|
|
The Telecom Digest for April 19, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 108 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: The Truth May Be Out There, But ... (Steven)
Re: Please do not change your password (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Please do not change your password (Paul)
Re: Please do not change your password (David Clayton)
Re: Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon ... (David Wolff)
Re: Washington State Approves Sale of VeriZon Exchange Areas to Frontier (Gene S. Berkowitz)
Re: Washington State Approves Sale of VeriZon Exchange Areas to Frontier (Steven)
Re: Washington State Approves Sale of VeriZon Exchange Areas to Frontier (Eric Tappert)
Re: Washington State Approves Sale of VeriZon Exchange Areas to Frontier (Steven)
Re: All-digital cellphone - is this good? Or OK? (David Kaye)
Re: All-digital cellphone - is this good? Or OK? (Steven)
Re: All-digital cellphone - is this good? Or OK? (David Kaye)
3G device as primary residential Internet connection? (Anonymous)
Re: A question for the readers (Telecom digest moderator)
====== 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: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 07:42:13 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: The Truth May Be Out There, But ...
Message-ID: <hqf5o5$7r5$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Telecom digest moderator wrote:
> I just looked up and realized that it's 12:30 in the morning and if I
> don't get some sleep I'll be dead tomorrow. I just had to write this
> first.
>
> I've just spend about four hours going from one video to another on
> You Tube, and I can't even remember why I went to the site in the
> first place, or what I saw there that led to where I wound up.
>
> There was a guy from New Hampshire who was jailed for having a couch
> in his yard.
>
> There was an ex-marine who was trying to tell me that the best thin to
> do after the apocalypse was to start up a generator at a hospital so I
> can charge a battery to get a diesel car started, and how I could make
> diesel fuel by boiling fat out of a grease trap and get around in the
> city by using the sewers.
>
> There was another guy who told me what an idiot the ex-marine is for
> trying to make people believe what he put on tape: I had noted some
> "huh?" moments myself, such as the idea that a cab company would have
> a CB transceiver hanging around, or that CB and Amateur operators are
> the same thing, so I tended to agree with the other guy.
>
> There were several other home videos of people railing against the
> Income Tax, or the Social Security Tax, or whatever else they were hot
> about. One guy was talking about Hitler and the Holocaust and asking
> his viewer, again and again and again, at what point they would act if
> it started up again.
>
> After that, there came a rash of links showing something about
> "Kinetic Typography", with several Hitler speeches thrown in as
> examples, although the typography was in English, go figure. I hit the
> "Back" button until I could get back to the survivalist and his
> critics, and, as I said, all of a sudden it's almost One A.M.
>
> Well, everyone gets to take their soapbox to the town commons. I'm
> just surprised, somehow, that so many people feel the need to tell
> everyone else how soon they think the sky will fall.
>
> Bill
>
>
You need to turn your computers off and go to the beach for a few days rest.
--
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: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:32:12 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Please do not change your password
Message-ID: <9KSdnVsbTf1Rh1fWnZ2dnUVZ_qY5AAAA@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <xPCdnVLvvpCZyl7WnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>In article <4BC29BD6.5080402@thadlabs.com>,
>Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>>On 4/11/2010 7:48 PM, Monty Solomon wrote:
>>> Please do not change your password
>>> You were right: It's a waste of your time. A study says much computer
>>> security advice is not worth following.
>>> [...]
>>
>>One can legitimately argue some passwords SHOULD be changed.
>>
>>As a good example of which, consider these cracked passwords which
>>can be seen in the bottom page margin on page 40 of the April 2010
>>hardcopy issue of WIRED:
>>
>> Paris Hilton: TINKERBELL
>> SARAH PALIN: WASILLA HIGH
>> MILEY CYRUS: LOC092
>> SALMA HAYEK: FRIDA
>>LINDSAY LOHAN: 1234
>
>
>Then there is the classical 'good' password:
>
> MickeyMinniePlutoHueyLouieDeweyDonaldGoofySacramento
>
>
>Purportedly used by a blonde, as in "Helloooo -- they said it had to be
>eight characters and a capital!"
>
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>I'm sure that the poster's remark is not made with any malice toward
>any particular person with light colored hair.
>
>Bill Horne
Oh, no! Bill, you weren't using that for your password, were you?
Kidding aside, if the system in question uses all the characters in a
password of that length, it's not a bad choice. The length alone is
sufficient to render dictionary-type attacks 'impractical', and the
components are easy enough to remember that one is not likely to 'need'
to 'have it written down' to refer to, every time you need to use it.
In all seriousness, I've seen lots of 'rules' for constructing 'quality'
passwords -- minimum length, unexpected capitalization, including 'non-
letters', etc. -- but very little about how to construct a "good"
password -- one that is easy to remember, yet 'un-guessable', and, also,
not subject to 'dictionary attack' type approaches. First on this
list is "_don't_ use 'personal' information' -- things like names of
family members, birthdays, schools, etc. When an attacker is trying to
"guess" the password of a "known" person, these are the first kinds
of things they try. (a co-worker nearly fainted when, in response to his
claim of using a 'quality' password, I retorted "you're probably using
something like ..." and named the first names of 2 of his children. I had
the right two names, but in reverse order. He promptly changed his
password to something that did -not- rely on personal information. :)
Second, come up with something that is easy to remember, and then use
something trivially DERIVED from that, rather than the 'easy to remember'
thing itself. e.g., pick a common word, stick a punctuation symbol or two
in the middle of it, and an unexpected capitalization -- you don't have
to remember the exact string of symbols, just the 'word', and where the
modifications go -- three or four 'simple' facts, vs one 'complicated' one.
Or, pick a memorable nursery rhyme, and use the first letter of each word of,
say, the second line of it -- like "4a20bbiap" ("four-and-twenty blackbirds
baked in a pie"). Again, the phrase itself is already imprinted in memory,
all you have to consciously remember is 'use the first letter'.
Techniques like this produce essentially 'un-guessable' pseudo-random
character sequences that are imperviously to anything but an exhaustive
brute-force attack, while being _easy_enough_to_remember_ that there is
no tendancy/incentive to record them on a "crib-sheet".
***** Moderator's Note *****
The problem that the Microsoft paper alluded to is that security
researchers and "experts" don't consider the value of the users' time
when making recommendations about password strength, change intervals,
etc.
The problem, as I see it, is that the users don't believe the data in
their computers is worth protecting, and thus feel that security is an
imposition on their already-precious time.
Bill Horne
Moderator
P.S. No, that wasn't my password: MY password includes a punctuation
mark.
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:09:53 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul <pssawyer@comcast.net.INVALID>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Please do not change your password
Message-ID: <Xns9D5E7BC2AC92DSenex@188.40.43.213>
bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote in
news:9KSdnVsbTf1Rh1fWnZ2dnUVZ_qY5AAAA@posted.nuvoxcommunications:
> Kidding aside, if the system in question uses all the characters
> in a password of that length, it's not a bad choice. The length
> alone is sufficient to render dictionary-type attacks
> 'impractical', and the components are easy enough to remember that
> one is not likely to 'need' to 'have it written down' to refer to,
> every time you need to use it.
Many years ago, one user would ask for a password reset almost every
Monday. One time I reset the password and handed this user a piece of
paper on which was the name of a small Welsh town:
Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch. Of course
the Unix system in question only used the first eight letters, but the
user had not bothered to learn that.
--
Paul
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:11:24 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Please do not change your password
Message-ID: <pan.2010.04.18.22.11.21.574581@myrealbox.com>
..........
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> The problem that the Microsoft paper alluded to is that security
> researchers and "experts" don't consider the value of the users' time when
> making recommendations about password strength, change intervals, etc.
>
> The problem, as I see it, is that the users don't believe the data in
> their computers is worth protecting, and thus feel that security is an
> imposition on their already-precious time.
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
>
Given that most (if not all) access systems above basic level only allow
"N" attempts at a password before locking out an account, there must be a
reasonable level of complexity that allows a relatively easy to use
password to still be effective and practically invulnerable to any
brute-force/dictionary attack?
Most password policies are just way over the top for systems that
(usually) will not allow access after a few attempts - and that
essentially discredits the whole security paradigm.
--
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: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 23:43:26 +0000 (UTC)
From: dwolffxx@panix.com (David Wolff)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Re: Toll-Free 855 Coming Soon ...
Message-ID: <hqdh2u$983$1@reader1.panix.com>
In article <barmar-986FDE.22215411042010@62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <hpt75d$q7i$1@reader1.panix.com>,
> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In <008e01cad96a$2b7ea000$c800000a@mishmash> "Fred Atkinson, WB4AEJ"
>> <fred@remove-this.remove-this.remove-this.remove-this.wb4aej.com> writes:
>>
>>> The thing that seems odd is that [with the cost of long distance very
>>> low or non-existant on my telephone services] is why there is such a need
>>> for toll-free numbers any more. When everyone gets flat rate long distance
>>> [and that day is coming], they will be of no additional value over
>>> standard numbers.
>>
>> It looks more professional for the company, and gives
>> the impression that the caller is dealing with a national
>> organization rather than a local rinky-dink all the
>> way over in East Cupcake.
>
> That's always bugged me about Walt Disney World. To make a reservation
> there, you have to call 407-WDISNEY. How could a company like this not
> offer a toll free number?
Disney is so big, I wondered why they bothered with the "W" in
407-WDISNEY instead of forcing the entire US phone system to allow them
to use a six-digit subscriber # (407-DISNEY).
Thanks --
David
(Remove "xx" to reply.)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:04:14 -0400
From: "Gene S. Berkowitz" <first.last@verizon.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Washington State Approves Sale of VeriZon Exchange Areas to Frontier
Message-ID: <MPG.263416889a3fa3c4989699@news.giganews.com>
In article <0iris5l5urm6bdnpkdgmole5us4vreeof4@4ax.com>,
cnavarro@wcnet.org says...
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:09:48 -0700 (PDT), "Mark J. Cuccia"
> <markjcuccia@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Today, Friday 16-April-2010, the Washington (State) Utilities and
> >Transportation Commission has approved (the Washington state portion)
> >of the sale of most remaining GTE and Contel still retained by VeriZon
> >exchange areas, to Frontier, with numerous conditions applied, see the
> >following from the WUTC website:
> >
> >http://www.wutc.wa.gov/webimage.nsf/0/BD97957114A730D4882577070078F3D2
> >
> >I have not yet read through all of this, for all of the
> >"numerous conditions applied" details, however.
>
> Take this with a grain of salt, but the receivers of Verizon fortune
> have not fared very well
> http://district13.cwa-union.org/news/verizon-sale-to-frontier-communications.html
>
> Carl, wondering what my couple of shares of Idearc are worth now :-)
32 cents, the same as mine!
--Gene
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:51:30 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Washington State Approves Sale of VeriZon Exchange Areas to Frontier
Message-ID: <hqf9q4$37j$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
> In article <0iris5l5urm6bdnpkdgmole5us4vreeof4@4ax.com>,
> cnavarro@wcnet.org says...
>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:09:48 -0700 (PDT), "Mark J. Cuccia"
>> <markjcuccia@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Today, Friday 16-April-2010, the Washington (State) Utilities and
>>> Transportation Commission has approved (the Washington state portion)
>>> of the sale of most remaining GTE and Contel still retained by VeriZon
>>> exchange areas, to Frontier, with numerous conditions applied, see the
>>> following from the WUTC website:
>>>
>>> http://www.wutc.wa.gov/webimage.nsf/0/BD97957114A730D4882577070078F3D2
>>>
>>> I have not yet read through all of this, for all of the
>>> "numerous conditions applied" details, however.
>> Take this with a grain of salt, but the receivers of Verizon fortune
>> have not fared very well
>> http://district13.cwa-union.org/news/verizon-sale-to-frontier-communications.html
>>
>> Carl, wondering what my couple of shares of Idearc are worth now :-)
>
> 32 cents, the same as mine!
>
> --Gene
>
Also think of all the retired employees who had their retirement
transfered over to Idearc. There is a major lawsuit because of that.
Every time Verizon sold off parts of the company they also moved retired
employees over. Having retired from GTE California, my retirement is
handled by an outside company for GTE/Verizon, should they sell the rest
of the California operation, mine could also be moved, but that would
not happen since this area is still making huge profit for Verizon.
--
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: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:15:38 -0400
From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Washington State Approves Sale of VeriZon Exchange Areas to Frontier
Message-ID: <fuims5th2f0krn4h0i6e6ia322335m7sd1@4ax.com>
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:04:14 -0400, "Gene S. Berkowitz"
<first.last@verizon.net> wrote:
>In article <0iris5l5urm6bdnpkdgmole5us4vreeof4@4ax.com>,
>cnavarro@wcnet.org says...
>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:09:48 -0700 (PDT), "Mark J. Cuccia"
>> <markjcuccia@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Today, Friday 16-April-2010, the Washington (State) Utilities and
>> >Transportation Commission has approved (the Washington state portion)
>> >of the sale of most remaining GTE and Contel still retained by VeriZon
>> >exchange areas, to Frontier, with numerous conditions applied, see the
>> >following from the WUTC website:
>> >
>> >http://www.wutc.wa.gov/webimage.nsf/0/BD97957114A730D4882577070078F3D2
>> >
>> >I have not yet read through all of this, for all of the
>> >"numerous conditions applied" details, however.
>>
>> Take this with a grain of salt, but the receivers of Verizon fortune
>> have not fared very well
>> http://district13.cwa-union.org/news/verizon-sale-to-frontier-communications.html
>>
>> Carl, wondering what my couple of shares of Idearc are worth now :-)
>
>32 cents, the same as mine!
>
>--Gene
Hey, that's 32 cents more than mine. The Idearc stock was canceled
December 31st and is totally worthless. See the Reuters artticle at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0419957620100104
ET
PS - I did get a little tax break by taking my cost basis as a loss
last year. Hardly worth the paperwork....
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:39:35 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Washington State Approves Sale of VeriZon Exchange Areas to Frontier
Message-ID: <hqfjla$bg6$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Eric Tappert wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:04:14 -0400, "Gene S. Berkowitz"
> <first.last@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <0iris5l5urm6bdnpkdgmole5us4vreeof4@4ax.com>,
>> cnavarro@wcnet.org says...
>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:09:48 -0700 (PDT), "Mark J. Cuccia"
>>> <markjcuccia@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Today, Friday 16-April-2010, the Washington (State) Utilities and
>>>> Transportation Commission has approved (the Washington state portion)
>>>> of the sale of most remaining GTE and Contel still retained by VeriZon
>>>> exchange areas, to Frontier, with numerous conditions applied, see the
>>>> following from the WUTC website:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.wutc.wa.gov/webimage.nsf/0/BD97957114A730D4882577070078F3D2
>>>>
>>>> I have not yet read through all of this, for all of the
>>>> "numerous conditions applied" details, however.
>>> Take this with a grain of salt, but the receivers of Verizon fortune
>>> have not fared very well
>>> http://district13.cwa-union.org/news/verizon-sale-to-frontier-communications.html
>>>
>>> Carl, wondering what my couple of shares of Idearc are worth now :-)
>> 32 cents, the same as mine!
>>
>> --Gene
>
>
> Hey, that's 32 cents more than mine. The Idearc stock was canceled
> December 31st and is totally worthless. See the Reuters artticle at:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0419957620100104
>
> ET
>
> PS - I did get a little tax break by taking my cost basis as a loss
> last year. Hardly worth the paperwork....
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
>
The new stock is trading over $40.00 share. During the spin off from
Verizon we were give shares of Idearc depending on Verizon shares. The
day that t he stock was transfered I converted it back to Verizon. I
have done this each time I was given spin off stock and will continue
to so; though I might take a look at the spin off to Frontier since they
appear to have funds on hand to be able to handle the new operating
areas. I have been doing work in Washington and Oregon in Verizon areas
to be spun off and there is a lot of work being done to bring the latest
systems on line. I remember when I had the GTE stock, the stock was
always high and they had plenty of money saved to cover long slow times,
but since the merger(buyout) that money has been spend, a lot going to
company officers.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:25:19 GMT
From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: All-digital cellphone - is this good? Or OK?
Message-ID: <hqefld$r2s$2@news.eternal-september.org>
SVU <brad.houser@gmail.com> wrote:
>First, he is right. There is no analog service in most if not all
>places in the US and Canada, so dual mode (analog/digital) phones will
>no longer be able to switch to analog when there is no digital
>service.
I'm curious as to why my 7-year old Samsung SCH-a650 still occasionally
flashes the "A" for analog and begins to get warm (typical of analog
transmitting) when I have spotty reception. I'm in the Bay Area, usually
around West Oakland when this happens. It doesn't flip over often, but it did
so no more than 3 weeks ago for a brief time.
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:53:37 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: All-digital cellphone - is this good? Or OK?
Message-ID: <hqf9u1$37j$2@news.eternal-september.org>
David Kaye wrote:
> SVU <brad.houser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> First, he is right. There is no analog service in most if not all
>> places in the US and Canada, so dual mode (analog/digital) phones will
>> no longer be able to switch to analog when there is no digital
>> service.
>
> I'm curious as to why my 7-year old Samsung SCH-a650 still occasionally
> flashes the "A" for analog and begins to get warm (typical of analog
> transmitting) when I have spotty reception. I'm in the Bay Area, usually
> around West Oakland when this happens. It doesn't flip over often, but it did
> so no more than 3 weeks ago for a brief time.
>
Maybe something is running analog on that band; not Cellular, maybe
alarm systems.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 19:29:25 GMT
From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: All-digital cellphone - is this good? Or OK?
Message-ID: <hqfmii$kjt$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
>Maybe something is running analog on that band; not Cellular, maybe
>alarm systems.
>
No, I connected to a cell site somewhere. Now, there is a tendency to skip
out over water and when in West Oakland my phone has been able to hit places
like Sausalito (according to my bill), so I'm not sure where it is, but I
definitely have had an analog connection once in a while -- rarely, but as I
said it was there about 3 weeks ago. I quickly hung up because it didn't
sound very good and I know from the past that the analog mode ran down the
battery quickly.
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 09:48:41 -0400
From: "Anonymous" <anonymous@anonymous.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: 3G device as primary residential Internet connection?
Message-ID: <0020100417ewh_anonymous_screen$@telecom-digest.org>
I live in such an area; there is no DSL available due to the presence
of a non-compatible, first-generation fiber 'span' or SLC. The cable
TV stops 800' south of my 8 neighbors and I, and Charter refuses to
extend it without a payment of $7000.
I have HughesNet satellite, and am limited to about 700K browsing and
425 mB per day in total traffic, for $90 a month. I often have to use
my Sprint or Verizon "air cards" to download large items like Windows
updates, but have to do so at the foot of my driveway since connection
speeds are low in the house due to terrain.
Some neighbors use 'MiFi' or other cellular alternatives.
Now, please realize that I'm a ten minute drive from two Home Depot
[stores], a Lowes, two towns of 50K population, a Wal-Mart
Supercenter, every fast food known to man, and a half dozen mega
supermarkets ... so this is NOT the 'sticks'.
However, just like the current trend of "cutting the cord" and
switching to cellular phones, using cellular for primary data service
is risky. Oftentimes, as is the case here, a single tower with
various collocated cellular providers "primarily" services an area.
These facilities ARE NOT engineered for 'primary fixed service' to the
area....they are designed primarily to supply mobile service.
Further, these sites are served by simple T1 grade, be it wire or
microwave, facilities not designed for robust survival. Many cell
sites have no generator, and battery run time is not large.
As such, the fashionable 'trend' works great in blue-sky,
'everything-is-fine' conditions. However, with more and more sheep
deciding to be trendy and shut off their wire line service, I predict
that minor disasters, especially social ones rather than physical
ones, will collapse these systems quickly ... and make situations
worse. Older, wire line telco based comms systems were designed for
considerably greater survivability and have much more redundancy.
It's just another example of dollars and cents triumphing over good
engineering.
Anonymous
***** Moderator's Note *****
If you want to have your post published anonymously, PLEASE put
"[anonymous]" in the subject line! The glyph, WHICH MUST INCLUDE THE
BRACKETS, "steers" your post to an automated pre-processor that
eliminates most traces of your name and email address. Without the
glyph, I have to do it all by hand, assuming your post escapes the
"sudden death" part of my spam filters, and I'm only human and might
leave in a "Reply-To" line or something else that would give away your
identity, IF I realize that it's supposed to be anonymous before I
hit the "post" button.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:23:02 -0400
From: Telecom digest moderator <redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A question for the readers [nfp]
Message-ID: <20100418172302.GT19450@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 04:51:10PM -0000, Bill Horne wrote:
> Since Usenet traffic has been declining, I'm curious if the readership
> would be interested in having the Telecom Digest available from Yahoo
> Groups.
>
> I've created the TelecomDigest group on Yahoo Groups, and I'm thinking
> of using it to "gateway" messages from Yahoo users into the
> Digest. Please let me know if you think this is a good idea.
This post is to clarify my original question: I thank the readers for
their many replies, but I've realized that I may be leaving the wrong
impression.
The Telecom Digest will always be available via Usenet and direct
email. I'm not considering moving The Digest to Yahoogle, only
making use of such services to expand the Digest's readership.
The Telecom Digest is currently available in two ways, NEITHER OF
WHICH WILL CHANGE.
1. Via email subscription from the Majordomo server at John Levine's
site. If you'd like to have the Digest mailed directly to your
email instead of reading it on Usenet, simply send an email to
subscribe: you may choose either the classic "Digest" format, with
all posts sent once per day in a "Digest" email, or to receive each
post via an individual email as soon as it is approved.
2. Via Usenet. Although some ISPs no longer offer nntp service, there
ARE Usenet servers available, many without charge, so that
readers who prefer Usenet and nntp service can obtain it. If you
need to find a free server, Google has dozens of links.
If enough readers express an interest in having the Digest available
via Yahoo or Google Groups, I'll set up gateways to make it possible,
but the current distribution network is NOT going to change.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
Moderator
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 (14 messages)
|
or 