|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 231 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
NPX-N00 numbers (was Pop song phone number...)
Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Re: LNP, was Caller pays
Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
spaeking of cellular phone wish list: multi-SIM
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Re: 40th Anniversary of UNIX this month (August 2009)
Re: in a Qwest for wireless service...
Re: 500 & 533 Numbers (re: Cutting the Cord)
Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
Apple Answers the FCC's Questions
Re: Apple Answers the FCC's Questions
Re: Cutting the cord
Re: Cutting the cord
Re: 'Take Back the Beep' Campaign
====== 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: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:43:38 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <op.uyz7u0wfo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:12:44 -0400, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> On 8/7/2009 6:07 AM, Dave Garland wrote:
>> Thad Floryan wrote:
>>
>>> Yesterday, after a lunch meeting with a Nokia guru, we adjourned to
>>> my home office to review some matters and, within seconds of booting
>>> one of my systems, a "noise problem" that has sort-of bugged me for
>>> a year evidenced itself. The Nokia guru instantly stated that sound
>>> was GSM interference.
>>
>> I wouldn't doubt it. It's pretty obvious with my computer. If I set
>> my cell phone (either a Nokia or a Motorola) right by the computer, I
>> can hear periodic bursts of noise from the speaker. Turn the cell
>> phone off, or move it away, no more bursts.
>>
>> I wouldn't blame the phone so much as the computer. The phone, after
>> all, has to talk to the tower by radio periodically. And when GSM was
>> designed, computers mostly didn't have audio, and were a lot better
>> shielded than they are today. (Monitors, however were quite
>> susceptible to interference from nearby fluorescent lights.) The
>> computer manufacturers could shield things well enough so the
>> interference wouldn't occur, but it would cost more, so they don't bother.
>
> The more I think about it, it's not the computers per se but the external
> audio system with its unshielded cabling, plastic cases, etc. similar to
> the 10-second video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1mlponX_jw
> whose sound exactly matches what I hear except I get only four repetitions
> of the "dit-dit-dit" and not the 10 or so in that video.
>
> Some 20+ years ago when the computers I ran at home 24/7 were Suns, AT&Ts,
> Convergents, etc., the FM radio in my car wouldn't function until I backed
> the car out of the garage.
>
> The systems I operate today in my home office are actually well shielded
> and don't affect any of my radios but they do have audio outputs and that,
> I believe, is what the "GSM interference" is perturbing. It was July 2008
> when I finally added an audio system (Altec Lansing with subwoofer) that
> the GSM interference became noticeable.
>
> The question remains: why are only GSM phones causing the problem? The
> articles I found during yesterday's Google search universally claimed
> it's only GSM phones that affect audio systems (computer, mixing panels,
> recording studios, etc.).
Thad, in my admittedly very limited experience, I hear these dit-dit-ta-dit's
on nearby audio *only* when (a) I'm actively using my GSM phone's WAP browser,
and a new deck is loading in response to my actions, (b) a fresh SMS message is
coming in, or (c) I'm receiving an OTA update (variation on theme (b), I s'pose).
But what do I know? I just use the darn things, and put up with their foibles.
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:43:55 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <4A8EEAEB.104@thadlabs.com>
On 8/21/2009 6:53 AM, tlvp wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:12:44 -0400, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> The question remains: why are only GSM phones causing the problem? The
>> articles I found during yesterday's Google search universally claimed
>> it's only GSM phones that affect audio systems (computer, mixing panels,
>> recording studios, etc.).
>
> Thad, in my admittedly very limited experience, I hear these dit-dit-ta-dit's
> on nearby audio *only* when (a) I'm actively using my GSM phone's WAP browser,
> and a new deck is loading in response to my actions, (b) a fresh SMS message is
> coming in, or (c) I'm receiving an OTA update (variation on theme (b), I s'pose).
>
> But what do I know? I just use the darn things, and put up with their foibles.
Even though I now know it's the phone causing the "dit-dit-dit dit-dit-dit ,,,"
on the computers' audio, I'm becoming concerned.
I used to have the phone (Motorola RAZR V3) on my belt while sitting at the
keyboard in this setup http://thadlabs.com/PIX/Thad_desk.jpg. The audio
stuff is 2-3 feet on the other side of that LCD monitor, 4 to 5 feet from me.
Since the Nokia guy stated it's GSM interference a few weeks ago, I've been
taking the phone off my belt and placing it on a table 10 feet away. It still
perturbs the audio with the "dit-dit-dit ..." several times a day and, just a
moment ago when someone called. it totally swamped the computer audio with a
loud buzzing hum just prior to the phone ringing.
I suppose the next test is to place the phone 30 feet away alongside a glass
of water and see if the water boils when the GSM interference occurs. :-)
I know that's absurd, but, still, the GSM interference I'm encountering is
clearly a strong signal and some of the other anecdotes in this thread are
disturbing; the one about the stove top turning on "by itself" suggests the
GSM interference could be a fire and safety threat, and that elevates the
severity of the problem to a whole new level.
What's odd is that I frequently use the phone while sitting at the keyboard
and there's no disturbance to the computer audio whatsoever, so it seems the
specific GSM interference symptom (the "dit-dit-dit ...") is either at a
different frequency and/or power level than the phone in normal usage.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:11:30 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Message-ID: <op.uyz85gq1o63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:56:56 -0400, Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Aug 13, 8:17 pm, Steven <diespamm...@killspammers.com> wrote:
>>>> I believe the following request would be a great deal of work, but
>>>> would it be possible to scan a few of the oldest issues for the
>>>> Telecom Archives? (They have the Western Union Tech Review and other
>>>> neat old documents).
>>> I'll e-mail the publisher and see what the say, and then dig out my old
>>> flat bed scanner and give it a try. I wonder if they have on line archive?
>>
>> If the publisher has an archive would you share the URL with us? But
>> I strongly doubt they'd have 30 year old stuff on it.
>>
>> When you say contact the publisher I presume you mean to check about
>> copyright usage.
>>
>> I don't follow copyrights too closely, but I understand not long ago
>> the time limit of a copyright law was greatly extended (others could
>> elaborate on the details). That is, a copyright used to expire after
>> so many years, with an option to renew for one second period, after
>> which the work would become public domain.
>>
>> I can understand the desire for creators to maintain control and
>> receive royalties for their works, especially things like motion
>> pictures which were extremely expensive to produce and have a long
>> lifespan. This was debated in rec.arts.tv, with many feeling old
>> works ought to be public domain, but others recognizing not every
>> creator is a huge corporation and individuals deserve protection, too.
>>
>> The flip side is historical documents such as 30+ year old technical
>> magazines and manuals. They have some historical value, but virtually
>> no monetary value. Copyright law does provide some exceptions of for
>> educational insitutions to use material without royalty in certain
>> circumstances. I would hope that such old manuals and journals could
>> get the same kind of exception.
>>
> They go back 13 years on line,here is the link, at the bottom of he
> http://telephonyonline.com/ at the bottom of the page. Some problems
> getting permission because of a different publisher, and on a article at
> a time, some are owned by writer.
>
Mmpph ... My Opera browser reports, of the URL you give above:
> The page you are trying to open has been reported for distributing
> malicious software. Any software from this page may be harmful.
> Opera Software strongly discourages visiting this page.
Comments? TIA; and cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 07:12:52 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Message-ID: <h6ma16$2f4$1@news.eternal-september.org>
tlvp wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:56:56 -0400, Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
>
>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> On Aug 13, 8:17 pm, Steven <diespamm...@killspammers.com> wrote:
>>>>> I believe the following request would be a great deal of work, but
>>>>> would it be possible to scan a few of the oldest issues for the
>>>>> Telecom Archives? (They have the Western Union Tech Review and other
>>>>> neat old documents).
>>>> I'll e-mail the publisher and see what the say, and then dig out my old
>>>> flat bed scanner and give it a try. I wonder if they have on line archive?
>>> If the publisher has an archive would you share the URL with us? But
>>> I strongly doubt they'd have 30 year old stuff on it.
>>>
>>> When you say contact the publisher I presume you mean to check about
>>> copyright usage.
>>>
>>> I don't follow copyrights too closely, but I understand not long ago
>>> the time limit of a copyright law was greatly extended (others could
>>> elaborate on the details). That is, a copyright used to expire after
>>> so many years, with an option to renew for one second period, after
>>> which the work would become public domain.
>>>
>>> I can understand the desire for creators to maintain control and
>>> receive royalties for their works, especially things like motion
>>> pictures which were extremely expensive to produce and have a long
>>> lifespan. This was debated in rec.arts.tv, with many feeling old
>>> works ought to be public domain, but others recognizing not every
>>> creator is a huge corporation and individuals deserve protection, too.
>>>
>>> The flip side is historical documents such as 30+ year old technical
>>> magazines and manuals. They have some historical value, but virtually
>>> no monetary value. Copyright law does provide some exceptions of for
>>> educational insitutions to use material without royalty in certain
>>> circumstances. I would hope that such old manuals and journals could
>>> get the same kind of exception.
>>>
>> They go back 13 years on line,here is the link, at the bottom of he
>> http://telephonyonline.com/ at the bottom of the page. Some problems
>> getting permission because of a different publisher, and on a article at
>> a time, some are owned by writer.
>>
>
> Mmpph ... My Opera browser reports, of the URL you give above:
>
>> The page you are trying to open has been reported for distributing
>> malicious software. Any software from this page may be harmful.
>> Opera Software strongly discourages visiting this page.
>
> Comments? TIA; and cheers, -- tlvp
I don't know what to tell you, it is a good site, I use Firefox with my
Mac, but I also have Opera and it went to the site fine.
--
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: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 01:55:24 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Message-ID: <h6kuqc$4b5$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <20090820152145.8415.qmail@simone.iecc.com> John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> writes:
>>> ... We also have the ability to port numbers between mobile and
>>> landline, ...
.......
>Portability, on the other hand, is local only. If you have a New York
>number, you can only port it among New York providers. In practice
>that doesn't matter since pretty much all of the inter-service
>portability is from landlines to mobiles rather than the other way,
>but if the person in California wanted to port his Virginia mobile to
>his California landline, he couldn't.
Keep in mind that number portability also extends to... VOIP and
similar services. So yes, indeed, you can get a pseudo landline
with that Virginia mobile number (or a Va. landline number,
for that matter) which will work anywhere in the world you've
got an internet broadband connection.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:11:26 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Message-ID: <HtCdnTI8KrTzYhPXnZ2dnUVZ_jdi4p2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <h6kuqc$4b5$1@reader1.panix.com>,
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>Keep in mind that number portability also extends to... VOIP and
>similar services. So yes, indeed, you can get a pseudo landline
>with that Virginia mobile number (or a Va. landline number,
>for that matter) which will work anywhere in the world you've
>got an internet broadband connection.
Well, you can port that Virginia number to any provider that has a POP
*IN* the 'same geographic area' as where the official C.O. for the exchange
for that number is.
If no POP in the requisite local, the number cannot be ported to that
carrier.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:58:12 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Message-ID: <ETDjm.179026$vp.6158@newsfe12.iad>
danny burstein wrote:
> In <20090820152145.8415.qmail@simone.iecc.com> John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> writes:
>
>
>>>>... We also have the ability to port numbers between mobile and
>>>>landline, ...
>
> .......
>
>
>>Portability, on the other hand, is local only. If you have a New York
>>number, you can only port it among New York providers. In practice
>>that doesn't matter since pretty much all of the inter-service
>>portability is from landlines to mobiles rather than the other way,
>>but if the person in California wanted to port his Virginia mobile to
>>his California landline, he couldn't.
>
>
> Keep in mind that number portability also extends to... VOIP and
> similar services. So yes, indeed, you can get a pseudo landline
> with that Virginia mobile number (or a Va. landline number,
> for that matter) which will work anywhere in the world you've
> got an internet broadband connection.
>
>
True enough. And, there is the "foreign exchange" aspect of Vonage. My
primary number is in Washington, DC, although I am in Southern
California. This had nothing to do with portability.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:36:35 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: NPX-N00 numbers (was Pop song phone number...)
Message-ID: <4A8E78B3.9000909@annsgarden.com>
I wrote:
> Office codes in the form N00 seem to be a blessing and a curse
> -- a blessing because they're easy to remember but a curse
> because nobody is quite sure how to pronounce them.
> Nevertheless, there are quite a few of them around. Here are
> several that I've encountered; I'm sure there are many more.
After I posted the above message, Rupa Schomaker <rupa@rupa.com> sent me
a list of over a thousand NPA-N00 combinations. I certainly didn't
realize there were that many! I have posted Rupa's list at
http://annsgarden.com/telecom/NPA-N00_List.txt
In a later message, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> suggested:
> 800-800-LENS (for a contact lens mail/internet/phone order)
Neither Rupa nor I had considered toll-free numbers. If we include
toll-frees, an obvious one is 800-800-8000, the Super 8 Motel
Reservation Line.
Super 8 started using that number before 888 numbers existed. A few
years later another obvious choice would have been 888-888-8888.
Neal McLain
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 06:54:36 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Message-ID: <wGxjm.103393$YU5.85038@newsfe21.iad>
John Levine wrote:
..
> . In practice
> that doesn't matter since pretty much all of the inter-service
> portability is from landlines to mobiles rather than the other way,
> but if the person in California wanted to port his Virginia mobile to
> his California landline, he couldn't.
>
> R's,
> John
>
A bit of trivia: LNP for wireline-to-wireline came along a few years
before porting to or from a wireless carrier.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 06:58:39 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Message-ID: <kKxjm.65942$sC1.11475@newsfe17.iad>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> That's something that has always confused me with CLEC and Cellular
> providers: they have much wider "local" calling areas than most
> ILEC's, and I don't think they're using the ILEC rate centers, or are
> simply defining an entire LATA as their "Rate center".
>
> Bill Horne
>
Here's what the FCC says. But, they don't define "same geographic
area." Surely, it can't be an entire LATA (?)
Under the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) “local number
portability” (LNP) rules, so long as you remain in the same geographic
area, you can switch telephone service providers, including
interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, and keep
your existing phone number. If you are moving from one geographic area
to another, however, you may not be able to take your number with you.
Therefore, subscribers remaining in the same geographic area can now
switch from a wireless, wireline, or VoIP provider to any other
wireless, wireline, or VoIP provider and still keep their existing phone
numbers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
------------------------------
Date: 21 Aug 2009 16:15:09 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Message-ID: <20090821161509.74407.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>Here's what the FCC says. But, they don't define "same geographic
>area." Surely, it can't be an entire LATA (?)
That's an interesting question. Given the way that LNP works, there
should be no technical bar to porting a number anywhere in the LATA,
but the telcos I've asked will only port within the same rate center.
This is of some interest to me because my home phone number is
in Trumansburg, has only our rural ILEC and one Sprint prefix, and
everyone else is in Ithaca. T'burg is a local call to Ithaca, but
nobody will port my T'burg number, just my Ithaca number.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 00:56:57 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: LNP, was Caller pays
Message-ID: <h6nfop$dff$1@reader1.panix.com>
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> writes:
>That's an interesting question. Given the way that LNP works, there
>should be no technical bar to porting a number anywhere in the LATA,
>but the telcos I've asked will only port within the same rate center.
I have a client moving about 1 mile within DC. Of course, it is across
a CO boundry. I called Verizontal and got the usual story "You need new
DN's"...."Or you can buy FX service!"... dance.
So I responded that we'd just find a CLEC. Woosh, she put me on hold, and
2 minutes later was told it was no problem as long as it's within the
same rate center. DC is all one rate center as we know.
Isn't it amazing how much even a little competition will accomplish?
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:06:04 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Message-ID: <HtCdnTM8KrSxYxPXnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <kKxjm.65942$sC1.11475@newsfe17.iad>,
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> That's something that has always confused me with CLEC and Cellular
>> providers: they have much wider "local" calling areas than most
>> ILEC's, and I don't think they're using the ILEC rate centers, or are
>> simply defining an entire LATA as their "Rate center".
>
>Here's what the FCC says. But, they don't define "same geographic
>area." Surely, it can't be an entire LATA (?)
[[ snip -- FCC language on LNP portability limits ]]
In the early days, 'same geographic area' was interpreted as 'rate center',
especially by ILECs known to be 'hostile' to porting numbers away from them.
This makes it possible to have 'consistent' LD billing, by looking only at
the NPA-NXX of the destination number.
Where this is not an issue (usually due to the small geographic footprint of
the NPA), the 'same geographic area' may extend to the entire NPA, but -never-
beyond the NPA bounds.
As a practical matter, if the 'ported to' LEC has a POP within the rate
center of the C.O. servicing the exchange from which the number originally
came, the number will 'port'.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:20:51 -0400
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: spaeking of cellular phone wish list: multi-SIM
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0908211008550.17124@panix1.panix.com>
In the Good Old Dayze of the early analog cell phones, back
when "roaming" outside your home area could cost you (and
people calling you) plenty, you could get a "dual NAM" phone
that had two (loosely speaking) phone numbers. One of these
would be your (for example) NYC home, and the other would
be your Florida winter home. That way you'd have a "local"
number in both places.
I'm trying to find a modern day equivalent, namely a GSM phone
that holds two "SIM" cards, thus giving me access to two
separate accounts in the same instrument.
Not so much for two different home locations this time around,
but I (and I suspect many other people) would rather carry around
one instrument than a separate "work" and "personal" phone.
I've seen some adverts for messy add ons that may, kind-of,
work, but I have no direct experience with them. And this
is really such an obvious market niche that I'd hope that
someone, somewhere, had built such a phone.
Anyone know of one? Thanks.
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:09:50 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <ceht85tfgldoh3mqqqts024mo2rvgo5uoo@4ax.com>
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:07:01 -0400 (EDT), Dave Garland
<dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>Thad Floryan wrote:
>
>> Yesterday, after a lunch meeting with a Nokia guru, we adjourned to
>> my home office to review some matters and, within seconds of booting
>> one of my systems, a "noise problem" that has sort-of bugged me for
>> a year evidenced itself. The Nokia guru instantly stated that sound
>> was GSM interference.
>
>I wouldn't doubt it. It's pretty obvious with my computer. If I set
>my cell phone (either a Nokia or a Motorola) right by the computer, I
>can hear periodic bursts of noise from the speaker. Turn the cell
>phone off, or move it away, no more bursts.
>
>I wouldn't blame the phone so much as the computer. The phone, after
>all, has to talk to the tower by radio periodically. And when GSM was
>designed, computers mostly didn't have audio, and were a lot better
>shielded than they are today. (Monitors, however were quite
>susceptible to interference from nearby fluorescent lights.) The
>computer manufacturers could shield things well enough so the
>interference wouldn't occur, but it would cost more, so they don't bother.
>
>Dave
In my town of Pahrump, NV, there is a local TV channel which has local
live call-in talk shows for two hours every evening on various topics.
Almost every night, I hear rat-a-tat bursts in the station's audio.
When they occur, they repeat every 10 minutes or so. Most likely this
is interference from cell phones in the pockets of the shows'
participants.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:22:38 -0400
From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Message-ID: <3336b$4a8ec9fa$4038e372$31071@PRIMUS.CA>
Sam Spade wrote:
> That's something that has always confused me with CLEC and Cellular
> providers: they have much wider "local" calling areas than most
> ILEC's, and I don't think they're using the ILEC rate centers, or are
> simply defining an entire LATA as their "Rate center".
Many years ago when I had an AMPS carphone (pocket-sized phones were not
generally available at the time) with ILEC Bell Canada's cellular service,
their own literature pointed out that a local call covered a much wider area
for a cellular phone than for a land line; it seemed to be pitched not so
much as a feature/advantage as a way to calm subscribers' worries about
unexpected long distance charges.
--
Geoffrey Welsh
.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:50:50 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Caller pays, was Cutting the cord
Message-ID: <naidneCoS7MHZxPXnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <53djm.175214$3m2.118809@newsfe06.iad>,
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>That's something that has always confused me with CLEC and Cellular
>providers: they have much wider "local" calling areas than most
>ILEC's, and I don't think they're using the ILEC rate centers, or are
>simply defining an entire LATA as their "Rate center".
>
>Bill Horne
>
Local calling areas and rate centers are _not_ directly related to each
other.
The local calling area _is_ 'whatever' the LEC declares it to be for calls
that originate with them. (for pay-as-you-go services like TRACFONE,
essentially all of 'country code 1' [the U.S. and Canada] is the 'local
calling area' -- users pay the same rate whether the call terminates across
the street or across the country.)
Usually, but not necessarily, a local calling area is defined relative to
the rate center for the originating number. And, unfortunately, it
-doesn't- work symmetrically. Just because I can call you as a 'local'
call, that *doesn't* guarantee that you can call _me_ as a local call.
A rate center is a 'simplified' billing point for a geographic area. It is
an arbitrary end-point for calculating "distance-based" billing rates, and
it usually equates to a hand-off point -- where the call _may_ be given to
an IXC (or, on rare occasions, 'more than one'), if needed, to complete the
circuit. Originating/terminating LECs get fixed payments, while the IXC
gets distance-based compensation. If multiple IXCs involved, payments to
them are effectively pro-rated, based on the rate-center-to-rate-center
distances for the portion of the call that each IXC handled.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:27:13 -0700
From: "charlie" <chaniarts@nospam.yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 40th Anniversary of UNIX this month (August 2009)
Message-ID: <h6mht3$ueo$1@news.eternal-september.org>
"Thad Floryan" <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote in message
news:4A8DB0B2.9070505@thadlabs.com...
> Not directly telephony-related, but UNIX arose from Bell Labs.
>
> " Work on Unix began at Bell Labs after AT&T, (which owned the lab),
> " MIT and GE pulled the plug on an ambitious project to create an
> " operating system called Multics.
> "
> " The idea was to make better use of the resources of mainframe
> " computers and have them serve many people at the same time.
> "
> " "With Multics they tried to have a much more versatile and
> " flexible operating system, and it failed miserably," said
> " Dr Peter Salus, author of the definitive history of Unix's
> " early years.
>
> Full article here:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8205976.stm
It failed miserably due to marketing misteps, not because of the technology
of the Multics operating system or the hardware.
Regards,
Charles Spitzer
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:31:20 -0400
From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: in a Qwest for wireless service...
Message-ID: <e32b2$4a8ecc03$4038e372$10611@PRIMUS.CA>
danny burstein wrote:
> Last year it announced plans to exit the Qwest Wireless service, which
> runs on the Sprint Nextel Corp network, and instead started offering
> cellular services from Verizon Wireless, owned by Verizon and Vodafone
> Group Plc.
This seems a bit political (business politics, not government politics): is
there any technical reason (or any reason, other than wanting to steer more
of its customers to their new wireless partner) why the customer base
couldn't have been handed over and integrated into Sprint Nextel, the way
that so many customer bases have been transferred following any number of
mergers and acquisitions in the telecom industry? Wouldn't that have served
the customer better?
--
Geoffrey Welsh
.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:15:35 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 500 & 533 Numbers (re: Cutting the Cord)
Message-ID: <cvBjm.115909$9P.94438@newsfe08.iad>
Anthony Bellanga wrote:
>
> But during the mid-1990s, AT&T and MCI did offer 500 "personal numbers"
> and there was a limited customer base. You can go through the archives
> of this Digest (1995, 1996, 1997) and find sig-lines of some regular
> participants which include their 500 numbers.
>
My first name is Wally. If memory serves me correctly I signed up for
1-500-GO WALLY.
It was useless. ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:28:49 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
Message-ID: <mbudnYhGn8rsaBPXnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <qtbr85dtr260js8c01hop5ml6q1238eaf3@4ax.com>,
Richard <rng@richbonnie.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:09:45 -0400 (EDT), Neal McLain
><nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>
>>Richard wrote:
>>
>> > Watching a show today on a Las Vegas local TV channel, I
>> > saw a new ad for a law firm. Its number was 400-0000. I
>> > didn't think an office code could end in 00.
>>
>>How is it pronounced? "702 four million"?
>>"702 ... four-oh-oh ... oh-oh-oh-oh"?
>
>Four-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh with an emphasis on each -oh.
Really? An _eight_ digit local number? <evil grin>
[ scientist 1: "Eureka! I've just invented zero."
scientist 2: "What's that?"
scientist 1: "oh, nothing." (dejectedly). ]
I guess you missed it by a 'nothing'. :)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:06:58 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Apple Answers the FCC's Questions
Message-ID: <p062408bcc6b4ca073579@[10.0.1.3]>
Apple Answers the FCC's Questions
Today Apple filed with the FCC the following answers to their questions.
We are pleased to respond to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's
inquiry dated July 31, 2009, requesting information regarding Apple's
App Store and its application approval process. In order to give the
Bureau some context for our responses, we begin with some background
information about the iPhone and the App Store.
Apple's goal is to provide our customers with the best possible user
experience. We have been able to do this by designing the hardware
and software in our products to work together seamlessly. The iPhone
is a great example of this. It has established a new standard for
what a mobile device can be-an integrated device with a phone, a full
web browser, HTML email, an iPod, and more, all delivered with
Apple's revolutionary multi-touch user interface.
Apple then introduced something altogether new-the App Store-to give
consumers additional functionality and benefits from the iPhone's
revolutionary technology. The App Store has been more successful than
anyone could have ever imagined. Today, just over a year since
opening, the App Store offers over 65,000 iPhone applications, and
customers have downloaded over 1.5 billion applications.
The App Store provides a frictionless distribution network that
levels the playing field for individual and large developers of
mobile applications. We provide every developer with the same
software that we use to create our own iPhone applications. The App
Store offers an innovative business model that allows developers to
set their own price and keep more (far more in most cases) of the
revenue than traditional business models. In little more than a year,
we have raised the bar for consumers' rich mobile experience beyond
what we or anyone else ever imagined in both scale and quality.
Apple's innovation has also fostered competition as other companies
(e.g., Nokia, Microsoft, RIM, Palm and Verizon) seek to develop their
own mobile platforms and launch their own application stores.
Apple works with network providers around the world so that iPhone
users have access to a cellular network. In the United States, we
struck a groundbreaking deal with AT&T in 2006 that gives Apple the
freedom to decide which software to make available for the iPhone.
This was an industry first.
We created an approval process that reviews every application
submitted to Apple for the App Store in order to protect consumer
privacy, safeguard children from inappropriate content, and avoid
applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone. Some
types of content such as pornography are rejected outright from the
App Store, while others such as graphic combat scenes in action games
may be approved but with an appropriate age rating. Most rejections
are based on bugs found in the applications. When there is an issue,
we try to provide the developer with helpful feedback so they can
modify the application in order for us to approve it. 95% of
applications are approved within 14 days of their submission.
We're covering new ground and doing things that had never been done
before. Many of the issues we face are difficult and new, and while
we may make occasional mistakes, we try to learn from them and
continually improve.
In response to your specific questions, we would like to offer
the following:
...
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:27:05 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Apple Answers the FCC's Questions
Message-ID: <4A8F3B59.2000009@thadlabs.com>
On 8/21/2009 3:16 PM, Monty Solomon wrote:
> > Apple Answers the FCC's Questions
> >
> > Today Apple filed with the FCC the following answers to their questions.
> > [...]
> > http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/
Makes one wonder if Apple is revealing all when this article just appeared
in the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970204683204574358552882901262.html
" Earlier this month, Apple rejected an application for the iPhone
" called Google Voice. The uproar set off a chain of events—Google's
" CEO Eric Schmidt resigning from Apple's board, and the Federal
" Communications Commission (FCC) investigating wireless open access
" and handset exclusivity—that may finally end the 135-year-old Alexander
" Graham Bell era. It's about time.
" [...]
" What this episode really uncovers is that AT&T is dying. AT&T is
" dragging down the rest of us by overcharging us for voice calls and
" stifling innovation in a mobile data market critical to the U.S. economy.
" [...]
" There is no such thing as voice or text or music or TV shows or video.
" They are all just data. We need a national data policy, and here are
" four suggestions:
"
" 1. End phone exclusivity. Any device should work on any network. Data
" flows freely.
"
" 2. Transition away from "owning" airwaves. As we've seen with license-
" free bandwidth via Wi-Fi networking, we can share the airwaves
" without interfering with each other. ...
"
" 3. End municipal exclusivity deals for cable companies. TV channels
" are like voice pipes, part of an era that is about to pass. ...
"
" 4. Encourage faster and faster data connections to our homes and
" phones. It should more than double every two years. ...
Interesting article.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:11:49 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cutting the cord
Message-ID: <c7b.5bbc0d30.37c091c5@aol.com>
In a message dated 8/20/2009 8:48:41 PM Central Daylight Time,
kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net writes:
> A cell phone still sounds like a bad sideband
> transmission.
That has not been my expeerience in recent years. Voice quality
(AT&T, previously Cingular) is aurally indistinguishable from a
landline phone, both for me and for incoming calls from other AT&T
cell phones. Nor can I detect a differnce on incoming calls from
other parties which I believe to be non-AT&T customers.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:09:46 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cutting the cord
Message-ID: <4A8F455A.8060509@thadlabs.com>
On 8/21/2009 5:53 PM, Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/20/2009 8:48:41 PM Central Daylight Time,
> kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net writes:
>
>> A cell phone still sounds like a bad sideband
>> transmission.
>
> That has not been my expeerience in recent years. Voice quality
> (AT&T, previously Cingular) is aurally indistinguishable from a
> landline phone, both for me and for incoming calls from other AT&T
> cell phones. Nor can I detect a differnce on incoming calls from
> other parties which I believe to be non-AT&T customers.
I second Wes' comments. Starting with Cellular One (which became or
was absorbed by Cingular then by AT&T) voice quality has been
exemplary since 1992 with the three cell phones I've had and used
since then: Motorola Micro T*A*C Lite, Nokia 6162i, and now a
Motorola RAZR.
Friends who had dual-mode (analog and digital) phones always forced
their phones into analog mode because the early didital quality was
poor.
------------------------------
Date: 21 Aug 2009 15:40:45 -0700
From: Josh <uhf@*newsguy.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 'Take Back the Beep' Campaign
Message-ID: <h6n7pd0bnv@drn.newsguy.com>
In article <4A7707F4.3020906@thadlabs.com>, Thad Floryan says...
>
>On 8/3/2009 8:13 AM, Bill Horne wrote:
>> [...]
>> I propose Horne's corollary to Pogue's campaign: I suggest that all
>> cell phone users make it a habit to check their messages from home or
>> work (landline) phones, so that we're not burning up minutes listening
>> to messages. This is a good idea because:
>>
>> 1. At home or work, you have access to your computer or a pad of
>> paper, and you can write down the important stuff before
>> deleting the message, thus saving time both by not having to
>> listen to it again, and also by being able to delegate tasks
>> right away.
>>
>> 2. The cellular carriers will notice a drop in their income, and
>> investigate, and figure out that they've been angering their
>> customers for a long time.
>> [...]
>
>Heh!
>
>What I really, really wish is that (cell phone) messages could be,
>say, emailed as an audio attachment for several reasons:
>
>1. storage for any number of future purposes, and
>
>2. ability to enhance an inaudible or whatever message using tools
> on one's computer.
>
>Item (2) was easy to do with asterisk VoIP and I've had to process
>garbled and/or inaudible messages for intended recipients more than once.
>
>asterisk stores voice mail as both *.WAV and *.GSM files along with a
>*.TXT file containing the caller's CID, date/time and duration.
>
>There are times when a caller also using a cell phone may be in a noisy
>or even windy location and post-processing is needed to clarify the voice
>information.
>
>Thinking back over the years, I've only encountered 3 good voice mail
>systems: PacBell's Centrex, Nortel's NorStar BCM, and asterisk, though
>my Bogen "Friday" was a very decent and featureful answering machine.
>
>AT&T Mobility's voice mail system is the worst I've ever had the displeasure
>of using, and it's my only gripe with their service.
I stopped using my cellphone providers voicemail and instead have unanswered
calls roll over to Google Voice. It gives the added benefit of voicemail
transcription which can be highly amusing to read when the voice recognition
mangles it.
------------------------------
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 (26 messages)
******************************
|
or 
