29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for August 25, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 212 : "text" Format
====== 29 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ====== |
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Bill Horne and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. - Geoffrey Welsh
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
|
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:49:14 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re:VOIP Technical Support (or lack thereof)
Message-ID: <pan.2011.08.23.06.49.11.462470@yahoo.com.au>
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 19:56:38 -0600, Fred Atkinson wrote: .........
> After two months with no resolution, I purchased another of that
> same Linksys PAP2T VOIP devices. It was strictly a shot in the dark
> (which is not the way to troubleshoot (buy this and replace it. If that
> doesn't work, buy that and replace it, etc.)).
>
> It cleared the problem immediately. Neither one of those providers
> could isolate the problem and it took four months to resolve it. If
> they had determined the device was bad in the first place, I could've
> replaced it a lot sooner.
...........
> Fred
As the Dilbert cartoon (paraphrased) once said:
"Why is it always the last thing that you try that ends up fixing the
problem, if you'd only choose that option first then you wouldn't be so
incompetent".
--
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: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:12:42 +0100
From: Peter R Cook <PCook@wisty.plus.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: The future of "femtocells"?
Message-ID: <2Bg$DrBK82UOFwFd@wisty.plus.com>
In message <siegman-B9462A.18142522082011@sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>,
AES <siegman@stanford.edu> writes
>OK, I'll ask a predict-the-future question of the gurus on this NG:
>
>What's likely to be the future of "femtocells" (aka residential
>"network extenders")? -- that is, gadgets which connect to a cellphone
>provider over the Internet and provide a good cellphone signal within
>the residence and portions of the yard?
[ Moderator snip ]
I would think that the future is fairly strong.
3G & 4G frequencies are more line of sight than earlier ones, so small
no signal zones (no-zones) are likely to get more common.
The technology itself will/can only get cheaper (Moore's law).
Fibre based broadband roll out makes the backhaul cheaper and more
reliable.
The economics for filling small no-zones using conventional masts are
less and less compelling/viable. The smaller the no-zone the less
compelling the argument. $150K+ operating costs to offer cellphone
coverage to a 1 sq mile low population density residential area - few
visitors or transient traffic; most residents will already have a
contract with free minutes that they can't use at home so giving them
the capability would drive call cost but not revenue. The payback would
be fairly long!
A cellphone operator in the UK is experimenting with "community
femtocells". They are installing a bigger version of the home units with
public access and "hand in" in our village - two so far - one in the top
of the telephone kiosk ( already has power and a phone line) and one on
the side of the village hall. Others are apparently planned for utility
poles around the village.
Sounds like your "faculty ghetto" would be a typical target.
--
Peter R Cook
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:20:42 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: The future of "femtocells"?
Message-ID: <siegman-8A790B.07204224082011@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>
In article <2Bg$DrBK82UOFwFd@wisty.plus.com>,
Peter R Cook <PCook@wisty.plus.com> wrote:
> In message <siegman-B9462A.18142522082011@sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>,
> AES <siegman@stanford.edu> writes
> >OK, I'll ask a predict-the-future question of the gurus on this NG:
> >
> >What's likely to be the future of "femtocells" (aka residential
> >"network extenders")? -- that is, gadgets which connect to a cellphone
> >provider over the Internet and provide a good cellphone signal within
> >the residence and portions of the yard?
>
> [ Moderator snip ]
>
> I would think that the future is fairly strong.
Thanks for helpful reply. That's what I'd hope to hear.
[But at the same time, all too many products and services these days
evolve in whatever direction gives the most commercial revenue or
advertising opportunities or monopolistic potential, not what best
serves the ultimate consumers.]
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:07:51 +0000
From: keith.day_at_ubiquisys_dot_com@foo.com (keithday)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: The future of "femtocells"?
Message-ID: <47833$4e538a07$42bb6765$3616@news.flashnewsgroups.com>
keithday had written this in response to
http://forums.cabling-design.com/telecom/The-future-of-femtocells-79596-.htm
:
The supply of residential femtocells are forecast to grow rapidly across
the
world over the next few years. There are several reasons:
- they provide a really simple fix to poor indoor coverage
- they help reduce congestion on the macro mobile network
- device prices are falling, and femto will increasingly be an embedded
function
rather than a separate device
- Emerging next gen wireless networks (like LTE) will be deployed with
femtocells as an integral part of the design
So your proposed solution makes sense for the long term, not just as an
immediate fix.
Keith Day
[disclaimer - I do work for a femtocell company]
AES wrote:
> OK, I'll ask a predict-the-future question of the gurus on this NG:
> What's likely to be the future of "femtocells" (aka
> residential
> "network extenders")? -- that is, gadgets which connect to a
> cellphone
> provider over the Internet and provide a good cellphone signal within
> the residence and portions of the yard? (I don't mean rooftop
> gadgets that pick up signals from a nearby towers and rebroadcast them
> inside a residence.)
> That is, are major cellphone providers likely to continue making these
> network extender devices and service available, at reasonable cost,
> for the foreseeable future? Or are there commercial or political
> factors that might lead to them dropping this kind of connectivity in
> the future?
> Reason for asking: I live in a "faculty ghetto" on a major
> university
> campus: 850 fairly upscale residences in a mile-square area, heavily
> wooded, fairly hilly. Cellphone coverage within much of this area,
> provided by cell towers in surrounding cities and suburban areas,
> ranges from poor to lousy. Proposed improvements in coverage using a
> half dozen low-power distributed antennas hidden inside 30' to 50'
> high poles about 12" in diameter, located within the area but
> generally shielded by surrounding trees, are rousing the usual fervid
> nimby response from a vocal minority.
> All the residences in this area have or can get good Comcast Internet
> service; Google 1 Gig fiber is being installed right now. So, why not
> bypass this entire distributed antenna controversy, and tell everyone
> to just buy their own femtocell? (I've had a Verizon model for a year
> or more myself, and it's been excellent.)
> I'm just attempting to check: are these femtocells likely to remain
> available indefinitely? Or are there good reasons they might go away?
> Thanks for any insights.
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:01:11 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Why Amazon Can't Make A Kindle In the USA
Message-ID: <p062408d0ca7961d5027f@[192.168.181.129]>
Why Amazon Can't Make A Kindle In the USA
Steve Denning
Forbes
8/17/2011
An economist is someone who knows the price of everything and the
value of nothing.
Old joke based on Oscar Wilde's quip about a cynic.
Yesterday I noted how conventional cost accounting inexorably focuses
attention of executives on increasing short-term profits by cutting
costs.
The same thing happens in economics. Take a recent economic study
that set out to shed light on role of Chinese businesses vis-a-vis
American consumers. Galina Hale and Bart Hobijn, two economists from
the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, did a study showing that
only 2.7 percent of U.S. consumers purchases have the "Made in China"
label. Moreover, only 1.2% actually reflects the cost of the imported
goods. Thus, on average, of every dollar spent on an item labeled
"Made in China," 55 cents go for services produced in the United
States. So the study trumpets the finding that China has only a tiny
sliver of the U.S. economy.
So no problem, right?
Well, not exactly. The tiny sliver happens to be the sliver that
matters. What economists miss is what is happening behind the numbers
of dollars in the real economy of people.
...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/08/17/why-amazon-cant-make-a-kindle-in-the-usa/
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hancock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: NE US Earthquake--cell phones stop, landlines ok
Message-ID: <8fa0111f-74df-4a89-8963-8b4c5b70e839@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
After the 8/22 earthquake felt all over the northeast US, cell phones
were not working in our area, apparently due to the flood of calls of
people checking with their friends. However, landlines worked fine.
While an earthquake is very surprising in the east, this was very
minor in the grand scheme of things. What would happen to the telecom
network (all modes--landline voice, internet/email, cell phone) if
there was a serious event?
I believe on 9/11/2001 telecomm service in the NYC area was disrupted
due to the flood of calls.
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: NE US Earthquake--cell phones stop, landlines ok
Message-ID: <1314194960.39583.YahooMailClassic@web111711.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
--- On Tue, 8/23/11, Hancock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
> From: Hancock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
> Subject: NE US Earthquake--cell phones stop, landlines ok
> To: redacted@invalid.telecom-digest.org.
> Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2011, 1:30 PM
> After the 8/22 earthquake felt all
> over the northeast US, cell phones
> were not working in our area, apparently due to the flood
> of calls of
> people checking with their friends. However,
> landlines worked fine.
>
> While an earthquake is very surprising in the east, this
> was very
> minor in the grand scheme of things. What would
> happen to the telecom
> network (all modes--landline voice, internet/email, cell
> phone) if
> there was a serious event?
>
> I believe on 9/11/2001 telecomm service in the NYC area was
> disrupted
> due to the flood of calls.
Whenever there is a tornado warning in Oklahoma City, and I assume in other
tornado prone areas, the cellular network immediately becomes overloaded
and maybe no practical access for an hour or two.
If a tornado strikes, the landline network will be overloaded, too.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Smith <marklsmith@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: NE US Earthquake--cell phones stop, landlines ok
Message-ID: <1314211280.43825.YahooMailNeo@web65714.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
I was able to make a cell phone call to a cell phone and a landline soon
after the earthquake [2:12 PM] Later the cell would not reach the tower.
My girlfriend was able to call from cell to my work landline at 3:00 PM.
We have had must worse outages with hurricanes. The ironic one was when
the telephone pole was down accross from my house and electricity was off.
The landline still worked with the cable pinned to the ground. Noisy but it
worked!
Mark
Mark L. Smith~
marklsmith@yahoo.com
http://smith.freehosting.net
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:16:02 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Email spam getting to me
Message-ID: <siegman-F42FFF.12160223082011@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>
I know that John Levine reads this group and is also involved with the
whole spam issue. Maybe he, and others, can provide some therapeutic
responses for the following ramblings on solutions for email spam.
The email spam problem on my university email account (which is the
only personal email account I have or ever want to have) is at this
point really getting to me.
Despite pre-filtering by the best filters that Stanford IT can provide
for its university servers, followed by further filtering by numerous
filters I've created in my own Eudora POP client and years of training
of Eudora's Junk filter, an ever-growing amount of egregious spam has
been showing up in my IN box in recent months.
After looking at a lot of online discussions of this issue, I've come
to believe that (a) searching for ever more intelligent recipient-end
filtering methods to cope with every more ingenious spam attacks, or
(b) waiting for global solutions to this problem to emerge from higher
management levels in the Internet or from governmental agencies, are
both equally hopeless endeavors.
Given this, I'm seriously thinking of a ruthless two-part response
which will not depend on any actions by anyone else:
1) I'll discard any and all of these intelligent filtering techniques
and convert to a ruthless "pure whitelist" filtering approach: nothing
gets through to my IN box that doesn't come from a sending address
that's already in my address book, or otherwise on my whitelist. (I
do realize that this will still be vulnerable to some extent, but at
least it's simple and straightforward).
2) But at the same time, I'd still like to be reachable, at least
once, by distant or unknown colleagues, students at distant
universities, and other potential new correspondents who aren't
already on my whitelist.
So, I'll also post prominently on my university web page a code phrase
which, if put in the Subject: line of an email message or somewhere
similar, will ensure that a email message will also get through to me.
This code phrase will change from time to time, may be described in a
way that will hinder robotic capture, may even be Captcha-protected.
Pretty much anyone who wants to reach me (or whom I want to reach) is
likely to know how to search for my personal or institutional web page
to get my email address. If this technique of adding a code phrase on
your web site or FaceBook page become a widespread email convention,
it could go a long way to solving the "initial contact" problem for
those of us who use whitelist filtering.
Reactions to this? Is there any better way?
[ Moderator Note: If you implement your 'whitelist only' approach, realize
that Telecom Digest/comp.dcom.telecom readers will not be able to send
you responses to anything you post. Please consider including a way to
let those messages in. :) ]
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: "daryl.gibson@gmail.com" <daryl.gibson@gmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Email spam getting to me
Message-ID: <14bb28f6-3e60-4d8f-b663-edaecf42a96b@x21g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 23, 1:16~pm, AES <sieg...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> The email spam problem on my university email account (which is the
> only personal email account I have or ever want to have) is at this
> point really getting to me. ~
May I suggest you get a Gmail account and pop the mail off your
university email server with that? Gmail will filter out the spam, and
does so in a remarkable way. When using pop, there is a small time
lag, and if that bothers you, forward the university mail instead of
popping it. You can set up the university email address as a "from"
address within Gmail, and filter as needed with Gmail's filters. I've
found that Google's spam filters are remarkable, with few false
positives.
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:41:03 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Email spam getting to me
Message-ID: <siegman-CE8DAF.13410324082011@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>
In article
<14bb28f6-3e60-4d8f-b663-edaecf42a96b@x21g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
"daryl.gibson@gmail.com" <daryl.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 23, 1:16~pm, AES <sieg...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> > The email spam problem on my university email account (which is the
> > only personal email account I have or ever want to have) is at this
> > point really getting to me. ~
>
> May I suggest you get a Gmail account and pop the mail off your
> university email server with that? Gmail will filter out the spam, and
> does so in a remarkable way. When using pop, there is a small time
> lag, and if that bothers you, forward the university mail instead of
> popping it. You can set up the university email address as a "from"
> address within Gmail, and filter as needed with Gmail's filters. I've
> found that Google's spam filters are remarkable, with few false
> positives.
Thanks for suggestion. Haven't tried Gmail -- and, to be honest,
probably won't want to expend enough free time and effort to give it a
fair trial. But, I guess I'm also skeptical that the good guys
(filter designers) will ever be able to keep ahead of the bad guys
(spammers) over time. Nonetheless, thanks -- that wasn't an approach
that I'd encountered previously
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 15:27:21 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.VALID-IF-THIS-IS-ELIDED.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: I'm taking a vacation
Message-ID: <4E53FF19.80902@horne.net>
To the readers:
I'm taking a couple of weeks off from the Digest. Robert Bonomi will
moderate while I'm gone: please be nice to him.
Bill Horne
--
"Looking back, it's all so clear -
Wherever we were going, well, we're here.
Glory, glory, hallelujah -
Welcome to the future!"
- Brad Paisley
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:36:09 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Why Software Is Eating The World
Message-ID: <p062408e1ca7a138791b1@[192.168.181.129]>
Why Software Is Eating The World
By MARC ANDREESSEN
AUGUST 20, 2011
This week, Hewlett-Packard (where I am on the board) announced that
it is exploring jettisoning its struggling PC business in favor of
investing more heavily in software, where it sees better potential
for growth. Meanwhile, Google plans to buy up the cellphone handset
maker Motorola Mobility. Both moves surprised the tech world. But
both moves are also in line with a trend I've observed, one that
makes me optimistic about the future growth of the American and world
economies, despite the recent turmoil in the stock market.
In short, software is eating the world.
More than 10 years after the peak of the 1990s dot-com bubble, a
dozen or so new Internet companies like Facebook and Twitter are
sparking controversy in Silicon Valley, due to their rapidly growing
private market valuations, and even the occasional successful IPO.
With scars from the heyday of Webvan and Pets.com still fresh in the
investor psyche, people are asking, "Isn't this just a dangerous new
bubble?"
I, along with others, have been arguing the other side of the case.
(I am co-founder and general partner of venture capital firm
Andreessen-Horowitz, which has invested in Facebook, Groupon, Skype,
Twitter, Zynga, and Foursquare, among others. I am also personally an
investor in LinkedIn.) We believe that many of the prominent new
Internet companies are building real, high-growth, high-margin,
highly defensible businesses.
...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903480904576512250915629460.html
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:23:08 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: The future of "femtocells"?
Message-ID: <pan.2011.08.24.09.23.03.471787@yahoo.com.au>
An Australian carrier (Optus) has just released a home product based on 3G
femtocell technology:
http://www.optus.com.au/dafiles/OCA/OptusHome/HomeRedesign/mobile-phones/homezone/
You have to register up to 11 3G handsets to access the device and the
user gets a decent deal for calls on one handset.
I still find the whole concept a little bizarre given the opposition to
cell towers and their radiation in some quarters - now people are going to
add more RF sources in their homes to the Wi-Fi emitters that they
probably already use!
Oh well, it will probably reduce their handset RF power when in use so it
may well balance out.
--
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: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:29:53 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: The future of "femtocells"?
Message-ID: <siegman-2308B0.10295324082011@sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>
In article <pan.2011.08.24.09.23.03.471787@yahoo.com.au>,
David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> An Australian carrier (Optus) has just released a home product based on 3G
> femtocell technology:
>
> http://www.optus.com.au/dafiles/OCA/OptusHome/HomeRedesign/mobile-phones/homezone
>
> You have to register up to 11 3G handsets to access the device and the
> user gets a decent deal for calls on one handset.
>
> I still find the whole concept a little bizarre given the opposition to
> cell towers and their radiation in some quarters - now people are going to
> add more RF sources in their homes to the Wi-Fi emitters that they
> probably already use!
Thanks for the pointer; the video is particularly useful in explaining
to nontechnical types how a "femtocell" operates.
In the situation of current interest to me, the opposition is stemming
primarily from aesthetic rather than health concerns (though the
latter may also come along later on).
The "towers" that are proposed to be installed are actually DAS
(distributed antenna system) poles, from which the radiated powers are
apparently in the tens rather than hundreds of watts. The poles
themselves -- essentially simple black monolithic tubes about 18"
diameter and 30 to 50 feet tall -- are a bit brutal in appearance, but
all the antenna junk is totally hidden inside them. The top 2 meters
of the pole is apparently fiberglass rather than steel, although the
entire pole appears completely seamless.
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:55:07 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Why Shutting Down Cell Service Is Not Just Against The Law, It's a Really Bad Idea
Message-ID: <p062408eeca7ab2e2e953@[192.168.181.129]>
Why Shutting Down Cell Service Is Not Just Against The Law, It's a
Really Bad Idea
By Harold Feld
August 23, 2011
I suppose I am really a telecom lawyer at heart. My reaction to the
news that the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police shut down
cellphone networks in a number of stations on August 11 had nothing
to do with democracy, the First Amendment, Tahrir Square, etc. With
all deference to the importance of these concerns, my reaction was
WHAT DO YOU MEAN THESE IDIOTS MESSED WITH THE PHONE SYSTEM? From my
perspective, and the perspective of traditional telecom law, BART
could just as well have turned off the local central office and all
this chatter about whether or not BART is a public forum is just a
distraction.
Obviously, however, no one at BART thinks of cell phones as the phone
system. In BART's open letter explaining what they did and why it was
cool, BART focuses on the First Amendment /public forum issue and
completely skips the fact that they shut off a phone system. Mind
you, I suppose I can't blame them - much. A number of folks are
asking if there is a right to cell phone service as if this were a
novel question rather than something settled by decades of telecom
law.
Also missed by most: this goes well beyond BART. If BART gets away
with including "we can shut down cell phone service" in its tool box
you can guarantee that other local law enforcement agencies will
start copying this - and all for the best of reasons. Because what
could possibly go wrong when you pull the plug on a critical piece of
infrastructure whenever some local police chief or city council
person or whoever decides they need to do something about these
"flash mobs" or "rioters" or whatever? BART emphasizes the narrowness
of the impact. But Montgomery County, MD, where I live, is worried
about an outbreak of flash mobs of teenagers that materialize to raid
local stores. Suppose they decide to start turning off the phone grid
in neighborhoods they believe are "at risk?" Sure, lets just knock
out phone service for a neighborhood for a few hours. What could be
the harm - and it's all for a good cause, right?
There is a reason we do not mess with the phone system, and why that
doesn't change when the phone system is wireless. I elaborate on the
legal reasoning below.
...
http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/why-shutting-down-cell-service-not-just-again
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:03:01 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Why Shutting Down Cell Service Is Not Just Against The Law,
Message-ID: <siegman-A6FD41.11030124082011@sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>
In article <p062408eeca7ab2e2e953@[192.168.181.129]>,
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
> Obviously, however, no one at BART thinks of cell phones as the phone
> system. In BART's open letter explaining what they did and why it was
> cool, BART focuses on the First Amendment /public forum issue and
> completely skips the fact that they shut off a phone system. Mind
> you, I suppose I can't blame them - much. A number of folks are
> asking if there is a right to cell phone service as if this were a
> novel question rather than something settled by decades of telecom
> law.
Suppose I have a femtocell or cellphone extender in my residence
(where cellphone service is otherwise dead), and I'm hosting some kind
of big semi-public community event (or my teenage kid is having a big
bash). Maybe I don't entirely trust some of the attendees not to run
up big charges on my dime -- or call uninvited or unwanted attendees
to crash the event. So, I just unplug my connection for the duration
of the event. Am I "shutting down a phone system"?
If BART is required by law or contract to provide phone connectivity
inside its facilities -- or to let the phone company have access to
their property set up, maintain and operate such facilities -- that's
one thing. The resulting facilities would definitely seem to be part
of "the phone system".
But if BART, more or less voluntarily, as a service to its patrons,
installs, maintains and operates at its own expense facilities that
allow its patrons to "connect to the outside phone system" -- well,
that seems like another matter.
[Not expressing any factual assessment either way of how BART's
facilities are really provided. But if they're to be considered "part
of the phone system", rather than just some private facilities that
connect to the phone system at some demarc on the outside wall, that
should be very clearly understood by all concerned.]
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:35:15 +0000 (UTC)
From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Why Shutting Down Cell Service Is Not Just Against The Law,
Message-ID: <j33na3$1i4$1@reader1.panix.com>
In article <siegman-A6FD41.11030124082011@sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>,
AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
[...]
>Suppose I have a femtocell or cellphone extender in my residence
>(where cellphone service is otherwise dead), and I'm hosting some kind
>of big semi-public community event (or my teenage kid is having a big
>bash). Maybe I don't entirely trust some of the attendees not to run
>up big charges on my dime -- or call uninvited or unwanted attendees
>to crash the event.
This actually 2 seperate problems. As far as charges on your dime, I
don't think this would be a problem. Each phone has its own esn/cell
number and would be charged accordingly. The second could be a problem,
but if the femtocell is dead, can they get service by just stepping
outside? Incoming calls should not be a problem, because a phone must
register itself with the femtocell to tell the system that calls to it
can be routed over the femtocell.
BTW, the term "femtocell" is a registered trademark of (I think) AT&T.
I have one from Sprint and its called an "AirAve".
--
Rich Greenberg Sarasota, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 941 378 2097
Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
Canines: Val, Red, Shasta, Zero & Casey (At the bridge) Owner:Chinook-L
Canines: Red & Cinnar (Siberians) Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hancock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Why Shutting Down Cell Service Is Not Just Against The Law,
Message-ID: <5e5b5836-7e94-4c37-a543-822de546e669@1g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 24, 9:55~am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
> WHAT DO YOU MEAN THESE IDIOTS MESSED WITH THE PHONE SYSTEM? From my
> perspective, and the perspective of traditional telecom law, BART
> could just as well have turned off the local central office and all
> this chatter about whether or not BART is a public forum is just a
> distraction.
Apples and pretzels comparison. BART did not turn off a "central
office", nor had any intention of doing. The suspension was confined
to restricted areas within only limited certain areas (subway
portions) of its own property.
Note that a business does not violate free speech or anything else if
it shuts off telephone service to its employees or forbids them to use
their cell phones within the building.
Here is the BART statement. It makes sense.
http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2011/news20110820.aspx
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:00:22 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: AT&T streamlining individual messaging plans August 21..
Message-ID: <p062408f0ca7ab42835d0@[192.168.181.129]>
AT&T streamlining individual messaging plans August 21st, leaving
unlimited as the sole survivor
By Brad Molen
Aug 17, 2011
Do not adjust your computer screen, because the screenshot you're
seeing above is real. Confirmed by multiple sources, we've
exclusively learned that AT&T -- the protagonist of choice -- is
trimming its individual messaging packages from two to one on August
21st. The remaining survivor? The Messaging Unlimited plan for $20,
which means the $10 bundle that offers 1000 messages is riding into
the sunset. If you aren't keen to do much communicating within 160
characters, you'll be left with no other choice besides the
pay-per-message option at twenty cents each (thirty cents for MMS).
Fortunately, the Family Unlimited Messaging is left unscathed,
continuing to offer all-you-can-eat texts for $30. Tend to do only an
average bit of texting and looking to move to Ma Bell? Our friend,
you'd best be making that transition before the end of this week.
...
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/17/atandt-streamlining-individual-messaging-plans-august-21st-leavin/
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:17:43 -0700
From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <j33f8l$4be$1@blue-new.rahul.net>
David Scheidt wrote:
> The contract is not the only controlling document. The terms of the
> licenses that the carriers operate on matter; they're not allowed, by
> regulation, which overrides the contract, to cede authority over their
> licensed spectrum to third parties. So BART don't get to shut off
> servcie whenever they feel like it. There needs to be a real pressing
> reason to do so. It's not clear that existed; if it didn't, BART's
> actions were illegal. It's not clear there's any recourse against
> them, though.
A threat of having trains, or passengers getting on/off, deliberately
blocked by a mob is a good enough reason. Not only to shut down cell
service, but for mass arrests.
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:59:18 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <j33l6m$ct7$1@reader1.panix.com>
John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
:David Scheidt wrote:
:> The contract is not the only controlling document. The terms of the
:> licenses that the carriers operate on matter; they're not allowed, by
:> regulation, which overrides the contract, to cede authority over their
:> licensed spectrum to third parties. So BART don't get to shut off
:> servcie whenever they feel like it. There needs to be a real pressing
:> reason to do so. It's not clear that existed; if it didn't, BART's
:> actions were illegal. It's not clear there's any recourse against
:> them, though.
:A threat of having trains, or passengers getting on/off, deliberately
:blocked by a mob is a good enough reason. Not only to shut down cell
:service, but for mass arrests.
That's not what the courts and Congress have said for the last 75
years. Common carriers don't get to decide who they provide service
to based on the claims of cops. End of Story. There is a procedure
protecting the due process rights of the people who are having their
service disconnected, and it's not 'some cop, claims, on evidence that
may, or may not have been made up, that some nameless person might, or
might not, cause some bad thing to happen.'. That's the standard BART
used.
--
sig 23
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:08:16 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Sprint to Get iPhone 5
Message-ID: <p062408f8ca7b42bca0ee@[192.168.181.129]>
Sprint to Get iPhone 5
By JOANN S. LUBLIN And SPENCER E. ANTE
The Wall Street Journal
August 24, 2011
Sprint Nextel Corp. will begin selling the new version of the Apple
iPhone in mid-October, people familiar with the matter said, filling
a huge hole in the No. 3 U.S. carrier's lineup and giving Apple Inc.
another sales channel for its popular gadget.
The timing, however, indicates Apple's new iPhone, which is expected
to be called iPhone 5, will hit the market later than expected and
too late to contribute to sales in Apple's fiscal fourth quarter,
which ends in September. Most observers had expected the device to
arrive next month.
...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903327904576526690675657466.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.
Return to Archives ** Older Issues