30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for March 8, 2012
====== 30 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: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 09:03:47 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Plans for 'TV Everywhere' Bog Down in Tangled Pacts Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (The Wall Street Journal requires viewers to subscribe if they want to read the whole story. - Moderator) Plans for 'TV Everywhere' Bog Down in Tangled Pacts By SAM SCHECHNER and SHALINI RAMACHANDRAN March 5, 2012 It was dubbed "TV Everywhere." But for many TV viewers, it has had trouble going anywhere. Nearly three years after Time Warner Inc. and Comcast Corp. kicked off a drive to make cable programming available online for cable subscribers, the idea of TV Everywhere remains mired in technical holdups, slow deal-making and disputes over who will control TV customers in the future. Now some media executives say the effort, aimed at insulating cable television against a rising tide of cheap online video alternatives, risks getting left behind-a concern that found voice last week at two different industry conferences. While some cable programming is available online, much isn't, or is available only to subscribers of certain pay-TV providers. That is because TV Everywhere-which is a concept, not a specific service-requires a lot of deal-making. Each cable operator, phone company and satellite-TV provider must negotiate separate agreements for online rights to every cable channel. So far, just a few companies have reached wide-ranging deals. ... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203986604577253491897421420.html
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 07:19:16 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: How Companies Learn Your Secrets Message-ID: <email@example.com> How Companies Learn Your Secrets By CHARLES DUHIGG February 16, 2012 Andrew Pole had just started working as a statistician for Target in 2002, when two colleagues from the marketing department stopped by his desk to ask an odd question: "If we wanted to figure out if a customer is pregnant, even if she didn't want us to know, can you do that? " Pole has a master's degree in statistics and another in economics, and has been obsessed with the intersection of data and human behavior most of his life. His parents were teachers in North Dakota, and while other kids were going to 4-H, Pole was doing algebra and writing computer programs. "The stereotype of a math nerd is true," he told me when I spoke with him last year. "I kind of like going out and evangelizing analytics." As the marketers explained to Pole - and as Pole later explained to me, back when we were still speaking and before Target told him to stop - new parents are a retailer's holy grail. Most shoppers don't buy everything they need at one store. Instead, they buy groceries at the grocery store and toys at the toy store, and they visit Target only when they need certain items they associate with Target - cleaning supplies, say, or new socks or a six-month supply of toilet paper. But Target sells everything from milk to stuffed animals to lawn furniture to electronics, so one of the company's primary goals is convincing customers that the only store they need is Target. But it's a tough message to get across, even with the most ingenious ad campaigns, because once consumers' shopping habits are ingrained, it's incredibly difficult to change them. ... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 15:11:42 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: How Companies Learn Your Secrets Message-ID: <email@example.com> On 3/7/2012 7:19 AM, Monty Solomon wrote: > > How Companies Learn Your Secrets > > By CHARLES DUHIGG > February 16, 2012 > > Andrew Pole had just started working as a statistician for Target in > 2002, when two colleagues from the marketing department stopped by > his desk to ask an odd question: "If we wanted to figure out if a > customer is pregnant, even if she didn't want us to know, can you do > that? " Finding out if a woman is pregnant may be the "Holy Grail" of marketing, but the information is worth a lot more to others, and the ways that the information is obtained cover the gamut from voluntary disclosure to criminal invasion of privacy. Nonetheless, such information is so valuable that it will be gathered - even if those seeking it need to break the law in order to get it. The "usual" buyers cover every area of modern life: * Real Estate Brokers * Health Care providers * Car Salesmen * Insurance Salesmen * Retailers * Delivery services ... and those are only the people who really have something they want to sell and that a pregnant woman might want to buy. On top of that, there are organizations that want to find out her condition for other purposes(1): * Potential employers, who might want to avoid paying for pregnancy leave and/or increased insurance co-payments. * Landlords, who might want to avoid leasing to someone who'll have a child, or who might want to limit the choices of apartment she'll have. A pregnant woman is a target for marketing (or disincentive) campaigns from every one of the links in this long chain, each of which has a vested interest in passing the information on to others. That's the "demand" side of the scale, so let's look at "supply": While retailers such as Target might be willing to bear the cost of gathering and interpreting statistical clues, most of the firms that consume pregnancy reports insist on more definite, and therefore more easily usable, evidence - and they don't care where it comes from. The obvious sources are - * Social-networking sites, which sell such information as their primary business. * Retailer "Loyalty Card" programs, which retain purchase records for pregnancy test kits or pregnancy-related products. * Telephone calling records, which reveal calls to Obstetricians, or Diaper Services, or to insurance brokers. * Web access records, which show an employee's access to sites like "Planned Parenthood", or other self-help venues that pregnant women frequent. * Emails spool files, which show addresses that can be easily traced to doctors, hospitals, insurance providers, etc. * Clerks and other menial workers who have access to health-care records. The obvious point is that the twenty-somethings who grew up with the wired world are now going on their first big "acquisition binge": their first house, their first "family" car, their first life-insurance policy, their first set of infant clothes, toys, cribs, and medical care. As the original story pointed out, the buying and brand habits they form during the first pregnancy are likely to follow on to others, and to their circle of friends and cow-orkers. The less-obvious point is that wired world is so ingrained in the day-to-day habits of newly pregnant twenty-something women that they are often unaware of its avaricious demand for information: the electronic world is simply getting harder and harder to avoid. At the same time a pregnant woman is juggling the tasks of finding a job that has "good" health care, finding a "safe" car, finding a child-friendly apartment or "nice" neighborhood, and debating other choices, she is unlikely to spend the time to secure her status from prying eyes (assuming she is even aware that her status is a sought-after commercial commodity, or that she even can protect it). The last bastion of privacy is eroding as quickly as all the others: reproduction is now another data point on a corporate chart(2). Bill 1. There, are, of course, second-tier consumers for pregnancy reports: urban planners, Deans of college alumni, and those who forecast demand for all manner of childhood services, from private schools to dairies to vendors of "early childhood" education products. By and large, they don't need "advance" information, and won't pay for it. I'm only talking about the businessmen who crave advance notice. 2. Of course, women who choose not to advertise a pregnancy have some defenses available to them: paying for pregnancy-test kits with cash, visiting "My-first-baby" sites from a library or school computer, using assumed names on social-networking sites, and being willing to read their HMO's disclosure policies. Such tactics are, at best, a "rear guard" action, which will slow down, but not stop, the data flow: after all, every businessman who pays for the information is eager to resell it, as quickly as possible, to anyone who doesn't compete with him. -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 15:14:13 -0500 From: Telecom Digest Moderator <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Paging Gordon Burditt [nfp] Message-ID: <20120307201413.GA26125@telecom.csail.mit.edu> Gordon, please email me offline. You may call me at the number shown below if you prefer. TIA. Bill -- Bill Horne Moderator 339-DOG-TITS
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:35:25 -0500 From: "T. Keating" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: DoD accused of subverting LightSquared plan in 2010 Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:38:39 -0500, Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote: > >On LightSquared, Defense Department official urged synch up with GPS lobby > >By ELIZA KRIGMAN | 3/2/12 9:33 AM EST > >A Department of Defense official urged his colleagues in 2010 to >"synch up" with the GPS industry in order to defeat LightSquared's >plans to build the nation's first wholesale broadband network, >according to an email obtained by POLITICO. Ahem, It's the DOD's 31 satellite GPS system L^2 was putting at risk. I.E. Wide band modulated high power(1W or more) xmiters on adjacent(overlapping) band interfering with the ability to receive weak(50W) GPS signals transmitted from 12K to 20K miles distant. Thus endangering the basic functionally of hundreds of millions of GPS receivers in use currently. Naturally, I would expect the DOD to definitely take a stand. [Moderator snip] ***** Moderator's Note ***** I understand that the DoD has an interest in keeping the system viable, but I feel it's important to present all sides on issues. If nothing else, the accusation shows the tactics that lobbyists are using to run their salvage operation over the wreck of the SS LightSquared. ;-) Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 17:42:17 -0500 From: T <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Is the Philadelphia Cell Phone Jammer a Hero or Pest? Message-ID: <MPG.email@example.com> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, PeteCress@invalid.telecom-digest.org says... > > Per David Clayton: > > > >https://mashable.com/2012/03/05/philadelphia-cell-phone-jammer/ > > > > Sounds like an idea for restaurants. Maybe a "Cell-Phone-Free" > area and a regular area. I have to wonder, does the Communications Act only cover active devices, e.g. something that broadcasts a signal? What is to prevent a business from putting a grounded copper mesh throughout a room. That would blot out signal too. At my last place of employment we had a quiet box. it was about the size of a shoebox and had a three prong cord out the back. Inside was totall covered in copper mesh, tied to the ground conductor on the power cord. Theoretically it should work. It's how we found out that the outlets on our desks were tied to the UPS and there was no real copper ground. Wooops! ***** Moderator's Note ***** The FCC regulates "Incidental" radiators, such as the local oscillators in receivers, computer timing chips, etc., as well as licensed services. IANALB, AFAIK, it's legal - although prohibitively expensive - to cut off cell signals in a private building. Passive shielding, which forms a Faraday cage, would be effective. It's also possible to use electrostatic shielding, but that costs a lot too. Bill Horne Moderator
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.