ssage-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+matthew.black=csulb@nanog.org] On Behalf
Of Larry Sheldon
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 12:11 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world
consequences
On 4/20/2016 10:15, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> O
>> On our VOIP service we include US, Canada and Puerto Rico as "local"
>> calling.
>I would imagine for VOIP that's because all three are country code 1 :)
If you know a VoIP carrier that offers flat rates to 1-473, 1-664, and
1-767, I know some people who'd like to talk to you. At great length
On 27/04/16 09:16, Owen DeLong wrote:
> One thing I always found particularly amusing was that it used to be a toll
> call to call from San Jose East (408238) to Sunnyvale (I forget the NPA/NXX),
> but that there were several prefixes in San Jose West (e.g. 408360 IIRC)
> where it was free to ca
ts
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+ray=orsiniit@nanog.org] On Behalf Of
> Larry Sheldon
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 3:11 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world
> consequ
phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world
consequences
On 4/20/2016 10:15, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> On Apr 20, 2016, at 7:59 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 2016-04-20 10:52, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> For the most part, “long
> On Apr 26, 2016, at 12:10 , Larry Sheldon wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/20/2016 10:15, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 20, 2016, at 7:59 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2016-04-20 10:52, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>
For the most part, “long distance” calls within the US are a thing
On 4/20/2016 10:15, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 20, 2016, at 7:59 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei
wrote:
On 2016-04-20 10:52, Owen DeLong wrote:
For the most part, “long distance” calls within the US are a thing of the
past and at least one mobile carrier now treats US/CA/MX as a single
local call
Dan,
I think that you mean that AT&T is the 1-800 pound gorilla. I know engineers
at AT&T that are bitter about that whole arrangement this many years on.
I miss the glory days of everyone and their uncle spinning up a CLEC in the
mid-90's. It made the ordering process complicated, especially
Great explanation!
Remember that LECs (Local Exchange Carrier, CenturyLink, Verizon, etc.)
typically get to decide how this all works...
ATT is still an 800 pound gorilla and a couple years ago stopped ALL
payments to CLECs (Competitive Local Exchange Carrier, buy wholesale
from LECs), took th
>> For the most part, “long distance” calls within the US are a thing of the
>> past and at least one mobile carrier now treats US/CA/MX as a single
>> local calling area
>
>Is this a case of telcos having switched to IP trunks and can reach
>other carriers for "free"
No, it's because fiber bandw
> On Apr 20, 2016, at 7:59 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei
> wrote:
>
> On 2016-04-20 10:52, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> For the most part, “long distance” calls within the US are a thing of the
>> past and at least one mobile carrier now treats US/CA/MX as a single
>> local calling area
>
>
> Is this
On 2016-04-20 10:52, Owen DeLong wrote:
> For the most part, “long distance” calls within the US are a thing of the
> past and at least one mobile carrier now treats US/CA/MX as a single
> local calling area
Is this a case of telcos having switched to IP trunks and can reach
other carriers for
> On Apr 15, 2016, at 2:21 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> In message , David Barak
> writes
> :
>>> On Apr 15, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>>
>>> Australia is about the area as the US and has always had caller
>>> pays and seperate area codes for mobiles.
>>
>> Australia has fewer
>The other answers address the history here better than I ever good, but
>I wanted to point out one example I hadn't seen mentioned.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_code_917
>
>917 was originally a mobile only area code overlay in New York City.
>For reasons that are unclear to me, after that
This makes me wonder what the 'market value' of a 212 DID is. I have seen
them anywhere from $55 to $600 from providers specifically saying "buy this
DID and port it out to your carrier of choice".
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Fri, Apr 15, 2016 a
In a message written on Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 09:49:37AM +0100, t...@pelican.org
wrote:
> Out of curiosity, does anyone have a good pointer to the history of how / why
> US mobile ended up in the same numbering plan as fixed-line?
The other answers address the history here better than I ever good
Where I live (Europe) most plans include a ton of free minutes including
free calls and data in many other countries. Therefore nobody cares who
pays anymore.
While this is not universal yet, it probably will be within a decade. Voice
calls are simply silly small amount of data that it does not ma
Jeremy Austin
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:55 AM
To: John Levine
Cc: niels=na...@bakker.net; NANOG list
Subject: Re: GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 3:55 AM, John Levine wrote:
>
> Please don't guess (like, you know, MaxMind does.) USPS
>NA has a 10 digit scheme (3 area code - 7 local) though most of the
>time you end up dialing the 10 digits.
>
>Australia has a 9 digit scheme (1 area code - 8 local) ...
North America uses en bloc signalling, Australia uses CCITT style
compelled signalling. That's why you have variable length
nu
On 2016-04-15 17:21, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Yes the area codes are huge (multi-state) and some "local" calls
> are sometimes long distance.
Until early 1990s, the 819 area code spanned from the US/canada Border
in Québec, around Montréal (514), included the Laurentians and just
about everything n
In message , David Barak writes
:
> > On Apr 15, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > Australia is about the area as the US and has always had caller
> > pays and seperate area codes for mobiles.
>
> Australia has fewer people than Texas, and is more than an order of
> magnitude smaller
> On Apr 15, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> Australia is about the area as the US and has always had caller
> pays and seperate area codes for mobiles.
Australia has fewer people than Texas, and is more than an order of magnitude
smaller than the US by population. Effects of sca
> On Apr 15, 2016, at 12:09, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> In message <571105a6.3040...@nvcube.net>, Nikolay Shopik writes:
>>> On 15/04/16 17:51, John R. Levine wrote:
>>> Putting mobiles into a handful of non-geographic codes as they do in
>>> Europe wouldn't work because the US is a very large
I highly doubt that your SIM card is depleted due to the US mobile phone
billing structure. Sounds like a bad contract with a carrier that is
billing you for incoming calls even though you aren't on the network, or
bills you a fee each month when your SIM is inactive.
Don't blame a country's mobi
In message <571105a6.3040...@nvcube.net>, Nikolay Shopik writes:
> On 15/04/16 17:51, John R. Levine wrote:
> > Putting mobiles into a handful of non-geographic codes as they do in
> > Europe wouldn't work because the US is a very large country, long
> > distance costs and charges were important,
On 15/04/16 17:51, John R. Levine wrote:
> Putting mobiles into a handful of non-geographic codes as they do in
> Europe wouldn't work because the US is a very large country, long
> distance costs and charges were important, and they needed to be able
> to charge more for a mobile call across the c
On Friday, 15 April, 2016 15:51, "John R. Levine" said:
> The US and most of the rest of North America have a fixed length
> numbering plan designed in the 1940s by the Bell System. They offered
> it to the CCITT which for political and technical reasons decided to
> do something else. (So when
So maybe 10% of all cell phones are primarly used in the "wrong" area?
Out of curiosity, does anyone have a good pointer to the history of
how / why US mobile ended up in the same numbering plan as fixed-line?
The US and most of the rest of North America have a fixed length
numbering plan des
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:43:00 -0700, Todd Crane said:
> You do realize that this is the exact kind of thing that caused this
> discussion in the first place. I'm well familiar with that case. I was talking
> about my own experiences in the food service industry, but of course you
> barely
> read a
On Thursday, 14 April, 2016 16:32, "Leo Bicknell" said:
> So maybe 10% of all cell phones are primarly used in the "wrong" area?
Out of curiosity, does anyone have a good pointer to the history of how / why
US mobile ended up in the same numbering plan as fixed-line?
Over here in the UK we had
On 4/14/2016 16:01, John Levine wrote:
OK, let us suppose I want to be a law biding, up right American and use
only a cellphone for the "right" area.
I drive a big truck OTR. I usually know what part of which state I am
in, but I frequently do not know which part of what state I will be in
in 2
On 4/13/16 6:25 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
You *do* realize that the woman in the McDonald's case got *third degree*
burns and required skin grafts, right? Water at 180F is hot enough to
burn you - we even have a word for it: scalding. And unlike sipping too-hot
coffee, where you can s
You do realize that this is the exact kind of thing that caused this discussion
in the first place. I'm well familiar with that case. I was talking about my
own experiences in the food service industry, but of course you barely read a
sentence and set on a war path accusing me of not checking my
--- j...@kyneticwifi.com wrote:
From: Josh Reynolds
Is NANOG really the best place for this discussion?
--
Filter it out.
scott
> On Apr 14, 2016, at 14:01 , John Levine wrote:
>
>> OK, let us suppose I want to be a law biding, up right American and use
>> only a cellphone for the "right" area.
>>
>> I drive a big truck OTR. I usually know what part of which state I am
>> in, but I frequently do not know which part o
> On Apr 14, 2016, at 13:14 , Larry Sheldon wrote:
>
> On 4/14/2016 12:09, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 14, 2016, at 05:46 , John Levine wrote:
>>>
If they're land lines, the NPA/NXX will be local to the CO so you won't
have out-of-area numbers other than a rare corner case of a
>OK, let us suppose I want to be a law biding, up right American and use
>only a cellphone for the "right" area.
>
>I drive a big truck OTR. I usually know what part of which state I am
>in, but I frequently do not know which part of what state I will be in
>in 24 hours.
>
>What should I do?
A
On 4/14/2016 15:10, Larry Sheldon wrote:
We wrote off a lot of revenue on calls that involved a company (if I
remembered the name I still would not repeat it--ditto its location)
which turn out to be pretty much one man who like to sell and install
mobile radio telephone stations. And, it turns
On 2016-04-14 16:14, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> Quick question: What happens (in the purely hypothetical case, I
> sincerely hope) if the building is on fire and it turns out that the
> VOIP-phone is the only one that works?
VOIP:
Not purely theoretical situation. 911 where I live would take ab
On 4/14/2016 12:09, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 14, 2016, at 05:46 , John Levine wrote:
If they're land lines, the NPA/NXX will be local to the CO so you won't
have out-of-area numbers other than a rare corner case of a very
expensive foreign exchange line. If they're VoIP lines, the address i
On 4/14/2016 10:45, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
.
So maybe 10% of all cell phones are primarly used in the "wrong" area?
Obligatory xkcd ref: https://xkcd.com/1129/
I am reminded of incidents many years ago when I worked in a Revenue
Acc
On 4/14/2016 10:32, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:29:39AM -, John Levine
wrote:
The people on nanog are not typical. I looked around for statistics
and didn't find much, but it looks like only a few percent of numbers
are ported each month, and it's of
Since then, I’ve been pretty much satisfied with my service from callcentric
and the price is right.
That's who I use. Now there's just a box on the web site to say not in
the US.
R's,
John
> On Apr 14, 2016, at 05:46 , John Levine wrote:
>
>> If they're land lines, the NPA/NXX will be local to the CO so you won't
>> have out-of-area numbers other than a rare corner case of a very
>> expensive foreign exchange line. If they're VoIP lines, the address is
>> *supposed* to be so re
All,
Is NANOG really the best place for this discussion?
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Gary Buhrmaster
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> .
>> So maybe 10% of all cell phones are primarly used in the "wrong" area?
>
> Obligatory xkcd ref: https://xkcd.com/1
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
.
> So maybe 10% of all cell phones are primarly used in the "wrong" area?
Obligatory xkcd ref: https://xkcd.com/1129/
In a message written on Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:29:39AM -, John Levine
wrote:
> The people on nanog are not typical. I looked around for statistics
> and didn't find much, but it looks like only a few percent of numbers
> are ported each month, and it's often the same numbers being ported
> r
"If they're land lines, the NPA/NXX will be local to the CO so you won't
have out-of-area numbers other than a rare corner case of a very expensive
foreign exchange line."
This hasn't been a true statement since Local Number Portability. NPA/NXX
is nothing more than 'where the number originally w
>If they're land lines, the NPA/NXX will be local to the CO so you won't
>have out-of-area numbers other than a rare corner case of a very
>expensive foreign exchange line. If they're VoIP lines, the address is
>*supposed* to be so registered, but softphones and even VoIP handsets
>tend to move
On 4/13/16 8:54 PM, Peter Beckman wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016, Jay Hennigan wrote:
When either of those people dial 9-1-1, where does the ambulance show up?
I suspect your response was sarcastic, but when you dig into what really
happens, it's not nearly as sophisticated as one might hope
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016, Jay Hennigan wrote:
On 4/13/16 4:28 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
I am in frequent contact by a person that has a 917 NNX--numbered
telephone who spends a lot of time with a person that has a 408
NNX--numbered telephone, and they both live in Metropolitan Boston
When
On 4/13/16 4:28 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
I am in frequent contact by a person that has a 917 NNX--numbered
telephone who spends a lot of time with a person that has a 408
NNX--numbered telephone, and they both live in Metropolitan Boston
When either of those people dial 9-1-1, where do
John Levine:
>
> Bonus question: is there any way to find out whether and where a
> number's been ported without spending telco level amounts of money?
> Free would be nice.
https://www.npac.com/the-npac/access/permitted-uses-of-user-data-contact-list
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhone)
>I question whether (on a global scale) the odds are above 50-50 that a
>number (other than a test line) is served by the switch NANPA associates
>with the number.
The people on nanog are not typical. I looked around for statistics
and didn't find much, but it looks like only a few percent of n
On 4/13/2016 15:12, Owen DeLong wrote:
I guarantee you that many, if not most at this point, of those
numbers are no longer actually handled by that switch most of the
time.
I suspect that there are more SS7 exceptions than default within that
particular prefix which is why I chose it.
I ques
On 4/13/2016 14:45, John R. Levine wrote:
NANP geographical numbers can be located to a switch (give
or take number portability within a LATA), but non-geographic numbers
can really go anywhere. On the third hand, it's still true that the
large majority of them are in the U.S.
Would you agree
>Is there the equivalent of BGP for number portability where every telco
>has the full table of who owns each prefix as well as individual routes
>for ported numbers ?
Not really. There's a switch database used for routing calls, but
that's different from LNP which is a layer sort of above that.
> And further to that, throw in Local Number Portability (LNP) and you
> really need to know the full number in order to know which switch the
> specific number is assigned to. Not all 408-921 prefixed numbers will go
> to that switch in West San Jose.
Right, like I said three messages ago but
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 08:08:29AM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> On 12/04/2016 00:41, Ricky Beam wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:55:11 -0400, Chris Boyd
> > wrote:
> >> Interesting article.
> >>
> >> http://fusion.net/story/287592/internet-mapping-glitch-kansas-farm/
> > ...
> >
> > "Until you
Or (90S,0), so they get a bit of fresh air and have some time think
during the voyage :-)
On 4/11/16 2:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> Or 0,0, send the FBI to Africa on a boating trip. that would probably be
> easier than "unknown" or "null".
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937
> On Apr 11, 2016, at 10:02 AM, Ken Chase wrote:
>
> Cant believe law enforcement is using this kind of info to execute searches.
> Wouldnt that undermine the credibility of any evidence brought up in trials
> for any geoip locates?
What overworked and underpaid public defender is going to know
> On Apr 13, 2016, at 13:34 , Jean-Francois Mezei
> wrote:
>
> On 2016-04-13 16:18, Peter Beckman wrote:
>
>> And further to that, throw in Local Number Portability (LNP) and you
>> really need to know the full number in order to know which switch the
>> specific number is assigned to. Not
On 2016-04-13 16:18, Peter Beckman wrote:
> And further to that, throw in Local Number Portability (LNP) and you
> really need to know the full number in order to know which switch the
> specific number is assigned to. Not all 408-921 prefixed numbers will go
> to that switch in West San J
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016, John R. Levine wrote:
NANP geographical numbers can be located to a switch (give
or take number portability within a LATA), but non-geographic numbers
can really go anywhere. On the third hand, it's still true that the
large majority of them are in the U.S.
Would you agre
> On Apr 13, 2016, at 12:45 , John R. Levine wrote:
>
>>> NANP geographical numbers can be located to a switch (give
>>> or take number portability within a LATA), but non-geographic numbers
>>> can really go anywhere. On the third hand, it's still true that the
>>> large majority of them are i
NANP geographical numbers can be located to a switch (give
or take number portability within a LATA), but non-geographic numbers
can really go anywhere. On the third hand, it's still true that the
large majority of them are in the U.S.
Would you agree that 408-921 is a geographic number?
No.
> On Apr 13, 2016, at 12:15 , John Levine wrote:
>
>>> Actually, it's probably both US and Canadian. When you call an 8xx
>>> toll free number, the switch uses a database to route the call to
>>> whatever carrier handles it, who can then do whatever they want. The
>>> provider for that number,
>> Actually, it's probably both US and Canadian. When you call an 8xx
>> toll free number, the switch uses a database to route the call to
>> whatever carrier handles it, who can then do whatever they want. The
>> provider for that number, Callture, is in Ontario but they can
>> terminate the cal
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:31:47PM -, John Levine wrote:
> >There are similar problems with phone numbers. Google's libphonenumber,
> >for example, will tell you that +1 855 266 7269 is in the US. It's not,
> >it's Canadian ...
> Actually, it's probably both US and Canadian. When you call an 8
On 2016-04-13 09:11, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 20:17:03 -0400, Jean-Francois Mezei said:
>> All GeoIP services would be forced to
>
> How?
Fair point. However, considering more and more outfits block content
based on IP geolocation, once has to wonder if an outfit such
>There are similar problems with phone numbers. Google's libphonenumber,
>for example, will tell you that +1 855 266 7269 is in the US. It's not,
>it's Canadian. It appears that for any NANP "area code" that isn't
>assigned to a particular place libphonenumber just says "it's in the US"
>instead of
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:57:42 -0700, Todd Crane said:
>.What ever happened to holding people responsible for being
> stupid. When did it start becoming ((fill in the blank)) coffee shop
> for you burning your tongue on your coffee
Whatever happened to holding people responsible for fact checking be
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 20:17:03 -0400, Jean-Francois Mezei said:
> All GeoIP services would be forced to
How?
pgpE7Fsimh3CW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 2016-04-13 05:57, Todd Crane wrote:
As to a solution, why don’t we just register the locations (more or less) with
ARIN? Hell, with the amount of money we all pay them in annual fees, I can’t
imagine it would be too hard for them to maintain. They could offer it as part
of their public who
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016, Nathan Anderson wrote:
> What I do get upset hearing about, though, is law enforcement
> agencies using that kind of data in order to execute a warrant. There
> is nothing actionable there, and yet from the sounds of it, some LEAs
> are getting search warrants or conductin
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 07:14:15PM -0500, Theodore Baschak wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 2016, at 7:10 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
> > On 2016-04-11 13:22, Ken Chase wrote:
> >> Well they DO know the IP location is within the USA -
> > A friend in Australia was with an ISP onwed by a US firm and his IP
Really? - You want RIRs to now perpetuate an application of IPs they are
not designed for?
The activities of MaxMind and similar need to be exposed so people
understand the problem. No matter how Geo IP businesses might back
peddle and say they never intended their services to be considered as
aut
re that traffic
originated.
-- Nathan
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Todd Crane
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 10:58 PM
To: Jean-Francois Mezei
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
I like (sarcasm
I like (sarcasm) how everybody here either wants to point fingers at MaxMind or
offer up coordinates to random places knowing that it will never happen. What
ever happened to holding people responsible for being stupid. When did it start
becoming ((fill in the blank)) coffee shop’s for you burni
All GeoIP services would be forced to document their default lat/long
values so that users know that when these values, they know it is a
generic one for that country. (or supply +181. +91.0 which is an
invalid value indicating that there is no lat/long, look at country code
given).
> On Apr 12, 2016, at 7:10 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
>
> On 2016-04-11 13:22, Ken Chase wrote:
>> Well they DO know the IP location is within the USA -
>
>
> A friend in Australia was with an ISP onwed by a US firm and his IP
> address often geolocated to the USA.
>
Similarly, IPv6 spac
Re: Sending police to middle of a lake..
Puts new meaning to a fishing expedition for police :-)
On 2016-04-11 13:34, Steve Mikulasik wrote:
> Mather says they’re going to change them. They are picking new default
> locations for the U.S. and Ashburn, Virginia that are in the middle of bodies
> of water,
Why not the White House or Wahington Monument ?
Or better yet, some large office comp
On 2016-04-11 13:22, Ken Chase wrote:
> Well they DO know the IP location is within the USA -
A friend in Australia was with an ISP onwed by a US firm and his IP
address often geolocated to the USA.
On 4/12/2016 08:31, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 03:10:44PM -0400, Sean Donelan
wrote:
If GeoIP insists on giving a specific lon/lat, instead of an uncertaintity
how about using locations such as the followign as the "default I don't
know where it is"
United
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 3:55 AM, John Levine wrote:
>
> Please don't guess (like, you know, MaxMind does.) USPS has its own
> database of all of the deliverable addresses in the country. They
> have their problems, but give or take data staleness as buildings
> are built or demolished, that's n
In a message written on Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 03:10:44PM -0400, Sean Donelan
wrote:
> If GeoIP insists on giving a specific lon/lat, instead of an uncertaintity
> how about using locations such as the followign as the "default I don't
> know where it is"
>
> United States: 38.8899 N, 77.0091 W (
In article <20160411191347.gc4...@excession.tpb.net> you write:
>* baldur.nordd...@gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) [Mon 11 Apr 2016, 21:02 CEST]:
>>They should stop giving out coordinates on houses period. Move the
>>coordinate to the nearest street intersection if you need to be that
>>precise (I woul
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 06:15:08PM -, John Levine wrote:
>
> >The problem with MaxMind (and other geoip databases I've seen that do
> >Lat/Long as well as Country / State / Town) is that the
> >data doesn't include uncertainty, so it returns "38.0/-97.0" rather than
> >"somewhere in a 3000 m
On 12/04/2016 00:41, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:55:11 -0400, Chris Boyd
> wrote:
>> Interesting article.
>>
>> http://fusion.net/story/287592/internet-mapping-glitch-kansas-farm/
> ...
>
> "Until you reached out to us, we were unaware that there were issues..."
>
> Bull! I can dig
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> So really, what is needed is two additional fields for the lat/lon of
> laterr/lonerr so that, for example, instead of just 38.0/-97.0, you would
> get 38.0±2/-97.0±10 or something like that.
>
It does seem needed to the geo location compani
Owne,
* Owen DeLong (o...@delong.com) wrote:
> However, my home address has been published in multiple whois databases since
> I moved here in 1993.
>
> Not once has a nitwit with a gun shown up on my doorstep as a result. (I have
> had visits from nitwits with guns,
> but they were the results
On 4/11/2016 11:55, Chris Boyd wrote:
Interesting article.
http://fusion.net/story/287592/internet-mapping-glitch-kansas-farm/
An hour’s drive from Wichita, Kansas, in a little town called Potwin,
there is a 360-acre piece of land with a very big problem.
The plot has been owned by the Vogelm
> On Apr 11, 2016, at 15:23 , Niels Bakker wrote:
>
>>> Oh, heck, you know better than that. You can put in all the flags and
>>> warnings you want, but if it returns an address, nitwits will show up at
>>> the address with guns.
>
> * o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) [Tue 12 Apr 2016, 00:02 CE
Oh, heck, you know better than that. You can put in all the flags
and warnings you want, but if it returns an address, nitwits will
show up at the address with guns.
* o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) [Tue 12 Apr 2016, 00:02 CEST]:
I hear this argument about various things over and over and over
> On Apr 11, 2016, at 12:01 , Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> On 11 April 2016 at 20:15, John Levine wrote:
>
>> Oh, heck, you know better than that. You can put in all the flags and
>> warnings you want, but if it returns an address, nitwits will show up
>> at the address with guns.
>>
>> Bodies
> On Apr 11, 2016, at 11:15 , John Levine wrote:
>
>
>> The problem with MaxMind (and other geoip databases I've seen that do
>> Lat/Long as well as Country / State / Town) is that the
>> data doesn't include uncertainty, so it returns "38.0/-97.0" rather than
>> "somewhere in a 3000 mile rad
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:55:11 -0400, Chris Boyd
wrote:
Interesting article.
http://fusion.net/story/287592/internet-mapping-glitch-kansas-farm/
...
"Until you reached out to us, we were unaware that there were issues..."
Bull! I can dig up dozens (if not hundreds) of emails from coworkers an
> On Apr 11, 2016, at 10:26 , Steve Atkins wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 11, 2016, at 10:11 AM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon 2016-Apr-11 13:02:14 -0400, Ken Chase wrote:
>>
>>> TL;DR: GeoIP put unknown IP location mappings to the 'center of the country'
>>> but then rounded off the lat lon
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:13:48 +0200, Niels Bakker said:
> * baldur.nordd...@gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) [Mon 11 Apr 2016, 21:02 CEST]:
> >They should stop giving out coordinates on houses period. Move the
> >coordinate to the nearest street intersection if you need to be that
> >precise (I would pre
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
