30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for September 27, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 243 : "text" Format
====== 30 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
|
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Bill Horne and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using any name or email address
included herein for any reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to that person, or email address
owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of
that address. 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, 25 Sep 2011 17:15:05 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: mobile wifi hotspots, was Strange new at&t rumors
Message-ID: <j5og69$mlj$1@dont-email.me>
On 9/25/11 3:25 PM, David Clayton wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:30:19 -0700, Steven wrote:
> .......
>> That was one of the questions I asked and was told each room had its own
>> receiver, I pointed out that even if that was a fact, then mine should
>> have been turned off, so if it was on it still was not my problem. plus it
>> could not have been that short of a range since mine at home works up to
>> 100 feet. I showed the manager my computer with the card and my Hot Spot
>> showing that it was linked to its own, I also showed him the hotels hot
>> spots and each one was locked and you needed a code to get it to a allow
>> use, by the way, the code was the room number, end of problem.
>
> So if the "Hot Spots" are not set to the same frequency (or you disable
> the one in your room), then you can connect to another room and rack up
> charges on their account?
>
I have no idea, all I know is I was using my own. When I travel I use
mine when I can even if is free, I just don't like the security or lack
of on open ports.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2011 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:44:29 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Want More Information? Just Scan Me
Message-ID: <p06240836caa623fb1d16@[10.0.1.3]>
Want More Information? Just Scan Me
By STEPHANIE ROSENBLOOM
September 21, 2011
DURING New York Fashion Week earlier this month, Quick Response (QR)
codes - square, checkered symbols that can be scanned with one's
smartphone - were as omnipresent as chunky black booties.
They were on cookies doled out by Tiffany that, when scanned,
revealed an invitation to a concert with Leighton Meester. They were
on a pink Barbie-themed bus, and on doll displays in stores that
could be scanned for a chance to win designer clothes. And they were
on postcards for a "fashion hunt" with the Madison Avenue Business
Improvement District and the blog Madison Avenue Spy.
Weeks earlier, a model walked a runway in Barcelona with a QR code
emblazoned on the bodice of her Frans Baviera gown; meanwhile, a
company called Skanz began selling silicone bracelets embellished
with QR codes that enable anyone with a smartphone to scan your wrist
and instantly access a Web page with your contact information, social
media links, even favorite photos and videos.
In other words: you've become a human hyperlink.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/fashion/qr-codes-provide-information-when-scanned.html
***** Moderator's Note *****
Does anyone remember Cue-Cat?
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:03:05 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <invalid.see.website@invalid.ionary.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: LightSquared claims that it solves GPS interference with new device
Message-ID: <20110926150309.DDCCA34B46@mailout.easydns.com>
Bill Horne wrote,
>...
>This "solution" worries me a lot. Here's why:
>
>1. Many LECs make extensive use of GPS timing devices to synchonize
> the various components in their networks. If LightSquared's '4G'
> system causes interference to those GPS receivers, major outages
> are possible, and they'd probably be intermittent and thus hard to
> identify.
>
>2. I didn't see anything in the article about "non precesion" GPS
> receivers, and if LightSquared isn't providing any solution to the
> problem of interference to "consumer grade" devices, that means
> that the Garmin GPS on the dashboard of my car, and similar units
> in millions of other vehicles, might be made obsolete.
Those two issues are linked, and solved. LightSquared will not
interfere with non-precision GPS or timing devices. The reason is
that LightSquared's spectrum includes two 10 MHz bands, only one of
which is hard up against GPS. The original plan was to use both
bands, and the upper band would have overloaded the front ends of most
cheapo GPS receivers out there, because manufacturers built them to
the interference in the field when built, not what the FCC had
authorized but which wasn't yet in use (i.e., LightSquared's ATC).
Because of this problem, LightSquared has agreed to put off using its
upper band for a few years, and the lower band doesn't cause problems
to timing systems or even el cheapo GPSs. High-precision GPS uses an
additional signal, which is what the latest fix is about.
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> added,
...
>Similarly, while tests of, say, 10 "smart" LightSquared units
>working alongside 50 standard GPS'es may work ok in the lab,
>that's very, very, different from having 10,000 of them in
>the field, often outside, with weather and power spikes and
>water and bird poop.
>
>If we make up the number that one percent of them will go
>kablooey each year, that's a pretty ugly number of facilities
>that will cause problems...
The base stations, not handsets, are the problem. Base stations have
much higher transmit power, after all. No GPS will be near many of
them at a time. Interference is caused by overload, which happens
when close to a high-powered transmitter, not a low-powered mobile
(unless it's a really bad receiver or extremely close). Using the
lower L-band, a GPS can drive right under a tower and almost
certainly still work. The higher L-band will cause problems unless
the receiver vendors spend a few dollars (just a small few, I
suspect) on tightening up their equipment.
--
Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting
http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795 2701
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:46:12 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: LightSquared claims that it solves GPS interference with new device
Message-ID: <j5qdp4$2ls7$2@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <20110926150309.DDCCA34B46@mailout.easydns.com>,
Fred Goldstein <invalid.see.website@invalid.ionary.com> wrote:
>The higher L-band will cause problems unless the receiver vendors
>spend a few dollars (just a small few, I suspect) on tightening up
>their equipment.
Does the FCC (or another agency) have any legal authority to force
them to do so, or are we simply stuck with the situation as it now
stands?
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: 26 Sep 2011 14:49:29 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: LightSquared claims that it solves GPS interference with new device
Message-ID: <j5qhfp$mih$1@panix2.panix.com>
Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org> wrote:
>In article <20110926150309.DDCCA34B46@mailout.easydns.com>,
>Fred Goldstein <invalid.see.website@invalid.ionary.com> wrote:
>>The higher L-band will cause problems unless the receiver vendors
>>spend a few dollars (just a small few, I suspect) on tightening up
>>their equipment.
>
>Does the FCC (or another agency) have any legal authority to force
>them to do so, or are we simply stuck with the situation as it now
>stands?
Not really. The FCC can regulate emitters, but has very little power
to regulate receivers.
I am sure AM radio stations would LOVE for the FCC to mandate that AM
radio manufacturers have a certain minimum sensitivity level, minimum
IF skirt slope, etc. But they don't, so most AM radio manufacturers
make crap that doesn't work very well.
There is no law against making crap that doesn't work very well.
There is no law saying that your product has to work with a given
amount of off-channel interference, only that it "must accept" that
interference. Frankly, I would just be happy if the FCC would start
enforcing Part 15 regulations, and prevent manufacturers from selling
junk that clearly does not meet Part 15.
The LEAST of our worries is receivers that accept interference from
sources legal under part 15, considering how many sources that are
illegal under part 15 can be found in every discount store.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: 26 Sep 2011 14:51:21 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Where does digital phone service hand off toll-free calls?
Message-ID: <j5qhj9$gm1$1@panix2.panix.com>
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>If a subscriber has digital phone service, where would calls to toll-free
>numbers be handed off? Are they handed off to the local telephone company
>at the closest co-lo to the physical location of the digital server that
>provides service to its subscriber? Are they handed off to the central
>office serving the polygon of the rate center (or wire center if different)
>based on (what the digital phone service provider thinks is the) service
>address, which could involve back-hauling traffic? Or do digital phone
>service networks interface directly with some long distance providers
>offering toll free service?
I'm not sure what you mean. Our PBX has a T-1 to the local telco, and it
also has a T-1 to a long distance provider. We can hand it off to either
one, as the PBX software sees fit. This is the miracle of the digital age.
>20 years ago, I recall working in an office in which we used "9" as a
>trunk prefix to make long-distance calls, but "8" for local and toll-free
>calls.
Now the PBX is smart enough to figure out which of multiple routes is cheaper,
all by itself. In fact, some folks might have multiple trunks to different
LD providers and route based upon which provider is cheaper on a given call.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright (C) 2011 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 (6 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues