The Telecom Digest for December 28, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 351 : "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, 26 Dec 2010 14:31:25 -0700
From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: No Signal: Homes Often Baffle Wi-Fi From Routers
Message-ID: <20101226213227.6151.qmail@gal.iecc.com>
At 11:51 AM 12/26/2010, you wrote:
>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
When I got my second Mustang, it had a light to tell me when
to shift the gears. I thought it incredibly stupid.
I took it back to the dealer and told him to disconnect
it. I kept looking down thinking there was a problem with the engine
and I didn't want to get in the habit of ignoring dash lights.
He disconnected it for me.
So I know how you feel.
Regards,
Fred, WB4AEJ
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:02:31 -0800
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: No Signal: Homes Often Baffle Wi-Fi From Routers
Message-ID: <6johh6hcjhocl2argcu0ql0ernngafhaqm@4ax.com>
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:31:25 -0700, Fred Atkinson
<fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com> wrote:
> When I got my second Mustang, it had a light to tell me when
>to shift the gears. I thought it incredibly stupid.
Why? Was it telling you the wrong time to shift?
Dick
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 00:23:23 -0500
From: Ann O'Nymous <nobody@anonymous.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: No Signal: Homes Often Baffle Wi-Fi From Routers
Message-ID: <ifbs8a$iqe$1@speranza.aioe.org>
On 12/27/2010 2:02 PM, Richard wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:31:25 -0700, Fred Atkinson
> <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com> wrote:
>
>> When I got my second Mustang, it had a light to tell me when
>> to shift the gears. I thought it incredibly stupid.
>
> Why? Was it telling you the wrong time to shift?
There was a government mandate at one time telling automakers to come up
with methods to save gas. One of the ways they came up with for manual
cars was an idiot light* to tell you when to shift for maximum fuel
economy. The shift light told you to shift too soon, giving rotten
acceleration, but it would be at the right time for max fuel economy.
The dealer probably could have gotten into trouble for disabling that
"fuel economy" device!
* in this case "idiot" doesn't refer to the driver but whoever approved
of the foolish thing.
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 16:10:20 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Fortifying Phones From Attackers
Message-ID: <AANLkTikR1aR8hjVASBUoayYNFRvtBBY9LDF9xQd+sF8K@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 2:13 PM, harold@hallikainen.com
<harold@hallikainen.com> wrote:
> Do any phones have such a feature? It seems that it would largely
> limit the market for stolen cellphones.
My Samsung Captivate (aka Galaxy S) has two options. One is a SIM
card lock. Upon bootup it requires a code to unlock the SIM (note:
this is not the same as a carrier lock on the SIM). The second is a
screensaver type password that can be a 4-digit code or a pattern. I
ended up disabling both because they were annoying.
The SIM card lock on the surface seems to be the most secure. But
since I carrier unlocked my phone all a thief would have to do is pop
in a new SIM. I believe my existing SIM would continue to be locked,
I never tested that. This would prevent my bill from being run up,
but I would still be out a phone and my data.
The second option was simply annoying and the fingerprint smear
patterns on my screen probably gave away or at least narrowed down the
PIN/pattern. And I have to think a determined thief could easily
circumvent this.
At the time of theft a thief isn't necessarily going to know if a
given phone has a security feature or not. He's going to take it and
figure it out later. For this reason I loaded Lookout which allows me
to locate my phone and if needed, disable and wipe it.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 22:13:48 -0500
From: "Gary" <bogus-email@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Fortifying Phones From Attackers
Message-ID: <if909e$lhi$1@news.eternal-september.org>
<harold@hallikainen.com> wrote in message
news:<57a78d72-3c71-42ec-8ea8-5c51a86dc250@a28g2000prb.googlegroups.com>...
> 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.
Pretty much all smartphones do this. Blackberry, iPhone, Droids, e.t.c.
Phones with full keyboards even let you use passwords, not just a pin.
Blackberries reset and wipe their memory after 10 failed password attempts.
However, the phone is not locked. It is simply in the same state it was
when new. Your data is protected but the phone can be activated. I doubt
a carrier won't activate a blank phone - after all, an activation means
money.
-Gary
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 15:49:21 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Providing Caller ID with Name
Message-ID: <mYadnXB1pY4cSYrQnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
> Some minimal FCC accuracy standards would be nice.
>
In all Caller ID decisions, the FCC affirmatively refused to get into
the issue of name information. It was all about, and only about,
transmission of directory numbers.
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 22:46:14 -0500
From: "Gary" <bogus-email@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon's FiOS
Message-ID: <if9268$8i1$1@news.eternal-september.org>
"Ann O'Nymous" wrote in message news:if7isp$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.
The fiber carries three wavelengths (or colors, if you prefer) of light.
This is what you are calling "channels." Two are transmitted by the network
toward the subscriber (downstream) by a device at the central office called
an optical line termination (or OLT). The other is transmitted by the
subscriber premise equipment to the network (upstream) by a device called an
optical network termination (or ONT).
Note that ONTs are further classified by the type of building they are used
in. An ONT at a typical house is called a "single family unit" or ONT:SFU.
This is what most people mean when they say ONT. An ONT at an apartment
building is called a "multiple dwelling unit" or ONT:MDU. This is often
shortened to MDU. Further, business users may use these or other special
purpose ONTs depending on their location and service needs.
Anyway, back to the wavelengths. In FiOS, one downstream wavelength is
dedicated to TV services while the other is phone/data. Since we're
talking fiber here, each wavelength can carry a huge amount of information.
In fact, a single wavelength can carry the same information you'd find on an
870Mhz coax cable system. And, this is exactly what FiOS does with the TV
wavelength - they put an entire set of cable channels across it. The ONT
receives this signal and turns into a multi-channel RF over coax signal that
feeds the TVs and set-top boxes in the home. Note this is pretty much the
same way that cable TV works, except that the fiber to coax conversion
happens outside the home.
The other downstream wavelength is a 622Mbps ATM data flow. Since ATM was
designed to carry both voice and data, this makes sense. For each phone
line assigned to the ONT, a full 64Kbps of bandwidth is allocated. This is
not VoIP. There is no compression It is basically an extension of the
digital phone network to the ONT. The ONT acts like a mini-CO for phone
service. The subscriber's internet data flows over this link as well,
using a different ATM link and class of service than the phone(s). The rate
is controlled by the OLT.
The upstream channel is a 155Mbps ATM data flow. Of course, the phone
service has a portion of this bandwidth dedicated to it. The subscriber's
upstream internet data flows through this link as well. This link is shared
with up to 32 users on a fiber. The OLT is in charge of granting transmit
permission to the ONTs. Phone service is guaranteed by ATM classes of
service as well as proper network engineering. Internet data is best effort
up to the subscriber's transmit speed.
On a cable TV system, the set-top boxes transmit back to the head end using
RF energy below the lowest received channel. Since FiOS can't do this (the
TV wavelength is one way), the set-top boxes transmit using IP data over the
upstream channel. This is one of many reasons why the boxes have to be
connected to the data router (note bi-directional data between the router
and boxes is carried over coax in the home, but this is different than how
cable does it).
You asked about VOD, and yes, it is carried over the downstream ATM
wavelength as IP data. I don't know for sure, but I'd be very surprised if
it counted against the user's internet downstream data rate. It most
certainly is carried using a separate ATM class of service than "regular"
data. As such, it would be trivial to separate it for speed management
purposes. Further, I doubt Verizon would want VOD users complaining of
picture problems when high download traffic is going on at the same time.
FiOS is a BPON. The "P" means passive, which means there is nothing powered
between the OLTs and ONTs. When a fiber is split to serve up to 32 users,
this is done with unpowered equipment. In areas with FiOS, you will often
see big boxes on the telephone poles a few feet off the ground. These are
the splitters. For each fiber connected to the OLTs, they can provide up to
32 fibers to the users near the box.
Anyway, that's more than you asked about. Enjoy.
-Gary
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 00:29:38 -0500
From: Ann O'Nymous <nobody@anonymous.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon's FiOS
Message-ID: <ifbsk1$jbp$1@speranza.aioe.org>
On 12/26/2010 10:46 PM, Gary wrote:
> The other downstream wavelength is a 622Mbps ATM data flow. Since ATM
> was designed to carry both voice and data, this makes sense. For each
> phone line assigned to the ONT, a full 64Kbps of bandwidth is allocated.
> This is not VoIP. There is no compression It is basically an extension
> of the digital phone network to the ONT. The ONT acts like a mini-CO for
> phone service. The subscriber's internet data flows over this link as
> well, using a different ATM link and class of service than the phone(s).
> The rate is controlled by the OLT.
This is pretty much what I meant by asking if the phone service was a
mini version of the fiber-POTS devices the telcos have in cabinets
between a neighborhood and the CO. "ATM" was what I was looking for and
wanted to ask about.
> The upstream channel is a 155Mbps ATM data flow. Of course, the phone
> service has a portion of this bandwidth dedicated to it. The
> subscriber's upstream internet data flows through this link as well.
> This link is shared with up to 32 users on a fiber. The OLT is in charge
> of granting transmit permission to the ONTs.
I take it that this is part of ATM and is old hat for the likes of
Verizon. A form of time multiplex.
> Anyway, that's more than you asked about. Enjoy.
>
> -Gary
>
Thanks!
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 10:58:56 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: AT&T Video Shows Texting and Driving Don't Mix
Message-ID: <p06240831c93e676db95f@[192.168.180.133]>
AT&T Video Shows Texting and Driving Don't Mix
By MATT RICHTEL
DECEMBER 27, 2010
"Where u at"
That was the last text message by Mariah West, who died at the age of
18 when she skidded in traffic and flipped into the oncoming lane.
She was texting at the time.
She is among the people who appear in a nearly 11-minute documentary
developed by AT&T to warn young people about the dangers of texting
and driving.
...
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/video-shows-that-texting-and-driving-dont-mix/
"It Can Wait"
http://www.att.com/txtngcanwait
AT&T Don't Text While Driving Documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DebhWD6ljZs
As New Year's Eve Approaches, AT&T Aims to Reach Millions with
Powerful Anti-Texting While Driving Message
AT&T Distributing Free Documentary Featuring Families Affected by
Texting Behind the Wheel to Educators, Government Officials, Safety
Organizations and Public
Dallas, Texas, December 27, 2010
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=18856&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=31449
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:11:43 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Gadgets Bring New Opportunities for Hackers
Message-ID: <p06240832c93e6b01900e@[192.168.180.133]>
Gadgets Bring New Opportunities for Hackers
By ASHLEE VANCE
December 26, 2010
Researchers at Mocana, a security technology company in San
Francisco, recently discovered they could hack into a best-selling
Internet-ready HDTV model with unsettling ease.
They found a hole in the software that helps display Web sites on the
TV and leveraged that flaw to control information being sent to the
television. They could put up a fake screen for a site like
Amazon.com and then request credit card billing details for a
purchase. They could also monitor data being sent from the TV to
sites.
"Consumer electronics makers as a class seem to be rushing to connect
all their products to the Internet," said Adrian Turner, Mocana's
chief executive. "I can tell you for a fact that the design teams at
these companies have not put enough thought into security."
Mocana and firms like it sell technology for protecting devices and
often try to publicize potential threats. But the Mocana test also
illustrates what security experts have long warned: that the arrival
of Internet TVs, smartphones and other popular Web-ready gadgets will
usher in a new era of threats by presenting easy targets for hackers.
As these devices become more popular, experts say, consumers can
expect to run into familiar scams like credit card number thefts as
well as new ones that play off features in the products. And because
the devices are relatively new, they do not yet have as much
protection as more traditional products, like desktop computers, do.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/technology/27hack.html
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:21:18 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: A Day With an E-mail Scammer
Message-ID: <p06240834c93e6cb7f6c3@[192.168.180.133]>
A Day With an E-mail Scammer
David Pogue
DECEMBER 23, 2010
I love this time of year. It's a time of giving, sharing and
unexpected surprises - like the one that just popped into my inbox.
It comes from reader James Veitch, a London-based theater writer and
director, who sent me the transcripts of a back-and-forth he had with
"a not terribly clever e-mail scammer." It's a long shot, he said,
but he thought "it might be good for publication." He's not kidding.
I LOL'ed, I ROFL'ed, I LMAO'ed.
The scammer was posing as Alex, an actual friend of Mr. Veitch (the
scammer was using a lookalike of Alex's e-mail address-"ymail.com"
instead of "gmail.com").
Somewhere in Nigeria, Mr. Veitch's correspondent is probably telling
a similarly amusing tale.
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/a-day-with-an-e-mail-scammer/
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:29:03 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Day With an E-mail Scammer
Message-ID: <ifaicu$9vk$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <p06240834c93e6cb7f6c3@[192.168.180.133]> Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> writes:
>A Day With an E-mail Scammer
>David Pogue
[snip of heartwarming story of a spam/scam recipient who, well,
didn't do much except waste his time replying to the spammer...]
>http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/a-day-with-an-e-mail-scammer/
Mr. Pogue really needs to get a dose of maturity into his columns.
This oh-so-cute story simply shows someone wasting his time
by replying to a spammer correspondent.
There's no there, there. The vicarious enjoyment at the
presumed suffering of the spammer is illusory.
But even more critical here is the whole concept of engaging
in such communication.
If I were a betting man, I'd betcha that a small, but very
real, percentage of people on the recipient side, once they've
gotten the tenth or so re-re-reply, will, in fact, fall
for the scam.
Similarly, a good number of them will believe the spammer
when he says "As you've asked, I've attached a photo showing
our office staff. It should show up in a few seconds. If
your system has trouble displaying the picture, just click
on the 'OK' button..."
You can all guess what happens next to the recipient's computer...
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
***** Moderator's Note *****
Ah, but you never heard of the Church of the Painted Breast?
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:41:57 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Skype Struggles to Restore Its Service and Reputation
Message-ID: <p06240838c93e72414300@[192.168.180.133]>
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/skype-struggles-to-restore-its-service-and-reputation/
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 21:26:15 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Fortifying Phones From Attackers
Message-ID: <if8btn$81a$3@news.albasani.net>
Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Yea, right. The wireless companies really want to protect their
>customers... I have a Verizon phone that has been spam free for
>years, until a month ago. An obvious spam message (phishing,
>actually) showed up an I went to a Verizon store to complain. The
>clerk duly sent a "stop" message and said all was OK. At the end of
>the month I was charged for the spam message and the "stop" message.
>The good lad did show me how to block text messages from certain
>numbers, however.
>A second obvious spam message was received a couple of weeks later. I
>tried to block it, but it came from a "llist" that didn't have a 10
>digit phone number, so it could not be blocked. It cost me two more
>text message charges. I complained to the store, but they didn't have
>any solution, except to send another text to stop the spam (and get
>charged for it).
Wireless stores are stricly sales, not customer service. They lack authority
to give credits or to fix billing issues. You need to talk to a supervisor
at a call center.
Demand credits for each of those messages and a bit of extra money for
the provider being a pain in the ass.
I have text messages turned off and I don't receive email on the cell phone
instrument. It's an overpriced service I can live without.
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:16:28 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: SMS spam, was: Fortifying Phones From Attackers
Message-ID: <ifahlc$kh4$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <if8btn$81a$3@news.albasani.net> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:
>Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snippage]
>>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.
>>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).
...
>I have text messages turned off and I don't receive email on the cell phone
>instrument. It's an overpriced service I can live without.
The problem is that, well the second problem is that... the cellular
carriers have e-mail and other gateways to their systems, letting
people, including spammers, send messages out at no cost to themselves.
(The first problem is the charge-for-each SMS that's the default
with most carriers).
typically the address to use is [phonenumber]-at-[modified-cellco-name].
For a made up example, you'd send an e-mail to:
5555555555[at]celco.example.com
Which,natch, means that a spammer will send to:
5555551000, 5555551001, ... 5555559999 [at] the domain...
My own cellular provider [1] gives me a choice of either
leaving the account open to e-mail/SMS of this sort, or
to shut it off completely. They offer a semi-solution
where I can replace my "phone number" in that gateway,
so to speak, with an alternate name. So instead of
5555555555, I'd have five-five [at] (the domain).
The problem is that... while it would work for an e-mail
correspondent, it make things ugly for someone on another
cellphone who has my number and wants to send a msg.
I've tried really, really, hard to get the cellco to
offer what should be a simple solution set, namely:
a: leave the account wide open
b: only accept messages that originate
from a valid other cellphone provider's network
c: only accept messages from their own subscribers.
They claim to not understand what I'm saying....
(While I don't routinely use SMS/e-mail, I'd like
the option of receiving such messages on those
periodic occassins where it would be useful).
[1] happens to be t-mobile. Don't know if other
carriers have a similar choice.
Note that even though this option is listed on the
web page, lots of customers have complained it
doesn't work. Oh,and the TM won't fix it.
I haven't set it up myself so can't vouch one way
or another.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:38:04 -0500
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: SMS spam, was: Fortifying Phones From Attackers
Message-ID: <op.vod0tqtyitl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:16:28 -0500, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
> I've tried really, really, hard to get the cellco to
> offer what should be a simple solution set, namely:
>
> a: leave the account wide open
> b: only accept messages that originate
> from a valid other cellphone provider's network
> c: only accept messages from their own subscribers.
>
> They claim to not understand what I'm saying....
>
> (While I don't routinely use SMS/e-mail, I'd like
> the option of receiving such messages on those
> periodic occassins where it would be useful).
>
> [1] happens to be t-mobile. Don't know if other
> carriers have a similar choice.
>
> Note that even though this option is listed on the
> web page, lots of customers have complained it
> doesn't work. Oh,and the TM won't fix it.
Quite so: T-Mobile's EmailFilters.aspx page has been broken, for me, for the
T-Mo CC reps who've tried it thinking it might be working again, and for
others complaining about it in the T-Mo Forums, since June, 2009 (!) -- and
quite possibly even a bit longer. ETtR? Don't even ask :-) .
Cheers, and Happy New Year, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 09:43:06 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Fortifying Phones From Attackers
Message-ID: <pan.2010.12.26.22.43.03.434838@myrealbox.com>
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 12:13:10 -0800, harold@hallikainen.com wrote:
......
> 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.
That was a standard feature on an old Ericsson GSM handset I had years
ago (auto-lock after dialling but still be able to answer), I would
imagine that you just have to hunt around to find a model/brand that still
does something similar.
--
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: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 01:16:26 -0600
From: gordonb.uzonw@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Fortifying Phones From Attackers
Message-ID: <yI6dncTYu6nXoIXQnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
>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.
I thought all modern phones had this feature, largely to protect
personal information such as address/phone books, or to avoid someone
using all your minutes.
>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.
My Blackberry 9700 has an optional (user-settable) phone password.
You set a timeout and the phone automatically locks after that
timeout: 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 60 minutes (infinite is not a
choice, but you can enable and disable the password without changing
it). I'm not sure how long the password can be but <= 18 characters
works. You set a number of failed tries (3-10) after which the
phone will wipe all data (the password prompt lets you know how
many tries you have left). You can optionally allow outgoing calls
while it's locked (an emergency call is always available from the
locked screen). You can optionally have the phone lock when you
put it in a holster. You can change the password, but you have to
enter the old one first.
Under some circumstances (I suspect related to butt-dialing), the
phone may insist you type "blackberry" before you can try to dial
again, a protection against using up all your tries with butt-dialing.
Also, there's a one-press "lock keyboard" function. It provides
no security, you have to manually invoke it, and it's mostly
useful for prevention of butt-dialing.
A stolen phone can still be wiped (at which point it won't have a
password) and used. I find it difficult to imagine a phone without
this feature (where forgetting the password makes the phone unusable
*permanently*). Corporate telecom managers would throw a fit if
they get back phones that can't be used at all.
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 09:38:36 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: No Signal: Homes Often Baffle Wi-Fi From Routers
Message-ID: <pan.2010.12.26.22.38.33.184171@myrealbox.com>
On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:05:00 -0600, 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.
...........
I have installed a few WAPs recently where they have the ability to
continually scan all available channels and automatically switch to the
frequency with the lesser signals on it.
This seems almost necessary now in high-density locales with multitudes of
these devices all competing for use of the same channels.
--
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 19:56:51 -0500
From: tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Please don't hit me with your modem
Message-ID: <op.vockw1h4itl47o@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:30:43 -0500, John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
> 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.
Then you're way too young to possibly be any son of mine :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 23:10:25 -0800
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Please don't hit me with your modem
Message-ID: <0jegh6d544mv2qbaftnpmn4lv90jbofsrf@4ax.com>
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 13:30:43 -0600, John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
wrote:
>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.
I was 46 years-old on January 1, 1984.
In 1989, I was celebrating my 30th anniversary with Bell Labs. My
supervisor asked Dave, a young member of his group of workers, to
organize a luncheon for me. A couple of days later, Dave said to me:
"Wow, Dick. I just realized that you've been working at the Labs
longer than I have been alive!"
Dick
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:25:04 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
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: <alpine.WNT.2.00.1012271120240.392@AURM106297.americas.ad.flextronics.com>
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010, Richard wrote:
> In 1989, I was celebrating my 30th anniversary with Bell Labs. My
> supervisor asked Dave, a young member of his group of workers, to
> organize a luncheon for me. A couple of days later, Dave said to me:
> "Wow, Dick. I just realized that you've been working at the Labs
> longer than I have been alive!"
In 1990 I was working at Bell Labs in Middletown, NJ while I was in
school. Some people were sitting around talking about the Apollo 11
mission and someone asked if I remembered the moon landing. I said that
happened about a month before I was born. I just got angry stares.
When I was with Network Services in Atlanta I worked with a guy in his
mid-30s who was a huge Billy Idol fan. It was Idol's 35th birthday. I
blurted out, "Thirty-five! I just can't imagine someone THAT OLD being a
rock star." Again, dirty looks.
But I got my just desserts. A couple of years ago we had a co-op student
from Texas A&M here. Sharp kid. I told him I was a co-op at AT&T and had
started in 1987. He said, "1987? Wow, that was the year I was born."
Then I think I know kids and have conversations with them who weren't
close to being born yet on 9/11/01.
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:23:35 +0000 (UTC)
From: Horn <horn+NOSPAN@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Please don't hit me with your modem
Message-ID: <if9svn$mme$1@reader1.panix.com>
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
> 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.
While living on an island in Pugit Sound I had a youngster (14ish) ask
to use the phone and couldn't figure out how to use the rotary dial.
And now they don't even know what a dial tone is.
horn
--
Remove +STRING to reply by email
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 17:17:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: ZIP Codes and barcodes
Message-ID: <528219.3686.qm@web111704.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
--- On Sat, 12/25/10, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> 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.
Articles weighing more than 13 ounces must be presented at a post
office (not at a contract station or branch but at a place manned by
governmment employees. That's the weight of the Unabomber's mail
bombs.
> 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.
The main post office in Lawton, Oklahoma, has a separate collection
box out in front, in addition to the "local" and "not local" boxes,
for mail to Wichita Falls, Texas, because the cities are so closely
associated economically and socially. That mail goes directly to
Wichita Falls. Otherwise it would follow the path through the
processing center in Oklahoma City, fly or be trucked to the
processing center north of Dallas, and finally go from there to
Wichita Falls, taking two days. The direct dispatch saves a day over
automation.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 10:57:30 -0800
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: ZIP Codes and barcodes
Message-ID: <l0ohh65u9matbe12hpr2paqsstibmnm1i0@4ax.com>
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 17:17:54 -0800 (PST), Wes Leatherock
<wleathus@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The main post office in Lawton, Oklahoma, has a separate collection
>box out in front, in addition to the "local" and "not local" boxes,
>for mail to Wichita Falls, Texas, because the cities are so closely
>associated economically and socially. That mail goes directly to
>Wichita Falls. Otherwise it would follow the path through the
>processing center in Oklahoma City, fly or be trucked to the
>processing center north of Dallas, and finally go from there to
>Wichita Falls, taking two days. The direct dispatch saves a day over
>automation.
At the opposite extreme is mail handling in my town of Pahrump, NV,
60 miles from Las Vegas. Mail from Pahrump to Pahrump goes to Las
Vegas for canceling and sorting, and back to Pahrump for distribution.
We get next day delivery for such mail. Apparently, it's cheaper not
to do cancellation in Pahrump. We used to have two mail slots in the
post office: Pahrump and not-Pahrump; now there is only one.
Dick
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 23:35:51 +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: <ifb7sn$gp8$1@news.albasani.net>
Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 12/25/10, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>Articles weighing more than 13 ounces must be presented at a post
>office (not at a contract station or branch but at a place manned by
>governmment employees. That's the weight of the Unabomber's mail
>bombs.
Hm?
Domestic Mail Manual
126.1.2 Pieces Weighing More than 13 Ounces
Priority Mail weighing more than 13 ounces bearing only postage stamps as
postage may not be deposited into a collection box, Postal Service lobby
drop, Automated Postal Center (APC) drop, Postal Service dock, customer
mailbox, or other unattended location. These mailpieces are also precluded
from pickup service. The sender must present such items to an employee at
a retail service counter in a Postal Service facility. Improperly presented
items will be returned to the sender for proper entry and acceptance.
There is similar language for Express Mail at 116.1.1, for Parcel Post at
156.1.6, for Media Mail (ex-Book Rate) at 176.1.2, and for Library Mail
at 186.1.2.
Now, Parcel Post, Media Mail, and Library Mail are typically sent via
surface, but they can receive air transport on a space available basis.
There are no restrictions for depositing mail at contract post offices,
stations, or branches as long as the parcel is presented to the contractor
over the counter.
In domestic mail, there are no restrictions on depositing metered mail
at unattended locations. A friend used to obtain $0.00 meter strips from
the office with a postage meter next door so he could deposit stamped flats
and parcels without restriction.
Also, you used to be able to hand stamped items over the weight limit to
your friendly letter carrier but even that's been eliminated.
>The main post office in Lawton, Oklahoma, has a separate collection
>box out in front, in addition to the "local" and "not local" boxes,
>for mail to Wichita Falls, Texas, because the cities are so closely
>associated economically and socially. That mail goes directly to
>Wichita Falls. Otherwise it would follow the path through the
>processing center in Oklahoma City, fly or be trucked to the
>processing center north of Dallas, and finally go from there to
>Wichita Falls, taking two days. The direct dispatch saves a day over
>automation.
Good idea. I wonder if that's common at a lot of post offices on the
edge of territory served by a major plant.
However, I'm shocked that that post office still has local and out-of-town
boxes. I've heard of post offices that refuse to order parts for the
cancelling machine and stop maintaining them, so desperate to cut down on
clerks' hours that they won't let them run the machines. The only way
to get a local cancel any more is to insist on a window clerk using the
round dating stamp. For all I know, these may have been removed as well.
As the deficit grows ever larger, the post office removes more and more
service that one used to rely upon.
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 13:44:34 -0600 (CST)
From: jsw <jsw@ivgate.omahug.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: History--Eight Digit US telephone numbers?
Message-ID: <201012271944.oBRJiYni046371@ivgate.omahug.org>
>Recollection is a gizmo that processed a two-digit chunk
>of a number -- a disk element that rose on a rod for the
>first digit, and rotated for the second one.
What you are describing, to a tee, is the final selector
or 'connector' in a Strowger (step) office.
The next to last digit, the 'tens' digit, would cause the
switch to ratchet upward, the number of levels being equal
to the digit on the dial, and the last digit, the 'units'
digit, would cause it to rotate into the bank to the line
being called.
#include <vertical_pawl stationary_dog double_dog etc.h> ;-)
The first and second (incoming) selectors would step upward
along with the dial pulses and then rotate to a vacant
connection to the selector for the next digit.
A distinct audible 'clunk' could always be heard right after
dialing the thousands and hundreds digits, as the selector
rotated and seized the next level selector, but not after
the tens digit. Similar clunks could be heard after each
digit when dialing the office code, but the clunk after the
first digit was often times masked by the extinction of the
dial tone.
>Downtown Phila had some SxS units serving certain Centrex
>users.
Columbia University used to have something like this in the
early 1970s. However, I always thought of it as more of a
step-based PBX with direct inward dialing than a true
'Centrex' with all of the switch-based bells and whistles
such as call transfer, three-way, camp-on and such.
The only 'feature' I remember on that particular installation
was that a hook flash would signal the human operator who
could then do a call transfer or (do I really remember this?)
three-way. IIRC, the operator was on a cord board. I also
seem to recall that this was all driven by a crossbar tandem.
>Oddly, SxS but not panel could service Centrex.
I can visualize that it would be very difficult to do any
kind of 'Centrex' type features on a panel office with the
totally inflexible architecture of the incoming and final
frames. I think that hunt groups were the most fancy of the
features that panel could do.
As I think back I can't think of any 'Centrex' or even any
DID-PBX installations hosted on a #1 crossbar. I do recall
some native #5 crossbar Centrex (or was it really DID-PBX, I
guess it's a matter of semantics) installations and I do
remember that #5 crossbar often times hosted the 101 ESS
Centrex-CU installations, but I don't recall any #1 crossbar
switches driving the 101 either.
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 19:38:30 -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: <4551a717-0dae-40cd-af93-62c82b4eaf7e@w2g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 27, 2:44 pm, jsw <j...@ivgate.omahug.org> wrote:
> >Downtown Phila had some SxS units serving certain Centrex
> >users.
>
> Columbia University used to have something like this in the
> early 1970s. However, I always thought of it as more of a
> step-based PBX with direct inward dialing than a true
> 'Centrex' with all of the switch-based bells and whistles
> such as call transfer, three-way, camp-on and such.
>
> The only 'feature' I remember on that particular installation
> was that a hook flash would signal the human operator who
> could then do a call transfer or (do I really remember this?)
> three-way. IIRC, the operator was on a cord board. I also
> seem to recall that this was all driven by a crossbar tandem.
I believe the first version of Centrex was essentially a PBX with
direct inward dialing. Centrex II, which I think required ESS, had
more of the "bells and whistles" with automatic call transfer and
three-way, etc.
The older Centrex did transfers by hookswitch flash. For directly
dialed calls and calls handled by a cordless board, it showed up on
the operator's console. For calls handled by a cord board, it flashed
the cord circuit supervisory (hookswitch) lights.
> As I think back I can't think of any 'Centrex' or even any
> DID-PBX installations hosted on a #1 crossbar. I do recall
> some native #5 crossbar Centrex (or was it really DID-PBX, I
> guess it's a matter of semantics) installations and I do
> remember that #5 crossbar often times hosted the 101 ESS
> Centrex-CU installations, but I don't recall any #1 crossbar
> switches driving the 101 either.
I don't think #1 crossbar did much of anything beyond switch calls.
Indeed, the Bell Labs history, while discussing it, seems to downplay
its role, focusing all the accolades on the #4 (toll) and #5
crossbar. My impression is that the #1 xbar was merely a more cost-
efficient and trunk-efficient machine over panel, but didn't add
anything in the way of customer features. Of course being trunk
efficient was a major cost saving and one of the weaknesses of step in
high traffic situations.
The history says they tried call waiting on the #5 but it wasn't cost-
efficient to implement as a service on that machine.
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 23:39:01 -0600
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Prepaid SIMs in the USA
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=JhoMzmv6dWE8-RhX_Qp1Yyx-i0R7ey=O1Uw+2@mail.gmail.com>
For many years I've been perfectly content to take whatever phone a
wireless company offered and paid obscene monthly rates whether I
barely used the phone or used all my minutes. And I liked it that
way. But these days I want to decouple my phone from my carrier.
Ideally I'd like a prepaid plan that gives high data usage, but low
phone usage that is cheaper than what I'm paying today. And since I'm
talking SIM cards, yes, GSM.
What are my options in the USA? I've nosed around and I can't find
anything. Prepaid plans here seem to be targeted to older people or
young people without credit. Is there perhaps a third option?
Postpaid without a contract?
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
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 (29 messages)
|
| |
or 