Previous Issue (Only one)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 28 : Issue 26 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Cellphones as Credit Cards? Americans Must Wait Re: Staff Finds White House in the Technological Dark Ages Re: Staff Finds White House in the Technological Dark Ages Re: Staff Finds White House in the Technological Dark Ages Re: Presidential telephones (was Obama's phone...) Re: Presidential telephones (was Obama's phone...) Shameless plug FCC calls Comcast to task GateHouse and The New York Times Co. settle dispute over Web sites Re: Presidential telephones was Re: Why Obama's phone calls will always go through ====== 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: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:48:15 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Cellphones as Credit Cards? Americans Must Wait Message-ID: <p06240817c5a2f0b5d5d9@[10.0.1.6]> PROTOTYPE Cellphones as Credit Cards? Americans Must Wait By LESLIE BERLIN January 25, 2009 IMAGINE a technology that lets you pay for products just by waving your cellphone over a reader. The technology exists, and, in fact, people in Japan have been using it for the last five years to pay for everything from train tickets to groceries to candy in vending machines. And in small-scale trials around the world, including in Atlanta, New York and the San Francisco Bay Area, nearly everyone has liked using this form of payment. But consumers in the United States won't be able to wave and pay with their cellphones anytime soon: The myriad companies that must work together to give the technology to the masses have yet to agree on how to split the resulting revenue. ... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/business/25proto.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 02:15:48 -0500 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Staff Finds White House in the Technological Dark Ages Message-ID: <MPG.23e72d34b1933af49898c0@reader.motzarella.org> In article <3afd3$497b5d05$d1b705a6$32392@PRIMUS.CA>, reply@newsgroup.please says... > > Monty Solomon wrote: > > What does that mean in 21st-century terms? No Facebook to communicate > > with supporters. > > ... and waste copious amounts of time sifting through trivial crud. Does > President Obama or his staff really need to know that "Janet Smith is going > to work now" and "Joe Green is glad to be back home at last"? > > > "It is kind of like going from an Xbox to an Atari," Obama spokesman > > Bill Burton said of his new digs. > > I certainly hope Mr. Burton is more in touch with productivity than that > quote suggests. >From what I can gather they said it was six year old software so that would make it Windows XP and Office 2003. Still functional, I use Windows XP Pro and Office 2000 though I'm gradually starting to use OpenOffice more. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:26:31 -0500 From: "MC" <for.address.look@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Staff Finds White House in the Technological Dark Ages Message-ID: <Uvkfl.1134$pq.79@bignews1.bellsouth.net> Maybe Obama will notice that spam and viruses are a serious day-to-day problem and a drag on the economy. If saboteurs were occuping 90% of our highways or our telephone lines, and constantly trying to disable our telephone exchanges or our airliners, we'd declare war on somebody. But with our e-mail system and our computers, it's apparently okay. An awful lot of non-specialists now seem to believe that spam and viruses are not preventable, or even that computer viruses are a natural phenomenon. I long for the civilized days when I could get through a day without having several dozen people attempt petty crimes against me. And yes, I have spam filtering, and it causes me to lose important messages occasionally. And I have antivirus software, which works well but loads down my CPU. Stop spam and viruses at the source! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:44:11 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Staff Finds White House in the Technological Dark Ages Message-ID: <7238af15-c8ed-427f-929c-33c8207f8519@r22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> On Jan 26, 10:28 am, "MC" <for.address.l...@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc> wrote: > Maybe Obama will notice that spam and viruses are a serious day-to-day > problem and a drag on the economy.  If saboteurs were occuping 90% of > our highways or our telephone lines, and constantly trying to disable > our telephone exchanges or our airliners, we'd declare war on > somebody.  But with our e-mail system and our computers, it's > apparently okay. I suppose Obama could initiate some effort against it, but there are many other people in leadership positions who have let us down on this issue. The FCC, FTC, Attorney General, and Congress could've and should've done more. When Fed is _seriously_ after someone, that person is not in a good situation because the Feds have powerful resources. I can't help but suspect if they seriously went after spammers or those who facilitate their work there would be a big reduction. But it's not a priority. > An awful lot of non-specialists now seem to believe that spam and > viruses are not preventable, or even that computer viruses are a > natural phenomenon. Like street crime. Just something that 'is'. > I long for the civilized days when I could get through a day without > having several dozen people attempt petty crimes against me.  And yes, > I have spam filtering, and it causes me to lose important messages > occasionally.  And I have antivirus software, which works well but > loads down my CPU.  Stop spam and viruses at the source! I'm old enough to remember when one could leave their carkeys in the car and not worry about it being stolen, or walk down the street or take a subway late at night and be safe. Some cities (like NYC) have done wonders to knock down crime, but other places have not. The problem with classic street crime and modern Internet crime is similar: people disagree on what to do about it. Both crimes have civil liberties adherents loudly objecting to law enforcement efforts. Sometimes they do have a point, but often times they're quite ridiculous in making excuses for anti-social behavior and the rest of us suffer for it. The Internet was allowed to grow without proper controls (controls that normal computer systems always have) because the early people believed in a utopian world. That utopia might have worked in a closed collegiate world (and actually it didn't work that well), but it was an utter failure in the wide open real world. (In places that knocked street crime down, they took crime seriously and stopped making excuses for it, and it went down and the community thrived. But in such places (like NYC) there are some who don't like the strict enforcement and would prefer to turn back the clock to lawless days.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 07:07:00 -0600 From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Presidential telephones (was Obama's phone...) Message-ID: <497DB574.4020705@annsgarden.com> David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote: > Wouldn't less "insulation" from the outside world make a > leader more effective? "Geoffrey Welsh" <reply@newsgroup.please> wrote: > The POTUS' confidentiality requirements are much higher > than mine; I think it would be a good idea if his > communications tools had extra precautions built-in > against messages being misdirected. I'm not certain that > any existing device has such a feature, but it would be > A Good Thing. Paul <pssawyer@comcast.net.INVALID> wrote: > Maybe if he starts getting calls from charities and > political campaigns (!) he will fix the Do Not Call > rules... My question is: how is that Blackberry connected to the rest of the world? Is it a plain old 202 cell number? Is it a pseudo-extension off the White House PBX? Is it an access line (or whatever it's called) off the GETS network? For that matter, how about the landlines in the President's office? Whatever they are, I doubt that any of them can be reached from the outside world by dialing +1 202 XXX XXXX. The Pres certainly wouldn't be getting calls from charities and political campaigns. Neal McLain ***** Moderator's Note ***** I don't know about the presidential blackberry: however it connects to the outside world, I'm still hoping that it's being read by a subaltern who will deflect unimportant emails. I already spoke my piece about that. The landlines in the president's office are ordinary telephone lines from the White House PBX. The instruments are standard models, reliable, easy to repair, and as mundane as you'll see anywhere. You may reach the White House switchboard by dialing 202-456-1111. If you know today's code word, you'll be connected to a west wing employee in a second. The President's calls are, of course, screned by one of his aides. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:16:00 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Presidential telephones (was Obama's phone...) Message-ID: <6745c74b-290d-46d2-9fa6-a4037656ef06@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com> On Jan 26, 10:26 am, Neal McLain <nmcl...@annsgarden.com> wrote: > For that matter, how about the landlines in the > President's office? Historically, high level people have private phone lines in their office, in addition to regular lines going through the switchboard or centrex. The regular lines are screened by staff, but the private line is usually direct and answered only by the person. It's obviously a number given out only to close associates. The private line may be a separate telephone set or an appearance in a keyset. Certainly someone very high up may have multiple private lines in a tiered arrangement, that is, perhaps a line for use only by family members, another line by equally high level people who need immediate access, etc. Our school system had a 'private' network between principals and downtown. It was a separate phone (red) in the principal's office and only he answered it, if he was out the phone was left unanswered. One major civic leader, Robert Moses of New York, kept a simple system. His phone was plain, all calls went through his secretary, screened, and forwarded to him one at a time. He was powerful enough to have "dibs" on the earliest mobile phones, but he always rejected those, using his car time to work uninterupted (he was always chaufuerred). In histories there is mention of people calling and being called by Moses at home in the evening (as was the case for many high level people), which makes me wonder what kind of home phone system such people had. I suppose many such people had household staff to answer the phone and screen calls. I suspect that too have tiers of home phones, some lines were on the office switchboard, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:49:51 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill.remove@horne.thistoo.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Shameless plug Message-ID: <497DDB9F.5090105@horne.net> Since I earn a small, meagre living by fixing computers, I was interviewed on the American Public Media show "Marketplace Money", which airs on public radio. The program was about "Do It Yourself Disasters", and I got to talk about the ways my customers abuse PC's: they didn't air my comments on telephone problems, but I'm right up there with the dead deer and the bad haircuts. The URL is - http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/01/23/diy_disasters/ . I'm going to put it on my resume. Bill Horne -- E. William Horne William Warren Consulting Computer & Network Installations, Security, and Service http://william-warren.com/ 781-784-7287 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:22:38 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill.remove@horne.remove.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: FCC calls Comcast to task Message-ID: <497DF15E.4030208@horne.net> According to an article at DSL Reports, The Federal Communications Commission has demanded that Comcast explain why it is giving preferential treatment to it's own "Digital Voice" service while degrading the bandwidth offered to competitors during network congestion. http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/FCC-Doesnt-Like-Comcasts-New-Treatment-of-VoIP-100311 Personal observation: Comcast's Digital Voice offering needs all the head start it can get. I used it for a year, and it's worse than a Dixie cup and string. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator -- E. William Horne William Warren Consulting Computer & Network Installations, Security, and Service http://william-warren.com/ 781-784-7287 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:36:43 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: GateHouse and The New York Times Co. settle dispute over Web sites Message-ID: <p0624082ec5a44ca864a1@[10.0.1.6]> NYT, Gatehouse release settlement details January 26, 2009 11:56 AM GateHouse Media Inc. will set up technical barriers preventing Boston.com, the Boston Globe's website, from automated "scraping" of GateHouse content, and Boston.com has agreed to honor those barriers under a settlement disclosed this morning in a widely watched lawsuit filed by GateHouse against The New York Times Co. ... http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2009/01/nyt_gatehouse_r.html GateHouse and The New York Times Co. settle dispute over Web sites By Jon Chesto/GateHouse News Service GateHouse News Service Posted Jan 26, 2009 @ 07:22 PM BOSTON - GateHouse Media Inc. and The New York Times Co. have settled a lawsuit that GateHouse filed last month that claimed the Times Co. was violating copyright and trademark laws by lifting numerous headlines and lead sentences off GateHouse's Web sites. The settlement was reached over the weekend on the eve of a trial that had been scheduled to begin Monday in Boston federal court. In the settlement, GateHouse agreed to implement software to block the Times Co., the owner of The Boston Globe, from automatically scraping GateHouse Web sites for content. The Times Co., meanwhile, agreed to honor any blocking techniques GateHouse employs. ... http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x1198800768/GateHouse-and-The-New-York-Times-Co-settle-dispute-over-Web-sites ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:27:52 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Presidential telephones was Re: Why Obama's phone calls will always go through Message-ID: <pan.2009.01.27.06.27.51.429217@myrealbox.com> ........ > We allowed it to happen: we knew it was all a circus, but we were > watching the trapeze artist while the clowns picked our pockets and > robbed us of our birthright. > > We met the enemy: he was us. > And ain't it always the way..... :-( > Bill Horne > Temporary Moderator While some of us elsewhere in the planet were wondering what the hell was going on in the US over the past few years, we didn't do that much better ourselves in our own countries, so there is plenty of blame to go around. -- 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. ------------------------------ 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 (10 messages) ******************************