E-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:12:14 -0500 From: Stuart Barkley <stuartb@4gh.net> Subject: Re: Some Concerned About Privacy Implications of E-ZPass System The article and discussion here both miss what I consider a more important issue with the EZ-pass system: There is no way to know who else is tracking the EZ-pass transponders. The transponder should have a audio and/or visual indicator whenever it is read. How else can you know that Big Brother is only reading the transponder for its intended use and instead isn't reading it in other locations for other purposes. There should also be an off switch on the unit although I can see that causing more problems with people forgetting to turn it back on before traveling through EZ-pass lanes. I've never been lost; I was once bewildered for three days, but never lost! -- Daniel Boone ------------------------------ From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net> Subject: Re: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem Organization: ATCC Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:49:47 -0500 In article <telecom24.127.5@telecom-digest.org>, jack- yahoogroups@withheld says: > [Comment: Since this originates in Texas, I cannot help but wonder if > SBC had any involvement in this, even if only maybe by putting a bug > in someone's ear at the AG's office. We will probably never know, but > when I hear about something anti-VoIP coming out of Texas, that's just > the way my mind wanders.] > http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-5630118.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed > By Ben Charny, CNET News.com > The attorney general of Texas is suing Internet phone provider Vonage, > charging that the company isn't clear to its customers about > deficiencies in its 911 service. > Vonage 911 calls aren't routed in the traditional manner. Rather, most > end up at the administrative offices of the 6,000 emergency calls > centers rather than dispatchers. According to Abbott, the dangers of > the circuitous route were exposed in early March when a 17-year-old > Houston girl was unable to get through to police after dialing 911 on > a Vonage phone after both her parents were shot by intruders. > In the U.S. District Court suit, announced Tuesday, Attorney General > Greg Abbott alleges that Vonage doesn't "clearly disclose the lack of > traditional 911 access" nor adequately inform its customers they must > first sign up for the free 911 service. Such an omission violates > state law dealing with deceptive trade practices, the state attorney > general alleges. The state is asking for civil penalties of more than > $20,000 and an injunction requiring more conspicuous disclosure. > A Vonage spokeswoman said the company was surprised to hear of the > litigation and pointed out there are numerous references, both on the > Internet and material mailed to customers, explaining the 911 > service's limitations and its proactive nature. Abbott's office > contacted New Jersey-based Vonage about a week ago asking for > marketing materials and other information; the company hadn't heard > anything since it replied with the materials two days ago, the > spokeswoman said. > Full story at: > http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-5630118.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed > http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/index.php?p=307 > Texas sues Vonage for lack of 911 call deficiency disclosure > -Posted by Russell Shaw @ 10:17 am > Earlier today, we reported that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott > said he's sued Vonage for not being clear about the limitations of > its 911 service. > [.....] > A somewhat different circumstance prompted the lawsuit, however. Early > this month, a 17 year-old Houston girl was unable to get through to > the police on the family's Vonage line to inform them that her > parents had been shot in a break-in. > Full story at: > http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/index.php?p=307 This is ridiculous. Vonage makes it abundantly clear that the 911 service they provide isn't E-911 service unless: a) You live in Rhode Island where E-911 with VoIP works. and b) You provide the address information in the on-line control panel. I'm not certain when Vonage posted this, but it clearly states that: Your Call Will Go To A General Access Line at the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). This is different from the 911 Emergency Response Center where traditional 911 calls go. * This means your call goes to a different phone number than traditional 911 calls. Also, you will need to state the nature of your emergency promptly and clearly, including your location and telephone number, as Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) personnel will NOT have this information on hand. Service Outages Can Prevent 911 Dialing. * 911 Dialing and Vonage Service DO NOT function during an electrical power or broadband provider outage. http://www.vonage.com/features.php?feature=911&refer_id=visa From the article I found this rather amusing: 'The Bells say they want to fix the problem but that the integration with the Internet is technically complex. They flatly deny dragging their feet. "Safety and security have to be the primary concern," says Verizon's vice president of regulatory affairs.' Huh? Every switch built in the last twenty years has had upgrades to let the CLAN cards talk to the net. And Internet routing isn't exactly rocket science. Securing it gets a little more complex but nothing more than an LEC can handle. In article <telecom24.128.19@telecom-digest.org>, ihatespam@crazyhat.net says: > In message <telecom24.127.5@telecom-digest.org> Jack Decker > <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request> wrote: >> A Vonage spokeswoman said the company was surprised to hear of the >> litigation and pointed out there are numerous references, both on the >> Internet and material mailed to customers, explaining the 911 >> service's limitations and its proactive nature. Abbott's office >> contacted New Jersey-based Vonage about a week ago asking for >> marketing materials and other information; the company hadn't heard >> anything since it replied with the materials two days ago, the >> spokeswoman said. > I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Vonage should not be > offering 911 at all, rather, they should be highlighting the fact that > emergency call centers do not allow Vonage to route emergency calls to > the right place (so their only option is to dump the call to an > administrative number.) > Personally, I'd rather have attempts to dial 911 get the "Stop, this > phone does not have 911 service" then get through to someone who can't > or won't help. Or be aware of what Vonage can connect to and what it can't. Interestingly by setting up our E-911 system to play nicely with alternative carriers our state PUC actually got something right. Rhode Island is an interesting place, extremely business hostile but extremely savvy when it comes to telecom. How else would you explain our being the first state with an E-911 PSAP that could get GPS data, and the first and only state currently able to offer E-911 to VoIP customers. This whole thing reeks of anti-competive behavior on the part of the incumbent carriers. I would hope whatever flavor of the PUC is available in Texas steps up to the AG and tells him not to make an ass of himself because Vonage clearly states that E-911 may or may not work and that the technical issues are only monopoly games. In article <telecom24.129.4@telecom-digest.org>, tls@panix.com says: > In article <telecom24.128.19@telecom-digest.org>, DevilsPGD > <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote: >> In message <telecom24.127.5@telecom-digest.org> Jack Decker >> <jack-yahoogroups@withheld on request> wrote: > Your claim above "emergency call centers do not allow..." is false; in > fact, it's a key element of Vonage's public-relations effort on this > issue. > *If* Vonage were willing to pay the same fees other local exchange > carriers pay for 911 connectivity *in each LATA*, *then* Vonage could > route 911 calls correctly. Avoiding this *cost* has been a major > competitive win for Vonage all along and it is hard to not see it as > a major reason, if not _the_ reason, why Vonage has fought state > regulation as a local exchange carrier: by avoiding regulatory mandates > like 911 service standards Vonage avoids the cost of compliance. > What is truly irresponsible is to offer a "911" service that does not > have the same user experience that Americans have been trained to expect > from 911 for several decades. In a just world, Vonage would pay and pay > indeed for their decision to make the provision of such a service part > of their public-relations effort aimed at avoiding service quality > regulation. This is a choice they made, not one they had forced on > them; there are VoIP providers out there that did the right thing. > People's safety in emergency situations should be quite simply out of > bounds for this kind of political maneuvering. Of course, it's not, > but darn it, it ought to be. Interestingly the costs for E-911 staff and facilities in RI is paid for by the state, not Verizon. Verizons only cost is the database. I like that fact that our system is set up to stick it to Verizon. ------------------------------ From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net> Subject: Re: What Happened To Channel 1 Organization: ATCC Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:04:06 -0500 In article <telecom24.130.20@telecom-digest.org>, bonomi@host122.r- bonomi.com says: > In article <telecom24.129.7@telecom-digest.org>, > Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com> wrote: >> kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net (Tony P.) wrote: >>> Sort of how the FCC has pretty much admitted that anyone with a >>> modicum of technical knowledge will be able to defeat the broadcast >>> flag. >> I think you've mentioned this before, but what does it mean? The >> system as originally conceived requires the digital representation of >> flagged content to be protected by encryption on bus and media. I >> have more than a modicum of technical knowledge and I don't see an >> easy way around the proposed system in concept. Has the original >> system been abandoned? Or are you aware of some implementation flaw? > *Somewhere* in the TV set, the signal has to get decrypted, before it > can be presented to the CRT, or other actual 'display'. > Thus there *is* a "cleartext" signal running around inside the box. > Thus, someone with a reasonable amount of skill can 'tap' the cleartext > signal, and "voila!" > And there's always the "idiot method" -- just point a camcorder at the TV. Thank you for that. Of course it runs clear somewhere in the set -- all you need to do is tap that signal. Funny you mention the camcorder. A coworker and I are geeks to the nth and considered that the only thing they can never stop. ------------------------------ From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net> Subject: Re: New Long Range Cordless Phones Organization: ATCC Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:06:53 -0500 In article <telecom24.127.8@telecom-digest.org>, quinnm@bah.com says: > Dave, > I'm pretty sure these are illegal in the US&P(ossessions). One of the > issues was interference with Air Traffic Control communications > systems, as I recall. Someone on the list may be able to cite chapter > and verse from US Code, or FCC regs. I may have saved a Navy > Department spectrum management brief on the subject; if so, I'll > forward off net. Many of these units are smack dab in the middle of the amateur 2m band. Interestingly I as a licensed amateur could possess and use one, so long as I kept to Part 97 rules, which include identifying with my call sign at regular periods. It's pretty much an auto-patch to be precise. ------------------------------ From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net> Subject: Re: More 'Tweens' Going Mobile; Long-Term Health Risks Unclear Organization: ATCC Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:14:09 -0500 In article <telecom24.128.1@telecom-digest.org>, monty@roscom.com says: > By Associated Press | March 21, 2005 > CHICAGO -- There were two things 11-year-old Patty Wiegner really, > really, really wanted for Christmas. One was a furry, playful dog > that's now filling her parents' home with the sound of barking. The > other gift makes a different kind of noise -- it has a ring tone that > mimics rapper 50 Cent's hit song 'Candy Shop.' I'm not sure what I'd be more concerned about. Should it be the RF exposure to tender young brain tissue, or the fact that said eleven year old knows what "Candy Shop" is referring to or has actually listened to the lyrics of the song. In article <telecom24.130.9@telecom-digest.org>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says: > Monty Solomon wrote: >> By Associated Press | March 21, 2005 >> CHICAGO -- There were two things 11-year-old Patty Wiegner really, >> really, really wanted for Christmas. One was a furry, playful dog >> that's now filling her parents' home with the sound of barking. The >> other gift makes a different kind of noise -- it has a ring tone that >> mimics rapper 50 Cent's hit song 'Candy Shop.' > My initial knee-jerk reaction would be to object to kids having cell > phones. But then I remember my teenage days and it seemed the phone > was attached to my ear. And in my parents' day, the phones in the > corner candy stores were quite busy. > However, this was when I was in high school, not elementary school. > I'm not so thrilled about the idea of "tweens" or younger kids having > cell phones. (A friend gave his 9-year-old one last Christmas.) > Of course, these days kids are far more isolated than we were. We > were in the city or more built-up suburbs where there were plenty of > friends within walking distance. Today kids have to be driven to > practically any kind of activity otherwise they're isolated. (Also > parents want more control over their kids than ours did.) That is what we get for fleeing the urban core cities. The costs of that are coming back in spades. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are lots of things wrong with the urban core, inner city. I am sorry you feel that those of us who wanted something better in life did what you call 'fleeing'. I know you would _never_ get me back to Chicago for example. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net> Subject: Re: Cell Phone Jammer For Sale MONIX MGB-1S Organization: ATCC Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:28:02 -0500 In article <telecom24.128.7@telecom-digest.org>, donestuardo@yahoo.com says: > I have a nearly new cell phone jammer for sale -- range is > approximately 30 metres in radius. Model MONIX MGB-1S cellular Jammer. > Used only one week (and then the tenant was gone! - hint great for > getting rid of loser tenants who depend on their cell phones for > calls). > Includes unit, plus 2 attennas, and a power cable and transformer for > North American Standard power. > Asking price $395 plus shipping. > I am located in Canada. > Please email me at donestuardo (AT Sign) yahoo.com or call me on my > cell at (416) 458-0012 and I will be happy to go over details with you. > Thanks, > Stew > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why is a person who relies on a cell > phone for their communications a 'loser'? Good luck finding someone > willing to buy this evil device. :( PAT] To add to your comments, this is also a serious no-no in the eyes of the FCC. I'm waiting for the first emergency to take place and a cell phone jammer is incorporated. Seems that we get less confrontational as time goes on. Instead of posting notice that offenders will be violated, we go out and buy cell phone jammers. But cell phones are a curse to some degree. A local University that shall remain nameless instituted a no cell phone policy for students. That quickly went downhill when professors cell phones would ring during class time, etc. For those of us in continuing education, that was even more interesting. For example, at the time I was working for the state AG, I HAD to keep my cell phone on. But at least I had the common sense to put it on vibrate. One professor told me he always knew when my phone went off because I'd jolt up a bit. Beepilepsy indeed. What is really amusing about this is that Stew has posted a Bell Mobility cell number. Anyone know if Bell Mobility charges the subscriber for incoming calls? Hmmmm ... we could give this the same treatment we give to those who post their 800 numbers trying to sell wares that are offensive to us. ------------------------------ From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net> Subject: Re: 911, Taxes, and Fees, was: Texas Sues Vonage Over 911 Problem Organization: ATCC Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:40:17 -0500 In article <telecom24.131.8@telecom-digest.org>, dannyb@panix.com says: > Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: >> *If* Vonage were willing to pay the same fees other local exchange >> carriers pay for 911 connectivity *in each LATA*, *then* Vonage could >> route 911 calls correctly. Avoiding this *cost* has been a major >> competitive win for Vonage all along and it is hard to not see it as >> a major reason, if not _the_ reason, why Vonage has fought state >> regulation as a local exchange carrier: by avoiding regulatory mandates >> like 911 service standards Vonage avoids the cost of compliance. > So let me get this straight. Local (and state) gov'ts pretend that a > 911 PSAP (Public Safety Answering Position) isn't part of the standard > functions of government, and therefore they get the telcos to pass > through a separate "911 fee" (read tax). > Oh, for good measure, if you look at umptity audits you'll find that > the amount of the "911 fee" has next to nothing to do with how much > money is acually put into the PSAP. To the government, it's all one > big pot of money. Indeed -- here in Rhode Island all receipts go into a thing called the General Fund. Bad, bad, bad, bad. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:22:45 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: Last Laugh! A Field Guide to Experts - Oxman et al. 329 (7480): If you want the whole article, which is very funny, let me know. It is long (23K in stripped form) Unfortunately the illustrations did not come with this copy. To get them, see the original file, or download the PDF. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/bmj;329/7480/1460 BMJ 2004;329:1460-1463 (18 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7480.1460 This article PDF http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/329/7480/1460 Experts' eye view A field guide to experts Andrew D Oxman, researcher1, Iain Chalmers, editor2, Alessandro Liberati, researcher3 on behalf of the World Artifexology Group 1 Informed Choice Research Department, Norwegian Health Services Research Centre, PO Box 0130, Oslo, Norway, 2 James Lind Library, Oxford, 3 University of Modena and Reggio Emilia and Agenzia Sanitaria Regionale, Bologna, Italy Correspondence to: A D Oxman oxman{at}online.no Experts are common but not well understood. This guide introduces novice expert spotters to the essentials of artifexology the study of experts A field guide to experts An expert is a man who has stopped thinking he knows! Frank Lloyd Wright Experts are a little understood family within the phylum Chordata. Many people mistakenly believe them to have well developed egos, winged words, and dull plumage. In fact, they typically have immature egos (which explains their incessant self flattery), rudimentary wings (which is why they fly first class), and exotic plumage (to detract from their vulnerability). Despite their deficiencies, experts can be dangerous. Our brief field guide to artifexology (the study of experts) should help people to protect themselves from the insidious influence of experts. Apologia An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less. Nicholas Murray Butler Who are we to write a field guide to experts? By its very nature, artifexology is a non-expert field of study. As soon as one becomes an expert in artifexology one becomes the subject of one's own studies, thus arriving at a sticky end up one's own cloaca. Unsurprisingly, we insist that this guide has been written by amateurs for amateurs. Deeply tanned experts top the pecking order Credit: MARTIN ECCLES <<<snip>> ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V24 #133 ****************************** | |