The Telecom Digest for January 23, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 22 : "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 20:38:31 -0600 (CST)
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: What did the USPTO really say about unlocking cell phones?
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1101212031200.52944@john-maysons-macbook.local>
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> 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.
Well dang it! :-) No wonder my online searches turned up nothing. The
Library of Congress? Really?
> 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.
Gotcha.
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011, tlvp wrote:
> 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?
T-Mobile and it's a phone we outright own. AT&T has unlocked two phones
for me that were still under contract (i.e. the case could be made I
didn't fully own them). No ifs, ands, or buts. I've called them, given
them the IMEI and on the spot had the unlock codes. What do they care?
Even if I take it T-Mobile I still have a contract I have to pay every
month, right?
I guess T-Mobile irked me because they first said they would provide the
unlock code and then didn't. And then snotty, sarcastic rep I dealt with
the last time.
I have found various services that for $25 or so will provide an unlock
code. Are these companies typically legit? Specifically I'm looking at
gsmliberty.com.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: 22 Jan 2011 15:58:54 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.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: <20110122155854.57901.qmail@joyce.lan>
>I have found various services that for $25 or so will provide an unlock
>code. Are these companies typically legit? Specifically I'm looking at
>gsmliberty.com.
Yes. I've bought a bunch of unlock codes and they all worked. One time
they couldn't provide a code, but they refunded my money.
R's,
John
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 16:31:54 -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.vpqbfgmmitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:38:31 -0500, John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>>> ... the service rep laughingly said they would NEVER unlock our
>>
>> Which cellular provider gave you your grief?
>
> T-Mobile and it's a phone we outright own. ...
My suggestion, John, if it's a T-Mobile- (or VoiceStream-) branded
phone: phone in again, to the 1-800-WEST-WYR CS number, try to get to
a "data" CS rep, explain that you're planning to be abroad for a week
or two in a month or so and want to SIM-unlock the handset so as to be
able to use a local prepay SIM while you're away, and the rep should
stand ready either to talk you through the unlock steps on your
handset, or to have an email sent to you with the relevant unlock
code -- and detailed unlock instructions.
It may help to refer to the SIM-unlock code as the "SIM subsidy"
unlock code, or the "SUK", to be using an instrument other than the
handset you seek to unlock, and to have ready the make, model, IMEI,
and current T-Mobile phone number of said handset.
Good luck; HTH; and cheers, -- tlvp (who's unlocked at least four T-Mo
handsets in just the way described) -- Avant de repondre, jeter la
poubelle, SVP
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:19:35 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Very interesting product
Message-ID: <AANLkTikOg2j1dQH-4qO36H=gTsQWfb=Q13Rb-Yjei8sG@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 3:31 PM, tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Not the GSM voice part, John -- the HSDPA (high-speed) data part :-).Or am
> I off track yet again?
I know you're referring to another John. But I'm often off track on
this subject too. I just can't keep everything straight any more.
Even when I think I have it right I have it wrong. :-)
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:37:03 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
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: <AANLkTi=GSEzoH+rOGRowF_Qm=MXx=8L2=Yo5z4U=1_Zj@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 3:28 PM, tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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).
For me it's a case of...
1. Ever changing technology
2. Half the stuff I read isn't true
3. My brain is full and just can't process anything new :-)
Not being a VZW customer I really don't have a clue what their network
can and can't do. So this is all I'm going to say about it. :-)
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:22:40 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Copying a cell phone's addressbook (was: Your most dangerous possession? Your smartphone)
Message-ID: <ihep7g$dji$1@news.albasani.net>
Arthur Shapiro <art.shapiro@unisys.com> wrote:
>Our moderator observes:
>>If you lose the phone, that list would come in very handy. The one
>>feature I would like to see on mobile phones is the ability to import
>>*and* export the directory, via a SMS if need be, but preferably
>>with a USB cord.
>Isn't that standard?
>I use an old Motorola V3 Razr for the two or three calls I might make
>or receive in a month. (Can't understand all you folks paying those
>huge smartphone charges each month to the rapacious cellular
>companies). It easily backs up and restores what Motorola terms the
>Contacts list, via USB or Bluetooth. Ditto for my wife's Samsung
>T219.
>Are you saying this isn't a facility available for every phone in the
>world???
I have a Moto V195S, somewhat ubiquitous worldwide in 2005 and 2006
as it's quad frequency GSM. It's made in China and has withstood the
not-so-gentle treatment I've given it over the years. I'll hang onto it
until the main screen fails. Design wise, the external speaker is easy to
sit upon, keeping me from hearing it ring, and the earpiece speaker doesn't
reproduce sound all that wonderfully well when I'm receiving a poor quality
transmission thanks to compression and packet loss or whatever kills audio.
Motorola would have been pleased to sell me proprietary software to copy
and update my addressbook between phone and desktop computer for a price
higher than my monthly cell phone bill. So, no, what should be considered
to be vital software isn't included with every cell phone.
I don't store telephone numbers on the SIM card itself which doesn't allow
enough information to be stored for each contact, although copying limited
information to the SIM card would be a method to move some information to
another cell phone.
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 11:21:26 -0600
From: Hudson Leighton <hudsonl@skypoint.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Copying a cell phone's addressbook (was: Your most dangerous possession? Your smartphone)
Message-ID: <hudsonl-3B6D04.11212622012011@news.isp.giganews.com>
In article <ihep7g$dji$1@news.albasani.net>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Arthur Shapiro <art.shapiro@unisys.com> wrote:
> >Our moderator observes:
>
> Motorola would have been pleased to sell me proprietary software to copy
> and update my addressbook between phone and desktop computer for a price
> higher than my monthly cell phone bill. So, no, what should be considered
> to be vital software isn't included with every cell phone.
I recently go a new Windows 7 laptop, and needed drivers for my Motorola
V195, took a little goggle time, but I found the drivers and the latest
and greatest Motorola cellphone program on the web for free.
-Hudson
Date: 22 Jan 2011 02:35:49 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Very interesting product
Message-ID: <20110122023549.55252.qmail@joyce.lan>
>>> 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.
>Not the GSM voice part, John -- the HSDPA (high-speed) data part :-).
>Or am I off track yet again?
I'm pretty sure you're mistaken. All the time I've been in Europe,
I've never seen any refs to a 1900 MHz mobile band. It's 1900 here,
1800 in most of the rest of the world. Mobile bands are valuable,
voice and data share them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM_frequency_bands
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:24:33 -0500
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Sounds like ...
Message-ID: <op.vpoua7gzitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:06:25 -0500, Richard <rng@richbonnie.com> wrote:
> A tattoo parlor in my town advertises "Tattoo's".
Heh-heh ... here there's one called "Tattoo's". It labels itself, "Tattoo's
Tattoos" :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 07:56:47 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Sounds like ...
Message-ID: <pan.2011.01.22.20.56.35.82129@myrealbox.com>
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:24:33 -0500, tlvp wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:06:25 -0500, Richard <rng@richbonnie.com> wrote:
>
>> A tattoo parlor in my town advertises "Tattoo's".
>
> Heh-heh ... here there's one called "Tattoo's". It labels itself,
> "Tattoo's Tattoos" :-) .
>
Are tattoos now superseded by the digital graffiti people now leave for
anyone to see?
I think it may well be easier to cover up or remove a physical tattoo than
to eliminate an embarrassing Social Media post/photo etc. that may remain
for decades for potential employers et al to view at their leisure?
Today's technology gives people the ability to inflict instant virtual
tattoos on their persona, just the thing you want immature people to be
able to do without thinking of the consequences.....
--
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: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 15:30:58 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Auto(in)correct
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=fCu1HQPdKxVLpR0_PONdUezWp_Kh477ASpD04@mail.gmail.com>
We used Microsoft Outlook where I used to work. Many years ago we had
an engineer whose first language was not English and he struggled with
the language. He used abbreviations and misspelled English words only
to have Outlook "correct" them for him and he accepted anything
Outlook suggested.
Upper managed came and talked to us about an email he had sent and
copied a lot of people, including them. Some of the phrases included
"I gave the board to the funky test negro" and "pervert went down on
me". Those phrases, and others, gave some amusing mental images. We
finally reverse engineered what he was trying to say:
"I gave the board to the funct test engr" and "hpserver went down on me".
I do think Outlook and perhaps all Microsoft products have gotten
better. But yes, beware of spell and grammar checkers.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 16:40:17 -0500
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Very interesting product
Message-ID: <op.vpqbtfk4itl47o@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
Again, John, I was referring rather to the data bands 900/1700/2100 UMTS, or
850/1900/2100 UMTS, that see use only with T-Mobile (and a few Canadian
operators), or pretty much everyone else, respectively. I think the newish
Nokias N8 may well be the only -- certainly one of the very few -- handsets
extant to handle both with aplomb :-) .
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 (12 messages)
|
| |
or 