|
|
Message Digest
Volume 29 : Issue 55 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Cable System Switch Type
Re:Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone?
Re: Cable System Switch Type
Re: Fonts and Editors
Re: US school district spied on students through webcams
Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
====== 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: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:16:07 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cable System Switch Type
Message-ID: <hlvh9o$6fm$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Sam Spade wrote:
> Anyone have an idea what the end office switch type "NT-5" is?
>
> That is what comes up in Local Calling Guide for the switch used in
> NPA 949 by Cox Communications to provide dial tone services on their
> Orange County, California cable service.
>
> I know, "NT" seems like those folks that make DMS switches. ;-)
Wasn't the equipment end of NT sold? They might have renamed it,
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:51:12 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re:Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone?
Message-ID: <hm08eg$2oc$2@news.albasani.net>
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>Gene S. Berkowitz <first.last@verizon.net> wrote:
>>dcstar@myrealbox.com says...
>>>On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:28:36 -0500, Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
>>>>dcstar@myrealbox.com says...
>>>>> ADSL performance is based on maximum possible S/N ratio at the remote
>>>>> modem end: allow another digital device to pump even tiny amounts of HF
>>>>> noise into the line (which "normal" handsets care little about) and you
>>>>> will find you maximum sync rate far lower than it could be.
>>>>> Just don't use one filter on a cordless base station, use two.
>>>> That's just silly.
>>> Most ADSL filters are designed to be low pass in one direction but
>>> they do seem to also have low pass characteristics in the other
>>> direction (these things are invariably built to the lowest cost to do
>>> the basic job - which does not include filtering in the opposite
>>> direction).
>> No, most filters are not directional at all, only the packaging
>> is (jack on one end, plug on the other, but in performance it
>> makes no difference).
>>> The purpose of putting two on a digital handset base station which has
>>> the potential to put the internally generated digital hash back into
>>> the phone line it connects to - which is very bad for any ADSL signal
>>> that is also on that line - is to reduce that potential hash.
>> I don't think that this is true of any cordless base station made
>> in the last 10 years. Compliance with EMC guidelines (EN55024)
>> makes internal filtering on the incoming cable practically
>> mandatory to avoid conducted interference.
> The cordless phone in question is older.
> It doesn't look like [there is] a consensus of opinion as to what I
> should do...
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> I suggest doing some binary tests:
> 1. Measure your DSL upload and download speed as it is now. Do the
> test at 4 AM so there's a minimum of variance in the speed readings
> from one test to another. There's a good speed test at
> http://www.speakeasy.net/ , but there are others.
> 2. Disconnect ALL telephones from the line, including the cordless
> one, and note any change in speed, in either direction. Keep notes.
> 3. Plug the cordless phone back in, and see if your DSL speed
> changes. Note the change(s).
> 4. Repeat for your other phones, one at a time. Report the results.
> HTH.
Bill, the problem is not that the cordless phone base interferes with
ADSL, but that I'm now getting unacceptable sound quality on the
cordless phone.
My question was, Does a specialized filter exist for cordless phones
that use 43-60 MHz range. It must not be old enough to use 1.7 MHz, as
it has 10 channels.
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:00:51 -0800 (PST)
From: markjcuccia@yahoo.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cable System Switch Type
Message-ID: <e3efb653-7a26-4da8-84c3-acb62d3bcd75@b10g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 22, 8:19 pm, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone have an idea what the end office switch type "NT-5" is?
>
> That is what comes up in Local Calling Guide for the switch used in
> NPA 949 by Cox Communications to provide dial tone services on their
> Orange County, California cable service.
>
> I know, "NT" seems like those folks that make DMS switches. ;-)
Yes, it's an abbreviation for Northern Telecom. It's the DMS-500, but
I think that the official designation by Nortel is the NT-500.
mjc
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:22:43 -0600
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Fonts and Editors
Message-ID: <4B83D6A3.1080204@annsgarden.com>
Sam Spade wrote:
> Bill Gates "[Deity] Complex" notwithstanding, his three programs,
> Notepad, Wordpad, and even his full-blown word processor program
> indeed can, and will, work at the basic ASCII level. Problem is,
> too many users do not get it.
Notepad won't correct slanty quotes. Here's a snippet from a Word
document I received; I copied it into Notepad, then copied the Notepad
version into this message. If Bill doesn't "correct" it for me, you'll
see what slanty quotes do:
[quote] Please “don’t be a no show.” [unquote]
Neal McLain
***** Moderator's Note *****
I've tried to leave the quote intact, but I had to edit the message
since someone forgot to put "[telecom]" in the subject line.
In case the editor and/or the reader's news/mail client doesn't
reproduce the quote accurately, or renders the "incorrect" characters
"correctly", the offending characters have octal values of 223 and
224, which are respectively, 147 and 148 decimal.
Those are, of course, the "open quote" and "close quote" characters
from the Windows-1252 character set. ISO-8859-1 doesn't have an
equivalent that I could find: it does, however, offer «chevron style
quotes». C'est la guerre.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:26:18 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US school district spied on students through webcams
Message-ID: <43a92262-e9bd-4f7c-85b5-5fc04d582644@f8g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 22, 2:17 pm, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> But the issue remains: the laptop was not stolen and there is an
> alleged picture of a student in his home eating candy captured by
> the webcam and the student was confronted (later) in school with the
> picture. THAT (the picture taken using a non-stolen laptop's
> webcam) is what instigated the lawsuit and I don't see how the
> school is going to weasel out of that.
Actually, there is a suggestion that this particular laptop was a in-
school model and not supposed to be removed from school grounds; which
would allow the webcam to be activated. Anyway, if there is no
picture there may not be a case.
Here are links to a variety of news articles discussing the case,
along with quotes from lawyers, and the latest news (as of Tues 2/23):
>From the NY Times: There is a news report along with reader comments,
which include some from Lower Merion families. I thought comments
#25, #38, #44, #47, #48 were especially interesting. See:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/school-accused-of-using-webcam-to-photograph-student-at-home/?scp=1&sq=lower%20merion&st=cse
>From the Phila Inqr, Tues 2/23/10: Now the lawyers are locking
horns. See:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20100223_Rare_ban_in_laptop_lawsuit.html
>From the Phila Inqr Sun 2/21/10: Several lawyers quoted in the
article had doubts in the case:
Christopher Wolf, a Washington lawyer who specializes in privacy
issues, said answers to such questions - and the extent to which the
district informed parents and students of the webcams' use - are
critical in determining if school officials erred. "If, in fact,
notice was given, and if the computer was reported lost or stolen, and
if, consistent with the notice, the monitoring system was turned on,"
Wolf said, "it would be hard to see how that would violate the
expectation of privacy."
Jeffrey Lindy, a defense lawyer whose son is a Lower Merion senior,
said he doubts a federal crime occurred. "I think the federal case is
going to go away pretty quick; it would be a defense attorney's dream
because there is certainly no intent to commit a crime here," Lindy
said yesterday. "Now, of course, the parents weren't told. That's not
illegal, just stupid."
For full article please see:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20100221_L__Merion_webcam_issue_is_new_legal_territory.html
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:31:03 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
Message-ID: <7625d66c-8114-47ce-a413-0cd2029cca62@g23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 22, 10:03 pm, Ron <r...@see.below> wrote:
> You are incorrect. There are federal regulations about unlawful
> interception of Email.
I'm confused--do you mean that an employer does not have the right to
inspect messages going through his own email system of his company on
computers he provides on his premises?
Or indeed, an employer may not monitor what data is processed on
computers he owns and provides on his premises?
Indeed, this would [put] employers between a rock and a hard place.
If an employee uses a work computer for illegal or inappropriate
activity, such as illegal porn or harassment, the employer could be
found negligent or culpable.
Could you elaborate on what those regulations specify?
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:26:46 -0600
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Message-ID: <v-idnUgKu_drthnWnZ2dnUVZ_g1i4p2d@supernews.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> I don't think people minded paying the 50c for a local call.
You would be very, very wrong. Payphones as a market pretty much
destroyed themselves, cellphones just helped a bit.
As soon as COCOT "money trap" phones started to appear, they were no
longer trustworthy as a whole, because sometimes the COCOT operators
worked very hard to make their phones look like telco phones, to the
point of sometimes using RBOC housings and signage.
* -- * PV
Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something like
corkscrews.
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:38:31 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Message-ID: <hm1otn$paa$1@news.eternal-september.org>
PV wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>
>> I don't think people minded paying the 50c for a local call.
>
> You would be very, very wrong. Payphones as a market pretty much
> destroyed themselves, cellphones just helped a bit.
>
> As soon as COCOT "money trap" phones started to appear, they were no
> longer trustworthy as a whole, because sometimes the COCOT operators
> worked very hard to make their phones look like telco phones, to the
> point of sometimes using RBOC housings and signage.
This morning I was in 2 state buildings, [both] in San Bernardino,
Calif, and on each floor they had pay phones, [which] were marked
Verizon, but I believe that Verizon sold that part of the business. So
it appears they must get some use: a couple of them /were/ in use.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:53:14 -0600
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
Message-ID: <uMqdnYzDgse3rxnWnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@supernews.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> The school district has responded to the charges by vehemently
> insisting that the laptop cameras were never used to spy on
> students.
They can vehemently insist all they like, but the facts of the case
are that an assistant principal called the student plantiff into her
office and TOLD HIM that they saw improper behavior by remote
activating his webcam. Nothing to do with theft prevention since she
knew it was him. More details indicate that the thing that "she knew
he did" was eating a candy that looked (to her) like pills. Demon
M&Ms!
They are completely hosed here. Careers will be over at the least, and
if discovery uncovers pictures of undressed minors, it will mean lots
of jail time.
What were they thinking even creating the possibility of remote
access? Concerns about laptop theft are not going to protect them, as
they are soon to find out. All it takes is one bad person doing what
they shouldn't with that capability (i.e. the Ass Principal), and
there's no going back.
> There were to be only used in case the laptops were reported stolen
> or lost, so to identify the thief (and that is a legal use).
Too bad it didn't "only" get used for that.
> It was reported that a signal light glows when the camera is in use,
> and, the signal light malfunctions in that it glows randomly (they
> demonstrated that on the TV news). Thus, some students may think
> they're being monitored when in fact they're not.
And that's relevant how?
> I personally find it extremely hard to believe that a school
> administrator would make use of such a system to spy on students as
> the lawsuit claims.
These are the same kind of school admins that consider aspirin to be a
drug worthy of expulsion. Zero tolerance is for those of zero
intelligence. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:18:30 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
Message-ID: <4B847056.3080207@thadlabs.com>
Too many (and too long) URLs to post them here; visit this page
at Slashdot:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/23/2030207/Federal-Judge-Orders-Schools-To-Stop-Laptop-Spying
and click on those of interest.
To save time, the most fascinating two I found are:
http://strydehax.blogspot.com/2010/02/spy-at-harrington-high.html
and this one from the manufacturer of the LANrev software:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9160278/Software_maker_blasts_vigilantism_in_Pa._school_spying_case
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 (10 messages)
|
or 