30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for April 15, 2012
Volume 31 : Issue 95 : "text" Format
====== 30 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: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:47:46 -0700
From: Bruce Bergman <brucebergman@gmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: DSL line question-Verizon-filters
Message-ID: <CACqS804MTBX-CZ4RgzZ6axW4LD86xxyco1tW8qeVc=SmQwPXKA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:53:35 -0700 (PDT), Michael <michael.muderick@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I just replaced my Verizon modem...they sent me a new one because the
> old one would periodically drop signal, and had to be re-booted each
> time. As a followup they called my today to check that everything was
> OK. They ran a line test because they said they weren't seeing a
> perfectly good line. I disconnected everything from the demarc and
> the number that had been 1400, was now perfect, around 3500. Not sure
> what that means, but she suggested replacing all my DSL filters...they
> go bad she said. I have about 10 in the house, including some that
> serve more than one device, e.g. caller id boxes, wireless phones,
> answering machine, etc.
>
> Do the filters go bad? I occasionally will hear some DSL noise
> when two phones are off - hook at the same time. Otherwise everything
> seems to work OK.
>
> They scheduled to call back in a week to see if there's an
> improvement. I have some new filters, never used, that I could put
> in. I'd welcome any comments.
>
Yes, the filters do go bad, and if you have several voice extensions
in the house the "Bridge Tap" effects of all that wire with DSL
signals reflecting back can kill your data speed just as badly as it
does when it's on the outside plant cabling.
I'd strongly suggest you get the Incumbent Telco to install a single
Whole House DSL Filter and block the signal right there at the
Demarcation Point from all but the one inside wire line and jack you
will use the DSL Modem on. You'll see an even bigger speed jump
because you eliminated all the stub antennas (mini bridge taps) at
your end, and the speed should stay consistent. Plus you don't have
to mess with all those inline filters at every phone anymore.
And if they won't (or can't) rewire the demarcation point to add the
Whole House Filter, you might have to get it done by a local
independent technician or DIY it. The Telco is supposed to rework a
messy demarc to add a MPOE Subscriber Test Point, and a clueful
installer can easily do the whole house filter at the same time. (And
a lazy one will blow it off, do the bare minimum and go take a nap in
his truck...)
Worst case, you can use one of those in-line filters, a pair of 6"
modular line cords, a wall jack and a weatherproof box to build your
own Whole House Filter if you don't want to search down the
purpose-made units. Exact same function, just a different form
factor.
--<< Bruce >>--
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 17:02:17 +0000 (UTC)
From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: DSL line question-Verizon-filters
Message-ID: <jmcaip$2rb$1@reader1.panix.com>
In article <CACqS804MTBX-CZ4RgzZ6axW4LD86xxyco1tW8qeVc=SmQwPXKA@mail.gmail.com>,
Bruce Bergman <brucebergman@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'd strongly suggest you get the Incumbent Telco to install a single
>Whole House DSL Filter and block the signal right there at the
>Demarcation Point from all but the one inside wire line and jack you
>will use the DSL Modem on. You'll see an even bigger speed jump
>because you eliminated all the stub antennas (mini bridge taps) at
>your end, and the speed should stay consistent. Plus you don't have
>to mess with all those inline filters at every phone anymore.
The way I originally did just this (see earlier post) was that I had a
multi-line NIJ (previous owner had multiple lines, I had only one) and
the filters I had had 2 jacks, one filtered, one not. I removed the
active line from the NIJ, plugged the filter into the NIJ, and plugged
the active line into the filtered jack. Then I moved the line going to
the DSL modem to another set of terminals and plugged its plug into the
unfiltered jack.
BTW, I have some unneeded DSL modems. One is hard coded for BellSouth,
One for Earthlink. If anyone can use one of them, its yours for
whatever it would cost me to mail it to you. I also have a fancier one
available. See http://www.zoomtel.com/products/5690.html and
email me if interested.
--
Rich Greenberg Sarasota, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 941 378 2097
Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
Canines: Val,Red,Shasta,Zero,Casey & Cinnar (At the bridge) Owner:Chinook-L
Canines: Red & Max (Siberians) Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:59:36 -0400
From: bernieS <bernies@netaxs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Mobile phone carriers profit from stolen phones
Message-ID: <ShctF.A.RUD.R6aiPB@telecom>
At 03:20 AM 4/14/2012, Hancock4 wrote:
>Message-ID: <213c38ad-a543-4014-9d7e-4977705ed626@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
>
> >From the Los Angeles Times:
>
>"Police in downtown Los Angeles have seen cellphone thefts soar 32% as
>smartphones like the IPhone become easily turned into pay-as-you-go
>phones. Police said phones are being commonly snatched from
>restaurant tables, libraries and nightclubs as people leave them
>unattended."
>
>for full article please see:
>
>
>http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/04/cell-phone-thefts-on-the-rise-in-downtown-la.html
>
>-or-
>
>http://tinyurl.com/7t3a63w
>
Profit may be a primary reason mobile carriers no longer share a
database of mobile phone ID's and refuse to activate them. Mobile
carriers profit handsomely from stolen mobile phones in several ways:
the victim has to buy another phone and agree to a profitable new
contract, and the user of the stolen phone starts a new line of
service (prepaid or otherwise.)
An even more sinister motivation could be in play: law-enforcement
agencies make extensive use of mobile phone network providers to
surveill targets who are likely to use stolen smartphones. If stolen
phones could no longer be used, it could greatly complicate
law-enforcement agencies' electronic surveillance of their targets.
And since mobile carriers profit handsomely from providing electronic
surveillance of their users to law-enforcement agencies, they have yet
another strong vested interest in providing service to stolen phone
users.
My guess is that both mobile carriers and law-enforcement agencies are
quietly lobbying behind closed doors to prevent the formation of any
new laws that could force mobile carriers to stop providing service to
stolen mobile phones. Or an I just being paranoid and seeing a
conspiracy where none exists?
-bernieS
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 17:43:57 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: iPhone photo's embedded GPS info used to arrest Anonymous hacker
Message-ID: <4F8A19CD.6060006@thadlabs.com>
This is sort-of funny:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57414153-71/breasts-lead-to-arrest-of-anonymous-hacker/
Picture is at the above URL; the short article follows:
" Police allege that an Anonymous hacker posted a picture of his
" presumed girlfriend's breasts as a taunt to U.S authorities. The
" picture allegedly contained GPS information that led the FBI to
" her.
"
" Pride in one's lover's bodily parts can lead to a fall in one's
" own bodily security.
"
" That seems to be the lesson from the tale of an alleged hacker,
" Higinio O.Ochoa, a 30-year-old Linux administrator from
" Galveston, Texas, who was arrested by the FBI and charged with
" unauthorized access to a protected computer.
"
" The accusation, as described by the Sydney Morning Herald, is
" that Ochoa hacked into several Web sites belonging to law
" enforcement.
"
" Sometimes, though, the temptation to leave a calling card can be
" too great. So Ochoa allegedly used a Twitter account to direct
" people to a Web site when all the law enforcement information
" he'd supposedly hacked was on display.
"
" Also on display was a picture of a woman, her breasts lowering
" themselves tantalizingly toward the camera, with a sign beneath
" them reading: "''PwNd by w0rmer & CabinCr3w <3 u BiTch's''.
"
" Now CabinCr3w is the apparent name of an Anonymous offshoot. And
" the "w0rmer" part? Well, the Twitter account linking people to
" the site was @AnonW0rmer.
"
" However, the photograph of the breasts apparently linked
" authorities to Ochoa -- because, taken with an iPhone, it
" contained GPS information. The information allegedly suggested
" she lived in Melbourne, Australia.
"
" Further burrowing led the police to discover a posting on Ochoa's
" Facebook page that allegedly revealed his girlfriend was
" Australian.
"
" The claim is that police have managed to match pictures of her
" that Ochoa allegedly posted on Facebook to the breast image.
"
" To the untrained eye, this might seem curious, as the Facebook
" pictures allegedly show her face, while the taunting picture does
" not.
"
" Perhaps the authorities have gone beyond mere facial-recognition
" technology and are in possession of software that can match other
" bodily parts with astonishing accuracy.
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) 2012 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 (4 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues