29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for April 26, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 108 : "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, 24 Apr 2011 12:12:56 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: New Austin area code confirmed to be hoax
Message-ID: <BANLkTin8=ATGTz7C5nsUw0Lv-U4HTXBXEQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> It may not have been politics. Now, if Austin is growing faster than
> San Antonio, you're probably right.
It is and by some far off year, 2040 maybe, metro Austin will be
larger than metro San Antonio. Then again if Loving County, Texas
(the least populated county in the country) continues growth at its
present rate it'll dwarf Los Angeles County by the end of the century.
For the record it jumped from 50-something residents to 80-something
from 2000 to 2010, but they claim they were undercounted in 2000.
Still, that's about 50% growth in a decade.
And right people, the math doesn't work for it to dwarf LA County.
I'm being funny about the absurdity of numbers sometimes.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 13:37:50 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: If Hollywood is right T-Mobile lives on
Message-ID: <ip1qmb$r7a$1@dont-email.me>
On 4/24/2011 6:10 AM, David Clayton wrote:
> I wonder how many people are stockpiling handsets - and some rudimentary
> network equipment to make them ring - so than in 10+ years time they can
> lease them out to media production companies making "period" product so
> they can have authentic equipment.
The other stuff isn't necessary, so long as they have the handsets.
The handsets can even be those nonworking display models. The sound
effects guy can take care of the rest (sound is often recorded after
the video is already shot). The "Universal telephone ring" is a
cliche of film, the same ringing telephone occurred in virtually every
production that Universal Studios did, from "Leave It To Beaver" to
"The Rockford Files" (where it's part of the opening sequence), from
"The Sting" to "Ghostbusters". Over the years, the sound changed only
by picking up a bit of wow, from too many generations of dubbing
between reel-to-reel tapes.
So in 2016 audiences will likely be seeing Blackberries on screen that
announce a call with the jangle of a mechanical bell. But, since both
the sound and the Blackberry will seem equally archaic, they probably
won't notice the disconnect.
Dave
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 19:27:03 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Show Us the Data. (It's Ours, After All.)
Message-ID: <p06240800c9da61ed2500@[10.0.1.3]>
Show Us the Data. (It's Ours, After All.)
By RICHARD H. THALER
April 23, 2011
"NO one knows what I like better than I do."
This statement may seem self-evident, but the revolution in
information technology has created a growing list of exceptions. Your
grocery store knows what you like to eat and can probably make
educated guesses about other foods you might enjoy. Your wireless
carrier knows whom you call, and your phone may know where you've
been. And your search engine can finish many of your thoughts before
you are even done typing them.
Companies are accumulating vast amounts of information about your
likes and dislikes. But they are doing this not only because you're
interesting. The more they know, the more money they can make.
The collection and dissemination of this information raises a host of
privacy issues, of course, and the bipartisan team of Senators John
Kerry and John McCain has proposed what it is calling the Commercial
Privacy Bill of Rights to deal with many of them. Protecting our
privacy is important, but the senators' approach doesn't tackle a
broader issue: It doesn't include the right to access data about
ourselves. Not only should our data be secure; it should also be
available for us to use for our own purposes. After all, it is our
data.
Here is a guiding principle: If a business collects data on consumers
electronically, it should provide them with a version of that data
that is easy to download and export to another Web site. Think of it
this way: you have lent the company your data, and you'd like a copy
for your own use.
This month in Britain, the government announced an initiative along
these lines called "mydata." (I was an adviser on this project.)
Although British law already requires companies to provide consumers
with usage information, this program is aimed at providing the data
in a computer-friendly way. The government is working with several
leading banks, credit card issuers, mobile calling providers and
retailers to get things started.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/business/24view.html
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:35:44 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Tangled in an endless web of distractions / Colleges worry about always-plugged-in students
Message-ID: <p06240808c9da8e619051@[10.0.1.3]>
Tangled in an endless web of distractions
Colleges worry about always-plugged-in students
By Tracy Jan
Globe Staff / April 24, 2011
CAMBRIDGE - It was supposed to be a quick diversion, Katie Inman told
herself last week as she flipped open her laptop. She had two tests
to study for, three problem sets due, a paper to revise. But within
minutes, the MIT sophomore was drawn into the depths of the Internet,
her work shunted aside.
"I had just closed Facebook, but then I reopened it. It's horrible,''
said Inman, a mechanical engineering major. "I would type a sentence
for my paper, and then get back on Facebook.''
Desperate for productivity, Inman did something many of her
classmates at one of the most wired campuses would find unfathomable:
She installed a program that blocks certain websites for up to 24
hours. No social networking. No e-mail. No aimless surfing.
While Inman took matters into her own hands, some MIT professors are
urging college leaders across the country to free students from their
tether to technology. Over the past decade, schools raced to connect
students to the Internet - in dorms, classrooms, even under the old
oak tree. But now, what once would have been considered heresy is an
active point of discussion: pulling the virtual plug to encourage
students to pay more attention in class and become more adept at
real-life social networking.
...
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2011/04/24/colleges_worry_about_always_plugged_in_students/
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Transoceanic telephony (history)
Message-ID: <825652.88854.qm@web111701.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
--- On Sun, 4/24/11, Graham. <me@privacy.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
> > Much later on the Bell System developed a way to squeeze
> > more conversations on a cable by filling up the natural spaces that
> > occur within conversations.
TASI (pronounced tassy). Time Assignment Speech Interpolation.
Many stories in public newspapers, BSTJ amd Nrll Lsnd Record at the time.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Transoceanic telephony (history)
Message-ID: <71797551-c565-47aa-9a01-0e9cd63280bd@cu4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 24, 7:36 pm, Wes Leatherock <wleat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Much later on the Bell System developed a way to squeeze
> > > more conversations on a cable by filling up the natural spaces that
> > > occur within conversations.
>
> TASI (pronounced tassy). Time Assignment Speech Interpolation.
The Bell System had a large exhibit in our local science museum, and
it included a TASI demonstration. One would talk into a phone and a
clock would measure the actual talk time against the wall clock time
so as to show how many empty spaces there was. (They also had a PBX
that had additional features so a blind person could operate it, among
other displays. The days of those kinds of exhibits are long gone.
Cable history question: An ad by the Bell System in 1946 said that
they restored most of their overseas radio links severed during the
war. The ad had a world map with various points that could be reached
by telephone. These included Alaska and Hawaii.
We know the trans-Atlantic cable, TAT1*, was opened in September
1956. Would anyone know when voice cable service replaced radio links
to Alaska, Japan, and South America? (Hawaii got service in 1957**).
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAT-1
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAW-1
Date: 24 Apr 2011 23:48:26 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: That pesky plus signs and mobile phones
Message-ID: <20110424234826.9671.qmail@joyce.lan>
>How do you enter or dial the "+" on a basic GSM cell phone (i.e.
>non-smartphone with a standard keypad)? Is there a standard why to dial the
>"+"? Is it added to the "*" or "#'?
It's not perfectly standardized, but the most common is to hold down
the zero until it changes to a plus.
R's,
John
Date: 24 Apr 2011 23:50:08 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: New Austin area code confirmed to be hoax
Message-ID: <20110424235008.10165.qmail@joyce.lan>
>>When they split 512, the much larger San Antonio got the new area
>>code, 210, not Austin.
>
>In a split, isn't the new area code given to the area growing faster than
>the area that keeps the old area code as the faster growing area is expected
>to be split again?
Typically, the place with more political influence keeps the old code.
Hence Austin kept 512 and Boston kept 617.
R's,
John
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 19:20:40 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: That pesky plus signs and mobile phones
Message-ID: <ip1t68$qka$1@news.albasani.net>
Gary <bogus-email@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I wrote:
>>My understanding is that "+" means "dial the international access
>>code appropriate to your location, then this number."
>John Levine responded:
>>No, it's part of the GSM standard. The whole point is that you can
>>put numbers in your phone's address book, and they will work
>>regardless of where in the world you use your phone. If I use my US
>>phone in the UK, do I dial calls with 011 or 00? I have no idea, I
>>dial +.
>Cool! That's a bit of dialing information I wasn't aware of. It
>certainly makes sense for mobile phones designed for a "Global"
>standard. I'm assuming you can still dial the international access
>code, if you choose.
>How do you enter or dial the "+" on a basic GSM cell phone (i.e.
>non-smartphone with a standard keypad)? Is there a standard why to
>dial the "+"? Is it added to the "*" or "#'?
It's proprietary. On my quad-band Motorola V195s, I press and hold the
0 key until + appears on the screen, then dial country code and
number.
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 19:38:45 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: That pesky plus signs and mobile phones
Message-ID: <ip1u85$s11$1@news.albasani.net>
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>>At home we have AT&T and recently had T-Mobile for our cell service.
>>I noticed on all phones, regardless of manufacturer, incoming SMS and
>>calls without names assigned displayed in the +1xxxyyyzzzz format.
>>Specifically the number is prefaced with the +1.
>>I have a Verizon phone at work. I only see xxx-yyy-zzzz. What's
>>more, I cannot call internationally by using the (+). The phone
>>doesn't recognize that. I have to use 011. My attempt to call
>>+60-4-yyy-zzzz resulted in a call to Vancouver.
>>Is this difference due to GSM versus CDMA?
>Yes. In GSM, all telephone numbers are dialed in international format,
>although I have no idea what number sequence the + would represent.
>When I store a number from an inbound call in the address book, I edit
>the +1 that comes with each call to avoid wasting the screen space. Yes,
>I know it's dialed whether I've explicitly stored it in the address book
>or not.
Correction: Inbound calls from the United States or another country in
the NANP do not display the +, just the 1. I delete the 1 if I store the
number in my address book; the phone knows to dial it anyway.
I assume the phone is treating 1 as a country code and not the trunk prefix
which are inapplicable to cell phones thanks to the Send key.
Date: 25 Apr 2011 14:49:53 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: That pesky plus signs and mobile phones
Message-ID: <20110425144953.64688.qmail@joyce.lan>
>Correction: Inbound calls from the United States or another country in
>the NANP do not display the +, just the 1. I delete the 1 if I store the
>number in my address book; the phone knows to dial it anyway.
Here's a question for the mobile phone weenies: does the phone rewrite
the number you dial before it sends it to the switch, or does it just
send what you enter and the switch figures it out?
Since a mobile phone sends the whole number in a block, there's no
ambiguity between 7 and 10 digit numbers, and the leading 1 on 1+10
doesn't tell it anything useful.
Around here, seven digit dialing on mobile phones still works (we have
no overlays and no splits coming any time soon) but I assumed it was
the switch knowing what to do, not the phone stuffing in an area code.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
Date: 24 Apr 2011 15:48:47 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: That pesky plus signs and mobile phones
Message-ID: <ip1uqv$8h4$1@panix2.panix.com>
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>At home we have AT&T and recently had T-Mobile for our cell service.
>I noticed on all phones, regardless of manufacturer, incoming SMS and
>calls without names assigned displayed in the +1xxxyyyzzzz format.
>Specifically the number is prefaced with the +1.
This is the standard international way of writing US telephone numbers.
That is, whatever the international prefix in your country is, plus
the US country code, which is 1.
>I have a Verizon phone at work. I only see xxx-yyy-zzzz. What's
>more, I cannot call internationally by using the (+). The phone
>doesn't recognize that. I have to use 011. My attempt to call
>+60-4-yyy-zzzz resulted in a call to Vancouver.
This is because 011 is the international dialing prefix in the US and
Canada.
So, if you needed to call HP in London, their number is +44 344/424898.
So you would dial 011 44 344 424898 on your phone from the US.
If you were in a different country with a different international dialing
prefix, you would dial that before the country code.
>Is this difference due to GSM versus CDMA?
No, it's a matter of how you write the number not how you dial it. You
don't dial the parentheses and dashes when you call (800) 555-1212 either.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 15:50:18 -0400
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: That pesky plus signs and mobile phones
Message-ID: <op.vugj14rnitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:29:48 -0400, Gary <bogus-email@hotmail.com> wrote:
> How do you enter or dial the "+" on a basic GSM cell phone (i.e.
> non-smartphone with a standard keypad)? Is there a standard why to dial the
> "+"? Is it added to the "*" or "#'?
Well, LG's cu400 (as served up by Cingular) has extra functionality
on its 0 (digit-zero) key, as shown by the + (plus-sign) and space-
mark decorating it -- press-and-hold the 0 key and you generate the
"+" dialing entry.
The 0 key on a Motorola SLVR L2 (also with Cingular branding), otoh,
bears a + and an up-arrow (serving as shift key when composing text);
again, press-and-hold the 0 key to generate a "+" dialing entry.
On a VoiceStream-branded Nokia 6610, however, press-and-hold of the
"0" key brings up that handset's WAP browser; a "+" dialing entry
requires, instead, multiple presses on the * (asterisk) key: a single
press for *; two for +; three for p (2-second pause); four for w
(wait for user input); and five for . (dot, or period -- use unknown).
So, in short: yes, there's a standard way to dial the "+" -- often
a different standard way for each manufacturer :-) . Truly it's as
the unknown 20th century wag put it, "The nice thing about standards
is that there are so many to choose from amongst out there."
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:22:23 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: That pesky plus signs and mobile phones
Message-ID: <pan.2011.04.24.23.22.19.900928@yahoo.com.au>
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:29:48 -0400, Gary wrote:
..........
>
> How do you enter or dial the "+" on a basic GSM cell phone (i.e.
> non-smartphone with a standard keypad)? Is there a standard why to dial
> the "+"? Is it added to the "*" or "#'?
>
Usually the keypad has the "+" symbol on a key which then replaces
the initial keystroke when you hold it down for a couple of seconds.
--
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: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 19:42:51 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Apple iPhone secretly records owners' every move
Message-ID: <ip1ufr$s11$2@news.albasani.net>
Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 4/22/11, T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
>>All you have to do is shut down all the location services. They're
>>nothing but a battery drain anyhow.
>>And it isn't just the iPhone but your Android phone might be doing
>>it too. It's why I shut off the GPS and Location Services on mine.
>How do the folks runnng E911 centers react to this? They're
>supposed to know where you are now when you call 911.
It's not shut off for calling the emergency call center, just for all
other purposes per federal law.
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 20:49:47 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Apple iPhone secretly records owners' every move
Message-ID: <MPG.281e8f39226cc78e989d2b@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <977008.51044.qm@web111718.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>,
wleathus@yahoo.com says...
>
> --- On Fri, 4/22/11, T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > All you have to do is shut down all the location services. They're
> > nothing but a battery drain anyhow.
> >
> > And it isn't just the iPhone but your Android phone might be doing
> > it too. It's why I shut off the GPS and Location Services on mine.
>
> How do the folks runnng E911 centers react to this? They're
> supposed to know where you are now when you call 911.
>
>
> Wes Leatherock
> wleathus@yahoo.com
> wesrock@aol.com
That's just it, you CANNOT turn of E-911 location service. But that's
ONLY when YOU dial 911.
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 06:29:34 -0500
From: gordonb.zn5n5@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Apple iPhone secretly records owners' every move
Message-ID: <A7ednVOO0vaDxijQnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
>> All you have to do is shut down all the location services. They're
>> nothing but a battery drain anyhow.
I suspect that GPS in the phone is not what E911 is using, even
if the phone has a user-accessable GPS.
>> And it isn't just the iPhone but your Android phone might be doing
>> it too. It's why I shut off the GPS and Location Services on mine.
>
> How do the folks runnng E911 centers react to this? They're
> supposed to know where you are now when you call 911.
I wonder if E911 actually uses that information, and if so, how
much for reasons not related to catching pranksters. Lately someone
has been running TV ads telling you that 911 needs to know where
to go, and that before calling 911 you should take a deep breath
and be prepared to answer every question, including the first one:
"911, what is the location of your emergency?"
Possibly that's aimed at people who don't have E911, but I'm not
sure who that would be near Fort Worth, Texas. Or maybe it's aimed
at people with cell phones who live in poor GPS areas. And perhaps
they realize that location-by-cell-tower isn't very accurate.
First, I don't know whether that's the first question they actually
ask, and I'm not going to make a test call to find out. (Don't
anyone else make test calls, either.)
Second, most of the places where I've worked do not permit GPS
(especially in a cell phone) to work well inside. Places it
doesn't work well include:
- skyscrapers, especially if you're not on the top floor.
- concrete parking garage structures (except on the roof)
- shielded data centers
- "urban canyons", where you're on a road with skyscrapers
lining both sides of the road.
- even in my own car, with the cellphone in my pocket
or briefcase. (The TomTom on the dashboard works fine,
though.)
The last recorded location as I leave work might still be my home,
even though there has been an hour of driving, parking in the parking
garage, and working in a skyscraper. That last recorded location
is in the wrong county, and 50 miles off, and maybe 9 hours old.
If, as I just tried it, it requires 5 minutes to get enough info
for a location (from inside my home), I suspect I could travel
around work, shopping, and home for a week without actually having
the GPS capture a location, except at home (maybe).
Maybe they've figured out that the location you're calling from may
not be the location of the emergency (if, say, you escaped from the
fire in your house and called from a neighbor's house, or crashed
your car and walked a mile to get to a landline or someone with a
non-crushed cellphone to get help for your passenger who's trapped
in the car), or in the extreme case I've mentioned before, someone
you were talking to on the phone in another state or country seems
to have had a heart attack or seizure and collapsed (and you know
them well enough to know where they live and that they are not
joking).
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:51:32 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Apple iPhone secretly records owners' every move
Message-ID: <SOSdnUHnQ5MZBSjQnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <A7ednVOO0vaDxijQnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
Gordon Burditt <gordonb.zn5n5@burditt.org> wrote:
>>> All you have to do is shut down all the location services. They're
>>> nothing but a battery drain anyhow.
>
>I suspect that GPS in the phone is not what E911 is using, even
>if the phone has a user-accessable GPS.
>
>>> And it isn't just the iPhone but your Android phone might be doing
>>> it too. It's why I shut off the GPS and Location Services on mine.
>>
>> How do the folks runnng E911 centers react to this? They're
>> supposed to know where you are now when you call 911.
>
>I wonder if E911 actually uses that information, and if so, how
>much for reasons not related to catching pranksters.
E911 uses it for lots of things.
Calls where the caller is unable to give the address, including an
immediate disconnect.
Identifying 'known hazards" for first-responders. Things like "hazmat",
prior history of 'incidents' at that location -- especially if there
were weapons involved -- etc.,
Also, identifying the exact location, and any 'access' directions, e.g.,
where the 'primary' entrance is on the side, or at the rear (alley entrance)
of the building
> Lately someone
>has been running TV ads telling you that 911 needs to know where
>to go, and that before calling 911 you should take a deep breath
>and be prepared to answer every question, including the first one:
>
> "911, what is the location of your emergency?"
>
>Possibly that's aimed at people who don't have E911, but I'm not
>sure who that would be near Fort Worth, Texas. Or maybe it's aimed
>at people with cell phones who live in poor GPS areas. And perhaps
>they realize that location-by-cell-tower isn't very accurate.
>
>First, I don't know whether that's the first question they actually
>ask, and I'm not going to make a test call to find out. (Don't
>anyone else make test calls, either.)
Local 911 (from prior real-world use, not test calling) answers:
'911, what is the nature of your emergency?"
>
>Second, most of the places where I've worked do not permit GPS
>(especially in a cell phone) to work well inside. ....
>
>If, as I just tried it, it requires 5 minutes to get enough info
>for a location (from inside my home), I suspect I could travel
>around work, shopping, and home for a week without actually having
>the GPS capture a location, except at home (maybe).
This is trivially dealt with. A GPS receiver knows when it does NOT
have a "lock" on enough satellites to give a position, and can report
'no data', or 'location unknown'. And/or it can report a 'timestamp'
for the last 'known" location. Timestamp of the 'fix' is _guaranteed_
to be accurate, since it is part of the received GPS data-stream.
It is also trivial to compare a phone-reported GPS-derived location with
a location generated by _tower-based_ triangulation. A gross mismatch
against a 'timely' GPS fix indicates a need to 'verify' the caller's
location with the caller.
>Maybe they've figured out that the location you're calling from may
>not be the location of the emergency ....
"No sh*t, Sherlock" applies. :)
This applies _regardless_ of whether the call originates from a mobile
device or a fixed-location landline. As such, this was a 'solved problem'
decades (literally) ago.
The solution is "trained personnel". Some kinds of emergency calls
implicitly identify the emergency as _at_the calling location -- e.g.
"my ex-boyfriend is trying to break down the front door" -- while, for
others, one does need to confirm the location with the caller. It is
+very+ useful for the call-center to have a 'candidate' address -- when
one does not get an intelligent response to a "where are you?" or "what
is your address?" question, one can ask "are you at {{location}}?"
The usual 'failure mode' of a response to a cellular-originate 911 call
has multiple causes:
1) the cell-system connects to the 'wrong" 911 call-center.
2) an 'incomplete' location is given by the caller. (e.g. just a
street address, without specifying the city/town/village/whatever)
3) said address exists both in the locale where the caller is, AND
in the locale the 911 call-center handles.
Where I live, there is a street that is the boundary-line between two
municipalities, each of whom have their own 911 system. However, the
two cities use different numbering systems. This results in a situation
where there are odd numbers on both sides of the street. Even more
fun, they use a different 'baseline' for addressing. the 1700s are across
the street from the 700s. And to complicate matters even further, the
'rate of change' of the numbering is not consistent. How much the north-
and south-side numbers differ depends on where along the street you are.
The E911 database for both communities has all the addresses on that
street flagged. Address alone is -not- sufficient -- call center to ask
caller "which side of the street" the emergency is. With hand-off to the
other 911 center -- either during or after the call (depending on the
urgency of the emergency) -- if it's on the 'wrong' side of the street.
There's another community where a basically straight-line street changes
it's name seven times in the space of 1.5 miles. Yes, it's all in the
same town. <grin>
Many reports on that street have callers giving "technically non-existent"
addresses. If you're not intimately familiar with the neighborhood, you
don't necessarily know where one name ends and the next one begins.
Luckily, it's a consistent numbering system, so that {number}, regardless
of which of the seven names is given, does uniquely identify the location.
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 20:56:20 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: When country codes become +1-NPA codes
Message-ID: <ip22pk$7av$1@news.albasani.net>
Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 4/22/11, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Are we discussing the legal status of territories of the United
>>States, or rates charged as international calls to these areas by
>>long distance telephone companies?
>Calls used to be clasified as domestic (USA), Canada, Mexico or
>international. The area code had nothing to do with it--it predated
>area codes and automated routing.
No one called me on it, but I misused the term "dialing plan" in two
precursor articles. I meant "numbering plan"; sorry about that.
When AT&T Long Lines had the monopoly on completing long-distance calls,
even if neither the calling party's switch nor the called party's switch
were owned by AT&T subsidiaries, wouldn't rates to call Hawaii and other
islands in the Pacific, islands in the Caribbean, and Alaska, have been
in a class by themselves, regardless of whether it was United State or
a US territory or possession or military base?
When calling an island, how many routes could there possibly be? One
underseas cable, one satellite connection, if both types of connections
existed simultaneously for several years at a time, made for very
expensive interchange fees.
These high interchange fees are still being charged today, right? And
no one's international or domestic calling plan is just eating the fees
for the convenience of flat per-minute calling rates, right?
Various parts of the world became directly dialable at different times,
so that saved high toll-operator-assisted set-up charges, but that didn't
make the interchange fee go away. And after these areas became directly
dialable, changing the numbering plan was irrelevant to cost recovery
critical to rate setting, so I agree with you on that aspect.
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:01:34 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Porn Company Has Snatched Up Nearly 25% of 1-800 Numbers in U.S., Canada
Message-ID: <ip233e$7av$2@news.albasani.net>
>***** [Bill Horne] Moderator's Note *****
>Businessmen like 800 numbers because they get the ANI info with
>*every* call, and that means that they can design their IVR systems to
>give the most attention to those callers whom are most likely to make
>a purchase.
Huh.
I would assume it's that opposite, that consumers who are unlikely to make
a purchase took their business elsewhere, as they gave up in frustration
having to navigate through layers of menus.
You want me to make a purchase over the phone? Then answer my call in
short order giving me as little grief as possible, else I'll take my
business to someone else who will.
Bet the pr0n company's phone sex lines are handled personally.
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 17:31:27 -0400
From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: An intersting use for phone relays
Message-ID: <9i59r6lfrth9o3hqngll6r3s8o0aaqjqek@4ax.com>
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 03:32:44 -0500, bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>In article <gt24r653s9d4hjnq60v6ncrdeqapo2sgnp@4ax.com>,
>Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>.....`
>
>>A neat feature was when you added 0001 to FFFF you could hear the
>>carry (it was a ripple carry circuit) for a couple of seconds, then
>>watch the transformer smoke a bit. Pretty cool for its day.
>
>.....
>
>>***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>>Please tell us why a carry overloaded the transformer.
>
>Because the transformer was undersized, of course. <grin>
>
>More seriously, because all the 'carry' operations, caused all the relays
>to fire.
>
>
>It's a reasonable guess the pinball-machine salvage was in large part
>'latching' relays, which (like CMOS) draw power only when changing state.
>A 'carry' across all the bits meant that all the output relays, as well
>as those driving the 'carry' lines, changed state,
Actually there were no latching relays used, just a transformer that
was more than a "wee bit" too small....
ET
PS - the real work was changing the contacts on the relays to provide
the required logic. I still have some of the left over parts....
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 04:29:41 -0500
From: rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: If Hollywood is right T-Mobile lives on
Message-ID: <MNudnc-V05qYoijQnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
+---------------
| I saw the movie "Atlas Shrugged" tonight. ...
....
| ***** Moderator's Note *****
| Someone made a movie? Atlas Shrugged? Who's playing Dabney?
| Bill Horne / Moderator
+---------------
Taylor Schilling, an actress I'd never heard of before
[but then, I never watched the T.V. show "Mercy"], see:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2279940/
Taylor Schilling
Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged:_Part_I#Cast
-Rob
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Rob Warnock <rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue http://rpw3.org/
San Mateo, CA 94403
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 06:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Transoceanic telephony (history)
Message-ID: <4b036b0e-ad2e-4ef4-b0d1-5d9d3b7f5f37@j28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 24, 11:04 am, "Graham." <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
> > An interesting article from Bell System Technical Journal of June 1942
> Was a link to this article omitted?
Oops, I did forget the link. Sorry about that. Here it is:
http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol21-1942/articles/bstj21-1-1.pdf
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:14:05 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Tangled in an endless web of distractions / Colleges worry about always-plugged-in students
Message-ID: <BANLkTimm7OduyeHi7H+8H8i6Yy3T6EkzqQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>
> Tangled in an endless web of distractions
> Colleges worry about always-plugged-in students
Heh, heh. I was in college from 1987 until 1992. I, at times, had
trouble staying away from email and USENET. And I didn't even have a
laptop or smartphone, I usually used terminals in various buildings on
campus. Knowing the sort of person I am, I am so glad I'm not in
college today. I would get nothing done. Being twice as old today
I'm a lot more mature, but the 20 year-old John would be on Facebook
24/7.
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:18:12 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Death of the text? Mobile phone users turn to free instant messaging as electronic communication of choice
Message-ID: <BANLkTikr18psY3Cj=MsqcJTJX6MAqeAcTw@mail.gmail.com>
Mobile text messaging could become extinct within a generation as
millions of young people turn to other forms of electronic
communication.
Teenagers are increasingly using instant messaging from mobile phones
and social networking sites such as Facebook.
Experts predict the amount of texts sent in the UK will drop by 20 per
cent in the next two years.
It comes as teenagers and students are increasingly using BlackBerrys
instead of iPhones and other smartphones because the device has a free
BBM messenger.
Read more here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1380388/Death-text-Mobile-phone-users-turn-free-instant-messaging-electronic-communication-choice.html
Submitters note: Blackberry? Really?
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:12:06 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: New Austin area code confirmed to be hoax
Message-ID: <VpedneRcqIXLACjQnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <BANLkTik4F4EkMWqv2Ta0NFs2biBt+9YMFw@mail.gmail.com>,
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I have no idea about 834, but I would point out that presumably for
>> political reasons the area code for Austin has never been changed
>> from the original 512.
>>
>> When they split 512, the much larger San Antonio got the new area
>> code, 210, not Austin.
>
>It's good to be the state capital I suppose. :-)
>
>I lived in the Melbourne, Florida area in the mid-90s. When
>Tallahassee lost 904 to 850 this caused problems for Melbourne city
>hall. Their phone system was so ancient it could not be programmed to
>accomodate the new area code format. This meant the city of Melbourne
>could no longer call the state capital. Of course they quickly
>remedied this.
>
>Unless I've been told wrong, eastern Kentucky has been allowed to keep
>606 because of the economic impact to having to change area codes. I
>can't believe changing part of a phone number would cause economic
>hardship. Anyone know the real story?
"economic hardship" does apply.
Consider how many business have to re-print all their stationary, re-do
all their product literature, 'boiler-plate' advertising, etc.
*EVERYWHERE* their phone number appears has to be changed.
Also, a number of 'potential' customers, making a call that requires the
NPA, and calling from an 'old' instance of the number, will be put off
by getting an intercept recording, rather than the company. If they then
search for 'any' business providing the goods/services they're looking
looking for, they're likely to call a 'local' company, instead of the
one in the foreign area-code. Permanently lost business for that company.
The 'direct' costs -- stationary, product literature, etc. -- are fairly
easy to evaluate, and are relatively temporary. The second-, third-,
fourth-, etc., order effects are, subtle, and much more difficult to
quantify, but they are of much longer duration.
For a company that is barely viable, these extra expenses can easily
be "the straw that broke the camel's back", and cause it to go under.
I don't have any specific case-studies to cite, but the phenomenon is
well known in business circles.
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 (26 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues