|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 211 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
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: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
APPLE-SA-2009-07-31-1 iPhone OS 3.0.1
RESEND: 1XX and 0XX Office Codes (Re: Can you explain this number 1-847-1xx-xxxx)
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: How To Hijack 'Every iPhone In The World'
Re: Can you explain this number 1-847-1xx-xxxx
Re: Can you explain this number 1-847-1xx-xxxx
FCC Now Looking Into Apple's Rejection of Google Voice App
Re: Manipulation and abuse of the consumer credit reporting agencies
Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Re: What is this device called
Re: Walter's Telephones
Re: Walter's Telephones
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Prisons may jam cell phones
Cyber warfare
====== 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, 01 Aug 2009 03:43:49 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <op.uxy3rbr6o63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:53:46 -0400, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> 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.
One five-second component of my own OGM has always been:
"No collect or 3rd party billings, please."
Perhaps that's because my first answering machine purchase
was for the purpose of putting an end to multiple 3rd party
billings "authorized" during moments when no one was actually
at home to authorize them :-) . (That strategem worked, BTW.)
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 06:59:03 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <ISXcm.38318$0z7.4406@newsfe07.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> 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's the "#" key with AT&T wireline and wireless around here, so perhaps
it's that way with AT&T everywhere. That is a whole lot of C.O.-based
voice mail systems.
As to subscriber answering machines that is a different matter.
This stuff is the result of the demise of standards boards, etc.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 03:47:34 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
Message-ID: <op.uxy3xkkxo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:09:10 -0400, Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
> 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
Currently, my CLID box is displaying a
"212-000-2943 - NAME NOT FOUND" call at
4:59 pm on 7/28/2009. A triple-zero *exchange*?
Is that CLID spoofing at work?
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 07:39:42 -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: <OsYcm.83260$3m2.27996@newsfe06.iad>
tlvp wrote:
> Currently, my CLID box is displaying a
> "212-000-2943 - NAME NOT FOUND" call at
> 4:59 pm on 7/28/2009. A triple-zero *exchange*?
> Is that CLID spoofing at work?
>
> Cheers, -- tlvp
Here's what the Local Calling Guide says about 212-000-XXXX
"Error: NXX must be between 200 and 999."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 20:33:47 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
Message-ID: <op.ux0eildco63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 10:52:35 -0400, Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
> tlvp wrote:
>
>> Currently, my CLID box is displaying a
>> "212-000-2943 - NAME NOT FOUND" call at
>> 4:59 pm on 7/28/2009. A triple-zero *exchange*?
>> Is that CLID spoofing at work?
>>
>> Cheers, -- tlvp
>
> Here's what the Local Calling Guide says about 212-000-XXXX
>
> "Error: NXX must be between 200 and 999."
Thanks for the support, Sam, confirming *no* valid "triple-zero exchange".
Ergo: spoofing?
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 09:07:26 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <MPG.24de081d61bd12b2989b2b@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <8bJcm.41$nh2.17@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, hornetd@verizon.net
says...
>
> Thad Floryan wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> The Faraday cage approach is perfectly legal and all you would have to
> do to avoid anyone prevailing against you in a lawsuit would be to
> provide prominent notice of the lack of radio reception in the
> restaurant. There is even a paneling commercially available for radio
> shielding for which an available option is warning labels on every sheet.
Back a couple of years ago I got to see an MRI machine installed. It's
built inside a good size Faraday cage because of the way MRI works.
The magnets align the atoms, then a radio pulse is sent out causing the
atoms to release energy as they fall from an excited state to a ground
state.
Being that the detection part is also RF you need to have an RF quiet
environment.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 08:59:23 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <pan.2009.08.01.22.59.22.682788@myrealbox.com>
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 10:26:53 -0400, T wrote: ........
> Back a couple of years ago I got to see an MRI machine installed. It's
> built inside a good size Faraday cage because of the way MRI works.
>
> The magnets align the atoms, then a radio pulse is sent out causing the
> atoms to release energy as they fall from an excited state to a ground
> state.
>
> Being that the detection part is also RF you need to have an RF quiet
> environment.
A MRI's Faraday Cage may help with the transient spike it generates, but
it does little for the massive localised static magnetic field these
things have.
I once had a room full of PCs near a couple of these things, and you could
never get CRT monitors working correctly because of the magnetic field. I
wondered about the effect this sort of field had on the humans who worked
in the same area every day of the week (well before the cellphone
user concerns of RFI exposure came to the fore).
--
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, 31 Jul 2009 20:49:51 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Message-ID: <h50eer$i8f$2@news.eternal-september.org>
Bruce L.Bergman wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:50:15 -0400 (EDT), Neal McLain
> <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> They also build a lot of real structures specifically to hide a cell
> tower inside them. The clock towers and church steeples are the most
> common, but architectural details like a "Lighthouse" at a self-
> storage facility are a nice way to hide an antenna. Which you would
> miss if you didn't pick out the panel antennas on the sides.
>
> But the same storage place is pushing the rule of 'hidden in plain
> sight' to the absurd when a huge and not very well camouflaged
> "flagpole" tower popped up at the other end of their property...
>
>>> 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?
>
> Actually, that's what they count on - it doesn't have to be a real
> good disguise job, it just has to look like a "not-a-tower" to the
> casual observer. Break up the classic silhouette and it disappears.
>
> Those of us who know what to look for can't avoid seing them. But
> we are not the norm - that's like asking a cowboy not to spot a stray
> steer waaaay off in the distance, it becomes ingrained.
>
> You can ask the average person with no telecom or architectural or
> Ham Radio experience "What's different about that Clock Tower?" and
> they flat out can not 'see the forest for the trees' till you point
> out all the little clues you saw instantly. Then you can almost watch
> that metaphoric little light bulb above their head blink on.
>
>>> "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.
>
> The common solution to that problem is to plant a few real pines or
> palms or whatever around the fake one (tower) so it blends in.
>
> But that only works where you have a water source available to make
> it a little Oasis. They do occur naturally, but far more often they
> were manmade long ago, you find a house and a water well under that
> patch of green.
>
> Now if you place that pocket forest next to an established rest area
> or service station (like Halloran Summit to pull one name along the
> way to Vegas out of my...) it would be believable.
>
> --<< Bruce >>--
>
We have a lot of them on lights on high school and college sports
fields, plus on the sides of buildings and street lights. The one on my
back forty in the mountains really can't be seen from the ground because
of the trees and is on the highest point in the area.
--
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: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:21:10 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: APPLE-SA-2009-07-31-1 iPhone OS 3.0.1
Message-ID: <p06240882c699ffc59365@[10.0.1.3]>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
APPLE-SA-2009-07-31-1 iPhone OS 3.0.1
iPhone OS 3.0.1 is now available and addresses the following:
CoreTelephony
CVE-ID: CVE-2009-2204
Available for: iPhone OS 1.0 through iPhone OS 3.0
Impact: Receiving a maliciously crafted SMS message may lead to an
unexpected service interruption or arbitrary code execution
Description: A memory corruption issue exists in the decoding of SMS
messages. Receiving a maliciously crafted SMS message may lead to an
unexpected service interruption or arbitrary code execution. This
update addresses the issue through improved error handling. Credit to
Charlie Miller of Independent Security Evaluators, and Collin
Mulliner of Fraunhofer SIT for reporting this issue.
Installation note:
This update is only available through iTunes, and will not appear in
your computer's Software Update application, or in the Apple
Downloads site. Make sure you have an internet connection and have
installed the latest version of iTunes from www.apple.com/itunes/
iTunes will automatically check Apple's update server on its weekly
schedule. When an update is detected, it will download it. When the
iPhone is docked, iTunes will present the user with the option to
install the update. We recommend applying the update immediately if
possible. Selecting "don't install" will present the option the next
time you connect your iPhone.
The automatic update process may take up to a week depending on the
day that iTunes checks for updates. You may manually obtain the
update via the "Check for Update" button within iTunes. After doing
this, the update can be applied when your iPhone is docked to your
computer.
To check that the iPhone has been updated:
* Navigate to Settings
* Select General
* Select About. The version after applying this update will be
"3.0.1 (7A400)" or later
Information will also be posted to the Apple Security Updates
web site: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1222
This message is signed with Apple's Product Security PGP key,
and details are available at:
https://www.apple.com/support/security/pgp/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 9.7.2.1608
wsBVAwUBSnMfeXkodeiKZIkBAQhTpgf/VUP+SExD3J3UtFouR4xy1F/3/Zenw28C
zCo3AzaVnE9M3zP2/EH25Rgse5gJtHvtncFTJP9s/Zij/yOmyNJ1MWsSQGHckpDN
2IbE/QEfVza8nO+toRN1V522pwOx758vyIPB18YCoiq7TsG8DTJBlDEC3Apx7Am3
F5gD4D4OWjFcCMo/dm8ksBUa4JGk6GRFcOPY/EQX0R7ZSZ+PlJ4dE7bVnrSKRMxT
fYZEP1k638Ql8vwEKwJYOoD7+sMdtUrNICau3JRklMWJsSK9hM8wnCPwkJSbuqvC
tC7WGmXqD1HMrqtG1tfzXqZR7j4N6phAP9UPtZeyJAE4yPPSb3Kzow==
=roUX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 04:31:19 -0600
From: "Anthony Bellanga" <anthonybellanga@gonetoearth.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: RESEND: 1XX and 0XX Office Codes (Re: Can you explain this number 1-847-1xx-xxxx)
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F200908010431.AA31190816@gonetoearth.com>
Richard wrote:
> Liron wrote:
>> Can anyone tell me whether the NAMP [sic] 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 [I] 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.
> 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.
The 1XX/0XX format of office codes in ten-digit NANP numbers are still
_NOT_ assignable for actual "POTS" numbers dialable by customers. Not
even in overlay areas where ten-digit dialing is mandatory. Not even
within 800, 888, 877, 866, 900, 500, etc. "special area codes" where
ten-digit dialing to such numbers is also mandatory.
_IF_ the NANP ever expands the 'D' position digit of a ten-digit NANP
number (ABC-DEF-GHIJ) to include 0 or 1 for customer-dialable "POTS"
numbers, it will be a _LONG_ time from now!
1XX/0XX codes in the office code part of a ten-digit NANP number (as
well as in the "area code" part of the ten-digit NANP number) have
been used for decades for _INTERNAL TELEPHONE COMPANY_ functions, both
routing/network/control actions, as well as special billing functions
(i.e., special calling cards not associated with a real "POTS"
telephone number). Customers are NOT supposed to be able to "dial"
such 0XX/1XX office codes (or "area" codes) on a regular telephone
loop (of course, a blue box in the 1960s/70s era could be used to
reach such codes). Only telephone operators and test-men are supposed
to be able to "dial" such codes. Such special internal use of 0XX and
1XX codes would have to be cleared before any such codes could be
assigned for "POTS" numbers dialable by customers. And there might
even have to be replacement of existing switch hardware (not just
software) to allow customer-dialing to such numbers. Some of the
blocking of customer dialing of 0XX and 1XX codes is hard-wired in the
switch! Such switches would STILL be "confused" by a customer trying
to dial such codes even in an overlay/mandatory ten-digit dialing
situation until there were major changes in telco industry policy as
well as network operations!
There HAD been some situations in the past where a local switch was
erroneously porgrammed or wired which actually allowed customers to
"dial" 0XX/1XX tyoe numbers without having to "blue box", but when
telco found out about such inadvertent loopholes, they would
eventually be closed up.
In the case of special calling cards and other billing functions, the
customer CAN key NXX+0/1XX+xxxx plus a four-digit "PIN" when placing a
(toll) call via TSPS/TOPS/OSPS and billed to such a call, all keyed by
the customer without having operator intervention, but that is NOT
"dialing a destnation number", but rather keying a 14-digit
card/billing number.
In the original posted question, it was mentioned that:
"[I] 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."
which I take it to mean a ten-digit number keyed as an outbound call,
which would still be preserved in the call-history list (until
overwritten or manually deleted), and which would have been a
mis-dial...
OR this could have been an incoming call's caller-ID to that cellphone
(or even a landline), would have been some sleazy telemarketer/
telespammer, who SPOOFED a number of the form NPA+0/1XX-xxxx. These
days, with Caller-ID spoofing, PBXes, VoIP, telemarketers, etc. just
about "anything" can be sent out as bogus caller-ID.
But for the present time, _NO_ customer-dialable "POTS" numbers with
0XX/1XX codes in the area code or office code part of the ten-digit
NANP number are permitted AT ALL, not in overlay/ten-digit regions,
nor within 800, 888, 877, 866, 900, 500, etc.
-a/b
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:35:36 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <cbc.44b798e8.37a5acb8@aol.com>
In a message dated 7/31/2009 9:40:44 PM Central Daylight Time, ranck@vt.edu
writes:
> At most, a place that made some extra effort to block cell
> signal might need to post a notice that they are a sheilded
> location and cell phones won't work, but a lot of places
> already block signal without trying. I've been advocating
> using the Farady cage idea for at least 10 years. It would
> cost very little during new construction. They could make
> foil backed wallboard and wallpaper. Instead we get 3 reminders
> at the beginning of every movie to turn off our cells. Sigh.
>
> Bill Ranck
> Blacksburg, Va.
I would think deliberately blocking calls would be far different from
service being unavailable for natural reasons.
The restaurant that did so would probably soon find itself shunned
by so many customers that it would have to go out of business. Even
those of us who bemoan the use of cell phones in restaurants probably
do so occasionally, and I have been in restaurants where there were
cell users who were not annoying anyone.
--
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 15:07:06 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <h51lmq$min$2@reader1.panix.com>
In <cbc.44b798e8.37a5acb8@aol.com> Wesrock@aol.com writes:
> I would think deliberately blocking calls would be far different from
>service being unavailable for natural reasons.
>
> The restaurant that did so would probably soon find itself shunned
>by so many customers that it would have to go out of business. Even
>those of us who bemoan the use of cell phones in restaurants probably
>do so occasionally, and I have been in restaurants where there were
>cell users who were not annoying anyone.
Seems to me the same claims were made regarding prohibiting
smoking in airplanes, bars, restaurants, and stores.
obtelecom: the fumes, ash, and particulates from cigarette
smoke dramatically raise the maintenance requirements at
any central office using step-by-step switches.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
***** Moderator's Note *****
It's OK, nicotine and cell phones are both addictive.
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 09:06:52 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <pan.2009.08.01.23.06.50.859562@myrealbox.com>
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 14:17:06 -0400, danny burstein wrote: ........
>> The restaurant that did so would probably soon find itself shunned
>>by so many customers that it would have to go out of business. Even
>>those of us who bemoan the use of cell phones in restaurants probably do
>>so occasionally, and I have been in restaurants where there were cell
>>users who were not annoying anyone.
>
> Seems to me the same claims were made regarding prohibiting smoking in
> airplanes, bars, restaurants, and stores.
>
> obtelecom: the fumes, ash, and particulates from cigarette smoke
> dramatically raise the maintenance requirements at any central office
> using step-by-step switches.
.........
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> It's OK, nicotine and cell phones are both addictive.
>
And both are banned (well, the smoking method of infusing nicotine anyway)
when people fly, so they can do without both "addictions" if required.
The argument is really about the rights of those in one environment to
control the behaviour of those who *choose* to enter that environment.
As long as people have a (reasonable) choice/alternative to go
(and get their fix) elsewhere, then it really shouldn't be a problem.
--
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 *****
ISTM that it's about a lack of consensus as to what is and is not
polite behavior in the electronic age. When pagers were invented, they
were first used by physicians: "everybody" agreed that a doctor's time
and expertise was so valuable that we could tolerate occasional
interuptions in concert halls, restaurants, etc. With the camel's nose
under the edge of the tent, Moore's law took over.
Unfortunately, the body politic doesn't get to say "no more" once
we've said "just this once", and the rest (as they say) is history.
Bill Horne
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:21:08 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <cb4.5b901fec.37a627e4@aol.com>
In a message dated 8/1/2009 1:17:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
dannyb@panix.com writes:
> obtelecom: the fumes, ash, and particulates from cigarette
> smoke dramatically raise the maintenance requirements at
> any central office using step-by-step switches.
Any electromechanical switch, including crossbar and probably
panel, rotary and all-relay.
Smoking was prohibited in every swichtroom that I ever went into or
heard of.
--
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:23:08 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <be3.4b883755.37a6285c@aol.com>
In a message dated 8/1/2009 1:17:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
dannyb@panix.com writes:
> Seems to me the same claims were made regarding prohibiting
> smoking in airplanes, bars, restaurants, and stores.
That's why it had to be banned in all bars at once, all resaurants at
once and all stores at once.
--
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 17:21:27 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <8pm975phco9s70206ok9p80cttljn30t9d@4ax.com>
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 14:17:06 -0400 (EDT), danny burstein
<dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
> obtelecom: the fumes, ash, and particulates from cigarette smoke
> dramatically raise the maintenance requirements at any central
> office using step-by-step switches.
And probably at electronic offices, also. Eighteen years ago, when I was
volunteering at the Public Television studios in Durham, NH, there
were signs prohibiting smoking in the building. The explanation was:
"to protect the electronic equipment in the station."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:49:08 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: How To Hijack 'Every iPhone In The World'
Message-ID: <8NIcm.83117$3m2.74123@newsfe06.iad>
Monty Solomon wrote:
> How To Hijack 'Every iPhone In The World'
Not on my iPhone. I have text messaging blocked.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:51:37 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can you explain this number 1-847-1xx-xxxx
Message-ID: <tPIcm.83118$3m2.53496@newsfe06.iad>
Richard wrote:
> 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.
>
Entering the NPA and office code will determine whether that office code
exists:
http://www.localcallingguide.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 21:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can you explain this number 1-847-1xx-xxxx
Message-ID: <bdcbbf11-eb1f-4eab-9fac-049db9c6c52f@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 1, 9:52 am, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> Richard wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:34:47 GMT, "Liron"
> > <nom...@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.
>
> Entering the NPA and office code will determine whether that office code
> exists:
>
> http://www.localcallingguide.com/
Exactly. And if you click on "search-->area code/prefix" and enter
847-123, you'll find that it doesn't exist. Instead, you'll get
"Error: NXX must be between 200 and 999", thus confirming Bellanga's
explanation.
This topic has been discussed here before. Back in 1999 or
thereabouts, moderator Pat Townson wrote, in response to a question:
> "At the present time, many of those three-digit combinations as per
> your examples are used. They are non- dialable, of course, for
> billing purposes only. Things like 'non- subscriber calling cards'
> from AT&T (calling cards issued where there is no specific telephone
> number to relate it to), tie-line circuits between PBXs, the older
> style 800 number which had its termination on a circuit of its own
> not related to any specific seven-digit number as most are today,
> etc. Many of them are also dialable by telephone operators only as
> a way to reach the 'Inward' operator in some other city.
> "A miscellaneous billing account in Chicago for example might be
> something like 312-173-2901. Like an actual, dialable prefix, some
> of those non- dialable 'billing purposes only' three digit
> combinations are assigned to local telco, some to AT&T, some to MCI,
> some to Sprint, etc so that clearinghouse functions can be handled
> with ease, with the area code and first three digits determining
> which telco is to get the associated charge or credit. If a toll
> ticket for example was to be billed to the number (example)
> 305-099-7234 then telco's back office could look at it and determine
> that the charge should go to Sprint to some miscellaneous account at
> their office in Miami.
> "The numbers you suggest are already 'known' by telco computers, its
> just that they are known to serve other things than actually
> connecting to a live customer. To assign them now as phone numbers
> would require all sorts of changes in things like the operator's
> routing tables for inward, billing functions, and whatever else. I
> suspect a lot of backoffice bureaucrats would be hostile. Besides,
> there are other ways to expand the supply of numbers, and telco
> would rather inconvenience the public with area code overlays and
> eleven digit dialing anytime in preference to having to be
> inconvenienced itself in its own internal functions."
That last sentence says it all!
At one point, even the FCC was considering possible use of "1" and "0"
in the D-digit position. See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking "In the
Matter of Numbering Resource Optimization, CC Docket No. 99-200..." at
paragraph 123.
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1999/fcc99122.txt
Scroll down to paragraph 123 or search on "123.", including the
period.
Neal McLain
***** Moderator's Note *****
It's been a long time since I took the D-18 course, but here's what I
remember:
121 Inward Operator
131 Directory Assistance
141 Rate and Route
161 Toll Test Board
... and there were others that I've forgotten.
The point is that I'm not sure there are enough "internal" codes
available and assignable to make much of a difference.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 12:26:30 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: FCC Now Looking Into Apple's Rejection of Google Voice App
Message-ID: <p06240886c69a1cdf601f@[10.0.1.3]>
FCC Now Looking Into Apple's Rejection of Google Voice App
Posted by: Arik Hesseldahl on July 31
The Federal Communications Commission has sent letters to Apple and
to AT&T and Google seeking information about the rejection of the
Google Voice Application from the iTunes store.
The letters ask why the application was rejected, and whether or not
Apple removed other applications like it. I just downloaded copies of
the letters from the FCC's Web site, and have included links to them
below.
...
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/2009/07/fcc_now_looking.html
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 09:54:01 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Manipulation and abuse of the consumer credit reporting agencies
Message-ID: <Jq_cm.49394$nL7.45620@newsfe18.iad>
Monty Solomon wrote:
> Manipulation and abuse of the consumer credit reporting agencies
>
> by Christopher Soghoian
> First Monday
> Volume 14, Number 8
> 3 August 2009
>
> Abstract
>
> This paper will present a number of loopholes and exploits against
> the system of consumer credit in the United States that can enable a
> careful attacker to hugely leverage her (or someone else's) credit
> report for hundreds of thousands of dollars. While the techniques
> outlined in this paper have been used for the personal (and legal)
> profit by a small community of credit hackers, these same techniques
> could equally be used by more nefarious persons - that is, criminals
> willing to break the law, engage in fraud, and make off with
> significant sums of money. The purpose of this paper is to shed light
> on these exploits, to analyze them through the lens of the computer
> security community and to propose a number of fixes which will
> significantly reduce the effectiveness of the exploits, by both those
> with good and ill intentions.
>
> ...
>
> http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2583/2246
>
Like everything else, let the buyer beware. Credit freezes are great if
you can suffer the inconvenience, and are smart enough to freeze all
three agencies. California, for one, explains it quite fully to the
careful reader.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 18:45:17 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Message-ID: <h522ft$ei3$1@reader1.panix.com>
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> writes:
>> It seemed a bit odd at first that there isn't a single tower shown in
>> Saratoga, when I drive by plenty of them here every day. But most of the
>> towers here are actually owned by Crown Castle, and they lease space to
>> the different carriers. So it looks like they wouldn't be listed.
>I still find it odd the FCC doesn't require all cell phone sites to be
>registered with the FCC. If they are registered, most are not publicly
>revealed.
I believe the list mentioned tracked via Antenna STRUCTURE registrations
[ASR]. {aka "towers"}. ASR cares not about antennas, only things that hold
them up. I assumed that the Universal Licensing System [ULS] database
tracked cell sites transmitters but maybe they fall under some blanket
scheme as do mobiles. [In the business 2-way world; the base station
has one license, the mobiles a separate one. The base station has a
specific address; mobiles a city, state or region, or in very few cases,
nationwide. AT&T Long Lines and Red Cross were two of those...]
Note that the FCC does not even notice USGovt users/sites. There's a
tower in zip 20607 that Dept of Homeland unSecurity recently built; it
has no ARS registry #; no ULS signs, etc.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
***** Moderator's Note *****
U.S. Government frequency assignment are managed by a different
agency: IIRC, the National Telecommunications & Information
Administration.
------------------------------
Date: 1 Aug 2009 15:28:13 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: What is this device called
Message-ID: <h5250d$nbm$1@panix2.panix.com>
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> There have been books written about the hidebound management at Ma
>> Bell, and about the arrogant and intractible attitudes exhibited by
>> many of her employees. I went through the same frustration you
>> experienced when I ordered an interface for a phone patch - and _I_
>> was working at New England Telephone!
>
>I'm sorry Mr. Atkinson had trouble, but back then our experience was
>totally the opposite. We obtained such devices for computer terminals
>without any trouble. We abandoned the more expensive Bell-leased
>Teletypes (the kind with the ORG button and built-in automatic modem)
>for cheaper terminals and modems, and even though Bell would lose
>revenue, they fully accomodated our needs.
That's because you knew the right person to call.
The same was the case for anything other than straight POTS... if you
knew the radio loop guy for the city, you'd make a call and get a loop
installed. If you didn't know the radio loop guy for the city, good
luck getting anyone in the business office to figure out what an 8KC
loop is or how to get you one.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
Date: 1 Aug 2009 15:33:44 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <h525ao$rv$1@panix2.panix.com>
Richard <rng@richbonnie.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:37:41 -0400 (EDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>>***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>>The FCC won't allow the audio to stay on 87.75 because the entire
>>range from 54 to 88 MHz (The old channels 2 through 6) is being
>>reassigned to other services.
>
>Not true. The only TV spectrum auctioned off was the upper UHF
>channels from channels 52 theough 69. A few Digital TV stations still
>are trnsmitting in the low VHF band (channels 2 through 6). See
>http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-138A2.pdf
In the B&W days, everybody wanted the lower VHF channels because of
the added range in fringe areas.
When color came along, chroma phase issues on channels 2 and 3 made
them a little bit less desirable than before, but 4 through 6 were
still the best spots on the dial to have.
By 2000, TV DX in fringe areas wasn't a big deal... people out there
all had cable TV or satellite service anyway, and they weren't buying
products from the local advertisers anyway, so targetting them wasn't
a big deal.
With the digital changeover, the very phenomena that made long distance
propagation of the VHF-LO channels desirable turn out to cause interference
problems from distant cities now. So the channels that everybody used
to want are now the least desirable ones.
The VHF-LO channels are still television channels, and they are still in
use. There has been some talk about taking TV off of there and moving
radio broadcast and public service stuff in there, but frankly nobody
else really wants bandwidth in that range either.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 17:11:05 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Walter's Telephones
Message-ID: <3rl975l1nlf58p4rrole8p5tb5n8v06ogu@4ax.com>
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 15:51:21 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
>The VHF-LO channels are still television channels, and they are still in
>use. There has been some talk about taking TV off of there and moving
>radio broadcast and public service stuff in there, but frankly nobody
>else really wants bandwidth in that range either.
Radio Amateurs would like a piece of this spectrum. Several European
countries have an amateur allocation around 70 MHz, which they call
the 4 meter band. http://www.70mhz.org/index.php?categoryid=2
The allocated band is about 0.5 MHz wide. For example, the UK band
allocation is 70.0 to 70.5 MHz.
4 meters has better propagation than 2 meters, the most used amatuer
VHF band, and the antennas aren't as as large (and therefore as
unwieldly for mobile use) asfor 6 meters (50 to 54 MHz).
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:12:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Julian Thomas" <jt@jt-mj.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <000.f0010e00b8bd744a.002@jt-mj.net>
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:22:51 +0000 (UTC) ranck@vt.edu wrote:
>
>
> I've been advocating using the Farady cage idea for at least 10
> years. It would cost very little during new construction. They
> could make foil backed wallboard and wallpaper.
My last house was an imperfect Faraday cage, due to the foil backed
insulation in the outside walls. Only some fairly large window areas
made it possible to get any signal inside!
--
Julian Thomas: jt@jt-mj.net http://jt-mj.net
In the beautiful Genesee Valley of Western New York State!
-- --
Good Intentions Paving Company: "We did the road to Hell."
------------------------------
Date: 2 Aug 2009 01:41:47 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <20090802014147.1610.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>Why does anyone who has a smart phone that can send and receive email
>need text messaging at all?
Uh, because you might want [to] exchange messages with some of the
billion people who have cell phones that do SMS but not mail? Or is
this a trick question?
R's,
John
PS: Email-to-SMS gateways are pretty much non-existent outside the US,
and SMS-to-Email pretty much non-existent everywhere.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 20:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Prisons may jam cell phones
Message-ID: <f93ee877-b941-41d0-99b4-ad60e5f16f67@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
A bill now in congress would authorize the FCC to permit cell phone
signals to be jammed inside sections of prisons where inmates are
held.
For story see:
http://www.kyw1060.com/Renewed-Push-to-Jam-Prisoner-Cell-Signals-in-Jail/4918279
(other newspaper articles have reported on the success of gang members
smuggling cell phones into prison and conducting operations.)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 16:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Cyber warfare
Message-ID: <4a5c15c8-2ec3-4a42-8575-5717513b13c0@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
A New York Times article describes potential defensive and offensive
issues in global cyber warfare attacks. Troubling.
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/us/politics/02cyber.html?_r=1&hp
------------------------------
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 