31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for January 11, 2013
Volume 32 : Issue 11 : "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, 10 Jan 2013 10:14:11 -0800
From: SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Mixed news for AT&T in Consumer Reports wireless survey
Message-ID: <50ef04ff$0$80140$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>
On 1/8/2013 7:17 PM, Bill Horne wrote:
<snip>
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2012/11/29/att-mixed-results-consumer-reports-survey/1733287/
>
> -or-
>
> http://goo.gl/0ZltE
>
What is rather strange about the Consumer Reports article is that
Consumer Cellular, an MVNO that uses AT&T, ranked very highly in areas
where AT&T itself ranked poorly.
Perhaps the Consumer Cellular customers have very low expectations of
network quality, or perhaps AT&T customers just like to complain a lot.
Furthermore, Consumer Cellular is one of the most expensive MVNOs, far
more expensive than Verizon MVNO Page Plus Cellular, yet it's presented
as a low cost option.
Date: 11 Jan 2013 01:55:02 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Mixed news for AT&T in Consumer Reports wireless survey
Message-ID: <20130111015502.690.qmail@joyce.lan>
>Perhaps the Consumer Cellular customers have very low expectations of
>network quality, or perhaps AT&T customers just like to complain a lot.
They probably do different things. I have a Tracfone that runs on
AT&T's network, and I think it works great. That's likely because I
make voice calls and SMS, no data. Looks like Consumer Cellular is
the same idea.
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 22:25:00 -0500
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: hazard mitigation, was Disruptions: The Real Hazards of E-Devices on Planes
Message-ID: <MPG.2b59501c2d63e71b989d80@news.eternal-september.org>
In article
<i7WdnQKst5n2DXDNnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com says...
>
> In article <kcgakg$q3b$1@blue-new.rahul.net>,
> John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> >>>> * They wish that terrorists will confine their attention to our air
> >>>> transport industry, and not bother the millions of gallons of poison
> >>>> gas - excuse me, I meant water treatment chemicals - that moves by
> >>>> rail through our major cities on a daily basis.
> >
> >>> Actually... there's a huge amount of retrofitting and changes
> >>> in high risk industries in general, and in water treatment
> >>> plants in particular. Specifically because of post 9/11 concerns.
> >
> >It seems to me it would make good sense to reroute rail lines around major
> >cities generally, especially now that most passenger service has gone away.
>
> It makes the best sense to have the rail lines deliver products as close
> as possible to the destination. The accident rate 'per ton-mile' on
> hazmat loads is far lower for rail than any other mode of land transport.
>
> That aside, the costs for relocating all freight rail service outside of
> "major cities" would be incredibly expensive -- laying track, signaling,
> etc., is millions per mile, exclusive of land costs. not to mention the
> switchyards, terminal facilities for loading/unloading 'piggyback' trailers,
> etc. and the highway infrastructure to get stuff from the new yards to
> the destination, and the numbers get really big in short order.
>
> And, what do you do on the East Coast, where it's all built-up territory?
>
> Where's all the money to pay for this going to come from?
Here in RI passenger sitll uses the rail. The line runs nearby to me and
friends of ours in East Greenwich live right next to the tracks.
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 (3 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues