The Telecom Digest for December 21, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 344 : "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: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 13:55:50 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Airport Apps Put You First in Line
Message-ID: <p0624084bc934008b3941@[192.168.180.133]>
Airport Apps Put You First in Line
By MICHELLE HIGGINS
December 14, 2010
IT goes without saying: Holiday travel is brutal. Security lines are
longer. Planes are more crowded. The battle for storage space heats
up as travelers vie to stuff all those gift-laden bags in overhead
bins. And if bad weather hits, your delayed or canceled flight may
make you tardy for Christmas or New Year's dinner - that is, if you
even make it out of the airport.
This year, the experience may be even more intense. Over the
holidays, 43.6 million passengers are expected to travel on United
States carriers, up about 3 percent from last year, according to the
Air Transport Association of America, the industry trade group.
Still, holiday travel doesn't have to be totally miserable. While the
usual groundwork - showing up early with boarding passes in hand and
packing as lightly as possible - still applies, an array of travel
applications for smartphones can help you tackle just about any
problem that might arise at or on your way to the airport. So before
you leave home this year, take a moment to download a few of these to
help you navigate the holiday crush.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/travel/19prac-travelapps.html
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 18:07:39 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--Eight Digit US telephone numbers?
Message-ID: <cZWdnUywP6jxJ5PQnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@giganews.com>
jsw wrote:
>
> Our own Pat has eluded to the Wabash office in Chicago being
> step, but I kind of question this, since I know a lot of
> Chicago was panel and #1 crossbar from the 30s through the
> 70s.
>
Alas, there used to be a web site with recordings of all those switch
sounds, including panel.
Date: 19 Dec 2010 20:20:35 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Detecting cell phone dead spots via post office
Message-ID: <20101219202035.14995.qmail@joyce.lan>
>While we're at it, lets add water & power meter reading, Google Earth
>photos, and cameras to search for missing children.
Actually, reading meters is not a bad idea. The water meters we're
planning to install are not online, but are remotely readable from the
curb. If the mailman is going to be driving by anyway, why send out a
separate truck?
R's,
John
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 17:22:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--Eight Digit US telephone numbers?
Message-ID: <714602.99406.qm@web111708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
--- On Sat, 12/18/10, Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> A resident of a such a small town told me the phone company told
> people to use 7 digits and stopped referring to 5 digits. But 5
> digits continued to work until the exchange was cutover to ESS.
Many were converted to 5XB much sooner than ESS became viable. That
also prevented five-digit dialing.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:09:51 -0500
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Phone-Wielding Shoppers Strike Fear Into Retailers
Message-ID: <MPG.27783eaddba3042e989d0b@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <pan.2010.12.19.03.46.42.541726@myrealbox.com>,
dcstar@myrealbox.com says...
>
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:27:19 -0500, Monty Solomon wrote:
>
> > TECHNOLOGY
> >
> > Phone-Wielding Shoppers Strike Fear Into Retailers
> >
> > By MIGUEL BUSTILLO And ANN ZIMMERMAN
> > DECEMBER 15, 2010
> .........
> > Until recently, retailers could reasonably assume that if they just lured
> > shoppers to stores with enticing specials, the customers could be coaxed
> > into buying more profitable stuff, too.
> >
> > Now, marketers must contend with shoppers who can use their smartphones
> > inside stores to check whether the specials are really so special, and if
> > the rest of the merchandise is reasonably priced.
> >
> > ...
> And we now await retailers to start lobbying law makers to be allowed to
> use mobile jamming devices in-store to protect their sales.....
Until such time as someone throws a coronary and nobody can call for
help.
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:05:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--Eight Digit US telephone numbers?
Message-ID: <cc4e62f5-e3e2-4b5a-b9cd-d6ef1c18c0a1@o14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 19, 12:36 pm, jsw <j...@ivgate.omahug.org> wrote:
> A true panel office was very noisy in that the sounds of the
> office could be heard during and immediately after dialing. I
> really think that a lot of people who are otherwise very CO
> savvy are forgetting this. Panel offices were also notoriously
> noisy during the connection. Contacts were often microphonic.
> One sound was kind of a cross between a 'clang' and the sounds
> of chains rattling.
At ACTA and TCI phone shows, sometimes collectors bring in working
switches to demonstrate, including panel. Visitors can make calls on
them. Sometimes different exhibitors link their switches together.
(Sometimes they use electronic black boxes to accomoplish the
interface).
When I watched the panel frame work, the motor and rods were quiet,
certainly quieter than the ratchet of the step-by-step switch or the
relaxy clacking in a cross bar. Of course that was but a single
frame, maybe a room full of them and associated might be different.
Check ACTA and TCI websites for shows--they are held all over the
country and Canada. Worth a visit if not too far away.
> I don't know about any of these except Los Angeles, and it's
> been my understanding that quite a bit of the El-Lay area was
> indie using AE step, and Ma Bell simply went along. ;-) I do
> know that there was quite a bit of #5 crossbar in Orange
> County in the early 1970s, as well as some 1E making inroads
> into the area as well. I vaguely recall much of Santa Ana
> being step as well.
I think LA was step because it had many independents that Bell took
over and in that particular case it was easier to leave it as is. But
I suspect given the size and growth of LA it would've been panel or #1
crossbar to facilitate inter-office networking and trunk utilization.
They attempted some SxS front end common control in LA to improve
efficiency. SxS also had something called the "graded multiple" which
improved trunk utilization.
> Our own Pat has eluded to the Wabash office in Chicago being
> step, but I kind of question this, since I know a lot of
> Chicago was panel and #1 crossbar from the 30s through the
> 70s.
Downtown Phila had some SxS units serving certain Centrex users.
Oddly, SxS but not panel could service Centrex. On a small
organization that had centrex via SxS, on interoffice calls the first
digit was absorbed and users need only dial the last three digits
(this was not well known). The organization's switchboard was a
traditional cord unit, too; most Centrex's had consoles for the
operators.
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 05:46:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Harold Hallikainen <harold@hallikainen.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--Eight Digit US telephone numbers?
Message-ID: <2855de5d-dd73-4147-bbdf-113ad27e30ad@r40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
> A resident of a such a small town told me the phone company told
> people to use 7 digits and stopped referring to 5 digits. But 5
> digits continued to work until the exchange was cutover to ESS. (He
> hoped to get a switch unit after the cutover but the old gear was kept
> quite secure. I would think its value would only be scrap by that
> point in time.)
In the early 1970s, Santa Maria CA had a step switch (General
Telephone at the time). They had 5 digit dialing. I worked in radio
stations in both Santa Maria and San Luis Obispo (Pacific Telephone).
SLO had 7 digit dialing. Santa Maria is right on the county line. The
radio stations in Santa Maria I worked for would give business
telephone numbers as 5 digits. Listeners across the county line could
not dial the numbers that way. Santa Maria's switch would accept 7
digit numbers. I always thought they should broadcast 7 digit numbers
to be useful to the largest number of listeners. Of course, when 7
digit numbers were broadcast, the prefix was WAlnut 5.
Also at that time, you had to go through an operator to call from SLO
to Guadalupe, a town west of Santa Maria. I don't know if Santa Maria
could dial Guadalupe direct or if, perhaps, Guadalupe still had a
manual switch at that time.
Harold
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:46:05 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Question about an old scrambler phone
Message-ID: <GeydneZSD9XgTJPQnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <tuSdnZjSRc_OrZPQnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
Gordon Burditt <gordonb.qdaly@burditt.org> wrote:
>>>Whoa.... all GSM air traffic is highly encrypted - you cannot get
>>>much more "scrambled" than that!
>>
>> You call it "highly encrypted". I call it "probably better than
>>no encryption at all".
>>
>> GSM has been cracked a while back. Your security under GSM is
>>usually that nobody cares to hear your calls. If they do care, it's
>>certainly doable.
>
>How difficult would it be to get real quality end-to-end encryption
>on a cell phone (possibly with no hardware changes)? Does anyone
>offer this? It seems like it would be a popular app, although most
>people wouldn't be able to tell if it was really working. Are there
>any legal problems (suppose, for the moment, the call is USA to USA),
>other than perhaps the phone needs to be "jailbroken" to make this
>work?
READILY available as a _hardware-based_ attachment. Circa $1k per
phone. "compatible" with similar units for landlines.
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 07:08:09 -0800 (PST)
From: SVU <brad.houser@gmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Question about an old scrambler phone
Message-ID: <9173d8b8-537f-49e0-9fb9-f7c761ea7ffd@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 19, 8:18 am, gordonb.qd...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
> How difficult would it be to get real quality end-to-end encryption
> on a cell phone (possibly with no hardware changes)? Does anyone
> offer this? It seems like it would be a popular app, although most
> people wouldn't be able to tell if it was really working. Are there
> any legal problems (suppose, for the moment, the call is USA to
> USA), other than perhaps the phone needs to be "jailbroken" to make
> this work?
>
<snippage>
> The apps on both ends sync up, then start encrypting the (digital)
> voice channel, perhaps with AES-256 or something stronger. TLA
> agencies get annoyed that their CO-based wiretaps are seeing encrypted
> data.
>
Skype uses AES-256 encryption, and it is available on some
smartphones, but I am not sure if the smartphones support the
encryption or not.
There are some flaws with it too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skype_security
Brad Houser
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:51:34 -0600
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Telstra loses directory copyright appeal
Message-ID: <4D0ED2C6.7080102@annsgarden.com>
> Telstra has lost an appeal to keep telephone directories published
> by its subsidiary Sensis copyrighted.
On a related note, is the Australian postal code directory copyrighted? I've noted that the Canadian postal code directory is protected by a "crown copyright"; i.e., copyrighted by Elizabeth II herself, so I assume the Australian director is protected by a similar copyright.
I have a mental image of HRH sitting at her laptop on her Jacobean desk, corgis at her feet, busily editing postal code directories.
Neal McLain
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 