31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for February 9, 2013
Volume 32 : Issue 36 : "text" Format
====== 31 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 Bill Horne 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 that person, or email address
owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of
that address. 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: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 21:00:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Closer than the satellites that guide your GPS
Message-ID: <90cba3a8-f70f-470a-a456-011c7e8e7237@z9g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 7, 6:18 pm, Neal McLain <nmcl...@annsgarden.com> wrote:
> Most communication satellites are indeed in geosynchronous orbits.
> Furthermore, most of them are in the geostationary orbit; i.e., the
> Clarke Belt.
>
> The term "geosynchronous" means only that the satellite orbit equals one
> sidereal day. It says nothing about the inclination of the orbital
> plane or the eccentricity of the orbit. To be geostationary, an orbit
> must meet three criteria:
>
> - It must be geosynchronous.
>
> - The inclination of the orbital plane must be zero (i.e., it must lie
> in the earth's equatorial plane).
>
> - The eccentricity of the orbit must be zero (i.e., the orbit must be a
> circle).
>
> There's an infinite number of geosynchronous orbits but only one of them
> is geostationary.
[Moderator snip]
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> What's the third criteria?
Criteria:
1. The orbit must be geosynchronous.
2. The inclination of the orbital plane must be zero (i.e., it must
lie in the earth's equatorial plane).
3. The eccentricity of the orbit must be zero (i.e., the orbit must be
a circle).
Neal
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 00:03:40 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: CenturyLink looses a cable in Mesa AZ
Message-ID: <20130208050340.GA2589@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
Century Link line damaged in Mesa
While working on the Mesa Drive and Southern Avenue improvements
project, a contractor damaged a Century Link telephone line Thursday
afternoon.
In a statement released shortly after the incident, Century Link said
that approximately 2,000 homes and businesses have been affected.
http://ktar.com/22/1608610/Century-Link-line-damaged-in-Mesa
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 06:19:33 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: closer than the satellites that guide your GPS
Message-ID: <kf25dl$t4j$1@reader1.panix.com>
"John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> writes:
>>More likely, they assumed GPS satellites were in geosynchronous orbits
>>(22,000 miles), like most communication satellites. I was actually
>>surprised to see that they aren't.
>Then they wouldn't be usable at high latitudes, which would be a
>problem. (Remember where the DEW line was.)
Err, would not a higher altitude make for better polar coverage?
GPS birds are lower because their transmissions are weak, and have
to be heard by substandard receivers/antennas.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 09:10:39 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: closer than the satellites that guide your GPS
Message-ID: <tsWdnQWTq_byiIjMnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <kf25dl$t4j$1@reader1.panix.com>,
David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> wrote:
>"John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> writes:
>
>>>More likely, they assumed GPS satellites were in geosynchronous orbits
>>>(22,000 miles), like most communication satellites. I was actually
>>>surprised to see that they aren't.
>
>>Then they wouldn't be usable at high latitudes, which would be a
>>problem. (Remember where the DEW line was.)
>
>Err, would not a higher altitude make for better polar coverage?
If they were in equatorial orbits, yes, higher is better.
They're not.
>GPS birds are lower because their transmissions are weak, and have
>to be heard by substandard receivers/antennas.
Insignificant (about 4dB, vs geosync), inconsequential, and irrelevant. <grin>
GPS, and other forms of 'triangulation', is more precise when the angular
difference between stations is larger.
Having the line of sight well above the horizon is preferable.
(geostationary is actually below the horizon at the Poles, at ground level)
Non-geosync orbits ensure a bird is not permanently blocked by a stationary
ground-based obstacle.
'High in the sky' is less likely to be blocked temporarily by a stationary
obstacle.
Solving 'all of the above' for 'everywhere on Earth, all the time' is non
trivial. <wry grin>
GPS birds have to be in stable/predictable orbits, you can't maneuver them
at will.
The vast majority of 'space junk' is in LEO. A good reason to avoid that
region for long-life birds.
Orbital velocity is lower in higher orbits, reducing Doppler-shift effects.
Selecting the orbits (height, azimuth, inclination, eccentricity) for the
GPS constellation was a complex set of trade-offs. <grin>
Date: 8 Feb 2013 22:36:20 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: closer than the satellites that guide your GPS
Message-ID: <20130208223620.19182.qmail@joyce.lan>
>Err, would not a higher altitude make for better polar coverage?
Not if they're over the equator. Even if they were infinitely far
away, at the pole your antenna would still be horizontal, and
any feature higher than you would block it.
>GPS birds are lower because their transmissions are weak, and have
>to be heard by substandard receivers/antennas.
They're not that much lower.
Iridium satellites really are in low orbit for that reason, but GPS is
higher than LEO, but not as high as geosync.
R's,
John
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 07:59:39 -0800
From: Jon Danniken <jonSPAMdanniken@yaSMPAhoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: closer than the satellites that guide your GPS
Message-ID: <kf37d9$val$1@speranza.aioe.org>
On 02/06/2013 10:29 AM, Bill Horne wrote:
>
> The fact that investorplace.com echoed CBS' error only bolsters my
> argument: I don't know which cart got in front of which horse, but a
> national news organization is responsible for paying attention to the
> basics.
You would think that they would be able to run the story by someone in
their employ who was scientifically minded, who might actually know the
answer, or at least would be curious enough to check it. Perhaps a
meteorologist would fit that bill, or just a plain old science consultant.
Or maybe they did run the story by such a person, and that person got
it wrong.
Jon
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:00:07 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: An imperfect ten: the BlackBerry Z10 smartphone review
Message-ID: <p062408a7cd3adc8af9e5@[10.0.1.10]>
An imperfect ten: the BlackBerry Z10 smartphone review
The Z10 is good, just maybe not break-up-with-your-current-smartphone good.
by Andrew Cunningham
Feb 2 2013
Ars Technica
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/02/an-imperfect-ten-the-blackberry-z10-smartphone-review/
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:00:07 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: 23Mbps down, 44 up: A tech insider's view from the Super Bowl
Message-ID: <p062408a4cd3ad7cdddbb@[10.0.1.10]>
23Mbps down, 44 up: A tech insider's view from the Super Bowl
Even during the power outage, Wi-Fi stayed strong-but a landline saved the day.
by Jon Brodkin
Feb 6 2013
Ars Technica
When the lights went off at the Super Bowl during the big game's
infamous power outage, not everything went offline.
The stadium-wide Wi-Fi network kept working-or at least it did in
some areas and for part of the outage. But it was a very old-school
technology-a landline phone-that saved the day for Andrew Stern, a
broadcast engineer for a San Francisco radio station.
After coming home from New Orleans, Stern gave me a rundown on how
the Super Bowl's technology held up. Was the Wi-Fi network as good as
promised? Answer: yes. Did the 35-minute power outage cause problems?
Answer: yes-but Stern and team found a way to manage.
...
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/02/23mbps-down-44-up-a-tech-insiders-view-from-the-super-bowl/
-or-
http://goo.gl/VaDzK
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:00:07 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Wi-Fi "as free as air"-the totally false story that refuses to die
Message-ID: <p062408a5cd3adbf1d60f@[10.0.1.10]>
Wi-Fi "as free as air"-the totally false story that refuses to die
Journalism goes wrong and just keeps getting worse.
by Jon Brodkin
Feb 7 2013
Ars Technica
Yesterday, a representative from Current TV's Viewpoint show
contacted some people at Condé Nast, the owner of Ars Technica.
Current TV was preparing a story about "the FCC's proposal to create
free Internet access with the creation of 'super Wi-Fi' networks
across the country," this person said, and the show needed a tech
journalist to talk about it on the air. Uh-oh.
If you read Ars or follow wireless tech, you already know what goes
wrong in this anecdote. Yes, this week saw a story become a national
sensation-free Wi-Fi for everyone! A virtual Oprah Winfrey would
descend from on high and bestow free Internet connections onto us
all, eliminating the need for pricey home Internet service and cell
phone bills forever.
The frenzy began Monday morning when the Washington Post reported
that "the federal government wants to create super Wi-Fi networks
across the nation, so powerful and broad in reach that consumers
could use them to make calls or surf the Internet without paying a
cellphone bill every month." Best of all, network access would be
free. "If all goes as planned, free access to the Web would be
available in just about every metropolitan area and in many rural
areas," the Post reported. The clear implication: this was a bold-and
entirely brand-new-plan.
Unfortunately, the piece was basically nonsense. What had really
happened was in fact unbelievably boring: the Post simply observed an
incremental development in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) at
the Federal Communications Commission over the issue of incentive
auctions that might free up some additional unlicensed spectrum for
so-called "White Space Devices" (read our explainer) operating in and
around the current over-the-air TV bands. (I told you it was boring;
in addition, the basic debate over White Space Devices was actually
settled in 2008.)
>From this thin material, which basically consisted of Internet
service providers and tech companies sniping at each other in long
legal documents, with no decisions being made by anyone and no new
proposals of anything, the Post then reported-on the front page,
above the fold of the country's eighth-most highly circulated
newspaper-that the FCC plan could lead to free Internet for most US
residents.
...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/wi-fi-as-free-as-air-the-totally-false-story-that-refuses-to-die/
-or-
http://goo.gl/VJClN
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:00:07 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: We're going to blow up your boiler: Critical bug threatens hospital systems
Message-ID: <p062408a8cd3add582a16@[10.0.1.10]>
We're going to blow up your boiler: Critical bug threatens hospital systems
21,000 vulnerable systems found on the Internet, used by hospitals,
banks, others.
by Dan Goodin
Feb 7 2013
Ars Technica
More than 21,000 Internet-connected devices sold by Honeywell are
vulnerable to a hack that allows attackers to remotely seize control
of building heating systems, elevators, and other industrial
equipment and in some cases, causes them to malfunction.
...
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/02/were-going-to-blow-up-your-boiler-critical-bug-threatens-hospital-systems/
-or-
http://goo.gl/WTQu9
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:38:37 -0500
From: bernieS <bernies@netaxs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: AT&T's SynJ extendable range phone system
Message-ID: <I4NSi.A.edC.jiaFRB@telecom>
Can any list members who have any experience (good or bad)
with AT&T's SynJ extendable range phone system please email me
privately? It's a 4-line DECT 6.0 cordless phone system for POTS that
supports multiple radio repeaters, cordless desk sets, and cordless
handsets. Thanks in advance!
-bernieS
***** Moderator's Note *****
I will not publish replies: please send them directly to Beries.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:00:07 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Site plagiarizes blog posts, then files DMCA takedown on originals
Message-ID: <p062408a9cd3adedd8561@[10.0.1.10]>
Site plagiarizes blog posts, then files DMCA takedown on originals
Stories about a disgraced researcher get pulled by WordPress.
by John Timmer
Feb 5 2013
Ars Technica
A dizzying story that involves falsified medical research,
plagiarism, and legal threats came to light via a DMCA takedown
notice today. Retraction Watch, a site that followed (among many
other issues) the implosion of a Duke cancer researcher's career,
found many of its articles on the topic pulled by WordPress, its
host. The reason? A small site based in India apparently copied all
of the posts, claimed them as their own, and then filed a DMCA
takedown notice to get the originals pulled from their source. As of
now, the originals are still missing as their actual owners seek to
have them restored.
...
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/site-plagiarizes-blog-posts-then-files-dmca-takedown-on-originals/
-or-
http://goo.gl/2SxPE
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.
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) 2013 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 (12 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues