29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for August 20, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 209 : "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: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 09:14:45 -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: <CALtjCnJ5Lun4R=c_r3PXx+7v7ioxHC=JCSzhSGBktg9uyMdJOg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Hancock4
<withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
> In reading various public comments in the news, I can't help but
> suspect many people do not understand the issue. People seem to
> think it's a "free speech" issue, but I don't see it that way---one
> does not use their cell phone to demonstrate. To me, the issue is
> (1) does a property owner have the right to suspend cell phone
> service within his property over communications gear he owns, and
> (2) steps a government action may take in the face of a civil
> disturbance.
Yes, the most misunderstood and misquoted amendment out there. I can
ban the word "froglegs" from my house and tell you if you say it I'm
kicking you out. I have not trampled on your precious First Amendment
rights. You're free to say that word outside of my house and the
GOVERNMENT will make no attempt to silence you. But it's my right as
a property owner not to have that word said in my house.
I'm not pro-protestor. In fact I have made no attempt to keep up with
what they're protesting. I don't like it that BART has punished the
majority for what a vocal minority have done. Most people who rely on
that mobile network have never protested anything in their life,
they're just trying to go about their day.
On a more idealist level though, how can we as a nation criticize
Egypt or Libya for shutting off wireless access when we do the same
thing? True, it's BART, but to the outside world it's the government
in America.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
***** Moderator's Note *****
Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for
a redress of grievances.
BTW, I think the Second Amendment is, by far, the least well
understood and most often misquoted.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:37:06 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <j2lvv2$79d$3@news.albasani.net>
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Hancock4 wrote:
>>In reading various public comments in the news, I can't help but
>>suspect many people do not understand the issue. People seem to
>>think it's a "free speech" issue, but I don't see it that way---one
>>does not use their cell phone to demonstrate. To me, the issue is
>>(1) does a property owner have the right to suspend cell phone
>>service within his property over communications gear he owns, and
>>(2) steps a government action may take in the face of a civil
>>disturbance.
>Yes, the most misunderstood and misquoted amendment out there. I can
>ban the word "froglegs" from my house and tell you if you say it I'm
>kicking you out. I have not trampled on your precious First Amendment
>rights. You're free to say that word outside of my house and the
>GOVERNMENT will make no attempt to silence you. But it's my right as
>a property owner not to have that word said in my house.
>I'm not pro-protestor. In fact I have made no attempt to keep up with
>what they're protesting. I don't like it that BART has punished the
>majority for what a vocal minority have done. Most people who rely on
>that mobile network have never protested anything in their life,
>they're just trying to go about their day.
Communication was shut off due to perception of the possibility of
harm to BART, likely with more concern for public relations than the
possibility of damage to property. Communication wasn't shut off because
actual property damage was occuring.
So, no, they weren't trying to punish a minority by inconveniencing
every cell phone user. They were scared based on incidents in London and
other cities.
This is prior restraint.
>On a more idealist level though, how can we as a nation criticize
>Egypt or Libya for shutting off wireless access when we do the same
>thing? True, it's BART, but to the outside world it's the government
>in America.
BART is the government, a correctly held perception inside the
United States too.
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:50:04 -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+_RzxUU+4kuMO2yThoJSW9h+0S3bJfCpSwJvaUd9vM_Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>On a more idealist level though, how can we as a nation criticize
>>Egypt or Libya for shutting off wireless access when we do the same
>>thing? Â True, it's BART, but to the outside world it's the governmen
t
>>in America.
>
> BART is the government, a correctly held perception inside the
> United States too.
The US has many layers of government, something some other countries
do not have.
It's not hypocritical for the US Sec. of State to denounce a regime
for disabling cell phone service while BART does the same because
they're two completely distinct entities. But to an outsider who
perhaps lives in a country where the national goverment runs
everything from collecting from parking meters to running the military
it might seem highly hyprocritical. And it's perceptions that can
drive a lot of anger against the US.
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 07:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Extensions to pay phones?
Message-ID: <03fe3705-6aa1-4575-aade-66de5ccf3055@c8g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 18, 11:56 am, snorw...@redballoon.net (Scott Norwood) wrote:
> I have seen this sort of setup in an older movie theatre. To the
> best of my knowledge, it is still in place (it was as of a few
> years ago). [snip]
> I don't know to what extent this conforms to the relevant tarrifs
> (I am sure that his arrangement has been in place for decades),
> but I do know that the owner would consider a second phone line to
> be an "unnecessary expense."
Verizon once sent me a price list of their various services, much of
which were legacy. It appears that most legacy services are still
available if one is willing to pay for them. Sometimes switching to
modern technology might be cheaper. (Some exceptions--in my state
party lines are no longer available, and I believe they discontinued
20 ma and 60 ma lines that served old style Teletypes).
Regarding the theatre and its phone booth, I can't think of any reason
why the phoneco would not continue to provide that service. However,
I suspect the pay phone doesn't get much use and the theatre owner
must pay for it to make up the shortfall. It might be cheaper for
them to terminate the pay phone and just have a regular line for the
box office.
Regarding the issue of message rate service to businesses, I checked
the Bell Labs history 1925-1975. It appears message rate was used in
large cities while smaller cities had flat rate. On the technology of
recording charges, I was confused. On the one hand automatic counting-
registers for developed very early for manual service and adopted for
switches when dial came out. (In a few large cities that had message
unit service (eg New York), the registers would increment for initial
charge and timing; in 1950 this was expanded to dialed suburban
calls.) But their other descriptions of message charging required
complex equipment, such as for ANI.
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:22:27 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Avoid socializing by pretending to use your phone? You're not alone
Message-ID: <pan.2011.08.19.08.22.21.6090@yahoo.com.au>
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:42:34 -0400, Monty Solomon wrote:
> 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.
.............
No, the best way to not use your cellphone is on a train or other public
space when some-other annoying idiot is carrying on with an inane
mono-versation (one-sided conversation) and obviously embarrassing or
annoying everyone else.
Then you get your phone and pretend to answer a call with something like
the following (spoken VERY loudly):
"Look I can't talk right now as I don't want to be one of those annoying
idiots that inconsiderately use their phones on the train/bus/whatever,
I'll call you back later" and then pretend to hang up.
Do it in the right place and you'll get smiles from everyone else and a
dirty look from the annoying fool on the phone that might finally get the
hint.
--
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: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:26:36 +0000 (UTC)
From: snorwood@redballoon.net (Scott Norwood)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Extensions to pay phones?
Message-ID: <j2lrqs$7r0$1@reader1.panix.com>
In article <pan.2011.08.18.17.49.41.525858@example.invalid>,
John F. Morse <john@invalid.telecom-digest.net> wrote:
>
>What is a WECo 1C2 payphone?
It's the current standard single-slot touch-tone type that you
would typically see in a phone booth or enclosure. A 1C1 is the
rotary version, and a 2C[12] is the panel-mount version. I have
not seen a rotary model in service since the early 1990s.
>I am familiar with the single-slot 1A2, but that was back in the 1980s. Is
>the 1C2 an upgrade? Do you have a link to a picture?
Here is a picture (this one is missing the locks):
http://www.payphone.com/images/D/personalpayphone1.jpg
Most of the current ones now have a volume adjustment button in
the upper-left corner where the "STOP" placard is located in the
picture. The newer ones have an electronic (as opposed to mechanical)
coin return mechanism and may have more electronics inside.
>I suspect you didn't really mean to imply the movie theater also had a
>second 1C2 in the box office.
Actually, I did. They have two of them, both on the same circuit,
one in the lobby and one in the boxoffice. I have never seen this
before or since. The building dates from the 1920s, but the phones
are obviously from the 1970s/1980s or later. This is in Verizon
territory in Rhode Island.
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:28:19 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <j2lvej$79d$2@news.albasani.net>
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>Gordon Burditt <gordonb.15ah1@burditt.org> wrote:
>>>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 ... might
>>make them liable in a wrongful death suit should failing to reach 911
>>make a significant difference in the outcome.
>Short answer: almost certainly _not_. They have no 'duty' to provide
>such service; they cannot be held liable for not providing it.
Of course they had a duty. BART claimed it shut down communications due
to emergency. If they were truly fearful of violence, then they were
anticipating that it was likely injuries would occur. The action they
took would have aggravated the injuries if delay in receiving treatment
was the result.
>Note: it is well-established case-law that emergency services providers
>(police, fire, etc.) do not have a duty to respond to any particular
>incident, even if notified of the event. I suspect that this would also
>apply with regard to the 911 'outage' that the OP described.
In this case, BART itself is not the rescue agency. It's still the San
Francisco fire department as notified by the San Francisco police department,
assuming they run the 911 call center.
I don't see why the case law you are thinking of would apply.
Here's another legal quandry BART has placed itself in. By claiming not
to be a common carrier because it doesn't accept all communication traffic
but only specific communication traffic, BART may have accepted liability
for any use of communication systems when the system itself was used to
plan a crime or to set up a situation in which harm was caused to another.
You think BART won't be a party to personal injury lawsuits? I do.
They've just made it more difficult to defend themselves for their
contribution to the situation by allowing communication to take place.
Common carrier is an all-encompassing shield from a great deal of
liability. This was action against their own interest.
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:35:42 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Shame On You!
Message-ID: <CALtjCn+3ch3db85fooehBJzpVxLMriC4zjy=P+uL-ToiWK2CEQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The same thing happens in the Oklahoman (Oklahoma City, Okla.) Â I
> think there is a common reason here--it costs money to go out and make
> their own local photo, while the wire services send them photos as a
> part of their services, or they can get a photo with a couple of
> clicks.
>
>
> Wes Leatherock
> wleathus@yahoo.com
> wesrock@aol.com
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I don't believe it. Previous editions of The Inquirer had extensive
> pictures of Philadelphians on picket lines, and I've never met a
> photographer who didn't take four times more shots than he
> needed. They could have taken another of those out of the archives if
> they were short of images, but I think what really happened was that
> Verizon's ad agency called up and demanded that the editor get in
> line.
I, of course, have no idea what happened in the newsroom of The
Inquirer, so I can only guess.
Bill, by "previous editions", do you mean last week or last decade? If
you mean last week then I suppose we could follow the money: Verizon
buys a lot of ad space in Philly newspapers, someone calls encouraging
use of a photo, etc. It could happen.
If you mean last decade then I think Wes' observation holds true.
Newsrooms are cut to the bone. It's easier to use a wire photo or a
stock photo in place of sending an actual photographer out. I'm
something of an airplane geek and it just floors me to read an article
about an American Airlines 767 and see a picture of an old (obviously)
Eastern Airlines 727 as if it has anything to do with the article.
Someone in the newsroom probably did a search for "airplane" and
picked the first thing that came up and called it a day.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
***** Moderator's Note *****
I meant "in the past few days". I did a Google image search for
'"Striking workers" Philadelphia Verizon', and I received dozens of
images showing workers striking against Verizon on picket lines in
Philadelphia, and many, if not most, were from the Inquirer!
The Philadelphia Inquirer did its reader a disservice: if a picture is
worth a thousand words, I'd like to send an image of Google
headquarters to the owners, with a caption stating "THIS is why you're
so desperate that you would compromise nearly two-hundred years of
reader trust, and you brought it on yourselves".
Bill Horne
Moderator
From: David Chessler <chessler@usa.NOSPAM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Bell Logo History
Bell System Memorial- Bell Logo History
http://www.porticus.org/bell/bell_logos.html
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 (9 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues