|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 209 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Re: Cellphone savings worth research
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Cellphones and driving
Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security
Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security
Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security
Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: Can you explain this number 1-847-1xx-xxxx
====== 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: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <73415dd1-e1e1-4bf7-b600-f039ec5a02b4@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 29, 9:56 pm, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> . . . hit "#" to abort the message and get the tone. (I
> believe that can be done with most C.O.-based voice mail.)
Unfortunately, no.
Voice mails and answering machines are not consistent. A key on one
system that gives you the beep puts you in phone mail jail on another
system.
For instance, with some people I call, hitting 1 ends the beep on CO
voice mail. But not on others.
It gets tedious when one has to make many phone calls and listen to
long drawn out answering announcements.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I wonder if cellular users are billed per-minute for calls that go to
voice mail. If so, the complicated and lengthly announcements are
there to pad the bills.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <27aaa7da-753a-49da-b45a-3e5f14e7d21a@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 30, 8:04 am, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I wonder if cellular users are billed per-minute for calls that go to
> voice mail. If so, the complicated and lengthly announcements are
> there to pad the bills.
Yes, if you call from your cellphone to listen to your messages; the
minutes count against your allowance.
For callers to you, you do not pay. However, if someone is calling
you for their own cellphone, the meter is running. Many cell phone
voice mails have extra options in addition to the person's own
announcement.
I like to keep my answering machine announcements as short as
possible. These days everyone knows what to do.
I've also found people ignore the announcements. I say "you've
reached [phone number] ", but I still get many messages, some urgent,
intended for another person.
I wish people leaving messages would speak slower, give the number
they want to be reached at, and when the best time is to call. I used
to say this in my announcement but it was always ignored. I come home
from work and have messages with inadequate information.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:46:36 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Message-ID: <4A71098C.2000900@thadlabs.com>
On 7/29/2009 6:56 PM, Alan W wrote:
> [...]
> It seemed a bit odd at first that there isn't a single tower shown in
> Saratoga, when I drive by plenty of them here every day. But most of the
> towers here are actually owned by Crown Castle, and they lease space to
> the different carriers. So it looks like they wouldn't be listed.
I still find it odd the FCC doesn't require all cell phone sites to be
registered with the FCC. If they are registered, most are not publicly
revealed.
With that written, I hope you're sitting down. :-)
I finally located a site showing all the cell phone towers and/or sites
in the SF Bay Area. AT&T has 1,150, T-Mobile has 1,550, etc.
Here's the info site: http://sfocellsites.com/
and here's a map of AT&T and T-Mobile cell phone sites as of 25-May-2009;
AT&T sites are blue (or green if requiring more research), T-Mobile sites
are pink/purple (brown if more research required), and note it takes awhile
to place that many "push pins" on the Google map:
http://sfocellsites.com/mappageA.htm
Now THAT (the map) makes more sense than the obviously w-a-y incomplete
FCC database.
The cell sites appear to be every 0.5 to 1 miles in dense populated areas
and/or along major roadways, and I now know how/why I reach the CHP the
moment I enter I-280: there's a tower/site right there and they continue
flanking I-280 every 0.5-1 mile as far north as I care to drive. And when
I'm at home there's a closer tower, so that explains why I get the local
city's 911 center and also (presumably a legacy from Cellular One) a tower
site nearly flanking the food supermarket which I suspect was in response
to my complaint years ago (circa 1993).
According to the author of sfocellsites, AT&T keeps their sites secret,
so he has to discover them the hard way.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Message-ID: <1dd668a6-a4f1-45ad-bf3b-6322ad3e14bf@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 30, 8:04 am, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> The cell sites appear to be every 0.5 to 1 miles in dense populated areas
> and/or along major roadways . . .
Would anyone know what the sizing was in the early days of analog
cellular service?
I remember that [while] digital phones got popular they had many dead
spots and [the cell companies] had to install many more towers since
the digital signals didn't propagate as well (or were more easily
blocked).
> According to the author of sfocellsites, AT&T keeps their sites secret,
> so he has to discover them the hard way.
Is there any reason for the _general_ public to know where cell towers
are? I think it's probably something that should be kept quiet;
perhaps limited to those within the communications industry who have a
technical need to know, or those experiencing radio interference from
a too-close tower. AFAIK, the location of a cell tower is only one of
many factors regarding quality of service.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Members of the general public who are deciding which cellular carrier
to use are certainly entitled to know the signal levels each carrier
offers at the places they will be using the cell phone. If the cell
site's longitude and latitude can be used to obtain that information,
then I'd say "Yes, they're entitled to know".
Of course, cellular company executives might feel that their
advertising programs are a more accurate source of information for
consumers, so I understand that they may be reluctant to disclose the
exact locations for their cell sites.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:58:12 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Message-ID: <4A722584.4090504@thadlabs.com>
On 7/30/2009 1:59 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jul 30, 8:04 am, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
>> The cell sites appear to be every 0.5 to 1 miles in dense populated areas
>> and/or along major roadways . . .
>
> Would anyone know what the sizing was in the early days of analog
> cellular service?
At one time (early 1990s) Cellular One was quite open as to the
location of their cell towers. Each month's billing included a new
coverage map with tower locations highlighted. I thought I had kept
the old maps and could scan one, but I cannot find any in my files.
> I remember that [while] digital phones got popular they had many dead
> spots and [the cell companies] had to install many more towers since
> the digital signals didn't propagate as well (or were more easily
> blocked).
Similar problem with the DTV transition from analog: either you get
the signal or you don't.
Additionally, early digital voice quality was horrible and many people
who had dual-mode phones (analog/digital) optioned their phones to
operate analog-only solely for the voice quality.
>> According to the author of sfocellsites, AT&T keeps their sites secret,
>> so he has to discover them the hard way.
>
> Is there any reason for the _general_ public to know where cell towers
> are? I think it's probably something that should be kept quiet;
> perhaps limited to those within the communications industry who have a
> technical need to know, or those experiencing radio interference from
> a too-close tower. AFAIK, the location of a cell tower is only one of
> many factors regarding quality of service.
Several folks earlier this week posted URLs to websites having photos of
cell towers/sites, and what surprised me was many sites' vulnerability
with open-to-the-world cabling, etc.
For me, learning the locations of nearby cell sites yesterday answered
my question which 911 response center I would reach when dialing 911.
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Members of the general public who are deciding which cellular carrier
> to use are certainly entitled to know the signal levels each carrier
> offers at the places they will be using the cell phone. If the cell
> site's longitude and latitude can be used to obtain that information,
> then I'd say "Yes, they're entitled to know".
Agreed! I also, uh, downloaded the database from sfocellsites.com and
fed in the lat/lon data to one of my programs to get the bearing and
distance to the four closest towers to my home; the 416, 427, 2037 and
3616 are the designators displayed by hovering my mouse over the "push
pins" on sfocellsites' Google map and here are the results:
GREAT CIRCLE CALCULATOR, GCDIST 1.1 Copyright 1987 by Thad Floryan
From: 37° 20' 17.2"N, 122° 04' 17.1"W Home
To: 37° 19' 58.5"N, 122° 04' 31.9"W 416
Bearing = 212° 09.8', Distance = 2239.9 feet
From: 37° 20' 17.2"N, 122° 04' 17.1"W Home
To: 37° 19' 56.1"N, 122° 03' 04.1"W 427
Bearing = 110° 00.0', Distance = 1.0 nm, 1.2 miles
From: 37° 20' 17.2"N, 122° 04' 17.1"W Home
To: 37° 19' 29.0"N, 122° 04' 22.8"W 2037
Bearing = 185° 22.1', Distance = 4906.4 feet
From: 37° 20' 17.2"N, 122° 04' 17.1"W Home
To: 37° 20' 32.0"N, 122° 04' 22.5"W 3616
Bearing = 343° 45.9', Distance = 1557.5 feet
> Of course, cellular company executives might feel that their
> advertising programs are a more accurate source of information for
> consumers, so I understand that they may be reluctant to disclose the
> exact locations for their cell sites.
The average cell phone user would be unlikely able to use location data
for anything meaningful. :-)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Message-ID: <7a72d984-b8c8-4ffa-b099-8c0135cd8722@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Members of the general public who are deciding which cellular carrier
> to use are certainly entitled to know the signal levels each carrier
> offers at the places they will be using the cell phone. If the cell
> site's longitude and latitude can be used to obtain that information,
> then I'd say "Yes, they're entitled to know".
Yes, the public is entitled to know signal strength where they'll need
to use the phone.
I'm not a radio expert. But I strongly suspect tower location is only
one of several factors that determine signal strength at the
cellphone. I believe terrain plays a role. Also, tower capacity may
be important--if a tower is 'filled' or down, another more distant
tower will be used.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:42:07 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Message-ID: <o4c27590j6k734372dlfpoi2uku931tm7k@4ax.com>
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:54:32 -0400 (EDT), Neal McLain
<nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>techie@tantivy.tantivy.net (Bob Vaughan) wrote:
>
> > Other places where you may find antennas include flagpoles (there are
> > examples at Palo Alto fire stations 3 (Rinconada Park), and 4
> > Mitchell Park), lamp posts (the old Elks Lodge parking lot next to
> > Dianah's), and church steeples. There are also some micro sites
> > mounted on utility poles (Junipero Serra @ Stanford Ave).
>
>Not to mention fake conifers, fake cacti, fake water towers, real water
>towers, fake utility poles, smokestacks, transmission line towers,
>abandoned billboard poles.
On Nevada Route 160, on the outskirts of Las Vegas, there is a cell
phone tower disguised as a pine tree. But no pine trees grow
naturally in this desert terrain. In fact, no trees at all. No
cactus either, the climate is too dry (2 inches/year of rain) for
cactus. The only vegetation is tumble-weed bushes.
So here the fake pine tree is a very bad disguise.
***** Moderator's Note *****
OK, but how many people that see it _know_ that trees don't grow there?
"What happens in Vegas ..."
------------------------------
Date: 30 Jul 2009 14:57:27 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Message-ID: <20090730145727.46557.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>So here the fake pine tree is a very bad disguise.
There's a tower disguised as a fake tree near Bainbridge NY which is
twice as high as any of the surrounding trees. Why did they bother?
R's,
John
***** Moderator's Note *****
John, that's normal procedure at Ma Bell: you have to plan for future growth. ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Message-ID: <c8ebe625-35ba-41ba-a921-2400af640174@a26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 30, 7:06 am, Richard <r...@richbonnie.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:54:32 -0400 (EDT), Neal McLain
>
> <nmcl...@annsgarden.com> wrote:
> >tec...@tantivy.tantivy.net (Bob Vaughan) wrote:
>
> > > Other places where you may find antennas include flagpoles (there are
> > > examples at Palo Alto fire stations 3 (Rinconada Park), and 4
> > > Mitchell Park), lamp posts (the old Elks Lodge parking lot next to
> > > Dianah's), and church steeples. There are also some micro sites
> > > mounted on utility poles (Junipero Serra @ Stanford Ave).
>
> >Not to mention fake conifers, fake cacti, fake water towers, real water
> >towers, fake utility poles, smokestacks, transmission line towers,
> >abandoned billboard poles.
>
> On Nevada Route 160, on the outskirts of Las Vegas, there is a cell
> phone tower disguised as a pine tree. But no pine trees grow
> naturally in this desert terrain. In fact, no trees at all. No
> cactus either, the climate is too dry (2 inches/year of rain) for
> cactus. The only vegetation is tumble-weed bushes.
> So here the fake pine tree is a very bad disguise.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> OK, but how many people that see it _know_ that trees don't grow there?
>
> "What happens in Vegas ..."
Well, yeah. But everything else in Las Vegas is fake too, so why not
a fake pine? Makes as much sense as a fake pirate ship in a fake
lake, or a fake gondola in a fake Venetian canal.
Neal McLain
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Fring <frugal.living8@gmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphone savings worth research
Message-ID: <cb1d2418-a687-42d2-9709-29b556598c90@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 28, 10:02 am, "www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTva...@Queensbridge.us>
wrote:
> On Jul 16, 8:08 am, Zee <zza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 15, 8:15 am, "www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTva...@Queensbridge.us>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 13, 8:59 am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
>
> > > > SPENDING SMART
> > > > Cellphone savings worth research
> > > > Competition for wireless customers leads to a bewildering array of
> > > > options - and a price war
>
> > > > By Todd Wallack, Globe Staff | July 12, 2009
> > > > The Boston Globe
>
> > > > When we looked into switching cellphone companies recently, we were
> > > > soon drowning in options.
>
> > > > T-Mobile USA alone offers more than 40 individual and family plans.
> > > > Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and Sprint Nextel offer dozens more. And then
> > > > there's a pack of upstarts offering prepaid service, including Boost
> > > > Mobile (a unit of Sprint Nextel that uses Nextel's network), Virgin
> > > > Mobile USA (which uses Sprint's network), and MetroPCS (which has its
> > > > own network in Boston and some other cities.)
>
> > > > The great news is that all this competition has sparked a price war
> > > > of sorts. Boost Mobile recently made a splash by offering unlimited
> > > > calls and text messages for $50 per month - half the price of
> > > > traditional plans with unlimited minutes. Virgin Mobile countered by
> > > > offering unlimited calls for $50 (or $60 if you add in text
> > > > messages). Now some say their plans are even cheaper. MetroPCS
> > > > charges $40-$50 for unlimited calls and text. And TracFone just
> > > > launched its own $45 option called StraightTalk.
>
> > > > ...
>
> > >
>http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/articles/2009/07/12/ce...
>
> > > Story mention:
> > > "For instance, we found a T-Mobile prepaid plan that allowed us to buy
> > > a block of 1,000 minutes good for a year for $100, which works out to
> > > less than $9 per month, less than one-third of the cost of the
> > > cheapest traditional monthly plans."
>
> > > I pay $15.00 every three months on Virgin.
> > > That averages to $5.00 per month.
>
> > > Here is how it is done:
> > > Go towww.virginmobileusa.comCheckoutVirgin Mobile phones and
> > > plans. Buy one of their phones and activate it.
>
> > > While activating it look at the selection where you will make a top-
> > > up of $20.00 every three 90 days
> > > BUT while in that area of the site you pick AUTOMATIC top-up of $15.00
> > > every 90 days linked to either:
> > > PayPal
> > > Credit Card or
> > > Debit Card
>
> > > Want a one-time savings of even more? If you enter Kickbacks Code
> > > number:
> > > yQqUHOsQ
> > > when signing up we EACH get get 60 minutes of bonus airtime after you
> > > add money to your account http://www.virginmobileusa.com/
> -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I use T-mobile pay as you go
>
> >http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/plans/prepaid-plans.aspx
>
> > My $100 refill valid for 1 year gives me 1000 minutes plus 150 bonus
> > minutes. I only use it for emergency or if I don't have any other
> > options. For my regular long distance calls, I use Onesuite prepaid
> > long distance card and some times its VoIP service.
>
> I have been a happy OneSuite customer for several years, BUT recently
> have been making as many calls from home using GoogleVoice for
> free. My phone book book of frequent contacts is on my computer's
> googleVoice interface. Only works for free intra-USA.
>
> If I am not at my computer but at home I still use OneSuite for almost
> all of my calls, even to other a few blocks away. Verizon charges me
> 11¢ to connect a local call. I can talk forever. OneSuite charges me
> 2.9¢ CPM thru their toll free number. So this is cheaper then VZ for
> very short calls. Works as prepaid phone card. PIN not needed for
> calls from home or cell phone. Use Promotion/SuiteTreat Code:
> "FREEoffer23" for FREE time. Works FROM many other countries. Compare
> the rates athttps://www.OneSuite.comNo monthly fee or minimum.- Hide quoted
text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
We are on the same boat. I also have Onesuite.com and Google Voice.
But when my PC is turned off, I just use my Onesuite even though I'm
going to call a US number, especially if its just a short call. I
don't bother to turn my PC on for something that will only cost me a
few cents. You are right about how Onesuite works from other countries
as I've tried making calls from U.K. back to the U.S. last winter.
BTW, where did you get the Onesuite promotional code FREEoffer23?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:22:49 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <pan.2009.07.30.08.22.47.620489@myrealbox.com>
.........
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> The Fifth Amendment states that
>
> "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
> compensation."
>
> I doubt that items confiscated because they were used in the commission of
> a crime are considered to be "for public use", but I'll defer to the
> constitutional scholars among us.
Having a confiscated phone demolished before the eyes of the offender may
well be public entertainment. but probably not "public use".
Perhaps they just need a portable microwave oven to zap the offending
phone into scrap and then just hand it back?
--
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.
***** Moderator's Note *****
The problem with proposing such draconian methods is that they make us
seem powerless and frustrated. I propose a more modest solution: the
phone could be confiscated and held at a local police station until
the offender picks it up: that's a measured response which discourages
further abuse.
By the way, does anyone have data on the percentage of cell phone use
done by automobile drivers vs. passengers vs. those not in cars?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:17:25 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <65mdnbFTO6vCJOzXnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@posted.visi>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> By the way, does anyone have data on the percentage of cell phone use
> done by automobile drivers vs. passengers vs. those not in cars?
I don't have any real data other than personal observation, but on the
drivers vs. passengers issue, I'd say that it was drivers over
passengers 20:1. First, because most cars have only a driver, no
passengers. Second, because it's much less common to see a cell phone
in use when there are multiple people in the car.
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:14:15 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <h4skd7$43d$1@news.eternal-september.org>
David Clayton wrote:
> .........
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> The Fifth Amendment states that
>>
>> "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
>> compensation."
>>
>> I doubt that items confiscated because they were used in the commission of
>> a crime are considered to be "for public use", but I'll defer to the
>> constitutional scholars among us.
>
> Having a confiscated phone demolished before the eyes of the offender may
> well be public entertainment. but probably not "public use".
>
> Perhaps they just need a portable microwave oven to zap the offending
> phone into scrap and then just hand it back?
>
> --
> 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.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> The problem with proposing such draconian methods is that they make us
> seem powerless and frustrated. I propose a more modest solution: the
> phone could be confiscated and held at a local police station until
> the offender picks it up: that's a measured response which discourages
> further abuse.
>
> By the way, does anyone have data on the percentage of cell phone use
> done by automobile drivers vs. passengers vs. those not in cars?
>
Why not pass a law requiring all people caught using the cell phone in
violation of the law; drive on the same road with other violators, they
will all crash into each other; problem solved.
--
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: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:02:17 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphones and driving
Message-ID: <cd5.55a412dc.37a38079@aol.com>
In a message dated 7/30/2009 10:56:09 AM Central Daylight Time,
dave.garland@wizinfo.com writes:
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>> By the way, does anyone have data on the percentage of cell phone use
>> done by automobile drivers vs. passengers vs. those not in cars?
> I don't have any real data other than personal observation, but on the
> drivers vs. passengers issue, I'd say that it was drivers over
> passengers 20:1. First, because most cars have only a driver, no
> passengers. Second, because it's much less common to see a cell phone
> in use when there are multiple people in the car.
>
> Dave
When there are multiple people in the car, the conversation is as
much of a distraction as using a cellphone is. Or perhaps they now
have distraction overload.
It's common to see a woman on a cellphone in her SUV with several
kids in the car, trying to navigate through a tight left turn lane.
--
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:25:45 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security
Message-ID: <pan.2009.07.30.08.25.45.27680@myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:56:33 -0400, Thad Floryan wrote:
........
> As mentioned at prior-cited URLs regarding Echelon, the loophole in
> present law is that "non-USA entities" are freely allowed to monitor
> intra-USA communications, presently rendering moot whether Uncle Sam can
> monitor (or not) its citizen's voice and data communications. The "non-USA
> entities" includes the USA's Echelon partners (UK, Canada, Australia and
> New Zealand).
Hey, just because some of us have on our territory large US listening
posts doesn't mean we have access to what they collect.
--
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: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:28:52 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security
Message-ID: <4A721EA4.10201@thadlabs.com>
On 7/30/2009 5:15 AM, David Clayton wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:56:33 -0400, Thad Floryan wrote:
> ........
>> As mentioned at prior-cited URLs regarding Echelon, the loophole in
>> present law is that "non-USA entities" are freely allowed to monitor
>> intra-USA communications, presently rendering moot whether Uncle Sam can
>> monitor (or not) its citizen's voice and data communications. The "non-USA
>> entities" includes the USA's Echelon partners (UK, Canada, Australia and
>> New Zealand).
>
> Hey, just because some of us have on our territory large US listening
> posts doesn't mean we have access to what they collect.
Understood.
I'm not privy to how/what information is exchanged/shared, and if I were
I wouldn't be able to reveal that. :-)
My guess is the post(s) in your country are ground stations for the
satellites.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:42:52 GMT
From: "Gary" <fake-email-address@bogus.hotmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
Message-ID: <gzgcm.1711$646.1379@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
"annie" <dmr436@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3540342c-9355-4ee0-bde8-0cf96a7b2bbd@e11g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
> I always thought that telephone numbers "belonged" to the phone
> company and subscribers had no right to them as intellectual
> property. Has this changed?
If you look at the eBay listing, you'll see he's not selling the phone
number. He's selling a business that has that phone number. This
distinction might be how he is getting around this issue and/or eBay's
rules.
Also, the phone is a Vonage line, and he will be shipping the Vonage adaptor
to the winner. Presumably, he'll be providing the user name and password
too; however I don't know if Vonage allows the account holder's name and
billing address to be easily changed. I suspect Vonage may be easier to
deal with on this issue than an ILEC.
The bidding is currently up to $5,000 with 5 days to go. I don't see what
all the fuss is about, but I still wish I had thought of this...
-Gary
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:35:19 -0600
From: Robert Neville <dont@bother.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
Message-ID: <mrb3755ab7d8374hrvk10r54i4mqb29p5g@4ax.com>
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>Apparently, folks who like to leave bogus numbers like using 0000.
One of the local ambulance chasers has a large billboard up along the interstate
with a 0000 number.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:13:28 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
Message-ID: <vnr375thp459joh5bdb41vv0humpvm2dlp@4ax.com>
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:49:08 -0400 (EDT), Robert Neville
<dont@bother.com> wrote:
>Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Apparently, folks who like to leave bogus numbers like using 0000.
>
>One of the local ambulance chasers has a large billboard up along the interstate
>with a 0000 number.
At least three law firms in Las Vegas have phone numbers ending in
0000. And several of the heavily-advertised law firms in Vegas have
repeating numerals, such as 444-4444 and 333-7777.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:58:31 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
Message-ID: <XPncm.177567$Ta5.109977@newsfe15.iad>
Richard wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:49:08 -0400 (EDT), Robert Neville
> <dont@bother.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Apparently, folks who like to leave bogus numbers like using 0000.
>>
>>One of the local ambulance chasers has a large billboard up along the interstate
>>with a 0000 number.
>
>
> At least three law firms in Las Vegas have phone numbers ending in
> 0000. And several of the heavily-advertised law firms in Vegas have
> repeating numerals, such as 444-4444 and 333-7777.
>
I know of at least one car dealer in the LA area that has 0000
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:42:11 -0600
From: Robert Neville <dont@bother.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Skype apparently threatens Russian national security
Message-ID: <9ub375dt6qahhqgeiqo32mp1uudegpht9t@4ax.com>
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>I had almost forgotten the Clipper. Good riddance.
For an interesting trip down memory lane, I highly recommend Steven Levy's book
"Crypto". I took it off my bookshelf a few weeks ago and was surprised at how
much I had forgotten.
Among other things, it has the history of how RSA came to be, Dorothy Denning's
support of Clipper and key escrow, Donn Parker, and even a bit on Robert Morris,
Sr. You may recall his son from a slightly more infamous incident.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Cliff Stoll included some anecdotes about Morris in his book "The
Cuckoo's Egg". IIRC, one of his later books included an appendix about
the Morris Worm and how amazed _everybody_ in the business was that it
had succeeded so well and so quickly. The Unix world lost a lot of its
innocense on that day.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:44:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.0907301443270.817@Calculus.local>
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20090704/ARTICLES/907049962?Title=VOICES-Cell-phone-generation-increasingly-disconnected
-or-
http://tinyurl.com/kqs6zs
By SHEPHERD BLISS
SPECIAL TO THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Alas, I have been caught in the cell phone snare. While speaking to my
Sonoma State University students one day, mine went off, much to their
delight, giggles and snickers, as well as my embarrassment.
We may have a social epidemic on our hands. Studies reported in three
Press Democrat articles this year reveal that "American teenagers sent and
received an average of 2,272 text messages a month in the fourth quarter
of 2008."
I invited a SSU freshman class to go to Santa Rosa for a film and dinner.
The first thing that some of these teens did at the restaurant was to put
their cell phones on the dinner table.
Their little gadgets promptly vibrated, buzzed and made a variety of
demanding sounds. My dinner guests were soon miles away texting, having
what sounded like one-way conversations intruding into our dinner and
playing phone games, ignoring the rest of us at the table in front of
them.
What happened to old-fashioned connective mealtime conversations?
...
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:17:58 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <4A721C16.40809@thadlabs.com>
On 7/30/2009 2:08 PM, John Mayson wrote:
> [...]
> I invited a SSU freshman class to go to Santa Rosa for a film and
> dinner. The first thing that some of these teens did at the restaurant
> was to put their cell phones on the dinner table.
That "should" have been a signal for the waiters to collect the
phones (and return them after dinner). Seriously.
> Their little gadgets promptly vibrated, buzzed and made a variety of
> demanding sounds. My dinner guests were soon miles away texting, having
> what sounded like one-way conversations intruding into our dinner and
> playing phone games, ignoring the rest of us at the table in front of them.
>
> What happened to old-fashioned connective mealtime conversations?
As I wrote previously, welcome to the beginning of the MATRIX. :-)
The only places I've seen in California that have signs stating
cell phones must be turned off (or ringers muted) are voting
locations. There may be other venues; I'd suspect courtrooms
might be one, but stories of jurors texting during a trial are
becoming common.
If it was my call (no pun), I'd install jammers in restaurants
(fully knowing it's illegal to do so). Perhaps constructing the
equivalent of a Faraday cage (grounded copper screening in the
walls and ceiling) would work and be legal (until, perhaps, a
doctor sues the restaurant for a missed emergency call). Sigh.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:27:53 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <op.uxww8rzdo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:08:50 -0400, John Mayson <john@mayson.us> asked:
> What happened to old-fashioned connective mealtime conversations?
Gone the way of copper loops, Zenith carbs, and ivory-billed woodpeckers :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:48:43 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can you explain this number 1-847-1xx-xxxx
Message-ID: <b4c475l0g5m9l3r9ck3coca8blg5bib7id@4ax.com>
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:34:47 GMT, "Liron"
<nomail@sick.of.getting.spam> wrote:
>Can anyone tell me whether the NAMP has been expanded to include phone
>numbers such as 1-847-1XX-XXXX, or another reason why such a number would
>appear as a calling/called party's number.
>
>I thought that the 4th digit always had to be 2-9, so was surprised to see
>the above number in my cousin's cell phone's call list when I looked up the
>details of another call. My cousin has an AT&T quad band cell phone that is
>based in the 847 area code.
>
>Liron
Per http://www.anywho.com/area_codes.html area codes 847 and 224 are
overlayed on each other. Therefore, for local calls, people must dial
a 10 or 11 digit number. Dialing the last 7 digits won't work.
So the telco switching system won't be confused by an 1XX office code.
------------------------------
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 (25 messages)
******************************
|
or 