Previous Issue (Only one)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 28 : Issue 33 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: nano cell site Re: nano cell site Re: nano cell site Re: nano cell site Re: Windows area code rules Local Police Want Right to Jam Wireless Signals Re: Local Police Want Right to Jam Wireless Signals The REAL Barackberry Re: Windows area code rules He two-timed me on Facebook. But our divorce will be for real ====== 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: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 04:49:28 GMT From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: nano cell site Message-ID: <4caao49sj6n2jvdb20cr6jdgdm6mk4mht5@4ax.com> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >>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. The first posting in this thread stated. " The Verizon Wireless Network Extender needs to be connected to a broadband Internet line." Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can read the entire thread of messages. Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 16:59:33 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: nano cell site Message-ID: <pan.2009.02.01.05.59.32.246784@myrealbox.com> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:15:34 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote: > danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote: ........ >>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. Why would it need to talk to any local wireless towers? I thought the point was to fill in the gaps where there was no coverage? -- 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: 1 Feb 2009 12:10:30 -0000 From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Cc: redacted@invalid.telecom-digest.org Subject: Re: nano cell site Message-ID: <20090201121030.25978.qmail@simone.iecc.com> >>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. Are you sure? Previous discussions have said that it uses your broadband connection for backhaul. In any event, I could imagine that one of these might kind of work outside the US, the same way my wired VoIP phone works in the UK, but since the bands that VZ uses are used for other stuff outside of North America, I expect the local authorities would not be amused. R's, John ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 08:16:08 -0700 From: Robert Neville <dont@bother.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: nano cell site Message-ID: <lqebo4h6vaakbajds70i7buceq2ohg5pkr@4ax.com> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >No, the device talks to your phone and it also talks to a local >cell tower. It acts effectively as a repeater. There are two types of devices. One is a true repeater, where you install an antenna on a roof or tower to pick up the cell signal, then rebroadcast it on another antenna inside the building. These work for any cell company and any number of users. The devices being discussed are femtocells. These are restricted to a specific company, plug into a broadband connection and act as mini cell towers. The communicate back to the cell network over your broadband connection, not through the cell company air network. AIUI, the femtocells allow you to restrict the number of users by specific phone. At least one model restricts originating calls to within 15' of the femtocell. Whether you can leave them open to all phones, I don't know. They also have a GPS receiver embedded that prevents them from being used outside the US. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 09:01:58 -0700 From: Robert Neville <dont@bother.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Windows area code rules Message-ID: <ehhbo45557952nqa7t2kvnfeh196qmrd1p@4ax.com> richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) wrote: >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. If I understand what you are asking, I think you need to reverse things. That is, you create a general rule that states for all calls to other area codes, you must dial a "1" before the area. This is your default rule listed as "My Location". Then you edit "My Location" to create the exceptions. In the tab called "Area Code Rules", you list all the codes you do not want to dial "1" in front of. Presumably those would be for overlay codes, or nearby codes that are not long distance. You can even drill down farther, and specify specific prefixes in those codes that you do not dial "1" for. Hope that's what you are looking for... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:38:39 GMT From: "Gary" <fake-email-address@bogus.hotmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Local Police Want Right to Jam Wireless Signals Message-ID: <Ptihl.443$eK2.303@nwrddc01.gnilink.net> Local Police Want Right to Jam Wireless Signals By Spencer S. Hsu Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, February 1, 2009; A02 As President Obama's motorcade rolled down Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day, federal authorities deployed a closely held law enforcement tool: equipment that can jam cellphones and other wireless devices to foil remote-controlled bombs, sources said. It is an increasingly common technology, with federal agencies expanding its use as state and local agencies are pushing for permission to do the same. Police and others say it could stop terrorists from coordinating during an attack, prevent suspects from erasing evidence on wireless devices, simplify arrests and keep inmates from using contraband phones. But jamming remains strictly illegal for state and local agencies. Federal officials barely acknowledge that they use it inside the United States, and the few federal agencies that can jam signals usually must seek a legal waiver first. .... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/31/AR2009013101548.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 10:50:32 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Local Police Want Right to Jam Wireless Signals Message-ID: <6f572e98-5a0e-4dd3-b461-74ec7a8383e3@x6g2000pre.googlegroups.com> On Feb 1, 11:57 am, "Gary" <fake-email-addr...@bogus.hotmail.com> wrote: > It is an increasingly common technology, with federal agencies expanding its > use as state and local agencies are pushing for permission to do the same. > Police and others say it could stop terrorists from coordinating during an > attack, prevent suspects from erasing evidence on wireless devices, simplify > arrests and keep inmates from using contraband phones. Sadly, there are situations where such blocking is necessary to protect public safety, such as to prevent cellphone detonation of bombs, a common tactic. Also prisons need control over contraband phones and communications. But the risk is that this creates a precedent and a slippery slope. Years ago racetracks would lock pay phones during the races to prevent communications to outside bookies. Would today they (and the police) call for cell phone blocking of the track to prevent that? That is a valid public purpose, but nowhere near as "safety critical" as blocking phones in a prison or public event. Too many times in public policy a single specific use becomes a wedge for uses not originally anticipated. This includes measures originally passed just for anti-terrorism protection but which were co- opted to search for drugs, prostitutes and other far less critical issues (that's how they caught Gov. Spitzer). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 17:34:19 -0500 From: "Bob Goudreau" <BobGoudreau.remove-this@this-too.nc.rr.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: The REAL Barackberry Message-ID: <BD4A87A3A005441CBADBE373DAA98A30@estore.us.dg.com> "MARKETING men reckon the kerfuffle over Barack Obama's beloved BlackBerry has been worth something like $50m in free publicity to Research In Motion, the iconic smartphone's Canadian maker. Ironically, the president uses not a BlackBerry proper, but a Windows device...." For further interesting technical details on the two devices approved for President Obama's use (a "heavily modified" Palm Treo 750 and the L-3 Communications "Guardian" phone), see the rest of the article at http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13045261. Bob Goudreau Cary, NC ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 16:08:35 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Windows area code rules Message-ID: <9524db16-42fc-426c-9413-2766f7025b7c@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com> On Jan 30, 11:26 pm, ric...@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) wrote: > When I was running W2K, ISTR that somewhere under control panel  here > was an "area  code rules" setting that allowed me to list a few area > codes, and then say "Calling to all other area codes, dial a '1' and > the area code first. I do not bother with any of that stuff. I code each phone number in full, as it is needed to be coded. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 21:54:56 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: He two-timed me on Facebook. But our divorce will be for real Message-ID: <p06240886c5abbc8f7a4a@[10.0.1.6]> He two-timed me on Facebook. But our divorce will be for real Georgina Hobbs-Meyer discovered her husband had had cyber sex. Now she has two warnings for users of social networking sites: your whole life can be exposed - and don't get dumped online Georgina Hobbs-Meyer guardian.co.uk Saturday 31 January 2009 My mother emailed me last week to tell me she had joined Facebook. We don't chat on the phone; we email. Soon I expect she will want to poke me, write on my wall and, worse still, tag me in photographs of my wedding last May. Well, not if I can help it, mama. I love you too much to expose you to my online self. You see, she doesn't yet know that I, her 24-year-old daughter, am about to divorce. She can't see my Facebook status, so why would she? Mummy, how do I tell you I'm a Facebook divorcee? That the son-in-law you try so hard to like cheated on your only daughter using the social networking site you so adore? That your daughter learnt of her imminent divorce via Google Mail's free chatting facility, Gchat? Prince Harry may know how I feel. Would he even have known that he was single again if Chelsy Davy hadn't flagged it up on Facebook? Her recently changed status cascaded through her friends' newsfeeds to inform all that she was no longer in a relationship. Snap went the trademark red heart, sending gossip rocketing offline and on to the printing presses, neatly bypassing Clarence House. Headline: "Chelsy Davy: A change of heart on Facebook." Oh Prince Harry, yours is a state I know too well. You, me, all of us, we're helpless to defend ourselves once our partners rush to Facebook our misery over a thousand flickering screens. The sad truth is that, once you announce your relationship on Facebook, and for as long as you are linked to one another by html, your status - hell, your love life - is on show to all. Even though I've opted to delete my relationship status rather than modify it Chelsy-style (she, like my husband, distastefully rushed to invite comment on fresh singledom), people will see the photographs of my wedding and draw obvious conclusions. Not that many people take relationship statuses to heart. Even if they should, they do not read "X is married to Y" and immediately write off the object of their affection as unobtainable. My divorce is proof of that. It began with a woman he met at a party. But it was within the sticky web of Facebook where they really got to know each other, despite the photos of us and our "married to..." status. I know this because my husband once logged on to Facebook and foolishly left the room. I began to use his Mac, only to find myself blasted into the middle of a sizzling cyber romance. And once I was in, I was hooked. Their lusty emails touched on bad Beat poetry, but were infused with textspeak, their coy cyberflirts rife with emoticons. It felt like I was stuck in a hyper-reality where Douglas Coupland wrote Danielle Steel novels. "Could this really be happening six months into my marriage?" I wanted to comment on my own Facebook wall. And whatever Facebook was before that - a relatively innocuous way to keep up with friends, I suppose - it has since taken on a more demonic intent. ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/31/facebook-sex-divorce ------------------------------ 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 (10 messages) ******************************