29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for March 29, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 80 : "text" Format
====== 29 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 Bill Horne and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. - Geoffrey Welsh
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
|
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:06:26 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Paul Baran, Internet Pioneer, Dies at 84
Message-ID: <p0624082fc9b5b970e158@[10.0.1.4]>
Paul Baran, Internet Pioneer, Dies at 84
By KATIE HAFNER
March 27, 2011
Paul Baran, an engineer who helped create the technical underpinnings
for the Arpanet, the government-sponsored precursor to today's
Internet, died Saturday night at his home in Palo Alto, Calif. He was
84.
The cause was complications from lung cancer, said his son, David.
In the early 1960s, while working at the RAND Corporation in Santa
Monica, Calif., Mr. Baran outlined the fundamentals for packaging
data into discrete bundles, which he called "message blocks." The
bundles are then sent on various paths around a network and
reassembled at their destination. Such a plan is known as "packet
switching."
Mr. Baran's idea was to build a distributed communications network,
less vulnerable to attack or disruption than conventional networks.
In a series of technical papers published in the 1960s he suggested
that networks be designed with redundant routes so that if a
particular path failed or was destroyed, messages could still be
delivered through another.
Mr. Baran's invention was so far ahead of its time that in the
mid-1960s, when he approached AT&T with the idea to build his
proposed network, the company insisted it would not work and refused.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/technology/28baran.html
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:37:28 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: A Girl's Nude Photo, and Altered Lives
Message-ID: <p06240832c9b5c04a7c62@[10.0.1.4]>
A Girl's Nude Photo, and Altered Lives
By JAN HOFFMAN
March 26, 2011
LACEY, Wash. - One day last winter Margarite posed naked before her
bathroom mirror, held up her cellphone and took a picture. Then she
sent the full-length frontal photo to Isaiah, her new boyfriend.
Both were in eighth grade.
They broke up soon after. A few weeks later, Isaiah forwarded the
photo to another eighth-grade girl, once a friend of Margarite's.
Around 11 o'clock at night, that girl slapped a text message on it.
"Ho Alert!" she typed. "If you think this girl is a whore, then text
this to all your friends." Then she clicked open the long list of
contacts on her phone and pressed "send."
In less than 24 hours, the effect was as if Margarite, 14, had
sauntered naked down the hallways of the four middle schools in this
racially and economically diverse suburb of the state capital,
Olympia. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of students had received her
photo and forwarded it.
In short order, students would be handcuffed and humiliated, parents
mortified and lessons learned at a harsh cost. Only then would the
community try to turn the fiasco into an opportunity to educate.
Around the country, law enforcement officials and educators are
struggling with how to confront minors who "sext," an imprecise term
that refers to sending sexual photos, videos or texts from one
cellphone to another.
But adults face a hard truth. For teenagers, who have ready access to
technology and are growing up in a culture that celebrates body
flaunting, sexting is laughably easy, unremarkable and even
compelling: the primary reason teenagers sext is to look cool and
sexy to someone they find attractive.
Indeed, the photos can confer cachet.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/us/27sexting.html
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:43:00 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: What They're Saying About Sexting
Message-ID: <p06240836c9b5c239f067@[10.0.1.4]>
What They're Saying About Sexting
March 26, 2011
The New York Times interviewed teenagers individually and in two
focus groups. The first, in Manhattan, was organized by the
Anti-Defamation League, which offers cyberbullying prevention
programs. The second, with students from Lower Merion, a Philadelphia
suburb, was coordinated by Stephanie Newberg, a therapist who works
with adolescents, and Paula Singer, a community organizer.
The following quotes from the sessions and interviews have been
edited and condensed.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/us/27sextingqanda.html
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John C. Fowler" <johnfpublic@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: AT&T Wants DSL Customers On U-Verse?
Message-ID: <790703.63337.qm@web34202.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
AT&T has put up its new high-speed Internet terms of service for 2011
at http://www.att.net/tos2011. What's gotten most of the press lately
are the new limits on monthly traffic (150G for DSL, 250G for
U-verse). What caught my eye, though, was section 2.e., which is also
new:
-------------------
When AT&T is able to provision Service to you via our U-verse
High Speed Internet at your location, we may, in our discretion,
discontinue your DSL service and make available to you AT&T
U-verse High Speed Internet at the then applicable rates, terms
and conditions, which may differ from your previous DSL Service
rates, terms and conditions (including bundle discounts). If you
are on a term plan and your price will increase as a result of
this conversion, you will not have to pay any applicable ETF if
you elect to cancel service.
Your new AT&T U-verse High Speed Internet will require different
customer premises equipment ("CPE"). When you are selected for
conversion, we will provide at least thirty days' notice of the
discontinuation of your service via e-mail. Thirty days after
such notice, we may at our sole discretion, either disconnect
your service or temporarily suspend your service for up to
fifteen days before we permanently discontinue service.
-------------------
I have no idea if this is there for convenience "just in case" they
decide they don't want to provide DSL anymore when U-verse is
available, or if this is the beginning of a DSL phase-out. I do know
that one of the reasons I keep DSL is that nice CO-powered wire that
stays active even when a big storm takes away our electricity for a
week, something only the phone company can provide. If they take that
away, suddenly their competitors start to look a lot more enticing.
John C. Fowler, johnfpublic@yahoo.com
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:56:35 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: AT&T Wants DSL Customers On U-Verse?
Message-ID: <imqb3m$jon$1@dont-email.me>
On 3/28/11 6:45 AM, John C. Fowler wrote:
> AT&T has put up its new high-speed Internet terms of service for 2011
> at http://www.att.net/tos2011. What's gotten most of the press lately
> are the new limits on monthly traffic (150G for DSL, 250G for
> U-verse). What caught my eye, though, was section 2.e., which is also
> new:
>
> -------------------
> When AT&T is able to provision Service to you via our U-verse
> High Speed Internet at your location, we may, in our discretion,
> discontinue your DSL service and make available to you AT&T
> U-verse High Speed Internet at the then applicable rates, terms
> and conditions, which may differ from your previous DSL Service
> rates, terms and conditions (including bundle discounts). If you
> are on a term plan and your price will increase as a result of
> this conversion, you will not have to pay any applicable ETF if
> you elect to cancel service.
>
> Your new AT&T U-verse High Speed Internet will require different
> customer premises equipment ("CPE"). When you are selected for
> conversion, we will provide at least thirty days' notice of the
> discontinuation of your service via e-mail. Thirty days after
> such notice, we may at our sole discretion, either disconnect
> your service or temporarily suspend your service for up to
> fifteen days before we permanently discontinue service.
> -------------------
>
> I have no idea if this is there for convenience "just in case" they
> decide they don't want to provide DSL anymore when U-verse is
> available, or if this is the beginning of a DSL phase-out. I do know
> that one of the reasons I keep DSL is that nice CO-powered wire that
> stays active even when a big storm takes away our electricity for a
> week, something only the phone company can provide. If they take that
> away, suddenly their competitors start to look a lot more enticing.
>
> John C. Fowler, johnfpublic@yahoo.com
>
I did not see the part about forcing U-verse, but the area i'm located
has U-verse all around, but our cable is so old that it can't handle it;
they tried. If and when they do switch and if the price it a lot more
then I'll just start using my Sprint Overdrive which in my area just
went 4G.
On a subject about the cable, when it rains things go out, they have
tried to fix it, but local managers have said the cable is in very bad
shape. I complained to Corporate; after being switched all over the
company to wrong people for over an hour, when you tell them you will
take your business elsewhere, their answer we are sorry to see you go;
as of 2 weeks nothing has been done. The California PUC is useless.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2011 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:28:07 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: AT&T Wants DSL Customers On U-Verse?
Message-ID: <mu2dnQCEwqDafA3QnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@giganews.com>
John C. Fowler wrote:
> -------------------
>
> I have no idea if this is there for convenience "just in case" they
> decide they don't want to provide DSL anymore when U-verse is
> available, or if this is the beginning of a DSL phase-out. I do know
> that one of the reasons I keep DSL is that nice CO-powered wire that
> stays active even when a big storm takes away our electricity for a
> week, something only the phone company can provide. If they take that
> away, suddenly their competitors start to look a lot more enticing.
>
> John C. Fowler, johnfpublic@yahoo.com
>
What powers your DSL modem when the power at your premises is out for a
week?
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:00:56 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Mobile phones may rot your bones
Message-ID: <imq7rb$bn1$1@dont-email.me>
Mobile phones may rot your bones
Written by Paul Hales on 28 March, 2011
Researchers at the the National University of Cuyo, in Mendoza,
Argentina, looked at that strange breed - men who wear mobile phones
on their hip. They discovered evidence to suggest that the proximity
of the mobile phone caused a reduction in bone mineral content (BMC)
and bone mineral density (BMD) in the men who wore the phones over a
12-month period, compared to a control group that didn't.
According to an abstract from the study to be published in the Journal
of Craniofacial Surgery, wearers of a mobile phone had "significantly
lower right BMD at the trochanter and significantly lower right BMC at
both trochanter and total hip".
None of these differences were found in non users, the study notes...
http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/3/28/mobile-phones-rot-your-bones/
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 02:55:17 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Swiping Is the Easy Part
Message-ID: <imotal$jc4$1@news.albasani.net>
Gary <bogus-email@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"David Clayton" wrote:
>>I'm sorry, but this has to be the biggest crock that I've seen in a while.
>>The "swipe" function is merely a prox chip that currently is physically
>>located in a flat rectangular piece of plastic, there is nothing special
>>about a phone to contain the same (tiny) prox chip.
>You have to understand that the article was written about the United States.
>In the USA, the majority of our credit card transactions are carried out
>using the mag stripe on the back of the card. Yes, we still use 1960's
>technology for the data entry portion of credit card transaction - thus the
>term "swipe."
>Many other countries use RF based technology for their cards - sometimes a
>"prox chip," as you call it. We just have very little of it in the USA.
>There are lots of reasons for this, which we'll skip for now.
[Moderator snip]
What's more secure about proximity chips in phone versus cards, and how
could they be more secure than a magnetic stripe?
I cannot read a magnetic stripe unless I have physical possession;
not true with proximity chips.
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:39:47 -0400
From: "Gary" <bogus-email@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Swiping Is the Easy Part
Message-ID: <imqa45$5oj$1@dont-email.me>
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote in message news:imotal$jc4$1@news.albasani.net...
>
> What's more secure about proximity chips in phone versus cards, and how
> could they be more secure than a magnetic stripe?
>
> I cannot read a magnetic stripe unless I have physical possession;
> not true with proximity chips.
There is no encryption and no security with mag stripes. A thief can copy a
mag stripe onto another card and use it. Thieves copy stripes by "double
swiping" them through either an extra card reader or a modified card reader.
Some thieves have been known to electronically steal credit card data
en-bulk (sometimes from retailers with bad network security) and use it to
write to their own blank cards. This is why blank credit cards are shipped
with security that is similar to moving cash.
Electronic devices (smart card, proximity cards, ...), use encrypted
communication. Even if the card to register transaction is sniffed, it is
very difficult to create a copy of the card.
Of course, the back end systems can detect fraud by monitoring for unusual
transactions and users can detect fraud by monitoring their account. This
is true regardless of the type of card used. Since mag stripe cards aren't
very hard to copy, this is a common way for fraud to occur. RF cards reduce
this fraud vector by a significant amount.
I wish we had more secure transactions than the mag swipe here in the USA.
I've had my card "lifted" at least once due to someone "double swiping" the
card. I think it happened at the a parking lot at the Bayone, NJ Cruise
Terminal (a.k.a. "Port Liberty.") At this lot, you pre-pay for parking as
you know how long you'll be there (the length of the cruise). The attendant
swiped my card. When I got back a week later, I checked my account and saw
a few small transactions in Brooklyn on a day I was floating around the
Atlantic Ocean. I canceled my card immediately, which caused lots of other
hassles with my auto payments and such.
While I can't be certain the parking guy had a modified card reader, the
circumstantial evidence is very suspicious given the timing and nature of
the fraud. He (and maybe his partners) knew that the people paying would be
gone for a week. I think the small transactions were tests to see if I'd
notice when I got back. If I didn't, I think I'd have been hit with bigger
fraud in a month or two. And yes, I did report this to the police in case a
larger criminal ring was behind it.
If I'd been able to use an RF card, it would have been much harder for the
thieves to lift it. Next time, I'll use cash.
-Gary
Date: 28 Mar 2011 19:23:25 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Swiping Is the Easy Part
Message-ID: <20110328192325.70834.qmail@joyce.lan>
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 02:55:17 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>What's more secure about proximity chips in phone versus cards, and how
>could they be more secure than a magnetic stripe?
Prox chips are much harder to clone. If you can read the stripe on
someone's card, you know everything you need to know to make a copy of
the card. This is why there are ATM skimmers.
R's,
John
Date: 28 Mar 2011 19:32:00 GMT
From: Doug McIntyre <merlyn@geeks.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Swiping Is the Easy Part
Message-ID: <4d90e230$0$87581$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>
>What's more secure about proximity chips in phone versus cards, and how
>could they be more secure than a magnetic stripe?
>I cannot read a magnetic stripe unless I have physical possession;
>not true with proximity chips.
The proximity chips in credit/cash cards in Europe have a PIN
associated with them that need to be entered at the same time.
Presumably, the smartphone system would have some sort of control over
pin input interface with some level of control of what data can leave
the NFR chip rather than just having a contactless chip embedded in
the phone case somewhere.
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:55:56 -0500
From: gordonb.vukrg@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Swiping Is the Easy Part
Message-ID: <Mo-dnegMb_ORvQzQnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
>>>The "swipe" function is merely a prox chip that currently is physically
>>>located in a flat rectangular piece of plastic, there is nothing special
>>>about a phone to contain the same (tiny) prox chip.
The "swipe" function comes when your chip, rather than the chip of
the guy in front of you or behind you, gets charged for someone
else's purchases. This can be either accidental or intentional.
I've observed it happening with Mobil SpeedPass (one guy handed his
SpeedPass over the other register, which probably had something to
do with it, although how they each managed to get the other's charge
on their SpeedPass rather than both on one is not obvious). It was
discovered because the guy driving a semi bought much more gasoline
than the guy with the car could possibly fit in his tank, and the
guy with the car looked at his receipt.
> What's more secure about proximity chips in phone versus cards, and how
> could they be more secure than a magnetic stripe?
In proposed or actual systems to be installed in phones in the USA,
what is the connection of the phone and the prox chip (beyond two
devices super-glued together)? Do they share anything except perhaps
battery power? Is the phone (data or voice) used for any purpose
during the transaction? Does the prox chip work on a phone with
no service (due to not subscribing or failure to pay the bill) or
with no service (due to being far away from a cell tower) or with
a dead or removed battery? Does the prox chip work on a GSM phone
with no SIM card? Is there a way to lock the prox chip?
Can a virus on the phone charge something? Could it leak information
(by "phoning home") sufficient to charge something?
I carry a number of cards in my wallet and I carefully choose which
card to use for a particular transaction (considering, among other
things, which cards the merchant accepts, the balances if any on
the cards, and what I'm buying and rewards for that type of purchase).
How do I do that (select which card to use) with a phone-prox chip?
> I cannot read a magnetic stripe unless I have physical possession;
> not true with proximity chips.
This just screams "DESIGN ERROR"!
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:09:31 GMT
From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Annoyance Calls (again)
Message-ID: <imqmdb$qvr$1@dont-email.me>
Fred Atkinson <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com> wrote:
>Well,
>
> I got another one. This time the number was: (956) 440-1397.
>
I just let phone calls with strange area codes roll over to voicemail. When
I've answered them or called them back they've always been telemarketers.
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:01:05 -0400
From: Bruce <news2011@ewr.bac.us.example.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: SLC-fed DSLAM's
Message-ID: <bji1p61iptlvkb1kt1hqi53a1opkh9v66c@4ax.bac.us>
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:47:18 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
<wb8foz@panix.com> wrote:
>I'm still searching for specific examples of DSLAM's in non-CO
>locations. Specifically, a DSLAM in/at a SLC cabinet or other
>digital remote.
>
>I am asking because Verizontal is insisting that such isn't
>possible, oh no; or at least they don't know how to do it
>because they've never seen one like that....
I had DSL fed off a Verizon SLC here in New Jersey. At least I was
told so after the fact by the tech who installed my FiOS service. I'm
circa five miles from the CO, so I don't know how I could have gotten
DSL otherwise.
Actually, it was kind of silly. For a long time, I couldn't get DSL
(and had cable internet for some time). Then, Verizon said I could get
DSL (which was considerably cheaper than cable), and it got installed
the same day they were hanging fiber in the neighborhood for FiOS.
Dunno why Verizon would have provisioned DSL at the SLC when it was
rolling out FiOS in a few months.
Bruce
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.
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 (14 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues