The Telecom Digest for November 20, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 313 : "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: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 05:48:02 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <Srmdnaq5VPuOHXvRnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Thad Floryan wrote:
>
> LaHood may be right. Disabling mobile phones in cars should not be looked
> at as a way of protecting you from yourself, but instead as a way of
> protecting you from the stupid.
>
I disagree with a lot of this "Nanny State" stuff, but Mr. LaHood is
onto a valid concept with this one. I am sick and tired of this inane
addiction to wireless communications, verbal or text, causing a huge
safety issue. I would vote for all wireless devices in a moving
automobile (or truck) to be disabled while in motion. It seemed to work
just fine for very many years to pull over and park at a pay phone if
the need to communicate became that pressing.
California has prohibited wireless phone by drivers for two years, or
more, and it is wantonly disregarded by the "me first" set (which is a
large percentage of California's population.)
Their rights end at my easily destroyed nose.
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 16:15:59 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <pan.2010.11.20.05.15.56.892166@myrealbox.com>
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 05:48:02 -0800, Sam Spade wrote:
> Thad Floryan wrote:
>
>
>> LaHood may be right. Disabling mobile phones in cars should not be
>> looked at as a way of protecting you from yourself, but instead as a way
>> of protecting you from the stupid.
>>
>>
> I disagree with a lot of this "Nanny State" stuff, but Mr. LaHood is onto
> a valid concept with this one. I am sick and tired of this inane
> addiction to wireless communications, verbal or text, causing a huge
> safety issue. I would vote for all wireless devices in a moving
> automobile (or truck) to be disabled while in motion. It seemed to work
> just fine for very many years to pull over and park at a pay phone if the
> need to communicate became that pressing.
..........
It's not really a "Nanny State" issue, it's a "Bubble" issue.
People get into their own little bubbles disregarding the effect they may
have on the rest of the world, and being distracted while in control of a
potentially lethal moving mass of metal is one of those bubbles.
It just boils down to a level of selfishness, if people need to have
something to enforce the requirement for them not to be that selfish in a
public domain (on the roads) where they may directly endanger others (by
being distracted using technology) then so be it.
That isn't impeding on anybody's "rights" apart from them being selfish,
and in previous times such selfish behaviour that threatened the rest of
the tribe may well have been resolved by a spear through the gut - people
should be thankful that such things have changed! ;-)
--
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 *****
FWIW, the best data regarding the dangers of cellphone use by drivers
came from Australia, which has a very good accident-investigation
program where they check if a driver was using a cellphone before a
crash.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:04:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--computer based information operator terminal system
Message-ID: <9f5be41c-2476-48c3-8687-ae0dd50e0510@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 18, 10:38 am, Lisa or Jeff <hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 9:59 am, Wes Leatherock <wesr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Not to mention GTE areas, where common services like directory
> > > assistance, repair, and time were 11X numbers rather than N11. I
> > > don't know if any exchanges like that still exist.
>
> > That was true in many Bell areas, too. How about Dallas, Houston,
> > Austin, San Antonio, Fort Worth, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Wichita plus
> > all the less urban areas in Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas and
> > Missouri?
>
> Yes, some Bell places in Pennsylvania and NJ also used 11n.
>
> I think it was that step-by-step used 11n and panel/crossbar used n11.
>
> I think 11n today is used for test codes. Anyone have a list?
>
> As to toll dialing prefixes, the Bell Labs history mentions there were
> various ways to tie SxS into the toll network, depending on the
> traffic and the toll switch. Sometimes intermediate registers were
> used to store dial digits until a trunk and receiver became available.
>
> As time went on, some SxS were 'senderized' in various ways to get
> more efficiency and extend their life.
>
> In the 1970s, I recall reading in some small towns a more elaborate
> toll dialing prefix was required and sometimes a wait for a second
> dial tone.
On Nov 18, 10:38 am, Lisa or Jeff <hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>> Not to mention GTE areas, where common services like directory
>>> assistance, repair, and time were 11X numbers rather than N11. I
>>> don't know if any exchanges like that still exist.
As John Levine noted, 11N codes are long gone. The 11N numbering space
has been reassigned to Vertical Service Codes (VSC) in format 11NN or
112NN (also dialable as *NN or *2NN). List at:
http://www.nanpa.com/number_resource_info/vsc_assignments.html
There are eight N11 codes. List at:
http://www.nanpa.com/number_resource_info/n11_codes.html
The N11 list doesn't include 011 (international dialing prefix) or 111
(error tone).
> I think 11n today is used for test codes. Anyone have a list?
They don't exist. See comment about VSCs above.
At this point, I rise to defend my argument that digit 1 was not (and,
insofar as possible, still is not) used as the first digit of a
subscriber telephone number because "digit 1 cannot be distinguished
from an accidental preliminary depression of the switchhook" (Miller,
1933), Wes's argument to the contrary notwithstanding.
Herewith is a list of hypothetical situations in which |1| represents
a false switchhook depression and [N] is a footnote reference:
|1|+N11 = N11 code in some switches; may complete to the N11 code. Otherwise fails.
|1|+NXX-XXXX = first seven digits of 10D a number. After timeout, call fails.
|1|+NXX-NXX-XXXX = possible valid subscriber number. Call may complete. [1]
|1|+1+1+anything = 111. Call fails.
|1|+1+0+anything = 110X = VSC. Call reaches error tone or VSC. [2]
|1|+1+N+anything = 11XX or 112XX = VSC. Call reaches error tone or VSC. [2]
|1|+0+1+XXXX+0+NXX-NXX-XXXX = "Dial around" credit-call call. May complete. [3]
|1|+0+1+XXXX+1+NXX-NXX-XXXX = "Dial around" paid call. May complete. [4]
|1|+0+1+XXXX+anything else = unpredictable.
[1] This call would complete in areas with 10D numbers where 1+10D is
optional, in which case the caller would reach the desired
subscriber number anyway.
[2] This call might complete to a wrong number if caller continues to
dial another ten digits.
[3] This call could reach a valid subscriber number, but caller would
probably abort when asked for a credit card number.
[4] This call could reach a valid subscriber number if the caller
dials a total of 17 digits, but caller would probably abort before
dialing that many digits.
In each of these cases, the call either fails, reaches the correct
number, or reaches a situation in which the caller would have to dial
more that the expected number of digits. In no case does it reach a
wrong number when a subscriber dials the expected number of digits
after the false 1.
Q.E.D.
Neal McLain
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:48:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--computer based information operator terminal system
Message-ID: <49e0d7ed-9421-4974-afdb-5fedce0cc298@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 19, 12:04 am, Neal McLain <nmcl...@annsgarden.com> wrote:
> > I think 11n today is used for test codes. Anyone have a list?
>
> They don't exist. See comment about VSCs above.
Thanks for the link references.
What I was wondering about are test codes. For example, I believe
"113" initiates a ringback test.
> At this point, I rise to defend my argument that digit 1 was not (and,
> insofar as possible, still is not) used as the first digit of a
> subscriber telephone number because "digit 1 cannot be distinguished
> from an accidental preliminary depression of the switchhook" (Miller,
> 1933), Wes's argument to the contrary notwithstanding.
I'm a bit confused by your statement. According to the Bell Labs
history, the concern over accidental switchhook depression concerned
only deskstand (candle stick) phones. Once the number of such phones
declined in service (around the 1950s) it ceased to be an issue.
Actually, I don't understand how an accidental 'one' impulse that
could happen. Perhaps when the user held the phone in one hand and
lifted the receiver with the other the hookswitch springs allowed a
"bounce" and thus a false one. Perhaps users 'flashed' the hookswitch
while waiting for a delayed dial tone and that sent out a false 'one'
when the dial tone finally came. Note that in old movies users often
flash the hookswitch "Operator! Operator!" even on dial phones.
Perhaps in manual days hookswitch flashing was routine. (On calls
served by cord PBXs or toll calls placed by an operator users were
instructed to flash to recall the operator well into the 1970s.) Or
perhaps it wasn't a problem at all but they thought it was at the
time. (When 7 digit dialing came out they introduced exchange names
because they said 7 digits were too many for people to remember, but
later they said that was wrong.)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:28:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <56d0da84-8c73-4c8d-8149-e62b2c1f847f@f20g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 18, 7:59 pm, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> LaHood may be right. Disabling mobile phones in cars should not be looked
> at as a way of protecting you from yourself, but instead as a way of
> protecting you from the stupid.
While I don't like the intrusiveness of this proposal, and I fear it
may have unintended negative consequences, unfortunately it is needed.
As a motorist and pedestrian, I see countless examples of driver
errors caused by their distraction of a cell phone conversation.
Drivers suddenly make a turn from the wrong lane. Slow down too much
in the wrong place. Miss a stop sign or traffic light. Tailgate*.
It's not holding the cellphone, but the conversastion itself. Thus,
hands-free phones are not the answer.
I don't think the problem would be so bad if motorists had short quick
conversations, "Hi, I'll be home in 45 minutes." But they have
extended detailed conversations, "What do you want me to pick up at
the store? The Acme or A&P? Is that the eight ounce or tweleve ounce
bottle? Regular or diet?"
Then of course is the problem of teens texting while driving, which
obviously is very distracting and dangerous.
(I don't understand how a group of teens walking down the street
ignore each other and focus instead on their cell phones, but that's
another issue. But how do middle and high schools prevent teens from
texting during class?)
* While visiting Chicago, I was almost rear ended by a phone company
employee talking on a 'brick' unit in the early days of cell phones.
She was completely oblivious to her surroundings.
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:18:12 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Google TV, Usability Not Included
Message-ID: <p06240824c90c99cd20dc@[10.0.1.2]>
Google TV, Usability Not Included
By DAVID POGUE
November 17, 2010
Google Mail. Google Phone. Google Voice. Google News.
Holy cow. Is there any corner of our lives where Google doesn't
want a toehold?
Not anymore. It's here, just in time for the holidays: Google TV!
Now, let's be clear: you can't swing by your local Couch-Potato Depot
and ask for "a Google TV." (Well, you can, but they'll look at you
funny.) Instead, Google TV is an operating system, based on the same
Android software that's inside many app phones. Google hopes that
other companies will build it into their TV sets, Blu-ray disc
players and set-top boxes. The point of all this is to bring Web
videos to your TV set.
Now, the idea of bringing the Web to your TV is not a new idea. It's
been kicking around since the Internet was still in pull-ups.
But no matter how many times the industry tries to cram Web+TV down
our throats, the masses just don't swallow. That's probably because
when we sit down at the TV, we want to be passive, with brains turned
off, and when we surf the Web, we're in a different mind-set: more
active, more directed.
For some reason, though, this year, the tech industry is going Web+TV
crazy. Maybe it's because they're all focusing on Web video, not the
whole Internet enchilada (e-mail, browsing and so on). Already, you
can get services like YouTube, Netflix on demand and Amazon movies
through set-top boxes like Apple TV, Roku, Western Digital Live Hub,
TiVo Premiere and many others.
But Google TV wants to reopen the case for the whole Internet on your
TV. It offers access to Web video but also has a full-blown (well,
mostly blown) Web browser built in.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/technology/personaltech/18pogue.html
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:18:16 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: When Mobile-Phone Payments Go Social
Message-ID: <4CE705B8.6050300@thadlabs.com>
I'm not a Luddite but I believe this (the following article) to be a very
bad idea -- it's putting all one's eggs in one basket.
Cellphones are not invincible. At many clients' sites I've noted the
average life of a cellphone is less than two months. People drop them, sit
on them, let them fall down elevator shafts. plop them in toilets, etc ad
infinitum.
With that written, here's an interesting article from MIT's "technology
review"; pictures at their website:
http://www.technologyreview.com/business/26647/
When Mobile-Phone Payments Go Social
Your cell phone could soon tell your friends what you're buying and where.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010 By Tom Simonite
In this cell-phone-centric age, your friends might learn that you've gone
to see a movie when you arrive at the theater and check in on Facebook or
Foursquare. But that's probably too late to function as anything more than
a boast. An iPhone app called Blaze Mobile Wallet tells them the instant
you book a ticket in advance, giving them time to respond and meet you
there.
When users pay for a reservation using the app, which debits funds from a
prepaid account, a Facebook post lets friends know all the details: film,
theater, and show time. "It makes it more likely that friends will join
them at the movie," says Michelle Fisher, CEO of Blaze Mobile, one of a
slew of companies exploring how cell phones that act as wallets can
encourage new connections between friends -- and between businesses and
their customers.
What makes it all possible is "contactless" payments, a technology that
transfers funds when users wave a phone at card readers installed by
retailers. In the case of Blaze Mobile Wallet, for example, RFID stickers
featuring MasterCard's PayPass protocol bring that capability to any smart
phone that runs the app.
Home Depot, 7-Eleven, and many other large retailers have embraced
contactless payment in recent years. Businesses are keen to make lines move
faster and cut cash transactions, says James Anderson, global vice
president of mobile for MasterCard. The company now has 83 million
contactless cards and tags in circulation worldwide, and about 265,000
businesses are taking contactless payments. But those transactions are
currently conducted with contactless versions of a regular credit card, or
fobs that hang from the customer's key chains.
Making it possible to pay through mobile phones will probably cause
shoppers to behave differently, says Anderson. "People typically have their
phone much closer to hand, so I think they are more ready to pay," he
explains. "For example, many women put their cards at the bottom of their
purse for security, but keep their phone at the very top for easy access."
The result is new opportunity for retailers, says Dave Wentker, head of
mobile products at Visa International. "For retailers, mobile is a critical
channel to reach their customers," he says. "Paying with a phone is not
just about payments; it's about advertising, couponing, and loyalty."
Bling Nation, a startup based in Palo Alto, California, is already
demonstrating how businesses can use customers' social ties. Like Blaze,
the firm distributes stickers that make phones usable for contactless
payment. It also taps features provided by Facebook to link each user's
account with his or her Facebook identity.
Thanks to that integration, retailers can use the social network to reach
out to selected customers with offers and free gifts. When a person redeems
such an offer, an update on Facebook lets friends know. "You can choose
your most loyal customers, and those with the most friends, to target with
coupons," says Judy Balint, Bling's head of business development. Bling
transactions are the first of this type to draw money from a PayPal
account.
Other startups are working on the receiving side of mobile payment. Jack
Dorsey, the inventor and cofounder of Twitter, has founded a new company
called Square, which has created a small white credit-card reader that
plugs into the headphone socket of a smart phone or tablet. After a
customer's credit card gets swiped through the reader, an app on the device
processes the transaction. For the cost of one conventional wireless
credit-card reader -- typically $900, says Dorsey -- a business can buy a
handful of iPod Touches that perform the same task when combined with a
free Square readers.
Square makes money by collecting a fee of 2.75 percent plus 15 cents from
every transaction, although it must still pass on a portion of that to the
customer's card provider.
For that money, Square offers retailers novel features such as a new kind
of electronic receipt. Instead of just a scrap of paper, a Square receipt
is sent by text or e-mail and can feature a picture of your purchase,
information on how many times you've visited that store in the past, and a
map showing where you made the transaction. Consumers may one day be able
to share their receipts on Twitter or on a location-based service, says
Dorsey. Interactive receipts could also serve up coupons or other
promotions.
Whatever the mechanism, says Dorsey, using mobile phones to collect payment
requires businesses to think differently. "Payments and receipts are really
a publishing platform," he says. "It's just one that has never properly
been looked at."
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 18:23:33 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: [OT] Public Interest Registry whois date stamp error
Message-ID: <ic6fb5$nr2$1@news.albasani.net>
>************************************************************************
>* Moderator's Note: Although OT, I think this post will help some poor *
>* sod to avoid the same mistake my sisters made when they lost the *
>* domain name for their business. Followups have been set to *
>* net.internet.dns.policy, which is a better place for this thread. *
>************************************************************************
On the off chance that someone posted a followup to my article to
net.internet.dns.policy, that newsgroup isn't considered to be an existing
newsgroup. net.* newsgroups were Usenet II newsgroups, an experimental News
medium in which syntax was strictly enforced, binary file attachments
weren't allowed, topicality was enforced, and most important, articles
were not distributed to or from News servers foreign to the Usenet II News
network. Usenet II News administrators were expected to actively enforce
posting rules against their own users and if a rule was broken anyway,
they were expected to honor cancel messages (retromoderation) issued by
"czars", a Usenet II term.
net.* newsgroups were often redundant of Big 8 and alt.* groups, although it
had a good number that weren't redundant. In any event, Usenet II was a lot
of work for its participating News administrators and there weren't enough
users highly motivated to use its newsgroups in lieu of "regular" groups.
As far as I know, none of the Usenet II servers still exist, but the Web
site does if anyone was curious about the rules: http://usenet2.org/
I never used these newsgroups myself, so my comments are third hand.
Bill at first sent me a rejection note, so I reposted the article to
comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains. If anyone has a followup, post it to that
newsgroup, please. It's a moribund newsgroup so I'm really not anticipating
a thread developing.
fwiw, I did finally reach the correct technical guy at the old registrar
to bring the matter of the incorrect date stamp to his attention, and he
finally understands the issue, which he didn't from the problem ticket.
Of course, I still don't understand why the .org root registry accepted a
status update with an erroneous date stamp (off by a month) at all.
***** Moderator's Note *****
"... syntax was strictly enforced, binary file attachments weren't
allowed, [and] topicality was enforced ... "
Sounds like a nice, safe place. ;-)
I got the name of the group from a list of Usenet groups that I found
via Google, and I admit, as I wrote to Adam, that this is a chink in
my Know-It-All armor.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:58:42 EST
From: Wes Leatherock <wesrock@aol.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--computer based information operator terminal system
Message-ID: <3b6e6.4986bd92.3a1725c2@aol.com>
In a message dated 11/18/2010 9:50:19 AM Central Standard Time,
johnl@iecc.com writes:
> Yes. SxS switches were common in rural areas, and they needed 1+
> for toll. Panel and later crossbar switches were more common in
> urban Bell areas, and they could route calls without the 1+ hint.
SxS switches were also common in Southern California, especially in
L.A. and environs.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
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 