30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for January 19, 2012
Volume 31 : Issue 19 : "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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:14:27 +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: <GdW4jD.A.8kF.0atFPB@telecom>
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:51:45 -0800, John David Galt wrote:
..........
> As to your other suggestions, I stopped being interested in them the
> moment you said that the managers of a concert hall should take the place
> of individual responsibility.
>
Actually one simple solution would be a small metal bag that you could
collect when entering the venue and then put the device in so it is 100%
shielded (and return on exit for your deposit refund) but you still keep
hold of your toy.
It wouldn't stop things like Appointment alarms (unless the bag also had
good soundproofing - an option!), but it would stop any incoming signals
triggering other noises.
If someone goes out an invents this bag and makes a squillion dollars,
please remember where the idea came from! ;-)
--
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: 17 Jan 2012 17:28:29 -0500
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Ringing Finally Ended, but There's No Button to
Message-ID: <jf4smd$eem$1@panix2.panix.com>
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>
>> The "Patron X" mentioned in the NY Times story claimed that his
>> employer had just switched him from a blackberry to an iphone, and
>> that the sound was actually an alarm signal, not the phone
>> ringing. Sounds like revisionist history ex post factotum to me, but
>> even if it's true, that only proves that the person in question felt
>> entitled to take an active electronic device into a concert hall
>> without bothering to RTFM. The gaul of some people!
>
>RTFM? Of an iPhone? It's a computer with a zillion apps, do you really
>think there's a FM that explains all of them?
And right there is the problem.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:37:58 -0500
From: Thor Lancelot Simon <tls.remove-this@and-this-too.panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: More on the Captured U.S. Drone
Message-ID: <20120118143758.GA26607@panix.com>
In article <jf4kne$h0g$1@dont-email.me>, Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote:
>
> Huh? You're kidding, right? Since when does jamming a radio signal
> require "precise landing altitudes, as well as latitudinal and
> longitudinal data"?
It doesn't. But if you want to jam the signal and cause the aircraft
you're trying to divert to land in the wrong place because of the
observed behavior of its fallback autopilot system, then it does
certainly seem like you'd better have an airfield ready that's just
like the one it expects to land at, according to all the sensors you
know it will retain access to.
Which probably includes having that field at the same altitude, pointed
in the same direction, and perhaps at the same coordinate either
latitudinally or longitudinally as the real one. Looking quickly at a
map of Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, I don't think it would be too
hard to do this somewhere in Iran -- though certainly nontrivial.
I would suspect the basic procedure has to consist of carefully
observing the drone's usual flight patterns and interrupting its GPS
access while it's in the middle of a maneuver you know will leave it, if
interrupted, pointed at you, rather than at home. Be sure it doesn't
get GPS back, and see what happens. It's likely possible to try this
out several times and get a lot of data about the autopilot's
behavior before anyone even notices. If the drone is stealthy enough
that your adversary (that'd be the guy running the drone) thinks you
can't follow it around, even better -- he will be much less likely to
interpret brief interruptions to GPS as tampering while you're figuring
out how to work the rest of your evil magic.
Thor
Date: 18 Jan 2012 11:54:33 -0500
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Supreme court rules on a TCPA case
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201181147550.98742@joyce.lan>
U.S. Supreme Court Decision:
MIMS v. ARROW FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC ( )
421 Fed. Appx. 920, reversed and remanded. [citation added - mod]
The TCPA is the 1991 law that lets you sue junk callers and junk faxers.
Unlike most Federal laws, you can sue in state courts, including small
claims, which can be effective against local junk faxers.
Arrow is a debt collection company that repeatly called Mims on his cell
phone, something the TCPA forbids. Mims sued in federal court in Florida.
Arrow said you can't do that, the TCPA says you can only sue in state
court. The judge agreed and threw the case out. Mims appealed to the
11th circuit, which agreed and again threw the case out. Mims, a
persistent man, appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to take the
case.
Today the Supreme Court ruled that Mims was right all along, and the TCPA
does allow suits in both state and federal courts. The decision was
unanimous, which is somewhat unusual these days, and makes me wonder what
the 11th circuit was thinking.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-1195
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
http://jl.ly
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:30:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Ringing Finally Ended, but There's No Button to
Message-ID: <1326904249.37922.YahooMailClassic@web111706.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
--- On Tue, 1/17/12, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> It's still unbelievable that the alarm could get set without it
> being the user's responsibility.
If I understand correctly he had just been handed the new phone by his
boss. Perhaps the phone had previously been assigned to a different
employuee, who had set the alarm.
I think of several times I have been in hotel rooms when the alarm
went off on the clock-radio, presumably set by a previous occupant, at
some unpleasant hour.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
***** Moderator's Note *****
Wes, may I assume you did not take the alarm into a crowded theatre?
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:47:46 -0500
From: Daniel Berninger <dan.berninger@gmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: A Peace Treaty Ending the 100 Year War in Telecom
Message-ID: <CA+tF5e5rvnXNyJqmna0NZMT_ENaP3YqjCc4XWDXQq35EsjAiXw@mail.gmail.com>
Folks,
The blog post attached below outlines the motivation for the VCXC
Grand Alliance peace conference on IP-IP interconnection on January
19th in DC.
The meeting is open to anyone interested in helping craft an industry
driven approach to IP-IP service interworking.
Agenda:
10:00-10:10 - Robert Atkinson, president, ITIF (http://itif.org)
* The innovation business model
10:10-10:30 - Daniel Berninger, founder, VCXC
* IP-IP interconnect consensus principles (http://vcxc.org/principles.html)
10:30-11:00 - Don Shepheard, VP Federal Regulatory & Policy, tw Telecom
* Framework for IP-IP interconnect agreements
11:00-11:30 - Hank Hultquist, VP Federal Regulatory, AT&T
* Framework for IP-IP interconnect agreements
11:30-12:00 - Charles McKee, VP Government Affairs, Federal and State
Regulatory, Sprint
* Framework for IP-IP interconnect agreements
The VCXC - Voice Communication Exchange Committee - is a Washington,
DC based startup nonprofit, modeled on the FCC's Advisory Commitee on
Advanced Television Service, accelerating the transition to all-IP
networks and upgrading core voice service to HD by January 1, 2018.
There remain only a few slots to participate in-person, but the
conference bridge can accomodate any number of participants.
Please contact me directly if you are interested in joining us on the 19th.
Regards,
Dan
Info at URL
http://www.vcxc.org/principles.html
FAQ at URL
http://www.vcxc.org/faq.html
(URLs added - mod)
.....................................................................
Daniel Berninger
founder, Voice Communication Exchange Committee
e: dan@danielberninger.com
tel SD: +1.202.250.3838
SIP HD: dan@danielberninger.com
w: www.vcxc.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"A Peace Treaty Ending the 100 Year War in Telecom" by Daniel
Berninger (link - http://vcxc.org/blog.html)
The VCXC Grand Alliance peace conference convenes on January 19, 2012
in Washington, DC to address ending 100 years of telecom
interconnection hostilities. The attending carriers will seek to
overcome the IP-IP interconnection disputes conceding an every
increasing share of communication to over-the-top alternatives. The
failure to implement IP service interworking postpones billions in
capital and operational expense benefits associated with IP-IP network
interconnects. Dependence on circuit switching prevents implementation
of high definition and the other service enhancements necessary to
level the playing field between telecom and information technology
sectors.
The current government mandated interconnection regime traces to the
Kingsbury Commitment in 1913, and, even, to the founding of the ITU in
1865 in the context of the telegraph. The peace conference arises as a
recognition all-IP networks make both circuit switching and opposition
to interconnection obsolete. Internet protocol severs the link between
connectivity (means) and service (end) necessary for vertical
integration business models. A carrier refusing interconnection
accomplishes precisely nothing, except, perhaps, a thank you letter
from Facebook and Skype. The software driven application layer of
all-IP networks makes communication a free-for-all with or without the
permission of network operators.
[Moderator snip]
***** Moderator's Note *****
I applaud any efforts to integrate the PSTN and IP-based telephony,
but readers should note that others do not: some detractors of this
effort say it will simply erase all government regulation of the
telephone network.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:57:36 -0500
From: "Adams, George Bunch" <gba.remove-this@and-this-too.purdue.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Ringing Finally Ended, but There's No Button to Stop Shame
Message-ID: <B38CE48C-8CC0-42F2-ADAF-BBCBFFAD0712@purdue.edu>
Colin <colin_sutton@ieee.org<mailto:colin_sutton@ieee.org>> wrote:
> David Clayton
<dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au<mailto:dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au>> wrote:
>> 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....)
> The iphone, blackberry and nokia all ignore the off switch to sound
> an alarm that you have set.
Setting an alarm on my iPhone 4 and then powering off the device and
keeping it powered off through the time set for the alarm resulted in
no alarm sounding. iPhone power off was accomplished via the "slide
to power off" control that appears on the screen after holding down
the physical button on the upper right corner for several seconds.
When I powered the device on, done well after the time for which the
alarm was set, the alarm sounded as soon as the device finished waking
up and the usual interface for ending or "snoozing" the alarm
appeared.
George
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:14:15 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: The Save Our Political Assets act
Message-ID: <20120118201415.GA841@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
The Save Our Political Assets act, or "That's a nice Internet you got
there - it'd be a shame if something happened to it"!
I was just looking down a page of Google search results, and mentally
drawing lines through the ones that pointed to Wikipedia, since it is
offline today to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act, a.k.a. SOPA.
I was asking myself why the Congressmen who introduced the bill would
propose something so ham-handed as blanking entire websites out if one
of their users was accused of posting copyrighted content: SOPA has
provisions to remove complete domains from the Internet by altering
their DNS entries.
And then, it hit me: this has nothing to do with copyright.
Rest at:
http://billhorne.com/
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)
Copyright (C) 2012 E. William Horne. All Rights Reserved.
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:42:55 -0500
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: The Save Our Political Assets act
Message-ID: <barmar-9096A5.19425518012012@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <20120118201415.GA841@telecom.csail.mit.edu>,
Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote:
> The Save Our Political Assets act, or "That's a nice Internet you got
> there - it'd be a shame if something happened to it"!
>
> I was just looking down a page of Google search results, and mentally
> drawing lines through the ones that pointed to Wikipedia, since it is
> offline today to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act, a.k.a. SOPA.
>
> I was asking myself why the Congressmen who introduced the bill would
> propose something so ham-handed as blanking entire websites out if one
> of their users was accused of posting copyrighted content: SOPA has
> provisions to remove complete domains from the Internet by altering
> their DNS entries.
>
> And then, it hit me: this has nothing to do with copyright.
>
> Rest at:
> http://billhorne.com/
>
I'm against SOPA, but Horne seems to be confused about the bill, and
it's leading him to his weird conspiracy theory. He later writes: 'I
must also admit that I, as the "owner" of these sites for the purposes
of SOPA, would be very tempted to just delete the "offending" content,
because I don't have the money it takes to fight a court order.'
They don't need SOPA for this -- since he's in the US, existing laws
(copyright, DMCA) can be used to demand he remove offending content.
SOPA is targeted at offshore sites, which are out of the reach of normal
copyright enforcement. US law enforcement can only demand activity of
US companies, so instead of demanding that the web site remove the
content, they want all the US companies in the path to block access:
block lookups in DNS, remove links from search engines, and stop
allowing payments through e-commerce sites.
It's incredibly heavy-handed -- some have likened it to shutting down
highways to keep bank robbers from getting away. And it's not going to
work: the bad guys will just keep a bunch of domain names in reserve,
and switch to an unblocked one. This is a technique that malware
distributors have been using for years.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:42:32 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: The Save Our Political Assets act
Message-ID: <20120119064232.GA16989@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 07:42:55PM -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <20120118201415.GA841@telecom.csail.mit.edu>,
> Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote:
>
> > The Save Our Political Assets act, or "That's a nice Internet you got
> > there - it'd be a shame if something happened to it"!
> >
> > I was just looking down a page of Google search results, and mentally
> > drawing lines through the ones that pointed to Wikipedia, since it is
> > offline today to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act, a.k.a. SOPA.
> >
> > I was asking myself why the Congressmen who introduced the bill would
> > propose something so ham-handed as blanking entire websites out if one
> > of their users was accused of posting copyrighted content: SOPA has
> > provisions to remove complete domains from the Internet by altering
> > their DNS entries.
> >
> > And then, it hit me: this has nothing to do with copyright.
> >
> > Rest at:
> > http://billhorne.com/
> >
>
> I'm against SOPA, but Horne seems to be confused about the bill, and
> it's leading him to his weird conspiracy theory. He later writes: 'I
> must also admit that I, as the "owner" of these sites for the purposes
> of SOPA, would be very tempted to just delete the "offending" content,
> because I don't have the money it takes to fight a court order.'
>
> They don't need SOPA for this -- since he's in the US, existing laws
> (copyright, DMCA) can be used to demand he remove offending content.
I know that the DMCA is already in place and available to copyright
holders who have legitimate claims. I was making the point that it
would be impossible to fight SOPA court orders when the price of doing
so could be having your website disappear from the Internet.
> SOPA is targeted at offshore sites, which are out of the reach of normal
> copyright enforcement. US law enforcement can only demand activity of
> US companies, so instead of demanding that the web site remove the
> content, they want all the US companies in the path to block access:
> block lookups in DNS, remove links from search engines, and stop
> allowing payments through e-commerce sites.
>
> It's incredibly heavy-handed -- some have likened it to shutting down
> highways to keep bank robbers from getting away. And it's not going to
> work: the bad guys will just keep a bunch of domain names in reserve,
> and switch to an unblocked one. This is a technique that malware
> distributors have been using for years.
"Heavy handed" doesn't even come close - hell, "Swatting a fly with a
flamberge" doesn't come close!
SOPA is like killing an ant with an atomic bomb. It is so over-the-top
that it's in a new class of creepiness: unconstitutional on its face,
beyond any hope of repair the moment it went into the hopper, and so
ludicrously vicious that its impossible to believe. I just can't
accept that elected officials could be that stupid.
Ergo, an alternative explanation is called for, if only to keep my
head from exploding when I contemplate the gargantuan quantity of
slimy ooze that would be required to give this creature-from-the-
legislative-lagoon a home. As far as I can figure, SOPA is a demand
that the Internet Technoratti pony up the price of admission to the
major leagues; a little twist-of-the-arm reminder that it's an
imperfect world and that Congressional campaigns don't come cheap.
It's the only thing that makes sense to me, but YMMV.
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
"We are forces of chaos and anarchy
Everything they say we are, we are
And we are very
Proud of ourselves"
- Jefferson Airplane
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:39:48 +1100
From: David Clayton <dc33box-usenet@yahoo.com.au>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: The Save Our Political Assets act
Message-ID: <M2TDxC.A.jsE.d37FPB@telecom>
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:14:15 -0500, Bill Horne wrote:
> The Save Our Political Assets act, or "That's a nice Internet you got
> there - it'd be a shame if something happened to it"!
..........
> I was asking myself why the Congressmen who introduced the bill would
> propose something so ham-handed as blanking entire websites out if one of
> their users was accused of posting copyrighted content: SOPA has
> provisions to remove complete domains from the Internet by altering their
> DNS entries.
Which only works if:
a) One country has total control of what is a worldwide resource; and
b) There is no alternative that people can use to bypass any DNS system
that "bans" sites.
How long until the rest of the world says "Get stuffed" to the U.S.A. if
they pass this legislation and an alternate DNS infrastructure is created
that is not controlled by one legislature of one country on the planet?
Is blocking Port 53 packets also going to be part of the legislation to
force US citizens to only be able to access US DNS sites?
--
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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:05:29 -0500
From: John Stahl <aljon@stny.rr.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Federal Committee Says No Remedy for LightSquared Interference
Message-ID: <D4.9D.20593.A22471F4@cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com>
The subject article appears on the Radio Resource Media Group web
site. It details the latest and possibly the last roadblock for
LightSquared's plans for a broadband roll out in rural areas of the US.
The article indicates in part that: "A federal committee that
provides guidance to the GPS program unanimously concluded that there
are no solutions available to remedy the interference found in tests
by the committee and LightSquared, which is proposing a new hybrid
satellite/terrestrial broadband commercial service...."
The complete article can be found here:
http://mccmag.com/newsArticle.cfm?news_id=7840
John Stahl
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:42:01 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Supreme Court Chooses SOPA/PIPA Protest Day To Give A Giant Middle Finger To The Public Domain
Message-ID: <hl084B.A.TrE.b37FPB@telecom>
Supreme Court Chooses SOPA/PIPA Protest Day To Give A Giant Middle
Finger To The Public Domain
by Mike Masnick
Jan 18, 2012
Techdirt
We've been talking about the Golan case, and its possible impact on
culture, for years. If you're unfamiliar with it, it's the third in a
line of cases, starting with the Eldred case, to challenge aspects of
copyright law as violating the First Amendment. The key point in the
case was questioning whether or not the US could take works out of
the public domain and put them under copyright. The US had argued it
needed to do this under a trade agreement to make other countries
respect our copyrights. Of course, for those who were making use of
those public domain works, it sure seemed like a way to unfairly lock
up works that belonged to the public. It was difficult to see how
retroactively taking works out of the public domain could fit into
the traditional contours of copyright law... but today, on the day of
the big SOPA/PIPA protests... that's exactly what happened (pdf).
...
http://goo.gl/jW9Bu
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-545.pdf
***** Moderator's Note *****
This isn't that close to "telecom", but I'm putting it out there
because it seems to my untrained eye to allow companies to extend
copyrights which have already expired, and that would allow telecom
equipment manufacturers to 'proprietize' the technical information
needed to keep older equipment in service, thus driving owners toward
new purchases.
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 (13 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues