29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for August 11, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 200 : "text" Format
====== 29 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 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: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 22:38:16 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: L.A. County starting over on emergency communications system
Message-ID: <MPG.28aa67a368dc2f45989d55@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <CFoyC1AOfyNOFwro@wisty.plus.com>, PCook@wisty.plus.com
says...
>
> In message <4E34BE67.9010001@verizon.net>, Tom Horne
> <hornetd@verizon.net> writes
> > "Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt." And likewise "Nobody ever gets fired
> > for specifying Microsoft - er, Motorola."
>
> Sorry Tom, IBM were sowing FUD around the computer industry years
> before Bill Gates was even a twinkle in his father's eye, and "Nobody
> ever gets fired for buying IBM" was also one of their key weapons in
> the battle with the competition.
And in recent news IBM backed away from the Blue Waters program with the
NCSA.
Looks like they bit off a bit more than they could chew.
http://www.ncsa.illinois.edu/BlueWaters/system.html
***** Moderator's Note *****
It sounds like a mutually-agreed-upon tombstone for a project that got
out of control. Either IBM tried to pad the specs - a time-honored
practice in government contracts - or NCSA realized that they were
fighting above their weight: either way, it's very rare for a major
player to walk away from a high-visability (and high-prestige) project
such as "Blue Waters".
I wonder what the straw was that broke this electronic camel's back.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 22:56:21 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Wider-range cordless phones?
Message-ID: <MPG.28aa6bdb71852fc5989d56@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <4E3759EF.1050409@thadlabs.com>, thad@thadlabs.com says...
> FWIW, after taking a shower and forgetting to close the bathroom door
> afterwards, one of my smoke detectors 30 feet away will sound its siren.
That one is easy to explain. Americium is a weak alpha emitter. It is
used in smoke detectors because smoke (and steam!) can block the
emissions of Americium.
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 22:58:21 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Wider-range cordless phones?
Message-ID: <MPG.28aa6c5dd7ab85a7989d57@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <3223CD20-EF71-4C90-A02B-33CD3A1A3847@sonic.net>, remonaco@sonic.net says...
> I had a Casio "G'zOne" cel phone that was made to military
> specifications, which I purchased because it was waterproof. I used it
> in the shower all the time - it was truly waterproof and quite
> convenient for those calls that persist in being perfectly timed for
> when you usually cannot answer them.
Very interesting. I don't think my Samsung Galaxy would hold up too
well if it got wet, but my Yaesu VX-7RB is just dying to go out and
play in the rain.
The latter is gasketed like nobody's busines and is rated to be able to
withstand a dunking with no ill effect.
The gasketing/water tightness is interesting on that radio. Even the
earpiece/mic connector screws down and forms a seal.
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 08:14:14 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: London Rioters' Unrequited Love For BlackBerry
Message-ID: <p0624088bca66d4edbf05@[10.0.1.4]>
London Rioters' Unrequited Love For BlackBerry
BY NIDHI SUBBARAMAN
Aug 8, 2011
Rioters in North London have been using BlackBerry Messagess to rally,
presuming RIM's phone-to-phone, encrypted messages won't land in the
hands of authorities. But in an increasingly familiar move, RIM has
now pledged to work with those authorities.
...
http://www.fastcompany.com/1772171/london-protestors-unrequited-love-for-blackberry
***** Moderator's Note *****
The problem with organizing against the government is that protesters
sometimes forget that governments have tax collectors as well as riot
gear: if one doesn't work, the other will.
Of course, there are always other ways to encrypt messages, but the
fact remains that so long as the crown can identify who sent a
message, it can practice rubber-hose cryptography. It will take a
while, but the protestors will have to resort to using other means to
keep their electronic communications out of Her Majesty's inbox.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: 9 Aug 2011 09:50:22 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: AT&T to revoke unlimited data plans from some users
Message-ID: <j1rduu$8e2$1@panix2.panix.com>
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>Speaking of tethering (i.e. sharing your phone's broadband connection
>with other devices), can someone explain to me the justification for
>charging extra for this?
The purpose of the company is to charge money. Providing telephone service
is something that they do only so that they can charge money for it. This
being the case, the company spends a large amount of time trying to figure out
new ways to charge you money.
The justification for charging extra, therefore, is that they can charge you
extra and you'll pay it.
>I pay my provider $X for 2 GB of data per month. How does it cost
>them more if I use this data with my laptop versus my phone? My phone
>can only RX/TX bits so fast, so it's not like I'm hogging bandwidth.
>I can't help but think it's just a way for them to make more money.
>If there's a technical reason that I'm not understanding, I'd love to
>hear it.
The cost of providing the service has little connection with what they
charge for the service. You can think of the telcos as being sort of
like vacuum cleaners that attach to your bank account.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 11:15:09 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: AT&T to revoke unlimited data plans from some users
Message-ID: <CALtjCn+vaJf0+y4PBHn1dq1FReOcokgoy-mSs1XTiVQPVy09vg@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks for the feedback about the added cost of tethering. You've
confirmed what I've suspected.
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 23:04:52 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: AT&T increases voice mail security
Message-ID: <MPG.28aa6ddc12e2281c989d58@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <p06240867ca63628bd4ec@[10.0.1.4]>, monty@roscom.com says...
>
> AT&T increases voice mail security
> Password meant to deter hackers
>
> By Hiawatha Bray
> Globe Staff / August 6, 2011
>
> AT&T Inc. is changing the default method by which cellular customers
> check their voice mail, after reports that the company's policies
> made messages more vulnerable to hackers than on other cellphone
> carriers.
>
> The giant telecommunications company said yesterday it will start
> requiring users to enter a password to access their voice mails from
> their own cellphones. Until now, AT&T users calling from their own
> phones would immediately get access to their voice mails without
> entering a password.
>
> http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2011/08/06/att_increases_voice_mail_security/
So I wonder, has Sprint fixed theirs yet? They did the exact same thing
which made it REALLY easy to hack into someones voicemail.
I clued a friend about MagigJack and a little PERL script proxies the MJ
connection and lets you set your Caller ID to that of the cell phone.
Then dial the phone via MagicJack and voila, you're in!
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 10:28:54 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein.SeeSigSpambait@wn2.wn.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: "splicing" into a fiber optic trunk
Message-ID: <20110809142829.D0127550E@mailout.easydns.com>
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 18:07:49 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
<dannyb@panix.com> wrote,
>Anyone familiar with, or can point to, a "how to"
>in regards to splicing (term used loosely) into
>a telecom fiber line?
>
>It's a legit purpose...
>
>We've got an actual _alternative_, as in second option, facilities
>based telco near a site I'm helping spec. Actually three options..
>
>there's the entrenched telco, there's a real local company
>with its own physical plant, and there a cableco.
>
>The building already has copper from all three, with individual
>offices choosing which ones to use.
>
>We'd love to get a fiber run into the complex.
>
>The independent telco has a fiber run about 100 feet away.
>
>We're just starting the discussion with them, but I'd
>like to have enough info to be dangerous in the negotiations.
>
>So... the key question is... can they "splice" into the
>fiber that's just about next door, or do they have to
>run a new line the distance to the CO.
>
>for that matter, how do they physically do splicing
>these days? would it be passive mirrors, or a Magic
>Box [tm] that would get installed on the pole?
You're not "splicing in" to an existing, lit strand. That would not
work -- it could be done under some circumstances for wiretapping
purposes, but that's not legal unless you're the authorized
LEA. What you're apparently asking is how do you physically get
service brought in to a building when the fiber passes nearby, right?
The general idea is that you need to take a spare strand from the
fiber and splice it to a lateral fiber going in to the building. So
let's say that the passing fiber has 288-strands. First off, they
can only cut in to the fiber where they have some slack, so most
fiber providers have slack loops at various intervals. That's what
those "snowshoes" up on the poles are for, quite visible in FiOS
areas -- about a hundred feet of slack fiber wrapped around two
snowshoes facing each other. This slack lets the fiber be lowered to
the street where they can easily work on it.
Then the technician cuts open the outer sheath, finds the buffer tube
(usually 12 strands apiece), opens that, selects the desired
color-coded strands, and splices them to the lateral cable. The
splice itself is usually done with a fusion splicer, a tool that will
set you back at least ten grand for a cheap one. Then it's all
nicely closed up and put back onto the slack loop holder. The
lateral might well be longer than the distance from your building to
the pipe, depending on where the slack loop was and thus where they
accessed it.
This is pretty standard practice nowadays. If it's aerial fiber, it
only costs a few hundred dollars of labor for two guys and a cherry
picker truck. Plus they run the lateral to you. Underground is a
little different; it's done in a manhole, but there are still slack
loops down there. Pulling an underground lateral into a building can
require some fancy digging under the street, sidewalks, and yards, so
it can be very expensive (five figures per site).
--
Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701
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) 2009 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 (8 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues