The Telecom Digest for August 24, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 229 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 28 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: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:49:19 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Simplifying the Lives of Web Users
Message-ID: <i4s2gg$mr0$1@news.eternal-september.org>
On 8/22/10 8:16 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> address is shared among many web sites. You really think anyone's
>> getting a dedicated computer and IP address out of a hosting plan
>> that costs under $20/month? Of course not.
>
> Oh, humph. I have a VPS with two dedicated IP addresses and what is
> effectively my own linux box (at least as long as I don't load it too
> heavily, which hasn't been a problem) for $14.50/mo if I pay a year at
> a time at Tektonix in PA.
>
> I agree that IP is an aging kludge, but it sure is impressive how the
> pricing for IP addresses does not suggest that anyone's worried about
> running out of them any time soon. It's sort of like the mythical
> bond vigilantes that all the Serious People are sure will make
> interest rates spike up, except that they keep going down.
>
> R's,
> John
>
If they do run out of IP addresses, do we go to overlay IPs?
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 01:45:52 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Switching from iPhone to Android
Message-ID: <p06240802c897baf61323@[10.0.1.3]>
Switching from iPhone to Android: What it was like for me
By Amy Gahran, Special to CNN
August 5, 2010 5:54 p.m. EDT
(CNN) -- After being an avid iPhone user for two years, I finally
gave up. A couple of weeks ago I picked up my first Android phone: an
HTC Droid Incredible, offered through Verizon Wireless.
I'd owned my iPhone for two years and for the most part liked it.
Having a smartphone improved my life and work in several ways. But my
contract was up and I'd moved to the Bay Area -- where I've found
AT&T's 3G network to be ridiculously spotty and slow. (Each month I
felt like I was paying for the emperor's new clothes.)
As I considered my phone options, the unicorn of a non-AT&T iPhone
continued to waver maddeningly in the mists of the uncertain future.
Furthermore, even legal iPhone jailbreaking looks like more of a
headache than I would want to deal with. It was definitely time for a
change.
Over the last year I'd been demoing various Android phones, to see
what I'd be in for if I switched. With Android 2.1, I felt like the
OS had finally reached a level of usability and stability I could get
comfortable with on a daily basis.
...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/mobile/08/05/iphone.to.android.gahran/
Date: 23 Aug 2010 02:12:55 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: film "Executive Suite"
Message-ID: <20100823021255.25083.qmail@joyce.lan>
>I don't know. There are identical versions used on the Kansas toll
>road and Texas toll roads. They have never come up with a plan for
>interoperability, although it's been vaguely discussed several times.
Most systems use the same Mark IV transponder, so the issue is
primarily one of making the necessary billing arrangements and
(obTelecom) setting up a real-time network connection among systems so
in systems with gated toll booths, they can check whether a tag is
valid and they should open the gate.
R's,
John
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:28:55 EDT
From: Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: film "Executive Suite"
Message-ID: <61869.2ed1d34c.39a3d197@aol.com>
In a message dated 8/23/2010 7:35:17 AM Central Daylight Time,
johnl@iecc.com writes:
> Most systems use the same Mark IV transponder, so the issue is
> primarily one of making the necessary billing arrangements and
> (obTelecom) setting up a real-time network connection among systems
> so in systems with gated toll booths, they can check whether a tag
> is valid and they should open the gate.
Oklahoma doesn't use gates, as slowing down traffic. (See "Ramp Speed
75" about one of the PikePass lanes.) They'll take a photo of your
license [plate] and send you a violation notice if you don't pay. At
least one very busy ramp has higway patrolmen watching to chase down
offenders.
The Kansas Turnpike uses gates. I don't remember for sure about the
Texas ones.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com_ (mailto:wleathus@yahoo.com)
Date: 23 Aug 2010 15:46:54 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: film "Executive Suite"
Message-ID: <20100823154654.22755.qmail@joyce.lan>
>> Most systems use the same Mark IV transponder, so the issue is
>> primarily one of making the necessary billing arrangements and
>> (obTelecom) setting up a real-time network connection among systems
>> so in systems with gated toll booths, they can check whether a tag
>> is valid and they should open the gate.
>
>Oklahoma doesn't use gates, as slowing down traffic. (See "Ramp Speed
>75" about one of the PikePass lanes.) They'll take a photo of your
>license [plate] and send you a violation notice if you don't pay. At
>least one very busy ramp has higway patrolmen watching to chase down
>offenders.
The E-Zpass system uses a mix of gated and ungated tollbooths and
lanes where you can go at full speed, largely depending on the history
of the road, e.g, the NY Thruway already had booths everywhere, so
they just added E-Zpass antennas to all of the existing booths. On
the Garden State Parkway, for example, they've been adding lanes and
in the process rebuilding many of the toll areas to split traffic
between full speed E-Zpass lanes and the booths.
R's,
John
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: film "Executive Suite"
Message-ID: <a1b83039-77d2-4e52-a406-efd3c1506d16@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 22, 10:12 pm, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
> Most systems use the same Mark IV transponder, so the issue is
> primarily one of making the necessary billing arrangements and
> (obTelecom) setting up a real-time network connection among systems so
> in systems with gated toll booths, they can check whether a tag is
> valid and they should open the gate.
In the 1950s the old Bell System would advertise in general interest
magazines on-line networks that connected far flung state law
enforcement and highway departments together. Western Union
advertised its network that connected various Blue Cross/Blue Shield
companies so that patients seeking services away from home could be
covered. IBM had developed real-time interconnection with SAGE and
batched interconnection with remote punch card transmissions. Large
turnpikes like the Pa Tpk, NJ Tpk, and NYS Thruway advertised that
system-wide radio-networks.
Given the length of time it takes for these agencies to inter-connect
their systems today I guess the communication networks advertised
above are no longer available. So it goes.
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:00:44 -0500
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Simplifying the Lives of Web Users
Message-ID: <KJ-dnblN5fKBEO_RnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@supernews.com>
nobody@nowhere.com writes:
>There is a precedent of sorts... Google Internet2. Presumably once critical
>mass was achieved, someone would come up with gateways and other
>transition devices.
You might want to look into what communication protocols internet2 uses.
Hint: you're soaking in them. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:57:58 -0500
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Simplifying the Lives of Web Users
Message-ID: <KJ-dnb5N5fLrEe_RnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@supernews.com>
Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein.SeeSigSpambait@wn2.wn.net> writes:
>He's probably thinking about what he could have learned from a
>textbook in the 19900s, when TCP/IP was still sort of fresh, and
>seemed to work the way it did in the early 1980s when it first went
>public. But it doesn't work like that any more. TCP/IP is obsolete,
>sensescent, and held together by a remarkable collection of bailing
>wire and spit. DNS is just one of the old wads of chewing gum.
Um, what? If TCP/IP is obsolete, so is the entire internet. The entire
protocol is more or less unchanged from the beginning too. If you're
thinking about ipv6, that's not happening (if it DOES finally happen)
because of baling wire and spit - it's happening because ipv4 doesn't have
enough address space for everything on earth to have its own IP address.
IPV6 isn't that much different from IPV4, even at the API level.
>When I look up www.google.com here, I get 173.194.33.104, not the
>number he gets. This is to be expected. DNS and the web go together
>like SPAM (that's the Hormel stuff, not the lower-case email stuff) on a bagel.
What? You're getting a different address because google round-robins the
servers to spread load. If you used the IP in the article, you'll still get
to google.
>For more information on why we think TCP/IP is obsolete and you
>shouldn't waste your time on IPv6, check out the Pouzin Society web
>site http://www.pouzinsociety.org/ or in particular this article on my site:
>http://www.ionary.com/PSOC-MovingBeyondTCP.pdf .
I'm pretty sure none of this oddly named organization will have any effect
on the future state of the net. TCP/IP will be with us for decades to come. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:03:22 +0000 (UTC)
From: Koos van den Hout <koos+newsposting@kzdoos.xs4all.nl>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Simplifying the Lives of Web Users
Message-ID: <i4uglq$9ou$8@kzdoos.xs4all.nl>
PV <pv+usenet@pobox.com> wrote in <KJ-dnb5N5fLrEe_RnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@supernews.com>:
> Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein.SeeSigSpambait@wn2.wn.net> writes:
>>For more information on why we think TCP/IP is obsolete and you
>>shouldn't waste your time on IPv6,
IPv6 development started around 1991. Almost 20 years later we're within
a year of IPv4 depletion at the first level[1]. Enjoy trying to publish
a few papers on something totally new but it's not going to help in
time. IPv6 gives more address space but does not change any other
fundamental property of TCP/IP. Fundamental changes in networking will
be harder to switch to.
In my not so humble opinion[2] going for IPv6 implementation is a much
better approach.
>> check out the Pouzin Society web site
> I'm pretty sure none of this oddly named organization will have any effect
> on the future state of the net. TCP/IP will be with us for decades to come. *
At first I thought it was one of the organisations writing reports that
this "Internet" thing was badly implemented and should switch to a telco
model where no function is possible without an appropiate billing model.
Those organisations all thought they would have a huge impact on the future
state of the net.
[1] The first level exhaustion at IANA. Your ISP will probably still be
able to hook up new customers after that and give out IPv4 addresses but
things will get problematic nearly a year later. Read
http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html which has the current data.
[2] I'm an IPv6 advocate, experimenting with it and trying to convince
other people it's a good idea.
Koos
--
Camp Wireless, the site about wireless Internet | Koos van den Hout
access at campsites http://www.camp-wireless.org/ | http://idefix.net/
PGP keyid DSS/1024 0xF0D7C263 | IPv6 enabled!
***** Moderator's Note *****
Koos,
I just love one of your header lines:
X-Zen: Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
It's a pity that only header-hackers get to see it!
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:00:12 -0500
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Simplifying the Lives of Web Users
Message-ID: <5r2dnTXgAvbBfO_RnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@supernews.com>
Koos van den Hout <koos+newsposting@kzdoos.xs4all.nl> writes:
>PV <pv+usenet@pobox.com> wrote in
><KJ-dnb5N5fLrEe_RnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@supernews.com>:
>> Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein.SeeSigSpambait@wn2.wn.net> writes:
>
>>>For more information on why we think TCP/IP is obsolete and you
>>>shouldn't waste your time on IPv6,
>
>IPv6 development started around 1991. Almost 20 years later we're within
>a year of IPv4 depletion at the first level[1]. Enjoy trying to publish
I didn't write the original message, Mr. Goldstein did. I was responding to
his wacky message. Careful with attributions!
>[1] The first level exhaustion at IANA. Your ISP will probably still be
>able to hook up new customers after that and give out IPv4 addresses but
>things will get problematic nearly a year later. Read
>http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html which has the current data.
We've had this scare before and NAT killed it. Unfortunately, it looks like
some ISPs stole a page from that and are wrapping large chunks of users
behind a NAT routing instead of fixing it the RIGHT way, and just getting
on with IPv6 already. It seems to be an approach you see in other countries
more than the US, likely because the US has huge chunks of IPv4 space
already, and a lot of over-allocation still.
>[2] I'm an IPv6 advocate, experimenting with it and trying to convince
>other people it's a good idea.
Since IPv6 encapsulates the entire IPv4 space in a tiny little corner, and
6to4 glue is present in a lot of OSes, I think it might actually start to
fly this time, though it will probably be a very slow conversion over
years. Fortunately it's designed to support that. A lot of ancient home
routers will end up in the trash because of it, but that's not necessarily
a bad thing. Another protocol? Not a chance in hell. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
Date: 23 Aug 2010 18:23:05 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Simplifying the Lives of Web Users
Message-ID: <i4usc9$atc$1@panix2.panix.com>
PV <pv+usenet@pobox.com> wrote:
>Um, what? If TCP/IP is obsolete, so is the entire internet. The entire
>protocol is more or less unchanged from the beginning too. If you're
>thinking about ipv6, that's not happening (if it DOES finally happen)
>because of baling wire and spit - it's happening because ipv4 doesn't have
>enough address space for everything on earth to have its own IP address.
>IPV6 isn't that much different from IPV4, even at the API level.
It is. If you want to be mixing phone calls, realtime data services like
the web, streaming video, and low-bandwidth batch data services, what you
want it something more like native ATM than IP.
But the internet is ubiquitous and cheap.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:46:39 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein.SeeSigSpambait@wn2.wn.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Simplifying the Lives of Web Users
Message-ID: <20100823194641.C71885DC7@mailout.easydns.com>
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 11:00:07 +1000, David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote,
>...
> > For more information on why we think TCP/IP is obsolete and you
> > shouldn't waste your time on IPv6, check out the Pouzin Society web site
> > http://www.pouzinsociety.org/ or in particular this article on my site:
> > http://www.ionary.com/PSOC-MovingBeyondTCP.pdf .
>
>The issue is that TCP/IP is now established and unless someone comes up
>with an alternative that provides an obvious cost/benefit advantage to all
>current Internet stakeholders then I can't see it being replaced - ever!
>
>I suppose someone could start to built the successor to the Internet,
>but wouldn't that require either a massive gap in technology use (that is
>just waiting to be filled) as well as a coherent group able to agree on
>all the structures and protocols with the resources to implement all of
>this?
That's what we're doing with RINA. Unlike IPv6, which doesn't
interwork well with IPv4, RINA's core protcol layer, which recurses
the same protocols at all layers, can be used above IP, below it,
beside it, or by itself. So it can fill in gaps above IP (to support
native applications, and as a cleaner security solution than
IPsec). It can also be used to fill in gaps below IP (as a cleaner
answer than MPLS). So it can slip into the cracks without fully replacing IP.
>The thing known as the Internet is a bit like the public roads that have
>to handle differently sized vehicles from bicycles to massive
>multi-trailer trucks. It is (overall) very inefficient to set up one
>common resource to do this sort of thing, but because it has evolved this
>way there is now no room for any viable alternative and we all have to
>live with it.
That's true, but at this stage the roads are like old wooden railroad
trestles creaking under heavy trucks. The essence of internet is not
the protocols; it's the business model, a voluntary agreement among
network operators to exchange traffic for their mutual benefit.
Protocols are just tools.
--
Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:51:43 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein.SeeSigSpambait@wn2.wn.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: "Wait Wait" Morse intro (was Re: Model 15 RO ...)
Message-ID: <20100823195145.EA0035DC9@mailout.easydns.com>
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 04:19:57 -0700 (PDT) Dana Prescott
<highmusic@yahoo.com> wrote,
...
>Just wanted to jump in here and say "THANKS" for helping me to solve a
>radio mystery! On the NPR quiz show, "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me!" --
>which originates from WBEZ in Chicago -- the program introduction
>features some strange radio whistling noises (which sound like they're
>coming from an old super-regenerative receiver!), and then the letters
>"EBCD" sent in Morse Code at about 8 wpm. I had absolutely no clue
>what "EBCD" stood for, so I Googled it, and I was immediately directed
>to your site. I now understand that "EBCD" was a punch card (or
>perhaps a punch tape?) coding format used to drive early-generation
>computers or teleprinters. As to why WBEZ is using "EBCD" as a
>baffling Morse Code introduction to their quiz program, I have
>absolutely no clue. But I'm glad the mystery has been solved anyway!
>
>TNX es VY 73! (de KB1F)
It's not "EBCD". The first five elements (._...) are the Morse
procedure code for "wait". It's usually represented "AS" (with a bar
above them to indicate no gap), though EB and for that matter RI and
LE would end up with the same ._... pattern.
When you're working CW and want to tell the other guy to stop sending
for a few seconds, so you can write something in the log or hear
faint DX in the background or something, you send the "AS". I have
no idea why they then send "CD" though, rather than repeat the
AS. (Yeah, I'm a regular listener too.)
--
Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701
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.
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 (13 messages)
|
| |
or 