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
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 Thu, 7 Apr 2005 23:05:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 150
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
A Trail of DNA and Data (Marcus Didius Falco)
Philly Reveals Wireless Plan (David Chessler)
Re: Telemarketing to Cellphones (David B. Horvath, CCP)
Re: Telemarketing to Cellphones (Paul Vader)
Re: Telemarketing to Cellphones (Joseph)
Re: Google Maps (AES)
Re: Sperm - Not so Mobile (T. Sean Weintz)
Re: Prison Cell Phone Scandal (T. Sean Weintz)
Re: VOIP Adapter With High REN (GlowingBlue Mist)
Re: Harrasing Annoying Ex Boyfriend Phone Calls CALLER ID Mgr (Paratwa)
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: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:40:43 -0400
From: Marcus Didius Falco <falco_marcus_didius@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: A Trail of DNA and Data
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20454-2005Apr2.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20454-2005Apr2?language=3Dprinter
By Paul Saffo
Sunday, April 3, 2005; Page B01
If you're worried about privacy and identity theft, imagine this:
The scene: Somewhere in Washington. The date: April 3, 2020.
You sit steaming while the officer hops off his electric cycle and
walks up to the car window. "You realize that you ran that red light
again, don't you, Mr. Witherspoon?" It's no surprise that he knows
your name; the intersection camera scanned your license plate and your
guilty face, and matched both in the DMV database. The cop had the
full scoop before you rolled to a stop.
"I know, I know, but the sun was in my eyes," you plead as you fumble
for your driver's license.
"Oh, don't bother with that," the officer replies, waving off the license
while squinting at his hand-held scanner. Of course. Even though the old
state licensing system had been revamped back in 2014 into a "secure"
national program, the new licenses had been so compromised that the street
price of a phony card in Tijuana had plummeted to five euros. In
frustration, law enforcement was turning to pure biometrics.
"Could you lick this please?" the officer asks, passing you a nanofiber
blotter. You comply and then slide the blotter into the palm-sized gizmo he
is holding, which reads your DNA and runs a match against a national
genomic database maintained by a consortium of drug companies and credit
agencies. It also checks half a dozen metabolic fractions looking for
everything from drugs and alcohol to lack of sleep.
The officer looks at the screen, and frowns, "Okay, I'll let you off with a
warning, but you really need more sleep. I also see that your retinal
implants are past warranty, and your car tells me that you are six months
overdue on its navigation firmware upgrade. You really need to take care of
both or next time it's a ticket."
This creepy scenario is all too plausible. The technologies described are
already being developed for industrial and medical applications, and the
steadily dropping cost and size of such systems will make them affordable
and practical police tools well before 2020. The resulting intrusiveness
would make today's system of search warrants and wiretaps quaint
anachronisms.
Some people find this future alluring and believe that it holds out the
promise of using sophisticated ID techniques to catch everyone from
careless drivers to bomb-toting terrorists in a biometric dragnet. We have
already seen places such as Truro, Mass., Baton Rouge, La. and Miami ask
hundreds or thousands of citizens to submit to DNA mass-testing to catch
killers. Biometric devices sensing for SARS symptoms are omnipresent in
Asian airports. And the first prototypes of systems that test in real time
for SARS, HIV and bird flu have been deployed abroad.
The ubiquitous collection and use of biometric information may be
inevitable, but the notion that it can deliver reliable, theft-proof
evidence of identity is pure science fiction. Consider that oldest of
biometric identifiers -- fingerprints. Long the exclusive domain of
government databases and FBI agents who dust for prints at crime scenes,
fingerprints are now being used by electronic print readers on everything
from ATMs to laptops. Sticking your finger on a sensor beats having to
remember a password or toting an easily lost smart card.
But be careful what you touch, because you are leaving your identity
behind every time you take a drink. A Japanese cryptographer has
demonstrated how, with a bit of gummi bear gelatin, some cyanoacrylic
glue, a digital camera and a bit of digital fiddling, he can easily
capture a print off a glass and confect an artificial finger that
foils fingerprint readers with an 80 percent success rate. Frightening
as this is, at least the stunt is far less grisly than the tale,
perhaps aprocryphal, of some South African crooks who snipped the
finger off an elderly retiree, rushed her still-warm digit down to a
government ATM, stuck it on the print reader and collected the
victim's pension payment. (Scanners there now gauge a finger's
temperature, too.)
Today's biometric advances are the stuff of tomorrow's hackers and
clever crooks, and anything that can be detected eventually will be
counterfeited. Iris scanners are gaining in popularity in the
corporate world, exploiting the fact that human iris patterns are
apparently as unique as fingerprints. And unlike prints, iris images
aren't left behind every time someone gets a latte at Starbucks. But
hide something valuable enough behind a door protected by an iris
scanner, and I guarantee that someone will figure out how to capture
an iris image and transfer it to a contact lens good enough to fool
the readers. And capturing your iris may not even require sticking a
digital camera in your face -- after all, verification requires that
the representation of your iris exist as a cloud of binary bits of
data somewhere in cyberspace, open to being hacked, copied, stolen and
downloaded. The more complex the system, the greater the likelihood
that there are flaws that crooks can exploit.
DNA is the gold standard of biometrics, but even DNA starts to look
like fool's gold under close inspection. With a bit of discipline, one
can keep a card safe or a PIN secret, but if your DNA becomes your
identity, you are sharing your secret with the world every time you
sneeze or touch something. The novelist Scott Turow has already
written about a hapless sap framed for a murder by an angry spouse who
spreads his DNA at the scene of a killing.
The potential for DNA identity theft is enough to make us all wear a
gauze mask and keep our hands in our pockets. DNA can of course be
easily copied -- after all, its architecture is designed for
duplication -- but that is the least of its problems. Unlike a credit
card number, DNA can't be retired and swapped for a new sequence if it
falls into the hands of crooks or snoops. Once your DNA identity is
stolen, you live with the consequences forever.
This hasn't stopped innovators from using DNA as an indicator of
authenticity. The artist Thomas Kinkade signs his most valuable
paintings with an ink containing a bit of his DNA. (He calls it a
"forgery-proof DNA Matrix signature.") We don't know how much of Tom
is really in his paintings, but perhaps it's enough for forgers to
duplicate the ink, as well as the distinctive brush strokes.
The biggest problem with DNA is that it says so much more about us
than an arbitrary serial number does. Give up your Social Security
number and a stranger can inspect your credit rating. But surrender
your DNA and a snoop can discover your innermost genetic secrets --
your ancestry, genetic defects and predispositions to certain
diseases. Of course we will have strong genetic privacy laws, but
those laws will allow consumers to "voluntarily" surrender their
information in the course of applying for work or pleading for health
care. A genetic marketplace not unlike today's consumer information
business will emerge, swarming with health insurers attempting to
prune out risky individuals, drug companies seeking customers and
employers managing potential worker injury liability.
Faced with this prospect, any sensible privacy maven would conclude
that DNA is too dangerous to collect, much less use for a task as
unimportant as turning on a laptop or working a cash machine. But
society will not be able to resist its use. The pharmaceutical
industry will need our DNA to concoct customized wonder drugs that
will fix everything from high cholesterol to halitosis. And crime
fighters will make giving DNA information part of our civic duty and
national security. Once they start collecting, the temptation to use
it for other purposes will be too great.
Moreover, snoops won't even need a bit of actual DNA to invade our
privacy because it will be so much easier to access its digital
representation on any number of databanks off in cyberspace. Our
Mr. Witherspoon will get junk mail about obscure medical conditions
that he's never heard of because some direct marketing firm "bot" will
inspect his digital DNA and discover that he has a latent disease or
condition that his doctor didn't notice at his annual checkup.
It is tempting to conclude that Americans will rise up in revolt, but
experience suggests otherwise. Americans profess a concern for privacy, but
they happily reveal their deepest financial and personal secrets for a free
magazine subscription or cheesy electronic trinket. So they probably will
eagerly surrender their biometric identities as well, trading fingerprint
IDs for frequent shopper privileges at the local supermarket and genetic
data to find out how to have the cholesterol count of a teenager.
Biometric identity systems are inevitable, but they are no silver
bullet when it comes to identity protection. The solution to identity
protection lies in the hard work of implementing system-wide and
nationwide technical and policy changes. Without those changes, the
deployment of biometric sensors will merely increase the opportunities
for snoops and thieves -- and escalate the cost to ordinary citizens.
It's time to fix the problems in our current systems and try to anticipate
the unique challenges that will accompany the expanded use of biometrics.
It's the only way to keep tomorrow's crooks from stealing your fingers and
face and, with them, your entire identity.
Paul Saffo is a director of the Institute for the Future, a forecasting
organization based in Silicon Valley.
Copyright 2005 The Washington Post Company
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily
media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra . Hundreds of new articles daily.
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, The Washington Post Company.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:58:25 -0400
From: David Chessler <chessler@usa.net>
Subject: Philly Reveals Wireless Plan
From WiFi Planet --
http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3495991
By Eric Griffith
According to the Philadelphia Daily News, at noon today, John Street,
the mayor of Philadelphia, Penn., and the cities CIO Dianah Neff
planned to make official the business plan behind Wireless
Philadelphia (http://www.phila.gov/wireless/ -- see below), the city's
embattled move to bring wireless broadband to everyone in its
surroundings.
The cost will be $10 million dollars to install as many as 3,000
wireless nodes on light poles across the 135 square mile city, with an
additional $5 million to run the network for the first two years,
according to Neff. The money won't come from tax payersa major gripe
of the anti-municipal-wireless crowdbut will be raised through taxable
bonds or getting low-interest loans. The money would be repaid in four
years.
No one company has been picked yet to do the install or provide
equipment for the network, but Neff believes a selection will be made
by June 30, with deployment to start in August. Subscribers could be
online by the end of the year.
The network will be owned by a non-profit also called Wireless
Philadelphia, which will be run by a CEO and appointees from Mayor
Street. Wireless Philadelphia will make money by licensing the
network to carriers, which would resell access to end users. Neither
the city nor Wireless Philadelphia would actual serve as the wireless
ISP. Licensers will be required to keep the cost for end-users
downlikely lower than $20 per month. Even less for low-income homes.
Right now, they estimate that 42% of the city's denizens are not
online. This is usually due to the cost of broadband.
The companies Wireless Philadelphia could let use the network may be
some that tried to stop it in the first place. Local providers of
cable and DSL based broadband like City Councilman Frank Rizzo has
long been an opponent of the Wireless Philadelphia project, and says
it is not something government should do. He fears taxpayer money will
be needed if subscribers don't sign up, and that the technology will
be outdated very soon. In a op-ed piece in today's Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0504070283apr07,1,5006951.story?coll=chi-techtopheds-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true ,
Rizzo implies that Wi-Fi is "just another Big Dig," referring to the
highly over-budget highway project in Boston that is still having
issues even after completion. He says "the real costs could range from
$30 million to $100 million for a feasible network" to cover Philly.
Wireless Philadelphia has gotten around the city council by not using
public funds and by going non-profit. They don't need the council's
approval.
The push to put a wireless cloud across Philly has been at the center
of attacks against muni-backed Wi-Fi networks for months. A bill was
passed by the Pennsylvania state legislature last yearjust weeks after
the news surfaced that Philly wanted such a network that would prevent
any state municipalities from installing a broadband network without
an incumbent provider getting a right of first refusal. In December of
last year, Verizon waived that right, and the project proceeded. Other
cities in the state have until January 1, 2006 to give their local
telcos a chance to put in a network first.
In February, a Washington D.C. based group called the New Millenium
Research Council (NMRC), issued a report called "Not in the Public
Interest: The Myth of Municipal W-Fi Networks "
http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3468381 , which
called into question the necessity, anti-competitiveness and overall
viability of municipal run wireless networks.
Many have charged the NRMC with a "lack of transparency," especially
in terms of the groups backing, potentially by big telcos like
Verizon. They also say the report ignores many successful deployments
of municipal wireless, such as the network in Chaska, Minn.
That network is powered by equipment from Tropos Network, and that
company's CEO, Ron Sege, has become one of the most vocal proponents
of muni wireless networks (which is no surprise, as he wants his
company to sell more products). In a commentary at ZDNet this week
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-5653856.html , he argues that the
anti-muni groups have "flawed arguments" and says "Policies that limit
the rapid deployment of broadband wireless networks mean limiting the
real benefits of these networks to public safety, economic growth and
the education and enrichment of our citizens."
Philly and Chaska are far from the only cities with, or considering, a
wireless Wi-Fi cloud. Others include Minneapolis, St. Paul & Moorhead,
Minn.; Alexandria, Va.; Rochester & Buffalo, N.Y.; Rio Rancho, N.M.;
Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Ill.; Las Vegas, Nev.; Lexington, Ky.;
Addison & San Antonio, Texas; and Lompoc, Isla Vista, Fullerton,
Cerritos, & San Francisco, Calif; Independence, KS; others. There are
many more Tropos already claims over 125 metro-scale customers. And
that's just the Wi-Fi networks. Many more have fixed wireless
broadband that uses pre-WiMax or proprietary equipment to replace the
physical lines needed for DSL and cable modems, even T1 leased lines.
However, many states have passed or are trying to pass legislation
similar to Pennsylvania's that would, at worst, make city-wide
wireless networks illegal. Those states include West Virginia, Texas,
Colorado, Florida, Nebraska, Illinois, and others. Similar bills were
tried in Indiana and Virginia but died in committee, according the
MuniWireless.com March 2005 report
http://www.muniwireless.com/reports/docs/March2005Report.pdf
http://www.phila.gov/wireless/
City of Philadelphia will be hosting the Wireless Internet Institute
(W2i) Digital Cities Convention: The Frontier of Broadband Wireless
Applications at the Pennsylvania Convention Center May 2-4, 2005
Promote Open Metro-scale Wireless Connective Citywide Wireless
Philadelphia aims to strengthen the City's economy and transform
Philadelphia's neighborhoods by providing wireless internet access
throughout the city. Wireless Philadelphia will work to create a
digital infrastructure for open-air internet access and to help
citizens, businesses, schools, and community organizations make
effective use of this technology to achieve their goals while
providing a greater experience for visitors to the City.
Advocate of Wireless Community Networking Appointed by Mayor John
F. Street in July 2004, the Wireless Philadelphia Executive Committee
(Committee) serves as an advisory/advocacy group for wireless
community networking through community outreach programs,
communications with the press and participation in meetings and
conferences. Wireless Philadelphia seeks to educate the general public
and businesses about the benefits of wireless community
networking. Wireless Philadelphia seeks to utilize existing wireless
technologies and incorporate evolving wireless technologies as they
become available.
Provide a Forum for Wireless Networking Wireless Philadelphia provides
a forum for discussion to enhance usage of emerging wireless
technologies especially for those related to building wireless
community networks. The Committee seeks to promote the third-party
development of research, development and use of mobile mesh networks
to enrich neighborhood economic viability.
Recommend Policy
The Committee will formulate recommendations in several policy areas
including fees, roles and responsibilities, extent of service, privacy
and security. The Committee will identify possible legal and
regulatory barriers and help develop strategies to overcome them.
Future Uses
Wireless Philadelphia will develop a process through which the initial
outdoor network can be expanded to allow indoors utilization by
residents, businesses, visitors, institutions, and students. In so
doing, Wireless Philadelphia shall coordinate efforts with other
agencies of City to maximize the social, developmental, and
educational return .
> From the Chicago Tribune --
http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0504070283apr07,1,5006951.story?coll=chi-techtopheds-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
Wi-Fi: Is it just another Big Dig?
By Frank Rizzo
a member at large of the Philadelphia City Council
Published April 7, 2005
In Chicago and elsewhere, city administrators are considering a
massive, open-ended public works project: municipally owned and
subsidized wireless (Wi-Fi) networks. The goal, say the bureaucrats,
is to capitalize on advances in wireless technology to build a local
information nirvana that will help bridge the digital divide.
But before embarking on this seemingly visionary agenda, local
governments should take a closer look at municipal forays into the
world of telecommunications. For if they do, they might find that
history littered with cost overruns, debt and rapidly outdated
systems. And if they look under the hood at what self-interested
consultants are selling them on projected costs of new wireless
systems, they are likely to find a bit of Enron-style accounting.
The wireless revolution has much seductive allure, to be sure. Wi-Fi
hot spots -- whereby a hard-wired router sends wireless signals in an
area with a radius of 300 feet -- abound in many homes, coffee shops
and elsewhere.
The even more robust Wi-Max technologies, with propagation capability
over many miles, may also soon come to the market. These new services
have aided mostly upscale consumers with expensive laptop computers.
But while a wireless router at home is relatively inexpensive, an
entirely new wireless network built by a local government is likely to
be very costly for many years -- when municipal budgets are expected
to be increasingly strapped. In Philadelphia's 135 square miles, a
wireless network would likely require well over 20,000 access points
-- remote routers, essentially -- with no more than 10 subscribers per
access point to ensure satisfactory speeds.
The city that I represent as a council member at large -- Philadelphia
-- seems to be the national test tube for this debate. Here, the chief
information officer -- backed up by a battery of financially
interested analysts -- projects that the City of Brotherly Love could
construct such a system for less than $11 million.
But with numbers like this, she could wind up in a heap of trouble
were she held accountable to investor disclosure laws.
Simply put, believing one can cover our 135 square miles with a
wireless network for $11 million is like believing the moon is made of
green cheese.
Independent analyses and prevailing market prices for network and
construction costs make clear that the real costs could range from $30
million to $100 million for a feasible network. And this is just the
starting point. For most cities with a greater landmass, the costs
would be even greater.
Once committed, taxpayers are likely to be on the hook for the
foreseeable future. Sheer maintenance will cost annually a minimum of
10 to 15 percent of the initial upfront costs, according to most
experts. Further, engineers estimate that an astounding 60 percent of
the equipment requires replacement or upgrading every three to five
years. These expenses, together with other operating and
administrative costs, network redundancy and security over ever
insecure wireless technologies -- as the hacking into Paris Hilton's
cell phone reminds us -- could cost tens of millions of additional
dollars. And, as many experts tell us, the city's new wireless network
could quickly be outdated with advances in technology. It is precisely
this kind of unrealistic planning that created Boston's Big Dig tunnel
project fiasco.
Indeed, municipal forays into local telecom networks have created a
sea of red ink in Georgia, Iowa, Oregon and elsewhere. Realizing this,
and faced increasingly with demands for greater budgetary scrutiny
over these proposals, some city administrators are engaging in a
strange dance: They argue that they can solve the problem of
ballooning network costs simply by handing off the network to a
private vendor.
The notion of cash-squeezed local governments seeking to enter an ever
more competitive marketplace, only to then hand off a
taxpayer-financed network in the form of a subsidy to one competitor
in that marketplace, would seem an odd role for government --
particularly in a city that represents the birthplace of
democracy. Remember, of course, that the wireless Internet service
industry is increasingly competitive, with scores of carriers entering
the marketplace. In Chicago alone, there are hundreds of hot spots.
If, on the other hand, local governments really want ownership of such
speculative ventures, they should stop playing hide the ball and
instead be honest with the taxpayers -- the bill payers -- about real
costs and the need for the government's entry into an increasingly
competitive industry.
What's really needed is a true national broadband policy. Rather than
subsidizing narrow-band technologies, the federal Universal Service
Fund should promote market-based incentives to ensure universal
rollout of broadband technology and access to needed computer hardware
for underserved communities.
This kind of comprehensive, thoughtful approach would dramatically
boost our economy and our literacy without putting vulnerable
municipal budgets at dire risk with Don Quixote searches for the
broadband cure.
Copyright 2005, Chicago Tribune
From WiFi Planet --
http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3468381 (there are
many links in this article -- go to the site to go deeper)
Think Tank Trashes Municipal-Run Wireless
By Eric Griffith
A report out today from the Washington D.C.-based New Millenium
Research Council (NMRC), called "Not in the Public Interest The Myth
of Municipal W-Fi Networks," calls into question the necessity, the
anti-competitiveness, and the overall viability of towns, cities, or
counties installing wireless broadband and treating it like a public
utility.
However, Wi-Fi-supporting pundits point out potential issues with not
only the arguments made in the report but also the objectivity of the
authors, who the pundits brand as "sock puppets of industry."
The NRMC was created in 1999 to "develop workable, real-world
solutions to the issues and challenges confronting policy makers,
primarily in the fields of telecommunications and technology." The
group is an "independent project" of Issue Dynamics, Inc. (IDI), a
group that has the support of such incumbent telcos as Bell South,
Comcast, SBC, Sprint, Verizon and Verizon Wireless to name just a few
(according to reports at eWeek.)
In a phone briefing held today with journalists, the authors of
various sections of the report gave a summary of their analysis, all
of which uniformly question the need for any kind of government-run
and funded wireless broadband system. Arguments against include:
Anti-competitiveness:
Municipal wireless networks will be funded by taxpayers. "When a
private sector company fails, it must respond. But government
[programs] can be propped up with additional tax dollars," according
to Technology Counsel Braden Cox, counsel for the Competitive
Enterprise Institute.
Past failures:
"Nearly every municipal network of the last decade has failed badly,"
says David P. McClure, president and CEO of U.S. Internet Industry
Association. When asked directly what municipal networks had failed,
speakers mentioned Marietta, Georgia, a utility district in Washington
state, and others though not all are necessarily wireless.
Not addressing the "Digital Divide:"
McClure's section of the report states that the phrase is a catchall,
and can't be limited just to a lack of free broadband. He also says
"econometric data shows no specific link between broadband
availability and economic development." And, he says, it won't
increase tourism either, since it won't offer more than the Wi-Fi
already available in public access hotspots run by private companies.
It's already covered:
Steven Titch, a senior fellow with the Heartland Institute, said that major
cities proposing municipal broadband (like Philadelphia and San Francisco)
are already well served by existing hotspots. Citing numbers from
JiWire.com, Titch says San Francisco, for example, has 399 hotspot
locations, 42 of which are free. He says that most municipal networks would
only cover areas like downtowns and airports anyway areas that are usually
well-covered with Wi-Fi connections already.
Government Censorship:
"If broadband ownership is by municipalities or county governments,
you have the potential for government censorship that most of the
journalists on this call would bristle against vehemently," said Barry
Aarons, analyst with the Institute for Policy Innovation. Many states,
including Indiana and Nebraska, are already contemplating bans on
municipal broadband networks, much like the one that was signed into
law in Pennsylvania not long ago. Big companies like Intel are
considering lobbying against such measuresmunicipalities are, after
all, potential customers for future WiMax long-range wireless products
that would be powered by Intel chips.
Glenn Fleishman, editor of the popular blog Wi-Fi Networking News,
took the group to task before the report was even out in a post on
February 1, after BusinessWeek's blog took the group's findings at
face value. While he says he doesn't wholeheartedly oppose the NMRC's
point of view, he was put off by the lack of "transparency" of the
groups the authors represent. Most are seen as being possibly funded
by telecom organizations, such as Verizon, which stand to lose out to
municipalities doing their own wireless. (Verizon, however, gave a
right of refusal to Philadelphia after first trying to block that
city's network plans even after the Pennsylvania anti-muni-network law
passed.)
Esme Vos has been writing exclusively about municipal wireless
networks on her blog MuniWireless for two years. She's previously
written about the Heartland Institute when it stated in October 2004
that that "virtually everyone who wants broadband services can get DSL
from their telephone company or cable modem service from their cable
company"a sentiment they echoed in today's call. Vos said at the time,
"Where is this paradise? Maybe in Seoul, Korea."
Today on her site, referring to an early article Heartland placed on
its own site as a preview to today's NMRC report, she said "For some
reason, it does not cite the successful municipal Wi-Fi (and wired)
deployments we all know about: Chaska (MN), Scottsburg (IN), Auburn
(IN), among others. No, in the world of Heartland, they do not exist."
She counters that, contrary to what the NRMC report says, the false
hopes don't lay with the municipal broadband deployments, but in the
"false hopes propagated for so long by the cable and DSL incumbents,
the one that promises to bring fast, cheap broadband to YOUR
neighborhood. Only now people are very impatient and the equipment is
becoming very cheap."
Fleishman says in his rebuttal against the same Heartland article,
"Municipal broadband is almost the last resort of cities and towns
that can no longer wait on the promises or lack of promises from
incumbents." In a perfect world, he says, municipalities wouldn't have
to build networks: the private companies would already have done so
"without sock puppets making their arguments for them."
From ZDNet -- http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-5653856.html
Should cities hook up to WiFi?
By Ron Sege
Commentary -- Recently, parties lacking experience and facts have
suggested that municipalities should not promote or fund broadband
wireless networks. Their arguments ignore a growing number of
successful municipal deployments and rely on incorrect assertions.
These flawed arguments put the public at risk of making incorrect
policy decisions and having to live with the consequences. Policies
that limit the rapid deployment of broadband wireless networks mean
limiting the real benefits of these networks to public safety,
economic growth and the education and enrichment of our citizens. They
mean that the United States will forgoe its best option for improving
its dismal world ranking in terms of per-capita availability of
broadband.
Broadband wireless networks are the fastest, lowest cost and simplest
way to increase broadband availability. Municipal broadband wireless
networks do not require digging up streets, complex RF engineering or
expensive subscriber devices. Wireless Philadelphia, based on similar,
albeit smaller systems, conservatively estimates a citywide mesh
network will cost $60,000 per square mile to construct. With a land
area of 135 square miles, this translates into $8.1 million to install
the mesh network. Add a comfortable margin (based on Tropos
experience) for security systems, billing systems, network management
systems, routers to connect to the Internet and the like and, all in,
the cost of deploying a broadband wireless network in Philadelphia
would be about $11 million.
Municipal broadband wireless networks today provide many benefits to
cities and their citizens. For instance, chaska.net, a citywide Wi-Fi
network in Chaska, Minnesota, projects that revenues from their 2,000+
subscribers will fund the network's operating costs, pay the interest
and repay the principal -- without using taxpayer funds. The 16-square
mile network was financed (less than $600,000) with four-year
equipment certificates. And 25 percent of Chaskas homes have signed on
for broadband Internet access speeds (>1Mbps, symmetrical) at dial-up
prices ($16/month).
Other cities have turned to broadband wireless to support public
safety and other operations. In San Mateo, California, police officers
now spend 8,000 more hours a year on their beats, because a municipal
broadband wireless network gives them mobile access to databases and
in-field reporting. In Corpus Christi, Texas, a broadband wireless
network is automating utility meter reading, reading 73 water meters
per second, compared to minutes per meter using manual processes. New
Orleans installed a broadband wireless network to support public
safety video surveillance. The system was quickly and easily
installed, and reduced the murder rate by 57 percent in six months and
auto theft by 25 percent in the covered areas.
While cities are improving public services with broadband wireless
networks, many project that their networks will provide more bandwidth
than city workers will consume. Mindful of tight budgets, they intend
to sell this excess bandwidth to help pay for the initial installation
and operating costs. This is good fiscal prudence.
Often municipalities foot a fraction of the cost of installation and
operation in other ways. Business models include public-private
partnerships such as allowing service providers to use city rights of
way tenant in exchange for low-cost accounts for use by city
workers. Other possible models allow service providers to lease
capacity on municipally owned wireless networks, split installation
costs with private entities in exchange for service and revenue
sharing, or provide capital to for-profit and non-profit entities in
exchange for an ownership stake. Different models are appropriate for
different local goals and circumstances.
Fears that new technology will quickly obsolete municipal wireless
networks are vastly overblown. To date, over 100 million Wi-Fi client
devices have been shipped. Wi-Fi is connecting an increasing
assortment of devices, not just laptops and PDAs but also security
cameras, traffic management systems, meter readers, location sensors,
cell phones and much more. And Wi-Fi will get even faster and more
capable over time. Further, new technologies such as WiMAX are easily
integrated into broadband wireless networks.
In conclusion, the parties debating this issue must consider the facts
outlined above. With these facts, they must also acknowledge that
broadband wireless networks today provide numerous benefits to many
constituencies. With the facts in hand, lets develop policies at the
state and federal level that encourage the development of broadband
wireless networks, not ones that stifle their creation. The winners
will be the citizens, no matter who deploys a broadband wireless
network--municipality or service provider.
Biography
Ron Sege is CEO of Tropos Networks, which sells equipment to
carriers, service providers and municipalities deploying
metro-scale Wi-Fi.
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily
media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra . Hundreds of new articles daily.
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose
use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The
'johnmacsgroup' Internet discussion group is making it available
without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Ron Sege and Tropos Networks.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
John F. McMullen
http://www.westnet.com/~observer
BLOG: http://johnmacrants.blogspot.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:22:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Telemarketing to Cellphones
From: David B. Horvath, CCP <dhorvath@withheld_on_request>
PAT -- please remove my email address to keep SPAM down...
This is an urban legend -- you can confirm that by checking
www.snopes.com for more information. Your cell number is not going to
be "released" to the telescum.
I do recommend (have done so myself) that you include your cell number
in any do-not-call list entries maintained by the FTC.
- David
On Date: 7 Apr 2005 10:32:32 -0700, HarryHydro <harryhydro@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> In a few weeks, cell phone numbers are being released to telemarketing
> companies and you will start to receive sale calls. You will be
> charged for these calls.
> Call this number from your cell phone 888-382-1222.
> It is the national DO NOT CALL list. It only takes a minute of your
> time. It blocks your number for 5 years. Please pass this on to
> everyone you know who doesn't want to be hassled.
> Or you can go to donotcall.gov and do it on-line.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I did this way back when the
'Do Not Call' list was first getting started. In addition to my
personal line, my distinctive ring-ring line, and my VOIP number,
I also added my cellular phone number; my VOIP and cell numbers were
never questioned. PAT]
------------------------------
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader)
Subject: Re: Telemarketing to Cellphones
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 21:25:22 -0000
Organization: Inline Software Creations
HarryHydro <harryhydro@hotmail.com> writes:
> In a few weeks, cell phone numbers are being released to telemarketing
> companies and you will start to receive sale calls. You will be
> charged for these calls.
Urban legend. http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/cell411.asp *
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
------------------------------
From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Telemarketing to Cellphones
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:41:49 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com
On 7 Apr 2005 10:32:32 -0700, HarryHydro <harryhydro@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> In a few weeks, cell phone numbers are being released to telemarketing
> companies and you will start to receive sale calls. You will be
> charged for these calls.
> Call this number from your cell phone 888-382-1222.
> It is the national DO NOT CALL list. It only takes a minute of your
> time. It blocks your number for 5 years. Please pass this on to
> everyone you know who doesn't want to be hassled.
> Or you can go to donotcall.gov and do it on-line.
Before you get everyone all excited and bent out of shape maybe you
should tell the *whole* story and not just the bit that's supposed to
make us all worry that cell phone numbers will be released to
telemarketers. The truth is that a wireless 411 "directory" is being
developed. Your number in most cases will not automatically be
included in this directory. In most cases you will have to *opt in*
to the directory. Even when you do opt in there will be no paper
directory. It will only be available through operators.
You are being terribly irresponsible in circulating this untrue rumor
that telemarketers will receive cell phone numbers.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_cell_phone_directory.htm
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So what harm is there in adding your
cell phone and/or VOIP number to the list just to 'be safe'? PAT]
------------------------------
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Google Maps
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 14:32:46 -0700
Organization: Stanford University
In article <telecom24.148.7@telecom-digest.org>, Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
> How do you expect Google to pay its bills if it's not going to be either
> advertising-supported or subscriber-supported?
> "I want a free lunch, but I'm not willing to allow other people to pay
> for it." My interpretation of your quote.
Well, in fact I have paid subscriptions to a number of magazines and a
newspaper or two that I think have reasonably high editorial
standards. Since I think KQED-FM is a fairly decent and largely
advertiser independent information source, I've been a voluntary
subscriber and donator to them for decades (I even supported KPFA for
quite a while...). I've voted for (and as a taxpayer helped pay off)
public library bond issues for decades. Back when I had four
school-age children in the house I even once purchased, at retail, a
complete set of the Britannica.
I don't know how to solve the problem (the very real, serious, and
IMHO increasing) problem of corruption of many of our primary
information sources and media by advertising I'd willingly pay a
significant subscription fee for access to a Google equivalent that
was equally good and that I could be sure was and would remain truly
advertiser independent.
------------------------------
From: T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org>
Subject: Re: Sperm - Not so Mobile
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:03:08 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Monty Solomon wrote:
> http://www.newcastle.edu.au/news/media-releases/2005/aitkenmobile.htm
> Friday 18 February, 2005
> A preliminary study at the University of Newcastle has identified that
> radio waves of a similar frequency to those associated with mobile
> phones can damage sperm DNA in mice.
Damn. Now I need to take the cell phones away from my mice. How are
they supposed to call me at work to let me know when they are out of
cheese now?
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Very clever retort, but my presumption
is the researchers would rather experiment with mice than with human
children, etc. PAT]
------------------------------
From: T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org>
Subject: Re: Prison Cell Phone Scandal
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:04:24 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Fred Atkinson wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:59:29 -0400, T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org>
> wrote:
>> Except I wonder how many prisons have their corrections officers using
>> cell phones to communicate with one another?
>> Don't want to jam *them*, of course.
> The truth of the matter is that cell phones are considered very
> unreliable for law enforcement/emergency rescue type operations,
> especially when bad weather sets in (because everyone starts calling
> and tying up systems). If they are using them, they shouldn't be.
> They should still be using public safety radio services/systems.
> Fred
Hmm ... a few years ago I know many of the local police departments
back here used them. Dunno if that is still true.
------------------------------
From: GlowingBlueMist <nobody@invalid.com>
Subject: Re: VoIP Adapter With High REN?
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 21:27:17 -0500
Organization: SunSITE.dk - Supporting Open source
Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@panix.com> wrote in message
news:telecom24.149.7@telecom-digest.org:
> I am trying to switch two of three phone lines in a very large, very
> old house over to VoIP. The house has quite literally twenty
> extensions split between the three lines -- I think I need at least 4
> or 5 REN per line, plus the ability to drive all the wire leading to
> those handsets (over 100' in some cases) without exploding the audio
> output circuit in the ATA.
> Does anyone make equipment meant for this that I can use with a
> mainstream VoIP provider? It's been suggested to me that Packet8
> might be my best chance since they build their own gear but I don't
> see anything suitable on their web site.
> I am basically looking for a Cisco ATA-186 (including the 2-line
> capability) on steroids.
You might want to try something like a REN extender or two. An
example of one can (Viking RG-10A) be found at:
http://salestores1.com/virgelrgribo.html
It claims to boost the ring signal to 15 REN and should work with what
ever brand of VOIP interface you have as long as it will already ring
a single phone instrument correctly.
------------------------------
From: Paratwa <support@usenetserver.com>
Subject: Re: Harrasing Annoying Ex Boyfriend Phone Calls CALLER ID Manager
Organization: UseNetServer
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:46:44 -0500
If your referring to my story its just that -- a personal story. You
won't find it in the paper and it certainly wasn't in the local news.
Heck in today's world of stalkers and murders I'm amazed I couldn't
find others with similar problems via a search. In any event if you
really want proof I can at the very least probably dig up a police
report and pdf it to you -- for proper monetary compensation of not
less than $25.
For what its worth by sheer coincidence the idiot called from a pay
phone last night an left a message. He has probably figured out that
something isn't right since he could leave a message with the first
try on a pay phone and couldn't do it again, since I blocked it.
On 7 Apr 2005 05:20:45 -0700, Justin Time <a_user2000@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Sheesh Pat!
> Because of your extreme dislike of SBC you seem to have fallen for
> this advertisement written as a sob story about harrassing phone calls
> that "no one would do anything about." The story has all the earmarks
> of an urban ledgend -- no verifiable facts and no way to ascertain
> even if the story is true.
> Rodgers Platt
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All I can do is speak to my own
> experience. I was harassed for a couple months by AT&T (of all
> people!) who three or four times per day would call me on my
> ring-ring (distinctive ringing) line, looking for someone I had
> never heard of, and because of SBC's alleged inability to do anything
> to help me eventually _I_ had to invest in a long distance call at
> my own expense to call them back and trace through it with them. And
> SBC (to name just one of the Bell companies) absolutely refuses to
> do _anything_ about harassing phone calls except charge their
> _customer_ fifteen dollars for each use of *57. Bell used to have
> an 'Annoyance Call Bureau' to deal with those things; now apparently
> that has to be a profit center for them like everything else. PAT]
------------------------------
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 #150
******************************
| |