28 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  


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 email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 07:57:35 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Wireless network upgrade at ballpark Message-ID: <e2021d58-f7c0-4bd0-9522-274331395b94@s9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> 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. http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/homepage/20100408_AT_T_to_upgrade_wireless_network_at_Phillies_ballpark.html
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:20:28 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Verizon CEO: US is tops in broadband Message-ID: <4BBE3A8C.5070907@thadlabs.com> 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 plan? 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: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/verizon-ceo-studies-be-damned-us-is-tops-in-broadband.ars 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: http://www.cfr.org/publication/21840/conversation_with_ivan_seidenberg.html
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 08:40:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff or Lisa <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Data security law sparks concerns Message-ID: <6d8a0d3c-7b9f-42e8-b06e-46fb1739447a@i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> 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 > so? 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) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: batteries (was Waiting for Verizon..) Message-ID: <609b7ff2-cbfa-4c2b-bc90-df69814060f3@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> 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"? Thanks. 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 see. 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 'comp.dcom.telecom'. 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 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 (4 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues