|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 158 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: Fiber optic transmission
Cell2Tel Bluetooth RJ11 gateway
====== 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: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:49:04 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <h0nafg$9gd$1@news.eternal-september.org>
T wrote:
> In article <X0iXl.5745$fD.4450@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com>,
> diespammers@ikillspammers.com says...
>> Below was posted all over the AT&T Usenet server today, what is the use
>> of having the service if they are dropping it, any 3rd party ones suck.
>>
>> Please note that on or around July 15, 2009, AT&T will no longer be
>> offering access to the Usenet netnews service. If you wish to continue
>> reading , access is available through third-party
>> vendors.
>>
>> Posted only internally to AT&T Usenet Servers.
>
> I don't know, I've been using Motzarella for some time and it's fairly
> reliable.
>
I just started using it today and sent a test post through to bill and
it got there. Right now AT&T us working and for the most part I'll
stick with it until the switch. this reply is via Motzarellla. At&T is
getting a lot of flack, don't know it it will do any good.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:30:36 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <AIydncHKG9u-TLLXnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@posted.visi>
Steven Lichter wrote:
> Right now AT&T us working and for the most part I'll
> stick with it until the switch. this reply is via Motzarellla. At&T is
> getting a lot of flack, don't know it it will do any good.
>
The thing is, an operation the size of ATT, there is absolutely
nothing you can say or do that will affect their bottom line in any
detectable way. So why should they care?
If you're in any sort of metro area (and maybe even if you're not),
there are probably smallish local ISPs, more likely than not run by
techie types who understand that "the Internet" is not a synonym for
"the worldwide web". Sometimes they have resource issues that a
multinational wouldn't have, but OTOH when you call, whoever answers
the phone will understand what you are talking about and be able to
fix it, without your having to climb through three layers of script
monkeys (some time ago, on a different ISP than I now use, I once
called with a problem and got the owner out of the shower). Many of
these ISPs still offer USENET, either subbed out (mine current ISP
uses Giganews) or run in-house (another local ISP's owner runs a free
USENET server on the side, http://www.readfreenews.net).
Small local vendors are more likely to notice your business,
appreciate it, and be responsive. ATT doesn't care, they don't have
to, they're the phone company.*
Dave
___________
*Lily Tomlin said that, of course, back before the Internet was
invented. But it hasn't changed.
***** Moderator's Note *****
It's a shame that most of the local service providers have been
replaced by meg-o-corp ISP's. Pioneers such as Ward Christensen
(Inventor of xmodem), who started the first BBS, and famous local
celebrities such as He-Who-Greps at The World, have either faded to
obscurity or been driven out of business by competitors who rely on
glitzy graphics and a "do anything you want, but don't ask us to help"
policy to reap profits from ill-educated digital consumers.
Is The Well still in business? I know Cliff Stoll wrote about it in
one of his books: IIRC, Silicon Snake Oil. I hope it is: the sense of
community and shared values that The Well had have been sorely missed
in the larger Internet.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:09:04 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <h0opbj$n83$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Dave Garland wrote:
> Steven Lichter wrote:
>> Right now AT&T us working and for the most part I'll
>> stick with it until the switch. this reply is via Motzarellla. At&T is
>> getting a lot of flack, don't know it it will do any good.
>>
> The thing is, an operation the size of ATT, there is absolutely
> nothing you can say or do that will affect their bottom line in any
> detectable way. So why should they care?
>
> If you're in any sort of metro area (and maybe even if you're not),
> there are probably smallish local ISPs, more likely than not run by
> techie types who understand that "the Internet" is not a synonym for
> "the worldwide web". Sometimes they have resource issues that a
> multinational wouldn't have, but OTOH when you call, whoever answers
> the phone will understand what you are talking about and be able to
> fix it, without your having to climb through three layers of script
> monkeys (some time ago, on a different ISP than I now use, I once
> called with a problem and got the owner out of the shower). Many of
> these ISPs still offer USENET, either subbed out (mine current ISP
> uses Giganews) or run in-house (another local ISP's owner runs a free
> USENET server on the side, http://www.readfreenews.net).
>
> Small local vendors are more likely to notice your business,
> appreciate it, and be responsive. ATT doesn't care, they don't have
> to, they're the phone company.*
>
> Dave
As I said I found one to use and it seems to be fine,
Having spend 30 years working for GTE in Network Operations ans
Systems I understand things on how the company operates. They are
getting a lot of flack and calls to their Corporate offices. I have a
contact person at the Director Level; having had some major cable
problems that finally got them to replace almost a mile of 40 year old
cable.
I have looked at other ISPs in the area, they either use AT&T or are
really not cost effective. In a year or so we are going to move to
out of California to the Pacific Northwest, it is now Verizon, but
that will be changing with the sale.
[Moderator snip]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <b90067c3-fbc0-4cf1-a593-740e7a02d839@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 10, 12:34 pm, Dave Garland <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> The thing is, an operation the size of ATT, there is absolutely
> nothing you can say or do that will affect their bottom line in any
> detectable way. So why should they care?
But, a large organization like AT&T would have many customers who
would complain about a service being lost. So, yes, they would care.
However, if the number of customers of a large company is small, then
unfortunately it simply doesn't pay to carry a service for which there
is little demand.
Usenet is an old service and has some weaknesses. Perhaps many of
those seeking to communicate have moved on to other venues.
> If you're in any sort of metro area (and maybe even if you're not),
> there are probably smallish local ISPs, more likely than not run by
> techie types who understand that "the Internet" is not a synonym for
> "the worldwide web".
Yes, there are "smallish local ISPs" but they have some serious
limitations.
[balance snipped before I get into trouble with some comments about
the "good ole days".]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <138198.63603.qm@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:07:04 -0700 Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> wrote:
> I tried to find either a new ISP with the Usenet or someone that
> supplies Usenet, both either don't carry it or charge extra, trying
> to get an answer from AT&T is a waste since the support is in
> India.
When I was considering trying some other means of accessing the net
other than my $59/month cable internet (with no TV at all) I contacted
Clearwire thinking that they might be an alternative for me. I asked
the sales droid about whether they had usenet included. It was like I
was speaking Swahili. Didn't have a clue what usenet or news groups
were.
The ISP where I purchased my email account (because the cable co's
included email is notoriously flakey) recently announced that they
were stopping USENET access and said that if you wanted USENET you'd
have to buy the service elsewhere for a fee.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:57:53 -0400
From: Carl Navarro <cnavarro@wcnet.org>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <10fu259tpin63olu6n2so5t0q8cakfclre@4ax.com>
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 23:31:59 -0400 (EDT), Steven Lichter
<diespammers@ikillspammers.com> wrote:
>I have used Google [and I] don't really like the way it runs, plus you
>can't block your address: I used it a long time ago and my g-mail
>account is still usless. Don't know anything about Yahoo, guess I'll
>look.
I have used a 3rd party Usenet supplier for the last 13 years, first
Internet America that dropped a news service that I used, then the
relatively low cost Teranews ($3.95 to sign up, but low daily usage),
and finally Giganews.
I still pay about $12.95 a month for this service and I still use
Forte Agent as my reader. Yeah, noise to signal ratio is getting out
of hand, but the mp3 binaries are still there :-)
Carl
***** Moderator's Note *****
When I think about, I can't really object too much if Usenet's servers
are consolidated: the original distributed model was, after all,
necessary because data links weren't reliable and nntp posts could be
moved in off-hours. Now, the Internet's transport layer is very
reliable, so a few large, reliable servers can take the place of lots
of small ones.
But, I'm still scared that owners of large NNTP servers will start
inserting ads.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:03:29 +0000 (UTC)
From: Koos van den Hout <koos+newsposting@kzdoos.xs4all.nl>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <h0op11$l9d$8@kzdoos.xs4all.nl>
Carl Navarro <cnavarro@wcnet.org> wrote in <10fu259tpin63olu6n2so5t0q8cakfclre@4ax.com>:
> I still pay about $12.95 a month for this service and I still use
> Forte Agent as my reader. Yeah, noise to signal ratio is getting out
> of hand, but the mp3 binaries are still there :-)
> Carl
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> When I think about, I can't really object too much if Usenet's servers
> are consolidated: the original distributed model was, after all,
> necessary because data links weren't reliable and nntp posts could be
> moved in off-hours. Now, the Internet's transport layer is very
> reliable, so a few large, reliable servers can take the place of lots
> of small ones.
> But, I'm still scared that owners of large NNTP servers will start
> inserting ads.
That could be a viable business-model for 'free' text-only usenet access.
But I'd be more scared of such an ad-supported service making it too easy
to sign up and post leaving Usenet with the spam to wade through.
Running a news-server at a university is a (very) small part of my job (and
our user community is not prone to spamming). I think there would be a
market for text-only Usenet service, authenticated (to make spammers
traceable) and for a modest price.
http://www.exit109.com/~jeremy/news/providers/providers.html lists a number
of dedicated providers (although most are specializing in binaries).
Koos van den Hout
--
Koos van den Hout Homepage: http://idefix.net/~koos/
PGP keyid DSS/1024 0xF0D7C263 or RSA/1024 0xCA845CB5
Webprojects: Camp Wireless http://www.camp-wireless.org/
The Virtual Bookcase http://www.virtualbookcase.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
***** Moderator's Note *****
I think "authentication" is the holy grail of Internet engineering:
having trusted all comers to play by the rules in the early days of
the Internet, its designers and engineers are now older, wiser, and
looking for a magic bullet that will prevent the 419 scams, the
impotence cures, and the trolls from wasting so much bandwidth and
time.
The problem is that the only method of authentication which is both
tested and available is also a PITA to implement. Using X.509
certificates or other Public-Key Infrastructure requires that end
users obtain and safeguard a digital signature, and I don't think most
users are willing to go through the hastle.
This Moderator's Note was signed with a PGP signature. It's easy to
do, but requires that users have appropriate software, a trusted key,
and (most importantly) NNTP servers with both horsepower and software
capable of verifying signatures, and that infrastructure just isn't in
place yet.
There may, however, be other solutions. I'm eager to hear of them..
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFKL/oWa3Nozp/ED8MRAjE5AJ9+QbimvHDXUVk2Oiz3ic7YWS89twCgnZ9S
rG6GxpBLMbbFjAmBOLLg9kU=
=ni8J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:35:08 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <y1TXl.12989$im1.12538@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>
Koos van den Hout wrote:
[Moderator snip]
> Running a news-server at a university is a (very) small part of my job (and
> our user community is not prone to spamming). I think there would be a
> market for text-only Usenet service, authenticated (to make spammers
> traceable) and for a modest price.
> Koos van den Hout
There is a system being tested which they clain will do away with spam,
I'm waiting to see it.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:32:30 -0500
From: "Who Me?" <hitchhiker@dont.panic>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <%LTXl.20147$D32.17260@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>
***** Moderator's Note *****
> There may, however, be other solutions. I'm eager to hear of them..
There WERE other solutions and it worked quite well for a relatively long
time. Alas, too much water over the dam now to go back.
It is pretty much "personal" responsibility, that is, each node being
responsible for a couple of pretty simple rules regarding it's own users,
the most important ones were "Stay on topic" and limit your cross-posts to
relevant groups.
You want to bitch and moan and just generally raise hell.......there are
groups FOR THAT; just keep it where it belongs.
That all gradually went south as nodes stopped watching what it's users were
doing AND as irresponsible hubs let on nodes that they knew were going to be
rogues because they thought it was cute or funny or believed that the Usenet
should be an anarchy.
If NOBODY would peer with a rogue, spamming sites......there wouldn't
BE any rogue, spamming sites. It was called the Usenet Death Penalty
and was very effective.......for a while.
Goose, golden eggs, dead.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Spam prevention is always going to be an arms race: until the Internet
Engineering Consortium designs a way to prevent it entirely (actually,
a way to drop it below profitability), we're going to have to
implement new countermeasures every so often.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:35:46 GMT
From: tlvp <PmUiRsGcE.TtHlEvSpE@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <op.uvam5s13wqrt3j@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:43:41 -0400, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>
>> Usenet itself, although viable now, is being
>> pushed aside by advertiser-supported venues such as yahoo and google,
>> both of which have large, and growing, "groups" sections that users
>> must register to use.
>
> There is no registration to read Usenet via Google.
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Nor on Yahoo, but those who want to post on either system have to go
> through a vetting process. In either case, as much as half the screen is
> taking up by ads, many keyed to the subject matter in the post(s) a
> viewer chooses to read.
Worse, those who *post* from the googlegroups web-access Usenet system
are likely *not* to be seen by purists (using "real" newsreaders, and
fed by "real" nntp-servers) who filter out all posts (many of which
tend, in fact, to be phish or other spam) emanating from googlegroups.
But I might add Aioe.org to the small but growing list of
no-charge, "real", nntp servers, alongside Motzarella.org :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:10:28 -0500
From: Michael Grigoni <michael.grigoni@cybertheque.org>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <4A2FDAF4.7010008@cybertheque.org>
tlvp wrote:
<snip>
> But I might add Aioe.org to the small but growing list of
> no-charge, "real", nntp servers, alongside Motzarella.org :-) .
Careful ;) aioe.org is regarded as the "home of trolls and
identity thieves" by many long-time usenet posters. Do a
"google groups" archive search for keywords "aioe" and "aioe.org"
in a newsgroup like 'sci.electronics.repair' and read some of
the unfortunate threads emanating from that host. "aioe.org"
may be more frequently filtered than "groups.google.com", the
latter which most assuredly deserves its reputation as well.
Michael
***** Moderator's Note *****
Sounds like a crock. If aioe.org is an nntp server, then it's messages
would be distributed through Usenet in the usual fashion, so if anyone
was being a troll or abuser, the reputation would follow the poster.
BTW, what reputation are you inferring for groups.google.com? The same
paradigm applies.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:13:07 -0500
From: "Who Me?" <hitchhiker@dont.panic>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <QtTXl.20146$D32.3222@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>
Michael Grigoni wrote:
> Sounds like a crock. If aioe.org is an nntp server, then it's
> messages would be distributed through Usenet in the usual fashion,
> so if anyone was being a troll or abuser, the reputation would
> follow the poster.
>
> BTW, what reputation are you inferring for groups.google.com? The
> same paradigm applies.
Indeed it does. It's a matter of practicality. Nodes that offer a
haven to trolls and kooks and those who are sociopathic gain a
reputation that "sticks" to all the users there.
It doesn't have to be "fair" or "right"......one is known by the
company you keep.
When the sig/noise ratio becomes low enough, as it apparently HAS with
aioe and certainly has for google.groups, then you miss out on little
or nothing of value by filtering on the source of the injection rather
than trying to keep track of constantly morphing individual posters.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Ah, but my point is that any filtering _you_ do doesn't affect most
Usenet readers (unless you're running an NNTP server), so other Usenet
users must judge posts by other means. Flagging a particular server or
site isn't going to make a difference beyond _your_ environment.
Using filters at end-points isn't a viable solution, because it
doesn't scale and requires training for all users. After all, very few
users even know that filters are available, let alone how to plonk
someone.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:34:58 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <6645152a0906101234v6d65271pd05488eaac666b5d@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Michael
Grigoni<michael.grigoni@cybertheque.org> wrote:
> tlvp wrote:
>
> Careful ;) Â aioe.org is regarded as the "home of trolls and
> identity thieves" by many long-time usenet posters.
<snip>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Sounds like a crock. If aioe.org is an nntp server, then it's messages
> would be distributed through Usenet in the usual fashion, so if anyone
> was being a troll or abuser, the reputation would follow the poster.
Perhaps Michael was being funny? I visited the website
http://aioe.org/ and they have limits to posting. In fact the limits
are such that I as a legitimate USENET user couldn't use them. I
can't imagine a spammer making good use of their servers.
I went through this last year when Road Runner dropped USENET. I
settled on Altopia.com for $6/month. Very fast servers, always work,
etc. I ended up dropping them for other reasons and am now using
motzarella.org. I'm not overly impressed, but since I'm paying
nothing and I don't even get a spam tagline, I'm not going to
complain.
I really hope USENET isn't dying. My first taste of the Internet was
via USENET in 1987 and I've been hooked every since.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <bf0615e4-41eb-4172-bd18-8f826f94e453@q2g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 10, 10:15 am, tlvp <PmUiRsGcE.TtHlEv...@att.net> wrote:
> Worse, those who *post* from the googlegroups web-access Usenet system
> are likely *not* to be seen by purists (using "real" newsreaders, and
> fed by "real" nntp-servers) who filter out all posts (many of which
> tend, in fact, to be phish or other spam) emanating from googlegroups.
Google has instituted filters. Is spam and the like a problem from
Google-Usenet _today_?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 23:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <4ffdc108-8d19-4fed-82af-3b255922aec0@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 9, 12:43 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> >Usenet itself, although viable now, is being
> > pushed aside by advertiser-supported venues such as yahoo and google,
> > both of which have large, and growing, "groups" sections that users
> > must register to use.
>
> There is no registration to read Usenet via Google.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Nor on Yahoo, but those who want to post on either system have to go
> through a vetting process. In either case, as much as half the screen is
> taking up by ads, many keyed to the subject matter in the post(s) a
> viewer chooses to read.
> [...]
I disagree about the ads. With Google Groups they're so innocuous I'm
not even aware the 2 or 3 are even there (see below). With a simple
setup using a file on one's system (Linux, UNIX, Windows, whatever) as
one's "home page", getting to comp.dcom.telecom is 2 clicks and far
easier and faster than using "traditional" news readers.
First example is a display of my "home page" that is identical on all
my systems (Linux, UNIX and Windows):
<http://thadlabs.com/PIX/home_page_display.jpg>
I can either click on the row of buttons along the top to move to a
"chapter" or I can scroll down to it. Clicking [GROUP] brings me to
here:
<http://thadlabs.com/PIX/groups_selector_page.jpg>
Clicking [CD.telecom] brings me to Google Group comp.dcom.telecom:
<http://thadlabs.com/PIX/GG_comp.dcom.telecom.jpg>
And clicking on an article thread brings me to the message to which
I'm presently responding:
<http://thadlabs.com/PIX/comp.dcom.telecom_thread.jpg>
Simple. Another example is if I click [INET] on my home page, I'm
transferred to this page of useful Internet tools:
<http://thadlabs.com/PIX/inet_page.jpg>
A local file home page works even if one's Internet connection is
down, contrasted to the situation if MSNBC, Yahoo, Google, et al are
one's "home page".
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:52:02 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <h0nal2$9gd$2@news.eternal-september.org>
Robert Neville wrote:
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>>
>> 1. Is the Walt Disney Corporation the government in Disneyworld?
>> If I commit a crime there, will I be arrested by a Disney
>> employee and thrown into a Disney jail?
>
> No, of course not. Government is a broad term. WDW is in the State
> of Florida, and the County of Orlando. Depending on the nature of
> the infraction, either could be called upon to assist with a
> criminal investigation. That said, just like many other private
> educational and commercial facilities, Disney maintains it's own
> security force and can enforce it's own security rules. I haven't
> checked, but it wouldn't surprise me if Disney's security people
> weren't also deputized by the county or state such that if they
> observed a law being broken, they could detain the individual until
> government law enforcement arrived.
Years ago the security for Knots Berry Farm in California were off duty
Orange County Sheriffs Deputies, don't know about that today.
[Moderator snip]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:54:36 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <h0neac$80m$1@reader1.panix.com>
Robert Neville <dont@bother.com> writes:
>>1. Is the Walt Disney Corporation the government in Disneyworld?
>> If I commit a crime there, will I be arrested by a Disney
>> employee and thrown into a Disney jail?
>No, of course not. Government is a broad term. WDW is in the State of Florida,
>and the County of Orlando. Depending on the nature of the infraction, either
>could be called upon to assist with a criminal investigation.
It's far deeper than that. WD is the local/regional govt. True, if you
want to build a nuke you'd need the NRC to sign off, but short of that
kind of thing, The Mouse is in control.
>>2. Is the phone company in Disneyworld owned by Disney? Could they
>> refuse to allow/accept calls to/from other businesses, cities,
>> or countries that they don't choose to?
>Certainly - just as with any other company, Disney can do what it likes with
>it's internal phone system. If there are any private payphones on property,
>Disney can set whatever rules it likes for their use, just as any other private
>payphone operator can, subject to whatever rules Florida imposes on that type of
>business.
Note that Disney owns the ILEC, not just a CLEC....
>I think a lot of the confusion stems from the previous reference to Reedy Creek
>Improvement District. IIRC, Disney set that up to operate certain services that
>area traditionally provided by local government (water, sewer, fire, etc.).
>Since the Disney propery is so huge, those services weren't available.
>Presumably by making RCID a quasi public group, they qualified for the same
>funding and tax authority that a local government would have.
They set it up so that they had ABSOLUTE control of the land. The only
"residents" aka voters are a ~~?dozen? senior Disney employees. RCID
gets to float tax free bonds on the Florida's back. RCID sets its own
building code/zoning/land use rules free of pesky outsider gripes. They
even de-annexed Celebration, FL so as not to have THOSE voters in the
picture.
They even have eminent domain *outside* RCID's boundaries. Even Richard Daley
would be jealous of the Mouse..
--
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
***** Moderator's Note *****
I thought it might be a bit Orwellian, and you've confirmed it.
There's a reason: Walt Disney was enraged at the sprawl of motels
and fast-food businesses that sprang up outside Disneyland (in
California), and when he saw a chance to move into Florida, he sent
his lawyers ahead with "certain demands", which must have been orders
to make it impossible for it to happen again.
Why waste time trying to influence a government when you can _be_ the
government?
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: 10 Jun 2009 13:05:02 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <20090610130502.23011.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>>1. Is the Walt Disney Corporation the government in Disneyworld?
>> If I commit a crime there, will I be arrested by a Disney
>> employee and thrown into a Disney jail?
Yes, actually. The cities of Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake are
controlled by the Disney company, and cover the WDW resort. Look them
up on Wikipedia. Each has a tiny population of about 20, all Disney
employees and their families. They're in Osceola county, by the way,
not Orange county where Orlando is located.
>>2. Is the phone company in Disneyworld owned by Disney? Could they
>> refuse to allow/accept calls to/from other businesses, cities,
>> or countries that they don't choose to?
The LEC is Smart City Telecom, which in 2001 bought Vista-United,
which was a joint venture by Disney and what was then Sprint-United.
It is a real regulated telco, and also services the nearby businesses
and the residents of Celebration, the town that Disney built.
To tie in with another discussion, Vista-United was the first, perhaps
still the only, LEC in the country to disallow pulse dialing, since
they had no pre-tone customers.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:31:04 -0400
From: "Dr. Barry L. Ornitz" <BLOrnitz48@charter.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Fiber optic transmission
Message-ID: <eGGXl.12230$GD4.4239@newsfe15.iad>
"AES" <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote in message news:siegman-
76C883.10492109062009@news.stanford.edu...
> Moderator asked:
>>
>> Which wavelength(s) of light are used for fiber-optic
>> transmission? Do single-mode and multimode fibers require
>> different wavelengths?
>
> If by "fiber-optical transmission" you mean for _telecom_
> applications, the answer is, wavelengths from around 8000 A (0.8
> microns) in the near IR out to about 1.5 microns, with heavy
> preference for the 1.3 to 1.5 micron bands.
>
> Reason is, even if you can get rid of all kinds of attenuation
> associated with absorbing impurities in glass (and current fiber
> technology is really just astoundingly good at doing that), you
> are left with an unavoidable (though pretty small) scattering loss
> in glass fibers, which decreases rapidly with increasing wavelength
> out to just beyond 1.5 microns, beyond which some other absorption
> mechanisms in the glass rapidly turn on.
Once you get into longer wavelengths than the mid-infrared region,
and especially when you get into the far infrared region,
transmission losses in ordinary glass and silica fibers gets so high
as to make these fibers unusable. Chalcogenide glasses must be used
in these regions to even get reasonable signals over a few meters in
length. These specialty fibers sell for thousands of dollars per
meter. When I worked in the Research Labs of Eastman Chemical
Company, my group developed a process Raman spectrometer whereby
we could remotely study the mid- to far-infrared spectra of process
streams while using communications grade fibers.
While Stokes and anti-Stokes Raman scattering may be unfamiliar to
Telecom readers, the process is easily described in communications
terms. A laser in the visible region is used to excite molecules of
the unknown material. Most of the light is reflected back at the
same wavelength by Rayleigh scattering (elastic collisions of
photons). But a small portion of the light interacts with the
unknown material via Raman scattering (inelastic collisions) to
produce sum and difference frequencies (anti-Stokes and Stokes
scattering respectively) around the laser line. The process is akin
to amplitude modulation where the infrared spectrum is the modulating
component and the laser provides the carrier. But the modulation
index is quite low. Only about 1 in 10 to 50 million photons
interacts inelastically to replicate the infrared spectra in the
visible region. But now the information can be easily sent long
distances over inexpensive communication grade fibers. With
sensitive detectors and a good monochromator along with a good laser,
it is possible to perform infrared spectroscopy remotely without the
need for Chalcogenide fibers.
The process is akin to using an audio baseband to modulate a carrier.
But I never was able to explain this to the chemists!
--
73, Dr. Barry L. Ornitz WA4VZQ
BLOrnitz48@charter.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:54:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Cell2Tel Bluetooth RJ11 gateway
Message-ID: <200906100754.DAA11547@ss10.danlan.com>
Has anyone had any experience with this? I recently bought one and
connected a 2500 set. Polarity was wrong but I guess nobody worries
about that anymore. Ring test actually made the bell sound which
seemed encouraging. Unfortunately, while it worked for outgoing calls
it seemed to lose its association with my cell phone when an incoming
call arrived. It turned out that what was actually happening was that
the Cell2Tel was trying to ring the 2500 set and crashing/rebooting in
the attempt. If I disconnect the ringer I can answer blind just fine.
I retried the original ring test and it no longer works; the device
again crashes in the attempt. I conclude that the ring voltage
generator can't deal with a real load and/or was damaged. When
it tries to drive the bell it loads the power supply and causes
the cpu to reset. (I tried a different wall wart in case it was
that simple but no luck.) Customer support isn't very helpful,
not responding as to whether they have ever tested with a real
mechanical ringer. I can send the unit in for them to "look at"
but I have a feeling it might just be a waste of postage (not
to mention making it impossible to return to the place of purchase).
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
***** Moderator's Note *****
That sounds like a defective unit: I'd like to hear how the
replacement works out. If the design is incapable of driving a
REN 1.0 load, then I'd be wary of buying one.
Bill Horne
Temporary 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 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 (20 messages)
******************************
|
or 
