|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 288 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars?
Re: GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars?
Re: GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars?
Re: GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars?
Re: GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars?
Asterisk 10 years old this month; interview with its founder
Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U
Re: Comcast takes steps against botnets
Comcast seeks NBC-U
Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued)
Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued)
Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U
Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U
Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U
Re: GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars?
Re: New top-level domain names are coming
Re: New top-level domain names are coming
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....
====== 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, 18 Oct 2009 20:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars?
Message-ID: <c5e247b5-2016-46b2-9608-710fcab40e13@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> The more I think about it, the less sure I am that this is a valid
> comparison. Railroads, as private corporations, are expected to pay
> taxes: public roads are paid for by the taxpayers, and while they
> don't generate any tax revenue while idle, the vehicles that use
> them pay exorbitant taxes: everything from levies on fuel to excises
> to "sales and use" taxes (which are 5% of "Blue Book" value in my
> state).
Railroads pay taxes on their vehicles.
Roads and bridges were originally privately owned and were taxable.
Indeed, a reason the govt took that function over was to save money
for road users because they were non-taxable.
Let's note that a road requires a much bigger footprint than a
railroad does to move the same amount of goods or people since rail is
far more efficient. (Also, airports pay no taxes either being govt
owned and supported).
For example, the giant Port Authority of NY & NJ built truck
terminals. Being tax exempt (no property or income taxes, and bond
earnings were not taxable) gave the P.A. a big cost advantage and
private terminals were closed. But the railroads had to keep paying
heavy taxes on their terminal facilities. That was not fair.
In addition, roads [consume] extensive public safety services--fire,
police, rescue--all of which is paid by the general taxpayer, not the
road user. Master road builder Robert Moses felt road users should
pay for those expenses.
For sake of argument, let's say the govt decided to take over Western
Union when it got into serious trouble in the late 1980s in order to
keep its record message business going. At that point WU didn't have
to pay taxes on anything anymore. Further, suppose the govt gave it a
great deal on NASA services. That would lower its cost and enable it
to offer private line services at a cheaper price. I suspect the
other carriers would scream bloody murder. But the govt chose to
build and support highways a century ago and has been increasing its
support ever since.
> IMHO, pointing to a lack of taxes on roads, (which are, as public
> property, exempt) isn't an effective argument at a macroeconomic
> level. Railroads faded from prominence because they are too
> efficient, i.e., because selling, fixing, fueling, and taxing
> automobiles and trucks is both easier and more profitable than
> convincing the public to suffer the indignity of sitting next to
> someone who likes a different kind of newspaper than you do or wears
> different clothes.
Taxes were not the only reason private railroads were hurt, but they
certainly were a contributing factor.
When the LIRR went broke circa 1950, reformers (including Robert
Moses) tried to get tax exemptions for it to save it and keep it
running. It was paying a fortune in taxes. But the towns refused.
New highways and bridges (built by Moses) were completely exempt from
taxes.
****** Moderator's Note *****
In Massachusetts, road users do pay for emergency services: my wife
was in an accident a couple of years ago, and the town fire department
sent me a $500+ bill for the ambulance ride she took. It did me no
good to complain about my taxes: their reply was that the taxes paid
for the capability, but that my insurance carrier had to cover the
performance.
Anyway, unless there's more to add, it's time to close this thread.
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:45:39 GMT
From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars?
Message-ID: <hbh8vf$qgf$6@news.eternal-september.org>
Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>Most street car systems were unable to pay the massive costs of
>maintaining their trackage and cars. As a result, many, perhaps
>most, of them were in very poor condition. Too, the public didn't
>like them for two reasons: first, because they were perceived as an
>impediment to traffic with their embedded paths, and secondly, many
>people did not find it desirable to sit next to anybody, same
>newspaper or same wardrobe styles or not.
Not sure what this has to do with telecom, but I'm a transit geek, so...
I agree that most streetcar systems were losing money by the 1950s. In fact,
San Francisco had 7 private transit systems and the Muni (city owned) system.
By 1943 it was down to 2 private (the Market Street Railway or MSRy
(pronounced "misery") and Cal Cable, operator of the California Street cable
car line.
In 1943 the Muni bought the larger MSRy. By 1950 they bought Cal Cable. MSRy
was losing money hand over fist and Cal Cable couldn't buy liability
insurance.
And this is SF, a place with a dense population concentration that makes
public transit a very inviting mode. In the suburbs private mass transit has
been impossible since the late 40s when people began to buy cars.
In the Oakland area, the Roger Rabbit scenario was done once again. The Key
System was one of those systems bought by the GM/Firestone/Standard Oil
consortium/conspiracy. They removed the streetcar tracks, put in buses, and
then a few years later pretty much gave the system to a newly formed transit
district. It is now known as AC Transit.
--
"You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most
Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco"
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars?
Message-ID: <b1148163-30ce-4112-bd4b-c60963b30c75@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 19, 4:45 am, sfdavidka...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> In the Oakland area, the Roger Rabbit scenario was done once
> again. The Key System was one of those systems bought by the
> GM/Firestone/Standard Oil consortium/conspiracy. They removed the
> streetcar tracks, put in buses, and then a few years later pretty
> much gave the system to a newly formed transit district. It is now
> known as AC Transit.
The Key System operated a high tech automated train system over the
Oakland Bay Bridge. This was shutdown in the late 1950s when the Key
System was converted to buses.
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:48:26 GMT
From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars?
Message-ID: <hbh94m$qgf$7@news.eternal-september.org>
Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
>A few years ago I was working in the Portland/Beaverton Or. area, the
>seemed to have a nice Light Rail, I wonder how it is doing?
It's become very popular, but Portland has also made a concerted effort to
make its downtown very desirable both as a place to play and to live as well
as work. Portland's current rail incarnation was first built in the 1980s and
was immediately popular.
The city tries to put every event that it can on the waterfront or somewhere
downtown. It seems that every weekend there is something of size going on.
Plus, Portland has a very walkable downtown.
--
"You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most
Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco"
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:49:50 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars?
Message-ID: <MPG.2546a909f0467887989bb5@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <hbh94m$qgf$7@news.eternal-september.org>, sfdavidkaye2
@yahoo.com says...
>
> Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
>
> >A few years ago I was working in the Portland/Beaverton Or. area, the
> >seemed to have a nice Light Rail, I wonder how it is doing?
>
> It's become very popular, but Portland has also made a concerted effort to
> make its downtown very desirable both as a place to play and to live as well
> as work. Portland's current rail incarnation was first built in the 1980s and
> was immediately popular.
>
> The city tries to put every event that it can on the waterfront or somewhere
> downtown. It seems that every weekend there is something of size going on.
> Plus, Portland has a very walkable downtown.
And if you peruse the Transit 2020 plans for RI, the Rhode Island Public
Transit Authority is getting some new things.
1) Bus Rapid Transit
2) Branding of bus lines
3) Spreading of transit hubs to parts of the city that are underserved.
4) Streetcar routes to the medical and educational hubs. Convenient for
me since I live between the two.
They're in the process of getting the funding for the streetcar system
now. It's a pit, until 1948 RI in general had a very widespread
streetcar system.
If you look at the trolley hub in downtown Providence they have a short
history of how in 1948 buses replaced the streetcars. And they're still
smarting over that decision.
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:07:26 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Asterisk 10 years old this month; interview with its founder
Message-ID: <4ADC3A5E.70601@thadlabs.com>
Having grown well beyond its humble beginnings as a personal project,
the Asterisk open source PBX turns 10 this month and currently has
more than 400 contributors.
Asterisk was first released in October 1999 and now claims some two
million downloads for this year alone -- up from
1.5 million last year.
In its early years Asterisk attracted contributors out of interest,
but nowadays large companies are getting behind the project with
specific needs. And the place where Asterisk is making most in-roads
is with replacement of incumbent systems and businesses getting
started with IP telephony.
According to research by the Eastern Management Group, in the US open
source as a whole was the number one supplier of VoIP lines for 2008
and Asterisk was number two behind Nortel. And Asterisk claims just
under 90 per cent open source PBX market.
[article continues at following URL]
http://www.cio.com.au/article/320806/mark_spencer_talks_10_years_asterisk
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:41:44 GMT
From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U
Message-ID: <hbhj9o$att$2@news.eternal-september.org>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> It now seeks to purchase NBC/Universal.
An extremely smart move.
> The idea of a cable company--the distributor--owning the production
> company troubles me.
I suspect a totally different scenario. I expect Comcast to keep NBC
for a few years and then sell it. I'm tempted to invest in Comcast now
because I think they're seeing what I'm seeing, and making a VERY
smart move.
--
"You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most
Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco"
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:59:49 GMT
From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Comcast takes steps against botnets
Message-ID: <hbhkbk$att$3@news.eternal-september.org>
Thanks to everyone who responded about Comcast blocking messages from my
router to an email account when a housemate had a botnet trying to reach him.
Though it was blocked, the logs piled up and the router sent out way too many
messages.
Anyhow, the router interface web page didn't allow much configuration for
sending out emails. Basically, I was allowed to enter a sender address, which
had to be a Comcast account due to blocking restrictions most email providers
have in place. I couldn't change ports or any other functions.
I forget which software I was using, but it was for I think a Netgear router.
I'm now on a Linksys WRT54G using the open source DD-WRT web interface. This
interface allows me even less control for logs than I had before.
--
"You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most
Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco"
***** Moderator's Note *****
You may be able to program the router to send the logs to a server
inside your firewall, where you can make any of the changes that were
suggested.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:11:43 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Comcast seeks NBC-U
Message-ID: <4ADC739F.4030105@annsgarden.com>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Comcast, a major cable TV distributor, has branched out into
> providing telephone service and Internet service.
> It now seeks to purchase NBC/Universal...
> Now that Comcast is providing telephone and internet service,
> perhaps it would be too big as well if it included NBC in its
> portfolio.
NBC is not the same thing as NBC Universal. NBC is a broadcast network
and broadcast station owner; NBCU is a TV production company. Both are
controlled by General Electric. http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=ge
> In other words, what was the point of breaking up the old AT&T
> if we're gonna allow new companies to become as big and
> powerful?
Like GE for example?
> The idea of a cable [television] company--the distributor--
> owning the production company troubles me.
Comcast already owns numerous production entities.
http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=comcast
Under the proposed agreement, Vivendi SA would sell the 20% of NBCU that
is presently owns. If the deal goes through, Comcast would own 51% of
NBCU, and GE would own 49%.
http://losangeles.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stories/2009/10/12/daily14.html
> Before WW II, the big movie studios owned the theatres and
> controlled what movies appeared. It was hard for independents
> to get their films shown if they didn't have the blessings of
> the big guys. After the war an anti-trust action forced the
> studios to sell off the theatres, and it appeared things worked
> better accordingly.
More to the point, independent theater owners couldn't get access to
popular films owned by the big guys.
By the same token, "big guy" CATV companies don't want to sell their
programming to competitors (MMDS, private cable companies, telcos,
DirecTV, Dish Network). Long-standing federal program-access rules
require them to do so. These rules have accomplished that goal without
requiring the CATVs to divest their program production entities.
Neal McLain
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:31:54 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued)
Message-ID: <4ADCA28A.6040407@annsgarden.com>
The saga continues...
It looks like Comcast isn't the only media company with its eyes on
NBCU. Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation and John Malone's Liberty Media
are also interested.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118010044.html?categoryid=3765&cs=1
Meanwhile, Vivendi and GE are still arguing about the value of Vivendi's
20% stake in NBCU.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118010044.html?categoryid=3765&cs=1
Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
> All 4 major networks; ABC,CBS,NBC and FOX also own production
> companies for TV, movies. Allowing Comcast would make it worse
> and drive up costs.
Every company that currently owns, or wants to own, a piece of NBCU
already owns production companies:
GE: http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=ge
Comcast: http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=comcast
News Corporation: http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=newscorp
Liberty Media: http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=libertymedia
Vivendi: http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=vivendi
Why would Comcast be any "worse" than any of the others?
Neal McLain
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:44:45 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U (continued)
Message-ID: <6645152a0910191444o636cd2a4t301694d8eff8619@mail.gmail.com>
This thread got me thinking about something.
Local television stations are hurting financially. Much like
newspapers their ad revenue is down. There are more advertising
boulevards out there and TV has to compete against more businesses for
fewer dollars. Local stations also have to compete against cable and
satellite channels for eyeballs. How soon will be before an NBC or
CBS decides they're going cable/satellite/Internet only and allow
local affiliates to die?
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: 19 Oct 2009 17:16:48 -0400
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U
Message-ID: <hbil00$4q4$1@panix2.panix.com>
Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> > Comcast, a major cable TV distributor, has branched out into
> > providing telephone service and Internet service.
> > It now seeks to purchase NBC/Universal...
>
> > Now that Comcast is providing telephone and internet service,
> > perhaps it would be too big as well if it included NBC in its
> > portfolio.
>
>NBC is not the same thing as NBC Universal. NBC is a broadcast network
>and broadcast station owner; NBCU is a TV production company. Both are
>controlled by General Electric. http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=ge
NBCU is a TV production company, a movie production company, a movie
distributor, and most interestingly an archive of intellectual property
that is worth big money.
The TV and film sides of the house don't seem to talk to one another at
all, either.
My assumption is that anyone buying NBCU is buying it for their archives
and not their current production facilities, and that they probably have
the intention of gutting those archives for short-term gain. I hope I am
wrong, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:42:14 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U
Message-ID: <hbimfp$j1g$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> Comcast, a major cable TV distributor, has branched out into
>>> providing telephone service and Internet service.
>>> It now seeks to purchase NBC/Universal...
>>
>> NBC is not the same thing as NBC Universal. NBC is a broadcast network
>> and broadcast station owner; NBCU is a TV production company. Both are
>> controlled by General Electric. http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=ge
>
> NBCU is a TV production company, a movie production company, a movie
> distributor, and most interestingly an archive of intellectual property
> that is worth big money.
NBC is in the process of moving it West Coast Production from Burbank to
Universal City, just as CBS moved to Studio City a few years ago.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Comcast seeks NBC-U
Message-ID: <0065c656-83fd-4ad2-bc1b-08f71f1ffef0@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 19, 4:16 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> My assumption is that anyone buying NBCU is buying it for their archives
> and not their current production facilities, and that they probably have
> the intention of gutting those archives for short-term gain. I hope I am
> wrong, though.
Quite possibly. This reminds me of Ted Turner's purchase of the old
MGM studio a few years ago. Pundits thought he was crazy for
"overpaying" for a motion picture production company. But he wasn't
buying the production company; he was buying the master negatives in
MGM's vault. Those films have been feeding TBS Superstation, TNT, and
Turner Classic Movies ever since.
Neal McLain
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:44:29 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars?
Message-ID: <MPG.2546a75926f29e14989bb4@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <hbbfa5$nth$1@blue.rahul.net>, jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us
says...
>
> John Levine wrote:
> > For commuter railroads, the biggest problem was competition from
> > highways that were publicly funded and paid no taxes. I agree
> > that streetcards were killed by the well known NCL conspiracy
> > between GM and oil companies.
>
> This is long since disproven, see:
> http://www.lava.net/cslater/TQOrigin.pdf
> http://cosmo.pasadena.ca.us/stan/ul/GM-et-al.html
> http://www.erha.org/plot.htm
Interesting. And what designator is on the registration plates of RIPTA
buses in RI? Jitney.
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:23:16 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: New top-level domain names are coming
Message-ID: <4o6dnRgl0eRJe0HXnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <op.u1w2n7tho63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>,
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>I don't think anyone worries about "www" anymore. Most browsers try
>adding the subdomain automagically if they get a 404 on just the
>domain name: if "http://billhorne.com/" doesn't work, they'll try
>"www.billhorne.com" without the user needing to do anything.
There's actually an RFC -- i'm too lazy to go look up the number --
that addresses that. automagic pre-pending, and, appending, of
certain common prefixes (specifically, "www."), and suffixes (a list,
which includes '.com', and '.net' [or the local 'national'
equivalents, e.g. '.co.uk' for england], and the 'commonly used'
national suffixes in the locale -- e.g. .us, .ca, .fr, etc.)
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:39:32 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: New top-level domain names are coming
Message-ID: <c9-dnXKs1c85d0HXnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <barmar-5E9EF4.20510017102009@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> ISTR seeing an "MX" query returned from a DNS server with the "A"
> record included: is this done to prevent a second DNS lookup if the
> MX is empty?
"Not Exactly". DNS servers try to be 'smart' and anticipate the
things you would 'usually' proceed to ask for, based on the current
request. They then supply those things 'in advance' (in the
"additional records" part of the reply packet), so that that
information is cached in the downstream (i.e., 'closer to you') DNS
servers. This makes for much faster response time on the subsequent
requests.
a MX query will return the name of the mail server(s) in the
'answer' section of the response, AND the address (A and/or AAAA
records) in the 'additional records' section of the response, if the
mailserver is in the same domain 'zone' as the hostname being queried
for.
To wit:
If you query for the mailserver for 'foo.bar.baz', and mail for
that host is handled by 'mail.bar.baz', you'll get a response
consisting of a PTR to 'mail.bar.baz', and an 'additional'
section containing the A record for mail.bar.baz'.
OTOH, mail for foo.bar.baz is handled by 'mail.yahoo.com', then
you will only get the PTR record in the reply section, and nothing
in the additional records section. [to get the A record for
'mail.yahoo.com', one has to consult a different zone, and
probably a different 'authoritative' DNS server, hence the
'bar.baz' DNS server cannot supply authoritative data]
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:15:45 -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: <oeydncutJZS8bkHXnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <55qdnWQ8-ocET07XnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>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.
Very iffy. The handshake is longer than the typical duration of any
of those events involving a moving element.
Further, it would have 'auto-corrected' at the next self-id interval,
a matter of a few minutes only. Again, this would have shown in the
telco logs, a jump from one tower to a 'distant' one, for one
polling interval, followed by a jump back to the original (or one
nearby) tower. Two discontinuities on adjacent intervals, and you
know there's something funny going on. :)
> 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.
That simply isn't an issue on the common/shared 'control' channel.
> 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.
If that phone was making or receiving a call, that is accurate.
and I already discussed that situation in the original response.
As far as the control channel goes, that kind of congestion just
doesn't happen. Sub-millisecond messages, with circa 100 seconds
between repeats, and you can manage 100,000-plus phones from a single
tower. Can't do nearly that many calls, but except in very rare
situations, not everybody is 'on' the phone at the same time.
> 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.
I'd regard a single report with suspicion, too. OTOH, if I have a
string of such reports, showing spacial consistency -- especially if
the target was in motion -- I would tend to give it considerable
credence.
I can't speak to the situation for the Australian case cited, but
contemporary U.S. cell systems -- where the phone is -not- GPS
equipped -- use triangulation from multiple towers to get a fairly
precise (i.e., very close to as good as un-augmented GPS) position.
That methodology is very difficult to fool by freak events.
Especially as the number of towers that report the signal increases.
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:26:31 -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: <oeydncqtJZQ6aEHXnZ2dnUVZ_hli4p2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <c8f.504c0aee.38049a01@aol.com>, <Wesrock@aol.com> wrote:
>
>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.
You haven't lived in former "Ameritech" or "Northewestern Bell"
territory (at least) in a major city at any time since the mid 1980s
then. :)
One cannot get any form of flat-rate local calling from the ILEC in
Chicago.
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 (19 messages)
|
or 