31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for July 5, 2013
Volume 32 : Issue 146 : "text" Format
====== 31 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
|
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Bill Horne and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using any name or email address
included herein for any reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to that person, or email address
owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of
that address. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk
are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. - Geoffrey Welsh
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
|
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 23:34:08 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: U.S. Postal Service Logging All Mail for Law Enforcement
Message-ID: <p0624082ccdfa9d85e8a3@[10.0.1.12]>
U.S. Postal Service Logging All Mail for Law Enforcement
By RON NIXON
July 3, 2013
WASHINGTON - Leslie James Pickering noticed something odd in his mail
last September: a handwritten card, apparently delivered by mistake,
with instructions for postal workers to pay special attention to the
letters and packages sent to his home.
"Show all mail to supv" - supervisor - "for copying prior to going
out on the street," read the card. It included Mr. Pickering's name,
address and the type of mail that needed to be monitored. The word
"confidential" was highlighted in green.
"It was a bit of a shock to see it," said Mr. Pickering, who with his
wife owns a small bookstore in Buffalo. More than a decade ago, he
was a spokesman for the Earth Liberation Front, a radical
environmental group labeled eco-terrorists by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. Postal officials subsequently confirmed they were
indeed tracking Mr. Pickering's mail but told him nothing else.
As the world focuses on the high-tech spying of the National Security
Agency, the misplaced card offers a rare glimpse inside the seemingly
low-tech but prevalent snooping of the United States Postal Service.
Mr. Pickering was targeted by a longtime surveillance system called
mail covers, a forerunner of a vastly more expansive effort, the Mail
Isolation Control and Tracking program, in which Postal Service
computers photograph the exterior of every piece of paper mail that
is processed in the United States - about 160 billion pieces last
year. It is not known how long the government saves the images.
Together, the two programs show that postal mail is subject to the
same kind of scrutiny that the National Security Agency has given to
telephone calls and e-mail.
The mail covers program, used to monitor Mr. Pickering, is more than
a century old but is still considered a powerful tool. At the request
of law enforcement officials, postal workers record information from
the outside of letters and parcels before they are delivered.
(Opening the mail would require a warrant.) The information is sent
to the law enforcement agency that asked for it. Tens of thousands of
pieces of mail each year undergo this scrutiny.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-snail-mail.html
***** Moderator's Note *****
Five letters: W.A.S.T.E.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 23:36:36 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Remedies for Better Cellphone Signal and Quality
Message-ID: <p0624082dcdfa9e2c0fd6@[10.0.1.12]>
Remedies for Better Cellphone Signal and Quality
By ERIC A. TAUB
June 26, 2013
One technology will typically trump another when it's an improvement
over the existing one. Think of high-definition television compared
with standard-definition TV, surround sound versus stereo, the word
processor and a typewriter.
But one technology has superseded an existing one even though it
provides a far worse experience than its predecessor: cellphone voice
calls.
Most users will tell you they have experienced dropped calls,
incomprehensible speech and voice quality that mimics speaking from
the bottom of a fish tank.
Of course, the reason for the cellphone's triumph over the great
voice quality of traditional landline phones is obvious: the mobile
phone and the smartphone, in particular, have changed the nature of
communication. Convenience and capability have quite understandably
trumped quality.
But as more Americans drop their landline service in favor of a
cellphone, the importance of a good voice connection at home grows.
Unfortunately, a call that works well on the street often
deteriorates significantly in the bedroom or basement.
Barely adequate signals outside turn even worse once they must
penetrate concrete, metal and multiple walls. Fortunately, you can
take some steps to reduce weak and dropped calls. And soon, you will
be able to improve the quality of the voice itself.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/technology/personaltech/remedies-to-enhance-cellphone-signal-and-sound-quality.html
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 01:14:02 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Remedies for Better Cellphone Signal and Quality
Message-ID: <20130705051401.GA17423@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 11:36:36PM -0400, Monty Solomon wrote:
>
> Remedies for Better Cellphone Signal and Quality
>
> By ERIC A. TAUB
> June 26, 2013
>
> One technology will typically trump another when it's an improvement
> over the existing one. Think of high-definition television compared
> with standard-definition TV, surround sound versus stereo, the word
> processor and a typewriter.
<RANT>
That's nonsense. If improved technology "typically" triumphed, we'd
all be driving electric cars that cost less than half as much to
operate as what we do use, which are vehicles functionally identical
to a Model "A" Ford.
High-definition television was available in France thirty years
ago. It didn't happen here because American TV networks and station
owners and cable operators fought it tooth-and-nail, until their
friends in the industry had time to amortize their patents on NTSC TV
sets, and they had time to gear up for the new standard at minimal
cost.
If having an "improvement" was all that was needed to succeed, Micro-
soft would have been out of business a year after Linus Torvalds
published the operating system that became Linux.
> But one technology has superseded an existing one even though it
> provides a far worse experience than its predecessor: cellphone voice
> calls.
Oh, Ghod, that's just so far off the road that Bambi is running away
at this very moment. The "predecessor" to cellphone voice calls was
IMTS, which had all the problems associated with connecting a RADIO
to a telephone line, coupled with the impedimenta of a trunk-mounted
transceiver, a roof mounted antenna, and a gargantuan control head
that took up more space than a CB set, and a special alternator to
handle the current drain.
> Most users will tell you they have experienced dropped calls,
> incomprehensible speech and voice quality that mimics speaking from
> the bottom of a fish tank.
>
> Of course, the reason for the cellphone's triumph over the great
> voice quality of traditional landline phones is obvious: the mobile
> phone and the smartphone, in particular, have changed the nature of
> communication. Convenience and capability have quite understandably
> trumped quality.
Convenience and capability have trumped quality: we have raised a
generation of cellular users who are so over-stimulated that it's a
wonder they can ever form a coherent thought. In other words, the
convenience of being able to give a knee-jerk reaction has allowed our
children the capability to pretend that they were really doing their
jobs while the quality of their responses has decreased.
> But as more Americans drop their landline service in favor of a
> cellphone, the importance of a good voice connection at home grows.
> Unfortunately, a call that works well on the street often
> deteriorates significantly in the bedroom or basement.
If those who choose to use a cellular RADIO to connect to the PSTN
are dissatisfied with the range or voice quality of their RADIO
(which they are calling a phone), then they have a reliatble,
cost-effective alternative available for less than a dollar a day.
> Barely adequate signals outside turn even worse once they must
> penetrate concrete, metal and multiple walls. Fortunately, you can
> take some steps to reduce weak and dropped calls. And soon, you will
> be able to improve the quality of the voice itself.
Proving once again that the laws of physics aren't negotiable. For my
part, I propose that we all start reducing weak and dropped calls by
turning cellphones off, and get used to having some peace and QUIET
in our homes for a change.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/technology/personaltech/remedies-to-enhance-cellphone-signal-and-sound-quality.html
>
Now, excuse me while I complain, but I abhor one-size-fits-all
comparisons when they're used to make a reporter's job easier: we all
know that it's not technology that triumphs. As Howard Armstrong,
Nicola Tesla, William Lear, John DeLorean, and Gary Kildall all found
out the hard way, it's political muscle and bare-knuckle corporate
battles that count.
</RANT>
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 23:31:17 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Software as a Monthly Rental
Message-ID: <p0624082acdfa9cc4bb80@[10.0.1.12]>
Software as a Monthly Rental
By DAVID POGUE
July 3, 2013
There's a new reason for Photoshop to be famous.
Yes, it's still the program that just about every photographer and
designer on earth uses to retouch or even reimagine photos. It's
still the only program whose name is a verb.
But now, Photoshop is also the biggest-name software that you can't
actually buy. You can only rent it, for a month or a year at a time.
If you ever stop paying, you keep your files but lose the ability to
edit them.
You have to pay $30 a month, or $240 a year, for the privilege of
using the latest Photoshop version, called Photoshop CC. Or, if you
want to use the full Adobe suite (Illustrator, InDesign, Premiere and
so on), you'll pay $600 a year.
The price list is stunningly complex. The fees may be higher or lower
depending on how many programs you rent, whether you already own an
existing version and which one, whether you commit to a full year or
prefer to rent one month at a time. There are also discounted
first-year teaser rates, student/teacher rates and a 30-day free
trial.
But you get the point: the dawn of Software as a Subscription is now upon us.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/technology/personaltech/photoshop-cc-turns-software-into-a-monthly-rental.html
***** Moderator's Note *****
I work for a non-profit which uses the Adobe Creative Suite to prepare
a newspaper and other printer material, but we can only afford one
copy of version 6, and must make due with older versions on two other
machines, all of which are constantly in demand.
The only reason I can think of for Adobe to demand such high prices is
that company executives have decided that they need to maximize income
from a mature product line before open-source offerings take
over. It's short-sighted, though: the profiteering will only hasten
adoption of free alternatives, and the work is almost as portable as
programming, so lower-priced overseas designers, using free software,
are likely to cost Adobe its place as the PC world's graphic
powerhouse.
You heard it here first.
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) 2013 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of The Telecom Digest (4 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues