|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 203 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: 911 service center troubles
Re: 911 service center troubles
Re: Walter's Telephones
Re: Walter's Telephones
Re: Walter's Telephones
Re: Walter's Telephones
Re: Walter's Telephones
Re: Walter's Telephones
Re: Walter's Telephones
Re: Walter's Telephones
Re: Walter's Telephones
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
DOT chief 'deeply concerned' about dangers of cell-phone use while driving
The Irksome Cellphone Industry
Re: The Irksome Cellphone Industry
Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Re: 911 service center troubles
Dipping into 911 funds
Re: Dipping into 911 funds
What is this device called
Re: What is this device called
Re: What is this device called
Re: What is this device called
What is this device called
Re: How many conversations on a single cell tower/site and other questions?
Mass 201 CMR 17: A Survival Guide for the Anxious
Re: Cellphones and driving
Wireless speed loss
Stock Traders Find Speed Pays, in Milliseconds
Polling switches for record information - any guidance?
====== 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: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:00:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <alpine.LN8.2.00.0907231158320.5090@tintin.mayson.us>
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 7/22/2009 9:46:57 PM Central Daylight Time,
> hornetd@verizon.net writes:
>
>> Here [in Maryland] our firefighters, including yours truly, can
>> ticket for hydrant and fire lane violations. Hydrants are thirty
>> dollars and fire lanes are two hundred fifty dollars. I have seen
>> several repeat hydrant offenders but never a repeat fire lane
>> offender.
>
> The cops often park in the fire lanes when they're going in a store or
> restaurant. So do fire trucks when they're shopping at a supermarket.
While on duty they need quick access to their vehicles. With fire
trucks there's often no other place to park. In both cases should the
vehicles need to be moved a dispatcher can quickly contact them as
they [will] probably be involved in the emergency response.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:22:09 GMT
From: Tom Horne <hornetd@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <RD3am.704$646.139@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 7/22/2009 9:46:57 PM Central Daylight Time,
> hornetd@verizon.net writes:
>
>> Here [in Maryland] our firefighters, including yours truly, can
>> ticket for hydrant and fire lane violations. Hydrants are thirty
>> dollars and fire lanes are two hundred fifty dollars. I have seen
>> several repeat hydrant offenders but never a repeat fire lane
>> offender.
>
> The cops often park in the fire lanes when they're going in a store or
> restaurant. So do fire trucks when they're shopping at a supermarket.
>
> --
> Wes Leatherock
> wesrock@aol.com
> wleathus@yahoo.com
>
Wes,
I cannot answer for the cop shop but a radio equipped fire crew
parking in the fire lane is not a problem. Did you know that driving
over a hose line can throw the nozzle crew around violently, damage
the hose, and in extreme cases block the flow of water completely?
Preventing such occurrences and reserving access for fire service
operations are what fire lanes are for. The fire lane provides space
for laying hose, throwing ladders, and deploying heavy stream
appliances. [Unlike the average person,] the fire crew is not going
to panic about being trapped until the call is over, and then drive out
over the hose lines, and wrap them around the cars axle thus depriving
the attack crew of water and delaying the attack on the fire.
How do I know this? I've lived it. It's a lot of fun making a search
in the back of a burning mercantile with the smoke banking down to
knee level and having the supporting nozzle crew suddenly start
yelling "We've lost our water boys - get out now."
--
Tom Horne
"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison
***** Moderator's Note *****
Wes,
I think you pushed the big red button that's labelled "Don't push this
button"!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:02:24 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 911 service center troubles
Message-ID: <MPG.24d261a617bfaf3989b0e@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <h461h7$3s6$2@reader1.panix.com>, dannyb@panix.com says...
> In NYC, for example, "911" is, indeed, the number to call for
> "fender bender car crashes". The tow trucks [a] are dispatched
> under contract arrangements with... the NYPD.
>
> [a] the various tow truck companies place bids for contracts
> on the limited access highways, and the winner gets all calls
> for that area for the duration. In other parts of the city the
> tows are sent via a "rotation" deal.
This seems to be prevalent in all cities. I know there was a controversy
with the Providence Police Department and a certain towing firm who got
all the towing business in the city. The smaller tow operators made a
major stink about that.
***** Moderator's Note *****
A song by the late Steve Goodman comes to mind:
To me, way, hey, tow them away,
The Lincoln Park Pirates are we,
From Wilmette to Gary, there's nothin' so hairy
And we always collect our fee!
So it's way, hey, tow 'em away,
We plunder the streets of your town,
Be it Edsel or Chevy, there's no car too heavy,
And no one can make us shut down.
"The Lincoln Park Pirates"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:03:25 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 911 service center troubles
Message-ID: <MPG.24d261e42df90efa989b0f@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <_LO9m.11350$E61.8799@newsfe09.iad>, sam@coldmail.com says...
>
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > On Jul 16, 11:07 pm, Wesr...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >>A further additional benefit was that you could make a credit card or
> >>collect call without having to deposit a coin. Important if you
> >>didn't have a coin available. Yes, it was rare, but credit cards (and
> >>I think collect) calls could be made with a credit card.
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean that "credit cards were rare". I'm pretty
> > sure the Bell System did not accept general cards like American
> > Express, Visa, or Mastercard (and their predecessors). However, the
> > Bell System issued subscribers its own credit card for free, and this
> > was popular for business. It was in effect an automatic "bill to
> > third number" card.
> >
> >
> It was a Bell System Telephone Credit Card. I had one.
Yep, I remember the NyNex calling cards - they were your home phone
number plus four digits.
Easily hacked too.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:11:37 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <MPG.24d263d36599fa5d989b11@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <4A67D765.6090604@annsgarden.com>, nmclain@annsgarden.com
says...
> TV Channel 6 was the ONLY channel where this trick worked because
> Channel 6 was the only television broadcast channel adjacent to the FM
> broadcast band. The signal it transmitted at 87.75 MHz was not a
> licensed FM radio station; it was part of the television broadcast
> station licensed to use TV Channel 6.
>
>
Not to mention that channel 6 video sat right in the 6m band.
***** Moderator's Note *****
The Six-Meter Amateur band is from 50 to 54 Megahertz. The old TV
Channel 6 was from 82 to 88 Megahertz. Since the FCC once sent me a
letter about a Television Interference complaint from a man who lived
a block or two away from me, I remember having to look up the TV
assignments - pre internet, mind you, when we had libraries that were
only open during snowstorms - and calculating the harmonics of my
Eight megahertz oscillator to diagnose the problem.
Long story short, I don't think TV Channel 6's video is near the Six
Meter ham band.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:36:54 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <0bydndQEGcGrbPTXnZ2dnUVZ_oNi4p2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <MPG.24d263d36599fa5d989b11@news.eternal-september.org>,
T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
[sneck]
>
>Not to mention that channel 6 video sat right in the 6m band.
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>The Six-Meter Amateur band is from 50 to 54 Megahertz. The old TV
>Channel 6 was from 82 to 88 Megahertz. Since the FCC once sent me a
>letter about a Television Interference complaint from a man who lived
>a block or two away from me, I remember having to look up the TV
>assignments - pre internet, mind you, when we had libraries that were
>only open during snowstorms - and calculating the harmonics of my
>Eight megahertz oscillator to diagnose the problem.
>
>Long story short, I don't think TV Channel 6's video is near the Six
>Meter ham band.
>
Channel _one_, back when it existed, included the upper half of the spectrum
now allocated for 6m amateur operations.
***** Moderator's Note *****
What was Channel one's allocation? When was it discontinued, and for
what purpose?
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <b4b3fbf9-2dd6-41db-9c90-700d629857e1@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 22, 11:58 pm, Neal McLain <nmcl...@annsgarden.com> wrote:
> > On another newsgroup I was disappointed that correspondents strongly
> > supported the _bureaucratic_ reasons "it can't be done", even though
> > _physically/technically_ it certainly can be done.
>
> If by "it", you mean simultaneous transmission of a TV audio signal on
> an FM carrier in the FM broadcast band, sure it can be done. Any TV
> station can apply for an FM license for that purpose. And if it can
> prove to the FCC that such an authorization is in the "public interest,
> convenience, and necessity," it might even be able to get it.
My feeling is that since they broadcast audio on 87.7 FM a few weeks
ago, they should continue to be able to broadcast audio on 87.7 FM now
_without_ jumping through numerous licensing hoops to be allowed to do
so.
Or are you saying that there's another organization chumping at the
bit to broadcast FM at 87.7, and, that frequency is far enough away
from others, and, usable? (Some other people suggested 87.7 actually
isn't 'truly' on the FM dial being too low, but dials get it anyway.)
Another poster noted radio stations aren't as valuable as they used to
be. In the Philadelphia market there has been a fair amount of
turnover and format changes. A few stations seemed to take in very
"low-end" advertisements (semi-scams, such as miracle health
supplements) That seems to me to indicate there isn't as much value to
the station because they're desperate to take crappy ads.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Lisa, the FCC isn't likely to allow channel six to be used for FM
broadcasting. Here's why:
1. Sauce for the Goose, Sauce for the Gander: if the former holder of
the Channel Six license gets to bring in revenue from FM
broadcasting, then the former holders of other channels are
entitled to do it too.
2. It's true that NTSC TV stations broadcast their audio using FM,
but they're only allowed to use 25 Kilohertz deviation, not the 75
KHz which is standard in the FM broadcast band. That's why when
listerners tuned their FM radios to Channel Six's audio, it would
always sound quieter than regular FM broadcasts: NTSC is a
different system, with different design criteria, and is not
suited to the transmission of high-fidelity music.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:58:07 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <h4clmf$24e2$3@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <b4b3fbf9-2dd6-41db-9c90-700d629857e1@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>My feeling is that since they broadcast audio on 87.7 FM a few weeks
>ago, they should continue to be able to broadcast audio on 87.7 FM now
>_without_ jumping through numerous licensing hoops to be allowed to do
>so.
>
>Or are you saying that there's another organization chumping at the
>bit to broadcast FM at 87.7, and, that frequency is far enough away
>from others, and, usable?
"chumping"?
WPVI is still on channel 6. There are some experiments underway at
another channel-6 station that kept its old channel, WRGB in
Schenectady, to determine how compatible standard wideband FM
broadcasts are with ATSC digital signals. WRGB is currently
broadcasting in FM on 87.9 MHz (rather than 87.75), although observers
are still trying to figure out what the FCC has actually authorized
for this experiment.
In major markets, there will be (broadcast television) stations that
wish to operate on channel 6, assuming the FCC doesn't decide to
reallocate channels 5 and 6 to radio broadcasting, as it is currently
considering.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:03:51 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <XNCdndx3epUaavTXnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <b4b3fbf9-2dd6-41db-9c90-700d629857e1@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Jul 22, 11:58 pm, Neal McLain <nmcl...@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>
>> > On another newsgroup I was disappointed that correspondents strongly
>> > supported the _bureaucratic_ reasons "it can't be done", even though
>> > _physically/technically_ it certainly can be done.
>>
>> If by "it", you mean simultaneous transmission of a TV audio signal on
>> an FM carrier in the FM broadcast band, sure it can be done. Any TV
>> station can apply for an FM license for that purpose. And if it can
>> prove to the FCC that such an authorization is in the "public interest,
>> convenience, and necessity," it might even be able to get it.
>
>My feeling is that since they broadcast audio on 87.7 FM a few weeks
>ago, they should continue to be able to broadcast audio on 87.7 FM now
>_without_ jumping through numerous licensing hoops to be allowed to do
>so.
Why should they get any such _special_treatment_?
Do you believe that -every- Television broadcast station should continue
to be able to broadcast audio at the sub-carrier frequency of their old
Analog license?
>Or are you saying that there's another organization chumping at the
>bit to broadcast FM at 87.7, and, that frequency is far enough away
>from others, and, usable? (Some other people suggested 87.7 actually
>isn't 'truly' on the FM dial being too low, but dials get it anyway.)
That's right. it _is_ *outside* the official FM band. *NOBODY* can, or
_ever_could_ get a license for an audio-only FM transmitter on that frequency.
In point of actual fact the TV station didn't broadcast on _that_ frequency
either. TV stations broadcast a single, _complex_, signal -- an amplitude-
modulated, single-sideband, vestigial carrier signal, to be precise -- one
component of which is a medium-deviation frequency-modulated 5.75 MHz 'tone'.
By 'sheer coincidence' -- since -this- 'tone' (technically a "sub-carrier") is
of constant amplitude -- it "looks" similar enough to a conventional broadcast
band FM signal that a conventional FM receiver can extract the audio from it.
There is _NO_ guarantee that -any- particular "FM broadcast band" receiver
will, in actuality, be able to tune 'far enough' outside the FM broadcast band
to pick up that broadcast.
The -only- reason it works, _when_ it does, is 'cheap manufacturing' of the
receiving devices.
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>Lisa, the FCC isn't likely to allow channel six to be used for FM
>broadcasting. Here's why:
>
>1. Sauce for the Goose, Sauce for the Gander: if the former holder of
> the Channel Six license gets to bring in revenue from FM
> broadcasting, then the former holders of other channels are
> entitled to do it too.
And, the FCC does _not_ regulate radio use at the Newfoundland aviation facility
that was the traditional starting point for trans-Atlantic flights via Thule,
Greenland.
Thus, no sauce for Gander. (unless the Canadians order it, it's _their_ base :)
>
>2. It's true that NTSC TV stations broadcast their audio using FM,
> but they're only allowed to use 25 Kilohertz deviation, not the 75
> KHz which is standard in the FM broadcast band. That's why when
> listerners tuned their FM radios to Channel Six's audio, it would
> always sound quieter than regular FM broadcasts: NTSC is a
> different system, with different design criteria, and is not
> suited to the transmission of high-fidelity music.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:07:02 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <4A68FB26.8000407@thadlabs.com>
On 7/23/2009 8:24 AM, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <4A67D765.6090604@annsgarden.com>,
> Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Furthermore, the number of available FM channels is limited. At the
>> very minimum, signals should be separated by 0.4 MHz (alternate FM
>> channels); this imposes a maximum of 50 channels in a given market.
>
> Actually, 0.8 MHz is the spacing. FM stations are required to protect
> first-, second-, and third-adjacent channels, and the standard for
> second- and third-adjacent spacing are the same. See sections 73.207,
> 73.213, and 73.215 of the FCC Rules.
So, who gets their wrist slapped when that spacing is violated? :-)
Here (San Francisco Bay Area, San Jose to San Francisco, Oakland, Santa
Rosa), the FM stations are mostly at 0.4MHz separation but there are
some commercial stations spaced at only 0.2MHz.
I didn't realize that until the station I followed for 20 years just
changed its playlist and I had to seek a replacement. The best list
of SF Bay Area FM stations is here (sorted by frequency):
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/tvradio/media/radio_fm2.DTL
And since I built an SCA decoder into one of my FM tuners, I also recently
checked to see how many stations had alternate programming: a LOT.
***** Moderator's Note *****
SCA is an acronym, which stands for Subsidiary Communications
Authorization: it's a system that allows FM station to "piggyback"
low-quality analog signals on their regular broadcast channel, for
reception only by licensees who have special receivers. It's usually
used for Muzak or similar background-noise services, although I know a
station in Boston which uses its SCA allocation to carry "The
Physicians Network", which is a never-ending source of amusement if
you listen to the ads.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:40:42 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <h4cklq$24e2$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <4A68FB26.8000407@thadlabs.com>,
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>Here (San Francisco Bay Area, San Jose to San Francisco, Oakland, Santa
>Rosa), the FM stations are mostly at 0.4MHz separation but there are
>some commercial stations spaced at only 0.2MHz.
The Bay Area is a hundred miles long from north to south, with
mountain ranges on both sides providing terrain shadowing that allows
closer spacing. It's not a typical radio market by any stretch. Even
co-channel class-As need only be spaced 112 km apart!
New York is a more typical example, with class-Bs at 92.3, 93.1, 93.9,
94.7 (Newark), 95.5, 96.3, 97.1, 97.9, 98.7, 99.5, 100.3 (Newark),
101.1, 101.9, 102.7, 103.5 (Lake Success), 104.3, 105.1, 105.9 (class
B1, Newark), 106.7, and 107.5. (With the exception of the 94.7, all
transmit from the Empire State Building, and most are on the master
antenna there.) The second-adjacents are, for the most part, way out
in the suburbs, with the exception of a few stations that are "pre-'64
short-spaced" and don't have to observe the second-adjacent spacing
restrictions (which were changed in 1964 when the current system of FM
classes was introduced).
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 03:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <dc895cc2-c692-4a3d-b0bb-984a0cc26b01@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 23, 10:24 am, woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> In article <4A67D765.6090...@annsgarden.com>,
> Neal McLain <nmcl...@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>
> >But "public interest, convenience, and necessity" is a pretty high
> >standard.
>
> Not particularly. Home shopping stations and satellators meet the
> PICON standard as the FCC interprets it today.
>
> >The applicant would have to prove (this is the _bureaucratic_ reason)
> >that such use of an FM broadcast channel would be a better use for
> >the channel than a separately-programmed FM broadcast station.
>
> The FCC does not consider the nature of the programming in making its
> licensing decisions, and has not used the "comparative hearing" system
> in two decades. If an application is technically feasible, not
> mutually exclusive with other pending applications, and would not
> cause the licensee to exceed the station ownership limit in the
> market, then it will be granted.
>
> >Furthermore, the number of available FM channels is limited. At the
> >very minimum, signals should be separated by 0.4 MHz (alternate FM
> >channels); this imposes a maximum of 50 channels in a given market.
>
> Actually, 0.8 MHz is the spacing. FM stations are required to protect
> first-, second-, and third-adjacent channels, and the standard for
> second- and third-adjacent spacing are the same. See sections 73.207,
> 73.213, and 73.215 of the FCC Rules. Other taboos include the 10.7
> MHz IF (intermediate frequency) used in superheterodyne FM receivers
> and various (mostly obsolete) requirements for the protection of
> nearby analog TV channel 6 operations.
>
> >Adjacent- and co-channel interference to or from distant stations
> >imposes further restrictions. These factors severely restrict what can
> >"_physically/technically_" be done.
>
> Actually, the spacing restrictions are primarily
> political/administrative; stations could be spaced more closely (in
> frequency and in space) without impinging on any technical limitations
> of the FM broadcasting system. FM, especially here in the crowded
> northeast, is already interference-limited. (Modern FM receivers are
> as sensitive as they can possibly be: low-cost receivers can
> demodulate signals in the nanovolt range, deep into the thermal noise
> floor.)
>
> >Finally there's a _financial_ reason. Do you have any idea what an FM
> >broadcast license is worth in a major market like Philadelphia?
>
> A very great deal less than they were ten years ago.
>
> >A related issue concerns the consumer electronics industry. If a market
> >actually existed for a TV-audio-over-FM service, radio manufacturers
> >could certainly incorporate TV tuners into FM radios. Some high-end
> >multiband receivers incorporate such capability, but most
> >consumer-market FM radios/tuners/receivers don't.
>
> Actually, many low-end Radio Shack tuners did include TV, since the
> electronics to tune mono wideband FM is the same for 81.75 MHz as it
> is for 107.9 MHz. (Plus, most IC-based FM tuners are made for sale in
> Japan as well as the U.S., so there is a simple strapping option on
> the chip to select either the Japanese or the ITU FM band. The
> Japanese FM band overlaps Region II channels 5 and 6.)
>
> >- "In January 1996, WWDB was purchased by Mercury Broadcasting for $48
> > million."
>
> None of those stations are worth remotely what they were valued at
> back then. A full-class-B station in New York is in the process of
> being sold for $45 million; a station in Philadelphia would have a
> "stick value" much less than that. CBS recently sold a group of three
> full-class-C FMs in Denver for $19.5 million total. You need to
> understand station prices in the late 1990s as part of an asset
> bubble, inflated by easy access to credit and the rapid consolidation
> of the industry after passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
> (Sound familiar?)
>
> -GAWollman
============================================================
I appreciate Garrett's corrections. But I stand by my underlying
points:
- The Channel 6 situation that Lisa described worked ONLY for analog
(pre-DTV transition) broadcast stations operating on VHF Channel 6,
due to the proximity of Channel 6 (82-88 MHz) to the FM broadcast band
(88-108 MHz). In the Philadelphia market, that was WPVI-TV, but the
same situation existed throughout the USA and Canada.
- Any analog television broadcast station licensee could have applied
for (and possibly have received) an FM broadcast station license for
the purpose of to transmitting its audio signal in the FM
band. Apparently, none (or very few) did, presumably for financial
reasons.
- Any digital television broadcast station licensee could do the same
thing today.
As for radios with TV tuners, are there any radios available with TV
tuners capable of tuning the audio of post-DTV transition digital TV
stations? What about car radios?
Neal McLain
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:48:33 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <h4cl4h$24e2$2@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <dc895cc2-c692-4a3d-b0bb-984a0cc26b01@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Neal <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>- Any analog television broadcast station licensee could have applied
> for (and possibly have received) an FM broadcast station license for
> the purpose of to transmitting its audio signal in the FM
> band. Apparently, none (or very few) did, presumably for financial
> reasons.
Actually, many of them did -- indeed, most television operations were
started by radio stations, rather than the other way around. The
FCC's policy in the 1970s and 1980s was to break up such combinations,
so the stations in radio-TV combination could not be sold to the same
buyer, and no new combinations could be created. (The same thing was
true of newspaper cross-ownership, which is still being fought over in
the courts, much to the detriment of both broadcast and print
journalism.)
>As for radios with TV tuners, are there any radios available with TV
>tuners capable of tuning the audio of post-DTV transition digital TV
>stations?
There are expected to be some relatively soon, once the ATSC-M/H
standard is implemented by stations and consumer-electronics
companies. (Qualcomm MediaFLO, used for video-on-cell-phone systems
by both Verizon and thenewatt, uses an incompatible system, on former
channel 55.) There will be broadcasters testing transmissions to
prototype handheld devices later this year -- but it's probably still
going to be targeted more towards the cell-phone audience than the
portable radio audience. The existing ATSC system requires too much
computational heavy-lifting to be decoded by limited-battery-life
portables.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:17:15 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <0c6am.24682$0e4.9984@newsfe19.iad>
T wrote:
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> This is like debating what the most effective oral contraceptive is:
> if you think about it, it's the word "No".
>
> The solution is to tell people to stop, and fine them if they don't.
>
You guys on this forum are on the back side of the power curve (aviation
speak ;-) The states that have (wisely) outlawed the driver using a
hand-held have determine in their legislative wisdom that a properly
configured hands-free system is capable of being used responsibly.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:02:36 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <4A69082C.2090704@thadlabs.com>
On 7/23/2009 1:59 PM, T wrote:
> [...]
> Pretty easy to implement with Bluetooth connectivity. If the car senses
> a cell phone just have it jam the cell phone band or send an instruction
> to turn the cell phone off when the car is in motion.
Better would be to disable the driver's ringer (assuming this can be
done).
There's a BIG downside to having a phone OFF when there's a need to
call 911 ASAP. My present cellphone takes about a minute or so to boot
from poweroff.
The things I've seen while driving along I-280 from the South Bay to
points south of San Francisco daily for 15+ years are legion: hay bales
in the lanes, 30-foot tree limbs straddling two lanes, sofas on the
roadway, gardening gear (rakes, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, etc.) falling
off gardener trucks, Porta Pottys falling off their transports onto the
road, cougars and deer acting as if they own the road, airplanes landing
(twice), cars scribing DNA helixes on the roadbed before flipping and
burning, even people running/walking across the lanes, etc. These are
all true events -- I could write a book. :-)
I've called 911 at least 50+ times over the years to report such incidences,
and that usage is still permitted (in Calif.) for drivers with a cellphone.
Shutting off the ringer while driving is a simple thing to do, and
incoming calls go to voice mail which I can handle later.
Fur the curious and for those local who may want to be wary, there are
three "hot spots" I've noted along I-280 by the number of incidences:
I-280 and Hwy 85, +/- 2 miles N/S of Page Mill (in Palo Alto), and
California's "Mystery Spot" between Edgewood Rd and Hwy 92 (esp. given
the roadway is curved and banked incorrectly). I even had my front
license plate "stolen" while driving in the "Mystery Spot" -- it was
ripped off by a bouncing plastic bucket (I was flanked by cars and couldn't
avoid it and, fortunately, no damage to my car); that was yet another 911
call twice: once to report the items on the freeway, then again as a
followup upon arriving at my office and noticing no damage, just the missing
plate for which the (later mailed) CHP report is still in my glovebox.
Stuff happens, and I believe calling 911 when it does has helped prevent
loss of life and property.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 05:17:48 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <MDham.67048$Qg6.46774@newsfe14.iad>
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>I had my first amps telephone installed in a car in 1984. It was
>>>>mounted to a large transceiver which, in turn was mounted to the floor
>>>>to my right on the front seat floor. In order to place or receive a
>>>>call I had to take my right hand and press two clamps on [each] side
>>>>of the handset, then lift it and use it like a wireline phone.
>>>>Holding it and dialing out was a hoot.
>
>
>
>>>How could you possibly do that safely whilst driving?
>
>
>>>I remember car phones, but I recall that they could be dialed while
>>>mounted, with the dial at the back of the corded handset. Hehehe. I
>>>almost wrote "on hook", which doesn't apply to cellular of course.
>
>
>
>>My point. It was far less safe than my hands free unit of today, which
>>is dialed via a phone directory displayed on the car's navigation system.
>
>
> I'm sorry, but I cannot concede the point. You're suggesting that, while
> less safe, it wasn't dangerous. Given your description, I cannot agree.
> You never should have attempted to dial while driving. Other people on
> the road simply lucked out that you never hit them.
>
The few times I did it there wasn't anyone else on the road. ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 05:19:52 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <IFham.67049$Qg6.53341@newsfe14.iad>
Tom Horne wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> In a message dated 7/3/2009 9:15:12 AM Central Daylight Time,
>>> sam@coldmail.com writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think a first-rate hands free system, although of some
>>>> distraction, is far, far less hazardous than holding a phone to
>>>> one's
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Repeated studies have shown their is no difference in the
>>> distraction caused by cellphone to your ear or hands-free. It's
>>> apparently the conversation, not the holding of the phone to your ear.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wes Leatherock
>>> wesrock@aol.com
>>> wleathus@yahoo.com
>>>
>> Sometimes studies aren't all they claim to be. The California
>> legislature certainly perceived a difference.
>>
>
> Yes they did perceive a difference. [Because the law was] written the
> way they wrote it, they [the assemblymen] could still use their cell
> phones. They, of course, are superior persons that would never be
> distracted by a cell phone conversation. So, why aren't you running
> for the assembly?
I'm surprised Bill even allowed this post. All you have accomplished is
to make yourself look bad.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Yea, on second thought, it was over the edge. Tom's my brother, and I
was thinking of it as if he'd said it to _me_, not the world. Won't
happen again.
Bill Horne
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:06:46 GMT
From: Tom Horne <hornetd@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <aDnam.1070$MA3.664@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
Sam Spade wrote:
> Tom Horne wrote:
>
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>> Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> In a message dated 7/3/2009 9:15:12 AM Central Daylight Time,
>>>> sam@coldmail.com writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think a first-rate hands free system, although of some
>>>>> distraction, is far, far less hazardous than holding a phone to
>>>>> one's
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Repeated studies have shown their is no difference in the
>>>> distraction caused by cellphone to your ear or hands-free. It's
>>>> apparently the conversation, not the holding of the phone to your ear.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wes Leatherock
>>>> wesrock@aol.com
>>>> wleathus@yahoo.com
>>>>
>>> Sometimes studies aren't all they claim to be. The California
>>> legislature certainly perceived a difference.
>>>
>>
>> Yes they did perceive a difference. [Because the law was] written the
>> way they wrote it, they [the assemblymen] could still use their cell
>> phones. They, of course, are superior persons that would never be
>> distracted by a cell phone conversation. So, why aren't you running
>> for the assembly?
>
> I'm surprised Bill even allowed this post. All you have accomplished is
> to make yourself look bad.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Yea, on second thought, it was over the edge. Tom's my brother, and I
> was thinking of it as if he'd said it to _me_, not the world. Won't
> happen again.
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
>
I apologize for my rudeness and Bill is right in saying it won't happen
again, not because he will moderate it but because I hope to be wise
enough to learn from my mistakes.
--
Tom Horne
"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 05:21:13 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <ZGham.67050$Qg6.61658@newsfe14.iad>
Steven Lichter wrote:
> Tom Horne wrote:
>
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>> Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> In a message dated 7/3/2009 9:15:12 AM Central Daylight Time,
>>>> sam@coldmail.com writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think a first-rate hands free system, although of some
>>>>> distraction, is far, far less hazardous than holding a phone to
>>>>> one's
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Repeated studies have shown their is no difference in the
>>>> distraction caused by cellphone to your ear or hands-free. It's
>>>> apparently the conversation, not the holding of the phone to your ear.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wes Leatherock
>>>> wesrock@aol.com
>>>> wleathus@yahoo.com
>>>>
>>> Sometimes studies aren't all they claim to be. The California
>>> legislature certainly perceived a difference.
>>>
>>
>> Yes they did perceive a difference. [Because the law was] written the
>> way they wrote it, they [the assemblymen] could still use their cell
>> phones. They, of course, are superior persons that would never be
>> distracted by a cell phone conversation. So, why aren't you running
>> for the assembly?
>
> That same one that wrote the laws allowing then to ignore the
> telemarketing laws.
>
The auto industry is promoting hands-free in a significant manner. I
don't see the federal agencies that oversee auto safety stepping in to
stop them.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:03:58 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: DOT chief 'deeply concerned' about dangers of cell-phone use while driving
Message-ID: <p06240885c68eaa32d7e8@[10.0.1.3]>
DOT chief 'deeply concerned' about dangers of cell-phone use
while driving
Statement comes in response to release of previously withheld
documents on cell phone use and highway deaths
Matt Hamblen
July 23, 2009
(Computerworld) Federal officials today acknowledged the dangers of
using a cell phone or texting while driving, saying the U.S.
secretary of Transportation is "deeply concerned" about drivers
distracted by using cell phones or texting.
The Department of Transportation statement comes after the release of
federal documents obtained under pressure by consumer advocacy groups
showing for the first time that federal transportation officials were
aware that cell-phone use while driving caused hundreds of highway
deaths annually as early as 2002.
In an e-mail statement to Computerworld, a DOT spokesman said that
DOT Secretary Ray LaHood "is deeply concerned that drivers are taking
their focus off the road to send text messages or use the cell phone."
While the statement does not urge drivers to stop driving while
making calls, it adds that "distracted driving causes crashes, and we
want to stress that the best way to avoid accidents is for drivers to
keep their eyes and their concentration on the road when they get
behind the wheel."
The DOT issued the statement following the release of hundreds of
pages documents from 2003 obtained under the Freedom of Information
Act by two consumer advocacy groups, the Center for Auto Safety and
Public Citizen. The documents were first provided to the New York
Times, and also posted to the Center for Auto Safety Web site.
The documents include findings in which highway safety researchers
estimated in 2003 that cell phone use by drivers caused 955
fatalities and 240,000 accidents in 2002.
...
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135847/DOT_chief_deeply_concerned_about_dangers_of_cell_phone_use_while_driving
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:01:32 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: The Irksome Cellphone Industry
Message-ID: <p0624088ec68ed337753f@[10.0.1.3]>
State of the Art
The Irksome Cellphone Industry
By DAVID POGUE
The New York Times
July 23, 2009
Never let it be said that Congress never did anything for you.
In recent weeks, the Senate Commerce Committee has been holding
hearings about handset exclusivity. That's when a phone maker (like
Apple) offers a particular model (like the iPhone) to a carrier (like
AT&T) exclusively for a period of time (like five years).
Come to think about it, that example - the iPhone - is pretty much
the only one anybody cares about. These aren't handset-exclusivity
hearings; they're "Why can't we have the iPhone on Verizon?" hearings.
Look, it's great that our elected officials are looking out for us.
The last time Congress got involved, we wound up with phone-number
portability, meaning that you can keep your number when you switch
phone companies. That's unequivocally a good thing.
But the exclusivity point is not such a slam-dunk. Sure, everybody
would love a Verizon iPhone. But there are some valid arguments
against banning exclusivity deals altogether.
First of all, there are two different cell network types in this
country: the AT&T/T-Mobile type (called GSM) and the Sprint/Verizon
type (called CDMA). Creating a Verizon iPhone isn't just a matter of
signing a few papers. It requires new engineering. It takes time and
resources.
Second, you could argue (as some of the carriers at the hearings
have) that exclusivity arrangements are actually good for innovation.
Look at Visual Voicemail, which displays your voicemail list so you
can get to them in any order, without being held hostage to your
carrier's prompts. That's a very cool iPhone breakthrough that
required Cingular (the iPhone's original carrier) to make special
changes to its network - collaboration that probably wouldn't have
happened if Cingular hadn't had the incentive of exclusivity.
Above all, though, you've got to wonder why, if Congress has time for
things like cellphone gripes, it's barking up this particular tree.
Frankly, there are many other, much more whopping things that are
broken, unfair and anticompetitive in the American cellphone industry.
If I were on the Senate Commerce Committee, I think I'd start with
things like these:
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/technology/personaltech/23pogue.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:07:44 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: The Irksome Cellphone Industry
Message-ID: <XNCdnd93epXtZfTXnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <p0624088ec68ed337753f@[10.0.1.3]>,
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>
>State of the Art
>The Irksome Cellphone Industry
>
>By DAVID POGUE
>The New York Times
>July 23, 2009
>
>Never let it be said that Congress never did anything for you.
>
>In recent weeks, the Senate Commerce Committee has been holding
>hearings about handset exclusivity. That's when a phone maker (like
>Apple) offers a particular model (like the iPhone) to a carrier (like
>AT&T) exclusively for a period of time (like five years).
>
>Come to think about it, that example - the iPhone - is pretty much
>the only one anybody cares about. These aren't handset-exclusivity
>hearings; they're "Why can't we have the iPhone on Verizon?" hearings.
Nit: *NOT* entirely true. Various models of the RIM "BlackBerry" are exclusive
to various carriers. If you want features specific to a particular model,
you're stuck with the carrier that 'bought' rights to that model.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 03:34:40 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Message-ID: <op.uxj9z2gco63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:11:31 -0400, concluding a sequence of notes after what
tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote, Moderator added:
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> Use the Myth player.
>
> GIYF: http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/MythDVD
Aaahh! Thank you, arigato, merci, grazie, gracias, sposibo, ... ! And cheers,
-- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 03:47:03 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: A New World: Scheduling E-Books
Message-ID: <op.uxkakpino63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:14:43 -0400, David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:11:22 -0400, tlvp wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:18:51 -0400, David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
>> wrote:
> .......
>>> The whole (physical) book publishing industry worldwide is essentially
>>> corrupt, with ancient "Regional rights" creating virtual monopoly
>>> markets that protect the industry.
>>>
>>> The new e-book paradigm will eventually dismantle the 19th century way
>>> things are still done in the publishing industry. Even Internet sales
>>> have dented the geographic control the publishing industry clings to.
>>
>> Nowhere is "geographic control" more evident than in DVD (and DVD
>> player) sales. Both discs and players are coded for one of six
>> "regions", or may under circumstances be "region-free" or "all-region",
>> respectively.
>>
>> Must be meant to discourage, for example, a US tourist to down under
>> from bringing back any Aussie DVDs -- they won't play on a US player.
>>
>> ['Cuz it sure won't *encourage* me to bring back an Aussie player :-) .]
>>
>> How that "helps" the industry is beyond me -- they're *discouraging*
>> sales!
>>
> The great pity of the HD-DVD vs BlueRay battle was that HD-DVD was Region
> free, whereas BlueRay retains the same bogus Region system as DVDs.
>
> A lot of people here have "Region 0" DVD players that will play anything,
> I myself have heaps of US & UK DVDs that just are not available on Region
> 4 release or are significantly cheaper to import from places like Amazon
> (I just finished my "Barney Miller" S3 for those old enough to remember
> it..... and my "Baa Baa Black Sheep" DVD collection consists of a UK, US
> and French mix of sets! - that WW2 based TV show should stump most
> readers).
>
> The trouble with these industries that have virtual total control of
> certain geographical areas is their version of self-interest, either do it
> their way or do without. It's the same attitude in Telecom, DVDs, printed
> books etc. hiding behind legislative walls and only allowing more
> competition ever seems to change things in favour of the consumer.
>
> The weird thing is that while removing this sort of protection may well
> impact on the incumbents who cling to the past, those who embrace the new
> environment can prosper along with the rest of us ordinary customers.
Another "weird thing": my wife and I found a particular "el cheapo" portable
DVD player model, region 1, that turned out to be so shoddily designed that:
(i) only four out of six samples could play anything at all reliably, and
(ii) two of those four seemingly *ignored* the DVDs' region code.
We were testing Australian, European, South American, Japanese,and US DVDs
(all region-coded) to see whether that portable could work as b'day present
for European nieces -- answer: either of those last two instances could :-) .
So: one became that b'day present, and *we* kept the other, as a most economical
alternative to a (much pricier) all-regions player :-) . [The other four all
were brought back to the B&M store we got them at, for exchange or refund.]
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 07:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 911 service center troubles
Message-ID: <ef0d72cb-8861-4aad-af61-af5dbdd87f13@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 22, 10:52 pm, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> It was a Bell System Telephone Credit Card. I had one.
At the time of divesture things got confusing, since both your local
baby bell could issue you one and your long distance carrier could
issue you one. Both were good on any kind of call.
AFAIK, they're still around, I believe called "Calling Cards" today.
But today you have to dial an access number first; if you merely dial
0+ you'll be charged a fortune by an "AOS".
I'm not sure what Calling Card rates are today.
Obviously the traditional telco Calling Cards aren't as popular as
there are prepaid toll cards and personal cellphones. Heck, if you're
conducting busy and want to make a quick long distance call they'll
let you since many businesses have fairly cheap long distance
arrangements.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:13:26 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Dipping into 911 funds
Message-ID: <h4b28a$msh$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Jul 23, 8:08 PM EDT
AP IMPACT: Cash-strapped states raid 911 funds
By PETER SVENSSON
AP Technology Writer
NEW YORK (AP) -- More than $200 million collected from cell phone users
for upgrades to the 911 system has been diverted in the last two years
to plug state budget holes, keep campaign promises and, in at least one
case, buy police uniforms, an Associated Press analysis has found.
Dispatchers say the diversion of money comes at the expense of
improvements that would give crime and accident victims more
opportunities to reach responders. Someone who has been kidnapped, for
instance, may not be able to talk but might be able to quietly send a
text message or a photo.
Cell phone subscribers in nearly every state pay anywhere from 20 cents
to $1.50 a month for what is described in their bills as 911
improvements. In some states, the AP analysis found, less than half that
money is actually going to help emergency dispatchers keep pace with the
features of smart phones.
As states hammered by the recession look around for new ways to balance
their budgets, the 911 money is tempting:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_911_FUND_RAIDING?SITE=INLAF&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, inc, A Rot in Hell. Co.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:04:35 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dipping into 911 funds
Message-ID: <MPG.24d3c1bd7f879986989b18@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <h4b28a$msh$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
diespammers@killspammers.com says...
> NEW YORK (AP) -- More than $200 million collected from cell phone users
> for upgrades to the 911 system has been diverted in the last two years
> to plug state budget holes, keep campaign promises and, in at least one
> case, buy police uniforms, an Associated Press analysis has found.
>
> Dispatchers say the diversion of money comes at the expense of
> improvements that would give crime and accident victims more
> opportunities to reach responders. Someone who has been kidnapped, for
> instance, may not be able to talk but might be able to quietly send a
> text message or a photo.
>
>
Just wait. I can see a lawsuit coming over this one. Let someone be
seriously injured or die and unable to get help because those planned
upgrades were never made.
It'll make the cost of upgrading the systems look like peanuts.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:02:51 GMT
From: Tom Horne <hornetd@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: What is this device called
Message-ID: <Lnaam.1010$MA3.465@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
There used to be a device that could be obtained from AT&T, lo these
many years ago, that would isolate non standard telephone equipment from
the PSTN and still provide ringing and talk current to the non standard
equipment. Can anyone tell me whether such devices still exist and what
they are called?
--
Tom Horne
"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison
***** Moderator's Note *****
There were a variety of interface devices that were made available
after the FCC mandated interconnection. I'm most familiar with the
CDH, which was intended to connect POTS lines to customer provided
equipment. It did the job, but it was too complicated: not only did it
have separate supervision leads that were isolated from the talk path,
but it had separate ringing leads as well. There might have been PBX's
or other CPE which could access the CDH directly, but ordinary key
equipment could not: to use it for CPE key equipment, you needed
_another_ interface to match the CDH interface.
Ma Bell had too many interfaces and they cost too much to install and
rent: it was inevitable that the FCC would dictate type-acceptance and
allow direct connections. I don't remember when that happended, but it's
been the norm ever since.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:36:52 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: What is this device called
Message-ID: <oykam.24995$0e4.6991@newsfe19.iad>
Tom Horne wrote:
> There used to be a device that could be obtained from AT&T, lo these
> many years ago, that would isolate non standard telephone equipment from
> the PSTN and still provide ringing and talk current to the non standard
> equipment. Can anyone tell me whether such devices still exist and what
> they are called?
I vaguely recall hearing of such a device. In California we were spared
that because the CPUC got out ahead of the FCC by establishing a
certified premise equipment program. Any equipment so certified could
be connected directly to the network provided it was "registered" with
the LEC.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:24:22 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: What is this device called
Message-ID: <yqadnRs0mZTLYfTXnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <Lnaam.1010$MA3.465@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
Tom Horne <hornetd@verizon.net> wrote:
>There used to be a device that could be obtained from AT&T, lo these
>many years ago, that would isolate non standard telephone equipment from
>the PSTN and still provide ringing and talk current to the non standard
>equipment. Can anyone tell me whether such devices still exist and what
>they are called?
The _most_common_ such beast was a "DAA", required, pre-carterfone, for
connecting a customer-owned _modem_ to the phone line.
Such devices have, for all practical purposes, disappeared from the marketplace
after the FCC mandated a 'standard' isolation interface for CPE, with 'type
acceptance' methodology for approving manufacturers.
Type-accepted line isolation modules are available from practically any
significant component manufacturer for the telecom industry.
See, for example:
http://www.nuhorizons.com/products/NewProducts/poq20/clare.html
For _lots_ more, google for "telephone line interface IC".
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:33:16 -0600
From: Reed <reedh@rmi.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: What is this device called
Message-ID: <sJqdnVYdNJn4_PfXnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Tom Horne wrote:
> There used to be a device that could be obtained from AT&T, lo these
> many years ago, that would isolate non standard telephone equipment from
> the PSTN and still provide ringing and talk current to the non standard
> equipment. Can anyone tell me whether such devices still exist and what
> they are called?
For dialup modems, there was a device called a DAA (Data Access
Arrangement). There was a manual dial/answer version, and an
auto-answer version. No longer required since inception of Part 68
registration, and RJ jack types.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:25:36 GMT
From: Tom Horne <hornetd@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: What is this device called
Message-ID: <QUnam.1071$MA3.310@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> There were a variety of interface devices that were made available
> after the FCC mandated interconnection. I'm most familiar with the
> CDH, which was intended to connect POTS lines to customer provided
> equipment. It did the job, but it was too complicated: not only did it
> have separate supervision leads that were isolated from the talk path,
> but it had separate ringing leads as well. There might have been PBX's
> or other CPE which could access the CDH directly, but ordinary key
> equipment could not: to use it for CPE key equipment, you needed
> _another_ interface to match the CDH interface.
>
> Ma Bell had too many interfaces and they cost too much to install and
> rent: it was inevitable that the FCC would dictate type-acceptance and
> allow direct connections. I don't remember when that happended, but it's
> been the norm ever since.
Yes Bill, but that doesn't help with stuff that is not type accepted.
Isn't the new term of art certified? I'm trying to devise a way to
patch the PSTN incoming calls to manual switchboards that predate
customer dialing. If you connect the interconnect terminals of some
of those boards it will look like an off hook condition to the PSTN.
--
Tom Horne
"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:39:46 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: How many conversations on a single cell tower/site and other questions?
Message-ID: <h4ch3i$leb$1@reader1.panix.com>
"Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net> writes:
>Folks
>I'm curious. How many conversations are typically available on a single
>cell tower/site? My understanding is that in rural Alberta there might
>be as few as 10 available conversations/frequencies/channels/whatever
>you want to call them.
Well, That Depends. Which technology - CDMA or TDMA[GSM], for starters?
How many sectors?
>It is my understanding that Telus in Alberta has several emergency cell
>sites on a truck available for special events and disasters.
Most carriers do. Usual terms are COWS & COTS - Cellular on Wheels/Trucks.
>1) How would they hook back into the main network? Microwave to a
>nearby point where they can tap into the phone network? Or do they
>place it right next to some point where they can tap in?
Yes. They can do either. It's also technically feasible to grab an
existing fiber, say a CATV one. But thus far, CATV companies with fiber
plant seem to be totally disconnected from cell carriers; even when they
OWN parts of same. Yes, it's insane but what else is new?
>2) How do they coordinate frequencies? That's gotta be a pain given
>adjacent cell sites. Or are there some cell frequencies set aside
>specifically for these emergency trucks?
No one would reserve a valuable freq. for occasional use. If adding
capacity, such as at the Inauguration; I'd guess they take the freq set
for their site that's furthest away, and reuse it. The COW/COT likely has
low-level antennas with patterns restricted to that immediate area.
If replacing a down site [power, flood, tornado, etc. outage] it's
straightforward; use that set.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:19:19 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Mass 201 CMR 17: A Survival Guide for the Anxious
Message-ID: <p06240886c68eac4253c2@[10.0.1.3]>
Mass 201 CMR 17: A Survival Guide for the Anxious
Security experts offer tips for navigating Mass 201 CMR 17. Will your
business be ready?
by Bill Brenner, Senior Editor, CSO
July 23, 2009
FRAMINGHAM, Mass. -- David Escalante has as much cause as any IT
security practitioner to be nervous about Mass 201 CMR 17, the tough
Massachusetts data protection requirements organizations must comply
with by Jan. 1, 2010.
As director of computer policy and security at Boston College, he
oversees the security of a computer network accessed daily by some
10,000 students who storm the campus after Labor Day with myriad
personal computing devices loaded with any number of sinister
programs. (See Six Essential Steps to Secure Academia.)
Yet he was cool and calm during a CSO Executive Seminar on Mass 201
CMR 17.00 Thursday, as were the other legal and security experts on
hand.
The reason -- they're reasonably confident most companies will
survive this latest compliance push unscathed. And why not? Many of
the provisions are basic best practices other government regulations
and industry standards have required for years.
That's not to say this is a piece of cake. Compliance doesn't always
ensure security. The Hannaford supermarket chain learned this the
hard way after suffering a data breach despite all the PCI DSS
compliance work it had done.
And so the seminar speakers tried to give attendees a clearer picture
of what's needed. Among the advice -- have a plan on the shelf that
outlines who will do what in the event of a data breach, and invest
time and money in awareness campaigns that won't put employees to
sleep.
"Much of this you should be doing anyway," Escalante said. "If you
follow best practices such as those outlined in things like Cobit and
ISO 17799, you WILL be okay."
...
http://www.csoonline.com/article/497934/Mass_CMR_A_Survival_Guide_for_the_Anxious_
***** Moderator's Note *****
I'm assuming that this is telecom related because data standards
include proper management of modems.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:00:11 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <MPG.24d3c0b545566e93989b17@news.eternal-september.org>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> This is like debating what the most effective oral contraceptive is:
> if you think about it, it's the word "No".
>
> The solution is to tell people to stop, and fine them if they don't.
The problem is that people will flout laws when they know they can't be
easily enforced.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:37:46 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Wireless speed loss
Message-ID: <h4do26$177$1@news.eternal-september.org>
I just had some major problems involving my Airport card and the DSL
Wireless Hub/modem.
A couple of weeks ago a at&t contractor was checking cable pairs to
make sure that they match the records; we all know that there are a lot
of errors; anyway he moved me over to the cable pair that his records
showed, the problem was the cable he moved me to had a dead short; i.e. no
phone or DSL for 4 days, they got that fixed but my speed was down
really bad. They found 2 bridge taps on my cable; I guess DSL does not
like those, they removed them and my speed came back up a great deal, but
not what is was supposed to be. The strange thing is my ethernet
connected computer is working fine. I made no changes on either setup
and both were working fines before the repair from hell started. I do
know that there is a little loss on wireless connections, but not 1.3 on
a 6 meg link. I asked on the Mac groups, but no answers. I'm sure it
has something to do with my AirPort card and the Router, but as I said
no changes were made and all the setting are the same.
There are other problems, like on 26 ga led cable, that AT&T plans to
replace some time next year when they plan on finally offering U-Verse
on my block, we are only block not to have it since our cable is over 30
years old.
--
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: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:40:44 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Stock Traders Find Speed Pays, in Milliseconds
Message-ID: <p062408b9c6901d80ef52@[10.0.1.3]>
Stock Traders Find Speed Pays, in Milliseconds
By CHARLES DUHIGG
The New York Times
July 24, 2009
It is the hot new thing on Wall Street, a way for a handful of
traders to master the stock market, peek at investors' orders and,
critics say, even subtly manipulate share prices.
It is called high-frequency trading - and it is suddenly one of the
most talked-about and mysterious forces in the markets.
Powerful computers, some housed right next to the machines that drive
marketplaces like the New York Stock Exchange, enable high-frequency
traders to transmit millions of orders at lightning speed and, their
detractors contend, reap billions at everyone else's expense.
These systems are so fast they can outsmart or outrun other
investors, humans and computers alike. And after growing in the
shadows for years, they are generating lots of talk.
Nearly everyone on Wall Street is wondering how hedge funds and large
banks like Goldman Sachs are making so much money so soon after the
financial system nearly collapsed. High-frequency trading is one
answer.
And when a former Goldman Sachs programmer was accused this month of
stealing secret computer codes - software that a federal prosecutor
said could "manipulate markets in unfair ways" - it only added to the
mystery. Goldman acknowledges that it profits from high-frequency
trading, but disputes that it has an unfair advantage.
Yet high-frequency specialists clearly have an edge over typical
traders, let alone ordinary investors. The Securities and Exchange
Commission says it is examining certain aspects of the strategy.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: gerard <macadude@gmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Polling switches for record information - any guidance?
Message-ID: <8028968e-adcb-474f-a291-979317f7ff88@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
Hi,
I'm developing an application that requires records from lucent and
nortel switches for analysis. I am not an expert on the capabilities
and functions of switches - still learning. I am wondering if there is
a telnet type functionality available to the switches whereby you can
connect via TCP/IP and spool the record information to an output file?
Or is there a function/command you can run to create a frequent output
file that can be obtained by ftp/sftp. My objective is to periodically
and automatically download the switch information to analyze the
results and perform further investigation on the configurations
therein for validity. Any advice/pointers greatly appreciated!
Regards,
Gerard
------------------------------
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) 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 (38 messages)
******************************
|
or 