From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Feb 20 18:03:05 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i1KN35d24177; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 18:03:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 18:03:05 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200402202303.i1KN35d24177@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 #84 TELECOM Digest Fri, 20 Feb 2004 18:03:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 84 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Distractions While Driving, And Not Just Cell Phones (L. Jones) Re: Distractions While Driving, And Not Just Cell Phones (Novosielski) Re: Distractions While Driving, And Not Just Cell Phones (D Aspinwall) Re: Distractions While Driving, And Not Just Cell Phones (Joel Hoffman) Re: Distractions While Driving, And Not Just Cell Phones (Joe Wineburgh) Re: Distractions While Driving, And Not Just Cell Phones (Andrew Bell) Re: Distractions While Driving, And Not Just Cell Phones (Lisa Minter) Re: Money, Money, was Re: Internet Phones, 911 Systems Clash (Tony P.) Re: Symbol Added to Morse Code (Tony P.) Pros & Cons of Digital Epabx Compare to Hybrid Epabx (sonal) Use a Multiline Phone in a Single-line Jack (Jameson) Reliable Means of Determining LEC For Phone Number? (Betty Cockrell) Re: Internet Phones, 911 Could Clash (Alan Burkitt-Gray) Re: Internet Phones, 911 Could Clash (Dave Garland) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lawrence.jones@ugsplm.com Subject: Re: Distractions While Driving -- And Not Just Cell Phones Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:16:16 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Could someone please tell me in a > convincing way what is the difference between a motorist who exercises > reasonable caution most of the time but talks on a cell phone and a > police officer chasing someone at 100 miles per hour on a busy highway > while talking into a microphone on a police radio? Both of them are > 'distracted' are they not? PAT] Not in the same way. The cell phone user is likely concentrating on the conversation and driving on autopilot. The officer, on the other hand, is likely concentrating on the driving and talking into the radio (*not* carrying on a conversation) on autopilot. The officer is almost certainly a much better trained driver, too. Numerous studies have shown that talking on a phone is far more distracting than listening to the radio, putting on nail polish, or even having a conversation with someone *in* the car. As far as I know, no one knows for sure *why* that is, but my guess is that it has a lot to do with how most of us have learned to block out outside distractions while talking on the phone. -Larry Jones That's the problem with nature. Something's always stinging you or oozing mucus on you. -- Calvin ------------------------------ From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Distractions While Driving -- And Not Just Cell Phones Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:02:32 GMT Doug Aspinwall wrote: > New York is currently the only state to ban hand-held cell phones > while driving without using a hands-free device. Several states have > tried to pass a similar ban for the general public, but they have not > passed. New Jersey passed such a bill recently, and it was signed into law. I believe it takes effect July 1. It is only a secondary offense; an officer cannot stop you merely for using a phone handset, if you're doing nothing else wrong. However, if you are stopped for another infraction the officer can add the cellphone violation to whatever else they write you up for. =Gary ------------------------------ From: Doug Aspinwall Subject: Re: Distractions While Driving -- And Not Just Cell Phones Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 06:35:26 -0500 Organization: None whatsoever (just ask my wife) Doug Aspinwall wrote in message news:telecom23.82.6@telecom-digest.org: > Check out www.cellular-news.com/car_bans/ > New York is currently the only state to ban hand-held cell phones > while driving without using a hands-free device. Several states have > tried to pass a similar ban for the general public, but they have not > passed. > Several states have bans for bus drivers and/or school bus drivers. > Doug Aspinwall > Near Dover, DE (the only state capital without a commercial airport) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Could someone please tell me in a > convincing way what is the difference between a motorist who exercises > reasonable caution most of the time but talks on a cell phone and a > police officer chasing someone at 100 miles per hour on a busy highway > while talking into a microphone on a police radio? Both of them are > 'distracted' are they not? PAT] Police officers are trained to drive and communicate simultaneously. The ordinary driver is not. Perhaps that should be a requirement of obtaining a driver's license. Just might save some lives. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:39:18 GMT From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Distractions While Driving -- And Not Just Cell Phones Organization: Excelsior Computer Services > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Could someone please tell me in a > convincing way what is the difference between a motorist who exercises > reasonable caution most of the time but talks on a cell phone and a > police officer chasing someone at 100 miles per hour on a busy highway > while talking into a microphone on a police radio? Both of them are > 'distracted' are they not? PAT] The difference is obvious: The police officer going 100 MPH can give a ticket to the motorist with the cell phone, but not vice versa ... ------------------------------ From: Joe Wineburgh Subject: Re: Distractions While Driving -- And Not Just Cell Phones Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:33:27 -0500 Thought I heard some rumblings recently about this in NJ as well; As of 1/20/04 it is now illegal in NJ, technically only as a 'secondary' offense, but we all know how that works, don't we? #JOE http://www.nj.gov/cgi-bin/governor/njnewsline/view_article.pl?id=1712 Governor Signs Law Banning Hand-Held Cell Phones While Driving Building A Better New Jersey: Making Roads Safer (RIDGEFIELD)-Governor James E. McGreevey signed legislation today that bans the use of hand-held cell phones while operating a moving vehicle. The new law will continue the Governor's efforts to "Build a Better New Jersey" by making New Jersey highways safer. "Cell phones have become inescapable," said McGreevey. "They are part of our daily lives. This ban will not threaten that. Like any other instrument that could be dangerous, cell phones must be used responsibly. Requiring drivers to keep both hands on the wheel will save lives" The bill allows the use of wireless telephones equipped for hands-free operation in moving vehicles, provided the placement of those hands-free telephones does not interfere with the operation of federally required equipment on the vehicles, such as air bags. Drivers may use a hand-held telephone in a moving motor vehicle only if: (1) They have reason to fear for their lives or safety, or believe that a criminal act may be perpetrated against them or another person requiring the use of the wireless telephone while the car is moving; or (2) To report a fire, traffic accident, serious road hazard or medical or hazardous materials emergency, or to report a person who is driving in a reckless, careless or otherwise unsafe manner or who appears to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs. "Enactment of this law will end the confusion many motorists face while driving through our state, never knowing which towns prohibit the use of hand-held cell phones while driving," said Assemblyman Douglas H. Fisher (D-Cumberland). "We now have a uniform law that will require drivers to minimize distractions while driving, making our roads safer." Enforcement of the law by State or local law enforcement officers is to be accomplished only as a secondary action when the driver has been pulled over for a traffic violation or another offense. The penalties for violating the provision may range from $100 to $250. No motor vehicle points or automobile insurance eligibility points would be assessed for a violation of this law. Last year, a Quinnipiac University poll showed New Jersey's voters 85 percent of New Jersey's voters overwhelmingly favor a hand-held cell phone ban. Even those who used cell phones said drivers should keep their hands on the wheel. Earlier today, the Governor signed "Florence's Law" which lowers the blood alcohol content from 0.10 to 0.08 percent and "Michael's Law" which requires a person who commits a third or subsequent DWI offense to serve a 180-day prison term in a county jail or workhouse. ------------------------------ From: Andrew Bell [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Could someone please tell me in a > convincing way what is the difference between a motorist who exercises > reasonable caution most of the time but talks on a cell phone and a > police officer chasing someone at 100 miles per hour on a busy highway > while talking into a microphone on a police radio? Both of them are > 'distracted' are they not? PAT] Two reasons, I think. A - the police officer is presumably talking about the task at hand (which is driving), rather than something completely unrelated. B - police (or taxi, bus, ham, whatever) radios are not held to the ear. Don't ask me to explain it, but there just seems to be something about holding a phone to your ear that causes (a lot of) people to partition themselves mentally. They focus their attention on the phone call, and let the subconscious mind drive. I *know* I do this - that's why I won't use a handheld and drive. I admit, it took a close call for me to recognize this pattern, but I don't seem to have the same problem when using a handsfree unit. Andrew ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter Subject: Re: Money, Money, was Re: Internet Phones, 911 Systems Could Clash Organization: ATCC Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 03:51:36 GMT In article , dannyb@panix.com says: > In Monty Solomon > writes: >> ST. PAUL (AP) -- The rising popularity of Internet telephones could >> undermine the finances of the state's 911 systems while endangering >> some users because the new technology doesn't alway mesh with the old >> emergency system. >> So-called Internet telephony's popularity worries Jim Beutelspacher, >> manager of the statewide 911 program for the Department of Public >> Safety, because it doesn't pay a 40-cent-per-month tax for each new >> subscriber. > Aside from the bigger issue that "911 centers" should (in my opinion, > that is -- rational folk can disagree with this a bit) be supported > the same way other government business is, namely through the general > tax levy, there's a very specific point here: > In audit after audit in NYS (and others, although being > from NY it's the one I'm most familiar with) it turns > out that any so-called "911 surcharge" is simply absorbed > into the general gov't revenue/expense stream It's not just in NYS -- happens here in RI too. Everything rolls right into the general fund. And who holds the purse strings -- our esteemed legislators of course. I invite you to go to http://www.projo.com and see who's had their hand in the cookie jar. ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Symbol Added to Morse Code Organization: ATCC Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 04:05:49 GMT In article , Joe_Wineburgh@cable.comcast.com says: > http://www.cjonline.com/stories/021704/pag_morsecode.shtml > The Associated Press > Morse code is entering the 21st century -- or at least the late 20th. > The 160-year-old communication system now has a new character to > denote the "@" symbol used in e-mail addresses. > In December, the International Telecommunications Union, which > oversees the entire frequency spectrum, from amateur radio to > satellites, voted to add the new character. > The new sign, which will be known as a "commat," consists of the > signals for "A" (dot-dash) and "C" (dash-dot-dash-dot), with no space > between them. Ahem -- that's dit-dah dah-dit-dah-dit -- another amateur radio prosign to remember. Thing is AT is dit-dah dah, several elements shorter than the new prosign. I hate it when that happens. kd1s - an extra who had to do the 20WPM code damn it. ------------------------------ From: son_tha@yahoo.com (sonal) Subject: Pros & Cons of Digital Epabx Compare to Hybrid Epabx Date: 20 Feb 2004 02:59:21 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hello, I want to buy new Epabx system for my office. I need maximum 40 extension & KTS. Can any one please tell me pros & cons of Digital Epabx compare to Hybrid Epabx. At present I have quote for Karel 40, Panasonic 1232, Matrix Eternity & Symense 48i. Which is advisable? I would appreciate your answer. Thanks, Sonal Thakker ------------------------------ From: jameson_ray@comcast.net (Jameson) Subject: Use a Multiline Phone in a Single-Line Jack Date: 20 Feb 2004 06:45:52 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hi Everyone, I was just given three GE 2-9405C phones. After doing some online research, I found that they must have two lines connected in one jack on the back to operate. They will not just operate on a single line (which is true, as I have tried it on the single-line jacks in my house). Because we don't have two phone lines, I would like to know if anyone has an idea on a way to make a custom cable, or buy an adaptor. Thanks in advance! -Jameson [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Often times telephone devices *will* work on one line but the pin out on the modular connecting cord is wrong. One line devices usually come only with a cord for 'one line' which is typically the red/green wires on the first and fourth pins (if they are present) in the modular cord. You might start by getting four wire modular cords, such as at Radio Shack. The two inner pins, which usually relate to the yellow/black wires make the 'second line' work. Or if you get a six-wire cord, then the scheme is the two outermost pins (1 and 6 are blue and white) the two middle pins (2 and five are black and yellow) and the two innermost pins (3 and 4 are green and red). If a cord like that fits into the base of your phone (so the pins on the cord touch the pins of the phone when it is plugged in) then your problem is mostly solved. If the phone(s) still do not work, look at the box on the wall where the wires come in and the modular cord plugs in. Assuming the wiring is sort of standard, the cover plate will have the red/green wires working but the yellow/black wires will either be tied on to two screws but doing nothing, or not tied down at all (sometimes). What you will want to do is 'trick the phone' into thinking it is being served on 'line two' instead of 'line one'. Swap out the red/green wires in the modular cord and attach them to the places where the black/yellow wires (that had been or would be) used for 'line two' if you had such a thing. In other words, take the live pair you do have coming in and make sure they are attached to the two center pins by the time it reaches the phone, typically yellow and black. What is unclear to me is your use of the phrase "two lines connected in one jack." I checked the GE website and did *not* find anything entitled "GE 2-9405C" or anything remotely similar. There were pictures of some phones you might have been referring to. If what I said above does not help write again and be more specific about the 'two lines connected in one jack' and if it means two actual working phone line pairs, or two sets of wires, working or not. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Betty Cockrell Subject: Reliable Means of Determining LEC For Given Phone Number? Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:12:38 -0600 In article , no@spam.com says: > Does anyone know of a reliable means of determining the servicing LEC > for a given phone number? > I'm trying to find a reliable means of determining what is the > servicing LEC for any given phone number. Right now this is limited to > only needing to work for CA. USA phone numbers. Using the various > resources (LERG, and other similar databases) I can get down to what > the operating Company is for a given NPA/NXX but with Thousand Number > (block) Pooling, and porting of numbers, there are over lapping > NPA/NXXs for various providers, and while the operating company for a > given NPA/NXX maybe SBC (Pacific Bell) the line may in fact be > serviced by Verizon (GTE). > So far I'm at a loss as to how to reliably perform, what in an ideal > world, would be a simple search. The changes resulting from local competition (UNE, Resale, Porting and pooling) have made look ups at an NPANXX level increasingly inaccurate. One solution is to do a LIDB GETDATA Query for the Account Owner (or OCN Operating Company Number) for the telephone number in question. LIDB GETDATA services are available through several companies on a per query basis. ------------------------------ From: Alan Burkitt-Gray Subject: Re: Internet Phones, 911 Systems Could Clash Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:06:49 -0000 Dr. Joel M. Hoffman (joel@exc.com) asked: > 'Why do only phone users pay the 911 tax? I'd be curious to know how > many 911 calls come the phone where the trouble is, and how many are > calls about something else? My guess is that many, maybe even most, > 911 calls are to help someone else ("that building is on fire," "I > heard gunshots," "there's been an accident," etc.)' Goodness me, Joel. Sounds almost like you're suggesting the community as a whole should act together and fund a collective service, just like we do here in Europe. Do be careful, or some folks'll be accusing you of socialism or other European habits. Alan Burkitt-Gray Editor, Global Telecoms Business Euromoney Institutional Investor plc, Nestor House, Playhouse Yard, London EC4V 5EX, UK tel +44 20 7779 8518 fax +44 20 7779 8248 email aburkitt@euromoneyplc.com Global Telecoms Business http://www.globaltelecomsbusiness.com is official publication at TeleManagement World, Nice, France, May 17-20 2004, with supplement plus three daily newspapers. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Having the 'nerve' to say you sometimes prefer how the Europeans do things is sort of a problem here in this newsgroup at times, isn't it Alan? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Internet Phones, 911 Systems Could Clash Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:02:11 -0600 Organization: Wizard Information It was a dark and stormy night when joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: > While on the topic, though, why do only phone users pay the 911 tax? Because it was easy to sneak that in, and provides implausible deniability to the politicians who want to say they're "lowering taxes". It's all the rage, call it a "mandatory surcharge" or a "user fee" or an "access charge", anything but a "tax". Too bad truth-in-advertising doesn't apply to politicians. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know, Dave, it also occurs to me that the present attacks on VOIP (Internet phone service) by politicians and others also helps the FBI/Justice people who have a king-size grudge right now about how difficult it will be to trace or tap or bug telephone calls using this medium. Don't listen to that balogna about how the 'poor 911 tax will suffer so badly because of people getting into VOIP'. They've made more than enough money to fund every 911 call center in the world many times over; that is, if they had spent the money properly, not misappropriated it or sqaundered it on other often times useless projects as part of the overall goal to have 'no servants left behind'. They just cannot stand having anything around they cannot have their hands in, can they? 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 #84 *****************************