30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for December 9, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 313 : "text" Format
====== 30 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 Bill Horne 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 that person, or email address
owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of
that address. 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: 8 Dec 2011 01:43:26 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Canada has its own FISA. But this is a good one...
Message-ID: <20111208014326.94319.qmail@joyce.lan>
In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.1112062351050.23770@panix5.panix.com> you write:
>It's an anti-spam measure. And it's got the mainsleaze spammers
>worried... (the hardcore crooks will ignore it, of course, but
>this should free up resources to go after them, too)
Yes, that's the plan. The story you quoted is poorly researched; they
took the FISA acronym out of the bill before it was passed and now
it's known as CASL, Canada's Anti-Spam Law. It also regulates
downloaded software, since the consent rules for getting commercial
e-mail and for permitting software downloads are largely the same.
It doesn't go into effect until the various agencies publish the
regulations to implement it, which with any luck will be in early
2012.
R's,
John
Claimer: I helped write it.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Since spam is now showing up in Internet-aware cell phones, that begs
the question:
Is there ever going to be a "Final Ultimate Solution to the Spam
Problem"? Netizens have been talking about a FUSSP for years: is it a
believable goal?
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: 8 Dec 2011 21:44:53 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Canada has its own FISA. But this is a good one...
Message-ID: <20111208214453.85739.qmail@joyce.lan>
Telecom Digest Moderator said:
>Is there ever going to be a "Final Ultimate Solution to the Spam
>Problem"? Netizens have been talking about a FUSSP for years: is it a
>believable goal?
No. If you look back at the history of telecommunication, any system that is
ubiquitous and cheap has abuse problems. In the late 1800s, a few telegraph
systems offered flat rates, quickly rescinded when they were overwhelmed
by telegraph spam.
You can certainly build a system with walls around it that would have
very little spam, but one of the most important reasons we use e-mail
is that you can send mail to anyone without having to make complicated
prior arrangements. And that's the same reason that there's spam.
R's,
John
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 23:22:34 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: The 'hacktivists' of Telecomix lend a hand to the Arab Spring
Message-ID: <p0624082fcb05e60e1321@[10.0.1.4]>
The 'hacktivists' of Telecomix lend a hand to the Arab Spring
By Shyamantha Asokan, Published: December 6
On a rainy November morning in Northern Virginia, at a cafe where
elderly women are meeting for pastries, Andrew Lewis is hacking into
one of the most tightly controlled police states in the Middle East.
"The more you know, the more you can help," he murmurs, as his scan
of Syria's cyberspace throws up lists of servers.
His 6-foot-6-inch frame hunched over his laptop, Lewis skims the
codes at lightning speed and clicks on one of the servers that
process and direct Syrian Internet traffic - but then he is asked for
a password. He guesses it correctly on his second attempt.
Lewis, 22, is a member of Telecomix, an unconventional Western
computer club that helps activists across the Middle East. During
this year's Arab Spring, pro-democracy protesters have used Facebook
to promote rallies and Skype to avoid tapped cellphones, but their
governments have in turn boosted online censorship and spying.
Telecomix has tried to step in and provide the activists with tech
support.
When Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's now ousted president, cut off the entire
country's Internet in January, Telecomix set up dial-up connections
using two servers in Europe. The members then faxed the dial-up
numbers to every Egyptian office, university and coffee shop they
could find. In August, after extracting records from unsecured
servers, the group discovered that Syria was using equipment made by
a Silicon Valley company, Blue Coat Systems, to block certain sites.
(The U.S. government is now investigating Blue Coat, which denies
selling its products to a country under economic sanctions.)
Telecomix has also helped activists in Tunisia, Yemen and Bahrain.
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-hacktivists-of-telecomix-lend-a-hand-to-the-arab-spring/2011/12/05/gIQAAosraO_print.html
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 17:43:23 -0800
From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: OSHA: Two Federal DOT Agencies Ban Hand-Held Phone Use
Message-ID: <rah5r8-qul.ln1@radagast.org>
In article <1323189621.94563.YahooMailClassic@web111714.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>,
Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Do these rules also apply to CB use, which is mostly truckers now?
No. According to the order, they used the same definition of "mobile
telephone" that the FCC does - it's a device which uses commercial
mobile radio services. CB, FRS, GMRS, and amateur radio are not
commercial mobile radio services.
"The push-to-talk feature of a mobile telephone can be replaced
with the use of a compliant mobile telephone, two-way radios, or
walkie-talkies for the short periods of time when communication
is critical for utility providers, school bus operations, or
specialty haulers. The use of CB and two-way radios and other
electronic devices by CMV drivers for other functions is outside
the scope of consideration in this rulemaking."
This is consistent with how the California DMV has decided to
interpret California's no-hands-on-mobile-phones-while-driving
regulations... they don't apply to CB, walkie-talkie use, or ham radio
(although I suspect that using a ham radio to access a telephone
autopatch would be technically forbidden, and I always pull over and
park before using one).
--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page:
http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do not wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 10:21:00 -0800 (PST)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: History: Cell phone early days
Message-ID: <d266a122-cf40-4829-9d3b-d3d2f136463a@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
On 3/17/1979 and 4/17/1980 the New York Times reported some
interesting tidbits about mobile telephone service and the transition
to cellular systems.
The cell phone patent was awarded to Richard Fefrenkiel of Bell Labs,
No. 4,144,411* (BSTJ on-line has an issue devoted to early
technology).
At that time, there were 40,000 mobile telephone users with a waiting
list of 20,000. The US was served by 54 channels**. In NYC there
were 12 channels serving 700 users. It was difficult to comjplete a
call due to congestion. A central tower served a radius of 35-45
miles.
A new experimental cellular system was on trial in the Chicago area
with 10 cells serving 2,100 square miles.
Electronic switching was necessary to serve the system in order to
handle the complex 'hand off' when a caller went from one cell to
another.
On 4/9/1981 the FCC announced the plan to award licenses to two
carriers in each metropolitan area. One carrier would be the existing
wireline company (if it was interested) and the other would be a
competitor. It was felt this would be a good compromise to provide
cell phone service as quickly as possible since the Bell System had
the knowledge and capability, as well as open the field up to
competition. Bell would have to provide the service through new
subsidiaries. General Telephone (GTE), a major Independent telephone
company, said it was interested in providing service in its areas.
The article said many in the US Justice Department were opposed to
giving AT&T any cell business even though they were the predominate
developer of the system. They felt others should do so in the
interest of competition. [It seems to me this was an ideological
dislike of AT&T because AT&T was the one who developed the system and
the knowledge base, and had the resources to quickly deploy it to meet
demand.]
* Patents may be looked up on-line from the US Patent Office.
** In a crowded area I can easily imagine 54 people in proximity
making calls at the same time. But back then that was the total US
capacity.
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 19:39:48 -0800 (PST)
From: withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org (HAncock4)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: I'm looking for #5XB training manuals
Message-ID: <3d8677c3-ad42-4797-bae9-2d26f01e23b5@y18g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 5, 3:15 am, Bill Horne <b...@horneQRM.net> wrote:
> Thanks for reading this. I'm writing a brief talk about #5XB, and
> would appreciate pointers to traning materials. An overview document
> would be ideal, but I'll take anything. TIA.
[This is] from a Bell textbook c1979:
--No. 5 xbar originally developed for suburban residential and small
cities not requiring multi-office complexities of Panel and No. 1
xbar. Many calls would be within the office. (Recall that panel and
1xbar were to solve the "big city problem" of multiple offices.)
--to be compatible with DDD and AMA (store all needed digits).
Later features over 30 years:
--Central AMA making No 5 a small toll office.
--Line Link pulsing for inward dialing to PBXs.
--International IDDD
--Centrex, including station controlled transfer.
--large auto call distributor.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Does anyone know when the last #5XB was retired, and where it was
located? Are there any still in service outside museums?
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 08:38:28 -0800 (PST)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: MSNBC/NYT: Caller ID Forging
Message-ID: <df593421-8f10-4b5b-b92f-c8d34bb59fa8@i6g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 5, 3:27 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>> 1) An ethical telco does not pass along any Caller-ID from a call
>> originating on its network (at least not without flagging it as
>> "unreliable" in some machine readable way) unless it can
>> authenticate that the number belongs to the originating subscriber.
> This would require a lot of legal changes, to the point of pretty
> much redfining the concept of the common carrier.
For what it's worth, the first sentence in my Business Law texbook on
Common Carriers states "A common carrier has the right to make
reasonable and necesarry rules for the conduct of its business."
Actually, common carriers have always had rules about what they would
deal with and would reject submissions that did not comply with those
rules. For example, we obviously can't shoot 120V house current out
over our POTS phone line. For digital trunk customers, the signal
obviously must meet specifications regarding basic electrical
properties as well as format of header and data bits. To stretch the
obvious, there are already edits in place--if you would submit a
telephone call with an invalid NPA, that call would be rejected.
It seems to me that it would be possible, without massive legal
rewrites, to tighten the edits for submitted calls to protect the
network from Caller ID misuse. After all, some callers are spoofing
Caller ID for fraudulent reasons.
If I am in error in these comments, a citation to a text or website
where I might learn more about it would be appreciated.
[public posts, please]
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 04:16:43 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: OSHA: Two Federal DOT Agencies Ban Hand-Held Phone Use
Message-ID: <D6idneNN_K4WE33TnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <1323189621.94563.YahooMailClassic@web111714.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>,
Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>--- On Mon, 12/5/11, John Stahl <aljon@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> US Occupational Health & Safety has reported on their web site
>> (www.ohsonline.com) that "Two DOT agencies, the Federal Motor
>> Carrier Safety Administration and the Pipeline and Hazardous
>> Materials Safety Administration, published a final rule Dec. 2 that
>> will prohibit use of hand-held mobile phones by commercial drivers
>> while on the road...."
>
>> It seems that the DOT has put a higher penalty on hand-held cell
>> phone usage while driving than probably most states have imposed on
>> over-the-road drivers and have even added a fine on their employers,
>> too. According to the article, "Drivers who violate the restriction
>> can be charged a civil penalty of as much as $2,750; a civil penalty
>> of as much as $11,000 can be imposed on employers who fail to
>> require their drivers to comply." These new rules take effect
>> January 3, 2012.
>
>Do these rules also apply to CB use, which is mostly truckers now?
The cited rule applies to "hand-held mobile phones". It would seem
obvious that this does not include 2-way radios (of any sort), where
the radio is mounted to the vehicle body.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I wonder: would this law apply to a cell phone that was mounted to the
vehicle? I know that AMPS phones mounted in the trunk are pass~, but
there must be a zillion vehicle-mounted "Onstar" phones out there.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 20:42:23 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: OSHA: Two Federal DOT Agencies Ban Hand-Held Phone Use
Message-ID: <jbr7ff$cp4$1@news.albasani.net>
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 12/5/11, John Stahl <aljon@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>>>US Occupational Health & Safety has reported on their web site
>>>(www.ohsonline.com) that "Two DOT agencies, the Federal Motor
>>>Carrier Safety Administration and the Pipeline and Hazardous
>>>Materials Safety Administration, published a final rule Dec. 2 that
>>>will prohibit use of hand-held mobile phones by commercial drivers
>>>while on the road...."
[Moderator snip]
>>Do these rules also apply to CB use, which is mostly truckers now?
>The cited rule applies to "hand-held mobile phones". It would seem
>obvious that this does not include 2-way radios (of any sort), where
>the radio is mounted to the vehicle body.
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>I wonder: would this law apply to a cell phone that was mounted to the
>vehicle? I know that AMPS phones mounted in the trunk are passe, but
>there must be a zillion vehicle-mounted "Onstar" phones out there.
Plenty of regulations based on state laws continue to allow the making
of hands-free phone calls, completely missing the point that the danger
isn't from the fact that the hands are engaged but that the brain is
disengaged from driving.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Maybe the state legislatures which passed those laws decided that
forbidding "hands free" use would be unenforceable, or placed the
language in the bills to solve a safety problem without inviting a
fight with the FCC, knowning that hands-free use is a negligible
percentage of the potential violations.
To my mind, the bigger question is whether using two-way
(non-cellular) radios while driving is inherently dangerous. I don't
think it is, but I don't know what, if anything, the statistics say:
the first hard data about the dangers of cell phone use while driving
came from countries that allow their police to access cellular call
data without court orders, and that means that those police forces had
access to enough data to make justifiable statistical inferences. In
the U.S., AFAIK, it's a different story.
In any case, there's no equivalent mechanism to track use of two-way
radios during or preceding an accident, since there's no way to gather
the data in the first place.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 21:35:23 -0500
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Video shows alarming capabilities of mobile tracking software
Message-ID: <MPG.294b3dfad521af55989d6a@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <k-n15B.A.jOC.GEE2OB@telecom>, monty@roscom.com says...
>
> Carrier IQ Video Shows Alarming Capabilities Of Mobile Tracking Software
> Devin Coldewey
>
> You may be aware of the growing controversy surrounding Carrier IQ,
> a piece of software found pre-installed on Sprint phones that,
> according to developers who have investigated, is capable of
> detecting, recording, and transmitting various user actions and
> inputs. Among the data CIQ potentially has access to are location,
> SMS, apps, and key presses.
[Moderator snip]
I have a Samsung SCH-R910 from MetroPCS. I don't see IQRD running on
it at all and I've checked via E2 and the manager and it's not on the
phone at all.
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.
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) 2011 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 (10 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues