29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for March 30, 2011
====== 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
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, 28 Mar 2011 23:49:21 -0600 From: Fred Atkinson <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Annoyance Calls (again) Message-ID: <email@example.com> At 02:09 PM 3/28/2011, you wrote: >Fred Atkinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > >Well, > > > > I got another one. This time the number was: (956) 440-1397. > > > >I just let phone calls with strange area codes roll over to voicemail. When >I've answered them or called them back they've always been telemarketers. As I've perivously told you, when I call back all I get is an autodialer. I wish I could get a telemarketer when I call back. Then I could identify them, instruct them to put me on their DNC list, and [if necessary] take action. Regards, Fred
Date: 29 Mar 2011 08:04:16 -0000 From: "John Levine" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Swiping Is the Easy Part Message-ID: <email@example.com> >> I cannot read a magnetic stripe unless I have physical possession; >> not true with proximity chips. > >This just screams "DESIGN ERROR"! There's also a contact version of EMV chips. Every credit and debit card in most countries other than the US has one. I don't entirely understand why the US banks are going straight to contactless. R's, John ***** Moderator's Note ***** Maybe it's because they let the other guys do the scut work for a change? Perhaps it's because they had an attack of common sense, and decided to let someone else do free R&D? Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:22:11 +1100 From: David Clayton <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Swiping Is the Easy Part Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:32:00 +0000, Doug McIntyre wrote: >>What's more secure about proximity chips in phone versus cards, and how >>could they be more secure than a magnetic stripe? > >>I cannot read a magnetic stripe unless I have physical possession; not >>true with proximity chips. > > The proximity chips in credit/cash cards in Europe have a PIN associated > with them that need to be entered at the same time. > > Presumably, the smartphone system would have some sort of control over > pin input interface with some level of control of what data can leave > the NFR chip rather than just having a contactless chip embedded in the > phone case somewhere. AFAIK all of these payment authorisation systems are based on physical tokens. The card with the mag stripe is just one sort of token (as it was before mag stripes were created and physical card imprints were taken). The card with the "Smartcard" chip in it which requires insertion into a terminal is another token, and the cards with the prox chips in them are also just another type of token. All of these tokens are (currently) issued and controlled by financial institutions and require authorised back-end infrastructure at a vendor to be utilised. How a "phone" gets involved in this system has me baffled. Currently the "Contactless" transactions use a prox chip token device (on a card) swiped within a short distance of a terminal device to process a transaction, I see nothing special about a "phone" that can replace the prox chip - with all the security etc. - that these financial institutions issue. The last thing financial institutions would want are phones capable of imitating prox chips (even if that was technically possible), so my question remains - what was that nebulous article actually about? The only [time] I have seen "phones" replace existing tokens is when using them with barcodes on their displays to replace physical items like Boarding Passes at airports or entry Tickets to venues - and I'd pretty certain that sort of thing won't apply to financial transactions. -- 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: 29 Mar 2011 10:55:50 -0400 From: email@example.com (Scott Dorsey) To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: AT&T Wants DSL Customers On U-Verse? Message-ID: <email@example.com> Sam Spade <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >John C. Fowler wrote: > >> I have no idea if this is there for convenience "just in case" they >> decide they don't want to provide DSL anymore when U-verse is >> available, or if this is the beginning of a DSL phase-out. I do know >> that one of the reasons I keep DSL is that nice CO-powered wire that >> stays active even when a big storm takes away our electricity for a >> week, something only the phone company can provide. If they take that >> away, suddenly their competitors start to look a lot more enticing. >> >> John C. Fowler, email@example.com > >What powers your DSL modem when the power at your premises is out for a >week? Mine runs off a 12V gel-cell, although it turns out the batteries in the SLC run out after about four days and then DSL and POTS service goes out anyway. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
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|
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) 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.