The Telecom Digest for August 31, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 235 : "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, 29 Aug 2010 03:43:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <201008290843.o7T8hsQe029112@mail.r-bonomi.com>
In article <f2d72589-b13e-41b5-84f8-82fd35387b42@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> I am annoyed that the Do Not Call lists expire; they should be
> permanent.
Your annoyance is years out of touch with reality. The national
DNC list -is- permanent.
> I am angry at the many exceptions the law provides. And the
> politicians wonder why the citizens have no respect for them. Well,
> when they pass laws exempting themselves, what should they expect?
If you don't like living with the limits imposed by the Constitution.
you, unfortunately , have rather limited alternatives.
the alternative to 'what we have' is something that WOULD be challenged
in the courts and would -not- survive that challenge. Whereupon we would
have -no- protection at all.
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:01:20 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul <pssawyer@comcast.net.INVALID>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 911-only public phone
Message-ID: <Xns9DE37A4DE402CSenex@81.169.183.62>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote in
news:0b18ae2e-a0e0-4fd0-9ca6-8efaefce3c82@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.co
m:
> On Aug 27, 9:11 pm, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
>> >I stopped at a convenience store earlier this morning and
>> >noticed something I had never seen before, a 911-only public
>> >phone mounted on the front of the building.
>>
>> They're pretty common as replacements for fire alarm pull boxes.
>> We have one on the front of our volunteer fire department, in
>> case someone comes by when nobody's there.
>
> The above usage surprises me.
In the 1970s and '80s, the phone companies oversold pay phones as a
replacement for (much more reliable) municipal fire alarm systems.
Then pay phones started to go away.
The nearby state university has these outside special-purpose phones
all over campus, on the campus PBX. Some are 911 only, some can
reach the campus operator and make campus calls, such as, "let me
into my dorm, I forgot my key." Most have a blue light above them.
None have any additional supervision or monitoring beyond a normal
PBX line.
--
Paul
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:31:33 -0500
From: Will <imo353@giganews.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 911-only public phone
Message-ID: <Xns9DE3EF4C732E1imo353verizonnet@216.196.97.131>
David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:pan.2010.08.28.04.28.53.562310@myrealbox.com:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:30:10 -0500, jsw wrote:
>
>> Well, I thought I was well-informed about telephony trends, but I
>> must admit this is a new one on me.
>>
>> I stopped at a convenience store earlier this morning and noticed
>> something I had never seen before, a 911-only public phone mounted on
>> the front of the building.
>>
>> It's in a mini hood-type enclosure, has a keypad, G series handset,
>> with the armored cable. Hood is painted bright red, and '911 only'
>> is noted very clearly.
> ...........
> Wouldn't a GSM handset without a SIM card serve the same purpose?
>
> Securely mounting one of those in an enclosure would seem a more
> cost-effective than specialised equipment with a dedicated landline.
>
A conventional POTS Land Line telephone derives its operating current for
the telephone handset transmitter and dial pad from the two wire POTS
line. A wireless mobile device would require a local power source,
regardless of the power supply configuration or technology.
Secondly, a wireless mobile device would fall victim to power outages
that go beyond the capacity of the battery back-up (UPS) available at
most wireless cell sites (Towers). Typically eight hours if the batteries
are maintained, let alone mobile carrier channel saturation (All
cuircuits busy) during an emergency condition.
A plain old telephone (POTS) line can't be beat for general reliability,
as long as the twisted pair to the phone is not in need of any
maintenance.
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:45:52 -0400
From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: The Fading Glory of the Television and Telephone
Message-ID: <neal761q2ern6eoi8e4mvd0mpkuh4o1cbf@4ax.com>
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 07:16:56 -0700, Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
wrote:
>Monty Solomon wrote:
>
>
>> But there's a related trend that's more perilous for the landline:
>> Fully 47% of the public say that its younger, smarter and more nimble
>> cousin -- the cell phone -- is a necessity of life.
>>
>One is a radio and the other is a telephone. Most people don't have a clue.
>
>Also, the difference between wireline E911 and cellular 911 can be
>precious moments that may make the difference between life and death.
>This is even more so in a medical emergency where the caller perhaps can
>only mumble. The wireline is seized on an operator-type trunk and the
>address is displayed.
>
>Using cellular service, or for that matter Voip, as the primary service
>at a residence is a risky deal in the event of an emergency.
It is interesting to note that my daughter, prior to the birth of my
granddaughter, attended a "new mother" class where it was made very
clear that a land-line phone at home was very important, particularly
if a hired careperson was watching the baby. The 911 issue was the
reason and they really drove the point home, to the extent that my
daughter actually put in a landline to supplement her cellphone.
Cellphones are convenient, but landlines still have some advantages...
ET
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:31:55 +0800
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Advice on Using Credit Cards While Traveling Abroad
Message-ID: <AANLkTinz6B-DuFVqJDFE1bzuMnPXj3WqSvk=yyVSRmdq@mail.gmail.com>
I am currently in Malaysia. Before I left I notified my credit card
companies about my travel. Few businesses here accept credit cards
and often there's a minimum purchase of RM50 (about $16 USD). I had
been buying gas at the pump without incident until last week. All of
my cards were declined. I drove on into work. I called one of my
card companies. She said they didn't issue the refusal so what
probably happened was the gas station's bank wasn't talking to the US
banks. Fair enough. That evening I was able to buy gas.
Next time I bought gas the pump said it could only process credit
cards with a chip. I was with some local coworkers. I asked what
that meant. I showed one of them my card. He laughed and passed it
around. They hadn't seen a credit card without a chip. He showed me
his and and sure enough, it had a chip. It was unlike anything I've
seen on US-issued cards. It wasn't the same as the "touch-n-go" type
cards some US banks are issuing. I'm not saying no US bank uses this.
I'm just saying I've never seen anything like it.
I went inside and the clerk was equally baffled and said she couldn't
accept a card without a chip.
I have no idea why my credit card worked just fine for a month and
suddenly is being refused due to lack of a chip.
In short it can be a pain [in] the shorts to use credit cards
overseas, particularly in a country known for credit card fraud. I
check my accounts every other day. So far, so good.
But cash isn't always the answer either. Since we're in a largely
cash-based country, my company offers cash advances. I took them up
on it. I deposited the money into my checking account and I use my
ATM card to withdrawal cash as needed. My bank doesn't charge a
foreign exchange fee and rebates me back any ATM surcharges. I also
get the best exchange rate regardless of the amount withdrawn. My
coworkers elected to bring US currency with them and exchange at a
money changer. Money changers charge a per transaction fixed amount
and don't give a very good exchange rate. The official rate is 1 USD
= 3.141 MYR. I'm getting right about that while they're getting 3.05
MYR/USD. They're carrying mostly 100 dollar bills and the money
changers won't accept certain ranges of serial numbers. One woman is
sitting on a pile of cash she can't spend. Personally I'd be nervous
about having that much cash on me.
In short I believe using an ATM card to withdrawal local currency is
your best bet and rely on credit cards only for hotel stays and car
rentals.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
***** Moderator's Note *****
What ever happened to Traveller's Checks?
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:08:02 -0800
From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <i5e7ni$9k$1@blue.rahul.net>
Steven wrote:
> Over the last weekend I had to replace my old HP 4200 All In One printer
> with a newer HP 4500 series/ As I programmed it I noticed that there
> was an option to place phone number on it to block Junk Fax, I wondered
> if it would work on just a regular call. I place a number and sure
> enough the machine rand once and on the start of the second ring hunk up
> the line. This will end my junk calls that I have had to just ignore or
> use my very old Radio Shack CID box that fails at times.
>
> I have noticed more fake CID and it does no good to be on the Do Not
> Call List, there appears to be little enforcement and none on calls from
> the Moon!!!
I'm on the DNCL, and it works moderately well for the calls it's supposed
to stop (strangers who want to sell me something). But I'm inundated with
two types of junk calls: the ones that are legally exempt (charities and
political campaigns) and the ones that assume I'm the person who had my
phone number years ago (a grade school that places weekly recorded-news-and-
announcements calls to parents).
The worst is the health provider Anthem Blue Cross. They have a machine
placing automated calls about twice a day trying to reach [a patient I've
never heard of]. The machine demands to know if she is available to take
the call, and won't hear any answer except yes or no. When I say no, the
machine hangs up without giving any name or number I can contact to stop the
damn calls! I've tried their web site, but the only number there reaches a
salesman who has no idea what to do.
Can anyone suggest a way to stop the calls short of driving down to their
nearest office and taking it apart with a sledge hammer?
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:47:26 -0400
From: "Gary" <bogus-email@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <i5hce0$6vt$1@news.eternal-september.org>
"John David Galt" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
news:i5e7ni$9k$1@blue.rahul.net...
>
> The worst is the health provider Anthem Blue Cross. They have a machine
> placing automated calls about twice a day trying to reach [a patient I've
> never heard of]. The machine demands to know if she is available to take
> the call, and won't hear any answer except yes or no. When I say no, the
> machine hangs up without giving any name or number I can contact to stop
> the
> damn calls! I've tried their web site, but the only number there reaches
> a
> salesman who has no idea what to do.
>
> Can anyone suggest a way to stop the calls short of driving down to their
> nearest office and taking it apart with a sledge hammer?
Have you tried saying "yes?"
-Gary
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:21:52 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <6jtn765mgflidd8avrjfhbvqeg764eh09e@4ax.com>
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:08:02 -0800, John David Galt
<jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>The worst is the health provider Anthem Blue Cross. They have a machine
>placing automated calls about twice a day trying to reach [a patient I've
>never heard of]. The machine demands to know if she is available to take
>the call, and won't hear any answer except yes or no. When I say no, the
>machine hangs up without giving any name or number I can contact to stop the
>damn calls! I've tried their web site, but the only number there reaches a
>salesman who has no idea what to do.
>
>Can anyone suggest a way to stop the calls short of driving down to their
>nearest office and taking it apart with a sledge hammer?
Chane your telephone number.
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 12:08:44 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 911-only public phone
Message-ID: <JI-dnR0km7uhLefRnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d@giganews.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> A telecomm administrator told me paying the phoneco for a conventional
> public pay phone was cheaper than installing a "hot line" to the
> police or fire dept. People still ocassionally use pay phones so that
> revenue helps defray the cost. Further, it gives the public some
> convenience which isn't available with a "hot line" type of phone.
There is a feature option that makes a POTS line appear to be a hot
line; i.e., 911 is programmed as the only number in a speed-calling like
list. There is no dial tone, either. A rental car agency (for example)
can use the same feature to call their staffed site.
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 911-only public phone
Message-ID: <009b8de7-e741-4d27-bd9a-265b34e0e98c@g17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 29, 3:08 pm, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> There is a feature option that makes a POTS line appear to be a hot
> line; i.e., 911 is programmed as the only number in a speed-calling like
> list. There is no dial tone, either. A rental car agency (for example)
> can use the same feature to call their staffed site.
But since the sponsoring agency has to pay for the phone service no
matter what, it seems to me making such phones typical pay phones is
slightly cheaper. This is because people still use pay phones
ocassionally and that revenue will offset the service cost.
As to having direct access to a business, pay phones on transit
property have abbreviated *nn numbers that let the passenger call
transit information for free. (However, I can understand a rental car
agency wanting a phone just for them, marked accordingly).
I recall that airports had a large display box of nearby hotels and
services with a phone with an autodialer. (Some hotel lobbies had
them containing restaurants and tourist attractions). One selected a
particular establishment and the phone did the rest automatically. I
don't know if such devices are still in use.
Regarding the above post of college campus phones, the phones I've
seen were vandal resistant boxes with a speakerphone, no handset. One
could call an extension on campus or of course campus security
(security was the main motivation for their installation). I wonder
how much they get used today since it appears students no longer have
landline phones in their dorm rooms but use their cellphones for
everything instead.
Indeed, some campuses essentially require all students to have
cellphones since special alert broadcast text messages are sent out
via that mode. I'm curious--to utilize such a feature would require a
student's phone be on during class. Yet I would think most college
instructions would insist students to turn off their phones to avoid
ringing distractions. (This issue came up after one of the college
mass shootings. I wondered why PA systems weren't installed instead.)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 21:22:45 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Hackers blind quantum cryptographers
Message-ID: <p0624084ec8a0b7df6c6d@[192.168.1.70]>
Hackers blind quantum cryptographers
Lasers crack commercial encryption systems, leaving no trace.
Zeeya Merali
Published online 29 August 2010 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2010.436
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100829/full/news.2010.436.html
***** Moderator's Note *****
This is out of my league. Any comments from those that know more will be welcome.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:36:52 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Hackers blind quantum cryptographers
Message-ID: <4C7C3284.30907@thadlabs.com>
On 8/29/2010 6:22 PM, Monty Solomon wrote:
> Hackers blind quantum cryptographers
>
> Lasers crack commercial encryption systems, leaving no trace.
>
> Zeeya Merali
> Published online 29 August 2010 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2010.436
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100829/full/news.2010.436.html
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> This is out of my league. Any comments from those that know more will be welcome.
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
The field of quantum cryptography is "new" to me, too, even though I
designed and manufactured products using DES back in the 1980s-1990s
and worked for a company employing crypto technologies in its products
from its founding in 2000 to its buyout in 2006.
A better website with pictures may help understanding this:
http://www.iet.ntnu.no/groups/optics/qcr/hacking-commercial-quantum-cryptography-2010/
A multi-lingual press release with pictures may help, too:
http://www.iet.ntnu.no/groups/optics/qcr/hacking-commercial-quantum-cryptography-2010/press-release-20100829-NTNU-MPL-FAU-IDQ.pdf
Here's a paper I found to be interesting and understandable:
http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nphoton.2010.214.pdf
and here's a technical paper for some nitty-gritty (clicking on the
following URL will present a PDF paper):
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.2376v1
I'm still recovering from a wedding this weekend so please don't
ask me to explain the math. :-)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:04:19 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Hackers blind quantum cryptographers
Message-ID: <siegman-CCBD9B.11041930082010@BMEDCFSC-SRV02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>
In article <p0624084ec8a0b7df6c6d@[192.168.1.70]>,
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
> Hackers blind quantum cryptographers
>
> Lasers crack commercial encryption systems, leaving no trace.
>
> Zeeya Merali
> Published online 29 August 2010 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2010.436
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100829/full/news.2010.436.html
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> This is out of my league. Any comments from those that know more will be
> welcome.
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
I know more (although really only a very little bit more).
The item from Nature News looks good, sounds solid to me (within my
limited ability to judge), and is quite readable by lay readers.
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:37:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Simplifying the Lives of Web Users
Message-ID: <201008292037.QAA03271@ss10.danlan.com>
johnl@iecc.com (John Levine) wrote:
|> Locator/identifier separation and/or distributed source routing
|> (what shim6 and address selection policy distribution implement in
|> part, respectively) could allow for routing that does not require a
|> central device to have such complete knowledge.
|
|Indeed it could. Too bad they did IPv6 instead.
Happily this is not an either/or proposition.
For a very simple proposal based on the obvious extension of shim6 see:
http://www.shim6.org/draft-nordmark-shim6-esd-00.txt
(IIRC there is a newer version; not sure why they keep the older one.)
For a more complicated/featureful host-based protocol see any of the
many documents on HIP.
For a non-host-centric approach take a look at the Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP):
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-08
The LISP document gives some good background (and pointers to even more
background) explaining the motivations for moving towards a model with
separate locators and identifiers.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
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 (14 messages)
|
| |
or 