From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Dec 15 03:08:13 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iBF88D509373; Wed, 15 Dec 2004 03:08:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 03:08:13 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200412150808.iBF88D509373@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 #599 TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 Dec 2004 03:08:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 599 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Banks Warned Against On-Line Fraud Dangers (Lisa Minter) Re: Will the Sprint/Nextel Merger Bring the End of Motorola? (Joseph) Re: Calling Card Needed -- Short Interaction Sequence (Joseph) AT&T Prepaid Penalizes Older Customers? (Jesse) Re: Airborne Cell-Phone Ban Likely to Remain For Now (Clark W. Griswold) Re: Airborne Cell-Phone Ban Likely to Remain (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: Airborne Cell-Phone Ban Likely to Remain For Now (Steve Sobol) Re: Is 'Transitional Fair Use' The Wave Of The Future? (Barry Margolin) Re: What Exactly Did "Telstar" Do? (AES/newspost) Re: What Exactly Did "Telstar" Do? (Howard Eisenhauer) Re: Software Should Not Be Copyrighted -- Lawsuit (Steve Sobol) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lisa Minter Subject: Banks Warned Against On-Line Fraud Dangers Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:49:53 EST By Mark Felsenthal WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. banks should use more than a single password to identify on-line customers to prevent fraud, bank regulators said on Tuesday in recommendations that underscore growing concern about theft over the Internet. "Financial institutions' wider adoption of electronic payment systems, as well as the increasing number of customers using these services, have produced greater opportunities for electronic fraud," the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said in a study, "Putting an End to Account-Hijacking Identity Theft." The unauthorized use of personal information to break into bank accounts, which regulators refer to as account hijacking, is one of the fastest growing forms of electronic fraud, regulators said. Almost 2 million Internet users experienced fraud of this type in the 12 months ending in April 2004, the agency said. Fraud perpetrators get bank customers' personal information by cracking computer codes, stealing documents, looking over people's shoulders, or getting bank employees to provide the data, the regulator said. Thieves also trick customers into providing personal data by posing as an official source -- a practice known as "phishing." Internet companies, including EarthLink Inc., Microsoft Corp. and America Online Inc. and law-enforcement agencies said last week they will work together to track down online scam artists who pretend to be banks and other legitimate businesses in "phishing" attacks. Regulatory agency FDIC said banks should rely on multiple tests to identify an on-line customer. "The main problem with single-factor identification is that passwords, the most commonly used factor, are often easy to steal, guess, or crack and, once a password is compromised, the thief has the same access rights as the legitimate user," the agency said. Institutions should also invest in software that scans Web sites for indications banks or their customers are the targets of information thieves, the agency said. 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 . 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 Reuters News Service. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Will the Sprint/Nextel Merger Bring the End of Motorola? Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:04:50 -0800 Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 07:02:43 -0500, John Stahl wrote: > Just like the phrase often heard: "The check's in the mail." The oft > used of late in most every merger and/or acquisition, phrase has been: > "This acquisition or merger will have absolutely no effect on operations." > This phrase has been shown to be, in almost every case, untrue as the > reports all indicate! Well, considering that iDen phones which is what Nextel/Mike uses is only a fraction of the phones that Motorola manufactures and that they manufacture for TDMA, GSM and CDMA technologies as well I think your "sky is falling" scenario is a little premature. Even now Motorola is or was the second largest handset manufacturer in the world. > As a side note, one might also wonder as with the recent announcement > from Cingular that quite a large number of (redundant?) AT&T Wireless > workers will be let go, how many Nextel workers will be getting pink > slips from Sprint? And why do you assume that all the "pink slips" will land at Nextel? Some Sprint folks may find their positions redundant also. ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Calling Card Needed -- Short Interaction Sequence Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:07:26 -0800 Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com On 14 Dec 2004 13:46:25 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: > Most of these guys don't have supervision to tell when the second call > answers. They cannot tell if the call DOES answer. Most of them wait > a predetermined time (thirty seconds is common) and if the call has > not terminated, assume it's begin. Why do you assume that "most of these guys don't have supervision?" AFAIK most of the LD operators have answer supervision these days. ------------------------------ From: Jesse Subject: AT&T Prepaid Penalizes Older Customers? Date: 14 Dec 2004 21:18:02 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com http://www.attwireless.com/personal/free2go/rates.html It seems that AT&T prepaid wireless has two per-minute-charges for local calls. New customers are charged $0.25 a minute, and customers who activated BEFORE 3/31/04 are charged $0.50 a minute. What's the reasoning behind this? Why would they charge older customer more? It seems this change took place before the merge with Cingular, and from looking over my records, it seems my accumulated minutes started being drained at around that time (3/31/04 -- my rate before the change was $0.30 a minute, IICR). This doesn't seem kosher, and I think I'll contact the Better Business Bureau if I can't get my rates switched. ------------------------------ From: Clark W. Griswold, Jr. Subject: Re: USATODAY.com - Airborne Cell-Phone Ban Likely to Remain For Now Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:03:46 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com AES/newspost wrote: > I've read news stories in the past about cellphone jammers or blockers > for use in restaurants, theaters, library reading rooms, etc. > Anyone have any leads on portable, battery-powered versions? I share your implied problem with inconsiderate cell users. However, based on your address, you should know that these devices are illegal in the US. While the odds of getting caught using them are quite small, especially if used in a mobile situation (ie, in your pocket), people have been prosecuted in other countries (a dealer in Scotland & a church in Mexico). There are reports of low power devices that emulate a cell base station, but do not connect to any network. These devices in effect fool the phone into staying quiet as they do not pass calls in or out. While the legality of these from a tranmission power point is possibly in a gray area, I'm sure the FCC could come up with charges based on interference with a licensed service. The civil consequences would also be considerable should someone decide to argue that the device interfered with a health or safety critical call. That said, a Google search on "cell jammer" will identify a large number of companies selling such devices. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:50:39 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Re: USATODAY.com - Airborne Cell-Phone Ban Likely to Remain AES/newspost wrote regarding Re: USATODAY.com Airborne Cell-Phone Ban Likely to Remain For Now on Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:05:25 -0800: > In article , Marcus Didius Falco > wrote: >> Airlines, rival wireless companies and aircraft maker Boeing are >> salivating at the prospect of more in-flight communications services, >> including high-speed Internet, or broadband, to meet travelers' >> demands. >> "Today the high cost of wireless when flying has kept the users low," >> telecommunications analyst Jeff Kagan said. "But once the cost drops >> or once you can use your own phone on board, the quiet air cabin may >> be a thing of the past." >> Kagan, who does a lot of traveling, said he loves and hates the idea >> of making and receiving calls during a flight. >> "We should be very careful before opening this up," he said. "Just >> think how annoying it is to hear the person behind you shouting to his >> neighbor when you are trying to work or read or sleep." > I've read news stories in the past about cellphone jammers or blockers > for use in restaurants, theaters, library reading rooms, etc. > Anyone have any leads on portable, battery-powered versions? Illegal in the US and Canada. There will probably be MAJOR penalties for using such high-powered devices on aircraft. There are reports that some hotels have been importing them from countries where they are legal (such as Israel and Taiwan), which is possibly why you may have trouble using your cell phone in some hotels. These tend to be hotels that have high charges for using the land-line phones in their rooms. However, no one has proved this, and there are no reports of anyone using a signal-strength meter to scan the hotels in question. ------------------------------ From: Steve Sobol Subject: Re: USATODAY.com - Airborne Cell-Phone Ban Likely to Remain For Now Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:09:02 -0800 Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com AES/newspost wrote: > I've read news stories in the past about cellphone jammers or blockers > for use in restaurants, theaters, library reading rooms, etc. > Anyone have any leads on portable, battery-powered versions? Sure, but I'm not giving them to you. Cellphone jammers are illegal in the US. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Is 'Transitional Fair Use' The Wave Of The Future? Organization: Symantec Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:42:54 -0500 In article , John Bartley wrote: >> In article , Monty Solomon >> wrote: >>> A middle-level executive at Time Warner has approached several cable >>> companies and broached the idea of restricting the ability of >>> customers who use those company's Digital Video Recorders to record >>> several popular Time Warner TV programs. > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, in comp.dcom.telecom Barry Margolin > wrote: >> Sounds like another good reason to support standalone DVRs, like >> ReplayTV and TiVo, rather than cableco-supplied DVR services. > Sadly, this is not an adequate solution. Unless you record a program > off t o tape, disc or PC media, programs can be deleted through the > capabilities of existing, standalone equipment. > TiVo and ReplayTV have already demonstrated their ability to change > the programming on DVRs without the consent of the user, as has DISH > Network. Unless the user hacks the hardware and its current code to > prevent it, the DVR manufacturer can slipstream the ability to do > exactly what Time Warner wants into a user's DVR. Sure, they *can* reprogram our systems. But I think these vendors that are independent of the content providers and distributors are less likely to do so. Yes, I know they've made some concessions to content providers (ReplayTV removed Internet Video Sharing and Commercial Advance from their newest DVR models, although they didn't reprogram the older models that already had these features, and hackers discovered how to add them back to the new models). But I think they would be shooting themselves in the feet if they disabled some of the basic functionality of the devices. Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: What Exactly Did "Telstar" Do? Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:56:22 -0800 In article , Charles G Gray wrote: > Communications were established between Jet Propulsion Laboratories > (JPL) in Goldstone, CA and Bell Laboratories at Holmdel, NJ. JPL > used a 26 meter parabolic dish antenna with 10 Kw transmit > power. Bell Labs used a horn reflector with a 6 x 6 meter aperture. The excruciating careful calibrations of receiver noise temperature which Bell Labs carried on this antenna and the attached microwave solid-state maser preamplifier revealed that the system had about 3 degrees K of unexplained system noise or equivalent input noise temperature coming into the antenna, out of a total system input noise temperature of about 20 K when looking at the zenith. Penzias and Wilson won the Nobel Prize in Physics a few years later for using the Holmdel horn antenna and receiver to show that this noise, which appeared to come from everywhere in the sky as a uniform radiation bath, represented the isotropic 3 K background radiation left over from the original "Big Bang" creation of the universe. ------------------------------ From: Howard Eisenhauer Subject: Re: What Exactly Did "Telstar" Do? Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 03:32:53 GMT Back when I was in school we toured an early commercial ground station, 90' something dish inside a dome. I should have known better but as we walked through the airlock I looked up & saw a bunch of steel roof rafters, then a moments vertigo as I noticed they were curved, then- Holy S___! THAT THINGS BIG!! It was designed before geosync was a reality, so it originaly had the capability to track the Telstar birds as they came over the horizon. I'm not sure why but once it was pointed at one of the Intelsats(?) the operator clamped some locks on the track and/or ring gear to keep it locked in place. Too bad, I would have loved to see it moveing :(. Howard On 13 Dec 2004 11:12:28 -0800, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > In the 1960s, the Bell System launche d a pioneer communications > satellite known as Telstar. The event had great fanfare. People > would be told when and where to look for the tiny dot of light passing > in the night sky, and go out to see it. Models of it appeared in > museums. > While there are generalities written about it, I was curious about > some day to day technical details. > I am curious as to what exactly did Telstar do, once they got it up > and running. That is, did it handle domestic voice long distance > calls? Overseas calls? Telegraph/ data signals? Television > programs, either domestic or overseas? Did it have an orbit fixed > above one point of the earth or its own moving orbit? > How was Telstar controlled? That is, I presume any call handled via > Telstar could also be handled by more conventional means, and backup > was necessary in case Telstar wasn't working for some reason. Did > engineers manually route transmissions and babysit them? > Was Telstar a production unit, expected to be a workaday medium, or > just an experiment to see how satellite communications would work? > (During overseas calls of the 1930s, engineers did have to monitor > every call in progress and adjust frequencies and even bands > (shortwave or longwave) to compensate for atmospheric conditions > affecting the radio. There were advantages and disadvantages for both > shortwave and longwave and both were used. I don't think these were > ever resolved until undersea cables came into use.) > How long did Telstar stay in service? I recall a Telstar II replacing > it, but then the mystiq of satellites waned. Thanks. > [public replies please] ------------------------------ From: Steve Sobol Subject: Re: Software Should Not Be Copyrighted -- Lawsuit Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:39:49 -0800 Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com Lisa Minter wrote: > By Andy Sullivan > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - > Computer software should not be protected by copyright laws designed > for music, literature and other creative works, according to a lawsuit > filed in a U.S. court in San Francisco. > Intellectual-property consultant Greg Aharonian hopes to convince the > court that software makers can protect their products adequately > through patents No. Patents are absolutely NOT the proper way to go. Copyrights are. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. ------------------------------ 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 #599 ******************************