Previous Issue (Only one)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 28 : Issue 32 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: nano cell site Re: nano cell site Re: nano cell site Re: Windows area code rules Re: Windows area code rules Re: Windows area code rules Re: Windows area code rules Re: Windows area code rules Re: Windows area code rules Re: nano cell site Re: Windows area code rules Re: nano cell site "This site may harm your computer" on every search result?!?! ====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ====== Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:12:01 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: nano cell site Message-ID: <pan.2009.01.31.08.11.59.546362@myrealbox.com> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:42:51 -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote: > In article <pan.2009.01.30.23.29.58.499578@myrealbox.com>, David Clayton > <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote: >>So in fact the devices do nothing to "boost" the existing network >>signals, but in fact *create* new localised network cells that interface >>into the network via a IP connection. >> >>Aren't there licencing issues re using spectrum already owned for use >>with these existing networks? > > That's why (at least in the U.S.) you have to get them through the > licensee (in this case, Verizon). Many office buildings have similar > systems on a larger scale; the building I work in has three cells, > providing coverage for AT&T (traditional "A-side cellular" license) GSM > and Sprint/Nextel iDEN; the same system also carries Verizon (traditional > "B-side cellular" license) CDMA via a simple repeater. I know one of the > PCS carriers is on it as well, but don't recall which one (probably > T-Mobile, since that's also a GSM service). ........ So what happens if you get one of these micro-cell units, and then your next door neighbour gets one and there is a frequency clash? My understanding of cellular wireless involves careful engineering of antenna footprints and avoiding overlapping spectrum use, I'm trying to figure out how allowing consumers to install this themselves will work in the long-term. It's bad enough now with 802.11 stuff becoming so popular that you have to juggle the transmit band to get it to work sometimes, most tolerate that because it is unlicensed spectrum, but with supposedly controlled spectrum....... -- 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: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:08:50 +0000 (UTC) From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: nano cell site Message-ID: <gm1m1i$pl9$1@reader1.panix.com> In <pan.2009.01.31.08.11.59.546362@myrealbox.com> David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> writes: >My understanding of cellular wireless involves careful engineering of >antenna footprints and avoiding overlapping spectrum use, I'm trying to >figure out how allowing consumers to install this themselves will work in >the long-term. Also, just wondering about a couple of points that aren't clear from the publicity: a: if you put these up in, say, your coffeeshop that normally is in "fringe" area, will it let your customers route through it? (And similarly, if you've got one at home will your neighbor cut in on you?) b: if you happen to bring one of these outside the USofA, will that let your Islamabad family make calls "from" the United States? c: and.. what about calls to "911"? -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 2009 16:38:04 -0500 From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: nano cell site Message-ID: <gm2gbs$a6p$1@panix2.panix.com> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote: > >a: if you put these up in, say, your coffeeshop that normally >is in "fringe" area, will it let your customers route through it? >(And similarly, if you've got one at home will your neighbor >cut in on you?) Yes, yes, and yes. Lots of people can use it at the same time, no problem. >b: if you happen to bring one of these outside the USofA, >will that let your Islamabad family make calls "from" >the United States? No, the device talks to your phone and it also talks to a local cell tower. It acts effectively as a repeater. If you have one that is owned and programmed by Verizon to talk to a Verizon tower and you take it to Islamabad where there is no Verizon tower for it to talk to... at best it will do nothing, at worst it will interfere with legitimate users of the band and draw the wrath of the Pakistani FCC. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 2009 11:54:04 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Windows area code rules Message-ID: <20090131115404.13608.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >>Now in XP pro, I can't find it. It wants me to enter each area code >>individually, then for THAT area code, dial a '1' and the area code >>first. > >Control Panel / Phone and Modem / Dialing Rules Are there still places in the US where the switch won't complete the call if you dial a full 1-NXX-NXX-XXXX number? R's, John ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:10:12 +0000 (UTC) From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Windows area code rules Message-ID: <gm1m44$pl9$2@reader1.panix.com> In <20090131115404.13608.qmail@simone.iecc.com> John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> writes: >Are there still places in the US where the switch won't complete the >call if you dial a full 1-NXX-NXX-XXXX number? Eyup. I'm in one right now (Central Michigan). Some calls require a prepended "1", others hiccup if you use it. Makes it easier to just use my cellphone... -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:17:07 +0000 (UTC) From: restring@fastmail.fm (Herb Oxley) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Windows area code rules Message-ID: <gm1ti3$61g$1@reader1.panix.com> John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: > Are there still places in the US where the switch won't complete the > call if you dial a full 1-NXX-NXX-XXXX number? New Hampshire (or at least Manchester, NH) is one of them; for in-state (603) calls dialing the full number gets you an error recording. As yet there are no new overlay area codes there. -- Herb Oxley ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 2009 19:02:59 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Cc: redacted@invalid.telecom-digest.org Subject: Re: Windows area code rules Message-ID: <20090131190259.17556.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >> Are there still places in the US where the switch won't complete the >> call if you dial a full 1-NXX-NXX-XXXX number? > >New Hampshire (or at least Manchester, NH) is one of them; >for in-state (603) calls dialing the full number gets you an >error recording. > >As yet there are no new overlay area codes there. Sheesh. There's no overlays where I live (upstate NY, AC 607) either, but for at least a decade, permissive dialing of 1+10D always works, even for intra-NPA where 7D also works. Since this is New York, we don't have any brain dead toll alerting, but even in places that do, it's hard to see what problems they think they're solving by forbidding 1+10D. FYI, NANPA now estimates that 603 will be full in 2Q2011, but since their estimate has been moving out at roughly one quarter per quarter (e.g., last quarter they predicted it would be 1Q2011) I wouldn't worry just now. R's, John ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:37:11 -0700 From: Robert Neville <dont@bother.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Windows area code rules Message-ID: <aav8o4dvepid677fre6kcs5v0blb4to8iu@4ax.com> John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: >Are there still places in the US where the switch won't complete the >call if you dial a full 1-NXX-NXX-XXXX number? There's a reference in Wikipedia that states: "Most areas permit local calls to be dialed as 1+10D except for Texas and some jurisdictions in Canada which require that callers know which numbers are local and which are toll, dialing 10D for all local calls and 1+10D for all toll calls." I don't know how accurate that statement is. I took a quick look at the Texas PUC's telecommunications regulations web site, but didn't find anything. In these days of flat rate minute buckets, the concept of toll alerting is rapidly becoming an anachronism. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:18:33 -0800 From: John Reiser <jreiserfl@comcast.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Windows area code rules Message-ID: <X_KdnY3I9M6aFRnU4p2dnAA@giganews.com> > Are there still places in the US where the switch won't complete the > call if you dial a full 1-NXX-NXX-XXXX number? Much of Oregon, including the densely-populated northern I-5 corridor, gets S-I-T tones if you dial 1 but it is not necessary. "We're sorry, it is not necessary to dial a 1 or a 0 when dialing this number. Will you please hang up and try your call again." Ten digits are mandatory state-wide. Most of the Portland area has Extended Area Calling (40 miles wide) which is unmetered for residential (included in flat monthly service) and metered for business (4 cents/minute outside the traditional neighboring exchanges.) -- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:43:05 +0000 (UTC) From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: nano cell site Message-ID: <gm1kh9$ken$1@reader1.panix.com> wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) writes: >>So in fact the devices do nothing to "boost" the existing network signals, >>but in fact *create* new localised network cells that interface into the >>network via a IP connection. yep.. >>Aren't there licencing issues re using spectrum already owned for use with >>these existing networks? >That's why (at least in the U.S.) you have to get them through the >licensee (in this case, Verizon). So you: a) Pay Verizon to fix their network. b) Pay again, for the backhaul bandwidth to get your calls, {and those of anyone else in range} to their MTSO. c) Pay a third time, to USE it. [Your minutes still cost the same..] Can you hear me now? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:23:29 +0000 (UTC) From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Windows area code rules Message-ID: <gm21eh$dvm$1@reader1.panix.com> In article <74m7o450pve53lreh6b5nn6t037hbn3hk5@4ax.com>, Robert Neville <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) wrote: >>Now in XP pro, I can't find it. It wants me to enter each area code >>individually, then for THAT area code, dial a '1' and the area code >>first. >Control Panel / Phone and Modem / Dialing Rules Thanks Robert, but thats the first place I looked for it and I can't find anywhere to say "all other area codes". If you think its there, please give me the exact steps. -- Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 1353 Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val, Red, Shasta & Casey (RIP), Red & Zero, Siberians Owner:Chinook-L Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 2009 16:33:13 -0500 From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: nano cell site Message-ID: <gm2g2p$huo$1@panix2.panix.com> David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote: >On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:39:56 -0500, Will Roberts wrote: >> >> The Verizon technology appears to create an actual cellular node covering >> about 5000 square feet and therefore does not require a special dual-mode >> handset. > >So in fact the devices do nothing to "boost" the existing network signals, >but in fact *create* new localised network cells that interface into the >network via a IP connection. > >Aren't there licencing issues re using spectrum already owned for use with >these existing networks? No, because the devices are owned and operated by the cell phone companies who hold those licenses. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:42:13 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: "This site may harm your computer" on every search result?!?! Message-ID: <p06240881c5aa9fe1abca@[10.0.1.6]> "This site may harm your computer" on every search result?!?! 1/31/2009 09:02:00 AM If you did a Google search between 6:30 a.m. PST and 7:25 a.m. PST this morning, you likely saw that the message "This site may harm your computer" accompanied each and every search result. This was clearly an error, and we are very sorry for the inconvenience caused to our users. What happened? Very simply, human error. Google flags search results with the message "This site may harm your computer" if the site is known to install malicious software in the background or otherwise surreptitiously. We do this to protect our users against visiting sites that could harm their computers. ... http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/this-site-may-harm-your-computer-on.html Google glitch causes confusion Maxim Weinstein January 31, 2009 This morning, an apparent glitch at Google caused nearly every [update 11:44 am] search listing to carry the "Warning! This site may harm your computer" message. Users who attempted to click through the results saw the "interstitial" warning page that mentions the possibility of badware and refers people to StopBadware.org for more information. This led to a denial of service of our website, as millions of Google users attempted to visit our site for more information. We are working now to bring the site back up. We are also awaiting word from Google about what happened to cause the false warnings. ... http://blog.stopbadware.org/2009/01/31/google-glitch-causes-confusion ------------------------------ 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 Patrick Townson. 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 currently being moderated by Bill Horne while Pat Townson recovers from a stroke. 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: mailto: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 Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html For syndication examples see http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecomDigest Copyright (C) 2008 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 (13 messages) ******************************