See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details.
| Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 09:03:22 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: A Russian Smartphone Has to Overcome Rivals and Jokes About Its Origin
Message-ID: <B069CC70-49A1-4F62-BFD6-5233A6B07965@roscom.com>
Few people looking to buy a state-of-the-art smartphone would even
think about a Russian model, but the makers of the YotaPhone aspire to
change that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/world/europe/a-russian-smartphone-has-to-overcome-rivals-and-jokes-about-origin.html
-or-
http://goo.gl/SbRM77
|
| Date: 18 May 2015 21:26:20 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cellular Monopoly areas
Message-ID: <20150518212620.57116.qmail@ary.lan>
>Everyone I talked to about it said the same thing: "Only
>Verizon works around here".
>
>This raises several questions, first among them being
>"Where are the competitors"?
In rural areas? Hahahaha. Once you get very far away from big cities
and big roads, they're not interested.
Helpful tip: Android Tracfones run on Verizon's network. Even if you
don't want all the smartphone stuff, they're perfectly competent
phones, and they give you triple minutes and triple texts.
R's,
John
|
| Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 17:55:16 -0400
From: Retired <Retired@home.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cellular Monopoly areas
Message-ID: <zsmdnb2lveNYwsfInZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
On 5/18/15 4:34 PM, Bill Horne wrote:
> I just finished a working vacation in North Carolina, and
> I was very surprised to find out that certain areas
> of the state have, for practical purposes, only one
> cellular provider.
>
> [snip]
>
> Everyone I talked to about it said the same thing: "Only
> Verizon works around here".
According to
http://opensignal.com/coverage-maps/US/Charlotte/
... even Verizon has no service around Burnsville if you get very far
from the highway.
|
| Date: 19 May 2015 10:05:50 -0000
From: Bob Goudreau <BobGoudreau@nc.rr.com>
To: The Telecom Digest <majordomo@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Re: Cellular Monopoly areas
> I just finished a working vacation in North Carolina, and I was
> very surprised to find out that certain areas of the state have,
> for practical purposes, only one cellular provider.
>
> I spent a lot of time in the area around Burnsville, looking for
> a home my wife and I can retire in, and although my Tracphone
> would work more-or-less "OK" inside the city limits, anytime
> I travelled more than a couple of miles outside them, I was
> out-of-service.
>
> Everyone I talked to about it said the same thing: "Only Verizon works
around here".
I've run into similar problems when visiting relatives in Rumford, Maine.
Like Burnsville, Rumford is a small town only a few miles from the
Appalachian Trail. Sparsely populated areas get fewer cell towers
than more crowded places, and towers in mountainous regions tend to
provide less coverage than their peers in flatter places (due to
all those mountains getting in the way). So none of this is especially
surprising.
Bob Goudreau
Cary, NC
|
| Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 00:57:06 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cellular Monopoly areas
Message-ID: <i17n3vwiw4x6$.vjyutd5g3d5v$.dlg@40tude.net>
On 18 May 2015 20:34:44 -0000, Bill Horne wrote:
> I just finished a working vacation in North Carolina, and
> I was very surprised to find out that certain areas
> of the state have, for practical purposes, only one
> cellular provider.
>
> I spent a lot of time in the area around Burnsville, looking
> for a home my wife and I can retire in, and although my
> Tracphone would work more-or-less "OK" inside the city limits,
> anytime I travelled more than a couple of miles outside them,
> I was out-of-service.
>
> Everyone I talked to about it said the same thing: "Only
> Verizon works around here".
>
> This raises several questions, first among them being
> "Where are the competitors"? The area is growing, and
> ISTM that there would be at least one alternative to
> such a sole-source situation.
>
> Bill
In my experience, you can never know who the active carriers anywhere are.
This past weekend, for example, in the Fresh Meadows subsection of Queens,
NY, in and just outside one particular Chinese restaurant, a friend was
unable to raise a Verizon signal, while I found high T-Mobile signal
strength.
And last Fall, in the generalized Londonderry, VT, area, I found that a
change of position of just a few hundred feet could move me from a spot
with no Verizon coverage but plentiful T-Mobile service to one with no T-Mo
service but strong Verizon coverage.
Sprint? AT&T? No idea -- I carry no handsets activated to those carriers.
HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
|
| Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 07:43:36 -0400
From: "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FCC may kill 911 access for unregistered mobile phones
Message-ID: <elmop-FA1600.07433619052015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>
In article <54a98ce6-3308-433a-adbe-fb3c7c0646be@googlegroups.com>,
HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
> The problem is that there
> is no alternative number for citizens to call for low-priority police
> assistance
I think what you mean is "no national standard number similar to 911,
but for low-priority police assistance".
Here in town, the police dispatch phone number--which is what everyone
used to call prior to 911--hasn't changed in, quite literally, decades
and decades. And they happily take low priority calls.
I've never called 911, but I call the cops on a regular basis--for
debris on the freeway, or broken signal lights, or whatever.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I thought "311" was being implemented for that.
Bill Horne
Moderator
|
| Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 09:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FCC may kill 911 access for unregistered mobile phones
Message-ID: <3af50fac-e028-4c1e-9778-21e23b391cd5@googlegroups.com>
On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 11:31:03 AM UTC-4, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> HAncock4 wrote:
>
>> The problem is that there is no alternative number for citizens to
>> call for low-priority police assistance
>
> I think what you mean is "no national standard number similar to
> 911, but for low-priority police assistance".
No, I meant that there is no alternative number. A few places have
established 311, but most places do not have it.
In my town, to contact the police, you either call 911 or their office
number. The office is staffed only during regular business hours, not
nights or weekends. In any event, the business office can't handle
things like broken traffic lights, which our 911 center doesn't want
to bothered with, even though a police response is needed*.
> Here in town, the police dispatch phone number--which is what
> everyone used to call prior to 911--hasn't changed in, quite
> literally, decades and decades. And they happily take low priority
> calls.
Philadelphia attempted to use its old number for non emergency calls,
but it never took root, and was discontinued. Indeed, lots of people
never knew the old number, despite publicity; people simply dialed
"Operator", and asked for police or fire.
In many small towns, dispatching has been centralized and taken over
by a larger entity, such as a county-wide unit.
(A disadvantage is that the county dispatchers are unfamiliar with
local geography. "Hello, I'm in Smithtown and there's a brush fire at
the cemetary!" The county dispatcher will require an address, whereas
the old dispatcher knew there was only one cemetary in Smithtown and
exactly where it was. This is an actual example, by the way.)
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> I thought "311" was being implemented for that.
While a number of cities have 311, many do not, and it isn't
widespread in suburban areas. One challenge with that is that it
becomes a central site for all kinds of municipal complaints far
beyond police matters, such as broken swings at the playground or low
water pressure. Initial reports have stated some centers are
inadequately staffed, overwhelmed with calls, and city agencies slow
to respond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-1-1
If a street illumination light is burned out, it can wait several days
to be repaired without being a safety hazard; that isn't a police
matter. But if a traffic signal is out, accidents can occur at the
intersection. Cops can't necessarily fix a broken traffic signal, but
they can, and very often do, put up temporary stop signs so there is
some safety. If the intersection is very busy, cops may direct
traffic. Anyway, there needs to be a 24/7 reporting method for
situations like broken traffic lights, even if 911 centers do not
consider that a "true emergency".
|
| Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 08:22:58 +1000
From: David Clayton <dc33box-usenet2@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: FCC may kill 911 access for unregistered mobile phones
Message-ID: <pan.2015.05.19.22.22.57.694946@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au>
On Tue, 19 May 2015 07:43:36 -0400, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <54a98ce6-3308-433a-adbe-fb3c7c0646be@googlegroups.com>,
> HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
>
>> The problem is that there is no alternative number for citizens to
>> call for low-priority police assistance
[snip]
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I thought "311" was being implemented for that.
Isn't the main issue that no matter what alternative number or
technology are put in place, there are always a percentage of
population so stupid that they will always misuse things like 911?
--
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: Tue, 19 May 2015 09:41:16 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Some People Do More Than Text While Driving
Message-ID: <D1079A83-ED00-454A-8AC8-4A7A85A7CA04@roscom.com>
Some People Do More Than Text While Driving
Texting while driving has company. Some people are also using social
media services, taking selfies, and even making videos while they are
behind the wheel.
A survey released this morning shows that many motorists have expanded
their behind-the-wheel activities beyond texting to include using
Facebook, Snapchat and Twitter, taking selfies and even shooting
videos.
The survey was commissioned by AT&T, itself a phone company, but one
that has invested heavily in discouraging distracted driving through
its "It Can Wait" public service campaign. The telephone survey was
conducted by Braun Research, which polled 2,067 people who own a
smartphone and drive at least once a day.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/some-people-do-more-than-text-while-driving/
|
| Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 01:07:17 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Have your children stopped checking their voicemail?
Message-ID: <107agoifcnbwa$.utv1goja8tx4$.dlg@40tude.net>
On 18 May 2015 20:34:44 -0000, Duncan Smith wrote:
> ... voicemail ... On my T-Mobile line, I can't
> turn it off, or even set the forwarding delay to more than 20 seconds ...
A T-Mo CSR (customer service rep, at 1-800-WEST-WYR) can turn off the
Forward-to-Voicemail service for you -- all of it, or any of the four parts
(on busy, on ring-no-answer, on call-reject, on handset-not-in-service).
Or, can adjust the "number of rings" to wait before forwarding takes place,
if you'd rather do that than disable it entirely.
Just do check up on whether the desired action took effect -- sometimes a
CSR thinks (s)he's done what you asked for, but hasn't quite made it :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp (whose T-Mo forward-to-VM has been off for years now :-) )
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
|
| Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 20:12:19 UTC
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: Telecom Digest <telecom@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Intercoms using 500 sets
I'm still working on an old problem: I want to set up an
intercom from my basement to the kitchen, and I want to
know if anyone else has done that without buying a 20 Hertz
ringing supply or a "PLAR" circuit.
So, some questions:
1. Will Western Electric sets ring if I use 60 Hz ring voltage?
2. Is there an alternative buzzer circuit which can be used
with only two wires? I've already got a length of "JK"
(a.k.a. Quad) wire running down there, and I don't
want to run more if I can avoid it.
All suggestions welcome.
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
--
E. William Horne
617-803-0992 (Cell)
|
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 educational service offered to
the Internet 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 © 2015 E. William Horne. All rights reserved.
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself. Thank you!
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.
