29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

The Telecom Digest for March 30, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 81 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Annoyance Calls (again)(Fred Atkinson)
Re: Swiping Is the Easy Part(John Levine)
Re: Swiping Is the Easy Part(David Clayton)
Re: AT&T Wants DSL Customers On U-Verse?(Scott Dorsey)

====== 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: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 23:49:21 -0600
From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Annoyance Calls (again)
Message-ID: <20110329054925.14524.qmail@gal.iecc.com>

At 02:09 PM 3/28/2011, you wrote:
>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.

         As I've perivously told you, when I call back all I get is 
an autodialer.

         I wish I could get a telemarketer when I call back.  Then I 
could identify them, instruct them to put me on their DNC list, and 
[if necessary] take action.

         Regards,

                                                         Fred




Date: 29 Mar 2011 08:04:16 -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: <20110329080416.84107.qmail@joyce.lan>

>> I cannot read a magnetic stripe unless I have physical possession;
>> not true with proximity chips.
>
>This just screams "DESIGN ERROR"!

There's also a contact version of EMV chips.  Every credit and debit
card in most countries other than the US has one.  I don't entirely
understand why the US banks are going straight to contactless.

R's,
John

***** Moderator's Note *****

Maybe it's because they let the other guys do the scut work for a
change? Perhaps it's because they had an attack of common sense, and
decided to let someone else do free R&D?

Bill Horne
Moderator




Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:22:11 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Swiping Is the Easy Part 
Message-ID: <pan.2011.03.29.05.22.07.945705@myrealbox.com>

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:32:00 +0000, Doug McIntyre wrote:

>>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.

AFAIK all of these payment authorisation systems are based on physical
tokens. The card with the mag stripe is just one sort of token (as it was
before mag stripes were created and physical card imprints were taken).
The card with the "Smartcard" chip in it which requires insertion into a
terminal is another token, and the cards with the prox chips in them are
also just another type of token.

All of these tokens are (currently) issued and controlled by financial
institutions and require authorised back-end infrastructure at a vendor to
be utilised. How a "phone" gets involved in this system has me baffled.

Currently the "Contactless" transactions use a prox chip token device (on
a card) swiped within a short distance of a terminal device to process a
transaction, I see nothing special about a "phone" that can replace the
prox chip - with all the security etc. - that these financial institutions
issue.

The last thing financial institutions would want are phones capable of
imitating prox chips (even if that was technically possible), so my
question remains - what was that nebulous article actually about?

The only [time] I have seen "phones" replace existing tokens is when
using them with barcodes on their displays to replace physical items like
Boarding Passes at airports or entry Tickets to venues - and I'd pretty
certain that sort of thing won't apply to financial transactions.

-- 
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: 29 Mar 2011 10:55:50 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: AT&T Wants DSL Customers On U-Verse? 
Message-ID: <imsrtm$4os$1@panix2.panix.com>

Sam Spade  <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>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?

Mine runs off a 12V gel-cell, although it turns out the batteries in the
SLC run out after about four days and then DSL and POTS service goes out
anyway.
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."





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 (4 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues