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

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

The Telecom Digest for August 17, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 206 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service(David Clayton)
Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service(Lisa or Jeff)
Re: Verizon strike(GlowingBlueMist)
Re: Extensions to pay phones?(John Levine)
Re: Extensions to pay phones?(Wes Leatherock)
NYC ordered to retain street call boxes(Lisa or Jeff)
Re: Verizon strike(Tom Horne)
Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service(Joseph Singer)
Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service(Lisa or Jeff)
Re: Extensions to pay phones?(Geoffrey Welsh)
Re: Extensions to pay phones?(David Lesher)
HTC attempts serious patent play against Apple in federal court(Monty Solomon)

====== 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: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:14:32 +1000 From: David Clayton <dcstarbox-usenet@yahoo.com.au> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service Message-ID: <pan.2011.08.16.07.14.29.175687@yahoo.com.au> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 07:45:37 -0700, Lisa or Jeff wrote: >>From MSNBC: > > ... The posting comes in response to BART officials on Thursday > cutting off underground cellphone service for a few hours at several > stations to thwart a planned protest ... > > full article at: > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44139412/ns/technology_and_science-security/ Pointless - by the time anyone has organised any sort of protest they won't need to use the subway infrastructure. > The use of cell phone technology by mobs to coordinate attacks has created > disturbances in London and Philadelphia where property has been damaged > and people injured. Yeah, I believe that people also use their voices for that sort of thing too - shall we cut out their tongues as well? -- 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: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:06:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service Message-ID: <61f8d16c-6373-480b-a656-358c9ecfb117@p19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> On Aug 16, 3:14 am, David Clayton <dcstarbox-use...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >      ... The posting comes in response to BART officials on Thursday > >      cutting off underground cellphone service for a few hours at several > >      stations to thwart a planned protest ... > Pointless - by the time anyone has organised any sort of protest they > won't need to use the subway infrastructure. There have been quite a few articles on this issue over the years on how protestors have used cell phones to circumvent police and conduct disruptive activity. >> The use of cell phone technology by mobs to coordinate attacks has >> created disturbances in London and Philadelphia where property has >> been damaged and people injured. > > Yeah, I believe that people also use their voices for that sort of > thing too - shall we cut out their tongues as well? Apples and candy bars. None the less, I believe one can be charged with the crime of "incitement to riot". There is of course the old example, "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre".
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 20:43:42 -0500 From: GlowingBlueMist <glowingbluemist@truely.invalid> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Verizon strike Message-ID: <4e49cb50$0$2616$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com> On 8/14/2011 6:56 PM, John Levine wrote: >> I got rid of Vonage as it required a PC be powered on all the time to >> have continuous phone service, same as Skype (no adapter, just >> software). > > Huh? When I had Vonage, they provided me a Cisco ATA-186 with one > jack for the RJ-45 from the router and another jack with the RJ-11 to > the phone. I couldn't have run it through my PC if I wanted to. Right you are John. Sorry, it appears that my memory was malfunctioning as usual. I meant to say that I had booted Magic Jack, not Vonage.
Date: 15 Aug 2011 23:38:05 -0000 From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Extensions to pay phones? Message-ID: <20110815233805.99372.qmail@joyce.lan> >How common was it to offer flat rate to business subscribers? I can't >help but suspect the majority of business subscribers (those within >cities and larger towns) had message rate service. Pretty common outside the northeast and Chicago, as I recall. R's, John
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:07:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Extensions to pay phones? Message-ID: <1313453253.9595.YahooMailClassic@web111718.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 8/15/11, Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Aug 14, 8:30 pm, Wes Leatherock > <wleat...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > Some businesses were fussy in those days, others were not. In > > areas where 1FB service was common, many businesses had phones for > > customer use, others had no objection to allowing customers or > > others from using their regular business phones. > > 1FB means "Single party Flat-rate Business" > > I can understand that if a business didn't have to pay a message > unit charge for a call, then it wouldn't mind as much people using > the phone. > > How common was it to offer flat rate to business subscribers? I > can't help but suspect the majority of business subscribers (those > within cities and larger towns) had message rate service. As far as I know, 1FB was the standard offering in Southwestern Bell territory. I know in Dallas the tariff prhibited 1MB (measured) on the same premises without special permission. The conceern was that business would list or advertise their measured number, and use it for incoming calls only, which meant there would never be any outgoing measured number calls and so there would be no revenue on that line besides the minimal monthly charge. In fact, it was often hard to find out that measured service was available, either residence or business. Wes Leatherock wleathus@yahoo.com wesrock@aol.com
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:15:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: NYC ordered to retain street call boxes Message-ID: <7d402c03-d372-4a60-867f-e437154da41c@1g2000vbu.googlegroups.com> From the NY Times: A federal judge in Manhattan has refused to allow the Bloomberg administration to eliminate 15,000 emergency-help boxes from New York's streets, saying the city's proposed alternative involving public pay phones is not adequate because it would discriminate against the deaf and hearing-impaired. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/nyregion/city-is-ordered-to-keep-emergency-help-boxes.html?ref=nyregion
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:03:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Horne <hornetd@gmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Verizon strike Message-ID: <c038b862-b32a-45d6-b2fc-c253d4fd1441@a31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com> On Aug 15, 7:33 am, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote: > In most areas you can get a 'naked' (no dial tone) DSL circuit. [Moderator snip] > Unlike a pair with 'dial tone', a field tech cannot tell whether > [the] pair is 'in use' (meaning 'active', not 'off hook') by simply > hooking a butt-set onto the pair, and 'listening' for voice, or > dial-tone. There have been lots of 'naked' DSL circuit outages > because a field tech unwittingly 'stole' an active pair to fix > another problem. Lineman have been equipped with DSL detecting butt sets for many years now. When the butt set is connected to a DSL signal pair it sounds an alarm and / or will not go off hook. So accidental downing of DSL service is no longer that much of a problem. Some Butt sets can even function like a piggy back telephone and conduct voice calls without downing the line. I own two such Harris sets. -- Tom Horne
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:55:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service Message-ID: <1313513726.68338.YahooMailClassic@web161507.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Mon, 15 Aug 2011 07:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: referring to: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44139412/ns/technology_and_science-security/ > IMHO, since BART owns the cell phone infrastructure on its subway, > it has the right to suspend cell phone service. > The use of cell phone technology by mobs to coordinate attacks has > created disturbances in London and Philadelphia where property has > been damaged and people injured. What BART did may have in fact been legal, but it is not much different than what dictators in Egypt and other Arab countries have done to "squelch" those who they deem subversives. Cameron in the UK has proposed that communications be cut off as well. Is this what we want our governments to come down to? And does BART own the cellphone infrastructure or the companies who installed it?
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:37:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service Message-ID: <c1023527-c5a3-4b0c-82be-75867042675e@w11g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> On Aug 16, 12:55 pm, Joseph Singer <joeofseat...@yahoo.com> wrote: > What BART did may have in fact been legal, but it is not much different > than what dictators in Egypt and other Arab countries have done to > "squelch" those who they deem subversives.  Cameron in the UK has > proposed that communications be cut off as well. There is a significant difference between BART and those other governments, and that is the issue of passenger safety on an active busy railroad. Subway stations are a constrained area, and it is very dangerous to block access to trains as the protesters did. That creates overcrowding on the platforms which can lead to injury of passengers. A subway station is a very different place than a broad square. > Is this what we want > our governments to come down to? Cell phone service in subways is a fairly new service, and social considerations have to be worked out. Society would not want such cell phone service to be used to disrupt train operation in tunnels. I will just say that everyday people have to get to work, get home to their children, etc. and if protesters are upset at the discontinuance of a new cell phone service, then they should be equally upset at disrupting transit service and creating a safety hazard. Transit passengers have rights, too. It should be noted that using a cell phone is prohibited on some transit lines to avoid disturbing other passengers, and this is a popular concept. I suspect transit agencies provide antenna for cell phone carriers because they get nice rent from the carriers, even if their passengers don't like it. (A proposal in NYC drew opposition, but I think its going in anyway.) > And does BART own the cellphone infrastructure or the companies who > installed it? According to one article: "The agency did not jam cell signals, which is illegal, but shut off the system - which Johnson said is allowable under an agreement with several major phone service providers that pay rent to BART." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/16/MNGT1KNJU1.DTL
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:59:52 -0400 From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Extensions to pay phones? Message-ID: <1e96c$4e4ae82a$adce0af1$22884@PRIMUS.CA> Lisa or Jeff wrote: > How common was it to offer flat rate to business subscribers? How long ago are we talking here? I don't recall seeing local metered service, even on business lines, in Bell Canada territory even going back to the 80s. I'm not saying that such lines didn't exist, only that I never encountered one so they weren't standard and probably not very common.
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:10:46 +0000 (UTC) From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Extensions to pay phones? Message-ID: <j2ept6$g3o$1@reader1.panix.com> Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> writes: > How common was it to offer flat rate to business subscribers? I > can't help but suspect the majority of business subscribers (those > within cities and larger towns) had message rate service. AFAIK, only SWB and BS offered it. [Everyone] in Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, & NYNEX territory had 1MB. In two places, NYC & Chicago, there wasn't even 1FR service available. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 ***** Moderator's Note ***** 1FR is "Single party, Flat-rate Residential" service 1FB is "Single party, Flat-rate Business" service 1MB is "Single party, Measured Business" service Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:41:39 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: HTC attempts serious patent play against Apple in federal court Message-ID: <p062408cbca70b09bba71@[10.0.1.4]> HTC attempts serious patent play against Apple in federal court By Chris Foresman HTC has decided to up the ante in its smartphone patent tussle with Apple. The company has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple in Delaware, accusing Apple of infringing three of its patents with nearly every product Apple makes. HTC may be hoping this suit will give it some leverage with Apple, which currently has four patent infringement lawsuits and two International Trade Commission complaints pending against the Tawainese smartphone maker. ... http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/08/htc-attempts-serious-patent-play-against-apple-in-federal-court.ars
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 (13 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues