|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 217 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Telco payments question
Re: Telco payments question
Re: Telco payments question
Re: Telco payments question
Re: Telco payments question
Re: Telco payments question
Re: Telco payments question
Re: Telco payments question
Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
reaching COngress, was: Skipping the announcement ...
Re: reaching COngress, was: Skipping the announcement ...
Re: reaching COngress, was: Skipping the announcement ...
Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: smog, was Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: smog, was Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: Telco payments question
Is Google Voice a Threat to AT&T?
Re: Iowa 911 call center becomes first to accept texts
Re: Iowa 911 call center becomes first to accept texts
Re: More on distracted drivers
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: Telco payments question
Re: Comcast Reports Second Quarter 2009 Results
Re: Is Google Voice a Threat to AT&T?
Re: "cramming" fraudulent phone charges
Re: Telco payments question
====== 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: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 02:34:39 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Telco payments question
Message-ID: <PySem.235999$E61.85578@newsfe09.iad>
Steven wrote:
> David Clayton wrote:
>
>> In Australia all the major telcos will now charge customers extra for
>> paying their bills by non-electronic means, has this sort of thing become
>> the norm in the US and other countries?
>>
> If you want to pay your bill at a Sprint store and don't ise oen the of
> terminals they charge, unless the terminal is down, at&t charges or at
> least the place you pay it at does. I do all mine online at their web
> page.
>
I do all mine by Bank of America on-line banking. I've been using it
since 1985 when we had to access the system by modem.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:36:17 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Telco payments question
Message-ID: <h5hb3e$vkb$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Sam Spade wrote:
> Steven wrote:
>
>> David Clayton wrote:
>>
>>> In Australia all the major telcos will now charge customers extra for
>>> paying their bills by non-electronic means, has this sort of thing
>>> become
>>> the norm in the US and other countries?
>>>
>> If you want to pay your bill at a Sprint store and don't ise oen the
>> of terminals they charge, unless the terminal is down, at&t charges or
>> at least the place you pay it at does. I do all mine online at their
>> web page.
>>
> I do all mine by Bank of America on-line banking. I've been using it
> since 1985 when we had to access the system by modem.
>
I remember BoA's Homebanking, they used to use Tymnet, way before the
Internet, I used to like it since it was very small and when you had to
call it was like talking to a small local bank. We used to be able to
access Western Union's e-mail system and the system that allowed you to
sent messages via the USPS, don't remember what it was called. When I
saw your post I looked around here and found the users guide and my old
Apple II software that worked with it.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, inc, A Rot in Hell. Co.
***** Moderator's Note *****
What ever happened to Tymnet and Telenet? Was it another case of
established companies that didn't/couldn't adapt quickly enough?
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:42:57 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Telco payments question
Message-ID: <h5hbfs$vi1$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Steven wrote:
> I remember BoA's Homebanking, they used to use Tymnet, way before the
> Internet ... [moderator snip]
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> What ever happened to Tymnet and Telenet? Was it another case of
> established companies that didn't/couldn't adapt quickly enough?
I don't know about Tymnet, but Telenet became part of Sprints network,
so it might still be around as their high speed nationwide network.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, inc, A Rot in Hell. Co.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:05:08 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Telco payments question
Message-ID: <4A7C5EC4.30608@thadlabs.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> What ever happened to Tymnet and Telenet? Was it another case of
> established companies that didn't/couldn't adapt quickly enough?
I used to work there (Tymshare) in the 1960s and 1970s. Tymnet was
eventually absorbed by British Telecom as BT/Tymnet and their local
office moved from Cupertino CA to Fremont CA, They finally shut down
in the early 2000s as the Internet became ubiquitous.
Funny thing: the chief architect of Tymnet was LaRoy Tymes and it was
pure coincidence the company, the service and LaRoy had the same first
three letters in their names. When I began at Tymshare we had only one
computer, a modified SDS-930 derived from UCB's Project Genie, and
LaRoy was not yet an employee. Tymnet was built using Varian 620i
minicomputers.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 09:04:02 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Telco payments question
Message-ID: <4A7C5072.6030707@thadlabs.com>
On 8/7/2009 5:56 AM, Sam Spade wrote:
> Steven wrote:
>
>> David Clayton wrote:
>>
>>> In Australia all the major telcos will now charge customers extra for
>>> paying their bills by non-electronic means, has this sort of thing
>>> become
>>> the norm in the US and other countries?
>>>
>> If you want to pay your bill at a Sprint store and don't use one of
>> the terminals they charge, unless the terminal is down, AT&T
>> charges, or at least the place you pay it at does. I do all mine
>> online at their web page.
>>
> I do all mine by Bank of America on-line banking. I've been using it
> since 1985 when we had to access the system by modem.
'S funny you should mention that. I was one of their first on-line banking
customers until:
1. Typing a ^C (control-C) took me to the system's command level; it
was either a PDP-10 or TOPS-20 system (I had a bunch of both in my
computer center and had been using PDP-10s since the 1960s), and
2. Poking around at the command level and discovering the online
banking center was located at Half Moon Bay CA and was wide-open.
I notified them the system was totally insecure, cancelled
immediately, and didn't return to BofA's online-banking until it was
web-based with SSL.
Their present system is reasonably secure and I use it almost daily.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 19:03:16 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Telco payments question
Message-ID: <MPG.24e67cc0a213b944989b39@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <PySem.235999$E61.85578@newsfe09.iad>, sam@coldmail.com
says...
>
> Steven wrote:
>
> > David Clayton wrote:
> >
> >> In Australia all the major telcos will now charge customers extra for
> >> paying their bills by non-electronic means, has this sort of thing become
> >> the norm in the US and other countries?
> >>
> > If you want to pay your bill at a Sprint store and don't ise oen the of
> > terminals they charge, unless the terminal is down, at&t charges or at
> > least the place you pay it at does. I do all mine online at their web
> > page.
> >
> I do all mine by Bank of America on-line banking. I've been using it
> since 1985 when we had to access the system by modem.
I can do mine through my bank but to be honest, all the providers have
payment gateways of their own. I do setup billing noticed through my
bank though.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:43:15 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Telco payments question
Message-ID: <be9.58b6a90b.37ad9783@aol.com>
In a message dated 8/6/2009 11:48:29 PM Central Daylight Time,
diespammers@killspammers.com writes:
David Clayton wrote:
>> In Australia all the major telcos will now charge customers extra
>> for paying their bills by non-electronic means, has this sort of
>> thing become the norm in the US and other countries?
> If you want to pay your bill at a Sprint store and don't use one of
> the terminals, [then] they charge, unless the terminal is down. AT&T
> charges, or at least the place you pay it at does. I do all mine
> online at their web page.
AT&T Mobility does not charge for paying by phone. I don't think
you have to pay at AT&T stores if you pay by check and have your stub
and drop it in the slot or box provided for payments.
That's how I did it until the AT&T store moved two miles away.
Then I tried paying by phone and it was easy. On the other hand,
using their web site is one of the most complicated I have tried to
use.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:04:44 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Telco payments question
Message-ID: <h5hub9$hq8$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/6/2009 11:48:29 PM Central Daylight Time,
> diespammers@killspammers.com writes:
>
> David Clayton wrote:
>
>>> In Australia all the major telcos will now charge customers extra
>>> for paying their bills by non-electronic means, has this sort of
>>> thing become the norm in the US and other countries?
>
>> If you want to pay your bill at a Sprint store and don't use one of
>> the terminals, [then] they charge, unless the terminal is down. AT&T
>> charges, or at least the place you pay it at does. I do all mine
>> online at their web page.
>
> AT&T Mobility does not charge for paying by phone. I don't think
> you have to pay at AT&T stores if you pay by check and have your stub
> and drop it in the slot or box provided for payments.
>
> That's how I did it until the AT&T store moved two miles away.
> Then I tried paying by phone and it was easy. On the other hand,
> using their web site is one of the most complicated I have tried to
> use.
>
> Wes Leatherock
> wesrock@aol.com
> wleathus@yahoo.com
>
If it is any thing like their landline site I agree, I use it for my
landline, but it is a real pain to use.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, inc, A Rot in Hell. Co.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 02:30:11 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <EuSem.235868$E61.191669@newsfe09.iad>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>
> It's real easy to write a letter like that. But, sadly, it's real
> easy for your carrier to ignore it. These days carriers (and other
> businesses, too), have become awfully good at wearing someone down.
>
> Filing a complaint with State and Federal authorities takes up time
> and is not easy, filing a criminal complaint is particularly
> difficult. That's just the _filing_ part. Once filed, you have to
> follow up on these things, and the system puts you through the ringer
> for that, too. Many times one will have to spend hours far from home
> waiting in line to file papers or review progress.
>
> The reality is that the vast majority of people are too busy with work
> and family and have other priorities to deal with this stuff. Unless
> the charges are outrageous and the carrier refuses a request to cancel
> them, most people will just sigh and write out a check. Most people
> don't want to lose hundreds of dollars in wages to save $25 in a bad
> charge.
>
> Or, take my case with Vonage and a very clear federal regulation
> requiring per-call block and per-call unblock. Worse than Vonage
> ignoring it [is the fact that] the FCC is ignoring it. In view of
> the clarity of the regulation I'd say the FCC is putting up a bigger
> stonewall than Vonage.
The FCC asserts on their web site how seriously they take the informal
complaint process. And, they assert that their consumer division
representatives are also standing by to help. I called them a week
ago and read the clear regulation to them. They gave me a case number
and said I would hear from a FCC specialist within 2 business days.
No show.
Now, I have sent the entire package to my Congressman's DC office
requesting a Congressional Inquiry of the FCC. Stay tuned. I also
faxed the package to the FCC's "concerned" consumer affairs staff.
This isn't like a nebulous issue with the Do Not Call Registry. My
issue is a clear violation of a Code of Federal Regulation. When this
happens over at the FAA enforcement action result.
***** Moderator's Note *****
The FAA is in a different world: if they don't enforce _their_ rules,
people might die. The FCC can't be expected to assign the same budget
and manpower to consumer grievances where the safety of life isn't at
issue.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 13:04:23 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: reaching COngress, was: Skipping the announcement ...
Message-ID: <h5h8on$eq7$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <EuSem.235868$E61.191669@newsfe09.iad> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> writes:
[snip of a telco related problem ]
>Now, I have sent the entire package to my Congressman's DC office
>requesting a Congressional Inquiry of the FCC.
Just addressing this one point:
(No) thanks to the paranoia related to the "anthrax letters",
all mail going to the Washington offices of Congress and to
many other federal agencies gets diverted and processed through
the super duper radiation zappers.
This easily adds a week to the delivery time.
Hence it's often better to send material to your
rep's local office.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:43:23 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: reaching COngress, was: Skipping the announcement ...
Message-ID: <uYXem.115064$Qg6.68557@newsfe14.iad>
danny burstein wrote:
> In <EuSem.235868$E61.191669@newsfe09.iad> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> writes:
>
> [snip of a telco related problem ]
>
>
>>Now, I have sent the entire package to my Congressman's DC office
>>requesting a Congressional Inquiry of the FCC.
>
>
> Just addressing this one point:
>
> (No) thanks to the paranoia related to the "anthrax letters",
> all mail going to the Washington offices of Congress and to
> many other federal agencies gets diverted and processed through
> the super duper radiation zappers.
>
> This easily adds a week to the delivery time.
>
> Hence it's often better to send material to your
> rep's local office.
Good point. I am aware of that. Both the package to my Congressman and
a copy to the FCC consumer staff were sent by fax.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 09:54:28 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: reaching COngress, was: Skipping the announcement ...
Message-ID: <4A7C5C44.3080201@thadlabs.com>
On 8/7/2009 6:09 AM, danny burstein wrote:
> [...]
> Just addressing this one point:
>
> (No) thanks to the paranoia related to the "anthrax letters",
> all mail going to the Washington offices of Congress and to
> many other federal agencies gets diverted and processed through
> the super duper radiation zappers.
>
> This easily adds a week to the delivery time.
> [...]
I disagree. Last year I had to present some material (printed and
duplicated as searchable PDFs on CDs) to SCOTUS and several other
agencies and they arrived at their destinations in Washington DC
within 48 hours after being mailed using the USPS from my (small)
town in Silicon Valley.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 07:06:25 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <BxWem.27814$DF1.9244@newsfe13.iad>
Sam Spade wrote:
> The FCC asserts on their web site how seriously they take the
> informal complaint process. And, they assert that their consumer
> division representatives are also standing by to help. I called
> them a week ago and read the clear regulation to them. They gave me
> a case number and said I would hear from a FCC specialist within 2
> business days. No show.
>
> Now, I have sent the entire package to my Congressman's DC office
> requesting a Congressional Inquiry of the FCC. Stay tuned. I also
> faxed the package to the FCC's "concerned" consumer affairs staff.
>
> This isn't like a nebulous issue with the Do Not Call Registry. My
> issue is a clear violation of a Code of Federal Regulation. When
> this happens over at the FAA enforcement action result.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> The FAA is in a different world: if they don't enforce _their_
> rules, people might die. The FCC can't be expected to assign the
> same budget and manpower to consumer grievances where the safety of
> life isn't at issue.
>
> Bill Horne
If that is the case they should remove the baloney from their web site.
What you are saying in effect is that a formal complaint is far more
important than an informal complaint. (i.e. money and attornies get the
attention)
***** Moderator's Note *****
Twas ever thus, and thus 'twill ever be.
- Dickens
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 02:32:21 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Skipping the announcement (was Re: Pop song)
Message-ID: <GwSem.235932$E61.135987@newsfe09.iad>
Robert Neville wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> For example, many consumers are aware of the Do Not Call lists, and
>> even are aware of the many exceptions these lists have. But many
>> consumers probably do NOT know that the lists expire after a few
>> years and names must be reposted. Common sense would dictate once
>> listed a name would be permanent unless explicitly removed; after
>> all, most people hate soliciting calls.
>
> Sorry - this is not correct. Once registered,the number does not expire.
>
> http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/04/dncfyi.shtm
>
But, the only "relief" the FTC offers is to advise you to hire an
attorney and sue the offending party in state court. All the FTC does
is gather statistics. The Do Not Call list is a farce.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 00:49:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <200908070449.AAA25587@ss10.danlan.com>
jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us (John David Galt) wrote:
> According to Spider Robinson ("The Crazy Years"), the airlines got
> smoking banned aboard aircraft for a completely different reason: it
> meant they could slow down the air circulation systems in aircraft
> cabins by a factor of two or three (to save energy and money for the
> airline) without the fact being visible. The stagnant air that
> passengers now have to breathe as a result is almost certainly more
> of a health hazard than the slightly smoky air it replaces.
Probably not more so much as different. I really didn't like the
smoke...
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> Sorry, that doesn't make sense. Jet aircraft have so much spare
> power that air circulation is never a problem: the engines provide
> pressurized air for free,
It was almost free on older engine designs but I believe newer high
bypass ratio fan engines take a non-trivial performance hit when you
extract pressurized air.
> so moving air through the cabin is very easy to do.
Regardless of the engine design the pressurized air is hot - too hot, I
suspect, to drop to cabin temperature by passive cooling alone. That's
more energy spent on active cooling.
> In any case, it doesn't pass the common-sense test: why risk offending
> passengers when the aircraft has all the ventilation anyone could ever
> want?
Why pressurize the cabin to only 8000ft? Why pack seats so close
together? It's all a balancing act to keep costs down without driving
off too many passengers.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:58:21 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <1qWem.27767$DF1.21506@newsfe13.iad>
Dan Lanciani wrote:
> jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us (John David Galt) wrote:
>
>> According to Spider Robinson ("The Crazy Years"), the airlines got
>> smoking banned aboard aircraft for a completely different reason:
>> it meant they could slow down the air circulation systems in
>> aircraft cabins by a factor of two or three (to save energy and
>> money for the airline) without the fact being visible. The
>> stagnant air that passengers now have to breathe as a result is
>> almost certainly more of a health hazard than the slightly smoky
>> air it replaces.
>
> Probably not more so much as different. I really didn't like the
> smoke...
>
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> Sorry, that doesn't make sense. Jet aircraft have so much spare
>> power that air circulation is never a problem: the engines provide
>> pressurized air for free,
>
>
> It was almost free on older engine designs but I believe newer high
> bypass ratio fan engines take a non-trivial performance hit when you
> extract pressurized air.
>
>
>> so moving air through the cabin is very easy to do.
>
> Regardless of the engine design the pressurized air is hot - too hot, I
> suspect, to drop to cabin temperature by passive cooling alone. That's
> more energy spent on active cooling.
>
>
>> In any case, it doesn't pass the common-sense test: why risk offending
>> passengers when the aircraft has all the ventilation anyone could ever
>> want?
>
> Why pressurize the cabin to only 8000ft? Why pack seats so close
> together? It's all a balancing act to keep costs down without driving
> off too many passengers.
>
> Dan Lanciani
> ddl@danlan.*com
I flew 707s, 727s, DC-9s, 767s, and L1011s.
Pressurization, heating and air conditioning uses bleed air off the
engines drive air cycle machines (turbo compressors in 707).
Any time you bleed a significant amount of air off the engines it
reduces engine performance. Often you can recover the lost performance
by increasing the power setting, which means more fuel burn.
In some of the earlier airlines like the first 707s, there was no spare
power so you had to take off unpressurized to have the required takeoff
performance. Then, pressurization started at 1,000 feet, or so. In the
winter engine anti ice and especially wing anti ice take away
performance by using bleed air.
No free lunch.
What's this have to do with telephony? ;-)
***** Moderator's Note *****
Good question. Pick any answer:
1. The thread got airborne after someone commented about the effect of
tobacco smoke on CO equipment, and I was nostalgic for good old days
when you could smoke anywhere except on the flight line. I no longer
indulge, but I've always felt that the Thought Police went overboard
on the public smoking thing.
2. I was a pilot once. It's summer, I'm bored, it was a slow day.
3. I was going to call you about that.
------------------------------
Date: 7 Aug 2009 16:44:11 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: smog, was Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <20090807164411.46246.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Salon's Ask the Pilot, who is a real commercial pilot, also says that
the air circulation is set to make people comfortable, not to minimize
the trivial costs.
>Why pressurize the cabin to only 8000ft?
Stress on the metal hull from pressure/depressure cycles. The 787
will be pressurized to 6000 ft because the plastic hull is stronger.
> Why pack seats so close together?
Oh, because Americans will without exception pick the lowest price, then
act suprised when the product is cruddy.
I hear that when they banned smoking and cleaned all of the accumulated
tar and gunk out of the cabins, the planes were appreciably lighter.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:31:26 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: smog, was Cell-phone generation increasingly disconnected
Message-ID: <M21fm.133002$vp.19192@newsfe12.iad>
John Levine wrote:
> Salon's Ask the Pilot, who is a real commercial pilot, also says that
> the air circulation is set to make people comfortable, not to minimize
> the trivial costs.
He's blowing smoke. They turn off one air conditioning pack to save on
using bleed air, thus saving a "trivial" amounnt of fuel (when mutiplied
by a couple thousand flights a day adds up to some real cash savings).
I was an airline pilot for 27 years and still do consulting in the industry.
***** Moderator's Note *****
This _has_ veered too far away from telecom, so this will be the last
post in this thread.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:51:10 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <ermdnVQxupktU-bXnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@posted.visi>
Thad Floryan wrote:
> Yesterday, after a lunch meeting with a Nokia guru, we adjourned to
> my home office to review some matters and, within seconds of booting
> one of my systems, a "noise problem" that has sort-of bugged me for
> a year evidenced itself. The Nokia guru instantly stated that sound
> was GSM interference.
I wouldn't doubt it. It's pretty obvious with my computer. If I set
my cell phone (either a Nokia or a Motorola) right by the computer, I
can hear periodic bursts of noise from the speaker. Turn the cell
phone off, or move it away, no more bursts.
I wouldn't blame the phone so much as the computer. The phone, after
all, has to talk to the tower by radio periodically. And when GSM was
designed, computers mostly didn't have audio, and were a lot better
shielded than they are today. (Monitors, however were quite
susceptible to interference from nearby fluorescent lights.) The
computer manufacturers could shield things well enough so the
interference wouldn't occur, but it would cost more, so they don't bother.
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 09:32:01 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <4A7C5701.50106@thadlabs.com>
On 8/7/2009 6:07 AM, Dave Garland wrote:
> Thad Floryan wrote:
>
>> Yesterday, after a lunch meeting with a Nokia guru, we adjourned to
>> my home office to review some matters and, within seconds of booting
>> one of my systems, a "noise problem" that has sort-of bugged me for
>> a year evidenced itself. The Nokia guru instantly stated that sound
>> was GSM interference.
>
> I wouldn't doubt it. It's pretty obvious with my computer. If I set
> my cell phone (either a Nokia or a Motorola) right by the computer, I
> can hear periodic bursts of noise from the speaker. Turn the cell
> phone off, or move it away, no more bursts.
>
> I wouldn't blame the phone so much as the computer. The phone, after
> all, has to talk to the tower by radio periodically. And when GSM was
> designed, computers mostly didn't have audio, and were a lot better
> shielded than they are today. (Monitors, however were quite
> susceptible to interference from nearby fluorescent lights.) The
> computer manufacturers could shield things well enough so the
> interference wouldn't occur, but it would cost more, so they don't bother.
The more I think about it, it's not the computers per se but the external
audio system with its unshielded cabling, plastic cases, etc. similar to
the 10-second video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1mlponX_jw
whose sound exactly matches what I hear except I get only four repetitions
of the "dit-dit-dit" and not the 10 or so in that video.
Some 20+ years ago when the computers I ran at home 24/7 were Suns, AT&Ts,
Convergents, etc., the FM radio in my car wouldn't function until I backed
the car out of the garage.
The systems I operate today in my home office are actually well shielded
and don't affect any of my radios but they do have audio outputs and that,
I believe, is what the "GSM interference" is perturbing. It was July 2008
when I finally added an audio system (Altec Lansing with subwoofer) that
the GSM interference became noticeable.
The question remains: why are only GSM phones causing the problem? The
articles I found during yesterday's Google search universally claimed
it's only GSM phones that affect audio systems (computer, mixing panels,
recording studios, etc.).
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:19:12 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <gL6dnTKZXpfdEeHXnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <4A7C5701.50106@thadlabs.com>,
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
>The more I think about it, it's not the computers per se but the external
>audio system with its unshielded cabling, plastic cases, etc.
>
>The question remains: why are only GSM phones causing the problem? The
>articles I found during yesterday's Google search universally claimed
>it's only GSM phones that affect audio systems (computer, mixing panels,
>recording studios, etc.).
The answer to that gets _complicated_. But it boils down to the fact
that it _isn't_ only GSM transmissions that get picked up. It is just
an 'artifact' of the way the signalling for GSM occurs (timing, packet
lengths, etc.) that picked up and rectified at a diode interface, ends
up in the audible spectrum.
The GSM devices are working properly. They are not producing
'spurious' (off frequency) signals, or anything else inappropriate.
The problem lies in the _affected_ systems -- inadequate shielding,
use of 'unbalanced' audio signals, etc. The 'problem' has been around
for a _long_ time -- "long ago", I once had to 'fix' a church PA
system that was picking up passing C.B. radio transmissions. And
practically _every_ ham operator on HF can tell 'war stories' about
'unintended' reception by neighbors.
The _big_ difference today, is the sheer _number_ of such
transmitters, and the *proximity* of the transmitter to the 'affected'
equipment. that last, 'proximity', has a tremendous effect on the
likelihood of pick-up -- a 100mw transmitter at 3 ft. is roughly the
equivalent of a kilowatt transmitter at 300 ft. Make it 1-2", like
the case mentioned in the other item, where the phone was sitting _on_
the paper shredder it was affecting, and the 'effective' power is
_another_ several hundred(!!) times higher.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 20:26:22 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <c36.56b338bb.37ae202e@aol.com>
In a message dated 8/7/2009 2:13:36 PM Central Daylight Time,
thad@thadlabs.com writes:
> But the finger is pointing at GSM as the culprit. Though I realize
> the GSM interference isn't a life-threatening situation (hmmm, what
> about being in a hospital?), I thought consumer appliances are not
> supposed to be causing such interference.
I was in the hospital a few months ago and using my AT&T phone. So
were many of my visitors. Others I have no idea what carrier/system
they were using but I know some of them were ATM. Nurses and others
called and answered calls all over the place.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:38:55 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <pan.2009.08.07.07.38.53.989975@myrealbox.com>
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:06:01 -0400, Thad Floryan wrote:
.........
> So, how did GSM ever get FCC approval given this very widespread RFI/EMI
> problem?
The problem is not the GSM devices, it is in the receiving devices. If
they can be interfered with by GSM frequencies then they can be interfered
with by any other transmitter using those frequencies.
It is the nature of the GSM modulation that makes it more apparent in
these devices. The devices themselves will be just as susceptible to other
RFI/EMI sources, but because of the different modulation *you* may not
notice it in the same way as with a GSM device.
The devices could actually be affected in a worse way as far as operating
correctly goes by non-GSM transmitters, but the humans nearby may not
notice that interference as readily as with the obvious effect GSM has, so
it may well be worse to *not* know that a device is susceptible to
interference!
--
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: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 09:43:57 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <4A7C59CD.2070209@thadlabs.com>
On 8/7/2009 6:07 AM, David Clayton wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:06:01 -0400, Thad Floryan wrote:
> .........
>> So, how did GSM ever get FCC approval given this very widespread RFI/EMI
>> problem?
>
> The problem is not the GSM devices, it is in the receiving devices. If
> they can be interfered with by GSM frequencies then they can be interfered
> with by any other transmitter using those frequencies.
>
> It is the nature of the GSM modulation that makes it more apparent in
> these devices. The devices themselves will be just as susceptible to other
> RFI/EMI sources, but because of the different modulation *you* may not
> notice it in the same way as with a GSM device.
>
> The devices could actually be affected in a worse way as far as operating
> correctly goes by non-GSM transmitters, but the humans nearby may not
> notice that interference as readily as with the obvious effect GSM has, so
> it may well be worse to *not* know that a device is susceptible to
> interference!
Makes sense. Thank you!
This is now starting to explain the reason "Why?" I was instructed to turn off
my cell phone whenever I'd be working in a building's phone/wiring closet. At
one client's site the building manager claimed cell phones would set off the
fire alarms. Some times I'd forget to turn off my cell phone and I suppose I
lucked-out the alarms didn't go off! :-)
But the finger is pointing at GSM as the culprit. Though I realize the GSM
interference isn't a life-threatening situation (hmmm, what about being in a
hospital?), I thought consumer appliances are not supposed to be causing
such interference.
In any event, I was relieved to learn yesterday the sounds I was hearing were
not the result of malware in my computers.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:44:59 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <4A7C681B.3090509@thadlabs.com>
An email correspondent forwarded me the following "Post from the Past"
a few minutes ago.
Two points:
1. this confirms Google's searching of Usenet archives sucks dead bunnies
through a straw, and
2. GSM interference problems were well known and kept secret.
Here's the comp.dcom.telecom article from 1994, definitely worth reposting:
Date: 11 Mar 1994 21:34:21 EST
From: Stewart Fist <100033.2...@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: GSM and TDMA Problems
John Sims <j...@fs.com.au> asks about the problems with GSM.
They are pretty much the same as with all TDMA systems, including the
TDMA now being introduced into the USA -- and they'll be worse with
DECT and DCS1800 which are designed to be used indoors in large
offices.
You can look at these problems in a number of different ways and at a
number of different levels. The primary problem is that they were
introduced in competition to perfectly good analog cellular networks,
and they failed to provide any real customer advantages. A system
needs to be better than the one it replaces. The magical name
'digital' doesn't carry much weight with customers after a while.
Coverage area is another major problem, and here the American TDMA has
a better solution than GSM because it emphasised dual-mode handsets
with analog providing coverage where digital wasn't available. GSM
didn't do this, so in most nations with the system (except Germany)
you are limited to a very small coverage area, and a very limited
range of base-stations, often with minimal equipment, and with great
holes in the cells. Drop outs on the Sydney GSM networks seem to
range between 40% and up to 80% for a car crossing the city.
Sound quality in all digital systems seems to be consistent, but only
'acceptable'. While good static-free reception extends to the
boundaries of the cell, they do all suffer from a staccato-like effect
when driving down tree-line corridors (especially after dew or rain)
and they drop the link precipitously, without warning, at the
boundary. This is not how consumers think a phone system should
behave.
Within buildings, they have many more penetration and Rayleigh-fading
problems than analog also. Range of a GSM cell, at present is limited
to 35kms, which is too small for Australia, but this will be fixed in
1996 by slot-stealing.
GSM and TDMA base stations also need to radiate from higher points for
good coverage, but if they do that, they then interfere with other
cells. Capacity is set by the amount of general R/F interference
being introduced, and generally they seem to be only getting two to
three-times that of AMPS.
International roaming was the big story behind GSM, and it is
certainly important to 2% of European owners who daily drive across
the Continent. However AMPS is a far better system if an Australian
wants International roaming, because it is used in New Zealand,
Australia, most of Asia, and the America's. What we needed for good
international roaming was a dual-mode AMPS/TACS handset (and the
difference is really only in the R/F stage, so this would have been
easy to do).
The main problems are the R/F interference effects, and these are
common to all TDMA systems (including the new DECT and DCS-1800) and
they are cumulative -- so we see only a few signs of the problems now,
but like automobile pollution growth in cities, it will get worse as
the population of users grows. There are four main problems here:
1. General R/F pollution. Any system that switches its R/F
transmitter on and off rapidly (GSM does it 217 times a second, TDMA
does it 50 times) will scatter EMI throughout the adjacent radio
spectrum. And the sharper the edge of the switch power (on and off),
the wider the band of hash it scatters. These sets need a 3-5MHz
guard-band between them and analog AMPS channels,and they try to ramp
up the power, and still they scatter crap into nearby television
broadcast bands. We've never had anything that generates EMI like a
GSM handset before in these bands. We need large numbers of them like
we need a hole in the head.
2. Audio-Hz interference. The on-off cycle of transmission power will
be read by any analog circuit nearby (with any rectification or
asymmetrical circuits) as an intrusive audio tone of 217Hz, and the
two major harmonics above. This buzz intrudes into hearing aids at
distances up to 30 metres, and is often intolerable at 2 metres. It
also gets into cassette recorder, wireline systems, and into modems as
a carrier tone.
3. Digital byte intrusions. In digital circuits, where the track on a
circuit board is about the length of a GSM antenna, the on-off cycle
of transmission power is often being read as a data-byte. If only one
GSM handset is operating in a vicinity, it will pulse in the first (of
eight) slots in a frame, and so produce a 1000 0000 byte at 217 bytes
(1736 bits) a second. This can also be read as 1100 0000, 0000 0000
at 3.4kbit/s, or 1110 0000 etc. at 5.2kbit/s (and so on).
When two or more handsets are working in the same location, they are
all synchronised to the same base-station (same or different
channels). So amplitude effects (same slot, different channels) are
cumulative: the fact that they may be using different channels is
immaterial, so the range of interference can increase. A number of
handsets will combine to create what amounts to random number
generation (they are also frequency hopping) of power pulses in
digital control circuits nearby.
This seems to hit some electronic equipment (laserprinters, modems,
PCs, TV controllers, possibly air-bag triggers) hard, and have wierd,
and often un-reproducable effects. The randomness seems to be the
problem in detecting what caused some 'event'. It is virtually
impossible to reproduce the conditions.
This is why some people report no problems at all, others say it
knocks out their Powerbook or modem or multiplexer, occasionally, or
every time. Obviously some equipment is far more susceptible than
others -- but not just in terms of needing EMI shielding.
4. The last EMI problems is the remote possibility (and I stress
'remote possibility') that the pulsation of the microwaves can create
a different type, or order, of health problems to analog. Analog is
expected to only have a 'brain and eye-lens' heating effect (but not
everyone is convinced about this).
Digital TDMA introduces a new factor. It is known for instance, that
some enzyme reactions in chemical processes are sped up enormously
when hit by pulsating R/F, but no one seems to know why. This needs a
lot more research, but is no reason for panic. However, it can't be
dismissed, like may technophiles seem to do.
The real problem with both GSM and American TDMA is the way in which
all these problems were kept secret, and the systems were rolled out
slowly and quietly without anyone admitting problems until the press
started shouting. When they play these sorts of games, they have only
themselves to blame when the press reacts strongly and shouts 'foul'
especially when it is likely to be hearing-impaired people who suffer
in office environments.
Later, problems were reluctantly admitted, but always the admission
was associated with "Don't worry, well fix it!" which is just another
of their lies. Most of these problems are intrinsic in time-division
power pulsing.
More recently the tactic has changed once again: now they blame the
lack of shielding on hearing-aids and other electronic equipment, and
want to boost the standard of immunity, rather than reduce their own
emissions.
It's the smoke-stack blaming inefficiencies in gas-masks for the
problems. ETSI is its own worst enemy.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:58:31 -0500
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Telco payments question
Message-ID: <4dSdnbHwY6v1TebXnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@posted.visi>
David Clayton wrote:
> In Australia all the major telcos will now charge customers extra
> for paying their bills by non-electronic means, has this sort of
> thing become the norm in the US and other countries?
All the landline companies that I know of charge the same no matter
whether you pay your bill electronically or by mail. Some of the LD
companies charge extra for paper bills or hard-copy payment. The cell
companies I'm familiar with (Verizon) charge the same either
electronically or by check. Some places add a service charge to pay
in person. Prepay cellphone time (most brands) is often available
from other vendors, online, electronically, at a discount from what
the phone company charges.
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 11:10:08 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Is Google Voice a Threat to AT&T?
Message-ID: <p06240855c6a1f1ce0913@[10.0.1.3]>
Is Google Voice a Threat to AT&T?
By DAVID POGUE
August 6, 2009
Our story so far:
Chapter 1: Apple creates the iPhone.
Chapter 2: Apple opens the App Store, an online catalog of cheap or
free programs that you can download straight to the phone.
Programmers all over the world write 70,000 apps for it that perform
every amazing feat you can name.
Chapter 3: One of them is Google Voice, a front end for Google's
amazing free phone-management system (http://bit.ly/ZPgVv). Among its
many features: it lets you send free text messages and make 2-cent
international calls, right from the iPhone.
Chapter 4: Apple mysteriously rejects this eminently useful app,
refusing to list it in the App Store.
Then it goes even farther: it actually deletes from the App Store two
similar programs called GV Mobile and Voice Central, which have been
there for months. That is, Apple changes its mind retroactively - and
won't give the developers any logical explanation
(http://bit.ly/vdbMq).
Chapter 5: The blogosphere goes nuts. There's only one possible
reason that Apple might delete these apps: because AT&T demanded it.
Why would AT&T care? Because of those free text messages and cheap
international calls, of course. If these apps became popular, AT&T's
revenue could take a serious hit.
This business has blown up in Apple/AT&T's face. The Federal
Communications Commission, in fact, is now sniffing around, sending
letters (http://bit.ly/53FaK) to Apple, AT&T and Google, clearly
wondering if there's some illegal collusion going on. A few days
later, Google's chief executive stepped down from Apple's board;
tension is rising.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/technology/personaltech/06pogue-email.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:23:02 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Iowa 911 call center becomes first to accept texts
Message-ID: <MPG.24e4cd6d6f4352a7989b31@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <h5cqki$ioi$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
diespammers@killspammers.com says...
>
> Aug 5, 2:44 PM EDT
>
> Iowa 911 call center becomes first to accept texts
>
> By PETER SVENSSON
> AP Technology Writer
> Advertisement
> Buy AP Photo Reprints
>
> An emergency call center in the basement of the county jail in
> Waterloo, Iowa, became the first in the country to accept text
> messages sent to "911," starting Wednesday.
>
> Call centers around the country are looking at following in its
> footsteps, as phone calls are now just one of many things phones can
> do.
>
The British series "The IT Crowd" did a funny episode on emailing
emergency services. First, they'd changed the landline number to a
long, cryptic string.
Then, of course, we see one of the characters, Moss, trying to
remember the number, and then he decides to email them, but can't
remember the email address.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 19:01:53 -0600
From: Robert Neville <dont@bother.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Iowa 911 call center becomes first to accept texts
Message-ID: <hijp75lf86315rnq5n155c6sc08upfriq0@4ax.com>
T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
>The British series "The IT Crowd" did a funny episode on emailing
>emergency services. First, they'd changed the landline number to a
>long, cryptic string.
Oh come on - it wasn't cryptic at all!
0118 999 881 999 119 7253
Sticks in your mind as soon as you've heard it once...
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:46:14 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: More on distracted drivers
Message-ID: <9%Xem.115065$Qg6.88221@newsfe14.iad>
David Clayton wrote:
>
> I don't know what the real answer is, but I would think it has to
> start with people recognising that being allowed to drive a vehicle is
> a privilege that can be lost, not a god-given right regardless of the
> threat it may pose to innocent people.
>
>
California, in general, is so under-policed that enforcement is
selective at best. If the sanctions are made severe you can bet good
defense attornies will argue selective enforcement as being
unconstitutional.
------------------------------
Date: 7 Aug 2009 16:52:03 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <20090807165203.48157.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>"dit-dit-dit dit-dit-dit dit-dit-dit dit-dit-dit" and thought some
Yes, that's the sound of a GSM phone talking to the tower. If I put my
mobile next to my landline phone or the wire from the computer to the
speakers, I can easily hear it.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 19:07:24 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <MPG.24e67dae35a8bd3989b3a@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <20090807165203.48157.qmail@simone.iecc.com>, johnl@iecc.com
says...
>
> >"dit-dit-dit dit-dit-dit dit-dit-dit dit-dit-dit" and thought some
>
> Yes, that's the sound of a GSM phone talking to the tower. If I put my
> mobile next to my landline phone or the wire from the computer to the
> speakers, I can easily hear it.
>
> R's,
> John
It isn't just the GSM phones that do this. Verizon was still using CDMA
and my phone would do the same dit-dit-dit thing when a call was coming
in.
People were surprised when I'd pick up before it even rang.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:15:31 +0100
From: Ken W <ken@birchanger.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Telco payments question
Message-ID: <o9vo75tks522ko5c8nm487udg1h9g6sg05@4ax.com>
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 00:13:14 -0400 (EDT), David Clayton
<dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>In Australia all the major telcos will now charge customers extra for
>paying their bills by non-electronic means, has this sort of thing become
>the norm in the US and other countries?
Several UK carriers now charge extra in you refuse to pay by direct
debit.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:45:20 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Comcast Reports Second Quarter 2009 Results
Message-ID: <UvCdnRkGo4PNGeHXnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <nKWdnXGSbZNJjebXnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>In article <p0624082fc6a0783c619d@[10.0.1.3]>,
>Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>>
>>Comcast Reports Second Quarter 2009 Results
>>http://www.cmcsk.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=118591&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1317694&highlight=
>>
>>Consolidated Revenue Increased 4.5%
>>Consolidated Operating Cash Flow Increased 5.5%
>>Consolidated Operating Income Increased 7.1%
>>Earnings per Share of $0.33 Increased 57.1%
>>Generated Free Cash Flow of $1.2 Billion Repurchased 15.5 Million Common
>>Shares for $215 Million
>>
>>Financial Tables
>>http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/11/118591/Q209.htm
>>
>>PDF Version
>>http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTIyNzR8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1
>>
>>Trending Schedules (PDF)
>>http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTIyNzd8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1
>>
>>Trending Schedules (XLS)
>>http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTIyNzh8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1
>>
>>Click Here for Webcast
>>http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?p=irol-eventDetails&c=118591&eventID=2285950
>>
>>***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>>I would really like to know how Comcast has the gaul to list
> ^^^^
>Nit: Your spell checquer mis-led you. The correct spelling is 'gall'.
>
>>Goodwill 14,889 14,928 (in Millions)
>>
>>... on their balance sheet. I _might_ believe it was a valid entry if
>>it showed a negative number, but to make such a Blue Sky claim just
>>boggles my mind.
>
>It isn't a Blue Sky claim -- it's a real, _auditable_ number.
>
>The explanation is *really* quite simple -- the word doesn't mean what you
>think it does. <wry grin>
>
>"Goodwill" is a 'term of art' in the accounting trade. It is the part of the
>price you pay for acquiring an existing business, that is _in_excess_of_ the
>value of the physical assets you are acquiring.
>
>This is a recognition of the fact that the existing customers of a business
>are 'probably' going to continue to do business with the company, even though
>it has been bought by 'somebody else'. There is a 'value' to that future
>stream of revenue (sales) -- that 'value' comes from the work done _before_
>the company's purchase, by the 'then' owners (now the 'seller') of the
>company. Thus, they deserve compensation for that work, and since the buyer
>is the one that will reap the (eventual) benefit of that work, the buyer
>gives money to the seller as that compensation.
>
>BUT, you have to 'account' for it on the books, "somehow". So, that money
>spent is 'set off' against the acquisition of an 'intangible asset' called
>"good will".
>
>Because it's an 'intangible', it doesn't wear out, it doesn't become obsolete,
>etc. And, therefore, it is stuck on the 'books', _forever_. Because of that,
>it bears no relation to 'reality' in any way. <wry grin>
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>I'm not an accountant, so this is a layman's view.
>
>I thought "Blue Sky" was the accounting term applied to intangibles
>such as "good will". If that's not correct, let me know.
Blue sky is a (disparaging) term that applies to numbers 'pulled out of
thin air', without any factual basis. A low-grade 'guesstimate', if you will.
E.g. "expected" revenues from an entirely new product line, unrelated to any
of your prior products, and for which you have no actual expressions of buyer
interest.
For many intangibles, their _current_ value is a 'blue sky' number, because
there isn't any 'hard data' valuation available.
On a balance sheet, however, 'good will' is a hard fact value -- it is the
actual amount of $CURRENCY that was paid out for that reason in an acquisition.
>I also thought that the purchase price of a company, above the book
>value of the assets, had to be listed as a long term investment and
>discounted (as John Levine said) over some period of time. Is that
>correct?
No. <grin>
It is not an 'investment', long-term or otherwise. It is carried on the
books as a purchased 'asset'. Some kinds of assets have a (predicted by
actuaries) expected life-span -- e.g. buildings, machinery, etc., and are
subject to 'depreciation' (to reflect the part of their 'useful lifetime'
that is "used up" each year), an "operating expense" item that reduces
the 'book value' of the item year by year. Other kinds of assets, e.g.
real estate (the land itself, not the 'improvements' on it) do not
depreciate per se. They end up carried on the books, 'in perpetuity' as
it were, at the price originally paid for them.
As of 2001, goodwill 'amortization', previously on a 40-year straight-line
schedule, _ceased_. There are provisions for accounting for 'impairment'
(if any) of existing good will, and then writing down the asset value
correspondingly. Lacking such 'impairment', the asset stays on the books
(at full value) in perpetuity. The way the valuation is done, it is
virtually impossible to eradicate _all_ the recorded goodwill, so the entry
never entirely disappears. "Messy" is far too polite a term for the
details of the whole process -- and the longer the period since the
acquisition, the worse it gets.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 14:53:20 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Is Google Voice a Threat to AT&T?
Message-ID: <6645152a0908071253q1fda291eod49bd1867ba1215b@mail.gmail.com>
I've been tossing this around in my brain the past few days. I
recently met an Apple fan who refuses to buy an iPhone because he
won't do business with AT&T. Me, I'm more interested in the handheld
itself. I don't care who is handling the calls and data. I don't own
an iPhone, but I recently got an iPod Touch. Now that I'm using the
App Store and following the ongoing tale of Apple versus AT&T versus
the consumer, I have some thoughts on this.
I don't buy into the rumor that Apple will shop the iPhone to
Verizon. That would mean two sets of phones for the US market. The
average cell phone user really doesn't know, or care, what technology
carries their calls. But it would be an issue and would quickly
become a headache for Apple when customers are told they have to buy a
new iPhone. And to add to Apple's headache, what if Verizon and AT&T
started playing games where this app could run on one, but not the
other? It could go both ways. AT&T might have to agree to Google
Voice or television streaming apps if Verizon allows it. Or they
don't, creating a "sit in the back of the bus" class of iPhone users
with the "wrong" network.
I have to think Apple has considered this. I think they should launch
an MVNO exclusively for iPhone and go global with it. Allow a US
iPhone owner to use it in France at the US rates and vice-versa. I
can see a lot of value in knowing I can take my iPhone to a number of
countries, use it, deal only with Apple Wireless, and not come home to
a 4-figure phone bill.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:29:49 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: "cramming" fraudulent phone charges
Message-ID: <SoSdnSfJkNogE-HXnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <h5f4sq$4lo$1@reader1.panix.com>,
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>>IANAL.
>
>>Crammers get away with their thefts because most users are too busy to
>>even read the detailed part of their phone bills, let alone engage in
>>a complicated and time-consuming complaint process that might or might
>>not suceed.
>
>I must respectfully disagree. Crammers and similar sleazoids
>get away with this because of collusion, whether by commission
>or ommission, with the billing telephone entity.
>
>Yes, the telco may have the legal requirement to grant "equal
>access" to their billing systems (and I'm not sure that's
>even the case) ...
It _is_ the case. If the LEC let _any_ LD carrier submit items for
inclusion with the LEC billing, they had to offer that service to
_any_ carrier who met the same qualifications.
>.. but, there's nothing to stop them from including language
>similar to the following when they sign those papers:
>
>"In the event there's a verified complaint rate
> of greater than X percent, this agreement is subject
> to immediate termination".
Actually, that is -not- true. One of the down-sides of being a
"common carrier" is that you _have_ to do business with anyone
who can pay. You simply _cannot_ "pick and choose" based on
your "dislike" of the nature of their business.
"Common carrier" status is a sword that cuts both ways. While
it protects you from liability for a lot of things, it also
*prevents* you from taking a number of kinds of actions that
people 'want/demand' you to do. <wry grin>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 19:02:13 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Telco payments question
Message-ID: <MPG.24e67c844f560ae9989b38@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <pan.2009.08.07.03.23.26.899121@myrealbox.com>,
dcstar@myrealbox.com says...
>
> In Australia all the major telcos will now charge customers extra for
> paying their bills by non-electronic means, has this sort of thing become
> the norm in the US and other countries?
Doubtful. I can only pay Vonage via credit or debit. But my National
Grid bills are interesting.
If I pay using my debit card I get whacked a $3.95 fee. But then they
also charge you $1.50 or so if you pay at an agent.
The trick is to pay online using a demand draft.
I hope to see National Grid broken into a million little pieces btw.
***** Moderator's Note *****
This is getting away from telecom. Please limit posts in this thread
to electronic billing issues which affect firms in the telecom
industry.
------------------------------
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) 2009 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 (37 messages)
******************************
|
or 