|
|
Message Digest
Volume 29 : Issue 57 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
magicJack: Cheap, Way Overhyped, But Really Works
Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Re: Pay phone nostalgia
More about 5E remote from Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland
Re: More about 5E remote from Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland
Re: More about 5E remote from Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland
Re: More about 5E remote from Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland
Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
Law enforcement tracking cell phone owners in real time
====== 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: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:44:24 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: magicJack: Cheap, Way Overhyped, But Really Works
Message-ID: <p062408e7c7abcc454699@[10.0.0.5]>
Personal Technology from The Wall Street Journal
magicJack: Cheap, Way Overhyped, But Really Works
February 17, 2010
by Walter S. Mossberg
When I see a high-tech product that's advertised mainly via frequent
hard-sell TV ads, as if it were a diet pill, I tend to assume it
can't be very good, especially if its price is absurdly low. So, I
haven't paid much attention to a product called magicJack, a small
$40 adapter for your computer that claims to let you make unlimited
domestic phone calls over the Internet with your home telephone free
for a whole year-and for just $20 a year thereafter.
But after receiving reader requests to review magicJack, I decided to
do so. To my surprise, it worked pretty much as advertised. It has a
few drawbacks, and extra fees for added services, such as vanity
phone numbers. But I found magicJack easy to set up and easy to use,
and it yielded decent, if not pristine, call quality. I even tested
customer support-a source of complaints online-and found it friendly,
fast and responsive.
...
http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20100217/magicjack-review/
***** Moderator's Note *****
Good grief! When are journalists going to figure out that that vendors
always divert their IP addresses onto the "next up" position of the
"expert" queue?
We had a couple of long threads about MagicJack recently: according to
"2600", the company is a bad choice for VoIP. YMMV.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:36:44 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Message-ID: <0pshn.3590$mn6.2675@newsfe07.iad>
T wrote:
> In article <v-idnUgKu_drthnWnZ2dnUVZ_g1i4p2d@supernews.com>,
> pv+usenet@pobox.com says...
>
>>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.
>
> I've got a good mind to stick my 1D2 on the side of the building and
> charge 10 cents a call. Hook it up to a VoIP provider and a basic
> controller and I'm golden.
10 cents for a call accross the country or even to 60 countries in the
case of Vonage? Someone would monopolize the phone sooner or later.
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:54:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Message-ID: <4511.99687.qm@web52708.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:03:29 +0000 (UTC) David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> wrote:
<<Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> writes:
>Considering that you can get a prepaid wireless account for $10 which
>will pay for an account for 90 days and can cost as little as <$1 per
>month why would someone opt to pay 50c for a three minute call?
Wish I could find such. I have a T-mobile prepaid; it's $10/every
ninety days, which buys me in theory 30 minutes of use. Ergo, that
3 minute call you mention will cost me $1 or usually $1.33.
I can get cheaper /minute rates but basically only if I pay more per
month, or buy a far bigger chunk of time. Neither appeals
to me.>>
Notice I said can cost as little as <$1 per month. If you
have made $100 in deposit of airtime you become part of their "gold
rewards" program which gives you 365 day expiration on your account.
You may renew for another 365 days with a minimum deposit of $10 which
makes your monthly outlay ~83 cents. You will not get the cheapest
per minute rate ($100 deposit is needed for that) but you can have a
minimal cost phone to use for less than $1 per month. If you are not
in the gold rewards program expiration of minutes is every 90 days.
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:44:17 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: More about 5E remote from Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland
Message-ID: <5wshn.3591$mn6.174@newsfe07.iad>
Would the LEC sink fiber across the 26 miles of sea for the
remote/host link, or would they use digital microwave (the elevations
are sufficient for one microwave link?
I understand that microwave is vunerable to "wiretapping" for those
with the wherewithal.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Microwave is vulnerable to rain fading, antenna displacement due to
excessive wind loading, foreign objects in the path, solar damage,
bird strikes, and (for all I know) mogo on the gogo. I hope they used
fiber.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:03:36 -0500
From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: More about 5E remote from Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland
Message-ID: <4bldo5100o9vr9otbdna12r18ucsn54jt4@4ax.com>
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:44:17 -0800, Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
wrote:
> Would the LEC sink fiber across the 26 miles of sea for the
> remote/host link, or would they use digital microwave (the elevations
> are sufficient for one microwave link?
>
> I understand that microwave is vunerable to "wiretapping" for those
> with the wherewithal.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Microwave is vulnerable to rain fading, antenna displacement due to
> excessive wind loading, foreign objects in the path, solar damage,
> bird strikes, and (for all I know) mogo on the gogo. I hope they used
> fiber.
The LEC will invariably install the cheaper of the two. I strongly
suspect that the microwave link would be cheaper than getting the
fiber buried under the channel. Assuming, of course, that
satisfactory engineering requirements could be met to deal with Bill's
list of impairments. Fiber can also be "wiretapped" (I've heard that
LEC's have "special" rooms in certain wire centers for the feds
listening connections...), and since the LEC doesn't guarantee privacy
of your communications, they don't particularly care about
eavesdropping on their radio circuits. Their wiretapping and
eavesdropping concerns are with the state and federal laws and staying
out of trouble with those governments. Any external eavesdropper
would be subject to those laws, but the LEC wouldn't be charged for
putting your communication up on a radio link that somebody could
listen to.
Don't forget that the vast majority of long distance circuits were up
on microwave from the early '50's until fiber went big time in the
late 80's.
ET
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
***** Moderator's Note *****
ANY radio circuit is subject to wiretapping, the "those with the
wherewithal" include anyone who can afford an "unlocked" scanner that
receives the cellular networks. This is why the U.S. Department of
Defense has a long list of approved encryption devices which may be
used with cellular phones to prevent interception of calls when
classified matters are being discussed.
Of course, fiber can also be tapped, but it's a major effort and would
have to be done on dry land unless someone with the resources of a
government was involved. It's unlikely, not because I believe in
"Security through obscurity", but because it costs a lot less to do by
other means.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:32:07 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: More about 5E remote from Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland
Message-ID: <4B8732A7.6070002@thadlabs.com>
> [...]
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> [...]
> Of course, fiber can also be tapped, but it's a major effort and would
> have to be done on dry land unless someone with the resources of a
> government was involved. It's unlikely, not because I believe in
> "Security through obscurity", but because it costs a lot less to do by
> other means.
Unless one's tapping the entire AT&T backbone as the NSA is doing in
San Francisco per:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/11/07/MNIST7NS9.DTL
AFAIK, the NSA, et al aren't cost-conscious and don't put out bids. :-)
IIRC, the situation detailed in the above article is still entangled in
the legal system in DC; tidbits of info surrounding the case occasionally
appear on SFGate (one of the San Francisco Chronicle's web sites).
Think "Echelon" in which all Internet, cell phone, radio and any other form
of data communication is similarly being tapped 24/7/365 worldwide -- the USA
has 6 Echelon facilities (USA, Canada, Australia, UK, and elsewhere).
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence)
Russia has a system similar to Echelon named "Sorm-IV", and I'm sure
other countries have their counterparts. If one's curious, look back in
comp.dcom.telecom's archives late-2008 to mid-2009 for all the info URLs
I posted concerning Echelon, Sorm, etc. during that period.
An interesting factoid: as of 2006, 99% of the world's long-distance voice
and data traffic is carried over optical-fiber -- very easy to tap.
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:55:08 -0500
From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: More about 5E remote from Catalina Island to the SoCal mainland
Message-ID: <pr9eo5l0nhhoieemm20g6fgh969fgqg49b@4ax.com>
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:03:36 -0500, Eric Tappert
<e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:44:17 -0800, Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Would the LEC sink fiber across the 26 miles of sea for the
>> remote/host link, or would they use digital microwave (the elevations
>> are sufficient for one microwave link?
>>
>> I understand that microwave is vunerable to "wiretapping" for those
>> with the wherewithal.
>>
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> Microwave is vulnerable to rain fading, antenna displacement due to
>> excessive wind loading, foreign objects in the path, solar damage,
>> bird strikes, and (for all I know) mogo on the gogo. I hope they used
>> fiber.
>
> The LEC will invariably install the cheaper of the two. I strongly
> suspect that the microwave link would be cheaper than getting the
> fiber buried under the channel. Assuming, of course, that
> satisfactory engineering requirements could be met to deal with Bill's
> list of impairments. Fiber can also be "wiretapped" (I've heard that
> LEC's have "special" rooms in certain wire centers for the feds
> listening connections...), and since the LEC doesn't guarantee privacy
> of your communications, they don't particularly care about
> eavesdropping on their radio circuits. Their wiretapping and
> eavesdropping concerns are with the state and federal laws and staying
> out of trouble with those governments. Any external eavesdropper
> would be subject to those laws, but the LEC wouldn't be charged for
> putting your communication up on a radio link that somebody could
> listen to.
>
> Don't forget that the vast majority of long distance circuits were up
> on microwave from the early '50's until fiber went big time in the
> late 80's.
>
> ET
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> ANY radio circuit is subject to wiretapping, the "those with the
> wherewithal" include anyone who can afford an "unlocked" scanner that
> receives the cellular networks. This is why the U.S. Department of
> Defense has a long list of approved encryption devices which may be
> used with cellular phones to prevent interception of calls when
> classified matters are being discussed.
>
> Of course, fiber can also be tapped, but it's a major effort and would
> have to be done on dry land unless someone with the resources of a
> government was involved. It's unlikely, not because I believe in
> "Security through obscurity", but because it costs a lot less to do by
> other means.
Bill,
All that is required to wiretap fiber is physical acces to the fiber.
That may be a bit more difficult than tuning a radio receiver
(remember that microwave has highly directional antennas..), but it is
very possible with a lot less than government resources. It is not
even necessary to break (a detectable event to the LEC) the fiber to
do it... In any event, the LEC is much more concerned with the
availability and reliability of the circuits rather than whether
anybody is listening. Of course the real issue is whether anybody
(other than govenment, of course) wants to wade through all the chaf
to get any wheat (assuming that they would recognize the good
stuff)...
ET
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:07:45 -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: <18b42ce3-54ec-4f7c-96ea-0f51c17c408c@f35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 19, 11:08 am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
> US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
Thursday, 2/25/10, Philadelphia Inquirer articles:
Contradictions in laptop case:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_left_story/20100225_Contradictions_in_L__Merion_Web-cam_case.html
Family no stranger to legal disputes:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20100225_Laptop_family_is_no_stranger_to_legal_disputes.html
Many schools hesitant with laptops:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20100225_Many_schools_won_t_issue_Web-cam_laptops.html
Are free laptops worth the cost?
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/karen_heller/20100224_Karen_Heller__L__Merion_paying_a_price_for_free_laptops.html
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:30:59 -0500
From: Ron <ron@see.below>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
Message-ID: <i9ceo59d6du7gqvd1vont47hjkbrfh7vu0@4ax.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Feb 19, 11:08 am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
--snip--
Good cites, but you missed one.
Public statements and web presences of the tech guy
at Lower Merion in charge of the software on the laptops:
http://strydehax.blogspot.com/2010/02/spy-at-harrington-high.html
--
Ron
(user telnom.for.plume
in domain antichef.com)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:13:41 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Law enforcement tracking cell phone owners in real time
Message-ID: <dc92eab5-8928-43e2-af53-bb18e485c0d8@a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
Article in Newsweek describing this issue:
"The snitch in your pocket"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233916
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
***** Moderator's Note *****
The Newsweek article claims that Federal Law-Enforcement already has
access to the content of emails:
There are numerous other fronts in the privacy wars - about the content
of e-mails, for instance, and access to bank records and credit-card
transactions. The Feds now can quietly get all that information.
If true, then we have a (pun intended) prima facie case for end-to-end
encryption, and the PKI industry will be showing strong growth as the
impacts become known. Of course, PKI is nothing new, and all the major
email clients already include the capability, but few users have
chosen to invest in the cost of a personal email identity certificate:
although alternative free programs are available, they're not
universally recognized.
However, there's an alternative: the PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) program
and its variants, which don't depend on a central certificate-issuing
authority such as Thawte or Verisign. The PGP trust model is much more
"peer to peer", and also free: users have the option of purchasing
PGP, or using the free PGP-clone called GPG (Gnu Privacy Guard), which
may be downloaded from http://www.gnupg.org/ .
Suffice to say, it's easy and convenient to encrypt emails now, and I
do it routinely to prevent the FBI from finding out how boring my life
is. In the future, we may even see encrypted Usenet groups, and
"Walled Garden" work-group encryption systems are already in place,
such as W.A.S.T.E. - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WASTE for more
info.
Bill "Asking an Engineer a question is like taking a drink at a fire hydrant" Horne
Moderator
(Full disclosure: I'm a GSWoT Introducer - see http://www.gswot.org/
for more info)
P.S. I'm going to "sign" this email with the Moderator's PGP
signature, just as a demonstration.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFLhxKibGbkwqdxelkRAnpVAJ0bQuVoOZwTYjrAlUUi3z2lN5M5zACfXVGz
zBVG1E53NGpuSrjFdwJbIF0=
=s1xd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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 