|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 281 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And where you've been....
Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And where you've been....
Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And where you've been....
Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And ...
Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And ...
Why Email No Longer Rules... / And what that means for the way we communicate
Re: Why Email No Longer Rules... / And what that means for the way we communicate
Re: Disconnecte cell phones and 911 access?
Some Users May Lose Data on a T-Mobile Smartphone
Re: T-Mobile Sidekick belly-up death of cloud computing
Re: Disconnecte cell phones and 911 access?
Microsoft's Danger SideKick data loss casts dark on cloud computing
Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And where you've been..
Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And where you've been..
Microsoft's Sidekick/Pink problems blamed on dogfooding and sabotage
====== 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: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:41:05 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And where you've been....
Message-ID: <c8f.504c0aee.38049a01@aol.com>
In a message dated 10/10/2009 9:11:50 PM Central Daylight Time,
bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com writes:
> Only a small minority of land-line phone service is 'flat rate' based,
> even today -- business service is all 'metered'. and to 'audit' such
> a bill for accuracy, you have to show when, and _to_where_, each and
> every call was made.
I have never lived anywhere that 1FR and 1FB service were not
available and made up the vast number of customers. 1MR and 1MB on
the same premises as flat rate service were usually forbidden to
prevent the obvious temptation to use the message rate service for
incoming calls only and use the flat rate service for outgoing calls.
Exceptions could be authorized in some cases where that potential did
not exist.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:36:35 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And where you've been....
Message-ID: <hb00g3$h2a$1@reader1.panix.com>
Wesrock@aol.com writes:
> I have never lived anywhere that 1FR and 1FB service were not
> available and made up the vast number of customers.
Well, NYC, Wash DC, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Chicago, and most of
Califunny lack 1FB. That's only the ones I have personal knowledge of
same; there are more. Most are ~10c/call, but some are /minute.
NYC, Chicago and CA also lack {for the most part} 1FR. There are some
small # of remaining grandfathered "1FR within a borough" accounts;
but it was discontinued in 1969 or so.
--
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: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:42:15 -0500
From: Michael Grigoni <michael.grigoni@cybertheque.org>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And where you've been....
Message-ID: <4AD3CCE7.6080603@cybertheque.org>
Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
> 1MR and 1MB on the same premises as flat rate service were usually
> forbidden to prevent the obvious temptation to use the message rate
> service for incoming calls only and use the flat rate service for
> outgoing calls. Exceptions could be authorized in some cases where
> that potential did not exist.
In the late '70s and throughout the '80s I had exactly that
(Northwestern Bell, Mpls) and there never was any hint of an objection
or a problem; in fact this is the first that I've heard of any.
Michael
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:53:10 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And ...
Message-ID: <d41.4e9bd095.38049cd6@aol.com>
In a message dated 10/8/2009 10:48:42 PM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
***** Moderator's Note *****
> Tracking calls from cell phones is easy: tracking the phones turns
> out to be much harder. Finding someone who's called 911 is
> relatively easy: after all, they are seeking help
AT&T phone books typically have a notice on the emergency numbers page
that your name and addrwess will be delivered on 911 calls. If you
don't want it to be delivered, dial the 10- or 7-digit number.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:00:42 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And ...
Message-ID: <d55.5c3a1952.38049e9a@aol.com>
In a message dated 10/10/2009 9:32:49 PM Central Daylight Time,
bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com writes:
> It would take a truly freak set of circumstances for that kind of
> gross 'location error' to happen.
>
> The base-stations engage in constant inter-communication, with
> regard to who 'hears' which phones with what strength. And the
> 'best tower' wins. AND when 'who hears best' changes -- as when
> the phone moves -- the phone will be 'handed off' to the new 'best
> tower'.
>
> In order for a phone to lock up with a 'distant' tower, for basic
> 'housekeeping' purposes, it would require that every 'closer'
> tower be getting a poorer signal.
>
> Without knowing the 'actual facts' in the case, "across town" would
> imply that the alibi location was several cells removed from the
> location of the tower that was communicating with his phone. IF
> that is the case, the odds of his phone being where he said _he_
> was are vanishingly small.
I once disputed a call clasified as "roaming" which I made from
Wllington, Kansas, just on the edge of the Wichita, Kan., Cingular
calling area which showed as billed from McPherson, Kan., a
non-Cingular area which is clear across on the other side of Wichita
and maybe 80 or 100 miles away from Wellington.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:09:54 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Why Email No Longer Rules... / And what that means for the way we communicate
Message-ID: <p06240807c6f8f6b6b501@[10.0.1.4]>
Why Email No Longer Rules ... And what that means for the way we communicate
By JESSICA E. VASCELLARO
OCTOBER 12, 2009
Email has had a good run as king of communications. But its reign is
over.
In its place, a new generation of services is starting to take
hold-services like Twitter and Facebook and countless others vying for
a piece of the new world. And just as email did more than a decade
ago, this shift promises to profoundly rewrite the way we
communicate-in ways we can only begin to imagine.
We all still use email, of course. But email was better suited to the
way we used to use the Internet-logging off and on, checking our
messages in bursts. Now, we are always connected, whether we are
sitting at a desk or on a mobile phone. The always-on connection, in
turn, has created a host of new ways to communicate that are much
faster than email, and more fun.
Why wait for a response to an email when you get a quicker answer over
instant messaging? Thanks to Facebook, some questions can be answered
without asking them. You don't need to ask a friend whether she has
left work, if she has updated her public "status" on the site telling
the world so. Email, stuck in the era of attachments, seems boring
compared to services like Google Wave, currently in test phase, which
allows users to share photos by dragging and dropping them from a
desktop into a Wave, and to enter comments in near real time.
Little wonder that while email continues to grow, other types of
communication services are growing far faster. In August 2009, 276.9
million people used email across the U.S., several European countries,
Australia and Brazil, according to Nielsen Co., up 21% from 229.2
million in August 2008. But the number of users on social-networking
and other community sites jumped 31% to 301.5 million people.
"The whole idea of this email service isn't really quite as
significant anymore when you can have many, many different types of
messages and files and when you have this all on the same type of
networks," says Alex Bochannek, curator at the Computer History Museum
in Mountain View, Calif.
So, how will these new tools change the way we communicate? Let's
start with the most obvious: They make our interactions that much
faster.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203803904574431151489408372.html
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:39:36 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Why Email No Longer Rules... / And what that means for the way we communicate
Message-ID: <havt58$2lg$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <p06240807c6f8f6b6b501@[10.0.1.4]>,
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
> So, how will these new tools change the way we communicate? Let's
> start with the most obvious: They make our interactions that much
> faster.
Huh?
There is no earthly reason why any of these systems need be any slower
than email[1] -- and email has the advantage that it's much easier to
ignore people whose notion of "urgent" doesn't match up with one's
own. (Some People seem to have the misapprehension that if you have
an IM client open, for example, then you are paying exclusive
attention to that application and have nothing else to do. Which may
be true for twenty-year-old college students -- kids these days! --
but isn't true for too many people who have actual jobs.)
-GAWollman
[1] Last time I looked at the statistics, our email system here at
work delivered 50% of all messages in six seconds or less, and the
vast majority in less than ten minutes.
--
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: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:32:32 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Disconnecte cell phones and 911 access?
Message-ID: <RdGAm.75546$944.46799@newsfe09.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Some questions...
>
> Is it still true that a cell phone that is no longer in service with a
> carrier can still be used to dial 911?
>
> Will such a phone transmit the GPS coordinates?
>
> Can the phone be called back by the 911 center? They can seize a
> landline and ring it back, but what about a cellphone or a
> disconnected cellphone?
>
> What calling number shows up at the 911 center from a disconnected
> cell phone?
>
> Thanks! Any other info would be appreciated.
>
It probably varies with E911 centers.
I doubt any E911 center can seize a cell phone "line." It's a radio,
not a wireline device connected via a local loop that has the
capability to hold the line up. But, either a line is held or it is
released. If it is held then it cannot be called back. And, if it is
released, it still cannot be called back unless the calling party goes
back on-hook.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:38:39 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Some Users May Lose Data on a T-Mobile Smartphone
Message-ID: <p0624080ac6f8fdf06696@[10.0.1.4]>
Some Users May Lose Data on a T-Mobile Smartphone
By ASHLEE VANCE
October 12, 2009
The cellphone provider T-Mobile and Danger, a subsidiary of Microsoft
and one of T-Mobile's partners, said over the weekend that a
technical glitch in their computer systems would probably result in
some customers losing their personal information like contact names,
phone numbers and digital photos.
T-Mobile and Danger operate what has become known as a cloud
computing service to store important information for their customers.
In theory, such a service should make life easier on people by
leaving the management of complex computing systems to the pros and
having data held in sophisticated computing centers. But when
problems crop up, embarrassment ensues.
Last week, T-Mobile and Danger, which manages the data services,
began grappling with a range of technical issues affecting users of
the Sidekick smartphone.
Most notably, customers who had removed the batteries from their
phones or had let their batteries run out faced the prospect of
permanently losing their contact, calendar, photo and to-do list
information.
Employees at the companies have worked over the weekend to try and
fix these problems, but, as of Sunday afternoon, there were still
some data and software application service flaws.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/technology/business-computing/12sidekick.html
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:01:29 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: T-Mobile Sidekick belly-up death of cloud computing
Message-ID: <op.u1pa4rhco63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 07:12:24 -0400, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> I suppose this slams the brakes on texting while driving. :-)
>
> Long story short, it appears the "cloud" setup by Microsoft for
> T-Mobile's Sidekick (apparently a Blackberry-like thingie) has
> blown away and all the data is seemingly irretrievably gone.
>BUT ... T-Mobile is still cautioning all users to "please DO NOT
> remove your battery, reset your Sidekick, or allow it to lose power"
> on the off-chance T-Mobile stumbles upon a miracle by Monday and
> recovers all the lost data (contacts, calendars, to-dos, photos, etc.)
My understanding of the motivation behind this cautionary warning is
that allowing the Sidekick to be reset or lose power will cause it to
lose whatever data still resides within it -- bad enough to have lost
what was entrusted to "the cloud," worse still to lose what little is
still in the Sidekick's own memory. So: not "BUT", but "therefore."
> " T-Mobile and the Sidekick data services provider, Danger, a
> " subsidiary of Microsoft, are reaching out to express our apologies
> " ...
And T-Mo may graciously offer to refund the current month's data charges :-)
> "Microsoft/Danger server failure"? That raises red flags. :-)
>
> Full story here:
>
> <http://forums.t-mobile.com/tmbl/board?board.id=06>
For more such stories, pick any of the first few hits when you
Google the phrase: "Sidekick Danger Microsoft T-Mobile data".
> And I was only grousing about losing some phone numbers when my
> AT&T SIM went belly-up. I feel for those who got sucked into the
> cloud computing concept.
>
> Another article [about] why cloud computing is NOT for enterprises or,
> for that matter, anyone:
>
<http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/technology/features/article.php/3843151>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I've got to tip my hat to Microsoft for having the confidence to name
> a data-retention service "Danger". Maybe they should invest in the
> "Cancer" brand of cigarettes ...
"Microsoft/Danger" -- is that today's "caveat emptor"?
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Disconnecte cell phones and 911 access?
Message-ID: <611854.87998.qm@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:24:24 -0700 (PDT) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Is it still true that a cell phone that is no longer in service with
> a carrier can still be used to dial 911?
Yes. Any mobile phone can dial 911 (and GSM phones can also dial 112)
from any phone regardless if there is a working account associated
with that mobile handset.
> Will such a phone transmit the GPS coordinates?
Perhaps it will if it's either a phone that has built in GPS or if
it's a phone that regularly uses GPS. I'm not sure.
> Can the phone be called back by the 911 center?
No. A telephone where the account has been deactivated they cannot be
called back.
> ... what about a cellphone or a disconnected cellphone?
If it has been deactivated it cannot be called back.
> What calling number shows up at the 911 center from a disconnected
> cell phone?
I don't know, but it's likely not the number that was on the phone
when it was active. It may come up with no directory number at all.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:22:50 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Microsoft's Danger SideKick data loss casts dark on cloud computing
Message-ID: <p06240810c6f96a6327e6@[10.0.1.4]>
Microsoft's Danger SideKick data loss casts dark on cloud computing
October 11th, 2009
Daniel Eran Dilger
Microsoft has demonstrated that the dark side of cloud computing has
no silver linings. After a major server outage occurred on its watch
last weekend, users dependent on the company have just been informed
that their personal data and photos "has almost certainly been lost."
Microsoft's Danger SideKick data loss casts dark on cloud computing
While occasional service outages have hit nearly everyone in the
business, knocking Google's Gmail off-line for hours, plunging RIM's
BlackBerrys into the dark, or leaving Apple's MobileMe web apps
unreachable to waves of users, Microsoft's high profile outage has
impacted users in the worst possible way: the company has
unrecoverably lost nearly all of its users' data, and now has no
alternative backup plan for recovering any of it a week later.
The outage and data loss affects all SideKick customers of the Danger
group Microsoft purchased in early 2008. Danger maintained a
significant online services business for T-Mobile's SideKick users.
All of T-Mobile's SideKick phone users rely on Danger's online
service to supply applications such as contacts, calendars, IM and
SMS, media player, and other features of the device, and to store the
data associated with those applications.
When Microsoft's Danger servers began to fall off-line last Friday
October 2, users across the country couldn't even use the services;
even after functionality was beginning to be brought back on Tuesday
October 6, users still didn't have their data back. This Saturday,
after a week of efforts to solve the crisis, T-Mobile finally
announced to its SideKick subscribers:
"Regrettably, based on Microsoft/Danger's latest recovery assessment
of their systems, we must now inform you that personal information
stored on your device - such as contacts, calendar entries, to-do
lists or photos - that is no longer on your Sidekick almost certainly
has been lost as a result of a server failure at Microsoft/Danger."
A new report from Engadget says that T-Mobile has suspended sales of
its SideKick models and is warning: "Sidekick customers, during this
service disruption, please DO NOT remove your battery, reset your
Sidekick, or allow it to lose power."
...
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/10/11/microsofts-danger-sidekick-data-loss-casts-dark-on-cloud-computing/
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:23:47 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And where you've been..
Message-ID: <ua-dnRf6v8AOVU7XnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <pan.2009.10.11.07.29.14.295117@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com>,
David Clayton <dcstar@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:27:16 -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2009.10.09.05.36.36.159967@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com>, David
>> Clayton <dcstar@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is an infamous murder case in Australia where one vital piece of
>>> evidence was the (apparent) identification of the convicted person by
>>> having his cell phone register on a particular antenna covering an area
>>> at an exact time that discredited his alibi that he was on the other
>>> side of town and placed him possibly within the vicinity of the crime.
>>>
>>> It has since emerged that the base station antenna pattern of the GSM
>>> tower used in the court evidence could well have registered his phone
>>> at the location he said he was in - because of the characteristics of
>>> the radiation pattern that still has some functionality in the opposite
>>> direction that the main gain area is - but the court just got a
>>> simplistic technical explanation of how these things work.
>>
>> It would take a truly freak set of circumstances for that kind of
>> gross 'location error' to happen.
>>
>> The base-stations engage in constant inter-communication, with regard to
>> who 'hears' which phones with what strength. And the 'best tower' wins.
>> AND when 'who hears best' changes -- as when the phone moves -- the
>> phone will be 'handed off' to the new 'best tower'.
>>
>> In order for a phone to lock up with a 'distant' tower, for basic
>> 'housekeeping' purposes, it would require that every 'closer' tower be
>> getting a poorer signal.
>.........
[[.. sneck ..]]
>
>IIRC in this case the handset was (claimed to be) reasonably close to the
>base station on the opposite side of the direction the prosecution claimed
>as part of the evidence that resulted in a conviction,...
*THAT* is an -entirely- different scenario from what you first described.
Under your revised conditions, I'll readily agree that the phone could have
locked up to the 'unexpected' tower.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:06:33 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYPD knows who you've been talking to. And where you've been..
Message-ID: <55qdnWQ8-ocET07XnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <nfGdnSf4msWJfU3XnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>In article <pan.2009.10.09.05.36.36.159967@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com>,
>David Clayton <dcstar@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>
>> There is an infamous murder case in Australia where one vital piece
>> of evidence was the (apparent) identification of the convicted
>> person by having his cell phone register on a particular antenna
>> covering an area at an exact time that discredited his alibi that he
>> was on the other side of town and placed him possibly within the
>> vicinity of the crime.
>>
>> It has since emerged that the base station antenna pattern of the
>> GSM tower used in the court evidence could well have registered his
>> phone at the location he said he was in - because of the
>> characteristics of the radiation pattern that still has some
>> functionality in the opposite direction that the main gain area is -
>> but the court just got a simplistic technical explanation of how
>> these things work.
>
>It would take a truly freak set of circumstances for that kind of
>gross 'location error' to happen.
>
>The base-stations engage in constant inter-communication, with regard
>to who 'hears' which phones with what strength. And the 'best tower'
>wins. AND when 'who hears best' changes -- as when the phone
>moves -- the phone will be 'handed off' to the new 'best tower'.
>
>In order for a phone to lock up with a 'distant' tower, for basic
>'housekeeping' purposes, it would require that every 'closer' tower
>be getting a poorer signal.
>
>Without knowing the 'actual facts' in the case, "across town" would
>imply that the alibi location was several cells removed from the
>location of the tower that was communicating with his phone. IF that
>is the case, the odds of his phone being where he said he was are
>vanishingly small.
>
>Now, it is possible for a call connection to be handled by
>something other than the 'closest' tower -- for instance when all the
>voice slots on the close tower are already in use. But there is a
>-clear- trail showing anything of that sort in the cell-system
>internal logs. (This kind of stuff is "critical" info for planning
>purposes, with regard to determining when a cell needs to be 'split'.)
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>Freak circumstances abound in the radio world, and it's entirely
>possible that a cell site that's not physically "closest" to a phone
>might be the one with the best signal strengh.
At the frequencies, ranges, and power levels used by cell phones, such
freak circumstances are very remote.
>
>As far as the signal from the phone to the cell tower, something as
>trivial as a reflector in the near field could dramatically raise the
>signal strengh at a distant tower while lowering the strength at
>"close" towers.
A planar reflector could increase the signal a maximum of 3db at said
'distant' tower. Any other -- higher gain -- shape would require that
the reflector keep a constant position relative to the handset, an accuracy
requirement measured in inches.
> in addition, various "ducting" effects from the
>buildings that line a street, aircraft reflections, race conditions in
>the data network and control logic, and channel loading factors all
>affect which tower is the "best" choice for a given call at any given
>instant. It's certainly possible.
Near-range 'ducting' effects are, indeed, possible. BUT, like 'focused'
reflective effects, they tend to be very localized. Like a 'whispering
chamber', move a fraction of a wavelength, and the effect disappears.
'Aircraft reflections' are a momentary effect, at most. Any such reflection
path is guaranteed to be significantly longer than the direct line-of-sight
path. To make up for those simple distance losses, the reflector must have
a gain of better than unity -- usually significantly better. This requires
maintaining a consistent bearing in relation to both the transmitter and
the receiver. If any of the reflector, the transmitter, or the receiver,
are in motion, maintaining that relationship gets very VERY difficult, for
anything more than the most fleeting interval.
'Channel loading' is irrelevant to the common control channel that the phone
uses for registering and keep-alives. It has a lot to do with which
tower the handset uses for an actual _call_. Of course I already covered
that. :)
>As far as the signal from the tower to the cell phone, I don't
>know. They're definitely NOT the same thing: spread-spectrum
>receiver design is where the big boys play, and their sandboxes are at
>the labs of the major equipment manufacturers. I'm not an expert in
>the field, but it stands to reason that there will be substantial
>variations between the receiver quality from one manufacturer to
>another, and that means that the handsetmust play a role in the tower
>selection process, because otherwise it's possible to get a problem
>called "Hidden Transmitter Syndrome", where an "Aligator" (Large
>mouth, no ears) handset can interfere with a channel that it can no
>longer receive.
>
>Expert advice needed.
Yup. it is a bi-directional communication. A tower responds to an initial
call from the phone with an "I hear you, how do you hear me?" interrogatory.
Only one tower respond at a time. which base responds is based on receive
signal strength, as reported to 'master control'. The set is expected to
respond with an "I hear you (xmtr id) this well (number)." With no response
received in a 'timely' manner, control has the 'next best' receiving point
transmit an interrogatory. Repeat down the line until at least one response
is received. If the set reports marginal reception, continue down the line.
After 'master control' decides which tower is best at the moment, it has that
station initiate the downward negotiation of the phone transmit power.
Aside: Cell base stations use higher power than handsets, thus the set
generally has a -much- easier time hearing than talking.
Alligators are, for practical purposes, not a problem in cell service.
If a phone is 'near-deaf', it attempts to communicate only at relatively
infrequent intervals -- a few milliseconds per attempt, at intervals in
the tens to hundreds of seconds, is relatively immaterial. 10,000 alligators,
say, in close proximity does make for a 'swamp' that one would have problems
draining. :)
***** Moderator's Note *****
All your points are correct: ducting, airplane flutter, etc., *ARE*
momentary phenomina.
The question is if one of those phenomina could have lasted long
enough to cause the cell phone in question to be "associated" with a
cell tower far away from its actual location.
As for channel loading, I was referring to the system's need to
balance the number of handsets which are associated with any given
tower, so as to assure the greatest likelihood of having channels
available for sets approaching each site, sets likely to originate,
etc. My point was that the system may have chosen a less-than-perfect
tower for that cellphone if the towers which were 'nearby' in
electronic terms all had too many calls anticipated or in progress.
Long story short: even if the tower in question did not have a minor
lobe on its antenna facing in an unwanted direction, I'd be suspicious
of any 'location' information derived from what might have been a
transitory event. GPS I might believe, but not this.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:01:13 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Microsoft's Sidekick/Pink problems blamed on dogfooding and sabotage
Message-ID: <p06240814c6f99d501794@[10.0.1.4]>
Microsoft's Sidekick/Pink problems blamed on dogfooding and sabotage
October 12th, 2009
Daniel Eran Dilger
Additional insiders have stepped forward to shed more light into
Microsoft's troubled acquisition of Danger, its beleaguered Pink
Project, and what has become one of the most high profile Information
Technology disasters in recent memory.
The sources point to longstanding management issues, a culture of
"dogfooding,"[1] and evidence that could suggest the issue was a
deliberate act of sabotage.
AppleInsider previously broke the story that Microsoft's Roz Ho
launched an exploratory group to determine how the company could best
reach the consumer smartphone market, identified Danger as a viable
acquisition target, and then made a series of catastrophic mistakes
that resulted in both the scuttling of any chance that Pink
prototypes would ever appear, as well as allowing Danger's existing
datacenter to fail spectacularly, resulting in lost data across the
board for T-Mobile's Sidekick users.
...
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/10/12/microsofts-sidekickpink-problems-blamed-on-dogfooding-and-sabotage/
1.) "Dogfooding" refers to companies that "Eat their own dog food",
i.e., that use the products that they are trying to sell. According to
wikipedia, it's intended to convey a sense of confidence in the
products a company sells.
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 (15 messages)
|
or 