29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for June 03, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 140 : "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: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 08:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Smith <marklsmith@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Need some help
Message-ID: <796153.71811.qm@web65711.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
From: ABLE1 <royboynospam@somewhere.net>
To:
redacted@invalid.telecom-digest.org.
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 8:04 PM
Subject: Need some help
> Hello all,
>
> I am a bit stumped with the age
> of the equipment and the serious lack of any
> docs. Like it zero docs.
>
> All I
> have is the following:
>
> ITT Terryphone C23047 0100 Amplifier.
>
> Connected to multiple speakers that are labeled D31201-0500 VRC8 with
> a multi-tap Txfmr L50411-0010.
>
> What I have determined is that the Amp is a 100 Watt unit.
>
> What I can't find is this at 25v 70v or 100volt.
>
> The only reason I think it is a 100 Watt unit is the 0100 in the part
> number. However it could mean 100 volt system.
>
> Can anyone shed some light on this. It is not for repair of the system
> that is rapidly going away, rather it is to determine the size and
> voltages of a new Amplifier that is to be installed.
>
> I hate shooting in the dark. With the amount of dark I have right now
> any glimmer of light would be a blessing.
>
> Please respond.
>
> TIA
>
> Les
Teletronics has one for sale
214-432-1756. teletronics-inc@usa.com
ITT : Terry Phone : C23047-0100 Amp
100 Watt Solid State : Refurbished Grade A
Mark L. Smith smith@stones.com
http://smith.freehosting.net
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 09:53:46 -0400
From: "ABLE1" <royboynospam@somewhere.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Need some help
Message-ID: <MBMFp.26509$rv2.25485@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com>
"Mark Smith" <marklsmith@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:796153.71811.qm@web65711.mail.ac4.yahoo.com...
> From: ABLE1 <royboynospam@somewhere.net>
> To:
> redacted@invalid.telecom-digest.org.
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 8:04 PM
> Subject: Need some help
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I am a bit stumped with the age
>> of the equipment and the serious lack of any
>> docs. Like it zero docs.
>>
>> All I
>> have is the following:
>>
>> ITT Terryphone C23047 0100 Amplifier.
>>
>> Connected to multiple speakers that are labeled D31201-0500 VRC8 with
>> a multi-tap Txfmr L50411-0010.
>>
>> What I have determined is that the Amp is a 100 Watt unit.
>>
>> What I can't find is this at 25v 70v or 100volt.
>>
>> The only reason I think it is a 100 Watt unit is the 0100 in the part
>> number. However it could mean 100 volt system.
>>
>> Can anyone shed some light on this. It is not for repair of the system
>> that is rapidly going away, rather it is to determine the size and
>> voltages of a new Amplifier that is to be installed.
>>
>> I hate shooting in the dark. With the amount of dark I have right now
>> any glimmer of light would be a blessing.
>>
>> Please respond.
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> Les
>
>
>
> Teletronics has one for sale
> 214-432-1756. teletronics-inc@usa.com
>
> ITT : Terry Phone : C23047-0100 Amp
> 100 Watt Solid State : Refurbished Grade A
>
> Mark L. Smith smith@stones.com
> http://smith.freehosting.net
Mark,
Thanks for the response.
However I am NOT looking to replace a 30 - 40 year amp with another 30 -40
year old amp.
I was more interested if it can be determined from the info supplied if the
unit is working on 25volts or 70.7volts.
Presently that information is not available and was hoping someone knew the
answer.
Thanks again.
Les
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:40:33 -0400
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Study Sees Way to Win Spam Fight
Message-ID: <op.vwewxvnoitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Tue, 31 May 2011 00:33:15 -0400, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Did you read [the] rest of the article?
>
> "If the financial companies like those found in the study would follow
> suit, then spammers would have to find new banks, and the cost of
> switching would be high."
That's a big "if", though, isn't it? ...
> "The defenders can, in principle, identify which banks the scammers are
> using far faster than they can get new banks", Dr. Savage said, "and for
> basically zero cost."
... and "can, in principle" does not equate to "will, in practice" :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 16:33:15 -0400
From: David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Open Wi-Fi Hotspots (now SSL security)
Message-ID: <t18du69f9dusv366nafnpibuce7m32dldt@4ax.com>
On Fri, 20 May 2011 18:25:05 -0500, gordonb.01kq2@burditt.org (Gordon
Burditt) wrote:
> 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 <snip>
Yes. And optionally but rarely (3) ensuring you are the thief the
other thief thinks he is talking with (aka client-authentication).
> 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).
>
Or there are DH_anon aka ADH ciphersuites which use no certificate at
all (as opposed to a meaningless one), but these usually are disabled
by default and thus require functioning brain cells to use.
> > 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.
Only for kRSA, or static [EC]DH which I have never seen anyone use.
Ephemeral [EC]DH (using adequate entropy) provides 'forward secrecy':
(later) compromise of the private key allows impersonation (with the
legit cert, undetectable unless the cert is revoked and the relier
checks) but does not expose past (or even future independent)
sessions. k[EC]DHE can be used with aRSA or a[EC]DSA authentication,
or as above no authentication.
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 08:17:15 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: There's no easy escape from cellphone risks
Message-ID: <p062408c3ca0d2e64b048@[10.0.1.3]>
There's no easy escape from cellphone risks
By Hiawatha Bray
Globe Staff / June 2, 2011
Forget whether your cellphone technology is 3G or 4G. It's time to
start worrying about 2B.
That's the World Health Organization's official designation for
chemicals or other agents that may cause cancer in humans. And the
radio waves streaming from the world's 5 billion cellphones have just
been added to the WHO's 2B list.
The ranking means that using your cellphone may pose about as much
cancer risk as eating pickled vegetables or drinking coffee, both
substances that are also on the list. Coffee's potential as a
carcinogen has not hurt Starbucks' revenues. So don't expect to see
pay phones sprouting on street corners as panicked consumers discard
their iPhones and BlackBerries.
Still, the threat of brain tumors - no matter how slight - is
troubling to WHO scientists. Americans average about 20 minutes of
cellphone talk time per day, according to data from CTIA, the
cellular industry's trade association.
That doesn't sound like a lot. But researchers were alarmed by a
study that found an increased incidence of brain tumors in people who
used their cellphones for an average of 30 minutes per day.
...
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2011/06/02/no_easy_escape_from_cellphone_risk/
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 08:24:47 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: There's no easy escape from cellphone risks
Message-ID: <p062408c5ca0d30b33b00@[10.0.1.3]>
IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly
Carcinogenic To Humans
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf
EWG rankings of cellphone radiation levels
http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone
Experts say cellphones are possibly carcinogenic
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2011/05/31/experts_say_cellphones_are_possibly_carcinogenic/
Phones with highest, lowest radiation levels
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/gallery/least_most_smartphone_radiation/
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 09:52:27 -0400
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Need a large PBX.
Message-ID: <op.vwgbhpfqitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sat, 28 May 2011 22:27:45 -0400, T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
> ...
> Oh but I should add something I just ran into. I don't like the fact
> that the Cisco phones package up voicemails as a wav file and then email
> it to you. So if I come into the office and see the message waiting
> LED's lit, I'll get the voicemail fromt the phone. If you do that it
> never forwards the voicemail to email.
>
> Well this past Friday I listened to my message, deleted the message and
> the LED's never extinguished. It was that way up until I left for the
> day so I filed a help desk ticket. We'll see what happens when I go in
> on Tuesday.
So what did happen when you went in on Tuesday? Or is it too soon to tell?
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: 2 Jun 2011 10:43:40 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Need some help
Message-ID: <is87is$jj$1@panix2.panix.com>
ABLE1 <royboynospam@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
>All I have is the following:
>
> ITT Terryphone C23047 0100 Amplifier.
>
>Connected to multiple speakers that are labeled D31201-0500 VRC8 with a
>multi-tap Txfmr L50411-0010.
>
>What I have determined is that the Amp is a 100 Watt unit.
>
>What I can't find is this at 25v 70v or 100volt.
Probably all of the above. The output transformer has multiple taps.
It's 100 watts at 25v on the 25v tap, 100 watts at 70v on the 70V tap,
100 watts into 8 ohms on the 8 ohm tap.
>The only reason I think it is a 100 Watt unit is the 0100 in the part
>number. However it could mean 100 volt system.
Are the transformer taps labelled at all?
>Can anyone shed some light on this. It is not for repair of the system that
>is rapidly going away, rather it is to determine the size and voltages of a
>new Amplifier that is to be installed.
What is the amplifier driving? Measure the load impedance with a bridge,
or open up one of the speakers in the chain and see what's inside it.
>I hate shooting in the dark. With the amount of dark I have right now any
>glimmer of light would be a blessing.
What is the amp driving? Which taps on the transformer are being used?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 09:58:34 -0400
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: DSL Reports: AT&T Caps Have Arrived
Message-ID: <op.vwgbrwj8itl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Wed, 04 May 2011 21:43:47 -0400, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
> ... each time you pull
> up a web page, you're "treated" to oodles and oodles of
> third party advertising (and worse) that eats away at your
> bucket of bytes.
>
> Admittedely it's "just" a small percentage of your total, but
> that's like saying those spam phone calls to your cellular [a]
> are only using a few of your minutes.
> ...
>
> [a] of course if you're on a pre-pay-by-the-minute account
> you're hit each and every time. Same for email/sms text spam.
That's where European operators treat their clients much nicer
-- inbound calls and inbound messages arrive at no charge to the
recipient (in the case of the Polish operators Orange and Play,
in fact, even after your starter SIM's stored value has gone to
zero, you can receive for at least a year from your SIM's date
of first use).
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
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 (9 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues