29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for July 04, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 164 : "text" Format
====== 29 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 Bill Horne 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: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 16:52:55 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Staples resold devices holding consumer data
Message-ID: <p062408c1ca3535663a58@[10.0.1.6]>
Staples resold devices holding consumer data
Canada audit rips Mass.-based chain
By Jenn Abelson
Globe Staff / June 22, 2011
Staples Inc. has repeatedly put consumers' data at risk in Canada by
failing to wipe clean returned storage devices that contain sensitive
information and are then resold.
Those findings were reported yesterday following an audit by the
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. The audit included
tests of storage devices, including computers, USB hard drives, and
memory cards that had undergone a "wipe and restore'' process and
were destined for resale.
Of the 149 devices tested, 54 contained customer data, including
"highly sensitive personal information'' such as health card and
passport numbers, academic transcripts, banking information, and tax
records.
"Our findings are particularly disappointing given we had already
investigated two complaints against Staples involving returned data
storage devices and the company had committed to taking corrective
action,'' Canada's privacy commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, said in a
statement. "While Staples did improve procedures and control
mechanisms after our investigations, the audit showed those
procedures and controls were not consistently applied, nor were they
always effective - leaving customers' personal information at serious
risk.''
...
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/06/22/staples_resold_devices_holding_consumer_data/
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 19:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Postage stamp honors 302 set
Message-ID: <f401103a-4dbf-4f02-b702-1d77368d042f@p6g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>
The US Post Office issued stamps honoring various industrial
designers. One is Henry Dreyfus, who designed the 302 desk set of
1938. Nice picture of the phone on the stamp.
Also honored is the designer of the IBM Selectric typewriter.
http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20110701_New_stamps_honor_U_S__industrial_designers.html
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 08:32:45 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Trials of 'super WiFi' to begin in Cambridge
Message-ID: <6PednSCkfYngUZDTnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <siegman-5AA66D.07164630062011@sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>,
AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>If these spectral bands are currently empty of deliberate signals (in
>most locations anyway), are they "white space" or "black space"?
When you tune to those frequencies, does the receiver pick up 'white noise'
or 'black noise'?
<*evil grin*>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 15:39:03 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Flash Exploits on the Loose: Update Now
Message-ID: <iukpmn$bkb$1@news.albasani.net>
John C. Fowler <johnfpublic@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Flash Player likes to check for its own updates, so don't be surprised
>if you're already running the current version.
On Firefox and similar browsers, that had required installation of the
GetPlus+ extension to regularly check for plugin updates. I don't like plugins
that install additional unwanted software, so I just check manually every
so often. Previous Flash downloads from Adobe's Web site forced you to
download the extension and then had the extension download the plugin.
I kept removing the extension.
If you see the proprietary "download manager" popup, that's from GetPlus+.
The plugin won't complete the installation unless you click the
"acknowledge and agree" when the license window pops up. Then you have
to click the "close the download manager".
I don't know how Adobe could have required additional unnecessary steps
but it's annoying and it's easy to miss the acknowledgement step when
the license agreement window pops up.
Internet Explorer doesn't use plugins but ActiveX controls and I never
experienced automatic updates for Flash. There may be a GetPlus+ control
to implement the automatic update checks, but someone more familiar
will have to answer.
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 12:15:42 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Battery power support today
Message-ID: <pan.2011.07.02.02.15.39.293095@yahoo.com.au>
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:36:01 -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article
> <siegman-D89C20.12231829062011@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>, AES
> <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
...........
>>Do normal telecom or WiFi/WiMax signals in the 1 to 2 Ghz range pose
>>threats comparable to a leaky microwave oven.
>
> A 'standard' microwave oven generates 700-1000 watts of RF. "compact"
> microwaves are generally 500 watts, with a few as low as 350 watts.
>
> WiFi signals are in the tens of _milliwatts_. Call it 1/10,000 to
> 1/100,000 of the RF level inside a microwave.
>
> Microwave oven safety standards limit leakage to 5 milliwatts per cm2 at
> 5cm from the outside of the oven.
>
> RF energy levels diminish as the square of the distance from the
> transmitter.
>
> Assuming a WiFi signal of 50mw (typical units are around 20mw, 'legal
> limit' is 100mw), at a distance of 10 cm from the antenna, the energy
> density is 0.08mw/cm2. At 2cm from the antenna, RF energy approaches
> the allowable leakage (measured at 5cm) from a Microwave oven.
>
> To put things in perspective, the signal from a WiFi node is about 1/6
> the "allowable" leakage from a microwave oven. Or around 3x the leakage
> of a typical microwave oven in 'good working order'.
Add in the fact that digital sources like Wi-Fi only transmit when
required (or "Polling") so the overall power diminishes with that duty
cycle.
The biggest concern is that microwave ovens are designed to use a
frequency that is most efficient for heating water molecules, and devices
that share that spectrum will also have the same effect.
Guess what sort of molecule the human body mostly is composed of?
--
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: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 09:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Battery power support today
Message-ID: <90bb497a-cfed-4850-957f-8f9306f5d7a6@x12g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 30, 9:53 am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Well, the primary argument is, considering that we have had high
> power AM broadcast in the US for ninety years now, and a whole lot
> of people have worked in very strong RF fields, that if there was
> going to be a substantial health risk it would have been noticed
> almost a century ago.
I'm not sure if that's accurate.
Gong back 40 years, let alone 90, we lived in a world where a great
many people smoked and were exposed to industrial and automotive
pollutants in the air and at the worksite. These all could generate
illness in their own right and mask long-term ill effects from things
like high power AM transmitters. Things were even worse going further
back in time. (IMHO, the above-ground nuclear testing of the 1940s
and 1950s didn't help us any, but I don't know if anything, such as
increased leukemia rates, have been documented.)
In addition, going way back it seems they focused more on acute health
effects rather than long term trends. In my readings of WW II
radiation safety in the Manhattan Engineer District, they focused on
noticeable immediate radiation effects.
It should be noted that many personnel would not cooperate with safety
officers because it interfered with their work, and they allowed
themselves more exposure than permitted. I sense that scientists back
then belittled the radiation risk. One woman scientist wrote of
taking radiation measurements of a early reactor while pregnant, and
she hid her pregnacy so she could still work. I understand there were
subsequent long term health studies done of MED workers, but they're
extremely technical and hard to interpret.
Today, many of those pollutants have been eliminated or sharply
reduced in the US. There's a lot less heavy industry and automobiles
have stronger pollution controls.
On the flip side, we live in a power-hungry world today with heavy use
of air conditioning and electronic devices and of course increased
population. In addition, electricity is sold and transported long
distances. All that contributes to heavier use of existing high-
tension lines and the construction of new lines.
Given all that, I can't help but wonder that a study done say in 1965
is obsolete and would need to be redone reflecting all the above.
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 09:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Battery power support today
Message-ID: <d19cc910-c77e-4a31-9d54-2619eda96ac0@c41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 29, 3:23 pm, AES <sieg...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Speaking for myself, based on my own technical and physical (though not
> explicitly medical or biological) knowledge, I'm pretty damn sure that
> cell phones simply do not and in fact physically can not cause
> brain cancers, no matter how long you hold one against your skull.
In a separate post, the govt says right now the biggest threat from
cell phones is distraction while driving or walking. Yet people seem
to be more worried about cancer than the real threat of distracted
driving or walking out into traffic.
It scares me how often I see people do hazardous things while driving
or walking while talking on their cell phone.
> But that said, would you yourself want to linger for very long "under an
> AM Broadcast antenna holding a fluorescent light bulb that's glowing in
> the RF field" as you describe above? Are there published standards for
> acceptable rf field levels for humans working in close proximity to
> high-power broadcast antennas? What's the field intensity in that
> situation, compared to living next door to a cell tower with 8 or 10 or
> even 20 antennas on it? Do the r-f intensities in your "glowing
> fluorescent" situation approach levels where nonlinear effects, over and
> above just simple heating, may start to appear in human flesh?
Good questions, and the answers should be available.
There are numerous developed hilltop communities that have had large
powerful antenna in them for decades. I know of one community that
had both an AT&T microwave antenna and a TV antenna (they were a few
blocks apart). (The AT&T antenna is now a cell phone tower). Did
residents or workers nearby (like the 7-11 in the shadow of the
antenna) suffer increased health problems? Indeed, since this was a
postwar baby boomer bedroom community, they could research both
children who grew up near those antenna as well as their parents.
Likewise, there are power lines and substations near residential
areas. Again, did residents who lived close to those sources suffer
health problems?
Did workers who spent their entire career working in power plants
suffer health problems?
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 15:07:31 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Battery power support today
Message-ID: <iunc7j$sbj$1@reader1.panix.com>
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
:David Lesher wrote:
:> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> writes:
:>
:>
:>>The exception was a pair-gain provision such as the Bell Systems SLC 96,
:>>which was used in rural areas and in areas of rapid residential
:>>construction. I believe the terminating SLC 96 box had to have local
:>>power. Anyone know differently?
:>
:>
:> Oh yes, SLC's need power.
:>
:>
:>>I imagine SLC 96s are long gone for residential suburban areas
:>>but they likely still exist in some rural areas.
:>
:>
:> I was just in Aptos/Watsonville CA region, and there are
:> SLC-96's on every other corner. The giveway is the line of
:> shiny T1 repeater cans feeding same.
:Both of those areas are a mix of suburban and remote rural areas. I can
:understand the SLC 96 on a road back in the hills of Aptos where the
:there are long distances with no houses, then a cluster of house. But,
:if pair gain is being used in the suburban part of Aptos I would think
:AT&T would be getting heat from the CPUC.
Why? Modern nodes support all the services that are expected, like
DSL, television, etc. They're fed with high speed backhaul (often
fiber in dense areas).
--
sig 92
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 20:57:27 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Battery power support today
Message-ID: <iuql3n$h94$1@reader1.panix.com>
David Scheidt <dscheidt@panix.com> writes:
>:Both of those areas are a mix of suburban and remote rural areas. I can
>:understand the SLC 96 on a road back in the hills of Aptos where the
>:there are long distances with no houses, then a cluster of house. But,
>:if pair gain is being used in the suburban part of Aptos I would think
>:AT&T would be getting heat from the CPUC.
>Why? Modern nodes support all the services that are expected, like
>DSL, television, etc. They're fed with high speed backhaul (often
>fiber in dense areas).
The CPUC regulates phone service. They have no control over DSL
& beyond. It's up to PacBell [1] how they get get dialtone to
28 Barbary Line or similar. And since the DS1 fed SLC's are sunk
cost; why would they change them out?
As for "pair gain" in suburban parts; what's your definition
of same? I saw several in areas that may not compete with the
Upper East Side or tract-LA, but are not Death Vally -- take
'downtown' Corralitos, for one. And in urban areas, it's VERY
commonly used; a typical hi-rise will have a LightSpan or other
SONET-fed terminal in the basement.
And thanks to Andrew for reminding me; I was pretty sure T's
were powered with the +/- 130 series stunt, but could not find
a good cite. Suffice to say it's enough so you know you got
across something you shouldn't have... I seem to recall they
could have 10-15 miles reaches easily; but the spec for signal
[jitter etc, not power] went out to 150 miles.
1] or whatever their legal name is this week.
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 09:24:59 -0700
From: Bruce Bergman <brucebergman@gmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Battery power support today
Message-ID: <cANLkTikVpAAPE=aJ2V+DCSH2AE55ASj=bA@mail.gmail.com>
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:23:18 -0700, AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> In article <BANLkTikg3_jasxgAbPLuJ5WqtABxNZVHKg@mail.gmail.com>,
> Bruce Bergman <brucebergman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You can walk around under an AM Broadcast antenna holding a fluorescent
> > light bulb that's glowing in the RF field, especially at a 50KW Clear
> > Channel blowtorch like KFI.
>
> Could you give your take on how this relates to currently on-going and
> often very fervid debates over the (alleged) health hazards for people
> and especially children caused by the r-f fields from cell towers in
> residential neighborhoods, in church steeples, in close proximity to
> schools, and so on?
[Moderator snip]
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> The reason Google - and every other source of information - is jammed
> with scary information is that fear is a lot easier to generate than
> electricity, and often leads to large research grants and/or speaking
> fees for the academics who spread the rumors. The effects of ionizing
> radiation on humans have been known and documented for decades.
It all boils down to exposure levels and time. You simply need to put the
antennas where the regions of ultra high RF fields are not readily
accessible by people, and/or in places where they wouldn't naturally spend
much time.
There's a reason they fence off exclusion areas immediately under an
omnidirectional broadcast tower, and it's only partly to keep people from
trying to climb the tower - which would probably end badly anyway, as the
would-be climber gets electrocuted to ground trying to climb over the huge
ceramic base insulator. Also why the power coupling transformer for the
navigation beacon looks like two interlinked hula hoops, so the RF voltage
doesn't jump the 12" gap. They don't want you hanging out under the antenna
in that zone of ultra high RF - which decreases logarithmically with
distance, so the people working 2,000' away or living 3,000' away are fine.
As to levels of microwave radiation around cellular tower sites, or the
"Turnstile" antennas for Broadcast TV and FM radio - those are not
omnidirectional antennas. The Sectional Panel antennas they hide in sets of
three up in tall building elevator penthouses and church steeples and fake
palm trees are rather directional and the vast majority of the energy is
going out almost horizontally, there are no near-field issues in the
building below them or ground level outside. Standing on the roof, inches
in front of the antenna with the transmitters energized, is when it turns
into a bad idea - which is why they lock the roof door.
But rational discussion is not in the mind of the "Fear Uncertainty and
Doubt" (FUD) Crowd, there's money to be made in selling you their book or
the latest snake oil scam as protection. Or in the case of medical FUDsters
like the "childhood vaccinations cause (Autism, etc.)..." crowd, they don't
have the answers but they want to scare you away from beneficial
vaccinations anyway. These people are about to unleash nasty things like
Polio on the world again, because they have achieved a critical mass of
unprotected children. I have a feeling the problem is in the thimerosal
(mercury) preservative and they have been phasing it out, but we need to let
science determine it for sure.
--<< Bruce >>--
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 20:43:17 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Battery power support today
Message-ID: <MPG.287985302ce0bffd989d3f@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <nc2dnZ7-tZKAeZPTnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
sam@coldmail.com says...
>
> David Lesher wrote:
> > Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >>The exception was a pair-gain provision such as the Bell Systems SLC 96,
> >>which was used in rural areas and in areas of rapid residential
> >>construction. I believe the terminating SLC 96 box had to have local
> >>power. Anyone know differently?
> >
> >
> > Oh yes, SLC's need power.
> >
> >
> >>I imagine SLC 96s are long gone for residential suburban areas
> >>but they likely still exist in some rural areas.
> >
> >
> > I was just in Aptos/Watsonville CA region, and there are
> > SLC-96's on every other corner. The giveway is the line of
> > shiny T1 repeater cans feeding same.
>
> Both of those areas are a mix of suburban and remote rural areas. I can
> understand the SLC 96 on a road back in the hills of Aptos where the
> there are long distances with no houses, then a cluster of house. But,
> if pair gain is being used in the suburban part of Aptos I would think
> AT&T would be getting heat from the CPUC.
Interestingly the only places I've ever seen pair-gain used is in the
suburbs of RI. Never seen it used in the cities.
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 09:15:09 -0700
From: Andrew Carey <carey.remove-this@and-this-too.ar-ballbat.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: [Obfuscate] Re: Battery power support today
Message-ID: <19A9C82A-24AF-4090-BEDB-9AE475FF2FBE@ar-ballbat.org>
> I've never seen T-carrier run off anything but loop voltage, aka
> span power. That's why there's 130 vdc to bite you when you are
> on the pair...
>
> And since that span power is appled by/at the CO..
T-carrier runs on a constant nominal 60mA current. Voltage can vary from
0 to 260VDC (+130VDC & -130VDC).
The network inteface unit (NIU), which is the termination at the
customer prem, can be span or locally powered. The line repeaters in
between can be span powered in two ways. The standard way is straight
through from one end, almost always from the central office. The other
way is to set a line repeater in the middle to loop the power in both
directions, which allow powering from both ends for extremely long
spans. Note that this is for powering only, the signal flow is still end
to end.
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 10:59:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: grumpy44134 <grumpy44134@gmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: "Underground" demarc?
Message-ID: <5717f906-9695-4ae9-ac0c-5dfe7dc8add7@em7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
My friend is having an intermittent problem with her home phone. I
told her to find the gray demarc/Telephone Network Interface (Ohio)
box. After not being able to find it, she reminded me her power and
telephone wires were underground to her house. Question - where is
the demarc for underground telephone service (in Ohio)?
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 17:20:51 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Using DSO-DP channel units back-to-back
Message-ID: <20110703212051.GC13805@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
I've been told that some LEC's use DSO-DP channel units back-to-back,
to connect one channel bank to another when they have a voice-only
circuit that needs to go through a "tandem point" office.
Now, theorietically, this should work, but I can't shake the feeling
that DSO-DP's shouldn't be used for tandem service, probably because
I've never seen it done before.
Any T-1 engineers out there? Is there a reason why DSO-DP CU's aren't
the best choice for tandem service, i.e., that a 4ETO or TDM unit
would work better? I understand that DSO-DP's won't carry signalling
from one T-1 bank to another, but are they adequate for voice-only
circuits?
Inquiring minds want to know. ;-)
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
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.
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 (14 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues