The Telecom Digest
Volume 29 : Issue 98 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Wireless network upgrade at ballpark (Jeff or Lisa)
Verizon CEO: US is tops in broadband (Thad Floryan)
Re: Data security law sparks concerns (Jeff or Lisa)
Re: batteries (was Waiting for Verizon..) (Jeff or Lisa)
====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 07:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Wireless network upgrade at ballpark
Fans at the ballfield had trouble using their wireless devices when
the stadium was very crowded. An article in the Phila Inqr describes
what will be done to increase traffic capacity.
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:20:28 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <email@example.com>
Subject: Verizon CEO: US is tops in broadband
Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg sat down for an on-the-record
conversation yesterday at the Council for Foreign Relations,
and he pulled no punches: the US is number one in the world
when it comes to broadband. We're so far ahead of everyone else,
it's "not even close."
Given that a central piece of the National Broadband Plan was
concerned with America's poor showing on broadband metrics,
this was an intriguing claim to make. In essence, Seidenberg
hauled out one of the NBP's main reasons for existence and just
kicked it in the groin. Perhaps we don't even need a national
Seidenberg: Anytime government -- whether it's the FCC or
any agency -- decides it knows what the market wants and
makes that a static requirement, you always lose. So this
FCC decided that speed of the network was the most important
issue. So that's all they measured.
So they will say, if you go to Korea or you go to France,
you can get a faster Internet connection. Okay? That could be
true in some companies -- in some countries. The facts are
that, in the US, there is greater household penetration of
access to the Internet than any country in Europe.
In Japan, where everybody looks at Japan as being so far
ahead, they may have faster speeds, but we have higher
utilization of people using the Internet. So our view is,
whenever you look at these issues, you have to be very
careful to look at what the market wants, not what
government says is the most important issue.
Let's take wireless, for example. Everybody says the
European system was kind of better. Well, that's very
interesting. If you look at minutes of use, the average
American uses their cell phone four times as much -- four
times as much -- as the average European. If you look at
Europe, they publish penetration rates of 150 (percent),
160 (percent), 170 percent meaning that people have more
than one phone, two phones, three phones.
You know why? Roaming rates are so high. My guess is you
probably have two or three different phones to carry to
use in different countries because your roaming rates are
so high. And you say, yes.
So my point is it's a fallacy to allow a regulatory
authority to sit there and decide what's right for the
marketplace when it's not even close.
Article continues here:
The transcript of his talk at the CFR meeting is at the following
URL along with a link to audio and video versions of it:
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 08:40:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jeff or Lisa <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Data security law sparks concerns
On Apr 6, 9:33 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> If the extent of the 'threat' is "accidential disclosure", then providing
> 'adequate' protection is fairly simple/straightforward.
Unfortunately, in real life such protections are easily forgotten;
e.g. laptop or flash drive with sensitive data left in an automobile.
Heck, a file folder containing sensitive information left behind in a
car is a risk. Or, you have papers in your den at home. You have a
party with many guests. Someone could easily inadvertently stumble
into the den seeking the bathroom, and then while there, take a peek.
> If you're talking about a 'directed threat' -- where the bad guy has
> expressly targeted you and/or your secrets -- the landscape is VERY
> different. WHAT is the value of those secrets to someone else (not just
> "anybody", but to someone who is optimally positioned to 'take advantage'
> of those secrets, and has the resources to do so)? HOW MUCH money or
> other resources can they devote to getting the secret and still 'come out
> ahead' (in whatever measuring system they are using)? And, lastly, HOW
> MUCH can -you- afford to devote to 'making it difficult' for them to do
Aside from technical computer protections, what prevents an employee
from being bribed to make copies, either electronically, on a Xerox
machine, or even by hand? Or a disgruntled employee, who knows he/she
has no future at the company, offering out data just to be spiteful?
Do companies somehow 'lock' their desktop computers so that people
can't copy data (by a merely resaving it or a screen print) onto a
flashdrive or floppy disk?
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 13:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: batteries (was Waiting for Verizon..)
On Apr 7, 12:49 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> No, they are not as rugged as any battery gets. They won't last more
> than two or three deep discharges; the plates will warp and the cells will
> short out and then you pitch them.
A question about 'deep discharges' for a car battery. If someone
leaves their headlights on and the 'battery runs down', is that a
"deep discharge" situation? That is, if someone does that, have they
ruined their car battery and need a replacement?
One time my alternator died. My mechanic said I'd be ok driving from
home to his garage for a fix. While there he had to add water to the
battery (this was some years ago). Did a situation like that
constitute a "deep discharge"?
Side note 1: My current car has an automatic relay that turns the
headlights off if I forget when I open the car door with the motor
off. Nice feature. Still, I carry full length jumper cables in the
trunk, very useful to have.
Side note 2: I wish I could remember where I read the technical
description of dry cells intended for magneto local-battery telephone
service or "intermitent use". I recall seeing such No. 6 cells in
magneto phones so marked. Such cells had a chemistry intended for
such service and was able to replenish itself a bit after a brief use,
extending their lifespan. Said description also explained how they
made "heavy duty" dry cells.
Apparently there were various types of carbon-zinc chemistries for
industrial service dry cell batteries that ordinary consumers wouldn't
Actually, I haven't seen the old style batteries sold in a long
time; everything in common consumer stores is alkaline or a newer
type. However, the old style type are often included with TV remote
units or packaged with cheap flashlights.
Side note 3: With cell phone batteries, do the batteries sold today
have the "memory" problem, that is, is it necessary or prudent to
discharge them fully before recharging them? It seems most people
recharge their cell phones at their convenience, not waiting until
the phone is completely drained, and they get a great many charging
cycles out of their. (On my current cellphone, a plain vanilla LG, I
get four hours of talk time per charge, which I guess is good.)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. 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 moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: email@example.com?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: firstname.lastname@example.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright (C) 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
End of The Telecom Digest (4 messages)