|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 198 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Re: When Texting Is Wrong
Re: When Texting Is Wrong
Re: RFID's Security Problem / Are U.S. passport cards and new state driver's licenses with RFID truly secure?
Re: The RISK that is Amazon's Kindle
Apple Kills Everyone's Buzz At Once: Tethering On AT&T Is Dead, Pre Blocked In iTunes
Re: Apple Kills Everyone's Buzz At Once: Tethering On AT&T Is Dead, Pre Blocked In iTunes
Apple To Palm: It's On. The Pre Is Locked Out Of iTunes
New iPhone Is Better Model-Or Just Get OS 3.0
Some E-Books Are More Equal Than Others
A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Amazon Erases Orwell Books From Kindle Devices
Driven to Distraction / Drivers and Legislators Dismiss Cellphone Risks
Re: 911 service center troubles
Re: RFID's Security Problem / Are U.S. passport cards and new state driver's licenses with RFID truly secure?
====== 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: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 09:35:40 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <be4.5b043dd6.37947b2c@aol.com>
In a message dated 7/18/2009 10:10:25 PM Central Daylight Time,
thad@thadlabs.com writes:
>> My own calls are seldom more than 5 minutes, typically 2 minutes or
>> less, and only 20 seconds to order a pizza (tell them my phone
>> number, simply say "repeat the last order", done (would be faster
>> if they had CID :-))
My [local] Pizza Hut does have caller ID and they are sometimes
confused when I call from my cell phone because they keep my
information under my landline (home) number.
> Given the apparent widespread acceptance of VoIP, I wonder what's
> going to happen with all the TelCos? I haven't seen any innovative
> new services from any local ones in decades. The big thing for me
> way back when was Touch Tonen the mid-1960s in New Mexico. I gave
> myself Touch Tone service when I moved to California by
> "accidentally" reversing the green and red wires. :-) :-) :-)
There are now come concerns expressed over AT&T's U-verse (TV) service
because your landline phone now becomes VoIP and people are comcerned
about when the power fails you're without landline phone service,
likely in an emergency when you're likely to need it most and the cell
phone service is overwhelmed with calls.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:24:48 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <4qK8m.20031$BP6.8986@newsfe24.iad>
Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
> There are now some concerns expressed over AT&T's U-verse (TV)
> service because your landline phone now becomes VoIP and people are
> comcerned about when the power fails you're without landline phone
> service, likely in an emergency when you're likely to need it most
> and the cell phone service is overwhelmed with calls.
Why does it become like VoIP? Can't they continue to provision
dial-tone on a copper pair?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:18:22 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <h40nlu$69j$2@news.albasani.net>
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>>There are now some concerns expressed over AT&T's U-verse (TV)
>>service because your landline phone now becomes VoIP and people are
>>comcerned about when the power fails you're without landline phone
>>service, likely in an emergency when you're likely to need it most
>>and the cell phone service is overwhelmed with calls.
>Why does it become like VoIP? Can't they continue to provision
>dial-tone on a copper pair?
I'm sure they'd be willing to continue to sell separate telephone
service to a U-Verse subscriber.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Let's back up a step, and be sure we're not comparing apples to
oranges. Is the U-verse service the same as Verizon's FIOS offering,
or does it DSL to transport data? Since the original poster put "TV"
after the first mentionof U-verse, I'd like to get it clear if he's
talked about a bundled cable offering, FIOS, or DSL.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:31:53 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <4A62A1B9.9060700@thadlabs.com>
On 7/18/2009 8:10 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
> [...]
> Given the apparent widespread acceptance of VoIP, I wonder what's going to
> happen with all the TelCos? I haven't seen any innovative new services from
> any local ones in decades.
> [...]
I want to clarify that comment and apologize to the TelCos.
DSL simply blows my mind.
In the 1960s I was at 110baud with an acoustic modem. My next steps
were 300 baud then 1200 then 2400 (both standards: Racal-Vadic and
???). Then I had <something> at 9600 baud, followed by Telebit (two
T2500) modems around ~19,200baud. My last modems were Hayes
<something> at ~56K.
In 2000 a friend called and asked if I could setup their new company
on the Internet and setup phone service, etc. Long story short, I
literally built-up the company infrastructure from nothing: Internet,
phones, and even the cubicles and wall paint colors. The phone system
was PacBell's Centrex (worked great!), later a Nortel BCM (really a
great system), then a crap VoIP system mandated by the 10th (in 6
years) CEO (who had vested interest in that VoIP system {hint to
others}); they're now belly up.
Point being: the San Mateo, CA Central Office was literally across the
street and the DSL service I had contracted ended up being 6 Mbps
inbound and about some 500 Kbps outbound. For about US$50/month. My
jaw nearly hit the floor on receipt of the first bill -- simply mind
boggling.
Though I sneer at DSL today (given my cable service), I have to admit
DSL is an incredible technological achievement. Back in the 1980s I
was happy with AT&T/HP StarLAN at 1 Mbps (~ 1BaseT) over existing
in-plant (and home (e.g., me :-)) wiring and thought that was the
limit.
Just curious: anyone here with a crystal ball who can "predict" the
next advance we can expect from the TelCos? Or will TelCos become a
vanishing act with the onslaught of digital technology?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 05:42:20 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <NwE8m.52829$9P.9438@newsfe08.iad>
Thad Floryan wrote:
>
> Given the apparent widespread acceptance of VoIP, I wonder what's going to
> happen with all the TelCos? I haven't seen any innovative new services from
> any local ones in decades.
>
Worse than that the LECs charge an arm and a leg for calling features,
especially unbundled CID, when those features are included with wireless
and Vonage.
And, features that are network sensitive, such as Call Return, Selective
Call Forwarding, or Call Rejection, work only intra-LATA, which makes
them basically useless.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Why are the features you mention limited to Intra-LATA?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:22:27 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home and small office VoIP services
Message-ID: <UnK8m.20030$BP6.19613@newsfe24.iad>
Sam Spade wrote:
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Why are the features you mention limited to Intra-LATA?
>
Good question. It's not easy to find a rep who even knows that. Then,
when you do the rep has no idea why they are limited to intra-LATA.
Here's what it says on the AT&T web site for call return:
"Call Return may not be available in all areas or on all calls."
Very terse and sufficiently uninformative that it can be considered
deceptive.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Well, the question should really be "Is this caused by a technical
restriction, or a political one?". Call Return depends on SS7
delivering Calling Party data, which can't be guaranteed for all
calls, so that may be a technical problem. OTOH, ILECs & CLECs might
be demanding extra payment for enabling the service on IXC
(Inter-LATA) calls, and the IXCs might not want to pay the freight.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 04:41:56 GMT
From: "Gene S. Berkowitz" <first.last@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: When Texting Is Wrong
Message-ID: <MPG.24cc6df618e59aa1989963@news.verizon.net>
In article <pan.2009.07.18.23.57.51.789075@myrealbox.com>,
dcstar@myrealbox.com says...
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:44:01 -0400, hancock4 wrote:
> .........
> > In the railroad newsgroup we've been talking about automated ticket
> > vending machines and I've pointed out that in some cases they've caused
> > passengers to miss trains and wait a long time till the next one, or fail
> > to have a ticket and get arrested by the ticket inspectors on 'proof of
> > payment' systems.
> >
> > My feeling is that automation must make things better for the customer
> > than they were before. As a trolley passenger, in the old days I'd merely
> > drop my fare in a farebox when I boarded. Now I have to arrive well in
> > advance and go through a series of menus of a ticket machine.
> >
> > If I err I get arrested. I don't consider that an improvment but
> > apparently I'm alone in that opinion.
>
> In my city a RFID based "chip" fare system for the public transport system
> (trams, trains and buses) is currently being rolled out (at a cost of 3+
> times the original estimate and 4 years late....) and we already have
> draconian regulations that smash users who don't get the current system
> 100% correct.
>
> What will occur when this new technology mixes with these already tough
> regulations is a worry, there could be a lot of ordinary people virtually
> turned into criminals because of inflexible technology combined with
> an inflexible ideology (expressed by these rules and regulations).
Here in the backwater of Boston, Massachusetts, our subway and bus
systems (the MBTA) converted from coin boxes to the "Charlie Card", an
RFID system based on the European OysterCard. The plastic card is free,
you then (re)load it with $$ value with cash or debit/credit card at a
touchscreen kiosk.
The same kiosks also dispense paper "Charlie Tickets", intended for
occasional riders. These mag-stripe cards can also be reloaded, but
tend to get used for single trips, and end up as litter in every
station.
The MBTA system doesn't employ ticket-takers; you either tap your
Charlie Card, or insert your Charlie Ticket at a turnstile; the
appropriate fare is deducted and you proceed through. Buses and
trolleys have the reader where the old coin boxes used to be, adjacent
to the motorman/conductor.
Because regular commuters load up their cards, they only have to visit
the kiosk when their balance is low (which is helpfully displayed as you
pass through the turnstile).
My only real complaints with the system are that the kiosk GUI could be
better, and occasionally it refuses to handle debit cards.
--Gene
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:25:20 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: When Texting Is Wrong
Message-ID: <MPG.24cc78493644e0f6989afb@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <pan.2009.07.18.23.57.51.789075@myrealbox.com>,
dcstar@myrealbox.com says...
>
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:44:01 -0400, hancock4 wrote:
> .........
> > In the railroad newsgroup we've been talking about automated ticket
> > vending machines and I've pointed out that in some cases they've caused
> > passengers to miss trains and wait a long time till the next one, or fail
> > to have a ticket and get arrested by the ticket inspectors on 'proof of
> > payment' systems.
> >
> > My feeling is that automation must make things better for the customer
> > than they were before. As a trolley passenger, in the old days I'd merely
> > drop my fare in a farebox when I boarded. Now I have to arrive well in
> > advance and go through a series of menus of a ticket machine.
> >
> > If I err I get arrested. I don't consider that an improvment but
> > apparently I'm alone in that opinion.
>
> In my city a RFID based "chip" fare system for the public transport system
> (trams, trains and buses) is currently being rolled out (at a cost of 3+
> times the original estimate and 4 years late....) and we already have
> draconian regulations that smash users who don't get the current system
> 100% correct.
>
> What will occur when this new technology mixes with these already tough
> regulations is a worry, there could be a lot of ordinary people virtually
> turned into criminals because of inflexible technology combined with
> an inflexible ideology (expressed by these rules and regulations).
Interestingly our state wide transit agency RIPTA rolled out a new e-
fare system a couple years back. Includes magnetic card reading, cash
acceptance (Up to $20), issues change card, and reads rfid cards.
Works just fine. They phased it into existence over a two or three
months and it went off without a hitch.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:17:38 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: RFID's Security Problem / Are U.S. passport cards and new state driver's licenses with RFID truly secure?
Message-ID: <MPG.24cc767bdfc27ba989afa@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <vt8465p3uakeb1o1u2olvmoaigase1h8m1@4ax.com>,
ttoews@telusplanet.net says...
>
> Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>
> While I do have RFID concerns I'd like to clarify the following paragraph
>
> >Starting this summer, Americans will need passports to travel to
> >Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, and the Caribbean--unless they have passport
> >cards or one of the enhanced driver's licenses that the states of
> >Washington and New York have begun to issue.
>
> To pick nits, Americans will require a passport or an enhanced driver's license to
> return to the USA. This is a requirement of legislation passed by Congress and not
> by the other countries.
>
> Tony (A Canadian)
>
> --
> Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
> Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
> Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
> Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I wonder what will happen to those who forget? Do they have to live in
> the customs shed until their bona fides can be confirmed?
Anyone got the specs on the enhnanced licenses? I know RI went with
facial biometrics and it's encoded on a 2D barcode on our licenses.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:19:40 -0500
From: "Michael G. Koerner" <mgk920@dataex.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: The RISK that is Amazon's Kindle
Message-ID: <Z8CdneAKgMdwMf_XnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@ntd.net>
John Mayson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 6:05 PM, danny burstein<dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>> Not a direct telecom issue, but very, very, close
>
> It's information and the Kindle works over Sprint's PCS network, so
> I'd call it telecom.
>
> So, what happens when someone writes a tell-all book about a current
> or former president and the powers that be don't like it? Will it
> vanish from everyone's Kindles in the middle of the night?
>
> I'm guessing that when you purchase a Kindle and/or books for it, you
> agree to grant them full access to do whatever they want. But it's
> tales like these that make me thankful for the free and open source
> movement.
Stuff like that makes me very glad that I have a personal library full of
real, anonymously purchased 'ink on paper' books.
There has to be a total top-to-bottom rethink of the entire concept of
'copyright' in the next few years due to the rapid changes in technology and
the growing fears that entire segments of our popular culture are vanishing
under iron cloaks of copyright. I'm seriously wondering how much of our pop
culture of the past few decades, especially with music, will be lost on future
generations simply because the copyright owners are trying so hard to keep it
all bottled up. Just try to harmlessly attach a fun rock song from the 1960s
or 1970s to a YouTube video clip, for example.
Another example, how many of us younger than 40 or 50 can remember such
pop-culture icons as Speedy Gonzales or Charlie Chan? Yep, bottled up by the
copyright owners simply because they feel that they are 'un-PC'.
Or even the historically important news coverages of the 2001-09-11 attack....
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:11:13 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Apple Kills Everyone's Buzz At Once: Tethering On AT&T Is Dead, Pre Blocked In iTunes
Message-ID: <p06240827c688d9f80174@[10.0.1.3]>
Apple Kills Everyone's Buzz At Once: Tethering On AT&T Is Dead, Pre
Blocked In iTunes
by Greg Kumparak on July 15, 2009
And yet another game of cat and mouse begins.
Over the past 24 hours, Apple has released updates for both iTunes
and the iPhone beta SDK. While both are seemingly minor on the
feature front, each packs a bit of disappointment for those who had
been using loopholes to their advantage.
...
http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2009/07/15/apple-kills-everyones-buzz-at-once-tethering-on-att-is-dead-pre-blocked-in-itunes/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 08:52:43 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Apple Kills Everyone's Buzz At Once: Tethering On AT&T Is Dead, Pre Blocked In iTunes
Message-ID: <h3vfgb$m0$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Monty Solomon wrote:
> Apple Kills Everyone's Buzz At Once: Tethering On AT&T Is Dead, Pre
> Blocked In iTunes
>
> by Greg Kumparak on July 15, 2009
>
> And yet another game of cat and mouse begins.
> Over the past 24 hours, Apple has released updates for both iTunes
> and the iPhone beta SDK. While both are seemingly minor on the
> feature front, each packs a bit of disappointment for those who had
> been using loopholes to their advantage.
>
> ...
>
> http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2009/07/15/apple-kills-everyones-buzz-at-once-tethering-on-att-is-dead-pre-blocked-in-itunes/
>
It makes it harder, but you can still bring iTunes music to the phone
via D/L the file to your computer; in my case I use a Mac and my iTunes
works fine, but then I have an older Mac using 10.4.9 and not 10.6.
--
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: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:11:26 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Apple To Palm: It's On. The Pre Is Locked Out Of iTunes
Message-ID: <p06240826c688d9f80168@[10.0.1.3]>
Apple To Palm: It's On. The Pre Is Locked Out Of iTunes
Posted by: Arik Hesseldahl on July 15
Reports are coming in that Apple's latest update to its iTunes
software has locked out Palm's Pre. Precentral had the first reports
on the matter that I saw, and now Apple is confirming the matter
itself: "iTunes 8.2.1 is a free software update that provides a
number of important bug fixes," says Apple spokeswoman Natalie
Kerris. "It also disables devices falsely pretending to be iPods,
including the Palm Pre. As we've said before, newer versions of
Apple's iTunes software may no longer provide syncing functionality
with unsupported digital media players."
...
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/2009/07/apple_to_palm_i.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:14:16 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: New iPhone Is Better Model-Or Just Get OS 3.0
Message-ID: <p06240829c688da8a23b5@[10.0.1.3]>
All Things Digital
Personal Technology
New iPhone Is Better Model-Or Just Get OS 3.0
Published on June 17, 2009
by Walter S. Mossberg
Apple Inc.'s iPhone has been a smashing success, redefining the
smart-phone market and creating a new hand-held computing platform
that has attracted over 50,000 third-party apps, or software
programs, in less than a year. With its nearly identical sibling, the
iPod Touch, it has sold a combined 40 million units since June 2007,
when the computer maker plunged into the phone business.
But the iPhone is drawing increasing competition from entrenched
smart-phone makers anxious to emulate the upstart. The most
significant of these is Palm's (PALM) impressive new Pre, which is
off to a good start with an estimated 100,000 or so units sold since
it launched on June 6.
So, like a shark, Apple (AAPL) must keep moving. This week, it is
introducing two new products designed to consolidate and increase its
position as the leader in this new generation of hand-held computers.
I've been testing both and I like them a lot, with some minor caveats.
One of the new products is a refreshed model of the iPhone itself,
called the iPhone 3G S. It looks the same, but offers more speed,
more memory, more battery life, and a few new features, including
video recording and a better camera for still photos.
The second is OS 3.0, the third version of the iPhone's operating
system, which comes on the 3G S and also can be installed on all
prior iPhones and Touches. It includes a much longer list of added
features, some innovative and some long overdue catch-ups to other
phones. These include such widely requested capabilities as cut, copy
and paste; systemwide searching; a wider virtual keyboard; and a
feature called MMS that allows users to send photos and videos
directly to other phones without using email.
Apple last week also made a bold business move to complement these
new products. It decided to keep making the current model, the iPhone
3G, and to slash its price by 50%, to $99. That's an unheard-of price
tag for a pocket computer of this power and versatility, and gives
millions of additional consumers a reason to choose the iPhone
instead of a competitor.
In my tests, both the new phone and the new operating system
performed well, with a few small exceptions. I believe the two
strengthen the iPhone platform, make it likely the iPhone will
continue to attract scads of apps, and are good for consumers.
But I also regard these changes as more evolutionary than
revolutionary, and I don't think this latest iPhone is as compelling
an upgrade for the average user as the 3G model was last year for
owners of the original 2007 iPhone.
...
http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20090617/new-iphone-is-better-model-or-just-get-os-30/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:14:48 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Some E-Books Are More Equal Than Others
Message-ID: <p0624082ac688dad334a6@[10.0.1.3]>
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/some-e-books-are-more-equal-than-others/
Pogue's Posts - The Latest in Technology From David Pogue
July 17, 2009, 12:57 pm
Some E-Books Are More Equal Than Others
This morning, hundreds of Amazon Kindle owners awoke to discover that
books by a certain famous author had mysteriously disappeared from
their e-book readers. These were books that they had bought and paid
for-thought they owned.
A screen shot from Amazon.com The MobileReference edition of the
novel, "Nineteen Eighty-four," by George Orwell that was deleted from
Kindle e-book readers by Amazon.com.
But no, apparently the publisher changed its mind about offering an
electronic edition, and apparently Amazon, whose business lives and
dies by publisher happiness, caved. It electronically deleted all
books by this author from people's Kindles and credited their
accounts for the price.
This is ugly for all kinds of reasons. Amazon says that this sort of
thing is "rare," but that it can happen at all is unsettling; we've
been taught to believe that e-books are, you know, just like books,
only better. Already, we've learned that they're not really like
books, in that once we're finished reading them, we can't resell or
even donate them. But now we learn that all sales may not even be
final.
As one of my readers noted, it's like Barnes & Noble sneaking into
our homes in the middle of the night, taking some books that we've
been reading off our nightstands, and leaving us a check on the
coffee table.
You want to know the best part? The juicy, plump, dripping irony?
The author who was the victim of this Big Brotherish plot was none
other than George Orwell. And the books were "1984" and "Animal Farm."
Scary.
* Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:54:29 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Message-ID: <p0624082bc688f1b89263@[10.0.1.3]>
A New World: Scheduling E-Books
By MOTOKO RICH and BRAD STONE
The New York Times
July 15, 2009
Dan Brown's fans have waited six long years for "The Lost Symbol,"
his follow-up to the megablockbuster novel "The Da Vinci Code" that
is being published in hardcover on Sept. 15.
Will those who want to read it in e-book form wait a little longer?
It is a question that Mr. Brown's publisher, the Knopf Doubleday
Publishing Group, is weighing as it plans the rollout of what it
hopes will be a book-selling sensation. The publisher has announced a
first hardcover run of five million copies, but Suzanne Herz, a
spokeswoman for Knopf Doubleday, said the publisher had not decided
when to release an electronic version.
Other publishers are mulling release dates for fall titles. Twelve,
an imprint of Grand Central Publishing, said it had not set a date
for the e-book edition of "True Compass," the memoir by Senator
Edward M. Kennedy that is being released in hardcover on Oct. 6.
Twelve has announced a first print run of 1.5 million copies.
No topic is more hotly debated in book circles at the moment than the
timing, pricing and ultimate impact of e-books on the financial
health of publishers and retailers. Publishers are grappling with
e-book release dates partly because they are trying to understand how
digital editions affect demand for hardcover books. A hardcover
typically sells for anywhere from $25 to $35, while the most common
price for an e-book has quickly become $9.99.
Amazon.com, which sells electronic editions for its Kindle device,
has effectively made $9.99 the de facto price for most best sellers,
a price that publishers believe will reduce their profit margins over
time. Barnes & Noble, through its Fictionwise arm, also sells best
sellers in e-book form, for $9.95.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/books/15ebooks.html
***** Moderator's Note *****
The question is: how much does it _cost_ to put a hardcover book on
store shelves, and how much of the price goes to the vendor?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:13:15 -0500
From: gordonb.480j8@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Message-ID: <hZ-dnYCbTP5Wff7XnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
>A New World: Scheduling E-Books
>
>By MOTOKO RICH and BRAD STONE
>The New York Times
>July 15, 2009
>
>Dan Brown's fans have waited six long years for "The Lost Symbol,"
>his follow-up to the megablockbuster novel "The Da Vinci Code" that
>is being published in hardcover on Sept. 15.
>
>Will those who want to read it in e-book form wait a little longer?
Why would I want to read it in e-book form, which may evaporate at
any time (This Means You, Amazon)? I don't see that as being worth
9.99 microcents, including "shipping" and tax.
>It is a question that Mr. Brown's publisher, the Knopf Doubleday
>Publishing Group, is weighing as it plans the rollout of what it
>hopes will be a book-selling sensation. The publisher has announced a
>first hardcover run of five million copies, but Suzanne Herz, a
>spokeswoman for Knopf Doubleday, said the publisher had not decided
>when to release an electronic version.
Has he decided when to disappear the electronic version?
>Amazon.com, which sells electronic editions for its Kindle device,
No, it sells receipts. Nothing more. And if they figure out a way
to make the receipt vanish ...
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:54:29 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Amazon Erases Orwell Books From Kindle Devices
Message-ID: <p0624082cc688f1c89629@[10.0.1.3]>
Amazon Erases Orwell Books From Kindle
By BRAD STONE
The New York Times
July 18, 2009
In George Orwell's "1984," government censors erase all traces of
news articles embarrassing to Big Brother by sending them down an
incineration chute called the "memory hole."
On Friday, it was "1984" and another Orwell book, "Animal Farm," that
were dropped down the memory hole - by Amazon.com.
In a move that angered customers and generated waves of online pique,
Amazon remotely deleted some digital editions of the books from the
Kindle devices of readers who had bought them.
An Amazon spokesman, Drew Herdener, said in an e-mail message that
the books were added to the Kindle store by a company that did not
have rights to them, using a self-service function. "When we were
notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copies
from our systems and from customers' devices, and refunded
customers," he said.
Amazon effectively acknowledged that the deletions were a bad idea.
"We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove
books from customers' devices in these circumstances," Mr. Herdener
said.
Customers whose books were deleted indicated that MobileReference, a
digital publisher, had sold them. An e-mail message to SoundTells,
the company that owns MobileReference, was not immediately returned.
Digital books bought for the Kindle are sent to it over a wireless
network. Amazon can also use that network to synchronize electronic
books between devices - and apparently to make them vanish.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:54:29 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Driven to Distraction / Drivers and Legislators Dismiss Cellphone Risks
Message-ID: <p06240824c68880404e64@[10.0.1.3]>
Driven to Distraction
Drivers and Legislators Dismiss Cellphone Risks
By MATT RICHTEL
The New York Times
July 19, 2009
OKLAHOMA CITY - On his 15th birthday, Christopher Hill got his first
cellphone. For his 16th, he was given a used red Ford Ranger pickup,
a source of pride he washed every week.
Mr. Hill, a diligent student with a reputation for helping neighbors,
also took pride in his clean driving record. "Not a speeding ticket,
not a fender bender, nothing," he said.
Until last Sept. 3. Mr. Hill, then 20, left the parking lot of a
Goodwill store where he had spotted a dresser he thought might
interest a neighbor. He dialed her to pass along news of the find.
Mr. Hill was so engrossed in the call that he ran a red light and
didn't notice Linda Doyle's small sport utility vehicle until the
last second. He hit her going 45 miles per hour. She was pronounced
dead shortly after.
Later, a policeman asked Mr. Hill what color the light had been. "I
never saw it," he answered.
Extensive research shows the dangers of distracted driving. Studies
say that drivers using phones are four times as likely to cause a
crash as other drivers, and the likelihood that they will crash is
equal to that of someone with a .08 percent blood alcohol level, the
point at which drivers are generally considered intoxicated. Research
also shows that hands-free devices do not eliminate the risks, and
may worsen them by suggesting that the behavior is safe.
A 2003 Harvard study estimated that cellphone distractions caused
2,600 traffic deaths every year, and 330,000 accidents that result in
moderate or severe injuries.
Yet Americans have largely ignored that research. Instead, they
increasingly use phones, navigation devices and even laptops to turn
their cars into mobile offices, chat rooms and entertainment centers,
making roads more dangerous.
A disconnect between perception and reality worsens the problem. New
studies show that drivers overestimate their own ability to safely
multitask, even as they worry about the dangers of others doing it.
Device makers and auto companies acknowledge the risks of
multitasking behind the wheel, but they aggressively develop and
market gadgets that cause distractions.
Police in almost half of all states make no attempt to gather data on
the problem. They are not required to ask drivers who cause accidents
whether they were distracted by a phone or other device. Even when
officers do ask, some drivers are not forthcoming.
The federal government warns against talking on a cellphone while
driving, but no state legislature has banned it. This year, state
legislators introduced about 170 bills to address distracted driving,
but passed fewer than 10.
Five states and the District of Columbia require drivers who talk on
cellphones to use hands-free devices, but research shows that using
headsets can be as dangerous as holding a phone because the
conversation distracts drivers from focusing on the road.
Fourteen states have passed measures to ban texting while driving,
and the New York State Assembly sent such a bill to the governor on
Friday.
The states that rejected any efforts to limit distracted driving this
year include Oklahoma.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/technology/19distracted.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:00:17 -0800
From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 911 service center troubles
Message-ID: <h3vms2$oav$1@blue.rahul.net>
The Moderator wrote:
> Well, if cellular users can dial 911, then the "911 fees" would be
> justified, n'est-ce-pas?
In California, 911 on a cell phone always went to the CHP until about
2005 when the rules were changed to require cellular companies to be
able to locate the phone. Now the system tries to do something smart
with the calls, usually sending them to the nearest city even if you're
on the Interstate.
Most of the time, when I've used it, I've wanted the CHP; I wish that
agency would re-establish its own special number (since I doubt you can
still ask for "Zenith 12000" and get through).
I also recall that when this service was new, CHP got flooded with
accidental 911 calls from people who forgot to lock the phone's keypad
before stuffing it in a pocket or crowded purse. If this still happens,
it would not be at all unreasonable for local governments to want to
recoup the cost by applying a "911 tax" to cell phone owners.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:15:10 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: RFID's Security Problem / Are U.S. passport cards and new state driver's licenses with RFID truly secure?
Message-ID: <h40nfu$69j$1@news.albasani.net>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>I wonder what will happen to those [trying to enter or re-enter the
>United States at a land or sea crossing] who forget [to bring acceptable
>identification]? Do they have to live in the customs shed until their
>bona fides can be confirmed?
Actually, yes. There may be fines in addition to significant delay.
For those who need information, look for Western Hemisphere Travel
Intitiative on the Customs and Border Patrol (Department of Homeland
Security) Web site. This is the program that enforces the changes made
in law (Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004) that
eliminated the oral declaration of US citizenship to re-enter the United
States from Canada, Mexico, 17 nations and territories of the Caribbean
region, and Bermuda at land border crossings or sea ports-of-entry.
http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/vacation/ready_set_go
.
http://getyouhome.gov/ for land and sea document requirements
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_3256.html for the 17 nations
and territories of the Caribbean region
***** Moderator's Note *****
The last time I visited Lake Champlain in Vermont, there were signs at
the boat docks that directed boaters to call certain numbers if
they were entering the U.S. - it seemed like a fairly informal
system. Is that still allowed?
------------------------------
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 (21 messages)
******************************
|
or 