The Telecom Digest for December 03, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 326 : "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: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:39:17 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Mobile Phone Forwarding Question
Message-ID: <alpine.WNT.2.00.1012011137390.2900@AURM106297.americas.ad.flextronics.com>
Thanks all who answered my question. That's sort of what I thought, AT&T
will consider it simply a domestic call. I'm not concerned about the
T-Mobile bill since it's part of the gift package that's sending her Down
Under. :-)
Under normal circumstances I'd get a local SIM and I appreciate the
information about getting one in Australia. I hope to visit some day.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:49:16 -0500
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <op.vm164eq8itl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:22:33 -0500, Tom Horne <hornetd@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2:19 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
> wrote:
>> > John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
>> >> We don't use seatbelt interlocks, because there are too many ways they
>> >> don't work. I don't see any reason to expect that cell phone
>> >> interlocks would work any better, but I do expect that combinations of
>> >> fines and public education can get most people to stop using their
>> >> phones while driving, just as they've gotten most people to buckle
>> >> their seatbelts.
>> Richard wrote:
>> > I agree. Education and fines is the proper way to fix the problem.
>>
>> I agree that education is the way to fix the problem, but "the problem" is
>> nanny-statism, not phoning and driving. Anyone who drives badly while
>> phoning probably drives just as badly when not phoning.
>>
>> > It is not possible to make you 100% safe by passing laws. Whenever
>> > government tries to fix one problem by passing a law, they usually end
>> > up creating a worse problem due to unforseen consequences.
>>
>> Precisely. The time for police to intervene in how someone drives is
after
>> they crash. Until then, anything the driver does is a victimless crime.
>>
>> > In the 1970's, the USA decreed that autos could not start until the
>> > seat belt was fastened. Many people defeated that simply by pulling
>> > out the belt and tying it in a knot so that it would not retract. My
>> > mother hated belts, so she did that on her car; as a consequence,
>> > whenever I drove her car, I could not use the belts. And I wanted
>> > to use a seat-belt.
>>
>> And as a result, we're stuck to this day with belts that don't do their
job
>> (which is to stay tight, so you're fixed to one spot on the seat and have
>> better control of the vehicle).
>
> "Nanny statism" is now a catch all for any government regulation of
> anything. Under the principal that the state should not be protecting
> us from ourselves; which I happen to subscribe to; all regulation is
> held to be bad no matter what it is intended to mitigate; which I do
> not subscribe to. In a democratic society the entire justification
> for the exorcise ...
1.
> ... of the police power of the state is to protect
> citizens from the wanton negligence and criminal actions of others.
>
> Your neighbor uses great aunt Barbara's Christmas tree lights and
> lights his house on fire so the fire department tries to hold the fire
> to the building of origin so that your house does not burn down do to
> his negligence.
>
> Someone staggers out of a bar heading for the parking lot and the cops
> arrest him as soon as he opens the drivers door of an automobile.
>
> Your neighbors kid uses model rockets to learn about physics and
> rocketry so the town establishes rules that prevent him from setting
> your roof on fire. His parents have to transport him to a range to
> fire off his rockets.
>
> You are building a house and the code enforcement official prevents
> you from connecting your down spouts to the sanitary sewer so that the
> rest of the taxpayers don't have to pay to process your rain water
> through the sewage treatment plant.
>
> Each of these state exorcises of the police power has a consequence to
> someone.
2.
> The firefighters cut large holes in the roof of the building of fire
> origin to release the heat and smoke in order to make an effective
> attack on the fire. This increases the losses to the building of
> origin but lessens the burden of fire protection on the rest of the
> community by avoiding expensive injuries to the firefighters and
> holding the fire to the building of origin.
>
> The drunk would be driver is jailed and punished for his wanton
> negligence of attempting to drive while drunk but other drivers and
> passengers make it home alive.
>
> Your neighbors have to transport their son to a model rocket range but
> no one had to file an insurance claim for a roof fire caused by an
> errant rocket.
>
> You have to build a dry well to dispose of the storm water from your
> property, at considerable expense to you, but markedly reduced expense
> to the rest of the community.
>
> None of these, In My Un-humble Opinion; for if my opinion were truly
> humble would I bother to offer it to others; is an example of a Nanny
> State excess. In each case the state is protecting the public at
> large from the harmful actions of others that are beyond the public's
> ability to control except by state action.
>
> In like fashion the regulators who find a means to prevent you from
> driving distracted by a cell phone conversation will be protecting the
> other people on the road from the actions of someone who is not
> willing to put the safety of the rest of the driving public ahead of
> their own convenience. I don't see that as a nanny state excess but
> rather as a perfectly legitimate exorcise ...
3.
> ... of the police power of the
> state in protecting the public from an individuals negligence. In
> each case it would be easier on the individuals being regulated if
> they could do what they wanted to do without state interference. In
> each case if those individuals are allowed to proceed with their plans
> free of state interference there will be real consequences to the rest
> of society that; again IMUO; that society has a right to protect
> itself from.
> --
> Tom Horne
Tom, by what exercise can we exorcise from you the devil in you
that makes you repeatedly misspell "exercise" as "exorcise"? :-)
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: 1 Dec 2010 20:49:04 -0500
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Screw terminals (was: How Ma Bell Shelved the Future for 60 Years)
Message-ID: <id6tug$hqq$1@panix2.panix.com>
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>
>>Some years back I lived in a 1964 construction 32-unit (8 units/floor, 4
>>floors) apt building, about 6,000 wire-feet from the C.O.. One 50-pair
>>drop to the building, terminated on screw terminals. The 'house' wiring
>>was "quad" (J-K), _in_conduit_, with the 4 vertically aligned units sharing
>>a common conduit.
>
>In the days when I was more ignorant, I bought a spool of this kind of wire.
>It was twisted. I have no idea if the twisting was tested and avoided any
>kind of antennuation. Was it?
The two pairs are twisted together instead of individually, so there is
a lot of coupling and crosstalk between them. This used to be a big
problem when people first started getting second lines for modems; the
line noise would increase on one pair when the phone line on the second
pair was in use.
>I kicked myself as Cat5 was available at the time, although more expensive,
>and I would have avoided some misery trying to keep a modem connection up
>with a nearby radio station and other sources of interference.
Cat3 is just fine for the application; it's not as precisely made as Cat5,
but it's a whole lot better than quad wire.
>A friend says he used to have a DSL line at his house to help him monitor
>computer networks at his business on this kind of ancient inside wiring.
Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don't.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 15:40:53 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Screw terminals
Message-ID: <id8em5$6vl$1@news.albasani.net>
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>>>Some years back I lived in a 1964 construction 32-unit (8 units/floor, 4
>>>floors) apt building, about 6,000 wire-feet from the C.O.. One 50-pair
>>>drop to the building, terminated on screw terminals. The 'house' wiring
>>>was "quad" (J-K), _in_conduit_, with the 4 vertically aligned units sharing
>>>a common conduit.
>>In the days when I was more ignorant, I bought a spool of this kind of wire.
>>It was twisted. I have no idea if the twisting was tested and avoided any
>>kind of antennuation. Was it?
>The two pairs are twisted together instead of individually, so there is
>a lot of coupling and crosstalk between them. This used to be a big
>problem when people first started getting second lines for modems; the
>line noise would increase on one pair when the phone line on the second
>pair was in use.
You could get bleed through from two simultaneous voice calls too.
>>I kicked myself as Cat5 was available at the time, although more expensive,
>>and I would have avoided some misery trying to keep a modem connection up
>>with a nearby radio station and other sources of interference.
>Cat3 is just fine for the application; it's not as precisely made as Cat5,
>but it's a whole lot better than quad wire.
I bought the small spool of quad wire at Radio Shack. I don't recall that
they sold anything else for inside walls. They sold flat wire for the patch
cord between the telephone set and jack, too.
I don't recall seeing Cat3 at consumer electronics stores or home improvement
stores ever. Was this a mass market consumer item in the days before Cat5
became somewhat common? I do recall seeing Cat5 at Home Depot and Builders
Square when big box home improvement stores were new but I don't recall
that they offered a choice of Cat3 or Cat5.
I assume I'd have had to buy from Graybar if I wanted Cat3, and I might
not have been able to buy a reasonably small quantity!
One useful purchase I made was Cat5 patchcord with factory-installed plugs
for RJ-11 jacks that I could use for the modem. That eliminated some
interference.
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 06:44:54 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Screw terminals (was: How Ma Bell Shelved the Future for 60 Years)
Message-ID: <2bidnWgNa7dbCWrRnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <id4qrm$pc0$1@news.albasani.net>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>
>>'quad' wire has the four conductors stacked in a square arrangement, with
>>a gradual (guessing at circa 1 'turn' per 8",-- don't have any handy to
>>check) twist of all 4 wires as_a_unit -- a 4-strand helix, as it were.
>>Thus, with respect to the other wires in the cable, its just as if it
>>was absolutely straight conductors. Even if there is 'nothing' on the
>>other wires in the cable, you've got inductive coupling from the linear
>>'single- turn transformer".
>
>I take it that's for nothing more than preventing kinks when going around
>corners inside walls. I sort of assumed that it didn't address interference
>at all.
I don't know the 'why' of it -- they didn't ask me for an opinion of
the design -- but your supposition does sound reasonable. The helix
is 'somewhat' better than absolutely straight wires, with regard to
'distant' noise sources that are approximately perpendicular to the
cable run.
>
>>>Is there an actual problem with screw terminals, other than the amount of
>>>space the consume versus a punch-down block? Is oxidation a concern?
>
>>It is, as they say "performance limiting". when the "terminals' for a 'pair'
>>are more than an inch apart, it is very difficult to maintain, say, the
>>Cat 5 required 'twist rate' to within 1/2" of the connection point (which
>>_has_ to be an 8P8C, per the standard). <wry grin>
>
>But that standard is for data, not voice. I figured it would work for voice.
Is entirely 'adequate' for voice, if the reference is a human ear.
Can adversely affect 'data over POTS' (e.g. Group III fax, "high-speed"
analog modems, etc)
>>>A friend says he used to have a DSL line at his house to help him monitor
>>>computer networks at his business on this kind of ancient inside wiring.
>
>>It's -not- all that 'ancient'. I don't have a hard date for when the
>>industry shifted to using 'twisted pair' for most/all _residential_ wiring,
>>but 'quad' was still being commonly installed in the mid- to late- 1980s.
>>_Commercial_ installations had -- mostly, if not entirely -- cut over to
>>'twisted pair' in the prior decade, for wiring installs, driven by digital
>>phone systems, the explosion of computer terminals that could use a
>>'common' structured wiring system -- e.g. IBM 3270 over twisted-pair, vs.
>>dedicated coax. The cost advantage of 'structured' wiring in a commercial
>>environment was a very "compelling" argument.
>
>Sure.
>
>It's interesting that AT&T didn't switch over early for residential. After
>all, in the quanties they consumed, that would have driven down the per unit
>cost right off.
'wire' (in rational quantities) was not a 'billable' line-item, even on a
T&M-based residential install. I don't recall if they even billed for the
-jack- itself, the "labor" rate of circa $70/hr ($17 per 15min increment,
circa 1972) put the materials 'in the noise' as far as the customer was
concerned. However, going from 'pennies' per foot (quad) to 'several tens
of cents' per foot (Cat 3) plus requiring 'home run' wiring rather than
daisy-chaining from the nearest jack would have increased material cost
*tremendously*. To the point it likely would have called for line-item
billing. Whereupon the customers would have been screaming about the 'cost'
that was ridiculously higher than what the neighborhood hardware store
charged. That the higher-priced stuff is 'better" simply "doesn't matter"
when the 'cheap stuff' is "good enough" for the immediate need. A
rationale of "you'll thank me in 20 years" (or even 10) doesn't cut it
with most people.
That aside, the 'killer' fact is that nobody saw the revolution coming.
Computers, even 'home' computers, were expensive (comparable to a good
used car) and hard to use. Only an uber-geek would consider having more
than one, IF said geek could afford it. And a "network" was 'yet another'
big chunk of change (*hundreds* of dollars per 'node') on top of the
cost of the base equipment.
Put 'expensive' wiring in -every- residence to support -that- kind of use?
Even as of the early 1990s the reaction to that would have been "you've
got to be kidding!!"
Wiring for a network in the residence -only- became an issue when the
cost of 'a computer' had dropped to the point it was "reasonable" for
_each_person_ in a household to have 'their own' unit, and 'networking'
had dropped to the point that one "couldn't justify" the 'aggravation'
of having to 'go to the computer room' to use a machine.
Having adequate ground clearance for a 'mountain' is only an issue when
the mountain -does- come to Mohammed, and not the converse. <grin>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 19:06:38 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Mobile Phone Forwarding Question
Message-ID: <pan.2010.12.02.08.06.38.72617@myrealbox.com>
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 13:58:37 +1100, David Clayton wrote:
.......
> The T-mobile rates to Australia are 25c/min, so the call forwarding option
> may well be the better option. Mobile call rates from Australia to the US
> from a mobile are around $A0.29c/min + 40c flagfall (Optus).
>
> This website can help in finding a cheap mobile pre-paid service in
> Australia:
>
> http://www.phonechoice.com.au/index.cfm?Section=Mobile
And this brand new SIM provider has 15c/min rates from Australia to the
USA:
http://www.amaysim.com.au/
--
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: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 03:26:32 -0500
From: "Bob Goudreau" <BobGoudreau@nc.rr.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <F9C5D1E4AA4D4CB1A40CC2C0C71E5A0B@meng.lab.emc.com>
Tom Horne opined:
> I wouldn't care one bit if traffic deaths were plummeting. If cell
> phone use is causing even one death of a person who had no control
> over the cell phone users actions then I want that use banned.
Sigh. Time to trot out a "reductio ad absurdum" argument...
[BEGIN R-A-A]
There have been documented cases of criminals, not in moving vehicles, using
their mobile phones to dispatch hit-men to murder innocent victims who had
no control over the cell phone user's actions. So I guess we will need to
ban cell phone use by stationary callers as well as by those in vehicles.
For that matter, there have been numerous cases of similar murder orders
communicated by old-fashioned land-lines. So I guess non-mobile phones will
also need to be banned. Anything to save a life, after all!
[END R-A-A]
The problem of all those "if it saves even one life..." type of arguments is
that they rarely acknowledge that there might be costs along with the
purported benefits. Those costs are not even purely financial, but may
include opportunity costs in time and even in lives. A frequent example of
unintended consequences is the field of aviation: new safety measures have
to be carefully considered because if they raise the cost of flights too
much, or add enough new travel delays, they will end up marginally
increasing the number of people who choose to drive instead of fly,
inadvertently causing more deaths on the road than they prevent in the air.
So by all means, state the case for trying to ban all communication from
phones moving at more than X miles per hour (for some value of X). But be
prepared to quantify the costs as well as the benefits, so that we can weigh
the tradeoffs. We are all aware of reports of crashes caused by distracted
driving. But many of us have also heard of drivers phoning in reports of
drunken drivers. In my own area, we have had several cases of terrified
women desperately calling police to report that they were being chased at
high speeds by murderous estranged husbands/boyfriends. All of these
positive uses of phones in moving vehicles would disappear under a blanket
ban. Are those losses outweighed by the benefits? I don't know -- but I
don't think you do either. The burden of proof is on those proposing to
change the status quo. Most people can be swayed to your side if the
evidence is there, so have at it. But be prepared to show your work.
Bob Goudreau
Cary, NC
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 10:06:49 -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: <b-mdnZS_WbmnfWrRnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Bob Goudreau wrote:
> Tom Horne opined:
>
>>I wouldn't care one bit if traffic deaths were plummeting. If cell
>>phone use is causing even one death of a person who had no control
>>over the cell phone users actions then I want that use banned.
>
> Sigh. Time to trot out a "reductio ad absurdum" argument...
>
> [BEGIN R-A-A]
> There have been documented cases of criminals, not in moving vehicles, using
> their mobile phones to dispatch hit-men to murder innocent victims who had
> no control over the cell phone user's actions. So I guess we will need to
> ban cell phone use by stationary callers as well as by those in vehicles.
>
> For that matter, there have been numerous cases of similar murder orders
> communicated by old-fashioned land-lines. So I guess non-mobile phones will
> also need to be banned. Anything to save a life, after all!
> [END R-A-A]
Let's make it apples and apples rather than apples and oranges.
If a criminal commits murder and gets caught he will go "up the river,"
and perhaps fry once there. Let's impose similar criminal sanctions on
distracted cell phone-using drivers who kill innocent parties.
> The problem of all those "if it saves even one life..." type of arguments is
> that they rarely acknowledge that there might be costs along with the
> purported benefits. Those costs are not even purely financial, but may
> include opportunity costs in time and even in lives. A frequent example of
> unintended consequences is the field of aviation: new safety measures have
> to be carefully considered because if they raise the cost of flights too
> much, or add enough new travel delays, they will end up marginally
> increasing the number of people who choose to drive instead of fly,
> inadvertently causing more deaths on the road than they prevent in the air.
>
> So by all means, state the case for trying to ban all communication from
> phones moving at more than X miles per hour (for some value of X). But be
> prepared to quantify the costs as well as the benefits, so that we can weigh
> the tradeoffs. We are all aware of reports of crashes caused by distracted
> driving. But many of us have also heard of drivers phoning in reports of
> drunken drivers. In my own area, we have had several cases of terrified
> women desperately calling police to report that they were being chased at
> high speeds by murderous estranged husbands/boyfriends. All of these
> positive uses of phones in moving vehicles would disappear under a blanket
> ban. Are those losses outweighed by the benefits? I don't know -- but I
> don't think you do either. The burden of proof is on those proposing to
> change the status quo. Most people can be swayed to your side if the
> evidence is there, so have at it. But be prepared to show your work.
Not necessary. The current federal Secretary of Transportation has
already done that leg-work and is considering a proposal to invoke
technology to prevent wireless communications in a moving car. His
department is well aware of the large number of deaths that have already
resulted from the use of wireless devices in moving vehicles by selfish,
self-center members of the "me first" generation.
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 (8 messages)
|
| |
or 