30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for January 17, 2012
Volume 31 : Issue 17 : "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: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:19:00 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Ringing Finally Ended, but There's No Button to
Message-ID: <0x95NC.A.V1B.KzEFPB@telecom>
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 08:58:55 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
..........
> I do find it a bit hard to believe that he didn't know it had an alarm:
> even dumb cellphones have this, and how could he have set the alarm
> without going into the app? I don't have an iPhone, but I expect that it
> takes more than one errant click to set the alarm.
I have some sympathy for this person, I use an Android phone and while it
has various "Silent" and "Airplane" modes that seem to work for "normal"
things like incoming calls I have also installed various apps to signal me
on things like incoming e-mails and I am not sure that all of these use
the aforementioned settings.
All it may need is one lazy app developer to bypass the bits that control
to alarm modes and then you have a device that can only be shut off with a
hammer (or the power button....)
--
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: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:51:23 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Ringing Finally Ended, but There's No Button to
Message-ID: <__adnXQi0P7GtonSnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <nDbw8.A.QtC.S2nEPB@telecom>,
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>
>Ringing Finally Ended, but There's No Button to Stop Shame
>
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
> .... The gaul of some people!
<nitpick>
the word is 'gall', not 'gaul'.
</nitpick>
Unless they're of Old French background, that is. <grin>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:56:54 -0500
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Ringing Finally Ended, but There's No Button to
Message-ID: <1pogzfo7a0hs8.rjul6swzh27x.dlg@40tude.net>
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 08:58:55 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
> RTFM? Of an iPhone?
No, no, not of the iPhone, silly -- of the concert hall! Every printed
program, in every concert hall I've attended in this 21st century, has
stated, plainly and clearly, that patrons are requested to turn their cell
phones, pagers, and beepers OFF for the duration of the concert.
Most concert venues add a pre-performance PA announcement to the same
effect, for the benefit of those patrons who can't or won't -- or just
didn't -- read.
> The guy said that he switched the phone into silent mode.
He may have tried, but he obviously didn't entirely succeed :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 04:34:23 +0000 (UTC)
From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Lightsquared/GPS
Message-ID: <jf09cf$veg$1@pcls6.std.com>
Randall Webmail <rvh40.remove-this@and-this-too.insightbb.com> writes:
>LSQ has a license to use their frequencies and GPS devices use
>adjacent unlicensed frequencies, correct? Don't unlicensed devices
>(such as GPS) have to accept interference from other devices, as a
>condition of their unlicensed use?
>It'd really suck to have to replace all my GPS devices, as they are
>quite useful, but since LSQ has a license and GPS doesn't - why is
>this a question?
The FCC doesn't license receivers. They license transmitters. The GPS
on your dashboard is a receiver, the FCC license (if it applies at all
to military devices, as Bill points out) would be for the GPS satellites.
***** Moderator's Note *****
There are broad bands of frequencies set aside for civilian and for
military/government use, and the FCC does not have authority to
assign licenses that use military bandwidth.
When economies of scale dictate that bands be shared - soldiers need
to use "commercial" walkie-talkies while on guard duty, for example -
there's a coordination mechanism in place, but the FCC doesn't issue,
nor are FCC licenses required for, any military transmitter.
There are, of course, various exceptions, but they're unimportant. The
point is that if anyone says "GPS is unlicensed", they're spreading
bull manure: GPS doesn't need a license from the FCC.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:16:30 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Lightsquared/GPS
Message-ID: <jf019u$22qk$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <20120115192027.GA1666@telecom.csail.mit.edu>,
Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote:
>What LightSquared has is a license for an "Ancilliary Terrestrial
>Component", which is supposed to allow a company that has satellite(s)
>in orbit to provide coverage in the very limited places that
>satellites can't reach: tunnels under cities, etc.
Not that limited. Sirius XM has more than a thousand (maybe more than
two thousand) such licenses.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:12:42 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Lightsquared/GPS
Message-ID: <20120116161242.GA7041@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 02:16:30AM +0000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <20120115192027.GA1666@telecom.csail.mit.edu>,
> Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote:
>
> >What LightSquared has is a license for an "Ancilliary Terrestrial
> >Component", which is supposed to allow a company that has satellite(s)
> >in orbit to provide coverage in the very limited places that
> >satellites can't reach: tunnels under cities, etc.
>
> Not that limited. Sirius XM has more than a thousand (maybe more than
> two thousand) such licenses.
I meant "limited" as in "a place where a receiver is unable to get
signals from a satellite", not limited in number. I'm sure there are
thousands of highway tunnels, and equally sure that few drivers care if
their GPS can't receive while inside them: the navigation choices are,
after all, somewhat limited, and the GPS unit's internal logic is
adequate to quide drivers to the correct exit, even when the GPS can't
"see" the satellite constellation.
In any case, you bring a red herring to the dinner: Sirius operates in
2.31 to 2.36 GHz, but LightSquared wants to bull its way up next to
GPS, which is at 1.575 GHz. That's a difference of about 800 MHz, and
if LightSquared was trying to set up a terrestrial network 800 MHz
away from GPS, we wouldn't be having this debate.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)
"When I was ten years old, I remember thinking how good it would be
When we were going on an eight-hour drive, if we could just watch TV"
- Brad Paisley
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:28:20 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Lightsquared/GPS
Message-ID: <YLudneJVI4C5zYnSnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <528444186.671612.1326645607989.JavaMail.root@md03.insight.synacor.com>,
Randall Webmail <rvh40.remove-this@and-this-too.insightbb.com> wrote:
>>Dave Murphy, PC Magazine
>
>> According to officials, LightSquared's proposed (and controversial)
>> plan to launch a new LTE network - and then sell access rights to
>> the service to regional and rural wireless carriers, and other
>> partners - interferes too greatly with existing GPS systems.
>
>LSQ has a license to use their frequencies and GPS devices use
>adjacent unlicensed frequencies, correct?
Incorrect, on several counts.
GPS devices are receivers. In the U.S., no receiver requires a
license.
The GPS satellite transmitters are "licensed" devices.
By International agreement, the ITU coordinates spectrum assignments
to various nations. For assignments to the United States, 'non government'
use is managed by the FCC, while 'government' use (including military) is
co-ordinated by the NTIA. The NTIA has assigned certain frequencies
for the exclusive use of GPS satellites.
That said, there is a valid element in your question.
All commercial receivers (and most other pieces of 'electronic' equipment),
as 'incidental' radiators of RF energy (the 'local oscillator, etc.) are
required to comply with 'Part 15' of the FCC regulations, before they can
be offered for sale. Part 15 limits the amount of 'unintentional' radiation
that they can output, and specifies that the device must be shut down if
it interferes with a licensed transmission. (note: Part 15 does not apply
to licensed transmitters -- they are governed by other, stricter, rules.)
There is a requirement in Part 15 that compliant devices 'accept' legal RF
signals that are not part of their operation. BUT, a transmission that
interferes with the 'normal operation' of a licensed transmitter (e.g., a
GPS satellite) is expressly forbidden as well.
You can't prohibit the lightspeed service because it generaes inteference
that is picked up in a Part 15 device. You can prohibit the service
because it interferes with the signal from the licensed transmitter.
There is a conflict between those statements, and exactly where the line
should be drawn between them is the entire controversy. Available
evidence is that Lightsquared 'interferes' with the licensed GPS signal,
for the vast majority of receivers deployed today. The cost of modifying
or replacing all the susceptible units with one with adequate sensitivity/
selectivity to ameliorate the interference is extremely non-trivial.
Adding gasoline to the fire is the fact that the Lightsquared proposal is
for a materially different use of the spectrum -- with regard to transmitter
locations and signal power -- than was allowed when existing GPS equipment
was designed/implemented/sold.
A case can be made, "in equity", that Lightsquared should bear the costs of
replacing all existing equipment built that was 'adequate' for the original
spectrum usage specifications, but is -not- adequate in the 'changed rules'
environment that Lightsquared is requesting.
> Don't unlicensed devices
>(such as GPS) have to accept interference from other devices, as a
>condition of their unlicensed use?
Since the premise is 'false to fact' -- GPS does not involve 'unlicensed'
operations -- the remainder of the question is meaningless <grin>
There are FCC rules -- which apply to Lightsquared's use of transmitters on
the frequencies involved -- which forbid either an unlicensed or a licensed
transmitter from generating interference with other licensed operations.
Unfortunately, what constitutes 'interference' is not sufficiently precisely
defined in the FCC regulations, with regard to causing problems with other
licensed operations. E.g. who is responsible for 'intermodulation
interference' caused by the mixing of two unrelated RF signals (both from
licensed transmitters0, occurring in a passive device (like the 'structural
steel' of a building) and being re-radiated on the frequency of a third
licensed transmitter? If either of the first two transmitters shuts down
the problem 'goes away'. If the 'intermediate' radiator gets modified,
the problem 'goes away'.
Suppose the interference is not 'exactly' on the frequency of the third
transmitter, just 'close' to it?
Maybe one can, by using sufficiently 'fancy' (read as "large", "bulky",
and 'expensive') filtering devices, siphon off enough of the 'interference'
to be able to recover the 'licensed' signal, and maybe NOT.
Taken to extremes, I wouldn't want to guess as to the cost, or size,
of a GPS receiver that required a separate antenna, each with it's own
'cavity resonator' narrow-band filter for each GPS transmitter frequency.
I'm fairly sure you couldn't get it all to fit in a 'hand-held' unit.
>It'd really suck to have to replace all my GPS devices, as they are
>quite useful, but since LSQ has a license and GPS doesn't - why is
>this a question?
Because the premise of your question is not in agreement with reality. :))
***** Moderator's Note *****
Some receivers are regulated: in the U.S., it's unlawful to buy or
import a "scanner" receiver capable of receiving cellular
calls. Although that may not be a "license" requirement, it's a
difference that makes no difference.
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) 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 (7 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues