|
|
Message Digest
Volume 29 : Issue 13 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Federal Court Slaps Satellite Signal Pirate With $51 Million Judgment
Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone
Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone
Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone
Bluetooth snooping, was: MagicJack for Cellular phone
Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network..
Re: Magneto Telephone
Re: Magneto Telephone
====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
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, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 06:09:26 -0600
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Federal Court Slaps Satellite Signal Pirate With $51 Million Judgment
Message-ID: <4B4C6676.7050804@annsgarden.com>
Dish Network says service to pay for abetting signal theft
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 1/11/2010
A federal court in Florida has slapped Robert Ward with a $51 million
summary judgment for distributing software that aided in the theft of
DISH Network signals.
In the process, it left no doubt that it believes the Communications Act
prohibition on "any electronic, mechanical, or other device or
equipment" that aids in the unauthorized decryption of a satellite
programming" includes software.
http://tinyurl.com/yeol4x6
Neal McLain
Date: 12 Jan 2010 10:44:08 -0500
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone
Message-ID: <hii5c8$303$1@panix2.panix.com>
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>Steven wrote:
>
>> The new magicJack uses, without permission, radio frequencies for
>> which cellular carriers have paid billions of dollars for exclusive
>> licenses.
>
> I don't know about those frequencies but the FCC has always allowed
> you to bandit AM and FM broadcast frequencies at very low power.
>
> My guess is the wireless carriers can't do a thing about this.
I actually looked up Part 15, and it looks like you are allowed
substantial unlicensed emission above 1 GHz. Enough emission that
from 30 feet away you should be in the 60 mV/m2 range which is
probably plenty of power.
So, the more I look at this, the more I think this probably is
legal, probably is unlicensed, and probably is going to be pretty
effective. --scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: 12 Jan 2010 21:33:44 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone
Message-ID: <20100112213344.70032.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>I actually looked up Part 15, and it looks like you are allowed
>substantial unlicensed emission above 1 GHz. Enough emission that
>from 30 feet away you should be in the 60 mV/m2 range which is
>probably plenty of power.
>
>So, the more I look at this, the more I think this probably is
>legal, probably is unlicensed, and probably is going to be pretty
>effective. --scott
OK, they can capture the 1900 MHz band, which could work so long as
there isn't a perceptible 850 MHz signal. AT&T phones will use the
home network 850 AT&T signal even if the 1900 signal is stronger.
As someone else pointed out, there is a pool of patents you have to
license to build GSM equipment. I wonder what, if anything, they're
doing about that.
R's,
John
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:44:42 -0500
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: MagicJack for Cellular phone
Message-ID: <MPG.25b70bb1838699f9989c48@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <hii5c8$303$1@panix2.panix.com>, kludge@panix.com says...
>
> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
> >Steven wrote:
> >
> >> The new magicJack uses, without permission, radio frequencies for
> >> which cellular carriers have paid billions of dollars for exclusive
> >> licenses.
> >
> > I don't know about those frequencies but the FCC has always allowed
> > you to bandit AM and FM broadcast frequencies at very low power.
> >
> > My guess is the wireless carriers can't do a thing about this.
>
> I actually looked up Part 15, and it looks like you are allowed
> substantial unlicensed emission above 1 GHz. Enough emission that
> from 30 feet away you should be in the 60 mV/m2 range which is
> probably plenty of power.
>
> So, the more I look at this, the more I think this probably is
> legal, probably is unlicensed, and probably is going to be pretty
> effective. --scott
I have a set of Motorola S9 earphones. They use Bluetooth to connect
back to my iPod.
Noticed some interesting behavior. If I try getting it to connect to the
iPod when it is anywhere near my laptop it won't do it. I have to shut
off the Wi-Fi on the laptop to get it to sync.
Reason for this is because they both run in the 2.4GHz range, one for
Wi-Fi, the other Bluetooth.
Now when I'm outdoors another interesting phenomenon occurs. I can tell
which cars have bluetooth interfaces in them just walking by or having
one drive by me.
The signal on my earphones drops out momentarily.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 05:15:23 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Bluetooth snooping, was: MagicJack for Cellular phone
Message-ID: <hijkta$kdc$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <MPG.25b70bb1838699f9989c48@news.eternal-september.org> T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> writes:
[ snip]
> Now when I'm outdoors another interesting phenomenon occurs. I can
> tell which cars have bluetooth interfaces in them just walking by or
> having one drive by me.
Same thing would probably occur if someone with a BlueTooth phone
walked near you.
Which leads to the fascinating option of monitoring who and what
passes by you... And if you put a bunch of similar Bluetooth scanners
around town...
http://www.bluetoothtracking.org/
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:12:34 -0500
From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: AT&T asking FCC for "end date" of switched network..
Message-ID: <4krpk55lfoguuq3l7rhkula9bcvpm4qomm@4ax.com>
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:55:38 -0800 (PST), "harold@hallikainen.com"
<harold@hallikainen.com> wrote:
>> In the old analog days, a group was not 12 circuits on undersea cable,
>> but 16 circuits (3 kHz bandwidth instead of 4 kHz) a few groups would
>> be assembled into a set for TASI. The circuit gain was well above
>> 100%.
>
> How is the circuit gain well over 100%? If it's a two way
> conversation with each person talking 50% of the time, it seems that
> you'd get a gain of 100% by dropping in other circuits during the
> idle times in each direction. There are, of course, other pauses,
> and people don't start talking right when the other person talks
> (though my wife says I start before she's finished, but that's
> another story). So, the circuit gain COULD go a bit above 100%. I
> was assuming they would leave some reserve circuits to handle the
> times when more than 100% of the people were talking in one
> direction, but your mention of dropping the encoding level in
> digital TASI makes sense. They could, I suppose, drop bandwidth per
> channel on analog TASI, but that seems complex. So, for analog TASI,
> did they leave some excess circuits to handle the peaks?
>
> This sort of multiplexing is interesting. The data stream is bursty
> (even in analog, since there are pauses with no speech). Without
> multiplexing, you're stuck with allocating a full circuit to the
> data. With multiplexing, though, the bursts of one stream can fill
> in the valleys of another stream, decreasing the required
> bandwidth. With real time streaming, though, there are times where
> the peaks coincide and you run out of bandwidth. Moving from real
> time to near real time by adding buffers, you can shift the peaks
> such that they do not coincide, then restore the timing at the
> receive end. I think this works very well for stuff like satellite
> television where a bunch of channels can be put in one datastream. A
> scene change in the video results in a spike in the data rate since
> the entire screen has to be redrawn, instead of just the
> changes. But, this spike can be time aligned with a static scene
> where no data is to be sent. With a large enough buffer, you can get
> real high usage of the available bandwidth. Any excess can, of
> course, be used for non - realtime data, such as program guide info,
> subscriber authorizations, etc. With voice, however, latency is
> really a problem since the speakers become confused. I often get
> confused on a digital cellphone and start talking over the person
> I'm talking to (especially my wife, but, again, that's another
> story).
>
> Moving away from TASI a bit, but still staying with statistical
> multiplexing, I've been giving more thought to network neutrality
> and traffic shaping. If indeed ISPs are suffering from network
> congestion, prioritizing of traffic may make sense. Email probably
> does not have to be delivered as quickly as interactive video. I
> believe IP has bits allocated to packet priority. ISPs could charge
> different rates based on the packet priority. They could also go to
> time of use metering to try to even out the load. Economics could
> provide a method of allocating limited resources.
>
> Anyway, thanks for the TASI discussion. It's been a long time since
> I saw that system at the AT&T underground building in San Luis
> Obispo. They had a pamphlet entitled "San Luis Obispo,
> Communications Center of the World" showing the various Pacific
> undersea cables.
>
> Harold
Harold,
"Better than 100% gain" is all in the statistics.... Actually very
few people talk 50% of the time and on average it is less than 50%.
If I recall correctly it is about 40%. Of course there are cases when
both parties speak at the same time (little useful information,
perhaps, but they get bandwidth anyway...) and there are other cases
with virtually no active speech (two lovestruck teenagers, for
example. Just an occasional sigh...). Modems demand 100% all the
time, so they screwed things up by requiring a dedicated channel.
If I recall correctly, digital TASI used 5 T-1 lines running ADPCM for
a total of 240 channels per set and they connected to 480 trunks.
That allowed for enough margin that the bit robbing was seldem used,
but most of time, even with 480 active trunks, there were plenty of
spare channels. Not pushing things above 100% was really a quality of
service issue, as the gain was already significant and the incremental
improvement was small relative to the quality of the circuits.
Analog TASI was similarly configured, but I think a set was only 5, 16
channel groups (I could be wrong, it was a long time ago and my
experience was with the digital stuff...). In any event, the larger
the set the better the statistics work. I really don't know how many
of these circuits are still in use as undersea fiber is really cheap
these days...
Before anyone cares to argue that a group was only 12 channels, that
was not true for undersea analog cables. To increase capacity they
used 3 kHz channels and SSB modulation to fill a standard group
(60-108 MHz) with 16 circuits instead of 12, 4 kHz channels.
Hope this helps.
ET
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:30:35 -0500
From: Carl Navarro <cnavarro@wcnet.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Magneto Telephone
Message-ID: <nttpk5tk0orad9onhlmkoemi4elgha94af@4ax.com>
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:56:01 +0530, Prabhudev Prakash
<telereach2006@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://telecom-digest.org/M-12%20Magneto%20Leaflet%206-7-08.pdf .
Yay! Don't yank the crank!
Wonder how to get 3 units and what cost?
Carl
***** Moderator's Note *****
Their address is in the pdf file. Am I missing something?
Bill
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:10:58 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Magneto Telephone
Message-ID: <b492e89a-46e2-4a55-8dcd-955b4e28d2f4@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 12, 5:30 pm, Carl Navarro <cnava...@wcnet.org> wrote:
> Wonder how to get 3 units and what cost?
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> Their address is in the pdf file. Am I missing something?
There was no price information, nor any US domestic contact point or
distributor. (I wonder if Greybar sells them?)
I like that they run on regular flashlight batteries instead of the
hard to find No. 6 dry cells which were once used for such service.
(Do they even still make No. 6 dry cells?) I wouldn't mind getting a
pair of units for the fun of it if they weren't expensive. There are
used units out there.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Ebay and other sites regularly offer surplus military field phones
such as the TA-43/PT and TA-312/PT, for prices as low as $35, and they
run on regular "D" cells too. These are interoperable with the magneto
phones shown in the sales brochure that I posted. Of course, parts and
repairs are harder to find, but for casual use the surplus units are
more than adequate. I've put them into various Boy Scout camps over
the years with no problems: they're made for hard service, and if they
can stand up to the Boy Scouts, they'll last forever.
Old WW-II vintage sets such as the EE-8 are also available, although
they may have seen longer and harder service. I think it's best to
stick with the newer models, but YMMV: long story short, if you need a
new unit with a warranty, parts, and repairs available, I'd check out
the PDF file.
While No. 6 dry cells aren't made anymore AFAIK, you can buy
replacement kits from a number of sources, which will put two "D"
cells in a look-alike case. There's a company called "Ken's Clock
Clinic" which sells a replacement unit for batteries which were used
in self-winding clocks offered by Western Union: the unit includes a
circuit which causes the clock it's in to "synchronize" every hour, as
if Western Union were still sending it a time signal.
The URL is http://www.kensclockclinic.com/SWC_power.html
Bill Horne
Moderator
P.S. As before: I'm not involved, I get no money from any of the
companies I've mentioned, and Caveat Emptor. So there.
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition 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 Bill Horne. 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.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
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
Copyright (C) 2009 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.
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 The Telecom digest (8 messages)
|
or 