29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for May 21, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 128 : "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: Fri, 20 May 2011 06:23:57 +0800
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pre-paid SIM cards in the US
Message-ID: <BANLkTinCN+T2ewfPeWYUAk4poUo2Y5czwg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn@geeks.org> wrote:
> John Mayson <john@mayson.us> writes:
>>A friend of mine in Malaysia is about to fly to California. He wants
>>a pre-paid SIM. All I could find him was a T-Mobile SIM available on
>>Amazon.com. Can he walk into a T-Mobile store in the US and buy one
>>there? I know an option is to buy a pre-paid phone, but he wants to
>>use his own phone.
>
> Since prepay options aren't as common in the US as they are the norm
> in Asia, they don't get advertised much.
Another friend was just there (San Jose) and they (AT&T and T-Mobile)
wouldn't sell him a SIM, said he had to buy the prepaid phone. But
after some digging I found just a SIM on their website (AT&T and
T-Mobile). So when friend #2 goes to San Jose he'll know the SKU of
the plain ole SIM.
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 02:02:10 +0000 (UTC)
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pre-paid SIM cards in the US
Message-ID: <ir76f1$fll$1@gal.iecc.com>
>Another friend was just there (San Jose) and they (AT&T and T-Mobile)
>wouldn't sell him a SIM, said he had to buy the prepaid phone.
That's very strange. I walked into an AT&T store in NYC last month,
asked for a prepaid SIM, and the guy instantly sold me one and
activated it.
There are stores that are actually AT&T agents, some of which are
better trained than others.
R's,
John
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 15:57:41 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Letting it ring?
Message-ID: <pan.2011.05.20.05.57.40.610268@yahoo.com.au>
On Wed, 18 May 2011 16:18:22 -0700, Jack Myers wrote:
> David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 May 2011 12:35:44 -0400, Moore, Carl (Civ,ARL/SLAD) wrote:
>
>> > I haven't posted here in a while. Last night, I heard comment on
>> > Family Radio (on Harold Camping call-in program "Open Forum") about
>> > letting the phone ring. This reminded me of what Larry King did years
>> > ago -- tell HIS listeners who are calling in to let the phone ring.
>> > Some systems have a limit on how long the phone can ring.
>>
>> C'mon, 98% of people who have been brainwas.... trained to use phones
>> have a Pavlovian urge to answer any ringing phone.
>
> The point is that the caller holds his place in the incoming queue and [at
> least in the case of a POTS call] the caller does not get charged for the
> ring time.
Correct, but in this day and age of instant gratification who still has
the patience to let our call ring and ring until it gets NU tone?
Most of us would give up after 30 or 40 seconds these days because we do
expect something to answer!
--
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 *****
In the digital switches which I'm familiar with, ringing times out
after about 90 seconds: individual lines or hunt groups can be
programmed to ring for longer times, but it's rare.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 16:01:48 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Caution: Texting on foot a hazard
Message-ID: <pan.2011.05.20.06.01.45.420120@yahoo.com.au>
On Wed, 18 May 2011 10:00:03 -0400, Monty Solomon wrote:
>
> Caution: Texting on foot a hazard
> Distracted pedestrians are racking up all kinds of injuries. The message?
> Pay attention or pay the price.
>
> By Beth Teitell
> Globe Staff / May 17, 2011
>
> Jocelyn Nagy was at the corner of Dorchester Avenue and West Broadway
> indulging in a favorite pastime, walking while texting, when she stepped
> in front of an oncoming car, which promptly ran over her foot. Nagy, 22,
> checked to see if she could still walk (incredibly, she could), and then
> quickly got back to the really important business. "I just got hit by a
> car!'' she texted friends.
>
> Massachusetts banned texting while driving last September, but as
> emergency room doctors - and annoyed or amused onlookers know - texting
> while on foot remains quite legal. Now that walking season is upon us,
> look out. Distracted pedestrians are colliding with cars and telephone
> poles, tumbling down stairs and off curbs, and slamming into other
> pedestrians, some of whom are also texting, of course.
>
> OMG! Just hit by jerk!
......
Followed by:
OMG! You should see the Paramedics coming to help me
OMG! They've just pumpmed ful offf sum reaaaallyyy gooddd sfdfd
FTGDF~ My fonnne...
(Some time passes)
OMG! I used to have TWO legs!!!!
--
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: Fri, 20 May 2011 04:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Caution: Texting on foot a hazard
Message-ID: <202294cc-0ffa-4f12-aa14-7665effae2b0@k17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
On May 18, 9:00 am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
> Caution: Texting on foot a hazard
> Distracted pedestrians are racking up all kinds of injuries. The
> message? Pay attention or pay the price.
>
> By Beth Teitell
> Globe Staff / May 17, 2011
>
> Jocelyn Nagy was at the corner of Dorchester Avenue and West Broadway
> indulging in a favorite pastime, walking while texting, when she
> stepped in front of an oncoming car, which promptly ran over her
> foot. Nagy, 22, checked to see if she could still walk (incredibly,
> she could), and then quickly got back to the really important
> business. "I just got hit by a car!'' she texted friends.
>
> Massachusetts banned texting while driving last September, but as
> emergency room doctors - and annoyed or amused onlookers know -
> texting while on foot remains quite legal. Now that walking season is
> upon us, look out. Distracted pedestrians are colliding with cars and
> telephone poles, tumbling down stairs and off curbs, and slamming
> into other pedestrians, some of whom are also texting, of course.
>
> OMG! Just hit by jerk!
>
> Ohio State University researchers reported that pedestrian texting
> accidents led to more than 1,000 emergency room visits nationwide in
> 2008. In retrospect, that was a relatively simple time, when
> Americans sent a mere 1 trillion texts, according to CTIA-The
> Wireless Association, based in Washington, D.C. Last year, the number
> of texts hit 2.1 trillion, and Jack Nasar, a professor of city and
> regional planning at Ohio State, is updating his research. He expects
> that the new numbers, out later this month or in June, will show an
> increase in texting-related injuries. "I'm not sure people realize
> they are putting themselves at risk,'' he said.
>
> ...
>
www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/articles/2011/05/17/accidents_among_texting_pedestrians_are_fraught_with_hazards/
Not to mention texting while swimming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WMYiisxQEo
Neal McLain
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 05:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harold Hallikainen <harold@hallikainen.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Open Wi-Fi Hotspots
Message-ID: <4270a108-7bea-4032-accc-9d8d199c5067@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> One of the certificate authorities recently discovered that it had
> mistakenly issued certs for websites that weren't owned by the domain
> name registrant. No system is perfect: SSL has weak points, too.
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
I thought fake certs allowed someone to pretend to be someone else but
not decrypt SSL communications with another site. The fake cert would
allow someone to set up a fake bank website, which would be good for
phishing, but would it allow decryption of my conversation with the
real bank website?
Thanks!
Harold
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 18:03:24 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@QRMhorne.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Open Wi-Fi Hotspots
Message-ID: <20110520220324.GG31616@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 05:42:22AM -0700, Harold Hallikainen wrote:
> > ***** Moderator's Note *****
> >
> > One of the certificate authorities recently discovered that it had
> > mistakenly issued certs for websites that weren't owned by the domain
> > name registrant. No system is perfect: SSL has weak points, too.
> >
> > Bill Horne
> > Moderator
>
> I thought fake certs allowed someone to pretend to be someone else but
> not decrypt SSL communications with another site. The fake cert would
> allow someone to set up a fake bank website, which would be good for
> phishing, but would it allow decryption of my conversation with the
> real bank website?
You are theoretically correct. However, if a user is lured to a fake
website whose owner has managed to obtain a "valid" SSL certificate
for the domain name the user expects, then the user might be fooled
when his browser shows a padlock icon.
Although a third party won't be able to eavesdrop on your
communication with your bank, they also won't be able to eavesdrop
on your communication with a fake site that has obtained a "valid" SSL
certificate. In the case I was writing about, the encryption is still
OK, but the implementation has been compromised.
Most browsers will warn users of a domain name/ip address mismatch
IF the option is enabled, but that's not the case for older browsers
or some corporate environments or users who chose to disable safety
features. It's also a moot point if an attacker has managed to
compromise the HOSTS table on a victim's computer, which is still used
by every TCP/IP implementation I know of, since (in that case) the IP
address IS "correct" for that domain. Of course, if an attacker has
been able to change the HOSTS table, the odds are that (s)he has
also been able to insert a "Root" certificate into the browser's
trusted certificate cache, thus allowing him/her to point the machine
at a completely fake site which uses a self-generated SSL certificate.
It's a subtle difference, to be sure, but it's a truism that PKI
(Public Key Infrastructure) cryptography is 10% process and 90%
procedure. If Certificate Authorities don't follow proper procedure,
or users don't secure their machines, then the system breaks at a
fundamental level that current implementations can't prevent.
Bill
--
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 18:25:05 -0500
From: gordonb.01kq2@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Open Wi-Fi Hotspots (now SSL security)
Message-ID: <wMudnUAaBLvMZUvQnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
>> One of the certificate authorities recently discovered that it had
>> mistakenly issued certs for websites that weren't owned by the domain
>> name registrant. No system is perfect: SSL has weak points, too.
SSL has two different purposes:
(1) ensuring that you are communicating with (and giving your credit
card number to) the thief you think you are talking with, and
(2) ensuring that all the other thieves can't listen in and get a
crack at your credit card before the first thief puts it unencrypted
on a laptop and loses it at an airport.
If you only need (2), an anonymous self-signed certificate with no
owner name/identification on it whatsoever for each web server is
sufficient. You don't need certificate authorities at all. Most
of the user-visible features of SSL in a browser are for (1).
> I thought fake certs allowed someone to pretend to be someone else but
> not decrypt SSL communications with another site.
If the site uses a man-in-the-middle attack, that is, setting up
its own connection to the real banking site and passing info from
one connection to another, it can decrypt both sides of the
conversation (and log passwords, etc.) because it is on one end of
each SSL connection. To the user, it may appear that the site is
the real one, including giving up-to-date balances and transactions,
and transactions entered get executed (and perhaps some transactions
are initiated at the fake site's initiative).
Also, if you have a complete transcript of an SSL conversation, and
you have the private key of the server certificate, you can decrypt
the conversation. You can also do it in real time if you've got
the software set up to do this. It is probably much easier for the
fake site owner to have the server log the conversation than try
to wiretap the connection.
> The fake cert would
> allow someone to set up a fake bank website, which would be good for
> phishing, but would it allow decryption of my conversation with the
> real bank website?
Yes, if you fall victim to a man-in-the-middle attack (one reason
why DNS spoofing is worth attempting) and contact the fake site
thinking it's real, and it contacts the real site and acts as a
proxy between you. No otherwise.
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 17:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pre-paid SIM cards in the US
Message-ID: <668955.42359.qm@web161513.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Wed, 18 May 2011 08:30:08 +0800 John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
> A friend of mine in Malaysia is about to fly to California. He
> wants a pre-paid SIM. All I could find him was a T-Mobile SIM
> available on Amazon.com. Can he walk into a T-Mobile store in the
> US and buy one there? I know an option is to buy a pre-paid phone,
> but he wants to use his own phone.
You can get a prepaid SIM and activation card by going into any
corporate T-Mobile store. It will cost you $10 (plus tax where
applicable.)
You can also go into an AT&T corporate store and get a "GoPhone" SIM
also.
See: http://www.prepaidgsm.net/en/usa.html for details about prepaid
in the USA (as well as many other countries.) Besides T-Mobile and
AT&T there are also several "MVNOs" that use either the T-Mobile or
AT&T network. Some require that you buy a phone from them to use
their service others not. TracFone and Net10 absolutely require that
you use their handsets since their handsets are proprietary and cannot
use other SIMs.
You can get either pay as you go plans or monthly plans that include
data or unlimited talk or unlimited text. Both T-Mobile and AT&T
offer several prepaid plans.
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 22:40:21 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Apple's filing in Apple v. Samsung
Message-ID: <p06240801c9fcd614e639@[10.0.1.3]>
Apple's filing in Apple v. Samsung (PDF)
April 15, 2011
http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/110415samsungcomplaint.pdf
***** Moderators Note *****
If torts were decided on the basis of hype, Applie would win easily:
here's a snippet from the first page of the filing:
The iPhone was radically different. In one small and lightweight
handheld device, it offered sophisticated mobile phone functions, a
multi-touch screen that allows users to control the phone with their
fingers, music storage and playback, a mobile computing platform for
handheld applications, and full access to the Internet. These features
were combined in an elegantly designed product with a distinctive user
interface, icons, and eye-catching displays that gave the iPhone an
unmistakable look.
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.
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 (10 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues