30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for June 4, 2012
Volume 31 : Issue 135 : "text" Format
====== 30 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: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 23:41:09 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Why your cell phone is ripe for spam texts in 2012
Message-ID: <jqe8al$ndg$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <p0624080dcbef054eeb29@[10.0.1.2]> Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> writes:
>Why your cell phone is ripe for spam texts in 2012
[ snip]
>But here we are, some two decades later, and voters across the
>country are getting political text messages they never asked for.
>...
>
>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/06/01/why-your-cell-phone-is-ripe-for-spam-texts-2012/
>
Please permit me again to suggest a simple action by the cellcos
which would cut doen this, as well as other spam-text msgs,
by a hefty percentage.
The cellcos currently "offer" (in quotes because they don't
make it obvious...), for the most part, two options:
a: receive all texts/SMS
b: block everything.
What they could do, just about tomorrow... is add in
a few other choices:
a: recve all texts/SMS
b: receive only those sent from a _cellular phone account_
in a recognized carrier [1]
c: only those from people on the same carrier you are
d: block everything.
[1] the trick here is that just about all spam text-sms is transmitted
via an e-mail -> cellphone gateway. Most carriers offer
this via something like sending to: phonenumber@cellularcarrier.demo
and just like with all e-mail, it's trivial to kick out thousands
at a clip.
Blocking (at customer's request) msgs coming in through those
gateways, thus limiting spam to folk who actually punch in
through cellphone pads [2] would just about end this issue
[2] yes, there are ways to send a thousand msgs through a
cellphone account, but it would be trivial for any cellco
to block that process.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 22:34:11 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: One nano-SIM to rule them all: Apple submission approved as standard
Message-ID: <p0624084bcbf07d6e4368@[10.0.1.2]>
One nano-SIM to rule them all: Apple submission approved as standard
The ETSI decision will open the door for thinner and more capable phones.
by Jacqui Cheng
June 1 2012
The nano-SIM design proposed by Apple has been approved by the
European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), opening the
door for the creation of even smaller SIM cards and the continued
shrinking of smartphone hardware. ETSI announced its decision on
Friday morning, choosing Apple's submission over proposals from
Motorola, RIM, and Nokia.
The new SIM card design is the fourth form factor (4FF) and is 40
percent smaller than the micro-SIM that is currently popular in
today's cell phones. The exact dimensions of the nano-SIM will be
12.3mm wide, 8.8mm high, and 0.67mm thick (0.48" x 0.35" x 0.03"),
according to ETSI. And, when it hits the market, it will be packaged
so that it's backwards compatible with slots designed to fit the
current micro-SIM. This will enable the new SIM to work with older
handsets while phone manufacturers work to develop newer hardware
that can take advantage of the smaller dimensions.
...
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/06/one-nano-sim-to-rule-them-all-apple-submission-approved-as-standard/
***** Moderator's Note *****
Is it just me, or does this seem like a shrinking solution in search
of a miniscule problem? I mean, think about it: a SIM card is supposed
to be easy to handle, so once it's small enough to fit in a pocket,
there's no more need to change. Shrinking it makes it harder to use,
not easier.
(Don't get me started on the sizes of phones. They're already too small.)
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 22:40:57 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Found: prices behind Verizon's 300Mbps FiOS upgrades
Message-ID: <p0624084ccbf07dbd55e8@[10.0.1.2]>
Found: prices behind Verizon's 300Mbps FiOS upgrades
At $204.99 per month is a little pricey, but come June 17 there'll be takers.
by Megan Geuss
June 2 2012
An employee at Verizon revealed the price tiers and release date of
its new FiOS structuring to The Verge today, saying that the
service-which currently tops out at speeds faster than any other ISP
at 300 Mbps-will be available on June 17.
Ars reported earlier this week that the fastest level of service that
Verizon is planning to offer (300 mbps download, 65 mbps up) will be
equivalent to the limits of many dual-band routers. Today we learned
that matching your router's maximum speed will cost only $5 more than
what many of those who had Verizon's former fastest service (which
topped out at 150 Mbps down) were paying. That service will cost
$204.99 per month plus a $100 equipment upgrade unless you either
sign a two-year contract, are a new customer to Verizon, or you
already have the current 150Mbps Internet service.
The second-fastest tier (75 Mbps down, 35 up) will cost $84.99 and
will also require a $100 equipment upgrade unless you meet one of
those three conditions above.
...
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/06/verizon-reveals-prices-behind-300mbps-fios-upgrades/
***** Moderator's Note *****
ISTM that $204 a month will only appeal to frat houses, hotels, or
SOHO users who are willing to share bandwidth - and costs - with their
neighbors.
Does anyone know what the practical limit to cable modem speed is?
I doubt it's in the 300 Mbps range, and whatever speed it is, that
effectively limits the speed of the whole system: after all, content
providers aren't likely to risk stranding a major portion of their
audience by publishing things that require the new, improved higher
bandwidth Verizontal is touting. That's not even considering the
bandwidth limits of 3G or 4G cellular data plans, which appeal to
younger consumers with more money to spend.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 19:41:44 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Found: prices behind Verizon's 300Mbps FiOS upgrades
Message-ID: <jqgelo$8vj$3@reader1.panix.com>
:***** Moderator's Note *****
:ISTM that $204 a month will only appeal to frat houses, hotels, or
:SOHO users who are willing to share bandwidth - and costs - with their
:neighbors.
You might be surrpised. $200 a month is a lot, but high speed network
access makes working from home a lot more practical for many people.
:Does anyone know what the practical limit to cable modem speed is? I
:doubt it's in the 300 Mbps range, and whatever speed it is, that
DOCISS 3 provides about 38 Mb/s per configured channel. How many
channels are configued is an operator choice. Eight channels down, four
up gives 304 up, 108 down. That's an availabe option with hardware
that's deployed in some cable systems. I don't think it's being sold
yet, though.
--
sig 49
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 21:07:33 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Fighting Sign Pollution in Florida With Robocalls
Message-ID: <p06240835cbf0692c8409@[10.0.1.2]>
Fighting Sign Pollution in Florida With Robocalls
By ROBBIE BROWN
June 2, 2012
In Florida, they are as much a part of the landscape as palm trees
and oceanfront hotels: plastic signs cluttering roadsides with
messages like "We Buy Houses!" "Junk Cars!" and "Avoid Foreclosure!"
But now, worried about the impact on tourism and the state's natural
beauty, some coastal communities have begun aggressive campaigns
against the signs - by robocalling the advertisers' phone numbers.
"It's the only crime I know of where a person deliberately leaves
their phone number behind," said Mayor Peter Bober of Hollywood,
which uses computer software to call the phone numbers, up to 20
times per day, until offenders pay a $75 fine. "They want us to call.
So let's call. And keep calling."
Think of it as fighting one nuisance with another. The
advertisements, known as snipe signs, are illegal in many Florida
communities on public property like highway medians or telephone
poles. But they are also cheap to print and hard to eradicate.
After years of removing the signs by hand, officials in Hollywood,
Oakland Park and St. Johns County recently turned to robocalling.
Other cities say they are considering the option.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/us/in-florida-fighting-sign-pollution-with-robocalls.html
***** Moderator's Note *****
If you can't beat 'em, tax 'em.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 21:01:07 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Privacy, Please: This Is Only for the Two of Us
Message-ID: <p06240834cbf067952493@[10.0.1.2]>
Privacy, Please: This Is Only for the Two of Us
By JENNA WORTHAM
June 2, 2012
SOME friends were gushing recently about a new mobile application
called Pair, intended for people in a relationship.
Initially, I didn't see the appeal of the app, which lets the two
partners send messages and photos back and forth. The idea of adding
another service to the daily routine of Twitter, Facebook and their
ilk seemed exhausting. And wouldn't it be just as easy to exchange
e-mails, text messages or, better yet, just flirt face to face?
Curious, I tried it - even though I'm single. I recruited a friend
to help me test it. And, after a few hours, the app started to grow
on me. Something was thrilling about the secret little notes that
Shaun, my temporary beau, and I sent to each other throughout the
day.
The secrecy was welcome. We weren't cluttering up anyone else's feeds
on Twitter, and didn't have to worry about random high school friends
seeing and commenting on our exchanges on Facebook. In addition,
there were gestures distinct to the app. It let us share information
about our locations, and to exchange doodles, to-do lists and virtual
nudges - all conveying that "I'm thinking about you."
The app highlights the best elements of social networking - the warm,
fuzzy feeling of being connected to people you care about when you're
physically nowhere near them. And it says it eliminates some of the
worst - the worry about who can see the content you're posting and
how they may interpret it.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/technology/apps-aiming-for-sharing-within-boundaries.html
***** Moderator's Note *****
I don't think I need an "app" to keep my electronic conversations
private: it's trivially easy to encrypt email, and there's no chance
of a vendor listening in.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 11:28:13 -0400
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Privacy, Please: This Is Only for the Two of Us
Message-ID: <barmar-878C53.11281303062012@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <p06240834cbf067952493@[10.0.1.2]>,
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
> By JENNA WORTHAM
> June 2, 2012
>
> SOME friends were gushing recently about a new mobile application
> called Pair, intended for people in a relationship.
>
> Initially, I didn't see the appeal of the app, which lets the two
> partners send messages and photos back and forth. The idea of adding
> another service to the daily routine of Twitter, Facebook and their
> ilk seemed exhausting. And wouldn't it be just as easy to exchange
> e-mails, text messages or, better yet, just flirt face to face?
She never really answered her own question: How is this better than
using those traditional means of private communication?
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 09:09:57 +1000
From: David Clayton <dc33box-usenetcdt@yahoo.com.au>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Privacy, Please: This Is Only for the Two of Us
Message-ID: <pan.2012.06.03.23.09.53.349167@yahoo.com.au>
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 11:28:13 -0400, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <p06240834cbf067952493@[10.0.1.2]>,
> Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>
>> By JENNA WORTHAM
>> June 2, 2012
>>
>> SOME friends were gushing recently about a new mobile application called
>> Pair, intended for people in a relationship.
>>
>> Initially, I didn't see the appeal of the app, which lets the two
>> partners send messages and photos back and forth. The idea of adding
>> another service to the daily routine of Twitter, Facebook and their ilk
>> seemed exhausting. And wouldn't it be just as easy to exchange e-mails,
>> text messages or, better yet, just flirt face to face?
>
> She never really answered her own question: How is this better than using
> those traditional means of private communication?
Probably because you may no longer "accidentally" be able to send
extremely private messages to the wrong destinations, I assume that this
"app" locks you into the fixed destination to avoid those oh-so
embarrassing on-line mistakes that are regularly revealed.
--
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.
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) 2012 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 (8 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues