|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 119 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Notifying subscribers that CLID blocking won't block ANI? (was: Qwest disconnected our 800 number)
Re: AT&T doubling 3G capacity
Re: AT&T doubling 3G capacity
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Waveguide (was "size a major consideration...")
Re: Qwest disconnected our 800 number
Re: T-Mobile glorifies vandalism?
Re: T-Mobile glorifies vandalism?
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Re: 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
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: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 04:55:28 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Notifying subscribers that CLID blocking won't block ANI? (was: Qwest disconnected our 800 number)
Message-ID: <gtbb00$5t7$1@news.albasani.net>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>***** Moderator's Note *****
>>I don't think of the 800 number ANI tranmission as being "selfish".
>>It's a system that predates caller id, and it has _never_ been hidden
>>or secret. Those who pay for 800 numbers do so in accordance with the
>>tariffs, and those tariffs are availalbe for anyone to read.
>>What you're advocating is, and always will be, impossible: you can't
>>protect consumers from their tendency to assume that there is such a
>>thing as a free lunch. I'd say "The truth is out there", but that
>>would imply that someone was trying to hide it. The facts are out
>>there, and always have been for those who choose to seek them.
>I have to respectfully disagree, although my post may have been worded
>poorly. Allow me to rephrase it:
>I think if someone dials the block code (1167?) then an 800 number,
>they should get a recording saying their number cannnot be blocked for
>800 calls. I don't see that as being any burden to provide.
I agree with Bill.
The trouble with your suggestion is that, essentially, the phone company
would have to refuse to route a call to an 800 number with per-call CLID
blocking. You're forgetting about phone company services and equipment
that implement CLID blocking on all calls, so it wouldn't be practical
to implement this refusal. What would have have the caller do, dial the
CLID unblock code before an 800 number to acknowledge to the system that
he's aware of the notice?
What if we put the calls through on behalf of a subscriber who blocks
CLID on all calls? Do we make him suffer through that recorded
announcement each and every time he places a call to an 800 number?
Another thing to remember is that the code to block Caller ID isn't part
of the call's routing instructions. Your local switch has no idea how to
route a call to an 800 number. It must get instructions from a switch
specific to 800 number routing. The CLID blocking code is simply
ignored. I see no purpose to redesigning the system.
>I also think that some companies who offer customers 800 service might
>not want their customers to know about ANI--that is, they would be
>happy if their customers were left in the dark and thought their
>number was blocked when in fact it wasn't.
Ok. But you haven't put the burden on that company, but the local switch
to play a recording to educate the subscriber. You really want the local
switch's record to explain the difference between Caller ID and ANI?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 01:18:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: AT&T doubling 3G capacity
Message-ID: <200904300518.BAA07807@ss10.danlan.com>
|***** Moderator's Note *****
|
|Is Readnews Open Source?
Yes, it is part of B news. But it is very, very old. I'm probably
the only person still running it...
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:02:49 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: AT&T doubling 3G capacity
Message-ID: <maydnSJD-eKEs2fUnZ2dnUVZ_uli4p2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <200904300518.BAA07807@ss10.danlan.com>,
Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com> wrote:
>|***** Moderator's Note *****
>|
>|Is Readnews Open Source?
>
>Yes, it is part of B news. But it is very, very old. I'm probably
>the only person still running it...
You're not. I know of two others -- no, I'm not one of them.
I use 'trn', readnews' "smarter brother" -- it understands threading
articles,and a few other *useful* goodies. but it is still a pure
"text mode" newsreader.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 01:43:14 -0400
From: "Dr. Barry L. Ornitz" <BLOrnitz48@charter.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <TTaKl.2267$0S.2178@newsfe22.iad>
Bill Horne wrote:
>
> I was thinking that it may be possible to include a waveguide as
> part of the car's body: your S band dimensions would work for some of
> the support pillars (and I reserve the rights if anyone does it), but
> the question is how precisely a waveguide must be machined.
Waveguide is moderately forgiving as long as you do not push the
frequency close to cutoff.
[Waveguide functions similarly to a high-pass filter.] With some simple
adjusting screws, mismatch could be tuned out. But at each end of the
waveguide you would likely need coaxial to waveguide transitions. You
would also need to electroplate the inside of the waveguide to increase
its conductivity. However, I really like your idea. Thinking out of the
box...
> I'm surprised at the difference in loss of waveguide vs. coax: all
> the cell sites I've ever seen appear to use coax, so either they're
> using the flexible type [of waveguide] or the cellular engineers are
> employing the coax loss to contribute a large part of their loss
> budget for the antenna arrays being used.
Around here in rural South Carolina, large coaxial cables are used too.
I believe they are Andrews Heliax cables or their equivalent. Depending
on the size of the cable, they may use closed-cell foam dielectrics or
even a spiral of insulation between the center conductor and the outer
conductor (air dielectrics). Air or nitrogen has much lower dielectric
losses than does plastic insulation. These are designed to be moderately
flexed during installation only as the conductors are usually corrugated
pipe. These cables have considerably less loss than the small, flexible
cables usually used with Ham and CB installations.
At one time circular waveguide was considered by the telephone system for
replacing long lines. However keeping the polarization maintained was a
problem, Then fiber came along and the waveguide idea was dropped.
[Well not exactly, the fiber is an optical waveguide!]
--
73, Dr. Barry L. Ornitz WA4VZQ
BLOrnitz48@charter.net
***** Moderator's Note *****
This is one of the times that I'm willing to venture a little further
than usual into the technical areas of telecom: please answer these
questions for myself and other readers who may be interested.
1. What does a microwave path cost? If I want to imitate MCI and put
up my own link between two building which are within Line Of Sight
of each other, how much will I have to pay to do it?
A. For a DS1?
B. A DS3?
C. For a different "Mac layer" that is commonly used in microwave?
2. How tough is it to get an F.C.C. microwave station license? What
expenses are involved?
3. Do I still need to have a commercial operator's license to install
or fix microwave equipment?
4. How much maintenance does a microwave system require?
A. What does the F.C.C. require?
B. How much more (or less) than the F.C.C. requirement may I
expect?
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <534352.52621.qm@web52702.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:08:05 -0700 (PDT) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
<<My present digital cell phone handset has a pull out antenna a few
inches long. I don't get to fringe areas, but I had hoped the antenna
would save on battery consumption, [however] this handset only gives
about 75 minutes of talk time since it was new. (Now it dies at 55
minutes, but after it shuts down I can turn it on the next day and get
another 20 minutes out of it when it dies for good and I have to
recharge it.) I don't use the phone that much, but if I do go away
for the day, I do need more talk time between charges in a single
day's usage.>>
I'd lay dozens to donuts that you have a CDMA handset from either
Verizon, Sprint or another CDMA provider. "Pull out" antennas are
used with CDMA handsets because of the way they handle reception.
They need a certain length to operate to the best of its ability.
Just the extra length does not make it better. It's rather the length
that's optimal to receive the band that it needs. It needs a certain
length to receive certain waves of signal. I can't recall offhand if
it's the PCS band (1900) or the cellular band (850) that needs that
particular length though I'm inclined to think it's the cellular band.
It's the same thing with the rabbit ears for your TV. Extending the
dipoles to their maximum extention isn't necessarily the optimum
length for a particular channel that you're trying to receive.
-----------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:48:11 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <gtckob$hsn$1@reader1.panix.com>
"Dr. Barry L. Ornitz" <BLOrnitz48@charter.net> writes:
>This is a complex issue. Coaxial cable almost always has considerably
>higher attenuation per unit length than waveguide. But waveguide
>requires specialized bends since flexible waveguide has its limits on how
>much it can be bent and still work properly. But the biggest issue is
>size.
And cost.... Waveguide was/is solid copper, and recently many siteowners
have had it stolen.
>Instead of using waveguides, they were using quasi-optical techniques to
>transfer the millimeter waves around the room. What I found especially
>interesting was the use of lenses machined from PTFE (Teflon) to focus
>the beams. While Townes is mainly known for his work in the maser and
>the laser, he is also considered the father of microwave spectroscopy.
The AT&T 2Ghz KS-5759 antennas
<http://long-lines.net/tech-equip/radio/BSP402420100/1.html
used plastics as delay lines to focus the output.
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>I'm surprised at the difference in loss of waveguide vs. coax: all
>the cell sites I've ever seen appear to use coax, so either they're
>using the flexible type [of waveguide] or the cellular engineers are
>employing the coax loss to contribute a large part of their loss
>budget for the antenna arrays being used.
Note the coax types he cited would NEVER be used for microwave; the
larger Heliax [?sp] coax style line is often air-insulated, not foam, and
has much less loss.
Waveguide is expensive to buy, and expensive to install, and needs dry
air and ....
You sometimes see long runs of waveguide & then transitions to coax for
the final connection. There is also flexible [and I use the term loosely;
"not rigid" might be better....] waveguide.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:29:28 -0400
From: "Dr. Barry L. Ornitz" <BLOrnitz48@charter.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <rvqKl.267$BX.18@newsfe18.iad>
"David Lesher" <wb8foz@panix.com> wrote in message
news:gtckob$hsn$1@reader1.panix.com...
> "Dr. Barry L. Ornitz" <BLOrnitz48@charter.net> writes:
>
>>This is a complex issue. Coaxial cable almost always has considerably
>>higher attenuation per unit length than waveguide. But waveguide
>>requires specialized bends since flexible waveguide has its limits on
>>how
>>much it can be bent and still work properly. But the biggest issue is
>>size.
>
> And cost.... Waveguide was/is solid copper, and recently many
> siteowners
> have had it stolen.
Waveguide today is generally aluminum with the flanges and mitre bends
hot-dip brazed. It has lower loss than brass which is sometimes used,
but slightly more loss than copper.
Large Andrews Heliax cable has lots of copper too.
> The AT&T 2Ghz KS-5759 antennas
> <http://long-lines.net/tech-equip/radio/BSP402420100/1.html> used
^gt; plastics as delay lines to focus the output.
The sandwitching of plastic with thin sheet metal creates an artificial
dielectric as noted in the article. In the shorter millimeter wave
(terahertz) region, solid PTFE is practical. Because of the differences
in wavelength, the PTFE does not have to be polished to a high degree
like a lens for visible light.
When we think of lenses, we think of the refractive index of the material
the lens is made from. But refractive index is the square root of the
dielectric constant.
>
>>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>
>>I'm surprised at the difference in loss of waveguide vs. coax: all
>>the cell sites I've ever seen appear to use coax, so either they're
>>using the flexible type [of waveguide] or the cellular engineers are
>>employing the coax loss to contribute a large part of their loss
>>budget for the antenna arrays being used.
>
> Note the coax types he cited would NEVER be used for microwave; the
> larger Heliax [?sp] coax style line is often air-insulated, not foam,
> and has much less loss.
But these small cables are used with computer networking antennas. I
chose those cables to demonstrate that the added range obtained by
elevating an antenna is often lost due to the increased cable losses.
Andrews Heliax transmission lines still have more loss than waveguides.
The gas insulated lines with spiral insulation begin to have problems at
higher frequencies with propagation modes other than TEM being possible.
And these cables require pressurization systems in the same way that
waveguide does.
> Waveguide is expensive to buy, and expensive to install, and needs dry
> air and ....
>
> You sometimes see long runs of waveguide & then transitions to coax for
> the final connection. There is also flexible [and I use the term
> loosely - "not rigid" might be better....] waveguide.
Yes, flexible waveguide is very much akin to liquid tight flexible metal
conduit - only stiffer. It is also much lossier than regular waveguide.
Short sections of flexible waveguide are sometimes used at the ends of
long runs of regular waveguide because the thermal coefficient of
expansion of copper or aluminum is quite different than that of the steel
used to make the towers that support the antennas.
I wish I could answer more of Bill Horne's questions about microwave
links and licensing. Unfortunately my specialty was online chemical
instrumentation. Hence my knowledge about microwave spectroscopy and
dielectrics. I do hold a FCC General Radiotelephone license
(grandfathered from 1st Class) with Ship Radar Endorsement* and the
Amateur Extra Class ham license. but these are not applicable to
Bill's questions.
--
73, Dr. Barry L. Ornitz WA4VZQ
BLOrnitz48@charter.net
* I was in the Atlanta FCC office with a friend who was taking the 2nd
Class commercial exam. He handed me his study guide when he went in for
his exam. I looked over the questions for the radar endorsement and they
seemed pretty trivial, so I took the exam and received the endorsement.
I have never used it!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 07:46:46 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Waveguide (was "size a major consideration...")
Message-ID: <49F99DB6.1000703@annsgarden.com>
Temporary moderator wrote:
> I'm surprised at the difference in loss of waveguide vs. coax:
> all the cell sites I've ever seen appear to use coax, so either
> they're using the flexible type [of waveguide] or the cellular
> engineers are employing the coax loss to contribute a large part
> of their loss budget for the antenna arrays being used.
I think what you're seeing on cell towers is flexible waveguide:
http://tinyurl.com/cudezg
Back in the good ol' days (before this fiber optic stuff came along),
many of us older cable guys used flexible waveguide for 12- and 18-GHz
microwave transmission systems. We could transmit the entire CATV
spectrum over a distance of about 25 miles. Back then, of course, the
"entire CATV spectrum" only extended up to about 400 MHz, or channel 53.
These systems could be used to distribute signals throughout a city, or
to distribute signals to distant communities in rural areas. In the
1970s and early 80s, hundreds of these systems were in use.
These systems used the same off-the-shelf RF transmission components --
antennas, radomes, waveguide, connectors -- that manufacturers were
making for other industries. At the time, Andrew was the biggest
manufacturer in the business. You could see those big Andrew microwave
antennas (easily identified by the red "lightning flash" logo on the
radome) hanging on water towers in small towns all across America.
Most of the radio equipment was manufactured by Hughes Aircraft
Company. When I first got into the cable business, I was surprised to
learn that a big defense contractor like Hughes was making stuff for the
cable industry. But in retrospect, it makes sense: the stuff Hughes was
building for the cable industry wasn't much different from the stuff
they were building for other purposes. The basic components were
essentially the same.
Of course, once fiber came along, all this microwave stuff suddenly
became obsolete. Most of the old microwave systems have been replaced
with fiber, and the equipment has been removed. Some of it has been
sold to cable companies in South America, but most of it has been
recycled or junked.
Neal McLain
Retired Cable Guy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:53:42 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Qwest disconnected our 800 number
Message-ID: <c50.4c260e25.372b1576@aol.com>
In a message dated 4/28/2009 3:49:10 PM Central Daylight Time,
ahk@chinet.com writes:
>And, the calling party "sure as hell" deserves to know you will be
>seeing his number, even though he has elected CLID blocking.
I don't agree that the calling party has now, or has ever, had the
right to ANI blocking when calling a toll-free number. If he wants to
use CLID blocking, then let him call the company's local number, or
choose to do business with a company that doesn't use toll-free
numbers.
A prominent notice in the listings of emergency numbers in the front
of directories notes you cannot block delivery of your number to 911
and if you wish to do that you have to call the listed number.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 07:55:03 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: T-Mobile glorifies vandalism?
Message-ID: <bZiKl.100$BX.76@newsfe18.iad>
Julian Thomas wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:37:26 -0700 (PDT) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>>
>>I wish I could visit the library of the town where the first real test
>>of ESS took place (Morris, IL?) to see what was said back then.
>>National newspapers gave it only a few lines.
>>
>
>
> You are correct. It was Morris IL - some of the BTL folks referred to it as
> M[Morris]ESS = MESS :-(
As I recall the first in-service No 1 ESS was somewhere in New Jersey.
That was after the Morris trial.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: T-Mobile glorifies vandalism?
Message-ID: <3bece50e-7b99-4324-a0f7-af5f617fc066@w31g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 30, 3:16 pm, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> As I recall the first in-service No 1 ESS was somewhere in New Jersey.
> That was after the Morris trial.
I had to look it up: Succasunna. A small town near Morristown.
They learned a lot from that, too. Later 'boxes' had better
electronics and offered faster processing in a much smaller
footprint. They also tinkered with how much was done by the CPU and
how much was done by peripheral processors.
I've heard suggested that early ESS did not do too well when
overloaded with calls; apparently instead of just giving slow dial
tone as capacity permitted, they couldn't even respond, perhaps
because all the traffic handling overwhelmed it so that nothing could
be done and switch essentially froze up.
Remember a few years ago a software bug that existed in a number of
switches caused many of them to fail, about the same time? I think it
was from the maker in Plano Texas?
> Julian Thomas wrote:
> > You are correct. It was Morris IL - some of the BTL folks referred
> > to it as M[Morris]ESS = MESS :-(
The Morris test was only of a laboratory model; they knew in advance
that would not be the technology used in a production system. A lot
of work was still required. I think it was essentially to see if the
switch would work in the real world (outside a lab) and what problems
they had. One thing they found was that the air-conditioning
reliability was critical, when the building a/c failed the switch
failed, too. I think as a result they decided to devote more
functionality to software instead of hardware. The Bell Labs history
goes into detail about this and I think an issue of the Bell Labs
Record does as well.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:31:28 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <cde.48676af7.372b1e50@aol.com>
In a message dated 4/29/2009 4:43:39 PM Central Daylight Time,
bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com writes:
> I know from personal experience with an old analog "bag phone" (a
> Motorola), mag-mount whip on the middle of the vehicle roof gave me
> a _lot_ more range than the rubber-duckie on the back of the brick.
> e.g. I had service out in the "middle of nowhere" in th Rockies,
> some 17+ miles off the nearest paved road, in BLM wastelands.
I once used an analog Nokia phone on the road from Limon to Caslet
Rock (a two-lane cutoff) through pretty rugged country in a heavy
rainstorm and got through OK. No external antenna. The bill showed
the service was from Burlington, Colorado, (just past the Kansas state
line) a lot more than 17 miles.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Smith <marklsmith@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
Message-ID: <971488.2425.qm@web65714.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
________________________________
> From: "hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com" <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 7:08:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [telecom] size a major consideration in mobile phone sets
>
> On Apr 29, 5:43 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
> > I know from personal experience with an old analog "bag phone"
> > (a Motorola), mag-mount whip on the middle of the vehicle roof gave
> > me a _lot_ more range than the rubber-duckie on the back of the
> > brick.
>
> For what it's worth, [my] emegency CB kit said the mag mount antenna--
> placed on the metal surface of the car--was designed to work with the
> metal, that is, it made the metal part of the antenna. You weren't
> supposed to just hand hold the antenna or put it on the ground. I
> don't know the physics, but presumably the metal surface acted as some
> sort of radio wave resonator for the signal. (Maybe the radio folks
> here could explain this more accurately).
>
> My present digital cell phone handset has a pull out antenna a few
> inches long. I don't get to fringe areas, but I had hoped the antenna
> would save on battery consumption, [however] this handset only gives
> about 75 minutes of talk time since it was new. (Now it dies at 55
> minutes, but after it shuts down I can turn it on the next day and get
> another 20 minutes out of it when it dies for good and I have to
> recharge it.) I don't use the phone that much, but if I do go away
> for the day, I do need more talk time between charges in a single
> day's usage.
The metal roof was supposed to act as a ground plane. But it was an
equal voltage plane near 0 volts. It acts as a mirror and gives the
whip an apparent length twice it's actual length. For each frequency
there is an ideal whip length. For FM it's ~30 inches. The new cars
often cheat by wrapping the antenna spirally around the rod to make
the whip shorter. Rabbit ears are an example of an antenna that
doesn't need a ground plane. It's differential between the two ears.
Mark L. Smith http://smith.freehosting.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <345390.89950.qm@web52710.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:55:17 +0000 (UTC) David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> wrote:
<<Ma had all kinds of possible doom if anyone found out their SekRet
ANI readback number. People would open X-connects and tap YOUR phone,
Western Civilization would fall, etc.
Then She started selling Caller-ID, and she could make a profit.
Woosh, suddenly it's a GREAT IDEA, and no one should be able to block
CNID, because clearly only bankrobbers and jaywalkers would want to.>>
For GSM cellphones and Verizon at least you don't have to have anyone
anonymously calling you any longer (at least in the US.)
If you use the Trap Call <http://www.trapcall.com service you'll never have
another anonymous "private" caller again. You set up
forwarding to *004*18669676590*11# (the conditional "forward
everything" code though I believe you only need to use the forward
when no answer "61" code and when someone calls you with a blocked
"private" number all you do is reject the call and a few seconds later
your phone will ring again with their number revealed. The caller is
none the wiser (unless they really can "hear" the momentary silence
while your number is being forwarded.) The basic service is
completely free though they do have other services that you can
subscribe to for extra cost. I believe you could also do this if you
have your own number (personal toll-free number for instance) that you
can forward to your number that forwards CID data.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:04:23 -0800
From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Can I ring my own landline phone?
Message-ID: <gtde8g$kj3$1@blue.rahul.net>
David Lesher wrote:
> Ma had all kinds of possible doom if anyone found out their SekRet ANI
> readback number. People would open X-connects and tap YOUR phone, Western
> Civilization would fall, etc.
>
> Then She started selling Caller-ID, and she could make a profit.
>
> Woosh, suddenly it's a GREAT IDEA, and no one should be able to block
> CNID, because clearly only bankrobbers and jaywalkers would want to.
And more to the point, because advertising calls generate revenue for the
phone company, while avoiding or blocking such calls, no matter how, does
not. (Yes, they charge for CNID and blocking, but at a flat rate.)
I want to see a customer owned phone company that won't serve spammers.
------------------------------
End of The Telecom digest (15 messages)
**********
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: 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
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 TELECOM Digest
******************************
|
or 