Previous Issue (Only one)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 28 : Issue 31 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: nano cell site Re: nano cell site Re: nano cell site Re: Total absurdity - Cell phone mandatory noise bill in HR. Re: Total absurdity - Cell phone mandatory noise bill in HR. Re: Total absurdity - Cell phone mandatory noise bill in HR. Re: Cellphones as Credit Cards? Americans Must Wait Apple vs. Palm: the in-depth analysis Windows area code rules Re: Windows area code rules Friends, Until I Delete You ====== 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: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:29:23 -0500 From: Will Roberts <oldbear@arctos.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: nano cell site Message-ID: <0MKp8S-1LSvNr12eS-0007rF@mrelay.perfora.net> In Telecom Digest, Harold wrote: >Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:03:50 -0800 (PST) >From: "harold@hallikainen.com" <harold@hallikainen.com> >To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu >Subject: nano cell site > >VERIZON OFFERS $250 IN-HOME CELL PHONE BOOSTER >[SOURCE: Associated Press, AUTHOR: Peter Svensson] >Verizon Wireless has started selling a book-sized device that boosts >cell phone signals within a home for $250, making it easier for people >to drop a home phone line and rely solely on wireless. The Verizon >Wireless Network Extender needs to be connected to a broadband >Internet line. Then it acts a miniature cellular tower, listening for >signals from a subscriber's cell phone. It covers up to 5,000 square >feet. This is somewhat comparable to an offering from T-Mobile which uses a dual-mode handset which shifts from a conventional cellular signal to VoIP via WiFi. T-Mobile has set up WiFi hot spots in places like coffee shops which recognize the T-Mobile handset and provide service. T-Mobile also provides a WiFi box to attached to the customers' home broadband connection which makes the customers' home into a VoIP WiFi hot spot and allows the customer to use his or her T-mobile handset as a primary telephone when at home. The Verizon technology appears to create an actual cellular node covering about 5000 square feet and therefore does not require a special dual-mode handset. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:29:59 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: nano cell site Message-ID: <pan.2009.01.30.23.29.58.499578@myrealbox.com> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:39:56 -0500, Will Roberts wrote: > In Telecom Digest, Harold wrote: > >>Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:03:50 -0800 (PST) From: >>"harold@hallikainen.com" <harold@hallikainen.com> To: >>redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: nano cell site >> >>VERIZON OFFERS $250 IN-HOME CELL PHONE BOOSTER [SOURCE: Associated Press, >>AUTHOR: Peter Svensson] Verizon Wireless has started selling a book-sized >>device that boosts cell phone signals within a home for $250, making it >>easier for people to drop a home phone line and rely solely on wireless. >>The Verizon Wireless Network Extender needs to be connected to a >>broadband Internet line. Then it acts a miniature cellular tower, >>listening for signals from a subscriber's cell phone. It covers up to >>5,000 square feet. > > This is somewhat comparable to an offering from T-Mobile which uses a > dual-mode handset which shifts from a conventional cellular signal to VoIP > via WiFi. > > T-Mobile has set up WiFi hot spots in places like coffee shops which > recognize the T-Mobile handset and provide service. T-Mobile also > provides a WiFi box to attached to the customers' home broadband > connection which makes the customers' home into a VoIP WiFi hot spot and > allows the customer to use his or her T-mobile handset as a primary > telephone when at home. > > The Verizon technology appears to create an actual cellular node covering > about 5000 square feet and therefore does not require a special dual-mode > handset. So in fact the devices do nothing to "boost" the existing network signals, but in fact *create* new localised network cells that interface into the network via a IP connection. Aren't there licencing issues re using spectrum already owned for use with these existing networks? -- 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, 31 Jan 2009 04:51:48 +0000 (UTC) From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: nano cell site Message-ID: <gm0ld4$1cqr$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> In article <pan.2009.01.30.23.29.58.499578@myrealbox.com>, David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote: >So in fact the devices do nothing to "boost" the existing network signals, >but in fact *create* new localised network cells that interface into the >network via a IP connection. > >Aren't there licencing issues re using spectrum already owned for use with >these existing networks? That's why (at least in the U.S.) you have to get them through the licensee (in this case, Verizon). Many office buildings have similar systems on a larger scale; the building I work in has three cells, providing coverage for AT&T (traditional "A-side cellular" license) GSM and Sprint/Nextel iDEN; the same system also carries Verizon (traditional "B-side cellular" license) CDMA via a simple repeater. I know one of the PCS carriers is on it as well, but don't recall which one (probably T-Mobile, since that's also a GSM service). Sprint/Nextel, for what it's worth, is *still* working on the broadcast auxiliary equipment replacement that they agreed to do several years ago in exchange for the old broadcast-auxiliary spectrum (which is close to the two-way frequencies they already use); I saw a tower crew replacing old ENG antennas for a local TV station yesterday. (At the next site down the road, I saw a different tower crew working to install the transmission system for Qualcomm's MediaFlo, to have it ready to launch in Boston as soon as WLVI-TV shuts off its analogue transmitter on February 17.) -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:00:17 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Total absurdity - Cell phone mandatory noise bill in HR. Message-ID: <82ff6393-07bc-4ab3-832d-dfd0510c0e20@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com> On Jan 29, 10:59 pm, woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote: > Except, of course, that it screws the people who actually have a > legitimate need to take photos in silence.  (For example, because they > are in a television studio, as I was today.  I hope the noise my > camera makes didn't get picked up on any of the mikes.) The news media might argue that their work in reporting news, particularly news a public official might not want published, could make good use silent shutters and they shouldn't be banned for that reason. Indeed, IF (a big if) this bill has a serious chance of being enacted I would suspect the news media would fight it. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 2009 17:01:18 -0500 From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Total absurdity - Cell phone mandatory noise bill in HR. Message-ID: <glvtbe$dl1$1@panix2.panix.com> In article <glttcp$god$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org> wrote: >In article <6116$498237f7$d1b705a6$15131@PRIMUS.CA>, >Geoffrey Welsh <reply@newsgroup.please> wrote: > >>While I'm not generally in favour of the government passing a law to take >>care of every little thing, it seems to me that requiring cameras to alert >>their subjects when a picture is taken is not in itself a bad idea and >>probably not particularly difficult to implement. > >Except, of course, that it screws the people who actually have a >legitimate need to take photos in silence. (For example, because they >are in a television studio, as I was today. I hope the noise my >camera makes didn't get picked up on any of the mikes.) Please shut off your cellphone in the studio... the RFI generated by GSM phones is annoying and insidious. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:07:51 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Total absurdity - Cell phone mandatory noise bill in HR. Message-ID: <b3e8eca4-f56d-407b-a4d7-235cccaa7015@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> On Jan 29, 9:04 pm, "Ted" <T...@NoSpam.com> wrote: > If that person is on a public beach, or on private property that can be readily seen from a public location, you can take the picture. I am not a lawyer, but in photojournalism class we were taught that normally private things were not allowed to be secretly photographed even in public places. So, yes, you may take a picture of a person suntanning themself on the beach, but no, you can't take a picture of someone when their bathing suit accidently fell off. Obviously secret picture taking in locker rooms, under stairs, etc. would be not allowed (and people are prosecuted for that sort of thing). In any event, after thinking about it, I wonder if this law is such a good idea (see other post). ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:54:07 -0800 From: Mark Crispin <mrc@panda.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Cellphones as Credit Cards? Americans Must Wait Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.0901301127570.44774@hsinghsing.panda.com> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, T posted: >> IMAGINE a technology that lets you pay for products just by waving >> your cellphone over a reader. > Knowing how relatively simple it is to clone some cell phones this > scares the crap out of me. Cloning a cell phone would do no good. The technology works via a RFID chip, typically in the back cover of the phone. It's basically a stored-value card embedded in the phone. Thus, an attacker would have to attack the mechanism by which value is loaded onto the chip. On mobile phones, this is done by an application that runs on the phone, and has various registration/authorization hoops that need to be jumped. I suspect that I'd be far easier to steal a phone than it would be to crack this system to steal from an authorized user. The Japanese have a lot of experience with security weaknesses with stored-value cards (they've pretty much given up entirely on passive magnetic data cards since those were cracked long ago). The other possible form of attack (which was done on the passive cards) is not to steal from any authorized user, but rather to load false value on an card and/or to hack the card to report value that doesn't exist. But for that attack, why waste a mobile phone when you can buy a completely anonymous standalone card. -- Mark -- http://panda.com/mrc Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:07:13 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Apple vs. Palm: the in-depth analysis Message-ID: <p06240874c5a9701c82ad@[10.0.1.6]> Apple vs. Palm: the in-depth analysis by Nilay Patel January 28 2009 Engadget Apple and Palm kicked a lot of dirt at each other last week -- acting Apple CEO Tim Cook flatly told analysts that "We will not stand for people ripping off our IP" when asked specifically about competition like the Palm Pre, and Palm responded with a similarly-explicit "We have the tools necessary to defend ourselves." At issue, of course, is that the Pre employs a multitouch screen and gestures almost exactly like those made famous on the iPhone -- and if you'll recall, Steve Jobs introduced multitouch on the iPhone with a slide reading "Patented!" To top it all off, the past few days have seen a number of media outlets proclaim that Apple's been awarded a "multitouch patent" without so much as a shred of analysis, instead hyping up a supposed future conflict. That's just not how we play it, so we enlisted Mathew Gavronski, a patent attorney in the Chicago office of Michael Best & Friedrich, to help us clear up some of the confusion and misinformation that's out there -- read on for more. Just a couple notes before we begin: first, we're not going to get into whether or not Apple or Palm should have been granted particular patents or if the patent system is working as it should -- that's a philosophical argument way outside the scope of any potential lawsuit that might arise. Suffice it to say that although we're aware the patent system has flaws, there's no debating that people and companies should be compensated for their work, and we're not going to begrudge Apple or Palm for trying to do everything they can within rules of the current system to protect and profit from the hundreds of millions of dollars each has spent on R&D. You can bet the public policy implications of the patent system don't keep Ed Colligan or Steve Jobs up at night; we're going to assume both sides will be using every trick and decades-old patent it can find to win a potential lawsuit. Second, while we can sit here and play with an iPhone to figure out what exactly Apple's trying to patent, we really don't have much to go on with the Pre apart from some brief hands-on time with units running alpha-level code at CES, so we can't really make definitive calls one way or another. A lot can change between now and whenever the Pre is launched, so while we're going to do our best to identify the elements of the Pre and the iPhone that could potentially infringe Apple or Palm patents, treat the Pre stuff with an extra dose of salt. So now that we've got the caveats out of the way, let's get started breaking down the areas where Apple and Palm can really do some courtroom damage, shall we? ... http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-the-in-depth-analysis/ ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 2009 17:35:45 -0500 From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Windows area code rules Message-ID: <glvvc1$pf$1@panix5.panix.com> When I was running W2K, ISTR that somewhere under control panel here was an "area code rules" setting that allowed me to list a few area codes, and then say "Calling to all other area codes, dial a '1' and the area code first. Now in XP pro, I can't find it. It wants me to enter each area code individually, then for THAT area code, dial a '1' and the area code first. Could someone please refresh my memory? -- Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 1353 Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val, Red, Shasta & Casey (RIP), Red & Zero, Siberians Owner:Chinook-L Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:52:28 -0700 From: Robert Neville <dont@bother.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Windows area code rules Message-ID: <74m7o450pve53lreh6b5nn6t037hbn3hk5@4ax.com> richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) wrote: > >Now in XP pro, I can't find it. It wants me to enter each area code >individually, then for THAT area code, dial a '1' and the area code >first. Control Panel / Phone and Modem / Dialing Rules ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:59:50 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Friends, Until I Delete You Message-ID: <p0624087bc5a98af8cd7a@[10.0.1.6]> Friends, Until I Delete You January 29, 2009 By DOUGLAS QUENQUA A PERSON could go mad trying to pinpoint the moment he lost a friend. So seldom does that friend make his feelings clear by sending out an e-mail alert. It's not just a fact of life, but also a policy on Facebook. While many trivial actions do prompt Facebook to post an alert to all your friends - adding a photo, changing your relationship status, using Fandango to buy tickets to "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" - striking someone off your list simply is not one of them. It is this policy that Burger King ran afoul of this month with its "Whopper Sacrifice" campaign, which offered a free hamburger to anyone who severed the sacred bonds with 10 of the friends they had accumulated on Facebook. Facebook suspended the program because Burger King was sending notifications to the castoffs letting them know they'd been dropped for a sandwich (or, more accurately, a tenth of a sandwich). The campaign, which boasted of ending 234,000 friendships, is history now - Burger King chose to end it rather than tweak it to fit Facebook's policy - but the same can hardly be said of the emerging anxiety it tapped. As social networking becomes ubiquitous, people with an otherwise steady grip on social etiquette find themselves flummoxed by questions about "unfriending" people: how to do it, when to do it and how to get away with it quietly. ... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/fashion/29facebook.html ------------------------------ 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 (11 messages) ******************************