29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for August 18, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 207 : "text" Format
====== 29 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ====== |
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Bill Horne and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. - Geoffrey Welsh
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
|
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:43:24 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <CALtjCn+AXPsmg3YkR_TR-js=hLT9X5=d5QumOhgAkV5VT4Uk0A@mail.gmail.com>
Richard Stallman (head of the Free Software Foundation) is urging
people to complain to the FCC about this.
https://esupport.fcc.gov/ccmsforms/form2000.action?form_type=2000F
I'm not sure if this does any good.
I personally am against BART's action unless they can convince me
there's some compelling reason. Even then I'd be suspicious.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
***** Moderator's Note *****
The only thing you'll get from that website is typing practice: it's
an online complaint form that will be, at best, filed and forgotten.
If you want to complain effectively to the U.S. Government, send a
hand-written letter to each of your Senators and your Representative
in Congress. It must be written in your own handwriting, and sent
via the Post Office, to have any weight: politicians learned long ago
that voters who will take time to write by hand are going to take time
to keep track of the answer they get.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 01:13:57 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon strike
Message-ID: <j2fm7r$muk$1@dont-email.me>
On 8/16/2011 10:03 AM, Tom Horne wrote:
> On Aug 15, 7:33 am, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>> In most areas you can get a 'naked' (no dial tone) DSL circuit.
>
> [Moderator snip]
>
>> Unlike a pair with 'dial tone', a field tech cannot tell whether
>> [the] pair is 'in use' (meaning 'active', not 'off hook') by simply
>> hooking a butt-set onto the pair, and 'listening' for voice, or
>> dial-tone. There have been lots of 'naked' DSL circuit outages
>> because a field tech unwittingly 'stole' an active pair to fix
>> another problem.
>
> Lineman have been equipped with DSL detecting butt sets for many years
> now. When the butt set is connected to a DSL signal pair it sounds an
> alarm and / or will not go off hook. So accidental downing of DSL
> service is no longer that much of a problem. Some Butt sets can even
> function like a piggy back telephone and conduct voice calls without
> downing the line. I own two such Harris sets.
Perhaps, but a couple of weeks ago I had a (naked) DSL problem that
the tech who came out blamed on just such a cause. "Well, I don't
want to say anything against the [new ownership and name] company, but
some of the contractors they hire don't recognize a DSL without
dialtone..."
Whether that was in fact the problem, I have no way to know. But he
then went to the cabinet (2 blocks away) and came back and said "it's
fixed".
Dave
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 09:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Verizon Stirke - war of words
Message-ID: <f05a758c-bae1-4c87-ac93-78f7820dea7d@d25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
The Phila Inqr had a long article describing ad campaigns by both
Verizon and the CWA to explain their position to the public.
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20110817_Verizon_strike_is_also_a_public_relations_fight.html
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:46:11 -0400
From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Extensions to pay phones?
Message-ID: <4e8ef$4e4bfe32$cf7076b7$25880@PRIMUS.CA>
***** Moderator's Note *****
1FR is "Single party, Flat-rate Residential" service
1FB is "Single party, Flat-rate Business" service
1MB is "Single party, Measured Business" service
Thanks... in Bell Canada territory we often saw "1FL" lines used for FAX or
other standalone (i.e. not hunt group, DID trunk, etc.) purposes; Googling
"1FL" turns up "one family phone line", but these were definitely business
services charged at business rates (usually double or more the price of
residential POTS service.) They were flat rate and the "L" could have stood
for loop start... anyone know for sure?
***** Moderator's Note *****
I searched for "usoc code" and "1FL", and got this from the State of
Kentucky website:
1FL- Flat rate line, business, two-way (for FX only)
A Verizon page gives this definition, although it applies to the State
of Connecticutt and has something to do with "clecsupport":
(State) CT
(Class of Service) 1FL
(Type of Service) BUS
(English Description) Flat Rate Service
And, finalyy, in an FCC filing viewable at
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view.action?id=6515382651 ,
Sprint lists "1FL" as
Individual -Business -Flat -without telephone -class of service
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 23:09:12 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Extensions to pay phones?
Message-ID: <gZidnWP10Md1o9bTnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <20110815233805.99372.qmail@joyce.lan>,
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>>How common was it to offer flat rate to business subscribers? I can't
>>help but suspect the majority of business subscribers (those within
>>cities and larger towns) had message rate service.
>
>Pretty common outside the northeast and Chicago, as I recall.
'Flat rate' was the only Ameritech, nee Illinois Bell, business service in
Chicago, up through the early-/mid-1980s. BIG stink when they forcibly
converted businesses to 'units' based billing for all calls. Residential
service got '1 unit per call, regardless of duration' for calls to 'nearby'
(8 miles, CO-to-CO, IIRC) numbers.
In the 80s, Ameritech incrementally rolled 'units' based billing across
almost all of their service area, wherever they could bully the state
utilities commission into accepting it.
Among other things, this change absolutely -killed- the business use of
dial-up remote computing. Everybody who had been a heavy dial-up user
converted to 'dry' lease-line (3002 or 3008) circuits with 'line drivers'
and stat mux units. a $500+ install, plus circa $20/month, beat the h*ll
out of $25/mo plus $0.60/*HOUR* per terminal -- especially when you could
get 8-16 terminals on that $20/month, by spending an additional (one time)
few hundred (_used_ market) for a pair of stat muxes. With speeds faster
than the 'standard' dial-up modems gave, to boot.
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 12:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Extensions to pay phones?
Message-ID: <1313611085.5364.YahooMailClassic@web111725.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
--- On Tue, 8/16/11, Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
> In article <20110815233805.99372.qmail@joyce.lan>,
> John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>>> How common was it to offer flat rate to business subscribers? I
>>> can't help but suspect the majority of business subscribers (those
>>> within cities and larger towns) had message rate service.
>>
>> Pretty common outside the northeast and Chicago, as I recall.
>
> 'Flat rate' was the only Ameritech, nee Illinois Bell, business
> service in Chicago, up through the early-/mid-1980s. BIG stink
> when they forcibly converted businesses to 'units' based billing for
> all calls. Residential service got '1 unit per call, regardless of
> duration' for calls to 'nearby' (8 miles, CO-to-CO, IIRC) numbers.
>
> In the 80s, Ameritech incrementally rolled 'units' based billing
> across almost all of their service area, wherever they could bully
> the state utilities commission into accepting it.
>
> Among other things, this change absolutely -killed- the business use
> of dial-up remote computing. Everybody who had been a heavy dial-up
> user converted to 'dry' lease-line (3002 or 3008) circuits with
> 'line drivers' and stat mux units. a $500+ install, plus circa
> $20/month, beat the h*ll out of $25/mo plus $0.60/*HOUR* per
> terminal -- especially when you could get 8-16 terminals on that
> $20/month, by spending an additional (one time) few hundred (_used_
> market) for a pair of stat muxes. With speeds faster than the
> 'standard' dial-up modems gave, to boot.
Twenty or thirty years earlier, there was a big push in the then Bell
System to go to "usage sensitive pricing," and as I recall they picked
Oklahoma to try to get it in Southwestern Bell territory. The
commission and the company were flooded with anti-USP letters and
calls, letters to the editor in newspapers.
A poll showed that almost all customers despised the idea, even those
customers who you could show would have lower monthly costs. It
slowly was abandoned as an idea doomed to failure. Some legislators
introduced bills to prohibit USP.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:24:56 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon strike
Message-ID: <7oidnXb-bqY1zdbTnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <c038b862-b32a-45d6-b2fc-c253d4fd1441@a31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
Tom Horne <hornetd@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 15, 7:33 am, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>> In most areas you can get a 'naked' (no dial tone) DSL circuit.
>
>[Moderator snip]
>
>> Unlike a pair with 'dial tone', a field tech cannot tell whether
>> [the] pair is 'in use' (meaning 'active', not 'off hook') by simply
>> hooking a butt-set onto the pair, and 'listening' for voice, or
>> dial-tone. There have been lots of 'naked' DSL circuit outages
>> because a field tech unwittingly 'stole' an active pair to fix
>> another problem.
>
>Lineman have been equipped with DSL detecting butt sets for many years
>now. When the butt set is connected to a DSL signal pair it sounds an
>alarm and / or will not go off hook. So accidental downing of DSL
>service is no longer that much of a problem. Some Butt sets can even
>function like a piggy back telephone and conduct voice calls without
>downing the line. I own two such Harris sets.
I can state -- from first-hand experience as recently as 2005 -- that
'stealing' "DSL-only' pairs does happen. I
the shop were I was employed at that time provided DSL for all employees,
to support "work-at-home", when needed. One employee was in a near-
saturated neighborhood, and 'lost' their DSL 3 times in a little less than
2 years. The last time got 'messy', as there were =zero= spare pairs when
another customer's line failed. The DSL-only pair got 'stolen', and there
wasn't any pair to 'replace' it with, when the DSL circuit problem was
reported.
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 02:42:59 -0500
From: gordonb.15ah1@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <h6CdnTkbYaGe7NbTnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
> According to one article:
> "The agency did not jam cell signals, which is illegal, but shut off
> the system - which Johnson said is allowable under an agreement with
> several major phone service providers that pay rent to BART."
I still wonder if deliberately shutting down 911 service (cellular
or otherwise) for any reason that isn't itself an emergency (e.g.
a gas leak in the subway tunnels requires shutting down electrical
devices that might detonate the gas, including cell transmitters.
But they'd need to shut down the trains, too.) might make them
liable in a wrongful death suit should failing to reach 911 make a
significant difference in the outcome.
Most of the scenarios that could realistically happen would involve
someone with medical problems stuck in a stalled subway car,
though, which doesn't happen very often, I hope. (I am reminded
here of a situation in Dallas where a subway car stalled in a tunnel,
passengers waited for a time like an hour, then exited the tunnel
on foot, and were threatened with prosecution for trespassing.
There was a speaker system to communicate with passengers, which
didn't work, and I suspect employees didn't know it didn't work at
the time.)
I suspect that liability would also apply to non-repair maintenance
upgrade on the 911 system which involved a 3-week city-wide 911
outage because they decided to disconnect all the trunks, THEN
order new ones, and assign only one man to the task.
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:42:34 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Avoid socializing by pretending to use your phone? You're not alone
Message-ID: <p062408ccca70b0ccc5e9@[10.0.1.4]>
Avoid socializing by pretending to use your phone? You're not alone
By Casey Johnston
If you pretend to use your cell phone to avoid talking to others,
congratulations-you are part of the rudest 13 percent of the American
public. According to a new study from the Pew Research Center, while
83 percent of American adults have a cell phone of some kind, only 13
percent have pretended to use them so they didn't have to interact
with someone.
Americans are still using phones by and large for useful things: 73
percent text, and 44 percent use their phone to access the Internet,
even though only 35 percent have smartphones. Most cell phone owners
have recently used their phones to obtain information they needed
immediately (51 percent), but less than 6 percent on average have
used their phone for a video call.
...
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/08/13-percent-of-cell-phone-owners-fake-use-them-to-avoid-social-interactions.ars
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Cell-Phones.aspx
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:47:59 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: iOS devs pay $50,000 for collecting children's info in apps
Message-ID: <p062408cdca70b132dde6@[10.0.1.4]>
iOS devs pay $50,000 for collecting children's info in apps
by Jacqui Chen
The parent company of Broken Thumbs Apps - a prominent iOS app maker
responsible for games like Zombie Duck Hunt, Truth or Dare, and
Emily's Dress Up - has today settled with the Federal Trade Commission
over its apparent collection of children's personal data in its iPhone
and iPod touch apps. Though the FTC has gone after other companies for
similar violations, this case is the first focused on mobile apps.
Parent company W3 Innovations was targeted with an FTC lawsuit on
Friday; the settlement was announced Monday morning. In its
complaint, the FTC alleges that W3 "collected, maintained, and/or
disclosed personal information" entered into its various kid-targeted
apps-for example, the complaint claims that the company collected and
maintained a list of more than 30,000 e-mails as well as personal
information from more than 300 Emily's Girl World App users and 290
Emily's Dress Up users.
...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/ios-devs-pay-50000-for-collecting-childrens-info-in-apps.ars
***** Moderator's Note *****
... and if that doesn't scare you, then think about this: had the
company bothered to "partner" with an offshore entity to "sample" the
emails, they could have done the same thing with complete impunity.
Bill Horne
Moderator
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright (C) 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 (10 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues