From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jan 2 14:57:15 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i02JvFc15467; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:57:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:57:15 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200401021957.i02JvFc15467@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #2 TELECOM Digest Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:57:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 2 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson My Upgraded Computer System (TELECOM Digest Editor) ReplayTV Announces New Flexible Pricing Model (Monty Solomon) ReplayTV Price Drop Bait-and-Switch (Monty Solomon) Is TiVo Really All That Great? (Monty Solomon) Century-old Math Problem May Have Been Solved (Monty Solomon) Rumor: Apple iBox (Monty Solomon) Re: Step, Panel and XP (Joe@nospamcity.com) Re: Step, Panel and XP (Joseph) Problem With Distorted Fax Using VoIP (Rob) Re: Taxes on Phone Bills - Ouch (David) How are Cellphone 911 Calls Handled? (W Randolph Franklin) Twenty Years Ago Today 1-Jan-2004, back on 1-Jan-1984 (Mark J Cuccia) Soft Channel Bank? (Chay) Re: California Plan Would Halt Trucks Remotely in Attack (Walt Howard) Re: Barbers (was Re: 10-Digit) (Marcus Jervis) Re: Barbers (was Re: 10-Digit) (Dave Close) Re: Then Benjamin Franklin Must be a Terrorist Too? (Joe@nospamcity.com) 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 is 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, 1 Jan 2004 22:51:27 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: My Upgraded Computer System Starting at about 5 PM New Year's Eve and continuing until way past my usual bedtime, then continuing after I woke up Thursday morning, I made some expansions to my computer. For one, I installed an additional hard drive. I still have my original hard drive of 20 GB, which is partioned into Windows 2000 (12 GB) and Linux sections (8 GB). In addition I now have a new 80 GB drive. The original drive is 'C', the new hard drive is 'F'. My original CD player was 'D' which it still is. For two, I now have a CD/DVD player/burner which is known as 'E'. It is Hewlitt Packard DVD300i by model number. The main reason for the additional hard 80 GB hard drive was to insure lots of swap space when burning new CDs, to make the manufacture of same go as quickly as possible. The little removable 62 MB drive in the USB slot (a tiny little thing about the size of my finger) is now 'G'. And I still have the floppy device, which is 'A'. I have been giving some thought to moving Windows 2000 onto the new 80 GB drive (F) and expanding Linux to the full 20 GB drive (C) which used to be split between Windows and Linux. I presume I would still have to partition the new 80 GB drive (F) to give the new HP writer and reader about 60 GB of swap space. Yes or No? Will 60 GB be adequate for the CD/DVD burner swap space? Yes or No? I do not want to have to load and unload the swap space repeatedly to get my work done. Another project I have in mind: Although I still maintain that my old Toshiba Satellite 220 Windows 95 is the sturdiest work horse in my network, I have pretty much given up on expanding it to anything larger. It just won't handle the added work load. It *might* be upgradeable to Windows 98, or maybe not, but Micrsoft has said their support of Win 98 is ending in a few months, and I really do not think that old (1996) laptop running 122 megs would go to anymore than that. I know it certainly would not be able to handle 2000 or XP. So the 95 just sits there with its old parallel port camera (from Zoom Telephonics, remember those?) and sends pictures out to whoever wants to see them at http://patricktownson.us.tf . But I have thought the Windows 98 (which is on a Winbook XL2 laptop) might be an ideal candidate for conversion to Windows 2000 or Linux. Any thoughts from readers on this? Good idea? Bad idea? And why? It has a 6 GB hard drive. At the present time (as Windows 98) it has numerous problems: For one, it tends to just turn itself off on an arbitrary basis. Other times, it will not permit itself to be turned off short of forcing it down with the master switch. Mostly it is used for feeding out to http://weatherforecast.us.tf the data from the weather station mechanicals on my back porch roof. Although each computer has its own display screen, keyboard and mouse, I can view them on a jumbo monitor using a KVM switch which is handy at times. From the master keyboard, doing 1 through 3 gets me control over each computer. 4 blanks the screen, and F1 gets me a continuously rotating display from the various computers. Any suggestions for improving/cleaning up this mess will be appreciated. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:36:50 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: ReplayTV Announces New Flexible Pricing Model for Its The Industry's Premium Quality DVRs, and Best Overall Value ... ReplayTV Announces New Flexible Pricing Model for Its Award-Winning 5500 Series Digital Video Recorders SANTA CLARA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 22, 2003-- Purchasers Now Have Choice of Buying the ReplayTV Service Monthly or for a Single Onetime Fee ReplayTV(R), the inventor and creator of personal television, today announced a new flexible pricing model for its acclaimed 5500 Series Digital Video Recorders (DVR). Beginning immediately, consumers will be able to purchase ReplayTV 5500 Series DVRs at the following prices: $149.99 for the 40-hour Model RTV5504; $299.99 for the 80-hour RTV5508; $449.99 for the 160-hour RTV5516; and $799.99 for the new 320-hour RTV5532. With each model, consumers will have the choice of either purchasing the ReplayTV Service for a $12.95 monthly fee, or choosing lifetime service bundled with the product for a single, onetime payment of $299. ReplayTV 5500 Series customers who have already purchased 3-year subscriptions to the ReplayTV Service under the previous pricing model will have their services automatically extended for the lifetime of the product at no additional charge. http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=200312222009_BWR__BW5508 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 00:30:27 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: ReplayTV Price Drop Bait-and-Switch Posted by michael on Thursday December 25, @11:30AM from the falco dept. jkeyes writes "Last week on 12/17 DNNA (new parent company of Replay TV) decided to drop the Replay TV 5504 model down to $149, yet the boxes and website said that it came with three years free service. So immediately it appeared on deal sites like FatWallet with Replay telling people on the phone who called that yes all 5504 models include 3 years of service so immediately Circuit City & Amazon sold out. Then on the 12/22 DNNA released a press release annoucing the new price and claiming that the 5504 models NO LONGER have 3 years free with them and blamed the retailers for dropping the price too soon. Even though their own Customer Service Reps were saying when it first dropped that you got 3 years free. Also to add to the issue the actual devices have giant green stickers on them saying Three Years Free AND a paper inside telling you this. Replay went on to say that if you had a problem with this or your replay was deactivated to just return it to the retailer you purchased it from." http://slashdot.org/articles/03/12/25/1428233.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 00:34:03 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Is TiVo Really All That Great? Cable companies slashing fees, crafting services in bid to get consumers to hop on the TV replay bandwagon. By Ron Lieber The Wall Street Journal Originally published December 29, 2003 LOS ANGELES -- The future of TiVo may be uncertain, but the TiVolution has never been more accessible than it is this holiday season. TiVo, which is both popular usage for newfangled alternatives to VCRs and the brand-name of the company that helped popularize them, once required an initial investment of hundreds of dollars. But, as new competitors continue to emerge, most people can now try the new way of watching and recording television for far less. Last week, ReplayTV lowered the price on its cheapest machine to $149 and stopped forcing consumers to buy three years of service upfront, cutting the initial cost by more than $300. Time Warner Cable this year began a widespread rollout of a service that has a TiVo-like digital video recorder built into the cable box and costs less than $10 a month. Some of Cox Communications Inc.'s customers already have cable DVR service, and Comcast Corp. plans to roll it out to all of its subscribers next year. Hate your cable company? EchoStar Communications Corp.'s Dish Network has started offering a free DVR box to new satellite TV subscribers. Though only a tiny fraction of households now have the service, TiVo and its progeny offer features that radically change the way people watch television. They make it easy to record shows so you can watch what you want, when you want. Then, they make it easy to skip commercials [or, in the case of the Super Bowl, watch them repeatedly]. http://www.sunspot.net/technology/bal-tivo122903,0,1069107.story ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 03:46:02 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Century-Old Math Problem May Have Been Solved By Jascha Hoffman, Globe Correspondent, 12/30/2003 BERKELEY, Calif. -- A reclusive Russian mathematician appears to have answered a question that has stumped mathematicians for more than a century. After a decade of isolation in St. Petersburg, over the last year Grigory Perelman posted a few papers to an online archive. Although he has no known plans to publish them, his work has sent shock waves through what is usually a quiet field. At two conferences held during the last two weeks in California, a range of specialists scrutinized Perelman's work, trying to grasp all the details and look for potential flaws. If Perelman really has proved the so-called Poincare Conjecture, as many believe he has, he will become known as one of the great mathematicians of the 21st century and will be first in line for a $1 million prize offered by the Clay Mathematics Institute in Cambridge. http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2003/12/30/century_old_math_problem_may_have_been_solved/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 12:22:30 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Rumor: Apple iBox in Production We just recently received information from a alleged member of a testing program at Apple. MacOSX.com isn't in the business of spreading rumors, nor do we wish to put ourselves into harms way, but we felt this is news worthy. We are trying to find out as much as we can. More on this if we get it, here you go: The Apple iBox is a project that, in one form or another, the company has been working on for years. The prototypes for the first set top mac are still found on eBay today. Little is known about these, but I do know some interesting things about what's now called the iBox. The iBox has a small, sleek encasement that is about 10 inches long, 6 inches wide and 1 - 1 1/2 inches thick. Its optical drive is slot loading and it has an on button that resembles the cube's power "button." Its case is made of the same material found on the G5, even sports the same grey logo on the top. The front, or face, of the iBox is pearl white, similar to an iPod. http://www.macosx.com/content/article.php?cid=53 ------------------------------ From: Joe@nospamcity.com Subject: Re: Step, Panel and XP Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 05:56:50 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications jsw@ivgate.omahug.org wrote: > The Manawa office in Council Bluffs, IA (Omaha, NE area, 712-366) used > what was called 'Directorized SxS'. This was an outboard conversion > used on some Ma Bell (and maybe others) step offices to approach > common control. This conversion was most likely done in the 1960's, > and provided dial tone to the subscriber, and recorded the dialed > number, either in dial pulses or touch-tone tones. For interoffice > calls it then drove the switch train, and for intra-office it provided > the signaling (MF, dial-pulse, possibly even revertive - I dunno) that > the called office expected. This installation lasted until the mid > 1980's when the Manawa office was cut to a DMS-10. General Telephone used directors on the SxS switches extensively after the advent of DID. I had the misfortune of living in a Los Angeles suburb from 1969 until 1979 served by General Telephone of California. The director didn't create a problem until you made a toll call, which brought the yellow punch tape AMA kludge into play. I made lots and lots of long distance calls, and my failure rate was close to 50%. The thing would sit there in silence for 90 seconds, then provide overflow tone. I finally brought in a foreign exchange line from a contiguous Pacific Bell exchange served by a then-new 1ESS. But, GT put it on analog carrier and the sound quality was lousy with echo and tinnines. I raised cain and they finally cut it to PCM carrier with proper supervision, no less, and I finally was in business. I left the area in 1979, but GT didn't cut that office to a GTD5 until 1987. Now, today, in 2004, the former GTE, now Verizon, is probably better for local service in California than SBC (former Pacific Telephone, then Pacific Bell). ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Step, Panel and XP Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 08:51:28 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 10:37:17 CST, jsw@ivgate.omahug.org wrote: > It seems like many of Ma Bell's step offices used a similar type of > tone plant, one with the 'flatulent' ringback, and that most of their > panel offices (as well as most 1XB and many 5XB) used the very > familiar 'metropolitan' tone plant, but I know of many exceptions, > making it not trivial to determine the CO type just by the > dial/ring/busy tones. You are probably speaking of a Western Electric #355 (Terminal Per Station) or #356 (Terminal Per Line) CDO (community dial office.) > I do remember, for example, that some of Ma Bell's step offices had a > ring tone that appeared to come from the same type of tone plant used > in the newer 5XB offices, one that to the untrained ear sounded very > much like today's standard ring tone. Saugus, Massachusetts was one of these. You can find many of these illustrated on the "Phone Trips" web site Lots of stuff to look at and listen to. Be sure to check out "Network sounds of the '70s" parts 1 and 2. > And then there was this strange ring tone best described as a 'low > rumble' that occasionally appeared on some of Ma Bell's 5XB offices. I > never figured that one out. It was barely audible on some LD calls. > It almost sounded like only the spurious harmonics of the ring signal. Saugus, Massachusetts had this for their #5XB. Of course now most everything's the same boring ESS with the same basic tone everywhere in Canada and the US. ------------------------------ From: sushilover111@hotmail.com (Rob) Subject: Problem With Distorted Fax Using VoIP Date: 2 Jan 2004 06:54:55 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi, I currently use a Cisco VoIP system that works very well for voice calls. We use CallManager 3.2.2c. We use 6608 gateways to access the PSTN via several PRI lines. These PRI's support both voice calls and fax machines to and from the PSTN. We use both 6624 and VG248 gateways to connect to fax machines. Voice calls to and from the PSTN work very well -- excellent quality, reliability, etc. Fax calls are sporadically problematic. Some faxes are received with part of a page "scrunched." That is, the entire page of the fax is present (and mostly readable), but an inch or two of the page will have been compressed on the received fax to a space much smaller -- a half inch or so. This distortion is very noticable. Usually you can still read the "compressed" text, but obviously the quality of that section is very poor. It doesn't appear to happen nearly all the time. Also it "seems" like it is more likely to happen from a caller outside of New England. We are located in Eastern Massachusetts, so I'm wondering if the problem occurs when calls travel via AT&T (before being delivered to us by Verizon) as opposed to calls that strictly stay on Verizon's network (as calls within New England are likely to do)?? Since the problem only occurs on 5-10% (just a guess) of faxes, identifying possible problem sources is difficult. Any ideas? Thanks - Rob. ------------------------------ From: David Subject: Re: Taxes on Phone Bills - Ouch Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 15:48:51 GMT wrote in message news:telecom23.1.16@telecom-digest.org: > Second line for basic charge of $8.95? Wow! > David wrote: >> I recently got ADSL service and looked at what it would take to keep >> my second phone line for fax use. >> Monthly fee: >> Line with local service: $8.95 >> Taxes: 911 Tax, Al Gore Tax, Spanish American War Tax, State Utility >> Tax,Sales Tax =$6.00. >> I dropped the second line because of 67% taxes. If not for that, I >> would have kept it. >> David I guess I should have stated, monthly fee = $8.95 + $6.00 = $14.95, if I do not make a single call. David ------------------------------ Subject: How Are Cellphone 911 Calls Handled? From: W Randolph Franklin Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:23:10 GMT How centralized is the processing of 911 calls from cellphones? Here's my story: My Verizon cellphone is 703-447-xxxx. Last November I was waiting at a stop light in Troy NY (local area code: 518) when an accident occurred a few feet from me. So I picked up my phone: 911 person: "What's your emergency?" me: "I'm reporting an accident at Hoosick and 8th." 911 person: "Huh?" me: "in Troy NY". 911 person: "OK, I'll transfer" me: "I'm reporting an accident at Hoosick and 8th." new 911 person: "Huh?" me: "in Troy NY". new 911 person: "OK, I'll transfer" me: "I'm reporting an accident at Hoosick and 8th." 3rd 911 person: "OK, we'll send someone. Was anyone hurt? ... What's your number" me: "Can't you get that from the ANI?" 3rd 911 person: "Not from a cellphone." Also does the other end lock the phone against further use after the call, or in cellphones is it the cellphone that does this? Thanks, /Wm. Randolph Franklin [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't think it is because it is a cell phone that they cannot get the number. I think it was because of the call being transferred around and the original calling number being lost in the switching as a result. I feel certain the first 911 person had your number, getting transferred to a second then a third person is what lost the number. I do know that when I lived in Chicago and listened to the police scanner, I would hear calls where the police officer would ask the dispatcher, 'what phone number did the call come from?' and the dispatcher would say 'do not have a number ... it came through the operator.' When people call the operator to report an emergency, the operator is *supposed to* relay the original calling number when she dials 312-787-0000 to report the matter. She is *supposed to* give that number to the dispatcher. But things do not always go as they should. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 22:44:11 -0600 (CST) From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Twenty Years Ago Today 1-Jan-2004, back on 1-Jan-1984 Pat: I assume that the final issue for v.22/2003 was #816, which was dated and time-stamped at: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:06:00 EST There was no mention by you as a Administrivia or such that this was indeed the last issue anywhere in the issue (as far as I can tell... maybe I overlooked something?) I do know that v.23 #1, the first issue for 2004 has been prepared and emailed, as I have received my copy. In previous "year-ends", you noted the final issue of the year/volume by reprinting Lauren Weinstein's "The Day the Bell System Died", sung to the tune of "The Day the Music Died/ Bye Bye Miss American Pie" WHICH, BTW ... reminds me... It was *** TWENTY YEARS AGO TODAY *** (1-Jan-2004) on 1-Jan-1984, that the Bell System *DID* "officially" die as a single unit. Divestiture was announced in press/news releases by AT&T when approved by the Court (Green) and DOJ in early 1982 (8-January-1982 to be exact). Preparations began throughout 1982 for the official breakup of Bell to take effect "officially" on 1-Jan-1984. And on 1-Jan-1983, exactly one earlier than the actual official/final date of 1-Jan-1984, there were some major steps taken in preparation for divestiture that took effect, but it wasn't actually until 1-Jan-1984 when divestiture officially happened. And even though the official date of divestiture taking effect was twenty years ago today, on 1-Jan-1984, it still took a number of years before many "joint Bell System" functions, such as Calling Cards, Operator Services, toll and tandem switch functions and operations, etc. could be separated where the divested BOCs and AT&T Communications (formerly AT&T Long Lines) were each providing their own separate facilities. Even today, there are *STILL* some remaining legacy vestiges of a BOC "sharing" from AT&T or vice-versa, in network operations. Other thing *HAVE* changed in the past twenty years ... What "was" Western Electric, the manufacturing and equipment arm of the (one) Bell Telephone System, with Bell Telephone Laboratories, was retained by AT&T in 1984. However, a little over ten years later, in the 1995/96 timeframe, AT&T spun-off its equipment and (Bell) Labs operations into Lucent, which itself has had its ups-and-downs over the past eight or so years. (BTW, AT&T did retain a "labs" unit for switched network operations, which was separated from "Bell Labs" shortly before spinning off what would be known as Lucent). I'm not going to attempt any predictions on the future, but I am reposting what I submitted to the Digest almost seven years ago, on Wednesday 8-Jan-1997, on the fifteenth anniversary of the *announcement* of "forthcoming" divestiture (originally on 8-Jan-1982). Ironically also on Thursday, 8-Jan-2004 (about a week away) will be the twenty-second anniversary of the *announcement* of forthcoming divestiture. This can also be found in the Archives in the back-issues: massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/back.issues/1997.volume.17/vol17.iss001-050 - - - - Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 10:52:50 -0800 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: This Date in Telecom History - Divestiture It was on this date (8-January) fifteen years ago in 1982, that the 'old' AT&T (as head of the "one Bell System") announced to the U.S. Dept. of (in)Justice, that it would divest itself of its (twenty-two) wholly-owned local Bell Operating (telephone) Companies. This consent decree was supposed end the federal antitrust lawsuit that DOJ filed against the Bell System in the mid-70's. Back in the mid-70's, DOJ wanted AT&T to divest itself of Western Electric and possibly Bell Labs. However, in the divestiture announced on 8-January-1982 (which took effect 1-January-1984), AT&T kept Western Electric and Bell Labs, but spun-off the twenty-two local BOC's into seven new regional Bell holding companies. More recently, AT&T spun-off Bell Labs and what used to be known as Western Electric, into Lucent. The count of twenty-two BOC's doesn't include Southern New England Telephone nor Cincinnati Bell, of which AT&T only held a minority share back in the old Bell System days. And at the time of divestiture, both 'went their own ways' as 'independent' telcos and were *not* placed under NYNEX nor Ameritech. However, the total of twenty-two BOC's *does* count C&P (Chesapeake and Potomac) *four* times, as: C & P - Maryland C & P - D.C. C & P - Virginia C & P - West Virginia BTW, Bell Canada is *not* counted in this total of twenty-two BOC's. Since the 1956 consent-decree, Bell Canada with Northern Electric became more and more separated from AT&T and Western Electric. By the early 1970's, AT&T only held about two percent of holdings of Bell Canada. Also in the early 1970's, Bell Northern Research was created by Bell Canada and Northern Electric as a uniquely Canadian R&D version similar to AT&T/WECo's Bell Labs. In 1975, AT&T/WECo and NECo/Bell-Canada officially terminated what remained of their license and service agreements. Northern Electric had become Northern Telecom; BNR and NT are presently referred to as Nortel. As for divestiture and competition ... it never seems to end. There are more entities out there than ever, involved as carriers, resellers, manufacturers, promoters, etc. of all forms of telecommunications. Also, there is the "Telecommunications Bill" of 1996, signed into law last year. But fifteen years ago, who would have thought that the "one Bell System" would have agreed to split itself up at all! - - - - AND, that is what I posted (almost) seven years ago on what was the fifteenth anniversary of the *announcement* of forthcoming (at that time) divestiture, which officially occurred on 1-January-1984, exactly twenty years ago today (today being Thursday 1-January-2004). I have removed the original sig-line that appeared in my original post. Some information in it is no longer valid (specifically the postal mailing address). The telephone contact info is still valid, the email address is now a shorter domain name as appears below. Happy New Year! Mark J. Cuccia mcuccia@tulane.edu New Orleans LA CSA (in the Land of DIXIE!) [TELECOM Digest Edtor's Note: It seems hard to believe that this Digest dates back to when there was *one* phone system -- the Bell System -- for almost everyone. In 1981-82, the Bell System ruled, there were no cell phones, very little 'enhanced' phone features like ESS, certainly no VOIP. Nor were there any other electronic publica- tions on the internet dealing with phone service except for TELECOM Digest. Now there are at least a dozen e-publications dealing with phone service (in a generic sense) on the net. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Chay Subject: Soft Channel Bank ? Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:30:32 -0500 I am looking for a software driven / defined Channel Bank. What I have in mind is a single board PC and backplane board that supports 12 or more PCI slots, into which you could then slot your FXO / FXS cards. Ideally this channel bank would then connect to a CTI softswitch via a T1 / E1 interface. If anyone know of or has heard of such a thing would you please let me know. Thanks. ------------------------------ From: howard@rumba.ee.ualberta.ca (Walt Howard) Subject: Re: California Plan Would Halt Trucks Remotely in Attack Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 04:45:40 UTC Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > By Daniel Sorid > SAN FRANCISCO, Jan 1 (Reuters) - Three years after a truck driver > slammed an 18-wheeler into California's state capitol building, > lawmakers are considering a plan to link trucks carrying hazardous > material to a satellite tracking system that would halt them if they > were used in a terror attack. > The trucks would be equipped with devices that would either cut off > fuel to the engine or turn on the brakes when activated. The proposed > bill would implement the country's most stringent safety regulations > for trucks carrying fuel and other hazardous materials, but it faces > fierce opposition from local trucking companies who complain that the > rules would make California truckers uncompetitive. > Assemblyman John Dutra, unhappy with the slow federal pace in > addressing the issue, introduced the bill in February 2003, and it > passed easily in the state assembly. Amid protest from industry > groups, the bill failed to get past the transportation committee in > the state senate, where it will be reconsidered this year. If they aren't real careful with this, they are going to make hijacking a truck as easy as crashing Microsoft Windows. It is very important that only a very few people be able to activate such a system, and that the system operator be able to guarantee this. The level of reliability required exceeds anything that the state of California is capable of doing now. It will also be interesting to see how they can make such a system resist being disabled by a disgruntled (for whatever reason) owner. Walt Howard /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign InterNet: whoward@ieee.org \ / No HTML in mail or news! BellNet: +1 780 492 6306 X / \ ------------------------------ From: Marcus Jervis Subject: Re: Barbers (was Re: 10-Digit) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 08:17:05 +0000 Dave Close wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Palmer House Hotel in Chicago and >> the Conrad Hilton Hotel both had (maybe still) multi-chair shops. The >> lead barber was also the cashier. Of course in addition to a haircut >> many guys went in the shop every day to also get a shave and a facial. >> Palmer House had twelve chairs I think; but it used to be that all >> guys would get a haircut once a week or every two weeks at least. No >> more. PAT] > I've been going to a four-chair shop in Fountain Valley California for > most of the last ten years. Fountain Valley is in Orange County, the > epitome of suburbia by some reconning. The owner just retired and sold > the shop last month, but it still has four chairs and stays busy. > However, what has disappeared are real haircuts. I'm told that using a > straight razor is essentially optional on the California license exam > and most barbers skip that. A few places seem to recognize the > problem, but solve it by pretending to shave my neck, not really doing > it. Since I can't see the process, I can only infer their action by > the lack of a smooth result. I feel like such an old-timer! Me too! I was born in 1952, and can remember going with my dad to a barber shop in the little San Joaquin valley town where we lived around 1956 or so. A real barber shop, with multiple chairs, and a guy named Doc with a waxed moustache who could give you a real close shave. Recently after growing a beard for a few months and seeing how old I looked when it came out all gray, I decided it would be fun to visit a barber shop and have a real old fashioned shave, where they mix up the hot lather in a little bowl and shave REALLY close ... not like I get with my plastic Bic razor and aerosol canned lather. I called around to inquire how much this would cost, and was incredulous when after calling shop after shop, not only couldn't I find anyone who would shave me, a lot of them weren't even sure what I was talking about. One of them said he'd seen a barber give a shave in a movie once (Remember The Untouchables movie, with Robert De Niro as Al Capone, starting his day with a close shave from his barber?). Finally I called what sounded like an old neighborhood barber shop in Wedgewood (Seattle). The guy said, sure, he could shave me. I got there and discovered this old neighborhood shop, the kind that years ago probably had stacks of Stag magazines and Field and Stream. Operating the shop was a Middle Eastern fellow and an Asian woman, who I think was his wife. Apparently he went to barber college overseas where they still taught straight razor technique. I imagined that he had bought the shop a few years earlier perhaps from a retiring barber. He did the whole routine with a very sharp razor and the hot lather. It was great! An amazingly close shave, unlike any I'd had before. The best part and most unbelievable was when I asked him the price. "Three dollars!" I thought I'd been transported back to the 1950s of my early childhood! I think I gave him seven dollars, and said I'd be back. Which reminds me of another story (I really am getting old). Barbering went into decline in the late 60s and early 70s because fewer men were getting regular haircuts. I remember once in the mid-60s I was at Red's Barber Shop in North City (also Seattle), and Red was complaining about the Beatles and their long hair. Then he launched into some fantasy about getting "one of those long-haired kids" in there, and how he'd like to shave all their hair off. I think one of the guys complained about not being able to "tell the boys from the girls these days". So Red's was an old fashioned barber shop, but this was just before the decline of barbering, and those that survived had to adapt. Sometime, maybe seven years later I was driving down 15th Ave NE in North City, and I looked at where Red's had stood. It was still there, only different. It was the early 70s, and the little shop was now covered with cedar shake shingles, and there was a fern hanging in the window. The sign was different too. It now said, "Red's Unisex Styling Salon". My, how things changed so fast back then. _________________________________________________________________ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 22:59:32 -0800 From: Dave Close Subject: Barbers (was 10-Digit Dialing) Date: 31 Dec 2003 23:52:08 -0800 Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Palmer House Hotel in Chicago and > the Conrad Hilton Hotel both had (maybe still) multi-chair shops. The > lead barber was also the cashier. Of course in addition to a haircut > many guys went in the shop every day to also get a shave and a facial. > Palmer House had twelve chairs I think; but it used to be that all > guys would get a haircut once a week or every two weeks at least. No > more. PAT] I've been going to a four-chair shop in Fountain Valley California for most of the last ten years. Fountain Valley is in Orange County, the epitome of suburbia by some reconning. The owner just retired and sold the shop last month, but it still has four chairs and stays busy. However, what has disappeared are real haircuts. I'm told that using a straight razor is essentially optional on the California license exam and most barbers skip that. A few places seem to recognize the problem, but solve it by pretending to shave my neck, not really doing it. Since I can't see the process, I can only infer their action by the lack of a smooth result. I feel like such an old-timer! -- Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 dhclose@alumni,caltech.edu The cost of silicon chips has been steady at about $1bn per acre for 40 years." --Gordon Moore ------------------------------ From: Joe@nospamcity.com Subject: Re: Then Benjamin Franklin Must be a Terrorist Too? Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 06:00:58 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications > But you see, its not just the sore losers here in the USA who hate > Bush, a lot of people in the rest of the world don't like him (or > his father) either. PAT] Hey, what about folks like me who voted for Bush and now feel like I elected Adolf Hitler? Trouble is, I can't stand any of the Democrats so it is time to stay home. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well a lot of people feel like yourself, but many are too sheepish to say how they now feel. 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: 620-330-6774 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 second 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 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #2 ****************************