31 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for October 19, 2012
====== 31 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 that person, or email address
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of that address. 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: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:50:55 -0400 From: Pete Cresswell <PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Voter surveys difficult due to cell phones Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Per HAncock4: >Even in those households with land lines, residents are >increasingly less likely to pick up the phone. Caller ID is >widespread for those who want to screen out unwanted calls. I'm eagerly awaiting what seems to me to be the real solution: Challenge-Response. - Somebody calls my number - My phone does not even ring - Caller hears "Press 1 for Fred, Press 2 for Sue, Press 3 for Joe...." ending with press 1-2-3 for Pete. Experienced callers know that they can press 1-2-3 as soon as they hear the pickup. - My phone finally rings when somebody presses 1-2-3. - I have some options on how to set it up so that failures can be totally ignored, go to voicemail, leave caller's number in a log, and so-on and so-forth. Probably already available if somebody has a home PBX system. An enhanced answering machine would do it for me on my land line. I wonder of the pieces are already in place, just awaiting the right app on my Android cell phone. As it is now, all my phones are on both state and fed no-call lists, I work at home, as a practical matter I have to answer every time the phone rings because it might be a client needing help. I'm writing software, so every time I have to answer the phone the little house of cards I have in my mind goes "Poof!" and after the call it takes a couple of minutes to re-create it. I'm getting at least a dozen telephone solicitor or robo calls a day...DNC lists notwithstanding... I'm right on the edge of being a single-issue voter on this. Not quite... but disturbingly close. -- Pete Cresswell
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:43:38 -0400 From: "Michael D. Sullivan" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Mobile Services and Cable TV Are Unexpected Allies Message-ID: <CA+K-LfbRM34qnjJyHo4_Dyx=JgDdfEa26-yrP9vWzRSFWvFemail@example.com> At Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:08:41 -0700, Steven <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: [snip] >> ***** Moderator's Note ***** >> >> I don't get it. If Verizon is still trying to offer TV through fiber >> optic, why would they be giving retail space to Comcast? Is this >> change signalling the erection of a tombstone over Verizon's media >> ambitions? >> >> Bill Horne >> Moderator >> > Verizon has no plans to expand beyond areas already served, just back > fill. A lot of Verizon customers will never get FIOS, the same goes for > at&t Uverse. This way they can get part of the profits that the able > companies have taken. We have what at&t calls Uverse, the service we > have is just ADSL, I know since I am a COEI Installer and put the > equipment in, the speed is a lot better, but jumps all over the place. Verizon will be marketing the cable companies' TV service only in areas where FiOS is unavailable. -- Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD ***** Moderator's Note ***** Well, isn't that cutting off their nose to spite their face? I can't get FiOS, and I live in one of the wealthiest suburbs around Boston! I don't think Verizon has done anything near to what it could: if the company wants to compete with Comcast, why doesn't it put in more FiOS equipment? Bill P.S. Of course, I'm on the poor side of town ... Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:30:06 -0700 From: Steven <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Mobile Services and Cable TV Are Unexpected Allies Message-ID: <email@example.com> On 10/18/12 7:43 AM, Michael D. Sullivan wrote: > At Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:08:41 -0700, Steven > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > [snip] >>> ***** Moderator's Note ***** >>> >>> I don't get it. If Verizon is still trying to offer TV through fiber >>> optic, why would they be giving retail space to Comcast? Is this >>> change signalling the erection of a tombstone over Verizon's media >>> ambitions? >>> >>> Bill Horne >>> Moderator >>> >> Verizon has no plans to expand beyond areas already served, just back >> fill. A lot of Verizon customers will never get FIOS, the same goes for >> at&t Uverse. This way they can get part of the profits that the able >> companies have taken. We have what at&t calls Uverse, the service we >> have is just ADSL, I know since I am a COEI Installer and put the >> equipment in, the speed is a lot better, but jumps all over the place. > > Verizon will be marketing the cable companies' TV service only in > areas where FiOS is unavailable. > You must remember that FIOS was a GTE project long before Verizon. Former GTE service areas for the most part have full fiber, in the area I worked in Riverside county, Moreno Valley was wired for Fiber over 20 years ago, we had Fiber Rings all over the area, it now goes all the way down the the San Diego country line out to past Palm Springs. -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2012 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:29:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Joseph Singer <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: BlackBerry's fall from popularity Message-ID: <1350606561.49870.YahooMailClassic@web121403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Bill Horne CDT/Telecom digest moderator opined: > I'm no longer following fashion: is Salmon going to be this year's > color again? Have hemlines gone up, or down? Are immature children > still buying electronic devices based on what the local > thought-leader says is "in" this week? This is your opinion, but the reality is that mobile communications has trends just like everything else. At one time Nokia was it as far as mobile equipment manufacturers. That's not so any longer because of lots of factors including not changing their focus fast enough. BlackBerry was the darling as far as smartphones go, but through many factors didn't act fast enough to change where they needed to.
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:04:43 -0400 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: BlackBerry's fall from popularity Message-ID: <20121019040443.GA31824@telecom.csail.mit.edu> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 05:29:21PM -0700, Joseph Singer wrote: > Bill Horne CDT/Telecom digest moderator opined: > > > I'm no longer following fashion: is Salmon going to be this year's > > color again? Have hemlines gone up, or down? Are immature children > > still buying electronic devices based on what the local > > thought-leader says is "in" this week? > > This is your opinion, but the reality is that mobile communications > has trends just like everything else. At one time Nokia was it as > far as mobile equipment manufacturers. That's not so any longer > because of lots of factors including not changing their focus fast > enough. BlackBerry was the darling as far as smartphones go, but > through many factors didn't act fast enough to change where they > needed to. My opinion is that consumers are buying mobile computing devices based on peer pressure and the harangues of TV pitchmen, instead of rational evaluations of their needs, budgets, and expectations for what those devices should do. Buyers have been, and continue to be, relying on style, rumor, trivia, and brand names instead of bothering to find out which product and service will best suit their needs. "Yeah", you might say, "what else is new? You have to sell the sizzle, not the steak" - and I agree that marketing will always be the deciding factor during a consumers' choice of entertainment media and associated devices. However, and this is the nub of my reservations about smart phones and other mobile computing devices, any gadget which supposedly makes its user more productive, more intelligent, or more wise must be evaluated in terms of the impact it has on the environment of its users and its non-users. For every "benefit" a "smartphone" user claims, there is an associated (often intangible) cost, and it is these costs that weigh most heavily, to my mind, against the often-overrated advantages of the devices and the services that go with them. We can all agree, I hope, that telephones are useful devices. As someone who owned and used an IMTS mobile telephone long before cellular phones were available, I can attest to the utility of mobile phones for those who have more obligations than time. In the case of telephones, I hope we can all agree that a "500" set is just as useful as a "2554" Touchtone instrument, and that a Motorola "brick" cellphone is just about as transportatble as an iphone in practical terms. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and bet that everyone agrees that any cellphone which works is just about as useful as any other. While I can argue that cellphones have taken away the last "quiet time" available to us, namely the transit times during which we used to be alone behind a wheel or strolling down a sidewalk, I'll conceed that enough people find them usefull that they are, on balance, a "net gain" in our lives. However, I do not feel the smae way about smartphones and other mobile computers. Let's face it: smartphones are not toys. They are also not cheap, not magic, and not harmless "personal" appliances that affect only their users. Frankly, when I think of their costs, I don't see their benefits adding up: the tiny screens, tinier keyboards (or lack thereof) and miniscule data rates are all symptoms of a solution that creates its own problem. Being constantly connected has hurt us, in ways both subtle and gross, and I'm convinced that most of the consumers who crave the "benefits" of smartphones actually seek the mind-numbing overload of constant emails, continuous "tweet" mesages, and "always on" web access - because it spares them the uncertainty of knowing that they can't let everyone else run their lives. I think they want to be less like their parents - without the expectation that adults should use critical thought and experience to evaluate their options instead of engaging in knee-jerk responses, the knowledge that speed is the enemy of sagacity, and the common sense necessary to tell the world, now and then, that it needs to shut up. That is, of course, my opinion. -- Bill Horne (Remove QrM from my email address to write to me directly)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:10:21 -0400 From: danny burstein <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: FTC offering public prize to "robotcall" killer Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.firstname.lastname@example.org> [press release] FTC Challenges Innovators to Do Battle with Robocallers Agency Offers $50,000 for Best Technical Solution as Part of Ongoing Fight Against Illegal Calls The Federal Trade Commission is challenging the public to create an innovative solution that will block illegal commercial robocalls on landlines and mobile phones. As part of its ongoing campaign against these illegal, prerecorded telemarketing calls, the agency is launching the FTC Robocall Challenge, and offering a $50,000 cash prize for the best technical solution. This is the agency's first government contest hosted on Challenge.gov, an online challenge platform administered by the U.S. General Services Administration, in partnership with ChallengePost. Challenge.gov empowers the U.S. government and the public to bring the best ideas and top talent to bear on our nation's most pressing issues. ====== rest: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/10/robocalls3.shtm _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key email@example.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
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.
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
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) 2012 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.