Pat, the Editor

27 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Previous Issue (Only one)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

Message Digest 
Volume 28 : Issue 34 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
  Re: nano cell site 
  Re: Windows area code rules 
  Re: Local Police Want Right to Jam Wireless Signals 
  Re: Local Police Want Right to Jam Wireless Signals 
  Re: Local Police Want Right to Jam Wireless Signals 
  867-5309' number for sale on eBay 
  'Foul play' suspected in Tucson Super Bowl porn feed

====== 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


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: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 11:22:00 -0500
From: Will Roberts <>
Subject: Re: nano cell site 
Message-ID: <>

In Telecom Digest, Robert Neville <> wrote:

>Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 08:16:08 -0700
>From: Robert Neville <>
>Subject: Re: nano cell site 
>Message-ID: <>
> (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.

I don't know the specific details about how the "femtocell" base station which 
connects via a broadband internet connection works, but Robert Neville has 
done a good job at explaining the difference between this device and the 
cellular "boosters" (repeaters) which use a high gain antenna to provide a 
connection to the existing wireless cellular network.

I tried one of these repeater devices made by Zboost ( 
because my home is poorly served by AT&T's wireless signal.  (There are 
three AT&T towers nearby, but because of a strange quirk of geography and 
fate, my location is shielded from each by relatively a small rock 
out-cropping, dense forest, and the shadow of a hillside.  For that reason, 
I am now using Verizon -- without the Zboost -- because it has one tower 
which is just high enough to provide a signal over the intervening hillside.)

Quoting from the Zboost manual:

>Before installing zBoost in your home, make sure that you can place calls 
>on the outside of your home or in the attic or at roof level where you 
>will install the signal antenna. The zBoost Series can only bring cell 
>phone signals into your home if cell phone signals are reaching the 
>outside of your home, your attic or at roof level.
>Using your cell phone, place a call from an outdoor location to confirm 
>that enough signal is present to complete the call. If a weak signal is 
>available at ground level, check the signal strength in an attic or roof 
>level location where the signal antenna could be installed for best 
>If you can reliably make and receive calls outside your home, then zBoost 
>can bring the signal into your home.
>The Zboost YX500/510 Series is designed to cover multiple signals 
>simultaneously and will allow multiple users to operate at the same time. 
>For example, if there were 8 people in the same room then the system 
>would help each of them.

(The full manual for this device is may be found online in PDF format 
at )

Worth noting is that the Zboost does some clever stuff in choosing which 
frequencies to use so that it minimizes the likelihood that it will 
feedback its own signal.  That means that if it is communicating with the 
local cell tower one channel, it will use a different channel to 
communicate with your handset.  This gets even more interesting, because 
the Zboost will also try to confirm that the channel is available and not 
it use by your next door neighbor communicating directly with the cell 
tower -- something which would cause an obvious conflict.

It would seem that any "femtocell" device would need to do similar signal 
processing to assure that it was not stepping on a channel in use by  
another nearby femtocell device (say, your upstairs neighbor in an apartment 
building) or on a signal from the phone company's own cell towers in the 

In other words, the problem of integrating femtocells into an existing 
cellular network is not trivial and is more complicated than just connecting 
a cordless phone base station to a VoIP interface device.

I'd also be curious to know if one can set up a femtocell device to recognize 
only one's own handset(s) or if the femtocell is promiscuous and available 
for use by anyone within its range.  Specific situations might determine how 
one would want one's femtocell configured: to keep one's neighbors from 
using one's limited backhaul bandwidth or to allow friends to be able to make 
and receive calls using their own handsets when visiting.

Just some thoughts.



Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 17:07:58 +0000 (UTC)
From: (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Windows area code rules 
Message-ID: <gm799e$m2f$>

In article <>,
Robert Neville  <> wrote:

>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

Yes, thats what I want, and I would have thought it would be an automatic
default, but some dialing errors in winfax made me think it doesn't.

>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.

That part I see, but I don't think its what I want.  I have to do some
more experimenting.  Thanks for your help.

Rich Greenberg  N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign  + 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: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:45:37 -0600
From: Dave Garland <>
Subject: Re: Local Police Want Right to Jam Wireless Signals 
Message-ID: <MfqdnVC_fZdRoxrUnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@posted.visi> wrote:
> 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.

Such jamming ("blocking" would be shielding the building so that radio
waves could not enter or exit, which might be a useful thing to do to
prisons) is always a tradeoff between usefulness and damage done
(e.g., preventing an emergency call by someone else in the area).  If
the police are to use this tool, we need legislation such that its
usage is formally logged as to time and place, and making the police
liable for any damages caused to unintended victims.  If police can
use this tool with impunity and without regard to collateral damage,
they will do it widely.  (After all, almost anyone they are chasing
might have a cellphone that needs jamming.)



Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:22:55 GMT
From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <>
Subject: Re: Local Police Want Right to Jam Wireless Signals 
Message-ID: <> wrote:

>Sadly, there are situations where such blocking is necessary to
>protect public safety, such as to prevent cellphone detonation of
>bombs, a common tactic.  

And of course there are a mutlitude of other frequencies which you can use to set off
a bomb.   For example a tone sent over a FRS/GMRS radio..   Put a directional antenna
on the recieving device and have the transmitter in the directional antennas path.
There's next to no way of jamming that.  

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
   Tony's Microsoft Access Blog -


Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 21:20:44 -0500
From: T <>
Subject: Re: Local Police Want Right to Jam Wireless Signals 
Message-ID: <>

In article <>, says...
> wrote:
> >Sadly, there are situations where such blocking is necessary to
> >protect public safety, such as to prevent cellphone detonation of
> >bombs, a common tactic.  
> And of course there are a mutlitude of other frequencies which you can use to set off
> a bomb.   For example a tone sent over a FRS/GMRS radio..   Put a directional antenna
> on the recieving device and have the transmitter in the directional antennas path.
> There's next to no way of jamming that.  
> Tony

Not to mention the CB band, Amateur radio bands, et al. Hell, you could 
even use a 49MHz baby monitor for the purposes at hand. 

And not for anything but aren't the miraculous trunked radio systems up 
in the 800MHz band? And isn't some cell service right around that same 

Should be interesting as this flies afoul of FCC regulation.

***** Moderator's Note *****

I assume that the Secret Service has considered all the possibilities,
but it's true that there are a lot of things other than cell phones
which pose a risk.

Bomb makers are not usually expert technicians. Hollywood stereotypes
to the contrary, the typical bomber is, above all, a creature of
habit: he knows one design and sticks to it. If a bomber learned a
design that uses a cell phone, he'll stay with it.

There's another factor, which is that cell phones are not, in and of
themselves, suspicious. It may be convenient to use a cell phone as
part of a triggering mechanism, but that's not what makes cell phones
per se attractive to bombers. A bomber's biggest concern is how to
blend into the crowd after planting a bomb: a cell phone in a bomber's
pocket is just a cell phone until he dials the fatal number, but any
other kind of transmitter would single him out.

If I had to guess at which frequencies the Secret Service would be
most likely to jam, other than the cellular channels, it would be the
ones used for remote control of model aircraft and other toys. Not
only are the transmitters and receiver easy to obtain, small, and
designed to work on low power - they're also designed to operate
remote actuators, e.g., the electromechanical linkages between an r/c
receiver and a model aircraft's control surfaces. That capability is,
of course, tailor made for use in triggering a bomb.

Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator


Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:08:51 -0500
From: Diamond Dave <>
Subject: 867-5309' number for sale on eBay 
Message-ID: <>

>From CNN's website posted 2/2/2009

By Alan Duke

(CNN) -- Jenny's phone number is for sale, but not for a song.

Bids for a New Jersey version of the number, stuck in the minds of
millions since Tommy Tutone's "867-5309/Jenny" hit the Top 10 in 1982,
had reached $5,100 on eBay as of Monday morning.

The song is about a guy who finds Jenny's name and number scribbled on
a bathroom wall.

"This is really, in my opinion, one of the last cultural remnants of
the '80s pop culture era ... other than the mullet," said Spencer
Potter, a 28-year-old DJ who is selling the number he got for free
five years ago.

While Potter is overlooking the fact that "867-5309" is an active
phone number in dozens of other area codes, it does get called a lot
by curious people.

Potter said he has gotten about 40 calls a day since he got the area
code 201 version for his Weehawken, New Jersey, DJ business.

"The minute we plugged the phone jack into the wall, it began
ringing," Potter said.

Mostly, Potter said, the callers are "a lot of '80s fanatics" and he
lets the calls ring through to his voice mail.

When he did answer a call three years ago, Potter found his own Jenny
on the line.

"She had been using my number to give out to guys that she didn't like
at bars," he said. "It was a bum phone number."

The young lady from Hoboken, New Jersey, told Potter she was just
curious about who might be getting the calls. Potter ended up asking
her out.

"I figured if she was having to give out a bum number that often then
she was probably pretty cute," he said. "We ended up meeting for
drinks. We dated for awhile and it was actually a great friendship."

Potter recently moved from Weehawken and decided to try to make money
off the infamous digits with an eBay auction.

Potter's DJ business goes with the number, a necessary provision to
get around phone company rules against selling telephone numbers, he

Phone companies technically own the numbers, not the customers. Potter
said Vonage, the company that assigned the number, gave him permission
to transfer it as part of the sale of his business.

EBay halted a 2004 auction by the purported holder of the 212 area
code version of the number, The New York Times reported.

A Philadelphia-area resident who holds the toll-free versions -- both
800 and 888 -- said he values his numbers in the millions.

Jeffrey Steinberg said his best offer so far, rejected several years
ago, was for $1 million from a national weight-loss company.

He acquired the numbers in the early 1990s for a pizza delivery
campaign and has licensed them for other advertisers in the years

Potter said when his auction ends next Monday, February 9, he hopes to
make at least $40,000.

He said he would use the money to take a Caribbean vacation -- away
from his ringing phone.


CNN's Laurie Segall and CNN Radio's April Williams contributed to this


Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 20:27:14 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <>
Subject: 'Foul play' suspected in Tucson Super Bowl porn feed
Message-ID: <p06240807c5ad4cddd6f8@[]>

UPDATED: 'Foul play' suspected in Tucson Super Bowl porn feed

By Brian J. Pedersen

The pornographic content that interrupted thousands of local Comcast 
subscribers' Super Bowl broadcast was the result of an "isolated 
malicious act," a company spokeswoman said Monday.

But company officials have yet to determine how that act was 
committed, spokeswoman Kelle Maslyn said, though any sort of 
equipment malfunction has been ruled out.

"We did an extensive preliminary check on our technical systems, and 
everything appeared to be working properly when the incident 
occurred," Maslyn said.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Attorney's office in Phoenix said it is looking 
into the interruption, which lasted about 30 seconds, and featured 
full male nudity.

"We take this matter seriously," spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle said. 
"We're working with appropriate agencies to review the incident."

One of those agencies, the Federal Communications Commission, was not 
aware of any formal complaints made regarding the porn clip, FCC 
media relations director David Fiske said Monday afternoon.

It is still unclear how many viewers saw the clip, from a porn movie 
being shown on Shorteez, an adult cable channel offered by Comcast on 
a pay-per-view basis.

Only Comcast subscribers who received a standard definition signal 
could see the clip, while those who watched the game on 
high-definition televisions were not affected, Maslyn said.

Comcast is Southern Arizona's second-largest cable subscriber, with 
more than 80,000 customers in unincorporated Pima County, Marana and 
Oro Valley.



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

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
                        bill at horne dot net

Subscribe: telecom
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:

Anonymous FTP:
  (or use our mirror site:

RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest:
For syndication examples see

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

End of The Telecom digest (7 messages)

Return to Archives**Older Issues