|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 205 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Polling switches for record information - any guidance?
Re: Polling switches for record information - any guidance?
Slashdot: The Irksome Cellphone Industry
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: What is this device called
Re: Wireless speed loss
Re: Wireless speed loss
Re: Walter's Telephones
Re: Walter's Telephones
Re: Polling switches for record information - any guidance?
Re: Polling switches for record information - any guidance?
Hacker Says iPhone 3GS Encryption Is 'Useless' for Businesses
Removing iPhone 3G[s] Passcode and Encryption
Demonstration: Forensic Recovery of an iPhone 3G[s]
New iPhone hardware encryption not even close to hack proof
Re: Walter's Telephones
Walter's Telephones
====== 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: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:31:43 -0500
From: "John F. Morse" <john@example.invalid>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security
Message-ID: <h4fq3f$ndo$2@optima5.xanadu-bbs.net>
Thad Floryan wrote:
> Just found this on Slashdot:
>
> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/25/0015250/Skype-Apparently-Threatens-Russian-National-Security
>
> "Reuters reports that 'Russia's most powerful business lobby moved to clamp
> down on Skype and its peers this week, telling lawmakers that the Internet
> phone services are a threat to Russian businesses and to national security.'
> The lobby, closely associated with Putin's political party, cites concerns of
> 'a likely and uncontrolled fall in profits for the core telecom operators,' as
> well as a fear that law enforcement agencies have thus far been unable to
> listen in on Skype conversations due to its 256-bit encryption."
>
I betcha the CIA knows how to listen to Americans! ;-)
--
John
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:10:12 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <pan.2009.07.26.00.10.11.400166@myrealbox.com>
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:04:50 -0400, 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.
>
> The problem is that people will flout laws when they know they can't be
> easily enforced.
Some people will always flout laws, the issue is that making bad/reckless
behaviour illegal rather than relying on an individual's judgement will
reduce the problem even if it doesn't totally stop it.
Too many people reject attempts to reduce any problem if the proposed
solution isn't somehow "perfect" in obtaining a 100% solution to the issue.
I rather have 70% (or whatever the compliance rate actually is) less
people using phones while driving because that reduces that particular
risk to everyone else by that amount, if 30% continue to indulge in that
sort of risky behaviour then it is still far better than the original
situation.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:48:13 -0800
From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <h4ibq6$hoj$1@blue.rahul.net>
David Clayton wrote:
> Too many people reject attempts to reduce any problem if the proposed
> solution isn't somehow "perfect" in obtaining a 100% solution to the issue.
>
> I rather have 70% (or whatever the compliance rate actually is) less
> people using phones while driving because that reduces that particular
> risk to everyone else by that amount, if 30% continue to indulge in that
> sort of risky behaviour then it is still far better than the original
> situation.
The vast majority of drivers are still phoning while driving (not a
scientific survey, just my personal observation).
If we want drivers to obey this law, then let's increase the penalty
and/or create more enforcement mechanisms (for instance, have the red
light camera operators look for people phoning). Otherwise, repeal it.
The reason a law that usually goes unenforced is a problem is that it
has the effect of letting police punish whomever they want to punish:
in other words, it abolishes the rule of law. Completely unrestrained
police are a worse problem than no police at all.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:17:34 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <h4idku$qcc$2@news.eternal-september.org>
John David Galt wrote:
> David Clayton wrote:
>> Too many people reject attempts to reduce any problem if the proposed
>> solution isn't somehow "perfect" in obtaining a 100% solution to the issue.
>>
>> I rather have 70% (or whatever the compliance rate actually is) less
>> people using phones while driving because that reduces that particular
>> risk to everyone else by that amount, if 30% continue to indulge in that
>> sort of risky behaviour then it is still far better than the original
>> situation.
>
> The vast majority of drivers are still phoning while driving (not a
> scientific survey, just my personal observation).
>
> If we want drivers to obey this law, then let's increase the penalty
> and/or create more enforcement mechanisms (for instance, have the red
> light camera operators look for people phoning). Otherwise, repeal it.
>
> The reason a law that usually goes unenforced is a problem is that it
> has the effect of letting police punish whomever they want to punish:
> in other words, it abolishes the rule of law. Completely unrestrained
> police are a worse problem than no police at all.
>
California enforces it and the fines add up, but more people are
violating it now then when it first passed, some claim they did not know
it was the law, others from out of state say the same; even though there
are ads on TV, Radio and billboards. I agree, let the red light cameras
catch them, since a lot of red light runners did it because the were on
the phone; hit them with both violations and make it a requirement they
go to court and take traffic school for 5 nights.
--
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, 26 Jul 2009 16:29:10 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <4A6CE6C6.4090608@thadlabs.com>
On 7/26/2009 1:56 PM, Steven Lichter wrote:
> [...]
> California enforces it and the fines add up, but more people are
> violating it now then when it first passed, some claim they did not know
> it was the law, others from out of state say the same; even though there
> are ads on TV, Radio and billboards.
> [...]
Locally (Silicon Valley) there's a column in the San Jose Mercury News
(SJMN) named "Road Show" (though we often joke it's "Road Kill" :-).
I'm in frequent email contact with the columnist, Gary Richards, and
feed him a lot of behind-the-scenes info (including what we discuss
here), such as the NY Times articles, especially the one about the
suppressed cellphone driving info.
The SJMN requires one to signup (free) to view their pages (and I must
reenter my password once a month or so when cookies expire). A story
in today's column is almost unbelievable.
If you have/want access to the online SJMN, the article is here:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mrroadshow/ci_12908862
Following is a formatted copy'n'paste of the specific story:
Q: The other morning, I was driving to work on Interstate 880, and
my little car was nearly sideswiped by a giant SUV that drifted
into my lane as if I weren't there. Furious at nearly being
squashed, I drove up next to the SUV, but before I could sternly
shake my fist at it, I spotted a young woman behind the wheel
holding a phone in one hand and punching in a text message with
the other. I rode alongside her for about 10 seconds, and I never
saw her look up at the road once. She was completely engrossed in
what was going on in her lap.
Bruce Newman
Los Gatos
A: Bruce is a Mercury News reporter whose desk is near mine. He's
a very calm fellow, so when I heard him talking about this
incident, I asked him to tell me more.
Q: Gary, I make it a practice to stay away from these texting
fools when I can, so I fell back several car lengths, still
fuming about what she had nearly done to me and the menace she
presented to others. Over the next couple of miles, she nearly
sideswiped a pickup and repeatedly drifted onto the left
shoulder. I fell behind an eighteen-wheeler and lost sight of her
for a while.
Bruce Newman
A: Unfortunately, it was not good riddance.
Q: Then as I approached the San Jose airport I saw her again,
sitting in the middle lane of the freeway, going about 20 mph
while cars and trucks whizzed by on either side. Traffic had
slowed, and when it picked up again, she was so consumed with
texting that she had no idea what was going on around her. As I
passed by, I saw her furiously pecking away at that infernal
thing.
Here's my question. I see those signs that say "Report drunk
drivers, call 911," and I really wanted to call and report
her. She clearly presented as great a hazard as any drunken
driver. But I figured if the CHP caught up to her and discovered
she wasn't drunk, they'd come after me for filing a false police
report. So I did nothing. Except fume. What should I have done?
Bruce Newman
A: This deserved a 911 call. When I asked the Highway Patrol if a
911 call was appropriate, here is how Cristina-the-CHP-Lady
responded:
"Absolutely. Sounds like a reckless driver to me. Call 911 and
provide the license plate, location, description of the driver
and the details of her recklessness. A log will be kept against
her plate and if she gets caught all the details will be on the
log, which will be attached to the citation."
To the woman driving the champagne-colored BMW X5, the CHP now
has your license plate number.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:16:52 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <h4j678$vfa$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 7/26/2009 1:56 PM, Steven Lichter wrote:
>> [...]
>> California enforces it and the fines add up, but more people are
>> violating it now then when it first passed, some claim they did not know
>> it was the law, others from out of state say the same; even though there
>> are ads on TV, Radio and billboards.
>> [...]
>
> Locally (Silicon Valley) there's a column in the San Jose Mercury News
> (SJMN) named "Road Show" (though we often joke it's "Road Kill" :-).
> I'm in frequent email contact with the columnist, Gary Richards, and
> feed him a lot of behind-the-scenes info (including what we discuss
> here), such as the NY Times articles, especially the one about the
> suppressed cellphone driving info.
>
> The SJMN requires one to signup (free) to view their pages (and I must
> reenter my password once a month or so when cookies expire). A story
> in today's column is almost unbelievable.
>
> If you have/want access to the online SJMN, the article is here:
>
> http://www.mercurynews.com/mrroadshow/ci_12908862
>
> Following is a formatted copy'n'paste of the specific story:
>
> Q: The other morning, I was driving to work on Interstate 880, and
> my little car was nearly sideswiped by a giant SUV that drifted
> into my lane as if I weren't there. Furious at nearly being
> squashed, I drove up next to the SUV, but before I could sternly
> shake my fist at it, I spotted a young woman behind the wheel
> holding a phone in one hand and punching in a text message with
> the other. I rode alongside her for about 10 seconds, and I never
> saw her look up at the road once. She was completely engrossed in
> what was going on in her lap.
>
> Bruce Newman
> Los Gatos
>
> A: Bruce is a Mercury News reporter whose desk is near mine. He's
> a very calm fellow, so when I heard him talking about this
> incident, I asked him to tell me more.
>
> Q: Gary, I make it a practice to stay away from these texting
> fools when I can, so I fell back several car lengths, still
> fuming about what she had nearly done to me and the menace she
> presented to others. Over the next couple of miles, she nearly
> sideswiped a pickup and repeatedly drifted onto the left
> shoulder. I fell behind an eighteen-wheeler and lost sight of her
> for a while.
>
> Bruce Newman
>
> A: Unfortunately, it was not good riddance.
>
> Q: Then as I approached the San Jose airport I saw her again,
> sitting in the middle lane of the freeway, going about 20 mph
> while cars and trucks whizzed by on either side. Traffic had
> slowed, and when it picked up again, she was so consumed with
> texting that she had no idea what was going on around her. As I
> passed by, I saw her furiously pecking away at that infernal
> thing.
>
> Here's my question. I see those signs that say "Report drunk
> drivers, call 911," and I really wanted to call and report
> her. She clearly presented as great a hazard as any drunken
> driver. But I figured if the CHP caught up to her and discovered
> she wasn't drunk, they'd come after me for filing a false police
> report. So I did nothing. Except fume. What should I have done?
>
> Bruce Newman
>
> A: This deserved a 911 call. When I asked the Highway Patrol if a
> 911 call was appropriate, here is how Cristina-the-CHP-Lady
> responded:
>
> "Absolutely. Sounds like a reckless driver to me. Call 911 and
> provide the license plate, location, description of the driver
> and the details of her recklessness. A log will be kept against
> her plate and if she gets caught all the details will be on the
> log, which will be attached to the citation."
>
> To the woman driving the champagne-colored BMW X5, the CHP now
> has your license plate number.
>
The Press-Enterprise had a writer like him. He used to report on the
roads and freeways around Riverside County. He had a thing for the 91
Freeway, which is the only roadway between Riverside and Orange County.
I have been using it since moving out here in 1977 and it was bad
then, but they have made it larger added carpool and toll roads and it
is still bad. He use to talk about traffic slowing down for no reason,
then going normal again, he used to say it was aliens scooping up the
cars. What it really caused it was people slowing down because a
section of the road was torn up and stayed that way for ten years and
thousands of dollars in damage claims.
--
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, 26 Jul 2009 10:16:46 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Polling switches for record information - any guidance?
Message-ID: <pan.2009.07.26.00.16.44.851890@myrealbox.com>
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:10:39 -0400, gerard wrote:
> 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!
>
I know from previous (long time past, now) experience that info from
switches (real time and otherwise) is controlled totally by the switch
manufacturer, and sometimes they decide to only allow access to their own
management systems or to third-parties that pay a licence fee for the
privilege of accessing the interfaces.
There are usually "next best" options which involve collecting data via
legacy ports and then you have to implement your own solution for
transport/analysis etc.
This may be different now, so hopefully some others will offer more info.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 14:33:01 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Polling switches for record information - any guidance?
Message-ID: <5Y6dnZlB_-twwPbXnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <8028968e-adcb-474f-a291-979317f7ff88@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
gerard <macadude@gmail.com> wrote:
>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!
Advice:
_define_ what you need to do in much greater detail. Both so you know what
you need to do, and so that someone you ask has a =hope= of giving meaningful
suggestions. <grin>
The "class"/size of switch involved makes a *BIG* difference. Things are
very different on a multi-exchange-handling CO switch, vs., say, a Nortel
"MICS".
You can be pretty well assured of serial-port based 'dumb terminal' console
capabilities. One can almost assuredly extract whatever one needs via this
interface, using little more than a PC, and a terminal program (like KERMIT)
with decent 'scripting' and session-capture capabilities.
If the switch has TCP/IP connectivity, there will probably be a way to access
a similar-appearing 'console' over the network. It may be as simple as telnet,
or it may require a custom application on the connecting machine. For a telnet-
type interface, a scriptable, session-capture capable, terminal program (KERMIT
will talk over TCP/IP as well as serial ports) will allow you to get at the
data.
Depending on what you're looking for, there _may_ be something like an FTP
capability -- to pick up everything at once, rather than screen-by-screen.
For switch configuration stuff, this may be in a specialized 'backup' capability,
rather than a general 'file transfer' function.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 19:42:11 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Slashdot: The Irksome Cellphone Industry
Message-ID: <4A6BC283.6020505@thadlabs.com>
Yet another phone-related item on Slashdot:
http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/09/07/25/1438217/The-Irksome-Cellphone-Industry
"David Pogue of the NYTimes wonders why Congress is worrying
about exclusive handset contracts when there are more significant
things that are broken, unfair, and anti-competitive in the
American cellphone industry.
He lists text messaging fees, double billing, handset subsidies,
international call rates, and 'airtime-eating instructions' among the
major problems not being addressed by Congress.
'Right now, the cell carriers spend about $6 billion a year on
advertising. Why doesn't it occur to them that they'd attract a heck
of a lot more customers by making them happy instead of miserable? By
being less greedy and obnoxious? By doing what every other industry
does: try to please customers instead of entrap and bilk them?
But no.
Apparently, persuading cell carriers to treat their customers decently
would take an act of Congress.'"
The NY Times article cited is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/technology/personaltech/23pogue.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:07:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <c5bc5547-d0ae-4b8b-a22d-7348937d9d36@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>
[Moderator snip]
One day [a new employee] he came into my office and asked me if I had
a schematic of the settop box that the local CATV company was using.
He apparently intended to build a pirate decoder.
I was taken aback. I thought to myself, this guy wants to be a
lawyer, and here he is asking me to help him commit fraud?
After I told him what I thought of his plan, I suggested that perhaps
he should buy a set of jumper cables and bypass his electric meter.
"That'll save you even more money."
I guess he got the message. At any rate, he never mentioned it
again. And fortunately for him, I never told the boss about the
incident. If the boss had found out about it, he would have fired the
guy on the spot.
I still think about that incident when I read reports such as yours:
"local ham club had a contest to see who could design the best
'Channel 100' filter" and "ham operators found a way: a common child's
toy..."
Neal McLain
***** Moderator's Note *****
I won't defend my actions: I was young, foolhardy, and cocksure, but
that doesn't excuse theft.
If I had to explain myself, I'd say that America was readjusting its
moral compass during the 70's. The culture of deception, lies, and
buck-passing that came out of the Vietnam war had permeated down to
the lowest levels of society: having served in Vietnam, I'm entitled
to say that the war destroyed a lot of our common beliefs about what
is "right" or "wrong".
The "us" vs. "them" mentality was expressed in various scams and "get
by" tactics, with everything from theft of gas service to electronic
fraud against the phone company being common knowledge and common
practice. Young men and women such as I had seen that both governments
and corporations could be opportunistic, hypocritical, venal, and
ruthless, so it's no surprise that the lower classes exhibited
attitudes that their parents would never countenance.
Those who chose to build filters or MDS receivers were mostly
experimenters who didn't have any intent to deprive the program owners
of money. I can say without guile that I didn't have the money to pay
for Channel 100 service, and if the cable feed hadn't come with the
slot my Airstream was parked in, I couldn't have paid for that,
either. When in Boston and using an MDS receiver, I didn't have the
money to pay for HBO - if I could have subscribed to it, which I
couldn't, since there was no cable feed at the time - but it was a
neat hack that I used, and then gave away to a friend when I moved out
of the building.
I don't pay for cable or HBO today; although I can afford them now, I
don't choose to spend money on them. If I like a song I hear on the
radio, I'll buy it from Itunes, and if I see a good review for a film
which interests me, I'll go to the movie house and pay admission. I'm
older now, and I like to think I'm wiser.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:37:24 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <h4gq2k$bcq$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <srWdnR0ldoExzfbXnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
[channel-6 LPTV as FM "radio" station]
>They've still got to transmit it as a TV 'format' signal. Yeah,
>there's no requirement for any video 'content', per se -- I'd have
>[to] dig deep in the specs, but I suspect that something with the
>requisite framing (blanking, retrace, etc.) is required.
47 CFR 73.653 (which is incorporated by reference into the LPTV rules
in Part 74) provides:
The aural and visual transmitters may be operated
independently of each other or, if operated simultaneously,
may be used with different and unrelated program material.
So analog television licensees (at this point, only LPTVs) may
broadcast video only, audio only, or both.
>I can't remember if a Combiner is technically a duplexer or a
>diplexer, but I'm sure that some stations didn't use them.
Combiners for broadcasting are generally built from a quadrature
hybrid and a bunch of cavity filters. I have pictures of the combiner
rooms at the Empire State Building and at the Hancock Tower in
Chicago, but unfortunately I haven't published them yet. They look
like rooms full of tanks, with lots of plumbing (rigid feedline)
connecting them together. (Simple identification tip: Dielectric
cavity filters are black rectangular prisms, whereas Shively filters
are white or grey cylinders.)
>BTW, I always thought that the "vestigial" sideband was the LOWER
>video sideband, which was chopped off at ~1.25 MHz.
Depends on the video system. System A (the old British 405-line
system) and System E (the old French 819-line system) both chopped off
the upper sideband. (System A originally used straight AM, before it
was realized that VSB provided most of the benefits of AM while being
more efficient in both power and spectrum utilization.)
>I didn't know the upper sideband required filtering as well: I always
>thought that it was limited by the video resolution and didn't need
>filtering.
It's the other way around: the video resolution is (well, was)
determined by the bandwidth alloted for it.
-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: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:42:04 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <h4gqbc$bcq$2@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <ffdad5b5-e6c2-44c7-8cab-8edf11b13bfc@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>The _only_ issue that could matter is if someone else desires use of
>that particular frequency. Others have said it cannot be used because
>it would cause interference to other FM stations close in frequency.
No, Lisa, others have said that it cannot be used because it would
cause interference to the *digital TV* station which is assigned that
channel. This is not certain yet, and experiments are currently
ongoing to determine the extent of and tolerance for such
interference.
All existing NCE-FM stations give greater protection to the old
channel 6 analog audio carrier than they do to FM broadcast stations
assigned to comparable adjacent FM channels.
-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: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 04:46:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <32dc6ba0-f683-4d57-aec6-2632d8929839@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 26, 12:24 am, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jul 24, 10:59 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
> 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.
>
> > Why should they get any such _special_treatment_?
>
> There is no "special" treatment, per the circumstances described in
> prior posts..
>
> > 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?
>
> IRELEVENT. We are talking about ONE SPECIFIC channel.
>
> > 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.
>
> Doesn't matter.
>
> > 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.
>
> The audio portion of TV's Channel 6 was receivable on any FM radio,
> either cheap ones or good ones, tube or IC, for _decades_.
>
> The _only_ issue that could matter is if someone else desires use of
> that particular frequency. Others have said it cannot be used because
> it would cause interference to other FM stations close in frequency.
=================================
> The audio portion of TV's Channel 6 was receivable on any FM
> radio, either cheap ones or good ones, tube or IC, for
> _decades_.
Well, it's gone now, and it shall remain so for decades to come. Get
used to it.
> The _only_ issue that could matter is if someone else desires
> use of that particular frequency.
As at least two other posters (Garrett Wollman and me) have already
explained to you, someone does indeed desire to use (and already is
using) that particular frequency: namely, The Walt Disney Company,
licensee of digital television station WPVI-DT.
> Others have said it cannot be used because it would cause
> interference to other FM stations close in frequency.
I don't recall anybody saying that. It would not cause interference
to other FM stations. However, it would certainly interfere with WPVI-
DT's signal.
Neal McLain
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <0f4714aa-8d92-4a6b-869c-48e8068a9d2e@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 26, 3:34 pm, Neal McLain <nmcl...@annsgarden.com> wrote:
> > The audio portion of TV's Channel 6 was receivable on any FM
> > radio, either cheap ones or good ones, tube or IC, for
> > _decades_.
>
> Well, it's gone now, and it shall remain so for decades to come. Get
> used to it.
Not according to the newspaper. Apparently, surprisingly many people
miss it and they're looking into bringing it back.
> I don't recall anybody saying that. It would not cause interference
> to other FM stations. However, it would certainly interfere with WPVI-
> DT's signal.
I don't understand. Several things suggest to me the digital and
analog used _different_ frequences. (If in fact digital is using the
same frequencies, yes, of course the issue of is moot.)
1) Before the digital switchover, TV stations were broadcasting in
_both_ digital and analog. They would have tests pre-cutover where
they'd tell viewers they were temporarily cutting off the analog
signal. If the viewer could continue receiving, the viewer was set
for digital, but if not, the viewer was not ready.
2) Further, I thought (as stated by others) that the digital signals
were using different frequencies because the old analog ones were
to be reassigned to other uses, such as public safety. But, Ch 6's
old audio could not be reassigned because it was too close to other
FM broadcast signals.
3) The newspaper article (admittedly not a technical document)
suggested the problem was legal, not technical. Apparently dealing
with royalty payments. They weren't issue when it was a 'quirk'.
When this was discussed in the other newsgroup, it seemed to me the
only barrier was bureaucratic, not technical. There were long replies
of various FCC rules; that if one took at their letter, either Ch 6 or
consumer FM radio receiver manufacturers had been violating federal
law for decades.
Frankly, I was troubled by the bureaucratic stance; I was hoping
someone would take a consumer or public service stance. That is,
instead of coming up with all sorts of _legal_ reasons why it couldn't
be done, come up with a reason how it _could_ be done.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I'm not an expert on the subject: FWIW, here's my understanding.
1. Some Analog stations were allowed to switch to Digital using the
same range of frequencies (i.e., the same TV "Channel") that they
previously used for Analog. Channel Six in NY was one of
them. While the transition was in progress, I think those stations
were _temporarily_ assigned UHF channels to use for Digital
trasmission. It may be that Channel Six was allowed to skip the
simulcast phase, i.e., it might have chosen to "flash cut" over to
digital by disconnecting the Analog transmitter and hooking up the
new DTV transmitter, both of which used the same TV Channel. I'll
invite others to clarify this point.
2. One of the stated aims of the DTV transition was to free up
bandwidth in the lower frequency ranges formerly used by Analog
broadcasts, so as to make those frequencies available for police,
fire, homeland security, and other public safety uses. The
unstated reason was that the federal government wanted to auction
off the newly-available bands to commercial interests that would
use them for the burgeoning portable device market, thus allowing
more and faster services for users of Blackberry, Treo, and other
portable devices. I'm not familiar enough with the differences
between VHF and UHF TV bands to speculate on why the new services
could not be assigned vacant UHF TV frequencies; again, I'll ask
others to clarify this issue.
Some broadcasters, like Channel Six, got to keep their old
assignments. I don't know if that was for technical reasons, such
as the need to have a VHF assignment because of the peculiar
terrain the station has to cover, or for other reasons. As I said
above, I don't know if Channel Six used a temporary UHF assignment
to simulcast its programs during the run-up to the transition, but
whether they did or not is not germane to this discussion: the
point is that the old Analog system is not compatible with the new
Digital broadcasts, and a TV channel can be used for one or the
other, but NOT both. Since Channel Six is now a DTV station, there
is not, and cannot be, any FM audio carrier at 87.75 MHz for
anyone to listen to.
3. I don't know which newspaper article you're refering to, nor why
royalty payments would apply. Please provide more background info.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <b5431c0b-0b79-4958-870a-5cdc350a2c6e@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Some broadcasters, like Channel Six, got to keep their old
> assignments.
If that is the case the issue is moot since the frequency is in use.
> 3. I don't know which newspaper article you're refering to, nor why
> royalty payments would apply. Please provide more background info.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/49676507.html?cmpid=15585797
"One problem is that if 6ABC were to broadcast its content
specifically for radio, the Philadelphia TV station would have to
secure new intellectual-property rights. Under the pre-June 12
broadcast situation, people could hear the 6ABC shows basically by
accident. So 6ABC did not have to acquire intellectual-property rights
to be heard on radio."
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:28:36 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <h4jadk$13ni$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <0f4714aa-8d92-4a6b-869c-48e8068a9d2e@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>1) Before the digital switchover, TV stations were broadcasting in
> _both_ digital and analog. They would have tests pre-cutover where
> they'd tell viewers they were temporarily cutting off the analog
> signal. If the viewer could continue receiving, the viewer was set
> for digital, but if not, the viewer was not ready.
Yes, before the transition, all stations were *temporarily* assigned
additional channels to use for digital TV. Authority to operate on
the "extra" channels expired on June 12, 2009. Every TV station had
to choose whether to make the temporary digital channel permanent (an
option not available to all stations), change their original channel
to digital (an option not available to all stations), or choose yet
another channel. The Digital TV Table of Allocations was set up to
favor stations that made the first choice, but because some stations'
temporary digital channel was assigned in spectrum that was scheduled
to be removed from television service, not all stations had that
option. (Some stations were particularly unlucky, with "double out of
core" assignments, and they had to build a temporary digital
transmitter on one channel, and then a completely new permanent
digital transmitter on a different channel.)
>2) Further, I thought (as stated by others) that the digital signals
> were using different frequencies because the old analog ones were
> to be reassigned to other uses, such as public safety. But, Ch 6's
> old audio could not be reassigned because it was too close to other
> FM broadcast signals.
The VHF-low band is useless to anyone other than broadcasters or hams,
and the broadcasters aren't too keen on it either -- there's way too
much interference, particularly on the lower channels. Remember the
noise you would see on your television set if you ran your vacuum
cleaner while watching channel 3? In digital TV, you don't get
sparklies in your picture, you get no picture at all.
Public-safety services are getting part of the 700-MHz band, formerly
channels 52-69.
>only barrier was bureaucratic, not technical. There were long replies
>of various FCC rules; that if one took at their letter, either Ch 6 or
>consumer FM radio receiver manufacturers had been violating federal
>law for decades.
You and I were obviously reading different posts.
[Now quoting our esteemed moderator:]
> portable devices. I'm not familiar enough with the differences
> between VHF and UHF TV bands to speculate on why the new services
> could not be assigned vacant UHF TV frequencies; again, I'll ask
> others to clarify this issue.
They were. Qualcomm MediaFLO, for example, has a nationwide license
on the former channel 55, and was able to get its service to market
before the transition by paying the occupants of that channel to shut
down early. There are two reasons why no non-broadcast users have any
interest in the VHF-low band:
1) The wavelength is far too long. Think about how big a ham antenna
for the six-meter band is. Even a quarter-wave dipole is more than a
meter long, which is far too large for any modern handheld device.
2) There is too much interference. You could build sufficient forward
error correction (FEC) into the protocol to handle local, man-made
interference, but Mother Nature gives us E- and F2-skip on that band,
which makes it unsuitable for emergency services and other uses where
the utmost reliability is required. In any case, while 700-MHz UHF
does suffer from tropospheric ducting, there isn't nearly as much
noise on these bands, so less bandwidth is required there to get the
same amount of data through.
> Some broadcasters, like Channel Six, got to keep their old
> assignments. I don't know if that was for technical reasons, such
> as the need to have a VHF assignment because of the peculiar
> terrain the station has to cover, or for other reasons.
WPVI had a transitional digital assignment in part of the UHF band
that had already been reassigned to non-broadcast service. For
various reasons, there were no "core" UHF or VHF-high channels
available in Philadelphia after the transition that they could have
moved to.
They may soon be joined in the Roxborough tower farm by a station
being moved in from Wyoming, which will operate on channel 3. The
owners of the station found an obscure section of the Communications
Act that allows this, and channel 3 is the only feasible channel
currently available. (In this case, they don't care about
over-the-air reception; the channel-3 license is only required in
order to force their programming onto cable and satellite systems.)
-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
***** Moderator's Note *****
Given the likelyhood of interference due to the upcoming sunspot cycle
maxima, I'd have thought broadcasters would be overjoyed to abandon
VHF-Low assignments if favor of UHF. As you point out, the license is
mostly an excuse to get on the cable or up to the Clarke Belt, but
over-the-air viewers still count for Neilson ratings, so why would a
station choose to keep a VHF-Low assignment if they had a choice? It
meant converting to DTV twice instead of just once, so why not just
convert to a UHF DTV channel, and stay there?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 04:58:50 -0700
From: "Fred Atkinson, WB4AEJ" <fred@wb4aej.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: What is this device called
Message-ID: <00e201ca0de8$70f30930$c800000a@mishmash>
I remember back in the seventies when I decided to get a QKT
coupler for my home phone line for a phone patch for my ham radio
station. I was moving into a new place so I asked them to put it in
when they came.
The people in the ordering department were clueless on this (even
the supervisors). They kept telling me that this was against the
telephone company's tariffs and that they wouldn't install it. When I
insisted they were wrong, they just passed me to another, and yet
another, and yet another person who was equally clueless.
I told them that I was requiring them to install it. Then I got
passed to a supervisor who was the one who insisted that this was a
violation of the company's tariffs. The whole thing went on for days.
Suddenly I remembered that I had a very knowledgeable ham buddy
that worked in the telephone company's marketing department (Chad
Burriss, WB4REC, who passed away some years back). I told this
supervisor that I wanted her to call him and that he would explain the
whole thing to her. At that point she changed her tune. She told me
that she did not question what I said (the hell she hadn't) but that
they had to check it out. Name dropping seemed to work.
A couple of days later there I received a message saying that they
had resolved the issue and would proceed with the installation of my
QKT coupler when they came over to install my phones. When I called
in to finalize the details, I was once again asked what I wanted it
for.
I told her that I had already been through a knock down, drag out
fight with the business office over it. I told her that the business
office had already admitted they were wrong and agreed to put it in.
I asked her if we really had to go through that again.
She said, no (thankfully) and scheduled the installation.
They called me back and told me that they didn't have one in
stock. They said they would order it, install my phones for now, and
then send someone back over to install the coupler when it arrived.
They agreed not to charge me for the second installation visit. A few
weeks later, they showed up and installed the coupler on my phone.
I remember reading things where Bell was essentially complaining
about people illegally connecting equipment to their lines. I would
answer that people wouldn't do that if they didn't have to put up with
that kind of abuse when they called in to do it legally (fifty cents
per month was the rate for the coupler and I didn't have any problem
with paying that).
After type acceptance began, manufacturers started selling phone
patches that were type accepted and could be plugged directly into the
line. Additionally, there was a move to grandfather all previously
manufactured phone patches so they could be used on the PSTN without
an interconnection device.
One of the major problems of a totalitarian phone systems is going
through things like this. This is why I jumped for joy when the
telephone monopoly was broken up. Thank you Carterfone, Hushaphone,
MCI, and the rest.
I won't say that it solved all of the problems. But as with any
democracy, freedom carries individual responsibilities.
I just wish the current administration realized that.
Fred
***** Moderator's Note *****
There have been books written about the hidebound management at Ma
Bell, and about the arrogant and intractible attitudes exhibited by
many of her employees. I went through the same frustration you
experienced when I ordered an interface for a phone patch - and _I_
was working at New England Telephone!
It got done eventually. Elephants are not efficient because they're
nimble.
By the way, I hope you'll agree that one of the individual
responsibilities which accompanies our freedom is the obligation to
respect others' viewpoints, and to accept that not everyone will
agree with our own.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 07:02:36 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Wireless speed loss
Message-ID: <h4ho2u$gbl$1@news.eternal-september.org>
tlvp wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:09:29 -0400, Steven Lichter <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> If your AirPort is PCI-based, I have no idea.
> But if it's USB-based, perhaps the USB port it's
> on is working at USB 1.1 speeds rather than 2.0?
>
> Just a stab in the dark, of course :-) .
>
> Cheers, -- tlvp
It it is not USB, though a company makes one that is USB.
--
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, 26 Jul 2009 07:13:57 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Wireless speed loss
Message-ID: <h4hoo9$n29$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <h4do26$177$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Steven Lichter <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
>> 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,
>
> One of the reasons residential DSL is so inexpensive -- *NO*
> service-level guarantees whatsoever. <wry grin>
>
>> 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,
>
> Very true.
>
>> ... 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 fine 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.
>
> Well, unless you're running -really- ancient hardware, the wireless
> _should_ be running at 11mbit/sec., _minimum_. even allowing for the
> 'overhead' losses, this should easily swamp a 6mbit/sec upstream link.
>
> Thus, unless 'somehow' the Wi-Fi card, or the router have gotten
> 'locked down' to a slower bit-rate, that _shouldn't_ be the problem.
>
>> 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.
>
> The -really- telling item is that the ethernet-connected machine is
> seeing full speed, while the wireless one is not.
>
> Possibilities boil down to:
>
> 1) 'Something' is rate-limiting the wireless link, while not affecting
> the ethernet connection.
>
> 2) 'Somehow', the wireless section has linked up at 'significantly
> less than maximum' rate, and _is_ the bottleneck.
>
> 3) 'For some reason', the packet size on the wireless link has been
> set to a very small number, and packet 'overhead' is a
> disproportionately large part of the total data traffic.
>
> 4) "Something else" is using that bandwidth -- a neighbor 'leeching'
> off the Wi-Fi connection maybe?
>
> 5) 'Something' is hogging the CPU on the wireless machine. 'Viruses'
> that attack Macs are unusual, but they do exist. The coincidental
> timing makes it _really_ unlikely, but it's by no means certain
> that it such a coincidence did _not_ occur.
>
> If you haven't tried it already, I'd try powering everything down,
> including the access-point, waiting a good 30 seconds, and then
> powering things back up again. Then see if the problem still
> persists. Next, disconnect everything else, and see if the wireless
> box still has the problem. Third, try the wireless box on an
> _ethernet_ link, with the wireless turned off. things like this will
> go a long ways towards 'localizing' the problem.
>
My system is protected so no others [are] on my router. I have
checked for viruses and [there are] none, at least not [any] detected.
I shut everything off and rebooted [,but it did] not change. I shut
the Ethernet system off and things went up a bit, I also shut the WiFi
machine off and the ethernet went up to almost 6, [it] had been
running at 5.6. I checked my loads and I'm running at 73% with both
machines up on the net, 60% with one online. I have not gone back to
Ethernet on the AirPort yet, but plan [to] do [it] today. Most of the
time I only have my desktop Mac online, since I use the iBook when I
travel, but I need to have it on before I leave for a job and when I
return, so backups and my time charges can be done for the jobs so the
company, my crew and myself get paid. When I'm on the road I stay at
Best Western most of the time and my speeds for their Wi-Fi is around
4, no idea who they use. The whole reason for the testing is I'm
planning to put an Airport card on the desktop so I can get rid of the
last cable under my desk and that way I will also be able to use the
printer on both machines via Wi-Fi.
--
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, 26 Jul 2009 10:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: "harold@hallikainen.com" <harold@hallikainen.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <36d56b9c-ad05-4e7d-82b9-4ea76d791ae4@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
I enjoyed reading Neal McLain's telling of his work with John Reiser.
I think I first met John when we were both on a panel at the NAB
(National Association of Broadcasters), probably one dealing with
remote control of broadcast transmitters. At that time, the FCC
required "fail-safe" control of the transmitter such that a failure in
the circuit controlling the transmitter that prevented the operator
from turning off the transmitter resulted in the transmitter going
off. John expressed the FCC's flexibility in that rule by saying they
didn't care how you turned off the transmitter. It would be OK to aim
a cannon at the transmitter. I quoted him in a book I wrote for NAB on
transmitter control and unattended transmitter operation. Since then,
I often run in to John at NAB shows. I also get an occasional email
from him, such as when he contributed the channel one article to my
wiki.
He's a great guy!
Harold
***** Moderator's Note *****
Since many (most?) transmitters were controlled by voltages that were
simplexed on the audio pair, I think the FCC's logic was that if the
audio pair was cut or damaged, there'd be nothing to broadcast anyway.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: "harold@hallikainen.com" <harold@hallikainen.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <3630a0ed-61d0-4fdd-a056-65a421d99ca8@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Since many (most?) transmitters were controlled by voltages that were
> simplexed on the audio pair, I think the FCC's logic was that if the
> audio pair was cut or damaged, there'd be nothing to broadcast anyway.
>
> Bill Horne
None of the stations I worked with put their control on their program
line. The program lines were generally driven with a WE 111C
transformer to drop the 600 ohm source resistance (studio equipment)
down to 150 ohms to drive the line. Another 111C converted it back to
600 ohms at the transmitter. There was then an equalizer (parallel
resonant LC with a series pot) across the transmitter site transformer
secondary. That then drove the transmitter site equipment (typically
an audio limiter).
Control was generally on another pair (or two). The first system I
worked with was a Gates RDC-10. It used different voltages and
polarities on each wire of the pair to ground. One wire was held at a
constant voltage by the RDC-10 "filament" switch. At the transmitter
site, relays and steppers would interpret the control signal and send
the metering sample back on a second telco pair. During my first FCC
inspection, the inspector shorted out the control line and told me the
transmitter was supposed to drop. I pointed out that the rule said
"line faults causing loss of transmitter control" were required to
shut the transmitter down. I then turned off the RDC-10 filament
switch, and the transmitter went off. So, we still had transmitter
control.
The next remote control I worked with was the Moseley WRC25, or
something like that. It used vacuum tube circuitry to put dial pulses
(tone pulses) and other control tones on a single pair to the
transmitter site. There, the tones were detected, drove a stepper that
sent DC sample voltages back on the same pair for indication on an
analog meter at the studio.
Next came the Moseley PBR-15 and TRC-15, which continued to use tone
for control, but also returned metering as another tone on the same
telco pair. These could also be used on STL, FM, or AM subcarriers
(for AM, it was in the 20Hz to 25Hz area).
Harold
(author of the NAB Engineering Handbook chapter on transmission
control systems)
***** Moderator's Note *****
Never let it be said that I can't take a hint.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:25:07 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Polling switches for record information - any guidance?
Message-ID: <7c1bm.89518$qx1.59551@newsfe04.iad>
gerard wrote:
> 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
The LECs won't let you do that.
They used to have dial-in portals until some clown found some carelessly
discarded Pacific Bell manuals in a dumpster quite a few years ao. He
dialed into a switch and did a lot of damage.
Then, they went to dial-in portals that were only opened briefly when a
network engineer in the field calle network control who validated him
then opened the portal.
Today, I suspect an engineer could get in via the Internet but only with
jumping through a whole lot of security. And, even if they do it that
way today, even the secured Internet portal might be closed except for a
brief opening after verification.
***** Moderator's Note *****
AFAIK, central office switches aren't allowed to touch the
Internet. That may have changed in the past few years, but at the time
I retired, access was limited to dedicated lines or X.25 PADS, neither
of which could be reached from the net.
Telephone modems, at least in Verizon, were manually disconnected
after any remote maintenance was finished.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:11:52 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Polling switches for record information - any guidance?
Message-ID: <h4idaa$qcc$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Sam Spade wrote:
> gerard wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>
> The LECs won't let you do that.
>
> They used to have dial-in portals until some clown found some carelessly
> discarded Pacific Bell manuals in a dumpster quite a few years ao. He
> dialed into a switch and did a lot of damage.
>
> Then, they went to dial-in portals that were only opened briefly when a
> network engineer in the field calle network control who validated him
> then opened the portal.
>
> Today, I suspect an engineer could get in via the Internet but only with
> jumping through a whole lot of security. And, even if they do it that
> way today, even the secured Internet portal might be closed except for a
> brief opening after verification.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> AFAIK, central office switches aren't allowed to touch the
> Internet. That may have changed in the past few years, but at the time
> I retired, access was limited to dedicated lines or X.25 PADS, neither
> of which could be reached from the net.
>
> Telephone modems, at least in Verizon, were manually disconnected
> after any remote maintenance was finished.
>
> Bill Horne
>
GTE had it in some of their GT5 switches via dial-up, at least in the
90's. I have had to access a few via the net: I'm not going to say
which company, but it uses a VPN so without the codes you would never
get in. Also you can't make any changes to the switch, it is just to
see what is going on. It saved me from having to drive back to the
site, I would just look at what was going on and let the on-site tech
fix what I have found.
I guess a hacker could get it in, but if you fail after 3 attempts the
system locks out and sends a message, from that point on the system
will have to be reset from the switch or NOC. I would guess the
security department would also be involved and have been told that the
return path is also saved. That keeps me from playing around when I
have no reason to be there, [since] I don't want the FBI crashing my
door down and sending me to Cuba.
--
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.
***** Moderator's Note *****
The FBI can't send you to Cuba.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 22:06:25 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Hacker Says iPhone 3GS Encryption Is 'Useless' for Businesses
Message-ID: <p062408f1c692bb0e685c@[10.0.1.3]>
Hacker Says iPhone 3GS Encryption Is 'Useless' for Businesses
* By Brian X. Chen
* July 23, 2009 |
* 3:20 pm |
Updated 07/24/09, 9 a.m. PDT: Zdziarski taped videos demonstrating
iPhone 3GS disk extraction, as well as removal of PIN and backup
encryption passcodes. Both are embedded below the jump.
Apple claims that hundreds of thousands of iPhones are being used by
corporations and government agencies. What it won't tell you is that
the supposedly enterprise-friendly encryption included with the
iPhone 3GS is so weak it can be cracked in two minutes with a few
pieces of readily available freeware.
"It is kind of like storing all your secret messages right next to
the secret decoder ring," said Jonathan Zdziarski, an iPhone
developer and a hacker who teaches forensics courses on recovering
data from iPhones. "I don't think any of us [developers] have ever
seen encryption implemented so poorly before, which is why it's hard
to describe why it's such a big threat to security."
With its easy-to-use interface and wealth of applications available
for download, the iPhone may be the most attractive smartphone yet
for business use. Many companies seem to agree: In Apple's quarterly
earnings conference call Tuesday, Apple chief operating officer Tim
Cook said almost 20 percent of Fortune 100 companies have purchased
10,000 or more iPhones apiece; multiple corporations and government
organizations have purchased 25,000 iPhones each; and the iPhone has
been approved in more than 300 higher education institutions.
But contrary to Apple's claim that the new iPhone 3GS is more
enterprise friendly (for reference, see Apple's security overview for
iPhone in business [pdf]), the new iPhone 3GS' encryption feature is
"broken" when it comes to protecting sensitive information such as
credit card numbers and social-security digits, Zdziarski said.
Zdziarski said it's just as easy to access a user's private
information on an iPhone 3GS as it was on the previous generation
iPhone 3G or first generation iPhone, both of which didn't feature
encryption. If a thief got his hands on an iPhone, a little bit of
free software is all that's needed to tap into all of the user's
content. Live data can be extracted in as little as two minutes, and
an entire raw disk image can be made in about 45 minutes, Zdziarski
said.
Wondering where the encryption comes into play? It doesn't.
Strangely, once one begins extracting data from an iPhone 3GS, the
iPhone begins to decrypt the data on its own, he said.
To steal an iPhone's disk image, hackers can use popular jailbreaking
tools such as Red Sn0w and Purple Ra1n to install a custom kernel on
the phone. Then, the thief can install a Secure Shell (SSH) client to
port the iPhone's raw disk image across SSH onto a computer.
To demonstrate the technique, Zdziarski established a screenshare
with Wired.com, and he was able to tap into an iPhone 3GS' data with
a few easy steps. The encryption did not pose any hindrance.
Nonetheless, professionals using the iPhone for business don't seem
to care, or know, about the device's encryption weakness.
...
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/07/iphone-encryption/
***** Moderator's Note *****
I'm surprised that Apple would allow one of its flagship products to
come up short in this way. If these allegations are proven, the iphone
will have to undergo a major redesign to provide more robust
encryption.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 22:07:36 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Removing iPhone 3G[s] Passcode and Encryption
Message-ID: <p062408f2c692bc42b088@[10.0.1.3]>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wS3AMbXRLs
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 22:08:41 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Demonstration: Forensic Recovery of an iPhone 3G[s]
Message-ID: <p062408f3c692bc90c2f6@[10.0.1.3]>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHdNoKIZUCw
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 22:16:13 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: New iPhone hardware encryption not even close to hack proof
Message-ID: <p062408f4c692bd37ea0f@[10.0.1.3]>
New iPhone hardware encryption not even close to hack proof
The new iPhone 3GS includes hardware-based encryption, giving the
impression that your data is more secure than on previous models. A
well-known iPhone security expert shows, however, that the data is
just as easy to grab using simple hacking tools.
By Chris Foresman | Last updated July 24, 2009 11:16 AM CT
Apple has attempted to improve the security of iPhone data two ways
with recent updates. One new feature is encrypted backups, available
to any phone running iPhone OS 3.0 and iTunes 8.2 or later. Another
is hardware-based encryption, available on the iPhone 3GS. On the
surface, these things may seem industrial-grade, but iPhone data
forensics expert Jonathan Zdziarski told Ars that it's trivial to get
around these features.
The improved security features will absolutely keep out casual
snoopers. However, serious thieves or hackers can use easily
accessible tools to break the passcode lock and create an unencrypted
backup of your entire device. Zdziarski demonstrates how to do so
using his own forensics tools (see video below), but common
jailbreaks like purplera1n or redsn0w can be used to the same ends.
The passcode and encrypted backup password can be deleted with these
hacks, allowing an unencrypted backup to be made. That backup can be
scoured for images, phone numbers, passwords, or other data.
The hardware encryption, meant to appeal to enterprise customers, can
be just as easily thwarted. Using the same jailbreaking tools, the
file system can be exposed and accessed like any other UNIX-based
operating system. The hardware encryption system will then happily
unencrypt the data and present it to the user. "The kernel decrypts
it for you when you ask for files, so you get the decrypted copy,"
explained Zdziarski. "The only benefit hardware encryption has then
is that it makes wipes faster, by just dropping the key."
Even that benefit is of little use if an iPhone thief has a paper
clip. The remote wipe feature-as well as "Find my iPhone"-can be
disabled by removing the iPhone's SIM card. Then, any of the above
hacks could be used to access the data on the device. BlackBerrys, by
contrast, can be set to wipe itself after a certain period of being
disconnected from the network.
...
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/07/new-iphone-hardware-encryption-not-even-close-to-hack-proof.ars
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:42:26 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <Js-dnYYecb-srfDXnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
Garrett Wollman wrote:
> WPVI is still on channel 6.
I've been Googling the DTV transition assignments, and came up with this
document, entitled "DTV Tentative Channel Designations for the First and
Second Rounds":
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf
.... which says that WPVI was assigned UHF channel 46 for DTV
transmission. The document doesn't say what "first and second rounds"
are (or were), but since others have said WPVI is using VHF Channel 6
for DTV, I assume they were the transitional phases of the DTV switch,
during which WPVI simulcast it's programming to the DTV audience on
channel 46.
This thread has gotten me curious: does anyone have the URL for the list
of VHF channels that *were* retired/reassigned, and which ones are still
available or in use for television? Does it vary by area, or is it the
same throughout the U.S.?
I'd also like to have a list of stations which switched to UHF channels
for their final DTV assignment, and which ones remained on VHF (or moved
there after the changeover). Does anyone have a URL?
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:23:35 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <4A6D39D7.8080005@annsgarden.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jul 26, 3:34 pm, Neal McLain <nmcl...@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>>> The audio portion of TV's Channel 6 was receivable on any FM
>>> radio, either cheap ones or good ones, tube or IC, for
>>> _decades_.
>
>> Well, it's gone now, and it shall remain so for decades to come.
>> Get used to it.
> Not according to the newspaper. Apparently, surprisingly many people
> miss it and they're looking into bringing it back.
Has the newspaper reported what WPVI's owners think about this?
>> I don't recall anybody saying that. It would not cause interference
>> to other FM stations. However, it would certainly interfere with
>> WPVI-DT's signal.
> I don't understand. Several things suggest to me the digital and
> analog used _different_ frequences. (If in fact digital is using the
> same frequencies, yes, of course the issue of is moot.)
> 1) Before the digital switchover, TV stations were broadcasting in
> _both_ digital and analog. They would have tests pre-cutover where
> they'd tell viewers they were temporarily cutting off the analog
> signal. If the viewer could continue receiving, the viewer was set
> for digital, but if not, the viewer was not ready.
The FCC assigned every full-power TV station a temporary digital channel
for the transition. WPVI-DT was on channel 64 during the transition.
When the transition period ended, each station could choose to remain on
its temporary digital channel, or move back to its original analog
channel. WPVI-DT's owners chose to move back to Channel 6.
http://www.water-damage.org/tag/wpvi-dt-reception/
> 2) Further, I thought (as stated by others) that the digital signals
> were using different frequencies because the old analog ones were
> to be reassigned to other uses, such as public safety.
Generally true, but exceptions were allowed in certain circumstances.
I'll defer to Garrett Wollman to explain these exceptions.
> 3) The newspaper article (admittedly not a technical document)
> suggested the problem was legal, not technical. Apparently dealing
> with royalty payments. They weren't issue when it was a 'quirk'.
Had WPVI-DT remained on Channel 64, there would have been all sorts of
legal problems associated with any attempt to resurrect WPVI-DT audio at
87.75 MHz, and copyright royalty payments no doubt would have been one
of them. However, as you note, Disney's decision to move WPVI-DT back
to Channel 6 has rendered the issue moot.
> When this was discussed in the other newsgroup, it seemed to me the
> only barrier was bureaucratic, not technical. There were long replies
> of various FCC rules; that if one took at their letter, either Ch 6
> or consumer FM radio receiver manufacturers had been violating
> federal law for decades.
I assume that these discussions were for the general case (Channel 6 is
vacated after the switch) rather that the specific case of WPVI-DT.
> Frankly, I was troubled by the bureaucratic stance; I was hoping
> someone would take a consumer or public service stance. That is,
> instead of coming up with all sorts of _legal_ reasons why it
> couldn't be done, come up with a reason how it _could_ be done.
It can be done, but in the FM band, not outside the FM band. As I've
noted before, any television station licensee is free to apply for an FM
broadcast license in the FM band.
I hadn't thought about the copyright issue before, but now that you
mention it, let me assure you that if a TV station even considered
delivering its audio signal via an FM station, the copyright owners
would demand a cut. Just consider the demands that copyright owners
impose for internet streaming.
Neal McLain
------------------------------
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 (29 messages)
******************************
|
or 