30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for October 14, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 260 : "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: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:56:54 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Lightsquared being called to account
Message-ID: <fuOdnSDfcpw74AvTnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <j7596o$qf2$1@dont-email.me>, Gary <bogus-email@hotmail.com> wrote:
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> As to cost: I'm not so sure of the $15 Million figure.
>>
>> According to Wikipedia:
>>
>> On 26 February 2009, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget
>> released the first blueprint for the Financial Year 2010
>> budget. This document identified the LORAN-C system as
>> "outdated", and supported its termination at an estimated savings
>> of $36 million in 2010 and $190 million over five years.
>
>I didn't remember the exact figure; that's why I said "about" $15 million.
>In government speak, I was very close. :-)
>
>Even at $36 million a year, I think Loran-C was a bargain. I'd be amazed
>if GPS doesn't cost us taxpayers way more.
I believe the operating cost of GPS is essentially -zero-. That
basically all the cost is in the construction -- including the per-bird
programming -- and delivery into orbit. There is a tiny cost associated
with maintaining the ground-based equipment needed to enable/disable SA,
but, as far as I know, that's the only 'operating' expense.
***** Moderator's Note *****
The operating cost of any satellite-based system has to include the
salaries and training of the controllers on the ground, and their
equipment and its maintenance, and those costs are (excuse the pun)
astronomical: the list is long enough to circle the earth.
There are teams of well-paid, professional specialists who spend their
working lives keeping track of the space junk which might cross the
paths of the satellites they are responsible for, and others who are
always agonizing about what might happen if one of the solar panels
goes dark, and groups of orbital planners who have nightmares about a
1% change in the Keplerian elements of the birds they're assigned to
guide. Of course, that doesn't include the actual operating staff
for each satellite, i.e., the men and women who schedule the various
tests that verify proper operating margins and antenna aiming and
rate-of-spin and wobble. They monitor fuel budgets, respond to mission
change orders, reposition both aerial and ground-based assets as
needed, and keep track of all they do so that the Government
Accounting Office knows they're doing their job.
The bills don't stop when the countdown reaches "zero". THAT is just
the starting point.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:34:20 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: iOS 5 update causes massive internet traffic spike
Message-ID: <p062408dbcabc8a8eb8ae@[10.0.1.9]>
iOS 5 update causes massive internet traffic spike - to users' frustration
iOS 5 update for iPhone and iPad puts huge strain on Apple's new
iCloud servers, leading to slowdowns for many users
Charles Arthur
guardian.co.uk
Thursday 13 October 2011
Demand for Apple's update to its iPhone and Mac software to enable
its "iCloud" services caused a gigantic surge in internet traffic in
Europe.
Throughput in the UK jumped by 200 gigabits per second - equivalent
to more than a fifth of normal traffic - a spike that lasted for
roughly four hours.
The colossal demand, which was mirrored around the world as the
update became available from the company's servers at 1800 BST on
Wednesday, will have been the severest strain on the cloud systems
that Steve Jobs showed off in his last major speech in June.
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/13/ios-5-update-internet-traffic-spike
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:21:40 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Privacy alert: Verizon is now monitoring your mobile Web habits
Message-ID: <p062408d9cabc87840253@[10.0.1.9]>
Privacy alert: Verizon is now monitoring your mobile Web habits
By JR Raphael (@jr_raphael)
October 12, 2011
Verizon Wireless users, listen up:
Verizon is making a significant change to its privacy policy for
mobile users this week. By default, the company will now use a bunch
of your info for "certain business and marketing reports" and for
"making mobile ads you see more relevant."
This info includes the URLs of websites you visit over Verizon's
network and also your device's location data. Some of those details
may be shared with outside companies as well. Verizon says none of it
will personally identify you.
...
http://blogs.computerworld.com/19089/verizon_mobile_web_privacy
***** Moderator's Note *****
I got an email from Verizon, which said that they would "share" my
location info with advertisers in order to make my online experience
more relevant and to make it easier for the advertisers to show me ads
that I would like more. This wasn't for mobile service, which I don't
have, but for the ADSL connection I use to get to the cloud.
They supplied a web address I could go to in order to "opt out" of
this "feature", but the web site has a floating "suggestions" link
that floats directly over the "opt out" button. I managed to access
the "opt out" choice by using a text-only browser, and I will report
just how effective my choice was.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:36:34 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Privacy alert: Verizon is now monitoring your mobile Web habits
Message-ID: <1pvso94rmb7jy$.1tfvcb4zvg55q$.dlg@40tude.net>
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:21:40 -0400, after Monty Solomon's post, Moderator
wrote:
> ...
> They supplied a web address I could go to in order to "opt out" of
> this "feature", but the web site has a floating "suggestions" link
> that floats directly over the "opt out" button. ...
I once encountered a web page bearing a floating link that floated
directly under wherever the mouse pointer happened to be positioned.
Thus, no way to click on any of the links on the page itself:
any click would trigger that floatiing link. Only way out was to
close that browser window -- [Ctrl]-[W] -- and never return :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I just wrote in my blog (http://mysite.verizon.net/vze17ebj8/)
about the underwhelming impression I got from the "My" verizon update site,
and the insulting "No thanks, just go to 'My' Verizon" link that I had
to click on to get past the ad they shoved in my face when I just
wanted to go to the update page. Verizon discontinued ftp access to
the personal web sites, supposedly for security reasons, but I think
it's a cheap trick to hype their ad numbers - at the same time they
alienate their customers.
Verizontal seems to have the same brain-dead executives running its
online marketing that it chose to head the NYNEX retail effort. The
signs are obvious: the "ActiveX should be good enough for all
browsers" attitude, and the "We know what's best for you" arrogance,
both still firmly entrenched in their monopoly mentality.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:59:51 -0700
From: "Jon Danniken" <jonSPAMMENOTdanniken@yahSPAMhoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Privacy alert: Verizon is now monitoring your mobile Web habits
Message-ID: <j77fvl$p5j$1@speranza.aioe.org>
tlvp wrote:
> I once encountered a web page bearing a floating link that floated
> directly under wherever the mouse pointer happened to be positioned.
>
> Thus, no way to click on any of the links on the page itself:
> any click would trigger that floatiing link.
Turn off java script.
Jon
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: "daryl.gibson@gmail.com" <daryl.gibson@gmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Privacy alert: Verizon is now monitoring your mobile Web habits
Message-ID: <166282c8-34c2-4f9f-94ba-90de803bf97e@f13g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 13, 6:21 am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
> Privacy alert: Verizon is now monitoring your mobile Web habits
>
> http://blogs.computerworld.com/19089/verizon_mobile_web_privacy
>
>
> [Moderator snip]
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I got an email from Verizon, which said that they would "share" my
> location info with advertisers [Moderator snip]
> They supplied a web address I could go to in order to "opt out" of
> this "feature", but the web site has a floating "suggestions" link
> that floats directly over the "opt out" button. I managed to access
> the "opt out" choice by using a text-only browser, and I will report
> just how effective my choice was.
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
Went there and opted out, but didn't see the "suggestions" box. I'm
using Chrome, though.
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 01:46:31 +0000 (UTC)
From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Privacy alert: Verizon is now monitoring your mobile Web habits
Message-ID: <j7849n$qtc$1@pcls6.std.com>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>I got an email from Verizon, which said that they would "share" my
>location info with advertisers in order to make my online experience
>more relevant and to make it easier for the advertisers to show me ads
>that I would like more. This wasn't for mobile service, which I don't
>have, but for the ADSL connection I use to get to the cloud.
>They supplied a web address I could go to in order to "opt out" of
>this "feature", but the web site has a floating "suggestions" link
>that floats directly over the "opt out" button. I managed to access
>the "opt out" choice by using a text-only browser, and I will report
>just how effective my choice was.
>Bill Horne
>Moderator
I got the same message. When I saw this comment, I tried it right away, I
had to see such crappiness myself. I didn't see what you saw at all, I
got a fairly simple page (for them) with a small "Do not Participate"
message with a checkbox on the right side. Nothing hovering blocking the
mouse.
Also for the "Verizon Toolbar" request. I just see a thin box below the
red menu bar at the top, and in fact it goes away by itself if I do
nothing.
All this was Firefox 7.0.1, so I decided to see what IE did. It's pretty
much the same with IE 8.
I don't know why I didn't get the annoyances you do. Maybe that's a
feature of getting their FiOS?
***** Moderator's Note *****
I don't remember if I was running Ubuntu & Firefox or Windoze 7 & IE:
I only use windows for my online banking as a rule, but I had an email
that was causing Evolution to crash, and I may have gone to windows to
test if it did the same thing in Thunderbird, and wound up answering
Verizon's notice there.
Please pass along the URL so that others can test it: I don't have the
email anymore. TIA.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:57:22 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Dennis MacAlistair Ritchie, 1941-2011
Message-ID: <1a96h87yhv9cf$.1ky7o2vj8mdy6.dlg@40tude.net>
It must be the season for losing brilliant people:
http://www.zdnet.com/news/dennis-ritchie-father-of-unix-and-c-dies/6314570
Cheers amidst tears, -- tlvp
- -
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Oh, no, no, please, God, no, not him: I've got the white book on
the shelf above my desk. It can't be the same guy, the same giant, the
same man; there must be a mistake. How could you call home so gifted
and generous a soul, just when we were realizing how much he gave?
Bill
(Subject changed to traditional format.)
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: 13 Oct 2011 15:20:12 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Lightsquared being called to account
Message-ID: <j77dlc$31l$1@panix2.panix.com>
John Stahl <aljon@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>Re: Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47, Part 15 (47 CFR 15) Doesn't
>nearly every electronics device sold inside the United States which
>might radiate unintentional emissions [have to] be reviewed to comply
>with Part 15 before it can be advertised or sold in the US market?
Yes, however, since the Reagan administration pretty much gutted the FCC,
no real attempt has been made to enforce these regulations. Walk into
your local Wal-Mart with a field strength meter and you'll find the vast
majority of consumer electronics on sale don't meet the Part 15 rules.
>If the above is true, won't LightSquared be brought to task to prove
>all of it terrestrial transmitting equipment [can] pass Part 15 before it
>can be sold/installed?
No, they come under either Part 90 or Part 95, since they are deliberate
radiators. As long as their out-of-band emissions meet the standard
requirements, they are legal and receiving devices have to accept the
interference.
That's what the GPS manufacturers are lobbying about. They don't want to
have to tighten up their receivers to deal with legal sources on nearby
frequencies.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: 13 Oct 2011 15:22:44 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Lightsquared being called to account
Message-ID: <j77dq4$p27$1@panix2.panix.com>
David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>This may be bloody obvious - but since most state of the art military
>hardware uses GPS for so many things these days (Cruise missiles, drones
>etc.) - wouldn't you really not want transmitters capable of jamming GPS
>receivers indirectly, or if they were slightly modified, possibly directly
>jamming GPS receivers, on the market?
The military receivers have VERY VERY tight specifications for adjacent
channel interference, and they also have much more robust lock-in algorithms.
The Lightsquared devices will not be a problem with properly-designed
receivers, and the mil-spec devices are more than just properly designed.
>Wouldn't this give the "Terrorists" an opportunity to negate the massive
>technological deficiency some of them currently have?
No, the terrorists already have GPS jamming devices. Hell, you can buy them
at truckstops on rt. 95. I occasionally encounter them causing interference
with 950 MHz broadcast auxiliary systems.
--scott
- -
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
***** Moderator's Note *****
Why would truckers want GPS jamming devices? Devices to jam police
radar, I can understand, but not GPS.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: 13 Oct 2011 15:11:49 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Lightsquared being called to account
Message-ID: <j77d5l$o80$1@panix2.panix.com>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>If Lightsquared's use of "satellite" spectrum for terrestrial
>transmitters causes the GPS network receivers to become unreliable,
>then Verizon (and, possibly, other LECs) will have to replace the
>GPS-based timing sources with Stratum I atomic clocks, resulting in
>millions of dollars spent for engineering effort, hardware expense,
>transition planning, training, and implementation.
This is not an issue. Verizon does not use cheap consumer junk with
front ends that are wide as a barn.
The issue is that Lightsquared has paid for bandwidth. They bought it
fair and square. They should be able to use it in any way that meets
the legal radiation limits for that space.
Now, if you believe that the government can step in and take bandwidth
away that has been paid for, and re-purpose it for reasons relating to
public service and the common good, that's fine. But if THAT is the case,
why haven't most TV radio stations lost their licenses years ago?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:09:21 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Lightsquared being called to account
Message-ID: <20111013230921.GA31646@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 03:11:49PM -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >***** Moderator's Note *****
> >
> >If Lightsquared's use of "satellite" spectrum for terrestrial
> >transmitters causes the GPS network receivers to become unreliable,
> >then Verizon (and, possibly, other LECs) will have to replace the
> >GPS-based timing sources with Stratum I atomic clocks, resulting in
> >millions of dollars spent for engineering effort, hardware expense,
> >transition planning, training, and implementation.
>
> This is not an issue. Verizon does not use cheap consumer junk with
> front ends that are wide as a barn.
Nor does the military, but the Air Force General in charge of GPS said
it won't work.
> The issue is that Lightsquared has paid for bandwidth. They bought it
> fair and square. They should be able to use it in any way that meets
> the legal radiation limits for that space.
Wrong: they bought an insolvent company with rights to use a SATELLITE
band for SATELLITE reception, and are trying to bribe Congress to let
them use the SATELLITE channels for ground-based communications.
> Now, if you believe that the government can step in and take bandwidth
> away that has been paid for, and re-purpose it for reasons relating to
> public service and the common good, that's fine. But if THAT is the case,
> why haven't most TV radio stations lost their licenses years ago?
First, it's not paid for: it's licensed. The FCC issues licenses to
those firms who win spectrum auctions, provided that those firms
ALSO meet the requirements for a license in the band being applied
for.
Second, the LICENSE issued to SkyTerra was for transmission FROM a
satellite TO ground stations, NOT from ground stations to other
ground stations.
And, third, the government CAN step in and take bandwidth away and
"re-purpose it for reasons related to public service and the common
good". The Class C and D Citizens Radio Service assignments at 27 MHz
are in what used to be a 11-meter Amateur band. There is ample
precedent for the FCC reallocating spectrum.
The reasons that "TV radio stations" don't lose their licenses aren't
important to this discussion, except as they relate to the spineless
nature of our current Congress and its willingness to sell their souls
and our future for chump change.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my email for direct replies)
"This name is the hairshirt I wear
And this hairshirt is woven from your brown hair
This song is the cross that I bear
Bear with me, bear with me, ... be with me tonight"
- Bare Naked Ladies
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 (12 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues