30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for December 13, 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: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:44:50 -0800 (PST) From: HAncock4 <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: History: Cell phone early days Message-ID: <email@example.com> On Dec 9, 10:27 am, Wes Leatherock <wleat...@yahoo.com> wrote: > That, as you suggest, was before cellular. I had occasion to use > such a phone many times in Oklahoma City. While I am sure it was not > as congested as in New York, there were only a few channels (fewer > than 10, I believe, in Oklahoma City) and that made for much > congestion, too. A friend of mine had a job as a driver for a politician who had a car phone circa 1973. I strongly suspect that the newly elected politician used his office to jump the waiting list to get a phone for his car. Anyway, during weekend evenings my friend would call me from the call while he was waiting for the politician. He did not have any trouble getting through, presumably, like now, weekend nights were of less use. We kept our calls very short since the billing was steep. To call out he merely dialed (on a rotary dial) the number. To call him I dialed a plain seven digit number and the car phone rang (real ringer). There were a bunch of buttons he did not touch. Sound quality was noticeably not as good as a normal landline connection-- about the same as an analog cell phone. The phone in the call looked like a regular G handset. I wonder if it was that or if they substituted a special microphone and speaker designed for radio use. As an aside, said politician was not re-elected and served only one term. ob. telecom: he built up a law practice and ran a big ad in the back cover of the Yellow Pages every year, complete with a color photo of his firm. ***** Moderator's Note ***** Politicians didn't have to "jump the waiting list": they had their own queue by law, and always got priority in assignment. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:12:51 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: BufferBloat: What's Wrong with the Internet? Message-ID: <4EE67C63.email@example.com> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3D2076798 BufferBloat: What's Wrong with the Internet? "A discussion with Vint Cerf, Van Jacobson, Nick Weaver, and Jim Gettys" Here's my take on the BufferBLoat issue: I think this is a great discussion of how difficult it can be to change a widely-implemented protocol like TCP: engineers keep doing work-around solutions until the solutions create new problems. At the heart of the TCP/IP protocol suite is a design philosophy of trading time for reliability: the whole idea was to make a reliable path using unreliable links (remember that in the 1960's, link reliability was horrific by today's standards), and because of that, there is no "minimum transit time" specification in the IP protocol. We have added on QOS and other hacks to improve traffic flow for near-real-time applications such as IPTV, but the bottom level protocols don't know about them and don't deal with them. At some point, the Internet will need a major overhaul. For what I do, which is mostly email, it worked as originally designed. For what many ISP's and content providers are attempting to do, which is near-real-time content delivery, it can be "bent to fit" by adding ever-fatter pipes and ever-larger buffers, at the expense (as the OP pointed out) of degrading key performance metrics like latency. For what common carriers are trying to do, which is to substitute common-channel bandwidth for the virtual-circuit design of the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), TCP/IP can't be made to fit. There isn't enough elasticity in the available bandwidth structure to accommodate the (sometimes incredible) variability of telephone calling patterns, where by-hand intervention is still done, on a daily basis, to prevent outages due to mass-calling-events such as hurricane-or-other-severe-weather-related traffic, media outlet call-in promotions, and excess-demand holidays like Mother's Day. Unfortunately, the cost-per-transferred-bit of the Internet is so low compared to using virtual-circuit protocols such as ATM, that most executives put blinders on and opt for the cheap solution, usually with the assumption that we diode-heads will find a way around any problems like we always do. I don't have any magic bullets to solve this issue. I think that voice-traffic will migrate to the Internet until there are service problem too obvious to ignore, such as those Comcast Voice customers are experiencing on a daily basis, and then the powers-that-be will push for a new protocol suite that preserves low cost-per-moved-bit price advantages at the expense of higher (I think MUCH higher) rates for anyone doing "anything but" traffic. The battle of the titans is coming, but it won't be a fight about who sells which movie or who gets to download which song. This fight will be about which mega-corporations carve out virtual slices of Internet bandwidth so that they can avoid paying for their own. My 2 cents. YMMV. -- Bill Horne 339-364-8487
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:29:31 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: BufferBloat: What's Wrong with the Internet? Message-ID: <20111213012931.GA7065@telecom.csail.mit.edu> The URL in the original post wasn't valid. Please use http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2076798 instead. TIA. Bill -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:01:17 +0000 (UTC) From: Lee Choquette <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Broadband choices in Europe Message-ID: <email@example.com> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Tom Metro wrote: >The problem with the purely commercial provider model is that the >company investing in the infrastructure may not see a payback [...] > >So the answer seems to be some combination of public-private >infrastructure. [...] Some communities have built TV translator stations (e.g. K30BQ) through voluntary contributions to a local club, without which there would be no over-the-air TV in these communities. I suppose this model would not work for broadband Internet because this infrastructure costs much more? Lee ***** Moderator's Note ***** Some communities are able to take advantage of their local terain, and employ WiMax or similar line-of-sight radio technologies to provide Internet service to subscribers. However, in my area, there is no viable location for a central broadcast tower, because there are too many hills in my area. I don't know if the WiMax costs a lot more than to install than would a TV translater, but there are other costs too: ongoing antenna maintenance, plus rent and power and insurance for a central site WiMax transceiver, servers, and DS-3 or higher speed Internet connection. In addition, members of a co-op would have to pay for their own antenna installations and radio transceivers, and possibly for additional home insurance. You bring up an interesting idea, though; communities that have good lines of sight to an available tower or mountaintop might benefit from a cooperative WiMax system. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:55:05 -0800 From: Steven <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Broadband choices in Europe Message-ID: <email@example.com> On 12/12/11 4:01 PM, Lee Choquette wrote: > > Some communities have built TV translator stations (e.g. K30BQ) through > voluntary contributions to a local club, without which there would be no > over-the-air TV in these communities. I suppose this model would not > work for broadband Internet because this infrastructure costs much more? > > Lee > > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > Some communities are able to take advantage of their local terain, and > employ WiMax or similar line-of-sight radio technologies to provide > Internet service to subscribers. However, in my area, there is no > viable location for a central broadcast tower, because there are too > many hills in my area. > > I don't know if the WiMax costs a lot more than to install than would > a TV translater, but there are other costs too: ongoing antenna > maintenance, plus rent and power and insurance for a central site > WiMax transceiver, servers, and DS-3 or higher speed Internet > connection. In addition, members of a co-op would have to pay for > their own antenna installations and radio transceivers, and possibly > for additional home insurance. > > You bring up an interesting idea, though; communities that have good > lines of sight to an available tower or mountaintop might benefit from > a cooperative WiMax system. > > Bill Horne > Moderator > In the Yuba Foothills North East of Sacramento there are a couple of companies that run a Wifi system on old AT&T towers and on other high point, trees are a problem at the end users sometimes, the speed is a little slower the DSL and much better and cheaper then Satellite, ATT has said no DSL, but in the future U-Verse, so they have said. I work in the area and have been able to use my Sprint Overdrive or pickup WiFi at places that offer it free. The problem is still the costs , they need a lot of subscribers to make it pay, at least until the government kicks loose the money they have been collecting in Universal Service Fees. -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2011 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:50:33 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: An experimental switching system using new electronic techniques Message-ID: <4EE6D999.email@example.com> I came across a fascinating paper by A. E. Noel, Jr. , in the Bell System Technical Journal: it gives an amazing insight into the coming of the "digital" age in telephone switching, and into many "what if" technologies that never made it off the drawing board. It's titled "An Experimental Switching System Using New Electronic Techniques" This is the first of a series of articles describing an experimental electronic telephone switching system employing a number of new techniques. These include use of a stored program, a network employing gas tube crosspoints, time-division common control, and large-capacity barrier grid tube and photographic storage systems. The article is at http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol37-1958/articles/bstj37-5-1091.pdf . -- Bill Horne (Filter QRM from my email for direct replies)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 01:31:31 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: LightSquared calls leaked GPS test report a "distortion of truth" Message-ID: <4EE6F143.email@example.com> By Matthew Lasar LightSquared is furious over a news report suggesting that, in various trials, the satellite broadband company's proposed transmission system bumps into GPS devices around 75 percent of the time. A leaked preliminary draft of the government test report quotes the document concluding that LightSquared signals "caused harmful interference to majority of GPS receivers tested" and that "No additional testing is required to confirm harmful interference exists." The experimentation, which was carried out between October 31 and November 4, showed that 69 of 92 GPS receivers "experienced harmful interference" when within 100 meters of a LightSquared base station, according to the Bloomberg story. But the disclosure was foul play, LightSquared executives protested in a Monday telephone conference call. And [they claimed that] the data is a "distortion of the truth." http://tinyurl.com/bllmbh9 -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly) She said, 'I'm home on shore leave,' though in truth we were at sea so I took her by the looking glass and forced her to agree saying, 'You must be the mermaid who took Neptune for a ride.' But she smiled at me so sadly that my anger straightway died - Procol Harum
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.