|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 118 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Re: T-Mobile glorifies vandalism?
Re: T-Mobile glorifies vandalism?
Re: T-Mobile glorifies vandalism?
Re: T-Mobile glorifies vandalism?
Re: AT&T doubling 3G capacity
Re: AT&T doubling 3G capacity
Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Re: Qwest disconnected our 800 number
Re: Qwest disconnected our 800 number
====== 27 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: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 09:20:23 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <pan.2009.04.28.23.20.22.583634@myrealbox.com>
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:16:53 -0400, Tony Toews [MVP] wrote:
> John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>
>>Your phone does indeed have an antenna plug. Here's a $15 antenna cable
>>and a $20 roof antenna:
>>
>>http://www.1800mobiles.com/treo-750755-antenna-adapter.html
>>http://www.1800mobiles.com/wilson-301113-external--antenna.html
>
> Use the shortest possible available coax between the adapter and the
> antenna. At those frequencies an large amount of the cell phone power
> goes into warming up the coax.
>
That's always the way for any RF line to a new antenna position, you have
to calculate if the line losses are outweighed by the extra signal by the
newer/better/higher antenna, otherwise there isn't much point.
It's almost waveguide rather than coax territory for these frequencies now?
--
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.
***** Moderator's Note *****
You bring up good questions:
* Is there a way to do A/B tests of cell phones with builtin
antennas inside a car vs. when they use an external antenna?
* Where does coaxial cable become less effective than waveguide?
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:42:29 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <7LCdnephRIMYDGXUnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <pan.2009.04.28.23.20.22.583634@myrealbox.com>,
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>You bring up good questions:
>
>* Is there a way to do A/B tests of cell phones with builtin
> antennas inside a car vs. when they use an external antenna?
In a test-lab environment, something like that is trivial to do. :)
For an end-user, in the real world, it's somewhat more complicated. If
you have some sort of signal-strength indicator on the phone -- i.e. a "
how many bars" thing -- *AND* you can get far enough away from the 'nearest'
tower so that it shows a 'less than max' strength on the built-in antenna,
then you can switch to the external one, and, maybe, see a visible
improvement. Or, go out in the boonies -- just to the point you get a 'no
service' when using the external antenna -- and see how much closer you have
to get to civilization before service re-establishes itself.
I know from personal experience with an old analog "bag phone" (a Motorola),
mag-mount whip on the middle of the vehicle roof gave me a _lot_ more range
than the rubber-duckie on the back of the brick. e.g. I had service out in
the "middle of nowhere" in th Rockies, some 17+ miles off the nearest paved
road, in BLM wastelands.
That same antenna significantly outperformed the rubber-duckie, used *inside*
an AMTRAK "Superliner" train -- antenna stuck to the inside of the roof of
the rail car.
>* Where does coaxial cable become less effective than waveguide?
Depends *greatly* on the path. Coax has significantly higher losses per
linear foot. Waveguides have higher losses at turns/bends.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Um, OK, but I wasn't looking for something that involved: the question
should be "Is there a kind of waveguide that I can put in my car to
get better cell coverage than I can get with coax?".
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <32275e7d-576f-43cc-a6e8-495a9d7c6bb9@g31g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 29, 5:43 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> I know from personal experience with an old analog "bag phone"
> (a Motorola), mag-mount whip on the middle of the vehicle roof gave
> me a _lot_ more range than the rubber-duckie on the back of the
> brick.
For what it's worth, [my] emegency CB kit said the mag mount antenna--
placed on the metal surface of the car--was designed to work with the
metal, that is, it made the metal part of the antenna. You weren't
supposed to just hand hold the antenna or put it on the ground. I
don't know the physics, but presumably the metal surface acted as some
sort of radio wave resonator for the signal. (Maybe the radio folks
here could explain this more accurately).
My present digital cell phone handset has a pull out antenna a few
inches long. I don't get to fringe areas, but I had hoped the antenna
would save on battery consumption, [however] this handset only gives
about 75 minutes of talk time since it was new. (Now it dies at 55
minutes, but after it shuts down I can turn it on the next day and get
another 20 minutes out of it when it dies for good and I have to
recharge it.) I don't use the phone that much, but if I do go away
for the day, I do need more talk time between charges in a single
day's usage.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:33:39 -0400
From: "Dr. Barry L. Ornitz" <BLOrnitz48@charter.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <o_8Kl.74$LO7.4@newsfe23.iad>
Bill Horne asked:
> * Where does coaxial cable become less effective than waveguide?
This is a complex issue. Coaxial cable almost always has considerably
higher attenuation per unit length than waveguide. But waveguide
requires specialized bends since flexible waveguide has its limits on how
much it can be bent and still work properly. But the biggest issue is
size.
Standard rectangular waveguide for the S-band (2.60 to 3.95 GHz) is
WR-284 in the EIA designation and also as RG48 or WG10. This is 1.34 x
2.84 inches on the inside of the waveguide and 1.5 x 3 inches on the
outside. This is a little big to run in an automobile, and D-band
(2.2-3.3 GHz) waveguide is bigger still with inside dimensions of 1.7 x
3.4 inches. This has a loss of about 0.0267 dB/meter at 2.45 GHz.
Compare this to RG-58 coaxial cable with a loss of 0.822 dB/meter or to
RG-213 coaxial cable at 0.411 dB/meter at the same frequency. If you
used tiny RG-174 coaxial cable, the loss would be a whopping 2.46
dB/meter.
So waveguide would be an ideal transmission line at a tall cellular tower
having far lower losses than coaxial cable. But it would not be
practical to connect a hand-held cell phone to an auto's rooftop antenna.
Probably the largest waveguide I have ever read about was at the Arecibo
Radio Telescope in Puerto Rico. Its lower cutoff frequency was below 400
MHz. Today, the receivers are mounted at the "feed horn" eliminating the
need for such immense waveguide.
I once visited the laboratory originally used by Charles Townes at Duke
University. They were doing research into millimeter wavelength
frequencies at the time. Instead of using waveguides, they were using
quasi-optical techniques to transfer the millimeter waves around the
room. What I found especially interesting was the use of lenses machined
from PTFE (Teflon) to focus the beams. While Townes is mainly known for
his work in the maser and the laser, he is also considered the father of
microwave spectroscopy.
73, Dr. Barry L. Ornitz WA4VZQ BLOrnitz48@charter.net
***** Moderator's Note *****
I was thinking that it may be possible to include a waveguide as
part of the car's body: your S band dimensions would work for some of
the support pilars (and I reserve the rights if anyone does it), but
the question is how precisely a waveguide must be machined.
I'm surprised at the difference in loss of waveguide vs. coax: all the
cell sites I've ever seen appear to use coax, so either they're using
the flexible type or the cellular engineers are employing the coax
loss to contribute a large part of their loss budget for the antenna
arrays being used.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:55:17 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <gt8515$fmq$1@reader1.panix.com>
Ma had all kinds of possible doom if anyone found out their SekRet ANI
readback number. People would open X-connects and tap YOUR phone, Western
Civilization would fall, etc.
Then She started selling Caller-ID, and she could make a profit.
Woosh, suddenly it's a GREAT IDEA, and no one should be able to block
CNID, because clearly only bankrobbers and jaywalkers would want to.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:04:13 +0000 (UTC)
From: snorwood@redballoon.net (Scott Norwood)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <gt9j8d$7u5$2@reader1.panix.com>
In article <MPG.24592f37761d6a8998995a@news.verizon.net>,
Gene S. Berkowitz <first.last@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>In the old New England Telephone days, I used to dial 9816 for a
>ringback. Not sure if the "6" could be any digit or not..
In Boston (617-266, anyway, which is served by a 5ESS), it's
113-xxxx, where xxxx is the last four digits of the number. It
responds with a tone. If you tap ("flash") the switchhook at the
tone, wait a few seconds, and hang up, the line will ring.
If the original poster just wants to ring a phone that is not
connected to a CO line, there are several devices that can be used
as a ring generator. Among other options, the "Tele-Q" is made
for live stage use, or a Western Electric 118A can be salvaged from
a 1A2 system.
--
Scott Norwood: snorwood@nyx.net, snorwood@redballoon.net
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 01:32:09 GMT
From: tlvp <PmUiRsGcE.TtHlEvSpE@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <op.us6ejzuxwqrt3j@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:57:02 -0400, Scott Norwood
<snorwood@redballoon.net> wrote:
> In article <MPG.24592f37761d6a8998995a@news.verizon.net>,
> Gene S. Berkowitz <first.last@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> In the old New England Telephone days, I used to dial 9816 for a
>> ringback. Not sure if the "6" could be any digit or not..
>
> In Boston (617-266, anyway, which is served by a 5ESS), it's
> 113-xxxx, where xxxx is the last four digits of the number. It
> responds with a tone. If you tap ("flash") the switchhook at the
> tone, wait a few seconds, and hang up, the line will ring.
>
> If the original poster just wants to ring a phone that is not
> connected to a CO line, there are several devices that can be used
> as a ring generator. Among other options, the "Tele-Q" is made
> for live stage use, or a Western Electric 118A can be salvaged from
> a 1A2 system.
Wisconsin's Viking Electronics ( http://www.vikingelectronics.com ,
mailto:Help@VikingElectronics.com ) offers a box that emits ring signal,
as well, their DLE-200B Line Simulator, roughly $100.- last I knew.
Cheers, -- tlvp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: T-Mobile glorifies vandalism?
Message-ID: <9c85326f-15fa-45d4-96a7-d92ac6de79da@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 28, 4:45 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> This is, as they say, "old news", and little of that data is available
> on-line, primarily due to age.
The New York Times is available on-line via subscription. Some
libraries may offer it.
Time Magazine (www.time.com) archives are available on-line.
See: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,883823,00.html
We learn that Popeye's creator, E.C. Segar, died at 43 in Oct 1938,
and that Crystal City TX, a major spinach town, put up a monument in
Popeye's honor.
I really wish the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature could be
placed on-line, although obviously the sources it references are too
voluminous.
But I sense from the library there isn't too much demand for archival
stuff--if it's not on-line people aren't interested (perhaps because
it's too old). At the library the public computers are in constant
use, but the microfilm readers are freely available. Certain
historical indexes have been put in compact storage meaning their
harder to get to and there isn't much call for them.
(One frustrating part of microfilm lookups is that often you find a
reference, pull out the correct reel, sequentially search through it,
and then discover the reference is but a few sentences long. Some
enormous technological innovations, such as the invention of the disk
drive, warranted only a few lines.)
I wish I could visit the library of the town where the first real test
of ESS took place (Morris, IL?) to see what was said back then.
National newspapers gave it only a few lines.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:14:35 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: T-Mobile glorifies vandalism?
Message-ID: <vuGdnbWut9NmF2XUnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <9c85326f-15fa-45d4-96a7-d92ac6de79da@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Apr 28, 4:45 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>> This is, as they say, "old news", and little of that data is available
>> on-line, primarily due to age.
>
>The New York Times is available on-line via subscription. Some
>libraries may offer it.
>
>Time Magazine (www.time.com) archives are available on-line.
The 'old news' I was referring to was things like the public-health data,
dietary-deficiency studies, annual spinach consumption data, etc. You
don't find much of this stuff in the NYT, and d*mn little in Time (even
their archives).
>
>See: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,883823,00.html
>
>We learn that Popeye's creator, E.C. Segar, died at 43 in Oct 1938,
>and that Crystal City TX, a major spinach town, put up a monument in
>Popeye's honor.
One can find much more than =that= on-line at the Wikipedia., which the
moderator was quoting from in the article to which I replied. e.g., that
is only one of _three_ Popeye statues in the U.S.
But, even the Wikipedia articles make only minor, passing, mention of the
stuff I was talking about.
>But I sense from the library there isn't too much demand for archival
>stuff--if it's not on-line people aren't interested (perhaps because
>it's too old).
Ayup. *Most* people are looking for current information, not doing
'historical research'.
>I wish I could visit the library of the town where the first real test
>of ESS took place (Morris, IL?) to see what was said back then.
>National newspapers gave it only a few lines.
"Local" news coverage didn't have a whole lot to say about it, either.
Like most pre-divestiture changes to Bell system infrastructure, they
put it in, and it "just worked". At least as far as the public was
concerned. The 'big changes' were mostly 'behind the scenes' -- it was
'faster, cheaper, easier' for the telco to provide the same level of
service. Yeah, some extra features were now available, but they cost
money -- what were non-trivial amounts in that time.
All the significant coverage of 'what this all means' was in the house
organs, and the trade press.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: T-Mobile glorifies vandalism?
Message-ID: <c58209a5-46c3-4375-93a1-d201b554de00@s38g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 29, 5:29 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> The 'old news' I was referring to was things like the public-health data,
> dietary-deficiency studies, annual spinach consumption data, etc. You
> don't find much of this stuff in the NYT, and d*mn little in Time (even
> their archives).
Yes, for that kind of stuff you'd need to visit a large library such
as at a university. The good news is that most library catalogs are
on-line so you can find out in advance who has what. The bad news is
that some universities have closed their libraries to the general
public.
I much prefer open stacks to request stacks because I often find stuff
of interest on nearby shelves (which you can't do when you have to
request things specifically.) Browsing is fun. (That's also a reason
I like to read newspapers in hard copy rather than on-line since it's
easier to scan a whole page and read articles of interest. While
microfilm is a pain, it has that advantage as well.)
> One can find much more than =that= on-line at the Wikipedia., which the
> moderator was quoting from in the article to which I replied. e.g., that
> is only one of _three_ Popeye statues in the U.S.
Unfortunately, although Wikipedia has a wealth of stuff in it, is it
not authoritative. For something like entertainment news it's fine,
but for more substantive research it's more of a only a starting
point.
> Ayup. *Most* people are looking for current information, not doing
> 'historical research'.
Which is unfortunate since there is so much we can learn from
history. For instance, the NYT had very detailed articles on efforts
to fight the 1918 influenza epidemic. While obviously science has
changed drastically since then, crowded subways and business interests
and needs haven't changed. Indeed, in some 100 year old articles one
could merely substitute today's names for the past and the articles
would read the same as today. (It's sad reading of all the intensive
diplomatic efforts to prevent WW I long before it broke out--they knew
it was coming well before it actually broke out.)
> >I wish I could visit the library of the town where the first real test
> >of ESS took place (Morris, IL?) to see what was said back then.
> >National newspapers gave it only a few lines.
>
> "Local" news coverage didn't have a whole lot to say about it, either.
> Like most pre-divestiture changes to Bell system infrastructure, they
> put it in, and it "just worked". At least as far as the public was
> concerned. The 'big changes' were mostly 'behind the scenes' -- it was
> 'faster, cheaper, easier' for the telco to provide the same level of
> service. Yeah, some extra features were now available, but they cost
> money -- what were non-trivial amounts in that time.
> All the significant coverage of 'what this all means' was in the house
> organs, and the trade press.
Collectors have posted some extensive local coverage of past telephone
improvements, especially when they were a 'first'. Things such as the
conversion of a town from manual to dial, the pioneer Englewood DDD
service, and the first production ESS in NJ had good coverage. The
introduction of dial service in NYC has massive coverage, including
rather technical descriptions of the panel system.
The Morris, IL experiment represented a noticeable service change--
subscribers were given phones with tone ringers and 20 pps dials, for
example. I don't know if they charged extra for advanced services for
the experiment since they needed real people to try it out. I suspect
it received widespread local publicity. Maybe if someone has access
to a Chicago newspaper of that era they could look it up.
The 1950s were all about technological and commercial progress,
especially when it was seen locally. Many areas were changing from
manual to dial and back then it was a big deal in modest towns since
it made them feel "modern". In the 1950s towns did NOT want to be
like Mayberry*, that came later. In the 1950s people wanted
businesses to prosper so they would prosper. Some places had a
waiting list for a private line or for service altogether and the new
exchange building with a new switch meant better service.
*In 1950s TV shows the families all had nice houses with lots of
premium-model extension phones throughout the house, which cost money
(even Andy Taylor's family had them in a manual exchange). Back then
real people often had only one phone, and plenty still didn't have a
phone line.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:35:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Julian Thomas" <jt@jt-mj.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: T-Mobile glorifies vandalism?
Message-ID: <100.989905008f0ef949.003@jt-mj.net>
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:37:26 -0700 (PDT) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>
>I wish I could visit the library of the town where the first real test
>of ESS took place (Morris, IL?) to see what was said back then.
>National newspapers gave it only a few lines.
>
You are correct. It was Morris IL - some of the BTL folks referred to it as
M[Morris]ESS = MESS :-(
--
Julian Thomas: jt@jt-mj.net http://jt-mj.net
In the beautiful Genesee Valley of Western New York State!
-- --
The sad thing about Windows bashing is it's all true.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 01:21:24 GMT
From: tlvp <PmUiRsGcE.TtHlEvSpE@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: AT&T doubling 3G capacity
Message-ID: <op.us6d11evwqrt3j@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:49:59 -0400, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 12:19 am, tlvp <PmUiRsGcE.TtHlEv...@att.net> wrote:
>> Voice? No. Data: SMS, HTML, WML, FTP, that sort of internet data stuff.
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
You're more than welcome.
> But I'm confused--how much web browsing can someone do with a 2"x 3"
> screen? Seems the phone and keyboard are simply too tiny to be able ...
I use mine (with a 128x128 pixel screen) to check email via its built-in
WAP browser while travelling -- my plan allows unlimited data of that sort,
worldwide (right: no data roaming charges!), and to send short, telegraphic
acknowledgements pending access to a real computer.
I also use the Google search functionality that forms part of the Opera
Mini browser I've added on (a free WAP download/install) to do preliminary
research on questions of interest to me prior to a *real* search on a
real machine. It works for me, as I'm myopic, needing glasses only for
driving, but not for reading. Of course, the light has to be right :-) .
> to do any kind of web work. For instance, there's no way in heck I'd
> use a cell phone to do these Usenet posts.
There's no newsreader I know of, anyway, for cell phones, so you can't
even *see* Usenet posts except perhaps through their googlegroups html-
ificated versions.
But hotmail, yahoo mail, gmail, and usa.net all offer WAP access to your
mailboxes, and T-Mo offers a WAP-based POP3 mail interrogator by which
you can access up to a half-dozen of your POP3-accessible email accounts.
That *is* handy while you're on the road.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> There's no way in hell _I_ would use a cellphone to do _anything_ but
> talk: trying to read a website on a screen that small is an invitation
> to eyestrain. It goes without saying that cellphone vendors are
> marketing their "does everything" products to very young consumers
> with very good eyesight.
Mine eyes have seen the coming (and going) of three-score years and ten,
and have yet to think of scanning email headers (and bodies) on the screen
of a cell phone as a strain. Moreover, it wasn't T-Mo, nor even Nokia,
who pitched these capabilities to me -- it was my own interest in seeing
just how close a "naive" handset like the old Motorola TimePort P-7389
could come to replacing a laptop for internet access while travelling.
Answers: for the P-7389, not terribly close. For the Moto P-280, not
much closer. For a Nokia 6610 with the Opera Mini (basic) browser added on,
quite a bit closer. Likewise for the original Motorola RAZR V3, which
actually accepts the "advanced" version of the Opera Mini browser.
Right now I'm hoping to find a handset with screen at least 320x240 pixels,
with all the capabilities of the Nokia 6610 and RAZR V3 -- *and* Sierra
Wireless Air Card 881-AC -- *and* WCDMA voice good in US, Korea, and Japan
-- and tetherable as cellular data modem -- with which to replace my
current
6610 and V3 and Air Card. Ideas, anyone?
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderator
Cheers, -- tlvp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:26:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: AT&T doubling 3G capacity
Message-ID: <200904300326.XAA06933@ss10.danlan.com>
|There's no newsreader I know of, anyway, for cell phones, so you can't
|even *see* Usenet posts except perhaps through their googlegroups html-
|ificated versions.
I have PocketPuTTY installed on my WING. Sometimes while I'm waiting
for, e.g., my car to be fixed I ssh to my server and run readnews. Of
course, it helps that readnews is the interface I use anyway...
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
***** Moderator's Note *****
Is Readnews Open Source?
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 01:49:15 GMT
From: tlvp <PmUiRsGcE.TtHlEvSpE@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <op.us6fchrewqrt3j@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:20:52 -0400, Anthony Bellanga
<anthonybellanga@gonetoearth.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, tlvp wrote:
>
>> Just an uninformed guess, but: perhaps there's a way to exploit the
>> self-ring-back to make an unchargeable toll call -- set up
>> auto-forwarding to the toll number you wish to call, get the
>> self-ring-back number to call you, pick up just when you s'pose the
>> auto-forwarded call has gotten answered, and be connected to your
>> toll party, with the charges going to the self-ring-back number's
>> account?
>>
>> But what do I know? I've never eaten Cap'n Crunch cereal :-) , so
>> there are probably more holes in the theory above than in the little
>> Dutch boy's proverbial dike.
>
>
> Some interesting questions here, but nothing to worry about, since it
> doesn't work that way!
>
> "Revertive calls" (i.e., calling the "ring-back" number and then hanging
> up waiting for your phone to ring) NEVER forward over if you have any
> kind of forwarding set up. The entire purpose of "revertive calls" was
> for calling someone on your party-line, as well as doing ringer-tests.
> Of course, a customer on a party-line in an ESS or digital office (and
> yes, those types of offices can support party-line service, but who has
> party-lines these days, even if telco still offers them as a tariffed
> service offering) would NEVER be able to have any additional custom
> calling features on their account. (Touch-tone service these days would
> be about the only "extra" feature on a party-line, and all parties would
> be able to use it, since these days, everyone served by the central
> office has touch-tone whether they want it or not -- and everyone was
> "mainstreamed" to a monthly rate taking into account the previous extra
> charge for touch-tone).
>
> But even if you're not on a party-line, an attempt to do a revertive
> call (calling ring-back) would NEVER forward over to a forward-to
> number you might have otherwise set up. It is a "test" function within
> the central office itself, applying ringing to your line regardless.
> Even if you have "forward on no answer", a calling to "ring-back" will
> continue ringing your phone even after the pre-specified number of rings
> before forwarding has expired, until the central office will likely
> time-out and drop the "ring-back" attempt (one to two minutes?)
>
> Also, the "ring-back" test function in the central office would not
> even have a "billing account"!
>
> And as for "billing" ... the way call-forwarding is SUPPOSED to work
> (and any kind of forwarding -- whether all calls forwarded, or forward
> on busy and/or no-answer, or forward-out only specific incoming calling
> numbers, etc), the line that has actually set-up the forwarding is the
> one who will pay for any toll calls that they may have set-up
> forwarding to! NOT the calling party! Caller-ID of the calling party is
> supposed to be preserved and passed forward all the way to the final
> destination, but only for C-ID purposes. For billing, the ANI of the
> person who set-up the forwarding is to be used for billing if forwarded
> to "something chargeable".
>
> Telco has always said that if you (the person setting up forwarding)
> has forwarded to a number that incurs toll charges, then YOU are
> responsible for those additional charges, not the original calling
> party!
>
> Also regarding forwarding in general, on legitimate incoming calls
> (not set-up revertive calls, which won't even forward over), it is NOT
> a "three-way calling" function, but a "forwarding" or "auto-transfer"
> function. If you have all calls forward set-up, you usually get a
> "reminder ring" (aka "ping" ring) when someone has called your line.
> You can NOT answer that incoming call when you get that "ping ring".
> It is only to remind you that you have set-up "all (incoming) calls
> forward" on that line. Telco has also always stated this in Call
> Forward instructions! Even if you have "call-forward on no-answer",
> if you haven't answered that incoming call in the pre-specified number
> of rings, that incoming call will forward over to the pre-specified
> forwarded-to number, leaving your voice-loop entirely. It is NOT now
> going to be available as a 3-way call for you to answer as well as
> having forward-over!
>
> And as for telco not wanting to make wider knowledge of test numbers
> available, I agree with someone else who replied that there are limited
> test functions in the central office, and if "everyone" was using them,
> then it would overload these test functions in the central office. In
> some cases, ONLY ONE "ring-back" call can be done at a time, as well as
> ONLY ONE "ANAC" auto-number read-back can be done at a time as well.
> Yes, in today's era of deregulated customer premises equipment as well
> as inside wiring, etc., I would hope that telco would make such test
> function equipment, etc. available more so, but they aren't necessarily
> going to pay to expand such capabilities! Especially when others not
> with the telephone company would be the ones doing such tests!
>
> - a.b.
Thanks, Anthony. I just *knew* someone would be able to point out
all the holes in my theory, and I've learned a lot by your having
done so. So, again: thanks!
Cheers, -- tlvp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Qwest disconnected our 800 number
Message-ID: <102f147e-6273-4324-ac4c-3c3520e7f8d4@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 28, 4:48 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >And, the calling party "sure as hell" deserves to know you will be
> >seeing his number, even though he has elected CLID blocking.
>
> I don't agree that the calling party has now, or has ever, had the right
> to ANI blocking when calling a toll-free number. If he wants to use CLID
> blocking, then let him call the company's local number, or choose to do
> business with a company that doesn't use toll-free numbers.
If I understood Mr. Spade correctly, what he is saying (and I agree)
is that callers should _know_ their own number is being transmitted no
matter what--even if they try to block it. I suspect most people are
not aware of that fact, and think they have privacy when actually they
don't.
In the old days people recording telephone calls were required to put
a beep tone on the line every 15 seconds (some states may still
require it, but most don't). But most companies announce when they
answer the phone that the call may be monitored or recorded. The
point is that people are being notified.
Perhaps there should be recording played announcing that the call
block won't be working for that call--when and only when--someone (1)
has call blocking or dials for it and (2) they're calling an 800
number. But I bet some selfish interests would oppose that.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I don't think of the 800 number ANI tranmission as being "selfish".
It's a system that predates caller id, and it has _never_ been hidden
or secret. Those who pay for 800 numbers do so in accordance with the
tariffs, and those tariffs are availalbe for anyone to read.
What you're advocating is, and always will be, impossible: you can't
protect consumers from their tendency to assume that there is such a
thing as a free lunch. I'd say "The truth is out there", but that
would imply that someone was trying to hide it. The facts are out
there, and always have been for those who choose to seek them.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Qwest disconnected our 800 number
Message-ID: <ce8afd7b-0cf0-4c8a-a71c-8741c370cdfa@q33g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 29, 10:26 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Perhaps there should be recording played announcing that the call
> block won't be working for that call--when and only when--someone (1)
> has call blocking or dials for it and (2) they're calling an 800
> number. But I bet some selfish interests would oppose that.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I don't think of the 800 number ANI tranmission as being "selfish".
> It's a system that predates caller id, and it has _never_ been hidden
> or secret. Those who pay for 800 numbers do so in accordance with the
> tariffs, and those tariffs are availalbe for anyone to read.
>
> What you're advocating is, and always will be, impossible: you can't
> protect consumers from their tendency to assume that there is such a
> thing as a free lunch. I'd say "The truth is out there", but that
> would imply that someone was trying to hide it. The facts are out
> there, and always have been for those who choose to seek them.
I have to respectfully disagree, although my post may have been worded
poorly. Allow me to rephrase it:
I think if someone dials the block code (1167?) then an 800 number,
they should get a recording saying their number cannnot be blocked for
800 calls. I don't see that as being any burden to provide.
I also think that some companies who offer customers 800 service might
not want their customers to know about ANI--that is, they would be
happy if their customers were left in the dark and thought their
number was blocked when in fact it wasn't. I think that is a bad
business practice, but many companies do not want their customers to
know stuff.
I disagree with the statement, "you can't protect consumers from their
tendency to assume that there is such a thing as a free lunch",
_especially_ when it comes to telephone services. As said, when one
goes into a store, the price of an item is clearly marked. The
ingredients of a food item or raw materials of a garment are stated, so
the consumer has some idea of what they're getting.
In contrast, with telephone service, there is no label at all. You
dial a number and you get connected. Further, and this is important,
for decades consumers could make safe assumptions about telephone
calls since the technology and public policy were static, relatively
simple, uniformly easy to ask about, and published.
I'm sorry if this gets people upset, but the business of ridiculous
charges to unspecting callers by alternative operator services was/is
a blatant ripoff. In the old days an operator handled call had a
fee, but not a ridiculously high one. Some people "in the know" knew
how to dial special prefix codes, get calling cards, etc., but most
people did not and were badly burned, and they didn't find out until
the bill came. There was no way for a user to find out charges in
advance, and that was part of the ripoff. It amazed me that some "in
the know" people defended that practice. I guess back when it was
first proposed to put ingredients on food labels some people objected
to that too.
I also disagree with the statement, "The facts are out there, and
always have been for those who choose to seek them." In today's
telecommuncation world the facts are _not_ there. You can't dial zero
and get a rate or assistance anymore. You can't get through to a
"service rep" for many carriers anymore. You can't look up the rules
in the phone book. The terms and conditions of modern services are
very complex and not easily understood, and constantly changing with
little or no notice. They take advantage of the fact that consumers
are busy people and don't have time to call the carrier, wait on hold,
listen to sales pitches, and finally discuss questions.
Imagine you went to your supermarket and no prices were given. You
would not know your costs until the bill came a month later. Sure,
you could wait in line and ask at the customer service desk and
they'll tell you, but that takes up time most shoppers, esp with
screaming kids in tow, don't have. You get worn down.
Today's communciations carriers do likewise. They wear consumers
down.
------------------------------
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 Patrick Townson. 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 currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
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) 2008 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 (16 messages)
******************************
|
or 