The Telecom Digest for October 30, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 292 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 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: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:08:39 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Did Charlie Chaplin film a cell phone in 1928?
Message-ID: <4CCA56D7.6010300@thadlabs.com>
On 10/27/2010 11:21 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 10/27/2010 3:55 PM, Steven wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 10:14 pm, Thad Floryan<t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Of course, there were no cell phones in 1928. And even if this
>>> was a time traveler, there would be no cell towers to handle
>>> [...]
>> It could be a hearing add, they were about the same size as cell phones
>> are today.
>
> That's my original thought, too, but look at what was available
> circa the 1920s:
>
> http://hearing.siemens.com/sg/10-about-us/01-our-history/milestones.jsp?year=1924
> [...]
> Another site:
>
> http://beckerexhibits.wustl.edu/did/20thcent/index.htm
>
> is really interesting: concealed hearing devices of the 20th century.
> [...]
Another possibility regarding hearing aids is the WE 34a:
http://www.hearingaidmuseum.com/gallery/Carbon/WesternElectric/info/westelect34a.htm
but it still doesn't look like the brief image in the Chaplin film.
And there's still the issue of to whom is the woman speaking.
I found another incidence of a purported time traveler in Canada at
the reopening of a bridge destroyed in a flood in the 1940s with
this opening line:
" The man with what appears to be very modern sunglasses seems to be
" wearing a stamped T-shirt with a nice sweater, all the while holding
" a portable compact camera!"
here:
http://forgetomori.com/2010/fortean/time-traveler-caught-in-museum-photo/
It also seems odd the man is not wearing a hat given how ubiquitous
hat-wearing was in that era.
The picture is also on display at the official Canadian museum
website so the picture itself is likely not a hoax and people are
interpreting it in fanciful ways.
Ah, well, it's fun speculating, and finding the two hearing aid
websites along with the interesting inventions including those from
WE was an interesting diversion.
:-)
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:56:41 -0400
From: "Neal McLain" <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Kerry outlines bill to resolve TV disputes
Message-ID: <9b9c6c0564b5afd886f8b8ffe1b7cea9.squirrel@email.fatcow.com>
Two recent periodical articles about the Cablevision-vs.-NewsCorp squabble:
"Cablevision Makes New Offer to Fox" by Nat Worden. Wall Street Journal,
October 27, 2010.
| NEW YORK - Cablevision Systems Corp., attempting to end a TV-station
| blackout over a contract dispute, proposed paying News Corp. the same rate
| that Time Warner Cable Inc. pays the media giant for local Fox affiliates in
| New York and Philadelphia.
|
| News Corp., which owns Fox television networks, rejected the offer, calling
| it "yet another in a long line of publicity stunts" by Cablevision.
Continued at http://tinyurl.com/2bex2tb
"Polka Backs Binding Arbitration For Cablevision, Fox." by MCN Staff.
Multichannel News, 10/27/2010
| Small-system cable lobbyist Matt Polka urged the FCC to order binding
| arbitration and immediate restoration of Fox TV stations to Cablevision
| Systems.
|
| Polka, president of the American Cable Association (which for years has
| been lobbying for retransmission-consent rules changes at the Federal
| Communications Commission), said he backed Cablevision's call for
| binding arbitration in the dispute.
Continued at http://tinyurl.com/299qk8r
Another suggestion for Senator Kerry: require programmers (broadcast and
non-broadcast) to treat all retail distributors equally, charging the same
per-month-per-channel rate to each retailer
I once met the manager of a small cable system who had previously managed
grocery stores. He told me that similar legislation already requires food
wholesellers to treat all retail grocery stores equally.
Neal McLain
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:04:21 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Afternoon texting hike up Mount Everest
Message-ID: <4CCB52F5.2070402@thadlabs.com>
If you're getting antsy sitting inside at the office and decide
to take a break and get some fresh air outside, perhaps a hearty
hike to the top of Mount Everest, be assured you can now text and
chat on your cellphone all the way to the top.
:-)
Mount Everest mountaineers get 3G services
by Andrea Petrou 29 Oct 2010 11:14
http://www.techeye.net/internet/mount-everest-mountaineers-get-3g-services
It's what every mountaineer wants they reach the summit of
Mount Everest, 3G high speed communication. "Hi honey, I'm
on top of the world".
Those who have trekked it to the top will soon able to call
their mates, go on Facebook or Twitter and boast that they've
got there thanks to TeliaSonera and its subsidiary in Nepal,
Ncell, which have bought 3G to the Mount Everest area.
Climbers who reached Everest's 8,848-metre peak previously
depended on expensive and erratic satellite phone coverage and
a voice-only network set up by China Mobile in 2007 on the
Chinese side of the mountain.
A total of eight base stations, four of which will run on
solar power, have been installed in the Everest region with
the lowest at 2,870 metres (9,400 feet) at Lukla, where the
airport for the area is situated, now giving climbers a
cheaper means of communication.
And it's not just good news for climbers as the company has
said it will invest $100 million in a bid to expand the
3G network so the population of Nepal will be able to access
these services.
According to the company, mobile penetration is still low,
but rapidly rising. This trend is being driven largely by
investments TeliaSonera and others are making in modern
telecom infrastructure. When TeliaSonera entered Nepal in
2008, mobile penetration was around 15 percent, and by the
end of the third quarter this year it was already over 30
percent.
"This is a great milestone for mobile communications, and
strong evidence of TeliaSonera's pioneering role in this
industry that is truly changing the lives of billions of
people", said Lars Nyberg, President and CEO of TeliaSonera.
"We are very proud to announce the world's highest mobile
data service as we launch 3G services in the Mount Everest
area in the Khumbu valley. From its perch on the world's
tallest mountain, 3G high speed internet will bring faster,
more affordable telecommunication services to the people
living in the Khumbu Valley, trekkers, and climbers alike",
he continued.
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:15:50 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Happy anniversary cellphone!
Message-ID: <6bOdnVqcjv5bU1XRnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <4CC79833.6010707@thadlabs.com>,
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>339-DOG-TITS. Beat that for being easy to remember!
>
Wanna guess who answers if you dial 312-TAXI-CAB ?? <grin.
Way back when, I had a memorable phone number[1]. Among other things, it got
me a form of 'free' call-waiting, before call-waiting was offered by the
telco.
A lot of my friends were VHF ham operators, and, if they called me and got
a 'busy', they'd get on the 2m repeater and use the "auto-patch" to call.
I had a constantly-running monitor receiver tuned to that freq, and could
recognize my number being dialed, and sign off the current call, before
the phone-patch call came in. Leave the volume low, and you didn't hear
'intelligible' voice, just mumbling, but the 'tones' were a max volume
transmission and thus, loud enough to be noticeable.
Memorable because of the pattern of tones, not because it 'spelled'
anything interesting. Had to be careful writing it -- lots of the digits
'looked' alike in many fonts.
[1] 288-8333. almost invariably, people would miss the 3rd 8, and wanted
another digit after the 3s. I was known to describe it, rather than
reciting the number -- "It's one two, three eights, and three threes".
There were only 40 possible numbers in the entire local calling area
with that kind of a '3 and 3' pattern -- only four of the dozen-plus
exchanges had paired 2nd and 3rd digits.
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:25:48 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Happy anniversary cellphone!
Message-ID: <pan.2010.10.28.02.25.45.566855@myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:31:35 -0700, Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 10/26/2010 6:54 PM, John Mayson wrote:
>> [...]
>> Close to it. I cannot find the article at the moment, but there's a man
>> in the Chicago-area who has had the same cell phone number since 1983.
>> The article I read a while back didn't mention if his area code had
>> changed over the years. Still, you going back to 1986 is quite a
>> record. Reagan was president. The Cold War was still going on. I was
>> thrilled to have a 2400 baud modem.
>
> That cannot compare to the thrill of getting a 300 baud modem after
> starting with a 110 baud acoustic modem and a TTY ASR33. :-)
Ohhh, was it full-duplex or only half? (from someone who remembers when
300/1200 FD was a big deal.....)
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
***** Moderator's Note *****
That's a tricky question! Although TWX Teletype machines, which ran at
110 baud, were capable of Full-Duplex, they were wired for Half-Duplex
and local echo, so an ASR33 might have been Half-Duplex if it had
been "repurposed" from TWX service. Most Teletype ASR-33 machines were
connected to external modems, or directly to computers, and were wired
for Full-Duplex.
Oh, and I remember when 45 Baud Half-Duplex was a big deal: I learned
to type on a Model 19 Teletype machine at the MIT radio club.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 05:04:35 -0500
From: rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Happy anniversary cellphone!
Message-ID: <E6-dnS9iP6Mu11TRnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
+---------------
| jsw <jsw@ivgate.omahug.org> wrote:
| > Yes, I've had the same cell number since 1986. Â I think that's
| > some kind of a record, or close to it. Â ;-)
|
| Close to it. I cannot find the article at the moment, but there's a
| man in the Chicago-area who has had the same cell phone number since
| 1983. The article I read a while back didn't mention if his area code
| had changed over the years. Still, you going back to 1986 is quite a
| record.
+---------------
I can't beat that record, but I have had the same cell number since
early 1988. It's still in the 415 area code instead of 650 like my
various landlines, since when the 415->415/650 split occurred in 1997
my cell provider's POP was in the area that remained 415, and my number
[which I liked a *lot*] wasn't available as a cell number in the new 650.
The number was assigned at the Radio Shack store where I bought that
first phone -- a Radio Shack CT-301 (170-1050) "brick" [a knockoff of
the Motorola handheld brick of the day], "manufactured in Korea under
license from Mobira" (a.k.a. Nokia/Mobira):
http://support.radioshack.com/support_phones/8169.htm [no pictures]
http://www.vintagemobilephones.com/nokia_phones.html
...
Nokia P-30
...[pictures]...
It is almost identical to the Radio Shack CT-300/301, (the batteries
are interchangeable), but because it was badged as a Nokia and because
they were made in much smaller quantities, prices are much higher.
...
Radio Shack CT-301 (Nokia)
...[pictures]...
The CT-301 was a near copy of the Nokia P-30 made for the US market
and branded as Radio Shack, which was the largest electronic retailer
at the time.
As you can see from the advert picture, the CT-301 was "New for '88"
at a price of $1500, but they had an introductory price for the first
month(?) of only $800, which is what I paid for it.
-Rob
Rob Warnock <rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:57:38 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones
Message-ID: <XcydnRXeeqMPRVXRnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <e5717175-91d8-441c-9e27-71c0a9a42d14@g13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>I'm surprised they still use AM. IIRC, back in WW II radios in tanks
>originally used AM but then switched to FM (from the Bell System
>History "War & Peace").
AM is _intentionally_ used for aircraft radio. Specifically to avoid the
'capture' effect of FM receivers. You want to be able to hear the
weaker/more distant station that is calling "mayday" under the routine
traffic of the nearby station.
>Would a portable AM/FM radio (eg a "Walkman") today be a risk of
>interference to an airplane's electronics?
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>I'm not an expert on WWII technology, but as far as a walkman, the
>answer is "I don't know" - and that's enough reason not to use one".
The authoritative answer is "it depends". on a LOT of things.
There are lots of signals flying around (pardon the pun) in an aircraft.
at varying strengths, sensitivities, and combinations. Introduce an
additional 'spurious' signal or two, as in the case of the local oscillators
of an FM receiver, or even the receive side of a cell phone, or pager,
and the number of possible byproducts of signal 'mixing' skyrockets.
You -- unless you're a radio maint. tech for that model of plane -- probably
don't even know -where- the actual receiver is installed. The box can be
d*mn near anywhere in the body, with just a 'remote head' on the flight
deck.
In fact, 'where' the equipment is may vary wildly from one serial number
to another of the -same- airframe. Depending on what 'else' is installed.
This is one of the reasons every aircraft comes with its _own_, "personalized"
set of maintenance manuals. They tell where everything is on that
airframe. There isn't any 'Chiltons', or even a single manufacturer
reference that works for all of a particular model.
Thus, as a practical matter, one cannot predict, *authoritatively*, all
the effects, if any, of running an additional piece of RF-/RFI-generating
equipment within the airframe. (if anything gets 'near enough' to the
airframe to cause possible RF problems from the OUTSIDE you've got other
'much more urgent' things to worry about. <grin>)
It's well-known that with 'appropriate' gear one can reliably pick up
receiver LO "transmissions" at distances of hundreds of feet. (The U.K.
routinely goes hunting for 'unlicensed' TV receivers in just this way.)
Aircraft systems shouldn't be vulnerable to spurious 'local' transmitters,
But you *DON'T*KNOW* until you test _in_a_specific_airframe-, with the
specific transmitter. 'small differences' in inputs can make BIG differences
in results.
Hence the 'safety' requirement that any piece of gear must be tested in
the particular aircraft. Testing a 'representative' piece of gear in a
'representative' aircraft is -not- sufficient.
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:59:52 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Disconnected: Attention Passengers it's perfectly safe to use your cellphones
Message-ID: <--udnR9hQerVnlTRnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <pan.2010.10.27.21.53.31.460692@myrealbox.com>,
David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:04:08 -0500, Gordon Burditt wrote:
>
>>>Experts I've read claim the problem is a cell phone at such an altitude
>>>would light up too many cell towers and the towers couldn't handle the
>>>hand offs of such a fast moving phone.
>>
>> That would tie up one frequency in each of however many cells you lit up
>> (maybe hundreds).
>
>Can someone explain to me how cell towers - which must have antenna arrays
>deliberately designed with focussed radiation patterns to maximise the
>signal going to handsets either on the horizontal plane to the tower, or
>below that plane - are able to somehow connect with all these handsets
>above them (way, way above them)?
The answers are to be found in spherical trig, and _absolutely_
_unobstructed_ signal paths.
Cell antennas have a fair degree of 'off the horizontal axis' sensitivity.
This is needed to pick up stations that are 'close in', and BELOW the
horizon. They will pick up stuff equally at a similar angle above the
horizon.
>The radiation strength in the upper direction would be incidental in
>comparison to the normal target area so I find it hard to believe that
>cell towers would even detect most phones in flight let alone make a
>decent connection to them.
Tell that to the radio receivers. <grin> They don't listen to me when
I opine something.
Consider that for an airplane, at any altitude -- when you look out the
airplane at the horizon, to someone (or thing -- like a cell antenna) at
that point, your airplane is *ON*THE*HORIZON*, or smack in the middle of
the maximum sensitivity range of that cell antenna.
How far away is the 'line of sight' horizon, for a plane at say 25,000 ft?
how much closer is the line-of-sight ground contact, for a 10 degree below
the horizontal line?
How big is the area -between- those two circles.
how any cell towers are there likely to be in that area?
{realize that the airplane will be no more than 10 degrees above the
horizontal for any such cell tower}
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 22:22:51 -0400
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: paypass, was A Simple Swipe on a Phone
Message-ID: <op.vk9kwddsitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:50:04 -0400, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>
> ... Speedpass is an older and more primitive technology.
> My recollection (I had one which I dropped and some kid picked it up
> and used it to buy gas all over central NY) that it does work at
> considerably more than an inch.
> ...
Perhaps just urban legend, but I've heard of a Speedpass user who, prior
to relocating across the country, sought to have his Speedpass device
taken out of service. "UPS it to its issuer," was the advice he got ...
... and followed. Then, at the usual time of the month, a Speedpass bill
got forwarded to his new address, with some 38 toll collections, 19 in
each direction, at a NJTPke toll booth near his former home, all for
transits after he sent his Speedpass in for deactivation.
TMALSS, it turns out the UPS flat his Speedpass got itself sent in
slipped behind the dash of a UPS delivery van, and was dinging up a
toll every time it passed through a NJTPke Speedpass lane toll both,
day in, day out :-) .
Or so I've seen it recounted :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
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 (9 messages)
|
| |
or 