30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for October 18, 2011
====== 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: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 03:08:27 -0500 From: email@example.com (Robert Bonomi) To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Win XP, multiple simultaneous Internet connections? Message-ID: <9dednSL4dsLmfwbTnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications> In article <email@example.com>, John Doe <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Using Windows XP SP3. I have two Internet connections, DSL and > through a wireless Hotspot. > > In Network Connections, Bridge Connections seems to put both > connections into one. But the throughput seems to be no greater > than the faster connection. Should Bridge Connections make both > Internet connections work simultaneously? No. 'bridging' lets traffic coming -in- on one connection go -out- on the other one, and vice-versa. similar to 'routing', but addresses on the LANS for each network interface are on the -same- 'subnet'. > Is additional setup required? no. > If that is not supposed to work... It works. How it works is just not the way you 'think' it should. It does NOT do what you think it does/should. > Is there some other way to use both connections simultaneously in > Windows XP? Can one program use one connection and another program > use the other connection? NOT easily. > Just trying to be clear... Can you use two connections at the same > time in Windows XP? If so, how? To do what you apparently want to do requires that: (a) both connections go to the -same- upstream provider (b) THAT upstream provider must support 'bundled' connections on the types of media that the two connections use. (VERY unlikely, today) (c) you must have software on your machine that supported 'bundling' of connections on the type of media involved. AFAIK, Windows does NOT include such software.
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:52:29 +1100 From: David Clayton <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Online Banking Keeps Customers on Hook for Fees Message-ID: <email@example.com> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 10:43:35 -0400, Monty Solomon wrote: > Online Banking Keeps Customers on Hook for Fees > > By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ > October 15, 2011 > > Customers frustrated by banks' controversial new fees are finding out what > industry insiders have known for years: it is not so easy to disentangle > your life from your bank. > > The Internet banking services that have been sold to customers as > conveniences, like online bill paying, serve as powerful tethers that > keep them from jumping to another institution. > > Tedd Speck, a 49-year-old market researcher in Kent, Conn., was furious > about Bank of America's planned $5 monthly fee for debit card use. > > But he is staying put after being overwhelmed by the inconvenience of > moving dozens of online bill paying arrangements to another bank. For that very reason the government in Australia next year is forcing the banks here to make such a thing much easier for customers: http://www.smh.com.au/national/switch-bank-accounts-in-just-a-tick-20110820-1j3k4.html -- 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: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:46:44 +1100 From: David Clayton <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Win XP, multiple simultaneous Internet connections? Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:21:44 +0000, John Doe wrote: > Using Windows XP SP3. I have two Internet connections, DSL and through a > wireless Hotspot. > > In Network Connections, Bridge Connections seems to put both connections > into one. But the throughput seems to be no greater than the faster > connection. Should Bridge Connections make both Internet connections work > simultaneously? Is additional setup required? > > If that is not supposed to work... Is there some other way to use both > connections simultaneously in Windows XP? Can one program use one > connection and another program use the other connection? > > Just trying to be clear... Can you use two connections at the same time in > Windows XP? If so, how? > Bridging requires both ends to support it, it is used in high-end Ethernet equipment to basically double the wire speed of two (or more) Ethernet links. It will not work with totally different connections that to not terminate on the same piece of equipment that is also in bridging mode. -- 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: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:07:55 +0000 (UTC) From: email@example.com (Michael Moroney) To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Privacy alert: Verizon is now monitoring your mobile Web habits Message-ID: <email@example.com> firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael Moroney) writes: >>Please pass along the URL so that others can test it: I don't have the >>email anymore. TIA. > >https://www22.verizon.com/foryourhome/myaccount/protected/account/MyAccountGeography.aspx > >You'll need a Verizon login to see anything interesting, of course. >***** Moderator's Note ***** >Thanks for sending that: I've uploaded a screen shot that shows what I >just saw when I accessed the site. Of course, I already checked the >box (using lynx), but the screenshot shows how the "Suggestions" link is >in the way of the checkbox. >It's at >http://www.telecom-digest.org/R5C.png > Interesting. I don't know why I don't see the "Suggestions" link blocking the mouse likee you do. I was going to suggest that in the past, I blocked some of the more annoying ad sites (setting their IP address to 127.0.0.1 in hosts) and maybe I got them, but no. I see the "Suggestions" link on my version of the page, behaving itself quietly in the lower right corner. It will change to read "Click here to rate this page" if I move the mouse pointer to it, but it never tries to follow the pointer or block anything. I also tried it with an old version of Chrome, same thing. This is on the same computer, I'll have to try it on another one.
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:05:33 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein.SeeSigSpambait@wn2.wn.net> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Lightsquared being called to account Message-ID: <20111017150547.6FD7738746@mailout.easydns.com> Robert Bonomi noted, >"best available evidence" says otherwise. > >To wit the public comments by the military commander in charge of armed >forces GPS systems. Not necessarily. It would be nice if our military's general officers were always concerned with the nation's best interests, but recall that many "retire" before they're too old to work, and they tend to get high-paying jobs in private industry. Why would a Pentagon politician be much different from a Capitol Hill one? And, as Danny Burstein noted, >Keep in mind that the military mindset for matters of >this sort doesn't look at the "likely" problems, but >gets concerned (more or less justifiable so) with >the absolute worst case, even if highly unlikely, >possibilities. So yes, the general is concerned. > >It's kind of like... the folk who tell the villagers >there's no need to keep banging drums to scare >away the dragon that's eating up the sun >during a solar eclipse... > >Chances are there's no issue, but... what if >there is...? El Moderador noted, >.Keep in mind that the post-"W" political mindset for matters of this >sort gets concerned (very justifiably so) with the absolute worst case >possibilities. So, yes, I'm concerned: this looks to me like a sellout >on a national scale, started by a deep pockets financier who is >willing to endanger lives and ignore the expert opinions expressed by >disciplined professionals who cannot gain anything, and might lose >their jobs, by telling the truth. Not really. ATC (ancillary terresterial component) goes back a long way. I have personal knowledge of efforts to get ATC approved, so that satellite vendors could lease spectrum to terrestrial cellular-like operators, well before 2003, which is when I think SkyTerra (now called LightSquared) got its ATC approved. SkyTerra (originally called Mobile Satellite Ventures) has put up satellites; like other mobile-sat vendors, its business has been slow due to widespread availability of terrestrial cellular service. So it's mostly used by transportation, public safety and other industries that require widespread coverage. The big change has been to allow ATC to be used on handsets without satellite capabilities. Satphone-only ATC has not been deployed much, so the GPS receivers didn't have to deal with it. Now they're essentially repurposing the band for dual use, providing more terrestrial capability. GPS operates on multiple bands. The encrypted military stuff runs on lower frequencies (I think around 1200 MHz) than the civilian one in question here (which starts at 1557, right above LightSquare's upper band). The high-precision stuff uses a third signal, from either LightSquared's or Inmarsat's satellites, and the former would be clobbered by the planned ATC. Since only a fairly small number of receivers use the high-precision signal (mostly for farming and mining, not urban areas), LightSquared has offered to retune all of the ones on their frequencies (for around $400M) to shift to a different frequency. >There are millions of GPS location transponders that keep track of the >location, speed, and arrival times of semi-trailers, freight cars on >trains, and utility vans used by every major corporation from >telephone companies to package delivery services. Bear in mind that LightSquared has two bands, the lower one around 1510, the upper one around 1547-1557. The 2003 ATC license grant was for both, and they had planned to use them. But because GPS became more common since then and with some really crappy receivers that simply assumed that there'd never be ATC, they've since offered to not use the upper band for a few years, giving time for most of the crappiest receivers to die of their own accord. If the mobile GPS receivers have barn door front ends, then they'll briefly lose signal when passing a LightSquared tower, once LightSquared opens its upper band. But they won't make the systems useless; real trucks and trains move a lot farther than the blanket-interference zone of a tower. The lower band won't harm even a bottom-end receiver. >That's not to mention the millions of consumers who have purchased GPS >devices, smart phone "Aps", and GPS-enabled cellphones, all of which >are affected by this sellout. Not if the lower band is the only one used. Your typical cell phone has a useful life of 2-3 years, so if they don't turn on upper band for 3 years, this gives cell phone makers plenty of notice. But again the impact would be very localized. >I don't pretend that my Garmin GPS going >dark is going to shake the earth or endanger my life: it will be an >inconvenience that forces me to start printing trip routes from Google >maps again. However, much of the E911 system's ability to track the >location of persons in distress depends on GPS receivers which are >installed in exactly the same class of devices that LightSquared's >power grab will render useless in emergencies. Probably not. Cell phone E911 is assisted GPS, getting part of the coordinates from the cell towers, and again only the upper band has any impact, so it's a at least few years off. >Of course, there are more immediate, more likely threats: such as the >danger for thousands of General Aviation aircraft with GPS navigation >equipment. If those go dark, so may the pilots and passengers who >depend on them. > >General Aviation isn't high-budget military flying - it's people and >planes that extend from restored Piper Cubs to multi-engine turboprops >carrying both road warriers and vacationers from "spoke" airports to >regional hubs, and they all depend on GPS to navigate safely to "off >airways" locations and secondary fields which don't have the dedicated >navigational aids present at major airports. In short, compromising >the GPS system will kill more people every year than every firearm in >every nut's hands, but politicians seem to be willing to pry GPS from >the cold, dead fingers of aircraft pilots and passengers who did >nothing more onerous than believe it would work as the government >promised. Your risk is greatly exaggerated. Same issue -- only if upper band is activated, and only near a tower. Planes rarely fly close to towers at low altitudes -- it's not safe -- and when they're above them, the signal going towards the plan will be weak, because cell antennas have narrow vertical plane patterns, generally with a downward beam tilt. So it might focus its signal from say -1 degrees to -11 degrees downwards, and thus an airplane above it would never intersect the strong-signal pancake (really a cone). Of course I would not really want aviation GPS to have barn door front ends anyway. >LightSquared's future is on one end of a political see-saw that has at >its other extreme an entire system of navigation designed and >implemented over decades, and nobody on Pennsylvania Avenue seems to >care. ATC was approved during the Bush years. What you have are makers of GPS receivers looking to save a few pennies by externalizing the cost of bad receivers. We had a similar power play pulled in Congress a decade ago when the FCC first authorized low power FM. The new rules initially got rid of third-adjacent channel protection, so that an LPFM station could be 600 kHz away from another FM station. The old rules dated back to the 1950s, when "IF cans" were the norm, not ceramic filters, and even then they were overly strict. However, the NAB didn't want more competition, so they used their clout to limit LPFM, a law finally repealed last year. In the interim, though, China shipped over a lot of FM receivers, all implemented on one chip, selling for under $2 (often given away as convention or holiday favors and the like). These are indeed broad as a barn door. So are most hotel clock radios. But that's their fault. We can't waste good spectrum just because a few cheap receivers really stink. If LightSquared does get permission to follow its revised plan (low band now, high band in a few years), vendors will first cry, but then will miraculously discover that making better receivers only costs a tiny bit after all. Primer on receiver overload: A receiver is prone to out-of-band signal overload for a few reasons. - Front end intermodulation. If the initial amplifier or (more often) mixer in a receiver is not properly linear, then out-of-band strong signals will mix together and block desired signals. Integrated circuit mixers are not the best here; discrete circuits work better. JFETs work better than junction transistors too. - Front end desensitization. Even if the out-of-band signals don't show up in the wrong place, the sensitivity of a receiver can be impacted by a strong signal out of band. This could be caused by insufficient local oscillator injection, a crappy mixer, or other design flaws, most of which cost a little to fix, which is why they're the norm. - Phase noise. A frequency synthesizer is used to create the tuning local oscillator signal, and cheap (one-chip) synthesizers don't create clean sine waves. When you mix a noisy signal with the desired signal, you get a noisy output. Low-noise synthesizers are of course a bit costlier to build than high-noise ones. - Filters. You can filter unwanted frequnencies, but again it requires a little bit of hardware. So the drive to build the cheapest plausible product has lowered the quality of mass-market electronics, including GPS receivers. In the very deregulatory US, we don't have laws that require testing of most products to see that they meet some kind of minimum standard. So China ships us their worst. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701
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) 2011 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.