The Telecom Digest for December 27, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 350 : "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: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 23:26:31 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Providing Caller ID with Name (was: Number portability and the demise of line number pools in bankruptcy)
Message-ID: <if5uj7$kjp$1@news.albasani.net>
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>On 12/24/2010 4:43 PM, Dan Lanciani wrote:
>>How does portability interact with caller name delivery?
>My recent experience with VoIP was interesting. A number issued by
>the voip company (voip.ms) had CID "Minnesota Call". The voip vendor
>said that they were unable to change that, apparently the CNAM record
>was not under their control. So we ported a number from Qwest. The
>voip vendor said that CNAM might stay the same but they could not
>guarantee it. For an additional fee, I could have CNAM set to
>whatever I wanted, and the likelihood of success would be higher, but
>still not guaranteed (although if they were not successful I would not
>be charged the fee).
Ah, yes, you got the excuse of the day.
Anyway, you won't know there is a problem until you call from the number in
question to phones subscribed to various services, including other VoIP
providers, the cable company, or anyone you know who still subscribes
to POTS.
In my experience, when porting a telephone number to another carrier from
POTS, the ILEC immediately purged the cached Caller ID with Name record
from its database, so if a call from that number on the new network calls
a number on the ILEC's network, a new database dip is performed if those
two networks have agreed to exchange Caller ID with Name records.
For VoIP providers that participate in providing Caller ID with Name
records associated with outbound calls of their own subscribers, which is
a money-making opportunity for them, they tend to use a third party to
to maintain and sell these records. They also consult this third party's
database's cached Caller ID with Name records, instead of paying for a
dip into the database of the network the call originated on.
It can be difficult getting these caches purged. In my family, a number
that began as POTS was ported. Also, the billing name changed. When calling
from that number into a number provided by Comcast, the former billing name
showed up. Now, the subscriber whose call was misidentified couldn't
complain to Comcast, but it had to be corrected with a complain made by
a Comcast voice subscriber. Alas, Comcast refused to simply purge the
cache and kept insisting on entering information into the field to avoid
paying for the new dip. Twice they entered meaningless or incorrect
information.
Needless to say, complaining about these incorrect cached records that live
on indefinitely is so difficult, almost no one does it. It's not as if you,
yourself, can check the cached record of your phone number yourself or
even deal with networks foreign to your own.
In your situation, yes, your VoIP provider does have the ability to update
the Caller ID with Name record its third party vendor provides when you
make an outbound call from that line. That they should guarantee absolutely
and not make excuses for being unable to do so.
They cannot guarantee that the Caller ID with Name information displayed
to the called party will be the current record or a cached record with
incorrect information.
They may be creating part of the problem themselves. When they close an
account or when a number is ported out of their pool, they should notify
their third-party Caller ID with Name database provider that the record
should be purged immediately, but no one but ILECs seem to do that.
Some minimal FCC accuracy standards would be nice.
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:31:30 -0500
From: "Gary" <bogus-email@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Please don't hit me with your modem
Message-ID: <if62d8$orc$1@news.eternal-september.org>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> The Sword Of Satire [tm] cuts both ways: I still have a modem, and I
> still remember a couple of Hayes commands, and I have been in the
> business for more than thirty years. I'm going to put the strip up
> over my desk to remind me that when it comes to technology, the rule
> is "Never Look Back".
The interesting bit is that the folks who "never look back" often end up
re-inventing the wheel; albeit with shinier hub-caps.
-Gary
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:05:00 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: No Signal: Homes Often Baffle Wi-Fi From Routers
Message-ID: <AANLkTikGgRgoFrVveicNHdP7QAbDZaJrPQvo83S3WUEv@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>
> No Signal: Homes Often Baffle Wi-Fi From Routers
I'm glad it's not just me.
While my house is large by global standards, it's hardly a McMansion.
I have mine set to a channel with no other devices nearby. Yet I
still have hard to explain dead spots in my house, some even in the
same room as my wireless router. I have tried every tweak I can find
and nothing really helps.
And this brings me to another issue. I keep my wireless router hidden
because I simply cannot tolerate the nonstop blinking LEDs. The first
vendor to create a router that allows users to turn off the LEDs will
forever have my business. I assume they don't because it's an added
expense and something else a user could complain about (e.g. user
turns off the LEDs, doesn't realize it, and thinks the device is
dead). Perhaps it's something they could bury that only a power user
like myself would ever find.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 12:51:56 -0600
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: No Signal: Homes Often Baffle Wi-Fi From Routers
Message-ID: <if82q3$oq9$1@news.eternal-september.org>
On 12/25/2010 7:05 PM, John Mayson wrote:
> I keep my wireless router hidden
> because I simply cannot tolerate the nonstop blinking LEDs. The first
> vendor to create a router that allows users to turn off the LEDs will
> forever have my business.
There's always the "Click and Clack Idiot Light" solution. A small
piece of black electrical tape can be placed over the light to make it
go away.
I mostly don't mind blinking lights so long as they're not in my
direct field of vision, though the glaring (non-blinking) blue LED on
the front of my monitor got a filter of typing paper darkened with
pencil lead, to reduce the icepick-in-the-eye effect.
Dave
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:34:00 -0600
From: GlowingBlueMist <GlowingBlueMist@truely.invalid.dotsrc.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: No Signal: Homes Often Baffle Wi-Fi From Routers
Message-ID: <4d17a6b7$0$23759$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
On 12/25/2010 7:05 PM, John Mayson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Monty Solomon<monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>>
>> No Signal: Homes Often Baffle Wi-Fi From Routers
>
> I'm glad it's not just me.
>
> While my house is large by global standards, it's hardly a McMansion.
> I have mine set to a channel with no other devices nearby. Yet I
> still have hard to explain dead spots in my house, some even in the
> same room as my wireless router. I have tried every tweak I can find
> and nothing really helps.
>
> And this brings me to another issue. I keep my wireless router hidden
> because I simply cannot tolerate the nonstop blinking LEDs. The first
> vendor to create a router that allows users to turn off the LEDs will
> forever have my business. I assume they don't because it's an added
> expense and something else a user could complain about (e.g. user
> turns off the LEDs, doesn't realize it, and thinks the device is
> dead). Perhaps it's something they could bury that only a power user
> like myself would ever find.
>
> John
>
When I used to work in the USA home building trade I would see home
after home insulated with fiberglass insulation backed by aluminum foil.
Most times this was used on the outside walls, one reason why your
cell phone might only work near a window, but in many homes it was used
on interior walls as well. For those walls that needed to pass water
vapor most contractors in my area would make a slash in the foil. That
would allow vapor through but the slash was usually only the width of
the knife used in making the slash. These walls would continue to be a
very good reflector of radio signals, or a blocker depending on which
side of the wall a router is on.
With a router's signal and a PC being inside a foil wrapped room the
reflecting signal can actually be too high for a computer's radio
receiver to properly handle it or can cause it to become so distorted
that it can not be decoded reliably.
Trying an alternative router software like DDWRT, if the router is
supported, may alleviate a problem since it usually allows the signal
level to be lowered, or raised at the router. Raising the signal level
higher than factory levels may require the addition of a cooling fan so
as to not burn out the transmitter.
/// GBM
Date: 26 Dec 2010 19:20:43 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: No Signal: Homes Often Baffle Wi-Fi From Routers
Message-ID: <20101226192043.1963.qmail@joyce.lan>
>And this brings me to another issue. I keep my wireless router hidden
>because I simply cannot tolerate the nonstop blinking LEDs.
Isn't that why they invented duct tape?
R's,
John
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 13:25:54 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: No Signal: Homes Often Baffle Wi-Fi From Routers
Message-ID: <AANLkTinbSupEZSucXOwQXKn0QPg6mWhE_J8DMGaTS5pb@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 1:20 PM, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>>And this brings me to another issue. Â I keep my wireless router
>>hidden because I simply cannot tolerate the nonstop blinking LEDs.
>
> Isn't that why they invented duct tape?
It still shines through. And perhaps I'm overly sensitive. I usually
sleep like very soundly. I have slept through many thunderstorms and
even a transformer exploding right outside my hotel bedroom window.
But last night I woke up thinking the room was on fire. It turned out
being the email notification LED on my wife's new phone. It was
bright enough to wake me up from being sound asleep. Not knowing me
that might not mean much, but I'm telling you it takes a lot to wake
me up.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 09:19:07 -0500
From: Ann O'Nymous <nobody@nowhere.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Verizon's FiOS
Message-ID: <if7isp$mof$1@speranza.aioe.org>
How does FiOS (Verizon's fiber-to-the-home offering) work? I'm asking
for information beyond the Wikipedia article.
It states there are three optical channels, one for data up, one for
data down, one for TV.
Telephony (POTS) uses the data up/down channels. Is it a form of VOIP?
I believe I saw mentioned the telephone hardware is simply a one-line
version of equipment that telephone co's already use to bring fiber from
a CO to a cabinet, and copper POTS the rest of the way to a neighborhood
of customers. What protocol does this use?
It mention they multiplex up to 32 customers' fibers onto a single fiber
optically. Does this cause contention for limited IP bandwidth like
what happens with a neighborhood of active cable modem users? How do
they multiplex the "data up" channel so that multiple subscribers don't
try to "transmit" their data at once?
It mentions "video on demand" uses the data down channel, not the TV
channel. Does this count against the IP bandwidth allowed? What
protocol is this?
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 11:54:14 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: The Gawker hack: how a million passwords were lost
Message-ID: <p06240821c93d235f2d2d@[192.168.180.133]>
The Gawker hack: how a million passwords were lost
by Joseph Bonneau
December 15, 2010
Almost a year to the date after the landmark RockYou password hack,
we have seen another large password breach, this time of Gawker
Media. While an order of magnitude smaller, it's still probably the
second largest public compromise of a website's password file, and in
many ways it's a more interesting case than RockYou. The story
quickly made it to the mainstream press, but the reported details are
vague and often wrong. I've obtained a copy of the data (which
remains generally available, though Gawker is attempting to block
listing of the torrent files) so I'll try to clarify the details of
the leak and Gawker's password implementation (gleaned mostly from
the readme file provided with the leaked data and from reverse
engineering MySQL dumps). I'll discuss the actual password dataset in
a future post.
...
http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2010/12/15/the-gawker-hack-how-a-million-passwords-were-lost/
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 12:59:51 -0600
From: Frank Stearns <franks.pacifier.com@pacifier.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Please don't hit me with your modem
Message-ID: <Rqidna3iQ9O6oovQnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@posted.palinacquisition>
- snips -
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>The Sword Of Satire [tm] cuts both ways: I still have a modem, and I
>still remember a couple of Hayes commands, and I have been in the
I still have an acoustic coupler on a shelf in the garage. Let's not go there about
my age... I was, uh, ahead of the curve in nursery school.
Frank
--
.
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 13:30:43 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Please don't hit me with your modem
Message-ID: <AANLkTimK1syCgsxObAeDtPuiSmecg1qsbS4Jnb0o-BaQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Frank Stearns
<franks.pacifier.com@pacifier.net> wrote:
>
> I still have an acoustic coupler on a shelf in the garage. Let's not go there about
> my age... I was, uh, ahead of the curve in nursery school.
I have told people at work I remember AT&T being broken up in 1984 and
they inform me they weren't born yet when that happened. It makes me
want to start taking Geritol and join AARP. I was 14 years-old in
January 1, 1984.
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 22:36:34 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: ZIP Codes and barcodes
Message-ID: <if5rli$gjv$1@news.albasani.net>
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>Here's what happens with single-piece mail. There is something of a mixed
>mail stream of letters and flats, although if there's time, mail handlers
>will segregate outbound mail at the delivery unit before sending it to the
>plant. Letters and flats have separate mail streams. Then letters hit the
>facer-canceller machine. . . .
That was sloppily written.
Outgoing mail picked up by carriers and from street collection boxes is
a mixed mail stream of letters and flats; generally, parcels are handled
separately. The mail handler at the delivery unit does what he can to
separate flats from letters and remove mail with no postage before
sending it to the plant. He also tries to separate metered mail, which
if it can be faced, is supposed to skip the cancelling step.
At the plant, there are separate processing streams for letters and
flats, although at the start of the process, any letters and flats
still mixed together are mechanically segregated so that letters,
only, head to the facer-canceller machines. Letter mail has little variation
in facing: The delivery address block must be oriented toward the longest
dimension and parallel to it and the postage area is in the upper right
hand corner. At this point in the process, the machine detects the upper
right hand corner by looking for the luminescent or phosphor tags on stamps
(or the flourescent ink in meter marks as much metered mail never gets
segregated from stamped mail to be cancelled) and orienting the mail,
without looking for the address block. If FIM is present adjacent to the
postage, then that mail is segregated into a mail stream to skip the
encoding step as the POSTNET barcode is present.
Flats have a different process for cancelling as the postage and delivery
address block may appear in any of several areas, and facing of flats is
little more than orienting the side with the postage and delivery address
block "up".
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 21:50:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: ZIP Codes and barcodes
Message-ID: <356503bc-6180-4df8-b801-521db2050c49@n10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 25, 9:57 am, Wes Leatherock <wleat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Fri, 12/24/10, Lisa or Jeff <hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
> > For instance, the return envelope of bills often has a similar bar
> > code on it, presumably to get it to the delivery address faster.
>
> > Thanks.
>
> But the return envelopes for bills also has a "Facing Identifing Mark"
> FIM just to the left of the space for the stamp which tells the
> equipment it has a Zip code already.
The MS Word program puts that mark out as well.
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 11:28:46 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Number portability and the demise of line number pools in bankruptcy
Message-ID: <pan.2010.12.25.22.50.28.312619@myrealbox.com>
Just a general question on the number portability of Cell services in the
US, just how easy is it to change carriers and keep your number?
In Australia it is the norm to basically be able to move between network
providers and keep your number, with minimal (if any) downtime.
The only issue that seems to arise is non-technical, where the new
provider requires account details of the old service to verify that the
number is actually yours and it is proper to take it over.
--
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: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 13:28:14 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Number portability and the demise of line number pools in bankruptcy
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=-ey1c0_7zmh9YszKwvSYqKxi+_-UVWHYewL+D@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 6:28 PM, David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Just a general question on the number portability of Cell services in the
> US, just how easy is it to change carriers and keep your number?
We moved from Sprint to AT&T in 2008 and it was seamless. No downtime
that I'm aware of.
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 20:18:04 -0500
From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Fortifying Phones From Attackers
Message-ID: <fu4dh6hhkod6l4mnbkqtovj6d66ddoen8p@4ax.com>
On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 00:35:17 -0500, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
wrote:
>
>Fortifying Phones From Attackers
>AT&T Hires Ph.Ds for Security Lab; Verizon Wireless Teams With
>Start-Up on Data-Security App
>
>By SPENCER E. ANTE
>DECEMBER 22, 2010
>
>As consumers and companies embrace smartphones to do more of their
>computing, the wireless industry is taking its first steps to beef up
>security on mobile devices.
>
>A trader talked on his cellphone outside the New York Stock Exchange
>in October. The wireless industry aims to beef up mobile security.
>
>Carriers are deploying new services and cutting deals with start-ups
>to help protect people from malicious attacks and misuse of their
>personal data stored on a smartphone. Meanwhile, handset makers and
>chip firms are taking steps to fortify their hardware as the number
>of attacks on mobile devices grows larger and more sophisticated.
>
>...
>
>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704774604576035960449272404.html
Folks,
Yea, right. The wireless companies really want to protect their
customers... I have a Verizon phone that has been spam free for
years, until a month ago. An obvious spam message (phishing,
actually) showed up an I went to a Verizon store to complain. The
clerk duly sent a "stop" message and said all was OK. At the end of
the month I was charged for the spam message and the "stop" message.
The good lad did show me how to block text messages from certain
numbers, however.
A second obvious spam message was received a couple of weeks later. I
tried to block it, but it came from a "llist" that didn't have a 10
digit phone number, so it could not be blocked. It cost me two more
text message charges. I complained to the store, but they didn't have
any solution, except to send another text to stop the spam (and get
charged for it).
So, it appears that that wireless providers have a great source of
revenue from spam, thus they don't want to stop it. My contract calls
for per message charges. I don't mind the occasional note from my
kids or a pictue of my grandkids and paying the freight, but to have
to pay for spam and a message to "try" to stop it is a load of stuff
out of the south end of a north bound bull.
Wireless providers are really not intereseted in stopping illegal
activity if they profit from it, If spam is OK, then personal info is
clearlly at risk.
ET
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 12:13:10 -0800 (PST)
From: "harold@hallikainen.com" <harold@hallikainen.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Fortifying Phones From Attackers
Message-ID: <57a78d72-3c71-42ec-8ea8-5c51a86dc250@a28g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
My first cellphone required you to key in a number before it would
place calls. This was to prevent accidental dials (it had an exposed
keyboard). The number, though, was fixed (something like 1234). A
great security feature would be to require a user to key in a PIN
before "starting a session" on the phone except for receiving a call.
My current phone has a PIN lock feature, but you have to go in and
unlock, then relock the phone when you're done. It's a pain. It seems
that it'd be real simple to have a user configurable PIN and a user
configurable timeout. You could receive calls, but not make calls
without starting the session with the PIN.
Do any phones have such a feature? It seems that it would largely
limit the market for stolen cellphones.
Harold
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 (17 messages)
|
| |
or 