The Telecom Digest for November 24, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 317 : "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, 22 Nov 2010 18:27:36 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: [OT] Public Interest Registry whois date stamp error
Message-ID: <icecmo$28r7$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <QNmdndkEN5-x23fRnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>Further, some domain names have copyright protection,
No they don't. No domain name can be copyrighted.
Many domain names are protected under trademark laws, which are far
less uniform in application than copyright.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:31:17 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <icgq8l$epj$1@news.albasani.net>
David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>I still think anyone caught using a phone while driving should have the
>device smashed to bits before their eyes, but for some reason this
>punishment seems a little excessive to some (can't understand why, I'd let
>them have the SIM card first). ;-)
The cell phone is innocent. Crush the car.
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:44:55 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <ich5jp$604$1@news.eternal-september.org>
On 11/23/10 8:31 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> David Clayton<dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>> I still think anyone caught using a phone while driving should have the
>> device smashed to bits before their eyes, but for some reason this
>> punishment seems a little excessive to some (can't understand why, I'd let
>> them have the SIM card first). ;-)
>
> The cell phone is innocent. Crush the car.
>
What do you do when you are ran over with a shopping card in a market, I
smashed the phone, it was hit and keep om waking as they had no idea
they knocked me over..
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:36:26 -0800
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <vtjoe69clah6b6hjbfik4sah9qs6nv2rdd@4ax.com>
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:31:17 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>>I still think anyone caught using a phone while driving should have the
>>device smashed to bits before their eyes, but for some reason this
>>punishment seems a little excessive to some (can't understand why, I'd let
>>them have the SIM card first). ;-)
>
>The cell phone is innocent. Crush the car.
The car is innocent also.
Crush the person. Or at least put them in jail for a long time.
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:00:23 EST
From: Wes Leatherock <wesrock@aol.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Cellphone bias in polls?
Message-ID: <36267.6a38b8fd.3a1d3107@aol.com>
This was in today's Washington Post. I thought that calls to
cellphone users were limited to those who had agreed to be called,
This would suggest that polls involving cellphone users are likely to
be biased by the views of persons choosing to opt in and be polled,
perhaps to promote their views, while landlike users are much closer
to a random sample.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
_wleathus@yahoo.com_ (mailto:wleathus@yahoo.com)
The politics of cell phones
By E.J. Dionne
The Pew Research Center has performed _an important piece of analysis_
(http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1806/growing-gap-between-landline-and-dual-frame-election-polls)
that ought to shape the way we look at polls over the next two
years. And its findings have real political impact, so please read on
even if you're not obsessed with public opinion surveys.
There has been much debate in recent years over whether telephone
surveys conducted only on landlines have produced distorted findings
because so many Americans, particularly the young, now use only cell
phones only. Pew has shown that this fear is justified. And it notes
that this problem is growing. In essence, landline-only polls give the
Republicans a measurable advantage.
Here's the key finding: "Across three Pew Research polls conducted in fall
2010 -- conducted among 5,216 likely voters, including 1,712 interviewed on
cell phones -- the GOP held a lead that was on average 5.1 percentage
points larger in the landline sample than in the combined landline and cell
phone sample."
By E.J. Dionne | November 23, 2010; 8:28 AM ET
Categories: Dionne
(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/dionne/)
Date: 23 Nov 2010 19:53:39 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cellphone bias in polls?
Message-ID: <20101123195339.78309.qmail@joyce.lan>
>This was in today's Washington Post. I thought that calls to
>cellphone users were limited to those who had agreed to be called,
No, they're not subject to the TCPA, but one problem is that since no
cell numbers are listed in the (fast disappearing) white pages, and
people often keep their cell number when they move, it is hard to find
a reasonable sample of cell numbers.
The other problem, of course, is that people are not particularly
inclined to use up their airtime minuts being polled.
R's,
John
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:03:09 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cellphone bias in polls?
Message-ID: <ich35d$290r$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <36267.6a38b8fd.3a1d3107@aol.com>,
Wes Leatherock <wesrock@aol.com> wrote:
>This was in today's Washington Post. I thought that calls to
>cellphone users were limited to those who had agreed to be called,
Robocalls to cellphones are limited in that way. If you have an
actual human dialing the randomly-chosen numbers -- even if they work
in some telemarketing boiler-room -- then it's OK.
There have always been issues with getting a representative sample by
any means of polling -- whether automated telephone or in-person
interviews or anything in between -- because many people (most
people?) will refuse to participate. The polling industry has
historically assumed that (non-)participation is effectively
uncorrelated with the variables the survey is investigating; this is
usually handled by weighting the survey results to match an objective
population model (usually taken from census data and, for political
polling, historical election results). Pew's data show conclusively
that cell-phone-only households are not representative of the
population as a whole[1] and therefore cannot be modeled in this way.
Of course, there is still a large nonparticipation rate even when cell
numbers are included in the sample, so we still don't know whether the
nonparticipating cell-phone-only households have the same bias as
participating cell-phone-only households.
-GAWollman
[1] Specifically, cell-phone-only households are younger, more
Democratic, and less affluent than landline households, if I remember
the Pew results correctly. You can go to Pew's Web site and find the
complete survey protocol.
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 13:56:40 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: FCC Updating 911 for the Texting Generation, SRSLY
Message-ID: <4CEC3898.6010503@thadlabs.com>
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/11/fcc-911-texting/
FCC Updating 911 for the Texting Generation, SRSLY
By Ryan Singel November 22, 2010
In a bid to bring the life-saving emergency service 911 into the 21st
century, the FCC is looking at letting citizens report crimes through text
messages and even stream video from their mobile phones to emergency
centers.
Established as a national standard in 1968, 911 handles more than 230
million calls a year -- 70 percent of which now come from mobile phones.
The last real overhaul of 911 by the FCC came in 2001, when mobile carriers
were required to allow 911 to identify the location of callers either
through GPS or cell-tower data. In the middle of the decade, some internet
telephony companies were also required to implement 911 calling that would
route emergency calls to the appropriate local center -- a non-trivial task
given the mobility of laptops and equipment using voice-over-internet
protocol (VOIP).
But the 911 system still can't handle text messages, multimedia messages or
streaming video, all of which could be very helpful to first responders. A
system that could handle those messages would also allow people to report
crimes without being overheard, which could be useful in situations ranging
from kidnapping to seeing someone being robbed on the street.
In a press release announcing Tuesday's changes, the FCC pointed to the
now-infamous shooting rampage at Virginia Tech as an example of how a more
modern system could be useful.
"The technological limitations of 9-1-1 can have tragic, real-world
consequences," the release said. "During the 2007 Virginia Tech campus
shooting, students and witnesses desperately tried to send texts to 9-1-1
that local dispatchers never received. If these messages had gone through,
first responders may have arrived on the scene faster with firsthand
intelligence about the life-threatening situation that was unfolding."
The FCC also plans to allow automated pinging of 911 by sensors, including
chemical detection sensors, alarm systems, medical devices and systems like
On-Star in automobiles.
It's not clear yet where the money will come from for the upgrades, whether
they will be federal requirements states and cities must carry out or if
they will simply be suggestions. It's also unclear whether Facebook's new
Messages service will let you send a note to 911 straight from your
Facebook page or mobile app (that's a joke, sort of).
Related:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2001/10/47356
"FCC Grants Waivers on E911"
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:54:53 +0000
From: Stephen <stephen_hope@xyzworld.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US may disable all in-car mobile phones
Message-ID: <nldoe6hpukc396deuo0gnii0nm8mrj5pfj@4ax.com>
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:28:27 -0800 (PST), Lisa or Jeff
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Nov 18, 7:59 pm, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>
>> LaHood may be right. Disabling mobile phones in cars should not be looked
>> at as a way of protecting you from yourself, but instead as a way of
>> protecting you from the stupid.
>
>While I don't like the intrusiveness of this proposal, and I fear it
>may have unintended negative consequences, unfortunately it is needed.
>
i suspect there are other unintended consequences.
what makes anyone think that any suppression of the signal will
confine itself to the car?
trains only stop cell phone leakage from outside to inside if the
windows have gold film or other Faraday cage type construction.
most cars are transparent to radio - otherwise cell phones wouldnt
work inside and this would not be an issue
so any suppression is going to "leak" as well.
this could make cellphones unuseable alongside a major road, in a car
park, from someone in a broken down car on a motorway or near a
traffic accident
What does that do for public safety?
>As a motorist and pedestrian, I see countless examples of driver
>errors caused by their distraction of a cell phone conversation.
>Drivers suddenly make a turn from the wrong lane. Slow down too much
>in the wrong place. Miss a stop sign or traffic light. Tailgate*.
>
>It's not holding the cellphone, but the conversastion itself. Thus,
>hands-free phones are not the answer.
>
If this is true (rather than shades of gray) then it isnt the
cellphone that is the problem, but the distraction.
time to ban talking in cars, kids in the back seat and all the other
distractions that have caused accidents.........
>I don't think the problem would be so bad if motorists had short quick
>conversations, "Hi, I'll be home in 45 minutes." But they have
>extended detailed conversations, "What do you want me to pick up at
>the store? The Acme or A&P? Is that the eight ounce or tweleve ounce
>bottle? Regular or diet?"
>
>Then of course is the problem of teens texting while driving, which
>obviously is very distracting and dangerous.
>
>(I don't understand how a group of teens walking down the street
>ignore each other and focus instead on their cell phones, but that's
>another issue. But how do middle and high schools prevent teens from
>texting during class?)
>
>
>
>
>* While visiting Chicago, I was almost rear ended by a phone company
>employee talking on a 'brick' unit in the early days of cell phones.
>She was completely oblivious to her surroundings.
--
Regards
stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl
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 (9 messages)
|
| |
or 