|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 264 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
A Wi-Fi Alternative When the Network Gets Clogged
Re: A Wi-Fi Alternative When the Network Gets Clogged
SMS-to-TTY/TDD Relay Service?
Re: What could/would cause a SIM card to belly-up?
Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent?
Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent?
Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent?
Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent?
Re: Project 'Gaydar': At MIT, an experiment identifies which students are gay, raising new questions about online privacy
Re: Project 'Gaydar': At MIT, an experiment identifies which students are gay, raising new questions about online privacy
Re: What could/would cause a SIM card to belly-up?
Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider?
====== 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: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:06:08 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: A Wi-Fi Alternative When the Network Gets Clogged
Message-ID: <p062408dfc6e1fff9787e@[10.0.1.3]>
Phone Smart
A Wi-Fi Alternative When the Network Gets Clogged
By BOB TEDESCHI
The New York Times
September 24, 2009
Talk about falling short of expectations.
In the last year, millions of people have snapped up new smartphones,
filled them with apps and promptly found out that they couldn't
actually use them.
The problem? Either the much-hyped 3G pipeline was clogged with other
users, or the cell connection wasn't even good enough to ring the 3G
bell in the first place. AT&T users have had it the worst, thanks to
the network's iPhone data hogs.
Carriers are quickly adding high-speed network capacity, but in the
meantime, AT&T and T-Mobile are throwing another lifeline to customers
in the form of Wi-Fi. Both are making it easier to connect to wireless
hot spots with their phones, in an effort to deliver fast data and
clear calls in areas where neither might be possible.
In this respect, AT&T has been the most aggressive of any carrier.
The company said this month that customers with a Windows Mobile phone
could now connect freely at any of the company's roughly 20,000 hot
spots.
AT&T claims to sell more Windows Mobile phones than any other carrier,
and with the introduction of Windows Mobile version 6.5 next month and
new Windows phones like the HTC Touch Pro2, it stands to sell
more. Now all Windows Mobile users can duck into a Starbucks, among
the many other locations with AT&T Wi-Fi, and the phone will
automatically route data and calls over a high-speed Internet
connection.
Many people with iPhones and AT&T BlackBerrys don't know it, but this
perk has been available to them for months. The difficulty, of course,
is finding a free hot spot when you need it.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/technology/personaltech/24smart.html
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:27:14 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: A Wi-Fi Alternative When the Network Gets Clogged
Message-ID: <mQ8vm.71677$4t6.59009@newsfe06.iad>
Monty Solomon wrote:
> ...
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/technology/personaltech/24smart.html
>
Iwent to the NY Times article, and read about the free iPass app. I
then went to the App Store and downloaded iPass, which indeed was
free. iPass then required me to register, including my credit card.
Adios.
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:55:08 -0400
From: ed <bernies@netaxs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: SMS-to-TTY/TDD Relay Service?
Message-ID: <1253847308.4abc310cc1a6a@webmail.uslec.net>
I know someone recovering from a stroke who can't speak, but his other
mental faculties are pretty intact (he can slowly peck out email
messages.) He's on a low budget and can't afford a mobile phone
account (and he wouldn't be able to talk on it anyway) so I'm
considering suggesting this mobile email and SMS device
from Peek: http://www.getpeek.com/
Peek uses T-Mobile's network and allows unlimited email and SMS
messaging for $15/mo if paid annually ($20/month-to-month.)
This might work great for his communications with people who have
mobile phones or a computer and email, but some of the people he needs
to communicate with are Luddites who have neither.
Do Telecom list members have any ideas for what could enable this
person to use Peek's SMS and/or email messaging to communicate with
people who only have a POTS line? Do SMS-to-TTY/TDD Relay Service
gateways exist? SMS or Email-to-POTS speech translation? Other
ideas?
-Ed
***** Moderator's Note *****
The Peek Pronto has gotten mixed reviews:
http://reviews.cnet.com/cell-phones/peek-pronto/4505-6454_7-33567075.html
http://gizmodo.com/5197397/peek-pronto-lightning-review-simple-email-faster
http://review.zdnet.com/product/cell-phones/peek-pronto/33567075
You can pay $16.67 per month if you use the quarterly plan, so that
adds up to $200/yr instead of $180 for yearly payments. For that, you
get email and text - but not IM - and the dubious pleasure of carrying
around yet-another-tech-toy.
In any case, I'd be very uncomfortable recommending so small a
keyboard and/or device to someone recovering from a CVA: motion
impairments are often compounded by insensitivity-to-touch and
clumsiness, which would result in a lot of breakage. This device is
intended for hard-core text addicts who don't like to talk, not for
stroke victims.
Bill Horne
Modeator
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:23:23 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: What could/would cause a SIM card to belly-up?
Message-ID: <op.u0suo903o63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 01:01:16 -0400, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> On 9/23/2009 7:22 PM, tlvp wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:24:58 -0400, what Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
>> wrote ended with:
>>
>>> I still don't fully understand why, over 5 years, about 15 numbers were
>>> saved in the phone and about 100 or so in the SIM (knowing (now) that
>>> storage into the SIM is the default).
>> [...]
>> Also: the RAZR in particular, as I recall, will permit VoiceDialing
>> (or do I mean one- (or two- ?) digit "instant" dialing instead?) only
>> for numbers stored in the phone's memory, not for those stored on SIM.
>> Perhaps that is why those 15 or so are in the phone?
>
> BINGO! That's exactly correct. Those were numbers I entered with the
> "Voice Dialing" option way back in 2004/2005. I had actually forgotten
> about that capability (and pictures, videos and other stuff associated
> with any given number) forcing numbers to the phone's memory (5MB) vs.
> the SIM memory (64KB) since I don't use the phone while driving except
> for a 911 call. That also explains the "odd" icon alongside those few
> numbers -- Motorola docs (for the RAZR) are not really comprehensive.
Thanks for the feedback, Thad -- it's rewarding to learn that
I can still guess right once in a great while, these days :-) .
Cheers, and may your new SIM serve you long, and in good health,
-- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:35:21 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent?
Message-ID: <op.u0su87rho63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:50:49 -0400, ed <bernies@netaxs.com> wrote:
> ... [preamble snipped] ...
>
> If you call a company that plays an automated attendant message
> like, "For training and quality control, this call may be recorded",
> does that constitute consent to record the call?
Not a legal but a grammatical gloss: the phrase "this call may be
recorded" is grammatically ambiguous.
It could be understood as "we might well be recording this call" or it
could be understood as "we permit recording this call."
Presumably the legal section of the company in question looked over
the wording being used, and approved it, but with which understanding
I know not.
Perhaps there's a legal convention for taking only the first
understanding as the conventionally acceptable one ... as ever, of
course, IANAL :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:36:41 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent?
Message-ID: <h9ikhp$nvb$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <op.u0su87rho63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> writes:
[snip]
>> like, "For training and quality control, this call may be recorded",
>> does that constitute consent to record the call?
>Not a legal but a grammatical gloss: the phrase "this call may be
>recorded" is grammatically ambiguous.
>It could be understood as "we might well be recording this call" or it
>could be understood as "we permit recording this call."
..
>Perhaps there's a legal convention for taking only the first
>understanding as the conventionally acceptable one ... as ever, of
>course, IANAL :-) .
Kind of like "A Well Regulated Mili*&^(GP
^$%&&TGU
No Carrier
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: 25 Sep 2009 17:11:53 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent?
Message-ID: <20090925171153.25701.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>Not a legal but a grammatical gloss: the phrase "this call may be
>recorded" is grammatically ambiguous.
>
>It could be understood as "we might well be recording this call" or it
>could be understood as "we permit recording this call."
>
>Presumably the legal section of the company in question looked over
>the wording being used, and approved it, but with which understanding
>I know not.
>
>Perhaps there's a legal convention for taking only the first
>understanding as the conventionally acceptable one ... as ever, of
>course, IANAL :-) .
The usual legal convention is that you resolve ambiguities against
the party that drafted the language, since they could have been
clear if they wanted to.
But I would be surprised if there were any case law about this
particular one.
R's,
John
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent?
Message-ID: <27b00c0e-1f23-4d17-8c0c-c70580b07625@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 24, 1:01 am, Dave Garland <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> I would disagree. In "two party permission" states, doing the
> recording without permission isn't just inadmissible as evidence, it's
> a criminal act that could get you fined or jailed.
Past news reports and my own conversations with reporters suggest that
prosecutions for such recording are extremely rare. IIRC, in the
Clinton scandal, damning evidence was collected by secret recordings
made in violation of state law, yet, the recordings were still
utilized and the recorder was not prosecuted.
> But neither of us is a lawyer, and it is always possible that the
> answer to the question has nothing to do with logic.
So true.
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Project 'Gaydar': At MIT, an experiment identifies which students are gay, raising new questions about online privacy
Message-ID: <0e4be7ef-a856-4ad8-b567-b882596bf368@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
On Sep 24, 1:01 am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
> Project 'Gaydar'
> At MIT, an experiment identifies which students are gay, raising new
> questions about online privacy
Online privacy is rapidly becomming a thing of the past due to this
very sort of thing. You don't need statistical analysis or software
to learn all sorts of personal information about someone; just do a
Google search on the name.
One's name gets out onto Google by all sorts of benign activities:
1) Donations to a charity, school alumni group, etc. Organizations
put out online newsletters listing their donors, and this info is
captured. It shows someone's connection to the charity, which may or
may not be sensitive. For this example, if one donated to gay
activist groups and the donations showed up, it could indicate
orientation.
2) Participation in activities: Again, organization (job, social,
church group, middle/high school group, fraternity, sports team etc)
newsletters publish the names of participants in activities and these
are collected. Certain participation may reveal personal stuff. Some
groups publicize their activities in local newspapers which in turn go
on the web. If a child is a participant the parents' names are
usually listed, too. If you are an officer of a group your name is
very likely out there. Go to a school reunion and your name is out
there.
3) Winning awards: Getting an award merits publication in a
newsletter or newspaper, with the same impact as above.
4) Births, deaths, weddings: Often publicized in local newspapers,
church newsletters, college alumni news notes. If you are a relative
of the person (eg a niece of the decedant or a bridesmaid in the
wedding) your name will appear, too. Same impact as above. If you
die there are special websites that record that. Dead people do not
have privacy rights. However, the living relatives of the decedant
may also be listed and they may not want that.
5) Real estate sales: Buying or selling property gets your name in
the paper and thus on the web. In addition, real estate web pages
track that information too.
6) Social sites, Usenet: using your real name will be indexed on
Google.
7) Court, govt administrative activity: any civil or criminal court
activity, even minor stuff, gets you out there. If you file an
administrative action such as a proeprty tax appeal, it gets out
there.
8) Business websites: Many people want their name to be out there for
business reasons. However, your employer's website may have a
directory or other publication putting your name out there even if you
don't want it there.
9) The past stays to haunt you: For some reason, grossly obsolete web
information does not go away. Something you were involved with five,
even ten years ago may still be out there. My town has a fall street
fair, and websites for prior years remain accessible.
Also there are personal directory sites. I don't know how they do
it, but they'll come up with a person, date of birth, city, and
relatives in the free initial screen. More information requires a
fee.
In addition, a ton of information is collected in restricted
websites. But an employee can and often does look up stuff for
friends or personal curiosity.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 03:42:04 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Project 'Gaydar': At MIT, an experiment identifies which students are gay, raising new questions about online privacy
Message-ID: <h9k2ic$1q8n$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <0e4be7ef-a856-4ad8-b567-b882596bf368@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>9) The past stays to haunt you: For some reason, grossly obsolete web
>information does not go away. Something you were involved with five,
>even ten years ago may still be out there. My town has a fall street
>fair, and websites for prior years remain accessible.
That's the way the Web is supposed to work. The only reason that's
surprising is the enormous number of incompetent site operators out
there.
I, for one, prefer to overwhelm the searchers with mountains of
results.
-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: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: What could/would cause a SIM card to belly-up?
Message-ID: <971024.45723.qm@web52705.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
22 Sep 2009 21:01:27 -0000 John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:36:50 -0700, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>> After some arduous Googling, I discovered the RAZR V3 can have 1000
>> entries in its Addressbook, but nothing as to how many can be in the
>> phone and how many on the SIM.
> That's the size of the phone's memory. The SIM's memory is what
> ever size it is. Newer SIMs have more memory than old ones.>>
New SIMs are typically 32K or 64K. The larger SIMs don't necessarily
have that much more space to store names and numbers (which is the
only variable data that you can input into a SIM... any other
information such as alternate numbers, email addresses, notes
etc. cannot be stored on the SIM but rather have to be stored in the
phone's internal memory if it has it.)
>> address book entries in the phone or on the SIM, and the V3
>> software itself defaults to storing addressbook entries on the SIM
>> though one can select "SIM" or "Phone" when saving new or edited
>> entries. And there's a capability to move them between the SIM and
>> the phone.
> That's odd. I've had lots of moto phones and they all stored stuff
> to the phone. There's invariably a menu option to copy the phone
> address book to the SIM and vice versa.
I can't speak to Moto phone's behaviours but on Nokia you have three
choices: store to phone or SIM with a setting that will let you read
information from both if desired, but additional entries all go to
phone memory. Usually there's a default setting for when you add
entries. Default from the factory is usually to the phone's memory.
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider?
Message-ID: <981824.41535.qm@web52708.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:55:15 GMT "Tony Toews" <ttoews@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> "www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTvalid@Queensbridge.us> wrote:
>> I understand that Virgin Canada phones will not work in USA, And USA
>> Virgin will not work in Canada. Is that correct?
> AFAIK all Canadian prepaid phones do not work in the USA and vice
> versa. But postpaid Canadian phones do work in the USA and vice
> versa. Although frequently at obscene roaming rates and ridiculous
> charges just for entering a roaming area.
Not so. Fido and Rogers prepaid will work in the US. It just costs a
whopping $1.45/minute to roam in the US. I assume that's
CA$1.45/minute though the difference between CA/US $ is not that much
different these days.
By contrast T-Mobile in the US charges 69/minute to roam in Canada.
I was just reminded of this when I switched on my Fido phone when I
came back from an overseas trip. I got a courtesy text message from
Fido with the reminder that it's $1.45/minute to roam in the US.
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 (12 messages)
|
or 