The Telecom Digest for December 08, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 331 : "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: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 02:04:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Whistlephone VOIP
Message-ID: <201012070704.CAA10030@ss10.danlan.com>
In the past I've bemoaned the fact that external VOIP services do not seem
to work well for me. (VOIP within my own network is fine.) Recently I've
been using Whistlephone and the quality is quite acceptable; no obvious
dropouts. Whistelphone is a free service for calls within the US. It is
ad-supported. You listen to a 15(?) second ad at the beginning of your
call.
You must download their softphone application to sign up; however
they do not prohibit (but do not support) use with ATA devices and/or
Asterisk. I use it with Asterisk and my ancient 2500 set, so whatever
they are doing right does not depend on the client. (I suppose it is
possible that they are just closer to me in some sense than other services.)
My only worry is that lately the ads have been for Whistelphone itself,
suggesting that their funding model may be failing. :(
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:47:11 -0500
From: Randall <rvh40.remove-this@and-this-too.insightbb.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Driving While Distracted
Message-ID: <146C4EE9-9271-4A42-BABE-B60784DCA0CF@insightbb.com>
On Dec 7, 2010, at 3:20 AM, telecom-owner@telecom-digest.org wrote:
> From: Matt Simpson <net-news69@jmatt.net>
> To: redacted@invalid.telecom-digest.org.
> Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
> Message-ID: <net-news69-4B125E.12150406122010@news.toast.net>
>
> In article <idg6ln$160$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Gary" <bogus-email@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Simply allow auto and medical insurance companies to deny coverage to
>> drivers involved in accidents when the evidence shows they were
>> using their
>> phone. Make drivers fully liable for all property damage, medical
>> damage
>> costs and legal costs while driving and talking, and that would go
>> a long
>> way to resolving the issue without any fancy technical solutions.
>
> Unfortunately, many drivers would not have adequate financial
> resources
> to compensate their victims, leaving the innocent victims trying to
> squeeze blood out of a turnip.
>
> It might be more reasonable to handle it similar to DUI. The
> insurance
> companies would still pay the damages, but after the first claim, they
> could either cancel the policy or charge sky-high premiums.
When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Why would you prefer to have more uninsured drivers on the road?
People don't stop driving, just because they lose their insurance,
any more than they stop driving when they lose their licenses.
Kentucky requires people convicted of DUI to attend "Driving School"
(which is really nothing more than a money machine for for-profit
school providers).
EVERYBODY drives to those classes, and then they drive home afterward.
If the insurance company finds out about the DUI, they cancel the
standard policy and will only insure the driver in the "Assigned Risk"
pool - liability only, for about four times the price.
A VERY large percentage of people who get hit with this increase
are unable to pay it.
So they drive without insurance.
The idea behind DUI laws is that people who drive with more
than a minuscule amount of alcohol in their bloodstream are
inordinately dangerous to other drivers.
So why, exactly, does Public Policy ensure that a large number
of those presumably more-dangerous drivers have no automobile
insurance?
ObTelecom: Substitute "Talking on cell phone while driving" for "DUI".
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:49:00 -0500
From: Ernest Donlin <ernest.donlin.remove-this@and-this-too.gmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Question about an old scrambler phone
Message-ID: <AANLkTikNo4yk3iRENuKp_f4QRTgnedkZuknL1PEFju-E@mail.gmail.com>
(moderator please change my email address so spammers can't use it.)
I've got an odd sort of a question for your group.
When I was a kid, my friend's dad had a phone in his house that he told me
was a "scrambler". It was a regular telephone, mounted on a metal
base, with an AC cord for the base. The base had just two vacuum tubes in
it, and a couple of transformers. It didn't look like much, but my friend
said his dad used it to make scrambled phone calls to his reserve unit.
Has anyone ever seen anything like that? I never knew if he was yanking my
chain or not.
Ernie Donlin
***** Moderator's Note *****
If you want me to obfuscate your email address, PLEASE put
"[obfuscate]" (without the quotes, but with the brackets) in the
SUBJECT line of your post. Thank you!
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 20:08:10 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Another odd question
Message-ID: <20101208010810.GB3356@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
This seems to be a day for odd questions, and I just thought of one.
The Ethernet plugs we use at work are wired for the "568B" standard,
with the orange wires on pins 1 and 2, and the green wires on pins 3
and 6.
Here's the question: _why_? I've been told that the whole idea with
Ethernet is to avoid "Near end crosstalk", so it seems to me that the
best way to do that would be to put one pair on pins one and two, and
the other on pairs seven and eight. How did we wind up with 568B?
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 20:25:28 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: A question about CO wiring
Message-ID: <E1PQ8me-0001Il-CM@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
I've been working for a company that sells a line-switching device for
use by the utility industry. We routinely get boxes returned to us
that have been fried by voltage spikes, and it occurs to me that a
central office must take a lot of surges, spikes, etc. That's a
paradox, because I never heard of a CO being damaged by anything but a
direct lightning hit the whole time I was a tech.
We had, of course, "carbons" and "heat coils" at the frame that were
intended to take care of spikes coming in on the cable, but to gauge
by the way today's electronic boxes get burned up so easily, I'm
really surprised we didn't have a lot more trouble with lightning.
Ergo, I'm wondering what other equipment was used to keep the CO's
from suffering at Zeus' hands.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
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 (5 messages)
|
| |
or 