Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

The Telecom Digest for July 12, 2010 Volume 29 : Issue 188 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Are hybrids still used? (Gilles Ganault) Re: Are hybrids still used? (Robert Bonomi) Re: Are hybrids still used? (Eric Tappert) New Look & Feel for the online version (Telecom Digest Moderator) Re: July 11th in History: 1948 Media PA #5XB, 1965 FL 305/904 NPA Split (Sam Spade) FCC Dodges Pointed Questions On US Broadband Plan (Thad Floryan) Re: FCC Dodges Pointed Questions On US Broadband Plan (AES) Re: FCC Dodges Pointed Questions On US Broadband Plan (Thad Floryan) Re: How to Send Email to SMS Cell Phones, By Carrier (Thad Floryan) Re: How to Send Email to SMS Cell Phones, By Carrier (Thad Floryan) Re: How to Send Email to SMS Cell Phones, By Carrier (danny burstein) Re: How to Send Email to SMS Cell Phones, By Carrier (David Clayton) Re: How to Send Email to SMS Cell Phones, By Carrier (Robert Bonomi) Re: Taking the Mystery Out of Web Anonymity (Sam Spade) Re: Taking the Mystery Out of Web Anonymity (AES) Re: Taking the Mystery Out of Web Anonymity (Thad Floryan) Re: Taking the Mystery Out of Web Anonymity (Robert Neville) The Darknet: A Digital Copyright Revolution (Monty Solomon) Telecom fun at The Next HOPE hacker conference July 16-18 NYC (bernies@netaxs.com) Why the Droid X Won't Trump the iPhone (Monty Solomon) Re: Why the Droid X Won't Trump the iPhone (Thad Floryan) New help page for the online version of the Digest (Telecom Digest Moderator) ====== 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: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:45:34 +0200 From: Gilles Ganault <nospam@nospam.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Are hybrids still used? Message-ID: <qi4j36181ae78srp28upie2akifebmtlrr@4ax.com> Hello I'm not an engineer and was reading this article to learn about echo in phone calls: "Echo Cancellation Demystified" www.embeddedstar.com/articles/2003/7/article20030720-2.html If I got it right, this part of the article says that hybrids are used to separate TX and RX signals so as to be able to amplify just the TX signal so it's powerful enough to reach the remote party and still be heard correctly even over long-distance calls. But today, phone calls (in industrialized countries at least) are digitized at the Central office, travel in this loss-less form inside the telephone network, and are turned back into analog at the remote local switch. So logically, loss of power is no longer an issue, even with long-distance calls, so... are hybrids still used in modern telephone networks? Thank you. Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:30:53 -0500 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Are hybrids still used? Message-ID: <Qt6dnc4tKYBAkKfRnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <qi4j36181ae78srp28upie2akifebmtlrr@4ax.com>, Gilles Ganault <nospam@nospam.com> wrote: >Hello > >I'm not an engineer and was reading this article to learn about echo >in phone calls: > >"Echo Cancellation Demystified" >www.embeddedstar.com/articles/2003/7/article20030720-2.html > >If I got it right, this part of the article says that hybrids are used >to separate TX and RX signals so as to be able to amplify just the TX >signal so it's powerful enough to reach the remote party and still be >heard correctly even over long-distance calls. > >But today, phone calls (in industrialized countries at least) are >digitized at the Central office, travel in this loss-less form inside >the telephone network, and are turned back into analog at the remote >local switch. > >So logically, loss of power is no longer an issue, even with >long-distance calls, so... are hybrids still used in modern telephone >networks? Hybrids are used on 2-wire analog voice circuits to convert the signal into to separate TX/RX signals on separate wire-pairs. Given that the 'last mile', to a POTS set on the customer premises, is 2-wire, a hybrid is needed at the 'head end' end of that 2-wire circuit, to split out the part of the signal coming from the CPE, prior to digitization and digital transfer to the far end C.O. The digital circuitry -- between C.O.s -- is the logical equivalent of 4-wire analog circuits, in that the TX and RX signals are carried on distinct, and non-conflicting (well 'usually' :), data paths. I don't know authoritatively, but I =strongly= suspect, that anywhere any form of multiplexed signaling was used (to put multiple conversations on a single wire pair) between C.O.s, that regardless of the underlying technology (digital OR analog), that the call was split into distinct components for the signal in each direction. Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:52 -0400 From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Are hybrids still used? Message-ID: <smqk36tkptk26feg7f8gorkpbltaj1c97r@4ax.com> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:45:34 +0200, Gilles Ganault <nospam@nospam.com> wrote: >Hello > >I'm not an engineer and was reading this article to learn about echo >in phone calls: > >"Echo Cancellation Demystified" >www.embeddedstar.com/articles/2003/7/article20030720-2.html > >If I got it right, this part of the article says that hybrids are used >to separate TX and RX signals so as to be able to amplify just the TX >signal so it's powerful enough to reach the remote party and still be >heard correctly even over long-distance calls. > >But today, phone calls (in industrialized countries at least) are >digitized at the Central office, travel in this loss-less form inside >the telephone network, and are turned back into analog at the remote >local switch. > >So logically, loss of power is no longer an issue, even with >long-distance calls, so... are hybrids still used in modern telephone >networks? > >Thank you. Gilles, Indeed hybrids are still used in all two wire circuits to separate the two directions of transmission. In the phone the receiver gets the signal from the line and the transmitter sends its signal down the line. There is a fourth port for the balance network. Local loops are usually two wire to control costs. At the CO hybrids are used on the line cards, along with the other BORSCHT (Battery feed, Overvoltage protection, Ringing supply, Signaling, Codec, Hybrid, and Testing) functions. Modern day line cards use an electronic hybrid instead of the classical transformer. The echo related problem is that the balance network in the hybrids at each end of the two wire portion of the circuit are "compromise" networks and not exactly matched to the individual line. As a result, the separation of the transmit and receive paths is not perfect and, as a result, echo is produced. In the phone this "echo" shows up as sidetone. User tolerance to echo is a function of both the level of the echo signal and the delay (longer is worse, satellite circuits are really bad...). To eliminate the irrating effect on the user, at least 40 dB of echo return loss is required. As standard companding codec (mu-law and A-law) only have a signal to quantizing noise ratio of about 35 dB, a digital echo canceler doesn't do the whole job, thus echo cancelers come complete with a "non-linear processor" which is really an echo suppressor (insert a large loss in the echo path when speech is present). If one uses a 16 bit linear codec on the line card, the additional signal to quantizing noise ratio allows the magic 40 dB of echo return loss to be achieved. Once the echo is removed, the sigal can be companded for digital transmission. ATT Microelectronics actually made such a device and it tested very well. It didn't sell well because the echo improvement was noticed by the far end party, not the near end party who pays for the local loop and switch line card. ET --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:09:46 -0400 From: Telecom Digest Moderator <redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: New Look & Feel for the online version [nfp] Message-ID: <20100711160946.GA32007@telecom.csail.mit.edu> I'm "test driving" a new Look and Feel for the online version of the Digest. Please check it out at http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/archives/back.issues/recent.single.issues/latest-issue.html ... and send me your feedback offline. You may simply answer this email if you are ready it in a "news" reader, or email your answer to telecomdigestmoderator atsign telecom-digest dot org. The "[nfp]" in the subject line means "Not For Publication": your comments will be private. Bill -- Bill Horne Moderator Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 22:36:27 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: July 11th in History: 1948 Media PA #5XB, 1965 FL 305/904 NPA Split Message-ID: <1vKdnZ3XbYDBxaTRnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@giganews.com> Lisa or Jeff wrote: > Bell System history seems to greatly emphasize the No. 5 Crossbar > switch as a major invention capable of so many functions, yet, they > seem to minimize the contributions of the No. 1 crossbar. I don't know anything about the No. 1 crossbar, but the No. 5 was a very capable end-office platform. The town I moved to in 1979 had a No. 5 XBAR until it was replaced by a DMS-100 in 1984. Not only was the No. 5 XBAR very fast with DTMF dialing, any number in a 1,000 number group could be made to hunt to another nonconsecutive number in that group (although it may have had to be ascending; don't recall for sure). This was after suffering at a previous location with a GTE SxS that required a number change to get into a hunting group, then hunting was only to a upward consective number in that hunting group. Of course, with electronic switching hunting has no limits within the switch and can even be arranged to circle hunt a customer's group for a designated number of loops. Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 00:49:22 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: FCC Dodges Pointed Questions On US Broadband Plan Message-ID: <4C397782.1020809@thadlabs.com> Found on Slashdot Friday, 10-JUL-2010: FCC Dodges Pointed Questions On US Broadband Plan http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/07/10/1921214/FCC-Dodges-Pointed-Questions-On-US-Broadband-Plan Ars [ars technica] covers a series of questions that US senators put to the FCC chaiman following up on his appearance before the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee in April. The headline question was a blunt one asked by octogenarian Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI): "The National Broadband Plan (NBP) proposes a goal of having 100 million homes subscribed at 100Mbps by 2020," he wrote, "while the leading nations already have 100Mbps fiber-based services at costs of $30 to $40 per month and beginning rollout of 1Gbps residential services, which the FCC suggests is required only for a single anchor institution in each community by 2020. This appears to suggest that the US should accept a 10- to 12-year lag behind the leading nations. What is the FCC's rationale for a vision that appears to be firmly rooted in the second tier of countries?" In the FCC's formal response, Chairman Genachowski doesn't rise to the "second tier" bait, and in fact talks about "ensuring that America remains a broadband world leader," as if he believes we currently are. A blogger over at Balloon Juice is a little more forthright on the "What is the FCC's rationale" question: "The rationale is that this is the best they can do with a legislative branch in the pocket of telecom providers." Ars' article: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/fcc-broadband-plan-will-put-us-in-second-tier-of-countries.ars FCC's response (PDF): http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-299612A1.pdf Balloon Juice blog: http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/07/09/ten-years-behind/ ***** Moderator's Note ***** I'm surprised: has Slashdot grown a pair of horns? This is a big change from the "Bubble Gum Tech" they usually feature. Bill Horne Moderator Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:01:49 -0700 From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: FCC Dodges Pointed Questions On US Broadband Plan Message-ID: <siegman-D13E7A.13014911072010@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu> In article <4C397782.1020809@thadlabs.com>, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: > Ars [ars technica] covers a series of questions that US senators put to > the FCC chaiman following up on his appearance before the Commerce, > Science and Transportation Committee in April. The headline question > was a blunt one asked by octogenarian Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI): > "The National Broadband Plan (NBP) proposes a goal of having 100 > million homes subscribed at 100Mbps by 2020," he wrote, "while the > leading nations already have 100Mbps fiber-based services at costs of > $30 to $40 per month and beginning rollout of 1Gbps residential > services, which the FCC suggests is required only for a single anchor > institution in each community by 2020. This appears to suggest that > the US should accept a 10- to 12-year lag behind the leading > nations. What is the FCC's rationale for a vision that appears to be . . . My response to Balloon Juice blog "Technological advances and infrastructure upgrades inherently come in leapfrog jumps. During just under 60 years of professional experience, I've been in numerous situations where my (technically advanced) organization or location was an early adopter or developer of some new capability, and I got to use it for quite a while before it spread to other places. But then some newer or better capability emerges, maybe from elsewhere; my community and I have a major investment in building and learning the older technology (of which we may have been the early developers); and it takes us a while to make the (expensive and disruptive) switch to the "newest of the new". Meanwhile, those who took longer to get into that area at all can start with the truly latest latest. The US is not "behind" many other places; we're just "out of phase with them" in the inherently leapfrog nature of technological advance." Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:56:51 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: FCC Dodges Pointed Questions On US Broadband Plan Message-ID: <4C3A6853.9040603@thadlabs.com> On 7/11/2010 12:49 AM, Thad Floryan wrote: > Found on Slashdot Friday, 10-JUL-2010: > > FCC Dodges Pointed Questions On US Broadband Plan > > http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/07/10/1921214/FCC-Dodges-Pointed-Questions-On-US-Broadband-Plan > [...] > Ars' article: > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/fcc-broadband-plan-will-put-us-in-second-tier-of-countries.ars > > FCC's response (PDF): > http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-299612A1.pdf > > Balloon Juice blog: > http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/07/09/ten-years-behind/ > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > I'm surprised: has Slashdot grown a pair of horns? This is a big > change from the "Bubble Gum Tech" they usually feature. > > Bill Horne > Moderator Surprisingly, I've noticed over the past year that Slashdot has had some significantly important "articles" in addition to the daily fluff that originally turned me off to it years ago, so I now visit it daily to find articles about astronomy (a hobby of mine for almost 60 years), biology, chemistry, geology, mathematics, physics, and other sciences along with the topical articles concerning telephony and communications. In one sense, they've "opened up" much like the occasional off-topic thread you've permitted here in comp.dcom.telecom. :-) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 01:19:08 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How to Send Email to SMS Cell Phones, By Carrier Message-ID: <4C397E7C.6010104@thadlabs.com> On 7/10/2010 1:54 PM, Joseph Singer wrote: > Thu, 08 Jul 2010 20:56:23 -0700 Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: > >> Earlier today I came across an interesting emergency alert service >> for residents of Santa Clara County (Silicon Valley), California. >> [...] >> http://www.blackboard.com/Alert-Notification/Connect-Platform.aspx > > It occurs to me that this service would be an ideal way for somebody > to spam a whole lot of people very easily. In theory, yes, but the fact pricing isn't anywhere I could find on their web pages strongly suggests it costs more than (most) spammers would be willing to spend, thus not a problem especially when looking at the current users which are all mostly municipal governments and school systems. >> [...] >> http://www.appscout.com/2007/10/how_to_send_email_to_sms_cell.php >> [...] > I went to the link provided and the list of company names and > addresses appears to be really old. Sprint PCS, Cingular Wireless, > and AT&T PCS, haven't existed in years! As another respondent wrote, continuing/grandfathering the old domains is common as companies are acquired and/or merged as I found doing some Googling. > [...] > As I point out this appears to be an old list with the accuracy of it > questioned (at least by me.) I now agree, especially given what I now know works with my carrier. FWIW, this http://sms411.net/how-to-send-email-to-a-phone/ appears to be a better resource. Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:01:24 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How to Send Email to SMS Cell Phones, By Carrier Message-ID: <4C398864.6020303@thadlabs.com> On 7/10/2010 1:54 PM, Joseph Singer wrote: > Thu, 08 Jul 2010 20:56:23 -0700 Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: > >> Earlier today I came across an interesting emergency alert service >> for residents of Santa Clara County (Silicon Valley), California. > >> http://www.blackboard.com/Alert-Notification/Connect-Platform.aspx > > It occurs to me that this service would be an ideal way for somebody > to spam a whole lot of people very easily. > [...] As I replied earlier, further searching shows the service is exclusively for governments, cities, universities and schools, so I don't see any reason to be concerned about spamming from its users. Harvard MA just implemented it this past week and this article explains why it's now a vital part of their community service: http://www.harvardpress.com/News/NewsArticles/tabid/2176/ID/5525/PageID/5544/Harvard_launches_Blackboard_Connect_platform.aspx Other case studies can be found here (in PDF form): http://www.blackboard.com/Alert-Notification/Resources/Case-Studies.aspx Some independent background info about it is here: http://ivr.tmcnet.com/topics/ivr-voicexml/articles/77372-blackboard-unveils-blackboard-connect.htm http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/technology/new-blackboard-connect-alertnow-notification-features-drive-robust/ and 1 out of 6 college students are connected to their local services using it per: http://www.cr80news.com/2010/02/09/one-in-six-college-students-recieve-blackboard-connect-messages Reuters profile and financial report about them: http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyProfile?symbol=BBBB.O Arrgh, what with so many schools, cities and even Silicon Valley now using it, I wish I had invested in it back when I was working. :-) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:38:06 +0000 (UTC) From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How to Send Email to SMS Cell Phones, By Carrier Message-ID: <i1d32e$arc$1@reader1.panix.com> In <4C398864.6020303@thadlabs.com> Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> writes: [ sniiipppppp, regarding SMS and other e-notification systems] >and 1 out of 6 college students are connected to their local services >using it per: >http://www.cr80news.com/2010/02/09/one-in-six-college-students-recieve-blackboard-connect-messages And four out of five English teachers are pulling their hair out when reading that url... -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ***** Moderator's Note ***** Repeat after me: 'I before E, except after Cee, or when sounded like A, as in "Neighbor" and "Weigh".' Don't they even teach that at journalism school? Bill Horne Moderator Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:46:14 +1000 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How to Send Email to SMS Cell Phones, By Carrier Message-ID: <pan.2010.07.11.22.46.13.394490@myrealbox.com> > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > Repeat after me: 'I before E, except after Cee, or when sounded like > A, as in "Neighbor" and "Weigh".' > > Don't they even teach that at journalism school? Yeah, isn't soceity" - whoops I believe that's actually spelt "society" - falling apart! ;-] -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have. Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:52:00 -0500 From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: How to Send Email to SMS Cell Phones, By Carrier Message-ID: <25OdnWHU1NiN1qfRnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <i1d32e$arc$1@reader1.panix.com>, > > >***** Moderator's Note ***** > >Repeat after me: 'I before E, except after Cee, or when sounded like >A, as in "Neighbor" and "Weigh".' And even that is an incomplete statement. Weird, isn't it, that 'wier' and 'weir' both sound the same and mean the same? <*GRIN*> For those who care, 'weir' is the preferred spelling. And, no, 'weir' and 'weird' have nothing in common, except the spelling. Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 07:29:33 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Taking the Mystery Out of Web Anonymity Message-ID: <1LGdnfXxDNrQSKTRnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@giganews.com> Monty Solomon wrote: > Taking the Mystery Out of Web Anonymity > > By JOHN MARKOFF > July 2, 2010 > > THE Obama Administration is trying to fix the Internet's dog problem. > > The problem, as depicted in Peter Steiner's legendary 1993 New Yorker > cartoon, is that on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog. And thus > the enduring conundrum over who can be trusted in cyberspace. > > The Internet affords anonymity to its users - a boon to privacy and > freedom of speech. But that very anonymity is also behind the > explosion of cybercrime that has swept across the Web. > > Can privacy be preserved while bringing a semblance of safety and > security to a world that seems increasingly lawless? > > Last month, Howard Schmidt, the nation's cyberczar, offered the Obama > administration's proposal to make the Web a safer place - a > "voluntary trusted identity" system that would be the high-tech > equivalent of a physical key, a fingerprint and a photo ID card, all > rolled into one. The system might use a smart identity card, or a > digital credential linked to a specific computer, and would > authenticate users at a range of online services. > > The idea is to create a federation of private online identity > systems. Users could select which system to join, and only registered > users whose identities have been authenticated could navigate those > systems. The approach contrasts with one that would require a > government-issued Internet driver's license. (Civil liberties groups > oppose a government system, fearful that it could lead to national > identity cards.) > > ... > > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/weekinreview/04markoff.html > > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > This is long overdue. The lack of any effective means of > identification is what detroyed the Citizens Radio Service ("Citizen's > Band") in the U.S., and Usenet isn't far behind. > > If I had to guess at the one big reason for the success of message > boards hosted by Google and Yahoo, it would be that they are run by > commercial companies with a stake in keeping the discussion civil and > a vested interest in avoiding "the trajedy of the commons" that has > affected Usenet. > > In the end, people grow up and the circus leaves town. It's time for > those who use the Internet to be accountable for their actions. > > Bill Horne > Moderator > I'll add that a lot of today's users do not even know about Usenet. My ISP, Cox Communications, dropped Usenet last month. So, I now use Giginews' lowest offerening to stay connected here. Quite frankly, the aviation boards I attend use V Bulleten and are moderated. it's web browser based, and on the good ones I can post JPEGs and PDF files. Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:07:58 -0700 From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Taking the Mystery Out of Web Anonymity Message-ID: <siegman-CA187D.13075811072010@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu> In article <1LGdnfXxDNrQSKTRnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@giganews.com>, Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote: > I'll add that a lot of today's users do not even know about Usenet. My > ISP, Cox Communications, dropped Usenet last month. So, I now use > Giginews' lowest offerening to stay connected here. > > Quite frankly, the aviation boards I attend use V Bulleten and are > moderated. it's web browser based, and on the good ones I can post > JPEGs and PDF files. 1) Could the Internet get a _truly standardized format and user interface_ (or at least "user interface elements" for bulletin boards, forums, user groups, whatever you want to call them? 2) Could someone, somewhere maintain a meaningful (and searchable) list of at least the major such bboards, fora, usergroups? It's the fact that Usenet has those two characteristics -- and most other bboards/for/user groups don't -- that keeps me with Usenet. Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:26:07 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Taking the Mystery Out of Web Anonymity Message-ID: <4C3A6F2F.1080000@thadlabs.com> On 7/11/2010 1:07 PM, AES wrote: > In article <1LGdnfXxDNrQSKTRnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@giganews.com>, > Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote: > >> I'll add that a lot of today's users do not even know about Usenet. My >> ISP, Cox Communications, dropped Usenet last month. So, I now use >> Giginews' lowest offerening to stay connected here. >> >> Quite frankly, the aviation boards I attend use V Bulleten and are >> moderated. it's web browser based, and on the good ones I can post >> JPEGs and PDF files. > > 1) Could the Internet get a _truly standardized format and user > interface_ (or at least "user interface elements" for bulletin boards, > forums, user groups, whatever you want to call them? > > 2) Could someone, somewhere maintain a meaningful (and searchable) list > of at least the major such bboards, fora, usergroups? > > It's the fact that Usenet has those two characteristics -- and most > other bboards/for/user groups don't -- that keeps me with Usenet. Duke University, where Usenet began, recently shut down its server: http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2010/05/usenet.html I find that most of the forums using web browsers use some "common" software that I find unwieldy and, for the most part, unusable and so I don't join them. Oddly enough, the Yahoo forums provide two simultaneous mechanisms for their forums to satisfy almost anyone: 1. email lists like Usenet that can be moderated depending how the group is setup, and 2. web-based access which, when ads/flash/java are disabled, are very easy and "comfortable" to use and is how I use Yahoo even for group moderation (linux, etc.). As Bill (our comp.dcom.telecom moderator) wrote earlier this year, he setup a Yahoo group http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TelecomDigest/ but it's not yet ready for prime time though it will be an excellent fallback if/when Usenet goes belly-up. I also don't know why it's in the "finance" hierarchy instead of "tech" like all of my groups (e.g., http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/linux/) :-) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:00:13 -0600 From: Robert Neville <krj@ieee.org> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Taking the Mystery Out of Web Anonymity Message-ID: <ccfk36ddsns68ektfgpuha5dcsjcl7uc4t@4ax.com> AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote: >1) Could the Internet get a _truly standardized format and user >interface_ (or at least "user interface elements" for bulletin boards, >forums, user groups, whatever you want to call them? Given the number of different forum software companies and the almost guaranteed parochial "my interface is best" attitudes sure to exist, I doubt it. >2) Could someone, somewhere maintain a meaningful (and searchable) list >of at least the major such bboards, fora, usergroups? This to a certain degree is already happening. If you go to Google Groups (buried under the More menu now, but still alive) and search for "COCOT" for example, you will see a number of links to forum posts mixed amongst the various Usenet posts. Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:22:17 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: The Darknet: A Digital Copyright Revolution Message-ID: <p06240808c85fbac92720@[10.0.1.3]> The Darknet: A Digital Copyright Revolution By Jessica A. Wood Richmond Journal of Law & Technology Volume XVI, Issue 4 Cite as: Jessica Wood, The Darknet: A Digital Copyright Revolution, XVI Rich. J.L. & Tech. 14 (2010), http://jolt.richmond.edu/v16i4/article14.pdf . Introduction [1] We are in the midst of a digital revolution. In this "Age of Peer Production," armies of amateur participants demand the freedom to rip, remix, and share their own digital culture. Aided by the newest iteration of file sharing networks, digital media users now have the option to retreat underground, by using secure, private, and anonymous file sharing networks, to share freely and breathe new life into digital media. These underground networks, collectively termed "the Darknet[,] will grow in scope, resilience, and effectiveness in direct proportion to [increasing] digital restrictions the public finds untenable." The Darknet has been called the public's great equalizing force in the digital millennium, because it will serve as "a counterbalancing force and bulwark to defend digital liberties" against forces lobbying for stronger copyrights and increased technological controls. [2] This article proposes a digital use exception to existing copyright law to provide adequate compensation to authors while promoting technological innovation, and the creation and dissemination of new works. Although seemingly counterintuitive, content producers, publishers, and distributors wishing to profit from their creations must relinquish their control over digital media in order to survive the Darknet era. Absent a government-granted monopoly, free market forces will provide adequate incentives to producers to create quality works, and an efficient dissemination infrastructure will evolve. [3] Part I examines the prospect that, due to the Darknet, it is virtually impossible to control digital copying. Peer production is increasing and darknets are becoming more prevalent. Liability rules, stringent copyrights, and technological protection measures stifle innovation, smother creation, and force consumers further underground into darknets. The Darknet poses a particular threat because it is impossible to track or proscribe user behavior. Further, the presence of the Darknet will render technological protection measures unenforceable, or at least impracticable, as a solution for digital copyright management. Part II introduces a digital use exception for copyright to deter development of the Darknet. The proposed copyright shelter is the solution most closely aligned with the goals of copyright, and a monopoly is no longer necessary or practical to accomplish those goals in the digital realm. Part III explores methods by which content creators, publishers, and distributors can profit under this new rule. Absent copyrights for digital works, service providers will capitalize on alternative business methods and data mining. Driven by necessity, they will commission the production of new works. ... http://jolt.richmond.edu/v16i4/Article14.pdf Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:46:45 -0400 From: "bernies@netaxs.com" <bernies@netaxs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Telecom fun at The Next HOPE hacker conference July 16-18 NYC Message-ID: <20100711164645.66141wqcn5vgsa1w@webmail.uslec.net> Telephone enthusiasts, historians and (reformed) phone phreaks will gather at The Next HOPE hacker conference this Fri-Sun July 16-18 at the Hotel Pennsylvania in NYC. http://www.thenexthope.org/grid/ Several telecom-related presentations will be among over 100 talk and panels over three days at this eighth Hackers On Planet Earth, which has been held biennially since 1994. HOPE is a great place to meet and network with approx 3,000 kindred spirits in a fun, informal atmosphere, and learn about things you were afraid to ask about ;-) -Ed 12:00pm - Tesla Ballroom Cats and Mice: The Phone Company, the FBI, and the Phone Phreaks Ever since the first blue box arrest in 1961, the telephone company, the FBI, and the phone phreaks engaged in a long-running game of cat and mouse. This talk explores the moves and countermoves between the two sides from 1960 to 1980, covering advances in phreaking - new ways to hack the phone system and evade detection - as well as advances in finding and prosecuting those pesky phone phreaks. Based on exclusive interviews with phreaks, FBI agents, and telephone company security officers for his forthcoming book on the history of phone phreaking, Phil will focus on some of the more dramatic battles between the two sides that occurred during the heyday of analog phone phreaking, including the 1962 Harvard "spy ring", a certain well-known phone phreak's wiretapping of the FBI in 1975 (yes, you read that right), and the hacking of the military's AUTOVON telephone network in the mid-1970s. Phil Lapsley has spent the last several years documenting the history of phone phreaking, through hundreds of interviews and Freedom of Information Act requests. He has been interviewed by National Public Radio and the BBC and quoted in multiple newspapers, including The New York Times, on the topic. He has also presented on phone phreaking history at the 10th Annual Vintage Computer Festival and The Last HOPE. When not researching phreaking, Phil has tried to act like an upstanding member of society. He cofounded two high technology companies in the San Francisco Bay Area and worked for McKinsey and Company, a management consulting company that advises Fortune 100 companies on business strategy. He holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering and computer sciences from U.C. Berkeley and an MBA from the MIT Sloan School of Management. He codeveloped Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP, RFC 977) used in the USENET news system. He is also the author of one textbook, 17 patents, and numerous technical articles. The Telephone Pioneers of America The Telephone Pioneers of America is an organization of mostly retired employees of the Bell System and affiliated companies. They remain active in the community as an organization that promotes their history and industry. You can find them in many communities across the nation, often in the very cities and neighborhoods they spent their careers working in. The pioneers have amassed lifetimes of wisdom working on the telephone system and intimately understand the technology and politics of it. The telephone company will never be what it was when they were employed there and they know that the next generation of pioneers may not ever actually work for "the company" as they did. Using photographs, recordings, and artifacts, this unique treasure will become accessible to members of the audience, especially younger individuals who may not ever have used what is now vintage telephone equipment - like rotary dial phones. There will be a selection of functional and historically significant equipment for attendees to learn about and enjoy thoroughly. This talk is intended to help bridge the gap between hacker and pioneer. Kyle Drosdick is an independent publisher, consultant, and photographer. He volunteers with organizations he is interested in, like The Telephone Pioneers of America, The Photographic Center, Lance Armstrong Foundation, HackerBot Labs, and, more recently, Sensible Washington. The Telephone Pioneers are an example of how that work impacts and supports his thriving adult learning process. [and much more...] Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:06:58 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Why the Droid X Won't Trump the iPhone Message-ID: <p0624080cc85ff06bd448@[10.0.1.3]> HANDS ON July 8, 2010, 5:00PM EST Why the Droid X Won't Trump the iPhone Motorola's Droid X does many things well, including Wi-Fi and social networking access, but not well enough to conquer the iPhone By Rich Jaroslovsky http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_29/b4187072001199.htm Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:35:09 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Why the Droid X Won't Trump the iPhone Message-ID: <4C3A714D.2090707@thadlabs.com> On 7/11/2010 3:06 PM, Monty Solomon wrote: > HANDS ON July 8, 2010, 5:00PM EST > > Why the Droid X Won't Trump the iPhone > > Motorola's Droid X does many things well, including Wi-Fi and social > networking access, but not well enough to conquer the iPhone > > By Rich Jaroslovsky > > http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_29/b4187072001199.htm Huh??? I read that article three times to be sure I wasn't going blind. The author did not even cite one reason supporting his premise the Droid X wouldn't (or couldn't) conquer the iPhone, but did cite many features of the Droid X over the iPhone for which I'm thankful since now I know what to buy (the Droid X) if my Razr V3 ever goes belly-up. Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:16:01 -0400 From: Telecom Digest Moderator <redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: New help page for the online version of the Digest [nfp] Message-ID: <20100712031601.GA14012@telecom.csail.mit.edu> I've just finished updating the Digest's "Help" page at the web site: it's at http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/help.html . Please review the page and feedback any needed corrections or sggestions for improveent. Thanks in advance. Bill -- Bill Horne Moderator 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 (22 messages)