Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 29 : Issue 43 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: Re: Green Legislation Targets White Pages Re: Federal Court to Rule on Privacy of Mobile Phone Location Data Re: Federal Court to Rule on Privacy of Mobile Phone Location Data Re: Federal Court to Rule on Privacy of Mobile Phone Location Data Telecom Conference SUPERCOMM Shelved For 2010 Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Re: ISDN (was: Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain) Re: ISDN (was: Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain) Re: ISDN (was: Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain) Re: ISDN (was: Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain) Re:Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone? Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Feds push for tracking cell phones Re: Touch-Tone<tm> on SxS Re: Area Code 710? Re: Federal Court to Rule on Privacy of Mobile Phone Location Data ====== 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: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:25:26 -0800 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Re: Green Legislation Targets White Pages Message-ID: <4B7386B6.6020300@thadlabs.com> On 2/9/2010 8:20 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote: > Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: > >> That phonebook was left on my door step in a plastic bag even though >> I haven't had landline service since 2002 (though I do have stock in >> the company) -- I'm not listed. And having AT&T Mobility as a cell >> carrier does not qualify one for a listing in the White Pages (which >> is fine with me). > > Right now, phone books are delivered based on the number of residences > in a building. If a residence has lines on multiple bills, I suspect > that triggers delivery of an extra book. In the past, phone books were > delivered based on the number of telephone lines. True. One book for each line, but PacBell stopped doing that some (I'm guessing) 25 years ago and it became one book per residence. And getting phone books for other areas (e.g., remainder of San Francisco Bay Area) required one to make an annual "round trip of food supermarkets" to pick up the area's book(s) in the PacBell kiosks at each market in each area. Los Gatos CA was an "oddball" since it was (then) served by GTE. I regularly shop at 4 to 5 different food supermarkets and I haven't seen any phone book kiosks in ages now. "Somewhere" I heard that one has to actually buy the phone books for the other areas now and the guy was quoted $99 for the set of San Jose CA or San Francisco CA phonebooks (given these were physically each a set of 4 or 5 books given the population density) vs. most SF Bay Area "local" phone books which are single books about 1" to 1.5" thick. Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:51:37 -0800 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Federal Court to Rule on Privacy of Mobile Phone Location Data Message-ID: <4B738CD9.5000704@thadlabs.com> On 2/10/2010 9:49 AM, John Mayson wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Julian Thomas <jt@jt-mj.net> wrote: >> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 00:11:10 -0500 ed wrote: >> >>> If anyone wants to hear how easy it is for law-enforcement to snoop >>> on your physical location (with the friendly help of your mobile >>> carrier >> Not if I turn off my phone or leave it at home! > > Which brings up a question. Why is it the people I personally know > who are so vocal about their privacy the very ones posting every > detail of their lives, including what I would call "too much > information", to their Twitter, Facebook, Friendfeed, etc.? Ooooo, that hit a nerve. Some longtime friends recently invited me to Farcebook; I declined and included these URLs for their edification since one might as well put a gun to one's head (as one of the following articles is entitled): http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?entry_id=56175 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/01/26/urnidgns852573C400693880002576B700772655.DTL http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2009/02/08/the_end_of_alone/ http://thadlabs.com/FILES/GLOBE_20090208_The_End_Of_Alone.pdf http://news.cnet.com/The-case-against-Twitter/2010-1038_3-6187291.html Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:14:43 GMT From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Federal Court to Rule on Privacy of Mobile Phone Location Data Message-ID: <hl1s00$2q1$4@news.eternal-september.org> Someone wrote: >> Which brings up a question. Why is it the people I personally know >> who are so vocal about their privacy the very ones posting every >> detail of their lives, including what I would call "too much >> information", to their Twitter, Facebook, Friendfeed, etc.? Because people are conditioned to not trust the government but to trust business. My take is exactly the opposite because we can control the government via our voting patterns, the initiative process (in some states) and our campaign contributions. However, unless we're rich enough to own substantial voting stock in Twitter, Facebook, or the Antichrist aka Google, we're not going to be able to control their policies at all. Big business has conditioned us to believe that business=good, government=bad because it's in their own self-interest to make people think that way. ***** Moderator's Note ***** This thread is about the government's claim that it should be entitled to use cell phone location data without search warrants. Let's keep it from drifting too far off-topic. Bill Horne Moderator Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:47:42 -0600 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Federal Court to Rule on Privacy of Mobile Phone Location Data Message-ID: <6645152a1002111247w43d1ad59qf8e14a96623b2ece@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: > > Ooooo, that hit a nerve. Some longtime friends recently invited me to > Farcebook; I declined and included these URLs for their edification > since one might as well put a gun to one's head (as one of the following > articles is entitled): (URLs clipped) I am on Facebook and Twitter. But I use both services quite differently than the unwashed masses. I used Facebook to find old friends. We moved around a lot when I was a kid and I lost contact with most everyone. Now that we're caught up with each other I only very occasionally visit Facebook. I have much more productive things to do than toss vampires at people who find out which dictator I was in a former life. Twitter. I'm working on a presentation that I'm giving tomorrow about how to use Twitter in the job search. If you follow the right people it can be a valuable tool. And if you tweet/retweet the right information you'll gain a following that can include recruiters and hiring managers. But on the dark side I have seen posts to Twitter and Facebook ranging from the color of the fluid they woke up in a puddle of to rather embarrassing health issues. I would never post if I had so much as a sinus infection much less an issue with a body part that by law I must keep covered at all times while in public. John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jmayson Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:23:18 -0800 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Telecom Conference SUPERCOMM Shelved For 2010 Message-ID: <4B73A256.4020509@thadlabs.com> In today's Slashdot: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/02/10/1955252/Telecom-Conference-SUPERCOMM-Shelved-For-2010 > Once the largest telecom show in the United States, and arguably > the world, SUPERCOMM has been shelved for financial reasons, the > Telecommunications Industry Association announced yesterday. > Blogger Tom Henderson speculates that the new emphasis on mobility > rather than the landline infrastructure is partly to blame. (The > Mobile World Congress in Barcelona and CTIA Wireless are the > beneficiaries of this shift.) But part of the blame also has to > go to the decline of multivendor conferences and trade shows, > which Henderson attributes to vendors wanting their own shows > where they can 'control the message.'" Click on the Slashdot URL (above) to get to two additional extremely-long URLs with more information. Date: 11 Feb 2010 04:59:51 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Message-ID: <20100211045951.51964.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >Since our politicians have exempted themselves from pretty much all of >the DNC ("Do Not Call", as opposed to "Democratic National Committee") >oversight, what other options can anyone here recommend? Even though they're exempt from the national DNC list, they're all supposed to keep their own DNC list. I've had reasonably good luck with "put me on your do not call list, and don't call back." The bill collectors are the worst, though. I have a reasonably common name and bill collectors just can't belive that even though I have never lived where their deadbeat lived, I was not born on the DOB they have, and my middle initial is different, I won't pay his bill anyway. R's, John Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 03:42:23 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Message-ID: <hl2imv$ir1$1@news.albasani.net> John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: > Even though they're exempt from the national DNC list, they're all > supposed to keep their own DNC list. I've had reasonably good luck > with "put me on your do not call list, and don't call back." Political campaigns are temporary things. Even if they maintain an internal "do not call" list, it's doubtful that the information would be passed along to any other campaign. They are simply exempt from commercial telephone solicitation laws and I do not believe that they are required to maintain internal lists. > The bill collectors are the worst, though. I have a reasonably > common name and bill collectors just can't belive that even though I > have never lived where their deadbeat lived, I was not born on the > DOB they have, and my middle initial is different, I won't pay his > bill anyway. A bill collector makes lots and lots of calls based on fuzzy matching. They are hoping that if they make enough of a pest of themselves that they will hit someone on the list of "related people" that actually knows the debtor and, just to get the calls to stop, will pass along the contact information to the bill collector. When you state that you aren't the person, yeah, they believe you. They just don't care. They really want YOU to do their work for them. Next time, demand their commission. Date: 11 Feb 2010 05:09:48 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: ISDN (was: Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain ) Message-ID: <20100211050948.54381.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >> ... ISDN, at least for me, was indeed "Is Still Doing Nothing". I >> understand it's still around, but why escapes me, with it's >> painfully slow speed compared to DSL. ISDN is still circuit switched 64K channels, known as B for Bearer channels. It's a substitute for POTS, not for broadband. Since it's digital end to end, the voice quality is better than analog, and as has been noted you can bond multiple B channels together to get better fidelity. ISDN lines also have a D channel used for call setup and (in theory although rarely in practice) moderate speed data, so ISDN provides a full set of spiffy calling features via the D channel. My impression is that in the US the main use of ISDN is on PBX trunks, where a T1 is typically configured as one D channel and 23 B channels. The implementation of North American ISDN was seriously botched. Elsewhere in the world, it's plug and play so in Japan they have ISDN pay phones into which you can plug your ISDN laptop modem. The version in the US requires non-trivial configuration of each end of a circuit, so for most purposes it's more hassle than it's worth. Oh, and the Bells grossly overpriced it, too. R's, John ***** Moderator's Note ***** I think the U.S. ILECs were reluctant to push ISDN because they had an acute shortage of 8-bit trunks to serve ISDN calls. Even after the implementation of SS7, most interoffice trunks were served via ordinary DPO and DPT cards that still used robbed-bit signalling. There were also serious provisioning issues: when I was doing SS7 Engineering, I worked at home for an extended time following an accident, and at one point (this was waaaay before cable was available, and ADSL wouldn't stretch to my house yet) I ordered ISDN service in hopes of getting somewhat higher data rates. I had to sign up with an ISP that provided ISDN service, and since they were in Boston I had to resign myself to paying by the minute on every data call. I bought a Motorola BitSurfer ISDN "T" adapter, and hooked everything up at the appointed hour. As John says, the voice quality was great, and I got an extra phone number. Although it was always a crapshoot as to whether or not I'd get a 64kbps or a 56kbps conneciton on a data call, I found the added speed to be a great advantage. Also, since the ISP had a much better backbone than my previous provider, I noticed dramatically reduced latency during data calls. But - The phone wouldn't ring on incoming calls. I tried a different T adapter, putting a voltmeter across the RJ-11 jacks, and using a phone with a 0.1 REN. Nothing worked. After several days of frustration, N.E.T. changed me back to POTS, refunded the ISDN fees, and admitted that the provisioning system wasn't capable of correctly setting the IDSN bit mask needed to add ringing capability to an ISDN line. The CO foreman told me point-blank that none of his techs knew how to provision the service by hand, and said I was chaising my tail trying to use ISDN at all. I took the hint: ISDN is, at least in the U.S., a monument to the elephantine inertia and shortsightedness of the former monopoly. Bill Horne Moderator Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:15:28 -0800 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: ISDN (was: Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain ) Message-ID: <4B743B30.60003@thadlabs.com> On 2/10/2010 9:09 PM, John Levine wrote: >>> ... ISDN, at least for me, was indeed "Is Still Doing Nothing". I >>> understand it's still around, but why escapes me, with it's >>> painfully slow speed compared to DSL. > > ISDN is still circuit switched 64K channels, known as B for Bearer > channels. It's a substitute for POTS, not for broadband. > > Since it's digital end to end, the voice quality is better than > analog, and as has been noted you can bond multiple B channels > together to get better fidelity. ISDN lines also have a D channel > used for call setup and (in theory although rarely in practice) > moderate speed data, so ISDN provides a full set of spiffy calling > features via the D channel. > > My impression is that in the US the main use of ISDN is on PBX trunks, > where a T1 is typically configured as one D channel and 23 B channels. > [...] Correct, and in that usage it's known as a Primary Rate Interface aka PRI. I ordered a PRI for one client who wanted the Nortel BCM system (a PBX), and also PRIs for clients who wanted the asterisk VoIP system. Amazingly (to me) all PRIs were actually fiber lines to the MPOE where they were converted to <something> (2-pair) over Cat5 that connected to the PCI card(s) in the asterisk system(s). ***** Moderator's Note ***** Please tell us what a "MPOE" is, and what the "<something> (2-pair)" turned out to be. I'd also like to know what the PCI cards for the Asterisk system cost, and what hardware they're running on. TIA. Bill Horne Moderator Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:20:48 -0800 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: ISDN (was: Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain ) Message-ID: <4B74BB00.1000705@thadlabs.com> On 2/11/2010 9:15 AM, Thad Floryan wrote: > On 2/10/2010 9:09 PM, John Levine wrote: >> [...] >> My impression is that in the US the main use of ISDN is on PBX trunks, >> where a T1 is typically configured as one D channel and 23 B channels. >> [...] > > Correct, and in that usage it's known as a Primary Rate Interface aka PRI. > > I ordered a PRI for one client who wanted the Nortel BCM system (a PBX), > and also PRIs for clients who wanted the asterisk VoIP system. Amazingly > (to me) all PRIs were actually fiber lines to the MPOE where they were > converted to <something> (2-pair) over Cat5 that connected to the PCI > card(s) in the asterisk system(s). > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > Please tell us what a "MPOE" is, and what the "<something> (2-pair)" > turned out to be. Not sure if it's California/PacBell terminology. but: MPOE = Minimum (or Main) Point Of Entry, aka DEMARC. Locally it's a/the building's wiring closet to which all outside "wire" (incl. fiber) would terminate and LEC responsibility ended, and from which CPE wiring would be run to floor and/or individual company wiring closets. The "<something> (2-pair)" is just that: one analog pair for transmit and one pair for receive (which is which depends on the point-of-view of the endpoint devices, with a CSU/DSU CPE at one end; this is a T1) which typically would be run using 2 (of the 4) pairs in Cat3 or Cat5 cabling for convenience. I've never heard it termed anything other than "the T1 line" or "the CSU/DSU wire". :-) > I'd also like to know what the PCI cards for the Asterisk system cost, and > what hardware they're running on. TIA. System hardware is really quite modest. A Dell Optiplex (~ 1000-2000 MHz single-core) is more than adequate for most purposes (small company, less than 100 phone instruments, etc.) and running a several-release-old "stable" Fedora though CentOS would also be suitable. The PCI cards are/were generally in the range of US$500; recommended cards can be seen (and purchased) here: http://store.digium.com/telephony_card_selector.php Note the system "should" have two NICs (Ethernet ports): one for the normal data Ethernet traffic and one for the VoIP traffic. Believe me, contrary to all the industry hype, you really want separate networks for a business so the shipping guy downloading his p0rn or playing a game doesn't bring down a high-stakes conference call. A home or (really) small business setup can work fine over a single network. Security concerns would be another reason to have separate networks (data and VoIP); the cost of (most) networking gear is so relatively low nowadays (vs. the n * $1000 multiples of only a few years ago) that I'd recommend 2 networks "just to be safe". I don't have any of the (old) purchase orders listing exactly what cards I've used over the years. The big concern is how one is going to power all the phone instruments. Cisco 7960 and Polycom IP4000 (conference room) instruments seemed to be the overwhelming and near ubiquitous favorites. The Polycoms required an external power supply, the 7960s would work either with an external power supply or via PoE (Power over Ethernet). Be aware that most, if not all, PoE switches (even from Cisco) probably will not be able to supply power to more than 20-30 phones (which is really insane for a 48-port switch) -- the ((Cisco) 7960) phones are real power hogs -- but newer phones "might" be more "green" (energy efficient). I've been "out" of this business for several years now and haven't actively monitored ongoing progress. Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:01:18 -0600 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: ISDN (was: Re: Two 1A ESS COs to be Replaced in 2010; 59 Remain ) Message-ID: <98KdnbZkuPnjWenWnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <4B743B30.60003@thadlabs.com>, Telecom Digest Moderator wrote > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > Please tell us what a "MPOE" is, <M>ain <P>oint <O>f <E>ntry. > ... and what the "<something> (2-pair)" turned out to be. 'bastardized' DS1. Works fine for relatively short distances. DS1 cable spec calls for shielded TP, but you can get away with UTP for limited distances. > I'd also like to know what the PCI cards for the Asterisk system > cost, Dialogic or Brooktrout, basic functionality cards, circa $250-300 on the secondary market. (You can pay a bunch more, an get more 'smarts' on the card, which means less CPU required.) Digium (the folks behind asterix) -- circa $800 list (new, obviously). Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:23:11 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re:Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone? Message-ID: <pan.2010.02.11.06.23.07.899674@myrealbox.com> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:09:25 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote: > David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote: >>On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:09:11 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote: ....... >>> Anyway, do these require a different filter than the one that came >>> in the box? > >> Get certified ADSL2 filters, old ADSL1 filters may not be good >> enough. > > Who certifies these things? There's independent testing? You get things that the manufacturer says are ADSL2 filters, not generic ADSL filters that may not be effective for the higher frequencies ADSL2 uses. -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have. Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:27:38 GMT From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Message-ID: <hl0pj9$f37$1@news.eternal-september.org> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote: > Every couple of months I get a call, often with blocked or > pseudo-fake caller ID, asking for "Jane Doe" (name changed, but it's > the same one each time). I have my own solution: (1) When the number is out of area and doesn't belong to someone already on my phone list, I ignore it and let it go to voicemail, likewise blocked numbers. (2) When the number is 000-000-0000 or an 800 number or such, I save it in my phone list and change the ring to a cute tune that I use for nothing other than junk calls. Since I leave my phone on while I'm asleep I have trained myself to wake up only to ringing tones, not cute musical interludes. This is so much better for my sanity than trying to deal with "do not call" lists and other matters that require I talk to someone who couldn't care less about my annoyance. ***** Moderator's Note ***** I have a "smart" caller id box which can transfer calls to either of two RJ-11 jacks based on the area code, etc. Although it was effective at some things, such as diverting my son's calls to a different phone with a different ring tone, I finally got tired of having to constantly reprogram it for each new telemarketer's number. I switched to a simpler device which answers the phone and demands an access code. After a couple of months of having it in use, I seem to have wound up on some "Don't even attempt to call this guy" list, so I'm able to leave it turned off. Bill Horne Moderator Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:22:14 GMT From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone Message-ID: <hl1se2$2q1$5@news.eternal-september.org> sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote: >I finally got tired of having to >constantly reprogram it for each new telemarketer's number. I'm not bothered nearly as much as you are. This may be because I don't have any landlines at all. I have used cell exclusively for the past 8 years. I also don't see telemarketing numbers change that often. I'm not sure why the discrepancy. Maybe it's because I don't buy anything with credit cards, and don't have a white pages listing (though I have 3 prominent yellow pages listings). >I switched to a simpler device which answers the phone and demands an >access code. After a couple of months of having it in use, I seem to >have wound up on some "Don't even attempt to call this guy" list, so >I'm able to leave it turned off. This happens with the junk calls I get. They come in waves. I have taken to saving the numbers with names like "junk 0210" meaning that Feb 2010 was the first time I'd gotten a call from that number. If I get a call from the same number in, say, June, I'll change the name to "junk 0610". Periodically I go through the list of saved numbers and discard the old ones. Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:55:02 -0800 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Feds push for tracking cell phones Message-ID: <4B745286.2060904@thadlabs.com> "U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls." This is probably going to end up in the US Supreme Court. Full article here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html with this update a few minutes ago: Update 10:37 a.m. PT: A source inside the U.S. Attorney's Office for the northern district of Texas, which prosecuted the Scarecrow Bandits mentioned in the above article, tells me that this was the first and the only time that the FBI has used the location-data-mining technique to nab bank robbers. It's also worth noting that the leader of this gang, Corey Duffey, was sentenced last month to 354 years (not months, but years) in prison. Another member is facing 140 years in prison. Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:33:28 -0800 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Touch-Tone<tm> on SxS Message-ID: <cYYcn.85560$BV.70184@newsfe07.iad> Wesrock@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 2/9/2010 3:06:51 PM Central Standard Time, > jsw@ivgate.omahug.org writes: > >>When dialing was complete, the common-control unit then either drove >>the switches to complete the intra-office call or selected a trunk >>to another office and outpulsed the appropriate digits using the >>method the far-end office spoke. > > While not exactly the same thing, when Blackwell, Okla., was cut to > dial with a new 5XB, it homed on Ponca City, a step office. > > It also had high usage trunks from the 4A in Oklahoma City. > > You could readily tell which route your call had taken, because if it > used the high usage trunks from the 4A, the call setup was almost > instantaneous, while if it took the final route through Ponca City, > the 4A outpulsed to the step office in Ponca City and through it to > Blackwell with step pulses. I don't know about the 5XB, but a 1 and 1AESS could do overlap DP to a step office, which cut the time down significantly, especially for a subscriber using a rotary dial. Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:53:09 +0000 (UTC) From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Area Code 710? Message-ID: <hl21ol$2b6u$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> In article <f9k6n599afvgg6fg48hvnfq934rf74dndd@4ax.com>, Robert Neville <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >I did a little more poking around and found a surprising amount of information >published by the government now: http://gets.ncs.gov/ There is also a wireless equivalent, "Wireless Priority Service", which is described at http://wps.ncs.gov/. Authorized users can prefix *272 to the dialed number to access the "high probability of completion" service already used for wireless 911 calls. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:03:37 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Federal Court to Rule on Privacy of Mobile Phone Location Data Message-ID: <6d6a7d0f-c0c5-4b64-a151-b755b36faf8e@j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> On Feb 8, 12:11 am, ed <bern...@netaxs.com> wrote: > Telecom Digest list members in the Philadelphia area may want to visit   > the Federal Courthouse at 6th & Market Streets this Thursday morning   > (2/11/10) . . . The hearing may have been cancelled on account of two feet of snow falling in Philadelphia and the need to clean it up. Many govt agencies and private businesses were closed. > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > This thread is about the government's claim that it should be > entitled to use cell phone location data without search > warrants. Let's keep it from drifting too far off-topic. I must respectfully disagree. I feel the other posters were correct in their concerns about the private sector seeking this kind of information for their own purposes. How much protection do citizens have from their carriers--if their carriers decide to own their own release subscriber information? In the old days the Bell System was powerful enough to be independent. By having a guaranteed revenue stream from its regulated customers, it was mostly insulated from outside pressures. But today's carriers are scrappy and greedy and willing to sell. For instance, the old Bell didn't realize credit history, today's carriers do. For instance, If some big insurance company was willing to pay dearly for data about its customers so it have an excuse to jack up their rates; will the carriers comply? Also, there is the possibility the govt will do an end-run around Constitutional protection by getting desired info from private sources--gathered per above. ***** Moderator's Note ***** I wasn't saying that the debate shouldn't happen: I was alluding to the strident tone of the post and how the poster was touching on issues larger than telecom. Bill Horne Moderator 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 (18 messages)