The Telecom Digest for September 29, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 261 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 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: 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@[10.0.1.8]>
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)
|
| |
or 