Volume 28 : Issue 110 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: AT&T doubling 3G capacity
Re: Cell phone recycling: delete, then dispose
Re: size not a major consideration in wireline phone sets
Can I ring my own landline phone?
====== 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: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: AT&T doubling 3G capacity
On Apr 20, 5:48 pm, Ergyn Sadiku <ergy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tweaks to the HSPA network will bring 3G capacity up to 7.2 Mb/s even
> before AT&T implements next-gen wireless technologies.
What is "3G" and "4G"?
> AT&T is increasing the downlink capacity on its high-speed packet
> access (HSPA) from 3.6 megabits per second to 7.2 Mb/s through
> software upgrades at the base station
I presume this HSPA is some sort of data communication. But what is
being "downlinked", and from what to what and what does that higher
speed mean in terms of service?
Will any of this improve the coarse quality of today's voice
transmissions over cell phones? Cell phone conversations are not the
easiest to make; if the speaker on either end is not careful to speak
clearly and directly into the mouthpiece, the words get "blurred" and
hard to understand.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one confused by all the new
I'm curious if any of the readers can weigh in on the trade-offs
between voice quality and bandwidth on cell phones.
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:23:43 -0500
From: email@example.com (PV)
Subject: Re: Cell phone recycling: delete, then dispose
"Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>Overwriting a file many times, the standard way to
>>obliterate data, doesn't work.
>Somewhere an outfit is offering to ship you a hard drive with an erased
>file which was wiped once. If you can retrieve the data then you win a
>prize of some sort. When I read that page the contest had been running for
>a year with no winners.
Times have changed. Hard drive densities are such that the tricks that used
to be employed are now swamped in noise. If anyone can recover truly
overwritten sectors these days, they won't enter a contest because it would
be a hugely valuable trade secret or intelligence gathering asset.
>So convenional wisdom might be very wrong.
Well, conventional wisdom in deleting is to toss it in the trash, or do a
"quick format". Both of those methods are trivially reversible by anyone. *
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
***** Moderator's Note *****
I love this job: it challenges my preconceived notions on a daily
(I thought|They say|Everyone knows) that you must write over a disk
sector multiple times in order to "really" erase it, or else someone
with an (Electron Microscope|Two-way Wrist TV|Super Seecrit Gov'mint
Gadget) can recover the data. The number of times you must overwrite
the data is as variable as people's opinions about whether it matters,
so lets have a discussion about how to "safely" erase a hard drive
without damaging it.
Since computerized voice answering services are subject to data
security concerns, I declare this to be telecom related.
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: size not a major consideration in wireline phone sets
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
<<Initially cellular phones were so big that only cars
could accomodate them, though far more subscribers had access than in
It was the regular mobile telephones that were so big and used so much
electricity that they were trunk mounted. This was prior to cellular
Commercial cellphones didn't get commercially going til about 1983
when the AMPS ("Advanced" Mobile Phone Service) was introduced
commercially (in Chicago I believe.)
***** Moderator's Note *****
I think some of the early cellular phones were made to fit the same
mountings and use the same antenna cables as their MTS and IMTS
predecessors, so they may have been "bulky" in order to fit the old
hardware. Since cellular came long after transistorized RF decks were
common, cell phones never had to support the power demands of vacuum
tubers: ergo, they never had to be the same size unless there were
Any Motorola/GE/? techs care to chime in?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:32:30 -0500
From: "Phluge" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Can I ring my own landline phone?
I have searched everywhere but I can't seem to get an answer one way or the
other. There used to be ways you could test your landline telephone's
ringer. Any suggestions?
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
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: email@example.com?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: firstname.lastname@example.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
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 (4 messages)