The Telecom Digest for December 05, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 328 : "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: 3 Dec 2010 14:18:32 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <20101203141832.81719.qmail@joyce.lan>
>I have made it very clear that banning non-emergency cell phone use
>can be done without banning emergency use. With emergency use still
>possible, what other defense can you come up with for the unique
>distraction from the driving task that is a driver's participation in
>a full duplex telephone conversation?
If there were technical means to block people who were driving
vehicles from making non-911 calls, I doubt there would be much
opposition. The problem is that every technical "solution" I've seen
has the seatbelt interlock problem, also blocking entirely benign
usage that the technical solution can't distinguish.
R's,
John
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 07:09:41 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Screw terminals
Message-ID: <9e2dnaF0VfeIcWXRnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <id8em5$6vl$1@news.albasani.net>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>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.
Pre-made cables were very common. 6', 16', 25' lengths.
Radio Shack carried 'bulk' Cat 3 "way back when". Just not in retail
packaging, "on the shelf". There were a number (a small one, like maybe 6)
of varieties of data cables that they sold 'by the foot', from a dispense/
measure mechanism in the back room. Much like the way the big box stores
sell some types of electrical wire, for those who don't want/need a full
spool.
It was there, but you had to know to ask for it.
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 20:12:41 -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: <A2408007CB914A2A8067226DEF799A45@meng.lab.emc.com>
Sam Spade wrote:
>> 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.
Once again, this entirely misses the point. Yes, the DoT may have
proffered claims of how many lives would be saved. But, as I
mentioned above, one must also fully account for all the costs, not
just the benefits. So where's the other side of the ledger? It's
hard to imagine the DoT can claim to have calculated even the purely
financial costs of the technological implementation of such system
(leaving aside all the unintended non-financial consequences), given
that such a system hasn't been designed yet. If it ends up costing
more than (IIRC) ~$3 million per life allegedly saved, then that money
would be better spent elsewhere on transportation improvements that
have a well-documented safety payback with more bang (lives saved) for
the buck -- things such as road realignments, better lighting, new
signage, adding traffic signals, etc. Every dollar spent on a
high-profile feel-good lifesaving campaign is a dollar that won't be
spent on more mundane measures that may actually be more effective.
This is all somewhat moot anyway at this point -- just a cabinet
secretary floating a controversial trial balloon in the media. But it
would take Congressional action (legislation) to implement the kind of
restrictions being advocated. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Bob Goudreau
Cary, NC
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 20:59:42 -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: <6F5C68027FE048398E0DF432E80DFEE7@meng.lab.emc.com>
> On Dec 1, 3:26 am, "Bob Goudreau" <BobGoudr...@nc.rr.com> 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.
...
>> 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...
>>
>> 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.
>
> I have made it very clear that banning non-emergency cell phone use
> can be done without banning emergency use.
I will grant you (now that I have caught up with this thread), that you have
subsequently softened your original absolutist position above to make an
exception for emergency use.
> With emergency use still possible, what other defense can you come
> up with for the unique distraction from the driving task that is a
> driver's participation in a full duplex telephone conversation?
My defense is still the one stated above: the onus is on YOU to prove
that the cost of your solution does not outweigh the benefit. So far,
you cannot even tell us what the cost of the solution will be. If it
ends up costing, say, $30 billion to modify the network and/or
handsets and/or vehicles, but that ends up saving 500 lives, then
would it be worth it? Probably not, given that $30 billion could save
many more lives if directed to more mundane health or safety
improvements.
That's the kind of cost/benefit analysis that I am asking for, but
which has so far been missing. And let's remember that either the
system is going to disable network use based on speed alone (thus
imposing additional loss-of-service economic burdens on millions of
car, bus and train passengers as well as drivers), or it's not (thus
driving up the cost of the technological solution itself, since it
will now be required to disambiguate between drivers and passengers).
So have at it. Hard numbers, please. But no more emotion-trumps-science
"if it saves even one life, then we must do XXX regardless of the
cost" type of arguments.
Bob Goudreau
Cary, NC
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 (4 messages)
|
| |
or 