From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Nov 4 16:48:24 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iA4LmOe18251; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:48:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:48:24 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200411042148.iA4LmOe18251@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 #531 TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:47:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 531 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: What Happened to Channel 1? (Fred Goldstein) Web Calls May Be More Popular Than Thought - Survey (Lisa Minter) Re: Lever Voting Machines - What's Wrong? (Jim Burks) Re: Lever Voting Machines - What's Wrong? (Joe Morris) Re: Lever Voting Machines - What's Wrong? (Shalom Septimus) Re: Last Laugh! was Re: Lever Voting Machines (Lisa Hancock) Re: How to Make the Right Call on Cell Plans (Lisa Hancock) Re: Semiconductors | The End of Moore's Law? (Rick Merrill) Your Experience With Vonage (Hector L. Gonzales) Re: New Electronic Check Law Sinks 'Float' (Isaiah Beard) 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, 04 Nov 2004 15:07:00 -0500 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: What Happened to Channel 1? In V23#259, markrobt@comcast.net (Mark Roberts) noted, >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But this area did not have cable TV >> (nor, for the most part) any over the air TV in 1954-55. Coffeyville >> had that *one* station (channel 4) over the air in that time period, > I don't see how that is possible with full-power stations on > channel 4 in Oklahoma City and in Kansas City. Low-power, > non-translator stations were not authorized until the mid-1980s. Oklahoma City and Kansas City are well out of range of Independence and Coffeyville. TV stations are protected to their Grade B contours. The FCC makes those contours available in the form of a MapInfo database, which anyone with MapInfo can download and see. So I did. There is no Channel 4 showing in the immediate area. From Independence proper, the protected reception channels are: 7 KOAM-TV Pittsburg (that's all) Plus there are construction permits in place for: 50 K54GC Independence Trinity Broadcasting translator (application, not CP) 59 K59HS Independence Tulsa Channel 19 LLC translator 34 KIDP-LP Independence Marcia T. Turner (low power TV) 20 K20HJ Independence Tulsa Channel 19 LLC translator 15 KDOR-TV Bartlesville Trinity Broadcasting digital TV KDOR's Channel 17 contour *just misses* Independence; the DT range seems a tiny bit larger. The Tulsa stations' contours tend to run out just about at Coffeyville. There is however no Channel 4 hitting Coffeyville or anywhere else nearby, for that matter. A few miles northwest of Independence, Moline County is one of those unusual places with *no* off-air TV coverage (Grade B) at all. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I *do not know for sure* they were on > channel 4 in the 1950's, or even that it was the same thing. I do > know in the 1950's I stayed for a few days with my cousins who (still > even today) live in Coffeyville. There was a 24 hour black and white > station which continuously showed weather dials and a clock; nothing > else. Neil McLain mentioned Coffeyville Junior College having something > on Channel 4 *today*. I _assumed_ it was the same thing. Thursday I am > going to call them and ask them (1) if they are on the air now, (2) if > they have a program guide (3) if they were on the air fifty years ago > doing continuous weather, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Subject: Web Calls May Be More Popular Than Thought - Survey Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:09:47 -0600 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=3Dstory&u=3D/nm/20041104/wr_nm/tele= coms_internet_voice_dc AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Making cheap telephone calls over the Internet could be much more popular among consumers than previously estimated, leaving incumbent telecom service providers highly vulnerable, a survey revealed on Thursday. Over 50 million western European consumers with a broadband Internet connection at home may use telephony software and special phones by 2008, British research group Analysys found. "The impact on traditional telephony providers' revenues could reach 6.4 billion euros in 2008, representing 13 percent of the residential fixed-line voice market," said analyst Stephen Sale, adding this was a worst case scenario drawn up for operators who want to know how badly they can be hit. Previous estimates forecast that up to five percent of revenues could be eaten away by Internet telephony. Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), as Internet telephony is officially known, has become popular among consumers in the last year thanks to free software from providers such as Skype. Two weeks ago, Luxemburg-based Skype said it had reached the milestone of one million simultaneous callers. Calls are usually made from computer to computer, although Skype sells a service where PC users can call normal phones at low per minute charges. Skype and rivals like Popular Telephony are working with hardware manufacturers like Siemens, Cisco and Plantronics to develop VoIP-enabled home phones that plug into broadband modems. This will open the way to call VoIP users -- at the moment this is not possible, because VoIP users have to be online if they want to be reached via the Internet. It is creating a critical mass for rapid adoption, Sale said. Most calls from home phones are made to a handful of friends and relatives, and it is easier to convince a small group to move to Internet telephony, than a large group. Operators are divided over what they should do. The chief executives of Deutsche Telekom and British Telecom, two of Europe's top phone carriers, differed in their views on how to counter the decline of their traditional fixed-line sales. British Telecom's Ben Verwaayen said the telecoms industry has to prepare for next-generation Internet networks. Kai-Uwe Ricke, meanwhile, saw his voice telephony business threatened mainly by mobile phones. *** 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, Reuters News Service. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: Jim Burks Subject: Re: Lever Voting Machines - What's Wrong? Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 11:48:04 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com TELECOM Digest Editor Noted in response to Lisa Hancock who wrote in message news:telecom23.528.1@telecom-digest.org: > Apparently the government got after the city and told them all > polling places had to be more handicapped accessible, so they had > to move out of SEK Senior Citizens. Another example of the ADA removing the rights (and conveniences) of the many to support a few, not by having them drive downtown, but having everyone. Jim Burks [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am not so sure I agree with you on this, Jim. In *my particular case* it is true that walking downtown to do whatever from my home is a bit of a hassle. And voting was at Memorial Hall, which is the north side of the downtown area. But our entire town is only 2 miles long by about 2 miles wide and most people if they drive just get in a car and get to wherever in two or three minutes anyway. Truly, at the old voting place at SEK Senior Citizens I could (when I felt sprightly) walk three blocks down the street, vote, and walk three blocks home (although the trip coming back is up a hill, and I was usually sort of tired after that walk. Now when they told me to the jailhouse to vote (in the primary election), that is six blocks away (the southern/eastern edge of the downtown area) so I walked, but called the cab to get back home. When I went to vote last Tuesday, I asked Jeff, the cab driver here, if he would mind waiting for me unless he got another call while I was inside. He did get another call so I walked over to the post office to dump my box and stopped at the Radio Shack *then* called Jeff to come back and pick me up there. But I can't complain *that much*; I ride around town when I go anywhere using a City of Independence Senior Citizens card, and get the ride for $1.50. (Usual cab fare anywhere in town is $3.00, city pays half of the fare for old people and disabled people.) Jeff's boss, the lady who owns the cab company says it sometimes is a bummer getting the city to pay off every month; city in turn blames the dead-beatery on the state of Kansas for not paying *them* on time. So the ADA is a typical beaurocratic thing; they take from you one place and give back in other ways. Argue about it if you want; like all public servants they don't give a damn either way. And the lady who owns the cab company says that *I* am one of the biggest 'coupon' riders they have. She points out that most people using the handicapped or old people coupons use them once or twice per *month* to go to Walmart or the beauty salon, etc. She said "you (meaning me, PAT) use them once or twice a *day*. Like this afternoon, after I get this issue of the Digest out, I will go to Doctor Epp's Animal Hospital with my cat, Callie to get her stitches out (she was 'fixed' a couple weeks ago.) They won't charge me for taking her in her case in the cab, and if Jeff is not busy he will wait there for me to come back home. So I do okay with ADA, but maybe its the southeast rural Kansas attitude working in my favor. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joe Morris Subject: Re: Lever Voting Machines - What's Wrong? Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:32:19 UTC Organization: The MITRE Organization hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) writes: > Is there a reason mechanical machines are so out of favor? Sure, they > would require maintenance and setup and there is a cost to that, but > that is only twice a year. If the machines were in production, costs > would be lower. A modern generation would probably have newer > mechanical engineering and lighter better wearing gears. One reason is voting integrity. I grew up in Louisiana, a state where political corruption is considered to be an art form. I'll admit that the details are a bit fuzzy in my memory, but one news story I recall from the 1950s was a demonstration given to the Legislature of how easy it was for a person to rig a mechanical voting machine *during the voting*. A voting machine was set up as if for an election, and (without curtains) a "voter" went into it, then used a (coat hanger?) to manipulate the linkages behind the level panel. In a real election he would have been behind curtains and his actions not visible to the election officials. Of course, this being Louisiana no reforms came out of the demonstration, and I suspect that lots of legislators were taking notes -- for their political operatives' benefit so that they could rig the machines in their districts. Joe Morris [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They caught some guy doing something similar in Chicago years ago. He was employed by the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners (thus had a right to be in the warehouse where the machines are/were kept unsupervised) and he loosened a few screws and attached some wires in the back of several machines to rig them that no matter what the person chose to vote, it would get recorded as a straight Democratic vote. It was found out when one of the machines had a crank handle which got stuck and would not turn (after his tampering with it.) Mayor Daley claimed to be (and acted) furious when he found that out, but you know how that goes. Police had quite an investigation into it; found several of the voting machines had been tampered with in that way. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Shalom Septimus Subject: Re: Lever Voting Machines - What's Wrong? Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:59:52 -0500 Reply-To: druggist@pobox.com On 2 Nov 2004 19:47:13 -0800, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) wrote: > Another advtg is that you enter the machine with an open curtain, pull > a master lever to close it and open the machine to accept your votes, > then pull the master again to record your final votes and open the > curtain. The curtains are large and fully enclosed -- it appears that > modern electronic machines have very tiny curtains or just a small > divider, limiting voter privacy. I, too, remember voting on those old machines, and I loved them. New York City bought a load of them in 1960, and are using them to this day. Now I live in New Jersey, and the electronic machines we have here just don't have the same feel. Yes, the ultimate result is the same, but pushing the little red button and hearing a "beep" doesn't make you feel like anything of moment had taken place, whereas on those old beasts, when you pulled that huge lever, the resounding "Ka-Chonk!" really gave you a feeling of accomplishment: by $DEITY, you knew you'd voted. But there's been one modification on many of these machines over the past decade: the big lever doesn't close the curtains anymore. When I asked why, they said that too many people didn't realise that it also recorded the vote: as a result, they'd close the curtain, then decide they had to ask the attendant a question and open it again. Oops, you just recorded a blank ballot. Now the curtains stay closed, and you push your way between them, or slide them open and closed by hand. I would guess that the mechanical design of these machines was borrowed from railroad engineering: the interlocks that prevent you for voting for two presidents, or four judges when only three seats were available, are much the same as the interlocks in the switching plant preventing you from lining a switch until the associated signal is clear, or setting up impossible routes, or routes that would have trains in opposite direction on the same track, etc. Those interlockings were entirely mechanical for many years, although it's mostly computerized today on the Class I railroads like Union Pacific. See _Risks Digest_ 9:58 http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/9.58.html for a simple setup, and remember that in yards or along busy main lines they could be much more complicated. Shalom ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Last Laugh! was Re: Lever Voting Machines - What's Wrong? Date: 4 Nov 2004 12:24:23 -0800 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's note: Believe me, if it ever came to light > here that a person dead and buried had not been removed from the > rolls and a vote had been cast in that person's name, the stink > would be terrible all over town. As mentioned, I received a great many phone calls to go out and vote. This included three on election day specifically requesting a deceased relative to go out and vote. One was a human message and they left a return phone number. I was so annoyed at the flood of calls -- for someone who was not on the voting register (I doubled checked) -- that I wanted to let these solicitors have it. They offered to come down and drive the person to vote. I was tempted to ask them to come down and send them off to the cemetery. (I didn't.) I did call them back and asked if they were sure if the person was registered and qualified to vote. At first the person insisted yes, but then she said she'd check on it. She called me back and explained that their list was based on people who had voted in the past but hadn't voted lately -- it was NOT the official voter rolls. They get the list from sitting at the polls and seeing who voted; they cannot get access to the official list. Her boss just told her there would be people on the list who might be deceased or had moved. With that I let the issue go. I was annoyed that previous solicitors insisted their list was official and accurate. I am still glad the whole thing is over. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They do that in Chicago, also. The precinct captain (the go-fer in your neighborhood who works for the alderman) has the duty of driving a van around to get all the old people and take them to the polls and show them how to vote, etc. On those phone calls you received, did they ask you to please vote a straight Democratic ticket? In Chicago, the precinct captain would tell the old people "all you have to do is pull lever 6" (or whichever lever did the straight ticket thing). Then you can get back on the bus and we will stop to get your ice cream (or beer or a pack of cigarettes, whatever) on the way back to the nursing home. They've had some hassles in the past few years with a Reublican administration yet a Democratic 'machine' in Chicago. People are divided; they want to support the president, yet they don't want to double cross the local precinct captain either. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: How to Make The Right Call On Cell Plans Date: 4 Nov 2004 12:58:01 -0800 John Levine wrote > It was at least as much due to the Bell breakup. Before that, long > distance was deliberately overpriced to subsidize local service, on > the theory that it was an expensive luxury. (Well, it was back in > 1920.) Prices would have dropped a lot anyway, but a big chunk of the > drop is due to the access charges assessed on LD calls. They used to > be on the order of 10 cents/min or more, now in most places they're > just a penny or two. I used a lot of long distance in the late 1970s and I saw the price drops. On some short haul interstate calls at night, the cost could be only 5 cents per minute; less than 10 cent 'access charge' mentioned above. Given the drop in rates, I wonder if that cross- subsidy charge was still in effect. What was in effect was cross subsidy nationally -- a "costly" call (ie over mountains) cost the customer no more than a "cheap" call (ie a direct high capacity microwave channel). Interstate long distance rates were uniform nationwide and varied by mileage. The cost and setup for a given mileage could vary dramatically -- perhaps two wholly different companies (Bell and an Independent) or the same company (one Bell company serving both states). The network was very mixed in those days; some calls were carried by AT&T Long Lines, some by the Bell Company. Many calls could be routed multiple ways depending on traffic, so there was no fixed assignment. Also, I don't think AT&T had its own operators handling domestic calls; rather, all that work was done by the local company. However, that concept was changing. The cheap rates were for dailed direct calls only. Operator handled calls/pay phone cost more. At the time IIRC distant directory assistance was still free, but I suspect without divesture that would've gone away. At the time of divesture, there was considerable equipment used for both local and toll service that it was very hard to split it up for ownership between the Baby Bells and AT&T. They just arbitrarily ran colored tape. (See Mountain Bell history). There were also certain economies of scale lost because of divesture and this drove up costs. After divesture, I do not recall a big drop in costs for a simple user. I think what happened was that higher volume users started to get a break, as did longer distance (ie coast to coast). I recall the rate step schedule was shrinking -- heading toward a single rate/minute for long distance. Also, to get discounts, one had to join a plan which usually had a separate monthly fee. For high volume callers this would pay off, but a low volume caller would lose. Also, carriers constantly changed their plans and discontinuing the old one without notice. Customers who didn't scrutinize their bills carefully (who has time to do that?) would end up paying full retail unknowingly until they got around to calling and making a change. (Banks pull the same crap with Cert Dep interest). So, if you were paying $100/month calling coast-to-coast, you could save serious money. If you were paying $10/month calling 50 miles away you essentially did not. I suspect most residential LD traffic was more shorthaul than long haul. >> Digital phones require more towers than analog. Cell phone companies >> originally advertised digital as being superior quality, but it is >> actually superior for them, not for us users. > Not really. Digital in the 800 MHz AMPS band has about the same range > as analog. ... As I understand it, digital signals are more sensitive to building and geographic obstructions. People who had analog phones that worked fine found that their digital phones failed in the same places. A major newspaper story had a big map of digital dead spots that the carriers were working to resolve by building more towers appropriate to digital transmission and terrain; in my area at least the problems seem to have been fixed (no more negative publicity). This is a similar problem occuring in public safety radios that have upgraded from analog to digital -- the cops and firemen are finding dead spots. There's been a lot of negative publicity that is an ongoing story today, at least in my area in several jurisdictions. (There was even something in the paper today about a frequency shift). ------------------------------ From: Rick Merrill Subject: Re: Semiconductors | The End of Moore's Law? Organization: Comcast Online Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:55:32 GMT > The situation hadn't changed, it's difficult, if not impossible to > manage what you don't understand. Are you sure that doesn't make it EASIER to "manage!"? ------------------------------ From: Hector L. Gonzalez Sent: Thu, Nov 04, 2004 9:21:00 GMT Subject: Your Experience With Vonage Mr. Townson, Hello Mr. Townson, I'm interested in the Vonage VOIP service. I saw that you had some problems with erroneous caller ID numbers according to the forum. Question!! Have you had anymore similar experiences such as no caller ID from certain carriers? Has your called party experienced any missing caller ID from your vonage service? Thanks, Hector L. Gonzalez 972.728.2648 Vnet 753-2648 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've had no serious problems with Vonage. Vonage claims (for caller ID) they 'give out what is given to them by the various telcos'. Bear in mind, I am sort of biased on Vonage: I do not pay for the service; I go with the 'next month free' coupons (and now it is two months free during a promotion). So I guess I get what I pay for. Over all the service is decent. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Isaiah Beard Subject: Re: New Electronic Check Law Sinks 'Float' Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:44:25 -0500 DevilsPGD wrote: > I use Visa for the opposite reason -- Lack of paper means I can > reverse any charge at a whim, and it's up to the merchant to produce a > signed paper or they'll eat the charges. True, however, things like auto finance companies, mortgage companies, student loan servicers, and courts where things like parking or traffic tickets are owed have recourse of their own if a payment can't be tracked. :) So, I'd much prefer to have proof of payment in those cases than not. E-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is where when you use a credit card to pay a bill you want to keep track of the authorization number the merchant got when he sold you whatever. That happened to me once with my good friends, Southwestern Bell. They told me they did not get a payment, I said they did. They said "well you have to send us proof or get cut off". I produced the sales authorization number they had been given when they first took my card as payment, and told them "there, you see you got paid. Now straighten it out with VISA who authorized it, and here is a copy of my bill showing where you got the money." They were most perturbed by that remark, but they agreed they had gotten the money; they just did not know what they had done with it or where they applied it, which was not my fault. 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 ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #531 ******************************