31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for May 11, 2013
Volume 32 : Issue 101 : "text" Format
====== 31 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 that person, or email address
owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of
that address. 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, 9 May 2013 14:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: McCain working on bill to allow for 'a la carte' cable TV packages
Message-ID: <9cb140ca-1c4b-4e9c-9f41-fc9eb99dfd03@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
The Hill Newspaper
By Brendan Sasso - 05/08/13 06:24 PM ET
| Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is working on legislation that
| would pressure cable and satellite TV providers to allow their
| customers to pick and choose the channels they pay for, his
| office confirmed on Wednesday.
|
| Consumers have long complained about the rising costs of cable
| TV packages and having to pay for dozens or even hundreds of
| channels just to gain access to the few that they watch.
Continued at
http://tinyurl.com/McCain-TheHill
McCain has been advocating a-la-carte for cable TV and satellite TV
retailers for years. But this bill at least addresses the bundling
problem at the wholesale level ("...[it] would bar TV networks from
bundling their broadcast stations with cable channels they own during
negotiations with the cable companies...").
Even if the final version of this bill doesn't force retailers to
offer all channels on an a-la-carte basis, preventing broadcasters
from bundling non-broadcast programming with broadcast programming
would give retailers the flexibility to offer channels in tiers.
The obvious tier would sports: put all sports programming on a
separate tier. Of course, if this happened, the sports programmers
would suffer a precipitous drop in license fee revenue and a
corresponding drop in advertising revenue, so they would have to raise
license fees to compensate.
Sports fans would protest vociferously. A-la-carte is a double-edged
sword.
The article continues...
| Several broadcasting officials have said recently that if they
| do not win in court, they would consider taking their
| programming off the air to prevent Aereo from stealing it.
|
| The bill would pull the broadcast licenses of companies that
| switch high-value programming from over-the-air television to
| cable channels, according to the sources.
Well, I suppose this bill could force the FCC to lift the licenses of
the networks' O&O stations, but most network affiliates are owned by
other companies. As I've noted before in this space, if FOX or CBS
refuses to renew an affiliation agreement with a non-owned station,
the station owners would have plenty of other options.
See:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.dcom.telecom/EgD-Sbbeppc/IYPlAoF7_ZQJ
Neal McLain
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 00:56:55 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: McCain working on bill to allow for 'a la carte' cable TV packages
Message-ID: <kmhgkn$b0$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <9cb140ca-1c4b-4e9c-9f41-fc9eb99dfd03@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com> wrote:
>The Hill Newspaper
>By Brendan Sasso - 05/08/13 06:24 PM ET
>The article continues...
>
>| Several broadcasting officials have said recently that if they
>| do not win in court, they would consider taking their
>| programming off the air to prevent Aereo from stealing it.
The editors of "The Hill" should have put the word "stealing" in
quotation marks, given that it's at best an assertion made by the
unnamed broadcasters and so far not backed up in a court of law.
-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, 9 May 2013 14:12:09 -0400
From: Charles Jackson <clj@jacksons.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: The Telecom Digest (4 messages)
Message-ID: <CANog7L5t1UVkYTjxvbvCtAh0E2JyvXsxCQkKCT1k8C0s-56PAA@mail.gmail.com>
Vonage has an app that permits making phone calls from an iOS or
Android device.
See
http://www.vonagemobile.com/
I downloaded it and installed it on my Android phonr. I was able to
make phone calls, apparently for free, to non-Vonage numbers. I'm a
Vonage customer but I did nothing to associate my account with the
Vonage app.
The menus indicate that you can call Vonage subscribers for free.
But, I called a Verizon landline. The caller ID was for my mobile
number. I verified that this works with the data networking turned
off on my device.
They say:
Get FREE calls to any landline or mobile phone in the U.S., Canada and
Puerto Rico (Up to 3000 minutes per month).*
The footnote says:
* Free calling service is for personal, non-commercial calling to the
United States, Canada and Puerto Rico, and does not include calls to
certain geographic locations, premium and special services numbers,
satellite telephony services and other call forwarding services. Not
to exceed 3000 minutes per month.
Are they really giving away minutes or am I missing something?
Clearly, options like this make it hard to figure out the per minute
cost of telephone service.
Chuck
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 09:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon phasing out copper
Message-ID: <c20bad2c-2a0b-4431-af9b-43460524c118@w13g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 30, 10:29 pm, Tom Metro <tmetro+blu.remove-
t...@and.this.too.gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone else received such a letter? Other than if you're still using
> DSL, any reason to hold on to copper?
IMHO, the advantages of retaining copper are as follows. (note that
conditions will probably vary from one region to another),
--reliable power: During Sandy we lost power for five days, but our
copper based POTS never stopped working and it was absolutely critical
for us in the situation. Unfortunately, the projection for both
weather is more violent storms and the projection for power lines is
for more outages*.
IMHO, a telephone line these days should have a minimum of a solid
8-12 hours of backup capacity, because that will all be regularly
needed after a nasty storm. Hopefully we won't have more "Sandy's"
with extended multi-day outages. But a 12 or even 20 hour outage
won't be usual, especially for suburban customers.
--some regulatory protection: As others mentioned in thsi thread,
legacy POTS retains some protection from state and federal common
carrier regulators, but modern FIOS does not. It seems that
communiation carriers are taking an aggressive profit-seeking
approach, meaning individual customers with unsolved problems will
have little recourse.
--is FIOS even available? I know a lot of people who want it but
can't get it because the lines haven't been run yet. In our complex,
the Board rejected the Verizon proposal because it was too cumbersome
and unsightly--Vz wanted to put in a large junction box next to the
front door, then run the calbes around the exterior of the buildings.
All our other utility lines run underground. When we first got wired
for cable TV, they made a big sloppy mess (left coax running along on
top of sidewalks!) and they to jump on them to clean it up. They fear
Vz would dol the same thing, and in this world they're probably right.
As to repair of POTS lines. This hasn't been easy--it takes repeated
calls and sitting on hold waiting to get to a knowledgeable repair rep
and for them to send somebody out. In my area, once a guy actually
shows up the repair is easy--he just switches your line "to another
pair". Given that many no longer have a POTS line, there are extra
pairs available.
I don't know reliability and repair responsivness for FIOS. But from
people I know with cable phone service, repair support has been poor,
despite their TV ad claims of great customer service.
*The regulators are starting to push the power companies to improve
their reliability, but it's a touch and costly challenge. In older
communities, there are many mature trees, ready to fall over after a
violent storm. In some areas new lines have not kept pace with
population growth and there is less redundancy.
Another problem is that utilties have been forced to close their
oldest coal plants. This might be a problem every summer when power
consumption breaks new records, but there isn't enough generating and
transmission capacity to meet the load.
One thing about copper--others have reported that the telephone
network actually doesn't use very much. Rather, your phone line goes
to a modern digital concentrator and from there on fibre to the
central office.
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 01:21:41 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: In Hours, Thieves Took $45 Million in A.T.M. Scheme
Message-ID: <p0624088dcdb233dadbb3@[10.0.1.2]>
In Hours, Thieves Took $45 Million in A.T.M. Scheme
By MARC SANTORA
May 9, 2013
It was a brazen bank heist, but a 21st-century version in which the
criminals never wore ski masks, threatened a teller or set foot in a
vault.
In two precision operations that involved people in more than two
dozen countries acting in close coordination and with surgical
precision, thieves stole $45 million from thousands of A.T.M.'s in a
matter of hours.
In New York City alone, the thieves responsible for A.T.M.
withdrawals struck 2,904 machines over 10 hours starting on Feb. 19,
withdrawing $2.4 million.
The operation included sophisticated computer experts operating in the
shadowy world of Internet hacking, manipulating financial information
with the stroke of a few keys, as well as common street criminals, who
used that information to loot the automated teller machines.
The first to be caught was a street crew operating in New York, their
pictures captured as, prosecutors said, they traveled the city
withdrawing money and stuffing backpacks with cash.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/nyregion/eight-charged-in-45-million-global-cyber-bank-thefts.html
***** Moderator's Note *****
This is sloppy reportage: the story infers that the ATM network was
somehow compromised, and that's not true. The thieves obtained - by
means not yet clear - a database of debit card and PIN numbers. The
rest was logistics and greed, but there was no evil computer genius
"in the shadowy world of Internet hacking".
The New York Times, ISTM, has descended into the shadowy world of
fear-based marketing. With the stroke of a few keys, this reporter is
detroying a reputation that it took the paper a century to build.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 15:30:14 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: In Hours, Thieves Took $45 Million in A.T.M. Scheme
Message-ID: <kmj3q6$e1k$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <p0624088dcdb233dadbb3@[10.0.1.2]> Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> writes:
>The operation included sophisticated computer experts operating in the
>shadowy world of Internet hacking, manipulating financial information
>with the stroke of a few keys, as well as common street criminals, who
>used that information to loot the automated teller machines.
>The first to be caught was a street crew operating in New York, their
>pictures captured as, prosecutors said, they traveled the city
>withdrawing money and stuffing backpacks with cash.
>..
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/nyregion/eight-charged-in-45-million-global-cyber-bank-thefts.html
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>This is sloppy reportage: the story infers that the ATM network was
>somehow compromised, and that's not true. The thieves obtained - by
>means not yet clear - a database of debit card and PIN numbers. The
>rest was logistics and greed, but there was no evil computer genius
>"in the shadowy world of Internet hacking".
I saw one story that claimed the thieves had, in fact, gotten
into the banks' programming and reset it to circumvent the
daily limits on withdrawals for the accounts, I don't know
whether that's true or not.
- the various banks tend to set their own policies on how
much money you can pull out of your account via ATM. (And
some ATMs, especially "self standing" ones in stores, will
have their own)
These limits will vary depending on, among other factors,
how the bank "rates" you as a customer. You might be cut
off after $250, or you might be able to go higher. I've
done as much as $1,000 (didn't try any more).
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 13:45:40 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: In Hours, Thieves Took $45 Million in A.T.M. Scheme
Message-ID: <20130510174540.GB3503@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 03:30:14PM +0000, danny burstein wrote:
> In <p0624088dcdb233dadbb3@[10.0.1.2]> Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> writes:
>
> >The operation included sophisticated computer experts operating in the
> >shadowy world of Internet hacking, manipulating financial information
> >with the stroke of a few keys, as well as common street criminals, who
> >used that information to loot the automated teller machines.
>
> >***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> >This is sloppy reportage: the story infers that the ATM network was
> >somehow compromised, and that's not true. The thieves obtained - by
> >means not yet clear - a database of debit card and PIN numbers. The
> >rest was logistics and greed, but there was no evil computer genius
> >"in the shadowy world of Internet hacking".
>
> I saw one story that claimed the thieves had, in fact, gotten
> into the banks' programming and reset it to circumvent the
> daily limits on withdrawals for the accounts, I don't know
> whether that's true or not.
>
> - the various banks tend to set their own policies on how
> much money you can pull out of your account via ATM. (And
> some ATMs, especially "self standing" ones in stores, will
> have their own)
>
> These limits will vary depending on, among other factors,
> how the bank "rates" you as a customer. You might be cut
> off after $250, or you might be able to go higher. I've
> done as much as $1,000 (didn't try any more).
YMMV, but the banks I've dealt with in the past don't have a "real
time" method of checking bank balances: the ATM network, which is
separate from the participating banks' internal systems, will
sometimes dispense money based on the limits that are encoded into
debit cards, with no other knowledge of the customer.
It gets worse: there is more than one ATM system, and they don't
always talk to each other. They report withdrawals to the
participating banks, but that process can lag the event by as much as
a day.
My knowledge is, however, a few years old, so the bankers may have
improved their security and record-keeping since I found these things
out the hard way. I certainly hope so, but I've got 45,000,000 reasons
to think not.
--
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 16:22:10 -0400
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: In Hours, Thieves Took $45 Million in A.T.M. Scheme
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.1305101621100.2113@panix5.panix.com>
Telecom Digest Moderator wrote:
> This is sloppy reportage: the story infers that the ATM network was
> somehow compromised, and that's not true. The thieves obtained - by
> means not yet clear - a database of debit card and PIN numbers. The
> rest was logistics and greed, but there was no evil computer genius
> "in the shadowy world of Internet hacking".
Note the Department of Justice press release includes a claim that the
thieves got into the bank systems.
[DOJ press release]
These defendants allegedly formed the New York-based cell of an
international cybercrime organization that used sophisticated
intrusion techniques to hack into the systems of global financial
institutions, steal prepaid debit card data, and eliminate
withdrawal limits.
....
The "Unlimited Operation" begins when the cybercrime organization
hacks into the computer systems of a credit card processor,
compromises prepaid debit card accounts, and essentially eliminates
the withdrawal limits and account balances of those accounts. The
elimination of withdrawal limits enables the participants to
withdraw literally unlimited amounts of cash until the operation is
shut down.
====
rest:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/nye/pr/2013/2013may09.html
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 23:20:16 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: In Hours, Thieves Took $45 Million in A.T.M. Scheme
Message-ID: <20130511032016.GB18126@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 04:22:10PM -0400, danny burstein wrote:
> Telecom Digest Moderator wrote:
>
> > This is sloppy reportage: the story infers that the ATM network was
> > somehow compromised, and that's not true. The thieves obtained - by
> > means not yet clear - a database of debit card and PIN numbers. The
> > rest was logistics and greed, but there was no evil computer genius
> > "in the shadowy world of Internet hacking".
>
> Note the Department of Justice press release includes a claim that the
> thieves got into the bank systems.
>
> [DOJ press release]
>
> These defendants allegedly formed the New York-based cell of an
> international cybercrime organization that used sophisticated
> intrusion techniques to hack into the systems of global financial
> institutions, steal prepaid debit card data, and eliminate
> withdrawal limits.
>
> ....
>
> The "Unlimited Operation" begins when the cybercrime organization
> hacks into the computer systems of a credit card processor,
> compromises prepaid debit card accounts, and essentially eliminates
> the withdrawal limits and account balances of those accounts. The
> elimination of withdrawal limits enables the participants to
> withdraw literally unlimited amounts of cash until the operation is
> shut down.
>
> ====
>
> rest:
>
> http://www.justice.gov/usao/nye/pr/2013/2013may09.html
>
The press release also contains this quote:
"To date, the United States has seized hundreds of thousands of
dollars in cash and bank accounts, two Rolex watches and a Mercedes
SUV, and is in the process of forfeiting a Porsche Panamera."
... or, in other words, the feds recovered a small percentage of the
total. The rest is probably being squirreled away in counting rooms
guarded by lots of men with guns, which is the method that criminals,
unlike bankers, know to be secure.
That small percentage of recoverd money isn't a record to be proud of:
the press release, which is long on self-congratulatory back-slapping
but short on results, indicates that a few low-level mules were
apprehended, but does not even begin to address the larger question of
how the data was "compromised", and what safeguards, if any, will be
put in place to prevent a recurrence.
Let me put this another way: stealing a car by lifting the keys off a
valet-parking key board is not a defeat of the automaker's
anti-theft safeguards. The banks whose computers were hacked - if they
were hacked, and not simply subverted through bribery or coercion -
bear the burden of having been careless with financial data. The ATM
network performed as it was designed to: it dispensed funds based on
the data supplied to it during uploads from the offline systems at the
issuing banks. The data was compromised before it got to the ATM
network.
If any good is to come out of this debacle, I hope it will be that
electronic funds transfer systems will be, at long last, changed from
their current setup, which is just an overlay of the old face-to-face
recognition security paradigm, to a professionally vetted, hardened
infrastructure where every aspect has been debated, planned,
designed, and implemented as a secure system.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 18:57:25 -0400
From: Gary <bogus-email@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: In Hours, Thieves Took $45 Million in A.T.M. Scheme
Message-ID: <kmjtpr$mj7$1@dont-email.me>
On 5/10/2013 1:21 AM, Monty Solomon wrote:
>
> In Hours, Thieves Took $45 Million in A.T.M. Scheme
>
> By MARC SANTORA
> May 9, 2013
...
> The operation included sophisticated computer experts operating in the
> shadowy world of Internet hacking, manipulating financial information
> with the stroke of a few keys, as well as common street criminals, who
> used that information to loot the automated teller machines.
What this article didn't say is that this theft was greatly aided by
easily duplicated mag strip cards. Once the "sophisticated computer
experts" had the compromised account numbers, it was really easy for the
street thieves to create cards with this stolen account information on
the mag stripe.
If we were all using smart cards, it would be much harder (impossible?)
to create duplicate cards.
Maybe now the banks in the US will get serious about switching to smart
cards.
-Gary
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 01:46:39 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: F.C.C. Advances Plan for Faster In-Flight Wi-Fi
Message-ID: <p06240803cdb23a0bcb08@[10.0.1.2]>
F.C.C. Advances Plan for Faster In-Flight Wi-Fi
By EDWARD WYATT
May 9, 2013
WASHINGTON - It may soon be easier and faster to surf the Web at 30,000 feet.
The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday proposed auctioning
off the rights to use newly available airwaves to provide better
in-flight Wi-Fi connections, as the government agency seeks to
improve the speed and lower the cost of Internet service on
commercial flights.
The commission's proposal is the first step toward a goal that it is
likely to take a couple of years, at least, to reach: providing
in-flight Internet service that can match or exceed the capabilities
that most Americans have at home or can find in coffee shops.
The new format would use a more reliable system of contact between a
plane and the ground, agency officials said, and should allow
providers to offer more consistent service that is some 30 times
faster than the service that many Americans have in their homes.
Although it will be at least a couple of years before the new service
is available, federal officials and people in the broadband business
expressed excitement that the new format could free airline
passengers from being captive to the expensive and rather slow Wi-Fi
that is currently available on only some domestic flights.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/business/fcc-advances-plan-for-faster-in-flight-wi-fi.html
***** Moderator's Note *****
Has anybody noticed that the in-flight movies and other gewgaws
airlines tried to stuff down the passengers' throats have vanished as
quickly as they appeared?
In-flight WiFi, IMNSHO, is another instance of a solution in search of
a problem. Business executives who might have need of instant
connectivity are riding in first class and don't care what it costs,
and the plebians in the back don't want to "surf the web" at 30,000
feet, or any other altitude.
I'm not sure what drives this kind of "feature". The pilots don't want
it, the flight attendants don't want it, the flying public could care less,
and I wish someone would enlighten me, since I don't want it and I'm
much more an Internaut than most travellers.
Pilots, who are cursed with a navigation system designed before
television, are worried about yet-another-source-of-interference.
Flight attendants, who deal with heavy bags and expensive cameras and
other trinkets falling out of overhead bins, are loathe to encourage
passengers to bring expensive and delicate laptops into the aircraft,
adding yet-another-headache of lost, damaged, stolen, or misplaced
electronics to their already burdemsome duties.
I don't want it, and I don't think I'm unusual. Business travelers,
still the majority of moneymaking clients for cash-strapped airlines,
are loathe to give up the few seconds of disconnected bliss that they
now enjoy - the "unplugged" concert of white noise that many road
warriors prize as the only time in their day when they are required by
FAA rules to enjoy a little peace and quiet.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 10:52:10 -0400
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: F.C.C. Advances Plan for Faster In-Flight Wi-Fi
Message-ID: <barmar-AACA8D.10521010052013@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <p06240803cdb23a0bcb08@[10.0.1.2]>,
Telecom Digest Moderator wrote:
> Flight attendants, who deal with heavy bags and expensive cameras and
> other trinkets falling out of overhead bins, are loathe to encourage
> passengers to bring expensive and delicate laptops into the aircraft,
> adding yet-another-headache of lost, damaged, stolen, or misplaced
> electronics to their already burdemsome duties.
Most of the uses will probably be with tablets and smartphones, not
laptops.
And it's not just for business people -- what about all the young people
who can't stand to be disconnected from Facebook, Twitter, etc. for 5
minutes?
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 15:02:50 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: F.C.C. Advances Plan for Faster In-Flight Wi-Fi
Message-ID: <kmj26q$epp$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <p06240803cdb23a0bcb08@[10.0.1.2]>, Bill Horne wrote:
>Has anybody noticed that the in-flight movies and other gewgaws
>airlines tried to stuff down the passengers' throats have vanished as
>quickly as they appeared?
No, I haven't, actually. There have been in-flight movies on
long-distance flights for at least 25 years to my personal knowledge,
and I haven't heard anything about getting rid of them. Nor do I
recall them ever being "stuff[ed] down passengers' throats". What
airline do [you] fly on, Bill?
>In-flight WiFi, IMNSHO, is another instance of a solution in search of
>a problem. Business executives who might have need of instant
>connectivity are riding in first class and don't care what it costs,
>and the plebians in the back don't want to "surf the web" at 30,000
>feet, or any other altitude.
I'm not sure what [airline you fly on], but it doesn't remotely match my
experience of air travel.
>Pilots, who are cursed with a navigation system designed before
>television, are worried about yet-another-source-of-interference.
No commercial aircraft uses nondirectional beacons any more. Most if
not all use GPS, which will soon be a requirement, in addition to
their inertial navigation system and VORTAC/DME receivers.
>Flight attendants, who deal with heavy bags and expensive cameras and
>other trinkets falling out of overhead bins, are loathe to encourage
>passengers to bring expensive and delicate laptops into the aircraft,
>adding yet-another-headache of lost, damaged, stolen, or misplaced
>electronics to their already burdemsome duties.
Have you ever flown, Bill? Nobody, and I mean nobody, entrusts
"expensive and delicate laptops" to baggage handlers. Most business
travelers don't check any baggage at all if they can help it. That's
why the TSA people are always shouting in the screening lines for
people to take their laptops out of their bags to run through the
X-ray machines. It would be a shock if at least one person sitting
near [me] didn't take out a laptop -- all too often it's the person
sitting in front of me.
-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: Fri, 10 May 2013 01:54:20 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Outsmarting Smartphone Thieves
Message-ID: <p0624080acdb23bd13591@[10.0.1.2]>
Outsmarting Smartphone Thieves
By MALIA WOLLAN
May 8, 2013
SAN FRANCISCO - In the month since two men violently shoved him to
the ground and stole his iPhone 5, Dalton Huckaby has almost
completely stopped calling his mother. It usually takes him a full
day to text his friends back. Nothing personal, but Mr. Huckaby is
just too frightened to take his replacement iPhone out in public.
"I never thought this would happen to me," said Mr. Huckaby, 39, a
personal trainer, who since the robbery, which he called an iCrime,
has become the kind of person who patrols his neighborhood streets in
San Francisco warning strangers about the dangers of using their
smartphones out in the open.
Phone theft, especially of Apple's coveted iPhones, has increased
sharply in recent years. Last year, nearly half of all robberies in
San Francisco involved a smartphone.
So, how do people like Mr. Huckaby deal with the stress after a phone
theft? How do you dodge robbers in the first place? And what should
you do if your phone is stolen?
Here are some suggestions:
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/technology/personaltech/outsmarting-smartphone-thieves.html
***** Moderator's Note *****
Here are some other suggestions:
1. Don't do business with any cellular carrier that doesn't maintain
and enforce a do-not-allow list of stolen phones.
2. Shun anyone who brags about the great deal they got on a "used"
iBrick. If they're willing to buy stolen goods, they're willing to
steal from and lie to you.
3. Don't assume that having an electronic leash tied to your hand
means you're in charge of your work or your life. You'll get better
results by looking /around/ you than by gluing your eyes to an
iBlob.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: 10 May 2013 10:19:36 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon phasing out copper
Message-ID: <kmivlo$jof$1@panix2.panix.com>
unknown <no-reply@not-valid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In article <kmauu6$mbr$1@dont-email.me>,
>> unknown <arnie.goetchius@invalid.domain> wrote:
>>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>> unknown <arnie.goetchius@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
>>>>> tlvp wrote:
>>>>> Verizon says they won't re-build the copper plant in Mantoloking NJ
>>>>> after most of it was destroyed by Sandy. Instead they are providing
>>>>> telephone service through their new service called Verizon Voice Link.
>>>>
>>>> Umm... and they can provide the uptime and line quality demanded in the
>>>> POTS tariff with this gadget?
>>>
>>> I would guess not. I don't think the requirements of the POTS tariff
>>> would apply because this is a wireless service.
>>
>> So, you're saying that customers who were paying for POTS tariffed circuits
>> can suddenly be moved onto lower quality wireless services with no warning
>> and the PUC doesn't have anything to say about it?
>
>Voice Link is not regulated by the PUC, yet
Right, but POTS services are. People, who had POTS services under the
tariff suddenly are being moved to a non-tariffed service against their will
because of the inability of the telco to properly fix the tariffed service.
That should have some Verizon executives being grilled in the state house
pretty heavily, I would expect.
--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.
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) 2013 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 (15 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues