The Telecom Digest for November 29, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 321 : "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, 26 Nov 2010 21:01:56 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--computer based information operator terminal system
Message-ID: <AANLkTimGKd5Sa77=G6joNJCEUg+9fHF5=kr=byzPaeM5@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Wes Leatherock <wesrock@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I just remembered the number to reach the Southwesteern Bell "Master
> Employee Locator--1-800-667-MEL.
I think you're missing a digit.
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 19:27:05 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How Ma Bell Shelved the Future for 60 Years
Message-ID: <4CF07A89.7080307@thadlabs.com>
On 11/26/2010 2:11 PM, Lisa or Jeff wrote:
> [...]
> Anyway, I don't see in the above where magnetic recording was
> perfected as a usable technology, or an explanation why Hickman's
> invention wasn't utilized. Note that many years often go between the
> time something is invented and the by the time it can be inexpensively
> manufactured and meet industrial standards. It took ten years for the
> transistor to be developed into something that would be cheaper and
> more reliable than the vacuum tube, and several decades more before it
> finally replaced all applications of the vacuum tube.
>
> The Bell Labs history specifically states that AMA used paper tapes
> when developed in the 1950s because magnetic recording technology
> wasn't ready.
A point of disagreement verified by tens of millions of music lovers.
I distinctly remember the group Les Paul and Mary Ford who pioneered
overdubbing, tape delays/echos, and multitrack recording in the mid-1950s.
Bing Crosby also invested in the founding of Ampex which was using
magnetic tapes for sound recording, and the first 8-track audio tape
player/recorder was developed by Ampex in 1954.
More info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Paul_and_Mary_Ford
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Paul
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ford
Germany had the Magnetophon in the 1930s.
More info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reel-to-reel_audio_tape_recording
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_tape
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Magnetic_tape_sound_recording also
claims audio magnetic tape recorders beginning in the 1930s.
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 09:55:33 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How Ma Bell Shelved the Future for 60 Years
Message-ID: <pan.2010.11.27.22.55.30.282509@myrealbox.com>
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 19:27:05 -0800, Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 11/26/2010 2:11 PM, Lisa or Jeff wrote:
>> [...]
>> Anyway, I don't see in the above where magnetic recording was
>> perfected as a usable technology, or an explanation why Hickman's
>> invention wasn't utilized. Note that many years often go between the
>> time something is invented and the by the time it can be inexpensively
>> manufactured and meet industrial standards. It took ten years for the
>> transistor to be developed into something that would be cheaper and more
>> reliable than the vacuum tube, and several decades more before it
>> finally replaced all applications of the vacuum tube.
>>
>> The Bell Labs history specifically states that AMA used paper tapes when
>> developed in the 1950s because magnetic recording technology wasn't
>> ready.
>
> A point of disagreement verified by tens of millions of music lovers.
.........
I believe that statement is now being taken out of context.
For the purposes of DATA use, I would readily believe that in the 1950's
that "magnetic recording technology wasn't ready".
I clearly recall the limitations of open-reel, cassette and other Audio
magnetic media even in the 1970's and even the most expensive equipment
was a constant battle with precision alignments and cleaning to get the
best out of them.
--
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.
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 02:08:44 -0600
From: "Michael G. Koerner" <mgk920@dataex.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How Ma Bell Shelved the Future for 60 Years
Message-ID: <TMidnVwInIIXIW3RnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@ntd.net>
On 2010.11.26 16:11:19, Lisa or Jeff wrote:
> Did telephone wires use plastic as an insulator that far back? I
> thought that came in the 1960s, before that paper, textile, and rubber
> were used. While some plastics were available in the 1940s, I thought
> their big growth was after WW II.
I'm not sure on telephone use, but plastic insulated wire pretty much became
S.O.P. in consumer-grade radios in the years immediately after WWII, although
cloth insulated wire was also used into the early 1950s. Cloth insulation was
the normally used material thoughout the 1920s and 1930s until the start of
the War and rubber was used in a lot of sets from the very late 1930s until
the War interrupted production. Rubber had a nasty habit of drying out and
rotting, causing electrical hazards.
--
___________________________________________ __ _______________
Regards, | |\ __
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 11:47:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How Ma Bell Shelved the Future for 60 Years
Message-ID: <6755199f-8927-4cbf-a722-5d2d38eae797@l20g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 27, 3:08 am, "Michael G. Koerner" <mgk...@dataex.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure on telephone use, but plastic insulated wire pretty
> much became S.O.P. in consumer-grade radios in the years immediately
> after WWII, although cloth insulated wire was also used into the
> early 1950s. Cloth insulation was the normally used material
> thoughout the 1920s and 1930s until the start of the War and rubber
> was used in a lot of sets from the very late 1930s until the War
> interrupted production. Rubber had a nasty habit of drying out and
> rotting, causing electrical hazards.
Speaking of insulation lifetime....
What is the lifetime of telephone wire located within a home? I
suppose the plastic gray "D" station wire of the 1970s is pretty
durable. But what about textile insulation used for the mass of
houses built immediately after WW II? What about telephone house
wiring of pre-war houses?
When modular phones came out people would convert the old junction box
or wall mount to modular, but I doubt they rewired the lines. The
outside plant was taken care of by the phone company and presumably
old drops to a house would get renewed automatically or if a
subscriber complained of trouble.
What happens when those old internal wires are used to carry things
like DSL? Is there problems with leakage or capicitance?
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 12:02:09 +0000
From: Stephen <stephen_hope@xyzworld.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <8hs1f695omunqtqo9o0oa0lgmj4k1jlk4s@4ax.com>
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 21:26:38 -0500, Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:43:52AM -0000, John Levine wrote:
>> >> Hmmn. ? Could you explain exactly why I can't use my phone when I'm
>> >> on the train?
>> >
>> >It's the classic tale of 10% of the population ruining it for the
>> >remaining 90%.
>>
>> If you're referring to the 10% of the people who dangerously talk on
>> the phone while driving, I would agree.
>>
>> If you think that "moving at more than 20 mph" is synonymous with
>> "driving a car", I have to conclude that you've never been to New York
>> or any other large city with useful transit, or ridden in a carpool.
>>
>> It's possible there is some technical hack to recognize a phone that
>> is being used by the operator of a moving vehicle, but this isn't it.
>
>Gentlemen,
>
>I agree that a blanket prohibition won't work if it's based on only
>one test. (Sorry, Tom).
>
>But -
>
>What can we do that will work and will be accepted by drivers?
>
>Let's face it: banning risky behavior cuts right to the heart of what
>Democratic governments stand for, and it is justified only when the
>majority of citizens agree that the ban does more good than harm.
>
>It may, for example, be a PITA to have to buckle up all the time we're
>driving, but the inconvenience is small compared to the costs (human,
>societal, and commercial) of not doing it. A majority of people agree
>that the good outweighs the bad.
>
>It may be, for example, an offense to some religious beliefs when
>children are vaccinated against common diseases. Again, the majority
>of people agree that the rights of the children to walk erect and hear
>properly and have full possession of their faculties outweigh those of
>their parents to worship as they choose.
>
>Cellphones have all the wrong attributes from a public-safety point of
>view: they're small, hard to see, complicated, and useful. Moreover,
>the cellphone market has grown with extraordinary speed (pun
>intended), to the point where cellular-service providers have Billions
>of dollars in cash flow every year, and thus the power to influence
>public opinion and legislative actions.
>
>This is turning into an elephant fight, and we need to be careful that
>grass-roots debate and consensus doesn't get trampled by the giant
>companies arrayed on both sides of the issue: HMO's and common
>carriers.
>
>Insurance underwriters are on one side, allied with government
>actuaries, both keeping track of the ever-increasing expense of
>accidents: medical care, time lost from work, and diminished
>capacities when survivors must return to normal life. These direct
>costs are just the tip of the iceberg: every highway accident during
>rush hour causes "ripple" expenses because hundreds or thousands of
>other motorists are late for work, unable to shop on the way home,
>etc.: costs that policy makers must consider even if motorists are
>unaware of them.
before you get too far on this particular justification - is it true?
In the UK road safety is getting better not worse (measured by deaths)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesmr/rrcgbmainresults2009
if this trend is replicated wherever you are, then that sort of rips
away the underlying main justification.......
what it doesnt do if is prove 1 way of the other whether some of those
deaths are caused by mobile use and that the stats would be even
better if phones got turned off when getting in a car - but i think it
is going to be much harder to justify draconian changes on the back of
it.
--
Regards
stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:48:34 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: U.S. Shuts Down Web Sites in Piracy Crackdown
Message-ID: <p0624088ac91710eb4106@[10.0.1.2]>
U.S. Shuts Down Web Sites in Piracy Crackdown
By BEN SISARIO
November 26, 2010
In what appears to be the latest phase of a far-reaching federal
crackdown on online piracy of music and movies, the Web addresses of
a number of sites that facilitate illegal file-sharing were seized
this week by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a division of the
Department of Homeland Security.
By Friday morning, visiting the addresses of a handful of sites that
either hosted unauthorized copies of films and music or allowed users
to search for them elsewhere on the Internet produced a notice that
said, in part: "This domain name has been seized by ICE - Homeland
Security Investigations, pursuant to a seizure warrant issued by a
United States District Court."
In taking over the sites' domain names, or Web addresses, the
government effectively redirected any visitors to its own takedown
notice.
...
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/technology/27torrent.html
***** Moderator's Note *****
Somebody please tell me why Immigration and Customs Enforcement is
involved with video piracy.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 16:15:41 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: You've got evidence / When will we learn that digital communication isn't private?
Message-ID: <p06240893c91724eef1ca@[10.0.1.2]>
Perspective
You've got evidence
When will we learn that digital communication isn't private?
By Tom Keane
November 28, 2010
Are scoundrels and villains just stupider today than they once were?
It used to be that if you were going to commit a crime or merely be a
bit naughty, you'd try to cover your tracks. Getting caught was an
outcome to be avoided. Yet now we put our transgressions on display
for the world to see.
A case in point comes from the campaign of Tim Cahill, state
treasurer and erstwhile independent candidate for governor. In the
waning weeks of the race, stories emerged that campaign staffers had
allegedly traded e-mails about coordinating activities with the
Treasury. If true, that's clearly illegal - public money can't be
used for political campaigns. The attorney general is looking into
the matter and, while I have no idea where things will end up, heads
could roll. All because, instead of having a meeting about it or even
using the telephone, those supposedly involved circulated a bunch of
e-mails.
Pretty dumb. If it's any comfort, though, they're hardly alone.
Football player Brett Favre faces difficult times of his own for
salacious text messages sent to ex-model and New York Jets employee
Jenn Sterger. Ditto golfer Tiger Woods and his own paramours. New
York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino got into trouble for
forwarding racist jokes. Florida Representative Mark Foley resigned
in 2006 after the unearthing of sexually explicit instant messages he
sent a 16-year-old congressional page. The Boeing Corp. ousted CEO
Harry Stonecipher over indiscreet e-mails sent to a fellow executive
that were found on company servers. E-mails by Goldman Sachs
employees seemed to confirm an SEC investigation into investor fraud.
Federal investigators uncovered internal company e-mails showing that
Enron had illegally manipulated California's electricity markets. The
list goes on.
Whether it's e-mailing, texting, Tweeting, blogging, or commenting on
the Web, near-instant digital communications dominate our
professional and personal lives. From one point of view, these new
technologies are just an improvement on old-fashioned talking,
writing, telephoning, and faxing. In truth, though, they are vastly
different. The old ways had some semblance of privacy, oftentimes
because they were legally protected (such as prohibitions against
recording conversations) or because of the limits of technology
(forwarding letters to thousands at once was logistically
complicated). The most striking difference, however, is the
permanence of the new forms of communication. Twenty years ago, if I
sent you a letter with inside information on a stock trade, only you
and I knew about it. If you were smart, you'd destroy the document
and no one would be the wiser.
...
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2010/11/28/youve_got_evidence/
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 04:21:19 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: When Your Company Remote-Wipes Your Personal Phone
Message-ID: <icq0vv$62k$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <icpa32$4sn$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
David Kaye <sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Of course, if your company demands that you use your Android, Blackberry,
>whatever for work purposes then I think it's worth asking whether that's the
>kind of company you'd want to work for. Personally, I'd never work for a
>company that demanded me to check in with them when I wasn't working.
Many people, particularly in the technology sector, work for
enterprises which expect their employees to be available 24x365.
(Mine, on the other hand, only expects 24x7x13 -- but we're not stupid
enough to use Exchange.)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:16:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: When Your Company Remote-Wipes Your Personal Phone
Message-ID: <ff123c99-5def-428f-bf32-c0b27ec04656@e38g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 26, 11:21 pm, woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> >Of course, if your company demands that you use your Android,
> >Blackberry, whatever for work purposes then I think it's worth
> >asking whether that's the kind of company you'd want to work
> >for. Personally, I'd never work for a company that demanded me to
> >check in with them when I wasn't working.
>
> Many people, particularly in the technology sector, work for
> enterprises which expect their employees to be available 24x365.
> (Mine, on the other hand, only expects 24x7x13 -- but we're not stupid
> enough to use Exchange.)
Information Technology people are usually on call 24/7. It's been
that way for years, and in today's very competitive job market, even
more so. "Lean and mean" is the name of the game. The specific
rules and demands of "being on call" vary, of course, but usually
there is some check-in or reachability required. When beepers and
the ability to log-in remotely became available, the demand increased.
Unfortunately, the worker doesn't have much of a choice these days on
the terms of his employment or the kind of company he works for.
In addition, companies are very sensitive about corporate
confidentiality.
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 (10 messages)
|
| |
or 