|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 232 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Cutting the cord
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: 40th Anniversary of UNIX this month (August 2009)
Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Re: 500 & 533 Numbers (re: Cutting the Cord)
Re: spaeking of cellular phone wish list: multi-SIM
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: GSM-only interference
Re: in a Qwest for wireless service...
Re: in a Qwest for wireless service...
Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
====== 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, 21 Aug 2009 23:43:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cutting the cord
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.0908212342430.1055@Calculus.local>
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 8/21/2009 5:53 PM, Wesrock@aol.com wrote:
>> In a message dated 8/20/2009 8:48:41 PM Central Daylight Time,
>> kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net writes:
>>
>>> A cell phone still sounds like a bad sideband
>>> transmission.
>>
>> That has not been my expeerience in recent years. Voice quality
>> (AT&T, previously Cingular) is aurally indistinguishable from a
>> landline phone, both for me and for incoming calls from other AT&T
>> cell phones. Nor can I detect a differnce on incoming calls from
>> other parties which I believe to be non-AT&T customers.
>
> I second Wes' comments. Starting with Cellular One (which became or
> was absorbed by Cingular then by AT&T) voice quality has been
> exemplary since 1992 with the three cell phones I've had and used
> since then: Motorola Micro T*A*C Lite, Nokia 6162i, and now a
> Motorola RAZR.
I'll third it. I've been with all four nationwide carriers and AT&T
has, by far, the best voice quality. When I mention it people are
surprised I'm on a cell phone.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:33:39 -0500
From: Michael Grigoni <michael.grigoni@cybertheque.org>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <4A8F7523.3010603@cybertheque.org>
Thad Floryan wrote:
<snip>
> Even though I now know it's the phone causing the "dit-dit-dit dit-dit-dit ,,,"
> on the computers' audio, I'm becoming concerned.
>
> I used to have the phone (Motorola RAZR V3) on my belt while sitting at the
> keyboard in this setup <http://thadlabs.com/PIX/Thad_desk.jpg>. The audio
> stuff is 2-3 feet on the other side of that LCD monitor, 4 to 5 feet from me.
>
> Since the Nokia guy stated it's GSM interference a few weeks ago, I've been
> taking the phone off my belt and placing it on a table 10 feet away. It still
> perturbs the audio with the "dit-dit-dit ..." several times a day and, just a
> moment ago when someone called. it totally swamped the computer audio with a
> loud buzzing hum just prior to the phone ringing.
>
> I suppose the next test is to place the phone 30 feet away alongside a glass
> of water and see if the water boils when the GSM interference occurs. :-)
<snip>
I wonder if GSM phones create an increased danger of ignition of
nearby flammables or of trigging of blasting fuses vs. AMPS or other
phones; has anyone heard of a confirmed incident of such ignitions?
Michael
***** Moderator's Note *****
I wonder if the sky is falling.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 10:56:38 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <zqGdnZW2nK6riA3XnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <4A8F7523.3010603@cybertheque.org>,
Michael Grigoni <michael.grigoni@cybertheque.org> wrote:
>Thad Floryan wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Even though I now know it's the phone causing the "dit-dit-dit dit-dit-dit ,,,"
>> on the computers' audio, I'm becoming concerned.
>>
>> I used to have the phone (Motorola RAZR V3) on my belt while sitting at the
>> keyboard in this setup <http://thadlabs.com/PIX/Thad_desk.jpg>. The audio
>> stuff is 2-3 feet on the other side of that LCD monitor, 4 to 5 feet from me.
>>
>> Since the Nokia guy stated it's GSM interference a few weeks ago, I've been
>> taking the phone off my belt and placing it on a table 10 feet away. It still
>> perturbs the audio with the "dit-dit-dit ..." several times a day and, just a
>> moment ago when someone called. it totally swamped the computer audio with a
>> loud buzzing hum just prior to the phone ringing.
>>
>> I suppose the next test is to place the phone 30 feet away alongside a glass
>> of water and see if the water boils when the GSM interference occurs. :-)
>
><snip>
>
>I wonder if GSM phones create an increased danger of ignition of
>nearby flammables or of trigging of blasting fuses vs. AMPS or other
>phones;
Short answer, "No." GSM phones (at max legal power) are considerably
lower power than 'normal' AMPS phones. GSM phones aren't transmitting
with enough difference in power vs other U.S. cell technologies to make
an _appreciable_ difference. Yes the *theoretical* range of such an
effect is a _little_ (as in measured in feet) larger, but, as a practical
matter that _slightly_larger_ range is "insignificant".
> has anyone heard of a confirmed incident of such ignitions?
To my knowledge, there has never been a confirmed case of RF radiation
from a cell phone igniting 'nearby flammables' of any sort. It takes
a *VERY* SPECIAL set of circumstances for that to happen. A much
larger (i.e., "higher probability") risk is that flammable _vapors_
get into the phone, and are set off by an arc across a make/break switch
contact. And I don't think I've ever heard of -that- happening, either.
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>I wonder if the sky is falling.
Not this time of year, around here. It just springs leaks. And it seems
like "outside maintenance" has a very difficult time doing reliable repairs.
Give it another 5-6 months, and all these itty-bitty white pieces of the
(overcast) sky *do* tend to start falling. Re-assembling all those little
pieces is a *real* b*tch, not to mention getting them back 'upstairs'. :)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:32:03 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <4A9063D3.60902@thadlabs.com>
On 8/22/2009 6:16 AM, Michael Grigoni wrote:
> [...]
> I wonder if GSM phones create an increased danger of ignition of
> nearby flammables or of trigging of blasting fuses vs. AMPS or other
> phones; has anyone heard of a confirmed incident of such ignitions?
As I wrote previously in a different thread, one site where I worked for
a number of years prohibited use of cell phones in the complexes' wiring
closets due to the fire alarms going off. I never had that happen even
while (forgetting and) using my cell phone in the closets; however, I
seldom was in the closets for long and I doubt the specific instance of
the GSM interference (the "dit-dit-dit ...") occurred while I was in the
closets given it seems to happen only 3 or 4 times at day in my office.
However, as we've read already in this thread:
"Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>" wrote Aug. 18:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a friend back in Atlanta who's a pretty straight-shooter. I
>>> don't think he was making this up. He placed his GSM phone on his
>>> paper shredder to charge as his cord wasn't long enough to reach
>>> anything else. His paper shredder kept turning on and then off all
>>> by itself. He moved the phone and it stopped.
>>
>> That sounds like lousy shredder controller design as WELL as the usual
>> nightmare that GSM cellphones cause with induced noise. But it
>> doesn't surprise me a bit.
>>
>> Turn the cellphone off, please.
>>
>> --scott
>
> On the news today they talked about a broiler turning on when he placed
> his cell phone on a counter near his stove.
That broiler incident is what caused me to write yesterday there's a
possible fire/safety issue with GSM phones.
As the 1994 article in the "post from the past" also stated, it's very
difficult to reproduce these kinds of problems on demand with GSM phones
since the blast of interference occurs randomly in my experience (3 or 4
times a day and never at the same times of day (and my phone is never
turned off)).
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I wonder if the sky is falling.
>
> Bill Horne
Not in the "Chicken Little" sense, but I do believe we have several
credible instances of GSM phones causing problems: turning on fire
alarms, turning on/off a shredder, turning on a stove broiler, and
15 years of severe interference to professional audio mixing consoles
and related gear.
It would appear to have reached the point it's worth investigating
further; any ideas how to proceed?
***** Moderator's Note *****
Start by measuring the near-field RF strengh from a representative
sample of cell phones, and determine if GSM power levels are
significantly higher than TDMA, CDMA, or AMPS.
Assuming the answer is "yes", take steps to isolate RF-sensitive
devices from the phones.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:10:35 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <h6pqcr$5mg$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <4A9063D3.60902@thadlabs.com> Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> writes:
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>Start by measuring the near-field RF strengh from a representative
>sample of cell phones, and determine if GSM power levels are
>significantly higher than TDMA, CDMA, or AMPS.
>Assuming the answer is "yes", take steps to isolate RF-sensitive
>devices from the phones.
I don't seem to have seen this mentioned earlier in the thread
(if I missed it, apologies...) but there's one key difference
in GSM as opposed to the older analog system.
GSM utilizes time slots, hence there's more of a peaking
effect in the emitted radiation. This can easily lead to
different effects.
As an analogy, take a glance at a 25 watt regular incandescent.
No problems looking, or even staring, at it.
On the other hand take a photoflash unit that stores up
that electricity, then releases it as a single, short,
and very intense strobe flash every couple of seconds.
The total energy per hour will be the same. But the strobe
unit is much more annoying, in just about every sense
of the term.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
****** Moderator's Note *****
You could measure either average or peak power density; the question
is "Is GSM more likely to cause interference to audio devices, and if
so, why?"
It may be that GSM signals are clocked at an audible rate, so that
devices that aren't shielded are creating audible signals.
It may be that GSM signals from some phones exceed power limits in
some cases.
It's possible that there is a mixing process at fault, and that the
GSM transmissions mix with other signals to create broadcast-band
interference.
No matter the cause, the fact remains that the vast majority of
consumer-grade electronic devices do not have adequate RF
shielding. There are a number of steps that users may take to reduce
or eliminate interference, but the process is time-consuming and
likely to need several rounds of experimentation before a solution is
found. Readers who need help in this area should contact the American
Radio Relay League (http://www.arrl.org/) and research the literature
on RF shielding.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 16:24:11 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <h6pumt$mg9$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 8/22/2009 6:16 AM, Michael Grigoni wrote:
>> [...]
>> I wonder if GSM phones create an increased danger of ignition of
>> nearby flammables or of trigging of blasting fuses vs. AMPS or other
>> phones; has anyone heard of a confirmed incident of such ignitions?
A number of years ago in Phoenix US West made us leave our cell phones
at the guard desk before we could get in.
--
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: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 08:51:33 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <pan.2009.08.22.22.51.31.838199@myrealbox.com>
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:16:21 -0400, Michael Grigoni wrote: .....
> I wonder if GSM phones create an increased danger of ignition of nearby
> flammables or of trigging of blasting fuses vs. AMPS or other phones;
> has anyone heard of a confirmed incident of such ignitions?
If a disease-carrying mosquito bites you on the face you will probably
feel it compared to if it bites you on the back, but you still have the
same chance of being affected/infected by the bite - it is just one area
of skin is more sensitive than the other.
If you notice a GSM phone interfering with something because of the
noticeable modulation pattern and you do not notice another type of
transmitter interfering with the exact same equipment because its
interference pattern is different, chances are the equipment is still
being affected by both devices - especially if the interfering power
levels and frequencies are similar.
--
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: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:53:20 -0400
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 40th Anniversary of UNIX this month (August 2009)
Message-ID: <barmar-7D0DE2.01532022082009@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <h6mht3$ueo$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
"charlie" <chaniarts@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Thad Floryan" <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote in message
> news:4A8DB0B2.9070505@thadlabs.com...
> > Not directly telephony-related, but UNIX arose from Bell Labs.
> >
> > " Work on Unix began at Bell Labs after AT&T, (which owned the lab),
> > " MIT and GE pulled the plug on an ambitious project to create an
> > " operating system called Multics.
> > "
> > " The idea was to make better use of the resources of mainframe
> > " computers and have them serve many people at the same time.
> > "
> > " "With Multics they tried to have a much more versatile and
> > " flexible operating system, and it failed miserably," said
> > " Dr Peter Salus, author of the definitive history of Unix's
> > " early years.
> >
> > Full article here:
> >
> > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8205976.stm>
>
> It failed miserably due to marketing misteps, not because of the technology
> of the Multics operating system or the hardware.
Right. Many features of Multics were decades ahead of their time, and
eventually found their way into Unix and Windows. The most notable is
dynamic linking, although IMHO Multics did it better than modern OSes.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 02:59:05 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: End of a print publication and copyright comment
Message-ID: <op.uy1xorz7o63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:08:08 -0400, Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
> tlvp wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:56:56 -0400, Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> wrote:
>>
>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> On Aug 13, 8:17 pm, Steven <diespamm...@killspammers.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I believe the following request would be a great deal of work, but
>>>>>> would it be possible to scan a few of the oldest issues for the
>>>>>> Telecom Archives? (They have the Western Union Tech Review and other
>>>>>> neat old documents).
>>>>> I'll e-mail the publisher and see what the say, and then dig out my old
>>>>> flat bed scanner and give it a try. I wonder if they have on line archive?
>>>> If the publisher has an archive would you share the URL with us? But
>>>> I strongly doubt they'd have 30 year old stuff on it.
>>>>
>>>> When you say contact the publisher I presume you mean to check about
>>>> copyright usage.
>>>>
>>>> I don't follow copyrights too closely, but I understand not long ago
>>>> the time limit of a copyright law was greatly extended (others could
>>>> elaborate on the details). That is, a copyright used to expire after
>>>> so many years, with an option to renew for one second period, after
>>>> which the work would become public domain.
>>>>
>>>> I can understand the desire for creators to maintain control and
>>>> receive royalties for their works, especially things like motion
>>>> pictures which were extremely expensive to produce and have a long
>>>> lifespan. This was debated in rec.arts.tv, with many feeling old
>>>> works ought to be public domain, but others recognizing not every
>>>> creator is a huge corporation and individuals deserve protection, too.
>>>>
>>>> The flip side is historical documents such as 30+ year old technical
>>>> magazines and manuals. They have some historical value, but virtually
>>>> no monetary value. Copyright law does provide some exceptions of for
>>>> educational insitutions to use material without royalty in certain
>>>> circumstances. I would hope that such old manuals and journals could
>>>> get the same kind of exception.
>>>>
>>> They go back 13 years on line,here is the link, at the bottom of he
>>> http://telephonyonline.com/ at the bottom of the page. Some problems
>>> getting permission because of a different publisher, and on a article at
>>> a time, some are owned by writer.
>>>
>>
>> Mmpph ... My Opera browser reports, of the URL you give above:
>>
>>> The page you are trying to open has been reported for distributing
>>> malicious software. Any software from this page may be harmful.
>>> Opera Software strongly discourages visiting this page.
>>
>> Comments? TIA; and cheers, -- tlvp
> I don't know what to tell you, it is a good site, I use Firefox with my
> Mac, but I also have Opera and it went to the site fine.
Bizarre. As further details, Opera reports:
| Haute Secure has inspected this site and have found issues
| which pose a security risk to you. To stay out of harm's way,
| don't visit this site.
Nonetheless, relying on your reassurances, I did visit the site,
finding a slew of old Telephony "reprints," but nothing BSTJ.
Where should I have been looking for the BSTJ items?
Thanks; and cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:15:07 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 500 & 533 Numbers (re: Cutting the Cord)
Message-ID: <op.uy1yfhg7o63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:46:27 -0400, Anthony Bellanga <anthonybellanga@gonetoearth.com> wrote:
> This subject, "Calling Party Pays (Airtime)" to call a US or Canada
> cellphone, has been discussed numerous times in Telecom Digest over
> the years, and the same things result, as Garrett Wollman and John
> Levine mention in their replies. Many payphones (for those who still
> use them, if you can find ones -- and in working order), business
> PBX systems, and even other cellular systems -- would mostly
> restrict access to such "caller-pays" "area" codes or office
> codes. "Caller Pays" would be thought of very much like pay-per-call
> 900 and 976. And since wireless is mostly unregulated (well, the FCC
> has some oversight over spectrum, and the government does use the
> cellcos to collect more taxes), the abuse with any "caller pays"
> would be rampant, exactly like what happened with 900 and 976 and
> other similar codes.
You suddenly bring to my mind UUnet's old 900 BBS number,
1-900-GET-SRCS, for dialing in to their archive of Unix
utility programs.
Thanks for the memory -- the only $0.25/minute 900 number
I was ever aware of (all others far more costly).
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:19:11 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: spaeking of cellular phone wish list: multi-SIM
Message-ID: <op.uy1yl9cco63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:08:17 -0400, danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
> In the Good Old Dayze of the early analog cell phones, back
> when "roaming" outside your home area could cost you (and
> people calling you) plenty, you could get a "dual NAM" phone
> that had two (loosely speaking) phone numbers. One of these
> would be your (for example) NYC home, and the other would
> be your Florida winter home. That way you'd have a "local"
> number in both places.
>
> I'm trying to find a modern day equivalent, namely a GSM phone
> that holds two "SIM" cards, thus giving me access to two
> separate accounts in the same instrument.
>
> Not so much for two different home locations this time around,
> but I (and I suspect many other people) would rather carry around
> one instrument than a separate "work" and "personal" phone.
>
> I've seen some adverts for messy add ons that may, kind-of,
> work, but I have no direct experience with them. And this
> is really such an obvious market niche that I'd hope that
> someone, somewhere, had built such a phone.
>
> Anyone know of one? Thanks.
Sure, Danny, just google [ Dual SIM GSM phone ] for oodles of hits.
But I have experience with not a single one, sorry.
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 10:39:47 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <8KydnWLKbd_ejA3XnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <4A8EEAEB.104@thadlabs.com>,
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>On 8/21/2009 6:53 AM, tlvp wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:12:44 -0400, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>
>I used to have the phone (Motorola RAZR V3) on my belt while sitting at the
>keyboard in this setup <http://thadlabs.com/PIX/Thad_desk.jpg>. The audio
>stuff is 2-3 feet on the other side of that LCD monitor, 4 to 5 feet from me.
>
>Since the Nokia guy stated it's GSM interference a few weeks ago, I've been
>taking the phone off my belt and placing it on a table 10 feet away. It still
>perturbs the audio with the "dit-dit-dit ..." several times a day and, just a
>moment ago when someone called. it totally swamped the computer audio with a
>loud buzzing hum just prior to the phone ringing.
It's a complex situation -- depends on how badly shielded the computer audio
is, and -where- you've got a 'dirty' connection acting as a diode/rectifier
for the RF. Also, on how far away the cell tower is, and how much 'shielding'
there is between you and the tower. The more 'stuff' there is between you and
the tower, the higher the transmit power the phone has to use, to give a 'good'
signal at the tower. Yes, the tower tells the phone to increase/decrease it's
transmit power, as needed. Similarly, the phone advises the tower to change
_its_ power level.
>I suppose the next test is to place the phone 30 feet away alongside a glass
>of water and see if the water boils when the GSM interference occurs. :-)
No chance of that, as I'm sure you know.
>I know that's absurd, but, still, the GSM interference I'm encountering is
>clearly a strong signal and some of the other anecdotes in this thread are
Well if you consider a few tens to a few hundreds of _milliwatts_ 'strong',
then "yes, it's strong." "Legal limit" for transmit power for a U.S. GSM
phone is 2 watts -- _most_ U.S. phones max out at 300-600 milliwatts. (limiting
the max transmit power that way does wonders for extending battery run time. :)
>disturbing; the one about the stove top turning on "by itself" suggests the
>GSM interference could be a fire and safety threat, and that elevates the
>severity of the problem to a whole new level.
It's _not_ a problem with the phone. It's *BAD*SHIELDING* in the affected
device.
>What's odd is that I frequently use the phone while sitting at the keyboard
>and there's no disturbance to the computer audio whatsoever, so it seems the
>specific GSM interference symptom (the "dit-dit-dit ...") is either at a
>different frequency and/or power level than the phone in normal usage.
_Everything_ is in the _pattern_ of the data being transmitted. If the pattern
happens to lie in the audio spectrum, *AND* a _badly-shielded_ device is
nearby, you'll hear it. If the data pattern does _not_ give an audio wave-
form, you won't hear it. If the device is adequately shielded, it won't pick
up the signal, audio-spectrum or otherwise.
Based on my experience, the data pattern that tends to be the audible
"did-dit-dit" one _appears_ to be a 'keep alive' type signal, where the cell
system is checking to see 'if'/'where' the phone is still on the network.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:47:21 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: GSM-only interference
Message-ID: <4A906769.7030804@thadlabs.com>
On 8/22/2009 9:18 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <4A8EEAEB.104@thadlabs.com>,
> Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> disturbing; the one about the stove top turning on "by itself" suggests the
>> GSM interference could be a fire and safety threat, and that elevates the
>> severity of the problem to a whole new level.
>
> It's _not_ a problem with the phone. It's *BAD*SHIELDING* in the affected
> device.
I understand (having designed/manufactured devices requiring FCC
certification).
But given the 1994 comp.dcom.telecom article I recently reposted here
and the numerous anecdotes of GSM-phone-caused problems. it seems the
GSM phones, and only the GSM phones, are leaving a smoking gun trail
everywhere. The 1994 article described several serious design faults
all of which cause GSM phones to splatter noise across the airwaves.
It can be reasonably argued GSM should have never been approved for use
given what I've been finding and discovering the past few weeks.
> [...]
> Based on my experience, the data pattern that tends to be the audible
> "did-dit-dit" one _appears_ to be a 'keep alive' type signal, where the cell
> system is checking to see 'if'/'where' the phone is still on the network.
That seems a reasonable explanation and consistent with my usage; thank you!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:06:00 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: in a Qwest for wireless service...
Message-ID: <zqGdnZS2nK71ig3XnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <e32b2$4a8ecc03$4038e372$10611@PRIMUS.CA>,
Geoffrey Welsh <gwelsh@spamcop.net> wrote:
>danny burstein wrote:
>> Last year it announced plans to exit the Qwest Wireless service, which
>> runs on the Sprint Nextel Corp network, and instead started offering
>> cellular services from Verizon Wireless, owned by Verizon and Vodafone
>> Group Plc.
>
>This seems a bit political (business politics, not government politics): is
>there any technical reason (or any reason, other than wanting to steer more
>of its customers to their new wireless partner) why the customer base
>couldn't have been handed over and integrated into Sprint Nextel, the way
>that so many customer bases have been transferred following any number of
>mergers and acquisitions in the telecom industry? Wouldn't that have served
>the customer better?
Wouldn't _that_ depend on the customer? Whether it was more important to
them to have the Qwest 'relationship' for their cell account, or to maintain
the same 'network'?
Wouldn't it seem "best" to let each _customer_ decide what is best *for*that*
*customer*, rather than making a single decision that is forced on all of
the customers?
Would you like to reconsider your question, or do you really believe that _you_
'know' what is 'better' for =every=one= of Qwest's customers? <grin>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:40:10 -0400
From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: in a Qwest for wireless service...
Message-ID: <1d850$4a903bbf$cf70450d$7212@PRIMUS.CA>
Robert Bonomi wrote:
> Would you like to reconsider your question, or do you really believe
> that _you_ 'know' what is 'better' for =every=one= of Qwest's
> customers? <grin>
I never considered that subscribers might want their calls "routed to Qwest
customer service representatives" or their mobile phones rendered
service-less! Choice is always nice and I'd never tell Qwest not to allow
customers to switch, but ensuring that something that has worked up until
now continues to do so (preferrably seamlessly) seems like a no-brainer to
me...
--
Geoffrey Welsh
.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:14:34 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Pop song phone number goes up for auction
Message-ID: <4A90A60A.3030603@annsgarden.com>
Richard wrote:
>>> Watching a show today on a Las Vegas local TV channel,
>>> I saw a new ad for a law firm. Its number was 400-0000.
>>> I didn't think an office code could end in 00.
I wrote:
>> How is it pronounced? "702 four million"?
>> "702 ... four-oh-oh ... oh-oh-oh-oh"?
Richard responded:
> Four-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh with an emphasis on each -oh.
> It was an ad on local TV, so no area code is necessary.
Except that NPA 702 only covers Clark County. Lincoln and Ney
Counties (including Town Pahrump) are also "local" to (same DMA as)
Las Vegas, but they're in NPA 775.
Neal McLain
------------------------------
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 (16 messages)
******************************
|
or 
