Previous Issue (Only one)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 28 : Issue 22 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: Unwanted calls from an organization policy? Re: Unwanted calls from an organization policy? Re: Unwanted calls from an organization policy? Re: Unwanted calls from an organization policy? Re: Unwanted calls from an organization policy? Re: Obama's new BlackBerry: The NSA's secure PDA? Re: Single port vmail to wav file Re: Voicemail via email Re: Unwanted calls from an organization policy? Re: DC cellphone may be overwhelmed Re: Why Obama's phone calls will always go through Re: Why Obama's phone calls will always go through Re: Cell Phone Clock Inaccuracy Re: Cell Phone Clock Inaccuracy Google Announces Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2008 Results Re: Unwanted calls from an organization policy? Staff Finds White House in the Technological Dark Ages President Obama keeps his Blackberry Re: Apple Reports First Quarter Results ====== 27 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: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:25:33 -0800 From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Unwanted calls from an organization policy? Message-ID: <gl93if$pe8$1@blue.rahul.net> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > My condo is using an autodialer to telephone all residents with condo > news bulletins. I believe the intent of this system was to alert > residents of emergencies or urgent matters, such as utility outages. > For example, the power had to be shut off for maintenance, and in > addition to a letter, they used the system to remind residents the > night before of the shutdown. > > I don't mind it used for such situations; indeed, I think it's a good > idea. > > However, the condo mgmt is using it for what I think are clearly non- > urgent matters, such as to announce social parties in the clubhouse > (or their cancellation). That IMHO is an intrusion. > > I complained about it and basically they said all-on or all-off, that > is, they could take me off entirely but then I'd risk not hearing > emergency messages, or, I'd have to put up with the other stuff. I would ask them to let me install a second phone line that does not go through the association's equipment. Then I'd get my phone service moved to that line, leaving the old line connected to the condo's dialer but NOT to the outside world. In my apartment, the only thing plugged into the old line will be its own private instrument, whose ringer will only be on when I am willing to hear it. I also recommend this method to deal with apartment or condo buildings where a door or gate intercom is set up to seize your phone line, so you can talk to a visitor and then "buzz him in". I would be interested to hear about how the law treats these situations. Landlords are required to provide you with a phone line to the outside world, but too many of the details are left up to them. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:28:56 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Unwanted calls from an organization policy? Message-ID: <461510a5-f230-4080-93b0-2900a9ad3dca@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> On Jan 22, 10:44 am, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: > I would ask them to let me install a second phone line that does not go > through the association's equipment.  Then I'd get my phone service > moved to that line, leaving the old line connected to the condo's dialer > but NOT to the outside world.  In my apartment, the only thing plugged > into the old line will be its own private instrument, whose ringer will > only be on when I am willing to hear it. I'm afraid I don't understand. They're certainly not gonna spend the money to provide me with a second phone line just to receive their calls. To clarify, our telephone service has nothing to do with the condo, we have private landlines just as in a regular house. If someone doesn't give the condo their phone number they obviously can't call you. I suppose my issue is more how they use their autodialer than its existence. I think it should be used for urgent broadcast calls only (e.g. utility shutdowns, construction work); that sort of thing would be very useful. I do not think it should be used for things like party announcements. I think there's an element of "the boy who cried wolf". If they use it routinely for trivial events, people will not take their calls very seriously. If they restrict it to important things, people will pay close attention when they call. That won't trivialize the opening line "This is an important message from your condo association". > I also recommend this method to deal with apartment or condo buildings > where a door or gate intercom is set up to seize your phone line, so you > can talk to a visitor and then "buzz him in". We don't have that. However, if I had that service, I would not object to it. I suppose ideally a separate house phone telephone network within a property would be better. (Remember the brief-lived TV show about an L.A. apt builiding and its quirky residents, who would listen in on house phone conversations?) But that is very costly and redundant. I've seen such systems, but only in expensive luxury buildings. As an aside, we once had our own master TV antenna. It was very costly to maintain especially as it aged. Once commercial cable TV service came out we dropped it. A few residents complained since they saw the master antenna as "free", even though in reality it was not (the cost was buried as part of the condo fee and there was no way to isolate in/out individual units, it was a common coax.) However, in area the cost of cable TV shot up dramatically from when it first came out. The cable company keeps switching channels from basic to digital, charges extra for digital, and raises the price of basic (they want everyone to go digital but it costs more.) > I would be interested to hear about how the law treats these situations. > Landlords are required to provide you with a phone line to the outside > world, but too many of the details are left up to them. As mentioned, our phone lines are direct to the phone co (or cable company if one prefers) and the association has nothing to do with them. Regarding the law and the association, we have a prior business relationship so such calls are allowed. In our case they will not call you at all if you ask them to. So, I would think in our case they are following the law. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:39:36 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Unwanted calls from an organization policy? Message-ID: <pan.2009.01.22.06.39.35.355235@myrealbox.com> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:00:41 -0500, hancock4 wrote: ....... > For example, some years ago one organization I belong to (non profit) > suddenly began sending out its newsletter via email instead of mailing it. > At that time my email (through my employer) was very limited and their > newsletter was enough to flood my mailbox and cause all sorts of problems. > When the mailbox was flooded, I couldn't get in at all, and had to ask > the system administrator to unclog it. Took a while for them to stop > sending the email; apparently they arranged for someone else to do it from > a list that was not easily changed. Now, things are not supposed to > happen this way, but they do. > > Another example: Many years ago I went to PC Expo, getting my ticket by > email. Now, this is a supposedly a legitimate organization. But I still > get unsolicited emails from them, despite requests to stop, and they gave > my address to others who spam me. ....... I have to admit that the feature that Yahoo provides with their free e-mail accounts is handy, you can create multiple "temporary" addresses that forward your normal account, and then delete these when their purpose has been served. Other providers must also be offering something similar, now if only I was motivated enough to *always* use mine when signing up for stuff..... ;-) -- 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: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:07:48 -0800 (PST) From: "www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTvalid@Queensbridge.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Unwanted calls from an organization policy? Message-ID: <89b27718-b3d0-4d65-b0b5-b9ce46dec46f@f20g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> On Jan 22, 10:45 am, David Clayton <dcs...@myrealbox.com> wrote: > I have to admit that the feature that Yahoo provides with their free > e-mail accounts is handy, you can create multiple "temporary" addresses > that forward your normal account, and then delete these when their > purpose has been served. > I get my domain names thru GoDaddy. With each one I can set up 100 permanent or disposable email address. That comes in very handy. I have some domains email address blocks set-up with a catch-all, so I can tell people to send me an email to THEIR OWN NAME@MyDomain.com so I know right away who is sending when it is forwarded to my regular email account. You can get ".Info"'s for 99 cents for the first year, each with 100 email addresses. After year is over, just let it die and get another for 99 cents. Each address associated with this posting has been turned off, but I turn it on once a year for a day or so to see how the harvesting is getting along ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:37:58 -0800 (PST) From: "www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTvalid@Queensbridge.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Unwanted calls from an organization policy? Message-ID: <7b0540b9-aaae-430c-9647-33d69213be2d@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com> On Jan 21, 8:26 pm, "Who Me?" <hitchhi...@dont.panic> wrote: > Well you DID ask.......... > I think: > You should lighten up a bit and help "save a tree". > I really hope that this issue is not high on your list of things that > concern you. ;-) I am now a mainly retired actor. But when I was actively pursuing work, my home TAD would call my cell phone to deliver messages to me. Here in NYC Verizon would dial out on my home phone for 11 cents, and Virgin would charge me 18 cents for incoming cell calls, so it cost me 29 cents for each message left for me. On a plus side, I have compiled a recording of unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing call messages from my TAD from high profile AFTRA and SAG members [most names you would recognize] which I may be soon selling on eBay. The compilation starts with the OGM from my TAD, making it clear that "this machine will call my cell phone." So, for some people, unsolicited calls can cost the recipient money. I hope to recoup some of my cost. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:42:49 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Obama's new BlackBerry: The NSA's secure PDA? Message-ID: <pan.2009.01.22.06.42.48.213322@myrealbox.com> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:40:37 -0500, John Mayson wrote: > http://news.cnet.com/obamas-new-blackberry-the-nsas-secure-pda/ > > "One reason to curb presidential BlackBerrying is the possibility of > eavesdropping by hackers and other digital snoops. While Research In > Motion offers encryption, the U.S. government has stricter requirements > for communications security." Let's hope he has no enemies that have access to the technology that homes in on the signal of phones/PDAs etc. when delivering a lethal payload...... Wouldn't having one of these be like wearing a big electronic target? -- 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: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:12:40 -0500 From: Will Roberts <oldbear@arctos.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Single port vmail to wav file Message-ID: <0MKpCa-1LQ0JJ3vIS-0007E8@mrelay.perfora.net> In Telecom Digest, John Schmerold wrote: >Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 06:55:34 -0600 >From: John Schmerold <john@katycomputer.com> >To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu >Subject: Single port vmail to wav file > >I am looking for an answering machine that delivers its voicemail >message via email with wav file attachment. I recognize I could rig >something up with a PC, but don't want all the fuss associated with a >PC. > >Any ideas? I want to keep this under $300. Following up on all the discussion of "MagicJack", this is exactly what the voicemail feature of MagicJack does. At $20 for the hardware/set-up and $20 per year for "MagicJack", you'd be spending only about $40. Then, if you just need to get your local phone provider to enable call-forwarding so that you can forward your calls to your "MagicJack" number when you want voice mail coverage. I would be surprised if there weren't other VM-to-email services which would provide similar functionality without the need to maintain your own hardware. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:08:41 -0600 From: John Schmerold <john@katycomputer.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Voicemail via email Message-ID: <49788BF9.9020201@katycomputer.com> ed wrote: >> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 06:55:34 -0600 >> From: John Schmerold <john@katycomputer.com> >> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu >> Subject: Single port vmail to wav file >> Message-ID: <4975C9C6.6010100@katycomputer.com> >> >> I am looking for an answering machine that delivers its voicemail >> message via email with wav file attachment. I recognize I could rig >> something up with a PC, but don't want all the fuss associated with a >> PC. >> >> Any ideas? I want to keep this under $300. >> John, > > I use Ring Central to do this. You can pick a phone number in > almost any area code/city, and for $10/mo the messages are emailed > to you as .wav files. You can even have it send you a SMS message > alert when a message arrives. Messages stay on your web-based > "answering machine" unless you delete them. > > If you need to keep the same phone number, setup call-forwarding to > your Ring Central number. > > Cheers, > > -Ed Cummings (bernieS) > WBAI - Off The Hook > 2600 Magazine Ed: Thank you for the follow-up. I have a 15 year old Intertel system, I cannot justify replacing it, however I really like http://phonetag.com and the conference bridge on the Intertel stinks. I cannot get my vmail from Phonetag because the volume level is too low. Eventually, I want to replace the system with a Asterisk based system -- probably Trixbox or AsteriskNow. So, what I will probably end up doing is building that unit, change my extension to one of the Intertel analog stations, feed that station into the Asterisk box and do everything I want done. Problem with my solution is that it's six months and $1,000 out, so if someone made a cheap little appliance - not sure why $300 is so laughable, when Grandstream makes a nice little PBX for $600 but to each his own, I would buy the little appliance, I'd be happy and set for another 5 years when the Intertel is dead beyond all recovery. John ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 2009 13:35:58 -0500 From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Unwanted calls from an organization policy? Message-ID: <glaeae$9q0$1@panix2.panix.com> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > >However, the condo mgmt is using it for what I think are clearly non- >urgent matters, such as to announce social parties in the clubhouse >(or their cancellation). That IMHO is an intrusion. It is, yes. >I complained about it and basically they said all-on or all-off, that >is, they could take me off entirely but then I'd risk not hearing >emergency messages, or, I'd have to put up with the other stuff. It's not. They should be able to set up multiple distribution lists, one for everybody and one for just people who want to hear announcements. Tell them that they don't know how to operate their own equipment and suggest they find someone who does. >I'd appreciate hearing the opinions of other people. As mentioned, in >my opinion it should be used for urgent business only, when there is >not enough time to print up and distribute a hard copy notice. Social >functions or condo meetings aren't "urgent" busienss. I get the >feeling they want to eliminate printing and distributing such notices >altogether. My opinion is that machines are there to serve people, and not the other way around. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:36:40 +0000 (UTC) From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: DC cellphone may be overwhelmed Message-ID: <gla7ao$r6b$1@reader1.panix.com> >(If anyone is down there or has info or how it actually operated, >could you share it with us?) T-Mobile didn't deliver incoming calls to me; I was at the west end of the mall. I don't know if outgoing was working. My VZ-using friend reported a ~30% success rate trying to dial out. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:28:03 +0000 (UTC) From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Why Obama's phone calls will always go through Message-ID: <gladrj$oev$1@reader1.panix.com> John Mayson <john@mayson.us> writes: >http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10144141-38.html >"After Barack Obama is sworn in next week, he'll be able to enjoy one >of the lesser-known benefits of the presidency: phone calls that >always go through." ... >President Kennedy created NCS in 1963, and its mandate has expanded to >include high-priority Internet and mobile phone calls too. What Declan left out was why NCS & FTS were created then. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK could not get a dialtone... Side note: POTUS gets some things free, and pays for others. White House meals and snacks are charged back to the First Family; phone calls are not. But all USG #'s block 900 service, so Nancy Reagan had to get her own phone line installed to call her astrologer. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:48:02 -0600 From: gordonb.159w4@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Why Obama's phone calls will always go through Message-ID: <4NGdnUktYN1_suTUnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica> >>"After Barack Obama is sworn in next week, he'll be able to enjoy one >>of the lesser-known benefits of the presidency: phone calls that >>always go through." Is that supposed to mean that if he for some reason calls me, and the line is busy because I'm cussing out a telephone solicitor, that the call to the telephone solicitor will be dropped? And Obama will get the tail end of my cussing if I'm not paying attention to what's happening? I ask this question for two situations: (a) at work as a low-level civilian contractor on a military base, using their phone system, and (b) at home where I doubt I get any special treatment. ***** Moderator's Note ***** For situation (a), your call can be interupted by the military's precedence system: if you're on a Routine-precedence call, and someone places an Immediate-precedence call to your phone, you will be cut off from the original call and connected to the higher-priority caller. I assume there is a warning tone or other notice of the transition. For situation (b), your call can be interrupted only by a manual process: there is no provision in the civilian telephone network for automatic precedence userpation. Although it is possible to force a disconnect on an existing call, the terminating exchange will not be able to connect another call until the line is placed on-hook, and even then the first call that comes in will always win. My knowledge of this is somewhat dated, however, so I'll ask those more familiar with the current system to chime in (pun intended). Bill, who still has a four-column Touch Tone pad from a #5 Crossbar Master Test Frame. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:36:20 -0800 (PST) From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Cell Phone Clock Inaccuracy Message-ID: <895218.28674.qm@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:29:28 -0600 Frank Stearns <franks.pacifier.com@pacifier.net> wrote: <<Summary: why doesn't a cell phone show the correct time of day?>> << And all this time I thought cell phones were networked-synched for their time-of-day displays. That ended on Christmas eve day, when I temporarily lost my phone, decided to get a replacement (another Samsung) and discovered that its clock was 4-6 minutes slow. The T-mobile store people assured me this "happened all the time" -- some clocks were on, others were off. "That doesn't make any sense," I said. They shrugged. My old phone was found and returned a few days later. I disliked the new phone for many reasons besides the slow clock, so I took it back, reactivated my old phone. And now it too was 4-6 minutes slow. I can travel to different areas and compare my phone to others' with the same carrier. They're on, I'm off. I can manually set the clock in the phone, but within a few moments it is updated back to the wrong time. I went back to the store, checked maybe 18 display phones. Three were running 4-6 minutes slow, two were more than five hours off, the others were accurate, far as I could tell. So now I'm trying to understand just how this is happening, assuming a network time sync signal, and moreover, how it can be fixed. (T-Mobile Tech Support said they wouldn't even consider generating a trouble ticket until "enough" people complained.)>> Generally in the US at least time on mobile phones *should* be pretty accurate. CDMA operators (Sprint, Verizon, Alltel among others) the time is integral to the functioning of the system. In the US for GSM operators T-Mobile and AT&T use NITZ (Network Identity and Time Zone) equipment to automatically update both day and date. I've checked the accuracy and find that Verizon's time is right exactly set to national standards using time.gov and T-Mobile's is only off by about two seconds. I've found that foreign GSM operators in the places where I've been (the Netherlands and in Israel) generally do not have automatic day and date updating and I assume they don't use NITZ there. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:17:15 -0500 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Cell Phone Clock Inaccuracy Message-ID: <MPG.23e2d69a3f4b93289898ba@reader.motzarella.org> In article <895218.28674.qm@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com>, joeofseattle@yahoo.com says... > In the US for GSM operators T-Mobile and AT&T use NITZ (Network > Identity and Time Zone) equipment to automatically update both day and > date. I've checked the accuracy and find that Verizon's time is right > exactly set to national standards using time.gov and T-Mobile's is > only off by about two seconds. I've found that foreign GSM operators > in the places where I've been (the Netherlands and in Israel) > generally do not have automatic day and date updating and I assume > they don't use NITZ there. > I noted the same issues with my Nokia phone from T-Mobile. The time was consistently off by 4 minutes. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:39:03 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Google Announces Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2008 Results Message-ID: <p0624086dc59eb2ed79fa@[10.0.1.6]> Google Announces Fourth Quarter And Fiscal Year 2008 Results MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. - January 22, 2009 - Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) today announced financial results for the quarter and for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008. "Google performed well in the fourth quarter, despite an increasingly difficult economic environment. Search query growth was strong, revenues were up in most verticals, and we successfully contained costs," said Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google. "It's unclear how long the global downturn will last, but our focus remains on the long term, and we'll continue to invest in Google's core search and ads business as well as in strategic growth areas such as display, mobile, and enterprise." Google also announced today that it is planning to offer employees a voluntary, one-for-one stock option exchange. This program, intended to create more incentives for employees to remain at Google and contribute to achieving its business objectives, is currently scheduled to begin on January 29, 2009 and end on March 3, 2009, unless Google is required or opts to extend the offer period to a later date. Please see the section "Employee Stock Option Exchange" below for more details. http://investor.google.com/releases/2008Q4_google_earnings.html http://investor.google.com/pdf/2008Q4_earnings_google.pdf http://investor.google.com/pdf/2008Q4_google_earnings_slides.pdf 2008 Q4 Earnings Conference Call Webcast http://google.client.shareholder.com/Visitors/event/build2/MediaPresentation.cfm?MediaID=34571&Player=1 http://google.client.shareholder.com/Visitors/event/build2/MediaPresentation.cfm?MediaID=34571&Player=2 2008 Q4 Q&A Session Webcast http://google.client.shareholder.com/Visitors/event/build2/MediaPresentation.cfm?MediaID=34850&Player=1 http://google.client.shareholder.com/Visitors/event/build2/MediaPresentation.cfm?MediaID=34850&Player=2 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:42:23 -0500 From: "MC" <for.address.look@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Unwanted calls from an organization policy? Message-ID: <Uh8el.516$19.249@bignews5.bellsouth.net> "Who Me?" <hitchhiker@dont.panic> wrote in message news:KfPdl.11896$as4.1392@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com... > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote >> That IMHO is an intrusion. >> I'd appreciate hearing the opinions of other people. >> I get the feeling they want to eliminate printing and distributing >> such notices altogether. > Well you DID ask.......... > I think: > You should lighten up a bit and help "save a tree". I really hope > that this issue is not high on your list of things that concern > you. ;-) I thought this was a moderated newsgroup. ***** Moderator's Note ***** So it is. There is a referee in a boxing ring, too, but you'd be ill-advised to step into one unless you're prepared to take a punch or two. I allowed the post because it was in response to a query which asked for opinions, because it was worded in a civil manner, and because it was appropriate to the discussion. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:24:40 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Staff Finds White House in the Technological Dark Ages Message-ID: <p0624087bc59ee77bcb85@[10.0.1.6]> Staff Finds White House in the Technological Dark Ages By Anne E. Kornblut Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, January 22, 2009; A01 If the Obama campaign represented a sleek, new iPhone kind of future, the first day of the Obama administration looked more like the rotary-dial past. Two years after launching the most technologically savvy presidential campaign in history, Obama officials ran smack into the constraints of the federal bureaucracy yesterday, encountering a jumble of disconnected phone lines, old computer software, and security regulations forbidding outside e-mail accounts. What does that mean in 21st-century terms? No Facebook to communicate with supporters. No outside e-mail log-ins. No instant messaging. Hard adjustments for a staff that helped sweep Obama to power through, among other things, relentless online social networking. "It is kind of like going from an Xbox to an Atari," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said of his new digs. In many ways, the move into the White House resembled a first day at school: Advisers wandered the halls, looking for their offices. Aides spent hours in orientation, learning such things as government ethics rules as well as how their paychecks will be delivered. And everyone filled out a seemingly endless pile of paperwork. There were plenty of first-day glitches, too, as calls to many lines in the West Wing were met with a busy signal all morning and those to the main White House switchboard were greeted by a recording, redirecting callers to the presidential Web site. A number of reporters were also shut out of the White House because of lost security clearance lists. By late evening, the vaunted new White House Web site did not offer any updated posts about President Obama's busy first day on the job, which included an inaugural prayer service, an open house with the public, and meetings with his economic and national security teams. Nor did the site reflect the transparency Obama promised to deliver. "The President has not yet issued any executive orders," it stated hours after Obama issued executive orders to tighten ethics rules, enhance Freedom of Information Act rules and freeze the salaries of White House officials who earn more than $100,000. The site was updated for the first time last night, when information on the executive orders was added. But there were still no pool reports or blog entries. No one could quite explain the problem -- but they swore it would be fixed. One member of the White House new-media team came to work on Tuesday, right after the swearing-in ceremony, only to discover that it was impossible to know which programs could be updated, or even which computers could be used for which purposes. The team members, accustomed to working on Macintoshes, found computers outfitted with six-year-old versions of Microsoft software. Laptops were scarce, assigned to only a few people in the West Wing. The team was left struggling to put closed captions on online videos. Senior advisers chafed at the new arrangements, which severely limit mobility -- partly by tradition but also for security reasons and to ensure that all official work is preserved under the Presidential Records Act. ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012104249.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:21:50 -0500 From: Telecom digest moderator <redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: President Obama keeps his Blackberry Message-ID: <20090123042150.GA2040@telecom.csail.mit.edu> According to The News Hour on PBS, President Obama will keep his Blackberry, with additional security added, and changes to comply with the Presidential Records Act. I'll bet that he stops using it within three months: as the responsibilities of office start to weigh on the President, I'm sure he'll accept the fact that he needs to have around him, and to use, the screens and filters other chief executives have enjoyed. I predict that the President will accept that he must be offline if he's to attain maximum effectiveness. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:29:33 -0500 From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Apple Reports First Quarter Results Message-ID: <barmar-3F273A.22293322012009@mara100-84.onlink.net> In article <p06240861c59d7d6cee19@[10.0.1.6]>, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote: > Best Quarterly Revenue and Earnings in Apple History > iPod Sales Set New Record Someone needs to remind these smartasses that there's a recession on. No one is supposed to be doing better. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** ------------------------------ 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 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. The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while Pat Townson recovers from a stroke. 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: mailto: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 Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html For syndication examples see http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecomDigest Copyright (C) 2008 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 (19 messages) ******************************