The Telecom Digest for January 22, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 21 : "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: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 04:47:35 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: What did the USPTO really say about unlocking cell phones?
Message-ID: <ihb356$lbk$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <AANLkTimrHS73s9LU3PLyrTTpzB2RrOvpm4J5xUiS7o2N@mail.gmail.com> John Mayson <john@mayson.us> writes:
>I am having a heck of a time finding a definitive answer on this subject.
>Last year the USPTO issued an opinion/ruling/announcement that people
>have the right to unlock their phones. Or at least I thought they
>did. Am I crazy?
Actually it's back in 2006. Quoting from a "pcmagazine" story:
---------
Last week, the Register of Copyrights released the
latest list of exemptions to 1998's Digital Millennium
Copyright Act (DMCA), and along with it, some welcome news
for cell phone users.
Of the six proposed exemptions (the largest number to date),
the one that arguably affects U.S. consumers the most is
number five on the list, which covers:
"Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable
wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless
telephone communication network, when circumvention is
accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting
to a wireless telephone communication network."
In other words, it is now permissible for anyone to "unlock"
a phone tied to one network and use it with another; as
long as they own the phone.
----
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2064707,00.asp
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:47:06 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: What happens when mom unplugs teens for 6 months?
Message-ID: <pan.2011.01.21.05.47.03.445764@myrealbox.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I wonder if today's kids do have it better. They have a lot more
> information available to them, to be sure, but what information? AFAICT,
> they stand under a waterfall of hype, and have to spend all their time
> learning to tell the disinformation apart from the truth.
One problem is that people do not understand the difference between
"data" and "information".
You can have access to masses of data, but until you can organise it
into something that comprehensible and relevant to you, then it really
isn't information. The "inform" in "information is more crucial these
days with the massive amounts of extra data available to more people
now.
> In times past, children had to rely on the experience of their
> elders to discern the difference between caviar and carp, and that
> meant that they grew up learning how to build and rely on
> person-to-person relationships. Now, they have "everything" at
> their fingertips, but no way to know which parts of it are
> important.
That "person-to-person" stuff was basic survival skills in things like
learning what mushroom to eat and leave the one that would kill you
from the accumulated wisdom, survival skills these days seem to be
evolving in a far different way.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 06:46:51 -0600
From: rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Of cell phones and freedom
Message-ID: <0JidnTWIWNGmHaTQnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
+---------------
| People like to point out that in Europe and Asia it "doesn't cost
| anything to receive calls" which is of course right. What they don't
| say is with a caller pays system someone pays for the call and it's
| the person making the call. Very often they pay dearly for that free
| call to you.
+---------------
Personally, for me this would be a very GOOD system for the U.S. to
shift to!! Despite my cell phone being on the federal "Do Not Call" list
and the FCC policy against unsolicited calls to cell phones, I frequently
get more than twice the number of spam calls as legitimate incoming
personal calls. Charging the caller would help a lot towards wiping out
the !&@%$!#^!% telemarketers!
-Rob
p.s. For some reason, with AT&T even if you explicitly add a number
to your cell phone's incoming "reject" list, it still forwards the
call to voicemail. (*grumph*)
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Rob Warnock <rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Date: 21 Jan 2011 17:04:37 -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: <20110121170437.11893.qmail@joyce.lan>
> Charging the caller would help a lot towards wiping out the
> !&@%$!#^!% telemarketers!
In Europe there is a lot of SMS spam. The spammers typically use
technical tricks to avoid paying for the SMS they send. They don't
have much mobile phone spam because mobiles have different phone
numbers from landlines, so it's easy to exclude them.
The typical cost to call a mobile in Europe from a landline is about
25 cents/minute, so I expect you'd be getting a lot fewer calls from
people you did want to hear from, too. Or the junk callers would
evade paying for calls and call anyway.
R's,
John
PS: I hear that you can get rid of a junk call really fast if you ask
in a breathy voice what kind of underpants they're wearing.
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:47:51 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: What did the USPTO really say about unlocking cell phones?
Message-ID: <3-2dnYZv3O8qJaTQnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <AANLkTimrHS73s9LU3PLyrTTpzB2RrOvpm4J5xUiS7o2N@mail.gmail.com>,
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>I am having a heck of a time finding a definitive answer on this subject.
>
>Last year the USPTO issued an opinion/ruling/announcement that people
>have the right to unlock their phones. Or at least I thought they
>did. Am I crazy?
You're only partly crazy. It wasn't the USPTO. It was the "Librarian
of Congress" (Head of the Library of Congress) at the recommendation of
the Register of Copyrights, originally in 2007. The ruling was to the
effect that privately unlocking a phone was NOT a violation of the DMCA
prohibition on circumventing access controls.
Such exemption determinations have to be made every three years, so the
original determination is 'null and void'.
The current 'circumvention' exemptions are found in "37 CFR 201.40"
Authoritative cite:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34898232/2010-DMCA-Exemption-Announcement
Section III of the announcement describes all the classes of actions that
were proposed to be exempt from the DMCA circumvention restrictions -- some
the Registrar of Copyrights recommended approval of, others which were not
so recommended.
Item (C), starting at the beginning of Page 6, and covering almost two
pages, is the specific exemption or 'unlocking' cell phones, "without
permission" of the 'copyright owner ' of the firmware.
Section IV of the document contains the Registrar's conclusions, AND
the final determination by the Librarian -- which does -not- exactly
follow the Registrar's recommendations. However, unlocking a cell phone
is retained as an exempt activity
This does NOT mean that a carrier has to provide you the unlock code.
It only means that if you do it 'without their permission' you cannot
be prosecuted for circumventing security controls, as proscribed by
the DMCA.
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:37:01 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Better check that iTune software box (humor)
Message-ID: <opudnSftLJ8wu6fQnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@giganews.com>
Cartoonist view of the wrath of Apple for not really reading that
software agreement before checking the little box:
http://tinyurl.com/4toyzrp
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:06:25 -0800
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Sounds like ...
Message-ID: <j5mjj69vk2esu6bbm5qup299es8aikhoj3@4ax.com>
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:05:28 -0800 (PST), Joseph Singer
<joeofseattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:24:17 -0500 Curt Bramblett <CurtBramblett@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Eye halve a spelling chequer
>> It came with my pea sea
>> It plainly marques four my revue
>> Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.
>
>Unfortunately many people must have been dosing off in school when it
>was explained to them that even though several words may sound alike
>they do have distinctive different meanings among them such as to/too,
>your/you're, there, their, they're. I don't think I can count the
>times when I've seen people make posts in on-line forums and used to
>instead of too. If you bring up the word homophone most don't know
>that it doesn't have anything to do with a gay guy's phone :)
And people who use the possessive ('s ending) instead of the plural.
A tattoo parlor in my town advertises "Tattoo's".
Dick
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:44:33 -0500
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Sounds like ...
Message-ID: <op.vpohcjd9itl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:05:28 -0500, Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ... If you bring up the word homophone most don't know ...
'R those what we used to call homonyms back in grammar school? And start fights over which (if any) of "Barry", "beary", "berry", "bury", were homonyms?
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:21:04 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: What happens when mom unplugs teens for 6 months?
Message-ID: <ihctc0$ors$1@news.albasani.net>
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>A problem I have found with people under 25. They don't know how to
>find information. I do wonder of being forced to use a card catalog
>and flipping through journals does something to the brain.
>Oh, speaking of card catalogs. A few years ago I was at the Austin
>library and referred to the "card catalog" to the 20-something clerk
>and she had no clue what I was talking about.
>I still think though it's better today than in 1984 when I was
>trudging to the library with a pocketful of dimes for the photocopier.
I think information used to be better organized when we could rely upon
librarians and other professionals to create catalogues and general
reference works. Today, we have more information than ever at our
fingertips with no easy way to find it now that fuzzy key word searching
is the be-all and end-all and more hits are better (too few are
relevant), than few hits (nearly all are relevant).
A card catalogue was a helpful method of organizing information. Often
I'd find something of interest (even on the same topic!) just because
I would read the cards as I flipped through. Similarly, when I'm in the
stacks looking for my book, I'd find other books of interest because
I've been reading their spines. If books are replaced by virtual media,
that experience cannot be recreated.
If I were a child in elementary school today expected to write a paper,
I think I'd find unaided searching very frustrating indeed.
Perhaps we were spoiled.
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:21:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: What happens when mom unplugs teens for 6 months?
Message-ID: <8deb2226-ed64-4783-87a6-1109f80a919d@g26g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 20, 1:56 pm, John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote:
> This came up because she was complaining how unfair it was to make
> kids today do research papers. I needed a forklift to raise my chin
> off the floor. Today kids have this wonderful piece of coax that
> comes into the house making those trips to the library on a bus
> unnecessary.
> A problem I have found with people under 25. They don't know how to
> find information. I do wonder of being forced to use a card catalog
> and flipping through journals does something to the brain.
I see a great many kids at the local library going through a pile of
books and writing down items in a notebook, just as we did and my
parents did.
I suspect the Internet has made doing small assignments, like a 3-page
report or middle school research, easier to do. In our day we were
supposed to use real books but we often took the easy way out and used
the encyclopedia and maybe one other book for small reports. But for
serious projects, like a term paper or for work in advanced honors
classes, I think kids still end up using traditional books.
While the Internet has a ton of information on it, IMHO much of it is
condensed and true serious research, even at the high school level,
requires a trip to the library.
Many advanced-level periodicals are on-line, but access requires a
subscription that often libraries carry.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I wonder if today's kids do have it better. They have a lot more
> information available to them, to be sure, but what information?
> AFAICT, they stand under a waterfall of hype, and have to spend all
> their time learning to tell the disinformation apart from the truth.
>
> In times past, children had to rely on the experience of their elders
> to discern the difference between caviar and carp, and that meant that
> they grew up learning how to build and rely on person-to-person
> relationships. Now, they have "everything" at their fingertips, but no
> way to know which parts of it are important.
This is all very true.
There is of course nothing wrong with using the Internet for research
sources instead of hard copy material as long as it's a good source.
Hopefully teachers today explain how to distinguish between reliable
on-line sources and garbage.
For example, Wikipedia is loaded with errors, and I suspect some of
them were intentionally (maliciously) planted.
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:28:54 -0500
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: With Verizon on the Horizon, iPhone Users Weigh Leaving AT&T - but there's a Catch
Message-ID: <op.vpogmgscitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 17:33:31 -0500, John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
> This one has me confused. I've heard and read:
>
> A. VZW decided not to allow voice and data simultaneously to protect
> their network.
> B. It's a limitation of the technology.
>
> You're not the first VZW customer I've heard from who say they can
> talk and use data simultaneously ...
What I've read on paper, and over the net, seems to point to voice and *LTE
data* being mutually exclusive (i.e., B applies there), while voice and
*lower-tech* data are perfectly compatible (i.e., customers can talk and use
data simultaneously -- just not LTE data).
HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:31:09 -0500
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Very interesting product
Message-ID: <op.vpogp7ioitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 13:42:53 -0500, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>> Sounds like its 3G radio is relying on the (far more universally
>> used) 1900 MHz HSDPA band, hence should be just fine in ...
>>>>> ... Malaysia ... .
>
> Huh? Outside North America the GSM bands are 900 and 1800, not 850 and 1900.
>
> R's,
> John
Not the GSM voice part, John -- the HSDPA (high-speed) data part :-).
Or am I off track yet again?
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:50:46 -0500
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: What did the USPTO really say about unlocking cell phones?
Message-ID: <op.vpohmwvuitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:22:04 -0500, John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
> ... the service rep laughingly said they would NEVER unlock our
> phone and refused to escalate the call.
I've never been given any such run-around by either T-Mobile (whose
customer I am) or at&t ws (whose customer I neither am nor ever was)
when seeking to unlock SIM-locked T-Mobile and Cingular GSM handsets,
respectively.
Which cellular provider gave you your grief?
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
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 (13 messages)
|
| |
or 