|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 215 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Re: More on distracted drivers
Re: More on distracted drivers
Re: More on distracted drivers
Re: More on distracted drivers
articles on 911 fee diversions
Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Who does today what Bell Labs did in the past?
Re: Who does today what Bell Labs did in the past?
Re: Who does today what Bell Labs did in the past?
Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Iowa 911 call center becomes first to accept texts
Re: Iowa 911 call center becomes first to accept texts
Iowa 911 call center becomes first to accept texts - USATODAY.com
====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 04:55:13 -0400
From: Webrat <sub@mercury.windsaloft.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Message-ID: <h5bhdq$sdh$1@aioe.org>
Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 8/2/2009 7:07 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> You have to get "permission" from the Feds to build a tower (over a
>> specified height) in the first place. And (again, over specified
>> height) 'operate' that tower in accord with Fed requirements
>> (mostly as regards lighting the structure).
>
> Just curious: do you have any why the Feds, and not local
> governments (with the exception I noted above), are the regulators
> of the structures? I'm not having any success Googling an answer to
> this question.
Has to do with the airspace, navigable or otherwise. Federal Aviation
Regulations are the biggest part. Lighting, as mentioned, is a -big-
issue. The advent of the ubiquitous medical helicopter has reinforced
the enforcement (gag, sorry for that sentence...but am sure you get
the idea ;))....
There is hardly any 'uncontrolled' airspace left in the USA. Some
places in very remote (but NOT mountainous) areas are exempt, [and]
then only [from ground level to] 500 above the ground; deserts/lakes/
open prairie hundreds of miles from a town, that's about it
anymore. But be careful, if there is a human around any of those
remote areas, airspace rules change and [the airspace] can be
controlled..again. About the only complete exception is when you can
use the phrase: "...excepting to take off and land" (a FAA legal term
of art) then you can use the airspace....but towers don't do that, do
they.. :)))
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:20:10 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: More on distracted drivers
Message-ID: <h5c8dr$114$1@news.eternal-september.org>
David Clayton wrote:
> This comes after another trial where another "professional" truck driver
> was found not guilty after colliding with a passenger train in the country
> on a day with perfect, sunny conditions with the crossing lights working
> correctly - also killing multiple people and maiming others.
>
> It seems that some juries containing drivers are extremely forgiving of
> other drivers - and if those on trial may have been using a phone, well we
> all do it, don't we?...... :-(
Did they happen to say if the jury were talking and texting on their
cellphone during the trial and deliberations?
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, inc, A Rot in Hell. Co.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:54:44 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: More on distracted drivers
Message-ID: <h5ca03$pao$2@reader1.panix.com>
David Clayton wrote:
> This comes after another trial where another "professional" truck driver
> was found not guilty after colliding with a passenger train in the country
> on a day with perfect, sunny conditions with the crossing lights working
> correctly - also killing multiple people and maiming others.
>
> It seems that some juries containing drivers are extremely forgiving of
> other drivers - and if those on trial may have been using a phone, well we
> all do it, don't we?...... :-(
Well, i wouldn't be so blase about it. I was driving down
a near empty highway, beutiful clear weather, nice sunshine,
unlimited visibilty, minding my own business, when...
... when an [expletive deleted] smashed his car into the
back of my minivan. I screamed out something I'm not going
to repeat, pulled off to the side, and saw plenty of damage
to the rear. Oh, and my seat both had the backplane break
backwards at the hinge, and had the some of the anchors into
the car frame snap out as well.
(I'm not a big fan of the Nanny State but... I've got to
thank Ralph Nader for getting us "full height" seatbacks.
If this had been an older car, with the seat only reaching
up to my shoulders, I wouldn't be here today).
obtelecom: the kid (those kids today! and their music!)
who smashed into me somehow missed seeing my van. despite
clear weather. despite the highway being straight. despite
just about anyone else being able to notice it a half
mile ahead of time...
Why yes, he was probably distracted. Guess what he was
apparently doing. Hint, it involves radio waves..
Oh, based on the damage, I'd guess he was doing 90 or so mph
when he rear ended me. (I was moving at legal highway speeds).
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:40:36 -0400
From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: More on distracted drivers
Message-ID: <8edee$4a79e046$4038fef4$24496@PRIMUS.CA>
David Clayton wrote:
> It seems that some juries containing drivers are extremely forgiving
> of other drivers - and if those on trial may have been using a phone,
> well we all do it, don't we?...... :-(
There are two factors at work here: first, everyone wants 'big', faceless,
supposedly rich companies (or their similarly described insurance companies)
to be liable when something goes wrong... no one wants to recognize the
responsibility of the ignorant or selfish individual. I'll leave it to the
reader to theorize why.
The other factor is that disregard for traffic law has become so commonplace
that people who obey the laws are considered obstacles to be circumvented.
For whatever reason, most jurisdictions have abdicated their duty to enforce
traffic laws ('educating' drivers in the process) and in stead have passed
new laws which are even more difficult to enforce and hoping that
increasingly severe penalties will encourage drivers to obey them. In
Ontario, Canada laws have been passed against talking on a cellphone while
driving (unless you're using a headset, but that's another story), or
driving while using a handheld device. Penalties for drinking and driving
have been made more severe at all levels (including the 'over .05 warning',
which used to be a 12-hour suspension.) The provincial government even
considered passing a law against new (primarily young) license holders
driving with other youths in the vehicle. The city of Toronto was reported
to be considering banning right hand turns on red lights at some
intersections because some drivers are not paying attention and are
endangering pedestrians and cyclists while doing so.
If there wasn't so much death, injury, and other damage at stake, the
situation would be a laughable illustration of bureaucracy: you have laws
against dangerous driving (whether you're drunk or sober, talking or not,
etc.) which people do not obey because you haven't been enforcing them
rigorously, but you claim to be doing something by passing more laws that
will be ignored. The bottom line is that drivers continue to do as they
please, claiming that they know what they're doing and it's not dangerous...
until something goes wrong and someone is hurt. What is the deterrent
effect of more severe penalties if motorists are (rightly!) convinced that
the chances of being caught are infinitessimal?
The problem is not the cellphone. The problem is not the GPS. The problem
is not the other teengers in the car. The problem is that drivers (and,
possibly, passengers) do not acknowledge that controlling a heavy vehicle
moving down a common pathway is a dangerous, potentially deadly, activity
and conduct themselves appropriately, including prioritizing their
activities or deciding not to do something because they need to focus on
driving. There are existing laws against bad driving which could improve
safety immensely if enforced but politicians do not have the courage to
crack down on bad driving because most of the people who vote for them do it
and would resent being pulled over for what "everybody" does. So they blame
scapegoats like cellphones rather than drivers. This is NOT a technical
problem!
I can't see how this could change for the better, but I can certainly see it
getting worse... and, frankly, I'm frightened.
.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:45:54 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: More on distracted drivers
Message-ID: <h5cv15$koj$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Geoffrey Welsh wrote:
> David Clayton wrote:
>> It seems that some juries containing drivers are extremely forgiving
>> of other drivers - and if those on trial may have been using a phone,
>> well we all do it, don't we?...... :-(
>
> There are two factors at work here: first, everyone wants 'big', faceless,
> supposedly rich companies (or their similarly described insurance companies)
> to be liable when something goes wrong... no one wants to recognize the
> responsibility of the ignorant or selfish individual. I'll leave it to the
> reader to theorize why.
>
> The other factor is that disregard for traffic law has become so commonplace
> that people who obey the laws are considered obstacles to be circumvented.
> For whatever reason, most jurisdictions have abdicated their duty to enforce
> traffic laws ('educating' drivers in the process) and in stead have passed
> new laws which are even more difficult to enforce and hoping that
> increasingly severe penalties will encourage drivers to obey them. In
> Ontario, Canada laws have been passed against talking on a cellphone while
> driving (unless you're using a headset, but that's another story), or
> driving while using a handheld device. Penalties for drinking and driving
> have been made more severe at all levels (including the 'over .05 warning',
> which used to be a 12-hour suspension.) The provincial government even
> considered passing a law against new (primarily young) license holders
> driving with other youths in the vehicle. The city of Toronto was reported
> to be considering banning right hand turns on red lights at some
> intersections because some drivers are not paying attention and are
> endangering pedestrians and cyclists while doing so.
>
> If there wasn't so much death, injury, and other damage at stake, the
> situation would be a laughable illustration of bureaucracy: you have laws
> against dangerous driving (whether you're drunk or sober, talking or not,
> etc.) which people do not obey because you haven't been enforcing them
> rigorously, but you claim to be doing something by passing more laws that
> will be ignored. The bottom line is that drivers continue to do as they
> please, claiming that they know what they're doing and it's not dangerous...
> until something goes wrong and someone is hurt. What is the deterrent
> effect of more severe penalties if motorists are (rightly!) convinced that
> the chances of being caught are infinitessimal?
>
> The problem is not the cellphone. The problem is not the GPS. The problem
> is not the other teengers in the car. The problem is that drivers (and,
> possibly, passengers) do not acknowledge that controlling a heavy vehicle
> moving down a common pathway is a dangerous, potentially deadly, activity
> and conduct themselves appropriately, including prioritizing their
> activities or deciding not to do something because they need to focus on
> driving. There are existing laws against bad driving which could improve
> safety immensely if enforced but politicians do not have the courage to
> crack down on bad driving because most of the people who vote for them do it
> and would resent being pulled over for what "everybody" does. So they blame
> scapegoats like cellphones rather than drivers. This is NOT a technical
> problem!
>
> I can't see how this could change for the better, but I can certainly see it
> getting worse... and, frankly, I'm frightened.
I don't know about other states, but for most drivers you don't even
have to go into the DMV to renew you license but once every 10 years and
all you do then is take and eye test. The last time I took a test was 32
years ago, I do understand the driving laws have enforced them for many
years, and when I took the test I did not miss one question. What needs
to be done is require at least the written test when you do have to go
to the DMV. I for one would not have a problem with that ans the roads
would be much safer. I noticed a car next to me to day and the driver
was watching s movie on a DVD player in his car, that has been against
the law for many years.
--
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: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: articles on 911 fee diversions
Message-ID: <e196fee8-e053-4214-a424-a6007b62c708@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
Governing Magazine had an article describing how governments divert
911 fees from telephone subscribers and put it to other uses.
See: http://www.governing.com/column/grab-fee-and-run
The following older articles provide interesting background
information on 911 services and fees and telecom in general:
July 2009--prepaid phones not paying the 911 fee:
http://13thfloor.governing.com/2009/07/prepaid-phones-are-a-nice-service-for-people-who-dont-want-a-monthly-wireless-bill-theyre-a-scary-prospect-for-the-911-emerg.html
1998 article: http://www.governing.com/archive/archive/1998/oct/infbrfs.txt
1999 article: http://www.governing.com/archive/archive/1999/jan/911.txt
1997 article: http://www.governing.com/archive/archive/1997/jan/techdeal.txt
1991 article on communications network disaster recovery:
http://www.governing.com/archive/archive/1991/sep/recover.txt
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <00548254-6686-4b5e-9f8c-db8fb7aca477@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 5, 12:40 am, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
wrote:
> This gaping hole in financial security is unacceptable. Therefore, the
> FCC needs to make these types of billing opt-IN (by the billed party).
In my opinion humble, the problem exists from deliberate national
telecom policy. After divesture, it was determined that policy would
be to foster competition and encourage new carriers to enter the
business. The existing local companies, who did the billing, were
_required_ by this policy to accept all newcomers and essentially not
ask any questions. As a result, many unscrupulous companies got
involved.
Thus, consumers got hit with ridiculous AOS (alternative operator
service) charges, such as $25 for a minute call. Further, consumers
found that their long distance carrier was switched without their
consent. Then there were the problems Mr. Galt described in his post.
Throwing out the baby with the dirty bath water is idiotic public
policy, as this situation clearly illustrates.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Who does today what Bell Labs did in the past?
Message-ID: <8c71fd9f-79bd-4a3d-85f3-705d36ae38d0@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
In reading old literature, I'm amazed at the enormous scope of
research conducted by the pre-divesture Bell Laboratories. Anything
and everything even remotely related to telecommunications was
carefully studied by them. Because their work had benefit for the
entire nationwide Bell System, the economies of scale of cost saving
were great and cost-justified the lab.
With the Bell System broken and today's Bell Labs and other units
(Bellcore) far, far smaller than the past, I was wondering who, if
anyone, does that kind of research today?
Examples of Bell Labs research:
--medical -- instant blood test machines for workers in hazardous
environments, such as lead smelters
--materials, plastic -- better insulation (less crosstalk/capacitance,
easier wire threading, longer lasting, cheaper); toxicity tests of
plastics, telephone set body shells, protective gear
--materials, metal -- contact points in switchgear, conductors, fuses,
motor and relay windings, refining, scrap reuse, corrosion resistance,
strength, cable strength
--traffic--toll, local, busy hour, peak, monitoring, recovery,
planning
--switching--cheaper and higher capacity switches, lower maintenance.
Components, such as circuit boards, ICs, frames.
--telephone sets: more efficient in terms of power consumption,
reception, and transmission; more durable, cheaper to build; human
engineer studies for ease of use and accuracy.
--computers--switching assistance for routing, AMA recording;
maintaining cable records; billing records; repair records; traffic
analysis, maintenance analysis
--transmission--cheaper and higher capacity media; wireless
transmission and wireless sets.
Obviously external developments has changed what they do, but then
there are new challenges.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:41:48 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Who does today what Bell Labs did in the past?
Message-ID: <siegman-68849A.15411805082009@news.stanford.edu>
In article
<8c71fd9f-79bd-4a3d-85f3-705d36ae38d0@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> In reading old literature, I'm amazed at the enormous scope of
> research conducted by the pre-divesture Bell Laboratories. Anything
> and everything even remotely related to telecommunications was
> carefully studied by them. Because their work had benefit for the
> entire nationwide Bell System, the economies of scale of cost saving
> were great and cost-justified the lab.
>
> With the Bell System broken and today's Bell Labs and other units
> (Bellcore) far, far smaller than the past, I was wondering who, if
> anyone, does that kind of research today?
I'm a "retired but still quite active" 77-year-old life-long academic
who had the extraordinarily good fortune to be active throughout much of
my career, beginning in 1956 and continuing through and well beyond the
breakup of the Bell System in the mid-1980s, in many of the areas of
research in which the Bell Labs were also a premier institution. As a
result, I had the equally good fortune to know many, many colleagues at
Bell Labs, and to visit Murray Hill and Holmdel many times.
So, I can agree from direct experience that your assessment here is
absolutely correct, and moreover that the technical accomplishments from
Bell Labs were of equally immense benefit, not just for the Bell System,
but for the entire nation. It is really an open question whether the
economic benefits of the innovations in telephone services that resulted
from the breakup exceed the hidden costs of the losses in technological
development that came from the associated destruction of the Bell
Laboratories.
The answer to your question (or at least, an off-the-cuff answer) is
that no other really comparable industrial laboratories still exist
today -- not IBM, not RCA, not GE, not any other major firms I can think
of. To the extent that such broadly defined basic research is done in
the U.S. today, the universities and a few privately funded institutes
-- the Hughes Medical Foundation institutes, as one example -- are among
the major players. Some major companies in highly technical and
economically important areas -- Intel, let's say, or big pharma -- do a
lot of advanced technological development, and some basic research, but
the basic research results tends to stay private and to be narrowly
focused in areas of interest to them. And, of course, a great deal of
innovation (but not a lot of underlying fundamental research) comes out
of the whole venture capital/startup world.
In Germany and France, government-supported quasi private organizations
like the Max Planck Foundation and CNRS do a fair amount of long-term
and high-quality basic research. In the U.S. a few government-supported
laboratories -- NIST, for example -- struggle to do the same; but all
too many others -- NASA in spades, LLNL and Los Alamos in large part --
are much more self-protecting (and local job-protecting) boondoggles
The immense contributions that came from Bell Labs were funded in
essence by a miniscule and essentially imperceptible (but very long-term
stable) "tax" on every individual phone bill issued by the Bell System.
The only other institution in the U.S. that might have been able to do
more or less the same thing -- but, to their shame, didn't -- was the
electrical utility industry. If Bell Labs was a giant, EPRI (the
Electrical Power Research Institute) is a peanut.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:27:39 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Who does today what Bell Labs did in the past?
Message-ID: <Kzoem.80508$YU5.39412@newsfe21.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> --switching--cheaper and higher capacity switches, lower maintenance.
> Components, such as circuit boards, ICs, frames.
I subscribed to the BSTJ for many years. Indeed, they did amazing things.
AMPS for one.
Another is the No 5 ESS, which is by far the best end office switch.
The others do fine for POTS and basic calling features. But, if a major
customer wants a C.O.-based "PBX" nothing comes close to the 5ESS.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cellphone tower coverage Qs
Message-ID: <027b3f9f-3816-4e89-ad97-f2fa3504b7c4@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 4, 4:33 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> "Why the Feds" is because the Federal government claims _exclusive_
> authority over the regulation of RF spectrum, _licensed_ station
> equipment and the operation thereof. RF towers are considered
> 'part' of the station equipment, and thus under exclusive Fed
> control. Prevents local governments from attempting things like
> 'taxing out of existence' an operation that is 'politically
> unpopular'.
Some telecom carriers like to have it both ways--when it suits their
purpose they claim to be a common carrier under Federal regulation and
can ignore local town zoning rules about where to put up a tower,
poles, etc. But when it suits their purpose, they claim to be
independent entrapreneurs, not subject to govt regulation like a
'real' carrier.
One particular carrier, claiming it reported to a 'higher authority',
ran roughshod over a local town's wishes and put up an ugly tower
right off the town square. However, that very same carrier told a
frustrated subscriber that it was too damn bad his brand new cellphone
wouldn't work in his house, but he was none the less expected to pay
for his contract for the year; they claimed no service guarantee or
obligation or any regulatory obligation. (Subscriber had to fight
very hard to get out his worthless contract.)
> It's the _same_ authority that allowed the Feds to rule that local
> govt and/or private associations could _not_ ban or otherwise
> restrict the placement of 'small dish' satellite receivers.
Actually, private homeowner associations most certainly _can_
satellite ban dish receivers; it depends on the specific design of the
community and the layout of common element.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:30:55 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Iowa 911 call center becomes first to accept texts
Message-ID: <h5cqki$ioi$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Aug 5, 2:44 PM EDT
Iowa 911 call center becomes first to accept texts
By PETER SVENSSON
AP Technology Writer
Advertisement
Buy AP Photo Reprints
An emergency call center in the basement of the county jail in
Waterloo, Iowa, became the first in the country to accept text
messages sent to "911," starting Wednesday.
Call centers around the country are looking at following in its
footsteps, as phone calls are now just one of many things phones can
do.
"I think there's a need to get out front and get this technology
available," Black Hawk County police chief Thomas Jennings said.
He said 911 texting should be of particular help to the county's deaf
and hard-of-hearing residents, who have had to rely on more cumbersome
methods to reach 911.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_TECHBIT_911_TEXTING?SITE=AZMES&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
***** Moderator's Note *****
As a hearing-impaired cellular user, albeit one living in
Massachusetts, I applaud the move: any driver who has to find his
hearing aid before dialing 911 will benefit from this change.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:49:25 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Iowa 911 call center becomes first to accept texts
Message-ID: <h5cv7o$koj$2@news.eternal-september.org>
Steven wrote:
> Aug 5, 2:44 PM EDT
>
> Iowa 911 call center becomes first to accept texts
>
> By PETER SVENSSON
> AP Technology Writer
> Advertisement
> Buy AP Photo Reprints
>
> An emergency call center in the basement of the county jail in
> Waterloo, Iowa, became the first in the country to accept text
> messages sent to "911," starting Wednesday.
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> As a hearing-impaired cellular user, albeit one living in
> Massachusetts, I applaud the move: any driver who has to find his
> hearing aid before dialing 911 will benefit from this change.
>
> Bill Horne
Too many years working in a SATT room?
***** Moderator's Note *****
The aircraft stopped moving a fraction of a second before the pilot.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 19:37:50 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Iowa 911 call center becomes first to accept texts - USATODAY.com
Message-ID: <28D5E396-3A7C-47CF-86E3-ECD2A76B389D@mayson.us>
Sorry for the format, on my iPod.
Someone thought you might be interested in the following story on USATODAY.com
:
Iowa 911 call center becomes first to accept texts
http://usat.me/?35857930
To view the story, click the link or paste it into your browser.
Copyright 2009, USATODAY.com
--
John Mayson john@mayson.us
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
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 (14 messages)
******************************
|
or 