The Telecom Digest for January 19, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 18 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 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: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:47:58 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Wireless, but Leashed
Message-ID: <AANLkTimNeawrq3Pi4wUU=EmjS0nK=XbuN+2pQLh5r7oo@mail.gmail.com>
Moderator's disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this post do not
necessarily reflect the perfect truth dictated by the secret world
government.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Richard <rng@richbonnie.com> wrote:
>
> Reminds me of the debacle in the US with stereo AM broadcast radio.
> Three competing systems, each compatible with standard monaural AM,
> but incompatible with each other. Â The FCC decided to not choose a
> standard, but to let the three systems fight it out in the
> marketplace. Â No system got enough traction with the public to emerg
e
> on top, and so now there's almost no stereo AM.
This is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. I'm as libertarian and
laissez-faire as anyone, but there are times when it's appropriate for
the government to mandate a standard. I would've voted for Reagan had
I been old enough, but his FCC killed AM stereo with their decision to
let the market decide.
Whenever I complain about our lack of a cell phone standard in the US
I hear, "that's because we have freedom". Uh, no we don't. In Europe
handset manufacturers, wireless companies, and governments put their
heads together and created a standard. Consumers have more freedom
than we have here. And are we any less free because the government
forces us to drive on the right? Are we less free because wifi is a
standard? Or television channels? What if we needed four different
television sets for Fox, NBC, ABC, and CBS? Without standards radio
and television would never have gotten off the ground.
I think we've lost the ability to think critically in this country.
Too often I come across binary thinking. Things either have to be
100% government controlled or 100% free-market controlled. Reality
isn't like this. I think the VHS/Betamax and HD-DVD/BluRay battles
were best left to the marketplace. But infrastructure decisions I
believe we need a national consensus and a single standard. But
somehow this equates to socialism.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:51:08 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: RE Pay phone unplugged after costing Davison County $69 per call
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=MqVe9dxND=uRub0XdTZaAejx6RbMg9-nF1D5z@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrot
e:
> On Jan 17, 10:20Â am, Curt Bramblett <curtbrambl...@cfl.rr.com> wrote
:
>>. . . With the PBX we were able to simply install an extension that
>> allowed 800- and local calls, but not L D. Everyone was happy and
>> the cost was almost nothing because it shared a line with
>> something else in the building.
>
> Years ago, most businesses had a pay phone for visitors and for
> employees to make and receive personal calls. Making companies
> were very strict about employees making even local calls from their
> business lines, though others were more flexible.
It wasn't all THAT long ago. I started work for a company in
Florida in 1992. There were pay phones in the hallways and we were
instructed to use them for any personal business, the phones on our
desk were for business purposes only. Of course that was widely
ignored and the only time I ever saw the pay phones being used was
when a hurricane was approaching and the PBX was tied up and people
were forced to use the pay phone.
I left that company in 1998 and if I recall correctly most, if not
all, the pay phones were gone.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
***** Moderator's Note *****
I'd bet that payphones disappeared from business offices because
someone had an attack of common sense, and figured out that the time
employees spent walking to and from the phone covered the cost of a
call from their desk.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 13:40:23 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Of cell phones and freedom
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=y-Q_o_7Cxu1VCmzBYAhpk+9wVw3FKN-mZ=6Ps@mail.gmail.com>
Perhaps others can set me straight. Maybe the situation in the US
isn't quite as bad as I'm making it out to be. But when I see
articles like this one:
Study: U.S. Cell Phone Rates The World's Highest
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/73611/20101019/cell-phone-carriers-att-verizon-t-mobile-sprint-data-ctia.htm
or
http://goo.gl/kZHgd
I tend to think I'm right.
I bought my first cell phone in 1995. I was your typical American
cell phone consumer who didn't think twice about the technology behind
it. I was happy as a clam to take the free phone, or slightly nicer
phone at a drastically reduced price, and pay my monthly bill.
I started to hear from others how much better the situation was in
Europe. They didn't settle for cheap low-quality phones. Consumers
there bought the phone outright and owned it. They then could take it
to any wireless company in the country and if they weren't happy could
go across the street and get service from a competitor. Sounded too
good to be true.
It was only last year when I was living in Malaysia that I saw what
was going on. Much like Europe, Malaysia has a single standard.
Because they use what is the closest thing we have to a a global
standard, they have a HUGE selection of phones. Handset manufacturers
can do this because they can easily sell these products on five of the
six inhabited continents. Yes, they are pricey thanks to Malaysia's
steep import duties. A Samsung Galaxy S Android handset was running
close to USD $800. But service is far less. I had a pre-paid SIM and
was paying approximately USD $33 per month for 3 GB of data, a lot of
talking, and SMS. I paid $200 for my Samsung Captivate (i.e. Galaxy
S) but I am paying more for service and have a two-year contract.
While I'm quite happy with my provider, if I weren't it'd be very
expensive for me to switch. And I'd likely have to get a new phone.
And I like my phone, I wouldn't want to switch.
Is this a case of the grass is always greener? Or am I on to
something? When I was getting my SIM card over there the employee was
surprised that as an American I knew to unlock my phone first and
talked to me about how messed up things are in the US. This is a
sentiment I heard from my co-workers over there. Over here attitudes
seem to be anything that is good for the consumer is bad for
capitalism and will cost jobs.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: 18 Jan 2011 16:46:24 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Of cell phones and freedom
Message-ID: <20110118164624.56292.qmail@joyce.lan>
>Perhaps others can set me straight. Maybe the situation in the US
>isn't quite as bad as I'm making it out to be.
Comparing phone usage in the US to other countries is complicated since
we are mobile-pays and everyone else is caller-pays, i.e., inbound calls
are "free" to the mobile user.
The last time I checked, if you talk a whole lot, US phones are pretty
cheap, like $45/mo for unlimited talk and data from America Movil's
Straighttalk. If you talk less, or you want a fancier phone, not so
cheap.
I agree that it was a mistake not to mandate a common digital
standard, but in fairness it wasn't totally evident at the time how
dominant GSM would be.
R's,
John
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 01:52:46 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Auto(in)correct
Message-ID: <p06240824c95ae8c7362f@[10.0.1.2]>
Auto(in)correct
By BEN ZIMMER
January 13, 2011
Pity poor Hannah, who received a startling text message on her
cellphone, sent from her father: "Your mom and I are going to divorce
next month."
After Hannah registered her alarm, her father quickly texted back: "I
wrote 'Disney,' and this phone changed it. We are going to Disney."
Welcome to the world of smartphone autocorrection, where incautious
typing can lead to hilarious and sometimes shocking results. With the
rapid success of Apple's iPhone and Google's Android phones, more and
more people are discovering the pitfalls of tapping on a virtual
keyboard. Just as the spell-check feature in a word-processing
program tries to save you from your own sloppy typing, either by
politely suggesting alternatives or by automatically replacing
egregious errors, the latest mobile devices are supposed to take care
of your typos - but often fail with comic results.
Back in June, The Times's technology columnist, David Pogue, blogged
about some "autocorrect follies" sent to him by his readers, full of
howlers like "Sorry about your feces" when "Sorry about your fever"
was intended. Pogue sagely advised, "Especially when your boss, your
parents or your love interest is the recipient of your e-mail or text
message, it's worth taking an extra moment to proofread."
These vast new opportunities for social embarrassment are now being
charted by the Web site Damn You Auto Correct! (D.Y.A.C. for short),
where victims of autocorrect are invited to submit screen grabs of
their most inglorious gaffes. Though D.Y.A.C. wasn't the first to
exploit this concept (a Tumblr feed with an unprintable twist on
"iPhone" came first), it has quickly become an online sensation.
Within days after Jillian Madison, co-founder of the Pophangover
Network, set up the site in late October, D.Y.A.C. started getting a
million daily page views, with hundreds of submissions every day. And
now Madison has parlayed that success into a D.Y.A.C. book, due out
in March.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/magazine/16FOB-onlanguage-t.html
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 04:33:57 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Your most dangerous possession? Your smartphone
Message-ID: <Y_ednRONoaQrFajQnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Monty Solomon wrote:
> Your most dangerous possession? Your smartphone
>
> By Blake Ellis, staff reporter
> January 11, 2011
>
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Forget what's in your wallet -- beware your
> smartphone. It's becoming one of your most dangerous possessions.
>
> If your phone was stolen a few years ago, the thief could make prank
> calls and read your text messages. Today, that person can destroy
> your social life -- you said what on Facebook?! -- and wreak havoc on
> your finances.
>
> Now that smartphones double as wallets and bank accounts -- allowing
> users to manage their finances, transfer money, make payments,
> deposit checks and swipe their phones as credit cards -- they are
> very lucrative scores for thieves. And with 30% of phone subscribers
> owning iPhones, BlackBerrys and Droids, there are a lot of people at
> risk.
I guess it's easier to be a victim than a responsible person. It is
actually possible to possess one of those gadgets without any sensitive
applications on it whatsoever. I've had an iPhone for 25 months now.
If it were lost or stolen it would be a big yawn. Let's see...oh yes, I
would have to change the security code on my wireless router at home.
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:02:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone unplugged after costing Davison County $69 per call
Message-ID: <918511.94714.qm@web111703.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
--- On Sun, 1/16/11, Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
> In article <igvdpg$o8d$3@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
> >
> >>http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/state-and-regional/south-dakota/article_2e232f62-20b1-11e0-82e6-001cc4c03286.html
> >>
> >>MITCHELL, S.D. (AP) - A pay phone in the county courthouse in Mitchell
> >>will be unplugged after officials discovered it cost the county $69
> >>per call last year.
> >>
> >>County Maintenance Supervisor Mark Ruml told the Davison County
> >>Commission that he'd never seen anyone use the phone in more than
> >>three years and money to pay for it was coming out of his budget.
> >
> >>It cost the county $763 a year to have the phone. Ruml said records
> >>showed only 11 calls were placed on the phone in 2010.
I would guess that in most courhouses many of the people are
familiar with the people and offices in the courthouse and when they
want to use the phone and don't want to use or don't have a cellphone
they just step into an office and ask "Can I use the phone??". Hence
no reason to use the pay phone.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:13:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: RE Pay phone unplugged after costing Davison County $69 per call
Message-ID: <281299.98673.qm@web111718.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
--- On Mon, 1/17/11, Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 10:20 am, Curt Bramblett <curtbrambl...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >. . . With the PBX we were able to simply install an extension that
> > allowed 800- and local calls, but not LD. Everyone was happy and
> > the cost was almost nothing because it shared a line with
> > something else in the building.
>
> Years ago, most businesses had a pay phone for visitors and for
> employees to make and receive personal calls. Making companies were
> very strict about employees making even local calls from their
> business lines, though others were more flexible.
>
> In my area, the cost of a business local phone call is one message
> unit, about 7 cents, and has been that for decades. In the early
> 1970s seven cents meant much more than today. In itself it wasn't
> much but it would add up in volume.
In many places most business service is flat rate, and there is no
incremen tal cost to the business for letting a visitor use the phone.
As someone h as noted, may businesses have a phone out for the use of
visitors.
I still see quite a few pay phones being used, although not nearly as
many as in the past.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:32:28 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone unplugged after costing Davison County $69 per call
Message-ID: <ih25gc$mre$2@news.albasani.net>
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>>>http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/state-and-regional/south-dakota/article_2e232f62-20b1-11e0-82e6-001cc4c03286.html
>>>MITCHELL, S.D. (AP) - A pay phone in the county courthouse in Mitchell
>>>will be unplugged after officials discovered it cost the county $69
>>>per call last year.
>>>County Maintenance Supervisor Mark Ruml told the Davison County
>>>Commission that he'd never seen anyone use the phone in more than
>>>three years and money to pay for it was coming out of his budget.
>>>It cost the county $763 a year to have the phone. Ruml said records
>>>showed only 11 calls were placed on the phone in 2010.
>>>The Daily Republic newspaper said the county commission voted to remove it.
>>Have they ever heard of the concept of competitive bidding? They might
>>have found a payphone services provider willing to place a phone there.
>With -that- volume of calls, nobody's going to be interested -- UNLESS
>the county pony's up for all the costs.
The owner of the office building doesn't guarantee a minimum number of
calls.
>They might find a cut-rate COCOTS operator to put one for a somewhat lower
>cost, but I really doubt they'd be able to get it to under $25/call, given
>the indicated traffic level.
It's still cheaper than installing an extension for emergency calls,
something you are really going to want available in a court house.
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:56:00 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone unplugged after costing Davison County $69 per call
Message-ID: <BpadnSUzqdJtJ6nQnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <03360669-cd8e-41b9-ba75-34774fe340bb@z9g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Jan 16, 1:41 am, John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote:
>
>> MITCHELL, S.D. (AP) - A pay phone in the county courthouse in Mitchell
>> will be unplugged after officials discovered it cost the county $69
>> per call last year.
>
>It didn't really cost "$69 per call". That implies each time someone
>used the phone the county was billed $69, and it wasn't.
Any accountant will confirm that the amortized cost of maintaining the
phone there was in fact, $69+ for each call made.
The "unit cost" for -anything- is the total cost divided by the number
of items that that total cost bought. And is always expressed as an
amount of money 'per {item}'.
Your 'stated as fact' assumption that such a statement 'implies' a
particular billing-rate/structure has no basis in fact.
>Like everyone else, the county paid a fee to have a pay phone in
>service (though their fee seems high). Had enough people used it the
>"per call" amortized cost would've been much lower.
This is correct.
>I suspect there are a many payphones on private property still in
>service but rarely used because the property owners, perhaps a large
>business, get a large overall phone bill and aren't aware of the pay
>phone component. Some organizations pay bills as presented without
>verifying or thinking about them.
Very unlikely. Classically the vast majority of pay phone contracts
provided a pay-out to the 'location owner' from the phone operator,
either in the form of a fixed amount per month, or a 'split' of the
generated revenues (usually after a fixed amount, for 'operating overhead'
went to the phone operator).
>As mentioned, several transit carriers pay to have a pay phone at
>their stations so to have an emergency phone available for
>passengers.
Some _government_ (and the occasional privately-funded "public-service"
agency) agencies do this, on occasion. It is extremely rare for a 'for
profit' commercial entity do to so. A business almost invariably has
employees, with communications capability (either phones, or two-way radio
by which they have immediate contact to a telephone-equipped employee), that
are 'immediately' accessible to the public, for a true emergency (i.e. '911')
communications need.
When one sees a pay-phone at any location, it is impossible to tell -- simply
by examining the phone -- what the financial relationship is between the
phone operator and the location owner. I've never known a pay-phone operator
to disclose which, if any, of it's phone locations were being 'subsidized'
by the location owner. Generally, this information is available only if the
location owner, itself, discloses it.
Los Angeles Union Station is a somewhat unusual situation in that it is,
at least currently <grin>, privately owned. Does anybody know if there
are pay phones at that facility, and IF the phone operator is paid
to put them there?
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:19:00 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: ZIP Codes and barcodes
Message-ID: <ih2f8k$7bb$1@news.albasani.net>
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>The POSTNET barcode is a 2-state barcode made up of 62 bars, 2 frame
>bars plus sequences of five bars representing 11 digits plus the check
>digit. The bars themselves are full and half bars above a baseline. The
>baseline is significant as the tall bars have ascenders and there are
>no descenders.
>Starting in May, 2011, unless it gets delayed again, Intelligent Mail
>Barcodes will be required on letters and flats claiming automation
>discounts, and the POSTNET barcode will no longer be used when preparing
>mail. These are 4-state barcodes, encoding 31 digits and comprising 65
>bars. As the bars come in four flavors (four states) instead of two,
>more information may be encoded. The four states are tracker (short bar),
>tracker with ascender, tracker with descender, and full bar (tracker with
>ascender and descender). The barcode will be used to encode data from a
>number of different programs in addition to the Delivery Point ZIP Code,
>some of which currently use a second POSTNET barcode in the address
>block. Yes, it can include a serial number assigned by the mailer to
>the mailpiece.
>More information than you want to know is here:
>https://ribbs.usps.gov/index.cfm?page=intellmailmailpieces
As I anticipated, the post office has delayed sunsetting POSTNET barcodes
yet again. On January 13, it was announced that mail with POSTNET barcodes
will still be eligible for automation discounts indefinitely.
http://pe.usps.gov/DMMAdvisory.asp?Dest=DMMAdvisory011311a.htm
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 (11 messages)
|
| |
or 