Message-ID: <smq7rb$2g2$1@dont-email.me>
Date: 14 Nov 2021 00:46:21 -0500
From: "Michael Trew" <michael.trew@att.net>
Subject: Re: A Frenzy of Book Banning
On 11/13/2021 16:00, Moderator wrote:
> By Michelle Goldberg
>
> Virginia's Spotsylvania County School Board this week voted
> unanimously to have books with "sexually explicit" material removed
> from school library shelves. For two members of the school board, this
> didn't go far enough; they wanted to see the books incinerated. "I'm
> sure we've got hundreds of people out there that would like to see
> those books before we burn them," said one of the members, Kirk
> Twigg. "Just so we can identify, within our community, that we are
> eradicating this bad stuff."
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/12/opinion/book-bans.html
Ignorance is bliss, I suppose... these folks must not be up to snuff on
the not-so-pretty history of book burning:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/brief-history-book-burning-printing-press-internet-archives-180964697/
Message-ID: <2902e5b3-4482-4544-b461-f1ef86ee3a01n@googlegroups.com>
Date: 14 Nov 2021 11:32:42 -0800
From: "Poissons 1957" <t.couture@orange.fr>
Subject: Re: Old London Telephone Exchange Names
Le dimanche 21 ao=C3=BBt 2016 =C3=A0 23:36:36 UTC+2, Neal McLain a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
> On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 9:11:51 AM UTC-5, HAncock4 wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > In the 1950s, many small towns could have any number of
> > digits. With the coming of Direct Distance Dialing, every
> > local phone number had to get expanded to seven unique digits,
> > with a unique exchange code within the area code. Sometimes
> > it just meant padding a two or three digit number with zeros,
> > but other times it meant new numbers.
> My favorite example of leading zeroes would be Nelson, Nevada, an
> unincorporated community in Clark County south of Las Vegas. Google
> calls it "Nelson Ghost Town". According to Wikipedia the population
> is 37. The Census Bureau recognizes it as a "census-designated place"
> (presumably so they can count those 37 residents).
>
> But Nelson has its own NPA-NXX thousand-number block: 702-291-0xxx.
> When I visited there back in the 90s, all Nelson phone numbers were in
> the range 702-291-00xx. A grand total of 100 possible numbers!
> > Since all dial exchanges back then was electro-mechanical, it meant
> > a great deal of new equipment and re-wiring. All of this was just
> > to handle _incoming_ toll calls.
> Most of the "electro-mechanical" equipment was some variation of Almon
> Brown Strowger's "up-and-around" switch, extensively utilized by
> GenTel and the Bell System during the 50s and 60s.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strowger_switch
>
> With the introduction of nationwide toll dialing it was necessary for
> each exchange to utilize 7-digit directory numbers. An older
> 3-, 4-, 5-, or 6-digit Strowger exchange would be modified to accept
> inbound 7-digit numbers by adding "dummy" leading digits. For local
> calls the dummy digits were ignored ("absorbed") at the first selector
> by digit absorbers.
>
> I have written about absorbers in previous T-D posts:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.dcom.telecom/hUBAP8WzrNc/QYbcLVxHavMJ
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.dcom.telecom/eRvBdpAU62w/oNhgyqO1EXEJ
>
> Neal McLain
Hello Paul.
I do thank you for that useful post.
I added a link in the French Wiki devoted to the Parisian old exchanges :
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anciens_indicatifs_t%C3%A9l%C3%A9phoniques_%C3%A0_Paris
- see C2=A7 6.2 and 11.3.
Kind regards.
Thierry COUTURE
Message-ID: <20211114073934.4a6b2640@ryz>
Date: 14 Nov 2021 07:39:34 +0100
From: "Marco Moock" <mo01@posteo.de>
Subject: Re: US President Biden signs law to ban Huawei and ZTE from
receiving FCC licences
Am Sat, 13 Nov 2021 20:43:43 +0000 (UTC)
schrieb Moderator
<telecomdigestsubmissions@remove-this.remove-this.telecom-digest.org>:
> The legislation, Secure Equipment Act of 2021, will require the
> Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to adopt new rules that
> clarify it will no longer review or approve any authorisation
> applications for networking equipment that pose national security
> threats.
That's interesting. They don't want Huawei in that position, but Cisco
and Sony are fine (maybe because these are American companies that can
[be controlled by] their government).
Message-ID: <sms93k$9nm$1@usenet.csail.mit.edu>
Date: 15 Nov 2021 00:20:04 -0000
From: "Garrett Wollman" <wollman@bimajority.org>
Subject: Re: US President Biden signs law to ban Huawei and ZTE from
receiving FCC licences
In article <20211114073934.4a6b2640@ryz>, Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
>Am Sat, 13 Nov 2021 20:43:43 +0000 (UTC)
>schrieb Moderator
><telecomdigestsubmissions@remove-this.remove-this.remove-this.telecom-dige=
st.org>:
>
>> The legislation, Secure Equipment Act of 2021, will require the
>> Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to adopt new rules that
>> clarify it will no longer review or approve any authorisation
>> applications for networking equipment that pose national security
>> threats.
>
>That's interesting. They don't want Huawei in that position, but Cisco
>and Sony are fine (maybe because these are American companies that can
>[be controlled by] their government).
The PRC government implements a policy of military-industrial fusion,
wherein "national champion" industrial firms provide support for the
military and in return the government's external spy agencies perform
industrial espionage to support those firms. The US intelligence
establishment believes that this "support" on the part of
telecommunications companies includes secret remote access and/or data
exfiltration functions that can be invoked by the PRC intelligence
apparatus.
(It's perhaps worth noting here that the Chinese *state* does not have
a military. The People's Liberation Army is the military department
of the Chinese Communist Party, not the state, and to the extent these
are hard to distinguish it is because China is a one-party state. But
the PLA is answerable to Party leadership and not the government, to
the extent these differ.)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, A Succession of Bad Days (2015)
