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

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  


The Telecom Digest for September 29, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 261 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:

Apple Threatens Search Giants' Mobile Ad Shares(Monty Solomon)
Re: 1930, when the US Senate tried to ban dial telephones (Thad Floryan)
White House to force "back doors" in all communication media (Thad Floryan)
Re: Hempstead NY has toughest cellphone tower restrictions (Richard)
Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them...(Gordon Burditt)
Re: The Telecom Digest (16 messages)(Joseph Singer)

====== 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: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 18:06:32 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Apple Threatens Search Giants' Mobile Ad Shares Message-ID: <p062408ecc8c6c5d23d70@[]> Apple Threatens Search Giants' Mobile Ad Shares Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo! have swiftly lost share in the U.S. mobile advertising market to Apple's new iAd. Independent rivals such as Jumptap and Millennial Media are gaining, too http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2010/tc20100926_023792.htm
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:49:10 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: 1930, when the US Senate tried to ban dial telephones Message-ID: <4CA11F66.90906@thadlabs.com> On 9/26/2010 9:57 PM, Bob Goudreau wrote: > [...] > Similarly, Oregon has a much lower tax (25.0 cpg) than its Pacific coast > neighbors Washington (37.5 cpg) and California (46.6 cpg). As one would > expect, Oregon has lower overall gas prices ($2.897) than WA ($2.967) or > CA ($2.964). The non-tax portion of the pump price is markedly HIGHER > in Oregon than in either of its two neighbors, perhaps reflecting the > dead-weight cost of paying extra attendants. At least New Jersey manages > to avoid an extra markup -- though in fairness, one would expect lower > prices there in any case because proximity to refineries lowers transport > and delivery costs. Hmmm, even with multiple refineries here in the San Francisco Bay Area, the at-the-pump gasoline cost is the highest in the state. Doesn't make sense other than for greed. Back in the early 1960s I did experience, once, a gas price that was incredibly high at Ruidoso, New Mexico. The explanation for the 10-15x higher price was the cost to transport gas to that 7,000 foot (2km) altitude over winding mountain roads. Refinery locations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries California: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries#California New Jersey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries#New_Jersey Oregon: NONE Also note: http://www.oregongasprices.com/
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 18:17:52 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: White House to force "back doors" in all communication media Message-ID: <4CA14240.2090504@thadlabs.com> In today's (27-SEP-2010) Slashdot: The White House plans to deliver a bill to Congress next year that will require Internet-based communication services that use encryption to be capable of decrypting messages to comply with federal wiretap orders. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/27/seeking-expand-internet-wiretaps/#content The bill will go beyond CALEA to apply to services such as Blackberry email. Even though RIM has stated that it does not currently have an ability to decrypt messages via a master key or back door, the bill may require them to. Regarding this development, James Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology commented on the proposal, saying, 'They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function.' ***** Moderator's Note ***** >From the foxnews article cited above: National security officials and federal law enforcement argue their ability to eavesdrop on terror suspects is increasingly "going dark," The New York Times reported, as more communication takes place via Internet services, rather than by traditional telephone. I've been holding off on this issue, but now it's time to speak. I don't think the feds are demanding Son-of-Clipper in order to fight terrorism: I think that's a sham. What are elected "leaders" are really scared about is that ordinary citizens will start doing (encrypted) banking in countries that don't deduct taxes from their citizen's paychecks. Think about it: if I want you to sell/do something for me, and we agree on a price for the hardware/software/service, you're probably willing to charge less if my payment to you is in Swiss Francs, Deutsche Marks, or Krugerands. After all, those governments might not charge you taxes based on your bank balance, and might even have laws that prohibit their own tax authorities from checking! The income tax and the payroll deductions that feed it has been the engine of the Federal government's growth since it was instituted. The ever-increasing bite is hidden behind a wall of bureaucracy, FUD, and sleight-of-hand that distributes funds to centers for "exploited children" which are actually used to eavesdrop on exploited voters, at the same time that even the most staunch supporters of Democracy are gritting their teeth at the ever-decreasing fraction of the tax bill which actually benefits the elderly, the poor, or the impaired. Let's face facts: governments are in the business of collecting tribute by force of arms, and of redistributing that tribute to their most influential patrons. Our government knows this, but it is very afraid that ordinary people will realize it too, and start to use encryption to bypass the patriotic shell game and keep their money in their pockets. The only terrorism involved in this issue is the terrorized look in the eyes of the pigs who have been repainting our collective barn since the cold war started: they are scared that the workhorses of society will jump the (electronic) fence and leave them feeling slightly less equal than others. You heard it here first. Bill Horne Moderator Copyright (C) 2010 E.W. Horne. All Rights Reserved.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:23:01 -0700 From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Hempstead NY has toughest cellphone tower restrictions Message-ID: <mk52a6lckd9g7vn8oe5r80i3dl3ec2sfi1@4ax.com> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 07:08:28 -0700, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: >Cell phones: getting tough on towers >Frank Eltman,Associated Press Writer >story posted Sep 24, 2010 > >GARDEN CITY, N.Y. (AP) -- A Long Island township has imposed >restrictions on the placement of new cell towers that are >among the toughest in the country, and one phone company >says it effectively bans new construction. > >The town of Hempstead is a notable example on a list of >municipalities tightening rules on where cell phone companies >can place antennas. The moves come as consumers are demanding >blanket wireless coverage for their phones and buying laptops >and, more recently, tablet computers that also rely on cell >towers. > >Despite a 1996 federal law prohibiting municipalities from >considering health issues in approving locations for cell >antennas, a group of mothers concerned about what they >consider risky cell towers outside their children's schools >successfully lobbied the town of Hempstead. This ordnance can easily be shot down. Congress voted to give the FCC sole jurisdiction over electromagnetic radiation matters. See: ARRL Argues that Oklahoma Town's RFI Ordinance is "Null and Void" http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-argues-that-oklahoma-town-s-rfi-ordinance-is-null-and-void Oklahoma Town Agrees RFI Ordinance Does Not Apply to Hams http://www.arrl.org/news/oklahoma-town-agrees-rfi-ordinance-does-not-apply-to-hams
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 18:09:34 -0500 From: gordonb.vdo8r@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Verizon now demanding surcharges to pay them... Message-ID: <AeudnVUHrp2zuTzRnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@posted.internetamerica> >Whether it's a surcharge or a discount depends upon your point of >view. Assume that an item costs $100 cash and $105 via CC. From one >point of view, it's a $5 surcharge for CC. From the other point of >view, it's a $5 discount for cash. But the effect on the consumer is >the same. There's a real difference, though: the ADVERTISED PRICE. If the advertised price is $100, it's not a cash discount. If it's $105, it is. This probably doesn't make a lot of difference to telcos, but it does to, say, gas stations a few blocks from each other, there's the temptation to lie. I believe that in other situations, the advertised price has been used to tell whether it's a discount or a surcharge. I'm half-remembering some anti-price-gouging rules that price-capped things (gasoline, food, generators, flashlights, batteries, bottled water, first aid kits, lumber, etc. or maybe it was everything) during disasters (hurricane, flood, tornado, etc.). If you usually charged a surcharge for credit cards, you could continue. A number of businesses tried to cheat and got caught under the advertised price test. This might have been in Houston. I'm not sure about New Orleans after Katrina. Discount vs. surcharge may make a difference in some states for sales tax calculations. Telcos, though, usually try hard not to advertise costs (except for cellular service, and then they leave out a lot). I suspect that if telcos thought they could get away with it, they'd charge extra for telling you how much your bill is, and arrange some way for the credit card company put an entry for an unspecified amount charge on your bill. Of course, then you wouldn't get a balance on your credit card bill, either, because that would let you calculate the amount of the phone bill.
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:45:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: The Telecom Digest (16 messages) Message-ID: <542458.83903.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Sat, 25 Sep 2010 23:23:21 -0400 Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> noted the article: <<Smartphones encourage mobile user churn Owners of high end handsets are the least loyal, bad news for AT&T CAROLINE GABRIEL Published: 22 September, 2010 High end smartphones not only bring operators' networks crashing down with their high rates of data consumption, but they breed fickle consumers who will worsen churn levels, especially as users get more hostile to two-year contract lock-ins. The downside of the smartphone boom is highlighted in a survey by Nokia Siemens, which found that users of high end handsets are the least likely to stay with their carrier.>> Further on into the article it states: <<Before smartphones, the main driver of customer loyalty was network coverage and signal strength. Now the device is the main factor for customers choosing a carrier, and applications and services play a major role in keeping them loyal, both to the device and the network.>> In my opinion anyone who switches their carrier simply for a device no matter how "wow" the device is a little not too smart. Many people have stated many times that AT&T's network is inferior to Verizon's but I know plenty of people who now have regular non jailbroken iPhones who I assume are on the AT&T network and have abandoned their previous network. If you have a device that can't perform because the network you are using is either over-saturated with traffic or has spotty network coverage so you cannot make voice calls or use data services you have a gee-whiz device that is essentially a paperweight for all the use it is to you for the services you assumed you could use. In many phone forums which I have observed they always say that the most important thing for mobile service (meaning voice and these days data) is that you have good network coverage.
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 (6 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues