From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Aug 21 16:31:13 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7LKVDK25278; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:31:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:31:13 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208212031.g7LKVDK25278@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V21 #1 TELECOM Digest Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:31:00 EDT Volume 21 : Issue 1 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Starting Year 22 (TELECOM Digest Editor) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:48:07 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Starting Year 22 TELECOM Digest began publication on August 21, 1981. For a couple of days back then, 22 years ago, there were test messages, a message sent out about how messages to/from the Digest and the old arpa.telecom newsgroup would be passed back and forth, etc. We began as an offshoot or expansion of HUMAN NETS Digest, which had begun a couple years earlier. There were a number of people reading HUMAN NETS who wanted telephone discussion, so it was decided to break out the telecom-related threads and put them in a new Digest of their own, thus TELECOM Digest started, and the first several issues of this Digest contained message threads which had originally been started/discussed in HUMAN NETS. In those days, prior to the 'modern internet' the passing of messages required manual intervention through a couple of well-known and well-connected gateways. You can read about those things if you look in the archives at the test message, the introductory message and Volume 1 Issue 1 of this Digest. You will also note how syntax has changed over the years such as the adoption of '@' to replace 'at' as a system identifier. My email address in those early days would have been 'ptownson at lcs.mit.edu' rather than what was phased in during the early eighties 'ptownson@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu' Mintaka as a work station at LCS has long since been gone. The archives in those early days were kept at a site called DUFFEY, which was an MIT location. Contrary to what is commonly thought, I did not found TELECOM Digest. I inherited it from Jon Solomon in the middle 1980's. There were a couple of the charter subscribers to the Digest in those days who thought that was a mistake (putting me in charge of the Digest) and maybe some of them still think so. Yes, we have about a half-dozen or so individuals who came on board here from HUMAN NETS and are still here today, 22 years later. I was a regular poster in the Digest when Jon Solomon was the moderator in the early 1980's. In those days, we all used Usenet News; today very few folks use Usenet in the way we used to. It has become simply to spam-ridden to of much value except for a few newsgroups. Because I used to have to pay for long distance calls in the old days, *and* use a 300-1200 baud modem, the long distance charges to call into the 'annex box' (or router) at MIT to reach LCS and work on the Digest got rather expensive. I applied for a user account at Northwestern University in Evanston, IL which was close to my home and a local phone call. I did the Digest from there for several years while keeping the archives first at Boston University then later back at MIT. I think I did the Digest from nwu.edu for about five years, during the period 1989 through 1993 or 1994, until about the time the net started going commercial. Wasn't 1993 the final year of the golden days of the Internet? Our website (telecom-digest.org) began in 1995. Prior to that, the archives were accessible using FTP and still are. I held off starting a web site as long as possible; it seemed to me to be a foolish waste of resources. Bill Pfieffer, who I had 'taught about computers' in 1977-78 from scratch using an old OSI C-1-P computer with 8 K memory came to me in 1994 and said 'Patrick, you *gotta* start a web site; thats really where things on the net are going'. So I did, and the daily user count began climbing very astronomically; user counts we never could obtain in the old FTP days. When I managed to get to the point of a 9600 baud modem, I started calling back direct to MIT to work on the archives now and then and in 1994 sometime began using my nwu.edu account to telnet into MIT to work on the Digest from that original (for me) location. As ISPs (Internet Service Providers) became more common at that same time, I experimented with using services like Randy Suess offered in Chicago (chinet) to do telnet to Boston. Then came 32 and 56 K modems and I thought I had it made. Those Editor Notes began flying out of the keyboard all the time. Just as HUMAN NETS was responsible for our birth, this Digest has been responsible for several new newsgroups and Digests over the years. These were (and I hope I don't miss any): Computer Underground Digest and related newsgroup. CuD was started during a particularly nasty scandal on the net at the time about computer/telephone fraud. The professor who maintained it was employed at Northeastern Illinois State University in the Chicago area. He ran it for several years; now I believe it is defunct. I was literally up to my neck in messages on the scandal. He agreed to take them and use them in a new Digest. Computer Privacy Digest (NOT to be confused with the product of Lauren Weinstein several years later) was started at the time Caller-ID became common in the early nineties. Caller-ID had all the privacy advocates up in arms, and the messages pro and con were flooding my inbox. The fellow who started comp.privacy was equally gracious. I let him take several hundred inbox messages and set them up Digest-style at his site. Then there was alt.dcom.telecom which was a group of users who felt they could better handle some messages that I was not printing. They chose to go into the alt hierarchy which has always been unmoderated and anyone could start a group on anything. The difference between Usenet (in those days, highly respected) and Altnet was that starting a Usenet newsgroup was a group process. It had to be voted on and approved by the community, but once this approval was granted, there was a gentlemen's agreement that *all sites would carry all newsgroups.* If your site carried Usenet, you carried that newsgroup, no matter the personal sensibilites of the local sysadmin. Altnet on the other hand, required no approval of any kind; anyone could start a group on anything. However the catch was *no sysadmin had to carry it. Your first task as a moderator/booster of an alt newsgroup was to convince a sysadmin to carry it on his spool.* Consequently Usenet groups (once approved) had a huge default circulation and readership. Altnet groups on the other hand had spotty and irregular circulation; some major sites such as AT&T dumped them all; would not agree to take any alt groups. Then came comp.dcom.telecom.tech. This was a sort of bitter thing where a number of readers chose to pull out of comp.dcom.telecom when they were advised by the 'Usenet heirarchy' that I could not be legally deposed as moderator here; that the Digest and newsgroup are 'my property' because they were originally (1980's) ported to Usenet from the old Arpanet system. Rather than begin alt.anything and take the risk of poor circulation alt.dcom.telecom suffered, they solicited for votes to become Usenet and after two votes were taken became comp.dcom.telecom.tech . It was a messy, bitter thing, no one (least of all me) was happy with it, but they, and the alt counterpart exist to this day. I think ...tech has or had a Digest version also; if it still operates maybe one of the Digest editors/ managers there will tell us about it. These two last 'children' of mine (alt.dcom.telecom and comp.dcom. telecom.tech) were born with some bitterness; as the old song goes, "What is too painful to remember we simply choose to forget" and I guess I have forgotten a lot of the details. You are obviously hearing my side of the story. There was also rec.radio.broadcasting which I inspired Bill Pfeiffer to start in 1990. Then he inspired me to begin my web site in 1994-95. Then he met an untimely death in September, 1999 in a car crash in Minnesota. I temporarily took over his newsgroup moderation duties (AIRWAVES RADIO Digest) and his web site (airwaves.com) until someone else could be found to handle it. Then I had my brain aneurysm on November 29, 1999, and you all know the history there. Anyway, now we reach age 22 and the second-oldest Digest/newsgroup combo on this internet, still around from the old days. I think the sci-fi group is still around; it is a bit older than this one. Lauren Weinstein can fill in this history on newsgroups. I never thought we would be around *this* long; its been a real blast. Because I was not around last year (2001) for reasons I will go into when my book 'Genesis 39' is published here on the net someday, we did not have a Volume 21 of this Digest. For the sake of continuity this single message will comprise 'Volume 21' and we will then go on to Volume 22 with the next and subsequent issues. Let's conclude this issue of the Digest with the (in)famous song of Lauren Weinstein which has become sort of by default the reason for the existence of this TELECOM Digest on the net. ======================= (DO NOT USE ANY OF THESE OLD EMAIL ADDRESSES AND PATHS! THEY ARE ONLY SHOWN HERE AS CURIOSITY ITEMS!!!) 12-Jul-83 09:14:32-PDT,4930;000000000001 Return-path: <@LBL-CSAM:vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM> Received: from LBL-CSAM by USC-ECLB; Tue 12 Jul 83 09:12:46-PDT Date: Tuesday, 12-Jul-83 01:18:19-PDT From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: "The Day Bell System Died" Return-Path: Message-Id: <8307121614.AA17341@LBL-CSAM.ARPA> Received: by LBL-CSAM.ARPA (3.327/3.21) id AA17341; 12 Jul 83 09:14:35 PDT (Tue) To: TELECOM@ECLB Greetings. With the massive changes now taking place in the telecommunications industry, we're all being inundated with seemingly endless news items and points of information regarding the various effects now beginning to take place. However, one important element has been missing: a song! Since the great Tom Lehrer has retired from the composing world, I will now attempt to fill this void with my own light-hearted, non-serious look at a possible future of telecommunications. This work is entirely satirical, and none of its lyrics are meant to be interpreted in a non-satirical manner. The song should be sung to the tune of Don Mclean's classic "American Pie". I call my version "The Day Bell System Died"... --Lauren-- ************************************************************************** *==================================* * Notice: This is a satirical work * *==================================* "The Day Bell System Died" Lyrics Copyright (C) 1983 by Lauren Weinstein (To the tune of "American Pie") (With apologies to Don McLean) ARPA: vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM UUCP: {decvax, ihnp4, harpo, ucbvax!lbl-csam, randvax}!vortex!lauren ************************************************************************** Long, long, time ago, I can still remember, When the local calls were "free". And I knew if I paid my bill, And never wished them any ill, That the phone company would let me be... But Uncle Sam said he knew better, Split 'em up, for all and ever! We'll foster competition: It's good capital-ism! I can't remember if I cried, When my phone bill first tripled in size. But something touched me deep inside, The day... Bell System... died. And we were singing... Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? Is your office Step by Step, Or have you gotten some Crossbar yet? Everybody used to ask... Oh, is TSPS coming soon? IDDD will be a boon! And, I hope to get a Touch-Tone phone, real soon... The color phones are really neat, And direct dialing can't be beat! My area code is "low": The prestige way to go! Oh, they just raised phone booths to a dime! Well, I suppose it's about time. I remember how the payphones chimed, The day... Bell System... died. And we were singing... Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? Back then we were all at one rate, Phone installs didn't cause debate, About who'd put which wire where... Installers came right out to you, No "phone stores" with their ballyhoo, And 411 was free, seemed very fair! But FCC wanted it seems, To let others skim long-distance creams, No matter 'bout the locals, They're mostly all just yokels! And so one day it came to pass, That the great Bell System did collapse, In rubble now, we all do mass, The day... Bell System... died. So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? I drove on out to Murray Hill, To see Bell Labs, some time to kill, But the sign there said the Labs were gone. I went back to my old CO, Where I'd had my phone lines, years ago, But it was empty, dark, and ever so forlorn... No relays pulsed, No data crooned, No MF tones did play their tunes, There wasn't a word spoken, All carrier paths were broken... And so that's how it all occurred, Microwave horns just nests for birds, Everything became so absurd, The day... Bell System... died. So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? We were singing: Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? ================================ Thank you Lauren! And thanks to those of you who have been readers here for however long; in some cases years and years and years, in a few other cases a month or two. I'll see you tomorrow to start Volume 22 of the Digest. Patrick Townson TELECOM Digest Editor ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V21 #001 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Aug 22 17:59:51 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7MLxpQ02482; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:59:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:59:51 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208222159.g7MLxpQ02482@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #1 TELECOM Digest Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:00:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 1 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Record Labels Sue Internet Providers Over Site (Steve Brack) Re: Cable Channel 1 (Not to be Confused With B'cast Channel 1) (Roberts) Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines) (John David Galt) A Problem About SS7 Protocol Stack (Lotto) Re: Sprint History (Alan Burkitt-Gray) The Mysterious Cable Channel 70 (Neal McLain) BeSeen Shutdown Notice (BeSeen) Re: Record Labels Sue Internet Providers Over Site (Geoffrey Welsh) Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left? (Dave Garland) Re: Fried Modem: Telco Responsibility (Dave Garland) Re: Fried Modem: Telco Responsibility (John Higdon) Re: Canadian CO (Prefix) Assignment Database? (unspammable-4719) Sale of Qwest Directory Business Could Affect Phone Rates (Marcus Jervis) AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates (Mr. Knowitall) DSL Pacbell/Sbc VPN Palmdale Calif (David Green) Re: Sprint History (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) (Russell Blau) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Brack Subject: Re: Record Labels Sue Internet Providers Over Site Organization: Society for the Preservation of Steve Brack Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 03:13:38 GMT Considering that this is comp.dcom.telecom, it surprises me that this point hasn't been made yet: The backbone providers are common carriers. They carry traffic without discrimination as to the meaning of its content. If they can be sued for merely carrying listen4ever.net then what's to stop me from suing SBC/Ameritech over telemarketing calls that they carry? Do we really want our common carriers policing our use of their facilities, monitoring our communications, and acting on the information they observe? Steve Brack Internet Observer wrote in message news:telecom20.364.2@telecom-digest.org: > Has Listen4Ever.com ceased operation? > The site that seems to be up is http://www.Listen4Ever.net > Anyone know the latest? > Thank you! ------------------------------ From: markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts) Subject: Re: Cable Channel 1 (Not to be Confused With B'cast Channel 1) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 03:14:36 -0000 Organization: 1.94 meters Ed Ellers had written: > That's common in areas with poor over-the-air reception, but in places > close to VHF stations it's common to put those stations on different > channels -- to avoid ghosting caused by those stations' strong signals > leaking into the cable -- and use their "normal" channels for > lesser-used stuff such as access channels. Here's what I have seen over the years: Columbia, Mo.: KOMU/8 placed on cable 7; cable 8 used for weather radar for a long time, now blank; KRCG/13 on cable 12; cable 13 used for municipal access. Ingress a MAJOR problem on 8; relatively minor on 13 but the builders of the system took no chances and that's been carried down through the successor companies. Kansas City: WDAF/4 on cable 6; KCTV/5 on cable 3; KMBC/9 on cable 12. Kansas City has most of its TV towers in the center city area. Ingress is a major problem and the Kansas City cable system was old and creaking (couldn't go up past cable 37) until about 1997. Oddly enough, then-KYFC/50 was shunted off to cable 9 where it suffered interference from KMBC if you lived in the urban core (as I did, just five miles from most of the sites). Cable 4 became a leased-access channel. Cable 5 has been used for various things over the years. Chicago: The TCI/AT&T system put WBBM/2 on cable 3 (cable 2 was blank) but left the other channels alone. The quality of the system varied tremendously. At my first Chicago location, ingress and ghosting were a big problem on the other V's. Then I moved five blocks away to the other side of Broadway. The quality suddenly became much better. I suspect that, at my first location near Sheridan Road, there may have been quite a bit of leakage due to theft of service. The 21st Century (now RCN) system was brand-new, did not move any channels, and there was no ingress or ghosting. San Francisco: No changes. Likewise in Oakland, a problem for us because we live at a location whose elevation is above the elevation of the main antenna on Mt. Sutro. -- the house is as line-of-sight as it can be! We can't use our cable upstairs -- I've tried several strategies for shielding and and attentuating -- and none has worked. This was true even after AT&T installed new lines with better signal strength in our neighborhood. Yet downstairs there are no problems. Either there's something in the house wiring or we have enough natural shielding from the hillside to make it work there. We do see some minor interference, I believe from UHF 26, on cable 71 (the Travel Channel, woohoo). I haven't compared the two sets of frequency to see what the precise overlap is. There's something similar on our cable 77 which is used as a preview channel for AT&T to flog its digital-cable channels. Of course, upstairs, rabbit ears are sufficient for the channels transmitting from Sutro and San Bruno -- the two U's from San Bruno hardly even need that. Mark Roberts | "This is local television. Get off your high horse!" Oakland, Cal.| -- Gary Radnich to Wendy Tokuda on KRON-TV's NO HTML MAIL | 9 pm newscast (said in jest), August 9, 2002 ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines of Interest) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 01:13:18 -0700 Organization: Diogenes The Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society > As much as New Yorkers love to talk, they appear to be inclined to > support legislation that prohibits people from using their cell phones > in public. > http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,54608,00.html Why is a law needed for this? Why don't the affected theaters just show their rude patrons the door? If that's too expensive because it requires hiring human beings, maybe they should consider installing Faraday cages in the walls. That's certainly legal even if active jamming isn't. ------------------------------ From: wllee@21cn.com (Lotto) Subject: A Problem About SS7 Protocol Stack Date: 21 Aug 2002 02:12:36 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I don't know how to design it . Who can tell me where can I download it free? Or mail me the source code. Any advice on how to get them will be greatly appreciated. Thank U! Lotto ------------------------------ From: Alan Burkitt-Gray Subject: Re: Sprint History Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 11:50:53 +0100 Steven Lichter wrote: > Qwest was formed out of US West a few years ago. No, Qwest, the long-distance operation that was formed out of Southern Pacific's network (following SP's earlier creation of Sprint), bought US West in 2000 and dropped the RBOC's old name, so it all became Qwest. The old long-distance Qwest operation is called "Classic Qwest" by some people in the company. Incidentally this isn't the first time a utility has spun off more than one telco. Williams Pipe Line, the oil network, built an optical fibre telecoms infrastructure in the 1980s, called it WilTel, and then sold it to, er, Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom for $2.5 billion. Then in 1998 they started another, now independent but in chapter 11. Jeremy Beal wrote: > Anschutz also bought up as many old/outdated/unused railroad rights > of way as he could, with more interest in the right-of-way access to > lay new fiber than existing wiring." The guy obviously has a liking for clapped out infrastructure. Here in London he's the main force behind a group that's taken over the Millennium Dome, site of a poorly attended, loss-making, year-long exhibition in 2000. Empty since Dec 31 2000 and destined to be a sports stadium, so they say. Picked it up from the government for virtually nothing, but promises a share of the profits -- but I expect he has good accountants. Alan B-G Alan Burkitt-Gray Editor, Global Telecoms Business Euromoney Institutional Investor plc, Nestor House, Playhouse Yard, London EC4V 5EX, UK tel +44 20 7779 8518 fax +44 20 7779 8492 e-mail aburkitt@euromoneyplc.com www.globaltelecomsbusiness.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 06:10:08 -0600 From: Neal McLain Subject: The Mysterious Cable Channel 70 PAT Wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Something weird about our cable here. > We get channels 2 through 62 (channel 4 is skipped) and from 63 > upward, I get a blue (no signal) blank screen the rest of the way > up to channel 125 on my television. Except 'channel' (or position) > 70 on the VCR/TV combo I have. Channel 70 was picked up in the auto- > tuning process and is still there with a *black* (in use) screen. > Something somewhere is leaking through a bit I guess. Channel 70 > never has anything on it, just that dark and occasional flickering > screen. I was hoping that maybe fine tuning of the set would get me > some hint of programming there, but no go ....] And then later (in the same issue of TD) PAT wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: After skipping over 1, we use 2 and 3 > then skip 4 and use 5 through 62. The premium channels require special > converters, etc and are numbered such as '307', '425' etc. PAT] My guess: Cable Channel 70 is the digital data stream for the premium channels. One of those "special converters" would demodulate/demux/decode the data stream into separate video signals and present them to you on virtual "channels" labeled 307, 425, etc. If this guess is correct, there's indeed a signal on Channel 70, but no amount of fiddling with your NTSC fine-tuning control will ever detect anything recognizable. Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:16:27 -0400 From: BeSeen Subject: BeSeen Shutdown Notice Dear BeSeen User: We have some unfortunate news to share with you. As you may have noticed on our Web Site, we'll be discontinuing all services offered by BeSeen. The cost of maintaining this free service is just too high for us to support its continued operation. The shutdown will take place on August 26, 2002. Be aware that access to all user accounts and data will also be disabled on August 26, 2002. Please take appropriate steps to retrieve any information you wish to save prior to this date. We plan to keep your email address on file in order to send you webmaster news, information, and offers. If you'd prefer not to receive these email messages from us, please follow the instructions below to unsubscribe. Questions? Please refer to the Frequently Asked Questions page on our site. http://pull.xmr3.com/p/283056-0370/44533157/pull-faq.html Thank you for using our services, and for being part of the BeSeen community. We hope you've enjoyed the experience as much as we have. Sincerely, The BeSeen Team ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: Record Labels Sue Internet Providers Over Site Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 08:14:27 -0400 Organization: Bell Sympatico Steve Brack wrote: > The backbone providers are common carriers. In many cases, the backbone operators are also common carriers, but I have never seen a definitive statement on whether internet and other data services -- sometimes referred to as "the unregulated services" -- qualified for common carrier treatment. > Do we really want our common carriers policing our use of their > facilities, monitoring our communications, and acting on the > information they observe? Didn't a French court require this (more or less) in a ruling about a year ago? ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left? Organization: Wizard Information Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:27:05 -0500 It was a dark and stormy night when stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) wrote: > Qwest was formed out of US West a few years ago. Qwest was originally a LDC, and their initial IPO was in 1995. Qwest bought USWest in 1999. ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Fried Modem: Telco Responsibility Organization: Wizard Information Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:38:00 -0500 It was a dark and stormy night when Bob K. wrote: > I'm wondering what kind of liability lies with Verizon, my local > telco. Probably none. The susceptibility of phone lines to lightning (and lightning-induced surges) is well known, telephone line surge protectors are available in many places that sell powerline surge protectors. And I know people who unplug everything when a thunderstorm is coming (which is the only 100% protection ... in the event of a direct hit, any spark that can jump a quarter mile isn't likely to be stopped by some dinky surge protector). You were lucky. Last time that happened to me, not only did the modem get fried, but the port driver chips in the computer as well. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 11:19:12 -0700 Subject: Re: Fried Modem: Telco Responsibility From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom20.365.7@telecom-digest.org, Bob K. wrote: > I'm wondering what kind of liability lies with Verizon, my local > telco. To me, it looks like they didn't have enough lightning > protection on the lines to my apartment building. But getting money > out of them might be like getting blood out of a stone. Yes, it will. I had thousands of dollars worth of damage from lightning that entered through a Verizon 25-pair service entrance. It took a solid year to get Verizon to make permanent repairs to its own entrance facility, much less compensate me for the destroyed terminal equipment. > What do you think? (I hear they make surge protectors that cover the > phone line. I'll have to get one.) You have just answered your own question. If there is something YOU can do to mitigate potential damage, then YOU are expected to do it. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:18:51 -0400 From: unspammable-4719@workbench.net Subject: Re: Canadian CO (Prefix) Assignment Database? On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:58:35 -0700, David wrote: > I have been searching in vain for hours now trying to find a link to a > database, website or other downloadable resource that will reveal the > current exchange assignments by company or corporation for CANADA. > Various links lead back to NANPA.com but exhaustive browsing there > only returns the complete information for the USA & Territories, which > I have previously downloaded. In some cases you can use this site: http://www.telcodata.us/telco.html (Try a "Lookup by Areacode/Exchange") But the problem is that while there seems to be a lot of info on CLEC's, most of the older Bell Canada exchanges return "Unknown - No data" for the company. If you see this for an Ontario area code, more than likely it's Bell Canada, or at least an ILEC. I would imagine it works better on CLEC exchanges. Jack The e-mail address in the "From" line of this message disappears when the spammers abuse it. ------------------------------ From: Marcus Jervis Subject: Sale of Qwest Directory Business Could Affect Phone Rates Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:16:09 +0000 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/134518264_qwestdex21.html By Nancy Gohring Seattle Times business reporter 8/21/2002 Foundering telephone giant Qwest has agreed to a $7 billion sale of its phone-book business that could help it avert bankruptcy. But there is a risk the deal could lead to higher phone bills for Washington residents. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission has calculated that revenue from the QwestDex directory keeps phone bills in the state down by $3 per month. If Qwest sells QwestDex, the commission will have to decide if the company must continue with that $3 subsidy even though it will have lower revenue. Qwest, which serves 14 states and 30 million customers around the world and operates 2.5 million access lines in Washington, is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Congress and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Denver for alleged improper accounting. The Denver-based telecommunications company is also carrying $25 billion of debt, so it is desperately looking for ways to raise cash to avoid default. Analysts said the QwestDex sale is a step in the right direction. However, there could be regulatory challenges that could slow down the deal. While the regulations are murky, half the states in Qwest's local-phone territory may have the authority to block the sale of QwestDex. Instead of challenging it, however, commissions will most likely make deals with the company. In the mid-1980s, Washington and six other local utilities commissions allowed US West, the local phone company later bought by Qwest, to move its directory unit into an unregulated part of its business. But the company had to subsidize rates to reflect the value of the directory business. "The commission has always waved a flag saying we were concerned about moving this asset out of the local phone company, when it was the local phone company and the local phone customers who built that asset," said Tim Sweeney, spokesman for the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. The Washington commission determined Qwest should subsidize $3 per bill to reflect the revenues generated by QwestDex. That works out to about $100 million per year. Qwest would have to apply to the commission for a rate change if it wants to discontinue the subsidy. "Then you'd have the staff and public counsel on record saying you had an asset change without benefiting the customer. You got X benefit, and some of that belongs to the customer," said Sweeney. Before applying for a rate change or waiting for a challenge from state regulators, Qwest could approach the state commissions and try to make a deal. Colorado said it wouldn't challenge the sale of QwestDex if Qwest continues its $40 million yearly subsidy that it agreed to in the 1980s. If Qwest applies for a rate increase in that state, however, it must then increase the subsidy to $91.7 million, according to the deal. Qwest hasn't approached this state yet for approval to sell QwestDex. Richard Notebaert, chairman and CEO of Qwest, was in Seattle this week but returned to Denver early. State regulators may have reason to go easy on Qwest. There's a clause in the QwestDex sales agreement that allows the buyers private equity firms The Carlyle Group and Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe to set a limit of $500 million for how much Qwest can pay in total to regulatory bodies, said Chris King, an associate analyst with Legg Mason. If that limit were exceeded, the deal would have to be renegotiated. A Qwest spokesman couldn't confirm that clause. King thinks such a limit will encourage states not to penalize Qwest too much. "It clearly doesn't do them any good to see Qwest in financial difficulty," he said. The Washington commission is keeping Qwest's stability in mind. "You could probably argue that all of Washington's assets sold as part of the publishing business need to flow back to the local phone company. But does that help Qwest get the money to pay down its debt?" Sweeney said. Analysts say the sale of the directory business doesn't guarantee Qwest can avoid filing for bankruptcy protection, but it's the best shot. But the directory business was a stable revenue generator that will be tough to lose. King estimated QwestDex has brought in more than $500 million in cash per year. "It impedes Qwest's ability to remain free cash-flow positive after the Dex business is sold," he said. But other Qwest businesses have the potential for greater growth, so the directory unit is the best option for raising cash, King said. ------------------------------ From: Mr. Knowitall Subject: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:36:26 -0500 Organization: Ach! Reply-To: knowitall@ev1.net I just finished listening to AT&T trying to sell me their long distance -- the benefit they offered is a reduction on a bill I had no idea was going to be so big. You see, they sold me a plan (all verbal) and then didn't honor the rates they quoted. I can't comment on exactly what the rates they charged me were, other than I bought a plan that was supposed to allow me to call my friends in Mexico for .20 / minute -- because: 1) I never got a call detail -- only a Past Due notice. I suspect the reason no call detail with bill was ever provided is because the original bill would have had the rates they originally quoted to me - .20/minute instead of whatever they decided to do to me. They decided to put it to me because I didn't stay with their service long enough - they did not honor their word! I think they just skipped the part about sending me a bill just so thy could put it to me, out of revenge for leaving them! 2) It was all verbal -- no accountability on their part. 3) At the very LEAST -- if they were not going to honor the rates they promised, they should have informed me immediately instead of after the fact! The company I worked for put an ISDN line in my home because the local service was always substandard for data. When I lost my job due to the economy, I noticed they had a few months left on the contract, so I asked that the line be switched over to my name. I am an individual. About a month after I made the switch, I got a bill from SWBell which was much larger than I thought - it was 144.32. I paid it immediately (July 5th), but the next day called to ask an explanation as to why it was so high. Answer - it's a business line. I told them I'm not a business, and after being shuttled from one person to another, someone in Service finally knew enough to explain to me that the only way ISDN is offered is as a business. In the meantime, I knew I was going to have to make some long distance calls, so I had called AT&T and ordered a couple long distance plans - one to give me a good rate in Texas and the US, another to give me a good rate internationally, as I have a girlfriend in Mexico, who I was calling, confident I wouldn't pay more than .27/minute. Later on I switched to IDT, because they offer .19/minute to Mexico. Imagine my shock when I opened my mail and got a bill for $776.34 from AT&T. It seems neither of the plans went through because this line is classed as a business line, and I am not a business, I am an individual - an unemployed individual. So, I called AT&T and spent 83 minutes on the phone with three people -- I called the number marked 'For Billing Inquiries' - 800-847-3595. After listening to many commercials, I finally got a guy on the phone -- listened to the problem and told me he would transfer me to a 'billing specialist', who actually seems to be a salesman -- this took a half hour. David 'Billing Specialist' (would not give a last name or any way to identify him -- decided the only way he could help me is by selling me a 'business' long distance rate and back-rating me, which would give me a much higher rate than the residential plan I thought I had. He would credit me only if I switched, otherwise I am stuck with a 765.34 bill which said I was overdue, and never had received a call detail for. This overdue notice for $765.34 is the first bill I got from AT&T. I tried to get names and/or employee numbers from everyone I spoke with at AT&T. None of this was provided, I suppose they don't want to be on record as Blackmailers. Incidentally, the service I switched to - IDT - is honoring it's quoted rates. My bill with them is the expected .20/minute, and they do correctly have me in their records as an individual -- not a business. This is the company AT&T is trying to get me to switch from in this deceitful, deceptive manner. The resolution I seek -- I want AT&T to honor the original rates they quoted so I can pay the bill as I planned, with rates commensurate with what I was led to believe I would get. Can anyone offer some advice please? Thank you. Spammers Persecuted Relentlessly [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Same thing in Kansas. DSL is always a business service, even when installed in a residence. But SWB Com has a long-distance rate of 7 cents per minute domestically whether it is a business or residence line. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Green Subject: DSL Pacbell/Sbc VPN Palmdale Calif Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:38:50 -0700 Hello List, I'm trying to hook up a VPN to my home server through my DSL. I keep getting a 721 error. I have my firewall letting port 1723 through but I read where I might need protocol 47 GRE. I don't have any settings in my firewall "Dlink DI-604" for this and read where SBC may not be letting them through anyway. I Called SBC and they heee hummed and said that they don't support VPN and the yes GRE is blocked (But they didn't sound to sure). I was wondering if anyone can confirm this or am I doing something wrong. I'm pretty sure that am getting thought the firewall because if I block 1723 I get different error messages not finding the server and I can see in the log where the packets are being dropped. Also am able to connect to the VPN just fine inside on the local network segment. Thanks for any help, I would really like getting VPN for home network. Thanks, David Green G & B Technologies www.gbtechnologies.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:47:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Russell Blau Reply-To: russblau@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Sprint History (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) Steven Lichter wrote in message news:telecom20.365.12@telecom-digest.org: > Charles G Gray wrote in message > news:: >> Has SP spun off _two_ major carriers -- one which was bought by the >> Brown Telephone Company and one which went on to buy USWorst? > Sprint was first part of GTE, later is was merged with United > Telephone which later took control of Sprint and changed its name. > Never heard Qwest had anything to do with it, Qwest was formed out of > US West a few years ago. Steven, I find you GUILTY of having insufficient gray hair. When I first became a Sprint customer in 1982, the name that appeared on the bills was "Southern Pacific Communications Company." A couple of years later, the railroad sold it to GTE, which changed the name to GTE Sprint. About 1990 or so (don't hold me to specific dates), GTE sold a 50% stake in the company to United Telephone, and they changed the name again to US Sprint. United bought out GTE's share around 1994-95. Qwest was not "formed out of US West". It was an independent company, formed out of SP Telecom, which merged with (acquired) US West in a stock deal a couple of years ago. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2002 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #1 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Aug 22 20:37:48 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7N0bmS05078; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:37:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:37:48 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208230037.g7N0bmS05078@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #2 TELECOM Digest Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:37:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 2 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Broadcast Channel 1 (continued) (Neal McLain) Re: Cable Channel 1 (Not to be Confused W/ B'cast Channel 1) (M. Roberts) The U.S. Recording Industry Drops Effort to block Chinese Site (Observer) Almon B. Strowger Gravesite (Neal McLain) News Headlines of Interest 8/22/02 (Monty Solomon) Re: Sprint History (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) (Russell Blau) Re: Fried Modem: Telco Responsibility (w_tom) Re: Four-Prong Telephone Jacks (s falke) Re: Record Labels Sue Internet Providers Over Site (Barry Margolin) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 00:30:08 -0600 From: Neal McLain Subject: Broadcast Channel 1 (continued) I wrote: > Television Channel 1 (50-56 MHz) was removed from the television > service for a technical reason: the second harmonic of the visual > carrier of a TV transmitter operating on Channel 1 (51.1 MHz) > would have fallen at 102.2 MHz, right in the middle of the new > FM broadcast band (88-108 MHz) that the FCC was creating at the > same it deleted TV Channel 1. [...] Whereupon Ed Ellers wrote: > Nope, nope, nope. Channel 1 after the war was to have been > 44-50 MHz; it wasn't immediately available since FM stations > had to be cleared out of the old 42-50 MHz band first, so it > was reserved for low-power community stations in smaller towns > (which probably made it easier to avoid the harmonic at 90.5 > MHz). By the time the FM stations were gone, in 1948, the > need for more land mobile spectrum was apparent and the demand > for small-town TV stations, so channel 1 was deleted for that > reason. The record is clear on this. Ed is right. After reading his comments, I did some further research, and found an article "What Ever Happened to Channel 1" by David A. Ferre, from the March 1982 issue of _Radio-Electronics_ magazine (posted at ). According to this article, Channel 1 frequency assignments were: 1938-1940 44-50 MHz 1940-1946 50-56 MHz 1946-1948 44-50 MHz 1948-present - So it appears that Channel 1 was, for six years, at 50-56 MHz, but it was moved back to 44-50 in 1946, two years before the FM band was moved to 88-108. I also wrote: > Postscript: So-called superstations (broadcast stations that are > "secondarily transmitted" to cable systems by satellite) are the > exception here: their revenue is exclusively from advertising, and, > because of an old FCC rule, they can't charge license fees. And Ed wrote: > It's not an old FCC rule -- it's a relatively recent clause in > Federal law, initially in the Cable Act of 1992. Any commercial > TV station can demand compensation from cable operators (and now, > satellite providers), but superstations were exempted if (A) they > were being distributed by satellite to cable operators on a > certain date (thus freezing the group of stations to which it > applies) and (B) the cable system gets the station by satellite, > or for DBS, the viewers are outside the station's market [...]. I guess my statement was misleading. My statement " ... because of an old FCC rule, they [superstations] can't charge license fees" was intended to contrast superstations against producers of non-broadcast satellite-delivered cable programming. Apparently Ed thought I was contrasting superstations against other commercial television stations. Before Congress passed the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (overriding the first President Bush's veto), no broadcast station, superstation or otherwise, could demand license fees, or any other form of compensation, from any cable company carrying its signal. The FCC's signal-carriage rules, dating as far back as 1976 (and probably earlier, but I don't have copies of older rules at hand), specified the conditions under which cable systems could carry the signals of television broadcast stations. These rules covered, in excruciating detail, the rights of cable systems to carry broadcast stations, and the rights of broadcast stations to demand mandatory ("must carry") carriage. But nowhere in these rules is there any mention of any form of financial compensation by either party. And that's the "old FCC rule" I was referring to. Admittedly, these rules didn't specifically prohibit compensation; they simply omitted any reference to it. But the net effect was the same. That said, Ed is quite correct is stating that the Cable Act of 1992 gave broadcast stations the right to demand compensation, and that superstations were specifically excluded from this provision. But that's a different (and long) story. Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ From: markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts) Subject: Re: Cable Channel 1 (Not to be Confused With B'cast Channel 1) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 02:52:41 -0000 Organization: 1.94 meters Mr. Townson had written: > Except 'channel' (or position) > 70 on the VCR/TV combo I have. Channel 70 was picked up in the auto- > tuning process and is still there with a *black* (in use) screen. > Something somewhere is leaking through a bit I guess. Channel 70 > never has anything on it, just that dark and occasional flickering > screen. I was hoping that maybe fine tuning of the set would get me > some hint of programming there, but no go. FCC's TV database shows a CP for a translator (K20HJ) on channel 20 in Independence, owned by "Tulsa Channel 19 LLP". Is this on the air? (Hmmm ... these guys also have a CP for K59HS. What's up there?) Alteratively, I suppose it could be an image from K54GC, your local Trinity Biblebangin' Network teapot (to move to channel 43). Aside from the LPTV on channel 4 in Coffeyville, there are no other TV stations on the air within 50 km of Independence. Mark Roberts | "This is local television. Get off your high horse!" Oakland, Cal.| -- Gary Radnich to Wendy Tokuda on KRON-TV's NO HTML MAIL | 9 pm newscast (said in jest), August 9, 2002 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was curious about this so I took my little portable black/white TV out in the back yard and tested it without the cable connection but WITH the antenna attached. It normally has a chintzy little box the cableco gave me for free which by pressing a button sequentially moves it up or down through the 60 availale channels. You plug it in where the 'external antenna' would go, and leave it on channel or 4 all the time (the box set to either 3/4 as well. All I could get in the backyard with the little telecoping antenna piece was channel 12 out of Joplin, MO (faint and snowy pic) and the station out of Pittsburg, KS (poorly) also. Channel 4 out of Coffeyville (LPTV) came in the same way, poorly, but Coffeyville is about 15 miles away. Channel 20 did not appear to be on the air at all. Note all I had was the little telescoping piece on the back of the TV. I do however see a few really huge (high off the ground) antennas around here, mostly in the rural areas outside of town where cable does not reach. Maybe with a *good, high* antenna or one of those amplified antennas I could do better. The Trinity people are on Cable Channel 20 and part of the free offering on the original basic package. Are they also on LPTV here? I did not know that. The original package only went up to 22. There was an LPTV in Chicago on Channel 54 which carried Eternal Word all the time, like a satellator (TV version of translator). They were in one of the south suburbs but you got a ghost picture in the north suburbs. I don't know why I can't get Coffeyville here; only 15 miles. Maybe its the little antenna and the real cheap portable TV. Trinity was/is on the original basic here; Eternal Word (the Catholic cable offering) is on the 'extended basic' side here. My TV/VCR combo I mentioned here a couple days ago is actually a 'cable ready' VCR for fifty dollars from Walmart which plays video tapes and has a modulator in it that 'transmits' a picture to an old computer monitor I have which has a button on it to make it be a computer monitor or whatever. If I press a button I get an all-green picture on it; press the button the other way and get color/black/white. It was originally in use with an old computer of mine from years ago. You use RCA plugs on the back of it to get TV pictures from the VCR. It is a 12 or 13 inch picture, as you would use on an older type computer. The remote control for the VCR changes channels (on the VCR) which are consequently reflected on the old monitor, which has no channel controls. The remote control does not adjust the sound or on/off on the monitor part however. I was not going to unhook all that and drag it out to the back yard. Maybe I will try to figure out an antenna I can plug in the VCR and use it for 'over-air' TV also. My other 'cable outlet' goes to the chintzy converter box and the littl(er) (actual) TV in my bedroom. PAT] ------------------------------ From: baboulas@subdimension.com (Internet Observer) Subject: The U.S. Recording Industry Drops Efforts to Block a Chinese Site Date: 21 Aug 2002 21:56:12 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Get the latest news including the actual Press Release by the RIAA at http://www.Listen4Ever.net After the original announcement and since about 3 days ago the site conducted a user poll on SIte blocking by backbone ISP's. Here are the poll results: Is SIte Blocking by backbone ISPs: A good thing, great law enforcement or remedial measure 45 (6%) Bad thing, an infringement on liberties or freedom of speech 602 (74%) Site blocking only as last resort 52 (6%) Never heard of site blocking 18 (2%) It depends on what is being blocked 71 (9%) Undecided on this one 23 (3%) Total votes: 811 I imagine listen4ever.net was monitored closely by the RIAA. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 00:42:37 -0600 From: Neal McLain Subject: Almon B. Strowger Gravesite Forwarded message (cross-posted from the Strowger list): > http://www.roserpark.net/greenwood/strowger.html > We're working feverishly to return the cemtery in which Mr. almon B. > Strowger and his wife Susan are interred. > If someone has biographical information regarding Mr. Strowger, I'd be > eager to read up. > Chris Kelly > Roser Park Neighborhood Association > www.roserpark.net Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:57:00 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest (8/22/02) August 22, 2002 Sprint's PCS Vision Network Is Fast, but Also Quite Pricey By WALTER S. MOSSBERG After years of delays and false promises, the cellular-phone carriers in the U.S. are finally rolling out higher-speed data networks that allow users to get onto the Internet wirelessly. These new cellphone systems, which also carry voice calls, aren't really "high speed," despite some claims. In fact, they are only about as fast as a dial-up home modem. But the new networks are three or four times as fast as previous Internet connections possible via cellphone. This month, Sprint introduced nationwide its higher-speed network, called PCS Vision, and I've been testing it for several weeks using a variety of devices, including a souped-up Samsung voice phone that can take pictures and transmit them to the Web, a new Sprint version of Handspring's Treo combination phone/PDA, and a card you plug into a laptop to connect it to the Internet wirelessly. ... http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20020822.html Wireless Web comes to Starbucks shops - Aug 21, 2002 07:00 AM (Reuters) SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 21 (Reuters) - Starbucks Corp. (NASDAQ:SBUX) on Wednesday said it has launched customers into cyberspace at some 1,200 of its coffee shops via a new wireless Internet access system it is now offering to enhance its services. The Seattle-based coffee shop operator has surrounded the shops with a local area network supplied by partners T-Mobile, the wireless division of Germany's Deutsche Telekom AG , and computer maker Hewlett-Packard Co. (NYSE:HPQ), the three companies said in a joint statement. ... - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28379525 Globalstar cuts satellite phone call rates - Aug 21, 2002 09:30 AM (Reuters) SAN JOSE, Calif., Aug 21 (Reuters) - Bankrupt satellite communications company Globalstar Telecommunications Ltd. (BB:GSTRF) said on Wednesday it cut its prices for satellite telephone service in the United States by about 80 percent in a bid to attract more customers. Globalstar said customers can now sign up for service plans ranging from $34.95 for 30 minutes of talk time to $499.95 for 3000 minutes. ... - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28382610 New Salvo in Piracy, Privacy War By Brad King 10:50 a.m. Aug. 21, 2002 PDT The music industry's trade association is asking a federal district court to force an Internet service provider to turn over private information for a subscriber, heating up the legal war between technology and entertainment companies. The Recording Industry Association of America wants Verizon Internet Services to turn over information on one of its subscribers, who the RIAA suspects of offering a large collection of MP3s for download. Wednesday's legal filing with the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia came after Verizon refused to comply with a July 24 subpoena issued by the same court, saying the legal merits of the order were wrong. A spokesman said the company would continue to fight the matter. ... http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,54678,00.html How Much Info Is Too Much Info? Associated Press 2:05 p.m. Aug. 21, 2002 PDT WASHINGTON -- States have made significant progress in putting their court records online, allowing the public to examine criminal cases, lawsuits and divorces. However, all are struggling to develop privacy standards that keep pace with the technology, says a report released Wednesday. The Washington-based Center for Democracy and Technology said states are trying to figure out how to balance the right to access public records with the risks of putting a battered wife's address on the Internet or posting uncorroborated child abuse allegations for all to see. http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,54683,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:47:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Russell Blau Reply-To: russblau@hotmail.com Subject: Sprint history (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) Steven Lichter wrote in message news:telecom20.365.12@telecom-digest.org... > Charles G Gray wrote in message > news:: >> Has SP spun off _two_ major carriers -- one which was bought by the >> Brown Telephone Company and one which went on to buy USWorst? > Sprint was first part of GTE, later is was merged with United > Telephone which later took control of Sprint and changed its name. > Never heard Qwest had anything to do with it, Qwest was formed out of > US West a few years ago. Steven, I find you GUILTY of having insufficient gray hair. When I first became a Sprint customer in 1982, the name that appeared on the bills was "Southern Pacific Communications Company." A couple of years later, the railroad sold it to GTE, which changed the name to GTE Sprint. About 1990 or so (don't hold me to specific dates), GTE sold a 50% stake in the company to United Telephone, and they changed the name again to US Sprint. United bought out GTE's share around 1994-95. Qwest was not "formed out of US West". It was an independent company, formed out of SP Telecom, which merged with (acquired) US West in a stock deal a couple of years ago. I don't actually have a hotmail account; but I do have one on excite.com if you really want to get in touch with me. ------------------------------ From: w_tom Subject: Re: Fried Modem: Telco Responsibility Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 19:02:08 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Go out to your premises interface. Do you have a grey box labeled NID or Network Interface Device? Then you have 'whole house' phone line surge protection. But is that box earthed less than 10 feet, using 10 AWG wire, to central earth ground -- the same earth ground shared by AC electric, CATV, etc? Verizon has provided the surge protector. You must provide the surge protection -- central earth ground. Bob K. wrote: > The other day while I was away, we had a terrible thunderstorm. The > electricity was out for 4 hours, and my computer modem was > fried. There must have been a big jolt over the phone lines because > the numbers I'd programmed into the speed-dial buttons on my phone > were wiped out, too. The phone itself and my answering machine were > otherwise OK. > I'm wondering what kind of liability lies with Verizon, my local > telco. To me, it looks like they didn't have enough lightning > protection on the lines to my apartment building. But getting money > out of them might be like getting blood out of a stone. > What do you think? (I hear they make surge protectors that cover the > phone line. I'll have to get one.) ------------------------------ From: s falke Subject: Re: Four-Prong Telephone Jacks Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 23:06:53 GMT Also listed at: http://www.phonecoinc.com/category.asp?rpage=search&category=Acc#01019 ....p/n 002J and 002P It has a Western Electric/Bell designation [but not 258A :/ ] Do readers know of an online reference? s falke > Thanks to all who responded with the pin-out. > It looks as though Winston will fit the bill for supply as they carry > both plug and wall jack. > http://www.winstonele.com/04-%20Wall%20Plates%20&%20Adapters.htm ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Record Labels Sue Internet Providers Over Site Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:27:22 GMT In article , Geoffrey Welsh wrote: > Steve Brack wrote: >> The backbone providers are common carriers. > In many cases, the backbone operators are also common carriers, but I > have never seen a definitive statement on whether internet and other > data services -- sometimes referred to as "the unregulated services" > -- qualified for common carrier treatment. I don't think we are officially categorized as common carriers, but our status is very similar. I think there was a court case earlier this year that decided that we aren't responsible for content that we don't actually produce. I think the only Internet provider that was ever required to exercise control was the old Prodigy system. They advertised their service as family-friendly, and moderated all their discussion groups, so they were treated like a newspaper publisher rather than just a provider of raw communications facilities. Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me; I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2002 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #2 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Aug 23 13:56:54 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7NHusP09996; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:56:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:56:54 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208231756.g7NHusP09996@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #3 TELECOM Digest Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:54:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 3 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Big Lawsuit Filed Against Spam Faxers (Danny Burstein) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines) (Ed Ellers) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines) (David Esan) Re: A Problem About SS7 Protocol Stack (William Warren) News Headlines of Interest 8/23/02 (Monty Solomon) Re: Sprint history (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) (Steven Lichter) Re: Broadcast Channel 1 (continued) (Garrett Wollman) For Sale: Bell System and AT&T Tech Journals (Jason Timmons) Re: Cellular - Caller Pays in Cincinnati (Jeffrey James Bryan Carpenter) Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left? (Sprint) (Marcus Didius Falco) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Danny Burstein Subject: Big Lawsuit Filed Against Spam Faxers Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:23:19 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Lawsuits Seek $2.2 Trillion Over 'Junk' Faxes By REUTERS Filed at 8:56 p.m. ET SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A coalition of California activists filed a jaw-dropping $2.2 trillion set of lawsuits against facsimile marketer Fax.com Thursday, saying millions of 'junk faxes' are clogging the nation's fax machines, jamming communications and possibly endangering lives. The suits, filed in both California state and federal court, seek class action status and punitive damages against privately held Fax.com, its telecommunications provider, Cox Business Services, a division of Cox Communications Inc., as well as Fax.com's advertisers. [snip] but ... look what he says in response ... "He (the owner of fax.com) also said the suits ignored the public service Fax.com performs by mass faxing missing children alerts" http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-tech-spam-fax.html Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: An editorial in the Independence Reporter yesterday applauded this lawsuit but did point out the missing children alerts are quite important also. Personally I feel he should be able to fax community announcments like the missing children things without getting approval, but he should be required to use an 'opt-in' system on the other stuff. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:53:19 -0400 John David Galt wrote: > Why is a law needed for this? Why don't the affected theaters just show > their rude patrons the door? Maybe they're afraid of violent reactions from some patrons? ------------------------------ From: davidesan@att.net (David Esan) Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines) Date: 23 Aug 2002 06:49:14 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ John David Galt wrote in message news:: > Why is a law needed for this? Why don't the affected theaters just > show their rude patrons the door? > If that's too expensive because it requires hiring human beings, maybe > they should consider installing Faraday cages in the walls. That's > certainly legal even if active jamming isn't. I wish I was a lawyer, because the lawsuits that the Faraday cage is going to create would buy me that house on Maui. Can you imagine an emergency in a theater (fire, health, violence) and someone whips out their cellphone to call 911 and can't because its blocked by the theater? Huge lawsuit. It is sad, however, that we need a law to enforce what is simple common courtesy. ------------------------------ Reply-To: William Warren From: William Warren Subject: Re: A Problem About SS7 Protocol Stack Organization: Church of the Swimming Bullfrog Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:15:38 GMT Lotto wrote in message news:telecom22.1.4@telecom-digest.org... > I don't know how to design it . Who can tell me where can I download > it free? Or mail me the source code. Any advice on how to get them > will be greatly appreciated. Dear Lotto, Since you're posting from a domain in China, I assume you're trying to design an SS7 stack for use in that country. The Chinese version of SS7 is fundamentally different from that used in the U.S., so I suggest you get information on it from the Chinese Telecommunications Authority. HTH. HAND. William ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:56:07 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 8/23/02 Court Awards Akamai Broad Permanent Injunction Against Cable & Wireless; Cable & Wireless Ordered to Immediately and Permanently Shut Down Digital Island Footprint 2.0 Service - Aug 22, 2002 06:15 PM (BusinessWire) CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 22, 2002--Akamai Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:AKAM) today announced that the Federal District Court in Boston has enjoined Cable & Wireless Internet Services, Inc. from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the United States, the patented inventions of Claims 1, 3, 5, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703, and from active inducement of infringement of these claims. The Court's Order requires Cable & Wireless to shut down Digital Island's Footprint 2.0 service as configured and described at trial. That service was recently rebranded under the Exodus name. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28408107 How to Make Yourself Reachable in 5 Places at Once By LARRY MAGID IN the quest to be always within reach, many people have resorted to carrying a cellphone at all times. But a cellphone isn't a perfect solution: for one thing, unless people know to call you on it, they may miss you by calling a land-line number instead. Even eliminating the land line at home won't necessarily help; callers may still miss you by dialing only your office phone. But there are other ways to ensure that you are never out of touch no matter what phones you use. A variety of services are available that make it easy for callers to find you. These services can be particularly useful for families in which one member travels a lot, the children are away at school or elderly relatives need to stay in touch. Setting up a personal toll-free number, for example, can give family members and friends a single, easy-to-remember number to call in an emergency, or for regular calls home from school or college. Those who think getting an 800 number is a big (and expensive) deal - something only appropriate for businesses - might be surprised at how cost-effective they can be, even for a family. Having your own 800 (or 888, 877, 866 or 855, the other current toll-free area codes) number means that people can call you on your nickel, or maybe even for less than a nickel. Just about all long-distance carriers offer toll-free numbers but rates vary greatly. Some charge a monthly fee, some have a minimum usage. The cost per minute ranges from less than a nickel to more than a quarter. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/22/technology/circuits/22BASI.html Bracing for the Digital Crackdown By Brad King 2:00 a.m. Aug. 22, 2002 PDT The government is preparing a national crackdown on file traders that would crush the rogue swapping networks in the same manner hackers were pushed underground 12 years ago. File trading has enraged music labels and movie studios since the release of Napster in 1999. The once-popular network was shuttered a year later, but entertainment executives have been struggling to contain the swapping phenomenon since. In less than three years, 70 million people have downloaded applications, such as Kazaa, that sprang up in Napster's stead. Washington lawmakers have been crafting bills that would give the entertainment industry the go-ahead to identify individual users, disrupt file-trading services and prosecute anyone suspected of digital piracy. The fear and loathing focused at the file-trading community is reminiscent of 1990, just before the Secret Service and the FBI conducted raids in order to smash the loosely affiliated hacker organizations around the country, as chronicled by Bruce Sterling in The Hacker Crackdown. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,54681,00.html ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Date: 23 Aug 2002 01:35:09 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Sprint history (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) Russell Blau wrote: > Steven, > I find you GUILTY of having insufficient gray hair. > When I first became a Sprint customer in 1982, the name that appeared > on the bills was "Southern Pacific Communications Company." A couple > of years later, the railroad sold it to GTE, which changed the name to > GTE Sprint. About 1990 or so (don't hold me to specific dates), GTE > sold a 50% stake in the company to United Telephone, and they changed > the name again to US Sprint. United bought out GTE's share around > 1994-95. > Qwest was not "formed out of US West". It was an independent company, > formed out of SP Telecom, which merged with (acquired) US West in a > stock deal a couple of years ago. > I don't actually have a hotmail account; but I do have one on > excite.com if you really want to get in touch with me. I posted wrong about how Qwest was formed. I knew that US West was bought by the Qwest LD Company. I was contracting in Arizona when that change took place. I have gray hair, what is left of it. I spend 30 years with GTE and lost most of it there. I used the ons SP Sprint as a dial around, real pain. I later used PC Pursuit, and was there when they stuck it to all of us. I worked on a project for Sprint in Las Vegas for 11 months and found out the the local operating company there ran pretty good and the people know their jobs. But then Sprint bought the company so they were like many of us were when GTE bought California Water and Telephone. Not much work now, my last telecom job was up in Beaverton, OR. On a Verizon site, they cut the jobs out letting the contractors go. I was one of the last since even though I was contacting they considered me GTE/Verizon since I retired from the company here in Calif. Met a lot of people who moved there from down here. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II 24 hours 2400/14.4. An OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one!!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) Kill Spammers, Inc. A Hope You Roast In Hell Company. ------------------------------ From: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: Broadcast Channel 1 (continued) Date: 23 Aug 2002 02:09:12 GMT Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Neal McLain wrote: > The FCC's signal-carriage rules, [...] specified the conditions under > which cable systems could carry the signals of television broadcast > stations. [...] > But nowhere in these rules is there any mention of any form of > financial compensation by either party. However, cable systems were still required to pay license fees -- just not to the stations themselves. The fees were (still are?) paid directly to a department of the U.S. Copyright Office, which was responsible for distributing the revenue received among the copyright owners (mostly Hollywood studios). These days, most major-market station operators use the 'retrans consent' process as a way to extort more money from cable ratepayers, by requiring cable systems to carry affiliated non-broadcast services in their standard tier of service, as a condition of carrying the broadcast signal. Thus, if you have a Disney-owned station in your market, chances are pretty good that you are paying for all of the Disney cable channels as a part of your basic cable package. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | [G]enes make enzymes, and enzymes control the rates of wollman@lcs.mit.edu | chemical processes. Genes do not make ``novelty- Opinions not those of| seeking'' or any other complex and overt behavior. MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) ------------------------------ From: Jason Timmons Subject: For Sale: Bell System and AT&T Tech Journals Organization: Quasi-Unified Unter-Church of the Über-Delegator Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:37:29 GMT This is it: I'm unloading my small collection of Bell System and AT&T Tech Journals. Most are in excellent shape - a couple of the old ones are showing their age but they'll hold up. There's a lot of history here, and tons of hardcore tech info. The link below has my list, which I'll update as they go away. Make whatever deals or offers you want. Want the whole stack? Cool. One issue to fill in your collection? That's fine too. I'm hoping to recover some of the bucks I put into collecting them, but one way or another they have to go. I'm hoping a tech library, computer museum, or some hardcore geeks will give them a home. My email is on the web page, or take the DOT out of the one in the message's headers to email me. I am in Palatine, IL (NW Suburbs of Chicago.) We can pick up local, or ship 'em off wherever you are, if you want to pay for it. Thanks! -j http://home.attbi.com/~jht50/bstj/bstj.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:30:32 -0000 From: Jeffrey James Bryan Carpenter Subject: Re: Cellular - Caller Pays in Cincinnati > I heard at one time that Cincinnati had "Cellular - Caller Pays" > (landline user pays instead of the wireless phone user). > Does this still exist? If so, is it by certain prefixes? And if so, > does anyone know which ones? And which company or companies? I remember hearing about two trials. The first was one that AT&T did in Minnesota. They assigned area 500 numbers to the cell phones, and collected the "caller pays" fees by setting the cost of the 500 call. See the telecom archives for the numerous articles in the past on what 500 numbers are/were, and the problems with them. The other one was one that a wireless company affiliated with a landline company was doing where local callers would hear a recorded message stating that the call would cost more than the normal call. The fact that the ILEC and wireless company were the same company is what enabled that kind of billing. I think that calls from out of the area had to be charged to a credit card, but I cannot remember. After the announcement of the trial, I do not recall ever hearing anything about it again. jeff ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 01:24:09 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left? (Sprint) TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to a message: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess you know that's largely how >> SPRINT got started in the late sixties/early seventies. The outhern >>

acific ailroad likewise had a lot of wires/poles along their >> tracks. They wanted to upgrade their nternal etwork elecom- >> unications and in the process of doing so, they wound up with so >> much excess capacity they decided to sell the excess space on their >> network to other businesses. Eventually, by the time SPRINT changed >> to serve all the public (not just businesses) they had been spun >> off. The Southern Pacific Railroad Telecommunications office became >> a separate company, first owned by the railroad, then eventually by >> others. Now this multi-billion dollar corporation has a multi-billion >> dollar heaquarters 'campus' on several dozen acres in Shawnee Mission, >> Kansas, where they remain as independent and arogant as ever. > Wasn't the story about Sprint being an acronym debunked here in > Telecom Digest years ago? I've seen PAT repeat this a number of > times, but I thought that at one time someone pointed out that Sprint > was never an acronym. Sorry I don't have a reference. Sprint was originally called SPCC (Southern Pacific Communications Corporation). MCI was the first of the "Other Common Carriers" as they were then called. I think Datran, which went bankrupt in the mid-70s, was the second. I think SPCC was the third to be formed (possibly they preceded Datran). They were active by the mid-70s, but were much smaller than MCI at the time. (Come to think of it, they still are, though it remains to be seen how the MCI bankruptcy will work itself out. > Also, the multi-billion dollar corporation which owns the campus in > Kansas calls itself Sprint, but actually bought Sprint the long > distance carrier and renamed itself from the much larger United > Telephone because the much smaller Sprint was better known to the > public. They were formerly called United Telecom, and were, before the Bell divestiture and the following industry realignments, the fourth largest holding company: Bell General Continental United They did have some manufacturing capabilities and subsidiaries back in those days before 1982. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Whether or not SPRINT was an acronym > for Southern Pacific Railroad's Internal Network Telecommunications > Department has been debated here in the past. It seems highly odd to > me that the railroad revamped and expanded its telecom facilities > about that time, *was* the original owner of Sprint, decided to sell > its expanded telecom facilities to business users yet did not think > of that acronym for a name. I've heard the 'mere coincidence' argument > many times also, but I don't buy it, and it never has been proven > either way that I know of. > And yes, the multi-billion dollar mega-corporation which has the > campus in Shawnee Mission, KS was the combined Sprint/United Tel > thing. As to *who* bought *who*, I am not sure. They go by the name or > d/b/a Sprint at this present time. PAT] Sprint was previously jointly owned, I think by General (GTE) and United. Then, IIRC, General sold its interest to United. Direct replies are unlikely to be read. To reply use the address below: falco_marcus_didius yahoo.co.uk ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #3 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Aug 24 00:16:26 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7O4GQM13817; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:16:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:16:26 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208240416.g7O4GQM13817@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #4 TELECOM Digest Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:14:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 4 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Record Labels Sue Internet Providers Over Site (John R Levine) Re: A Problem About SS7 Protocol Stack (Ken Abrams) Does Such at Technology Exist? (Tony Kondaks) More About TD History Over the Past 20+ Years (William Van Hefner) Not Mine! (was: Cable Channel 1/etc) (Mark Roberts) Re: Another MCI Complaint (John R. Levine) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theatres (Christopher Wolf) Re: Cellular - Caller Pays in Cincinnati (Stanley Cline) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Paul A Lee) Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left? (s falke) Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left? (Steven Lichter) Re: Big Lawsuit Filed Against Spam Faxers (Steven Lichter) Re: Big Lawsuit Filed Against Spam Faxers (Paul A Lee) Re: Big Lawsuit Filed Against Spam Faxers (Paul Wallich) Re: Sprint History (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) (Chuck Till) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: Record Labels Sue Internet Providers Over Site Date: 23 Aug 2002 13:16:52 -0400 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I don't think we are officially categorized as common carriers, but > our status is very similar. I think there was a court case earlier > this year that decided that we aren't responsible for content that we > don't actually produce. ISPs are not common carriers, they're value added networks or enhanced service providers or something like that, even if the ISP is a subsidiary of a phone company. That's the reason the "modem tax" never anywhere, since the access charge the telcos wanted to charge applies only to common carriers. Section 230(c)(1) of the reviled Communication Decency Act says: Treatment of publisher or speaker. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. It's in with stuff about porn filtering, but it means what it says, you can't be sued for libel for something your users say. The legal challenge to the CDA wasn't about that part, so it's fully in effect. I don't know whether it's been used in court yet. > I think the only Internet provider that was ever required to exercise > control was the old Prodigy system. That's the Stratton-Oakmont case. The CDA section was specifically to reverse that. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: A Problem About SS7 Protocol Stack Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:40:04 -0500 Organization: None > I don't know how to design it . Who can tell me where can I download > it free? Or mail me the source code. Any advice on how to get them > will be greatly appreciated. If you actually work in the industry, you should already have access to this information. If you DON'T actually work in the industry, why are you asking?? ;-) ------------------------------ From: tkondaks@primenet.com (Tony Kondaks) Subject: Does Such a Technology Exist? Date: 23 Aug 2002 10:37:41 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Can anyone tell me if such a technology already exist and, if so, what is the product name ... 3 requirements: 1)I need a telephone answering machine that can answer many in-coming calls at once ON THE SAME LINE (SAME TELEPHONE NUMBER) so that all the callers get serviced and can leave their messages without getting a busy signal. Indeed, if the technology can handle an UNLIMITED number of calls all at once, so much the better! 2) I want to hook up such technology to a toll-free number. 3) The actual machine/technology does NOT have to be located on my premises just so long as I can access the messages remotely (just as we all can with those voice messaging systems local telephone companies offer residential customers). I thank you in advance to your attention to these questions. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The technology you want is telco voice mail in a business application with a business phone number. Tell telco to install voice mail on your business line. Have telco give you as many internal mailboxes on that voicemail as you need. Get a toll free number and have it tied onto that number. Voice mail can take an infinite number of incoming calls. Be sure to tell the telco service rep to add 'operator escape' to the voicemail. Then after you in the opening menu announce your various boxes (i.e. press one to hear about X; press two, etc) you can then conclude your opening announcement by telling the caller, 'press zero to be transferred to a live person who can help you'. That's what operator escape does on a BUSINESS voicemail system/account. Anyone who the presses zero gets transferred to whatever line you tell telco you want those calls to go to. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 2002 10:35:27 -0700 From: William Van Hefner Subject: More About TD History over the Last 20+ Years Pat, Enjoyed your history lesson on Telecom Digest. Happy anniversary! Just wanted to add my own newsletter to the list of "Digests" you have spawned. Discount Long Distance Digest started strictly as an offshoot of TELECOM Digest readers interested in the long distance industry. I believe that our first mailing went out in December of 1993. Back then it was strictly e-mail based, and the mailing list eventually grew to about 5,000 subscribers. In 1994 WilTel (which was later sold to WorldCom) began republishing some of our content on their new-fangled "web site". I knew nothing about HTML, and basically stole their code and edited it in Notepad in order to start self-publishing DLD Digest in December of 1995. After that, I gradually phased-out the mailing list and put everything on the web. Some time after that, I made a large investment (for me, at the time) and paid Network Solutions for the domain name thedigest.com. We now get about 1,200 visitors a day to our website, and eventually expanded to cover local phone news and similar telecom stuff. I know that we have spawned our own offshoot websites as well, so TELECOM Digest is really a Grandfather of sorts. Without you, none of those websites (including my own) would exist. In fact, I think it is safe to say that without your excellent moderation and input in TELECOM Digest, I would not even (still) be involved in the telecom industry. Congratulations on your anniversary, and thanks for your years of tireless work. It will never be forgotten. William Van Hefner Publisher Discount Long Distance Digest The Internet Journal of the Long Distance Industry http://www.thedigest.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And thank you, Mr. Van Hefner, for your kindness in sending this message. Every now and then, I get notes like yours, and in these post-aneurysm days when there are times I feel so down in the dumps because of my inability to do all I used to do, a reader from the distant past comes along and tells me 'thank you' for whatever I did, now long forgotten by myself. Then I think about what I did and realize the truth behind the old saying that 'no man is an island unto himself'. I did not realize I was a Grandfather around here but I guess its so. PAT] ------------------------------ From: markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts) Subject: Not Mine! (was: Cable Channel 1/etc) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:19:13 -0000 Organization: 1.94 meters Mark Roberts had written: > After the original announcement and since about 3 days ago the site > conducted a user poll on SIte blocking by backbone ISP's. Here are the > poll results: [snip] Minor point: I didn't post this. I don't know who did and it is of a bit of interest, so I hope whoever did post it gets credit for it. -- Mark Roberts | "This is local television. Get off your high horse!" Oakland, Cal.| -- Gary Radnich to Wendy Tokuda on KRON-TV's NO HTML MAIL | 9 pm newscast (said in jest), August 9, 2002 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Someone impersonated you; forged your name. How odd. I wonder why. 'Mark Roberts' is a common enough name that I guess there is more than one, but still ... oh well, will the real writer of the message please speak up? PAT] ------------------------------ From: John R. Levine Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:35 PM Subject: Re: Another MCI Complaint > How can this happen, from a technical perspective?? The number on my > screen shows the local San Jose and the bill is for a long distance > Compuserve access number. Any ideas?? The Compuserve access number is probably handled by a CLEC, a competitive local phone company. MCI is also acting as a CLEC when they provide your local phone service. Usually CLECs only make interconnection arrangements with the dominant "incumbent" local phone company known as the ILEC. So what's happening here is the MCI connects to Pac Bell, Pac Bell connects to Compuserve's CLEC, but the two CLECs don't connect directly to each other. Lacking better routing information, the call is sent out to long distance trunks, then probably right back to Pac Bell where it's connected to the right place, but by then it's billed as a toll call. A friend of mine has a similar problem calling a dial-around service. The dial-around service is a CLEC with an Ithaca NY phone number, the friend lives in a small town served by a small telco that's a local call to Ithaca but in a different LATA. The small telco doesn't have an arrangement with the CLEC, so even though calls are to an Ithaca number and Ithaca is supposed to be local, they go over toll trunks, are billed as inter-LATA toll calls which are quite expensive around here, and the small telco won't budge. I'd call up the state regulators and find out how to file a formal complaint against MCI, because telcos hate those. Back when I was foolish enough to do business with MCI, that was the only thing that got them to stop billing me for $100 of bogus calls. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:39:43 -0500 From: Christopher Wolf Organization: Texas Instruments Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theatres davidesan@att.net (David Esan) wrote: > John David Galt wrote in > message news:: >> Why is a law needed for this? Why don't the affected theaters just >> show their rude patrons the door? >> If that's too expensive because it requires hiring human beings, maybe >> they should consider installing Faraday cages in the walls. > That's certainly legal even if active jamming isn't. > I wish I was a lawyer, because the lawsuits that the Faraday > cage is going to create would buy me that house on Maui. > Can you imagine an emergency in a theater (fire, health, > violence) and someone whips out their cellphone to call 911 and > can't because its blocked by the theater? Huge lawsuit. > It is sad, however, that we need a law to enforce what is > simple common courtesy. Fine, then instead of using a specific Faraday cage, they just use slightly larger steel beams. I fail to believe that this could result in any real (i.e. winnable) lawsuit, as there are already enough buildings in my area within which my cell phone can't find an antenna (stores, restaurants), and they're not even trying. Besides, one disclaimer sign, and they're covered. -W ------------------------------ From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: Cellular - Caller Pays in Cincinnati Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:22:02 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Roamer1 Communications - Dunwoody, GA, USA Reply-To: sc1-news@roamer1.org In article , Jeffrey James Bryan Carpenter wrote: > The other one was one that a wireless company affiliated with a > landline company was doing where local callers would hear a recorded > message stating that the call would cost more than the normal call. IIRC, AirTouch offered CPP in a handful of their markets (not here in Atlanta, though); intraLATA callers got a recording and were charged something like 40c/min for the airtime. Because of a lack of billing arrangements between IXCs (and other wireless carriers!) and AirTouch, interLATA callers and callers using other wireless carriers weren't billed the airtime surcharge. This, like all other CPP trials and offerings in the US, died a quiet death once Verizon Wireless came into being. The simple fact is that in the US, most people do not pay anything or pay only 2-4c/min for local calls and not much more for domestic and even some international LD, and are VERY reluctant to call ANY number that carries any sort of surcharge (look at what's happened to 900, 976, 500, etc.) -- therefore, IMO, CPP will NEVER work here. -- Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:14:47 -0400 David Esan wrote (in part): > John David Galt wrote in message > news:: >> Why is a law needed for this? Why don't the affected theaters just >> show their rude patrons the door? >> If that's too expensive because it requires hiring human beings, maybe >> they should consider installing Faraday cages in the walls. That's >> certainly legal even if active jamming isn't. > I wish I was a lawyer, because the lawsuits that the Faraday cage is > going to create would buy me that house on Maui. > Can you imagine an emergency in a theater (fire, health, violence) and > someone whips out their cellphone to call 911 and can't because its > blocked by the theater? Huge lawsuit. > It is sad, however, that we need a law to enforce what is simple > common courtesy. "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken Some people are inconsiderate and thoughtless. Some people do not pay enough attention to their driving. Some people try to do complex, unrelated activities while they are driving. Some people are loud and self-important in social settings. Some people conspire together to flout the law or victimize others. But now, we can blame those transgressions on wireless technology, and once again prove Mencken right. Education is preferable to legislation. People's behavior and attitudes should be the primary targets, rather than the technology. People aren't rude or stupid because they are talking on a cell phone in situations where they shouldn't be. They're using the phone in that place and manner because they're already rude and stupid. A lot of the self-appointed "phone police" are just as bad as some of the phone users they confront or complain about -- self-important, rude, and belligerent (even without a phone). I have personally witnessed one of these "phone police" individuals confronting a person who was discreetly taking a call in public park. The tirade against the phone user was far more loud and conspicuous than the phone conversation. The issue is -- or should be -- about human behavior, and not the device or the technology. Paul A Lee Voice: +1 717 730-8355 Sr Telecom Engineer [Voice & Transmission] Fax: +1 717 975-3789 Rite Aid Corporation, Telecomm, 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 ------------------------------ From: s falke Subject: Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left? Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 00:24:09 GMT Different system but maybe still on topic ... http://beehive.net/lw-1999-05.html s falke ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Subject: Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left? (Spr Date: 23 Aug 2002 19:46:44 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Marcus Didius Falco wrote in message: > They did have some manufacturing capabilities and subsidiaries back in > those days before 1982. North Electric was the company that they owned or controlled. Now it is called Sprint North Supply. I bought a dial from them years ago. Paid with a check and got a million copies of the billing invoices. I guess they thought I was a large company. Still have the phone. It was North Electrics version of a Western Electric 202. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE,support for the Apple II and Macintosh 24 hours 2400/14.4. OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one! Have you hunted one down today? (c) I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Company. ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Subject: Re: Big Lawsuit Filed Against Spam Faxers Date: 23 Aug 2002 19:52:06 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Danny Burstein wrote in message: > but ... look what he says in response ... > "He (the owner of fax.com) also said the suits ignored the public > service Fax.com performs by mass faxing missing children alerts" > http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-tech-spam-fax.html The only way to realy stop them is burn them at the stake. They will just move outside the U.S. as some of the major e-mail spammers have. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE,support for the Apple II and Macintosh 24 hours 2400/14.4. OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one! Have you hunted one down today? (c) I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Company. ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Big Lawsuit Filed Against Spam Faxers Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:01:15 -0400 Danny Burstein wrote (in part): > "He (the owner of fax.com) also said the suits ignored the public > service Fax.com performs by mass faxing missing children alerts" And the editor responded: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: An editorial in the Independence > Reporter yesterday applauded this lawsuit but did point out the > missing children alerts are quite important also. Personally I > feel he should be able to fax community announcments like the > missing children things without getting approval, but he should > be required to use an 'opt-in' system on the other stuff. PAT] Personally (note disclaimer below), I find the defense of fax.com on the basis of the missing children alerts to be quite ironic. It seems a little like defending a pedophile priest based on the good he has done for his parishioners. Apparently not content to do only junk faxing, fax.com has also been marching through a couple thousand of our numbers, in sequence, delivering recorded advertising messages. I have contacted them, given them number lists in several formats to use to add our numbers to their block list, and complained politely but firmly. We still seem to be getting the same calls. I identified fax.com as the source of these calls by contacting two of the companies being advertised, both of whom were apologetic and told me they were ending their dealings with fax.com, specifically because of the calling tactics used. I, for one, won't miss fax.com if they get sued into oblivion. If they can be made to pay monetary damages, perhaps the funds could be used to set up a trust to finance a responsible, nonprofit missing child alert service. Paul A Lee Voice: +1 717 730-8355 Sr Telecom Engineer [Voice & Transmission] Fax: +1 717 975-3789 Rite Aid Corporation, Telecomm, 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 ------------------------------ From: Paul Wallich Subject: Re: Big Lawsuit Filed Against Spam Faxers Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:33:29 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In article , Danny Burstein wrote: > Lawsuits Seek $2.2 Trillion Over 'Junk' Faxes By REUTERS > SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A coalition of California activists filed a > jaw-dropping $2.2 trillion set of lawsuits against facsimile marketer > Fax.com Thursday, saying millions of 'junk faxes' are clogging the > nation's fax machines, jamming communications and possibly endangering > lives. ... >[snip] > but ... look what he says in response ... > > "He (the owner of fax.com) also said the suits ignored the public > service Fax.com performs by mass faxing missing children alerts" > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: An editorial in the Independence > Reporter yesterday applauded this lawsuit but did point out the > missing children alerts are quite important also. Personally I > feel he should be able to fax community announcments like the > missing children things without getting approval, but he should > be required to use an 'opt-in' system on the other stuff. PAT] I'm not even sure he should be able to fax community announcements without getting approval -- that's actually a perfect example of a case where opt-in would be important. There are lots of fax machines where other, equally vital services may be disrupted by blast-faxing (think hospitals and police -- the police will already be notified by other means) and zillions more where a missing child announcement will do absolutely no good. It sounds much more like an attempt to claim, "If you try to enforce the law against junk faxes, you're a child molester." paul ------------------------------ From: ctill@nc.rr.com (Chuck Till) Subject: Re: Sprint history (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 01:53:16 GMT Organization: Road Runner - NC > About 1990 or so (don't hold me to specific dates), GTE > sold a 50% stake in the company to United Telephone, and they changed > the name again to US Sprint. United bought out GTE's share around > 1994-95. Close. United Telecom began its play in long distance by acquiring two resellers, ISACOMM in 1982 and US Telephone in 1984. The fiber network build was also announced that year. In 1985, United consolidated its long distance operations into a single entity, US Telecom. In 1986, United Telecom and GTE contributed US Telecom and GTE Sprint respectively to form a new company, US Sprint, that was 50-50 between GTE and United Telecom. In 1989 United raised its stake to 80%, and in 1992 United Telecom bought the whole thing and renamed itself Sprint. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2002 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #4 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Aug 24 22:49:41 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7P2nfa19710; Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:49:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:49:41 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208250249.g7P2nfa19710@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #5 TELECOM Digest Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:50:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 5 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Decoding CLLI (Robert Johnson) MCI Worldcom's 555 PIC Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Minute (Frank) Re: Does Such a Technology Exist? (Dave Phelps) Re: Does Such a Technology Exist? (Scott Dorsey) Re: Sprint History (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) (Wes Leatherock) Exchange Information (Steven Lichter) Verizon Wireless #777 Internet Access - News Group Server? (John Stahl) Re: News Headlines of Interest 8/23/02 (Linc Madison) Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? (Steve Elias) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (William Warren) Re: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates (J on the phone) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Johnson Subject: Decoding CLLI Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 21:43:35 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - West I have a question that perhaps the list could answer; is there a listing out there that will allow me to decode what equipment a particular CLLI identifies, IE, figure out what switch someone is on by looking at their CLLI. Robert K. Johnson Jr, KF6ECP Qyouth101@socal.rr.com ------------------------------ From: coolwebgeek@yahoo.com (Frank) Subject: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Minute Date: 24 Aug 2002 18:50:11 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ First, I was a GTC Telecom (MCI Worldcom reseller) customer. I recently dropped them due to this problem. A couple of months ago I changed my phone number because I was getting too many telemarketing phone calls. I told Pacific Bell to keep everything the same for Intralata and long distance calling. OK, so they setup the changed phone number to have the 555 code. Now I probably know rates, tariffs ... as well as almost anyone, and I've been helping consumers get the best deals on phone rates for years, but I forgot to call GTC Telecom and tell them that I had a new phone number, I figured it would get magically tranmitted for me. OK ... that is my mistake :( When I got my first phone bill after this change, I had phone calls that were almost $2 per minute for Intralata calls, and even more for some state-to-state calls. When I called GTC Telecom, they told me I had to go talk to MCI WorldCom. MCI WorldCom said that people make this mistake all the time, but that it is your problem because I was on their network without being tied to a 555 reseller such as GTC Telecom. Well, after I did enough calls, they offered to rerate all of the calls at 30 cents a minute. THE DEBATE: As part of these calls, MCI Worldcom indicated that they did not have any fixed rates for these types of calls and they dynamically changed rates to be whatever, and that the rates could even be as high as $3 per minute for in-state or state-to-state calls. Question: What do you guys think? I know I made an error here, but MCI Worldcom knows that this is a common problem and they make a fortune when it happens. I could see them setting the default rate to be 40 cents a minute for any call not tied to a reseller. For these calls, MCI Worldcom's reseller service does not have any rates that they can tell consumers other than we charged you whatever we wanted to charge you. ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Does Such a Technology Exist? Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:48:37 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com You are looking for a service bureau. Most LEC's provide this service. SWB calls it call notes, Ameritech calls it Ameritech voicemail. There are also many private service bureaus that would probably be cheaper and more versatile than a LEC. I used to work for a company that ran a service bureau, and sometimes we would have requests to do some strange stuff with menus & mailboxes. As far as 'unlimited' concurrent calls, no one can do that, but the limit is defined by the number of incoming trunks to the system. In article , tkondaks@primenet.com says: > Can anyone tell me if such a technology already exist and, if so, what > is the product name ... > 3 requirements: > 1)I need a telephone answering machine that can answer many in-coming > calls at once ON THE SAME LINE (SAME TELEPHONE NUMBER) so that all the > callers get serviced and can leave their messages without getting a > busy signal. Indeed, if the technology can handle an UNLIMITED number > of calls all at once, so much the better! > 2) I want to hook up such technology to a toll-free number. > 3) The actual machine/technology does NOT have to be located on my > premises just so long as I can access the messages remotely (just as > we all can with those voice messaging systems local telephone > companies offer residential customers). > I thank you in advance to your attention to these questions. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The technology you want is telco voice > mail in a business application with a business phone number. Tell > telco to install voice mail on your business line. Have telco give > you as many internal mailboxes on that voicemail as you need. Get a > toll free number and have it tied onto that number. Voice mail can > take an infinite number of incoming calls. Be sure to tell the telco > service rep to add 'operator escape' to the voicemail. Then after you > in the opening menu announce your various boxes (i.e. press one to > hear about X; press two, etc) you can then conclude your opening > announcement by telling the caller, 'press zero to be transferred to > a live person who can help you'. That's what operator escape does on > a BUSINESS voicemail system/account. Anyone who the presses zero > gets transferred to whatever line you tell telco you want those calls > to go to. PAT] Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Does Such a Technology Exist? Date: 24 Aug 2002 16:53:57 -0400 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) Tony Kondaks wrote: > Can anyone tell me if such a technology already exist and, if so, what > is the product name ... > 3 requirements: > 1)I need a telephone answering machine that can answer many in-coming > calls at once ON THE SAME LINE (SAME TELEPHONE NUMBER) so that all the > callers get serviced and can leave their messages without getting a > busy signal. Indeed, if the technology can handle an UNLIMITED number > of calls all at once, so much the better! You cannot have more than one call on a given line. You need a rotary of several telephone lines, each with an answering machine set up, so that when one line busies out, the call is transferred to the next one. This is a standard telco service. I don't think the size is unlimited but you can get at least a couple hundred lines on a rotary. > 2) I want to hook up such technology to a toll-free number. This is also a standard telco service. Toll free number forwards to the lowest number on the rotary. > 3) The actual machine/technology does NOT have to be located on my > premises just so long as I can access the messages remotely (just as > we all can with those voice messaging systems local telephone > companies offer residential customers). For remote access, you might be better off with a rotary going into a multiline voice mail box rather than individual machines. --scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 24 Aug 2002 13:38:17 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Sprint history (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 01:53:16 GMT ctill@nc.rr.com (Chuck Till) wrote: > In 1989 United raised its stake to 80%, and in > 1992 United Telecom bought the whole thing and renamed itself Sprint. Talking about renaming yourself after the company you acquired: Phil Anschutz, mentioned previously in this thread, owned the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad ("Rio Grande") with headquarters in Denver, his usual base of operations. In 1989. following regulatory approval, Anschutz and his Rio Grande Railroad acquired the Southern Pacific Railroad. The Southern Pacific headquarters (in San Francisco) were consolidated into the Rio Grande headquarters in Denver...and Anschutz changed the name of the Rio Grande company, now the parent, to Southern Pacific. Later he sold the Southern Pacific to the Union Pacific Railroad, reserving the right to lay communications cables along the right-of-way (not just abandoned right of way). (Incidentally, Anschutz is now the largest stockholder in the Union Pacific.) This also led to the curious situation of railroad cable-laying trains and equipment owned by the Southern Pacific Construction Company, which was no longer owned by any railroad. The Southern Pacific Construction Company eventually changed its named to Qwest Construction, or something like that, which made it much less confusing. Qwest, and the Union Pacific Railroad, are only a few among Phil Anschutz's many business interests. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Subject: Exchange Information Date: 24 Aug 2002 06:53:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Is there a site that lists what companies operate exchanges? I know with the new FCC rules some may be split. I'm interested in who operates in the Brownsville, Calif area, East of Sacramento. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE,support for the Apple II and Macintosh 24 hours 2400/14.4. OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one! Have you hunted one down today? (c) I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Company. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 13:04:31 -0400 From: John Stahl Subject: Verizon Wireless #777 Internet Access - News Group Server? My new cell phone service from Verizon Wireless (VW) offers Internet access both directly through the phone (a Motorola v120c phone) with a service called "Mobile Web" and with a special cable assembly (and dialing software both from Motorola) through either a computer or a Palm OS type device, with a service called "Mobile Office". With the "Mobile Office" connection, you get a nice (though a little slow!) access point at no additional cost (eliminates an ISP) to the Internet. In addition, there are a whole bunch of programs available for the Palm OS from various sources which give you a Browsers, email clients and a News Group Readers. The browser connection is neat as you can "surf the Net" with few limitations. With the News Reader program you get just about everything which a PC based news reader (like Free Agent) give you. But here I have a problem: The VW connection to the Internet through the #777 connection is just that, a connection to the Internet. VW does not offer any of the typical Internet servers as most ISP's would give you for such things as, email and the news groups access. Does anyone know of any news group type server Internet address which is available for access by an anonymous Internet connection? An example would be: URL: 192.23.xxx.... plus any ID and password necessary to connect to it. Typically most ISP's have their servers located behind firewalls which are only accessible by their members. Thanks, in advance, for any help with this. John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecom/Data Consultant ------------------------------ From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: News Headlines of Interest 8/23/02 Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 11:37:48 -0700 Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > Court Awards Akamai Broad Permanent Injunction Against Cable & > Wireless; Cable & Wireless Ordered to Immediately and Permanently > Shut Down Digital Island Footprint 2.0 Service > - Aug 22, 2002 06:15 PM (BusinessWire) > CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 22, 2002-- [abridging] Akamai > announced that the Court has enjoined Cable & Wireless ... Claims 1, > 3, 5, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703 ... requires C&W to shut > down Digital Island's Footprint 2.0 (recently rebranded as Exodus) > - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28408107 That's all fine and well, but the press blurb doesn't say a thing about what Footprint/Exodus is or does, or what Patent 6,108,703 claims 1, 3, 5, or 9 is about. Akamai won an injunction, but they certainly don't know how to write a coherent press release. It reminds me of the ads for various medications where they exhort you to ask your doctor if Aljsfkjhqwrtyhflkasdryewryl is right for you, but they don't tell you if it's a contraceptive or an allergy medication. I know they don't want to be sued if someone self-medicates without proper medical oversight, but they could at least give some general clue as to what sorts of problems the product might address. www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California ------------------------------ Subject: Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? From: Steve Elias Date: 24 Aug 2002 16:32:13 -0400 John Higdon writes: > To each his own. I'm afraid that I'm going to need far more than the > novelty of HD. It might be fun to watch the usual insipid fare once or > twice in HD, but to spend real money to have it full-time? Maybe you could just try a settop box for a 30-days and then return it to the store? Does Frye's allow that? (Tweeter etc does.) I'd like to hear your comments on the technology, independent of the fact that the content bores you. Broadcast TV is not all insipid fare. For example, the US Open in 1080i ought to be fantastic. The masters golf tournament in HD looked outstanding in 1080i, as did the NCAA final basketball tournament. maybe we'll get some NFL games in HD next season. (None this season.) But maybe sports bores you too ...? > I don't think so. I, like you, have pretty much abandoned NTSC, but > it isn't the lack of resolution or the color variability that turned > me off; it was the content. For the interesting content, I find it worthwhile to be able to view it in native HD or upconverted NTSC->HD, but not worthwhile to view NTSC. >> [about recording DTV/HDTV] > I can't even imagine on what you would find worthy of wasting the > time, money, or the recording media. I won't bother to list all of my favorite tv shows since surely you would/could/should deride them. To each his own taste ... there are many nights when I find that both a commercial DTV station and PBS are broadcasting something interesting at the same time. imho, there is *plenty* of decent free content. > For now, I have a very impressive home theater in which I watch DVDs > and (if unavailable on DVD) laserdiscs. Since I purchase the > programming on a title by title basis, I obviously find it worth > watching. The 120" forward-projection system is HD-capable, but I > doubt that I will ever connect it to a DTV receiver. Why would I? > There is nothing there worth the expense or the effort. The expense could be practically zero if you just got the equipment on 30-day-evaluation. As a broadcaster and techie, aren't you interested in the simple technical facts about how the technology works? Perhaps you are too busy. > For the sake of the industry (in which I happen to work), I hope there > are more people out there like you who actually enjoy the broadcast > drek, or at least are so jazzed by the technology that they would sit > in rapture watching the intellectual equivalent of color bars. I suppose life is happier when one is easily amused. Lucky me! I plan to keep buying DTV equipment. HDTV is simply fantastic. Perhaps the linedoubler in your setup is so good that DVDs look almost as good as HDTV but I would be interested to hear your comments about how well HDTV works in your area technically. Perhaps 'enraptured' describes myself and the two or three other DTV viewers in the USA. But my color-blind eyes do not find rapture in viewing static color bars. Instead I find rapture in viewing the ntscvictoria's secret commercials upconverted to 1080i, sports in HD, and the 1080i-sourced desert/cityscape shots of las Vegas in the CBS show CSI, for a couple of examples. Tonight's little league world series (upconverted ntsc->1080i) broadcast will be far more enjoyable than it would be if I watched the awful cable tv picture. Play ball! /eli, actual DTV viewer ------------------------------ Reply-To: William Warren From: William Warren Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Organization: Church of the Swimming Bullfrog Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 20:54:06 GMT Paul A Lee wrote in message news:telecom22.4.9@telecom-digest.org: > "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, > and wrong." - H.L. Mencken > Some people are inconsiderate and thoughtless. [snip] > But now, we can blame those transgressions on wireless technology, and > once again prove Mencken right. > Education is preferable to legislation. People's behavior and attitudes > should be the primary targets, rather than the technology. > People aren't rude or stupid because they are talking on a cell phone in > situations where they shouldn't be. They're using the phone in that > place and manner because they're already rude and stupid. [snip] > The issue is -- or should be -- about human behavior, and not the device > or the technology. "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity." - Robert A. Heinlein The issue *IS* human behavior, and humans screw up *a lot*. They forget they have their pagers and/or cell phones on, they sit in a (probably) new and (likely) unfamiliar surrounding, and the rest is inevitable. The *use* of the device, at least by those whom choose to do so after interrupting a performance, is clearly boorish, but its activation is, IMNSHO, almost always an accident. Ergo, the need for countermeasures such as a Faraday cage. William ------------------------------ From: 617@volcanomail.com (J on the phone) Subject: Re: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates Date: 24 Aug 2002 14:03:48 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Mr. Knowitall wrote: > The resolution I seek -- I want AT&T to honor the original rates they > quoted so I can pay the bill as I planned, with rates commensurate > with what I was led to believe I would get. > Can anyone offer some advice please? Thank you. Throughout handling the provisioning of thousands of phone lines, POTS, ISDN and up, I've never seen any ILEC allow an installed business service to be changed to residential service, even if the same service is allowed as residential at the location affected. The service would have to be disconnected and re-setup. You stated that the ISDN line in your home was originally ordered by your employer. Just changing the billing info for the line would not change it to a residential account. When you talked to the sales department, you likely called the number for residential sales, since that's what you assumed you had. They quoted the rates for residential service, assuming you had called the correct department. Through a misunderstanding, you had not. The order for the residential rate plans was kicked out when order processing found that you were trying to put the rate on a business line. While that was inadvertant, it was rejected, just as a order would be rejected if your credit card was refused for a purchase. It is unfortunate that you were not contacted with the information that the rate could not apply to you, but not really an ethical (certainly not a legal) problem. I'm sure that in the future, you'll confirm your being accepted on a rate plan before making those calls. Sadly, your experience -- somewhat modified -- has happened to millions. Hopefully, you can get some relief from AT&T, but no guarantee. However, given the information gap in your situation, you may wish to modify your Internet moniker. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #5 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Aug 25 14:30:55 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7PIUtM24632; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 14:30:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 14:30:55 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208251830.g7PIUtM24632@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #6 TELECOM Digest Sun, 25 Aug 2002 14:30:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 6 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cable TV Copyright (Neal McLain) Re: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates (Ed Ellers) Nokia Unlocking, Repairs, Upgrades and Modifications (no.email.address) Re: Decoding CLLI (Jack Adams) Re: Decoding CLLI (Arthur Kamlet) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Ed Ellers) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (John Higdon) Re: Sprint history (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) (Ed Ellers) Payphones (Robert Johnson) Telephone Surge Suppressor (Leonard Erickson) Re: Verizon Wireless #777 Internet Access - News Group Serv (Stan Cline) Re: Exchange Information (Carl Navarro) Re: Verizon Wireless #777 Internet Access - News Group Serv (Schnittman) Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Min (W. Tom) Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? (John Higdon) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 04:02:18 -0600 From: Neal McLain Subject: Cable TV Copyright I wrote: > The FCC's signal-carriage rules, [...] specified the > conditions under which cable systems could carry the > signals of television broadcast stations. [...] But > nowhere in these rules is there any mention > of any form of financial compensation by either party. Whereupon Garrett Wollman wrote: > However, cable systems were still required to pay license > fees -- just not to the stations themselves. The fees > were (still are?) paid directly to a department of the > U.S. Copyright Office, which was responsible for > distributing the revenue received among the copyright > owners (mostly Hollywood studios). True: they were, and still are. But that's copyright law, not telecommunications law. The payments made by cable TV operators are called "copyright royalty fees"; they are defined by statute, and they are not subject to free-market negotiation. The whole process is administered by the U.S. Copyright Office. Some history: Throughout the early years of the cable television industry, a number of broadcast entities and program suppliers had attempted to impose copyright liability on cable systems on grounds that they were "performing" their copyrighted works without permission. Some had sued, but the courts were divided on the issue because the then-current copyright law (The Copyright Act of 1909) did not address it. This issue eventually made its way to the United States Supreme Court [Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists (1968)]. In this case, United Artists Television, owner of the copyright on several motion pictures, had sued Fortnightly Corporation, a cable television operator, alleging that Fortnightly had "performed" several of United Artists' motion pictures without permission. United Artists won the first round in District Court. Fortnightly appealed; United Artists won again in the Court of Appeals. Finally, Fortnightly appealed to the United States Supreme Court; in a divided opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ruled for Fortnightly. But the Court made it clear that is was not ruling on the merits of the case; instead, it was merely refusing to write new laws. Justice Potter Stewart delivered the opinion of the Court as follows: "We have been invited ... to render a compromise decision in this case that would, it is said, accommodate various competing considerations of copyright, communications, and antitrust policy. We decline the invitation. That job is for Congress. We take the Copyright Act of 1909 as we find it. With due regard to changing technology, we hold that the petitioner did not under that law `perform' the respondent's copyrighted works. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed." At the behest of broadcasters and program suppliers -- as well as the cable industry, which wanted to get the issue resolved once and for all -- Congress eventually revised the copyright law. The new law, the Copyright Act of 1976, created a legal construct known as the "compulsory license." The compulsory license did two things: It guaranteed that cable systems had the right to "secondarily transmit" broadcast stations without having to obtain copyright clearance from the individual stations or from any program supplier. It established a system for collecting royalties from cable operators and disbursing them to "claimants" -- the various program suppliers, music producers, sports interests, and others who claimed a piece of the pie. Two government agencies were charged with the responsibility for collecting and disbursing royalties: The U.S. Copyright Office, a unit of the Library of Congress, was assigned the job of collecting the royalty fees and depositing them into a trust fund in the United States Treasury. An independent federal agency known as the Copyright Royalty Tribunal (CRT) received two assignments: establishing the fee schedule and allocating the proceeds among the claimants. This procedure worked reasonably well, although the CRT had more than its share of political trouble (at one point, it received Senator Proxmire's Golden Fleece Award in recognition of the amount of money it had spent on plants for its offices). Yet in spite of its political problems, the CRT did manage to establish a royalty fee schedule for cable television companies. Royalty fees were based on several factors including each separate cable system's gross revenues and the number of distant non-network broadcast stations it carried. Royalty fees were to be calculated and paid semiannually. During the Clinton Administration, the CRT was abolished as part of the "Reinventing Government" effort, and was replaced by a system that utilized a three-member Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP). CARPs are convened on an ad-hoc basis when needed to set royalty fees and/or distribute royalties to claimants. This procedure is still in place today. CARPs are also used to set copyright royalty fees for other distribution methods (e.g. satellite television, digital audio recordings, jukeboxes, webcasting), and to distribute the proceeds. The current altercation over webcasting of sound recordings centers on a CARP recommendation. Related links: - Copyright Office website: http://www.copyright.gov/ - Copyright Law of the United States: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ - CARPs generally: http://www.copyright.gov/carp/ - Full text of Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=392&invol=390 Garrett also wrote: > These days, most major-market station operators use the > 'retrans consent' process as a way to extort more money > from cable ratepayers, by requiring cable systems to carry > affiliated non-broadcast services in their standard tier > of service, as a condition of carrying the broadcast > signal. Thus, if you have a Disney-owned station in your > market, chances are pretty good that you are paying for > all of the Disney cable channels as a part of your basic > cable package. But cable operators still have to pay those copyright royalty fees to the Copyright Office no matter what their "Retrans[mission] Consent" agreements stipulate. And you know who ends up paying for it all. This is what your elected representatives call "Consumer Protection." Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:37:54 -0400 J on the phone <617@volcanomail.com> wrote: Throughout handling the provisioning of thousands of phone lines, POTS, ISDN and up, I've never seen any ILEC allow an installed business service to be changed to residential service, even if the same service is allowed as residential at the location affected. The service would have to be disconnected and re-setup." AIUI, this is to prevent someone from changing business service to residential and continuing to take business calls on an established number. ------------------------------ From: no.email.address.entered@none444.yet Subject: Nokia Unlocking, Repairs, Upgrades and Modifications Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 04:54:07 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Here is a great new site for Nokia Unlocking, Upgrading, Repairs and Modifications at very competitive prices. Blootoon Nokia Resources http://b-n-r.port5.com ------------------------------ From: Jack Adams Reply-To: jack.adams@ieee.org Subject: Re: Decoding CLLI Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 13:38:08 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet While the following link is not a database, it is a good starting point, since Telcordia (nee Bellcore, nee Bell Labs) developed Common Language Location codes (CLLI). The Telcordia CLLI page should be a good start. (Just in case the the embedded link doesn't work ...) http://www.telcordia.com/resources/commonlang/productshowroom/product/clli_tech/index.html Robert Johnson wrote: > I have a question that perhaps the list could answer; is there a listing > out there that will allow me to decode what equipment a particular CLLI > identifies, IE, figure out what switch someone is on by looking at their > CLLI. > Robert K. Johnson Jr, KF6ECP > Qyouth101@socal.rr.com -- John "Jack" Adams, IEEE Fellow jack.adams@ieee.org "God's job is to pass judgment on Bin Laden and company. The USMC's job is to make that meeting happen!" Tom Friedman (NYTimes 1/4/2002) ------------------------------ From: kamlet@panix.com (Arthur Kamlet) Subject: Re: Decoding CLLI Date: 24 Aug 2002 23:26:42 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: ArtKamlet@aol.REMOVE.com In article , Robert Johnson wrote: > I have a question that perhaps the list could answer; is there a listing > out there that will allow me to decode what equipment a particular CLLI > identifies, IE, figure out what switch someone is on by looking at their > CLLI. CLLI doesn't guarantee identification down to the switch. If you must know the switch ID use CLEI. First 4 are locality, next two are state and the last 5 usually identify street address and floor and/or location on the floor, but this is local convention, and there's no guarantee that CLLI can identify the specific switch. Telcordia might be the best source for CLLIs, but CLEIs are set by individual Telcos. -- Art Kamlet ArtKamlet @ AOL.com Columbus OH K2PZH ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:43:26 -0400 William Warren wrote: > The issue *IS* human behavior, and humans screw up *a lot*. They > forget they have their pagers and/or cell phones on, they sit in a > (probably) new and (likely) unfamiliar surrounding, and the rest is > inevitable. The *use* of the device, at least by those whom choose > to do so after interrupting a performance, is clearly boorish, but > its activation is, IMNSHO, almost always an accident. Ergo, the need > for countermeasures such as a Faraday cage. Which, however, punishes those who do use their phones responsibly -- meaning by using a vibrating ringer or turning the ringer off. In my case, if I carry the phone with the ringer off, when I check the phone after the performance I will still see whether anyone called (and their numbers) or left a text message. If I switch it off, if the signal is blocked as you seem to advocate, or if I leave it in the trunk of my car, not only do I not get the Caller IDs but I won't know for some time -- possibly two hours later! -- whether anyone has sent me a text message, as VoiceStream seems to take forever to discover that one of their customers' phones is back in range. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 10:21:21 -0700 Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.5.10@telecom-digest.org, William Warren wrote: > The issue *IS* human behavior, and humans screw up *a lot*. They > forget they have their pagers and/or cell phones on, they sit in a > (probably) new and (likely) unfamiliar surrounding, and the rest is > inevitable. The *use* of the device, at least by those whom choose to > do so after interrupting a performance, is clearly boorish, but its > activation is, IMNSHO, almost always an accident. Ergo, the need for > countermeasures such as a Faraday cage. I, and a group of my friends, are in a business that requires us to be on call 24/7. Occasionally, we as a group attend a movie, play, concert or whatever. Half jokingly, someone invariably mutters "pagers on stun" as we enter the venue, meaning that we put cellphones, pagers, and other devices in "vibrate" mode. If that emergency call comes, we are expected to return it within minutes ... that's why we carry all the gadgetry. The person so contacted quietly gets up and leaves the room to make the call. If performance venues began interfering with this communication method, there are some of us who would be unable to ever again casually attend entertainment. Virtually the same arrangements would have to be made as though we were leaving the country. Until we, as a society, get over the idea that modern communications are nothing more than toys that inflict irritation on those who see no real need for them, we will remain immature in how we utilize these important tools. Penalizing those who use these tools responsibly and with consideration for others is in itself a ham-handed and immature response to a simple behavioral problem. -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Sprint History (was Re: Any Open Wire Carrier Left?) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:47:56 -0400 Wes Leatherock wrote: > Talking about renaming yourself after the company you acquired: A couple more examples are Westinghouse Electric Corporation, which -- some time after it took over CBS Incorporated -- renamed itself CBS Corporation when it decided to divest all its non-media holdings, and GEC in Britain, which took over Marconi in the late 1960s and changed its name to Marconi plc in 1999. (The fact that GEC was formally the General Electric Company plc -- though they were not connected to the more famous GE -- no doubt played a role in that decision.) ------------------------------ From: Robert Johnson Subject: Payphones Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 05:37:08 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - West Are payphones required to to allow access to 800 numbers ... and specificly the 800 access number for Long distance companys? -- Robert K. Johnson Jr, KF6ECP Qyouth101@socal.rr.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They're supposed to, yes. Privately owned payphones (often times referred to as COCOTS [Customer-Owned Coin-Operated Telephones] usually require that 25-50 cents be dep- osited to make up for the 'loss' the owner has by not collecting on the calls otherwise. This does not come up on telco-owned and operated phones, since telco receives revenue for the calls through a process similar to the old 'Separations and Settlements' procedure. Telcos get paid on the 800 calls they handle. The private phone owner does not. The COCOT owner can however register his phone as such and then a surcharge is added to the cost of the call which the recipient pays, and eventually it is given to the COCOT owner. That surcharge was specifically enacted to protect the private pay phone operators. Between that surcharge and the fact that most private opertors require the user to deposit some coins anyway on 800 calls means there is no reason to ban calls like that. If you know of such phones (which lock out toll-free calls) you really should file a complaint. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Leonard Erickson Subject: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:50:03 -0700 Organization: Shadownet I'm looking for a standalone surge suppressor (or I'll even settle for one in a power strip) that'll work with RJ-14 (2 line) wired cables. It's a real pain splitting things to two lines, running them thru *two* separate suppressors, then recombining them again. And since I live in an apartment, I can't wire something in at the demarc. Oh, as long as I'm asking, are there any for RJ-25 (3 line) cables. I don't need one of those, but it'd be nice to know, just in case. -- Leonard Erickson (aka shadow{G}) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: Verizon Wireless #777 Internet Access - News Group Server? Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 04:36:27 -0400 Organization: Roamer1 Communications - Dunwoody, GA, USA Reply-To: sc1-news@roamer1.org On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 13:04:31 -0400, John Stahl wrote: > Does anyone know of any news group type server Internet address which > is available for access by an anonymous Internet connection? An - Free: http://news.cs.dfn.de/ (you must sign up for a login first, but it's free) - Pay: Any "pay" news server (usenetserver.com, Altopia, Airnews, etc.), or a shell account which allows remote NNTP access (e.g., Panix) Or ... just dial your regular ISP using the phone and skip the #777 (you're charged the same either way.) -- Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ ... "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: Exchange Information Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 06:17:39 -0400 Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Organization: http://www.1usenet.com On 24 Aug 2002 06:53:54 -0700, stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) wrote: > Is there a site that lists what companies operate exchanges? I know > with the new FCC rules some may be split. I'm interested in who > operates in the Brownsville, Calif area, East of Sacramento. Try www.nanpa.com. It's hard to say because I'm not familiar with the area, but it looks like 530/916 area codes are very close to Brownsville. The Brownsville airport is in Oroville so does that make the Oroville airport in Brownsville? :-) Anyway, you can d/l the western states exchange list or the entire database by following the links to central office codes/download assignment records and then look for your region or the Access database of ALL CODES. Carl Navarro ------------------------------ From: Alan Schnittman Subject: Re: Verizon Wireless #777 Internet Access - News Group Server? Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 06:10:37 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises John Stahl wrote: > Does anyone know of any news group type server Internet address which > is available for access by an anonymous Internet connection? An Check out: http://news.cis.dfn.de/ Alan Schnittman | Brainchild Evolution, Inc | schnitt@mindspring.com prototype design & development | computer interface embedded control | analog & digital circuits | software development ------------------------------ From: w_tom Subject: Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Minute Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 08:12:15 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Why do we never get to know the cost of a phone call until a month after we have made it? We don't buy anything else without first (being able to) knowing the price. Why can we not know, in advance, what the price of a call will be before we complete it? After all, the phone company has all kinds of other equipment that tells us the number for someone (directory assistance), dialing problems, etc. So why are they not required to make pricing available at the time of purchase? Frank wrote: > First, I was a GTC Telecom (MCI Worldcom reseller) customer. I > recently dropped them due to this problem. > A couple of months ago I changed my phone number because I was getting > too many telemarketing phone calls. I told Pacific Bell to keep > everything the same for Intralata and long distance calling. > OK, so they setup the changed phone number to have the 555 code. > Now I probably know rates, tariffs ... as well as almost anyone, and > I've been helping consumers get the best deals on phone rates for > years, but I forgot to call GTC Telecom and tell them that I had a new > phone number, I figured it would get magically tranmitted for me. OK > ... that is my mistake :( > When I got my first phone bill after this change, I had phone calls > that were almost $2 per minute for Intralata calls, and even more for > some state-to-state calls. > When I called GTC Telecom, they told me I had to go talk to MCI > WorldCom. MCI WorldCom said that people make this mistake all the > time, but that it is your problem because I was on their network > without being tied to a 555 reseller such as GTC Telecom. > Well, after I did enough calls, they offered to rerate all of the > calls at 30 cents a minute. > THE DEBATE: As part of these calls, MCI Worldcom indicated that they > did not have any fixed rates for these types of calls and they > dynamically changed rates to be whatever, and that the rates could > even be as high as $3 per minute for in-state or state-to-state calls. > Question: What do you guys think? > I know I made an error here, but MCI Worldcom knows that this is a > common problem and they make a fortune when it happens. I could see > them setting the default rate to be 40 cents a minute for any call not > tied to a reseller. > For these calls, MCI Worldcom's reseller service does not have any > rates that they can tell consumers other than we charged you whatever > we wanted to charge you. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 10:31:40 -0700 Subject: Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.5.9@telecom-digest.org, Steve Elias wrote: > I suppose life is happier when one is easily amused. Lucky me! I plan > to keep buying DTV equipment. HDTV is simply fantastic. Perhaps the > linedoubler in your setup is so good that DVDs look almost as good as > HDTV but I would be interested to hear your comments about how well > HDTV works in your area technically. As a matter of fact, DVDs look VERY good on the system, having an overall look of projected 35mm film. I'm told by others who own similar components that viewing HDTV on it "blows you away" by comparison ... and these people are not easily impressed. But right now, all I can get over the air is our local NBC affiliate (which is drek) and DirecTV (if I buy a new dish and receiver) showing a demo channel and a premium channel in 1080i. The San Francisco stations (which are quite weak here) would require more receiving effort than I care to expend. And, of course, cable has no plans to carry any DTV signals. It would seem that for now, HDTV (or even DTV) is not in my future. -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #6 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Aug 26 13:26:09 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7QHQ9o01757; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:26:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:26:09 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208261726.g7QHQ9o01757@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #7 TELECOM Digest Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:25:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 7 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Does Such a Technology Exist? (Wes Leatherock) Re: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates (Tom Brown) Medicine Ads (was Re: News Headlines of Interest) (Bill Levant) Re: Exchange Information (Clarence Dold) Re: Payphones (John Higdon) Re: Payphones (Stanley Cline) Re: Payphones (Dave Levenson) 1010/800 Number Dialing With no LD Carrier? (David L) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (w_tom) Strowger Gravesite (Continued) (Neal McLain) Verizon Call Reject?? (Dave Hauss) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Paul Wallich) Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? (Kim Brennan) Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 (Kim Brennan) For the Business Directory (David B. Horvath, CCP) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 25 Aug 2002 17:54:05 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Does Such a Technology Exist? On 24 Aug 2002 16:53:57 -0400 kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: > You cannot have more than one call on a given line. You need a rotary > of several telephone lines, each with an answering machine set up, so > that when one line busies out, the call is transferred to the next > one. This is a standard telco service. I don't think the size is > unlimited but you can get at least a couple hundred lines on a rotary. Many rotary groups are far more than 200 lines -- quite a few are in the thousands. When 5XB came out a generation or two ago, one of its advantages was that you could have an additional unnumbered group of 2,500 lines that could be used for rollover numbers -- all from the same number if desired. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How many rollover lines are there connected or associated with telco voicemail systems? I mean to say, once a call has been forwarded from your premises to telco's voicemail system, isn't the number of calls which can be thus forwarded (or handled by voicemail) virtually infinite, or as 'unlimited' as any reasonable person would want? Granted, there is that one or two second period when someone is attaching to your line and ringing it that other calls cannot get in, but once the first call has moved out of the way (to voicemail) then another call can get in. When I was working at the bus station in Skokie, Illinois several years ago, we had two lines in a 'hunt group' which would hunt in either direction (line one to two or two back to one) and one telco voice mail. The first number was 'aliased' to the second line for the purposes of voice mail. We had a third actual line which was not in the hunt group and frequently used for fax and it had an answering machine attached to it. 'Operator Escape' on the voicemail ("press zero for immediate help") transferred the callers to the Greyhound National Information Line at 800-231-2222. On the voicemail, the front end announcement told people press one for northbound schedules and Milwaukee/Green Bay connections, press two for downtown Chicago and east/west connections, press three for location of station and hours of operation information, or press zero for help now. We deliberatly tried to make it go busy, but the only time it ever did was when two or three other phones went off hook and dialed into us at *immediatly* the same time. But let one of the calls get out of the way for an instant and another one could get in. So for all intents and purposes business line voicemail might be a good solution for the reader. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kibri@eudoramail.com (Tom Brown) Subject: Re: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates Date: 25 Aug 2002 11:09:41 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Mr. Knowitall wrote in message news:: > I just finished listening to AT&T trying to sell me their long > distance -- the benefit they offered is a reduction on a bill I had no > idea was going to be so big. You see, they sold me a plan (all > verbal) and then didn't honor the rates they quoted. I can't comment > on exactly what the rates they charged me were, other than I bought a > plan that was supposed to allow me to call my friends in Mexico for > .20 / minute -- because: Hi, I don't know much about Texas State Government, but in California you could submit this to the State Public Utilities Comission for redress. I assume that Texas has a similar commission with review rights over AT&T. It seems pretty clear that although miscommunication was noted, AT&T is apparently taking you on a rough ride. I have been with AT&T 30+ years, but I intend to go with SBC for LD when it becomes available here. Between Cable AT&T and the crappy LD service and nickle and dime pricing I won't be with them much longer (Note SBC ain't great either but I am not as mad at them). Go to the Government for help on this one, a lot was missrepresented to you, yet they want every dime. Tom (Please no spam) ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 14:32:39 EDT Subject: Medicine Ads (was Re: News Headlines of Interest) > It reminds me of the ads for various medications where they exhort you > to ask your doctor if Aljsfkjhqwrtyhflkasdryewryl is right for you, > but they don't tell you if it's a contraceptive or an allergy > medication. I know they don't want to be sued if someone > self-medicates without proper medical oversight, but they could at > least give some general clue as to what sorts of problems the product > might address. Until recently (i.e. sometime within the past few years ... I forget exactly when), FDA rules said that if an advertisement mentioned BOTH the name of the drug AND the condition it was supposed to treat, then the ad was REQUIRED to contain the "basic information" box-o-fine-print, which is usually found on a nearby page in magazine advertising. By ONLY mentioning the name of the drug, advertisers could avoid this rule, which was necessary because of the time and space limitations of radio and TV advertising. Now, the FDA will let the drug makers mention both name and use, provided that the ad also contains (a) a list of major risks and side effects of the drug, and (b) a means by which additional information can be obtained, such as a toll-free number, a web address or a referral to current print advertising. Bill ------------------------------ From: dold@61.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Exchange Information Date: 25 Aug 2002 18:44:43 GMT Organization: Wintercreek Data Carl Navarro wrote: > On 24 Aug 2002 06:53:54 -0700, stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) > wrote: >> Is there a site that lists what companies operate exchanges? I know >> with the new FCC rules some may be split. I'm interested in who >> operates in the Brownsville, Calif area, East of Sacramento. > Try www.nanpa.com. It's hard to say because I'm not familiar with the > area, but it looks like 530/916 area codes are very close to > Brownsville. The Brownsville airport is in Oroville so does that make > the Oroville airport in Brownsville? :-) > Anyway, you can d/l the western states exchange list or the entire > database by following the links to central office codes/download > assignment records and then look for your region or the Access > database of ALL CODES. Brownsville doesn't appear on it's own, nor do any of the nearby areas. If you knew the Area Code (530) and prefix, you could find the owning company in the tables that Carl mentioned. They are available as flat ASCII, or I could look it up if you gave me the prefix. If you have Access, the whole thing is in the Allcodes.zip http://www.nanpa.com/number_resource_info/co_code_assignments.html http://www.nanpa.com/nanp1/AllCodes.zip ALLCODES.MDB Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 11:50:54 -0700 Subject: Re: Payphones From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.6.9@telecom-digest.org, Robert Johnson wrote: > Are payphones required to to allow access to 800 numbers ... and > specificly the 800 access number for Long distance companys? IXCs are now required to compensate all payphone owners (including private pay phones) for each inward toll-free call made. To effect this, a surcharge is levied to the toll-free customer for each call made from a payphone. That is why pre-paid calling cards now charge (debit the balance) more for calls made from payphones and why some toll-free customers block calls from payphones. I believe the per-call surcharge is on the order of twenty-eight cents ... but it has been awhile since I checked. It would be to the payphone owner's advantage to allow access to 800-numbers and hence be compensated by the 800-number carrier. -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: Payphones Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 15:04:54 -0400 Organization: Roamer1 Communications - Dunwoody, GA, USA Reply-To: sc1-news@roamer1.org On Sun, 25 Aug 2002 05:37:08 GMT, Robert Johnson wrote: > Are payphones required to to allow access to 800 numbers ... and > specifically the 800 access number for Long distance companys? Yes. And PAT wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They're supposed to, yes. Privately > owned payphones (often times referred to as COCOTS [Customer-Owned > Coin-Operated Telephones] usually require that 25-50 cents be dep- > osited to make up for the 'loss' the owner has by not collecting > on the calls otherwise. This does not come up on telco-owned and Requiring coins for toll-free is against state regulations everywhere I know of. Payphones may do it, but they aren't supposed to -- that's what payphone compensation is for. Then again, there are still phones I know of that can't handle 888, 877 or 866 or various combinations thereof; misrate 8xx-555-xxxx; reroute 800-CALL-ATT to 1010288-0 (which screws up rates for many AT&T calling card customers); etc. Most of these messed-up phones are owned by payphone owners, often very small one-person COCOT companies or stores/restaurants/malls/etc. that own their own phones instead of having a third-party COCOT company run them, who don't have a clue about the telecom side of the business, or are still using obsolete, unsupported [e.g., "AT&T"/Lucent -- who dropped support for their private payphone products a year or two ago -- and most older, cheap "desktop"] phones. > Telcos get paid on the 800 calls they handle. The private phone owner > does not. The COCOT owner can however register his phone as such and > then a surcharge is added to the cost of the call which the recipient Technically, any COCOT line should have the correct translations applied to ensure the correct ANI II digits (those identifying the line as a COCOT line) are sent to IXCs. As for getting the money: a division of the APCC (the payphone industry's trade group) handles distribution of the payphone compensation money to individual payphone owners that don't want to work with the LD carriers themselves (as many larger payphone companies do.) -- Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ ... "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 15:37:25 EDT From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Payphones Robert K. Johnson asks: > Are payphones required to to allow access to 800 numbers ... and > specificly the 800 access number for Long distance companys? Pat responds (in part): > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They're supposed to, yes. Privately > owned payphones (often times referred to as COCOTS [Customer-Owned > Coin-Operated Telephones] usually require that 25-50 cents be dep- > osited ... Yes, payphones are required, by the FCC, to allow their users to call all toll-free numbers. No, Pat, they are not permitted, by FCC, to require a coin deposit for such calls. It does not matter who owns the payphone. The Telco or the independent payphone service provider are required to allow coinless access to all toll-free numbers. The carriers who accept calls to toll-free numbers from payphones are required, by the FCC, to pay for the use of the payphone. The amount is $0.24 per completed call. Payments from carriers to payphone service providers are made via a National Payphone Clearinghouse. The FCC has no specific requirement regarding how the carriers recover this cost. Most carriers do it by marking it up and passing it along to the billed party - i.e. the recipient of the toll-free call. Some businesses (and some government agencies) who have toll-free numbers refuse to accept calls from payphones. They are permitted to do this. If a particular toll-free number cannot be called from a payphone, it may be blocked by the recipient. These numbers should reach a recording that says: "The number you have called cannot be reached from a payphone" or words to that effect. The payphone service provider, however, is not permitted to block any toll-free calls. Dave Levenson Westmark, Inc. Voice: 908 647 0900 Email: dave@westmark.com Stirling, NJ, USA Fax: 908 647 6857 Web: http://www.westmark.com ------------------------------ From: davidlind@my-deja.com (David L) Subject: 1010/800 # Dialing With no LD Carrier? Date: 26 Aug 2002 05:00:40 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi all, Can someone tell me if 1010 dialarounds or 800 numbers can be dialed from an ordinary telephone line with no LD carrier? Any info about consistancy across carriers or other details would be appreciated. Always thought that a LD carrier of NONE would only allow 1010 dialarounds and no 800 number dialing. I'm researching this for misc.consumers.frugal-living where others are reporting just the opposite case. Thanks, David DavNOLindiSPAM(at)hotmail(dot)com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: YES, those calls can be made from phones with 'none' as their carrier of choice. The reason is, in the case of toll-free (or 800 numbers) the choice is being made by the recipient of the call, who is the person paying for it. You are not paying for the call; they are, so they choose the carrier they wish to use. In the case of ten-tens, you should really not use that phrase in the same sentence as 'frugal living'. Dial-arounds are notoriously expensive to use. All you are doing is making your finger work harder for the privilege of paying more for the call. If you want to be 'frugal' then get a carrier, like IDT as one example, which charges five cents per minute or less, has one-plus ability, or get a cell phone with thousands of minutes 'free' each month and long- distance calls included. Southwestern Bell (or SBC as it is called now) gets between 4 cents and 7 cents per minute on long-distance, depending if you don't mind paying $4.50 per month for the cheapest rate. It more or less amortizes at 5 cents per minute if you use at least 100 plus minutes of LD each month. PAT] ------------------------------ From: w_tom Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:58:26 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com There has to be a ground connected to each line at the premise interface (demarc) with a necessary short connection to central earth ground. Surge protectors connect a surge to surge protection - earth ground. Therefore 'whole house' surge protector, installed free by the telco, is effective. But plug-in surge protectors can even contribute to damage of an adjacent appliance - no effective earth ground means no surge protection. That is the fact that plug-in surge protectors must forget to mention so that you will purchase their products. There is no such thing as a stand alone surge protector for common mode surges. Effective surge protectors only connect a surge to surge protection. Therefore that connection to surge protection - earth ground - must exist and be short. It is a problem with apartment living. You are at the mercy of a landlord who is not required to provide effective transistor safety protection - only to provide human safety protection. Shame since effective transistor protection for all appliances (especially for phone line appliances) costs only about $1 per protected appliance. Compare that $1 to ineffective plug-in protectors at about $20 or $50 per appliance. Leonard Erickson wrote: > I'm looking for a standalone surge suppressor (or I'll even settle for > one in a power strip) that'll work with RJ-14 (2 line) wired cables. > It's a real pain splitting things to two lines, running them thru *two* > separate suppressors, then recombining them again. > And since I live in an apartment, I can't wire something in at the > demarc. > Oh, as long as I'm asking, are there any for RJ-25 (3 line) cables. I > don't need one of those, but it'd be nice to know, just in case. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 21:08:16 -0600 From: Neal McLain Subject: Strowger Gravesite (Continued) Here's another forwarded message (crossposted from the Strowger list) about the Strowger gravesite. The link goes to the same website they referenced previously, but they've added a 1921 obit of Mrs. Strowger. ------------------- ORIGINAL MESSAGE ------------------- Subject: [strowger] MRS. STROWGER DIES IN TAMPA Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 02:18:26 -0000 From: "cpeterkelly2002" Reply-To: strowger@yahoogroups.com To: strowger@yahoogroups.com Greetings All, I have posted the obituary of Mrs. Strowger (circa 1921) on our neighborhood website. It took a fair amount of searching newspaper microfiche to uncover, but was worthwhile as it's quite a lengthy piece. See it here: http://www.roserpark.net/greenwood/strowger.html I would like to appeal to one of the collectors out there for a device which utilizes the Strowger Switch principle. We don't need a working model, and haven't much money to offer beyond shipping costs, but would greatly appreciate the donation of any item which could be used in various tours and displays. Chris Kelly www.roserpark.net ------------------------------ From: dahauss@unlimitedsounds.com (Dave Hauss) Subject: Verizon Call Reject?? Date: 25 Aug 2002 21:32:11 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I have a big question. I live in NJ and am looking to find out if Verizon offers a service where I can put in a phone number and when the person calls it will reject the call ... is this possible?? I have one phone like with distinctive ring and someone keeps faxing me 50 pages a day of junk. I want to block his phone number. I have a fax switch that detects the distinctive ring but it wont pass the caller ID info to the fax machine which has junk number detect. Any help would be appreciated. ------------------------------ From: Paul Wallich Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:40:03 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In article , John Higdon wrote: > In article telecom22.5.10@telecom-digest.org, William Warren wrote: >> The issue *IS* human behavior, and humans screw up *a lot*. They >> forget they have their pagers and/or cell phones on, they sit in a >> (probably) new and (likely) unfamiliar surrounding, and the rest is >> inevitable. The *use* of the device, at least by those whom choose to >> do so after interrupting a performance, is clearly boorish, but its >> activation is, IMNSHO, almost always an accident. Ergo, the need for >> countermeasures such as a Faraday cage. > I, and a group of my friends, are in a business that requires us to be > on call 24/7. Occasionally, we as a group attend a movie, play, > concert or whatever. Half jokingly, someone invariably mutters "pagers > on stun" as we enter the venue, meaning that we put cellphones, > pagers, and other devices in "vibrate" mode. "Requires" is a strong word. It's easier for you and the people who employ you, but that's an economic decision (not having just that extra tiny bit of redundant coverage). And it's a decision made easier by the fact that you don't have to internalize the cost of your communications mistakes. [snip] > Until we, as a society, get over the idea that modern communications > are nothing more than toys that inflict irritation on those who see no > real need for them, we will remain immature in how we utilize these > important tools. Penalizing those who use these tools responsibly and > with consideration for others is in itself a ham-handed and immature > response to a simple behavioral problem. There's a tiny minority of people who actually need to be reachable, and a much larger group who _think_ they need to be reachable at all times, or who just don't think at all. But if people who really think their jobs require reachability should be willing to pay the price (or their employers should). I'm proposing a really simple measure: enter a theater or a concert hall with a cellphone or beeper, and automatically post a bond for the face value of every seat in the house, to be payable if your device goes off. It wouldn't cover the transportation, scheduling and other costs of the people whose evening was disrupted, but it would be a start. And it would make people and businesses think about the true costs of having someone reachable 24/7. paul ------------------------------ From: kimbrennan@aol.comfrtz.com (KimBrennan) Date: 26 Aug 2002 14:53:37 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? > But right now, all I can get over the air is our local NBC affiliate > (which is drek) and DirecTV (if I buy a new dish and receiver) showing > a demo channel and a premium channel in 1080i. HD-Net is not a demo channel. While it is true that some of what it broadcasts is demo material, they also broadcast various sports events, and some other HD content that is not demo material. Examples would be, they carried the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in HD. It was on a 24 hour delay for some odd reason (as was the local HD broadcast on NBC.) They've carried baseball games, live, in HD (usually the Colorado Rockies games.) They've had boxing (though who needs better clarity for that "sport" is another matter ... They've had some REALLY cool programs such as Canada from the air, Over Ireland, and a series of programs covering wildlife in Urban cities (I've caught the Tokyo, and New York ones, and missed most of the one on Toronto.) HD is a new media, and it takes a while for content in any new media to fully exploit the capabilities, but it also takes a while for regular content to blend into the new media. The easiest way for regular content to get into the digital TV bandwagon is to start filming in widescreen. A few programs do this now (cropping the widescreen image to fit into a regular 4:3 screen when broadcast on regular NTSC.) X-Files is one such. They don't film it in HD. "I'm sorry, all my money is tied up in currency." W.C.Fields ------------------------------ From: kimbrennan@aol.comfrtz.com (KimBrennan) Date: 26 Aug 2002 15:02:56 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Minute > So why are they not required to make pricing available at the time > of purchase? I'm a little surprised that our moderator didn't reply on this. The reason that jumps out most in my mind, is that the exact price is unknown until finished. Many phone (most? all?) charge on the basis of how long the call was. This can be broken down by per minute or fractions of a minute basis, but in the end, until the call is finished, how much to charge you for the service is unknown. In addition, there are other possible charges that you may invoke during the call (900 calls for instance, or 800 calls that take you to areas where you authorize a purchase that is charged to your phone bill.) Convienence has a price and that price is in having to compute your charge AFTER the call is completed. Of course, in this era of modern electronics it would be nice to have the exact charge appear on a display on your phone the moment you hang up. This would undoubtably require an additional service (like the caller id service) that could be added to your monthly bill. Then there are the taxes, and surcharges which are prorated per usage. These can/could vary from state to state. So this proposed phone handset would have to be programmed by the end user to reflect all of those charges. AND the company manufacturing the handsets would have to have extra legal language to be sure you couldn't sue them for improperly calculating phone charges ... this might make the handsets prohibitively expensive. "I'm sorry, all my money is tied up in currency." W.C.Fields [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think he said that phone service was the ONLY commodity where one does not know the cost before purchasing it. That isn't really true either. You buy electrical service each month, plus water and gas without knowing what the final bill for the month will be. I now sit here and cringe thinking about what the electric bill will be for August here in Independence considering the bake-oven weather conditions we have endured over the past two months. I am on the annual 'budget plan' meaning the bills from KG&E are averaged over twelve months, however KG&E reserves the right to 'adjust' the monthly payments as they see fit to keep you from having a large over/underpayment at the end of the year. I've had to run the air conditioner on high for the past month, although it cycles on and off from time to time. What would you do if the temperature was in the 95-105 degree range during the day? The Independence Water Works and Public Works is the most reasonable of all. $53 per month delivers all the water and sewer (based on a percentage of the water consumption) AND trash collection each month. They re-evaluate sewer and trash four times each year based on the water meter readings during the months of November and January. So I must be careful about using water in November. The people outside of the city limits get hit *very hard* on water. Rural water delivery is outrageous I am told. They get their water from the City of Independence but it costs them plenty, and they have to water their livestock as well. People buy a lot of things in a month's time they don't know exactly what it will cost before hand. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 18:38:04 -0400 From: dhorvath@cobs.com (David B. Horvath, CCP) Subject: Last Laugh! For the Business Directory Save on copier, fax, and printer supplies: > Click Here to ORDER NOW! > OR Call us Toll-Free at 1-800-758-8084! Want toll free phone service? > We are having a special promotion right now. > We will register your own TOLL FREE number for you or > your business and we have really cheap prices on hosting too... > Look below or call 1-877-820-8479 (24 Hour Recorded Message) > to request an agent (all calls are monitored.) - David [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What exactly do you do when you 'register' your toll-free number? Unlike 'regular' numbers where the default is directory listing at little or no charge, with toll-free numbers the default is non-pub. Readers may wish to call 877-820-8479 to inquire about this great offer. Don't hesitate; call them now, and call them often! :) PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #7 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Aug 26 14:38:15 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7QIcFE03117; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:38:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:38:15 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208261838.g7QIcFE03117@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #8 TELECOM Digest Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:36:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 8 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson ICANN: Fifteen Reasns Why Users Should Give a Shit (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines) (Herb Stein) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Robert Dover) Re: Canadian CO (Prefix) Assignment Database? (Anthony Sack) Telephone Surge Suppressor (Gary Novosielski) TeleZapper Disconnects Telemarketers (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Does Such a Technology Exist? (Denis L. Menezes) News Headlines of Interest 8/26/02 (Monty Solomon) Re: Where to Get a Bong Tone? (GlowingBlueMist) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: ICANN: Fifteen Reasons Why Users Should Give a Shit Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 20:16:35 -0400 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Judith and I had an extended phone conversation Sunday night, and I made the mistake of saying (regards the antics of ICANN) that 'I wasn't sure any longer if I gave a shit about the mess things are in on the net.' Judith promptly fired off this missive, being a summary of ICANN antics in recent months. A lot of it *does* make good sense. She also recommended that users who *do* give a shit about things on the net read ICANN Watch (Usenet newsgroup) on a regular basis. I do think it is about time we take another look at ICANN and critically examine what it is about. The last time I took a look like this editorially here in the Digest, I wound up getting a nasty letter from Robert Shaw at ITU and my sponsorship by ITU cut off. Since I no longer get ITU financial assistance with this Digest, (as you all know, now I ask you for it) I think I can do this with a bit more clarity and purpose than previously. This issue and at least one issue to follow will look at ICANN in detail. PAT] Re "individual participation" in ICANN - So many reasons, so little time, so here are just a few (courtesy of ICB Toll Free News archives): Because "A major implication of the Internet model is that value is not created in the network, but at the edges, by users." Timothy Denton, with Francois Menard and David Isenberg, Netheads Versus Bellheads: Research into Emerging Policy Issues in the Development and Deployment of Internet Protocols Because "control of the root is being leveraged to control the Internet itself in such key areas as trademark and copyright protection, surveillance of users, content regulation, and regulation of the domain name supply industry." Milton Mueller, Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace Because "ICANN has the potential to turn into the first world regulatory body. By beginning to associate top level domains with content usage, they are putting themselves into the position of being the defacto arbiter of content. This is in addition to what territory that they can grab in the intellectual property world along with WIPO. If all else fails, they can always play games with protocol standards and IP address allocation. I suspect that most people have no clue what this issue is all about, nor care. Remember that Mussolini started with the trains. There's an old adage about only giving power to those who don't want it. If we're going to have a world government, then I want a revolution first. Preferably with some historic event like throwing all the T-1s into Boston harbor. These people are enacting policy, cutting deals with large technology companies and signing things that look suspiciously like treaties with governments and quasi government groups (some of dubious legitimacy). I went to school with one of the students killed at Kent State, worked for an military/intelligence agency in my youth and watched as the last administration passed wind while leaving the white house. I never felt paranoia before. I do now." David Holtzman, Chairman and CEO of Opion Inc. and former Chief Technology Officer at Network Solutions, IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A WORLD GOVT, I WANT A REVOLUTION FIRST. Because "ICANN is more interested in, and totally focused on, arranging power rather than providing simple stewardship and service. ICANN is brilliant at rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The problem is they have the internet on board." Randy Bush (characterized, for those who don't know him, by Dave Farber, as "brutally rational.") Because "The board of ICANN shouldn't consist of people with direct commercial interests such as registrar/registry function. ICANN needs to be able to make decisions in the interest of the internet users and the global information space, the internet. There needs to be a balance between commercial and public use of this infrastructure and the board must consist of people who think about the impact of the decisions for the communication culture and space, not only on their own business." Andy Mueller-Maguhn, elected ICANN Director Because "We're not so stupid that we don't see what ICANN is doing, which is establishing absolute power, free from any of the checks and balances of government." Brian Livingston, Contributing Editor of InfoWorld and CNET News.com Because "The UDRP walks and quacks like law. It sets out a rule for deciding between competing claims to possession of particular resources. It sets up a process to apply that rule on a case-by-case basis. And it is binding upon those in possession of the resource in question; in the event of an adverse ruling, the domain name holder will relinquish possession of the contested domain name." David G. Post, Associate Professor of Law at Temple University Law School, and Co-Founder and Co-Director of the Cyberspace Law Institute. Because "Someday we may look back and realize that this moment was critical in deciding who got to control this new form of global communication." Steven Hill, western regional director of the Center for Voting and Democracy Because "In my research of Internet policy over the years, I've had the pleasure of reading numerous court orders, FCC notices, and other official government documents. These works are impressive historic documents that exhaustively consider every point raised by all sides, bring in the background that applies to each point, and carefully lay out the reasoning that leads to a final decision. Nothing like this appears in ICANN public documents. They are terse bulletins that list decisions made and brief technical justifications. Many non-profit organizations let members vote on by-law changes, examine accounting books, and so forth. If ICANN members were allowed to elect its Board, they'd have the same rights." Andy Oram, an editor at O'Reilly & Associates Because "ICANN is establishing Internet policy. It becomes problematic if it makes policy judgments without adequate policy processes." Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass Because "The most critical public policy issue affecting the Internet remains the same - namely, its governance. ICANN's legal authority for 'technical management of the Internet' (in ICANN's own words) remains in doubt. A connected issue is ICANN's ability to finance its operations." David W. Maher, Vice President - Public Policy, ISOC Because "When ICANN was in serious trouble in 1998 and 1999, they promised open elections for all. The Internet Community relied on their word. But once Congress and Commerce seemed satisfied and NSI was brought into the fold, ICANN began a full reversal of their original stance." Mikki Barry, President of the Domain Name Rights Coalition Because "The essence of ICANN's problem is the disproportionate attention which is being given inside the working groups, and, increasingly outside, in private conferences, to the pretensions of the IP community, on grounds that we and our Internet users consider to be dubious and, in some cases, in outright error ... as to policy as regards the future direction of the Internet. What we are actually observing in the saga of domain name expansion is a power-grab of major proportions over the architecture of the Internet, using ICANN not so much as a representative forum for IP interests as the embodimenet of IP lawyer's interests. That we are in fact are acceding to a takeover of the political processes of ICANN by a set of interests that oppose what the Internet stands for." Ross Wm. Rader, Tucows Because "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed" >> From Ross Rader's byte.org blog: > I asked the question a week ago, but still don't "get" the > answers. A few people included me in a thread going on over on the > at-large discussion list regarding what the arguments for and > against individual participation in ICANN actually are. The > answers coming back weren't all that convincing - all I managed to > take away was that users are entitled to a seat because they use > the system. Not terribly convincing. Convince me. Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com http://WhoSells800.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert Visit 1-800 AFTA, http://www.1800afta.org ------------------------------ From: Herb Stein Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines) Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:26:39 GMT David Esan wrote in message news:telecom22.3.3@telecom-digest.org: > John David Galt wrote in message > news:: >> Why is a law needed for this? Why don't the affected theaters just >> show their rude patrons the door? >> If that's too expensive because it requires hiring human beings, maybe >> they should consider installing Faraday cages in the walls. That's >> certainly legal even if active jamming isn't. > I wish I was a lawyer, because the lawsuits that the Faraday cage is > going to create would buy me that house on Maui. > Can you imagine an emergency in a theater (fire, health, violence) and > someone whips out their cellphone to call 911 and can't because its > blocked by the theater? Huge lawsuit. Phooey. I go into lots of places every day with spotty or nonexistent cell phone reception. I don't think that the fact that their construction techniques interfere with my cell phone use is cause for a lawsuit. For that matter, there are plenty of places outdoors around here (St. Louis) with "dead spots." But there is probably no gaurantee from Cingular either. > It is sad, however, that we need a law to enforce what is simple > common courtesy. This is the key problem. "You can't fix stupid" and "you apparently can't fix rude" either. Although it is amazing what a few snide remarks from other annoyed patrons can do about the problem. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 952-4601 ------------------------------ From: Robert Dover Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:15:55 -0500 Organization: Nortel William Warren wrote: > The issue *IS* human behavior, and humans screw up *a lot*. . > ... Ergo, the need for countermeasures such as a Faraday cage. How small can one of these be? Would've LOVED to have been able to jam the signal of the moron sitting next to us at dinner Friday night. We were able to "participate" in his planning the details of someone's funeral! ------------------------------ From: Anthony Sack Subject: Re: Canadian CO (Prefix) Assignment Database? Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:02:10 -0600 Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada Hi David, The website for the Canadian Numbering Administrator is at http://www.cnac.ca/ - if they don't have what you're looking for, they could almost certainly tell you where to find it. Let us know what you find ... there are probably a few others here who would be interested in this too. :-) Anthony Sack Edmonton, Alberta, Canada David wrote in message news:telecom20.365.3@telecom-digest.org... > I have been searching in vain for hours now trying to find a link to a > database, website or other downloadable resource that will reveal the > current exchange assignments by company or corporation for CANADA. > Various links lead back to NANPA.com but exhaustive browsing there > only returns the complete information for the USA & Territories, which > I have previously downloaded. > The motivation for all this is to determine what specific companies > are providing telephone service for those ubiquitous and invariably > unlisted phone numbers that are the only "contact" in relentless > fraud/spam/scam emails, since the ISPs that host or relay this trash > are usually totally non-responsive to complaints and requests to cease > and desist polluting the net and stealing the resources of our private > and self-financed email accounts (and computers). This is almost > universally true of those servers located in Eastern Europe, Korea, > China, and So. America! > Any assistence in my personal war against spam will be appreciated! > David Ross > North Beach ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:04:21 -0400 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Telephone Surge Suppressor On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, Leonard Erickson wrote: > I'm looking for a standalone surge suppressor (or I'll even settle for > one in a power strip) that'll work with RJ-14 (2 line) wired cables. > ... > And since I live in an apartment, I can't wire something in at the > demarc. I think this has been discussed here in the past, but it was always my understanding (from professional phone "men") that: a) there should already BE an effective surge suppressor built into the demarc; and b) adding a cheap power-strip suppressor (or ANY phone line suppressor that plugs into an AC outlet, or uses the AC ground wire for surge dissipation) will ultimately do more harm than good, since it vastly increases the chances that an AC surge (far more common than phone line surges) will be back-fed INTO the phone line THROUGH the suppressor circuitry itself, on the wrong side of the phone demarc, thereby increasing the likelihood of damage to phone equipment where none would have occurred if the customer had simply kept his fingers in his pockets. It makes a lot of sense to me. From what little I know of surge suppression, it is important that the ground wire be tied back to a common earth ground point. Under heavy current conditions, such as during a surge-suppression discharge event, even the small resistances between the ground terminal of an electrical outlet and the actual earth ground (at the demarc) could cause voltage differentials high enough to fry sensitive phone circuitry. So my rule of thumb has always been to keep phone surge suppression and AC surge suppression strictly separate, for the most part leaving the former entirely up to the telco, and I have never had occasion to regret it. Can anyone else comment? Gary ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:31:20 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: TeleZapper Disconnects Telemarketers It never fails. You come home, sit down for dinner, and the telephone rings. A telemarketer is trying to sell you something. Now, you can ask to be placed on a no-call list and hope you won't be bothered again, or you can try something else. http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/08/26/telezapper.cnna/index.html Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have not looked at the particular telezapper device Joey recommends but I can tell you any such device which only puts out the first (of three) SIT tones is not as effecient as the one which puts out *all three tones* (dum-doo-dee) such as sold by our participant here Mike Sandman. Using his version, along with Privacy Manager from Southwestern Bell has virtually cut out all of the nuisance calls like that I was getting. Best of all, SWB Telco has a special right now; no installation charges and no monthly charges for Privacy Manager for three months. Do look into the link Joey gives above and also inquire of mailto: mike@sandman.com PAT] ------------------------------ From: Denis L. Menezes Subject: Re: Does Such a Technology Exist? Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 00:42:16 +0800 Organization: Singapore Telecommunications Ltd Hello Tony, We can help you. What we can give you is a telephone number. All the calls coming to this number will be converted to a voicemail which you can receive in your email and play it back with the Windows media player. You can even archive and forward this mail to many other email addresses just as an ordinary email. Moreover, this number will virtually never be busy. If you are interested, please send us a mail with your company name and contact details to mail@norcomms.com Denis Tony Kondaks wrote in message news:telecom22.4.3@telecom-digest.org: > Can anyone tell me if such a technology already exist and, if so, what > is the product name ... > 3 requirements: > 1)I need a telephone answering machine that can answer many in-coming > calls at once ON THE SAME LINE (SAME TELEPHONE NUMBER) so that all the > callers get serviced and can leave their messages without getting a > busy signal. Indeed, if the technology can handle an UNLIMITED number > of calls all at once, so much the better! > 2) I want to hook up such technology to a toll-free number. > 3) The actual machine/technology does NOT have to be located on my > premises just so long as I can access the messages remotely (just as > we all can with those voice messaging systems local telephone > companies offer residential customers). > I thank you in advance to your attention to these questions. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The technology you want is telco voice > mail in a business application with a business phone number. Tell > telco to install voice mail on your business line. Have telco give > you as many internal mailboxes on that voicemail as you need. Get a > toll free number and have it tied onto that number. Voice mail can > take an infinite number of incoming calls. Be sure to tell the telco > service rep to add 'operator escape' to the voicemail. Then after you > in the opening menu announce your various boxes (i.e. press one to > hear about X; press two, etc) you can then conclude your opening > announcement by telling the caller, 'press zero to be transferred to > a live person who can help you'. That's what operator escape does on > a BUSINESS voicemail system/account. Anyone who the presses zero > gets transferred to whatever line you tell telco you want those calls > to go to. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: monty solomon From: monty solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 8/26/02 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:05:48 -0400 Japanese phones vulnerable to hackers? By Reuters August 26, 2002, 6:26 AM PT Cell phone users in Japan have already had to contend with spam and technical glitches, but that may seem like a breeze when hackers finally turn their attention to the wireless world. So far, no serious virus attacks have been reported in Japan--or anywhere else--but tech security companies say cell phones could become targets as they turn into sophisticated, high-tech devices like PCs, allowing people to send e-mail, surf the Internet and shop online. http://news.com.com/2100-1033-955294.html Internet privacy loses a voice in D.C. By Declan McCullagh August 26, 2002, 4:00 AM PT WASHINGTON--Georgia Rep. Bob Barr is an irascible conservative, an unyielding foe of abortion, gay marriage, and any drug more potent than nicotine. A floor manager during Bill Clinton's impeachment, Barr had lobbied for the president's ouster long before anyone knew of an intern's unfortunate affections inside the Oval Office. Yet even Naderites should recognize that Barr's defeat in Georgia's Republican primary last week removes the fiercest champion of privacy in the U.S. House of Representatives, and his electoral loss will be a gain for the surveillance state. http://news.com.com/2010-1071-955235.html ------------------------------ From: GlowingBlueMist Subject: Re: Where to Get a Bong Tone? Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 00:24:58 GMT Give this place a try. They have quite a selection of phone sounds. http://www.payphone-directory.org/sounds.html Robert Switzer wrote in message news:telecom20.365.5@telecom-digest.org: > Does anyone know where I can get a .wav file containing a standard > Bong Tone? > Robert S. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #8 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Aug 26 16:23:24 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7QKNOv04595; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:23:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:23:24 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208262023.g7QKNOv04595@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #9 TELECOM Digest Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:23:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 9 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #346, August 26, 2002 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? (Joey Lindstrom) Re: 1010/800 # Dialing With no LD Carrier? (John Stahl) Re: Payphones (Robert Johnson) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (John Higdon) Correction: ICANNWatch URL (Judith Oppenheimer) ICANN: Creating the Illusion of Legitimacy (Judith Oppenheimer) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:00:51 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #346, August 26, 2002 TELECOM UPDATE published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 346: August 26, 2002 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: ** AT&T CANADA http://www.attcanada.com ** BELL CANADA http://www.bell.ca ** GROUP TELECOM http://www.gt.ca ** LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES CANADA http://www.lucent.ca ** PRIMUS CANADA: http://www.primustel.ca ** Q9 NETWORKS: http://www.Q9.com ** TELUS: http://www.telus.com ** UNISPHERE NETWORKS: http://www.unispherenetworks.com ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** ITAC Proposes Border Broadband ** CRTC Performance Falls Short of Target ** New President at Navigata ** Teleglobe Sells Intelsat Stake ** BT Loses Hyperlink Case ** Rogers Agent Spams Fido Users ** UK Plans Ban on Cellphone Use by Drivers ** "Memorial U. Tariff" Denied ** Is Turnabout Fair Play? ** PIAC Requests Party-Line Refund ** Call-Net Asks When 10-Year Payments End ** 724 Lays Off 35% of Staff ** Telus Invests in Photo Service ** George Addy Joins Davies ** Cygnal Revenue Up 50% ** Angus Briefings -- Register Now and Save Last Chance for Early Bird Discount ============================================================ ITAC PROPOSES BORDER BROADBAND: The Information Technology Association of Canada has called on Ottawa to install broadband connections linking Canada's 113 crossing points on the U.S. border, to "enhance security and maintain the steady flow of people, goods, and commerce." Estimated cost: $164 million. http://www.itac.ca CRTC PERFORMANCE FALLS SHORT OF TARGET: This spring, the CRTC adopted standards for how speedily it should rule on various types of telecom applications (see Telecom Update #328). Its first quarterly report shows that, between April and June 2002, the Commission failed to meet its own standard in three out of four categories. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/t_st2002.htm NEW PRESIDENT AT NAVIGATA: SaskTel subsidiary Navigata Communications, formerly RSL Com Canada, has named Thomas Laird, former General Manager of SaskTel's Quantumlynx.com division, as President and CEO. TELEGLOBE SELLS INTELSAT STAKE: Teleglobe has sold its 3.8% stake in Intelsat's global marketing unit for US$65 million. Teleglobe is still negotiating on the sale of its long distance business, originally scheduled to be completed by July 2. BT LOSES HYPERLINK CASE: A U.S. court has dismissed British Telecom's claim that it owns the patent on hyperlinks. In 2000, BT demanded licence payments from 17 major ISPs, and then sued Prodigy Communications in a test case. ROGERS AGENT SPAMS FIDO USERS: A number of Microcell customers received a wireless message August 18 inviting them to switch to service from Rogers AT&T. A Rogers agent sent this spam; Rogers has told the agent to cease and desist. UK PLANS BAN ON CELLPHONE USE BY DRIVERS: The UK government has asked for public comment on its plan to ban motorists from using handheld mobile phones while driving. "MEMORIAL U. TARIFF" DENIED: The CRTC has rejected Aliant's proposal to offer a special rate ($20.75/line) to Centrex customers in St. John's that have at least 2,800 lines and are less than one kilometre from the Central Office. The Commission says Aliant didn't justify offering lower rates to some customers in a given rate band. ** The now-rejected rate was the basis of Aliant's successful competitive bid to Memorial University in April. (See Telecom Update #333) IS TURNABOUT FAIR PLAY? Futureway wants to charge ILECs (e.g. Bell Canada) when they incorrectly claim a faulty unbundled local loop is trouble-free, resulting in Futureway unnecessarily sending a technician. Futureway's proposed charge is the same as that charged by Bell when the situation is reversed. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/8740/eng/2002/f10.htm#07 PIAC REQUESTS PARTY-LINE REFUND: The Public Interest Advocacy Centre says Bell Canada has been charging party-line users nearly twice the tariffed rate for their rental phone sets, and asks the CRTC to investigate and order rebates. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2002/8661/p8-02.htm CALL-NET ASKS WHEN 10-YEAR PAYMENTS END: CRTC Decision 92-12, which opened long distance competition, required new entrants to pay a portion of the incumbents' startup costs, amortized over ten years. Call-Net has asked the CRTC to clarify whether that period has now ended, or continues to July 2004 as Bell Canada contends. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2002/8661/c25-04.htm 724 LAYS OFF 35% OF STAFF: 724 Solutions, which makes wireless financial services software, will lay off 100 employees by October, reducing its work force -- once 700 -- to 170. ** Karen Basian will be replaced as CFO at the end of October by Glenn Barrett, currently VP Finance. TELUS INVESTS IN PHOTO SERVICE: Web surfers can now order photo developing services from B.C.'s PhotoChannel Networks through www.mybc.com and www.alberta.com, both owned by Telus. The carrier will receive warrants to purchase PhotoChannel shares instead of cash for its services. GEORGE ADDY JOINS DAVIES: George Addy, head of the Competition Bureau of Canada from 1993 to 1996, has left Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt and joined Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg. He will practice in the firm's Toronto Office as head of its antitrust and competition group. CYGNAL REVENUE UP 50%: Cygnal Technologies reports second quarter revenue of $42.1 million, up from $28.3 million in the same period last year. EBIDTA climbed 90% to $1.8 million; net income was $557,000. ANGUS BRIEFINGS -- REGISTER NOW AND SAVE: This is the last week to register for these exclusive briefings at the special early-bird rate: ** Reinventing Enterprise Communications: Setting Your Strategy for IP Telephony ** Beyond the Meltdown: A Report Card and Forecast for Canadian Telecom These hard-hitting half-day programs will be offered once only, in Toronto, on October 16. To guarantee that a seat is reserved for you -- and to receive your early registration discount -- download the Preview Announcement at http://www.angustel.ca/Angus-Seminars.pdf and register before August 31. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@add.postmastergeneral.com To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@remove.postmastergeneral.com Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave subject line and message area blank. We do not give Telecom Update subscribers' e-mail addresses to any third party. For more information, see http://www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html. =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2002 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:07:45 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:26:09 -0400 (EDT), KimBrennan wrote: > HD is a new media, and it takes a while for content in any new media > to fully exploit the capabilities, but it also takes a while for > regular content to blend into the new media. The easiest way for > regular content to get into the digital TV bandwagon is to start > filming in widescreen. A few programs do this now (cropping the > widescreen image to fit into a regular 4:3 screen when broadcast on > regular NTSC.) X-Files is one such. They don't film it in HD. Way back in 1992, when series creator J. Michael Straczynski was just getting his new show "Babylon 5" on the air, he took a gamble and decided to have the entire run of the show (five seasons) shot in 16x9 (making it, so far as I know, the first TV series to be shot this way). He saw HDTV on the horizon, and while he didn't know exactly how the whole standards debate was going to shake out, he was reasonably confident that the 16x9 aspect ratio would be part of it, and of course he was right. When Babylon 5 was originally aired, it was panned-and-scanned into 4:3 aspect ratio, although the opening credits of each episode were letterboxed. Now comes word that on November 5th, they're releasing the first season of Babylon 5 on DVD (6-disc set), in, of course, 16x9 widescreen. Ten years later, JMS's bet is paying off. :-) And at the risk of going off-topic for a moment ... folks, if you haven't seen Babylon 5, you should. It makes all other TV sci-fi, Star Trek included, look like children's programming. Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:31:16 -0400 From: John Stahl Subject: Re: 1010/800 # Dialing With no LD Carrier? My base telephone line has no LD carrier. I have no difficulties dialing 800, 877, etc. tool-free numbers or the so called 1010 services from it. Contrary to what Telecom-Digest Editor Pat indicated, there are a number of low-cost LD services who charge no minimums or fixed monthly fees to use their services. BTW, there are several on-line sites which list LD service dial-around and some other LD services where you can investigate the cost of such services on a comparison basis. They are: http://www.10-10phonerates.com/ http://www.thedigest.com/programs/index.html I found the first on my list as being a great place to find rates especially for on-the-minute International rates. Hope this answers your question. John Stahl Telecom/Data Consultant Aljon Enterprises ------------------------------ From: Robert Johnson Subject: Re: Payphones Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:34:27 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - West What it Did do was forward me to their operator when I called my LD calling card number Robert Robert Johnson wrote in message news:telecom22.6.9@telecom-digest.org: > Are payphones required to to allow access to 800 numbers ... and > specificly the 800 access number for Long distance companys? > Robert K. Johnson Jr, KF6ECP > Qyouth101@socal.rr.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They're supposed to, yes. Privately > owned payphones (often times referred to as COCOTS [Customer-Owned > Coin-Operated Telephones] usually require that 25-50 cents be dep- > osited to make up for the 'loss' the owner has by not collecting > on the calls otherwise. This does not come up on telco-owned and > operated phones, since telco receives revenue for the calls through > a process similar to the old 'Separations and Settlements' procedure. > Telcos get paid on the 800 calls they handle. The private phone owner > does not. The COCOT owner can however register his phone as such and > then a surcharge is added to the cost of the call which the recipient > pays, and eventually it is given to the COCOT owner. That surcharge > was specifically enacted to protect the private pay phone operators. > Between that surcharge and the fact that most private opertors require > the user to deposit some coins anyway on 800 calls means there is > no reason to ban calls like that. If you know of such phones (which > lock out toll-free calls) you really should file a complaint. PAT] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In other words, it did not refuse to connect you; it simply suggested (and routed) you through its own operator service bureau for handling. Real cute. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:00:16 -0700 Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.7.12@telecom-digest.org, Paul Wallich wrote: > "Requires" is a strong word. It's easier for you and the people who > employ you, but that's an economic decision (not having just that > extra tiny bit of redundant coverage). And it's a decision made easier > by the fact that you don't have to internalize the cost of your > communications mistakes. The whole point of modern technology was supposed to be a liberation of sorts. Instead of having to spend leisure time by the phone waiting for a call, technology has enabled many of us to live "normal" lives while still being at someone else's beck and call. Surely you are not suggesting that such is a misuse of technology, or that we should toss the benefits because a small group of inconsiderate people annoy another small group of the self-righteous. > There's a tiny minority of people who actually need to be reachable, > and a much larger group who _think_ they need to be reachable at all > times, or who just don't think at all. But if people who really think > their jobs require reachability should be willing to pay the price (or > their employers should). And who should be the judge of all of this? Those who would over-react to rude and inconsiderate people? Note that I agree with you regarding disruption of performances. You still haven't addressed the question of why those who are considerate must pay for those who are not. > I'm proposing a really simple measure: enter a theater or a concert > hall with a cellphone or beeper, and automatically post a bond for the > face value of every seat in the house, to be payable if your device > goes off. It wouldn't cover the transportation, scheduling and other > costs of the people whose evening was disrupted, but it would be a > start. And it would make people and businesses think about the true > costs of having someone reachable 24/7. Nonsense. Most professionals (in the true sense) do NOT disrupt performances because they know how to use the technology properly and with consideration for others. Just what is "the true cost" for people having electronic devices that surreptitiously alert them? Why should THEY pay for the lack of consideration by others? I am really amazed that there are still people who would eschew the benefits of modern technology because they either don't see the proximate value, or are put off by some who use it poorly. Lumping everyone who uses that technology in the same bag is not particularly useful from any standpoint. As always, education is the key. -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Correction: ICANNWatch URL Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:54:58 -0400 TELECOM Digest Editor incorrectly referred to ICANN Watch as a Usenet newsgroup: > She also recommended that users who *do* give a shit about things > on the net read ICANN Watch (Usenet newsgroup) on a regular basis. ICANNWatch is at http://ICANNWatch.org . Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com http://WhoSells800.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert Visit 1-800 AFTA, http://www.1800afta.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Then Judith comes back with the correct URL but incorrectly places a 'period' (punctuation mark) right after the 'org' in the above URL. Although that *is* correct grammar, it simply wreaks havoc on a linking URL. People's computers see that and incorrectly assume 'org' is the second part of a longer address which began with 'icann'. Guffaw, shrill laugh. I slid it down a few pixels so it sat by itself. You got to be very careful about the way you edit a normally text-based journal like this one when you are trying to fix it so hmtl readers can deal with it also. Speaking of which, now we shall have another entree in the ICANN menu of malfeasance, as Judith might say. Read and meditate on the next message (or the message just before this if you are reading this via http://telecom-digest.org/TELECOM_Digest_Online ). PAT] ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: ICANN: Creating the Illusion of Legitimacy Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 20:44:53 -0400 Copied with permission from: CYBER-FEDERALIST No. 14 8 August 2002 Creating the Illusion of Legitimacy Civil Society Democracy Project (CivSoc) Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) http://www.civsoc.org The Internet Democracy Project http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/ After four years of existence ICANN is widely recognized as a top-down policy-making body with only a weak basis in legitimacy. The Markle Foundation expressed the consensus of the Internet community when it said, "ICANN, as it has developed, is seriously flawed as a global institution able to make decisions worthy of deference or to safeguard the public interest...'" [1] This legitimacy deficit is certainly not from any failure to go through the motions. In its words and its actions, ICANN seems to employ participative, consensus-based, bottom-up procedures. The problem is that these words and actions often serve only to create an illusion of legitimacy. The reality is much different. The simulation of legitimacy is most frequently observed in matters pertaining to the At Large Membership. Today these activities are centered in the At Large Organizing Committee (ALOC). After the Board eliminated user elections this spring, ICANN's former Chair launched the ALOC to "guide and encourage bottom-up efforts ... for meaningful, informed participation ... by a full range of Internet users." [2] In fact, close observation shows that user input and participation is tightly controlled. In this issue of the Cyber-Federalist I examine the tactics by which ICANN and the ALOC create the illusion of legitimacy. The three tactics used most frequently are: Newspeak, exclusionary committees, and participant learning curves. Newspeak A considerable portion of ICANN's budget goes to public relations. Through its spokespeople, press releases, and interviews, ICANN presents issues in the most favorable light possible. Sometimes, however, ICANN's announcements seem contradictory to the facts. Orwell's most famous Newspeak phrase was, "War is peace"; for ICANN the equivalent might be "Disenfranchisement is participation." In Accra the Board rejected its own At Large Study Committee's (ALSC) recommendations to hold elections and instead decided to modify its bylaws to eliminate user representation from the board. The ALSC's Charles Costello of the Carter Center judged that act in no uncertain terms: * "The management proposal ... is a declared intent of a palace coup d'etat from within ICANN." * "[It] is a breach of faith with the founding principles and basic structure of ICANN..." [3] ICANN's official pronouncements painted a decidedly different picture. In a board resolution and a subsequent press release, the elimination of voting rights was described as an effort to promote participation: * "ICANN Board approves individual Internet user participation" * "[The Board] wishes to move forward with energy and enthusiasm to build a meaningful structure for informed participation by the full range of Internet users" [4] Even as it eliminated a basic mechanism of accountability -- the election of directors, as guaranteed in its founding by-laws -- ICANN used public relations techniques to convince the public that it was committed to a meaningful role for users. Actions and words diverged. The web site for the At Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) is another example of Newspeak. The site claims that the ALOC's work will be public and will be facilitated by a paid staff person. Yet the reality is different. Since its launch the ALOC has operated on a private list with no known archives. The ALOC's staff "facilitator" actually writes the material, and committee members are invited to comment on it. Contributions judged inappropriate by the "facilitator" have been summarily rejected -- even when they have received support in the committee. When this behavior was challenged by ALOC members, the facilitator announced the creation of a closed sub-committee from which the more outspoken members were excluded (more on this below.) Language and reality diverged. While top-down, closed processes are not per se wrong, it is inaccurate to describe such a process as public and participative. Such a description exaggerates the legitimacy of a closed policy process. Committees Another tool to create the illusion of public input is committees -- and sub-committees, and sub-sub-committees. Consistent with its mandate to employ consensual processes, ICANN often creates committee to address policy questions. However, should such a committee propose ideas inconsistent with what is desired, it is not uncommon that a new committee be formed. Should that committee also give the "wrong" answer, yet another committee may be formed. And so on. At each step, the composition of the latest committee may be refined. By excluding more vocal or better-informed members, ICANN may eventually achieve a committee whose opinion corresponds to what is desired. This can then be accepted as "public input." Thus when reformist directors were elected to the ICANN Board, the Board's business migrated to an Executive Sub-committee. Reform-minded directors were excluded. Or when the DNSO Review Working Group came up with the "wrong" ideas, the recommendations of another group -- the DNSO Review "Task Force" -- were used. In both cases the illusion of participation was maintained, but dissenting ideas were filtered out by the creation of new committees. The At Large Membership process has also seen a succession of committees. Self-organizing user groups like the NGO and Academic ICANN Study (NAIS) and the Interim Coordinating Committee (ICC) [5] were uncompromising in their commitment to user elections. Predictably, their recommendations were not adopted. Then the ICANN Board appointed its own committee to consider the issues: the At Large Study Committee (ALSC). However, after the ALSC also supported user elections, the Board rejected its recommendations, too. The Board finally decided to unilaterally eliminate elections. Today's ALOC manifests similar tactics. When ALOC members, including this author, included in a collective document language supporting user elections, the ALOC "facilitator" vetoed the material. In short order a new sub-committee was created, from which outspoken members were excluded. The ALOC's substantive work then shifted to this restricted group. Whether this sub-committee with its reduced membership will give the desired results remains to be seen. This use of committee-formation to filter out dissent is a second tactic to create the illusion of legitimacy. By ignoring committees that give the "wrong" results and by creating new committees or sub-committees as needed, ICANN creates the illusion of participatory processes. Participant Learning Curves When newcomers join ICANN processes, they can generally be counted on not to publicly dissent for about six months. That is the time needed for someone to understand complex policy questions and to evaluate the credibility of other participants. During this period newcomers' passive acquiescence and institutional affiliations can shore up ICANN's legitimacy. Imagine the situation of a newcomer new to ICANN and low on the learning curve. On the one hand, he/she hears the strong language used by people like Congressman Markey (ICANN is a "failure,") the Carter Center's Costello ("a palace coup,") or law professor Michael Froomkin ("ICANN plays dirty -- it lies.") [6]. On the other hand, the newcomer hears ICANN proclaim its commitment to open processes and sees ICANN accepting input from committees -- seemingly clear proof of its open and participative nature. As a result, most newcomers cautiously participate in ICANN processes and may support policies proposed from the top. They give ICANN the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps this explains the vehemence that comes later. Committee work representing many people-months' labor may be summarily rejected or ignored. Decisions once made may be reopened and passed to a new committee. Such has been the experience of members of the ALSC and the ALOC. After a few such experiences, the newcomer often joins the chorus of critics or leaves in disgust. By then, however, another batch of newcomers may be invited to participate, and the process begins again. Exploiting the learning curves of successive waves of participants has been an important tactic for the piecewise advancement of top-down decisions. You Can't Fool All of the People All of the Time Newspeak, committees, learning curves -- these and a host of other tactics have been the stuff of the ICANN policy process. While such dissimulation used to cause outrage, it is increasingly a source of wry amusement. As US Congressman Ed Markey said, "Although ICANN is supposed to be a consensus-based organization, the irony is that the only thing it has achieved global consensus on is that it is a failure." [7] Over time the tactics of illusion wear thin. Today, ICANN is widely recognized for what it is: a top-down policy-making institution that regulates important areas of the Internet. It is not particularly transparent, accountable, or representative. The people who run ICANN may honestly believe that this is how it should be; that is not the issue here. The issue is that ICANN attempts to make its processes look different than what they are. Expressions of concern about "participation by the full range of Internet users" are inconsistent with a demonstrated commitment to top-down decision-making. In particular, the ALOC (or its new sub-committee) is emerging as the latest attempt to create the illusion of legitimacy. With its staff vetoing language deemed unacceptable, the ALOC seems likely to produce a result acceptable to the ICANN board. At that point ICANN's board may announce that it has finally discovered the true voice of the user. ### References [1] Markle Foundation, "A Pluralistic View of DNS Governance: Core Principles for ICANN Reform," Statement for the Record to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, Hearing on ICANN (June 12, 2002) http://radio.weblogs.com/0108486/misc/icannstatementfinal-markle.doc [2] From the ALOC home page. (The language is quoted from an ICANN Board resolution. See note 4, below.) http://www.at-large.org/ [3] Charles Costello, ICANN Public Forum in Accra, Real-time Captioning, 13 March 2002. http://www.icann.org/accra/captioning-afternoon-13mar02.htm (To find the quote in this lengthy document, search on "palace coup.") [4] ICANN Board Resolution, 14 March 2002, "ALSC Report and At Large." http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm [5] NAIS: http://www.naisproject.org/ ICC: http://www.icannmembers.org/ [6] Froomkin, Michael, presentation at "The Public Voice in Internet Policy Making," 22 June 2002, sponsored by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). http://www.thepublicvoice.org/events/dc02/ . For Markey quote, see note 7. For Costello quote, see note 3. [7] Markey, Edward, (US Congressman), quoted in the Washington Post and Access Global Knowledge, 20 June 2002. http://access.globalknowledge.com/Article.asp?ID=3904 ========================================================= CYBER-FEDERALIST is a series of analyses and commentaries on Internet governance and ICANN produced by the Civil Society Democracy Project (CivSoc) of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR). See: http://www.cyber-federalist.org (archive) http://www.civsoc.org http://www.cpsr.org The author of the CYBER-FEDERALIST is Hans Klein. Subscribe to the CYBER-FEDERALIST! Send an Email to: cyber-federalist-subscribe@cpsr.org --------------------------- Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com http://WhoSells800.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert Visit 1-800 AFTA, http://www.1800afta.org ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #9 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Aug 26 22:24:23 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7R2ONB06985; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:24:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:24:23 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208270224.g7R2ONB06985@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #10 TELECOM Digest Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:23:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 10 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Doubleclick Settles With Attorneys General (fwd) (Danny Burstein) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (tonypo@telecom-digest.zzn.com) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Mark Roberts) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Paul A Lee) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Barry Margolin) Re: 1010/800 # Dialing With no LD Carrier? (Ed Ellers) Two URL Stylists, No Waiting (Gary Novosielski) Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Min (w_tom) Computer Expert Says Can Break Microsoft Security (Monty Solomon) This Takes Guts (David B. Horvath, CCP) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Danny Burstein Subject: Doubleclick Settles With Attorneys General (fwd) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:31:41 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced today a settlement with the nation's leading Internet advertising service that sets a new standard for consumersÕ online privacy. Under its agreement with New York and the other states, Manhattan-based DoubleClick Inc. will use its clientsÕ privacy policies to make its tracking activities more visible and will give consumers access to their online profiles. Terms of the settlement include provisions requiring DoubleClick to provide independent verification of its compliance with the agreement and to pay the states $450,000 for investigative costs and consumer education. [ snip, rest at: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2002/aug/aug26a_02.html ] Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: tonypo@telecom-digest.zzn.com Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Organization: The Ace Tomatoe and Cement Company Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:17:18 GMT In article , pw@panix.com says: > There's a tiny minority of people who actually need to be reachable, > and a much larger group who _think_ they need to be reachable at all > times, or who just don't think at all. But if people who really think > their jobs require reachability should be willing to pay the price (or > their employers should). I would be one of those people, as are many people in my office. Working for the state's top law enforcement agency as I do, requires it. > I'm proposing a really simple measure: enter a theater or a concert > hall with a cellphone or beeper, and automatically post a bond for the > face value of every seat in the house, to be payable if your device > goes off. It wouldn't cover the transportation, scheduling and other > costs of the people whose evening was disrupted, but it would be a > start. And it would make people and businesses think about the true > costs of having someone reachable 24/7. That's a bit extreme. I'd like to suggest a technological solution though -- how about requiring all cell phones and pagers be equipped with both the vibrate alerts and a system that can receive a certain signal that would put the phones into vibrate mode automatically. As it is now I leave my pager on vibrate. I do take classes and on a few occasions I've been paged -- left the class and returned the call. Most instructors prefer that over cell phones that bleat out who knows what tune or tone. ------------------------------ From: markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts) Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:41:17 -0000 Organization: 1.94 meters Herb Stein had written: > Phooey. I go into lots of places every day with spotty or nonexistent > cell phone reception. I don't think that the fact that their > construction techniques interfere with my cell phone use is cause for > a lawsuit. For that matter, there are plenty of places outdoors around > here (St. Louis) with "dead spots." Dead spots are endemic in the (San Francisco) Bay Area, because of the wide variation in terrain. It's unfortunate that companies view their coverage information as "proprietary" or "competitive intelligence". It's literally "caveat emptor" and there is no incentive for the companies to be forthcoming about any coverage issues -- in fact, there is incentive to put you on the hook for a year's contract even if it doesn't work at your home. So I've taken to assuming that most won't work where you want them to once you're away from the major freeways. At my house in Oakland, I have found that most cellular carriers simply don't work. Nextel and AT&T sometimes work. My Sprint PCS phone kicks into "Analog Roam". So I think we're still keeping our landlines. I mostly have a cell phone along in the car in case of any emergencies -- or, for use whenever I'm in Missouri dealing with family issues. I'm thankful that Sprint has now extended service from I-70 along US 63 -- it now needs to build up along Missouri Route 22 over to Centralia and Mexico and then I'm set! Interestingly enough, I tell people at work that they should page me if needed urgently. I'm one of the few people at work who still carries both a cell phone and a pager because of the cellular coverage issue. (Pager works just fine at the house.) -- Mark Roberts | "This is local television. Get off your high horse!" Oakland, Cal.| -- Gary Radnich to Wendy Tokuda on KRON-TV's NO HTML MAIL | 9 pm newscast (said in jest), August 9, 2002 ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:03:36 -0400 Paul Wallich wrote (in part): > In article , John Higdon > wrote: >> I, and a group of my friends, are in a business that >> requires us to be >> on call 24/7. Occasionally, we as a group attend a movie, play, >> concert or whatever. Half jokingly, someone invariably >> mutters "pagers >> on stun" as we enter the venue, meaning that we put cellphones, >> pagers, and other devices in "vibrate" mode. > "Requires" is a strong word. It's easier for you and the people who > employ you, but that's an economic decision (not having just that > extra tiny bit of redundant coverage). And it's a decision made easier > by the fact that you don't have to internalize the cost of your > communications mistakes. > There's a tiny minority of people who actually need to be reachable, > and a much larger group who _think_ they need to be reachable at all > times, or who just don't think at all. But if people who really think > their jobs require reachability should be willing to pay the price (or > their employers should). Just who determines who needs to be reachable? And who decided it's all based on economics? What about volunteer firefighters and EMTs? Electric utility workers? Medical professionals? Other disaster- or emergency-responders? How about parents of young children, taking a well-deserved night out, nervously leaving their kids with a sitter? What about your child's or your parent's cardiologist? Should s/he be denied the means for you to reach him/her? What about the transplant coordinator who finds a donor organ for your spouse while you're taking some time away from the pressure of waiting and hoping? Call you back in two hours? What about your mother, who has taken a fall at home, by herself? Should she be prevented from reaching you? Or your teenager who got into trouble while taking advantage of your absence? Voice mail? A little empathy, insight, or experience makes that "tiny minority" grow much larger for any but the most self-righteous. > I'm proposing a really simple measure: enter a theater or a concert > hall with a cellphone or beeper, and automatically post a bond for the > face value of every seat in the house, to be payable if your device > goes off. It wouldn't cover the transportation, scheduling and other > costs of the people whose evening was disrupted, but it would be a > start. And it would make people and businesses think about the true > costs of having someone reachable 24/7. Easily circumvented by those to whom it "should" be applied: Turn off the potential "offending device" until past any RF energy detection equipment of the type now being marketed for "protection" [!] against cell phones. Honest and responsible wireless device users -- and those who are totally clueless, I grant you -- will be "caught" and subjected to the administrative nightmare of "post[ing] a bond" to Big Brother. Or, more likely, we'll simply avoid performance venues that accede to the demands of those who continue to blame the technology, instead of holding the abuser accountable. How about concentrating efforts on the offenders? The person whose phone or pager goes off audibly, or who engages in conversation, is shown the door. Perhaps, s/he should be identified and placed on a "gray" list that could be shared among performance venues and ticket agents. Prominent notices might be printed on tickets and placed in box offices and lobbies, notifying patrons that anyone with an audible ringer will be shown the door, with no recourse or refund. Most importantly, wireless users need to be told HOW not to disrupt or offend. As other respondents to this string have pointed out, it's mostly ignorance or obliviousness that causes the problem. And that ignorance and obliviousness applies to legislative and administrative approaches to the problem, just as it applies to the "antisocial" behavior itself. Paul A Lee ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines) Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:34:19 GMT In article , Herb Stein wrote: > David Esan wrote in message > news:telecom22.3.3@telecom-digest.org: >> Can you imagine an emergency in a theater (fire, health, violence) and >> someone whips out their cellphone to call 911 and can't because its >> blocked by the theater? Huge lawsuit. > Phooey. I go into lots of places every day with spotty or nonexistent > cell phone reception. I don't think that the fact that their > construction techniques interfere with my cell phone use is cause for > a lawsuit. For that matter, there are plenty of places outdoors around > here (St. Louis) with "dead spots." But there is probably no gaurantee > from Cingular either. Those are not cases where someone has deliberately created a dead zone. And the types of venues we're talking about often have large crowds in them, so their action creates an added danger for a large number of people. Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: 1010/800 # Dialing With no LD Carrier? Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:56:15 -0400 To add to what John said, keep in mind that if you select "no PIC" (as it's known in the phone business) the local phone company will add a monthly charge to make up for one of the FCC-required fees that your long distance company would be required to pay on your behalf; when my mother went this route, BellSouth (in Kentucky) charged 57 cents per month for this. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:04:05 -0400 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Two URL Stylists, No Waiting At 16:23 08/26/02, editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > Then Judith comes back with the correct > URL but incorrectly places a 'period' (punctuation mark) right after > the 'org' in the above URL. Although that *is* correct grammar, it > simply wreaks havoc on a linking URL. People's computers see that and > incorrectly assume 'org' is the second part of a longer address which > began with 'icann'. Guffaw, shrill laugh. As I understand it, the "correct grammar" for URLs involves wrapping them in angle brackets like . That's also MLA style for URLs in footnotes and bibliographies. This has the advantage of isolating the URL from any preceding or following punctuation that is not a part of the actual URL, and on at least some e-mail programs (e.g., Eudora) angle brackets will even preserve URLs that have been fractured onto two lines by word wrapping, allowing them to be directly clickable. Gary ------------------------------ From: w_tom Subject: Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Minute Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:31:16 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com We don't know how much that pile of potatoes will cost until we have them weighed at the cash register. But at least we are told in advance the price per pound. We don't know how much the gasoline will cost BUT we are told the price per gallon in advance. Telcos need not even let us know the price per minute of a call until up to a month after we have made that call. What else is sold this way - without any indication of price per use, price per minute, price per pound, price per gallon, etc? Only phone calls? KimBrennan wrote: >> So why are they not required to make pricing available at the time >> of purchase? > I'm a little surprised that our moderator didn't reply on this. > The reason that jumps out most in my mind, is that the exact price is > unknown until finished. Many phone (most? all?) charge on the basis of > how long the call was. This can be broken down by per minute or > fractions of a minute basis, but in the end, until the call is > finished, how much to charge you for the service is unknown. In > addition, there are other possible charges that you may invoke during > the call (900 calls for instance, or 800 calls that take you to areas > where you authorize a purchase that is charged to your phone bill.) > Convienence has a price and that price is in having to compute your > charge AFTER the call is completed. > Of course, in this era of modern electronics it would be nice to have > the exact charge appear on a display on your phone the moment you hang > up. This would undoubtably require an additional service (like the > caller id service) that could be added to your monthly bill. Then > there are the taxes, and surcharges which are prorated per > usage. These can/could vary from state to state. So this proposed > phone handset would have to be programmed by the end user to reflect > all of those charges. AND the company manufacturing the handsets would > have to have extra legal language to be sure you couldn't sue them for > improperly calculating phone charges ... this might make the handsets > prohibitively expensive. > "I'm sorry, all my money is tied up in currency." > W.C.Fields > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think he said that phone service was > the ONLY commodity where one does not know the cost before purchasing > it. That isn't really true either. You buy electrical service each > month, plus water and gas without knowing what the final bill for the > month will be. I now sit here and cringe thinking about what the > electric bill will be for August here in Independence considering the > bake-oven weather conditions we have endured over the past two > months. I am on the annual 'budget plan' meaning the bills from KG&E > are averaged over twelve months, however KG&E reserves the right to > 'adjust' the monthly payments as they see fit to keep you from having > a large over/underpayment at the end of the year. I've had to run the > air conditioner on high for the past month, although it cycles on and > off from time to time. What would you do if the temperature was in > the 95-105 degree range during the day? > The Independence Water Works and Public Works is the most reasonable > of all. $53 per month delivers all the water and sewer (based on a > percentage of the water consumption) AND trash collection each > month. They re-evaluate sewer and trash four times each year based on > the water meter readings during the months of November and January. So > I must be careful about using water in November. > The people outside of the city limits get hit *very hard* on water. > Rural water delivery is outrageous I am told. They get their water > from the City of Independence but it costs them plenty, and they have > to water their livestock as well. People buy a lot of things in a > month's time they don't know exactly what it will cost before hand. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Computer Expert Says Can Break Microsoft security Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:33:44 -0400 From: Monty Solomon By Peter Andersson STOCKHOLM, Aug 26 (Reuters) - Software security widely used for Internet banking and e-commerce can be easily circumvented, and customer accounts at several of Sweden's largest banks remain at risk as a result, a computer expert said on Monday. The Swedish hacking expert, who is well known in computer security circles, but asked not to be named, demonstrated to Reuters how it was possible within minutes to break through security on Web server software from Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ:MSFT). The expert showed how to crack the security systems for Internet banking, breaking into three of Sweden's big four banks in quick succession. He was then able to show how to conceal his tracks, making detection difficult afterward. While stopping short of breaking into customer accounts, the hacker-turned-consultant said an intruder could have hidden instructions to transfer sums into a separate account when the customer authorises a payment from his Internet bank account. He relied on a variation of a weakness that came to light two weeks ago in Microsoft's implementation of Secure Socket Layer (SSL), an industry standard for transmitting credit card numbers and account passwords via the Web. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28447602 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:43:35 -0400 From: dhorvath@cobs.com (David B. Horvath, CCP) Subject: This Takes Guts Check out the "source" of my email address used in a SPAM I recently received trying to sell me Norton products: > CLICK HERE to Order Yours NOW! or Call > Toll-Free 1-800-861-1481! > Your email address was obtained from an opt-in list. > opt-in UEFAS (United Email Federation Against Spam) > Approved List - Purchase Code # 8594030. If you wish > to be unsubscribed from this list, please Click > here. If you have previously unsubscribed and are still receiving > this message, you may email our [HTTP, not MAILTO reference] Spam > Abuse Control Center. We do not condone spam in any shape or form. > Thank You kindly for your cooperation. - David ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2002 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #10 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Aug 27 13:28:42 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7RHSge13179; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:28:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:28:42 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208271728.g7RHSge13179@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #11 TELECOM Digest Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:28:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 11 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Call for Participation, DIALM 2002 (Eric Fleury) Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Min (Frank) Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Min (Sutton) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Ron Bean) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Barry Margolin) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Brian Gordon) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Michael Neary) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Christopher Wolf) Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? (David Clayton) Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? (Ed Ellers) Re: Verizon Call Reject?? (John R. Levine) UK: Old BT Jackplug Standards (ric) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric.Fleury@inria.fr Subject: Call for Participation, DIALM 2002 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:30:18 +0000 (UTC) Organization: LORIA & INRIA-Lorraine - Nancy - FRANCE C A L L F O R P A R T I C I P A T I O N DIAL M for Mobility 6th International Workshop on Discrete Algorithms and Methods for Mobile Computing and Communications September, 28, 2002 Atlanta, Georgia, USA (In conjunction with ACM MobiCom 2002) Sponsored by ACM Sigmobile http://dialm.insa-lyon.fr/ SCOPE Mobile computing and communications such as portable phones and Personal Digital Assistants will have an enormous impact on all of us over the next several decades. The introduction of mobility raises a number of new research questions. For many of them, approaches based on the continuous case are not satisfactory, and discrete models and algorithms are required in order to deal with real applications. The workshop DIAL M for Mobility is devoted to discrete algorithms and discrete modelling in the context of mobile and wireless computing and communications. It is intended to be a lively meeting, covering many of the algorithmic and discrete aspects of this field going from operations research to radio engineering problems. It aims, in particular, at fostering the cooperation among practitioners and theoreticians of the field. Following the success the first workshop held jointly with Mobicom 97 in Budapest, DIAL M for Mobility will be co-located with ACM/IEEE MobiCom 98 and will be composed of contributed and invited talks. FINANCIAL SUPPORT A limited support is available for students to attend the conference. Please send an email to one of the Program Chairs to obtain further information. We encourage the students to apply as soon as possible. TENTATIVE PROGRAM (The times might change slightly in order to coordinate with other workshops.) SESSION ONE 8.50-9.00 a.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks 9.00-10.00 a.m. INVITED TALK: Distributed Algorithmic Mechanism Design: Recent Results and Future Directions Professor Joan Feigenbaum, Dept. Computer Science, Yale University. Joint work with Dr. Scott Shenker, ACIRI Coffee Break 10.00 - 10.30 a.m. SESSION TWO 10.30-12.20 p.m. Title: Asymptotically Optimal Geometric Mobile Ad-Hoc Routing Author: Fabian Kuhn, Roger Wattenhofer, Aaron Zollinger Title: Cluster Based Routing Using a k-Tree Core Backbone for Mobile Ad hoc Networks Authors: Saurabh Srivastava, Ratan K. Ghosh Title: A Theoretical Study of Optimization Techniques USed in Resgistration Area Based Location Mangement: Models and Online Algorithms Authors: Sandeep Gupta, Goran Konjevod, Georgios Varsamopoulos. Title: Self-Stabilizing Mutual Exclusion Using Tokens in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Authors: Yu Chen, Jennifer L. Welch Lunch 12.20 - 1.30 p.m. SESSION THREE 1.40-2.40 p.m. INVITED TALK: Energy v/s Performance in Wireless Networks Professor Hari Balakrishnan Laboratory of Computer Science MIT Coffee Break 2.40-3.00 p.m. SESSION 3: 3.00-4.15 p.m. Title: Scalable Analysis and Design of Ad Hoc Networks via Random Graph Theory Authors: Andras Farago Title: Approximation Algorithms for the Mobile Piercing Set Problem with Applications to Clustering in Ad-hoc Networks Authors: Hai Huang, Andrea W. Richa, Michael Segal Title: Simple Heuristics and PTASs for Intersection Graphs in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks Authors: Xiang-Yang Li, Yu Wang ORGANIZATION CONFERENCE CHAIRS Eric FLEURY CITI/INRIA Rhne-Alpes Domaine Scientifique de la Doua - INSA de Lyon Bât. Léonard de Vinci - 21 av. Jean Capelle F-69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France Work Phone: +33 472 434 421 Fax Number: +33 472 436 227 Email: Eric.Fleury@inria.fr Madhav MARATHE Los Alamos National Laboratory P.O. Box 1663 Los Alamos, NM 87545 USA Work Phone: +1 505 667 8010 Fax Number: +1 505 665 6474 Email: marathe@lanl.gov TECHNICAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE P. Agarwal, Duke University, USA A. Bar-Noy, CUNY -- Brooklyn College, USA P. Crescenzi, U. Firenze, Italia B. Ducourthial, UTC, France P. Jacquet, INRIA, France S. Krumke, ZIB Berlin, Germany J-Y. Leboudec, EPFL, Switzerland G. R. Mateus, UFMG, Brasil M. Morvan, ENS-Lyon, France S. Naor, Technion, Israel D. Peleg, Weizmann Institute, Israel C. Phillips, Sandia National Laboratories, USA A. Richa, ASU, USA B. Schieber, IBM Watson, USA M. Steenstrup, BBN, USA A. Srinivasan, University of Maryland, USA P. Widmayer, ETH Zurich, Switzerland STEERING COMMITTEE Ian Akyildiz, Georgia Tech, USA Maurizio Bonuccelli, University of Pisa, Italy Afonso Ferreira, CNRS - I3S - INRIA - Sophia Antipolis, France Errol Lloyd, University of Delaware, USA Arunabha Sen, Arizona State University, USA. ------------------------------ From: coolwebgeek@yahoo.com (Frank) Subject: Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Minute Date: 26 Aug 2002 21:14:28 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ > The reason that jumps out most in my mind, is that the exact price is > unknown until finished. Many phone (most? all?) charge on the basis of > how long the call was. Ahh, I must of used too many words to describe the problem ;) MCI WorldCom's reseller service (555) told me that they did not have any rates to give me and that none existed. Meaning, they could not go anywhere and look up what the per-minute rate was for any of my calls, or what the per per-call rate was, surcharges, etc. They simply charged me whatever their computers dynamically / randomly decided to charge me for each call. Meaning, I could call the same exact number 100 times in 100 consecutive seconds and be charged 100 different prices for each of those calls. Part of me is thinking there has to be some defined rates somewhere and that it really cannot be this arbitrary / random. > Of course, in this era of modern electronics it would be nice to have > the exact charge appear on a display on your phone the moment you hang > up. This would undoubtably require an additional service (like the > caller id service) that could be added to your monthly bill. Then > there are the taxes, and surcharges which are prorated per > usage. I personally designed and built technology called CallSense, based on AccountPoint technologies, that does exactly this, but it runs on your personal computer. It includes a complete state-of-the-art real-time rating engine that is more advanced than anything on the market such as from Portal. It also includes billing and account management, so I definitely know tariffs, rates, rating rules, billing, and how phone bills are calculated from A to Z. By the way, GTC Telecom was a great company to work with overall. I had them on several of my home lines for two years. ------------------------------ From: Colin Sutton Subject: Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Minute Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:44:25 GMT Organization: BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.net.au) KimBrennan wrote in message news:telecom22.7.14@telecom-digest.org: >> So why are they not required to make pricing available at the time >> of purchase? > The reason that jumps out most in my mind, is that the exact price is > unknown until finished. Many phone (most? all?) charge on the basis of > how long the call was. This can be broken down by per minute or > fractions of a minute basis, but in the end, until the call is > finished, how much to charge you for the service is unknown. In > addition, there are other possible charges that you may invoke during > the call (900 calls for instance, or 800 calls that take you to areas > where you authorize a purchase that is charged to your phone bill.) > Convienence has a price and that price is in having to compute your > charge AFTER the call is completed. > Of course, in this era of modern electronics it would be nice to have > the exact charge appear on a display on your phone the moment you hang > up. The charge could be calculated and displayed in real-time based on the rate for the length of time connected. A web-phone service should easily be able to display the current charge. There is at least one service that gives a dynamic indication of the likely charge. After many complaints, my local ADSL service provider, which charges for data downloaded, supplied a web-site that shows the daily amount downloaded, and how close you are to the limit at which the charges start. It's not quite real-time yet: there's a lag of a day or so :-) Pat said: > You buy electrical service each month, plus water and gas without > knowing what the final bill for the month will be. I now sit here > and cringe thinking about what the electric bill will be for August > here in Independence considering the bake-oven weather conditions we > have endured over the past two months. Can't you read your meters? Not that there'll be much consolation in knowing in advance what you are going to pay, you need that cooling! Be thankful you can postpone the worry about how to pay for it and the meters aren't coin-operated ... Colin [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: "Can't you read your meters?" Yeah, but it gets so depressing to read then attempt to calculate the charges. "You need that cooling!" Yes, I think I do. But I went to see my mother at the home the other day and asked her, "how did people survive back in the 1920's and 30's when there was no home air cond- itioning?" Her response was "well, we suffered, but I think our bodies were more conditioned to it, so we did not notice it quite as much as we do now days, but we did notice it." My first employment, in 1958 when I was in high school was working for the University of Chicago in the telephone exchange room on campus. Air conditioning in offices was not at all common (actually rare) in those days; we had overhead ceiling fans which spun all the time in the summer, and windows which we could open but had to close if it rained. If it got very humid before and after a heavy rain, we suffered also. Movie theatres were about the only place that had regular air conditioning until the late fifties or early sixties. The first job I had where air-conditioning was normal (installed while I was working there) was in 1967 at the Amoco credit card billing center and I think they put that in because they were warned that the computers they were also istalling (instead of manual bookkeeping) demanded cool air to not 'go down' all the time. At first they had overhead fans and windows that opened also. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:39:05 -0500 From: Ron Bean Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Paul A Lee writes: > What about volunteer firefighters and EMTs? Electric utility workers? > Medical professionals? Other disaster- or emergency-responders? At some theaters, the recommended procedure is to leave your seat number and pager at the box office. If your pager goes off, an usher comes and gets you. I don't know if anyone actually does this ... ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:46:21 GMT In article , Paul A Lee wrote: > Just who determines who needs to be reachable? And who decided it's > all based on economics? > What about volunteer firefighters and EMTs? Electric utility workers? > Medical professionals? Other disaster- or emergency-responders? > How about parents of young children, taking a well-deserved night out, > nervously leaving their kids with a sitter? > What about your child's or your parent's cardiologist? Should s/he be > denied the means for you to reach him/her? > What about the transplant coordinator who finds a donor organ for your > spouse while you're taking some time away from the pressure of waiting > and hoping? Call you back in two hours? > What about your mother, who has taken a fall at home, by herself? Should > she be prevented from reaching you? > Or your teenager who got into trouble while taking advantage of your > absence? Voice mail? All your professional examples are based on economics. For instance, if a community could afford it, they could have full-time firefighters living in the firehouse 24x7, instead of using volunteer firefighters. And hospitals could employ enough cardiologists that they could have one on duty all the time. Communications technology has indeed allowed many cost savings, by replacing on-site staff with on-call staff. But it's possible to solve these problems without pagers and cellphones, since there was a time before they were ubiquitous and society managed to survive. Personally, I don't have a problem with cellphones being used for emergency uses. The ones that are causing all the furor are people using them for frivolous, personal use in inappropriate places. If they weren't so inconsiderate, the ones who really need their cellphones wouldn't be seen as guilty by association. Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: About three months ago, I was riding in the car with a man here in town going out to dinner in the little town (population 250) of Tyro, Kansas. He went on and on about the evils of cell phones and how people who 'wanted to act important' carried them fastened on their belts, etc. On the way back from dinner, about 10 PM (it was very dark and very lonely on County Road 2700 for the ten miles back to Independence) we passed a car sitting on the side of the road, and inside the car sat a young woman and a little girl. We stopped to ask if they needed any help. The woman's car had overheated or had vapor-lock, I dunno which. Yes, she said, if I could call my husband over in Dearing, Kansas (another tiny, rural town of 300 population about ten miles away) he would come out and get my car started or take us home. Out comes my cell phone and two calls were made: the first to her husband at home; the second to 911 and the county sheriff. We then parked nearby and waited until the husband and the sheriff arrived a few minutes later. My friend just sat there thinking about it and said nothing. We thought the right thing to do was sit there and wait with the lady until someone showed up. After the sheriff and her husband showed up we drove away. I said to him "I do not know these days why anyone who drives a car does not have a cell phone installed in it. You never know when you will see or have a situation like that." I guess he heeded my advice, because a week or so later when he came around I noticed he had installed a cell phone in his car. I know he did not complain to me about cell phones again. PAT] ------------------------------ From: briang@panix.com (Brian Gordon) Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Date: 26 Aug 2002 20:27:41 -0700 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. In article , John David Galt wrote: >> As much as New Yorkers love to talk, they appear to be inclined to >> support legislation that prohibits people from using their cell phones >> in public. >> http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,54608,00.html > Why is a law needed for this? Why don't the affected theaters just > show their rude patrons the door? > If that's too expensive because it requires hiring human beings, maybe > they should consider installing Faraday cages in the walls. That's > certainly legal even if active jamming isn't. I don't know if it is accidental or deliberate, but I was in a theater (fairly new) over the weekend where there was no reception. I was happy about it ... (Century 20, The Great Mall, Milpitas, CA). +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Brian Gordon -->briang@panix.com<-- | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ------------------------------ From: Michael Neary Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (was News Headlines) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:52:23 -0700 Reply-To: mike@neary.com >> Can you imagine an emergency in a theater (fire, health, violence) and >> someone whips out their cellphone to call 911 and can't because its >> blocked by the theater? Huge lawsuit. Sorry. In a large (or even in a small) venue, a cell phone is a LAST RESORT for getting help. At the PSAP, they have no clue where you are. If they are lucky, they might actually know what city you're calling from ... I was working at the door, at a small public event, a few years ago when the paramedics suddenly arrived. They were looking for a twisted ankle. But the caller had neglected to tell the event staff about the injury, so they were on the verge of leaving and chalking it up to a false alarm. The paramedics eventually resorted to polling each guest to see if they were injured and/or had placed the call. Whoever called 911 was connected to the Highway Patrol, who had to ask where they were calling from. Then, the caller had to describe the location of the emergency a second time to the local emergency staff. This had to be input manually. BUT if someone had used *any* landline phone on the premises, the location would have been displayed automatically with no transcription errors. And if they had used the phone at the entrance, the event staff might have actually known what had happened, and could have quickly directed the paramedics to the injured person. Response was delayed significantly by the use of a cell phone. We shouldn't forget that we had neighbors and friends long before we could call 911. Mike [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My 911 call mentioned elsewhere in this issue first went to the Independence Police dispatcher who said to me 'hold for Montgomery County sheriff.' The next voice I heard was someone who answered for the Sheriff's office. I asked how she knew I wanted the sheriff, and she said 'the cell site you are on registered a 620-289 number which is a rural exchange for Tyro/Dearing/Bolton and Liberty, Kansas (all *very tiny* villages with possibly a thousand people between them all.) They all get fire protection from either Independence or Coffeyville, but the Sheriff handles other calls. Coffey- ville (620-251 and recently 252) and Independence (620-331 and recently 332 for city offices and the college) have their own police/fire and EMT workers, but Dearing/Bolton/Tyro/Caney (620-289) get fire and EMT service from either C-ville or Indy depending on what they are closest to. They know your location because 289 is further divided up with the '4' group of 289 assigned to Tyro for example. The cell tower that picks up your call decides where to route your 911 call, to C-ville or Indy or in a couple cases, direct to the sheriff. I think Dearing and Liberty are sent to C-ville for handling. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:21:18 -0500 From: Christopher Wolf Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theatres Paul A Lee wrote: > Paul Wallich wrote (in part): >> There's a tiny minority of people who actually need to be reachable, >> and a much larger group who _think_ they need to be reachable at all > Just who determines who needs to be reachable? And who decided it's all > based on economics? > What about volunteer firefighters and EMTs? Electric utility workers? > Medical professionals? Other disaster- or emergency-responders? > How about parents of young children, taking a well-deserved night out, > nervously leaving their kids with a sitter? > What about your child's or your parent's cardiologist? Should s/he be > denied the means for you to reach him/her? > What about the transplant coordinator who finds a donor organ for > your spouse while you're taking some time away from the pressure of > waiting and hoping? Call you back in two hours? (Royal 'you' used below.) Many of these counter arguments try to show *really important* situations where people still need to stay in touch. If it's really *that* important, why are you trusting a cell phone/pager with potentially spotty coverage?!?!?! Anyone who uses a cellphone/pager accepts that the coverage is not complete, otherwise they'd sit at home next to the phone. And I'm betting that every one of these situations has a back-up plan that will make it work just fine if the person in question can't be reached, or that it has enough leeway that checking voicemail at intermission would be fine; it would have to, if they're trusting cellphones. Still sounds more like self-important people who think they're the only one can do whatever it is that needs to be done. I have numerous personal gadgets, so I'm not eschewing technology, but I paid just as much as you for that ticket, and I see no reason you should be able to disrupt my enjoyment of the evening, especially when I make sure I turn mine off. Even if you're that important, stay home, as you still have no right to disrupt my night. Plan your own life better to deal with this; its your own choices that got you here. Take some responsibility, or someone else will with jammers. ------------------------------ From: David Clayton Subject: Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:20:06 +1000 Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.net.au Joey Lindstrom contributed the following: > And at the risk of going off-topic for a moment ... folks, if you > haven't seen Babylon 5, you should. It makes all other TV sci-fi, > Star Trek included, look like children's programming. Just as I have almost completed the whole lot on video tape ... :-( - - Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 05:44:51 -0400 KimBrennan wrote: > The easiest way for regular content to get into the digital TV > bandwagon is to start filming in widescreen. A few programs do this > now (cropping the widescreen image to fit into a regular 4:3 screen > when broadcast on regular NTSC.) X-Files is one such. They don't > film it in HD. Nobody films anything in "HD" -- that's video, not film. If a series is shot on 35mm film and preserved in that format, it can later be transferred to HD video if the need arises -- though the difficulty of doing this varies depending on how the show was handled after principal photography. Older series were almost always edited on film, and can be transferred directly to HD video if a good 35mm film element still exists; many newer series are transferred to video, at standard definition, from the original negative and then edited as video, and in those cases the editing work would have to be done over after the negative is transferred to HD video. (The current "Enterprise" series splits the difference -- the film is transferred to HD video, but the computer-generated effects are rendered at standard definition, so they would have to be re-rendered for any future HD release.) 16mm film is trickier; CBS refused to show "Walker, Texas Ranger" in HDTV because it was shot in 16mm, and the network felt that the results wouldn't justify the cost of an HD transfer. Even 35mm film often looks less sharp on HDTV than material shot in HD video, despite the fact that a 35mm frame can hold far more information than an HDTV frame; AFAIK this is because of modulation transfer losses in the scanners used to do the video transfers. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Aug 2002 00:14:08 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Verizon Call Reject?? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA In article you write: > I have a big question. I live in NJ and am looking to find out if > Verizon offers a service where I can put in a phone number and when > the person calls it will reject the call ... What did Verizon say when you called the business office and asked them? (In case you don't have page 2 of your local phone book handy, the number is 800-427-9977.) That's the same number you call to report annoying or harassing calls. > one phone like with distinctive ring and someone keeps faxing me 50 > pages a day of junk. Are these junk fax ads, or a crazed fax machine who thinks you're someone else? -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: ric@infobubble.co.uk (ric) Subject: UK: Old BT Jackplug Standards Date: 27 Aug 2002 05:37:53 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi All, I've inherited an old, rotary dial pulse phone that I'd like to get working in the UK. At the moment the end of the cable has a jackplug that's approx 1/4 inch in diameter, with 4 bands across it. It's about the same dimensions as an audio 1/4 jack. I'd like to cut this off and crimp on a UK standard phone jack. Does anyone know what these old connectors are called, and have the pin-outs for them so I can adapt it, or know of an existing adaptor? Thanks, Ric ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #11 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Aug 29 00:21:12 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7T4LCs22377; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:21:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:21:12 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208290421.g7T4LCs22377@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #12 TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:20:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 12 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson "No-Dial-Tone" on HP Fax (nospam) AT&T Never Calls Me Back. Do I Have Any Recourse? (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Book Review: Communications Toolkit; Longstaff (David Weininger) Stor-Com Question (Lincoln J. King-Cliby) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Paul Wallich) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Gary Novosielski) Update on My Phone Service Leaving Cavalier (Carl Moore) Instant Messaging Over the Phone? (Adrian) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeffrey L. Hook Subject: No-Dial-Tone on HP Fax Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:29:06 -0400 I hope you can help. Thanks in advance for whatever explanation you can offer for this apparent fax machine malfunction, and for whatever recommendation you can give for a suitable replacement fax machine which might not be susceptible to this problem. (The HP was already returned to the retailer.) I've suspected, for example, that the entire line of HP faxes might be equipped with Line Interface Units which might be less than 100% reliable. PROBLEM: A recently-purchased Hewlett-Packard "hp fax 1020" was unable to obtain a dial tone at either of the two phone lines which are in service at this house. The HP machine was plugged in here at a single-socket baseboard jack. A simple table telephone (with no special features at all; just voice communication) had been able to reach both of the phone lines which are in service here, before the HP unit's modular phone cable was plugged into the same phone jack, and subsequently. The table phone reached the first line directly at the jack, and it reached the second line by use of a splitter in that modular jack's single socket. I.D. OF MALFUNCTIONING UNIT: The hp fax 1020 is a multiple-function unit, which includes a telephone with a handset, a digital telephone answering machine, and a facsimile machine. The unit's telephone won't work if the unit has no electrical power, but the unit was always powered on during my tests of its inability to obtain a dial tone. The unit's model number was C8580A, its serial number was C N E 2 1 A 0 P P S, and its apparent "Ringer Equivalent Number" was REN : 068 / ICREN : 0.4. Verizon provides local telephone service at this address, and AT&T provides long distance service. INCONSISTENCY OF MALFUNCTION: The "kicker" in this case is the HP unit's normal performance elsewhere. When no dial tone could be obtained here, the unit was taken to another address nearby, where it performed well. It obtained a dial tone and its integral phone worked as it should have worked here. In fact, a call was completed on that phone from that separate location to here. The unit was brought back here and it again failed to obtain a dial tone. It was returned to the retailer, Staples, where it was tested, and where its integral telephone again obtained a dial tone and performed normally. It was brought back here and it failed again to obtain a dial tone. It was *never* able to obtain a dial tone here. Upon its final return to Staples for a refund its integral telephone again functioned as it should have functioned here. SYMPTOMS OF MALFUNCTION: For all tests of the HP unit's telephone, the unit's power cord was plugged in to the house current at a wall electrical outlet, its modular two-lead phone cable was plugged in to the fully-operative baseboard phone jack, and its telephone handset was picked up to listen for a dial tone. (Yes, the other ends of the unit's power and phone cables *were* correctly connected to the unit...): On this house's first line (which is used primarily for voice communication), there was only an irregular clicking, with a very faint background hiss. The clicking sounded as if someone was depressing and releasing the switch hook of a phone, rapidly, in a random sequence. That persisted for far less than a minute, and then only the faint hissing continued. The HP fax was intended for use on that first line. On this house's second line (which is primarily dedicated to a PC modem, a Zoom 3048L external V.92 model) there'd be silence at length (nearly a full minute), then two rings, and then a recorded announcement which featured the well-known "shrieking" static and then the phone company female voice which announces, "We're sorry; your call could not be completed as dialed." A representative of Verizon's Repair department suggested the recorded phone company recorded error message suggested the HP phone was able to indicate at least an attempted dial-up to the phone system, in that the long passage of time followed by the recorded message was the scenario which would transpire if any other phone had in fact both obtained a dial tone and had been able to dial, albeit incorrectly. REPLACEMENT OF HOUSE WIRE IS INEFFECTIVE: The phone cable from this house's Network Interface Device (NID) (on the exterior of the house), to the fax's wall jack had clearly provided access for a standard telephone to both phone numbers which are in use here. Even so, I suspected a splice in that line might have been unacceptable to the HP fax machine. Hence, I re-wired that jack to the NID, with a fresh, non-spliced, four-lead "cable." I then tested that new wiring and I found a standard table phone was still able to obtain access to both lines from the baseboard jack, when a splitter was used to reach the second line. However, that "cable" replacement produced NO CHANGE in the fax machine's inability to obtain a dial tone on either line. NID REPLACEMENT IS RECOMMENDED: I called Verizon, our local service provider. When I reported our NID was a Keptel SNI-4600, I was told Keptels had been designed for high-quality analog voice transmission. They were said to be full of features ("filters" and other types of modulators) which improved voice signals, but which were said to be impediments to digital transmissions. It was suggested the NID had precluded the obtaining of dial tones by the HP unit. I later disassembled the Keptel NID after it was replaced, and I found no such intermediate devices. The NID seemed to employ only simple "isolators," which could be used to interrupt the connection of the outgoing house wires to the incoming outside lines. For example, there was a modular "jumper" plug which could be used to disconnect each "customer wiring bridge" from the outside connection. There were four white insulators on the incoming side of the box, one for each of the four leads of the two circuits for our two phone lines, i.e. one for green, red, yellow, and black, and I didn't disassemble them, but I doubt they contain any such "filters." NID REPLACEMENT HAS *NO* EFFECT: A Verizon field service technician was called in here to install a new NID. However, before he did, he checked the operation of the baseboard jack at which we'd been unable to obtain a dial tone on the HP unit. He found the jack gave access to both lines (via a splitter for the second line, of course) and he said that indicated the HP unit was defective. Even so, he installed a new NID and that new interface made no change whatsoever in the inability of the HP unit to obtain a dial tone on either phone line. HP ADMITS LINE INTERFACE UNIT DEFECT: I then called HP's customer support line. I was told the unit's ability to obtain a dial tone elsewhere while it remained unable to obtain one here was baffling, but I was also told the "no-dial-tone" problem seemed to trace to a defective LIU ("Line Interface Unit"). I was instructed in a method for resetting the unit's memory. (That was: Unplug the unit's power cord, re-plug it, observe a line of dots in the unit's LED/LCD display, then press the unit's asterisk key and hold it until "All Memory Init" appeared on the tiny display screen.) I tried that method several times, with no effect, and with the HP unit set initially to each of its three "Answer Modes": Telephone answering machine and fax, fax, and telephone.. When I reported the ineffectiveness of the memory reset procedure, HP's customer support representative told me it was apparent the unit's LIU was defective and that it required replacement. He seemed to imply I'd be unwise to replace the defective hp fax 1020 with an identical model. He suggested a 910, a 920, or a 1220. QUESTIONS: 1. Can anyone explain this strange and inconsistent malfunction? How could a machine readily obtain a dial tone at two other locations, but not here, particularly when the phone wiring here checked out well? 2. This bad experience has left me suspicious of HP "Line Interface Units." Does anyone know if the LIU in the hp 1020 is also used in other models? I'm most concerned about the 910, the 920, and the 1220, which were all recommended by the HP customer support representative as appropriate replacements for the hp fax 1020. 3. Can anyone recommend a fax machine which isn't likely to be susceptible to this weird problem? For example, is it possible that any simple fax unit which doesn't also include its own integral telephone might be immune? Thanks very much for any help you can offer! Jeff Hook NJ, USA ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Never Calls Me Back; Do I Have Any Recourse? Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:26:43 GMT Once again, I'm in a billing dispute with AT&T. I've tried calling their "customer support" number, but a supervisor is never available. The low-level rep always takes my number, promises that a supervisor will call me within 24 to 48 hours, and then I never hear from AT&T again. This has happened two or three times in the past two weeks, and dozens of times in the past. Do I have any recourse? Is this illegal on their part? Does anyone have a direct number to someone higher up than a first-level rep? Thanks, -Joel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:03:26 -0400 From: David Weininger Subject: Book Review: Communications Toolkit; Longstaff I thought readers of the Telecom Digest (comp.dcom.telecom) might be interested in this book. For more information please visit http://mitpress.mit.edu/0262122464 The Communications Toolkit How to Build and Regulate Any Communications Business P. H. Longstaff foreword by Anthony Oettinger Although telephone, cable, broadcast, print, and Internet companies are changing at a fantastic rate, the fundamentals of communications, networks, and competition have remained constant. This book provides the tools necessary to build lasting, flexible strategies to survive and grow in these times of transition. Whether you are a business executive, lawmaker, policy analyst, industrialist, stock analyst, lawyer, or judge, these tools will help you to solve real problems right away. The toolkit contains six tools -- essentially ways to view the workings of the communications sector from a larger, more inclusive perspective. The tools draw on knowledge and concepts from communications, engineering, biology, business, and law. Tool #1, Information Theory, presents the big picture of the communications sector. Tool #2, Networks, develops the fundamental parts and processes found in all networks. Tool #3, Competition and Cooperation, presents the basic characteristics shared by most processes in which two or more entities compete or cooperate to obtain a scarce resource. Tool #4, The Three Visions of Convergence, sorts out the many things people mean when they say "convergence." Tool #5, Convergence Theology, shows how people's faith (or lack of it) in convergence influences their predictions for the future. Finally, Tool #6, Concentration/Diversity, focuses on the forces that drive things together and those that pull them apart. The book also discusses how the tools can be used to understand and influence public policy issues. P. H. Longstaff is Associate Professor of Television, Radio, and Film at the S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, Syracuse University, and a Research Associate at Harvard University's Program on Information Resources Policy. 6 x 9, 305 pp., 12 illus., cloth, ISBN 0-262-12246-4 David Weininger Associate Publicist The MIT Press 5 Cambridge Center, 4th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 617 253 2079 617 253 1709 fax http://mitpress.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: chsvideo@hotmail.com (Lincoln J. King-Cliby) Subject: Stor-Com Question Date: 28 Aug 2002 12:50:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, I have a question that I'm hoping you guys can help me with (Or at least point me in the right direction(s)). Background: I have a workshop that I've installed a quasi home-brew system that allows me to page from any phone inside (By picking up the phone and pressing "*"). The 'paging module' has relay outputs that I use to triger a relay-based priority system (Alarm overrides PA which overrides Background Music). I wanted a method to allow people outside the building to page (to be able to carry on some intercom functions would be a plus) without having dialtone (and the risks associated with it) exposed to the public. Recently I aquired some "Stor-Com" sets from a store that upgraded to a PBX. In case you aren't familiar with what I'm talking about by name, think of what was in virtually every grocery store at the checkstands for what seems like decades ("John, pick up the red line please", "Price check lane five"). Basically it looks like a telephone handset with a red button behind the earpeace, and the "cradle" has either a single red LED in the upper right corner (Single line units) or a green LED in the upper left corner, a red LED in the upper right corner, and a switch on top to select the line. I have the single line units. The connections are Talk 1 (Appears to be the voice circut), Page (I beleive it shorts to common when the page button is pressed), Common (well, duh), and Light 1 (Lights the red LED when a circut is formed between common and this wire). I have no problem getting the light to illuminate or the page button to work (or even both of these together), but how to get the voice portion to work has me somewhat clueless, and I am TOTALLY CLUELESS on how to convert the audio that this is creating into the Line-Level input I need for the paging amplifiler. At the location I need to install this, I have virtually unlimited quanities of 16.5VAC, 18VDC, and 12VDC, but 120VAC is not readily available. For parts, I have a few Radio Shacks and (If I have to) a Fry's Electronics. Oh, and by the way, I'd prefer to have this working by Friday :-) for a little get together we're hosting. For reference, when I connect a telephone line between Common and Talk 1, you can barely hear a buzzing for a dialtone, when I connect 12 or 18VDC, I get a nice loud buzzing (Varries with voltage) in the ear peice, and can kind of carry on a conversation between sets. Thanks, Lincoln (If you prefer to send replies via email, please send them to lincoln at pe dot net) ------------------------------ From: Paul Wallich Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:12:05 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In article , Paul A Lee wrote: > Paul Wallich wrote (in part): >> In article , John Higdon >> wrote: >>> I, and a group of my friends, are in a business that >>> requires us to be >>> on call 24/7. Occasionally, we as a group attend a movie, play, >>> concert or whatever. Half jokingly, someone invariably >>> mutters "pagers >>> on stun" as we enter the venue, meaning that we put cellphones, >>> pagers, and other devices in "vibrate" mode. >> "Requires" is a strong word. It's easier for you and the people who >> employ you, but that's an economic decision (not having just that >> extra tiny bit of redundant coverage). And it's a decision made easier >> by the fact that you don't have to internalize the cost of your >> communications mistakes. > >> There's a tiny minority of people who actually need to be reachable, >> and a much larger group who _think_ they need to be reachable at all >> times, or who just don't think at all. But if people who really think >> their jobs require reachability should be willing to pay the price (or >> their employers should). > Just who determines who needs to be reachable? And who decided it's > all based on economics? > What about volunteer firefighters and EMTs? Electric utility workers? > Medical professionals? Other disaster- or emergency-responders? > How about parents of young children, taking a well-deserved night out, > nervously leaving their kids with a sitter? > What about your child's or your parent's cardiologist? Should s/he be > denied the means for you to reach him/her? > What about the transplant coordinator who finds a donor organ for your > spouse while you're taking some time away from the pressure of waiting > and hoping? Call you back in two hours? > What about your mother, who has taken a fall at home, by herself? Should > she be prevented from reaching you? > Or your teenager who got into trouble while taking advantage of your > absence? Voice mail? > A little empathy, insight, or experience makes that "tiny minority" grow > much larger for any but the most self-righteous. I don't really see the point here. When a cellphone or a pager goes off in a space for which people have paid to obtain intermission, it's destroying the value for which they have paid. The fact that the person who owns the disrupting device is willing to have their own evening (or afternoon or whatever) disrupted for an emergency (or non-emergency) call doesn't necessarily give them the right to destroy value for which hundreds or thousnds of people around them have paid. Saying that it shouldn't come down to economics sounds a lot like saying that your convenience is worth thousands of dollars of other people's money. Just possibly there should be exceptions made for "real" emergencies where there is an immediate risk of death or injury (just as you wouldn't charge someone for disorderly conduct if they called out for a doctor in a theatre where someone had just keeled over with a heart attack). This would be analagous to the practice of charging people who call out search-and-rescue teams in a non-emergency or in an emergency caused by negligence. If the phones and pagers are all on "vibrate" there's no extra disruption and hence no bond to be paid, and meanwhile I would be more likely to go out to various venues if I knew that having the crucial moment ruined by someone else's phone call would result in a refund. paul ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:54:05 -0400 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters On 26 Aug 2002, briang@panix.com (Brian Gordon) wrote: > I don't know if it is accidental or deliberate, but I was in a theater > (fairly new) over the weekend where there was no reception. I was > happy about it ... (Century 20, The Great Mall, Milpitas, CA). At the theater I went to this weekend in Clifton, NJ, during the opening announcements about smoking, exits, and the all-important plug for the snack bar, there was a short clip regarding cell-phones. As little animated stick-figures (resembling those on the sign for the men's/women's restrooms) acted out the scenario, the voice-over announcer said: "Please ensure that all pagers and cell phones are turned off or set to silent mode at this time. If your phone should ring during the picture, we will immediately stop the film, you will be asked to stand, and the rest of the audience will be encouraged to pelt you with popcorn, chocolate covered raisins, and malted milk balls. Thank you for your cooperation." It worked. =Gary ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:34:44 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Update on My Phone Service Leaving Cavalier In early July, I wrote that I learned I would have to switch phone service back to Verizon after having found my Maryland home phone lines dead. While the order for Verizon to take back those lines was pending, I was able to have Cavalier provide dial tone -- but got rebuffed when I asked for my call forwarding, because, so I am told, I was only being furnished "basic" service in that interim period, so I had to go without the call forwarding during that time. It was also up in the air about me being able to keep the same telephone numbers in going back to Verizon, because I was so late in contacting Verizon -- but I later received a letter from Cavalier (providing a Newark, Del. address I had never seen before) which said that, because of incorrect address information in their file, I never received letters that were sent in May and June to affected Cavalier customers (Maryland exchanges of Aberdeen, Churchville, Havre de Grace, Bel Air, Elkton, North East, Easton, and Ocean City -- all but the last 2 are in Harford and Cecil Counties in northeastern Maryland). (Huh? I got my bills OK in a PO box, and they'd have to know my street address because they were providing local dial tone.) As the new deadline for me changing local dial tone got closer, I sent a hard copy of the above-mentioned letter to someone in Verizon, and even though I am up in northeastern Maryland, I had to mail it to Roanoke, Virginia, way down I-81 from Hagerstown in western Maryland. The change back to Verizon was done August 9, and I do indeed have the same telephone numbers. The immediate problem was providing my local dial tone, but I have also written to the FCC because in going back to Verizon, I had to give up the extended local calling into northern Delaware (notice that is across a state line). There were some old cases where people did not want to change because of disruption of calling areas: 1. a little area called Galestown, Maryland was using phone numbers in the Seaford, Delaware exchange in mid 1970s, and the "correct" situation would have been to go onto the Federalsburg (MD) exchange, which had no local service to Delaware. 2. some eyebrows were raised in the setting up of LATAs w/r to Calvert County, Maryland, because I think that went to the Baltimore LATA but there is 301-855 prefix in northern part of that county which furnishes Washington metro local service. There was a comment in this digest about not disrupting existing calling area. ------------------------------ From: al503141@my-deja.com (Adrian) Subject: Instant Messaging Over the Phone?? Date: 28 Aug 2002 13:53:15 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi, I was wondering if theres an aplication (Computer Telephone Integration-Platform) where I can "see" people online?? For example having a computer logged with my MSN Messanger account, with a voice board with text and speech capabilites, and have or develop a program which can interface with the MSN, so that when I dial to the computer, can tell who is online. It would be great to have this on my sales team. Please advice if there such software and computer. Thanks!! ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #12 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Aug 29 01:16:23 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7T5GNE24144; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:16:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:16:23 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208290516.g7T5GNE24144@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #13 TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:16:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 13 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Ring Back and Say-Number Dial Codes (John Stahl) Map of Coverage/Availability of DSL, Cable, etc (Dave Brenan) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (John Higdon) Transmission Time Vs. Propagation Time (Juan Pardillos) Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 (Frank) Pay Phoner Data Base (Stuart Jeffery) Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal in UK? (shiprath henethe) Re: Old BT Jackplug Standards (Paul Coxwell) Re: Hello, Pat! Really Basic Question (Gerry Belanger) Illinois LATA and Exchange (Paul Cook) Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? (Rob Levandowski) Telecom IT Resources Needed! (Jim Chang) Japanese Phones Vulnerable to Hackers? (Walter Dnes) News Headlines of Interest 8/29/02 (Monty Solomon) Advanced Communications Tech Announces Court Decision (info) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:48:36 -0400 From: John Stahl Subject: Ring Back and Say-Number Dial Codes It seems to me that there are a couple of codes which would information about a telco line with some sort of a dial code to "access" the function. Have several lines which are not identified but are "alive" (with dial-tone) through a LEC which I'm trying to identify the particular phone number. Are there specific codes or generalized dial codes which I can dial on the line with a butt-set to get it to ring back and announce the particular line's phone number? Most of the applications are within Verizon territory. Thanks, John Stahl Telecom/Data Consultant Aljon Enterprises ------------------------------ From: davebrennan1975@hotmail.com (Dave Brenan) Subject: Map of Coverage/Availability of DSL, Cable, etc Date: 27 Aug 2002 11:23:14 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I'm trying to find a graphic for the growth of high speed Internet access. I recall seeing an article in PC magazine or something similar that had past, current, and projected US coverage of high bandwidth connections. Anyone familar with something like this? I've searched DSL-reports and other sites, but can't find anything. Any help would be most appreciated. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:10:47 -0700 Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.11.5@telecom-digest.org, Barry Margolin wrote: > Communications technology has indeed allowed many cost savings, by > replacing on-site staff with on-call staff. But it's possible to > solve these problems without pagers and cellphones, since there was a > time before they were ubiquitous and society managed to survive. We used to "get by" without telephones, automobiles, computers, and an endless list of modern conveniences. We can do many things now that we could not afford to do in days gone by. > Personally, I don't have a problem with cellphones being used for > emergency uses. The ones that are causing all the furor are people > using them for frivolous, personal use in inappropriate places. If > they weren't so inconsiderate, the ones who really need their > cellphones wouldn't be seen as guilty by association. But that is a problem with your own attitude and perception, not with those who use the technology considerately. I won't even go down the road of who might "need" the technology and who might be using it for "frivolous" purposes. As our moderator knows, nearly ten years ago I was two thousand miles from home when an FCC inspector showed up at one of my client's locations back home ... demanding to be accommodated with technical information that only I could supply. I was reached transparently in Chicago where the matter was handled neatly and cleanly. And ... my client got to keep his license. When one group of people starts presuming the needs and necessities of another group of people and makes pronouncements with the force of law, the criteria had better be something more substantial than a matter of trivial annoyance or irritation. "Cellphone envy" is not sufficient justification to ban any technology anywhere. -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: sicotom@eresmas.com (Juan Pardillos) Subject: Transmission time Vs. Propagation Time Date: 27 Aug 2002 15:48:40 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi, I'd like to know which is the difference between the propagation time and the transmission time. Is the transmission time the parameter to consider or they both are important?. I've read somewhere that the propagation time is the time of transmission of 1 bit, but I think this definition is wrong and there is something more complicated. Please, sorry for this simple question, but some web pages I've read don't clarify this question. Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ From: coolwebgeek@yahoo.com (Frank) Subject: Re: MCI Worldcom's 555 Pic Code: Arbitrary Rates Over $3 per Minute Date: 27 Aug 2002 21:39:37 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Just in case anyone is interested in further poking around :) The actual phone company that showed up on my Pacific Bell bill was USBI. They said they were just billing for MCI Worldcom's reseller service because I was not tied to a 555 reseller. USBI's phone number is 1.888.478.8724 MCI Worldcom's wholesale service's number is 1.800.821.2001. This is the company that USBI was billing for. Have a great week, Frank. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:13:54 -0700 From: Stuart Jeffery Subject: Pay Phoner Data Base Reply-To: stu@seena.net Hi List, Does anyone know where I could find a current (or near current) national data base listing the location and operators of all public pay phones? It would have about 2.6 million listings. Thanks, Stu Jeffery ******************************************************** Stuart Jeffery Home Office +1 650 966 8199 1072 Seena Ave Home Fax +1 650 292 2296 Los Altos, CA 94024, USA Mobile +1 650 966 8199 ******************************************************** ------------------------------ From: shiphen@yahoo.com (shiprath henethe) Subject: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? Date: 28 Aug 2002 06:53:55 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi, Anyone know if it is legal in the UK to "jam" someone else's mobile phone? If so do such devices exist, what do they cost and where can I buy one. I am *sick to death* of people having long, loud personal conversations on public transport ! With thanks, Shiperton Henethe ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:25:18 EDT Subject: Re: Old BT Jackplug Standards > I've inherited an old, rotary dial pulse phone that I'd like to get > working in the UK. At the moment the end of the cable has a jackplug > that's approx 1/4 inch in diameter, with 4 bands across it. It's > about the same dimensions as an audio 1/4 jack. I'd like to cut this > off and crimp on a UK standard phone jack. Does anyone know what > these old connectors are called, and have the pin-outs for them so I > can adapt it, or know of an existing adaptor? Ric, To adapt a phone wired on the old system to the new-style jacks you'll also have to make some simple wiring changes inside the phone itself. Are we talking about a 700-series phone here, or something older? Paul ------------------------------ From: glb0802@cognitronics.com (Gerry Belanger) Subject: Re: Hello, Pat! Really Basic Question Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:29:40 GMT Organization: none In article , John Stahl wrote: > In fact ETC even makes recorded announcements for their (only) > competitor's (Cognitronics) systems and a bunch of other's announcers > for commercial establishments with Jane's voice. As a long time engineer for Cognitronics, I can not let this pass without clarification. Cognitronics has never knowingly used an ETC sourced announcement in it's equipment. That said, we (unlike some of our competitors) do provide our telco customers the ability to record and add their own announcements. They can do it themselves, or purchase them from outside vendors such as ETC. In some cases, certain customers have supplied us with their own recordings, in which case we would have no knowledge of the source. The majority of our systems for the past 25+ years have used the professional voice of the same (not Jane) recording artist. Our equipment (and our voice (not Jane)) is used on most of the GTD-5, EWSD, DCO, and DMS-10 switches out there. They are also used with 5Es, and DMS switches by various ILECs and CLECs. Gerry Belanger, Senior Engineer, Cognitronics. (The above e-mail address is valid and will last until spammed). ------------------------------ Reply-To: Paul Cook From: Paul Cook Subject: Illinois LATA and Exchange Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:37:06 -0700 Organization: Proctor & Associates, Inc. Does anyone know where I can find detailed maps showing LATA (MSA) and exchange area boundaries for the state of Illinois? I haven't found anything on the Illinois Commerce Commission web site. I did find an interesting map on the web, but I can't really read it: http://www.crosstelco.com/longdistance.htm Paul Cook - Applications Engineer pcook@proctorinc.com 425-881-7000, ext 566 Proctor & Associates 15305 NE 95 St Redmond WA 98052-2517 www.proctorinc.com ------------------------------ From: Rob Levandowski Subject: Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:16:07 -0400 Organization: MacWhiz Technologies In article , Steve Elias wrote: > I won't bother to list all of my favorite tv shows since surely you > would/could/should deride them. To each his own taste ... there are > many nights when I find that both a commercial DTV station and > PBS are broadcasting something interesting at the same time. > imho, there is *plenty* of decent free content. ... and if you want exceptional TV programming, check with your cable company or satellite provider to see if you can get HBO HD or Showtime HD. Here in Rochester, New York, the local Time Warner affiliate very quietly rolled out HDTV capability. I can now get those two channels via digital cable in 1080i. (No local broadcast stations are available in HDTV yet here.) I'm a science fiction fan. One of the best shows out there right now is "Odyssey 5," on Showtime. This show is shot in 1080i, and it looks absolutely gorgeous. Trust me when I say, if I could show you this program with two TVs -- one connected to analog cable watching the 480i version, one connected to the 1080i hi-def version -- you would instantly see the value in HDTV and lust after it. I bought a "transitional" set, a Sony XBR WEGA. It has a 32" 4:3 CRT, but it is capable of reducing its vertical scan to show 1080i in a 16:9 mode. (That is, it presents what looks like a letterboxed image without any loss of resolution from the black bars.) Watching "Odyssey 5," the image is incredible. You can see individual hairs standing off the actors' heads ... a subtle thing, but it makes you realize just how fuzzy NTSC really is. The color is bold and vibrant and capable of great subtlety, just like a DVD. The 5.1 sound is incredible (well, except that the Scientific-Atlanta 3100HD cable box apparently has a firmware bug that causes occasional dropouts of the 5.1 sound). There are other good shows on pay cable that are in hi-def or pseudo-hi-def. For example, "Jeremiah," the excellent new show by the creator of Babylon 5, is not filmed in hi-def. It is, however, shot in 16:9 with 5.1 sound. So, the image clarity isn't as good as a true 1080i show... but, being 480i 16:9 upconverted to 1080i, and processed as component color, it's still as good as any anamorphic DVD. Note the implication: HDTV content looks noticeably better than an anamorphic DVD, even with line doubling. Rob Levandowski robl@macwhiz.com ------------------------------ From: jade_inc@yahoo.com (Jim Chang) Subject: Telecom IT Resources Needed! Date: 28 Aug 2002 20:26:35 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Dear All, I am a newbie to the IT integration in the telecom industry. I desperately need resources for telecom IT resources in any format, e.g. books, journal, Web links and other possibilities. I need these for my new job on integration of CRM, provisioning and order capturing system. Thanks ! Jim ------------------------------ From: Walter Dnes Subject: Japanese Phones Vulnerable to Hackers? Date: 29 Aug 2002 04:29:58 GMT Reply-To: waltdnes@waltdnes.org On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:05:48 -0400, monty solomon, wrote: > Cell phone users in Japan have already had to contend with spam and > technical glitches, but that may seem like a breeze when hackers > finally turn their attention to the wireless world. So far, no > serious virus attacks have been reported in Japan -- or anywhere > else -- but tech security companies say cell phones could become > targets as they turn into sophisticated, high-tech devices like PCs, > allowing people to send e-mail, surf the Internet and shop online. > http://news.com.com/2100-1033-955294.html Which begs the obvious question, why the bleep does every cellphone have to be a computer with an OS ? Nobody's going to "hack" my home phone, because there's nothing to break into. Walter Dnes I'm not repeating myself; I'm an X Window user, I'm an ex-Windows user Palladium ain't done till linux won't run ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:07:32 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 8/29/02 The Official AVS HDTV Programming Synopsis - Fall 2002! http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=164671 Sun Microsystems Works With Sprint to Power Enhanced Third Generation Network And PCS Vision(SM) Services SANTA CLARA, Calif. and OVERLAND PARK, Kan., Aug. 26 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NASDAQ:SUNW) today announced that Sun products and technologies provide valuable infrastructure and service delivery technology for Sprint's PCS Vision(SM) -- the company's revolutionary Third Generation (3G) wireless products and services -- and the upgraded 3G 1X wireless network -- that recently debuted nationwide. Sprint, a pioneer in communications network technologies, and Sun Microsystems, an innovator of Internet systems and software, are delivering the first nationwide convergence of Internet services, wireless data and voice to consumers and business people. Both companies share the common vision that next generation services must be based on open standards that support rapid innovation and faster time to market. This initiative builds on the existing alliance between Sprint and Sun to deliver integrated customer solutions. Working end-to-end from the backend server system to the mobile handset, Sun's technologies, including Sun(TM)ONE software, Java(TM) technology and Sun servers, give Sprint a scalable, secure standards-based platform for the delivery of interactive wireless data services to Sprint's more than 15 million wireless customers. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28445418 DoubleClick agrees to privacy rules Pays $450,000 to avoid a probe By Associated Press, 8/27/2002 NEW YORK - In order to ward off an investigation into its privacy practices, online ad provider DoubleClick Inc. agreed yesterday to adhere to stiff restrictions - and to pay a $450,000 settlement. The 30-month investigation, by attorneys general from 10 states, including Massachusetts, peered into DoubleClick's practices of gathering Web users' personal information and surfing habits. The New York City-based company, which sells its services to advertisers and major Internet sites, deposited unique 'cookie' files on a user's computer that tracked the machine's online travels, allowing the company to display Web ads tailored to a person's shopping and surfing preferences. Under the settlement, DoubleClick will adopt privacy-related restrictions that include giving consumers access to their online profiles, verifying its compliance with the agreement, and paying $450,000 for states' investigative costs and consumer education. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/239/business/DoubleClick_agrees_to_privacy_rules+.shtml Appeals Court Overturns Own Web Site Ruling By Bob Egelko August 28, 2002 A lawyer for online privacy-rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation said a certain amount of inconvenience for police is often the price of protecting privacy. Heeding prosecutors' pleas, the federal appeals court in San Francisco has overturned its own ruling that would have made it much harder to peek at private Web sites. The unusual reversal by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came after federal and state prosecutors warned that the ruling would hamper investigations of child molesters who recruit victims online. In its earlier ruling, the court said an airline's furtive entry into a pilot's personal Web site, where criticism of the company was collected, was a possible violation of the federal wiretap law. The 1986 version of that law prohibits any unauthorized interception of an electronic communication. http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/19210.html Missed phone connections By Robert Kuttner, 8/28/2002 OUR LONG-DISTANCE telephone service stopped functioning yesterday. For the magazine I edit, it was a pretty big inconvenience. For several hours we pooled cellphones. My first call was to our bookkeeper. Were we current on our bills? We were. My second call was to Qwest, the offending long-distance company. Its lines were jammed. A company spokeswoman said she didn't know how many customers had lost service, but Qwest's own filing with the Federal Communications Commission yesterday, as required by law, indicated that 500,000 calls per hour didn't get through. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/240/oped/Missed_phone_connections+.shtml ------------------------------ From: Eworldwire Subject: Advanced Communications Technologies Announces Court Decision Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 8:13:2 -0400 ATTN: TELECOMM, TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS EDITORS AND WRITERS Advanced Communications Technologies, Inc. (OTCBB:ADVC) Announces Favorable Court Decision in Litigation Against ACT-Australia and Roger May New York, NY/EWORLDWIRE/August 27, 2002 --- Advanced Communications Technologies, Inc. (OTCBB:ADVC) ("ACT" or the "Company") announces that on Friday, August 23, 2002, the Supreme Court of Victoria at Melbourne, Australia handed down its rulings and order on the issues pending currently before the court in the litigation initiated by the Company in January against Advanced Communications Technologies (Australia) Pty Ltd ("ACT Australia") and Roger May (collectively, the "Defendants") regarding the Company's rights as a shareholder of ACT Australia and as ACT Australia's exclusive licensee for SpectruCell in North, Central and South America (the "Exclusive Territory").  Although ACT Australia is currently "in administration" (i.e., in a bankruptcy-type proceeding) in Australia under which all legal actions against ACT Australia are stayed by operation of law, the Company and ACT Australia stipulated that the court could render its decision on these important matters and the court agreed to do so. The main issues pending before the court were whether the existing injunctions which the Company had against the Defendants should be continued in effect until the trial of the case was held and, if extended, whether they should be expanded. The Company's existing temporary injunctions against the Defendants prohibited them from (i) taking any action to divest or transfer the Company's shares in ACT Australia; (ii) taking any action based on ACT Australia's purported termination of the Company's SpectruCell License Agreement; and (iii) taking any action to sell, supply or distribute SpectruCell in the Exclusive Territory. The Company requested the court to keep the existing injunctions in place pending trial on the merits and to expand them to (i) prohibit the Defendants from conducting any marketing activities as to SpectruCell (in addition to selling, supplying and distributing activities) in the Exclusive Territory which the Defendants maintained they had the right to do; and (ii) include within the definition of the "product" for purposes of the prohibited activities as to SpectruCell, the military applications of SpectruCell, which the Defendants had tried to exclude from the License Agreement. The court ruled in favor of the Company on all points. "We couldn't be more pleased with these rulings" said Wayne I. Danson, ACT's President and CFO." Danson continued, "This not only protects our ownership interest in ACT Australia, but safeguards the Company's exclusive rights under the License Agreement to market and distribute SpectruCell in both the commercial and military marketplaces in North, South and Central America. Under the court's ruling, even ACT-Australia is prohibited from marketing SpectruCell in the Exclusive Territory. We are confident that the currently unresolved issues that will enable SpectruCell to be brought to the marketplace will be resolved during the current administration process [of ACT Australia], versus a lengthy court trial". Randall H. Prouty, the Company's Chairman stated, "I am pleased that the court recognizes the importance of the Company's contractual rights and has ruled to protect them during the litigation process." Prouty concluded, "We appreciate the ongoing support from our Board of Directors, management and other ACT supporters, and look forward to sharing more good news with our shareholders in the weeks ahead". About Advanced Communications Technologies Inc. Advanced Communications Technologies Inc. ("ACT") holds the exclusive rights throughout the North, South and Central American markets to SpectruCell, a software-defined radio (SDR) multiple protocol wireless base station consisting of hardware and software that enables network providers to install a single base station and configure it to any or all protocols (GSM, CDMA, UMTS, W-CDMA, etc). SpectruCell has been, and other related products are being developed by, Advanced Communications Technologies (Australia) Pty Ltd, which the Company owns a 20% interest in. This release contains 'forward-looking statements' within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Act of 1934. Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in such statements are reasonable, no assurances can be given that they will prove correct. The Company remains exposed to risk factors that include the availability of financing, the outcome of litigation, the outcome of the bankruptcy filing of Advanced Communications Technologies (Australia) Pty Ltd, technical or equipment complications, the availability of qualified personnel, market competition, meeting time critical requirements and others. Statements made herein are not a guarantee of future corporate or stock performance. The Company does not update or revise its forward-looking statements even if it becomes clear projected results (expressed or implied) will not be realized. HTML: http://www.eworldwire.com/wr/082702/advancedcommtech.htm ONLINE NEWSROOM: http://www.eworldwire.com/profile/advancedcommtech.htm LOGO: http://www.eworldwire.com/profile/advancedcommtech.htm CONTACT: Wayne Danson President and CFO Advanced Communications Technologies, Inc. 420 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10170 PHONE: 310.416.1270 URL: http://www.actadvc.com Copyright 2002 Eworldwire, All rights reserved. Press Relase Distribution By EWORLDWIRE http://www.eworldwire.com (973)252-6800. For Media Questions: http://www.eworldwire.com/forthemedia.htm ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #13 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Aug 29 13:39:28 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7THdSb29152; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:39:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:39:28 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208291739.g7THdSb29152@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #14 TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:39:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 14 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: No-Dial-Tone on HP Fax (w_tom) Re: Illinois LATA and Exchange (James Bellaire) Re: Old BT Jackplug Standards (ken) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Barry Margolin) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? (Paul Coxwell) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (Alan Burkitt-Gray) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? (David B. Horvath) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? (Mike Hartley) Fine For Text Message Spam (Alan Burkitt-Gray) Good 2-Line Phone Jack, But Answer Machine Won't Pick Up (Mike Sweeden) Re: Instant Messaging Over the Phone?? (Jeremy Lee) Re: Transmission time Vs. Propagation Time (Justin Time) Re: 1010/800 # Dialing With no LD Carrier? (David L) Re: Ring Back and Say-Number Dial Codes (David) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: w_tom Subject: Re: No-Dial-Tone on HP Fax Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:25:57 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com First, verify that both phone lines and electric lines share a common ground. This is required by code but is often overlooked by repair people since most phone line appliances have internal isolation (suggesting a poor design in that HP fax). This assumes the HP is properly connected via a three outlet where the safety ground connection does exist. NID contains a surge protector -- that epoxy block that looks like a terminal block but that is electrically connected at its bottom to the earth ground wire. Is that earth ground wire connected to the same ground rod that the AC electric connects to? Does AC electric connect to a nearby earth ground rod? The latter is a requirement of post 1990 National Electrical Code (NEC) and is typically essential to effective household surge protection. IOW upgrade your grounding anyway to eliminate grounding as a reason for HP failure AND to address both human safety and transistors safety issues created by insufficient grounding. Second, eliminate household wiring as a reason for failure. Connect the HP directly to the NID, with all other household wiring disconnected at the NID. Yes, other phone line equipment has caused failure. Replacement of the NID is not necessary. The NID is still being used in an analog function - POTS. You are not using xDSL or ISDN, and therefore don't have NID problems - if the NID is properly earthed. Jeffrey L. Hook wrote: > I hope you can help. Thanks in advance for whatever explanation you > can offer for this apparent fax machine malfunction, and for whatever > recommendation you can give for a suitable replacement fax machine > which might not be susceptible to this problem. (The HP was already > returned to the retailer.) I've suspected, for example, that the > entire line of HP faxes might be equipped with Line Interface Units > which might be less than 100% reliable. > PROBLEM: > A recently-purchased Hewlett-Packard "hp fax 1020" was unable to > obtain a dial tone at either of the two phone lines which are in > service at this house. The HP machine was plugged in here at a > single-socket baseboard jack. A simple table telephone (with no > special features at all; just voice communication) had been able to > reach both of the phone lines which are in service here, before the HP > unit's modular phone cable was plugged into the same phone jack, and > subsequently. The table phone reached the first line directly at the > jack, and it reached the second line by use of a splitter in that > modular jack's single socket. > INCONSISTENCY OF MALFUNCTION: > The "kicker" in this case is the HP unit's normal performance > elsewhere. When no dial tone could be obtained here, the unit was > taken to another address nearby, where it performed well. It obtained > a dial tone and its integral phone worked as it should have worked > here. In fact, a call was completed on that phone from that separate > location to here. The unit was brought back here and it again failed > to obtain a dial tone. It was returned to the retailer, Staples, where > it was tested, and where its integral telephone again obtained a dial > tone and performed normally. It was brought back here and it failed > again to obtain a dial tone. It was *never* able to obtain a dial > tone here. Upon its final return to Staples for a refund its integral > telephone again functioned as it should have functioned here. > SYMPTOMS OF MALFUNCTION: > For all tests of the HP unit's telephone, the unit's power cord was > plugged in to the house current at a wall electrical outlet, its > modular two-lead phone cable was plugged in to the fully-operative > baseboard phone jack, and its telephone handset was picked up to > listen for a dial tone. (Yes, the other ends of the unit's power and > phone cables *were* correctly connected to the unit...): > On this house's first line (which is used primarily for voice > communication), there was only an irregular clicking, with a very > faint background hiss. The clicking sounded as if someone was > depressing and releasing the switch hook of a phone, rapidly, in a > random sequence. That persisted for far less than a minute, and then > only the faint hissing continued. The HP fax was intended for use on > that first line. > QUESTIONS: > 1. Can anyone explain this strange and inconsistent malfunction? How > could a machine readily obtain a dial tone at two other locations, but > not here, particularly when the phone wiring here checked out well? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:52:13 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: Illinois LATA and Exchange At 01:16 AM 8/29/2002 -0400, Paul Cook wrote: > Does anyone know where I can find detailed maps showing LATA > (MSA) and exchange area boundaries for the state of Illinois? Geographic Data Technology Lebanon, NH 800-331-7881 www.geographic.com They sell datasets of each state that outlines exchanges and LATAs. James ------------------------------ From: ken Subject: Re: Old BT Jackplug Standards Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:07:33 +0100 Organization: ntlworld News Service ric wrote in message news:telecom22.11.12@telecom-digest.org: > I've inherited an old, rotary dial pulse phone that I'd like to get > working in the UK. At the moment the end of the cable has a jackplug > that's approx 1/4 inch in diameter, with 4 bands across it. It's > about the same dimensions as an audio 1/4 jack. I'd like to cut this > off and crimp on a UK standard phone jack. Does anyone know what > these old connectors are called, and have the pin-outs for them so I > can adapt it, or know of an existing adaptor? Sounds like a plug no.505 - for 5-way connection This site gives information on converting a number of instruments to the modern 431/631 plug: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/freshwater/pstconv1.htm You may need to search the site's telephone list to identify the model. You should obtain a new line cord with spade terminals (assuming the phone has screw terminals inside), rather than attempting to crimp the old cord. You will probably need to re-wire the terminals inside. ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:35:44 GMT In article , John Higdon wrote: > As our moderator knows, nearly ten years ago I was two thousand miles > from home when an FCC inspector showed up at one of my client's > locations back home ... demanding to be accommodated with technical > information that only I could supply. I was reached transparently in > Chicago where the matter was handled neatly and cleanly. And ... my > client got to keep his license. I guess it's good economics for you, making your clients totally dependent upon you. But it's really poor planning for them -- what if you'd gotten hit by a truck on that trip? If you didn't have a cellphone, you probably would have left the number of the hotel with an assistant, or on your answering machine message. I tried sending this by private mail, as my original version of the response didn't have the second paragraph about alternate ways of reaching people without cellphones, but the email address is *not* valid; there's no "amadeus.kome.com". Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 05:36:13 EDT Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? > Anyone know if it is legal in the UK to "jam" someone else's mobile > phone? > If so do such devices exist, what do they cost and where can I buy > one. > I am *sick to death* of people having long, loud personal > conversations on public transport ! > With thanks, > Shiperton Henethe I understand your frustration only too well, but I'm afraid that the use of a jamming device in the U.K. would constitute unlicensed use of a transmitter and would therefore be illegal. Paul Coxwell Eccles-On-Sea, Norfolk U.K. ------------------------------ From: Alan Burkitt-Gray Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:54:27 +0100 Shiperton/Shiprath Henethe wrote: > Anyone know if it is legal in the UK to "jam" someone else's mobile phone? I'm glad to say it's highly illegal to transmit a signal -- for jamming purposes or other reasons -- in any frequency. There are "class licences" issued by the regulator which allow you to use certain frequencies for certain stated purposes (from baby alarms to wireless LANs) without your own personal licence. But you certainly can't sit on a number 12 bus going down Fleet Street with your own jammer squirting out frequencies in the 900 and 1800 MHz mobile bands so that you block usage of phones for yards around. Perhaps you should get some ear muffs. That way, you won't just block out people talking on the phone but also to others who happen to be next to them -- or, for some reason, do you not object to those who are talking just as loudly to someone who happens to be there in the flesh? Alan Burkitt-Gray Editor, Global Telecoms Business Euromoney Institutional Investor plc, Nestor House, Playhouse Yard, London EC4V 5EX, UK tel +44 20 7779 8518 fax +44 20 7779 8492 e-mail aburkitt@euromoneyplc.com www.globaltelecomsbusiness.com ------------------------------ From: David B. Horvath, CCP Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:55:20 est Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? On 28 Aug 2002 06:53:55 -0700, shiphen@yahoo.com (shiprath henethe) posted: > I am *sick to death* of people having long, loud personal > conversations on public transport ! Shiperton, Do you want to also tape shut the mouths of people who have long, loud conversations with the people sitting next to them? Why do you think you have the right to micro-manage the behavior of others in a public space (where there is not the *expectation* of quiet -- like in a theater/theatre)? Note that there are places where there is the expectation of quiet -- in a movie theater for instance. That is a totally different issue than public transit. In most U.S. theaters (movie and stage), there are instructions for you to be quiet during the show. The owners of the theater have the right to remove you if you don't follow those instructions (or have you arrested for trespassing). There are no such instructions on public transit or in most public places. I'm not sure if your note was intended to be a troll! My response is not intended to be a flame or personal attack; I just want you to realize exactly what you are suggesting. Unfortunately, one of the inherent rights that people have is to be annoying. Even in the United States, we do not have the right to happiness or not being bothered by others -- we only have the right to pursue happiness and the liberty to move away from those we don't like. If hearing their personal information really annoys you, start commenting about it while they're on the phone. A few comments like "your prostate is bothering you? My (adult male relative/friend/coworker) had the same problem and the doctors had to rip it out, now he has a case ED that even viagra won't fix" or "I wouldn't buy stock X, you should buy (really bad but don't tell them) stock Y" or "hey you work for company X and you just did Y? I wonder what the regulators (or newspaper or stockholders or boss) or the appropriate equivalent will get them to speak quietly or even end the conversation until they can be private. I'll admit to using that technique when the conversation has been really disruptive (discussing a medical condition while I'm trying to eat for instance). My wife and I use a similar technique when parents don't control their kids in public (where the kids are bugging *us* -- typically by running around/into us in restaurants, airplanes, stores, etc.): we discuss sexual topics, without the use of profanity, at a voice level that both the kids and their absentee-parents hear it. Sex is one topic that parents don't want to discuss with or explain to their kids, so they get them away from us *quick*. We don't have to confront the kids or their parents; we've done nothing wrong since we don't yell or curse or even get graphic to the point of being obscene. David B. Horvath, CCP Consultant, Author, International Lecturer, Adjunct Professor Board Member: ICCP Educational Foundation, ICCP Test Council, and Philadelphia Association of Systems Administrators ------------------------------ From: mike.hartley@ntlworld.com Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:36:06 +0000 > Anyone know if it is legal in the UK to "jam" someone else's mobile > phone? No. It's illegal to operate a phone jammer in the UK. > I am *sick to death* of people having long, loud personal > conversations on public transport ! I'm *even sicker* of listening to people whinging about cellphone use. Get a life, or write to one of the tabloids where your pathetic whining will be better received. Whilst I'm at it -- if there were 'bonds' used to control cellphone use in theatres, would a similar bond be applied to those people who cough loudly, belch, pass wind, whisper/talk to their neighbours, eat food from loudly crinkling packaging or obstruct my vision by having large hats / hairstyles? Thought not. A few signs, trailers on movies and a dose of common sense is all that's required. Rant over. Mike ------------------------------ From: Alan Burkitt-Gray Alan Subject: Fine For Text Message Spam Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:22:30 +0100 I thought this might cheer some of you up. Note that 350,000 pounds is equal to $77,427 at today's rates. Alan B-G Source: Media supplement of The Guardian, London, UK http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,7496,782873,00.html Watchdog imposes record fine for mobile phone spam Owen Gibson Thursday August 29, 2002 A mobile phone company has been fined 350,000 pounds for bombarding mobile phone users with unwanted text messages. The problem of "spamming" has already reached epidemic proportions on the internet. Many users are finding their email systems are becoming clogged up with unsolicited special offers, "get rich quick" scams and pornography. The popularity of mobile phone text messaging has caused concern among regulators, who believe the medium is the next target for spammers. Moby Monkey, a company based in Leeds, was handed the record fine by the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services. The company sent phone users misleading messages telling them they had won a 'mystery award'. To collect the prize -- a holiday discount voucher with a number of restrictions attached -- the 'winner' had to call a premium rate line costing 31.50 a minute, with each call lasting about four minutes. "We will not hesitate to take swift action against the small minority of service providers who think they can abuse public confidence and trust in text messaging in order to make money with no regard for consumers," said the Icstis director, George Kidd. "Our sanctions against Moby Monkey reflect the serious consumer harm caused by their service and its promotion, and will act as a warning to the industry," Mr Kidd added. Icstis said it had received more than 200 complaints about the messages including some from parents whose children, in some cases as young as 11, were targeted. Others complained they were sent the message repeatedly; one user received 40 messages in a day. Moby Monkey was fined 350,000 pounds and banned from sending the message again. Earlier this year, the same company was fined 36,000 for a similar offence. A spokesman for the company said Moby Monkey would appeal against the decision but refused to comment further. [end of clip] Alan Burkitt-Gray Editor, Global Telecoms Business Euromoney Institutional Investor plc, Nestor House, Playhouse Yard, = London EC4V 5EX, UK tel +44 20 7779 8518 fax +44 20 7779 8492 e-mail aburkitt@euromoneyplc.com www.globaltelecomsbusiness.com ------------------------------ From: Michael Sweeden Subject: Good Two-Line Phone Jack, But Answer Machine Won't Pick Up Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:54:08 GMT I have a client with a Partner phone system, 2 phone lines, and two 2-line jacks in the house wired to the phone lines before they go into the phone system. With a 2-line phone in either of the 2-line jacks they can make and answer calls on both lines with no problem, and both lines sound perfectly clear. However, on one jack, where they would LIKE the answering machine, the machine will not answer incoming calls. The answering machine works fine on the other jack. A second answering machine was tried with the same results. This is a puzzler to me, and any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Usually answering machines (unless they are specifically wired and intended for two line service) answer only on the 'first' line of any two-line system. Sometimes on two-line phone systems, if the user has a preference for having the 'first' line to ring at one station, and the 'second' line to be the preferred line at the other station, the installer will reverse the pairs, making the 'second' pair (of two pairs) go out to the phone on the 'first' pair. In other words, let's say the traditional wiring is in place, of red/green for pair one and yellow/black for pair two inbound from the central office. Normally at the house demarc or the terminal box in the home, the wires go straight through to the phone instruments with the same colors. But let's say pair one (the 'first line') has some special features on it, i.e. a special ringer, lights, a modem, etc. Those special features work on any phone attached to the 'first line'. The 'second line' does its thing but does not get the other features, or maybe gets features peculiar to that line only. Now along comes an answering machine which works on the 'first line' only, as most of them do. Examine the modular cord for the answering machine. Does it have only two tiny wires crimped on the plug, in the center rather than four? Well then it is for the 'first' (or only) line inbound. What you need to do in that case is 'trick' the answering machine into thinking it *is* on the 'first line' (or the desired line to be answered.) At the phone box check the wires out. *At that terminal box only* swap the *outbound (to the phone side)* wires with the other pair. In other words where the yellow/black pair is located (for outbound) lift them off and put the red/green wires there. Put the yellow/black wires where the red/green had been. In effect, from that terminal box ONLY, the 'first line' has become yellow/black. The phone should wind up working the same as always, but anything (such as answering machine) downstream from that point should consider itself to be on the 'first line'. In other words, the answering machine needs to be on the pair of wires which services that particular phone and its ringer. If the answering machine does not 'hear' the ringing (sense the voltage of the ringer, etc) then it is not gonna answer. Ah, but you say, if I swap the wires at some point locally (black/yellow) for (red/green) now I don't hear the audible ringing tone for (which- ever) line at all, or maybe the modem on that line/other line got messed up also. In that case you may need to install an entire new outlet box nearby with a tiny jumper between them. Make sure you come off of the 'proper' wires (red/green locally inbound) to the two center pins (pins two and three; the two middle pins) of the new box you installed. Now the line to be answered comes in from the central office to this NEW box you installed which actually works like a third extension for the answering machine only. We've answered this question in the past; maybe with a two line system the modem would not work, or the answering machine or some other device was not working. Just be certain with any single line device that the 'first' or 'second' or 'third' (blue/white wires) wires are connected to the device. ------------------------------ From: J3r3my L33 Subject: Re: Instant Messaging Over the Phone?? Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:28:58 -0400 Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County You can get AOL IM on T-Mobile using a GSM phone. Others online see you in their buddy list and you can send a message to retrieve who is on yours. Jeremy Adrian wrote in message news:telecom22.12.8@telecom-digest.org: > Hi, I was wondering if theres an aplication (Computer Telephone > Integration-Platform) where I can "see" people online?? > For example having a computer logged with my MSN Messanger account, > with a voice board with text and speech capabilites, and have or > develop a program which can interface with the MSN, so that when I > dial to the computer, can tell who is online. > It would be great to have this on my sales team. > Please advice if there such software and computer. > Thanks!! ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: Transmission time Vs. Propagation Time Date: 29 Aug 2002 06:13:24 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ sicotom@eresmas.com (Juan Pardillos) wrote in message news:: > I'd like to know which is the difference between the propagation time > and the transmission time. Is the transmission time the parameter to > consider or they both are important?. > I've read somewhere that the propagation time is the time of > transmission of 1 bit, but I think this definition is wrong and there > is something more complicated. > Please, sorry for this simple question, but some web pages I've read > don't clarify this question. Simply stated, propogation time is the amount of time it takes a signal to travel between the end points. Propogation time is always a constant factor of the speed of light and varies depending on the medium carrying the signal. ------------------------------ From: davidlind@my-deja.com (David L) Subject: Re: 1010/800 # Dialing With no LD Carrier? Date: 29 Aug 2002 06:08:04 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ davidlind@my-deja.com (David L) wrote in message news:: > Can someone tell me if 1010 dialarounds or 800 numbers can be dialed > from an ordinary telephone line with no LD carrier? Any info about > consistancy across carriers or other details would be appreciated. > Always thought that a LD carrier of NONE would only allow 1010 > dialarounds and no 800 number dialing. I'm researching this for > misc.consumers.frugal-living where others are reporting just the > opposite case. > Thanks, > David > DavNOLindiSPAM(at)hotmail(dot)com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: YES, those calls can be made from > phones with 'none' as their carrier of choice. The reason is, in > the case of toll-free (or 800 numbers) the choice is being made > by the recipient of the call, who is the person paying for it. You > are not paying for the call; they are, so they choose the carrier > they wish to use. In the case of ten-tens, you should really not use > that phrase in the same sentence as 'frugal living'. Dial-arounds are > notoriously expensive to use. All you are doing is making your finger > work harder for the privilege of paying more for the call. If you want > to be 'frugal' then get a carrier, like IDT as one example, which > charges five cents per minute or less, has one-plus ability, or get > a cell phone with thousands of minutes 'free' each month and long- > distance calls included. Southwestern Bell (or SBC as it is called > now) gets between 4 cents and 7 cents per minute on long-distance, > depending if you don't mind paying $4.50 per month for the cheapest > rate. It more or less amortizes at 5 cents per minute if you use at > least 100 plus minutes of LD each month. PAT] Thanks Pat and all for the correction. So 800 numbers and Carrier Access Codes (1010 numbers) can be dialed from a NO PIC line. AND for some unexplained reason a number of folks have been reporting an inability to use (unspecified) carrier access codes. I know WorldXchange was banned from CA intrastate. That restriction appears to have ended. Perhaps not every carrier has been available in every state? As far as Carrier Access Codes a waste of money ... there may be certain limited calling patterns, including states with high instate rates or calls to international destinations where they may be viable alternatives. Personally, I use a flat 2.9 cent/minute, NO tax or other fee, local access number, calling card with a speed dial. ANI allows no PIN dialing. My total PIC LD bill is often under three dollars a month that includes toll free number at same $.06 minute. Also I use a cell phone with 1000 off peak +LD. Great ratesn, but there are two problems with the cell phone LD solution. I call from west to east. That means during weekdays it's two hours later in TN. Who cares about unlimited hours if no one is awake? Luckily, I have a grandfathered plan where offpeak starts at 7PM and can actually use the minutes during the week:) The other problem with cellular is the voice quality. CDMA cellular (Verizon) has its good days and bad days. Landline is much better and often worth the extra cost. Who cares about unlimited minutes if the calls sound crummy? Women (who seem to have exceptional hearing) do notice the difference. Ed Ellers wrote in message news:: > To add to what John said, keep in mind that if you select "no PIC" (as > it's known in the phone business) the local phone company will add a > monthly charge to make up for one of the FCC-required fees that your > long distance company would be required to pay on your behalf; when my > mother went this route, BellSouth (in Kentucky) charged 57 cents per > month for this. I believe those that may think they are saving money with a NO PIC, haven't been able to find or qualify for no monthly fee LD service. Lots of established carriers seem to be raising minimum rates. I'd imagine most consumers think ATT, Sprint or Worldcom (chocolate, strawberry or vanilla) when it comes to LD choice. IDT is at least offering some competition. I don't know how much of my $1.03 PICC line charges would go onto my local bill after dropping LD? The savings would be small, but the way my telecom bills fees seem to change around, it might be hard to see the exact amount saved. Any ideas the average savings for a NO PICC line? The point was to attempt some "theoretical" most frugal LD solutions, for minimal use, say by fixed income users. Thanks, David DavNOLindiSPAM(at)hotmail(dot)com ------------------------------ From: davidgoNOSPAM@excite.com (David) Subject: Re: Ring Back and Say-Number Dial Codes Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:56:05 GMT Other people will probably give you the same simple solution: Call your cell phone and look at the number. David On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:48:36 -0400, John Stahl wrote: > It seems to me that there are a couple of codes which would > information about a telco line with some sort of a dial code to > "access" the function. > Have several lines which are not identified but are "alive" (with > dial-tone) through a LEC which I'm trying to identify the particular > phone number. Are there specific codes or generalized dial codes which > I can dial on the line with a butt-set to get it to ring back and > announce the particular line's phone number? Most of the applications > are within Verizon territory. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #14 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Aug 29 19:40:03 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7TNe3K01859; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:40:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:40:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208292340.g7TNe3K01859@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #15 TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:40:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 15 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Paul A Lee) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (John Stanle) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (John Higdon) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (Ed Ellers) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? (John Higdon) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? (Wes Leatherock) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (KimBrennan) Re: Transmission time Vs. Propagation Time (Daniel J. McDonald) Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? (KimBrennan) Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco (Karl Albrecht) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:52:13 -0400 Paul Wallich wrote (in part): > When a cellphone or a pager goes off in a space for which people > have paid to obtain intermission, it's destroying the value for > which they have paid. The fact that the person who owns the > disrupting device is willing to have their own evening (or afternoon > or whatever) disrupted for an emergency (or non-emergency) call > doesn't necessarily give them the right to destroy value for which > hundreds or thousnds of people around them have paid. > If the > phones and pagers are all on "vibrate" there's no extra disruption I agree completely with the portions of Paul's reply I've quoted above. I believe that the responsible and polite thing to do is to have phones, pagers, alarms (on watches or PDAs), and other annunciator devices set to a silent or vibrate mode in any situation where it would not be appropriate, for example, to strike up a conversation. That includes places like theaters, houses of worship, courtrooms, and presentations, to name a few. Perhaps the problem with this concept is that there are a lot of people who would not think [deliberate choice of wording] anything of disrupting those situations with vocal comments or with gadget sounds. THAT is the problem to address: the behavior of misuse. What I've been objecting to is a myopic, technophobic, downright passive-aggressive approach of preemptively banning, disrupting, or disabling a class of devices as a purported solution for the self-important, thoughtless misuse of those devices by some people. That kind of "solution" is just as much an affront to polite society as the problem it seeks to address. Let me spell it out: 1. If you are entering a situation where it would be impolite or disruptive to strike up a conversation with another person in a normally audible voice, the device(s) get set to silent, vibrate mode -- no ringer, annunciator, or speaker. If it has no such mode, it gets switched to standby or off. 2. If the device alerts you, discreetly check the display to see if you must answer it. The best way to handle it is to check the calling party display and determine whether the call is urgent. If you can't determine that it is, wait for intermission to return it or check messages. 3. If it _is_ urgent, excuse yourself, much as you would if you needed to use the restroom or had a coughing spell, adjourn to the lobby or hallway, and return the call discreetly from an area where you won't disrupt others. 4. If it is an emergency call that you must answer immediately, do so only with a whispered "Hold on, I'm at the theater," as applicable. Excuse yourself as above, and wait until you reach the lobby to continue the conversation. A little common sense, reasoning, judgment, and empathy, here, people! Same goes for the other side of the argument. What is so unbearably antisocial about carrying on a phone conversation under circumstances where a face-to-face conversation would be perfectly acceptable? A lot of the protests I have heard against public cell phone usage don't seem reasonable. If a person sitting in a restaurant is having a civil conversation at a reasonable, discreet volume level, what difference should it make whether the other party to the conversation is present or at the other end of a wireless connection? Whatsa matter -- miffed because you're missing half the conversation? Ignoring others to carry on a phone conversation, taking frequent calls, loud ring tones, and unruly conversations are generally all impolite. I can't see the problem, though, with continuing a phone conversation (slightly subdued) while riding an elevator or a bus, just as you might do with the other person present. What objection could there be -- that half of the conversation can't be overheard? I say again: A little common sense, reasoning, judgment, and empathy. Where those are not evident, don't blame the behavior on the technology! And don't preemptively restrict my responsible use of technology, based on others' misuse of it! Paul A Lee Voice: +1 717 730-8355 Sr Telecom Engineer [Voice & Transmission] Fax: +1 717 975-3789 Rite Aid Corporation, Telecomm, 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 ------------------------------ From: stanley@peak.org (John Stanley) Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Date: 29 Aug 2002 11:00:11 -0700 Organization: Public Electronic Access to Knowledge,Corvallis,US In article , Paul Wallich wrote: > I don't really see the point here. When a cellphone or a pager goes > off in a space for which people have paid to obtain intermission, it's > destroying the value for which they have paid. Get off your high horse. A phone ringing during a movie is hardly the end of the world. It doesn't "destroy" anything that hasn't already been destroyed by the continuous slurping chomping rattling talking noises that half a hundred annoying people are making all during the movie. You'd think from the way you talk that your life was ending just because someone else carries a cell phone. > evening (or afternoon or whatever) disrupted for an emergency (or > non-emergency) call doesn't necessarily give them the right to destroy > value for which hundreds or thousnds of people around them have > paid. So how come all those hundreds or "thousnds" of people have the right to destroy the "value" for which I've paid? Why the hell should they be able to say that I cannot get messages on my phone while I am paying the same money they are, if they have the right to yak chomp slurp rattle rattle whenever their little hearts please? The vibrator from my cell phone makes a lot less noise than they do. Do I have a right to demand that they have their mouths taped shut when they enter the theater on the off chance they might yak and destroy the value I've paid for? > Saying that it shouldn't come down to economics sounds a lot > like saying that your convenience is worth thousands of dollars of > other people's money. It is nothing like that. Go rant about something worthwhile. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:39:34 -0700 Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.14.4@telecom-digest.org, Barry Margolin wrote: > I guess it's good economics for you, making your clients totally > dependent upon you. But it's really poor planning for them -- what if > you'd gotten hit by a truck on that trip? What an ignorant statement! If I could document everything I know, every talent that I possess, and every every conceivable course of action that could or should be taken in response to any of an infinite number of events, Then I could just hand my client a book or CDROM and my services would no longer be required at all, right? If I had been hit by a truck, they they would have had to find someone else. As it was, modern technology make it all very easy. (Isn't that what modern technology is supposed to do?) > If you didn't have a cellphone, you probably would have left the > number of the hotel with an assistant, or on your answering machine > message. Or if there were no telephones, I could have used the US Mail. What is your point? That we should draw a line in the sand as to what technology is important or necessary and use nothing else, regardless of progress? > the email address is *not* valid; there's no > "amadeus.kome.com". Nonsense. In article telecom22.12.5@telecom-digest.org, Paul Wallich wrote: > I don't really see the point here. When a cellphone or a pager goes > off in a space for which people have paid to obtain intermission, it's > destroying the value for which they have paid. It is annoying. It hardly "destroys" the value received from the performance. Hyperbole seems to figure prominently in these discussions. Nevertheless, the mere fact that some people are inconsiderate in their use of technology is hardly grounds to punish everyone indiscriminately and "destroy" the value of that technology. > Saying that it shouldn't come down to economics sounds a lot > like saying that your convenience is worth thousands of dollars of > other people's money. Isn't everything we do based on economics? Following that line, let's eliminate telecommunications and have all messages carried by courier. The person carrying the message could make an intelligent decision as to whether to disturb the recipient. This would have the advantage of eliminating junk faxes, junk phone calls, and many other modern-day maladies. It's just a matter of economics, no? > Just possibly there should be exceptions made for "real" emergencies > where there is an immediate risk of death or injury (just as you > wouldn't charge someone for disorderly conduct if they called out for > a doctor in a theatre where someone had just keeled over with a heart > attack). This would be analagous to the practice of charging people > who call out search-and-rescue teams in a non-emergency or in an > emergency caused by negligence. I see. Rather than deal simply with the minority of people who do not use the technology with consideration for others, you would turn the whole matter over on its ear, forcing everyone to justify ANY use of the technology? > If the phones and pagers are all on "vibrate" there's no extra > disruption and hence no bond to be paid, and meanwhile I would be more > likely to go out to various venues if I knew that having the crucial > moment ruined by someone else's phone call would result in a refund. You know, I attend movies, plays, concerts, etc., several times a week. I just don't see the crisis here. Out of hundreds of shows I have attended over the past couple of years, I think I have heard a cellphone ring maybe once. Folks have long since learned to use the vibrate mode on pagers, so it has been a long time since a pager has intruded into my entertainment space. It is just a matter of time before cellphone use matures into a non-issue disturbance-wise. In a year or two, all of this angst will appear very silly, indeed. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:44:45 -0400 David B. Horvath wrote: > Why do you think you have the right to micro-manage the behavior of > others in a public space (where there is not the *expectation* of > quiet -- like in a theater/theatre)? Excellent point. However ... > If hearing their personal information really annoys you, start > commenting about it while they're on the phone. A few comments like > "your prostate is bothering you? My (adult male relative/friend/ > coworker) had the same problem and the doctors had to rip it out, > now he has a case ED that even viagra won't fix" or "I wouldn't buy > stock X, you should buy (really bad but don't tell them) stock Y" or > "hey you work for company X and you just did Y? I wonder what the > regulators (or newspaper or stockholders or boss) or the appropriate > equivalent will get them to speak quietly or even end the > conversation until they can be private." This could also cost you a few teeth, or worse. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:16:18 -0700 Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.13.7@telecom-digest.org, shiprath henethe wrote: > I am *sick to death* of people having long, loud personal > conversations on public transport ! Let's see ... people are sick to death of people using phones on the street, on public transit, in their cars, sitting on a park bench, in a restaurant, in any public gathering, in airport waiting areas, and even when standing in lines outside of theaters. The word "oversensitive" comes to mind. How about showing a little backbone and politely asking the person who is talking so loud to tone it down just a little? Do you get this indignant when two people on the train are conducting a "loud" conversation? Would you ask them to tone it down, or would you cut out their tongues? There is an interesting dynamic with cellphones. I was with someone recently who saw someone in a mall leaning up against the wall talking on the phone in an agitated manner and who could be plainly heard from some distance. "How rude", commented my companion. An invective against cellphones ensued ... until it was clearly observed that the person was, in fact, using a public phone that was mounted on the wall just around from where the person was standing. Instant end of commentary against cellphones. So it is OK if a person conducts a loud conversation on an ordinary, lowly payphone, but cellphones deserve special condemnation, apparently. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 29 Aug 2002 23:09:37 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:55:20 est David B. Horvath, CCP dhorvath@cobs.com wrote: > If hearing their personal information really annoys you, start > commenting about it while they're on the phone. A few comments like > "your prostate is bothering you? My (adult male relative/friend/coworker) > had the same problem and the doctors had to rip it out, now he has a > case ED that even viagra won't fix" My wife was walking down the hall of a shopping mall turned into offices today and passed a female wireless user talking about her period with some person at the other end. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: kimbrennan@aol.comfrtz.com (KimBrennan) Date: 29 Aug 2002 17:44:24 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor > So my rule of thumb has always been to keep phone surge suppression > and AC surge suppression strictly separate, for the most part leaving > the former entirely up to the telco, and I have never had occasion to > regret it. Can anyone else comment? I happen to have a place out in WV on top (or near the top) of a mountain. Both the telephone and power have to travel a fair amount of distance (more than two miles) to get from the road (common distribution point) to this house. Almost every year, lightning hits one of the little metal posts that are the junction boxes for the telephone system (junction between two runs of cable). It's almost always the same one, exposed in a field at the crest of a mountain. The power line hasn't been hit by lightning in my experience (though it has fluctuated a couple of times, the lines themselves have never needed servicing.) I put a simple protector on the telephone line after lightning coming through the line fried some of my electronics. The protector (designed for mobile users) was intended to check the polarity of the circuit, and prevent you damaging your expensive laptop from a digital circuit in some hotel room. However, it worked to protect my expensive electronic equipment when lightning again hit the telephone line. Fried the protector, but nothing else. I put another one on the telephone line. BTW, I know it was the telephone line that got the lightning hit; I followed the scortch marks from the telephone jack on my electronics across the circuit board. Later I went out with the telephone crew to the (slightly melted) telephone post in the field. They eventually had to replace about 1 mile of cable that had been zapped too many times and gave nothing but static. That was on the 4th of July, in 2001. "I'm sorry, all my money is tied up in currency." W.C.Fields ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Transmission time Vs. Propagation Time Organization: io.com From: djmcdona@io.com (Daniel J McDonald) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:52:33 GMT In article , Juan Pardillos wrote: > I'd like to know which is the difference between the propagation time > and the transmission time. Is the transmission time the parameter to > consider or they both are important?. They are both important. There are actually three items to consider. 1. queuing delay - how long does a packet have to spend in various buffers before it has a turn to use the wire. 2. Serialization delay (I think that's what you mean by transmission time) - how long does it take to place the packet on the wire. For example, a 1500 byte packet takes 213ms to be encoded on a 56K circuit, but a little less than 8ms on a T1. 3. Propogation delay - how long does it take for the electrons/photons to show up at the other end of the connection so that receiving can start. Electrical signals move about 30cm per nanosecond, so if you are going across country you could burn up 13ms or so. > Please, sorry for this simple question, but some web pages I've read > don't clarify this question. Hopefully this helps. Daniel J McDonald CCIE # 2495, CNX Visit my website: http://www.austinnetworkdesign.com ------------------------------ From: kimbrennan@aol.comfrtz.com (KimBrennan) Date: 29 Aug 2002 17:58:29 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: So You've Got Your HDTV. Now What's There to See? Ed Ellers caught me in a semantics disaster noting: > Nobody films anything in "HD" -- that's video, not film. Film, in my text meant the process of capturing the acting onto a storage media. A verb, not a noun. HD video ... in native mode, is stored on digital tape. The media is not consumer accessible. It is similar to the digital tape used in some consumer cam-corders. "I'm sorry, all my money is tied up in currency." W.C.Fields ------------------------------ From: karl.albrecht@eloan.com (Karl Albrecht) Subject: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco Date: 29 Aug 2002 15:52:48 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ PacBell has offered us free conversion of our data/voice T1s from copper to fiber. We have an existing fiber connection for our T3 and this would have all of our T1s (that PacBell hosts) running on it. Is this a good idea?? Does this create a single point of failure with the fiber cabinet or line? Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Thank you, Karl Albrecht ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #15 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Aug 30 16:07:26 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7UK7QA08183; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:07:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:07:26 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208302007.g7UK7QA08183@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #16 TELECOM Digest Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:00:28 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 16 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Fine For Text Message Spam (Mark Brader) Fine For Text Message Spam (Alan Burkitt-Gray) Re: Ring Back and Say-Number Dial Codes (Hank Fung) Re: Transmission time Vs. Propagation Time (No Spam) Re: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Caller ID Spoof? (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco (Bill) Re: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco (Brian Wohlgemuth) Re: Telecom IT Resources Needed! (Kevingr) Re: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco (Marty Bose) Ring Back and Say-Number Dial Codes (Gary Novosielski) (H)DTV vs. NTSC (Mark J Cuccia) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (Ed Ellers) Re: No-Dial-Tone on HP Fax (Kenneth P. Stox) News Headlines of Interest 8/30/02 (Monty Solomon) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (shiprath henethe) Shareware Day Once Again (TELECOM Digest Editor) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:16:14 EDT From: msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Fine For Text Message Spam Organization: TELECOM Digest > In my message yesterday about text-message spammers, the sign for British > pounds got screwed up in transmission and somehow affected the > numbers ... MIME encoding strikes again! See article in Risks Digits / comp.risks, which as I recall was based on an original article by Linc Madison here in Telecom Digest / comp.dcom.telecom. When I pointed the discrpancy out to Alan, I thought he'd carelessly slipped a factor of 10 in converting the numbers: 350,000 pounds isn't so far from $774,270 in *Canadian dollars*, so that looked right for me. But that wasn't the problem at all. Thanks for correcting it, Alan. Mark Brader, Toronto Don't put all your X in one window. msb@vex.net -- Peter Neumann ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:20:01 +0100 From: Alan Burkitt-Gray Subject: Fine For Text Message Spam Organization: TELECOM Digest In my message yesterday about text-message spammers, the sign for British pounds got screwed up in transmission and somehow affected the numbers, as anyone who checks the original story will see. The actual fine was not 350,000 pounds but 50,000 pounds, which nevertheless I did convert accurately to $77,427. Alan B-G Alan Burkitt-Gray Editor, Global Telecoms Business Euromoney Institutional Investor plc, Nestor House, Playhouse Yard, London EC4V 5EX, UK tel +44 20 7779 8518 fax +44 20 7779 8492 e-mail aburkitt@euromoneyplc.com www.globaltelecomsbusiness.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That may, or may not have been your fault. My eight-bit to seven-bit translator may have let me down. You see, non-American symbols such as the British pound sign are not available in normal use either at massis or my personal computer. The British pound sign, the little thing over letters used in stuff I get sent here from France and Mexico and similar don't do very well. In the ASCII set on massis for example, things like that appear on my screen as 'backslash number', for example '\243' and if I do not take care to remove each and every instance of those as I find them, then sendmail gets really bitchy about it and tosses most of the outgoing mail (the issue of the Digest) away. I tried using a flag for sendmail or an argument called 'force -7BIT' which means to make it go through anyway. Then sendmail tries its best, but many individual sites refuse to accept the Digest and I wind up getting twice as much bounced mail as before. It seems that 8 bit ASCII (a full 255 characters including British pound signs and even a few simple graphic characters) does not work very well when converted to 7 bits (127 character ASCII) for this two-bit Digest. So at the risk of coming off like the hated Americans all over the globe, all I can say is if you can't talk 'American' then don't talk at all! Seriously, try spelling some of those words such as 'fifty thousand pounds' in the future, okay, rather than using the verbotin symbol 50,000. Oh, and by the way, anytime you try to use 'diff' to find differences in files, just plain 'diff' attempts to cat the two files for comparison. You have to say 'more the file piped through diff compare to the other file'. The reason is (at least on this current version of massis) 'cat' looks at the file and tries to repair the damage but not too sucessfully, while 'more' just deals with the raw stream. I found that out the hard way a few years ago when an issue of the Digest would not go out and furthermore did not want to tell me what was wrong with it. Here is the portion of my 'send-digest' script which deals with it: # #!/bin/sh - # NR==3 { # printf("V%d #%d\n", $2, $5); # } # ' somefile'. Do 'diff' on output # and somefile and edit in needed corrections to output; then pass it # here again. IMPORTANT: 'more output' NOT 'cat output' to strip8bit. # This is because cat and more display differently, and cat tries to # repair the damage on its own but does so unsuccessfully. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:34:28 +0000 (UTC) From: fungus@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Hank Fung) Subject: Re: Ring Back and Say-Number Dial Codes Organization: Univ. of California Berkeley Open Computing Facility In article , John Stahl wrote: > It seems to me that there are a couple of codes which would > information about a telco line with some sort of a dial code to > "access" the function. > Have several lines which are not identified but are "alive" (with > dial-tone) through a LEC which I'm trying to identify the particular > phone number. Are there specific codes or generalized dial codes which > I can dial on the line with a butt-set to get it to ring back and > announce the particular line's phone number? Most of the applications > are within Verizon territory. You're looking for an ANAC (Automatic Number Announcement Circuit) number, where you call it and it announces the number you dialed from. They're switch dependent, so I can't give you the actual number, although in the past numbers like 311 and 958 were common. Some 1-800 numbers also read out numbers from ANI, but you'll have to find your own, and those calls cost the company money anyway. There are ANAC lists available on the Internet, but I can't vouch for the accuracy of them, as many seem to be at least a year or two old. -- Hank Fung fungus@ocf.berkeley.edu Go Bears! http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~fungus ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:27:04 -0400 From: No Spam Subject: Re: Transmission time Vs. Propagation Time Organization: ITS - NetNews Daniel J McDonald wrote in message news:telecom22.15.8@telecom-digest.org... > 3. Propagation delay - how long does it take for the > electrons/photons to show up at the other end of the connection > so that receiving can start. Electrical signals move about 30cm > per nanosecond, so if you are going across country you could burn > up 13ms or so. Propagation in a vacuum is indeed at the speed of light, but there's a velocity factor in other media which affects propagation delay. IIRC, a good conservative rule of thumb is 1 msec for every 100 miles. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:45:35 GMT From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates Organization: Excelsior Computer Services > I just finished listening to AT&T trying to sell me their long > distance -- the benefit they offered is a reduction on a bill I had no > idea was going to be so big. You see, they sold me a plan (all > verbal) and then didn't honor the rates they quoted. I can't comment This happened to me, too. I was quoted a low rate for calling-card calls and signed up for a monthly plan. Then I made a bunch of them over the course of the summer. Then I came home to a bill that was several hundred dollars. When I called to complain, the rep told me that I received a written letter after I signed up. 1. I tried to speak to a supervisor, and was unable to do so. I was promised that a supervisor would call me back, but one never did (obviously) --- see my other post on that topic. 2. Now that I think about it, the rep's response about my having received a written notice was "canned." It was too rehearsed. AT&T must have had a problem with their employees promising lower rates than AT&T was offering. Now AT&T has a standard non-answer answer. Thoughts? -Joel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:32:17 GMT From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Caller ID Spoof? Organization: Excelsior Computer Services Here's a tricky caller ID spoof, of sorts. Happened to me just a few weeks ago. I got a call from a GSM phone user from overseas, who was roaming here. The CID came through, but started with her country code, and listed exactly 10 digits. So I got a call from what looked like area code 972 (which doesn't exist). I suppose if you cared enough, you could find a cell phone with a country code that matched a real area code ... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 08:57:06 -0700 From: Bill Subject: Re: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco Organization: TELECOM Digest In the security business, sometimes it is necessary to run a "dual drop" phone connection. This is a backup in case someone cuts one of the lines. The two different lines also enter the building at different locations as far away from each other as possible. This installation is for high security only which a particular business may be required to have, and they pay to have this additional security. So it is a question of how important your lines are. If they can not go down under any circumstances and you are willing to pay if necessary, make them install a separate fiber cable. May want to borrow from the security industry and have the second cable enter the building at a different location. You may not need this for security reasons, but sometimes contractors will accidentally cut a cable. This would give you a backup if one was cut. Also there are wireless networks which can connect via an antenna to another building. If you have another office across town on a separate phone exchange, maybe you could go wireless to there as a backup? Karl Albrecht wrote in message: > PacBell has offered us free conversion of our data/voice T1s from > copper to fiber. We have an existing fiber connection for our T3 and > this would have all of our T1s (that PacBell hosts) running on it. > Is this a good idea?? > Does this create a single point of failure with the fiber cabinet or > line? > Any advice would be greatly appreciated! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:23:21 -0500 From: Brian Wohlgemuth Subject: Re: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco Organization: TELECOM Digest Probably would create a single point of failure. However, you would be less susceptible to outages due to wet pairs, etc. Also, it is more than likely your T1 already rides the same fiber to the CO, it just hops on later down the line. Ask if you have dual fiber feeds into your building, and if they take geographically diverse paths. Don't be surprised when they tell you that you don't. It's probably going to be a folded SONET ring between the CO and your building. This is normal, unless you are a hospital or a gargantuan facility that pays Pac Bell a few million a month, you aren't going to have physically diverse SONET. Basically, take the upgrade, make sure it works completely perfect before they disconnect the copper pairs in the CO. Brian Karl Albrecht wrote in message news:telecom22.15.10@telecom-digest.org: > PacBell has offered us free conversion of our data/voice T1s from > copper to fiber. We have an existing fiber connection for our T3 and > this would have all of our T1s (that PacBell hosts) running on it. > Is this a good idea?? > Does this create a single point of failure with the fiber cabinet or > line? ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 2002 00:57:57 -0700 From: kevingr97@my-deja.com (Kevingr) Subject: Re: Telecom IT Resources Needed! Organization: http://groups.google.com/ jade_inc@yahoo.com (Jim Chang) wrote in message news:: > I am a newbie to the IT integration in the telecom industry. I > desperately need resources for telecom IT resources in any format, > e.g. books, journal, Web links and other possibilities. I need these > for my new job on integration of CRM, provisioning and order capturing > system. Thanks ! If your interest is in technology strategy, as opposed to practical "how-to" stuff, the TeleManagement Forum is the place to go: http://www.tmforum.org/ K ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:50:52 -0700 From: Marty Bose Subject: Re: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco Organization: TELECOM Digest karl.albrecht@eloan.com (Karl Albrecht) wrote: > PacBell has offered us free conversion of our data/voice T1s from > copper to fiber. We have an existing fiber connection for our T3 and > this would have all of our T1s (that PacBell hosts) running on it. > Is this a good idea?? Ask PacBell if your fiber is on a Sonet ring or a point to point run. if it is on a Sonet ring, you're pretty well backed up, since they are bidirectional. If it is point to point, you are somewhat at a risk. Marty ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:17:05 -0400 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Ring Back and Say-Number Dial Codes Organization: TELECOM Digest On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:48:36 -0400, John Stahl wrote: >> Have several lines which are not identified but are "alive" (with >> dial-tone) through a LEC which I'm trying to identify the particular >> phone number. Are there specific codes or generalized dial codes which >> I can dial on the line with a butt-set to get it to ring back and >> announce the particular line's phone number? Most of the applications >> are within Verizon territory. Well, there's Verizon and then there's Verizon. In most of New Jersey the code "958" will read back the number of the line (but without the area code). Just dial it and stay on the line. What you'll hear is a short burst of "#" tone, then a read-back of the number, then a re-order tone. If, as soon as you hear the "#" tone, you respond with a "#" tone of your own, then the voice read-back will be replaced by a touch-tone playback of the line number. The code has also come in handy for me when I needed to receive a call at a pay phone where someone had removed the number designation for "security" purposes. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:45:15 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: (H)DTV vs. NTSC Organization: TELECOM Digest So, does anyone care to make a guess as to what will become of the THOUSANDS of hours of TV programming of the 1940's thru 1980's, filmed or pre-taped (or kinescoped) in 3x4 format? Similarly, what will broadcasters do with movies that were NOT filmed in CinemaScope, VistaVision, PanaVision, etc., mostly made before the 1950's/60's? Is is possible that all of these classic movies and TV shows will simply "disappear" from regular broadcast/cablecast/sat-cast? And WHY in the *&!@ should we be expected to have to PAY to upgrade to entirely new equipment (or at least HOPEFULLY a low-cost Digital-to-NTSC converter, that is, if the "entertainment/copyright police" will "allow" us such converters), whether or not classic movies/TV filmed (or taped) in 3x4 is "allowed" to continue in the "new-and-improved" (GAG) digital world? Back in the mid-1960's, prior to when the Feds made CBS/NBC/ABC sell off their domestic syndication units, which BTW is no longer in force (Viacom was carved out of CBS Films in 1970 due to 'fin-syn', but NOW there's the mega-merged entity of CBS-Viacom-Paramount-Westwood-Infinity- Mutual-etc, also owning what *USED* to be NBC Films and ABC Films rerun/first-run SYNDICATION units) ... the NBC-Films rerun syndication division of RCA/NBC actually either withdrew or downplayed the marketing of many 1950's and early 60's era programs previously *OWNED/PRODUCED* by NBC-TV, or previously acquired for rerun syndication by NBC-Films, because these programs were filmed in (gasp) MONOCHROME! Of course, RCA/NBC wanted to "push" COLOR all the way ... RCA owning the NBC Television Network *AND* the RCA Victor equipment division ... But color did *NOT* completely obsolete/eliminiate B&W. FM has *NOT* eliminated AM. Most AM broadcasts are still in MONAURAL rather than Stereo (even if the signal is technically capable of stereo), there's STILL dialpulse service acceptable in MOST central offices even though there's touchtone as well ... ISDN never really caught on for the masses (true, many big or high-tech corporations and such usually have some form of ISDN), but for the residential market, xDSL or Cable Modems have become the norm -- NOT ISDN for high-speed broadband data. But WHY are we being sold this "bill of goods" about (H)DTV over NTSC. If it ain't broke (NTSC), why "fix" (tamper with) it!? It looks more like a "sweetheart" arrangement between big government and big-media/ business (again I say, the "entertainment/copyright police"). ISDN was frequently ragged as "innovations subscribers don't (really) need. Apparantly HDTV is intended as High Dollar *COST* Tele Vision ... If worse comes to worse, I could just simply endlessly watch my VHS tapes of movies/TV from the "good-old-days" (from the 1930's thru 60's), because I just don't care one iota about contemporary (1980's/ 90's/etc. and even many 1970's era) TV programs. However, in a forced HDTV world, as for the *real* news events, there are still newspapers, *AM* radio (i.e., REAL COMMERCIAL radio, as bad as it has become, as compared with GOVERNMENT run NPR), and even with the damned cookies/ java/popups/ads/etc., there's also the web for keeping up with the news. mjc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:15:45 -0400 From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices Organization: TELECOM Digest John Higdon wrote: > Let's see ... people are sick to death of people using phones on the > street, on public transit, in their cars, sitting on a park bench, > in a restaurant, in any public gathering, in airport waiting areas, > and even when standing in lines outside of theaters. The word > "oversensitive" comes to mind. Sounds like the movie "Crazy People" (http://us.imdb.com/Details?0099316), where the main character (played by Dudley Moore) becomes angry when, while stuck in traffic on a bridge, he hears the driver of another car(!) talking on a mobile phone. He goes over, grabs the handset out of the guy's hand, rips it out of the car and throws it into the river, saying, "People who use cell phones annoy other drivers!" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:07:41 -0500 From: Kenneth P. Stox Subject: Re: No-Dial-Tone on HP Fax Organization: Imaginary Landscape, LLC. I notice that one thing was never mentioned, have you tried reversing the polarity of the line? Shouldn't be the case, these days, but it wouldn't hurt to check. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:20:48 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 8/30/02 Organization: TELECOM Digest August 29, 2002 When the Cellphone Is the Home Phone By SIMON ROMERO WHEN my wife and I moved recently from the Upper West Side of Manhattan to a larger apartment in Harlem, it was a short hop on the map. Technologically, however, it was a journey to the heart of the current turmoil in the telecommunications industry. Of all the troubles associated with a move, we expected phone service to be the least of them: a routine order for a telephone line and two jacks. But when I called Verizon Communications, our local phone company, I was told that it would take a week and a half to fulfill the request, at a cost of $250. Other companies now offer local phone service, but they would need to have authorization from Verizon to make a connection to our apartment. So faced with unanticipated cost and delay, we took a step that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago: we decided to abandon conventional phone service altogether - and we are not alone. In what may be the start of an alarming trend for the nation's largest telephone companies, the total number of business and residential telephone lines declined last year for the first time since the Depression - to 192.3 million at year's end from 192.6 million a year earlier, according to the Federal Communications Commission. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/29/technology/circuits/29PHON.html Cell phones set to ring up sales rebound By Matthew Broersma Special to CNET News.com August 28, 2002, 11:12 AM PT The worldwide mobile phone industry is back on its feet, and new products and services will lead to a sales rebound late this year, a new report predicts. Gartner Dataquest's study found that mobile phone sales totaled 98.7 million units in the second quarter, an 0.8 percent increase from the same period last year. But this figure disguises other signs that the industry is positioned for stronger growth, said the research company, which predicts 5 percent growth for the year. Key to increased sales will be a slew of new product lines featuring color displays, built-in cameras and picture messaging, Gartner said. What's more, these devices are being priced to encourage entry-level buyers, as well as those looking to upgrade their existing handsets. http://news.com.com/2100-1033-955753.html New patent will 'revolutionize e-mail' by Dennis Sellers August 26, 2002 9:45 am ET A company called Mail Registry has received a U.S. patent (number 6,427,164) for the automatic forwarding of e-mail from an old address to a new address, and several associated processes. Bob Reilly, president of the three-year-old development-stage company specializing in e-commerce consulting, said that this patent will revolutionize e-mail mobility, accessibility and availability. ... The patent provides for the automatic delivery of e-mail that has been returned (bounced) with a non-delivery notice (NDR) from the receiving e-mail server, providing that the address was correct at one time, but the account is now inactive or for any other reason not accepting e-mail. Unlike other approaches to this problem, the patent employs a protocol-oriented process to correctly forward this e-mail and requires only that the intended recipient register his new address with Mail Registry, Reilly said. http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0208/26.email.php Apple invites open source to Rendezvous By Ian Fried Staff Writer, CNET News.com August 29, 2002, 4:10 PM PT Apple Computer doesn't want its Rendezvous to be cloaked in secrecy. The Mac maker said it plans by next month to release to the open-source community the technology it calls Rendezvous, a technique for allowing networked devices to automatically find each other. http://news.com.com/2100-1040-955988.html DoCoMo to fight cell phone scams By Reuters August 29, 2002, 12:21 PM PT NTT DoCoMo plans to combat computer-generated one-ring calls that lead cell phone users to adult services, the company said Thursday. DoCoMo, Japan's largest wireless carrier, was forced to take action after telephone communications in Japan's industrial region of Osaka were crippled twice in July because of a flood of calls generated automatically by a single caller. The caller was believed to be a company that rings random mobile phone numbers very briefly and then hangs up, generating a missed-call message. In many cases, those who unwittingly return such calls are charged only to hear obscene messages. http://news.com.com/2100-1033-955958.html Nickel and Diming Cellphone Users The telecom meltdown is about to take a bigger chunk of your cellphone bill. Having already scaled back bargain-basement plans, wireless carriers are rolling out fees and restrictions that will raise monthly payments for many users. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1030562907899838515,00.html Speedy service options broaden Woodstock firm offers satellite Net connections By Jon Van Chicago Tribune staff reporter August 26, 2002 New broadband options keep popping up for Chicago-area residents. The latest is a satellite connection launched last month by an Internet service provider based in Woodstock with a starting price of $30 a month. Larry O'Connor, founder of Other World Computing, said the new satellite service is ideal for customers who cannot get digital subscriber line service. http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0208260236aug26.story ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 2002 10:59:34 -0700 From: shiphen@yahoo.com (shiprath henethe) Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Ed Ellers wrote in message news:: > David B. Horvath wrote: >> Why do you think you have the right to micro-manage the behavior of >> others in a public space (where there is not the *expectation* of >> quiet -- like in a theater/theatre)? > Excellent point. However ... >> If hearing their personal information really annoys you, start >> commenting about it while they're on the phone. A few comments like >> "your prostate is bothering you? My (adult male relative/friend/ >> coworker) had the same problem and the doctors had to rip it out, >> now he has a case ED that even viagra won't fix" or "I wouldn't buy >> stock X, you should buy (really bad but don't tell them) stock Y" or >> "hey you work for company X and you just did Y? I wonder what the >> regulators (or newspaper or stockholders or boss) or the appropriate >> equivalent will get them to speak quietly or even end the >> conversation until they can be private. > This could also cost you a few teeth, or worse. Exactly! It all boils down to a *gross* lack of consideration for others. A short phone call is fine. If they leave the carriage, that's fine. Go to the toilet to make the call maybe? Fine. Or talking quietly to the phone, fine. And if I cant buy one of these jammers, then I'll probably go ahead and build one myself. And I'll tell you what, if I could build a machine to jam the sound of squeeling kids I'd bl**dy well jam them too! Not continually/perman- ently, but just enough to get 5 minutes kip when I need it. I often do use ear plugs, but even the wax ones cant keep out a loud phone user against a quiet background. I also use a mobile myself. But I do it *discretely*. In Canadian law courts they have a rubber device that fits around the mouth, that enable a note-taker /scribe to precis the proceedings into a microphone, without disturbing the law court. Interestingly it seemed to work completely. So when are the Mobile manufacturers going to build something similar? I can see I've touched a raw nerver here. But I'm not backing down. The *judicious* use of a jammer would be a major public service. And if someone didn't like me using it then they could politely ask *me* to stop using it. The bottom line is that these people are insensitive to the point of utter selfishness. And they should be stopped. Most decent people have the common sense not to irritate an entire railway carriage/restaurant etc when everyone else is clearly enjoying a bit of peace and quiet. It's just damned rude. We dont need *laws* against people being rude but dont expect not to get a reaction either. If they were to run up and down the railway carriage tickling or spitting on other innocent passengers, then yes they should be stopped. And yes I'd do it. My only concession is that maybe jammers should have a delayed-repeat button, whereby you could only jam for say 10 seconds in every minute. But I also think it would be great if the devices transmissed a message saying words to the effect of "Your conversation is too loud and irritating someone near you. Please terminate your conversation as soon as convenient." I do like the idea of scaring of other peoples kids by discussing sex, though. Excellent idea! Strangely enough I think what is *so* rude about a mobile is that it's so exclusive. It sort of implies that isn't sufficiently interesting or important as their world. The cell-phone user walks around in a plastic bubble of a life, perpetually irrritating other people. Even walking down the street by themselves, when they say something loud and for a second you think that they are talking to you. Tiresome. And dangerous, as a cyclist/biker I keep nearly running them down because they *never* take care when crossing the road. And the latest research is that they are actually more likely to have an accident driving a car than a drunk driver! Hang 'em. Hang 'em high. Ship Shiperton Henethe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:10:21 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Shareware Day Once Again Organization: TELECOM Digest We've come to the end of another month once again, and like those software programs you download but then don't pay for, you begin getting a 'nag' notice on a regular basis. I know many of you have in fact contributed greatly from time to time for the upkeep of this Digest, and I do appreciate your effort. The problem is that during the summer months, so many readers/writers/contributors here are on extended vacations; away from school, etc. So as a result, contributions to the Digest -- as a not-for-profit, spam-free, newsgroup mostly on telecommunications topics is down about twenty percent over where I feel it should be. Since my brain aneurysm in November, 1999, this Digest has been almost my entire income, since I am pretty much confined to my home and immediate surroundings. Those of you who hae been readers here for many years know that for the first fifteen or so years of this Digest I rarely asked for anything financial, but in those days I had 'regular employment' other than working on this Digest even though in those days it also took a lot of time in addition to my various for-pay jobs. Right now I am (1) working on a new CD Rom of the archives, since the last one is several years old and badly out of date. I expext in a month or so to have it out and (2) on my book 'Genesis 39' which I hope will be available on the net at no charge by the end of the year. Whatever you can/wish to do will be greatly appreciated as always. On our web site http://telecom-digest.org at the very bottom of the first page is a PayPal form for donations via credit card. Look at /index.html there, or /donations and do what you feel is best. If you prefer to send a check/money order that's okay also. Write to: Telecom PO Box 50 Indepedence, KS 67301-0050 And thanks very much!!! Patrick Townson Moderator/Editor/Archivist TELECOM Digest ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #16 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Aug 31 13:12:12 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g7VHCCc13713; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 13:12:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 13:12:12 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200208311712.g7VHCCc13713@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #17 TELECOM Digest Sat, 31 Aug 2002 13:08:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 17 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC (John Hines) Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC (Mark Roberts) Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC (Robert Bonomi) Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC (Kim Brennan) Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC (Garrett Wollman) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (Robert Dover) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (Wes Leatherock) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices - Legal In UK? (Ron Bean) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco (Wes Leatherock) Re: Fine For Text Message Spam (Wes Leatherock) Re: Caller ID Spoof? (Wes Leatherock) Re: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates (John Hines) Re: Payphones (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Telephone Line in a House (S. Punjab) Shareware Day Once Again (TELECOM Digest Editor) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hines Subject: Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:01:52 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Reply-To: john@jhines.org Mark J Cuccia wrote: > Is is possible that all of these classic movies and TV shows will > simply "disappear" from regular broadcast/cablecast/sat-cast? And WHY > in the *&!@ should we be expected to have to PAY to upgrade to > entirely new equipment (or at least HOPEFULLY a low-cost > Digital-to-NTSC converter, that is, if the "entertainment/copyright > police" will "allow" us such converters), whether or not classic > movies/TV filmed (or taped) in 3x4 is "allowed" to continue in the > "new-and-improved" (GAG) digital world? My understanding is that a station like PAX, which broadcasts a lot of old material, uses the Digital broadcast format to transmit like 6 channels worth of the old stuff at once. Not having a DTV, I don't know for sure. So the broadcasters can either send a single hi res show, or multiple lo-res shows. ------------------------------ From: markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts) Subject: Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:12:43 -0000 Organization: 1.94 meters [taking the comments out of order but hopefully not out of context] Mark J Cuccia had written: > But WHY are we being sold this "bill of goods" about (H)DTV over NTSC. Because the FCC is looking (eventually) at auctioning off some of the UHF (and perhaps VHF) spectrum. That's the ultimate driver behind the transition. 3G, 3.5G, 4G, 19G, name your generation. By the time they get around to the auction(s) though, the telecom bubble will have been well burst. > So, does anyone care to make a guess as to what will become of the > THOUSANDS of hours of TV programming of the 1940's thru 1980's, filmed > or pre-taped (or kinescoped) in 3x4 format? They'll still be around on multiple channels on TV LAND? Mark Roberts | "This is local television. Get off your high horse!" Oakland, Cal.| -- Gary Radnich to Wendy Tokuda on KRON-TV's NO HTML MAIL | 9 pm newscast (said in jest), August 9, 2002 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC Organization: Not Much From: bonomi@c-ns (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 15:01:36 GMT In article , Mark J Cuccia wrote: > So, does anyone care to make a guess as to what will become of the > THOUSANDS of hours of TV programming of the 1940's thru 1980's, filmed > or pre-taped (or kinescoped) in 3x4 format? Similarly, what will > broadcasters do with movies that were NOT filmed in CinemaScope, > VistaVision, PanaVision, etc., mostly made before the 1950's/60's? It's simple. There are several possible solutions existant. One involves a little bit of 'smarts' in the set (already there, to display POTV images) where the _set_itself_ reduces the horizontal scan width to the 4:3 format, based on an 'indicator bit' in the transmitted signal. Alternatively, it can be done entirely at the transmitting end. Either in real-time, or via 'pre-processing'. Where each scan-line is 'padded' with black, before and after the POTV image data. One could also 'scan double' and/or interpolate, to provide increased image 'quality', at the same time. It'd be similar to "letterbox" presentation of wide-screen movies on a conventional TV. I'd expect that the 'owner' of the old programming would pay for the 'conversion' -- for two 'pragmatic' reasons. 1) that way, the conversion only has to be done _once_, and can thereafter be distributed in HD form, 2) _when_ HD has become ubiquitous, the presense of the material in an "HD-compatible" form enhances the 'saleability' of the programming. It's really a no-brainer. As long as 'I Love Lucy' royalties are low enough, and the show draws enough of an audience to sell commercials, it *WILL* remain on the air. The fact that the originals are on _film_ -- and virtually none of the stations carrying it today have *film*projection* equipment -- illustrates the point quite nicely. > But color did *NOT* completely obsolete/eliminiate B&W. FM has *NOT* > eliminated AM. Most AM broadcasts are still in MONAURAL rather than > Stereo (even if the signal is technically capable of stereo), there's > STILL dialpulse service acceptable in MOST central offices even though > there's touchtone as well ... Sometimes 'upgrades' can be done in a backwards compatible manner, Sometimes they can *not*. Radio 'channel spacings' change, obseleting existant equipment. In some frequency allocations, modulation schemes have changed (e.g., from wide-band FM, to narrow-band FM), obseleting existant equipment. > ISDN never really caught on for the masses (true, many big or > high-tech corporations and such usually have some form of ISDN), but > for the residential market, xDSL or Cable Modems have become the norm > -- NOT ISDN for high-speed broadband data. Blame the telco's for that. They got greedy. And priced the service at too much of a premium to *apparent* 'costs'. For running -any- kind of phone service, there's a cost for the physical wire-plant, and a cost for the switching fabric. POTS incurs 1 wire-plant unit, and 1 switching unit. ISDN BRI _should_ incur 1 wire-plant unit, and 2 switching units (assuming 2B service). One can argue ad nauseum about business service subsidizing residential, the core relationship above remains, in the eyes of the residential customer. with 2B ISDN priced at circa 3.5x POTS, *plus*useage*charges*, it is not the least surprising that hardly anybody jumped on the bandwagon. If one looks at Europe, where 1B ISDN is priced competitively with analog POTS, one discovers a _very_high_ degree of penetration. I wonder _why_. *sigh* > But WHY are we being sold this "bill of goods" about (H)DTV over NTSC. > If it ain't broke (NTSC), why "fix" (tamper with) it!? It looks more > like a "sweetheart" arrangement between big government and big-media/ > business (again I say, the "entertainment/copyright police"). A serious answer, disregarding all your hyperbole, is that NTSC _is_ 'broken', by modern standards. Customer 'quality' expectations are , in general, *much* higher than they were 10, or even 5 years ago. The personal cpmputer 'revolutaion' gets a lot of the blame (or credit, depending on your viewpoint) for this. The masses have been exposed to the existance of 'quality' imagry on _affordable_ hardware. One can buy computer displays with TEN TIMES the resolution, and nearly three-times faster refresh, at a 'premium' of about US$60 (19" screen) to what is sold for broadcast television reception. There is, unfortunately, no _efficient, *compatible*, means for delivering an 'enhanced' signal to capable receivers, while maintaining support for 'dinosaur' systems. It _would_ be 'nice' to maintain said backwards comp- atibility, but, on a long-term basis, the resource dmands for doing so _are_ excessive. One can justify the 'cost' for a "moderate" transition period, but -not- indefinitely. Thus, either one _never_ moves forward, or there _will_ be some dislocation. > ISDN was frequently ragged as "innovations subscribers don't (really) > need. Apparantly HDTV is intended as High Dollar *COST* Tele Vision ... > If worse comes to worse, I could just simply endlessly watch my VHS > tapes of movies/TV from the "good-old-days" (from the 1930's thru > 60's), because I just don't care one iota about contemporary (1980's/ > 90's/etc. and even many 1970's era) TV programs. However, in a forced > HDTV world, as for the *real* news events, there are still newspapers, > *AM* radio (i.e., REAL COMMERCIAL radio, as bad as it has become, as > compared with GOVERNMENT run NPR), and even with the damned cookies/ > java/popups/ads/etc., there's also the web for keeping up with the news. ------------------------------ From: kimbrennan@aol.comfrtz.com (KimBrennan) Date: 31 Aug 2002 06:45:54 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC > Mark J Cuccia scribes: > So, does anyone care to make a guess as to what will become of the > THOUSANDS of hours of TV programming of the 1940's thru 1980's, filmed > or pre-taped (or kinescoped) in 3x4 format? Similarly, what will > broadcasters do with movies that were NOT filmed in CinemaScope, > VistaVision, PanaVision, etc., mostly made before the 1950's/60's? > Is is possible that all of these classic movies and TV shows will > simply "disappear" from regular broadcast/cablecast/sat-cast? Why does anything have to happen to them? HDTV is a broadcast medium. It is still possible to take that which was broadcast before and transfer it over to the new medium. Happens all the time. DVD, as an example. Lots of TV programming from the 50s, 60s, and later, is available on DVD right now. I Love Lucy, I Spy, The Honeymooners, Star Trek, The Prisoner, Secret Agent Man, The Avengers. PAX in my area (Washington DC) broadcasts Bonanza daily ... on their DTV broadcast. As to paying to upgrade, well, I paid to upgrade ... to a new car. Its got leather, airbags, cushy ride, very quiet. Much better than the 72 VW Super Beetle I used to have. I could still be driving that 72 VW (which this year would finally NOT have to pass emissions testing) except for the minor detail that it burned up in an engine fire. TVs break. (Last one I had that did was a Sony Trinitron from the 80s, one day, poof, the tube was gone.) VCRs break. Continue using what you have. In time, you'll need to replace it, and when you do, you'll probably be able to see why a few of us are so enthusiatic about HDTV. "I'm sorry, all my money is tied up in currency." W.C.Fields ------------------------------ From: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC Date: 31 Aug 2002 05:28:20 GMT Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Mark J Cuccia wrote: > there's the mega-merged entity of CBS-Viacom-Paramount-Westwood-Infinity- > Mutual-etc, Slight correction: Westwood One is a separate company (traded under ticker symbol `WON'). Having said that, the operations of Westwood One are conducted by Infinity (a subsidiary of Viacom) subject to a management agreement. (I suspect, but cannot prove, that Viacom may own or control the 20% of Westwood One that isn't part of the public float. Certainly the officers don't, according to public records.) -- Garrett A. Wollman | [G]enes make enzymes, and enzymes control the rates of wollman@lcs.mit.edu | chemical processes. Genes do not make ``novelty- Opinions not those of| seeking'' or any other complex and overt behavior. MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) ------------------------------ From: Robert Dover Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:56:48 -0500 Organization: Nortel shiprath henethe wrote... > And I'll tell you what, if I could build a machine to jam the sound of > squeeling kids I'd bl**dy well jam them too! OhGod, yes! Put me down for one! Gimme, gimme, gimme!!!! ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 30 Aug 2002 23:49:50 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices On 30 Aug 2002 10:59:34 -0700 shiphen@yahoo.com (shiprath henethe) wrote: [ ... ] > And the latest research is that they are actually more likely to have > an accident driving a car than a drunk driver! Drivers are even more likely to have an accident when distacted by the kids, eating, putting on makeup, and a myriad of other activities than they are using a cellphone. Not that I don't object to people driving and talking on the phone, but it is less hazardous than many other distractions. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 02:23:03 -0500 From: Ron Bean Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices John Higdon writes: > How about showing a little backbone and politely asking the person who > is talking so loud to tone it down just a little? This kind of social interference is a calculated risk. Most people don't know the odds of getting the desired response without causing even greater commotion, so they just assume the risk isn't worth it (they're probably wrong, but I can't prove it). > ... until it was clearly observed that the > person was, in fact, using a public phone that was mounted on the wall > just around from where the person was standing. The problem here is not the presence of a phone, but the absence of a phone booth. This problem predates cellphones. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:09:45 -0400 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Leonard Erickson wrote about Telephone Surge Suppressor > I'm looking for a standalone surge suppressor (or I'll even settle for > one in a power strip) that'll work with RJ-14 (2 line) wired cables. > It's a real pain splitting things to two lines, running them thru *two* > separate suppressors, then recombining them again. > And since I live in an apartment, I can't wire something in at the > demarc. > Oh, as long as I'm asking, are there any for RJ-25 (3 line) cables. I > don't need one of those, but it'd be nice to know, just in case. I have an ancient Heathkit that does this. Simply, it is a box with a short two-pair cable and standard plug for input. Then it terminates these wires on a strip and puts three Metal Oxide Varistors (MOVs), tip to ring, tip to ground, ring to ground, on each line. Then it connects to a plug. The ground goes through some 10-guage solid copper wire to the nearest cold water pipe, which is a nearly perfect ground if you're on city water (provided you've properly jumpered around the main water valve and [if it's in the house] the water meter -- anyhow, a good earth ground). You can get all the needed parts, including MOVs, at any electronics store including Radio Shack. Use the biggest MOVs you can get. Obviously, you could easily build one for any number of pairs of wires, including 25-pair cables. However there may be pre-assembled surge suppressors for these. The place to check for professional-quality telephone stuff is Graybar Electric, if there's a branch near you. They used to be the reseller to the trade for Western Electric (before the 1956 Consent Decree), and then were and still are a general jobber to the telephone industry. Back in the late 1920s they were spun off from Western Electric. Graybar comes from Gray and Barton, the original name of the company that, when taken over by Western Union in the 1880s, became Western Electric. Gray is Elisha Gray, who got to the patent office a bit later than Alexander Graham Bell. AT&T acquired Western Electric about 1906, when it was trying to acquire Western Union. (The Justice Department later required AT&T to divest Western Union, but Western Electric stayed behind.) Gary Novosielski then responded: > On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, Leonard Erickson wrote: >> I'm looking for a standalone surge suppressor (or I'll even settle for >> one in a power strip) that'll work with RJ-14 (2 line) wired cables. >> ... >> And since I live in an apartment, I can't wire something in at the >> demarc. > I think this has been discussed here in the past, but it was always my > understanding (from professional phone "men") that: > a) there should already BE an effective surge suppressor built into the > demarc; and The surge suppressor is typically a carbon block, rather than the much more effective gas discharge tube. I am aware of many cases in which people have had phones, modems, and even motherboards fried by surges through the phone line. The carbon block is probably adequate in cities. In suburbs, and particularly in rural areas, much more effective protection is required. It is, perhaps, significant in this respect that REA requirements for lightning protection were higher than Bell System Standards. You can buy gas discharge tubes at Graybar, and install them yourself either at the Demarc or just inside the demarc, but this works best if you live in a single family house. I'm not certain it would be possible in an apartment house. > b) adding a cheap power-strip suppressor (or ANY phone line suppressor > that plugs into an AC outlet, or uses the AC ground wire for surge > dissipation) will ultimately do more harm than good, since it vastly > increases the chances that an AC surge (far more common than phone > line surges) will be back-fed INTO the phone line THROUGH the > suppressor circuitry itself, on the wrong side of the phone demarc, > thereby increasing the likelihood of damage to phone equipment where > none would have occurred if the customer had simply kept his fingers > in his pockets. I am not aware of this happening. I did have my surge protectors burned out when the power company went overvoltage for a sustained period. My computer was protected and suffered no apparent damage, and the phones and faxes connected through the surge protectors also suffered no apparent damage. The power company bought me two new surge protectors. However, I have heard that it is possible for a larger surge, possibly from a lightning strike, to be diverted into the common ground. This might affect the telephones depending on how good the earth ground of the common ground is. (It's notoriously poor in rural areas, particularly where non-metallic cold water pipes are used -- see older editions of Richter's book on home electric wiring, or any good commentary on the National Electric Code.) The question is how good your ground is. I know of one local person who used to insist on tying his phone lines directly to the earth ground; in the phone system the grounded wire is actually typically "floating." He claimed that getting a real ground improved sound quality, perhaps by avoiding ground loops. Anyhow, if your house is actually hit by lightning, all bets are off, and your electronics are probably mostly history. Jerry Pournelle had a near-miss some years ago and wrote about it in Byte. A 62,000 volt AC line fell across the lower voltage (240 volt) lines feeding his house and some neighboring houses, and did a lot of damage. I've also known people living near the end of the rural power line who frequently have severe electrical damage if the line is hit by lightning. > It makes a lot of sense to me. From what little I know of surge > suppression, it is important that the ground wire be tied back to a > common earth ground point. Under heavy current conditions, such as > during a surge-suppression discharge event, even the small resistances > between the ground terminal of an electrical outlet and the actual > earth ground (at the demarc) could cause voltage differentials high > enough to fry sensitive phone circuitry. > So my rule of thumb has always been to keep phone surge suppression > and AC surge suppression strictly separate, for the most part leaving > the former entirely up to the telco, and I have never had occasion to > regret it. Can anyone else comment? Yes, the surge suppression should be separate, though most modern power strips have built-in surge suppressors for a phone line (usually a single line). I assume these are electrically separate from the AC surge suppressors (it would probably be a violation of the National Electric Code if they were not). However, they probably use the electric system's ground wire (accessed through the ground wire in the surge suppressor's power cord) for the ground. Direct replies are unlikely to be read. To reply use the address below: falco_marcus_didius yahoo.co.uk ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:18:02 GMT > So my rule of thumb has always been to keep phone surge suppression > and AC surge suppression strictly separate, for the most part leaving > the former entirely up to the telco, and I have never had occasion to > regret it. Can anyone else comment? OTOH, in a rural setting, I've had three computers destroyed via surges in the phone line. I had surge protectors (and then UPS's) for the computer, but nothing for the phone line. On three separate occasions, the computer was destroyed, and I could see the burn marks on the phone equipment. Now I just unplug everything, including the modem, before a storm approaches. (As a side note, I also had a computer destroyed while completely unplugged. I'd heard stories of this, but never believed it. Now I know. It CAN happen.) -Joel [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All the utilities here in Independence (SWB Telco, cable, satellite *all* ground everything with big stakes they drive in the ground with little clamps on the top of them. When my satellite dish was installed some time ago, the guy came out (the same guy I told about once before who offered me all sorts of free programs if I would authorize him to remove the cable line and have the cableco cancel my service) and he clamped a ground wire on to this large stake, about five feet long which he then drove into the ground so only a few inches of it was above ground level with that little clamp with the wire attached. I since have found at the phone demarc on the side of the house a similar green colored wire which goes down to the ground and is buried there. The last time the cable guy was in the alley working on his wires I asked him where the ground wire was and he pointed at a little conduit attached to the telephone pole where the cable wires are (right underneath the phone wires) and he said the ground went through that. But lightening can do some terrible damage. As you might imagine, we have some *very high* television antennas attached to chimneys and whatnot for people who insist on watching whatever they can over the air, especially in the rural area outside of town where the cable does not reach. Last April, lightening struck a TV antenna in such a situ- ation on top of a barn outside of town. The entire barn burned down, and in the Independence Reporter the next day (talking about the barn fire, with pictures, etc) the Fire Inspector reported that the antenna being ungrounded had caused the fire to start. The electricity traveled down the coax as well and blew the guy's TV set up pretty bad, even though the coax run (and his house) were several yards away. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 31 Aug 2002 00:00:15 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 08:57:06 -0700 Bill bill190nospam@yahoo.com wrote: > ... May want to borrow from the security industry and have the > second cable enter the building at a different location. You may not > need this for security reasons, but sometimes contractors will > accidentally cut a cable. This would give you a backup if one was > cut. A number of years ago a customer required that their private line circuits between Fort Worth and Tulsa be routed not only to different entrance points, but by two separate physical routes -- geographically separated -- between their installations in those two cities. Yes, they were willing to pay. They required to know exactly what the two routes were, in detail. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 31 Aug 2002 00:06:05 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Fine For Text Message Spam [Pat wrote:] > It seems that 8 bit ASCII (a full 255 > characters including British pound signs and even a few simple graphic > characters) does not work very well when converted to 7 bits (127 > character ASCII) for this two-bit Digest. Actually, ASCII defines only characters 0-127 (7-bit, as you say). So-called high-ASCII is not uniformly defined, and there are several different sets in general use for 128-255. That's why many Usenet newsgroups and mailing lists are limited to the 7-bit characters, which are a standard. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 31 Aug 2002 00:10:24 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Caller ID Spoof? On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:32:17 GMT joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: > Here's a tricky caller ID spoof, of sorts. Happened to me just a few > weeks ago. I got a call from a GSM phone user from overseas, who was > roaming here. The CID came through, but started with her country > code, and listed exactly 10 digits. So I got a call from what looked > like area code 972 (which doesn't exist). I suppose if you cared > enough, you could find a cell phone with a country code that matched a > real area code ... Area code 972 certainly does exist. It is one of the two area codes in the Dallas metropolitan area, along with 214. I believe a third area code is now being introduced in that area. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: John Hines Subject: Re: AT&T Didn't Honor Their Rates Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:01:54 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Reply-To: john@jhines.org joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: > 2. Now that I think about it, the rep's response about my having > received a written notice was "canned." It was too > rehearsed. AT&T must have had a problem with their employees > promising lower rates than AT&T was offering. Now AT&T has a > standard non-answer answer. My neighbor signed up for AT&T local phone service, was misled about the rates by the sales rep, and when they called about it "yeah, we have a bunch of complaints about that rep". Sounds like it goes much deeper than that. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Payphones Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:22:22 GMT > [re payphones rejecting 800- calls] > calling card customers); etc. Most of these messed-up phones are > owned by payphone owners, often very small one-person COCOT companies Er, not to be pedantic, but every payphone is owned by a payphone owner ... :-) ------------------------------ From: piclistguy@yahoo.com (Sanjay Punjab) Subject: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Telephone Line in a House? Date: 30 Aug 2002 16:23:48 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I have an application where I need a PC to communicate with a device in another room in a residential home. Running a cable is not practical for this application and wireless RS-232 is cost prohibitive for my application. I am considering using the local phone wiring in the house for data transmission between the PC and the device, implementing a pseudo RS-232 protocol. Since the phone line is 48v when the line is on-hook and 10v when off hook, I am considering modulating data off of the digital transition from one state to another. While this communication would not work if the phone line is in use or when a ring signal is present, this is not an issue for application. The only problem that I may be underestim- ating is the transition delay and rise and fall time from one voltage state to another on the phone line. This will of course limit my baud rate, although I only need between a 300-2400 baud rate. And I also need to find the appropriate means of simulating an "off hook" condition to drop the voltage from 48v to 10v. I need some advice on how to do this electronically. I am assuming that consumer telephones do this via loading the secondary side of a isolating telephone transformer, but I am not certain. I would appreciate any advice on the feasibility of what I am proposing. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:10:21 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Shareware Day Once Again Organization: TELECOM Digest We've come to the end of another month once again, and like those software programs you download but then don't pay for, you begin getting a 'nag' notice on a regular basis. I know many of you have in fact contributed greatly from time to time for the upkeep of this Digest, and I do appreciate your effort. The problem is that during the summer months, so many readers/writers/contributors here are on extended vacations; away from school, etc. So as a result, contributions to the Digest -- as a not-for-profit, spam-free, newsgroup mostly on telecommunications topics is down about twenty percent over where I feel it should be. Since my brain aneurysm in November, 1999, this Digest has been almost my entire income, since I am pretty much confined to my home and immediate surroundings. Those of you who hae been readers here for many years know that for the first fifteen or so years of this Digest I rarely asked for anything financial, but in those days I had 'regular employment' other than working on this Digest even though in those days it also took a lot of time in addition to my various for-pay jobs. Right now I am (1) working on a new CD Rom of the archives, since the last one is several years old and badly out of date. I expext in a month or so to have it out and (2) on my book 'Genesis 39' which I hope will be available on the net at no charge by the end of the year. Whatever you can/wish to do will be greatly appreciated as always. On our web site http://telecom-digest.org at the very bottom of the first page is a PayPal form for donations via credit card. Look at /index.html there, or /donations and do what you feel is best. If you prefer to send a check/money order that's okay also. Write to: Telecom PO Box 50 Indepedence, KS 67301-0050 And thanks very much!!! Patrick Townson Moderator/Editor/Archivist TELECOM Digest ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #17 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 1 15:37:21 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g81JbLY19754; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 15:37:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 15:37:21 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209011937.g81JbLY19754@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #18 TELECOM Digest Sun, 1 Sep 2002 15:36:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 18 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Phone in House (Paul Coxwell) Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC (Dave Garland) Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC (Ed Ellers) Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC (Mark Roberts) Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC (obsidian) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (w_tom) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (John Higdon) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Henry E Schaffer) Re: Payphones (Steven Lichter) Re: Caller ID (Chris Williams) Re: No-Dial-Tone on HP Fax (Chris Williams) Re: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Phone in House (Tom Schmidt) TECHtionary (TC) Labor Day, 2002 (TELECOM Digest Editor) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:03:12 EDT Subject: Re: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Telep > for my application. I am considering using the local phone wiring in > the house for data transmission between the PC and the device, > implementing a pseudo RS-232 protocol. > Since the phone line is 48v when the line is on-hook and 10v when off > hook, I am considering modulating data off of the digital transition > from one state to another. While this communication would not work if > the phone line is in use or when a ring signal is present, this is not > an issue for application. The only problem that I may be underestim- > ating is the transition delay and rise and fall time from one voltage > state to another on the phone line. This will of course limit my baud > rate, although I only need between a 300-2400 baud rate. And I also > need to find the appropriate means of simulating an "off hook" > condition to drop the voltage from 48v to 10v. I need some advice on > how to do this electronically. I am assuming that consumer telephones > do this via loading the secondary side of a isolating telephone > transformer, but I am not certain. I would appreciate any advice on > the feasibility of what I am proposing. A regular telephone creates an off-hook condition by just placing a DC path of appropriate resistance across the line. The 10V you are seeing is a result of the potential divider formed by your telephone's resistance and that of the coils feeding 48V to the line in the central office, combined with the resistance of the line. Trying to transmit data in this way is going to bring you nothing but trouble and I would suggest you look for a better alternative. Apart from any technical problems, the phone company will not take too kindly to what your signals will do to their equipment. Do you already have four-wire telephone cable throughout your house? If so and you only have a single phone line, you might be able to use the spare pair (yellow/black if you're in the U.S.) if you really can't run another cable. You could either send low-speed data directly, if uni-directional transfer with no handshaking is acceptable, or you could wire it as a dedicated circuit between two modems. The latter would need only the provision of a suitable DC power source. Paul Coxwell Eccles-On-Sea Norfolk, U.K. ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC Organization: Wizard Information Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 13:09:22 -0500 It was a dark and stormy night when Mark J Cuccia wrote: > So, does anyone care to make a guess as to what will become of the > THOUSANDS of hours of TV programming of the 1940's thru 1980's, > filmed or pre-taped (or kinescoped) in 3x4 format? Oh, they'll still be available. But, even better, the broadcasters will have a way to prevent you from taping them off-air. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 21:10:07 -0400 Robert Bonomi wrote: > It's simple. There are several possible solutions existant. One > involves a little bit of 'smarts' in the set (already there, to > display POTV images) where the _set_itself_ reduces the horizontal > scan width to the 4:3 format, based on an 'indicator bit' in the > transmitted signal. I don't know of anybody doing this -- all the 16:9 sets I've seen digitally shrink the 4:3 picture to fit in the 16:9 frame, often with gray (rather than black) bars at the sides. > Alternatively, it can be done entirely at the transmitting > end. Either in real-time, or via 'pre-processing'. Where each > scan-line is 'padded' with black, before and after the POTV image > data. One could also 'scan double' and/or interpolate, to provide > increased image 'quality', at the same time. It'd be similar to > "letterbox" presentation of wide-screen movies on a conventional TV. That's already being done when stations simulcast their regular programming on their DTV transmitters, at times when network programming isn't being offered in HD. ------------------------------ From: markrobt@hotmail.com (Mark Roberts) Subject: Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 22:18:57 -0000 Organization: 1.94 meters John Hines had written: > So the broadcasters can either send a single hi res show, or multiple > lo-res shows. In 2001, KRON-DT in San Francisco was simulcasting KRON-TV as well as its 51%-owned cable news-and-information channel, Bay TV, on its SDTV channels. BayTV was dissolved about a year ago when AT&T, its 49% owner, declared the channel dead and replaced it with the Food Channel on all its Bay Area systems (where Bay TV was on channel 35). It was reported that, for a while after NBC changed affiliations to San Jose's KNTV on New Years Day 2002, thereby making NBC programming unavailable over-the-air in substantial portions of the Bay Area, KBWB-DT in San Francisco was simulcasting KNTV on one of its SDTV channels. NBC has since acquired KNTV from Granite Broadcasting, which still owns KBWB, and as far as I know, the simulcast was discontinued. Mark Roberts | "This is local television. Get off your high horse!" Oakland, Cal.| -- Gary Radnich to Wendy Tokuda on KRON-TV's NO HTML MAIL | 9 pm newscast (said in jest), August 9, 2002 ------------------------------ From: obsidian Subject: Re: (H)DTV vs. NTSC Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 18:17:07 +0200 Organization: -= Skynet Usenet Service =- NTSC = Never Twice Same Colour ------------------------------ From: w_tom Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 08:52:46 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com A plug in surge protector has all but no earth ground; therefore provided no common mode surge protection. The manufacturer does not even claim to provide that protection. Your computer damage only proves that point. Surges typically enter on AC electric that has no 'whole house' surge protection. Once inside the building, a surge seeks paths, destruct- ively, to earth ground. One excellent earth ground is provided by the telco installed 'whole house' surge protector. Yes, the phone lines typically have surge protectors installed free by the telco. But the surge was already inside the building. An excellent path to earth is through computer, down phone line, to earth ground in the NID (premise interface). Even worse, a plug-in surge protector next to that powered off computer can even make damage more likely. Surge protection is about earthing a surge before it can enter the building. So effective is the technique that your local phone company does not turn off phone service during thunderstorms to protect their $multi-million computer. Emergency response operators need not remove headsets to protect themselves from direct lightning strikes. 'Whole house' protection is that effective and has been proven since the 1930s. The quality of that earth ground that determines quality of surge protection. A 'whole house' surge protector for each incoming utility must be earthed to the same, central earth ground AND by a connection that is less than 10 feet long. No, a telephone pole ground wire is not sufficient. YOUR central earth ground must be at the service entrance where wires enter the building, must be earthed in conductive soil (or the ground network must be expanded), and must connect less than 10 feet to every incoming utility -- either by direct wire or via a surge protector. Even wire inside a metallic conduit, with sharp bends or splices, or bundled with other non-grounding wires is not acceptable. There are specific electrical requirements for that earth ground connection to make 'whole house' surge protection effective. But plug-in surge protectors don't even claim to provide protection from the destructive common mode surge - obviously. Plugs don't provide the necessary earthing. No earth ground means no effective surge protection. A surge protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Significant technical detail was discussed in the newsgroup misc.rural in two threads: "Storm and Lightning damage in the country" starting 28 Jul 2002 "Lightning Nightmares!!" starting 10 Aug 2002 Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: > OTOH, in a rural setting, I've had three computers destroyed via > surges in the phone line. I had surge protectors (and then UPS's) for > the computer, but nothing for the phone line. On three separate > occasions, the computer was destroyed, and I could see the burn marks > on the phone equipment. Now I just unplug everything, including the > modem, before a storm approaches. > > (As a side note, I also had a computer destroyed while completely > unplugged. I'd heard stories of this, but never believed it. Now I > know. It CAN happen.) > -Joel > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All the utilities here in Independence > (SWB Telco, cable, satellite *all* ground everything with big stakes > they drive in the ground with little clamps on the top of them. When > my satellite dish was installed some time ago, the guy came out (the > same guy I told about once before who offered me all sorts of free > programs if I would authorize him to remove the cable line and have > the cableco cancel my service) and he clamped a ground wire on to > this large stake, about five feet long which he then drove into the > ground so only a few inches of it was above ground level with that > little clamp with the wire attached. I since have found at the phone > demarc on the side of the house a similar green colored wire which > goes down to the ground and is buried there. The last time the cable > guy was in the alley working on his wires I asked him where the ground > wire was and he pointed at a little conduit attached to the telephone > pole where the cable wires are (right underneath the phone wires) and > he said the ground went through that. > But lightening can do some terrible damage. As you might imagine, we > have some *very high* television antennas attached to chimneys and > whatnot for people who insist on watching whatever they can over the > air, especially in the rural area outside of town where the cable does > not reach. Last April, lightening struck a TV antenna in such a situ- > ation on top of a barn outside of town. The entire barn burned down, > and in the Independence Reporter the next day (talking about the barn > fire, with pictures, etc) the Fire Inspector reported that the antenna > being ungrounded had caused the fire to start. The electricity traveled > down the coax as well and blew the guy's TV set up pretty bad, even > though the coax run (and his house) were several yards away. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:36:07 -0700 Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.16.16@telecom-digest.org, shiprath henethe wrote: > And if I cant buy one of these jammers, then I'll probably go ahead > and build one myself. So jammers are OK? What do you think of this real-life situation: A neighbor some houses away works in his yard and plays a radio so loud that it is obnoxious in my front yard and even a bit annoying in my sound-treated home theater. Sitting in my own garage is a Harris THE-1 FM exciter, which I could fire up on the frequency of the station to which he is listening (and aurally re-broadcasting to the neighborhood). With no modulation, it would capture his radio which would then go silent. As an added touch, I could play any audio I wished through his radio, e.g. "turn your radio down, you inconsiderate SOB." As with the jamming of wireless phones, it is illegal as hell, but is there any moral reason I shouldn't do this? Remember, it would wipe out any other person's reception of that station within the radius of my attack. Would these considerations apply to the jamming of wireless phone signals? Why or why not? (As I sit typing this message, "classic rock" is once again assailing my ears.) John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: hes@hes01.unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E Schaffer) Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 20:32:49 +0000 (UTC) Organization: North Carolina State University In article , John Higdon wrote: > Folks have long since learned to use the vibrate mode on pagers, so it > has been a long time since a pager has intruded into my entertainment > space. It is just a matter of time before cellphone use matures into a > non-issue disturbance-wise. Last year I got a Sanyo SCP-4500 cell phone (to use with Sprint PCS service). It's a very nice phone BUT setting it to silent/vibrate mode resets all the notification tones to default. I asked customer service, and they said it does work that way. What a boneheaded design! henry schaffer hes@ncsu.edu ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Date: 31 Aug 2002 23:24:55 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Payphones I know that COTS are given an extra $.25 per call, but I thought that LECs did not charge extra. I got a free calling card the other day from Sprint and used it on a PacBell payphone and the recording said that by FCC rules a $.25 would be added to the charge. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II 24 hours 2400/14.4. An OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one!!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) Kill Spammers, Inc. A Hope You Roast In Hell Company. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 01:24:22 -0500 From: Chris Williams Organization: Software Consulting & Design Subject: Re: Caller ID Joseph Singer wrote: > Consider yourself fortunate. Last call return is a subscribed service > for which telco makes money either as a monthly line item as a service > on your bill or charged a la carte at the rate of $.75 per successful > call back. Here in Qwest land, they charge you $.75 regardless of success. The times I've tried to use Last Call Return, I've gotten a message that "the number is not available" and there's still been a charge on the bill. I guess that helps to pay executive salaries. Chris Williams ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 03:18:06 -0500 From: Chris Williams Organization: Software Consulting & Design Subject: Re: No-Dial-Tone on HP Fax Jeffrey L. Hook wrote: > On this house's first line (which is used primarily for voice > communication), there was only an irregular clicking, with a very > faint background hiss. The clicking sounded as if someone was > depressing and releasing the switch hook of a phone, rapidly, in a > random sequence. That persisted for far less than a minute, and then > only the faint hissing continued. The HP fax was intended for use on > that first line. > On this house's second line (which is primarily dedicated to a PC > modem, a Zoom 3048L external V.92 model) there'd be silence at length > (nearly a full minute), then two rings, and then a recorded > announcement which featured the well-known "shrieking" static and then > the phone company female voice which announces, "We're sorry; your > call could not be completed as dialed." The system works other places but not when connected to your "baseboard phone jack" with the splitter. Your problem may be something as simple as a cheap splitter that is out of spec or wires in the jack that are just bent down enough that they aren't making a solid contact with the wires in the plug from the fax. Try replacing either the splitter and/or the fax's phone cord. Intermittent contacts from this would explain the clicking sound you report as well as the mis-dialed number reported by the telco recording. Chris Williams ------------------------------ Reply-To: Tom Schmidt From: Tom Schmidt Subject: Re: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Telephone Line in a House? Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 19:09:19 GMT Sanjay Punjab wrote in message news:telecom22.17.16@telecom-digest.org... > I have an application where I need a PC to communicate with a device > in another room in a residential home. Running a cable is not > practical for this application and wireless RS-232 is cost prohibitive > for my application. I am considering using the local phone wiring in > the house for data transmission between the PC and the device, > implementing a pseudo RS-232 protocol. > Since the phone line is 48v when the line is on-hook and 10v when off > hook, I am considering modulating data off of the digital transition > from one state to another. While this communication would not work if > the phone line is in use or when a ring signal is present, this is not > an issue for application. The only problem that I may be underestim- > ating is the transition delay and rise and fall time from one voltage > state to another on the phone line. This will of course limit my baud > rate, although I only need between a 300-2400 baud rate. And I also > need to find the appropriate means of simulating an "off hook" > condition to drop the voltage from 48v to 10v. I need some advice on > how to do this electronically. I am assuming that consumer telephones > do this via loading the secondary side of a isolating telephone > transformer, but I am not certain. I would appreciate any advice on > the feasibility of what I am proposing. You are going to run into lots of problems. The Telco's and FCC don't like loops going off-hook unless a call is about to be placed, since is ties up CO common equipment. Most homes are wired with two pair phone wiring. Assuming you only have one active line why not just use the idle second pair? Tom ------------------------------ From: TC Subject: TECHtionary Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:32:33 -0700 Greetings: We hope you will consider TECHtionary (www.techtionary.com) the World's First Animated Dictionary (vendor-neutral) as a FREE glossary to help users, students, staff, customers, investors and others. TECHtionary has been selected by Business Communications Review, X-change Magazine, Phone+ magazine, Telecom Agent Association, TechBiz magazine, ComputorEdge magazine, ISPworld, Competitive Telecommunications Association, Colorado Telecommunications Association, Society of Cable Television Engineers, ISIM University, Virtual High Schools of America, Maine Telecommunications Association, Missouri Telecommunications Association, CABA (Continental Automated Buildings Association), Telecommunications Agent Association, International Center for Standards Research, The Educators' Website for Information Technology, Broadband Wireless Online, Society of Telecommunications Consultants and many others as their glossary. With more new terms everyday and more than 800+ terms and 500,000+ Macromedia Flash animation effects on telecommunications, data communications, networking and internet technologies, TECHtionary can be accessed anytime-anywhere to learn how things work, view real photos and understand what's-what. www.TECHtionary.com - The World's First and Largest Animated Dictionary on Technology See TECHtionary at: Channel Partners Conference - September 8-10 - South Miami Beach - www.phoneplusmag.com/channelpartners Next Generation Networks - October 14-18 - Boston - www.bcr.com Corporate University Xchange - October 20-23 - Washington, D.C. - www.corpu.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:53:57 -0400 (EDT) From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Labor Day, 2002 Often times on Labor Day in the USA (first Monday of September each year) I comment on something or other. This year, because of the MCI/Worldcom spectacle, and the in general poor condition of the economy and the fact that so many telecom workers are out of a job, I think you should give thanks if you still have a job at all! Many people don't have one, and while that could be regarded as a victory for management, I prefer to think of it as a victory for HONEST labor, i.e. the Enron debacle and the MCI/Worldcom mess. But even then, the messes and debacles and spectacles were largely caused by dishonest management, weren't they? If you have not yet had an opportunity this year to pay *me* for my labor here, PLEASE do so now, if you feel this Digest is worth what you pay for it. I won't be mentioning this any further until next month, but if you will, please go to http://telecom-digest.org and look at the very bottom of the first page. All the way at the bottom ... where a donation button appears for PayPal, with the credit cards of your choice. Or if you prefer checks/money orders/cash, then the address to use is: TELECOM Digest PO Box 50 Independence, KS 67301-0050 Thanks very much! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #18 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 2 15:33:17 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g82JXHV25496; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 15:33:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 15:33:17 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209021933.g82JXHV25496@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #19 TELECOM Digest Mon, 2 Sep 2002 15:33:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 19 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Tampering With Payphones? (Greg) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (Hudson Leighton) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (Mike Hartley) Re: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Phone Line in House (John Levine) Re: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Phone Line in House (T. Horsley) Re: Caller ID (joe@obilivan.net) News Headlines of Interest 9/2/02 (Monty Solomon) Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue Chips (Tina Lotis) Re: Illinois LATA and Exchange (Clarence Dold) ISDN Sniffer (lucky) For Sale: Station Antenna 8 Meters (Maria) Ringing a Phone (Jim Thompson) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lovemozart@hotmail.com (Greg) Subject: Tampering With Payphones? Date: 1 Sep 2002 23:57:01 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, I got an odd question, but maybe someone can explain to a telco novice what might be going on ... I work as a night janitor for extra cash and one of the buildings I clean every week is an expo building at the city fairgrounds. Now this particular building only gets used one or two times a week this time of the year (the fairgrounds are pretty much dead during the off-season), so there's not a lot of activity. Outside the front doors to this building is a bank of three payphones. Every time I've cleaned this building for the past month, I've noticed that the handsets for two of these adjoining payphones are "connected" together in a way that the earpiece of one is coupled to the microphone end of the other. A thick piece of black rubber is used to hold these together. I assumed that these payphones only operated during the fair, so a few times my curiosity got me and I took the handsets apart and listened to each. The first time I did this, I heard nothing, but the second time (a week later) I heard the sound computers talking (like modems). Both times I just hung up each handset and threw the coupler in the trash. I notified the fairgrounds general office and they said they would check it out. But the following week I found the same two phones coupled together, so I called them back and they said they've never found any such tampering. Should I notify the phone company anyway or just mind my own business? Any ideas what might be going on with these payphones? If some phreakers/hackers are behind this, what could they possibly be doing? Thanks! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It sounds to me like someone has an accoustic-style modem-device there where incoming calls (to the earpeice of the one phone) are being retransmitted to the outgoing line (mouthpiece) of the other phone. It doesn't sound terribly legal to me, and either the person doing it is too cheap to pay for another regular phone line and 'real' modem, or maybe the idea is to throw off track anyone who is investigating them. Are these phones (and the associated expo building in a relatively deserted area of the park at night? You could tell the phone company, but it is doubtful you would be allowed to speak with anyone who would have any idea what was going on, and you would waste your time by calling telco. The fairgrounds authority does not seem to care either. My suggestion is to disconnect it each time you go by and see it, and *take the coupler piece with you, not just throw it away.* Whoever it is is not supposed to tie up two telephones like that in any event when others want to use them. Just consider it part of your janitorial duties to make sure the phones are 'clean' and in good working order for the public. Let them take their scam to someplace other than 'your' park. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton) Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 15:51:34 -0500 Organization: MRRP In article , John Higdon wrote: > In article telecom22.16.16@telecom-digest.org, shiprath henethe wrote: >> And if I cant buy one of these jammers, then I'll probably go ahead >> and build one myself. > So jammers are OK? What do you think of this real-life situation: A > neighbor some houses away works in his yard and plays a radio so loud > that it is obnoxious in my front yard and even a bit annoying in my > sound-treated home theater. Sitting in my own garage is a Harris THE-1 > FM exciter, which I could fire up on the frequency of the station to > which he is listening (and aurally re-broadcasting to the > neighborhood). With no modulation, it would capture his radio which > would then go silent. As an added touch, I could play any audio I > wished through his radio, e.g. "turn your radio down, you > inconsiderate SOB." snip > (As I sit typing this message, "classic rock" is once again assailing my > ears.) 99 millawatts and a beam antenna? Hudson http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl ------------------------------ From: Mike Hartley Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 01:38:16 +0100 >> And if I cant buy one of these jammers, then I'll probably go ahead >> and build one myself. > So jammers are OK? Rhetorical question, I hope. Of course they're not. > What do you think of this real-life situation: of stereo> It's very unfortunate. I don't know about your local laws but here in the UK there is an) escalation path which allows you to report people like this to the local authorities. Eventually they can end up in very deep sh*t indeed if they don't desist, but most offenders stop once the local environmental heath officers turn up -- threats of confiscation of equipment are quite effective. > As with the jamming of wireless phones, it is illegal as hell, but is > there any moral reason I shouldn't do this? Remember, it would wipe > out any other person's reception of that station within the radius of > my attack. I don't think you have any more moral right to jam than the offender has to disturb you. To look at it another way, if I don't like a particular website, is there a moral reason why I shouldn't launch a DOS attack? big ol' can of worms > Would these considerations apply to the jamming of wireless > phone signals? Why or why not? Can you morally make a decision on jamming communication based on your own interpretation of value/legitimacy? Isn't this what the FCC is for? In the final analysis is freedom of expression the same as freedom of communication? > (As I sit typing this message, "classic rock" is once again assailing > my ears.) My commiserations. IMO classic rock sucks, unless it falls within my own definition of 'classic' that is ;+) Sadly I don't think that personal taste or aural overload gives you the right to jam, tempting though it may be. How about calling the station and asking them to name and shame the person, or even knocking on his/her door and asking him/her to turn it down? Mike ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 2002 22:38:51 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Telephone Line in a House? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I have an application where I need a PC to communicate with a device > in another room in a residential home. Running a cable is not > practical for this application and wireless RS-232 is cost prohibitive > for my application. I am considering using the local phone wiring in > the house for data transmission between the PC and the device, > implementing a pseudo RS-232 protocol. Rather than rolling your own, you might buy a couple of HomePNA boxes which give you Ethernet over your home phone wiring. They're more expensive than wired Ethernet, but probably a lot less hassle than trying to invent your own. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Telephone Line in a House? From: tom.horsley@att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Organization: AT&T Worldnet Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 20:24:45 GMT If you want to get lots of data over phone lines, check out something like the Netgear PE 102 ethernet to phoneline bridge. I've got a couple of them hooking up two halves of my home lan on opposite sides of the house, and they work great. Never had any problems (unlike wireless which I tried and found horribly unreliable at distances greater than about 6 inches :-). >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics <<==+ ------------------------------ From: joe@obilivan.net Subject: Re: Caller ID Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 12:16:40 GMT Organization: Cox Communications Chris Williams wrote: > Joseph Singer wrote: >> Consider yourself fortunate. Last call return is a subscribed service >> for which telco makes money either as a monthly line item as a service >> on your bill or charged a la carte at the rate of $.75 per successful >> call back. > Here in Qwest land, they charge you $.75 regardless of success. The > times I've tried to use Last Call Return, I've gotten a message that > "the number is not available" and there's still been a charge on the > bill. I guess that helps to pay executive salaries. I guess the moral to the story is to never use the feature. It is almost useless in any case, because it will return calls only to those made within your LATA. And, if the call was delivered without calling party identifcation information it obviously cannot work even for calls that originated within your LATA. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 22:02:59 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 9/2/02 Just Shut Up! A Fairfax company's technology blocks cell phone signals, but approval won't be easy By Ben Hammer Washington Techway Staff Writer Friday, August 30, 2002; 7:46 AM When an enjoyable dinner at an expensive restaurant was ruined by cell phone chatter, J. David Derosier came up with the idea of developing a technology to block cell phone signals. "Cell phones are being abused," says Derosier, co-founder and CEO of Fairfax-based Cell Block Technologies. "It's just a matter of time with or without our help that something is done." Derosier forecasts a commercial market of roughly a half a billion dollars over the next three to five years from places such as restaurants and movie theaters to hospitals, where cell phone signals can interfere with medical devices. Government agencies and businesses that want to block cell phone signals in secure facilities to protect classified information or trade secrets could generate another $40 million to $60 million in sales, he estimates. But there's one big problem: The Federal Communications Commission has ruled that it's illegal to block the wireless spectrum. "If it is a device designed to interfere with cellular service, then it's illegal," says Julius Knapp, the FCC's deputy chief of engineering, who has not reviewed Cell Block's technology. The ruling "doesn't apply to government use of technology in a security setting," he adds. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15369-2002Aug30.html STARTS & STOPS Mystery of dead transponder batteries solved By Mac Daniel, 9/1/2002 Like beached whales or mob graveyards, a mystery surrounded a rash of dead or dying Fast Lane transponders. We got mail galore, tales of woes about the dead plastic boxes racking up hundreds of dollars in turnpike toll fines -- all post mortem. The culprits: small batteries that communicate with a radio signal at the toll booths. Some batteries, juiced for 10 years of toll taking, were petering out after a year. Bob Bliss at the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority said this week that some 40,000 Fast Lane transponders have 'prematurely passed on,' small bones when you consider there are 603,000 transponders in the system. Still -- 40,000 -- that's a sold-out English soccer match. And the failure rate is notching upwards, with more dead transponders knocking on the Turnpike Authority's door. All are being replaced free of charge, Bliss said. But still, why? The blame, or some of it, falls squarely on the annoyingly small shoulders of digital wireless technology. Seems the E-ZPass toll transponders, which are failing at a rate of 1,300 a month, were being killed by a certain type of digital wireless phone. Calls from or to these phones apparently activate the transponders' batteries and drain them. Who's spying on my Hotmail? With new spyware, even your private Yahoo, Hotmail e-mails can be seen By Bob Sullivan MSNBC Aug. 28 - Think using Yahoo or Hotmail e-mail at work protects you from your boss' prying eyes? Think again. New spy software essentially lets employers or parents co-pilot virtually any kind of e-mail account, including private Web-based e-mail accounts like Yahoo and Hotmail. A new version of eBlaster spyware will secretly forward all e-mail coming and going through such Web-based accounts to a spy's e-mail, allowing anyone to "ride-along" even the supposedly private e-mail. http://www.msnbc.com/news/800409.asp You're not paranoid, you are being watched As tracking tools improve, true privacy may be lost ASSOCIATED PRESS NEW YORK, Sept. 1 - Computer databases already have a lot on us: Credit cards keep track of airline ticket purchases and car rentals. Supermarket discount programs know our eating habits. Libraries track books checked out. Schools record our grades and enrollment. On top of that, government agencies generate amass information on large cash transfers, our taxes and employment, driving history -- and visas, if we're a foreign citizen. http://www.msnbc.com/news/800957.asp Verizon Helps Find Anyone, Anywhere With a Phone Number New Service Available to Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire Customers by Dialing 411 NEW YORK, Aug. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- Tracking down an address for an invitation or figuring out where a business has moved can be time-consuming. But Verizon customers can find out the name and address that go with a phone number in seconds with a new "reverse directory assistance" service from Verizon, now available in four New England states. Starting Sept. 2, the service is available to customers in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire by dialing 411. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28511168 Why do cell phones make us stupid? Hit 'send' and the whole world just disappears By Lisa Napoli MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR Sept. 1 - Amsterdam Avenue and 93rd Street on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, a lazy summer midday. Young woman in belly shirt, standing at the southwest corner, steps off sidewalk to cross against the light. A massive truck, speeding, turns the corner, just narrowly averting squishing her like a bug. Young woman doesn't flinch or even seem to notice; she's yapping on her cell phone like it was the most important conversation in the world. http://www.msnbc.com/news/800979.asp September 2, 2002 U.S. Cellphone Users Don't Seem to Get Message About Messaging By JOHN MARKOFF SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 1 - What if they had pounded the golden spike into the continental railroad and nobody noticed? That is essentially what happened in the United States cellular telephone world last spring. Since April it has been possible for the customers of any of the major United States cellular carriers to send one another short text messages, but most customers still have no idea the service exists. The service, known as S.M.S. (for short message service), is already wildly popular in Europe and Asia, but it has been delayed in the United States -- partly because it had been impossible to send messages among carriers and partly because it has not been marketed well by the cellphone companies. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/02/technology/02MESS.html Handspring: Don't touch that download By Ian Fried Staff Writer, CNET News.com August 30, 2002, 4:58 PM PT Handspring is warning customers outside of certain geographical areas to not install a software upgrade that allows its Treo Communicator to run on next-generation cell phone networks. The handheld maker has released an upgrade for Treo owners in New Zealand and Singapore only. The software, available from one of Handspring's Asian distributors, is designed to allow faster data access using new always-on GPRS (General Packet Radio Service) networks. http://news.com.com/2100-1040-956180.html?tag ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: Subject: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue Chips Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 06:01:37 -0200 LATEST NEWS: The new domain names are finally available to the general public at discount prices. Now you can register one of the exciting new .BIZ or .INFO domain names, as well as the original .COM and .NET names for just $14.95. These brand new domain extensions were recently approved by ICANN and have the same rights as the original .COM and .NET domain names. The biggest benefit is of-course that the .BIZ and .INFO domain names are currently more available. i.e. it will be much easier to register an attractive and easy-to-remember domain name for the same price. Visit: http://www.affordable-domains.com today for more info. Register your domain name today for just $14.95 at: http://www.affordable-domains.com/ Registration fees include full access to an easy-to-use control panel to manage your domain name in the future. Sincerely, Domain Administrator Affordable Domains [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought this spam was important for us to look at. Judith Oppenheimer may know the answer on this: has ICANN approved the use of '.biz' and '.info' name spaces? I thought I read that these 'alternate roots' didn't work very well. Who can comment? Also in her subject line she tells us that 'domain names held their value better than blue-chip stocks'. Is that true? I sort of doubt it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dold@83.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Illinois LATA and Exchange Date: 2 Sep 2002 15:49:05 GMT Organization: Wintercreek Data Paul Cook wrote: > Does anyone know where I can find detailed maps showing LATA (MSA) and > exchange area boundaries for the state of Illinois? If your really want actual maps of exchange boundaries, the only source that I know of is http://www.mapinfo.com They offer lots of information, all mappable, but it is not cheap. Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA. ------------------------------ From: lucky.lu@jumpy.it (lucky) Subject: ISDN Sniffer Date: 2 Sep 2002 10:42:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I need to 'hear' B and D channels on S bus interface. The scope is to record phone conversations on a PC. Does anybody know the way for do it? Thanks a lot. lucky lucky.lu@jumpy.it ------------------------------ From: marg@km0.com (maria) Subject: For Sale Station Antenna 8 Meters Date: 2 Sep 2002 11:55:12 -0700 Station Antenna 8 mtrs. - Andrew- Cassegrain. Tracking. 12 pieces. Band Ku/C, Good condition. Contact me for details, pricing, etc. ------------------------------ From: Jim Thompson Subject: Ringing a Phone?? Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 18:56:48 GMT What does it really take to ring a modern electronic phone? Do you need the high voltage or is it the frequency that causes ringing? | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | Jim-T@analog_innovations.com Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_" I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #19 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 3 02:01:05 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g83615J27974; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 02:01:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 02:01:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209030601.g83615J27974@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #20 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Sep 2002 02:00:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 20 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Call for Submissions - On the Netizen (Ronda Hauben) South Carolina Judges Seek to Ban Secret Settlements (Monty Solomon) Re: Ringing a Phone?? (Wes Leatherock) Re: Ringing a Phone?? (John Higdon) Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue Chips (John Higdon) Re: .biz and .info (j.oppenheimer@att.net) Re: New Domains (John R. Levine) Re: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Phone Line in a House (C. Dold) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (Ken Abrams) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (Gail M. Hall) Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices (John Higdon) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Call for Submissions - On the Netizen Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 03:21:52 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC The emergence of the netizen was formulated by Michael Hauben as part of the online research he was doing in 1992/1993. He recognized that there were people online who considered themselves to be citizens of the net (net.citizen). These users were seeking to spread access for all to the Net. They understood the importance of the Net in spreading human to human computer facilitated communication. These users recognized the need to contribute to make the Net a valuable resource for all. Michael formulated the concept in an introduction to the new world that was being born online. (See introduction and conclusion to "The Net and the Netizen: The Impact the Net has on People's Lives", first posted in 1993, and then published in a print edition in 1997 and also available online: http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook ) Some of Michael's early research appeared on Usenet and then in the Amateur Computerist newsletter. His research inspired others to apply or develop the concept of netizen. It is now 10 years later. We would like to document the further development and application of the concept of netizen (and of the vision of the future of the net) that developed since Michael's research in 1992/1993. Also we want to project into the future about what the emergence of the netizen can mean to the further development of the Internet and of our society in general. We are seeking submissions, including articles, poems, cartoons, stories, plays etc. that develop or explore the concept of Netizen that has emerged along with the development of the Internet and Usenet. Submissions are due Sept 30, 2002. Please write and let us know if you will have a submission or if you have an idea/interest/suggestion for the upcoming issue. Long live the netizen and netizenship. Send submissions to jrh@ais.org ronda@ais.org Ronda Hauben Editor The Amateur Computerist http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I personally would like to see all the regular contributors here get essays into Ronda ASAP for this upcoming issue of ACN. She and Michael are good people to have around. Their book a few years ago, 'Netizens' was widely read and admired by many of us. Do what you can for her please. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 23:07:24 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: South Carolina Judges Seek to Ban Secret Settlements South Carolina Judges Seek to Ban Secret Settlements By ADAM LIPTAK South Carolina's 10 active federal trial judges have unanimously voted to ban secret legal settlements, saying such agreements have made the courts complicit in hiding the truth about hazardous products, inept doctors and sexually abusive priests. "Here is a rare opportunity for our court to do the right thing," Chief Judge Joseph F. Anderson Jr. of United States District Court wrote to his colleagues, "and take the lead nationally in a time when the Arthur Andersen/Enron/Catholic priest controversies are undermining public confidence in our institutions and causing a growing suspicion of things that are kept secret by public bodies." If the court formally adopts the rule, after a public comment period that ends Sept. 30, it will be the strictest ban on secrecy in settlements in the federal courts. Mary Squiers, who tracks individual federal courts' rules for the United States Judicial Conference, said only Michigan had a similar rule, which unseals secret settlements after two years. The conference is the administrative body for federal courts. Judge Anderson said the new rule might save lives. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/02/national/02JUDG.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is another piece of good news for everyone, isn't it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 03 Sep 2002 00:34:10 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Ringing a Phone?? On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 18:56:48 GMT Jim Thompson Jim-T@analog_innovations.com.easynews.com wrote: > What does it really take to ring a modern electronic phone? Do you > need the high voltage or is it the frequency that causes ringing? If you're talking about on a line connected to a central office switch, the question is really irrelevant. Ihere are still a lot of mechanical ringers out there and the telco has no way of knowing whether or if there are such on the line. And it may change from time to time -- as, for example, when I turn the key to disconnect one of my mechanical ringers from my POTS line, and later turn it back on again. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 19:38:31 -0700 Subject: Re: Ringing a Phone?? From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.19.12@telecom-digest.org, Jim Thompson wrote: > What does it really take to ring a modern electronic phone? Do you > need the high voltage or is it the frequency that causes ringing? Yes, you need the voltage. Otherwise, the phone would chirp and squeak when other phones on the line when on and off hook. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 12:49:13 -0700 Subject: Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue Chips From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.19.8@telecom-digest.org, tina_lotis@australia.edu spammed (on which the Moderator responded): > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought this spam was important for > us to look at. Judith Oppenheimer may know the answer on this: has > ICANN approved the use of '.biz' and '.info' name spaces? I thought > I read that these 'alternate roots' didn't work very well. Who can > comment? Also in her subject line she tells us that 'domain names > held their value better than blue-chip stocks'. Is that true? I sort > of doubt it. PAT] I'm starting to see senders with .biz and .info TLDs. This is manna from heaven. Whatever else you do against spam, all you have to do is write in one more rule: block all *.biz and *.info email. It's all spam, anyway. I have no idea if any of them are actually routable to whom they claim to be. No one, and I mean NO ONE who is a real net.person would touch these TLDs with a ten-foot Lithuanian. "Exciting new domains" my posterior! John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: j.oppenheimer@att.net Subject: .biz and .info Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 20:09:45 +0000 Patrick, .biz and .info are two of the seven new tlds approved by ICANN - .biz was awarded to Neustar (see http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=643) and .info to Afilias (see http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php? sid=404). Afilias is ISOC's partner on .org. (see http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/preliminary-evaluation- report-19aug02.htm). :-) Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com http://WhoSells800.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert > Reply-To: > From: > Subject: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue Chips > Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 06:01:37 -0200 > LATEST NEWS: > The new domain names are finally available to the general public at > discount prices. Now you can register one of the exciting new .BIZ or > .INFO domain names, as well as the original .COM and .NET names for > just $14.95. These brand new domain extensions were recently approved > by ICANN and have the same rights as the original .COM and .NET domain > names. The biggest benefit is of-course that the .BIZ and .INFO domain > names are currently more available. i.e. it will be much easier to > register an attractive and easy-to-remember domain name for the same > price. Visit: http://www.affordable-domains.com today for more info. > Register your domain name today for just $14.95 at: > http://www.affordable-domains.com/ Registration fees include full > access to an easy-to-use control panel to manage your domain name in > the future. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 2002 22:38:22 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: New Domains Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > has ICANN approved the use of '.biz' and '.info' name spaces? Yes. Here's the rundown on new domains in the real root: biz nominally businesses, in practice anyone info information something or other, permits anyone name supposed to be your name like john@smith.name Those three are available through pretty much any registrar who handles com, org, and net, although the companies handling the underlying databases are different. The other four are all "sponsored" which means you have to demonstrate that you're whatever the domain is supposed to be about in order to register aero airlines and the like. coop cooperatives. museum museums. pro professionals, like kildare.med.pro. The pro domain hasn't gotten their act together yet, the other three are active, e.g. www.aeroflot.aero. Also, the .us domain has been opened up so that anyone in the US can register blah.us domains as well as the traditional name.city.st.us domains. That's unrelated to the fake .usa domain being pitched by spamming crooks. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thanks to the two Johns and Judith for clarifying all this. As John Higdon suggested, letters sent from the .biz and .info domains are probably 99.44 percent spam and can be filter-ruled as such. I'll adjust my rules tonight. I wonder why in the setting up of these new domains they did not start one known as '.spam' to put them all in, or would that simply be too brazen and rude or crude? Thanks also to johnl for explaining about the differ- ence between '.us' and '.usa' domain names. I imagine most of the '.usa' names can also be filter-ruled if you can write the rule without harming good '.us' mail in the process. As for .aero .coop and .pro we will just have to watch and see how abusive they become in the next few months. If ICANN wanted to make themselves useful, maybe they could pass a new condition in their contracts for users that anyone caught spamming or virus-writing had to have their domain name moved to .biz and now that I think about it, why isn't there a new '.virus' domain for the writers/spreaders of same? (pause for laughter). :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: dold@70.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Is it Feasible to Transmit Data via Telephone Line in a House? Date: 2 Sep 2002 19:42:24 GMT Organization: Wintercreek Data Sanjay Punjab wrote: > I have an application where I need a PC to communicate with a device > in another room in a residential home. Running a cable is not > practical for this application and wireless RS-232 is cost > prohibitive for my application. I am considering using the local > phone wiring in the house for data transmission between the PC and > the device, implementing a pseudo RS-232 protocol. Rather than messing with the two wires currently used by the phone (which I think is fraught with peril), you should check to see if there is an unused pair already run. As I sit here, I have just finished doing exactly that. I had one phoine line appearing on jacks throughout the house. Another line only appeared on one jack, for the computer. I wanted it at the opposite end of the house. The red/green pair was used for the existing phone line for each jack. A yellow/black pair was unused at each jack. Because there was no "home run" back to the entry point, I just started at the entry point, tying yellow/black to the "modem" line, and then tied blacks and yellows together at each jack until I had the second line present at the far end of the house. Now I need to stop reading news and move the computer. Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA. ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 15:37:47 -0500 w_tom wrote: > Surge protection is about earthing a surge before it can enter the > building. So effective is the technique that your local phone company > does not turn off phone service during thunderstorms to protect their > $multi-million computer. Emergency response operators need not remove > headsets to protect themselves from direct lightning strikes. 'Whole > house' protection is that effective and has been proven since the > 1930s. While much of what you say is (substantially) true, the above is total drivel. To perpetuate this is downright dangerous. The surge suppression provided by the Telco is crude and generally ineffective, regardless of the quality of the ground provided. What HAS been proven since the 1930's is that people are injured and killed every year while talking on the phone during a thunderstorm. How do I know this? I worked at a telco for 22 years, as a craftsman, supervisor and engineer. The "multi-million" dollar computers are not immune either. I have, on several occasions, worked for days repairing damage to them caused by lightening. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But explain this to me then. How do 911 operators function in bad storms in that case (of poor or ineffectual) grounds? They have to stay on the phone don't they? Back in May, when we had a very severe rainstorm and flood one day, AND the emergency sirens around town went off by accident it left the 911 operator totally swamped. Instead of getting possibly one call in a few hours, she got several calls per minute while the rain and lightening were so bad *until* they figured out how to shut off those sirens. I guess everyone assumed the sirens meant a tornado was coming or had hit town, so they called to get the scoop on it. People are a little sensitive about that since two years ago a tornado landed in the little town of Parsons, Kansas near here and besides wiping out a large part of the business district it completely demolished the city hall/police/fire station there. Parsons called for help on the police radio; Independence, Coffeyville and Fredonia responded and took over the Parsons emergency functions overnight. They had a new PD/FD built in about three weeks, with construction 24 hours per day. But based on what you said, how do they manage? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 17:28:11 -0400 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 01:38:16 +0100, in comp.dcom.telecom, you (Mike Hartley ) wrote: >>> And if I cant buy one of these jammers, then I'll probably go ahead >>> and build one myself. >> So jammers are OK? > Rhetorical question, I hope. Of course they're not. >> What do you think of this real-life situation: > of stereo> > It's very unfortunate. I don't know about your local laws but here in > the UK there is an) escalation path which allows you to report people > like this to the local authorities. Eventually they can end up in very > deep sh*t indeed if they don't desist, but most offenders stop once > the local environmental heath officers turn up -- threats of > confiscation of equipment are quite effective. This discussion seems to have gone into two types of cases where people might want to block disturbing wireless phone use (public places and then relatively private places) and even wandered off to the subject of blocking radio reception by a neighbor's loud radios. Getting back to the situation of public places such as theaters or concert halls, I think that any establishment that purposely blocks wireless phone reception should provide FREE phones capable of dialing out to local numbers and/or an area in the building without blocked reception. This would allow those people such as emergency workers, medical service people, etc., to still have communication with their contacts. A lot of people have got wireless phones because it is harder and harder to find pay phones. If people have already paid for alternative methods for communication, it isn't fair to block those without giving them free or very inexpensive alternative methods for communicating. Another idea I have wondered about. Since reception isn't always available to wireless services, how about the wireless companies also providing phone cards with very inexpensive long-distance calling available? Wireless phones don't work from my father's house, but as close as a mile closer to town, people can use their wireless phones. It would be a nice additional service if the wireless companies could sell us a certain number of minutes on a phone card for less cost per minute than other companies selling phone cards. >> As with the jamming of wireless phones, it is illegal as hell, but is >> there any moral reason I shouldn't do this? Remember, it would wipe >> out any other person's reception of that station within the radius of >> my attack. > I don't think you have any more moral right to jam than the offender > has to disturb you. To look at it another way, if I don't like a > particular website, is there a moral reason why I shouldn't launch a > DOS attack? big ol' can of worms A better comparison would be spam mail. Web sites don't barge in on you unrequested the way loud radios can. I hate having all those porn sites barging into my mailbox. Fortunately, I DO have the right to pitch junk snailmail into the wastebasket and delete all the spam email I don't want to read without having to read it first. >> Would these considerations apply to the jamming of wireless >> phone signals? Why or why not? > Can you morally make a decision on jamming communication based on your > own interpretation of value/legitimacy? Isn't this what the FCC is for? There are laws about noise in most cities here, so if the noise level is over the amount permitted by law, then we can call the cops. We don't have the right to go into their houses or cars and bust up their sound systems or use some other method to block their reception as well as the reception for innocent neighbors. Jamming of radio signals was a technique used by both sides during the cold war. We must ask ourselves if we are really ready to declare war on our fellow customers at concerts (including innocent ones) or our own customers (if you are the one giving the concert or play performance. How about developing a technique to detect wireless phones left on? As customers pass through the door, the detector would note which patrons have left their phones on, and the ushers could double check with them to make sure the ringers are turned off and politely remind them that if they need to talk on their phones, they should leave the auditorium and go into the lobby or other designated place in the hall. Gail from Ohio USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 19:37:04 -0700 Subject: Re: Cell/Mobile Phone Jamming Devices From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article telecom22.19.3@telecom-digest.org, Mike Hartley wrote: > My commiserations. IMO classic rock sucks, unless it falls within my > own definition of 'classic' that is ;+) Sadly I don't think that > personal taste or aural overload gives you the right to jam, tempting > though it may be. How about calling the station and asking them to > name and shame the person, or even knocking on his/her door and asking > him/her to turn it down? This is the USA. One does not knock on the door of a stranger and (even politely) suggest that he alter his behavior in any way unless there is imminent danger of death or property destruction. The station to which he listens is a client of mine. It would be a simple matter to have something said over the air. The programming people would probably love to be very creative and clever. The point I was trying to make (and you helped make it for me) is that it really IS wrong to interfere with others when one person is being inconsiderate. Jamming all the cellphones in a theater or restaurant inconveniences all those phone users in the establishment for nothing more than a pre-emptive strike on the one inconsiderate person who MIGHT become an irritant. For the record: jamming is something that should never be tolerated on any band for any reason. It is prohibited by Federal law, and rightly so. If I ever detected such a device in use anywhere, I would move heaven and earth to have its owner prosecuted. And with thirty-five years of experience, I know how to get the FCC's attention! John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #20 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 3 13:29:14 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g83HTE701749; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:29:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:29:14 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209031729.g83HTE701749@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #21 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:29:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 21 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #347, September 3, 2002 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (w_tom) Re: Record Labels Sue Internet Providers Over Site (Steve Brack) Re: South Carolina Judges Seek to Ban Secret Settlements (Paul Wallich) Legit .info Users, was Re: Domains Have Held Their Value (Danny Burstein) Re: Domains Have Held Their Value (Fred R. Goldstein) Finding CO? (Ray) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 11:07:13 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #347, September 3, 2002 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 347: September 3, 2002 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: ** BELL CANADA: http://www.bell.ca ** CISCO SYSTEMS CANADA: http://www.cisco.com/ca/letstalk ** CYGCOM INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES: http://www.cygcom.com ** ERICSSON CANADA: http://www.ericsson.ca ** JUNIPER NETWORKS: http://www.juniper.net ** PRIMUS CANADA: http://www.primustel.ca ** Q9 NETWORKS: http://www.Q9.com ** TELUS: http://www.telus.com ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** AT&T Appeals Price Cap Ruling ** Nortel Laying Off Another 7,000 ** Aliant Files Tariffs for Disputed Services ** Globalstar Cuts Satellite-Phone Rates ** CRTC Dismisses Quebecor Complaint Against BCE ** LD Marketer Faces Charges ** SaskTel Must File Quality Reports ** Telus Claim Delays 360 Plan ** Group Telecom Delays Results ** C-Com Joins Hughes Applications Alliance ** Bell Mobility Expands Service in West ** Gilfillan to Join CRTC ** Brascan Rep Named to AT&T Board ** Com Dev Restructuring Continues ** Cisco Deconstructs the PBX ** Last Chance for IP-PBX Book ============================================================ AT&T APPEALS PRICE CAP RULING: AT&T Canada has formally petitioned the Federal Cabinet to change parts of the CRTC's recent price caps decision. AT&T asks Cabinet to direct the Commission to: ** Foster competition in telecom, not "merely ... 'facilities-based' competition"; ** Ensure that competitors have "competitively neutral access" to network facilities and services from the incumbents; ** On an interim basis, reduce the rate paid by competitors for telco services and facilities by 50%, retroactive to June 1; ** Create and implement a "transparent and auditable costing methodology" for services used by competitors, by the end of June 2003. NORTEL LAYING OFF ANOTHER 7,000: Nortel Networks says its third quarter sales will be about 10% below the previous quarter's US$2.7 billion, mainly because of lower spending by U.S. carriers. Nortel is eliminating another 7,000 jobs, to reduce its work force to 35,000 and bring its "quarterly breakeven cost structure" below $2.6 billion. ALIANT FILES TARIFFS FOR DISPUTED SERVICES: Aliant has filed new tariffs for two services recently turned down by the CRTC. The telco won competitive bids by promising both services to customers for September, and has asked the Commission for expedited approval. ** Aliant Tariff Notice #42 offers Nova Scotia colleges and universities in Halifax and Truro a bundled local phone, TV, and high-speed Internet service for students, at $45/month each (see Telecom Update #346). http://www.crtc.gc.ca/8740/eng/2002/a53.htm#42 ** TN #43 offers Centrex service to health and education customers in St. John's Newfoundland with 2,800 lines or more for $20.75/month on a three-year contract (eliminating the one-kilometre requirement that the CRTC objected to -- see Telecom Update #345). http://www.crtc.gc.ca/8740/eng/2002/a53.htm#43 GLOBALSTAR CUTS SATELLITE-PHONE RATES: Globalstar Canada has reduced airtime prices for satellite calling 25%-75%. Price for 150 minutes: $99.95; for 1,250 minutes: $399.95. Handsets are listed at $995, a one-third reduction. CRTC DISMISSES QUEBECOR COMPLAINT AGAINST BCE: The CRTC says Quebecor subsidiary Videotron failed to demonstrate that BCE's 80%-owned sports network, RDS, has charged Bell ExpressVu less for programming than it charges Videotron. ** In a second decision, the CRTC said Videotron violated broadcasting regulations by unilaterally reducing its payments to RDS, and ordered Videotron to pay all accumulated amounts owed. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2002/db2002-254.htm http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2002/db2002-255.htm LD MARKETER FACES CHARGES: The Competition Bureau has charged All Communications Network of Canada with deceptive marketing and operating an illegal pyramid scheme. ACN, which has "World Headquarters" in Michigan, sells long-distance, Internet, paging, and natural gas contracts in Canada through an office in Mississauga. SASKTEL MUST FILE QUALITY REPORTS: As one of the final steps in moving SaskTel to federal regulation, the CRTC has ordered the telco to file the same quality of service reports as the other major ILECs, beginning in 4Q 2002, and invites comments by September 30 on whether it should be subject to the same penalties if it fails to meet standards. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2002/dt2002-53.htm TELUS CLAIM DELAYS 360 PLAN: A last minute challenge by Telus has delayed BC Supreme Court action on the restructuring plan submitted by 360networks. Telus says 360networks has not resolved a $25 million claim Telus made for a Vancouver-Seattle fibre link that was never completed. GROUP TELECOM DELAYS RESULTS: Group Telecom, whose creditor protection currently extends to September 10, has postponed filing its April-June financial results 30 days, to September 30. (See Telecom Update #339) C-COM JOINS HUGHES APPLICATIONS ALLIANCE: C-Com Satellite Systems has been selected to join the Hughes Broadband Partnership, which will develop applications for Hughes' next-generation satellite network. BELL MOBILITY EXPANDS SERVICE IN WEST: Bell Mobility now offers Solo prepaid wireless service in Alberta and British Columbia. GILFILLAN TO JOIN CRTC: Fiona Gilfillan, VP Regulatory Affairs at Group Telecom, is leaving to become Director of Telecommunications Decisions, Planning, and Operations at the CRTC on September 16. BRASCAN REP NAMED TO AT&T BOARD: AT&T Canada has named Jeffrey Blidner, Vice-Chairman of Brascan Financial Corp, to its Board of Directors. He replaces Marc Fortier, who has resigned. COM DEV RESTRUCTURING CONTINUES: Com Dev International says that it will downsize its corporate head office and eliminate 45 staff positions. With broadband and wireless units now discontinued, Com Dev's Space division accounted for all its May-July revenues of $28.2 million (down from $30.4 million a year ago). Net loss: $22.5 million. ** Com Dev chief executive Keith Ainsworth retires October 31; his replacement is COO John Keating. CISCO DECONSTRUCTS THE PBX: In just three years, Cisco Systems has shaken up the PBX industry with a new communications architecture based on client-server computing and LAN-IP distribution. In the September Telemanagement, available today, Ian Angus evaluates Cisco's IP Telephony offering, and explains why it has so quickly become a prime contender for every new PBX installation. ** Single copies of Telemanagement #198 are $75 each -- call 905-686-5050 ext 500 and charge to Visa, American Express, or Mastercard. Save 49% with a 10-issue subscription -- go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html. LAST CHANCE FOR IP-PBX BOOK: Subscribe to Telemanagement now and receive the "IP PBX Revolution" anthology as a free bonus. This offer expires September 6. Download full information at: http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-IP_PBX_Bonus.pdf ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@add.postmastergeneral.com To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@remove.postmastergeneral.com Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave subject line and message area blank. We do not give Telecom Update subscribers' e-mail addresses to any third party. For more information, see http://www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html. =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2002 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ From: w_tom Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 10:22:20 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Since the mid-1980's, telephone surge protection has been installed to shunt surges direct to earth ground. That is surge protection from the direct lightning strike without damage. The surge protector installed in an NID is substantial and sufficient for residential phone service protection. However that surge protection is only as effective as its earth ground. Some residences have woefully inadequate earthing -- that no telco provided surge protector is going to solve. Furthermore, surge protection demands that all incoming wires be properly earthed. Again, that telephone surge protectors does little if the other incoming wires are also not properly surge protected. Therein lies one way a human on a phone can be shocked. Incoming on AC electric. Outgoing on phone line. A classic mistake is to install an incoming phone line to an earth ground separate from the central earth ground. Nothing the phone company does is going to solve that home owner's or builder's created problem. The point remains that lightning damage - and even shock from a telephone - are directly traceable to human failure. A surge protector may be provided by the telco that is sufficient. But the surge protector is only as effective as its earth ground. That earth ground is ultimately the homeowner's responsibility. Earth ground determines quality of surge protection. A 'whole house' surge protector for each incoming utility must be earthed to the same, central earth ground AND by a connection that is less than 10 feet long. Ken Abrams wrote: > w_tom wrote: >> Surge protection is about earthing a surge before it can enter the >> building. So effective is the technique that your local phone company >> does not turn off phone service during thunderstorms to protect their >> $multi-million computer. Emergency response operators need not remove >> headsets to protect themselves from direct lightning strikes. 'Whole >> house' protection is that effective and has been proven since the >> 1930s. > While much of what you say is (substantially) true, the above is total > drivel. To perpetuate this is downright dangerous. The surge > suppression provided by the Telco is crude and generally ineffective, > regardless of the quality of the ground provided. What HAS been > proven since the 1930's is that people are injured and killed every > year while talking on the phone during a thunderstorm. How do I know > this? I worked at a telco for 22 years, as a craftsman, supervisor > and engineer. The "multi-million" dollar computers are not immune > either. I have, on several occasions, worked for days repairing > damage to them caused by lightening. ------------------------------ From: Steve Brack Subject: Re: Record Labels Sue Internet Providers Over Site Organization: Society for the Preservation of Steve Brack Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 14:36:41 GMT In this specific case, we are speaking of the Internet backbone providers. I can see not treating an ISP like AOL as a common carrier when it provides value-added services, but I can't see the same treatment for a backbone provider (Sprint/Alter/etc.) where their sole contribution is hauling and routing bits from node to node. If backbone providers can be hauled into court for what's carried by their backbone, then if I send infringing music over my DSL line, then the recording industry could sue Ameritech. This doesn't track with how we treat other omnibus services. So, here's the $64 dollar question: When Sprint carries voice bits, it's a common carrier and insulated from content issues, but when Sprint carries data bits (which look and feel the same as voice bits), it's suddenly responsible, according to the recording industry? Steve Brack John R Levine wrote in message news:telecom22.4.1@telecom-digest.org: >> I don't think we are officially categorized as common carriers, but >> our status is very similar. I think there was a court case earlier >> this year that decided that we aren't responsible for content that we >> don't actually produce. > ISPs are not common carriers, they're value added networks or enhanced > service providers or something like that, even if the ISP is a > subsidiary of a phone company. That's the reason the "modem tax" > never anywhere, since the access charge the telcos wanted to charge > applies only to common carriers. > Section 230(c)(1) of the reviled Communication Decency Act says: > Treatment of publisher or speaker. No provider or user of an > interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher > or speaker of any information provided by another information > content provider. > It's in with stuff about porn filtering, but it means what it says, > you can't be sued for libel for something your users say. The legal > challenge to the CDA wasn't about that part, so it's fully in effect. > I don't know whether it's been used in court yet. >> I think the only Internet provider that was ever required to exercise >> control was the old Prodigy system. > That's the Stratton-Oakmont case. The CDA section was specifically to > reverse that. ------------------------------ From: Paul Wallich Subject: Re: South Carolina Judges Seek to Ban Secret Settlements Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 11:05:50 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > South Carolina Judges Seek to Ban Secret Settlements > By ADAM LIPTAK > South Carolina's 10 active federal trial judges have unanimously > voted to ban secret legal settlements, saying such agreements have > made the courts complicit in hiding the truth about hazardous > products, inept doctors and sexually abusive priests. > "Here is a rare opportunity for our court to do the right thing," > Chief Judge Joseph F. Anderson Jr. of United States District Court > wrote to his colleagues, "and take the lead nationally in a time when > the Arthur Andersen/Enron/Catholic priest controversies are > undermining public confidence in our institutions and causing a > growing suspicion of things that are kept secret by public bodies." > If the court formally adopts the rule, after a public comment period > that ends Sept. 30, it will be the strictest ban on secrecy in > settlements in the federal courts. Mary Squiers, who tracks > individual federal courts' rules for the United States Judicial > Conference, said only Michigan had a similar rule, which unseals > secret settlements after two years. The conference is the > administrative body for federal courts. > Judge Anderson said the new rule might save lives. > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/02/national/02JUDG.html > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is another piece of good news > for everyone, isn't it. PAT] (Well, it might not be a piece of good news for _everyone_ because it changes the risk-benefit equation for the people being sued in a way that could make them more likely to try and strangle plaintiffs with pretrial maneuvering. Right now, if you're a big evil-doer, and someone sues you for robbing or maiming them, an out-of-court settlement buys both an end to one suit and knowledge that the information gathered in that suit won't be used to bolster a dozen or a thousand others. Without secret settlements, paying off one litigant puts you in only a slightly better position -- with respect to future suits -- than you would have been had you lost at trial. So the calculation changes, and some big defendants may be more willing to take the chance that they can outspend their opposition, or traumatize enough complainants on the witness stand that a jury won't see clear and convincing liability, and other potential plaintiffs will be scared off. Of course the ones that lose that gamble will lose even bigger, but it will mean that some deserving injured parties won't get compensated, or will get compensated much later than they otherwise would. I think the new rule is a really really good idea, but it should be recognized that the gains will have at least some price.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I still think overall, weighing the gains and the costs, it still is a good deal. After all, if Megacorp and First Megachurch had *even tried to be more accountable* to the people they serve most of these problems would not have come up. I can tell you at least regards the Catholic Church, their problem largely arose because of the high regard with which their parishoners hold their priests, and the polity, or government structure of the church. My Catholic friends who have been absolutely mortified by events in recent months think they are an exception. Not at all! Protestant churches have this 'problem' all the time also. But unlike the central structure of the Catholic Church and the way people revere the priests, the members of the protesting churches (that's how we got the name 'Protestant' because of our protests several centuries ago) don't have the same kind of central structure, nor do we give a damn about the preacher/pastor. Catholic people, listen up: Many's the time a protestant pastor has 'gotten in trouble' for the same kind of thing and typically the Board of Directors or Trustees call him into a private, hush-hush meeting and tell him point blank 'you are out! on your ass! today. Then fire him, pay off the plaintiff(s) and hope things quiet down before the whole congregation finds out. And the matter is *never* mentioned publicly at all. The directors or board hires a new pastor and hope they have better luck with that one. PAT] ------------------------------ From: danny burstein Subject: Legit .info Users, was Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 06:22:10 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In John Higdon writes: > I'm starting to see senders with .biz and .info TLDs. This is manna > from heaven. Whatever else you do against spam, all you have to do is > write in one more rule: block all *.biz and *.info email. It's all > spam, anyway. I have no idea if any of them are actually routable to > whom they claim to be. > No one, and I mean NO ONE who is a real net.person would touch these > TLDs with a ten-foot Lithuanian. "Exciting new domains" my posterior! While they don't (afaik) use it for e-mail purposes, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for the NYC area, which (to loosely and not quite precisely explain it) is the NY State agency that kind-of runs the NYC subway, the Long Island Railroad, the Metro-North RR [a], and lots and lots of buses ... picked up the domain name mta.info. (Most of the individual groups do, indeed, have their own domains as well. For example, lirr.org (not com) gets you the long island rr.) Going to http://www.mta.info gets you to their main index page, and they've done a very credible job of getting information out there. [a] Oh, can't forget ... they also run the Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority, whose likely domain, sirtoa.com, seems to have been grabbed by a fan of that minimalist rail system. danny " clang, clang, clang, went the trolley " burstein Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought these days, with ICANN in charge of things, all Megacorp had to do was file a complaint about squatters and ICANN would promptly take away the domain name from whoever had it and turn it over to the corporation. The contract they make domain name users sign has that provision, that you do not own your domain name, they (ICANN) own it. Judith, has that provision in the contract been changed? I cannot imagine MTA being any differ- ent than the hicago ransit trocity in that respect. CTA wanted 'chicagobusroutes.com' and got it taken away from the guy who was using it. They said he was a cyber-squatter and ICANN bought it without any questions. It seems he was highly critical of the bus schedules and the cleanlieness of the vehicles, and the Authority took umbrage about his criticisms. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 09:47:58 -0400 From: Fred R. Goldstein Subject: Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue John Higdon wrote, > I'm starting to see senders with .biz and .info TLDs. This is manna > from heaven. Whatever else you do against spam, all you have to do is > write in one more rule: block all *.biz and *.info email. It's all > spam, anyway. I have no idea if any of them are actually routable to > whom they claim to be. Not so fast. The .biz domain is also an alternative for real users whose .com was busy. The company I work for, TIAX LLC, was created a few months ago, in order to acquire (at auction) an operating unit of the bankrupt Arthur D Little Corp. The unit continues to operate as TIAX. But it turns out that "Tiax" is a character in the computer game Baldur's Gate. And somebody in Korea is sitting on tiax.com. So TIAX the company uses tiax.biz as its primary domain, including http://www.tiax.biz as its home page and @tiax.biz for mail. I think that was the original intent of the new domains anyway, to create more name space. Of course it has been abused, and a .biz address is generally blocked when a real company, copyright claimant, or anything pretending to be either has a claim on the name. But there are millions of vanity and otherwise unprotected .com names languishing in the root, so .biz is a real way to get a company name that overlaps those into a second-level domain. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But in actual practice, what John Higdon says is correct. They are mostly all spam names. There are exceptions, as you point out, but not many. 99.44 percent pure spam, with a few inert ingredients tossed in. Instead of having to expand the .com domain by starting .biz why not instead expand .org or .net for NON-SPAM, NON-VIRUS WRITING uses? PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: Ray From: Ray Subject: Finding CO? Organization: WEBUSENET.com Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 09:52:56 -0400 Is there a way to find out exactly where a CO is located in any given city? Thanks. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #21 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 3 19:02:03 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g83N23V03692; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:02:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:02:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209032302.g83N23V03692@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #22 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Sep 2002 18:02:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 22 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Call For Papers - First Intl. Conference on Mobile Systems (Alex Walker) Alternative Local Dialtones (JPVENEZIA) Re: New Domains (Dave Mausner) Re: .biz and .info (Jeremy Lee) Get Bent - .info People are Not Spammers (Joey Lindstrom) Bending Further (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue (John Higdon) Domain Revocation, DNS Control, etc. (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Finding CO? (John Higdon) Re: Finding CO? (joe@obilivan.net) Re: Finding CO? (Nathan Stratton) Norstar ICS 4.0 (Justin) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (Ken Abrams) Want to Buy XL Software (Al Niven) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 13:33:05 -0700 From: Alex Walker Reply-To: alex@usenix.org Organization: USENIX Subject: Call For Papers - First Intl Conference on Mobile Systems Submit your paper to the First International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services (MobiSys 2003). The program committee currently seeks papers on innovative and significant research in the area of mobile systems. Areas of interests include, but are not limited to: - Design, implementation and evaluation of mobile systems - Operating systems for small devices - System level energy management for mobile devices - Middleware and service architectures for mobile applications - Systems for location awareness and determination - Data management and databases - Personal area networks and systems - Nomadic computing, applications and services supporting the mobile user - Services and resource discovery - Personal Mobility - Web browsing and notification services for wireless and mobile clients - Disconnected and weakly connected operation - Security, Privacy, Authorization, and Billing - Infrastructure support for mobility - Proxies and data adaptation - Wearable and handheld devices - Social and economic aspects of mobility - Mobile Agents - User Interfaces, programming interfaces, and applications for small devices - Context mobility Submissions are due October 7, 2002. For detailed information, please visit: http://www.usenix.org/events/mobisys03/cfp/index.html MobiSys, May 5-8, 2003 San Francisco, CA http://www.usenix.org/events/mobisys03/ MobiSys 2003, jointly sponsored by ACM SIGMOBILE and The USENIX Association, In cooperation with ACM SIGOPS, will be a 2.5-day conference, featuring refereed paper presentations, demos, poster sessions, and Birds-of-a-Feather sessions. ------------------------------ From: jpvenezia@veneziainc.com (JPVENEZIA) Subject: Alternative Local Dialtones Date: 3 Sep 2002 10:39:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I have a company named Choras coming in to try to switch me away from Verizon for my local Dialtone. Does anyone have any stories/issues from switching to an alternate provider/reseller of local dialtone? ------------------------------ Reply-To: Dave Mausner From: Dave Mausner Subject: Re: New Domains Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 16:46:17 GMT I read thru the new-domain literature regarding the arguments pro&con various alternatives. but i still do not understand why a corporate- identity approach was NOT taken (it was in fact debated and turned down): in addition to .com, why not .inc, .ltd, .llc, .corp, .gmbh, and the like, so that domain identification looks more like statutory identification? for example, there's a firm called IBM Corp., which could be domain ibm.corp. but why not? Dave Mausner / v.+1-708-848-2775 / f.+1-708-848-2569 / c.+1-312-wake-my-i ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Lee Subject: Re: .biz and .info Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:28:52 -0400 Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County .info site good for all on this NG http://datacompression.info/ wrote in message news:telecom22.20.6@telecom-digest.org: > Patrick, .biz and .info are two of the seven new tlds approved by > ICANN - .biz was awarded to Neustar (see > http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=643) and .info to Afilias > (see http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php? sid=404). > Afilias is ISOC's partner on .org. (see > http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/preliminary-evaluation- > report-19aug02.htm). ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 11:42:40 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Get Bent - .info People Are Not Spammers On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 02:01:05 -0400 (EDT), John Higdon wrote: > I'm starting to see senders with .biz and .info TLDs. This is manna > from heaven. Whatever else you do against spam, all you have to do is > write in one more rule: block all *.biz and *.info email. It's all > spam, anyway. I have no idea if any of them are actually routable to > whom they claim to be. > No one, and I mean NO ONE who is a real net.person would touch these > TLDs with a ten-foot Lithuanian. "Exciting new domains" my posterior! I resemble that remark. Thank you for ably demonstrating the fact that "opinions are like rectums. Every asshole has one." I am a real "net.person" and I own not one but two .info domains, with email addresses to go with them. In both cases I am using them as intended: I've set up "info" websites with them. Additionally, Dave Leibold's World Telephone Numbering Guide website is at www.wtng.info -- you're telling me he's nothing but a spammer? Get bent, John. DO NOT make blanket claims like this unless you are prepared to back them up. Sincerely, joey@garynuman.info http://www.garynuman.info (and a whole lotta other websites tied to that same domain name) Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 12:07:00 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Bending Further On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 02:01:05 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thanks to the two Johns and Judith > for clarifying all this. As John Higdon suggested, letters sent from > the .biz and .info domains are probably 99.44 percent spam and can > be filter-ruled as such. Excuse me, but can you produce some evidence to back up this outrageous claim? Show me 10,000 emails from people in .info and .biz domains, and then show me that 9944 of them are spam. Hell, you've probably already had more than 56 from me from my joey@garynuman.info address alone. > I'll adjust my rules tonight. And I am asking you to adjust 'em right back to how they were. This is a forum about telecommunications -- emphasis on communications. For you to outright ban anybody from using this forum simply because they've chosen to register a domain name in a TLD you don't approve of -- but one which *IS* an official TLD - is completely outrageous and is completely opposed to what this group is all about. Pat, this is no different than banning posts from .za email addresses because they're 99.44% black. Actually, a better example: a whole lotta spam has @hotmail.com and @yahoo.com return addresses. So, I guess we better automatically filter out both domains, regardless of whether or not any legitimate users are posting from there, and REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT MOST SUCH RETURN ADDRESSES ARE BOGUS - which, I posit, is the case with the .info and .biz spams you've seen. Indeed, I dunno where you're getting your spam from but it looks like yer on different spamlists than I am. I average about 60 spams a day these days -- maybe one or two of them have a .biz return address. I've seen one -- and only one -- .info address. I've received far, far more legitimate email from .info users. > I wonder why in the setting up of these new domains they did not > start one known as '.spam' to put them all in, or would that simply > be too brazen and rude or crude? Thanks also to johnl for > explaining about the difference between '.us' and '.usa' domain > names. I imagine most of the '.usa' names can also be filter-ruled > if you can write the rule without harming good '.us' mail in the > process. As for .aero .coop and .pro we will just have to watch and > see how abusive they become in the next few months. Again, anybody can put anything they want in as the return address. So you're going to boycott every airline, museum (I presume your failure to include .museum was an oversight), professional, and cooperative in the world because some unscrupulous spammers decide to try to cash in on the good reputations they have (had)? C'mon Pat this just isn't fair. Joey@garynuman.info (and joey@telussuck.info too, heh heh) Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, my failure to include .museum was not an oversight. I've never had any spam from a museum and can't imagine I would get any. You know, for many years in the 1960's when I was working in Chicago for the UC and Amoco/Standard Oil I lived on East 56th Street directly across the street from Museum of Science and Industry, a lovely old building which dated back to the Columbian Exposition in the 1890's. Founded by Julius Rosenwald (of Sears, Roebuck) and endowed by both himself and John Rockefeller, I should think spam email and get rich quick on the net schemes would be the last thing they, or their present-day employees would consider. And regards South Africa and the .za netizens, their nationality or ethninticity don't impress me either. What does impress me is the fact that my inbox here at massis sometimes has a couple *hundred* spams and viruses *each day* of the week. John Levine (who routes mail addressed to the alias telecom- digest.org) can't control it; he does not even see the mail (originally and first) addressed to massis.lcs.mit.edu, which is also mostly used. Of course I could start refusing all mail addressed to massis and only accept mail via telecom-digest, (so John could auto- screen most of the junk stuff, and it all comes to this same box anyway) but then a lot of good netizens who write with questions via massis would not get through, but I would hate doing that. So I just sit here for several minutes each session zapping all the mail over a hundred thousand bytes in size (all viruses in the form of binaries and resembling core-dumps) and the mail which is html/mime spam ads, and the mail with non-ASCII subject headers, and the mail telling me about 'powful (sic) new tool', 'my first game, hope you will enjoy it', 'amusing new web site', and the dozen or so Nigerian-spam letters that arrive daily. Then I go into the archives and clean out things there. There is one VERY SECRET email address which arrives here, runs through a script and inserts its contents directly into the archives, filed in order. Damned if I am gonna tell you what it is. But the *one person* I did tell this to three or four years ago used it with my permission once back then to put in some files while I was gone for the day. He left that address in his addressbook and a virus latched on to it. I told this person 'I think you have a virus' but his answer has been no, no, he does not have any virus; his sysadmin prevents all that from happening. So every day that secret address gets a virus sent to it; I go in and clean that out from the two pre-assigned places where it always lands. I get it before one of you, purusing the archives, sees it and takes it away with you spreading it further. No Joey, I have not filter-ruled out .biz and .info . I lied when I said that the other day. This old bully is going to go on trying to save the world, as you warned me I could not do. I'll just add those two domains as things to be manually scanned when their email comes in via massis instead of aliased to telecom-digest.org . I'm not so sure John Levine is as guilt-ridden as myself however where email to telecom-digest.org is concerned. He'll probably just send it all straight to hell without a second thought, and pass on only the real mail. He's a Unitarian you know, not a heathen bully like myself. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 11:05:51 -0700 From: no-spam@amadeus.kome.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , Fred R. Goldstein wrote: > Not so fast. The .biz domain is also an alternative for real users > whose .com was busy. The company I work for, TIAX LLC, was created a > few months ago, in order to acquire (at auction) an operating unit of > the bankrupt Arthur D Little Corp. The unit continues to operate as > TIAX. But it turns out that "Tiax" is a character in the computer > game Baldur's Gate. And somebody in Korea is sitting on tiax.com. > So TIAX the company uses tiax.biz as its primary domain, including > http://www.tiax.biz as its home page and @tiax.biz for mail. Point taken. If I ever do business with TIAX, I'll enter an exception in the ruleset in my spam filters. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But in actual practice, what John > Higdon says is correct. They are mostly all spam names. There are > exceptions, as you point out, but not many. 99.44 percent pure spam, > with a few inert ingredients tossed in. Instead of having to expand > the .com domain by starting .biz why not instead expand .org or .net > for NON-SPAM, NON-VIRUS WRITING uses? PAT] There is another issue, yet unmentioned: If a particular "dot.com" doesn't work when someone is looking for a web page or whatever, who is going to think to use one of the new TLDs? We have that problem even now with the ..org and .net TLDs. Just see what you get when you go to "whitehouse.com". How many folks say, "Oh, yeah, I meant 'whitehouse.gov'"? I'll tell you this: if the company I'm looking for has a .biz domain, some flags will go up. The scrutiny will increase by an order of magnitude. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was in the Independence Public Library the other day when this old, prissy lady librarian was on duty. She has been there for many years. There suddenly comes some giggling from around the computer terminals area, where people go to search the Internet, etc. She walked over there to see what the commotion was about; some middle-school students had been working on their school assignments, which included some research on the White House. Well, the kids had been introduced to the First Lady on whitehouse.com in her natural state. Miss Prissy marched over there and with a stern look on her face rebooted all the terminals on the spot! People are always getting .com and .gov mixed up it seems ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: j.oppenheimer@att.net Subject: Domain Revocation, DNS Control, etc. Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 18:53:26 +0000 Pat, I assume you're being facetious - the very real annoyance of spam notwithstanding, the ability to censure content via domain revocation is not a good thing. Michael Froomkin writes, "... ICANN imposed its [UDRP] rules on registrants by contract... The critical issue is who ... drafts the UDRP and who administers it. The key effect of the DNS code here is that it allows the law that controls to be private law -- contract terms imposed by ICANN... Were it not for the checkpoint, the single point of failure, created by the hierarchy underlying the DNS, then the law would have been public law, imposed either by statute or by an international agreement, which would have required a very different adoption process, and likely would have had a different outcome. Due process, for starters. (see http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/udrp.pdf) BTW, it is this single-point-of-failure by which ICANN controls the DNS, that is largely responsible for all the rhetoric against alt roots. Those whose revenues are derived one way or another from the ICANN system can wax poetic about all the "technical" reasons why alt roots "break" the internet. ICANN Chair Vint Cerf went so far as to testify before Congress that if you modify your own DNS settings from those delivered by the computer manufacturer, you are breaking the internet. Well, color me guilty. All it means is that I can see all the ICANN approved TLD's, and the so-called alt TLD's too. I can't imagine why everyone doesn't do it. (Who'd want to see less rather than more?!) Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com http://WhoSells800.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought these days, with ICANN in > charge of things, all Megacorp had to do was file a complaint about > squatters and ICANN would promptly take away the domain name from > whoever had it and turn it over to the corporation. The contract > they make domain name users sign has that provision, that you do not > own your domain name, they (ICANN) own it. Judith, has that provision > in the contract been changed? I cannot imagine MTA being any differ- > ent than the hicago ransit trocity in that respect. CTA > wanted 'chicagobusroutes.com' and got it taken away from the guy > who was using it. They said he was a cyber-squatter and ICANN bought > it without any questions. It seems he was highly critical of the > bus schedules and the cleanlieness of the vehicles, and the Authority > took umbrage about his criticisms. PAT] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But in actual practice, what John > Higdon says is correct. They are mostly all spam names. There are > exceptions, as you point out, but not many. 99.44 percent pure spam, > with a few inert ingredients tossed in. Instead of having to expand > the .com domain by starting .biz why not instead expand .org or .net > for NON-SPAM, NON-VIRUS WRITING uses? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 11:14:33 -0700 From: no-spam@amadeus.kome.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: Finding CO? Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , Ray wrote: > Is there a way to find out exactly where a CO is located in any given > city? Go to: http://www.mapquest.com/maps/areacode.adp and enter your area code and prefix. Then, zoom in on the map that results from your inquiry. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: joe@obilivan.net Subject: Re: Finding CO? Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 20:41:05 GMT Organization: Cox Communications Other than driving around and finding them, which is fairly easy for a telecom savvy sort of person, I don't think so. I suspect the LECs have a lot of security concerns about such things these days. Ray wrote: > Is there a way to find out exactly where a CO is located in any given > city? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:53:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Nathan Stratton Subject: Re: Finding CO? > Is there a way to find out exactly where a CO is located in any > given city? Well the best place to start is to look in the Local Exchange Routing Guide. If you look in table 6 you should be able to find your NPA-NXX and then the switch that serves it. You can then look in table 7 and find the address for that CO. Nathan Stratton nathan at robotics.net http://www.robotics.net ------------------------------ From: overdrive79@hotmail.com (Justin) Subject: Norstar ICS 4.0 Date: 3 Sep 2002 10:55:51 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I am having trouble with a Norstar system in which a hunt group is not ringing when I dial it's extension. Can anyone provide assistance? Thanks in advance, Justin ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:16:16 -0500 w_tom wrote about Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor > Since the mid-1980's, telephone surge protection has been > installed to shunt surges direct to earth ground. That is > surge protection from the direct lightning strike without > damage. Your attitude is: "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up." As (partially) evidenced by the fact that your return mail address is bogus. The protection BEFORE 1980 also was designed to shunt spikes directly to ground. So what? Your statement above is totally, absolutely and utterly FALSE. Thousands of incidents and thousands of hours of research over the years have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that NOTHING (short of being a thousand feet underground and encased in steel) will protect humans or equipment from a direct (or even very nearby) lightening strike. Nothing. An electrical source with (often) hundreds of millions of volts and a current capacity of tens of thousands of amps is largely unpredictable. It often travels ON the best ground available only to emerge again hundreds of feet away. It seems like you have a good grasp on the theory of electrical grounding. It is really unfortunate that you do NOT have a good grasp on the characteristics and propagation of lightening. Before you post any more messages combining bad information with good, I suggest that you expand your education and learn the truth. ------------------------------ From: Al Niven Subject: I Want to Buy XL Software Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 13:47:18 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC 64T EXS is needed. alniven@earthlink.net ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #22 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 4 14:38:11 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g84IcBj09425; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:38:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:38:11 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209041838.g84IcBj09425@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #23 TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:38:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 23 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue Chips (Nathan Strom) Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue (Garrett Wollman) Re: Bending Further (John Higdon) Re: Bending Further (Barry Margolin) Re: New Domains (John R. Levine) Re: Get Bent - .info People Are Not Spammers (John Higdon) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (w_tom) Re: Finding CO? (John R. Levine) Re: Finding CO? (Joseph Singer) Re: Finding CO? (Ray) Re: Finding CO? (Clarence Dold) Re: Finding CO? (Wes Leatherock) Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters (Carl Moore) CTC Communications Group dot-gone? (Tom Betz) Tool to Convert Text Strings to TTY WAV File? (Jeff Lindborg) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nstrom@freemail.ph (Nathan Strom) Subject: Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue Chips Date: 3 Sep 2002 14:14:02 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ wrote in message news:: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought this spam was important for > us to look at. Judith Oppenheimer may know the answer on this: has > ICANN approved the use of '.biz' and '.info' name spaces? I thought > I read that these 'alternate roots' didn't work very well. Who can > comment? Yes, .biz and .info are ICANN approved and operational now, although spammers are likely still trying to trick people into buying domains on their non-working "alternate roots". Info has been delegated to Afilias (http://www.afilias.info/), and Biz to NeuLevel (http://www.neulevel.biz/). These are not part of any alternate root, and should be reachable from your ISP's default name servers. Most of the domains in these TLDs that I've seen personally have been in spam and make-money-fast road signs, etc., but there are some legitimate users. New York City's transportation authority, for example, has started to advertise http://www.mta.info instead of http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us. The .museum TLD has also been activated, but there's not much in it right now. See http://musedoma.museum/. ------------------------------ From: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue Date: 3 Sep 2002 23:16:47 GMT Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , PAT wrote: > People are always getting .com and .gov mixed up it > seems Those agencies of .gov which insist on registering (and publicizing) .com domains are not helping matters ... Some (most) folks just cannot get it into their heads that the DNS is not repeat *not* a directory service, and no amount of pounding on this particular square peg will make it fit into the triangular hole those people seem to want it to fill. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | [G]enes make enzymes, and enzymes control the rates of wollman@lcs.mit.edu | chemical processes. Genes do not make ``novelty- Opinions not those of| seeking'' or any other complex and overt behavior. MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 16:26:54 -0700 From: no-spam@amadeus.kome.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: Bending Further Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , Joey Lindstrom wrote: > Excuse me, but can you produce some evidence to back up this > outrageous claim? Will you accept 261 emails, 100% of which are spam? > Pat, this is no different than banning posts from .za email addresses > because they're 99.44% black. How about because they are 100% spam? > Actually, a better example: a whole lotta spam has @hotmail.com and > @yahoo.com return addresses. So, I guess we better automatically > filter out both domains, regardless of whether or not any legitimate > users are posting from there, and REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT MOST > SUCH RETURN ADDRESSES ARE BOGUS - which, I posit, is the case with the > .info and .biz spams you've seen. Bad example. Very little actual spam comes from those domains. The return addresses used in spam carrying them are usually, if not always forged. That is a different issue entirely, and spam-filtering software can detect the difference. > Indeed, I dunno where you're > getting your spam from but it looks like yer on different spamlists > than I am. I average about 60 spams a day these days -- maybe one or > two of them have a .biz return address. I've seen one -- and only one > -- .info address. I've received far, far more legitimate email from > .info users. How many .biz messages did you get that were legitimate? > Again, anybody can put anything they want in as the return address. Exactly. See above. > So you're going to boycott every airline, museum (I presume your > failure to include .museum was an oversight), professional, and > cooperative in the world because some unscrupulous spammers decide to > try to cash in on the good reputations they have (had)? C'mon Pat > this just isn't fair. If those domain names catch on with legitmate users, obviously my rules will change. The Internet is a dynamic thing. Right now, there seems little point in not applying negative scoring to a trendy, new TLD. -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Bending Further Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 14:56:38 GMT In article , Joey Lindstrom wrote: > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 02:01:05 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org > wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thanks to the two Johns and Judith >> for clarifying all this. As John Higdon suggested, letters sent from >> the .biz and .info domains are probably 99.44 percent spam and can >> be filter-ruled as such. > Excuse me, but can you produce some evidence to back up this > outrageous claim? Show me 10,000 emails from people in .info and .biz > domains, and then show me that 9944 of them are spam. Hell, you've > probably already had more than 56 from me from my joey@garynuman.info > address alone. I get an enormous amount of spam, and I can confirm that not much of it is from .info or .biz addresses. On the other hand, I get an awful amount of it *about* these domains. Several messages a day extolling that the new TLDs are available and offering to register domains in them. If I were looking for a domain registrar, I can't imagine a worse choice than a spammer -- not even Network Solutions. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 2002 01:49:15 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: New Domains Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > down): in addition to .com, why not .inc, .ltd, .llc, .corp, .gmbh, > and the like, so that domain identification looks more like statutory > identification? for example, there's a firm called IBM Corp., which > could be domain ibm.corp. but why not? Because it'd be an even bigger can of worms than .com is. In the U.S., you can incorporate in any of 50 states, two territories, a couple of commonwealths, a district, and in rare circumstances directly under the Federal government. This means that it is extremely common to have several corporations with the same name. Which one of them gets whoever.corp? Who decides? On what basis? Similarly, there are lots of places that use various other names for incorporation, with even more name collisions. And besides, .com wasn't for corporations in the first place, it's for commercial enterprises, some of which are corporations but many (probably most) aren't. I think that ICANN's DNS expansion plans are pretty badly screwed up, but .biz and .info are among the less bad results. Look at .aero which has arbitrarily decided that airport management consultants and law firms that represent people who own airplanes can register, but travel agents (who still sell the majority of air tickets) can't. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 16:12:32 -0700 From: no-spam@amadeus.kome.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: Get Bent - .info People Are Not Spammers Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , Joey Lindstrom wrote: >> No one, and I mean NO ONE who is a real net.person would touch these >> TLDs with a ten-foot Lithuanian. "Exciting new domains" my posterior! > I resemble that remark. Your words, not mine. > Thank you for ably demonstrating the fact that "opinions are like > rectums. Every asshole has one." And it was, after all, just an opinion. I find your defensive attitude interesting if not informative. > I am a real "net.person" and I own not one but two .info domains, > with email addresses to go with them. In both cases I am using them > as intended: I've set up "info" websites with them. Additionally, > Dave Leibold's World Telephone Numbering Guide website is at > www.wtng.info -- you're telling me he's nothing but a spammer? If he sends out multi-thousands of unsolicited commercial promotional messages, then YES, he would be nothing but a spammer. If not, the matter is somewhat moot, is it not? What is your definition of a "real net.person"? > Get bent, John. DO NOT make blanket claims like this unless you are > prepared to back them up. The best to you, too. You have not presented a single reason to remove my ..info/.biz filtering. -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: w_tom Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 23:32:26 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com My atitude is 'been there; done that' for many decades, even before there was even an IBM PC'. If I am wrong, then I expect facts technical posted accordingly. So far I have been told I am wrong and not even been told why - except that lightning is some mysterious and unpredictable event. Bull. Lightning is statistially predictable. Not a single engineering number has been provided in that accusation. Not one electrical engineering fact has been stated in that accusation. I am an engineer. You are an engineer. If there is something wrong in those statements, then only engineering facts have any relevance here. IOW I am holding your feet to the fire. If there is something wrong, then first, I expect the error to be defined explicitly. Also expect to see an IEEE paper or numbers or another engineer's analysis as to why that error exists. Nothing has been provided. I have posted what is also demonstrated by Polyphaser application notes. As you must know, Polyphaser is considered a benchmark in surge protection: http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_technical.asp Where am I and Polyphaser in error? Why is earth ground irrelevant to surge protection? Are you also saying that Ben Franklin's lightning rods are also ineffective protection since both Franklin rods and 'whole house' surge protection operate on similar principles? Let's see what professionals say about surge protection: http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm > The land owner warned us that this tower was frequently > struck, and equipment had been repeatedly damaged > despite increased precautions. ... Testimonial > In sixteen months, the site has maintained twenty-four > hour per day operation with ZERO downtime except due to > AC power failure. With equipment so susceptible to > transients, this kind of performance is unusual in this > region, especially on this hill. http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html > Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience > spanning 30 years, that you can design a system that > will handle *direct lightning strikes* on a routine > basis. It takes some planning and careful layout, but > it's not hard, nor is it overly expensive. http://lists.contesting.com/_towertalk/1997-April/004413.html > The basic scenario is to install a Single Point Ground > System that is installed at the building entry. It shunts > everything to ground before it goes in the building. If you > can keep it outside, then you don't really have to do much > inside. > Broadcast radio stations operate right through numerous > lightning hits with few interruptions, much less damage. Richard Harrison in the newsgroup rec.radio.amatuer.antenna about 21 July 2001 entitled "single point grounding": > I've had no lighting damage other than replacing protectors > at my observatory which contains 25 computers and two > microwave systems in ten years. We receive a couple of > direct lightning hits per year. Louis Boyd in misc.rural on 11 Aug 2002: >> Or maybe it is because there is NOTHING that will >> effectively stop the surge from a close-by (or >> direct) lightening strike. > Really? I beg to differ. My tower gets struck DOZENS > of times during each thunderstorm that goes through the > area. It's 1,926' tall - actual height above ground > level (not sea level, actual ground) - or about 2100' > above average terrain. It is one of the tallest man made > structures on earth. Do you think I'm constantly replacing > the $600,000 worth of equipment attached directly to the > antenna via 8 3/16" transmission line? How many times > have I had to replace equipment due to a lightning strike > to the tower? Zero. Since the facility was built in 1974, > zero problems caused by lightning striking the antenna/tower. > It has lightning protection, it consists of only one thing, > EARTH GROUNDING, and lots of it. No active devices of any > kind. Just earth grounding. > We HAVE replaced dozens of modems from lighting on the phone > lines here though, despite add on surge protection. I > haven't had a telephone problem in the past year since I > installed Polyphaser arrestors grounded to the towers ground > system. J Kelly on 21 Aug 2002 in newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.tech entitled " Fried modem: Telco responsibility": Are all these people, institutions, and personal testimonies wrong? Did they all really suffer surge damage and not know it? Surge damage from direct strikes is quite easily avoided once a human decides to take charge. Yes, surge damage is directly traceable to human failure. Damage from direct strikes is easily avoided. Which one above do you have problems with - including the 20 something applications notes from Polyphaser? Where are engineering facts to support you assertions? So far I have been called wrong and yet what is in error has not been stated. Where is you engineering analysis? An how are you going to disagree with so many professionals who have extensive experience? It will be interesting to finally learn what it is you disagree with. Ken Abrams wrote: > w_tom wrote about Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor >> Since the mid-1980's, telephone surge protection has been >> installed to shunt surges direct to earth ground. That is >> surge protection from the direct lightning strike without >> damage. > Your attitude is: "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is already > made up." As (partially) evidenced by the fact that your return mail > address is bogus. > The protection BEFORE 1980 also was designed to shunt spikes directly > to ground. So what? Your statement above is totally, absolutely and > utterly FALSE. Thousands of incidents and thousands of hours of > research over the years have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that > NOTHING (short of being a thousand feet underground and encased in > steel) will protect humans or equipment from a direct (or even very > nearby) lightening strike. Nothing. An electrical source with > (often) hundreds of millions of volts and a current capacity of tens > of thousands of amps is largely unpredictable. It often travels ON > the best ground available only to emerge again hundreds of feet away. > It seems like you have a good grasp on the theory of electrical > grounding. It is really unfortunate that you do NOT have a good grasp > on the characteristics and propagation of lightening. Before you post > any more messages combining bad information with good, I suggest that > you expand your education and learn the truth. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 2002 02:08:00 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Finding CO? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> Is there a way to find out exactly where a CO is located in any given >> city? > Go to: > http://www.mapquest.com/maps/areacode.adp Its database is pretty good but not perfect. I looked up some prefixes where I happen to know where the CO is located. In most cases it was off by a block or so, in a few cases off by a couple of miles, in one case it got it exactly. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: Finding CO? Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 07:36:53 -0700 Organization: Drizzle Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 20:41:05 GMT, joe@obilivan.net wrote: > Other than driving around and finding them, which is fairly easy for a > telecom savvy sort of person, I don't think so. > I suspect the LECs have a lot of security concerns about such things > these days. It must not be that secure if their are web pages where you can find the COs readily available on the net. On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 09:52:56 -0400, Ray wrote: > Is there a way to find out exactly where a CO is located in any given > city? Don't know about Bell South, but Qwest (nee USWest) has a page that will give the exact street address, the CLLI, the type of equipment (DMS-100, 5E Lucent, etc.) etc. Personal replies most likely will not be read. Please reply in the newsgroup. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Ray From: Ray Subject: Re: Finding CO? Organization: WEBUSENET.com Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 20:13:02 -0400 Doesn't quite cut it. All I can see is a star and it's miles from my house. And I do have DSL now. The reason I'd like this info is to see if my future residence passes the DSL "distance from CO" requirement. John Higdon wrote in message news:telecom22.22.9@telecom-digest.org: > In article , Ray > wrote: >> Is there a way to find out exactly where a CO is located in any given >> city? > Go to: > http://www.mapquest.com/maps/areacode.adp > and enter your area code and prefix. Then, zoom in on the map that > results from your inquiry. > John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS > +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: dold@19.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Finding CO? Date: 4 Sep 2002 01:38:11 GMT Organization: Wintercreek Data joe@obilivan.net wrote: > Other than driving around and finding them, which is fairly easy for a > telecom savvy sort of person, I don't think so. John Higdon mentions Mapquest, certainly cheaper than the "buy the LERG" method. You will still have to wander around and look for a windowless building, though. The Mapquest stuff seems to be derived from V&H coordinates, a little too coarse of a scale (.3miles) to pinpoint a location. The LERG does contain an actual street address, but that doesn't seem to be what MapQuest uses. www.dslreports.com provides addresses, and in one case where MapQuest is off by a couple of blocks, they are right on, but it's tedious to get to the page that exposes the address. In one case that I caught, the address is bogus. MapQuest ... look for the building. PacBell seems less concerned about hiding than they used to be. Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA. ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 03 Sep 2002 23:43:41 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Finding CO? On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 20:41:05 GMT joe@obilivan.net wrote: > Other than driving around and finding them, which is fairly easy for a > telecom savvy sort of person, I don't think so. > I suspect the LECs have a lot of security concerns about such things > these days. It was a lot easier yet in the days of aerial plant, where you could just follow the concentration of cables. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Responding only to your final comment on aerial plant ... do you (or any other old time readers here) remember the article in the Digest (quoting Laura Fermi, widow of Enrico Fermi, in a 1963 conversation) telling about how her husband needed to find the location of an old (real old!) telephone central office and the overnight phone operator on the morning of the atomic bomb test explosion in New Mexico that day in 1945? She said he drove in their car up and down several streets in the little town, looking at the overhead wires. Finally he turned sort of abruptly and stopped at a house where a huge cluster of wires came down and went into the side of the house. The front porch light was on, and because of the hot humid weather the front door was open but the screen door was latched from the inside. "Enrico looked inside, and sure enough, over the switchboard which was lit up like a Christmas tree was a small lamp. A radio was softly playing music, and the operator was laying on a sofa nearby sound asleep. Enrico banged on the door a few times and finally the woman woke up and looked at him. Then she looked at the switchboard with all the lights lit up on it, looked again at him with horror in her eyes at first and sat up. She popped a cigarette in her mouth and went over and sat at the board and quickly began answering calls." She continued, "this was about 5 in the morning, we had just had a very heavy rainstorm, and I presume the cool weather overnight from the rain is what had induced the woman to lay down and rest her eyes before accidentally falling asleep." When I read your remarks about aerial plant -- rarely used any longer except in little towns like ours, I recalled that story. Some of you may remember it here also, probably 1989 or 1990. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 16:40:59 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Banning Cell Phone Use in Theaters I think it has had to become routine, in announcements before the show starts, to ask that cellphones and pagers be muted. Please, no digression to other topics, but that's not the only item where announcements have to be made, or considered, for what should be courtesy. A non-telephone issue I spoke up on when I went to an outdoor theater recently was that people should not use umbrellas during the show (weather was "iffy" at the time) because that blocks much of the view of people sitting further back. And I have yet to mention "no getting up and leaving the show just before the end" (that's happened occasionally indoors and out) -- those people have to understand how annoying that gets just as the show is approaching its climax. ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: CTC Communications Group dot-gone? Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 20:51:48 UTC Having lost more than $35,000,000 per quarter over the last year, and having been de-listed from NASDAQ August 20, I have just heard that CTC is about to go under. Can anyone here fill in the blanks? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Jeff Lindborg Subject: Tool to Convert Text Strings to TTY WAV File? Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 16:00:55 -0700 Organization: Cisco Systems Inc. Hey folks, I'm wondering if anyone knows of a software package out there that can take text and convert it into WAV files of US compliant TTY? I know the US standard is half duplex which makes this possible and going international is going to require a boat-load more work but I'm trying to get a bunch of files generated to make a conversation (we're talking 800+ prompts here). I could just sit at my little TTY set here and type them in and record the output into a WAV file one at a time but that's a lot of manual work that will have to be redone each time the conversation/prompts get updated. Not cool. If there's a software package or an API where I can write my own tool or whatever that can help automate this process, that'd be excellent. Searching on the web I'm not having much luck tracking such a beast down. Thanks much for any help. -Jeff ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #23 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 4 17:27:01 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g84LR1w10583; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:27:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:27:01 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209042127.g84LR1w10583@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #24 TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:25:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 24 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Finding CO? (John Higdon) Re: Finding CO? (Roy Smith) Re: Alternative Local Dialtones (J Kelly) Re: Alternative Local Dialtones (John Stahl) Re: Alternative Local Dialtones (Rich Greenberg) Re: Alternative Local Dialtones (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco (Robert Bonomi) Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 (Dave Phelps) Employment Opportunity: Project Manager - Electrical Engineer (Parrillo) CNA Numbers (forensic) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (J Kelly) Re: CTC Communications Group Dot-Gone? (John Stahl) Re: Tampering With Payphones? (Greg) Privacy & Human Rights 2002 (Monty Solomon) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 12:13:30 -0700 From: no-spam@amadeus.kome.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: Finding CO? Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , Ray wrote: > Doesn't quite cut it. All I can see is a star and it's miles from my > house. And I do have DSL now. You can zoom in to any detail you want, including an exact address. In any event, all I pointed you to was a source of information; there was no guarantee that the information would be what you wanted to hear. (Note John Levine's comment regarding accuracy, although I find that for the COs known to me in the SF Bay Area, the responses are quite accurate.) > The reason I'd like this info is to see if my future residence passes > the DSL "distance from CO" requirement. Then you will need to have the line tested. That is how telco determines suitability. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: Finding CO? Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 15:40:16 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: > Its database is pretty good but not perfect. I looked up some > prefixes where I happen to know where the CO is located. In most > cases it was off by a block or so, in a few cases off by a couple of > miles, in one case it got it exactly. Fascinating. I just looked up my home exchange (718-885). It's not even a real CO; it's a single exchange served out of some kind of remote facility. It got it right. I wasn't aware that the locations of such facilities were publicly available. ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: Alternative Local Dialtones Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 13:42:30 -0500 Organization: PileofMonkeyCrap On 3 Sep 2002 10:39:54 -0700, jpvenezia@veneziainc.com (JPVENEZIA) wrote: > I have a company named Choras coming in to try to switch me away from > Verizon for my local Dialtone. Does anyone have any stories/issues > from switching to an alternate provider/reseller of local dialtone? I switched from US Worst/Qwest to McLeod USA. It was a joke. Qwest (who was only leasing the line to McLeod) screwed it up so bad that I couldn't make any long distance calls for the first week or so, and messed up the caller id. After giving up and switching back to Qwest they routed my calls to the wrong provider for the next six months despite multiple calls from me requesting they fix it. I finally complained to the PUC and they fixed it, citing "human error" as the cause. My caller ID still doesn't work right. All I get is the last 4 digits of the number on local calls. Long distance calls display correctly. Of course, McLeod is now bankrupt, in large part due to Qworst screwing them over I would guess. Qwest actually had the balls to send me a postcard saying they know I must be having terrible service since switching so why don't I switch back to them ... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 20:18:45 -0400 From: John Stahl Subject: Re: Alternative Local Dialtones Did a search for Choras which only turned up some locations in the Greek Isles! Could you mean Chorus? I note that there is a www.chorus.net which turns up to be under the TDS telecom group banner when you type this URL in to your browser. Chorus seems to be their Internet portal. John Stahl Telecom/Data Consultant Aljon Enterprises ------------------------------ From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Alternative Local Dialtones Date: 3 Sep 2002 19:01:34 -0400 Organization: Organized? Me? In article , JPVENEZIA wrote: > I have a company named Choras coming in to try to switch me away from > Verizon for my local Dialtone. Does anyone have any stories/issues > from switching to an alternate provider/reseller of local dialtone? Whatever they promise you, GET IT IN WRITING!!! Rich Greenberg Work: Rich.Greenberg atsign worldspan.com +1 770-563-6656 N6LRT Marietta, GA, USA Play: richgr atsign panix.com +1 770-321-6507 Eastern time zone. I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val(Chinook,CGC,TT), Red & Shasta(Husky,(RIP)) Owner:Chinook-L Atlanta Siberian Husky Rescue. www.panix.com/~richgr/ Asst Owner:Sibernet-L ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 21:29:30 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Alternative Local Dialtones On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:02:03 -0400 (EDT), jpvenezia wrote: jpvenezia@veneziainc.com (JPVENEZIA) wrote about Alternative Local Dialtones > I have a company named Choras coming in to try to switch me away from > Verizon for my local Dialtone. Does anyone have any stories/issues > from switching to an alternate provider/reseller of local dialtone? Dunno if my example from Canada will help, but I've switched lines from Telus to Sprint Canada on three occasions now: twice with a single residential line, and once with a three-line hunt group at the office where I work. Both of the residential lines were switched without incident of any kind (except with one hitch: on the first one, I didn't port my old number to the new carrier, so the old phone company put an intercept on the old number pointing to the new number with the new carrier. This was in 1998: that intercept is STILL IN PLACE. There were some snags with the business lines, though, owing to them having just implemented a new (and buggy) ordering system at the time my order was placed. This resulted in our lines going in WITHOUT any local calling features such as call forwarding, call display, etc. The call forwarding was critical for us. The lines were switched at 11am and that's when I noticed our features were missing. I called in to complain and was told by the front-line flunky that this would take 2 business days to complete. No it won't, said I. You've just taken AWAY a feature you shouldn't have taken away and you WILL get it back online by the end of business today. And they did, although 15 minutes late (5:15pm). During the following week I had no problem getting everything straightened out: while I've heard many, many horror stories about Sprint's customer service in the USA, Sprint Canada's customer service is TOP NOTCH: they won't let you off the phone until you're satisfied. Oh, and as consolation for the screwup, we got our first month's service free. We've now been with them for about four months and the service has been every bit as good as with the ILEC (Telus) - and cheaper to boot. So anyways, that's my plug for Sprint Canada (I have no connection other than as a happy customer). What you should be looking for, though, is examples SPECIFICALLY about the specific carrier you're talking about, in this case Choras. Just because Sprint Canada is doing an excellent job here in Calgary, doesn't mean you'll get the same level of service. / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom / / When I was in boy scouts, I slipped on the ice and hurt my ankle. A / little old lady had to help me across the street. / --Steven Wright ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Converting Copper to Fiber From Telco From: bonomi@c-ns (Robert Bonomi) Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 06:01:45 GMT In article , Wes Leatherock wrote: > On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 08:57:06 -0700 Bill bill190nospam@yahoo.com > wrote: >> ... May want to borrow from the security industry and have the >> second cable enter the building at a different location. You may not >> need this for security reasons, but sometimes contractors will >> accidentally cut a cable. This would give you a backup if one was >> cut. > A number of years ago a customer required that their private > line circuits between Fort Worth and Tulsa be routed not only to > different entrance points, but by two separate physical routes -- > geographically separated -- between their installations in those two > cities. > Yes, they were willing to pay. They required to know exactly > what the two routes were, in detail. I had a client, circa 15 years ago, that had those same requirements for circuits between Chicago, and NYC. Different carriers, making sure they both had their own 'physical plant'. *And* specified geographic routing (primary _and_ fail-over) with _each_ carrier. Was *not* that much more expensive than a 'vanilla' T-1 over that same distance. I think the contract specified that (except for within 15 miles of the end-points of the circuits) neither carrier could use any facilities within 5 miles of the primary route for the other carrier's circuit. With that primary route information being spelled out in gruesome detail. And, on at least two occasions, 'backhoe fade' _did_ impact one of the circuits. I was running the 'data' side of their systems, but -not- voice. Half of each T was a 768 data channel, the other half was used for compressed (32kbit) voice channels. I had, 'with malice aforethought', set up the data stuff as 'paralleled' links -- if either line went down, the -only- downside was reduced bandwidth availability. The voice folks were -not- that paranoid, and proceeded to load up something like 46 _unique_ voice circuits across their 'half' the connection. The first instance of backhoe fade took out the T that was carrying a number of "critical" voice circuits. I'm working in the equipment room at one site, when a whole committee of the brass comes charging in, and goes, en masse, to inspect the cabinet where the incoming circuits terminate. A few minutes later my phone rings, and its the data folks at the 'other end' saying "you know we've lost a T span?" To which I replied, "Yes, I'm aware. we're -not- affected." Fifteen minutes later, they call back and say: "The COO wants to know 'Why _*NOT*_??!!'" First time I ever got in trouble for having a system _not_ go down! (my actual answer was: "Because I planned for that contingency. :) " ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 23:24:55 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In article , overdrive79@hotmail.com says: > I am having trouble with a Norstar system in which a hunt group is not > ringing when I dial it's extension. Can anyone provide assistance? Do you have the group set to appear only on the phones? -- Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: strategi@attbi.com (Daniel Parrillo) Subject: Employment Opportunity: Project Manager - Electrical Engineering Date: 3 Sep 2002 16:13:51 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Project Manager - Electrical Engineering ALL CANDIDATES MUST HAVE AN "CONSULTING BACKGROUND" DEALING WITH DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION OF ELECTRICAL AND POWER SYSTEMS Number of Openings: 5 total (1 in Las Vegas, 1 in LA, 3 in San Diego) Contract-to-Hire Opportunity Required Skills/Experience: - BS in Electrical Engineering (PE preferred) - 15+ years total experience -with the last 5 years in consulting engineering on BIG projects (at least 50 mil) - Experienced with high volume distributed systems, essential power systems - Healthcare background i strongly preferred; will be flexible if candidate has a LOT of BIG project experiennce in labs/pharmacies - MUST have personable, great relationship mgmt and EXCELLENT communication skills (both verbal and written) - Need to be VERY technical project manager - ideally working in high-rise hospitality (healthcare experience is HIGHLY DESIRED) - Experience with OSHPD (Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development) is a HUGE PLUS for all of these healthcare positions. - Should also be experienced with AutoCAD For IMMEDIATE consideration, please forward a copy of your detailed, chronlogical resume (in MS Word or .RTF format) to: Daniel Parrillo President Strategi LLC Phone #: 415-519-1828 E-mail: strategi-resumes@attbi.com PLEASE - NO THIRD PARTY VENDORS, AGENCIES OR CONSULTING FIRMS PLEASE = ONLY APPLY IF YOU QUALIFY! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 07:43:33 PDT From: forensic Reply-To: forensic Subject: CNA Numbers Good Morning: I have a listing of CNA numbers of each state in the US that was put out in 1987. I need an updated version of these if at all possible. Would anybody know what route I could take to obtain these numbers? Please contact me at: forensic@ziplip.com . Thank you, Milo Perkins ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 13:29:59 -0500 Organization: PileofMonkeyCrap On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:16:16 -0500, Ken Abrams wrote: > NOTHING (short of being a thousand feet underground and encased in > steel) will protect humans or equipment from a direct (or even very > nearby) lightening strike. Nothing. Then why has the TV tower where I work (1,900'+ structure) get struck by lightning hundreds of times a year since 1974 with no major damage to the equipment connected to it? Only damage I know of to either tv transmitter or the FM transmitter located on the tower is a few electrolytic filter caps that stopped working after the ac power failed. I have personally seen lightning strike this tower more times than I can count. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 15:05:47 -0400 From: John Stahl Subject: Re: CTC Communications Group Dot-Gone? Did a search on Yahoo.com, coming up with http://www.ctcnet.com, which gave me their web site. There the "headlines" section gave the news that the NASDAQ has de-listed the stock, which will trade OTC, but in a previous statement, they indicate optimism on their business model noting some revenue increases. Perhaps being de-listed and trading instead in the OTC market might not be all that bad. No news though olding! John Stahl Telecom/Data Consultant Aljon Enterprises ------------------------------ From: lovemozart@hotmail.com (Greg) Subject: Re: Tampering With Payphones? Date: 3 Sep 2002 16:18:35 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ lovemozart@hotmail.com (Greg) wrote in message news:... Thanks for the reply, Pat! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It sounds to me like someone has an > accoustic-style modem-device there where incoming calls (to the > earpeice of the one phone) are being retransmitted to the outgoing > line (mouthpiece) of the other phone. It doesn't sound terribly legal > to me, and either the person doing it is too cheap to pay for another > regular phone line and 'real' modem, or maybe the idea is to throw > off track anyone who is investigating them. Just out of curiousity: if this coupling of the handsets is some kind of ruse to prevent a trace, how could two payphones be "activated" for long periods of time? > Are these phones (and the associated expo building) in a relatively > deserted area of the park at night? Yes they are. In fact, I clean around midnight, so I'm thinking that whoever is doing this is driving back to the fairgrounds and removing the coupler before the general office opens at daybreak. This might explain why the grounds manager never found what I reported. > You could tell the phone company, but it is doubtful you would > be allowed to speak with anyone who would have any idea what was going > on, and you would waste your time by calling telco. The display on the dialpads say the phones are owned by Southwestern Bell. Yeah, I wouldn't even know who to begin calling. I jotted down a repair service number, for the heck of it. > The fairgrounds authority does not seem to care either. Yep. I talked to the grounds manager and a security guard (hah) and neither expressed much interest. > My suggestion is to disconnect it each time you go by and see it, > and *take the coupler piece with you, not just throw it away. > Whoever it is is not supposed to tie up two telephones like that > in any event when others want to use them. Just consider it part > of your janitorial duties to make sure the phones are 'clean' and > in good working order for the public. Let them take their scam to > someplace other than 'your' park. PAT] I'll start doing that. Thanks! Greg Bennett [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You did not say in this last letter whether or not the situation was still occuring on your most recent visit(s) to the building. We would be interested in knowing if the situation persists. There are two ways it might happen (that the lines stay active). Perhaps the person doing it lives nearby and dials up the one payphone from his home, then drives over to the park while the phone is still ringing, answers it, attaches the piece, then drops coins in the box of the other phone, gets a dial tone on it, and makes a call out. Unless the payphones in your community are set to time out after a certain number of minutes (you would have to make up some ruse to ask the local telco about this), then the connection *should* stay up for at least several hours (or DAYS) as needed. Or maybe he has a confederate who drops coins in one phone, reaches the other party at another phone, then connects the two and drops money in the second phone as well. It seems like a lot of trouble, and rather obvious. An experienced phreak who wanted to bridge the two phones would simply get in the nearby 'phone box' where the two (or did you say there were three?) payphones terminate and add a little jumper wire there. That makes the events HIGHLY illegal (tapping or modifying payphones) but not quite as obvious to an inexperienced observer like yourself. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:51:07 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Privacy & Human Rights 2002 Privacy & Human Rights 2002 Sarah Andrews Electronic Privacy Information Center Washington, DC, US Privacy International London, UK This annual report by EPIC and Privacy International reviews the state of privacy in over fifty countries around the world. It outlines legal protections for privacy, new challenges, and summarizes important issues and events relating to privacy and surveillance. The 2002 edition of Privacy and Human Rights examines the impact of government proposals after September 11, 2001 on privacy and civil liberties. The report documents many new anti-terrorism and security measures and identifies key trends including increased communications surveillance, weakening of data protection regimes, and increased profiling and identification of individuals. The 2002 Privacy and Human Rights report finds that laws to protect privacy in the workplace are gaining more support and that efforts to pass new data protection laws are continuing in Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America. Important debates are also taking place around the world concerning the future of new technologies for identification and surveillance. ... http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2002/ ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #24 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 4 22:31:58 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g852Vw812205; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 22:31:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 22:31:58 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209050231.g852Vw812205@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #25 TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 Sep 2002 22:30:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 25 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Spamming, etc (Joey Lindstrom) http://www.spammers.getbent (Joey Lindstrom) Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call !!!!!!! (Tim Keating) Re: Caller ID Spoof? (Carl Moore) Re: Finding CO? (Wes Leatherock) Hotmail E-mail Is "Extremely Difficult To Trace" (Monty Solomon) Re: Good Two-Line Phone Jack; Answer Machine Won't Pick Up (A Schnittman) GSM Security (Gareth) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (Ken Abrams) Re: Alternative Local Dialtones (GHS) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 21:43:31 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Spamming, etc On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:02:03 -0400 (EDT), Pat wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, my failure to include .museum was > not an oversight. I've never had any spam from a museum and can't > imagine I would get any. You know, for many years in the 1960's when > I was working in Chicago for the UC and Amoco/Standard Oil I lived > on East 56th Street directly across the street from Museum of Science > and Industry, a lovely old building which dated back to the Columbian > Exposition in the 1890's. Founded by Julius Rosenwald (of Sears, Roebuck) > and endowed by both himself and John Rockefeller, I should think spam > email and get rich quick on the net schemes would be the last thing > they, or their present-day employees would consider. And > regards South Africa and the .za netizens, their nationality or > ethninticity don't impress me either. Bravo. Clap clap. But you've missed my point Pat, and that is this: most spam comes with a fake return address. The fact that spammers are now also using .info and .biz fake return addresses is immaterial when it comes to the validity of those domains. I get a lot of spam from .jp addresses: does that make all email from Japan automatically spam until proven otherwise? No Pat, it doesn't. VERY VERY FEW SPAMMERS USE A REAL RETURN ADDRESS: NEARLY ALL USE A FAKE ONE. So why punish those who happen also to be VICTIMS of spammers? > What does impress me is the fact that my inbox here at massis > ometimes has a couple *hundred* spams and viruses *each day* of the > week. John Levine (who routes mail addressed to the alias telecom- > digest.org) can't control it; he does not even see the mail > (originally and first) addressed to massis.lcs.mit.edu, which is also > mostly used. Of course I could start refusing all mail addressed to > massis and only accept mail via telecom-digest, (so John could auto- > screen most of the junk stuff, and it all comes to this same box > anyway) but then a lot of good netizens who write with questions via > massis would not get through, but I would hate doing that. So I just > sit here for several minutes each session zapping all the mail over > a hundred thousand bytes in size (all viruses in the form of binaries > and resembling core-dumps) and the mail which is html/mime spam ads, > and the mail with non-ASCII subject headers, and the mail telling me > about 'powful (sic) new tool', 'my first game, hope you will enjoy > it', 'amusing new web site', and the dozen or so Nigerian-spam letters > that arrive daily. Pat, the newest version of my mail server will filter spam based on all of the "Received:" lines present within each message (not just against the IP of the machine that actually delivered it). Therefore, my original offer to you of helping filter SOME of your spam from your stream still stands, and could easily be implemented as follows: 1) You set your system so that all mail for either of the two addresses in question (or three if you wanna add the super-secret one) is automatically forwarded to an address here. For example, "telecom@interocitor.net" (and now that I've used that publicly and the spammers now have it, we won't actually use THAT). 2) You create a brand new address at massis.lcs.mit.edu for the telecom stuff, an address known only to you and me. It should have lots of letters and numbers in it to foil casual dictionary spammers (ie: 69mtq7r3@massis.lcs.mit.edu or something like that). 3) My system takes all of the mail you forward here, filters it (based on the Received: lines present), and sends what passes through back to 69mtq7r3. The result is that a LOT (not all, but a lot - perhaps as much as 80%) of the spam will have been filtered out. My system OCCASIONALLY catches a false positive, which is ok: I do scan through my filtered spam before deleting it and if I spot something that looks legit, I can forward it manually. I'm sure this would work quite well Pat. :-) > No Joey, I have not filter-ruled out .biz and .info . I lied when I > said that the other day. Oh good. > This old bully is going to go on trying to save the world, as you > warned me I could not do. My concern here is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Filtering those two domains will catch VERY little spam and a LOT of legitimate mail -- as time moves on, more and more legitimate mail. > I'll just add those two domains as things to be manually scanned > when their email comes in via massis instead of aliased to > telecom-digest.org. It makes me feel all warm to know you'll be manually scanning my email. :-) / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom / / It's a good thing we have gravity, or else when birds died they'd just / stay right up there. Hunters would be all confused. / --Steven Wright [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am certainly glad to know I make you feel warm. We need a little more heat at this time of year. It was only 101 degrees here in Independence today. Yesterday it was 105. Not too bad for the start of September is it? The one main problem I see in your proposal to help filter the non-mail I get here is that it will amount to three passes on the mail (John to me, me to you, you back to me). Actually. I guess I could cut John out of the loop; his stuff addressed via @telecom-digest.org is usually pretty clean. I guess it would mostly be massis to me, me to you, you back to me and through my admittedly ineffectual filter-rules. Still, I do not like to see that much additional network traffic, merely because of spam and virus writers/passers. How about instead you give me a copy of your filtering program, and I install it here as a front end 'super- filter' kind of thing? You also commented on the amount of false addresses in spam which I guess is true. I do not see why, however. Spammers usually want to sell something; how can they with no way to reach them in email? I guess we could call their 800 number (!!??#!) if they give one in the message text. I heard some people do that maliciously (grin), but doesn't some or most spam have a good return address if they are trying to sell something? I suppose a good filter might also include a reverse DNS lookup, i.e. a daemon goes to look and finds out through sendmail's VRFY that there is indeed a johnl@iecc.com, but can you imagine how much network time and resources *that* would consume? Well, speaking on the topic of consumption of resources, your next letter, a response to John Higdon, that bitter and frustrated old man (LOL, grin) takes up a lot of space here, so let's get right in to it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 14:41:33 -0600 From: Joey Lindstrom Subject: http://www.spammers.getbent Reply-To: joey@garynuman.info John Higdon wrote: >> Excuse me, but can you produce some evidence to back up this >> outrageous claim? > Will you accept 261 emails, 100% of which are spam? Would you accept 1039 emails from .com, .net, and .org addresses, all received in the last 7 days, by my primary email server? Hey, I think I'll start spam-filtering against anybody in .com, .net, and .org! That's a great idea! >> Pat, this is no different than banning posts from .za email addresses >> because they're 99.44% black. > How about because they are 100% spam? My three South African correspondents would take issue with that statement. Mr. Higdon, if I've said it once I've said it a million times: never exaggerate. >> Actually, a better example: a whole lotta spam has @hotmail.com and >> @yahoo.com return addresses. So, I guess we better automatically >> filter out both domains, regardless of whether or not any legitimate >> users are posting from there, and REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT MOST >> SUCH RETURN ADDRESSES ARE BOGUS - which, I posit, is the case with >> the .info and .biz spams you've seen. > Bad example. Very little actual spam comes from those domains. The > return addresses used in spam carrying them are usually, if not always > forged. That is a different issue entirely, and spam-filtering > software can detect the difference. Well then I must be extremely dense, because I cannot see why this argument can be used in defense of @hotmail.com and @yahoo.com, but not @*.info or @*.biz. Let's have a little consistency here. Are you actually telling me that because you see a .info or .biz return address on some spam emails, you BELIEVE that those addresses are legitimate and thus need to be filtered against? Just how naive are you? Furthermore, there *ARE* a lot of spammers operating out of hotmail.com and yahoo.com. Oh, but I forgot: anyone using one of those addresses isn't a real net.person. >> Indeed, I dunno where you're >> getting your spam from but it looks like yer on different spamlists >> than I am. I average about 60 spams a day these days -- maybe one or >> two of them have a .biz return address. I've seen one -- and only one >> -- .info address. I've received far, far more legitimate email from >> .info users. > How many .biz messages did you get that were legitimate? Not as many, as .biz hasn't been active as long. I very nearly registered lairdsflooring.com as lairdsflooring.biz - I decided against it because the owner is an internet newbie and, while he's heard of .com, he doesn't really know what a TLD is: I figured I could reduce the learning curve for him a bit by sticking with a "better known" TLD. >> Again, anybody can put anything they want in as the return address. > Exactly. See above. You see above. That's MY point vis-a-vis .info and .biz. >> So you're going to boycott every airline, museum (I presume your >> failure to include .museum was an oversight), professional, and >> cooperative in the world because some unscrupulous spammers decide to >> try to cash in on the good reputations they have (had)? C'mon Pat >> this just isn't fair. > If those domain names catch on with legitimate users, obviously my > rules will change. The Internet is a dynamic thing. Right now, there > seems little point in not applying negative scoring to a trendy, new > TLD. And we get to the heart of the matter. It's new and trendy, therefore it's bad. Geezus John, how old are you? 124? You sound like my freakin' grandfather. "Dot com was good enough for me and the missus, it should be good enough for you". It's funny that someone who associates with cutting-edge technology can't stand to see advancement and change. And that's really your problem, John. C'mon, admit it. It's shiny and new and you've fallen behind, and so you lash out at what's new and trendy. This isn't about spam, this is about you (and others) being too anal to accept the fact that the world is no longer about just .com, .net, and .org anymore. We've moved on and you're freaked that you're no longer at the bleeding edge. Well John ... get over it. Barry Margolin then contributed: > I get an enormous amount of spam, and I can confirm that not much of > it is from .info or .biz addresses. Thanks for that, Barry. > On the other hand, I get an awful amount of it *about* these domains. > Several messages a day extolling that the new TLDs are available and > offering to register domains in them. If I were looking for a domain > registrar, I can't imagine a worse choice than a spammer -- not even > Network Solutions. Oh you ain't kidding. I really don't understand the rationale here: these people are spamming the group of people MOST likely to react negatively to their advertisements. Furthermore, a registrar isn't like your typical fly-by-night spammer: it's not a moving target, it's a stationary target, exactly the type of business that SHOULD NOT engage in spamming. Even more annoying is the snailmail tactics that such "respected" (HAH!) registrars like register.com employ. I had a couple of domains registered with them, and after a few months moved them to Tucows. A year and a half later, I got a series of "renewal" letters from register.com, each one more strident than the last, warning me that my registration was about to run out and that I better send in my money fast (despite the fact that my registrations, with Tucows, had more than a year to run)! Now you might be prepared to defend themselves on the basis of this maybe being a clerical error: somebody didn't realize I'd moved my domains. But reading the fine print of the letters (which they expected me to sign and return), I'd have been authorizing a TRANSFER. These bastards knew exactly what they were doing. I've since heard from a GREAT many others telling me similar stories. I stick with Tucows: they're reputable and they don't play these games. John R. Levine wrote: > I think that ICANN's DNS expansion plans are pretty badly screwed up, > but .biz and .info are among the less bad results. I tend to agree, and unlike others I look at this situation with a willingness to see all sides of the issue. Yes, sometimes I like to be an "early adopter", which is why I've got an HDTV widescreen projection TV in my living room. But I also recognize it's not all about shiny trinkets and glitter: .biz is a good idea and .info is a better idea. The (legitimate) uses I've seen them put to are testament to that. Style *AND* substance. However: > Look at .aero which has arbitrarily decided that airport management > consultants and law firms that represent people who own airplanes > can register, but travel agents (who still sell the majority of air > tickets) can't. Yeah, see that's just plain ridiculous. It's all about the perception of the END USER, who won't care about any semantic hair-splitting: is a travel agent strictly in the "aero" business, or is that agent also in the hotels and cruise ships business and thus not eligible for "aero"? Who *GIVES* a rat's ass? The traveling public, who would want to go to that travel agent's website, cares only that the travel agent can book plane tickets for them, and thus "aero" would be appropriate for that particular use. I have less disgust for ICANN than most here, but this ... this is just super stupid. John Higdon then spewed out: >>> No one, and I mean NO ONE who is a real net.person would touch these >>> TLDs with a ten-foot Lithuanian. "Exciting new domains" my posterior! >> I resemble that remark. > Your words, not mine. So what you're saying is that I am not a real "net.person", and by inference YOU ARE. Yeah, ok. I guess because you were around when .arpa names were common and everybody's email address had a bangpath in it, that makes you superior to us all. Jam that up your inbox and smoke it, buddy. >> Thank you for ably demonstrating the fact that "opinions are like >> rectums. Every asshole has one." > And it was, after all, just an opinion. I find your defensive attitude > interesting if not informative. Ah, so now I'm a spammer am I? John, will you please kindly f*** off? I am virulently anti-spam. I run three mail servers, all of which have a variety of anti-spam filters in place (among them, the use of four spammer databases, including www.ordb.org and www.spews.org). Don't even think to infer it, John. You're barking up the wrong tree, you've libeled me publicly, and you owe me an apology. >> I am a real "net.person" and I own not one but two .info domains, >> with email addresses to go with them. In both cases I am using them >> as intended: I've set up "info" websites with them. Additionally, >> Dave Leibold's World Telephone Numbering Guide website is at >> www.wtng.info -- you're telling me he's nothing but a spammer? > If he sends out multi-thousands of unsolicited commercial promotional > messages, then YES, he would be nothing but a spammer. If not, the > matter is somewhat moot, is it not? Exsqueeze me? Explain what means you by moot (with apologies to Yoda and Mike Meyers). Dave does no such thing. It is my contention that any email you get from him is NOT spam, despite the fact that it comes from a .info address. Dave is, in fact, very well respected in telecom circles, and he runs an excellent and very useful website. But YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY EMAIL FROM HIM WHATSOEVER, because he chose .info as his TLD. Y'know something? I should just shut my mouth and stop trying to convince you that you're wrong. Dave is better off if people with such provincial, parochial attitudes DO NOT read his email at all. He shouldn't want to have anything to do with you. > What is your definition of a "real net.person"? Anyone who doesn't exhibit your anti-social tendencies, for starters. Somebody who understands what the .net is all about, yet does not act all snobbish towards anyone who has two weeks' less tenure. Somebody who treats people with respect UNTIL that person shows themselves unworthy of that respect, rather than treating people with disrespect until proven worthy of respect. Looks like you fail on all points, John. >> Get bent, John. DO NOT make blanket claims like this unless you are >> prepared to back them up. > The best to you, too. You have not presented a single reason to remove > my ..info/.biz filtering. How about this one: the same reason you've got a mailbox in the first place. Because somebody might send you something you might want to read. John, you're free to filter whatever the hell you want to filter. Nobody can force you to read any email sent to you by anybody. What I am trying to accomplish is: 1) To show everybody else, particularly those who might be moved to follow your ill-considered advice, just what motivated said advice and what a cranky old fart you are, and 2) To also show everybody else that, by following your advice, they WILL be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are a lot of ways to filter spam, some very effective, some less effective. This is one of the most hairbrained ideas I've ever heard of. Geez John ... I hate spam as much as the next guy. Maybe more, even. But if I ever become so freakin' bitter and disillusioned that I start making decisions about filtering people based on their TLD, regardless of whether their mail may or may not be legitimate ... well, it's time for me to shut down my servers, and call my ISP to schedule removal of their equipment. Because I'll be ready to check myself straight into a cemetery. It's funny, too ... in a previous argument here with Pat, I was accused (because I'm conservative) of having no compassion for others, of not being accepting and understanding. Compared to you, John, I'm Mohandas Gandhi. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Eeeeee! Wow! Let's please take any further discussions on spam and the new domains to email please. And be sure to send a cc: on your correspondence to that lady whose spam message got this latest round started, okay? I'm sure she will appreciate the responses to her spam as much as I did when I got it and every day since. To newsgroup moderators, spam is the gift that keeps on giving, obviously. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tim Keating Subject: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call !!!!!!! Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 16:58:37 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Watch out ALL Sprint LONG distance customers!!! All long distance plans ... except PCS users. Sprint is going to nail $2.49 per directory assistance call !!! Yikes ... tack in taxes ... and your looking at over Three(3) dollars per use. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:43:30 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Caller ID Spoof? Whoever got that 972 plus ten digits could also try looking a little past that leading 972 to determine if it could be a telephone number in Texas. (972 followed immediately by a 1 could not.) ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 04 Sep 2002 20:55:16 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Finding CO? On 4 Sep 2002 01:38:11 GMT dold@19.usenet.us.com wrote: > .. You will still have to wander around and look for a > windowless building, though. Many years ago AT&T (when it was still the parent of the Bell Operating Companies) did a study asking people inside and outside the company to look at photographs of a selection of jails and central office and buildings and select which was a jail and which was a C.O. The success rate was generally less than 50 per cent. There is a strong family resemblance between C.O. building and jail architecture. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 18:12:35 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Hotmail E-mail Is "Extremely Difficult To Trace" FindLaw's Breaking Documents UNITED STATES v. ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI (Sep. 4, 2002) Prosecutors' Contention That Hotmail E-mail Is "Extremely Difficult To Trace" [PDF] http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/usmouss90402grsp.pdf ------------------------------ From: Alan Schnittman Subject: Re: Good Two-Line Phone Jack, But Answer Machine Won't Pick Up Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 17:11:42 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Michael Sweeden wrote: > I have a client with a Partner phone system, 2 phone lines, and two > 2-line jacks in the house wired to the phone lines before they go into > the phone system. With a 2-line phone in either of the 2-line jacks > they can make and answer calls on both lines with no problem, and both > lines sound perfectly clear. However, on one jack, where they would > LIKE the answering machine, the machine will not answer incoming > calls. The answering machine works fine on the other jack. A second > answering machine was tried with the same results. This is a puzzler > to me, and any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Radio Shack makes an adapter which connects to a single 2-line jack and provides a jack(in this case for your answering machine) which is automatically switched to the ringing line for incoming calls and to a free line for outgoing calls. It's catalog # 43-434 and cost $21.99. I haven't used this particular model. I have an older (long-since discontinued) model of this device (catalog # 43-383) which worked well but did not have the ability to switch lines for outgoing calls. Alan Schnittman | Brainchild Evolution, Inc | schnitt@mindspring.com prototype design & development | computer interface embedded control | analog & digital circuits | software development ------------------------------ From: everyperson@hotmail.com (Gareth) Subject: GSM Security Date: 4 Sep 2002 15:44:35 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ How secure is GSM? In particular is it possible to listen in on SMS text messages? Apparently they are sent on the network signalling frequencies? It would be presumably quite easy to listen in on this signal and decode every SMS on it? I am just curious. Perhaps we should avoid sending anything on SMS that we would not send on a post card? At a guess I think GSM phone calls would be more secure than SMS? Thanks very much for any replies. Please respond by posting to the thread. I get so much junk mail my newsgroups email is effectively useless. ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 18:20:44 -0500 J Kelly wrote: > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:16:16 -0500, Ken Abrams > wrote: >> NOTHING (short of being a thousand feet underground and encased in >> steel) will protect humans or equipment from a direct (or even very >> nearby) lightening strike. Nothing. > Then why has the TV tower where I work (1,900'+ structure) get struck > by lightning hundreds of times a year since 1974 with no major damage > to the equipment connected to it? Only damage I know of to either tv > transmitter or the FM transmitter located on the tower is a few > electrolytic filter caps that stopped working after the ac power > failed. As the subject line recounts, this "discussion" started out being related to consumer electronics, specifically equipment connected to phone lines. Broadcast transmitters are quite a different story. First, the equipment is designed to dissipate thousands of watts (sometimes 1M or over). Second, because of the nature of towers being natural lightening rods, all aspects of the site design take this into consideration. When you are protecting several million dollars in equipment, you can afford to spend thousands on arrestors, surge suppressors, multiple heavy duty grounds, etc. Not so with protection for a $10 phone or a $30 modem. Third, the power systems are "ground isolated", that is, it does not have earth grounds running all over inside the working equipment ... unlike consumer electronics which are purposely grounded. In general, no path to ground (through the working equipment), no current flow, no damage. The blown caps you observed is proof that NO system designed for lightening protection is perfect. w_tom then commented: > My atitude is 'been there; done that' for many decades, even before > there was even an IBM PC'. If I am wrong, then I expect facts > technical posted accordingly. So far I have been told I am wrong and > not even been told why - except that lightning is some mysterious and > unpredictable event. Bull. Lightning is statistially predictable. Three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies and statistics. For every statistical model, a certain percentage of the events fall OUTSIDE of the most likely outcome. > Not a single engineering number has been provided in that > accusation. Not one electrical engineering fact has been stated in > that accusation. I am an engineer. You are an engineer. If there is > something wrong in those statements, then only engineering facts have > any relevance here. IOW I am holding your feet to the fire. If there > is something wrong, then first, I expect the error to be defined > explicitly. Also expect to see an IEEE paper or numbers or another > engineer's analysis as to why that error exists. Nothing has been > provided. > I have posted what is also demonstrated by Polyphaser application > notes. As you must know, Polyphaser is considered a benchmark in > surge protection: http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_technical.asp > Where am I and Polyphaser in error? Why is earth ground irrelevant > to surge protection? Oooo, now things are becoming much clearer. You wouldn't perhaps have some kind of tie to Polyphaser, would you? I never said that earth ground was irrelevant to surge suppression but any puny little ground wire connected to a phone protector IS insignificant to a direct lightening strike. When the wire melts and disappears in a couple of nanoseconds, then where is your ground???? Bottom line is: Screw you. There is plenty of scientific information available that fully documents the behavior of lightening. If you would look for it with an UNBIASED eye, you might even be able to see and understand some of it. Second bottom line: My original statement stands. The surge suppression on a standard phone line is only intended to handle spikes of a few thousand volts and a relatively low current. Nobody with a lick of real knowledge or common sense would think that this somehow provides any real protection from a solid lightening hit. (Guess that leaves you out, on both counts!) I quit. Trying to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent is futile. ------------------------------ From: GHS Subject: Re: Alternative Local Dialtones Date: 5 Sep 2002 00:35:37 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com jpvenezia@veneziainc.com (JPVENEZIA) posted message news:telecom22.22.2@telecom-digest.org in comp.dcom.telecom: > I have a company named Choras coming in to try to switch me away from > Verizon for my local Dialtone. Does anyone have any stories/issues > from switching to an alternate provider/reseller of local dialtone? Back in Jan 2002 I switched from Verizon, which is the CLEC here in Maryland, to Cavalier Telephone, based in Virginia. There were some problems with the initial hook-up which left me without dialtone for about 5 days, and another incident when I was without service for a day. Other than that, I've been using Caller ID, Voice Mail, Call Forwarding features off of Cavalier's switch without problems. I posted more details in my review at www.dslreports.com under the name "ghs". ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #25 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 5 19:48:50 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g85NmoZ18194; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 19:48:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 19:48:50 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209052348.g85NmoZ18194@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #26 TELECOM Digest Thu, 5 Sep 2002 19:49:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 26 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Absurd, and Destabilizing (Judith Oppenheimer) ATT and the TCPA (Henry Cabot Henhouse III) A Decent Spam Filtering Program (anonymous) An Article from GlobeTechnology (Bing) Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call !!!!!!! (Tom Brown) Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call !!!!!!! (John Higdon) Re: Tool to Convert Text Strings to TTY WAV File? (Colin Sutton) Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 (Justin) Re: How to Obtain ASN.1 Description/Text of ITU-T TCAP/ANSI (Dubuisson) Re: Ringing a Phone?? (Richard Newman) Re: CTC Communications Group Dot-Gone? (Tom Betz) Re: Finding CO? (Henry) Re: Finding CO? (John Higdon) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (w_tom) Re: Caller ID Spoof? (Carl Moore) Last Laugh! Instant Messaging Over the Phone?? (Alan Fowler) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Absurd, and Destabilizing Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 21:17:04 -0400 ICANN's recent saber-rattling at VeriSign over seventeen instances of inaccurate whois data ( http://icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=932&mode=thread&order=0 ) is especially absurd in the face of ICANN's own refusal -- in some cases for years -- to update ccTLD managers' contact and nameserver information (threatening impact to millions of domain names) unless the ccTLDs submit to a one-sided contract with ICANN. Read the story by Ted Byfield here: http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=933&mode=&order=0 . Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com http://WhoSells800.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert Visit 1-800 AFTA, http://www.1800afta.org ------------------------------ From: Henry Cabot Henhouse III Subject: ATT and the TCPA Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 18:48:35 GMT Three or four months ago, I was woken up by a woman trying to sell me AT&T Broadband Cable TV. I asked for my number to be placed on the "Do Not Call" list" and hung up. A few months back, again I receive a call from AT&T trying to sell me cable TV. Irate, I curse, I inform the telemarketer that I'm on the Do Not Call list and hang up. Two days ago, I receive a prerecorded announcement, again trying to sell me AT&T Broadband Cable. And let's not forget the two or three calls from AT&T Long Distance. First, they made one mistake in calling me after I asked them not to, which is allowed. But, the call a few days ago violates 2 sections of the TCPA: 1. they called me after I asked not to be called, and 2. had a prerecorded announcement not in compliance with the TCPA. Now the fun begins. AT&T's Hollywood (California) office gave me the phone number for the local Agent for Service. But, that agent handles some 100 or more AT&T divisions and would not tell me if AT&T Broadband was on their list. So ... who do ya sue? (I left a message for the City of LA Info Technology Agency asking for the name/address of the licensee ... maybe that'd work). Has anyone else had similar problems with AT&T? Thanks in advance. Dave [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: *It doesn't matter* who (which corporate agent for legal service) you give the paperwork to. Take it back to the Hollywood office and let THEM figure out what to do. One thing however, make certian the secretary or whoever is in charge of the front office stamps a reciept on your copy of the paperwork. If they don't reciept your copy, they will later claim they did not get served. I had almost the same hassle (not for me, you gotta go find so-and-so and serve them) when I sued First National Bank in Chicago in the middle 70's for ripping off cash money which was received in their mail room [details in a story here if anyone is interested]. There is a fifty/fifty chance they will not bother to show up in court (assuming you made GOOD service to someone) and you can then win by default. But make sure the service is good, that it sticks, then go home and wait for the court date while you prepare your case. One possibility is that they will have an attorney come to court to try and outwit you or bully you around. The other possi- bility is they won't show up at all when the matter rightfully comes before the court. And the judge will examine YOUR paperwork in the process to make sure the service was GOOD (that is, handed to someone in their legal department, properly reciepted, etc). When it gets to that point then you ask for a default judgment in your favor. Oh, and never tell the court 'you gotta do this'; the judge doesn't have to do anything. The judge knows the law, you do not. Good luck! I hope you win the case. Oh, and if it does come to default judgment and you get an award then *try to collect it*, let us know if you need help with that part of it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 01:14:01 -0400 From: Name Withheld Subject: A Decent Spam Filtering Program ***** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***** [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As you requested, all name and ident- fying marks have been removed. PAT] Hi Pat... I've been following the discussion of spam in the digest, and it is obvious, you sure get a decent ration of it! Joey Linsdstom in the latest issue offered you filtering thru his mail server. May I suggest something better than that? I use a program called MailWasher (from http://www.mailwasher.net) that is freeware (the author won't refuse donations) and does all Joey's server would do. It interacts with a POP3 mail server, and allows you to pre-filter email before you download it into your normal mail program. Mail you don't want to receive can be either deleted, bounced (with a user unknown error), or both. It checks the headers for mail originating or relayed thru locations listed by SpamCop, VISI, and ORDB. You can add other blackhole lists, or delete them. You can also set up blacklists (and whitelists) of email addresses, domains, and use wildcards in these if you want. It also will filter based on rules you specify. As a sidelight, it also makes an attempt to identify virus contaminated email. (I would still use something better for that, but for a prefilter -- not bad!) I always look at what it wants to do. Only twice has it wanted to reject good mail. It was easy to install, and has decent documentation. What else can I say? It might be what you are looking for. I marked this NOT FOR PUBLICATION since I think the spam issue has been reasonably well beat to death in the digest. But, should you want to use any, or all of this, please just strip off my email address. I'm getting too much spam now! And, keep up the good work with the digest! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your kind words. What we really need around here are more *constructive* suggestions such as yours, and less venom. Even though I said yesterday that we would stop the discussion on spam based on the piece of spam I foolishly displayed here because there was so much of it ... well, I lied. We will have JUST ONE MORE GO-AROUND on spam, in the next issue of the Digest (issue 27 or thereabouts) due to reach you later tonight. Then, that will be it! Enough already! In this issue (now), a couple more constructive ideas about spam fighting. Then later tonight the 'main event'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bing Subject: An Article from GlobeTechnology Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 12:28:38 -0400 (EDT) The following is an article from www.globetechnology.com globeandmail.com, Friday, August 23, 2002 The Web's oldest profession By JACK KAPICA Globe and Mail Update BREAKING NEWS What's the hottest high-tech item these days? That's easy: Anything that fights spam. Spamming the Web's oldest profession has generated a backlash of puritanical proportions against all those offers of cheap Viagra, pornography or enlarged body parts. My inbox is now flooded with offers of new ways to stop the spam. Okay, it's not nearly that bad, but it's clear that the spam problem has aroused the zealots among us. The other day, activists launched a bewildering $2.2-trillion (U.S.) suit against Fax.com for sending junk faxes spamming's older sister. The Aug. 19 issue of Newsweek devoted almost three pages to spam, saying that that in a popularity contest, spammers "would rank just above child pornographers." Then it offered some scary figures: Only 150 people are responsible for 90 per cent of all spam; one of them, Al Ralsky, sends 30 million mailings each day. It also reported that while direct-mail marketers expect a 2 per cent response rate, spammers settle for 0.0025 per cent, which forces them to spam harder. But if the situation is out of control, many anti-spam products are downright silly. The other day, a California company called Habeas Inc. released a spectacularly clumsy package that embeds into the e-mail header a three-line haiku protected by copyright law, and six other lines that contain copyright notices. If senders break any pledge they make to Habeas (the e-mail is sent to only one recipient; the sender has verified permission from each recipient; the sender and each recipient share a pre-existing professional relationship; each recipient is a friend or family member of the sender and the e-mail is not commercial), they can be prosecuted for copyright violation. Other lunacies abound. One U.S. ISP actually blocked all e-mail from an entire country because so many spammers relayed their messages from a server there. Some Internet service providers are offering centralized, or sever-based, anti-spam services that use ever-longer lists of rules to filter e-mail. But so many real messages get tagged as spam (mention certain body parts and your e-mail is toast) that the ensuing outrage has kept many other ISPs from following suit. Another server-based filter is SpamAssassin, very popular among IT people because it is an open-source product, which makes it appealing for the wrong reasons. It analyzes the content of e-mail and compares it to an ever-changing series of rules and assigns a score based on a formula of how many rules the e-mail breaks. System administrators can adjust with the rules, but that's where the problem lies: IT people have better things to do than to play cat-and-mouse with spammers. So they tend to set a very low threshold, go away, and leave the system to run automatically. And that often results in a lot of "false positives" genuine stuff that it rejects as spam. Rogers Cable got caught earlier this year by a very mild form of filtering. Their system blocked e-mail that came from outside its own servers but had rogers.com in the sender's return address; the logic was that any e-mail sent from one Rogers subscriber to another would never leave the server, while spam that "spoofs" a Rogers return address would be blocked. But that's precisely what most legitimate mailing-list software does: It takes e-mail from Rogers.com subscribers, and relays it to all members of the mailing list, including the sender ... who has a rogers.com address. Rogers discovered abruptly how many of its customers subscribed to mailing lists. Two subscription services for residential users also seem like overkill Spam Arrest and McAfee's SpamKiller, both of which essentially become your e-mail server. Spam Arrest sends notices that it will not deliver your e-mail unless you confirm having sent it (spammers never include their real return addresses). A great number of people find this annoying at best and alarming at worst. The first time I tried McAfee's SpamKiller it promptly killed the Dilbert comic strip I subscribe to. The reason: It was sent in HTML format. But a lot of e-mail I want comes in HTML format. I don't want to negotiate at length with software about what both it and I should consider spam. So I killed SpamKiller instead. The problem is that spam killers try to do too much. I'm happier with a product that gives me some control and lets me live without fear of losing good e-mail to false positives: Cloudmark's SpamNet. A new package (still in beta testing), it is community-based software and works as a plug-in to Microsoft Outlook, where it adds two buttons Block and Unblock. The user highlights spam in the inbox, and hits "block." The spam is reported to Cloudmark, which protects other SpamNet users from it, and it is then shunted automatically into a new spam folder. If a legitimate message is found there, the user can "unblock" it across the system. It's a little more complicated than that, of course. Cloudmark realizes some comedians will amuse themselves by reporting legitimate stuff as spam, so the Cloudmark server has been set to count a certain number of identical reports before it activates. Still, it never actually kills anything. The logic here is that as the SpamNet community grows, more spam is reported and therefore more spam is put into the spam folder. The bad news is that the program works only with Microsoft Outlook 2000 or Outlook XP; a version for Outlook Express is in the works, but not for anything else. This is a shame. But SpamNet treats me in a mature fashion by giving me the power to do my bit for a Good Cause by pressing one button; still, it catches about 75 per cent of the spam I get, making my inbox much more manageable. SpamNet is also free; I savour the delicious irony of using a free tool to kill messages seeking to separate me from my money. Most satisfying is its sense of proportion: like the efforts to stamp out the world's oldest profession, its design acknowledges that the effort to stop spam will never be perfect the best you can do is manage it. E-mail Jack Kapica at jkapica@globeandmail.ca Copyright 2001 | Globe Interactive, a division of Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. ------------------------------ From: kibri@eudoramail.com (Tom Brown) Subject: Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call !!!!!!! Date: 5 Sep 2002 11:05:08 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Tim Keating wrote in message news:: > Watch out ALL Sprint LONG distance customers!!! > All long distance plans ... except PCS users. > Sprint is going to nail $2.49 per directory assistance call !!! > Yikes ... tack in taxes ... and your looking at over Three(3) dollars > per use. Here is a similar one (and applies to PCS Users on Cingular). Get an enclosure to enter our contest by sending a text message to Cingular. Then get billed 10 cents a pop for doing so on an all covered plan. I wonder how much they made on that one, bet ya enough to pay for the $5K weekly prize easily. Tom (Please no spam) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 00:05:51 -0700 From: no-spam@amadeus.kome.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call !!!!!!! Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , Tim Keating wrote: > Watch out ALL Sprint LONG distance customers!!! > All long distance plans ... except PCS users. > Sprint is going to nail $2.49 per directory assistance call !!! > Yikes ... tack in taxes ... and your looking at over Three(3) dollars > per use. That is one of the reasons I now move heaven and earth to find numbers via alternative means. I don't even consider DA an option anymore. It is ridiculous. It is much cheaper to phone known people in the general area and ask them if they know the number. For that kind of money, one could make fifty calls looking for a number! -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Colin Sutton Subject: Re: Tool to Convert Text Strings to TTY WAV File? Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 14:04:49 GMT Organization: BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.net.au) Sayit, at http://www.protowrxs.com/Files/Default.htm could be helpful Regards, Colin Jeff Lindborg wrote in message news:telecom22.23.15@telecom-digest.org: > I'm wondering if anyone knows of a software package out there that can > take text and convert it into WAV files of US compliant TTY? I know > the US standard is half duplex which makes this possible and going > international is going to require a boat-load more work but I'm trying > to get a bunch of files generated to make a conversation (we're > talking 800+ prompts here). I could just sit at my little TTY set > here and type them in and record the output into a WAV file one at a > time but that's a lot of manual work that will have to be redone each > time the conversation/prompts get updated. Not cool. > If there's a software package or an API where I can write my own tool > or whatever that can help automate this process, that'd be excellent. > Searching on the web I'm not having much luck tracking such a beast > down. > Thanks much for any help. ------------------------------ From: overdrive79@hotmail.com (Justin) Subject: Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 Date: 5 Sep 2002 07:17:10 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Dave Phelps wrote in message news:: > In article , overdrive79@hotmail.com > says: >> I am having trouble with a Norstar system in which a hunt group is not >> ringing when I dial it's extension. Can anyone provide assistance? > Do you have the group set to appear only on the phones? No, actually I removed the users from the group and re-added them and now their phones ring, but now I have a new problem. The hunt group is taking up an "incoming only" button on their sets, and they told me that it originally would ring in on one of their regular lines, not an incoming only line. Do you know how to change this back? ------------------------------ From: asn1@rd.francetelecom.com (Olivier Dubuisson) Subject: Re: How Can We Obtain ASN.1 Description/Text of ITU-T TCAP & ANSI Date: 5 Sep 2002 07:35:36 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ zpx@suntektech.com (PeixuZhu) wrote in message news:: > I am studying on topic of TCAP, however, it's some difficult to get a > description of TCAPs in ASN.1 notation. Would you please tell the path > to get such materials? Thanks in advance. The ITU-T ASN.1 Project (with help of France Telecom) is in a process of extracting, compiling and pretty-printing the ASN.1 modules contained in all ITU-T Recommendations and making them freely available on the ITU-T website. TCAP ASN.1 modules can be found at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/asn1/database/itu-t/q/q775/1997/index.html More information on the ITU-T ASN.1 Project: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/asn1/index.html O. Dubuisson ------------------------------ From: newmanrichardf@enter.net (Richard Newman) Subject: Re: Ringing a Phone?? Organization: Digital Everything Reply-To: newmanrichardf@enter.net Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 01:34:13 GMT Oh Good Lord, Just answer the guy's question, ok ... The answer is: It takes a minimum of 90 volts ac at 20 hertz to ring most phones including mechanical ringers, electronic ringers, fax machines and signal to pbx or key systems that a call is arriving on a co type of circuit. If you send 90 volts at 20 hertz to a phone, it will ring. Raise the frequency a bit and the bell will ring faster. Some older phone switches which shared a single line with several subscribers rang each subscriber with a slightly different frequency. Only the phones of the subscriber who was being called would ring even though all the bells were connected in parallel. This worked by installing different caps in the subscribers phones, making some ring at 18 hertz, another at 22 hertz and another at 30 hertz. Or something like that, you get the point, I am not sure the values here are correct. Some COs will ring with as high as 125 volts and some PBX have used as low as 75 volts. So: How do you ring a phone, apply 90 VAC at 20 Hz. ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: CTC Communications Group Dot-Gone? Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 03:13:06 +0000 (UTC) Organization: XOme Quoth John Stahl in news:telecom22.24.12@telecom- digest.org: > Did a search on Yahoo.com, coming up with http://www.ctcnet.com, which > gave me their web site. There the "headlines" section gave the news > that the NASDAQ has de-listed the stock, After getting the tip that eventually caused me to post the question, I started at that web site and press release. Note that the stock was delisted August 20, but the press release came out Sept 3. This delay added to my concern. I'm a customer, and have not gotten timely response to a service request I placed last week, which further added to my concern. ------------------------------ From: henry99@mac.com (Henry) Subject: Re: Finding CO? Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:00:21 +0300 Organization: Elisa Internet customer John R. Levine wrote: >>> Is there a way to find out exactly where a CO is located in any given >>> city? >> Go to: >> http://www.mapquest.com/maps/areacode.adp > Its database is pretty good but not perfect. I looked up some > prefixes where I happen to know where the CO is located. In most > cases it was off by a block or so, in a few cases off by a couple of > miles, in one case it got it exactly. And they (Mapquest) are _way_ behind when it comes to updating for area code splits, overlays, etc. For example, (262) was broken out of the longtime (414) in southeastern Wisconsin, with the changeover period ending on March 4, 2000. Mapquest still doesn't know about it. Cheers, Henry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 00:00:28 -0700 From: no-spam@amadeus.kome.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: Finding CO? Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) wrote: > Many years ago AT&T (when it was still the parent of the Bell > Operating Companies) did a study asking people inside and outside the > company to look at photographs of a selection of jails and central > office and buildings and select which was a jail and which was a C.O. > The success rate was generally less than 50 per cent. There is > a strong family resemblance between C.O. building and jail architecture. One other thing AT&T back in the "old days": they invited the public to tour central offices during scheduled "open house" evenings. It was during those tours (and some private ones given to me by employee friends) that I got to see and touch real crossbar switching gear and see and hear it work. -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well if you wanted to 'hear crossbar at work' all you had to do was walk down the street in front of a central office building on a hot summer night about 10 PM when the windows would be open (on hot sultry nights) and everyone in the area would be off hook making/recieving calls. You could hear it a block away as those relays would bang! open and bang! shut. On a rare occassion you might hear dead silence for ten seconds or so as no new connections were established or removed. One such summer night in 1961 (I think) I was walking to work (I worked midnight shift at the UC in the old phone room) and it was HOT and very humid, about to start raining. I cut over to take a shorter route past 61st Street and Kenwood Avenue and the Illinois Bell central office there that was known to most people as 'Kenwood Bell'. The operators worked on the 2nd floor, the crossbar switches were on the ground floor. I saw an operator with her headset on stick her hand out the window up there to see if it had started raining yet. Knowing it was about to start, I picked up my pace to go on to work. Honestly, those places were as bad as Western Union public offices with their constant drone of teletype machines going all the time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: w_tom Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 03:05:57 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Ken does not have an engineering degree. Engineers do not respond to every post with insults. Engineers respond with engineering facts. Ken has yet to demonstrate knowledge of any basic electrical knowledge. He has not provided a single engineering fact. Ken even did not understand the difference or significance of wire resistance verses impedance. He cannot understand why that 10 AWG wire can earth a direct phone line surge without damage or vaporizing. This technical ignorance is quite common among those who claim lightning damage cannot be avoided. Leonard's original problem is slightly different. In an apartment, he may not have access to earth ground and the necessary earth grounds may not exist. Either way, he cannot make the changes that only a landlord can perform. Ken Abrams wrote: > Oooo, now things are becoming much clearer. You wouldn't perhaps have > some kind of tie to Polyphaser, would you? > I never said that earth ground was irrelevant to surge suppression but > any puny little ground wire connected to a phone protector IS > insignificant to a direct lightening strike. When the wire melts and > disappears in a couple of nanoseconds, then where is your ground???? > Bottom line is: Screw you. There is plenty of scientific information > available that fully documents the behavior of lightening. If you > would look for it with an UNBIASED eye, you might even be able to see > and understand some of it. > Second bottom line: My original statement stands. The surge > suppression on a standard phone line is only intended to handle spikes > of a few thousand volts and a relatively low current. Nobody with a > lick of real knowledge or common sense would think that this somehow > provides any real protection from a solid lightening hit. (Guess that > leaves you out, on both counts!) > I quit. Trying to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent is > futile. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:30:18 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Caller ID Spoof? Oops, I said "972 plus ten digits" where I should have used "seven" instead of "ten" if the number string could indeed be in area code 972 in Texas. ------------------------------ From: amfowler@melbpc.org.au (Alan Fowler) Subject: Last Laugh! Re: Instant Messaging Over the Phone?? Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 07:12:15 GMT Organization: Whitethorn Software al503141@my-deja.com (Adrian) wrote: > Hi, I was wondering if theres an aplication (Computer Telephone > Integration-Platform) where I can "see" people online?? This reminds me of the first experiments with video phones. An engineer at a research lab who was working on this project rang his wife from work. She took a while to answer, and when she found out who was calling said -- call me later, I was half way through a shower and hung up. A colleague head what happened and called the wife again. A delay again, and when she answered started to talk to her, then suddenly said "OH look at you, you're all wet. Sudden scream, and the phone slammed down. Alan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you know, Yahoo Messenger is a big, very easy to use application which routinely includes video as part of the package, and its free (other than you have to buy a fifty dollar camera to attach to the computer). And you get these big, jumbo sized pictures on your screen which can be expanded to full screen size. And it is a very nice, easy to use application. And you can have group orgy -- err -- conferences where several people in different locations can view one video cam. We have come so far since the early days of computer chat where you had to ask the other person for a/s/l (or as some would say: m or f, how old?) and hope they were being truthful -- which often times people in chats are not being. Remember, the next issue of the Digest (about 9 PM Eastern when I finish my dinner) will be devoted once again to our by default favorite topic, spam. Participants will include Joey, John Higdon, Judith and the regular cast of characters. Hopefully that will end it, once and for all. (for this month :( ) PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #26 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 5 22:01:20 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8621KC19188; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 22:01:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 22:01:20 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209060201.g8621KC19188@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #27 TELECOM Digest Thu, 5 Sep 2002 22:00:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 27 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson On Combating Spam and Getting Bent Outta Shape (Joey Lindstrom) Re: http://www.spammers.getbent (John Higdon) New TLDs and Spam Filtering (Jonathan Edelson) Relative to Recent Thread (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Get Bent - .info People Are Not Spammers (Mark Crispin) Re: Spamming, etc (Geoffrey Welsh) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:53:44 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: On Combating Spam and Getting Bent Outta Shape On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 22:31:58 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: (A buncha stuff trimmed out and sent to Pat via private email) > You also commented on the amount of false addresses in spam which I > guess is true. I do not see why, however. Spammers usually want to > sell something; how can they with no way to reach them in email? A question I've often asked myself. The answer turns out to be fairly involved: 1) If they give out a real address owned by some ISP (ie: user@hotmail.com, user@earthlink.net, whatever), they'll get shut down VERY quickly - a lot of ISP's are looking for such suspicious activity. 2) Even if they didn't, they'd get SO MUCH hatemail in their inbox that it would become very difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. What they do is give you SOME way to contact them within the body of the message (and not the FROM: header). Oftentimes it's a phone number (sometimes toll-free, sometimes not). Sometimes it's even a website, usually linked to some sort of script and a unique identifier number that, as soon as you click on it, confirms to them that your address is WORKING). They find hosts that are willing to host the commercial site selling whatever product they're selling, and then they do their spamming at arm's length: they'll use a whole 'nother ISP. This creates doubt: are the site owners doing the actual spamming, or is it some over-exuberant fan of the site, or somebody trying to get them into trouble, or what? Just because a spam contains a reference to a particular website, and even an exhortation to visit that site to "make money fast" or "get cheap Viagra" or whatever, does NOT prove conclusively that the site owner and the spammer are the same person (or persons). It's sleazy, and it doesn't always work, but it works often enough that these sleazebacks are able to turn a buck, and that's why they keep doing it. > I guess we could call their 800 number (!!??#!) if they give one in > the message text. I heard some people do that maliciously (grin), > but doesn't some or most spam have a good return address if they are > trying to sell something? Yes, just not in the FROM: line. That is nearly always fake. The few times it's real, it's usually from some first-time spammer who is new to the internet and doesn't understand that what he's doing is considered wrong by his fellow netizens. They set him straight in a HURRY. :-) In some cases (more common in the past, far less common now), the return address was valid but only connected to a "verifier". If you send mail to it, you were verifying YOUR email address as valid - and thus guaranteed future spam. > I suppose a good filter might also include a reverse DNS lookup, > i.e. a daemon goes to look and finds out through sendmail's VRFY > that there is indeed a johnl@iecc.com, but can you imagine how much > network time and resources *that* would consume? A lot, and it would be ineffective as soon as the spammers found out about it. The address you just quoted is valid. So what's to stop a spammer from putting that addresss in the FROM field of every single spam he sends from now on? Nothing, and that'll defeat the VRFY check. The ones I use work on the IP address of the machine(s) that have handled the mail. A lot of spam, most of it in fact, comes from "known spam sources". The moment the IP address of a known spam source is listed in one of the databases that I'm connected to, then NO mail at ALL from that machine, either directly or relayed via somewhere else, will be received by my server: it just says "get bent" and hangs up on it. The lookup is done in the form of a DNS lookup: very low bandwidth and the database servers can handle a LOT of incoming requests. Still, at busy times, it can delay the beginning of an incoming mail session by 10 seconds or so (I'm checking against four different databases). There are a variety of database types available: I've already given you four URL's for the four I subscribe to in private email: I'll repeat them here for anyone interested: http://www.ordb.org http://www.spews.org http://www.spamsites.org http://www.spamhaus.org ORDB lists any "open relays" (that can be spam-raped), and also has a web-based "tester" that allows you and me to type in the IP of a system we suspect of being vulnerable. It'll be tested and, if it fails, it gets listed. If it passes, it gets delisted. Others go after the hosts that are "spammer-friendly": those who host the websites that the spammer owns, those who run mailing lists that are not double-opt-in, etc. There's one that lists all known dial-up IP pools: this can be VERY effective (since that's how a LOT of spam is sent), but unfortunately I can't use that particular one since I have a lot of legitimate users coming in from dial-up points around the world. This whole approach is reactive rather than proactive - it means that you're still going to get some spam - just a whole lot less than you might otherwise. On my system, it filters anywhere from 50 to 120 spams a day - my best guess is that it's catching 80%-90% of it. This keeps the spammers on the move: they can't just find an ISP who doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks and allows spammers to operate. That only works for a short time until they're found out, then they can't spam from there anymore and have to find another haven. By "can't spam from there anymore" I mean that the spam RECEIVERS won't accept their mail: the spammer's ISP may not give a rat's ass. As for ISP's who don't give a rat's ass, this approach also has another effect: it helps persuade such ISP's and server owners to tighten up their security and re-examine their pro-spammer policies. Those that continue to flout our well-established standards find that they, and their customers, cannot send even LEGITIMATE email to anybody whose server subscribes to these databases - thus, the more servers that subscribe, the better. And momentum continues to build on this. > Well, speaking on the topic of consumption of resources, your next > letter, a response to John Higdon, that bitter and frustrated old > man (LOL, grin) takes up a lot of space here, so let's get right in > to it. PAT] And since you've asked that that thread be ended, I won't respond to it. I'd like, if I may, to explain just why I was so angry in my replies to John (and to a lesser extent, to you). It was because John, whether accidentally or intentionally, was making a clear inference that anybody using a .info return address was to be automatically assumed a spammer or an illegitimate "net.person" until proven otherwise, and thus it was reasonable to simply filter out such email. And since I'm one of those people, I found that prejudice to be distasteful in the extreme, and I reacted rather strongly to being judged solely on my choice of TLD. I do apologize for the overall nasty tone of my posts: in my defence, well, I was provoked. :-) Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 23:56:18 -0700 From: no-spam@amadeus.kome.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: http://www.spammers.getbent Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , joey@garynuman.info wrote: > Would you accept 1039 emails from .com, .net, and .org addresses, all > received in the last 7 days, by my primary email server? Hey, I think > I'll start spam-filtering against anybody in .com, .net, and .org! > That's a great idea! Except for one thing: I get many, many legitimate emails with the traditional TLDs in the From line and I get NO legitimate emails from dot.info, dot.biz, etc. > My three South African correspondents would take issue with that > statement. Mr. Higdon, if I've said it once I've said it a million > times: never exaggerate. I'm not exaggerating: I have never had a legitimate email from a .za address. Ever. > Well then I must be extremely dense, because I cannot see why this > argument can be used in defense of @hotmail.com and @yahoo.com, but > not @*.info or @*.biz. Let's have a little consistency here. Are you > actually telling me that because you see a .info or .biz return > address on some spam emails, you BELIEVE that those addresses are > legitimate and thus need to be filtered against? I made no statement regarding the legitimacy of the return addresses. In fact, I plainly said that I had no idea whether any of them were routable or not. All I said was that emails bearing these addresses arriving here were all spam. > Just how naive are you? With regard to people who have some deep-seated underlying issues, apparently quite so. > Furthermore, there *ARE* a lot of spammers operating out of hotmail.com > and yahoo.com. Oh, but I forgot: anyone using one of those addresses > isn't a real net.person. Your words, not mine. >>> Again, anybody can put anything they want in as the return address. >> Exactly. See above. > You see above. That's MY point vis-a-vis .info and .biz. But you are making an issue out of an irrelevancy. It doesn't matter whether the addresses are routable or not. They are still attached to spam. > And we get to the heart of the matter. It's new and trendy, therefore > it's bad. Geezus John, how old are you? 124? You sound like my > freakin' grandfather. "Dot com was good enough for me and the missus, > it should be good enough for you". It's funny that someone who > associates with cutting-edge technology can't stand to see advancement > and change. You must have missed my remarks where I said that when it appears that the names are catching on by legitmate users, my policy will change. Until then, I stand by my current policy, regardless of how I may "sound" to you. > And that's really your problem, John. C'mon, admit it. It's shiny > and new and you've fallen behind, and so you lash out at what's new > and trendy. This isn't about spam, this is about you (and others) > being too anal to accept the fact that the world is no longer about > just .com, .net, and .org anymore. We've moved on and you're freaked > that you're no longer at the bleeding edge. Well John ... get over it. That is the most pompous bit of fluff I have ever read in this newsgroup. I have made some very simple observations about mail received at this site. You have expanded that to judge me as a person, my abilities in my profession (its nature completely unknown to you), and the state of my knowledge of current practices and procedures. Is there some reason you are showing such defensiveness against an over-the-hill geezer such as myself? Do you feel threatened in some way? > Barry Margolin then contributed: >> I get an enormous amount of spam, and I can confirm that not much of >> it is from .info or .biz addresses. > Thanks for that, Barry. Hell, that applies to me as well. I get very little spam from .info or ..biz addresses. But 100% of the .biz and .info email that I DO get IS spam. > So what you're saying is that I am not a real "net.person", and by > inference YOU ARE. No, I said, "Your words, not mine." > Yeah, ok. I guess because you were around when .arpa names were > common and everybody's email address had a bangpath in it, that > makes you superior to us all. Again: you are putting an awful lot of words in my mouth. > Jam that up your inbox and smoke it, buddy. Is there some reason you cannot be civil in a discussion ... particularly when you are making up a major portion of what I supposedly said? >>> Thank you for ably demonstrating the fact that "opinions are like >>> rectums. Every asshole has one." >> And it was, after all, just an opinion. I find your defensive attitude >> interesting if not informative. > Ah, so now I'm a spammer am I? John, will you please kindly f*** off? Not only are you making up my side of the argument, but you cannot even be civil in your rebuttal of words I never uttered! > Don't even think to infer it, John. You're barking up the wrong tree, > you've libeled me publicly, and you owe me an apology. You don't know what I think, and even if you did, I wouldn't have to apologize for it. You certainly seem to have issues somewhere with something beyond my simple observation that so far .biz and .info have delivered nothing but spam to me. > Y'know something? I should just shut my mouth Or at least stop putting words in my mouth and exhibiting major defensiveness. >> What is your definition of a "real net.person"? > Anyone who doesn't exhibit your anti-social tendencies, for starters. > Somebody who understands what the .net is all about, yet does not act > all snobbish towards anyone who has two weeks' less tenure. Somebody > who treats people with respect UNTIL that person shows themselves > unworthy of that respect, rather than treating people with disrespect > until proven worthy of respect. Looks like you fail on all points, > John. If you will go back and read the posts, you will see that I have addressed you with total courtesy and politeness at all times. It is how I was brought up. On the other hand, count the invectives you have uttered to me and the insults you have expressed. Also notice how you have expanded my very simple statements into defensive tirades against me personally, against my abilities in my field, and now delivered derogatory remarks about my social abilities. Again ... all because I made an off-hand observation about .biz and .info addresses. >> The best to you, too. You have not presented a single reason to remove >> my ..info/.biz filtering. > How about this one: the same reason you've got a mailbox in the first > place. Because somebody might send you something you might want to > read. Not likely. But as I said before, once I know someone who has such an address, I'll change my filters. Until then, I don't see the point. > John, you're free to filter whatever the hell you want to filter. > Nobody can force you to read any email sent to you by anybody. Yes, thank you. I already know that. > 1) To show everybody else, particularly those who might be moved to > follow your ill-considered advice, just what motivated said advice and > what a cranky old fart you are, But everyone already knows that. Where have you been? > 2) To also show everybody else that, by following your advice, they > WILL be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are a lot of > ways to filter spam, some very effective, some less effective. Oh, now I understand completely why you chose the level of civility utilized in your replies. > But if I ever become so freakin' bitter and disillusioned that I start > making decisions about filtering people based on their TLD, regardless > of whether their mail may or may not be legitimate ... well, it's time > for me to shut down my servers, and call my ISP to schedule removal of > their equipment. Because I'll be ready to check myself straight into > a cemetery. Sounds like you are awfully bitter about something. > It's funny, too ... in a previous argument here with Pat, I was > accused (because I'm conservative) of having no compassion for others, > of not being accepting and understanding. Compared to you, John, I'm > Mohandas Gandhi. My goodness! I've really stepped on your toes. And to think ... it was all because I made that simple observation. Of course, I've got to give you credit: you supplied all the really juicy arguments from "my side". I certainly would have never thought of all that without your "help". John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:57:36 -0400 From: Jonathan Edelson Subject: New TLDs and Spam Filtering Pat, I'd suggest that you look at this gentleman's comments on the Risk Digest: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.22.html#subj15 In short, what is being described is a general statistical techniques, and a pretty brain dead one at that, which is used to recognize spam. The _entire_ message is considered, including the headers, and at least in the present incarnation the headers are treated no differently than the body text. Words (including domain name components such as .biz) are given a statistical weighting, very roughly from 'almost never appears in SPAM' to 'almost always appears in SPAM'. When a new bit of mail is considered, the weighting of the words is considered, and a probability that a particular document is spam is generated. You then decide what to do with the document based upon this number. Nifty things: if spammers modify 'trap words' in order to get around filters (say by changing 'O' to '0' in the four letter word which also means rooster), then these new words are often much better indicator of SPAM. Filtering is very much like racial profiling: useful if it has a valid statistical basis, bad policing if it is based on blind prejudice. If everyone filters on .biz, then the spammers will quickly find something else to use, but the people with valid reasons to use .biz will be left in the cold ... the same way that much of the usefulness of USENET vanished when the spammers came in. With the above approach, if lots of spam comes with .biz somewhere in it, then it will acquire a very negative weight. But if lots of 'real people' use .biz, then it will demonstrate itself as a neutral word to use in spam filtering. Regards, Jonathan Edelson ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Relative to Recent Thread Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 16:45:07 -0400 "I'm beginning to think dot-biz is the Florida swampland of the Internet." Inc. Magazine. http://www.inc.com/magazine/20020901/24548.html The same registrar says you can "Buy your .US name during September 2002, and you'll be doing your part to make our world safer! NeuStar, the official administrator of the .US domain, has announced an exciting new partnership with the Rewards For Justice Fund (RFJF). During September 2002, NeuStar will donate $1.00 to the RFJF for every .US name sold!" http://www.neustar.us/ads/golive/landing/index.html I wonder if you can opt out. Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com http://WhoSells800.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert Visit 1-800 AFTA, http://www.1800afta.org ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: Get Bent - .info People Are Not Spammers Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:26:22 -0700 Organization: Networks and Distributed Computing On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Joey Lindstrom wrote: > I am a real "net.person" and I own not one but two .info domains, > with email addresses to go with them. If you choose to build your house in a neighborhood with a bad reputation, you shouldn't be surprised that your insurance rates are higher and that your child's playmates aren't allowed to visit your child at your house. Yes, collective punishment for the acts of a few is unjust. But it will happen, and no amount of railing against it will cause it not to happen. It's not fair that innocent individuals in Korea, China, Taiwan, and Russia are finding their mail blocked at a substantial number of sites; but it happens. At least it is dawning on the Korean government that this is a serious problem, and they are actually considering effective action against Korean spammers. The world is full of unfairness, and nobody has figured a way to make the world a little bit less unfair. Plenty of people have made the world more unfair in the name of remedying unfairness. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not too long ago, I gave John Levine my approval to go ahead and block all mail from Korea. I resisted that step for a long time, despite the fact that I get *nothing* from Korea in recent years except messages with subject lines of '##*&@(($%""$%%*' followed by nonsensical gibberish as text, and as often as not, spam. And five to ten of those come every day. I really did not like to do that, but ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 00:54:08 -0400 PAT wrote (in response to Joey Lindstrom): > You also commented on the amount of false addresses in spam which I > guess is true. I do not see why, however. Spammers usually want to > sell something; how can they with no way to reach them in email? [...] but > doesn't some or most spam have a good return address if they are > trying to sell something? Very rarely. Those that do not provide a telephone number include a (usually obscured) URL that points to a web page hosted: (a) by an spam-friendly ISP, often in a foreign country (the spamhost du jour is currently China); (b) on a cheap or free hosting account; (c) on their own web server connected via a throwaway dialup account. Sometimes in situation (b) and almost always in situation (c), the spammers will host their own DNS servers so that the address associated with a URL can be changed to a backup within seconds if/when the ISP cancels the account used to host the web site (you would not believe how difficult it is to explain this to abuse desk people and convince them that their customer really is a spammer even though they're only running a DNS server on that connection) but most of the spammers will register several DNS servers - some that they do operate (just in case the ISP believes you and disconnects them, they have active backups) and some that they don't (so that, if you're not careful, you make a fool of yourself reporting an innocent bystander.) Oh, yes: the names, addresses, and contact information they use when registering their domains is usually false, too. I've heard that some spammers pay for these services using stolen credit card numbers, but I can't confirm that myself. These, along with hijacking insecure mail and proxy servers to do their delivery, are the tools of the trade for the spammers who promote advance fee scams (e.g. debt consolidation loans or the 'Nigerian letter'), pyramid schemes, body-enhancing, etc. Then again, it's amazing how many ISPs - even ones that used to enforce anti-spam policies - will today refuse to take down spammers' web sites (or DNS server) on the basis that the spam didn't come from that address (naturally, it was sent from a throwaway dialup account specifically to create deniability plausible only to the naive and those with an interest.) Sadly, my prediction that ISPs would chose spammers' money over traditional internet ethics in tough times is increasingly apparent; even the ISPs who are still enforcing anti-spam policies understaff their abuse desks and, by the time they get around to taking down a spammer's web site, he's aready more than made his money back and he's ready to move on to his next backup. There are some spammers who do not hide like this; they just find a spam-tolerant ISP, sign you up for "opt-out" lists and hide behind the claim that it is their First Amendment right to make a buck sending us advertising at our own expense. Now even the courts are smoking the spammers' wares: reports that a petition to treat spam like junk faxes may be pointless because "in April, however, a federal judge in Missouri ruled that the [Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)] was unconstitutional, breaking with an earlier appeals court argument that upheld the law." > I suppose a good filter might also include a reverse DNS lookup, Unfortunately, many legitimate mail servers operate without the benefit of properly configured reverse DNS pointers. As a side note, I have my system configured to put one return address on USENET postings and another on e-mail; I recently rejoined Telecom Digest after years away and have sent in a couple of contributions which, for lack of forethought on my part, had the private e-mail return address on them ... ever since, I've been receiving spam in my previously pristine mailbox. Spammers don't waste any opportunity to increase their 'circulation!' [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No they don't waste any time. I have thought a couple times about *completely deleting* all email addresses in the Digest, and just using names, then holding all email addresses and names for 60-90 days in a file where responses intended for the individual writers (instead of the Digest) could go through a forwarding system after I read them and cleaned out the spam. The main problem with that is I have neither the funds nor the resources to forward mail between users and also, it is none of my business when people here want to write to each other. I think Peter N. of *Risks* only prints the names, not the email addresses. At least that is what he used to do. But I am not nearly the expert on telecom that Peter N. is in his field; I must have help from readers in clarifying issues and mistakes, etc. And that demand of mine, for user-reader accuracy in what appears here (with readers not hesitating to correct one another and/or me as needed) would make a mail forwarding system (to avoid spam getting into email addresses here) almost impossible. I've also thought a great deal about emphasizing the use of the web- site mailing system I offer on http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice . Some of you already use those @telecom-digest.zzn.com addresses when writing here. I strongly suggest getting one or two of those addresses then as they get polluted just dumping them and taking a new one. And of course, you can use those @telecom-digest.zzn.com addreses to write to all the journals, ezines and newsgroups you participate in. There is no charge for them; it is just part of your donation here and one way I have of trying to help you in return. With all this being said, let's PLEASE drop the responses to 'who is the biggest hater of spam in this newsgroup' and I think we should all give a big round of applause to the lady whose spam message here a few days ago got this thread started. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #27 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 9 21:53:43 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8A1rhF02449; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 21:53:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 21:53:43 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209100153.g8A1rhF02449@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #28 TELECOM Digest Mon, 9 Sep 2002 21:52:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 28 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #348, September 9, 2002 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: Finding CO? (Neal McLain) Re: Finding CO? (Steve Brack) Re: Finding CO? (Wes Leatherock) Re: Finding CO? (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Finding CO? (Arthur Kamlet) Re: Spamming, etc (John Higdon) Re: Spamming, etc (Dave Garland) Re: Spamming, etc (Joel B Levin) New York Remembrance: 911 (Anna Irmingard) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 11:23:01 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #348, September 9, 2002 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 348: September 9, 2002 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: ** BELL CANADA: http://www.bell.ca ** CISCO SYSTEMS CANADA: http://www.cisco.com/ca/letstalk ** CYGCOM INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES: http://www.cygcom.com ** ERICSSON CANADA: http://www.ericsson.ca ** JUNIPER NETWORKS: http://www.juniper.net ** PRIMUS CANADA: http://www.primustel.ca ** Q9 NETWORKS: http://www.Q9.com ** TELUS: http://www.telus.com ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** B.C. Court Approves 360 Restructuring ** $105 Million for Rural Broadband Projects ** CTEA Settles in Bell Pay Equity Dispute ** Critical Security Flaw Found in Windows ** Microcell Complains of Discriminatory Marketing ** Aliant Expands Digital Net ** Router Sales to Carriers Fall ** New Brunswick Business-Line Prices Rise ** Syncrude Buys Spectrum ** Q9 to Host Indigo On-Line Services ** Cable Internet Grows ** CSG Buys IBM Telecom Billing System ** Teleglobe Cable Cut Isolates Iceland ** New CFO at Emergis ** Save $50 on Telemanagement Subscription ============================================================ B.C. COURT APPROVES 360 RESTRUCTURING: The B.C. Supreme Court has approved 360networks' restructuring plan, following withdrawal of Telus's last-minute claim that delayed approval the previous week. 360 expects the plan to be implemented in early October, following a vote by U.S. creditors. (See Telecom Update #347) ** 360 has agreed to sell its Atlantic undersea cables to Columbia Ventures, a venture capital firm. $105 MILLION FOR RURAL BROADBAND PROJECTS: Industry Canada has announced a "Broadband for Rural and Northern Development Pilot Program," to help extend high-speed Internet access to currently unserved communities. Priority will be given to proposals from First Nation, northern, remote, and rural communities where DSL or cable modem service are not available. ** Not-for-profit community organizations may apply for up to $30,000 to develop business plans for broadband projects. Proposals are due by October 31, with a second round beginning next March. Further funds will be made available for implementing selected business plans. ** Proposals will be evaluated by a National Selection Committee chaired by David Johnston (President of the University of Waterloo and the former Chair of both the National Broadband Task Force and the Information Highway Advisory Council). http://broadband.gc.ca/ CTEA SETTLES IN BELL PAY EQUITY DISPUTE: Bell Canada has agreed to pay $178 million to female members of the Canadian Telecommunications Employees' Association to settle a decade- old pay equity dispute. ** Still outstanding is the $400 million pay-equity claim by the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, which represents 5,000 former and current Bell operators. (See Telecom Update #313) CRITICAL SECURITY FLAW FOUND IN WINDOWS: Microsoft has posted a patch for a "critical" flaw in Windows 98, NT, Me, 2000, and XP that could allow attackers to steal passwords and other supposedly secure information. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/ MICROCELL COMPLAINS OF DISCRIMINATORY MARKETING: Microcell Telecom has asked the CRTC to order Rogers Wireless and Bell Mobility to stop offering special rebates to Fido customers. Microcell says this is unjust discrimination. ** Moody's has downgraded Microcell's unsecured debt two notches to single-C. A financial restructuring of Microcell is "highly likely," Moody's says, and it would leave these notes with "minimal value." ALIANT EXPANDS DIGITAL NET: Aliant Telecom Mobility has built 15 new digital and two new analog sites in the Atlantic Provinces over the last two months, and now offers digital wireless service to 60% of the region's population. Improvements range from two new digital sites in Greater Halifax to analog coverage in Newfoundland's isolated Northern Peninsula. ROUTER SALES TO CARRIERS FALL: Gartner Dataquest says that worldwide router sales to carriers fell 7% in the second quarter of 2002. Cisco recorded 60% of the sales; Juniper and Unisphere (now merged) had 17.7% and 7% respectively. NEW BRUNSWICK BUSINESS-LINE PRICES RISE: The CRTC has approved Aliant Telecom's proposal to increase the rate for single-line business service in New Brunswick by $3/month, effective immediately. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Orders/2002/o2002-366.htm SYNCRUDE BUYS SPECTRUM: WNI Networks (formerly Wispra) has sold some of the Edmonton-area 24 MHz wireless spectrum it acquired in the 1999 auction. Industry Canada has approved the transfer of 63 cells in the Bitumount and Fort Mackay area to Syncrude Canada. Q9 TO HOST INDIGO ON-LINE SERVICES: Q9 Networks, a Toronto- based Internet outsourcer, has won a $1.8 million three-year contract from Indigo Books and Music to host Indigo's website, in-store kiosks, and back office applications, and provide other on-line infrastructure services. CABLE INTERNET GROWS: Statistics Canada says cable Internet service was available to 85% of homes with cable TV at the end of August 2001, up from 70% a year earlier. Availability varies significantly by community size: 96% in large communities; 78% in medium-sized communities; and only 27% in small communities. About 1.4 million of cable homes had cable modems installed; that figure increased to 1.7 million by year-end. http://www.statcan.ca:80/Daily/English/020903/d020903a.htm CSG BUYS IBM TELECOM BILLING SYSTEM: Colorado-based CSG Systems International has taken over IBM's telecom customer billing system, one of whose users is AT&T Canada. TELEGLOBE CABLE CUT ISOLATES ICELAND: Iceland lost telephone and Internet connections to the rest of the world for nine hours on August 28, when a segment of Teleglobe's CANTAT-3 undersea cable was cut. Iceland Telecom is working on a new cable that will provide alternate routing when it is completed next year. NEW CFO AT EMERGIS: BCE Emergis has named John Valentini, previously EVP and CFO at Cognicase, as Chief Financial Officer. SAVE $50 ON TELEMANAGEMENT SUBSCRIPTION: Until October 30, new subscribers to Telemanagement: The Angus Report on Business Telecommunications in Canada will save $50 on the price of a one-year subscription, with a money-back guarantee. ** Subscribe now and receive the September issue with "Cisco Deconstructs the PBX" (by Ian Angus) and "IP-PBX Reliability" (by John Riddell). Go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/Telemanagement_Special_Offer.pdf. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca. The website includes a searchable archive of all issues since 1995. 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@add.postmastergeneral.com To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@remove.postmastergeneral.com Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave subject line and message area blank. We do not give Telecom Update subscribers' e-mail addresses to any third party. For more information, see http://www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html. =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2002 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 22:05:10 -0600 From: Neal McLain Subject: Re: Finding CO? John R. Levine posted: >>> Is there a way to find out exactly where a CO is located >>> in any given city? >> Go to: >> http://www.mapquest.com/maps/areacode.adp > Its database is pretty good but not perfect. I looked up > some prefixes where I happen to know where the CO is > located. In most cases it was off by a block or so, in a > few cases off by a couple of miles, in one case it got it > exactly. I tested MapQuest for several oddball situations: - MULTIPLE PHYSICAL EXCHANGES WITHIN THE SAME RATE CENTER. For this test, I selected six widely-separated Ameritech buildings in the Madison WI rate center: 608-223, -233, -243, -263, -273, and -283. MapQuest had a perfect score. But it failed a second test: 801-985 (a Qwest building in the Clearfield UT rate center, but physically located in Roy); MapQuest erroneously placed it in Clearfield. - CO-LOCATED NXXs FROM DIFFERENT RATE CENTERS. For this test, I selected two NXXs at Ameritech's Ann Arbor Packard Road exchange: 734-971 (Ann Arbor rate center) and 734-434 (Ypsilanti rate center). MapQuest correctly located both NXXs in the same building. - CLEC EXCHANGES. For this test I tried 608-210 and 608-664 (suburban ILECs acting as a CLECs within Ameritech territory in Madison WI). MapQuest reported "could not be found" in both cases. - WIRELESS NXXs. I selected several cellular and paging NXXs for this test: 414-510, 608-559, 608-698, 734-318, 773-330, 801-540, 831-917, 832-772. MapQuest returned "could not be found" in every case. But it correctly located 920-688, an Ameritech exchange in Van Dyne WI which serves both landline and paging numbers. - NON-USA NPAs. I tried several valid Canadian, Caribbean, and Pacific NPAs; in every case, MapQuest reported that "The Exchange and Area Code you provided could not be found. The map is centered on the Country" -- and returned a map of the USA with a star in Kansas! - TOLL-FREE ACCESS CODES. I tried the usual USA toll-frees (800, 888, 877, etc.) plus the Canadian pseudo-toll-frees (881, 882, etc.). Again, MapQuest returned "The Exchange and Area Code you provided could not be found. The map is centered on the Country." Well, I guess the star-in-Kansas is reasonable for USA, but certainly not for Canada! - NXX SPOOFs. I selected several random invalid NXX codes in several random (but valid) area codes: NPA-1XX, NPA-0XX, NPA-N11, NPA-555, and NPA-950. It reported "could not be found" in almost every case. But NPA-555 returned some curious results: 608-555 is in Madison WI (where, once upon a time, it probably was). 630-555, 708-555, and 847-555 are all in Hoffmann Estates IL, but 312-555 and 773-555 are in "CHCZ 1 IL" (I don't know what that means, but I suspect PAT can tell us). 248-555, 734-555, and 810-555 are all in Pontiac MI, but 313-555 "could not be found," and it didn't even recognize area code 586. I suppose that back when 248, 313, 586, 734 and 810 were all part of 313, Pontiac could have been the DA center for the whole Detroit metro area; if so, it's strange that it can't find 313-555 now). 801-555 "could not be found" (although it was probably in Salt Lake City). - NPA SPOOFS. I tried a few "area codes" in non-valid NPA format: N9X, NYY (last two digits the same), and NX (just two digits). It returned "The Exchange and Area Code you provided could not be found" in every case. All in all, MapQuest seems to be reasonably accurate for USA wireline ILECs, but it's totally clueless about wireline CLECs, anything outside the USA, and anything wireless. I can understand that wireless exchanges "could not be found," but it seems like MapQuest's database should recognize them as such and return an appropriate explanatory message. But the real surprise (to me, at least) is that their database isn't error-trapped to recognize (and reject) obvious NXX spoofs (NPA-1XX, NPA-0XX, NPA-N11, NPA-555, NPA-950), erroneously-formatted "area codes" (N9X, NYY, NX), toll-free access codes, and non-USA codes. Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I suspect that nomenclature refers to 'Chicago Illinois' but I do not know how to read the entire thing. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steve Brack Subject: Re: Finding CO? Organization: Society for the Preservation of Steve Brack Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:57:05 GMT wrote in message news:telecom22.23.11@telecom-digest.org: > joe@obilivan.net wrote: >> Other than driving around and finding them, which is fairly easy for a >> telecom savvy sort of person, I don't think so. [snip] > www.dslreports.com provides addresses, and in one case where MapQuest > is off by a couple of blocks, they are right on, but it's tedious > to get to the page that exposes the address. In one case that I > caught, the address is bogus. > MapQuest ... look for the building. PacBell seems less concerned > about hiding than they used to be. Back in the good old days, a small suburban village near where I grew up had a novel solution to the percieved "problem" of an ugly CO building. When Ohio Bell cut them over from cordboard to dial service, they couldn't get zoning approval to build a CO building, so, in a pretty creative move, they bought the cordboard operator's house, gutted it, and built a small switch (probably SxS) inside the existing house. That way the village government couldn't say anything, although the neighbors probably noticed that no one ever came or went from this "house." So, the best way to hide a CO is to make it look like one of the innumerable and interchangeable houses in the neighborhood. Steve ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 07 Sep 2002 01:03:39 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Finding CO? On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 00:00:28 -0700 no-spam@amadeus.kome.com (John Higdon) wrote: > One other thing AT&T back in the "old days": they invited the public > to tour central offices during scheduled "open house" evenings. It was > during those tours (and some private ones given to me by employee > friends) that I got to see and touch real crossbar switching gear and > see and hear it work. A step office was even noisier and you could see a lot more action taking place. In Oklahoma we also had a model manhole (with one side cut out) with real cables and a real splicer working in it. If you had a crowd-pleasing splicer (most of them were) it was a real hit. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: Tony Pelliccio Subject: Re: Finding CO? Organization: The Ace Tomatoe and Cement Company Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 01:14:46 GMT In article , no- spam@amadeus.kome.com says: > One other thing AT&T back in the "old days": they invited the public > to tour central offices during scheduled "open house" evenings. It was > during those tours (and some private ones given to me by employee > friends) that I got to see and touch real crossbar switching gear and > see and hear it work. I never had the privelege of actually seeing an old Xbar or SxS switch in action. I did get to hear a #5Xbar though. Even without windows you could hear the banging of the relays at the Pawtucket, RI Xbar 5 office. I've gotten to see a 5ESS in action - boring. It just hums. ------------------------------ From: kamlet@panix.com (Arthur Kamlet) Subject: Re: Finding CO? Date: 5 Sep 2002 21:19:52 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: ArtKamlet@aol.REMOVE.com In article , John Higdon wrote: > One other thing AT&T back in the "old days": they invited the public > to tour central offices during scheduled "open house" evenings. It was > during those tours (and some private ones given to me by employee > friends) that I got to see and touch real crossbar switching gear and > see and hear it work. On my first CO tour of a 5XB office ... Its purpose was to stop outgoing calls from all but emergency locations. Only a small list of numbers could make calls when that switch was thrown. I figured that meant police, fire and hospital, but decided to ask anyway which lines were allowed to make calls in such an emergency. He replied, "Well, first and foremost, My home is on that list!" Art Kamlet ArtKamlet @ AOL.com Columbus OH K2PZH ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 19:38:05 -0700 From: no-spam@amadeus.kome.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , Geoffrey Welsh wrote: >> I suppose a good filter might also include a reverse DNS lookup, > Unfortunately, many legitimate mail servers operate without the > benefit of properly configured reverse DNS pointers. One of the reasons many of us abandoned Smail years ago was that the code maintainer was insistent that forward/inverse lookup matching be a non-optional feature of that MTA. The short time I used one of those versions, legitimate email was being rejected right and left. There are many SMTP servers (including some in major providers) that have forward/reverse DNS discrepancies. Even simple forward DNS checking can be a problem if a host has access to multiple IPs. > As a side note, I have my system configured to put one return address > on USENET postings and another on e-mail; I recently rejoined Telecom > Digest after years away and have sent in a couple of contributions > which, for lack of forethought on my part, had the private e-mail > return address on them ... ever since, I've been receiving spam in my > previously pristine mailbox. Spammers don't waste any opportunity to > increase their 'circulation!' I'm using a technique that has proved quite successful: a bogus-looking legitimate address for Usenet posts. When I first ran the idea up a flagpole, no one thought it would work. My theory, at least proven in practice and experience, was that address harvesters would reject what look like munged addresses. Given that I RARELY receive spam at this address (like maybe one message so far) AND I'm a prolific Usenet poster, to say the least, I would now recommend that as a technique for those who can implement it. (Now before you do this, remember that I am a bitter and over-the-hill geez who resists all bleeding edge technology. Try any technique at your own risk.) But for me, it works well, I get legitimate email replies from people who don't have to cut and trim the address, and I get virtually no spam. No, indeed. My spam all arrives bearing my regular business email addresses which were obviously sold and traded among companies with whom I correspond. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Organization: Wizard Information Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 00:10:01 -0500 It was a dark and stormy night when Pat wrote: > I've also thought a great deal about emphasizing the use of the web- > site mailing system I offer on http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice . The url got grunged somewhere along the line to comp.dcom.telecom. Maybe you'd like to repeat it? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The URL address shown above is correct. http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice is a good address to use. Help yourself to the web-based email there. Take a box, use it, pollute it, dump it then get another one. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joel B Levin Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Organization: On the desert Reply-To: levinjb@gte.net Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 06:01:30 GMT In , Geoffrey Welsh wrote: > however, a federal judge in Missouri ruled that the [Telephone > Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)] was unconstitutional, breaking with > an earlier appeals court argument that upheld the law. This judge was a lone voice in the wilderness. His ruling is not a precedent anywhere (except possibly in that one court's jurisdiction) and is expected to be reversed on appeal, if it is appealed. /JBL ------------------------------ From: Irmingard Anna Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 22:22:48 Subject: New York Remembrance: 911 REMEMBER NEW YORK 911 http://beam.to/remembrance911 If compelled leave a sign in my guestbook. Irmingard Anna [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks *very much* for sharing this note with us. 9/11 is just a day away or so, and I imagine most folks will take at least a minute or two in their own schedule to spend in reflection on what happened to us that day. History will be the final judge about the events of 9/11/01 but at least we all should spend some time meditating on it. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #28 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 9 23:15:29 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8A3FTE03515; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:15:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:15:29 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209100315.g8A3FTE03515@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #29 TELECOM Digest Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:15:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 29 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Korea-Spam, was Re: Get Bent - .info People Are Not Spammers (D Burstein) Re: Spamming, etc (Waldo Kitty) Re: New TLDs and Spam Filtering (Barry Margolin) Re: Bending Further (Waldo Kitty) Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue (Herb Stein) Re: Tampering With Payphones? (Greg) SDH Multiplexing/Equipment Questions (TMS) Does Anyone Know Where To Find Manual For NEC RC-28D? (Eugene Oden) U.S. Answering Machine in Denmark (Steffen) How Many CSU's Do I Need (WIll) MOH Volume and Fidelity on DBS VB-43000 (ghg5500@yahoo.com) Any Telecom Hiring? (Ray) Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too!!! (Doug) Re: A Decent Spam Filtering Program (James Bellaire) Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 (Dave Phelps) Re: GSM Security (David Wagner) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (Ken Abrams) Re: Ringing a Phone?? (Wes Leatherock) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: danny burstein Subject: korea-spam, was: Re: Get Bent - .info People Are Not Spammers Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 02:08:21 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not too long ago, I gave John Levine my > approval to go ahead and block all mail from Korea. I resisted that > step for a long time, despite the fact that I get *nothing* from Korea > in recent years except messages with subject lines of '##*&@(($%""$%%*' > followed by nonsensical gibberish as text, and as often as not, spam. > And five to ten of those come every day. I really did not like to do > that, but ... PAT] Actually, thanks to procmail, blocking that specific type of e-mail is pretty simple. I set up a procmail filter-rule set to look for them, and it catches 20 - 50 per day. After I watched it for a couple of months and noticed that it hadn't false-positived a single real letter, I directed the rules to send all that mail to /dev/null. (Most of the other suspected spam gets diverted to a low priority, check-it when I have a spare minute, file) A very small number do get through when they forge a header that matches some of my whitelist entries. I could spend some more time and tighten them, but it's only one a week. If that. This has the added advantage of picking up spam of this sort that gets routed through third party relay-rape in, for want of a better term, more acceptable locations. And it will allow the very rare "real" msg through. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: waldo kitty Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Date: 9 Sep 2002 18:26:09 GMT Organization: who? me? organized? HA! Joey Lindstrom wrote in news:telecom22.25.1@telecom-digest.org: > Bravo. Clap clap. But you've missed my point Pat, and that is this: > most spam comes with a fake return address. The fact that spammers > are now also using .info and .biz fake return addresses is immaterial > when it comes to the validity of those domains. I get a lot of spam > from .jp addresses: does that make all email from Japan automatically > spam until proven otherwise? No Pat, it doesn't. VERY VERY FEW > SPAMMERS USE A REAL RETURN ADDRESS: NEARLY ALL USE A FAKE ONE. So > why punish those who happen also to be VICTIMS of spammers? I have to agree with you on this part, Joey; email FROM: addresses are faked in well over 90% of the spam sent. The ONLY true indicator of where it came from is the topmost IP address in the headers. Your email server puts that IP address in there from the machine that dropped the mail off to deliver to you. There has been a recent increase in unsecured proxy servers being abused by spammers and thus it appears that the spam originated from the proxy machine. However, services like spamcop.net can tell these systems as they analyse the headers. I'm just a very happy spamcop.net user ... totally whipped my spamfilled boxes to virtually nothing in less than a year ... report often and carry a huge LART! ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: New TLDs and Spam Filtering Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 17:38:33 GMT In article , Jonathan Edelson wrote: > Pat, > I'd suggest that you look at this gentleman's comments on the Risk > Digest: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.22.html#subj15 .... > Filtering is very much like racial profiling: useful if it has a > valid statistical basis, bad policing if it is based on blind > prejudice. If everyone filters on .biz, then the spammers will > quickly find something else to use, but the people with valid > reasons to use .biz will be left in the cold ... the same way that > much of the usefulness of USENET vanished when the spammers came in. > With the above approach, if lots of spam comes with .biz somewhere > in it, then it will acquire a very negative weight. But if lots of > 'real people' use .biz, then it will demonstrate itself as a neutral > word to use in spam filtering. Note that Paul Graham's software looks at the most significant 15 words in the message. So one word like "biz" should not be enough to indict a message as spam if the rest of it looks like ordinary mail. But if it already looks spammy, "biz" in the header will provide further confirmation. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: waldo kitty Subject: Re: Bending Further Date: 9 Sep 2002 18:19:57 GMT Organization: who? me? organized? HA! Seems that maybe you folk that are floundering in spam might want to check out http://spamcop.net and start reporting it ... I'm just a happy spamcop user and hold no other affiliation with them ... note that it is .net not .com... that's someone else entirely ... and no www on it either. I use spamcop's free service. I gave them my email address and they send me a email with a special address to submit my spam to. I forward my spam (all of it, headers and complete body) as an attachment to that address and await the reply ... there's a link in the reply that I use to complete the reporting of the spam to those that can do something about it. I'll stop there for now. If you need more info about spamcop, I highly suggest visiting their site; they have an extensive FAQ running that is well maintained as well as a private news server for their support. Barry Margolin wrote in news:telecom22.23.4@telecom-digest.org: > In article , > Joey Lindstrom wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 02:01:05 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org >> wrote: >>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thanks to the two Johns and Judith >>> for clarifying all this. As John Higdon suggested, letters sent from >>> the .biz and .info domains are probably 99.44 percent spam and can >>> be filter-ruled as such. >> Excuse me, but can you produce some evidence to back up this >> outrageous claim? Show me 10,000 emails from people in .info and .biz >> domains, and then show me that 9944 of them are spam. Hell, you've >> probably already had more than 56 from me from my joey@garynuman.info >> address alone. > I get an enormous amount of spam, and I can confirm that not much of > it is from .info or .biz addresses. > On the other hand, I get an awful amount of it *about* these domains. > Several messages a day extolling that the new TLDs are available and > offering to register domains in them. If I were looking for a domain > registrar, I can't imagine a worse choice than a spammer -- not even > Network Solutions. ------------------------------ From: Herb Stein Subject: Re: Domains Have Held Their Value Better Than Blue Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 03:13:13 GMT Garrett Wollman wrote in message news:telecom22.23.2@telecom-digest.org: > In article , PAT wrote: >> People are always getting .com and .gov mixed up it >> seems > Those agencies of .gov which insist on registering (and publicizing) > .com domains are not helping matters ... > Some (most) folks just cannot get it into their heads that the DNS is > not repeat *not* a directory service, and no amount of pounding on this > particular square peg will make it fit into the triangular hole those > people seem to want it to fill. You got that right. Go to www.usps.gov or www.blueangels.navy.mil and see where you get. Yup, both are .com addresses. Browsers don't help by trying to fix the screwup either. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 952-4601 ------------------------------ From: lovemozart@hotmail.com (Greg) Subject: Re: Tampering With Payphones? Date: 6 Sep 2002 08:28:04 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ lovemozart@hotmail.com (Greg) wrote in message news:: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You did not say in this last letter > whether or not the situation was still occuring on your most recent > visit(s) to the building. We would be interested in knowing if the > situation persists. Good news. The tampering has stopped ... at least for now at these particular payphones. The security guard told me they deactivated them by cutting the power. Thanks again, Greg [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, that may be *bad news*. Public phones are usually needed more in public places like parks, etc. Not everyone has/can afford/wants to get a cell phone, or they have one, and like me, forgetfully let the battery run down. I was downtown this afternoon doing some shopping and when I wanted to go home, I tried to call the driver to come get me at the store where I was at. My cell phone was dead! They didn't have a payphone in the store, and I did not know the shopkeeper well enough to ask him to use the phone. However I went to the store a couple doors away and Jeremy the clerk there called for me, and I waited in the air-conditioned store for my cab. We are still enduring temperatures in the upper nineties even though August (and theoretically summer) are past. Even a COCOT phone is good to have around sometimes. PAT] ------------------------------ From: TMS Subject: SDH Multiplexing/Equipment questions Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:14:28 +0200 Organization: tp.internet - http://www.tpi.pl/ Hello, I have 4 questions regarding SDH networks, 1) I need SDH ADM equipment, in configuration: Aggegrate interface: 1xSTM-1, 1310 nm, SM fiber (155Mbps, VC-4) Tributary interfaces: 21xE1 (2Mbps, 21xVC-12) 1 x E3 (34Mbps, 1xVC-3) 1 x E3 (34Mbps, 1xVC-3) Optional interfaces: 10T-Base Ethernet RS232 via Console Cable Which systems are recommended? I interested in products from vendors like Lucent, Alcatel, Siemens, Marconi, Tellabs and Cisco. 2) Which multiplexing 21xE1 in STM-n is correct? 7x (3x (C-12 -> VC-12 -> TU-12) -> TUG-2) -> TUG-3 -> VC-3 -> AU-4 > AUG -> STM-n or 7x (3x (C-12 -> VC-12 -> TU-12) -> TUG-2) -> VC3 -> TU3 -> TUG-3 -> VC-3 -> AU-4 > AUG -> STM-n is any other way to multiplexing 21xE1 in STM-n? 3) How looks multiplexing VC-12-4c in STM-n? 4) What means 4/1, 16/4/1 in SDH equipment name? Best regards, Tomasz ------------------------------ From: goden@simplified.com (Eugene Oden) Subject: Does Anyone Know Where To Find a Softcopy Manual For a NEC RC-28D? Date: 5 Sep 2002 16:44:04 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I've been looking for quite a while for a manual for a NEC RC-28D DS3<->T1 multiplexer (aka M13 mux). We didn't receive any when we bought them and haven't gotten any response from NEC or the reseller we got them from at all. If anyone has any experience configuring these and would like to offer a quick run down, that would work as well. Thanks, Gene Oden Sr. Systems Analyst Simplified Development Austin, Tx ------------------------------ From: shamann@mfi.ku.dk (Steffen) Subject: U.S. Answering Machine in Denmark Date: 8 Sep 2002 23:44:48 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I have recently purchased a new 900 Mhz Sony Telephone with internal answering machine in the United States. I have brought it with me to Denmark. The phone works fine (with a voltage converter), but when one calls the answering machine does not start, as if it doesn't recognize the calling tone or something. Could anyone please help me? ------------------------------ From: willpski@hotmail.com (WIll) Subject: How many CSU's Do I Need Date: 6 Sep 2002 14:53:51 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, I am looking to connect a Cisco router to a Avaya Definity system and I was wondering if I would need a CSU on both ends of the T-1 Tie line or on just one. The Cisco Router has a CSU built into it but would I need one on the Definity end as well. Thanks, Will ------------------------------ From: ghg5500@yahoo.com (ghg5500@yahoo.com) Subject: MOH volume and fidelity on DBS VB-43000 Date: 6 Sep 2002 14:06:00 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello there, I was wondering if someone knew if it is possible to improve the fidelity and volume level of the music-on-hold for a Panasonic DBS VB-43060 system. Or perhaps someone can recommend some alternative methods to my solution of a ~$30 CD player plugged into the MOH. ;) Currently I have a portable CD player connected through the headphones output into the single MOH RCA jack of the DBS. The volume can only be increased slightly before it begins to clip, and the fidelity is horrible. I thought I saw something that mentioned an internal knob or dial that would help with this (maybe a gain knob or something?) -- however if it it exists I cannot find it. Thanks much. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Ray From: Ray Subject: Any Telecom Hiring? Organization: WEBUSENET.com Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:23:22 -0400 I've been in the telecom business for over 30 years (I'm 52). I have vast experience in software test and development, with most expertise in SS7 and ISDN signaling. Anybody? ------------------------------ From: Doug Subject: Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too!!! Organization: Totally disorganized Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 12:53:17 GMT And MCI is no better. I had to use DA to find the number for a church camp in MD. When I got my next LD bill, I emailed a question to MCI to ask why it costs so much. Their reply was basically, "that's our rate". OK, MCI, you got me once, but never again! Doug in Delaware Tim Keating wrote in message news:telecom22.25.3@telecom-digest.org: > Watch out ALL Sprint LONG distance customers!!! > All long distance plans ... except PCS users. > Sprint is going to nail $2.49 per directory assistance call !!! > Yikes ... tack in taxes ... and your looking at over Three(3) dollars > per use. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Although SWBell is not *that* bad, they are starting to get pretty awful. My phone bill came today and I saw Directory Assistance calls listed in three places. I asked them why those calls had to be scattered all over the bill. Their answer was that local DA (shown as 'other charges' on the bill) were one place (I had 6 @ $1.25 each), their own 'national directory service' (they advertise use 1-411 for all directory around the nation were elsewhere (I had two of those @ $1.25 each) BUT the real kicker was the third category where areacode-555-1212 @ $1.40 each are in a third place on the bill. If you look all over the billing pages you will find all three categories. According to the rep, under the law they have to not only break out those calls separatly, but local DA via 1-411 has to be separated from national DA (also 1-411) and various 555-1212 calls 'since those are a different company'. I told her I used SWB long distance also, and she said 'no matter; they are still considered different companies.' I asked her if they no longer gave any sort of free allowance each month, and she replied, 'no sir! we don't give anything for free.' In the next issue of the Digest I will tell you more recent experiences with our illustrious phone company. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 20:31:30 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: A Decent Spam Filtering Program Name Withheld wrote to the Digest about a Decent Spam Filtering Program: I have a .info domain as well so this could have come from bellaire@telecomindiana.info but I choose to use my shorter domain. The trouble is a LOT of people choose to use my domain due to the TK-TCL programming language and the new .tk country domains which are free. I get a lot of complaints about spam originating from TK and TK.COM that really (looking at headers) came from AOL.COM IPs. I'd support blacklisting dial up IPs from mailservers but alas my dial up is doing direct delivery, so I'd be banning myself. Such a life due to the wayward ways of others. James ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Norstar ICS 4.0 Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 23:27:32 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In article , overdrive79@hotmail.com says: > Dave Phelps wrote in message > news:: >> In article , overdrive79@hotmail.com >> says: >>> I am having trouble with a Norstar system in which a hunt group is not >>> ringing when I dial it's extension. Can anyone provide assistance? >> Do you have the group set to appear only on the phones? > No, actually I removed the users from the group and re-added them and > now their phones ring, but now I have a new problem. The hunt group > is taking up an "incoming only" button on their sets, and they told me > that it originally would ring in on one of their regular lines, not an > incoming only line. Do you know how to change this back? That's what I was talking about. Under hunt groups, when you add a set, you can then press 'show' and it will, by default, be appear and ring. Change it to ring only, and you will free up the hunt group button appearance. Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) Subject: Re: GSM Security Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 03:35:13 +0000 (UTC) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Gareth wrote: > How secure is GSM? > In particular is it possible to listen in on SMS text messages? Well, the right question is, "How hard is it to snoop on SMS?". The answer is: It's possible, but not especially easy. The SMS messages are (supposed to be) encrypted when they are transmitted over the air. Unfortunately, the existing GSM encryption algorithms all have known weaknesses, so that reduces the value of the encryption. Still, interception devices are not that cheap, as far as I know, and a certain level of knowledge is probably required. I consider SMS more secure than a post card and more secure than an analog phone. However, it is potentially breakable. It should be fine for your shopping list, but perhaps not a good choice for data worth lots of money. ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 22:11:28 -0500 w_tom wrote about Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor > Ken does not have an engineering degree. Engineers do not respond to > every post with insults. Engineers respond with engineering > facts. Ken has yet to demonstrate knowledge of any basic electrical > knowledge. He has not provided a single engineering fact. Ken even > did not understand the difference or significance of wire resistance > verses impedance. He cannot understand why that 10 AWG wire can earth > a direct phone line surge without damage or vaporizing. This > technical ignorance is quite common among those who claim lightning > damage cannot be avoided. 1) You know nothing about me. 2) If you have an Engineering degree, the school that gave it to you should be ashamed. 3) There is NO difference between resistance and impedance to DC current. 4) One of us is technically ignorant and has trouble understanding and it is NOT me. If you are so thoroughly brain-washed by Polyphaser, I suggest that you take one of their devices, attach it to a kite and string, ground it with a #10 wire and hold on to the "protected" side while the kite flies it in a few thunderstorms. Just let us know who is your next of kin so we may send flowers. >> I quit. Trying to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent is >> futile. OK, I lied. This time, I really am done. ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 07 Sep 2002 15:58:39 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Ringing a Phone?? On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 01:34:13 GMT newmanrichardf@enter.net (Richard Newman) wrote: > Oh Good Lord, Just answer the guy's question, ok ... > The answer is: > It takes a minimum of 90 volts ac at 20 hertz to ring most phones > including mechanical ringers, electronic ringers, fax machines and > signal to pbx or key systems that a call is arriving on a co type of > circuit. The voltage supplied at the central office is normally 105 volts 20 Hz, to allow for line losses (maybe 26K feet or more of 26-gauge copper). Ringers are generally pretty tolerant of low voltage, and supervision (on common battery circuits) is usually the limiting factor. > If you send 90 volts at 20 hertz to a phone, it will ring. Raise the > frequency a bit and the bell will ring faster. > Some older phone switches which shared a single line with several > subscribers rang each subscriber with a slightly different frequency. > Only the phones of the subscriber who was being called would ring even > though all the bells were connected in parallel. This worked by > installing different caps in the subscribers phones, making some ring > at 18 hertz, another at 22 hertz and another at 30 hertz. Or something > like that, you get the point, I am not sure the values here are > correct. These were "party lines." Several customers shared a single copper pair. The reason was to provide less expensive telephone service to customers who were willing to accept a lower grade of service, to provide telephone service at reasonable rates in locations far from the central office (usually rural areas) and where a shortage of facilities prevented providing a higher grade of service even to customers who wanted it. In the days of magneto and manual common battery offices, the party line pair appeared on only one jack or one set of jacks on multiple boards, with a single telephone number, the ringing designated by a suffix letter or letters. Some dial offices also had this (terminal per line), where the last digit served the same purpose as the letter suffix in a manual office. Eventually terminal per station service became universal in dial offices, with the pair multipled to the appropriate connectors or switches providing each type of ringing. This was called "harmonic ringing," and most generally was used by non-Bell companies. There was, of course, some difficulty in keeping mechanically tuned ringers on customer premises, subject to extremes of temperature and the general treatment of telephone sets by customers in normal or abusive use. "Harmonic," of course, referred to the tuning of the ringers to respond to only a single frequency. The actual frequencies used, for obvious reasons, were selected not to have a harmonic relationship. Bell companies, and quite a few non-Bell companies, used divided ringing on two-party lines (tip to ground or ring to ground), and on four-party lines added polarity (tip positive, tip negative, ring positive, ring negative). Where this was not provided, or the number of parties exceeded four, some form of code ringing was used. On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 01:34:13 GMT newmanrichardf@enter.net (Richard Newman) wrote: > Some older phone switches which shared a single line with several > subscribers rang each subscriber with a slightly different frequency. Those were called "party lines." Harmonic ringing was used mostly by non-Bell companies (with some exceptions); Bell companies, and many independents, generally used tip and ring (to grounds) for two-party lines, the same but with plus and minus polarity for four-party lines, and simply code ringing for more than four parties on a line. Some of the customer-owned rural lines that were once very common had truly wonderous combinations of ringing codes. These were local battery (magneto) and generally served by a manual office, so the operator rang the codes manually. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #29 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 10 01:26:59 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8A5Qxj04712; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 01:26:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 01:26:59 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209100526.g8A5Qxj04712@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #30 TELECOM Digest Tue, 10 Sep 2002 01:26:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 30 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson News Headlines of Interest 9/10/02 (Monty Solomon) New Entries For the Business Directory (David B. Horvath, CCP) Calling Business Office (Carl Moore) Dealing With SWB Business Office (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Spamming, etc (Al Iverson) Re: Spam Filtering (Anonymous User) A Day Off From Telesleaze (Joey Lindstrom) Telemarketers Who Say They're Not Telemarketers? (Brian Kendig) Re: Finding CO? (John Higdon) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 20:53:07 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 9/10/02 AT&T Wireless Enters Final Phase of Next-Generation Network Nationwide Rollout; Offers Customers One-Time Special "Charter" Promotion - Sep 5, 2002 07:44 AM (BusinessWire) REDMOND, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 5, 2002--AT&T Wireless (NYSE:AWE) today entered the final phase of the rollout of its next-generation network throughout the United States and marked the event with an unprecedented special promotion that offers unlimited calling. People in the hundreds of cities served by the company's next-generation wireless network - including Boston, Los Angeles, and Pittsburgh, where the network went into service today - can sign up for the AT&T Wireless Charter Plan, a limited-time special promotion. For $99.99 a month, consumers can make all the domestic calls they want while on-network, with long distance included and no roaming charges. The company said this is the first offer of its kind to place no limit on monthly wireless minutes. ... - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28566972 U.S. court won't reopen shared telephone line case - Sep 5, 2002 04:52 PM (Reuters) WASHINGTON, Sept 5 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Thursday refused to reconsider its decision that struck down rules that required telephone companies like Verizon Communications (NYSE:VZ) to share lines for services like high-speed Internet. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down a rule in May that required companies to share lines with rivals. It also ordered the Federal Communications Commission to reconsider its national standard for what network elements must be shared with competitors. The judges were rejecting an FCC request to reconsider their decision. However the court stayed the impact of the decision until Jan. 2, 2003, giving the FCC time to come up with new rules. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28575771 A Story Of Piracy And Privacy By Jonathan Krim Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, September 5, 2002; Page E01 The recording industry and the nation's largest telephone company are crossing legal swords in what could be a test case of how far big record labels can go to track down computer users who swap music online. The industry is seeking to force Verizon Communications Corp., which also provides customers with high-speed Internet access, to turn over the name of one of its users who the record labels claim has made copyrighted music available for download by others. The Recording Industry of America also demanded that Verizon block access to the user's music files. The industry contends that it is losing millions of dollars in music sales because potential customers are instead downloading digital copies from others in violation of copyright law. The battle with Verizon is part of an aggressive campaign by the record labels on Capitol Hill, at the Justice Department and in the courts to crack down on the practice. Among other tactics, the industry is using automated software agents -- called "bots," short for "robots" -- to patrol the Internet and identify computers with music available for download through a popular technology known as file sharing. Although the bot can detect the presence of music files available for download, it can identify only an Internet address code and the service provider, not the identity of the user. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38034-2002Sep4.html RealNetworks and baseball team up in wireless venture Cell phone users can listen to major-league games By Nick Wingfield THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Sept. 6 - Hoping to appeal to sports fans on the go, RealNetworks Inc. and Major League Baseball agreed to provide live audio broadcasts of baseball games through cellular phones, and AT&T Wireless Services Inc. signed on to become the first carrier to offer the service to its customers. http://www.msnbc.com/news/804446.asp Intuit Uses Anti-Piracy Measures - Sep 6, 2002 07:11 AM (AP Online) By MICHAEL LIEDTKE AP Business Writer SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Intuit Inc. has introduced new anti-piracy measures that will force buyers of its popular TurboTax software to register their computers with the company before the program will file tax returns. The new requirements, announced Thursday and effective for the next tax-filing season, are part of Intuit's crackdown on TurboTax buyers who pass around copies of the tax preparation software to their friends, family and neighbors. Intuit believes the software sharing is undercutting its TurboTax sales, although the company hasn't estimated how much it might be losing. The Mountain View-based company sold 5.3 million copies of TurboTax's desktop product in its fiscal year ended in July. That's more than any other tax preparation program. The new measures will corral critical TurboTax features on a single computer that must be registered with the company, either through the Internet or an automated phone center. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28580869 SONICblue and Intel Team Up to Create Portable Entertainment Device - Sep 9, 2002 06:03 PM (BusinessWire) SAN JOSE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 9, 2002-- SONICblue(TM)Incorporated (NASDAQ:SBLU) and Intel Corporation today announced that they are working together to develop the ReplayTV(R)Portable Video Player (PVP), a new product that will allow people to enjoy digital entertainment on the go. The product, currently in development, combines the performance and low power consumption of Intel(R) XScale(TM) technology-based processors with SONICblue's Emmy award-winning ReplayTV platform. The pocket-sized device will allows users to watch time-shifted television programs transferred from their SONICblue ReplayTV, as well as play video, audio and photos transferred from a PC. Intel will provide key technology building blocks, including Intel XScale technology-based processors and advanced video codecs developed by Intel's Emerging Platforms Lab. Intel will also supply a reference implementation of a PVP device. SONICblue will combine Intel's technologies with its knowledge and understanding of digital entertainment to create a final product that enhances SONICblue's ReplayTV line. SONICblue's PVP will house a large capacity hard drive and support multiple audio and video formats, including native ReplayTV files, so recorded television content can be transferred directly from ReplayTV set-top boxes for portable enjoyment. The SONICblue ReplayTV PVP will also connect to a PC so that users can transfer and play personal, MP3 and other commercially available multimedia content from their PC. The high-performance and low power consumption of the Intel XScale technology-based processors will enable users to enjoy high-quality video for several hours without recharging the battery. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28609712 Intel Accelerates the Delivery of the Digital Home With the Extended Wireless PC Initiative - Sep 9, 2002 10:32 AM (BusinessWire) SAN JOSE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 9, 2002--Intel Corporation announced an initiative that will aid distribution of digital media throughout the home. The Extended Wireless PC Initiative, the first step in delivering on the Digital Home vision, will provide key building blocks and toolkits to the developer community, allowing them to easily and seamlessly distribute PC digital media to TVs and stereos throughout the consumer's home. Critical to the media distribution is a new PC peripheral called a digital media adapter, which creates the link between PCs, TVs, and stereos. It can receive digital media from the PC using 802.11 wireless networking and UpnP* technologies, and can connect to TVs and stereos using standard A/V cables -- much like a DVD player. Consumers can purchase the digital media adapter bundled with a new PC, use a simple remote control to navigate through menus on their TV screen and select the PC digital media they want to receive. This tightly integrated approach to digital media distribution will be easy to install, perform multiple functions, and be offered at attractive consumer price points. To accelerate the development of digital media adapters and extended wireless PC platforms by the second half of 2003, Intel is announcing the immediate availability of the following technology building blocks and toolkits for developers: http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28601585 Drive-by spam hits wireless LANs By Graeme Wearden Special to CNET News.com September 6, 2002, 10:14 AM PT LONDON--The proliferation of insecure corporate wireless networks is fueling the growth of drive-by spamming, a security expert warned on Thursday. A drive-by spammer would send e-mail by finding an unprotected SMTP (simple mail transfer protocol) port on a company's server and then sending e-mail as if the person were a legitimate user of the company's network. The mail server wouldn't be able to tell otherwise. The ability to send spam through a company's network without the company's knowledge could allow the spammer to avoid bandwidth costs, which can be substantial for tens or hundreds of thousands of e-mails. That method also makes it much more difficult to trace the spam back to the spammer -- a useful tactic for those who send spam as a service for other companies and who may have been in trouble with the law. http://news.com.com/2100-1033-956911.html September 5, 2002 Dirty Laundry, Online for All to See By JENNIFER 8. LEE SKELETONS have come out of the closets and are creeping along Cincinnati's streets. People say that Jim Cissell released them. Four years ago, Mr. Cissell decided that it was time to move the county's court records onto the Web. The documents were already public. They were already electronic. Where else to put public electronic documents but on the Internet? "It was the natural progression of technology," said Mr. Cissell, the clerk of courts for Hamilton County, whose seat is Cincinnati. Mr. Cissell's three-person technology staff put together the Web site at www.courtclerk.org. State tax liens, arrest warrants, bond postings -- all became searchable and accessible on the Internet. "Everything we get is scanned and available," said Mr. Cissell, a former United States attorney. "It was very easy to open the door to the public." Visitors have flowed to the site. So have the complaints. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/05/technology/circuits/05CINC.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 20:52:12 -0400 From: dhorvath@cobs.com (David B. Horvath, CCP) Subject: New Entries For the Business Directory Subject: "Help us market our BioPhotonic Tissue Antioxidant Scanner!!" > LET US HELP YOU START BUILDING... > CALL TOLL FREE: 1-888-277-7691 TODAY=21=21 > PLEASE NOTE: When you call, you will be prompted to leave your name, > telephone number, and email address. > Within 48 hours, a representative will call or email you to > verify your information, level of interest, and qualification. > After your information is verified, YOU WILL THEN RECEIVE, FREE OF > CHARGE OR OBLIGATION ACCESS TO OUR EXTENSIVE LIBRARY OF ONLINE INFORMATION > CONTACT US AT 1-888-277-7691 The really annoying thing is that the ad says: > ... rapidly-expanding internetworking company* (see footnote), which > is owned by a 17-year-old, publicly-traded > corporation that has the highest possible Dunn & Bradstreet rating > of 5-A1 > *FOOTNOTE: > (Company policy prohibits us from > either using its proper name during this "first contact" > advertisement.) Another SPAM interesting advertisement came with the subject of "Re: NORTON SYSTEMWORKS CLEARANCE SALE" Unfortunately, they have no contact information on their web pages. You have to go all the way through the purchase process -- after which you get a static HTML page that tells you to print it as confirmation of your order. The funny thing is that the purchase page does not *require* payment information. "A charge will appear on your credit card as Print Doctor, Inc.. If you have any questions at all about your order please contact us by calling 1-800-758-8084 toll-free." Another message redirected to a yahoo.com store that mentioned the following: > Click here to claim your FREE SpyEar: (deleted, redirects to a yahoo store) > or call 1-800-VALUE-07. > Start hearing what you've been missing! - David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:46:06 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Calling Business Office On my next-to-last Cavalier statement (recall my recent mailings regarding my having to drop Cavalier local dial tone and go back to Verizon), I see a couple of charges for calls to business offices. I'll go ahead and list the numbers, with the caution that you not call them except on business. 410-954-6260, using "OFICILNTWK" in place of city name (that is for Verizon) 800-950-7858, using "INBOUND" for city name and nothing for state/ country (that is for Cavalier) In addition, the pay phones near my office were found to be AT&T, not Verizon, and they demanded money for calls to the 410 area number I just listed. That reminded me of what I read about those 811-xxxx telephone numbers for some telephone business offices in California, with it being necessary to publish the translation to "regular" ten-digit numbers (including the area code) for those who needed to call regarding their account from outside of the service area. (Unrelated example is that if I call about my account when I am in my office, I have to call from the Aberdeen exchange, not from North East.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:37:45 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Dealing With SWB Business Office My mother said it first: "I sure liked it a lot when the service rep (all one of them - PAT) was there in the telephone exchange building on Maple and 6th Street downtown. You could get in and out of there in a hurry, and you always got things done correctly the first time." Yeah, you bet. Now we call an 800 number on the phone and reach some person (after waiting in an appropriately long queue) in the corporate office in Dallas, TX, who knows from nothing but thinks she knows it all. Here is my experience over the past six months more or less with these folks. About six months ago, I sent a sizeable check to them to pay in advance for my DSL service for several months. I knew that in actual practice the credit balance I carried each month would be absorbed on my regular bill as well as DSL since both come on the same bill. But that was okay. Instead of a year's worth of advance payments on the DSL alone, I wound up getting about seven months of all phone service paid in advance as a result. At the same time, I sent them a blank, voided check and a slip to authorize future payments from my bank account. So far, so good. I also signed up for 'e-bill' which allows you to review/print out your bill on line, and make payments on line as needed. Again, dandy. Each month I would check my bill on line when an email came from SWB with a link in it saying, 'click here to see your bill for (month).' I would review the bill and at the bottom it would say xx dollars credit, do not pay. Also, each month my e-bill from SWB would say something about 'your balance due will be charged to bank account at your bank. But credit balance, do not pay.' Wouldn't you assume the fact that they had my bank account number on file with that statement meant my bill was going to be auto-debited when due? Then came the final bill with the credit balance and it said your new balance due is $54.04. Again, the statement about 'your balance due will be charged to your bank account on (date).' Okay, fine, the bill looked accurate, even though those directory assistance charges get sort of bad. On the Saturday before Labor Day in the mail comes an 'URGENT DISCONNECT NOTICE' telling me if I did not pay the bill of $54.04 *within five days* my phone would be disconnected. Mailed the day before, it was due to time out on Tuesday following Labor Day. Of course there was no way to reach them on the phone Saturday, Sunday or Monday (Labor Day). But of course! Why should anything be easy? Tuesday I called the number given which was not the business office I usually reach and the lady started right out with this arrogant attitude about 'may we expect you to make payment today?' I told her about e-bill and its claims that my bank account would be auto-debited. Nope, she says, couldn't be. We don't have you down for any auto-draft. I told her she did so, and to look at the same computer screen I was reading from. She claimed she could not do that, since her computer had different information on it. After we went back and forth on this for several minutes, I agreed to allow her to make a debit on my bank and get the $54.04 she claimed was still due. Guess what, two days later a *second* charge came throuh the bank for the $54.04 a *second time*. (The one I gave up and told her she could take and the original one). She kept telling me I would have to fill out the auto-draft form again, because it must have gotten lost. Today my latest e-bill arrived. It did have $54.04 as a credit for overpayment but the balance still due. I got the same story today, that the computer 'could not possibly tell you that your auto-draft is on file because we don't have it here.' I told her the second draft which last month's rep had promised to send me had not gotten here either. She told me where to get a blank form printed out on my printer to send to them, but it takes a couple months to process so you should plan to pay your bills by hand until then ... 'Even though the computer says you will auto-draft the bank?' Well, they can not go by that, I was told, it has to be what *their* computer says, no matter what *my* computer and *their* e-bill says. I sent the form this time back to her by fax, and she agreed it got there this time. We will see when next month's bill comes out. ******************************* I also discovered how bogus their 'privacy manager' service is. You all know the routine on that. It appears that if the name line on the caller-id box lists 'name withheld' as the name, or the phone number is given as a/c-000-0000 that is considered perfectly acceptable for privacy manager's purpose, and those calls do not get screened. I *thought* privacy manager was intended to catch all those. But I see any number of 'out of area' for the name and all zero's for the phone number calls that just ring through anyway. It appears the only calls privacy manager catches and stops are those where the caller *deliberatly* does *67 and withholds information. I've tried dialing *67 and my own number. Instead of getting a busy signal the call is apparently forwarded to Wichita for privacy manager treatment, then bounced back to me with whatever bogus name I inserted in the tape recording as a 'call-waiting'. And SWB will not sell privacy manager by itself. You must get caller id as well, and the kind of caller id which prints out name and number at that. So what will happen when all telmarketers catch on to the fact that all they have to do is fix their PBX to give a caller's name of 'name withheld' or be sure to insert all zero's or some other bogus number as their number. Then it will be a totally useless service. At least they are giving it for free for three months with no installation charges to make it somewhat worth my time. Yes mother, you are correct: it was better when you could walk down to the telephone exchange building and talk to the lady working there in the lobby. In Junction City, KS at least, even when they got rid of the service rep in the lobby (and put a red, non-dial phone in her place that connects directly to Sprint-United HQ in Shawnee Mission), they still kept the cashier there (at least a couple years ago) where you had someone to pay directly and complain to as you wished. Maybe even the cashier is gone now. :( PAT ------------------------------ From: Al Iverson Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Organization: Please don't email replies Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 22:28:18 -0500 In article , Dave Garland wrote: > It was a dark and stormy night when Pat wrote: >> I've also thought a great deal about emphasizing the use of the web- >> site mailing system I offer on http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice . > The url got grunged somewhere along the line to comp.dcom.telecom. > Maybe you'd like to repeat it? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The URL address shown above is correct. > http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice is a good address to use. Help > yourself to the web-based email there. Take a box, use it, pollute it, > dump it then get another one. PAT] http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice doesn't work. http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice/ does. Why, dunno. Al Iverson -- http://www.radparker.com -- Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA Support Minnesota Jazz -- Disclaimer: All of my opinions are mine alone. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I dunno either. Use it that way if it works. I guess I could be like the porn web sites, and throw a fit and threaten to sue you for 'deep linking' into that back page and not going through the front door http://telecom-digest.org where you have to make a donation and read all my glories. If Noah M. at LCS-MIT is reading this, maybe he can make it work correctly once again without the need to use the slash on the end of the URL. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Anonymous User Subject: Re: Spam Filtering Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 00:10:36 UTC Hello Pat, If you are interested in spam filtering, here's the URL for a project that is generally regarded as the most industrial strength around. Its in use at well.com, etc. Note: it runs on UNIX, written in Perl. http://spamassassin.taint.org/ Enjoy. ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 17:39:12 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: A Day Off From Telesleaze OMAHA, Neb. -- Recognizing that many Americans won't be in the mood to get sales calls, many of the nation's telemarketers plan to take the day off Wednesday on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks. (Sorry, this long URL is going to split onto two lines, you'll probably have to piece it back together.) http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-nj--sept11-telemarket0909sep09.story?coll=ny%2Dap%2Dregional%2Dwire / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom / / If you tell a joke in the forest, but nobody laughs, was it a joke? / --Steven Wright ------------------------------ From: Brian Kendig Subject: Telemarketers Who Say They're Not Telemarketers? Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 21:57:27 GMT Organization: Verio I've been trying to cut down on the number of telemarketing calls I get by following a simplified form of the JunkBusters (www.junkbusters.com) script: as soon as a telemarketer gives me a chance to speak, I ask, 'Does your organization have a don't call list?' and then when they say yes, I say 'Would you please put my phone number on that list?' About half the telemarketers who call me agree to do this. Most of them never call back (except the Florida Sheriff's organization asking for donations every few weeks and getting really rude with me when I ask to be off their list). If the telemarketer balks, or says 'um, no, we don't have a list like that,' then I go through the full script ('http://www.junkbusters.com/ht/en/script.html'), starting with 'Are you calling to sell something?' My question is, what should I do when the person answers 'no?' Like, today, I got a call from Macy's to let me know they're opening a new store in the area and to let me know they're sending me gift certificates, if I'd only verify my address. Of course I'm not going to verify my address; but they're not calling to *sell* me anything, they're only giving me a gift out of the kindness of their hearts ... *choke gag* What's the proper way to deal with calls like this? Are they legally allowed to keep calling me, because they're not really trying to sell me stuff? Another question: Are recorded telemarketers still illegal? Sometimes I come home to a long message on my answering machine about timeshare homes, and it sounds friendly and authentic except that the person never mentions my name. Other times I answer the phone and a recording begins to cheerfully blather at me. If these recordings don't give any way to get through to a human being, how do I fight them? And yet another question: I get very few phone calls on my home phone, so most of the calls I do get are telemarketers. If I pick up the phone within the first ring or two, it's a telemarketer. If I don't get to the phone until the third or fourh ring, then I get a *click* and a dialtone -- it's the telemarketer's wardialer having already reached enough people to connect to its handful of live human beings, so it doesn't really need to connect me to anyone, not even after I bothered to answer the phone. That's just RUDE. What's the best way to fight this? ____ |\/| Brian Kendig \ /\ / ..__. brian at enchanter net You are in a maze of twisty \/ \__\ _/ http://www.enchanter.net/ little passages, all alike. \__ __ \_ Be insatiably curious. \____\___\ Ask "why" a lot. ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Finding CO? Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 20:16:36 -0700 In article , wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) wrote: > A step office was even noisier and you could see a lot more action > taking place. Unfortunately, dial phones came too late to San Jose. The first automatic exchange switch in San Jose was crossbar. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #30 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 10 16:24:19 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8AKOJg09401; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:24:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:24:19 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209102024.g8AKOJg09401@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #31 TELECOM Digest Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:22:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 31 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Straight or Twisted Telephone Cables (xeondavis) Re: U.S. Answering Machine in Denmark (Richard D.G. Cox) Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor (w_tom) Re: MOH Volume and Fidelity on DBS VB-43000 (Steve Hayes) Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too! (John Stahl) Re: Dealing With SWB Business Office (Wes Leatherock) Re: Ringing a Phone?? (PaulCoxwell@aol.com) Re: Finding CO? (Ed Ellers) Re: How many CSU's Do I Need (Dave Phelps) Hourly Updated News Source For Telecom (Vojta Kalina) News Headlines of Interest 9/10/02 (Monty Solomon) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: aakomala@yahoo.com (xeondavis) Subject: Straight or Twisted Telephone Cables Date: 9 Sep 2002 23:30:07 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I have a basic question. I was just setting up the telephone system for my friend's office, and I discovered that almost all RJ11 telephone cables were wired twisted, not straight-thru. I know for CAT5 (RJ45), you can have a straight-thru or cross-over cable. But for telephone cables, why didn't they use a straight-thru cable? Any pros or cons? Thanks, -a ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:00:34 +0100 From: Richard D G Cox Subject: Re: U.S. Answering Machine in Denmark Reply-To: no-spam@mandarin.com Organization: Mandarin Technology Limited On 9 Sep 2002 06:45 UT shamann@mfi.ku.dk (Steffen) wrote: > I have recently purchased a new 900 Mhz Sony Telephone with internal > answering machine in the United States. I have brought it with me to > Denmark. The phone works fine (with a voltage converter), but when one > calls the answering machine does not start, as if it doesn't recognize > the calling tone or something. Could anyone please help me? I have seen a series of problems with answering machines seeming to fail to recognise the incoming ring signal. In fact what the machines were failing to detect correctly, was the inter-ring pause: being programmed to answer after a set number of "rings", as the inter-ring pause was too short, the machines never detected it and so always registered that they were receiving the first ring - therefore it was never the right time to cut in and answer! In the cases I investigated, we were blighted with a (Philips) PBX that had non-standard ringing cadences and the answering machines we started with (ironically, also "made" (i.e.branded) by Philips!) would always answer when on a direct CO line -- but never when on a PBX extension. The logical solution of changing the answering machine was unsuccessful: we soon discovered that the internal firmware built into rather a lot of (ostensibly different and unrelated) answering machines come from the same supplier (in Taiwan or Korea), and behaves in exactly the same manner. As that part of Philips seemed to be no more than a branding/marketing operation, we were unable to get any effective technical support for the product. Richard D G Cox ------------------------------ From: w_tom Subject: Re: Telephone Surge Suppressor Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 07:27:27 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Ken demonstrates that some recommended surge protection even basic knowledge and that others in ignorance cry, "Woe is me. Nothing can protect from lightning". Surges are RF energy. Ken criticizes without even knowing what a transient is. RF energy involves wire impedance; not wire resistance. If surges were DC current, then a surge protector would work adjacent to a telephone appliance. But surges are RF energy which means central earth ground must connect short to a surge protector. Many installed plug-in protectors, suffered damage, than insist that nothing can protect from lightning. They failed to first learn surge protection fundamentals such as wire impedance, basic circuit theory, and single point grounding. Impedance - not resistance - must be understood for lightning protection which would explain why Ken could not protect from lightning strikes. He even thought transients were DC current - contrary to what is taught in any first Electrical Engineering course, or even in any math class that teaches Fourier Series. Ken did not understand basic electrical concepts, then in three previous posts, he posted no technical facts and instead insulted the messenger. Ken Abrams wrote: > 3) There is NO difference between resistance and impedance to DC current. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We WILL CLOSE this thread as of today. Thanks to all participants who posted messages, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steve Hayes Subject: Re: MOH Volume and Fidelity on DBS VB-43000 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:46:08 +0000 Hi Pat and all, In TELECOM Digest V22 #29, ghg5500@yahoo.com asked if there was a way to improve Music On Hold volume and fidelity on a particular Panasonic phone system. At present, the music clips if it is turned up at all and the fidelity is terrible. I don't know this system but suspect there isn't a simple or legal fix. About 20 years ago, I had to design a Music On Hold interface complying with FCC part 68 regulations. These regulations may have changed since then but I suspect they haven't. The regulations limit the transmit level of various signals. Voice levels can be pretty high, peaking at over 0 dbm. DTMF can be transmitted at around -4 dbm (I'm working from memory - don't count on these figures being exact). Continuous tones such as modem transmit tones are limited to -9 dbm. Limits are even lower at the extreme top of the audio band (near 3 kHz). These limits are mainly intended to reduce annoyance from the signals leaking into other phone circuits (crosstalk). The assumption is that the average level of voice signals will be much lower than the peak and that DTMF signals are only present for a moment. Crosstalk from continuous tones is more annoying. There were no specific regulations for music on hold. Since the equipment manufacturer can't control what someone might connect to the MOH input, the sure way to get FCC approval is to ensure that, whatever might be connected, the limits for continuous tones cannot be exceeded. The cheap and dirty way to do this (which I admit to using) is to clip the input signal so that the limit for continous tones at lower frequencies cannot be exceeded, then to use a fairly simple low pass filter to further limit the levels at the higher frequencies. The result sounds exactly as described but no-one ever seems to select equipment for its music on hold quality. All they require is to be able to tick the box saying that feature is included in the system. I'm just another old cynic ... Steve Hayes South Wales, UK ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:21:40 -0400 From: John Stahl Subject: Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too!!! Why would anyone with access to the Internet, use a DA of any of the "dial-tone" or LD suppliers? There are many good "look-up" services on the Internet which are FREE. For example, for telephone numbers, I use: http://www.theultimates.com/ for both White pages and Yellow pages http://www.superpages.com/ for the same use http://www.switchboard.com/ for White,Yellow,(by) telephone number look-up, http://www.whitepages.com/ for White,Yellow,reverse look-up, by address look-up http://www.superpages.ca/ for Canadian telephone number look-up There are a bunch more of these (though one of the originals's in this group has gone to a cost basis -- www.555-1212.com -- there are plenty, free to use) which can be found on my favorite Reference site where just about anything (with applicable hyper-links) can be found!): http://www.refdesk.com/ John Stahl Telecom/Data Consultant Aljon Enterprises ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 10 Sep 2002 13:49:53 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Dealing With SWB Business Office On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:37:45 EDT TELECOM Digest Editor ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.ed wrote: > Yeah, you bet. Now we call an 800 number on the phone and reach some > person (after waiting in an appropriately long queue) in the corporate > office in Dallas, TX, who knows from nothing but thinks she knows it > all. SWB corporate offices are in St. Louis, Mo. However, where you get a service representative is apparently pretty random. However, on a list for SWB retirees (not a company-sponsored list) I find that one of the business offices (or whatever they call them now) that handles accounts in Oklahoma City is located in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Apparently such calls are distributed to an open position in any one of several business offices which handles that group of accounts. Other than that minor point, while I haven't had your particular set of experiences, I have no reason to disagree with the general tenor of your post. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is *nothing* in the way of government/utility services available in a large urban area which is not also available in a small town as long as someone there has a hook or connection into the utility/government agency computer system, and it often times is more personal and individually centered than the large city. SWB for example, *had* a service rep here in Independence until about two years ago, at the phone exchange building at 6th and Maple Street downtown. You could walk in, and likely there was no one ahead of you at all, or maybe one customer. You told her your problem or whatever -- maybe you wanted a phone turned on or off, etc. She filled out the paperwork, typed a few things on the computer terminal and that was it; the job was finished. For some simple, purely local tasks, for example, 'put call waiting on line xxx' she would do the paperwork and the technician assigned to the office went upstairs to the switch and did the work. Chances are, later in the day the job was done. Everyone in town refers to their phone by four digits; if your number for example is 620-331-6019 for the taxicab service, you simply told her 'six oh one nine' and she had her books things there and was working on it that fast. You had to dial seven digits of course, but in speaking only refer to the last four. You gave her seven digits if you were inquiring about other than the default of Independence, for example (all 620) 251 or 252 for Coffeyville, 336 for Cherryvale, 847 for Caney, 289 for rural Independence service, such as Tyro, Dearing, Blake, Bolton, Liberty, etc. But she was old and got sick one day, and shortly thereafter they cleaned out her desk and locked up the office for a final time. A sign on the front door said 'If no one is here or office closed, use the phone (on wall by the door) to call 800-xxx-xxxx for service.' But no one ever did. They would come back later or the next day and see the lady instead. The Independence Social Security office is another example. Although a sign on the door says 'call anytime 24 hours for assistance at our national number 800-772-1213' people simply prefer to walk in and do business right there, from all over the county. Like the phone exchange, I have never seen more than one or two people ahead of me waiting for service. Being disabled as I have been since my brain aneurysm, I've had my share of dealings with Social Security Disability Services since that day in 1999 also. It is *so pleasant* to go in their office, walk up to the desk and be waited on instantly. I talk to my rep there every couple weeks or at least once a month lately, all because of problems caused in the Chicago office. Last time I was there to see her, I asked her in an off-hand way, 'have you ever had any dealings with Social Security in Chicago?' Her eyes got wide, and she said "I heard in Chicago you have to take a number, wait in line for about an hour, then when they call your number you go stand in a little stall where a clerk talks to you." I told her that was correct, and she continued, "When I have to call the midwest region service center in Chicago, I get the impression they are 'racially diverse' (code words for mostly black) and not terribly intelligent." I assured her that was also quite true, and told her if you need to actually speak to someone who can make any decisions, they give you an appointment for two months later. She thought all that was rather incredible. Ditto the Independence SRS office. Kind, thoughtful and intelligent people to deal with. Because this town is the 'county seat' for Montgomery County (all 31,000 people) therefore the Social Security and SRS (Social and Rehabilitative Services) offices are located here rather than Coffeyville, for example. All the necessary services (for someone like myself) in a tiny town 2 miles wide by 3 miles long; easy to walk to or take a $1.50 cab ride to go to. And the town subsidizes the rest of my cab ride, since I am disabled and considered a 'senior citizen' now. When SWB pulled out their 'service center' here two or three years ago it was very unfortunate. I guess they thought any local center should be a lot busier. They like to see those terminal input clerks stay busy all the time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 04:15:51 EDT Subject: Re: Ringing a Phone?? > Bell companies, and quite a few non-Bell companies, used divided > ringing on two-party lines (tip to ground or ring to ground), and on This was also the system used by the British GPO on the two-way party lines that were once very common in this country. Unlike the Bell System, the British arrangement also used a "call exchange" button on party-line phones which the subscriber had to press to get dial tone. The switch opened the loop and grounded the ring or tip side of the line as appropriate. Only then would the line be cut through to a sub's uniselector or linefinder. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Finding CO? Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 05:38:02 -0400 Steve Brack wrote: > Back in the good old days, a small suburban village near where I > grew up had a novel solution to the percieved "problem" of an ugly > CO building. When Ohio Bell cut them over from cordboard to dial > service, they couldn't get zoning approval to build a CO building, > so, in a pretty creative move, they bought the cordboard operator's > house, gutted it, and built a small switch (probably SxS) inside the > existing house. That way the village government couldn't say > anything, although the neighbors probably noticed that no one ever > came or went from this "house." > So, the best way to hide a CO is to make it look like one of the > innumerable and interchangeable houses in the neighborhood. South Central Bell used to have an SxS switch in a house in Anchorage, Kentucky (a suburb of Louisville). I have no idea what they did for ESS. Note that in some states local zoning boards don't have any authority over telephone company facilities, since those are regulated at the state level. ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: How many CSU's Do I Need Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 00:07:32 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In article , willpski@hotmail.com says: > I am looking to connect a Cisco router to a Avaya Definity system and > I was wondering if I would need a CSU on both ends of the T-1 Tie line > or on just one. The Cisco Router has a CSU built into it but would I > need one on the Definity end as well. If the router and PBX are not using telco facilities, you don't need any CSU's at all. It is nice to be able to look at CSU stats if you have trouble though. -- Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: vojta.kalina@einmedia.com (Vojta Kalina) Subject: Hourly Updated News Source For Telecom Date: 10 Sep 2002 03:07:19 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, I am editor of Telecom Report http://www.europeaninternet.com/telecom/ Our editorial team works hard to bring you 25,000 daily and hourly updated news, exchange rates, market news and other important information. Please visit my site and see how much news you have been missing. Take care, Vojta Kalina Editor of Telecom Report ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:53:34 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 9/10/02 Faster Wi-Fi standard gets nod By Ben Charny Staff Writer, CNET News.com September 9, 2002, 5:13 PM PT A new wireless standard five times faster than Wi-Fi got an important approval Monday. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) said Monday that a draft of the standard, 802.11g, passed the first of several votes needed before it's ultimately approved. The IEEE said it intends to finalize the 802.11g standard by May 2003. The 802.11g standard is part of the thicket of wireless networking standards. The most popular is Wi-Fi, or 802.11b, which has been installed in 15 million to 18 million homes and offices worldwide. The networks provide wireless Internet access within a radius of about 300 feet of an access point. The 802.11g network is much faster, although it operates in the same radio frequency as Wi-Fi. Equipment using 802.11g can download files or access the Web at 54 megabits per second, compared with Wi-Fi's rate of 11 megabits per second. It is also more secure than Wi-Fi and is compatible with existing Wi-Fi networks, meaning customers could use an 802.11g card to access a Wi-Fi access point. http://news.com.com/2100-1033-957229.html Developers Rapidly Adopt Apple's Rendezvous Networking Technology APPLE EXPO, PARIS, Sept. 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Developers are rapidly adopting Apple's (NASDAQ:AAPL) innovative new Rendezvous(TM) networking technology for incorporation into everything from consumer electronics to printers, enterprise database management and educational applications. Today Philips, Canon, Xerox, Sybase and World Book announced support for Rendezvous in current or future products, joining previous Rendezvous adopters Hewlett-Packard, Epson and Lexmark. Rendezvous uses industry standard networking protocols and zero configuration technology to automatically discover and connect devices over any IP network, including Ethernet and 802.11 wireless networking. Rendezvous is integrated into Apple's Mac(R) OS X version 10.2 "Jaguar" operating system, and dozens of companies are working to integrate it into their products. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28613545 ISPs Gird For Copyright Fights By John Borland Staff Writer, CNET News.com September 9, 2002, 4:00 AM PT A delicate detente is breaking down under pressure from peer-to-peer networks, placing two powerful industries on a collision course that could reshape the legal landscape for online file-swapping. Record companies and movie studios have long turned to Internet service providers for help in their battle against online piracy, but ISPs are beginning to balk at what they see as increasingly onerous demands to step up pressure against online copyright infringement. Last month saw a two-pronged expansion of that strategy, resulting in separate legal skirmishes between the record labels' trade association, Verizon Communications and a handful of large backbone service providers. Internet service providers now say they're increasingly concerned that their hard-won position of neutrality in the copyright wars is being undermined. "It's absolutely worrisome," said Robin O'Reilly, congressional affairs adviser for Cable & Wireless, a large Internet backbone company. "This is not a role we want to get into." The budding conflict will ultimately help determine how much anonymity ISP subscribers can expect, as well as potentially shape new copyright laws and Net anti-piracy practices. In past policy battles, telecommunications companies have been among the only political forces powerful enough to push back against the entertainment industry and win. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-957023.html ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #31 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 11 17:06:52 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8BL6qV15497; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:06:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:06:52 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209112106.g8BL6qV15497@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #32 TELECOM Digest Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:53:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 32 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Help Wanted! Looking for Expert or Knowledgable Teacher (Margaret Felts) Re: Finding CO? (Clarence Dold) Re: Finding CO? (Wes Leatherock) Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too (JM Hoffman) Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too (Doug) Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too (D. Garland) Re: Straight or Twisted Telephone Cables (Shaun Ewing) Re: Straight or Twisted Telephone Cables (Wes Leatherock) Re: Straight or Twisted Telephone Cables (Tom Schmidt) Re: Spamming, etc (Steven Lichter) Re: Spamming, etc (Waldo Kitty) Re: U.S. Answering Machine in Denmark (Paul Coxwell) Re: Extra Charge to Call Cell Phone in US? (John R. Levine) Re: Dealing With SWB Business Office (Ken Abrams) Re: Alternative Local Dialtones (David) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: Margaret Felts From: Margaret Felts Subject: Help Wanted! Looking for Expert or Knowledgable Teacher Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:01:13 -0700 Organization: California Telephone Assn [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Today I decided to save the best for first! This is a good opportunity for one of you guys to get your name out before the industry. PAT] We are setting up our Annual Conference for the first week of February 2003. In the process, I am trying to find someone who can speak to the following issues and who would be able to lead a discussion with phone company technical staff and managers: "The usage of our networks without compensation via virtual NXX assignments which route traffic over toll trucks and rate as local. Also usage of our networks without compensation in the VOIP area, where by internet traffic that carries voice is exempt from access charges. And the usage without compensation of our networks without compensation by any scheme devised." We would provide transportation, room, meals, participation in Golf and the conference, plus a reasonable fee. If you know of anyone who would be interested, please send contact information. Margaret Felts President, CTA ------------------------------ From: dold@19.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Finding CO? Date: 10 Sep 2002 21:45:53 GMT Organization: Wintercreek Data Steve Brack wrote: > service, they couldn't get zoning approval to build a CO building, so, > in a pretty creative move, they bought the cordboard operator's house, > gutted it, and built a small switch (probably SxS) inside the existing The first IXC that I worked for bought a house adjacent to the CO. It was in a historical district, so they couldn't make external changes to the house. They gutted the garage ... actually, they took down the walls, built a small switch room, and put the walls back up on the outside. The giveaway was the big honkin' overhead cable coming down the driveway, and maybe the exhaust for the UPS generator, poking out of the carport. Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA. ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:58:06 EDT Subject: Re: Finding CO? On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 05:38:02 -0400 Ed Ellers ed_ellers@msn.com wrote: > Note that in some states local zoning boards don't have any > authority over telephone company facilities, since those are regulated > at the state level. In Oklahoma it's "telephone exchange buildings." This caused some concern during a period when Southwestern Bell was putting TSPS offices in leased quarters in shopping centers. Were TSPS offices "exchanges," since no switching was done there? Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too!!! Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 01:53:01 GMT Relatedly, I recently tried to get 1-800 directory assitance on a weekend, and ALL I could get was a computer with voice-recognition s/w. I was told that operators are ONLY available Monday through Friday. Is there anyone left who thinks that a free market will make our phone service better? -Joel ------------------------------ From: Doug Subject: Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too!!! Organization: Totally disorganized Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 01:53:34 GMT John Stahl wrote in message news:telecom22.31.5@telecom-digest.org: > Why would anyone with access to the Internet, use a DA of any of the > "dial-tone" or LD suppliers? In my case, it was a matter of time. It was a medical emergency situation where a friend was in the ER, and his grandparents (legal guardians) were at the church camp. My computer wasn't on, and it would have taken a lot longer to get online (dial up access!) and find the number than using DA. As it was, the LD call was just over 6 minutes because I misunderstood the name of the camp. (T and P sound too much alike when you are using a cell phone.) Doug [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only on cell phones and not only with T and P. That's why it helps to spell out the first (or any critical letter) in a name when talking to DA. As in P Paul, T Tom, O Oliver, L London, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too!!! Organization: Wizard Information Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 21:18:01 -0500 It was a dark and stormy night when John Stahl wrote: > Why would anyone with access to the Internet, use a DA of any of the > "dial-tone" or LD suppliers? Because they don't have a networked computer by each telephone (including cordless handsets)? Because they're in a hurry? I don't use DA, but there are certainly valid reasons to do so. ------------------------------ From: Shaun Ewing Subject: Re: Straight or Twisted Telephone Cables Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:15:55 +1000 xeondavis wrote in message news:telecom22.31.1@telecom-digest.org: > I have a basic question. I was just setting up the telephone system > for my friend's office, and I discovered that almost all RJ11 > telephone cables were wired twisted, not straight-thru. I know for > CAT5 (RJ45), you can have a straight-thru or cross-over cable. But for > telephone cables, why didn't they use a straight-thru cable? Any pros > or cons? I assume that it has got something to do with polarity. Most standard phones don't care, but some (such as those on my phone system) require them to be wired in this fashion. If the cable on the CO lines isn't like that, the line lights on the phones keep blinking as if there is a call. If the cable between the KSU and the phones isn't like that, the phones don't work at all. My cordless phone is also polarity sensitive; if the polarity is wrong then it doesn't detect ringing. --Shaun ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 10 Sep 2002 23:52:01 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Straight or Twisted Telephone Cables On 9 Sep 2002 23:30:07 -0700 aakomala@yahoo.com (xeondavis) wrote: > I have a basic question. I was just setting up the telephone system > for my friend's office, and I discovered that almost all RJ11 > telephone cables were wired twisted, not straight-thru. I know for > CAT5 (RJ45), you can have a straight-thru or cross-over cable. But for > telephone cables, why didn't they use a straight-thru cable? Any pros > or cons? Twisted pair has reduced pickup of hum, transients, and other noise because they are cancelled out by the constant reversal of polarity in the noise pickup. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: Tom Schmidt From: Tom Schmidt Subject: Re: Straight or Twisted Telephone Cables Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:03:05 GMT xeondavis wrote in message news:telecom22.31.1@telecom-digest.org: > I have a basic question. I was just setting up the telephone system > for my friend's office, and I discovered that almost all RJ11 > telephone cables were wired twisted, not straight-thru. I know for > CAT5 (RJ45), you can have a straight-thru or cross-over cable. But for > telephone cables, why didn't they use a straight-thru cable? Any pros > or cons? Twisting each pair improves the ability to reject interference. Telephone and data cables have used this technique for years. The FCC recently mandated that all telephone inside wire use twisted pair. The Quad-four non-twisted wiring used for inside wire causes many crosstalk problems as folks get second lines, DSL etc. Straight-thru vs crossover refers to something else. TIA 568 Category rated cable is optimized for one-to-one wiring. That means the same wire uses the same connector pin all the way through the network. 10 and 100 Mbps Ethernet use two of the four pair, one for transmit and one for receive. Normally in the case of a computer and hub the clever authors of the spec designed it so the wiring is 1:1. In this case the TX and RX side of the hub is the opposite compared to the PC so everything lines up. In some special cases such as direct connection of two PCs or hub to hub without an uplink port the TX and RX terminations need to be swapped on one side of the connection. That is what a crossover cable does. /Tom ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Date: 10 Sep 2002 20:04:20 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ For the past few days I have been using Spamarrest.com. Once I set it up it seemed to work OK. I have had to set a few addresses so they would come to my e-mail account, via Spam Arrests web site. I think once I get all the address in there it should work OK. I'm not sure how it works other then trying to ID the address before sending it on, if it can't I have to verify it before it come through. At least I now don't get any spam on my regular address and this posting one if blocked so I don't worry about it. The FTC and the FCC want to take some kind of action against spammers, make it a Capital Crime with the Death penalty, that will make them think. You catch them, they are arrested, taken to the street and shot on the spot. Copies are then sent to other spammers showing what will happen. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE,support for the Apple II and Macintosh 24 hours 2400/14.4. OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one! Have you hunted one down today? (c) I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Company. ------------------------------ From: waldo kitty Subject: Re: Spamming, etc Date: 11 Sep 2002 14:52:23 GMT Organization: who? me? organized? HA! Al Iverson wrote in news:telecom22.30.5@telecom- digest.org: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The URL address shown above is correct. >> http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice is a good address to use. Help >> yourself to the web-based email there. Take a box, use it, pollute it, >> dump it then get another one. PAT] > http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice doesn't work. > http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice/ does. > Why, dunno. The first one generally causes two "hits" to be registered on the server, if it is configured to do so. The first hit returns a 302 error (we've all seen 404 errors, right?). 302 means that the page has moved and the code returns the new location. The new location will have the trailing '/' on it. The second one is how they should be done in most cases. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I dunno either. Use it that way if it > works. I guess I could be like the porn web sites, and throw a fit and > threaten to sue you for 'deep linking' into that back page and not > going through the front door http://telecom-digest.org where you have > to make a donation and read all my glories. If Noah M. at LCS-MIT is > reading this, maybe he can make it work correctly once again without > the need to use the slash on the end of the URL. PAT] If the server that telecom-digest.org is hosted on is running apache, the fix is likely as simple as redefining the Location or Directory container for the telecom-digest directories without the trailing '/' in the httpd.conf file ... with the apache server, defining a location or directory with a trailing '/' means that the '/' _must_ appear on the url as entered by visitors or the server will return a 404 ... [Yes, I'm a sysadmin <>] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you very much for that explanation. Yes, massis.lcs.mit.edu runs apache. Two things are going on here. The URL 'telecom-digest.' (org or com or net I think, but I give out .org) is simply aliased by John Levine to point to a directory at massis called massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives and by default on either address you will wind up on index.html . That's why if you try a command such as 'telnet telecom-digest.whatever' or 'ftp telecom-digest' you wind up looking at John Levine's machine xuxa.iecc.com . If you prefer FTP over HTTP, that's fine, some people do, but you have to say 'ftp massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives' to reach us. The reason is the second instance of /archives starts the actual Archives, while 'telecom-archives' reaches the index.html page, other window-dressing stuff. That's since the Archives was around and avail- able using FTP for many, many years and the very top level is just the window dressing for the HTML, which I had to construct when the Archives was 'rebuilt' for use as a 'web site' back in 1994-95. I could have gone through several levels downward from telecom-archives renaming them all and shoving everything down but it seemed to me to make better sense to rename telecom-archives as 'archives' and create a new level above it called 'telecom-archives' for the window dressing. I know, I could have just created index.html amd dropped it in the top page of the existing telecom-archives and HTTP calls would have defaulted to the index.html anyway. But then people who looked at the directory would have seen other stuff, and I didn't want that. Where is Tim Berners-Lee when you want someone to assault or hurt bad! (tongue in cheek, and a wink, of course). Has Tim B-L *ever* commented on how his software completely overturned 'our' net; completely and very radically changed the entire system or way of doing things here? Is he still over in Switzerland? To make things worse, in July, the bright folks at LCS-MIT decided to make some changes. Massis was an elderly machine, getting very feeble by modern standards. I was, and still am, the only user on it. So the LCS people decided let's get old and feeble PAT a new work station. No matter that since his brain aneurysm he won't remember how most of his scripts and web pages work, put in a new-massis, very slight changes in how it operates so it screws up his scripts; directories arranged a little differently so his PATH has to be re-written and his local aliases run down the wrong paths, etc. I am *still* trying to get my .forward to work correctly so you all will start getting autoreplies once again, and I can start getting my stats correctly. Whether or not you need a slash / at the end of a directory name when using apache is the least of my problems here. I would however wish Tim B-L would show up around here so I could give him a piece of my mind in the form of an Editor's Note Bashing sometime soon. Wouldn't take very long, since I don't have much of my deseased brain left these days. PAT] ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:17:08 EDT Subject: Re: U.S. Answering Machine in Denmark >> I have recently purchased a new 900 Mhz Sony Telephone with internal >> answering machine in the United States. I have brought it with me to >> Denmark. The phone works fine (with a voltage converter), but when one >> calls the answering machine does not start, as if it doesn't recognize >> the calling tone or something. Could anyone please help me? > I have seen a series of problems with answering machines seeming to > fail to recognise the incoming ring signal. In fact what the machines > were failing to detect correctly, was the inter-ring pause: being > programmed to answer after a set number of "rings", as the inter-ring > pause was too short, the machines never detected it and so always > registered that they were receiving the first ring - therefore it was > never the right time to cut in and answer! That sounds plausible, although along a similar line it might even be that the machine doesn't even recognize the first ring. Each ringing burst on a standard U.S. line is two seconds. I don't have the specifications for Denmark to hand, but most Continental systems use only a 1-second ring. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 2002 12:25:09 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Extra Charge to Call Cell Phone in US? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Now I don't really care if the hotel wants to charge extra for some > calls, so long as I'm told in advance, as I was. But, as a visitor, I > would have no way to distinguish a local cell number, so how could I > avoid such calls? Stay at a different hotel. > And I don't understand the purpose of this charge. To increase the hotel's revenue, of course. You correctly understand that a local call is a local call, and all calls to prefixes in the same rate center should cost the same. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Dealing With SWB Business Office Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:37:23 -0500 TELECOM Digest Editor commented on SWB: > At the same time, I sent them a blank, > voided check and a slip to authorize future payments from my bank > account. So far, so good. Big mistake. BIG,BIG mistake. Once you do this, you effectively give up your right to dispute anything on your bill because they will already have your money. More often than not, getting back money they take that they don't deserve requires court action. About the only company that it is safe to do this with is the Power/Gas/Water companies. They seem to be much less prone to screw it up, but it is still a risk. Do you get the Clark Howard radio program in your area? It is excellent. Consumer protection information. Sometimes banks even make payments from CLOSED accounts and then bill you for the amount PLUS an over-draft charge!!! Once you get it started, it is often almost impossible to stop it, even by closing your account. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A very valid concern! In this small town, with a small town bank and appropriate attitudes, I don't think it applies to me. Plus which, SWB does say on their e-bill web site that once the bill is displayed it will be actually debited to your account fourteen days later. I discussed this with our bank manager (her, I trust, but not SWB) and she said anytime I wanted I could notify her to have the auto-draft cancelled. If I were still a customer at First National Bank in Chicago, or Bank One, or Citicorp or MegaBank and Trust Company, I'd be scared also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: davidgoNOSPAM@excite.com (David) Subject: Re: Alternative Local Dialtones Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:53:18 GMT Be VERY careful. I just found a business that is paying $65.00 for each of 6 lines to a company called CoreComm. Verizon will charge $23.00 per line. I don't know how long the ripoff has been going on. Unless you can save really big bucks, it is usually not worth it (unless you are using a partial or full T1 with DID, and other features). Remember, if the line to your building has a problem, you can't call Verizon, but will have to go through the other provider. This usually adds at least a day to service calls. David On 3 Sep 2002 10:39:54 -0700, jpvenezia@veneziainc.com (JPVENEZIA) wrote: > I have a company named Choras coming in to try to switch me away from > Verizon for my local Dialtone. Does anyone have any stories/issues > from switching to an alternate provider/reseller of local dialtone? ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2002 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #32 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 11 19:08:50 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8BN8od16517; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:08:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:08:50 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209112308.g8BN8od16517@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #33 TELECOM Digest Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:08:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 33 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Strowger Gravesite (Newspaper Article About) (Neal McLain) Re: Hourly Updated News Source For Telecom (Geoffrey Welsh) Is This Possible (Sean Flanagan) Re: MOH Volume and Fidelity on DBS VB-43000 (David) How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? (Richard Haendel) News Headlines of Interest 9/11/02 (Monty Solomon) Re: How many CSU's Do I Need (Steve2316) I Got Certified and a New Job!! (berniekinkos2@yahoo.com) Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies (Joey Lindstrom) FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! (Entropy Music) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 07:08:00 -0600 From: Neal McLain Subject: Strowger Gravesite (Newspaper Article About) > Newfound fame good news for cemetery > http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/11/SouthPinellas/Newfound_fame_good_ne.shtml > More news of Strowger's final resting place, and some background on > the man and the invention. > Chris Kelly > www.roserpark.net Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: Hourly Updated News Source For Telecom Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:36:47 -0400 Vojta Kalina wrote: > I am editor of Telecom Report http://www.europeaninternet.com/telecom/ You didn't mention that the site requires readers to register before they can access any of the stories. So some (well, at least me) that's an important fact. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder if anyone would like to register for this new service, then prepare little excerpts weekly to send here to the Digest, just as Monty Solomon does or Judith Oppenheimer or the Canadian guy I publish every Monday. Any volunteers? PAT] ------------------------------ From: sean.flanagan@patlive.com (Sean Flanagan) Subject: Is This Possible Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:45:54 GMT Organization: PATLive Reply-To: sean.flanagan@patlive.com We've got a channellized DS3 coming in to our building that is muxed out to individual Ts that run into various telephony servers (read voicemail/call center). We would like to add a (switch?) that will allow us to dynamically decide where to route a call PRIOR to being answered by voicemail or the call center. We also make outbound calls as well as call from the voicemail to the call center and back so we'd like to be able to base the destination of the call on either the dialed number (for a real network call) or a faked ANI/DNIS combination (to determine where in the call center the call should go. I'm not looking for hand-holding, just a general point in the right direction (web sites/products). Thanks, Sean ------------------------------ From: davidgoNOSPAM@excite.com (David) Subject: Re: MOH Volume and Fidelity on DBS VB-43000 Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:57:43 GMT Many of our customers use inexpensive CD players configured just as you have with fine sound quality. The newer DBS systems control the MOH level by programming. Ask your dealer to help you. David On 6 Sep 2002 14:06:00 -0700, ghg5500@yahoo.com (ghg5500@yahoo.com) wrote: > Hello there, I was wondering if someone knew if it is possible to > improve the fidelity and volume level of the music-on-hold for a > Panasonic DBS VB-43060 system. Or perhaps someone can recommend some > alternative methods to my solution of a ~$30 CD player plugged into > the MOH. ;) > Currently I have a portable CD player connected through the headphones > output into the single MOH RCA jack of the DBS. The volume can only > be increased slightly before it begins to clip, and the fidelity is > horrible. I thought I saw something that mentioned an internal knob > or dial that would help with this (maybe a gain knob or something?) -- > however if it it exists I cannot find it. > Thanks much. ------------------------------ From: Richard Haendel Subject: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 04:02:09 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Recently, I got a call from some telemarketer for which the number displayed as "614-555-5555" on my caller id. How is this possible? Everyone knows that 555 is a fictional number reserved for TV shows, movies, etc. So how can anyone have a number that starts with 555? Are they manipulating the caller-id number? I did not think that was possible, either. Thanks, Richard Haendel [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Everyone knows' also that 555 is a fictional thing for telemarketers to present for numbers. This is just another reason that SWB's 'Privacy Manager' service is so bogus. On the caller-id box which you have to get to buy Privacy Manager, any of these phrases will qualify as a valid 'name' on the name line of the ID box: 'Name Withheld', 'Wireless Caller', 'Out of Area', maybe others. Qualifying 'phone numbers' include '555-555-1212', '555-555-5555' and '000-000-0000'. Any two of those meets the Privacy Manager requirements and gets passed through to you, no questions. As far as SWB is concerned, they gave you a name and number. Someone please explain to Mr. Haendel how the telemarketers do it. It was explained here recently but I do not remember all the details. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:19:11 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 9/11/02 Hot spots: Free and for-profit Net zones pop up everywhere By D.C. Denison, Globe Staff, 9/9/2002 The two cafes are located on the same trendy block on Newbury Street, between Hereford Street and Massachusetts Ave. The Trident Booksellers and Cafe and Starbucks are separated by less than a hundred yards of red brick storefronts. But in the nascent field of WiFi technology, they are worlds apart. Turn on a wirelessly enabled laptop computer inside the Booksellers Cafe and you are automatically connected to the Internet through the free NewburyOpen.net, an idealistic attempt to build a free and open wireless community. A few doors down the street, Starbucks also offers wireless Internet connectivity as part of a nationwide partnership with T-Mobile ... for a fee. At this point in the development of WiFi, both ''hotspots'' - the name that has emerged for these wireless zones - represent distinct approaches to dealing with the kinds of issues that typically influence the adoption of new technology; both projects are also targeting radically different markets. Yet it's somewhere around the middle of the block, where their signals overlap for just a few yards in a mix of free and paid connectivity, that the future of this new WiFi technology probably lies. ... http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/252/business/Hot_spots+.shtml 10 September 2002 Source: US Patent Office: http://www.uspto.gov United States Patent 6,389,533 Davis , et al. May 14, 2002 Anonymity server Abstract An anonymity system including a cryptographic device. The cryptographic device of the anonymity system is adapted to initially determine whether a response to an incoming electronic message is requested. If so, an address of the anonymity system is encrypted with a key. In one embodiment, the key may be a public key of a system targeted to receive an outgoing electronic message from the anonymity system inclusive of data contained in the incoming electronic message. The encrypted address is placed into an outgoing electronic message before re-routing to the target system to allow the target system to re-route the response back to the anonymity system. ... http://cryptome.org/intel-anon.htm Is roaming coming to Wi-Fi? By Ben Charny Staff Writer, CNET News.com September 10, 2002, 3:29 PM PT Networking groups around the globe are working on ways for Web surfers to roam on any number of wireless networks -- just as mobile phone users roam on cellular networks. The popularity of Wi-Fi -- which features networking nodes that use the 802.11b wireless technology to broadcast an Internet connection over a radius of 300 feet -- has spawned a number of independent companies that offer wireless services. Yet it is difficult, and prohibitively expensive, for many customers of a Wi-Fi service to use the network of another. The barrier to wireless roaming lies not in technology, but in that carriers have only just started to iron out billing issues. "The bits, the bytes and the hardware exist for roaming. We just need someone to start pulling it all together," said Barry Davis, Intel's director of platform architecture. He's attending a meeting this week of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) in Monterey, Calif., held to discuss how to jumpstart Wi-Fi roaming. ... http://news.com.com/2100-1033-957411.html ------------------------------ From: steve2316@aol.com (Steve2316) Date: 10 Sep 2002 21:05:32 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: How many CSU's Do I Need If the CSU card in the CISCO is a T1 all you would need is a CSU for the other end. If the CSU (WIC Card) isn't a T1 CSU then you'll need 2. ------------------------------ From: berniekinkos2@yahoo.com Subject: I Got Certified and a New Job !! Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 22:55:28 GMT Check out ABC University's online computer training courseware. Get access to certification classes for 1 year for as low as $125.00 per year. Learn Word, Excel, Unix, Oracle, Java, or Networking for pennies a day. Take Free classes http://www.wbcnet.net/signon1.htm Check out course catalog http://www.wbcnet.net/dpec/webpromo/catalog/contents.htm Register at: http://www.wbcnet.net/dpec/webpromo/psu/corporate.htm [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is this message spam, or not? I am totally in favor of all the low-cost educational opportunities we can have, even this on-line thing. I have mixed emotions about messages like this, which seem to be okay, even though many would say it is not. But if I did not run this kind of message then what about the occassional messages I get from UCLA offering 'real' (in person with a real, live instructor) classes I get? Decisions, decisions! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:57:02 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:06:52 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only on cell phones and not only > with T and P. That's why it helps to spell out the first (or any > critical letter) in a name when talking to DA. As in P Paul, T Tom, > O Oliver, L London, etc. PAT] Like many things in the telecommunications field, this practice, too, is standardized, as follows: Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliet Kilo (KEE-loh) Lima (LEE-muh) Mike November Oscar Papa Quebec Romeo Sierra Tango Uniform Victor Whistkey X-Ray Yankee Zulu. Also, when saying numbers, "five" and "nine" can sound the same, so "nine" should be stretched to two syllables, to sound like "niner". Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought fives and nines were supposed to be fi-of and nye-unn? That's always how I used to hear operators say them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Entropy Music Subject: FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 22:07:17 GMT I am auctioning the same tones sent by the TeleZapper to a telemarketer's dialing computers, informing it that your phone number is no longer in service. The telemarketer's computers will automatically take your number off of their call list and you won't have to talk with sales people to do this!! This is a better technology solution than buying a TeleZapper because you can put it on any or all of your answering machines ... with no cords or fuss. Here is the link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1380184660 ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #33 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 12 00:03:08 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8C438Y18387; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:03:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:03:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209120403.g8C438Y18387@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #34 TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:03:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 34 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! (John Galt) Re: FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! (Bit Twister) Re: FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! (John Higdon) Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies (Wes Leatherock) Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies (William Warren) Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies (Hudson Leighton) Nye-unn Niner - the Number of the Great One (Joey Lindstrom) Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? (John Higdon) Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? (Mark Brader) Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too!!! (J Galt) Yahoo Set to Take Speed Challenge (Monty Solomon) Ring Trip BER - Alcatel DSLAM (t0rk) Re: I Got Certified and a New Job !! (John Higdon) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John David Galt Subject: Re: FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:37:33 -0700 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Entropy Music wrote: > I am auctioning the same tones sent by the TeleZapper to a > telemarketer's dialing computers, informing it that your phone number > is no longer in service. The telemarketer's computers will > automatically take your number off of their call list and you won't > have to talk with sales people to do this!! > This is a better technology solution than buying a TeleZapper because > you can put it on any or all of your answering machines ... with no > cords or fuss. Perhaps it is, but why would anyone pay for it when anyone can download it for free? http://bobcat.bbn.com/bobcatftp/pub/telecom/intercepts/sit.wav ------------------------------ From: BitTwister@localhost.localdomain (Bit Twister) Subject: Re: FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! Organization: attbi.com user getting ~16.9 kbyte/sec news feed Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:00:09 GMT On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 22:07:17 GMT, Entropy Music wrote: > I am auctioning the same tones sent by the TeleZapper to a > telemarketer's dialing computers, informing it that your phone number > is no longer in service. Why not download them for free: http://www.privatecitizen.com/sit-tone.wav ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:02:34 -0700 In article , Entropy Music wrote: > I am auctioning the same tones sent by the TeleZapper to a > telemarketer's dialing computers, informing it that your phone number > is no longer in service. I don't mean to be a pill, but why would anyone pay you for something they can generate themselves for free? Or they can download them: http://www.dianamey.com/SIT_tones.html John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Isn't that a great thing about this telecom newsgroup! Three different writers, three different sources for free tones, which Mr. Entropy was going to sell to us. Anyway, the TeleZapper is a total ripoff. It only puts out *one* of the tones rather than all three which are needed. Here is a fourth source, for guys who would rather just purchase it instead of cluttering up thier homes with another answering machine or tape player. Ask for details on Telemarketer Stopper from mike@sandman.com . It got one of his and it works just fine. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 11 Sep 2002 23:51:35 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:57:02 -0600 Joey Lindstrom joey@lairdsflooring.com wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:06:52 -0400 > Also, when saying numbers, "five" and "nine" can sound the same, so > "nine" should be stretched to two syllables, to sound like "niner". G. Gordon Liddy always pronounces it "niner" on his talk show, even in ordinary conversation when there is no possibility of confusion. (Is he still on? I haven't heard him recently while surfing the stations in Oklahoma.) A columnist in the magazine "Popular Communications" notes that most public safety agencies in the U.S.A. use a different set of phonetics promulgated by the Association of Public Safety Communications Officers: Adam Baker Charles David Edward Frank George Henry Ida John King Lincoln Mary Nora Ocean Paul Queen Robert Sam Tom Union Victor William X-Ray Young Zebra. In any event, most of the people calling Directory Assistance have no idea of any system of phonetics, so it doesn't really matter what the ITU and the ICAO say. Some callers will remember the old military phoentics that begin Able Baker Charlie. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: William Warren From: William Warren Subject: Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies Organization: Church of the Swimming Bullfrog Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:13:35 GMT Joey Lindstrom wrote in message news:telecom22.33.9@telecom-digest.org: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:06:52 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org > wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only on cell phones and not only >> with T and P. That's why it helps to spell out the first (or any >> critical letter) in a name when talking to DA. As in P Paul, T Tom, >> O Oliver, L London, etc. PAT] > Like many things in the telecommunications field, this practice, too, > is standardized, as follows: > Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliet Kilo > (KEE-loh) Lima (LEE-muh) Mike November Oscar Papa Quebec Romeo Sierra > Tango Uniform Victor Whistkey X-Ray Yankee Zulu. > Also, when saying numbers, "five" and "nine" can sound the same, so > "nine" should be stretched to two syllables, to sound like "niner". > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought fives and nines were > supposed to be fi-of and nye-unn? That's always how I used to hear > operators say them. PAT] Pat, The ICAO phonetic alphabet that Joey illustrated was adopted by the military sometime between the Korean and Vietnam wars, and along with the different phonetic names it also has some different customs as to pronunciation. HTH. William ------------------------------ From: hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton) Subject: Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 20:10:26 -0500 Organization: MRRP In article , Joey Lindstrom wrote: > Like many things in the telecommunications field, this practice, too, > is standardized, as follows: > Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliet Kilo > (KEE-loh) Lima (LEE-muh) Mike November Oscar Papa Quebec Romeo Sierra > Tango Uniform Victor Whistkey X-Ray Yankee Zulu. > Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring > joey@lairdsflooring.com Why do I always think of Russian Submarines when I hear the above? -Hudson -- http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:49:41 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Nye-unn Niner - the Number of the Great One On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:08:50 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought fives and nines were > supposed to be fi-of and nye-unn? That's always how I used to hear > operators say them. PAT] You're probably right. While the Alpha Bravo Charlies are fairly standard, differences arise with numbers. The info I quoted is generally true in RADIO communications (especially between ground and aircraft). Both schemes work well: on a crackly line or a poor radio signal, both get the point across. Whenever I'm on the phone and have to spell my name (not a common one) to someone, say the droid at the phone company, I usually say "it's tough to spell so I'll say it phonetically. L as in Lima, I as in India, November, Delta, Sierra ..." etc. With most of these droids, if you just launch into phonetics without preamble and say Papa Alpha Tango Romeo India Charlie Kilo, they'll think you're screwing with them. :-) / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom / I saw a small bottle of cologne and asked if it was for sale. She said, / "It's free with purchase." I asked her if anyone bought anything today. / --Steven Wright ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:40:34 -0700 In article , Richard Haendel wrote: > Are they manipulating the caller-id number? I did not think that was > possible, either. The Caller-ID from a PRI-connected PBX comes from the PBX switch itself. Whoever configures the PBX controls what the phone sends as Caller-ID. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Everyone knows' also that 555 is a > fictional thing for telemarketers to present for numbers. This is > just another reason that SWB's 'Privacy Manager' service is so > bogus. On the caller-id box which you have to get to buy Privacy > Manager, any of these phrases will qualify as a valid 'name' on the > name line of the ID box: 'Name Withheld', 'Wireless Caller', 'Out of > Area', maybe others. Qualifying 'phone numbers' include '555-555-1212', > '555-555-5555' and '000-000-0000'. Of course, when you see numbers like that, you let the call go to voicemail. Very rarely is a "bogus number" a legitimate call. -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's assuming I am sitting at the table where my caller id box is located. (Actually its on top of the microwave oven in the kitchen.) What happens if I am in my bedroom or the computer room? I have phones there also but only one caller id box as mentioned above. It would be nice if SWB did their job as well. I wonder if Privacy Manager has any way to manually edit 'obvious' choices? PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:05:46 EDT From: msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) Richard Haendel writes: > Recently, I got a call from some telemarketer for which the number > displayed as "614-555-5555" on my caller id. > How is this possible? I have no idea. Someone else can answer that. > Everyone knows that 555 is a fictional number reserved for TV shows, > movies, etc. This hasn't been true for quite a few years. Only 555-01XX, a range of 100 numbers, is now reserved for fictitious use. This is why you now see the same fictitious phone number coming up in different movies; the scriptwriters have too few to choose from! (For example, in 1999 "The Insider" and "American Beauty" both used 555-0199.) Most 555-numbers are now allocated to commercial "information services"; the same number may be allocated to different users in different areas code. You can download the current allocations (zipped text file) from under . However, most of the 555- numbers that end with a quadrupled digit are among the 116 numbers whose ownership is disputed, and 555-5555 is one of these. So I presume it is indeed a bogus number until that dispute is resolved. Mark Brader | "I do not want to give the impression I spend all Toronto | my time on the Internet, but in the right hands msb@vex.net | it is a wondrous tool, and in the wrong hands | it is an even better one." -- Cecil Adams My text in this article is in the public domain. ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Re: Sprint RIPOFF Alert: DA is Now $2.49 per Call! MCI, Too!!! Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:23:02 -0700 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: > Relatedly, I recently tried to get 1-800 directory assitance on a > weekend, and ALL I could get was a computer with voice-recognition > s/w. I was told that operators are ONLY available Monday through > Friday. > Is there anyone left who thinks that a free market will make our phone > service better? I do. But it has to be a market with truly equal competition, which can only come from unbundling the local loop (and all ISPs) from the LECs. If the FCC weren't bought and paid for by the RBOCs, this would be the law by now. CLEC service has been available in my neighborhood for only the last few months, and only because the county owns the poles and easements so that all companies can use them. Most of the rest of the state is still out of luck, especially WRT broadband. I can't wait until the newcomers get around to actually implementing LNP. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:27:28 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Yahoo Set to Take Speed Challenge By Jim Hu Staff Writer, CNET News.com September 11, 2002, 4:00 AM PT Yahoo is poised to unveil its long-awaited broadband partnership with SBC Communications, a deal that marks a major test in the Web portal's bid to turn millions of its users, first attracted by free services, into paying customers. Sources close to the company said Yahoo and SBC will launch a co-branded DSL (digital subscriber line) service by early next week, rebutting doubters who had suggested the product might not get off the ground before the end of the year. Now comes the hard part: Yahoo enters an arena littered with deals gone bad, from the spectacular blowout of Excite@Home, to its own earlier failed dial-up offerings with partners including MCI Internet and AT&T. History aside, the potential rewards may well be worth the risks. With the broadband deal, Yahoo CEO Terry Semel hopes to create a springboard to sell a lucrative new class of high-speed Net services, such as online music subscriptions -- which have thus far failed to take off. Even naysayers admit there may be a strategic significance to the deal if the two companies can carry out the plan. ... http://news.com.com/2100-1023-957432.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, SBC Global (SWB's high speed internet service) and Yahoo have both been hawking it for quite a while now. SBC and Prodigy have a deal also. Prodigy operates the 'web page features' and the Usenet and other newsgroups for SBC that I get when I (using DSL) ask for http://sbcglobal.net . You ask for that page and it comes up saying SBC/Prodigy with all sorts of links to things that Prodify operates. Now about two weeks ago I got a CD from SBC which turned out to be used for 'Yahoo/SBC Internet Dialup Service', in other words for use with a 'regular' (up to 56k) modem. All I wanted was the front end browser, which sort of resembles MSN's browser which immediatly did the same thing as MSN's browser by installing itself in the Windows registry and demanded to be used as the 'default' browser instead of IE or Netscape or Opera, all of which I have on my desktop and prefer over MSN or the new Yahoo/SBC Dialup. I would not have bothered with it at all, except the Yahoo/SBC browser includes some buttons to get radio stations easily. Part of the deal also was Yahoo now has an internet money transfer feature similar to PayPal which was included in the CD I got from SWB/SBCGlobal. So it would appear Prodigy and Yahoo are in it together with SBCGlobal. It should be interesting to see how it works out a year from now. PAT] ------------------------------ From: t0rk@hotmail.com (t0rk) Subject: Ring Trip BER - Alcatel DSLAM Date: 11 Sep 2002 16:34:12 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, Does anyone know how to test for Ring Trip BER? I have the capability to pull information right off the DSLAM, I just don't know how to calculate it. I have the ATU-C and ATU-R in synchronization. I have -48v on the line and the ability to ring a phone and go on-hook and off-hook. I am just confused if I should pull the information off the DSLAM or the Modem. If I pull the info off the DSLAM what commands should I look for or how do I calculate it? Thanks, t0rk ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: I Got Certified and a New Job !! Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:56:48 -0700 In article , berniekinkos2@yahoo.com wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is this message spam, or not? Yep: host mx1.mail.yahoo.com [64.157.4.83]: 554 delivery error: dd Sorry your message to berniekinkos2@yahoo.com cannot be delivered. This account has been disabled or discontinued [#101]. - mta502.mail.yahoo.com > I am totally in favor of all the low-cost educational opportunities > we can have, even this on-line thing. I have mixed emotions about > messages like this, which seem to be okay, even though many would > say it is not. But if I did not run this kind of message then what > about the occassional messages I get from UCLA offering 'real' (in > person with a real, live instructor) classes I get? Decisions, > decisions! PAT] This is true. But remember, community colleges all over the country offer low-cost opportunities for education in relevant fields. These are not "special opportunities" but ongoing educational programs that culminate in a real diploma. Please differentiate between these programs and the thousands of commercial training mills that are after one thing: educational assistance money. The targets of this advertising are unemployed people who don't understand that, in general, the best training for a job ... is a job. Personnel directors practically give a negative weighting to certificates from training mills. Of course, you are running the show, but my two cents would be to can the spam from training mills and publish truly exceptional or unusual course offerings from accredited colleges and universities. There won't be very many of them because this is what our colleges and universities do day in and day out: educate people with relevant skills and then certify them with degrees. -- John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I used to get messages from UCLA (I think maybe because of my personal account on berkeley.edu) sent by a guy who was in charge of their frequent one-day seminars and such. And you may remember I would always run them here because they seemed very worthwhile, although a trifle expensive. And I would also run the announcements of seminars, etc I got on my account at cs.bu.edu for the same reason. A lot of guys can profit by attending those one/two-day seminar things, even if they are already employed. I dunno about myself; the aneurysm left my brain in such bad condition I can't concentrate more than a few minutes at a time. I'm not one to get dressed and fly off to Berkeley or Boston to go to a seminar anyway. No money, but more important, these days no patience, and I tire easily. And that's where things like 'ABC University' -- as it calls itself -- and its email-order diploma mill might be very handy. It arrives in email; you work on it at your leisure. If you benefit and learn new programming skills, etc or how to get 'Microsoft certified' who am I to complain? God only knows we need more educated netizens. Unlike the 1980's all netizens are not computer scientists, like it or not. That's the tricky thing about 'spam'. We are all against it, yet my 'spam' is (to you) valued information and vice-versa. And really, who do you hear complaining about spam except the better educated members of our community, such as this newsgroup you are reading now. How many of the very young guys you see hanging out on Yahoo Messenger or AOL chat lines do you hear complaining about it? I dunno the answer, John. I really don't. I only wish that when I was a teenager there had been an internet, spam or otherwise on it. I also wish that as a seventeen year old junior in high school employed as a PBX operator by the University of Chicago I had done things differently also. When (then, UC President) Beadle offered me a full scholarship for four years at UC ('don't worry about the cost, I will get it cleared with the Trustees') I wish I had taken him up on that also, instead of issuing the first of many to follow Editor's Notes on various topics. But I didn't, and now my deseased brain is too far gone to backtrack in life. What do 'they' say about better to suffer skinned knees and broken bones as a child than endure the broken heart and unfulfilled dreams of an older adult? Ah, but I better quit crying in my beer and close this issue of the Digest before I lose control completely. No Last Laugh! this time ... 'taint a bit funny, not at all. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #34 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Sep 13 14:08:55 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8DI8tC28919; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:08:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:08:55 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209131808.g8DI8tC28919@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #35 TELECOM Digest Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:07:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 35 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: I Got Certified and a New Job !! (Robert Bonomi) Re: I Got Certified and a New Job !! (John R. Levine) And Now For Something Completely Different (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies (GHS) Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies (George Mitchell) Re: Nye-unn Niner - the Number of the Great One (Justin Time) Re: Is This Possible (Paul A Lee) Re: FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! (Karla) Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? (Gordon Hlavenka) Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? (Fritz Whittington) Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? (The Masked Marvel) Re: Yahoo Set to Take Speed Challenge (Jeff Grossman) Re: Yahoo Set to Take Speed Challenge (Wes Leatherock) SBC Yahoo! DSL (Monty Solomon) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: I Got Certified and a New Job !! Organization: Not Much From: bonomi@c-ns (Robert Bonomi) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:52:35 GMT In article , wrote: [[.. spam removed ..]] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is this message spam, or not? I am > totally in favor of all the low-cost educational opportunities we > can have, even this on-line thing. I have mixed emotions about > messages like this, which seem to be okay, even though many would > say it is not. But if I did not run this kind of message then what > about the occassional messages I get from UCLA offering 'real' (in > person with a real, live instructor) classes I get? Decisions, > decisions! PAT] It's really _easy_ to cull out *most* of the spam, while letting the (e.g.) UCLA messages through. For starters: 1) Does it come from a 'trusted' source? If somebody like Judith, or Monty, submits it, it's almost assuredly legit. It's _possible_ they got fooled by something, but *not* at all likely. :) 2) Does it come from someone who has sent you legitimate stuff previously? Not worth 'significant' effort to research, as much as "does the email address 'ring a bell'?" If 'yes', probably legit' if 'no', it does -not- imply spam, per se -- just that the question is 'still open'. 3) Is there an "obvious" relationship between the sender, and the material being promoted? E.g., if it's UCLA courses, does it come _from_ UCLA, or the course instructor? 4) Does it have 'forged' headers, or was it 'relayed' through some intermediary, rather than direct from the putative sender's system? For Example, why would a -legitimate- 'low-cost educational opportunity' feel the need to relay their messages of a mailserver located at an elementary school in Korea? {that is a "_Rhett_-orical" question, by the way -- which is defined as one that you ask, "But frankly, my dear, don't give a Damn" about the answer. } These are *absolutely*reliable* indicators of spam. 5) "testimonials" are highly suspect. "testimonials" in the subject line, _without_ any 'supporting details' in the body, are -virtually- sure sign of spam. A large part of the -value- of a moderated mailing-list and discussion group is that the cr*p _is_ filtered out. Please, _if_ you include things like this, of 'questionable' quality, *TAG* them in the subject line, in a 'standardized' form, so that the readershp -knows- what they are, _before_ reading. General convention for such tagging is something in square brackets at the beginning of the subject line. I'd suggest maybe "[Mod. ??]", for stuff you're not sure is legit/appropriate. Or even "[Spam]". ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 2002 22:36:19 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: I Got Certified and a New Job !! Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA In article you write: > Check out ABC University's online computer training courseware. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is this message spam, or not? It's spam. I got several. The only legit outfit running much distance education is the University of Phoenix. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:57:36 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: And Now For Something Completely Different On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:03:08 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > That's the tricky thing about 'spam'. We are all against it, yet > my 'spam' is (to you) valued information and vice-versa. Not really, Pat. You fall into the trap (as I have a few times) of believing that there should be a subjective, rather than objective, definition of spam. But the definition IS objective. I decided to look the word up on dictionary.com and here's what it came back with: spam n. Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail. tr.v. spammed, spamming, spams To send unsolicited e-mail to. To send (a message) indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups. [From Spam(probably inspired by a comedy routine on the British television series Monty Python's Flying Circus, in which the word is repeated incessantly).] ================================================================= I've seen several worthwhile things advertised in spam. Lately it's Norton Systemworks - ok, some of you might not like it but a lot of people do, and it's hard to argue that it's not a "legitimate" product (as opposed to the make money fast, viagra, and Nigerian scam emails that litter our inboxes). But regardless of how worthwhile the product, be it Norton Systemworks or educational courses, the fact remains: it's spam. We didn't ask for it, it's commercial, and it's email. UCE, QED. To my mind, it's the principle of the thing: regardless of what you're advertising, you (the spammer) have *NO* right to require *ME* to pay for the cost of your advertising, which is what all spammers (and unsolicited faxers) do. Any other anti-spam argument is superfluous: I may agree with it, but the bottom line is the "I'm paying to receive advertising" argument. BTW, for what it's worth, I've sent several copies of these Nortons Systemworks spams to the good folks at Symantec, informing them of what's going on and suggesting they crack down on the sellers. I haven't had so much as an acknowledgement, never mind a thank-you, and the spams keep coming. Given Symantec's silence, I am left with no choice but to assume Symantec is either in league with the spammers or has at least given them their tacit approval. And that makes them just as bad as the spammers. Today, I removed Norton Anti-Virus from several machines and replaced it with the AVG virus-scanner (free, downloadable at http://www.grisoft.com). Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com ------------------------------ From: GHS Subject: Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 02:06:51 UTC Organization: Cavalier Telephone, LLC. The NATO version is written "Alpha Juliet Xray" and the ITU version is "Alfa Juliett X-ray". Here's a reference from a collector of phonetic alphabets, follow the link to the full list to see a lot of variations. http://www.bckelk.uklinux.net/menu.html Joey Lindstrom posted message news:telecom22.33.9@telecom-digest.org in comp.dcom.telecom: > Like many things in the telecommunications field, this practice, too, > is standardized, as follows: > Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliet Kilo > (KEE-loh) Lima (LEE-muh) Mike November Oscar Papa Quebec Romeo Sierra > Tango Uniform Victor Whistkey X-Ray Yankee Zulu. > Also, when saying numbers, "five" and "nine" can sound the same, so > "nine" should be stretched to two syllables, to sound like "niner". ------------------------------ From: George Mitchell Subject: Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:24:47 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Joey Lindstrom wrote: > Like many things in the telecommunications field, this practice, too, > is standardized, as follows: > Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliet Kilo > (KEE-loh) Lima (LEE-muh) Mike November Oscar Papa Quebec Romeo Sierra > Tango Uniform Victor Whistkey X-Ray Yankee Zulu. > Also, when saying numbers, "five" and "nine" can sound the same, so > "nine" should be stretched to two syllables, to sound like "niner". In the days of yore when John Campbell was editing Analog, he proposed a phonetic alphabet for obfuscation. For example, using "phthisic" (pronounced "tisik") for the letter "p". I haven't been able to find the rest of his alphabet online. Does anyone else remember this? -- George Mitchell (obfuscated email address to reduce spam) ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: Nye-unn Niner - the Number of the Great One Date: 12 Sep 2002 06:06:49 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Joey Lindstrom wrote in message news:: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:08:50 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org > wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought fives and nines were >> supposed to be fi-of and nye-unn? That's always how I used to hear >> operators say them. PAT] > You're probably right. While the Alpha Bravo Charlies are fairly > standard, differences arise with numbers. The info I quoted is > generally true in RADIO communications (especially between ground and > aircraft). Both schemes work well: on a crackly line or a poor radio > signal, both get the point across. Whenever I'm on the phone and have > to spell my name (not a common one) to someone, say the droid at the > phone company, I usually say "it's tough to spell so I'll say it > phonetically. L as in Lima, I as in India, November, Delta, > Sierra ..." etc. With most of these droids, if you just launch into > phonetics without preamble and say Papa Alpha Tango Romeo India > Charlie Kilo, they'll think you're screwing with them. :-) > / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom > / I saw a small bottle of cologne and asked if it was for sale. She said, > / "It's free with purchase." I asked her if anyone bought anything today. > / --Steven Wright Now I'm really beginning to date myself, but back in the early 60's I was a ground radio operator for a small airline. The phonetic alphabet was just in the process of being "internationalized" and changing from Able - Baker - Charlie to Alpha - Bravo - Cocoa. We were instructed to speak numbers as if they had a single syllable. Thus three was "Tree", five was "Fife" and nine was "nine". The only exception was zero. We could pronounce it as "zee-ro" or "zaro." Punctuation marks were always preceeded by the word "Puctuation," while decimal points were stated as "decimal." Thus telling a pilot to change radio frequencies to 112.5 was spoken as "wun wun too decimal fife." But practices have changed over the past 40 years. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sometime in the sixties I put through a call for someone to a geologist, or earth scientist who was working on a project on the frozen ground in the Arctic Circle area of far northern Canada. 'Rate and Route' (remember them, operator routing plus 131 plus) told the local long distance operator it was handled by the Montreal Operator (position number) to some tiny, god-forsaken little town with no roads to it in northern Quebec. The local LD oper- ator got her on the line (I think 817+161+ or something like that) and told her what was wanted. The local LD operator was totally lost on it. First of all, Montreal answered in French, but she graciously switched to perfect English when she found out the local LD could not speak her language. "Well," she explained, "they only guarentee to answer between one and five pm Eastern; we are not supposed to bother them at other times unless it is an emergency. Is your call an emergency?" My LD was blown out of the water by that response, but she was advised on this end the call was not an emergency, and we would try the call again in the suggested time period. At the appointed time the call was tried again. I got through faster by asking local LD for 'Montreal Operator number (position number)' and we asked for the connection again. Again, Montreal answered in French, and switched to English when she found the calling operator could not speak French. This time Montreal said, "I will try to reach them on the radio, hold on please." Then she started asking for them to answer her on the radio, speaking in French, using the kind of Alpha Beta we have discussed here, with letter-word combinations. As before, my LD was blown out of the water. Eventually (I think it was called 'Elsemere Island') answered Montreal and *she* told him in French what was wanted. After they discussed it in French for a few seconds, she switched back to English and said to Chicago, "they are going to get him to come to the radio." When the called party answered on the radio, Montreal switched back to English and said to Chicago, "your party is on the line, mark your ticket as 'person to person'; that is the only way these radio calls are handled, not 'station to station'." I remember her use of Alpha, Beta, London, etc. As Lily Tomlin once said in an interview printed in the Christian Science Monitor around 1965 regards her 'Ernestine' routine, 'you knew things were gonna start going to hell in a hastily prepared handbasket once they started hiring racially diverse ladies who were not that well educated down at the phone company.' PAT] ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Is This Possible Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:51:45 -0400 Sean Flanagan wrote: > We've got a channellized DS3 coming in to our building that is muxed > out to individual Ts that run into various telephony servers (read > voicemail/call center). > We would like to add a (switch?) that will allow us to dynamically > decide where to route a call PRIOR to being answered by voicemail or > the call center. We also make outbound calls as well as call from the > voicemail to the call center and back so we'd like to be able to base > the destination of the call on either the dialed number (for a real > network call) or a faked ANI/DNIS combination (to determine where in > the call center the call should go. With an M13 mux and an Avaya Definity R with Call Vectoring, it would be a piece of cake. If you use a very large number of different number combinations and digit patterns (masks) to base routing decisions on, you might need an adjunct processor. The latest Definity release has a lot of call processing built right in, though -- I'm not sure what limitations you'd face, if any. Paul A Lee Voice: +1 717 730-8355 Sr Telecom Engineer [Voice & Transmission] Fax: +1 717 975-3789 Rite Aid Corporation, Telecomm, 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 ------------------------------ From: Karla Subject: Re: FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 22:35:58 -0400 Entropy Music wrote: > I am auctioning the same tones sent by the TeleZapper to a > telemarketer's dialing computers, informing it that your phone number > is no longer in service. The telemarketer's computers will > automatically take your number off of their call list and you won't > have to talk with sales people to do this!! > This is a better technology solution than buying a TeleZapper because > you can put it on any or all of your answering machines ... with no > cords or fuss. Hi Entropy, You can also find these tones all over the net, as well as their specifications. Just search for < sit tones >. Good sound quality helps, but most likely it will be limited by a typical answering machine's (lack of) fidelity anyway. Unfortunately, it seems that telemarketers are beginning to disregard these tones, so their lifetime of usefulness may be limited. Hope this helps! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:03:07 PDT From: Gordon Hlavenka Subject: Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? Mark Brader wrote: > Only 555-01XX, a range of 100 numbers, is now reserved for > fictitious use. This is why you now see the same fictitious phone > number coming up in different movies; the scriptwriters have too few > to choose from! In Arnold Schwartzenegger's "Last Action Hero" the young protagonist is trying to prove to Arnold that he (Arnold) is a character and they're in a movie. (Bizarre plot, but I digress...) One method he tries is to ask several people their phone numbers; they all reply, "555-[something]". The kid then asks Arnold, "How many people live in this city?" and Arnold says several million. When the kid asks how it's possible to have so few numbers cover a whole city, Arnold says, "Haven't you ever heard of area codes?" That joke was funny, before Chicago had five area codes ... Gordon S. Hlavenka O- nospam@crashelex.com Burma! ------------------------------ From: Fritz Whittington Reply-To: f.whittington@att.net Organization: Only on odd Tuesdays Subject: Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 20:17:22 GMT Richard Haendel wrote: > Recently, I got a call from some telemarketer for which the number > displayed as "614-555-5555" on my caller id. Of course, this is in violation of FCC rules. But, if you don't report it, they will continue to do it. See: for how-to. Fritz Whittington TI Alum - http://www.tialumni.org ------------------------------ From: The Masked Marvel Subject: Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 22:39:16 GMT There're probably across the street from the ones at 000-000-0000. I get calls from them occasionally, but they always seem too shy to leave a message. Richard Haendel wrote in message news:telecom22.33.5@telecom-digest.org: > Recently, I got a call from some telemarketer for which the number > displayed as "614-555-5555" on my caller id. > How is this possible? > Everyone knows that 555 is a fictional number reserved for TV shows, > movies, etc. > So how can anyone have a number that starts with 555? > Are they manipulating the caller-id number? I did not think that was > possible, either. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Everyone knows' also that 555 is a > fictional thing for telemarketers to present for numbers. This is just > another reason that SWB's 'Privacy Manager' service is so bogus. On > the caller-id box which you have to get to buy Privacy Manager, any of > these phrases will qualify as a valid 'name' on the name line of the > ID box: 'Name Withheld', 'Wireless Caller', 'Out of Area', maybe > others. Qualifying 'phone numbers' include '555-555-1212', '555-555-5555' > and '000-000-0000'. Any two of those meets the Privacy Manager > requirements and gets passed through to you, no questions. As far as > SWB is concerned, they gave you a name and number. Someone please > explain to Mr. Haendel how the telemarketers do it. It was explained > here recently but I do not remember all the details. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jeff Grossman Subject: Re: Yahoo Set to Take Speed Challenge Organization: Stikman.com Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:45:15 GMT In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, SBC Global (SWB's high speed > internet service) and Yahoo have both been hawking it for quite a while > now. SBC and Prodigy have a deal also. Prodigy operates the 'web page > features' and the Usenet and other newsgroups for SBC that I get when > I (using DSL) ask for http://sbcglobal.net . You ask for that page and > it comes up saying SBC/Prodigy with all sorts of links to things that > Prodify operates. Now about two weeks ago I got a CD from SBC which > turned out to be used for 'Yahoo/SBC Internet Dialup Service', in > other words for use with a 'regular' (up to 56k) modem. All I wanted > was the front end browser, which sort of resembles MSN's browser which > immediatly did the same thing as MSN's browser by installing itself > in the Windows registry and demanded to be used as the 'default' > browser instead of IE or Netscape or Opera, all of which I have on > my desktop and prefer over MSN or the new Yahoo/SBC Dialup. I would > not have bothered with it at all, except the Yahoo/SBC browser > includes some buttons to get radio stations easily. Part of the deal > also was Yahoo now has an internet money transfer feature similar to > PayPal which was included in the CD I got from SWB/SBCGlobal. So it > would appear Prodigy and Yahoo are in it together with SBCGlobal. It > should be interesting to see how it works out a year from now. PAT] Actually, SBC owns Prodigy. They purchased Prodigy hoping that would help them in the internet business. It did not work. So, they have decided to pretty much close down Prodigy, and move everybody to this new co-branded SBC/Yahoo service. Jeff Grossman (jeff@stikman.com) ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 12 Sep 2002 13:12:20 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Yahoo Set to Take Speed Challenge > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, SBC Global (SWB's high speed > internet service) and Yahoo have both been hawking it for quite a while > now. SBC and Prodigy have a deal also. I believe Prodigy is now owned 100% by SBC. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 08:45:38 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: SBC Yahoo! DSL SBC and Yahoo! Unveil SBC Yahoo! DSL, Internet Service 'Built-for-Broadband' Sep 13, 2002 03:01 AM (BusinessWire) SAN ANTONIO, Texas, and SUNNYVALE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 13, 2002-- Created through a landmark alliance, SBC Yahoo! DSL is expected to drive broadband adoption with industry leading personalization, rich content, productivity features and a choice of bundled premium services Internet leaders SBC Communications Inc. (NYSE:SBC) and Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO) today unveiled SBC Yahoo! DSL, an innovative Internet service that is expected to drive broadband adoption by delivering an entirely new kind of online experience. Designed to take full advantage of a broadband connection, and available to more than 26 million customer locations in SBC's 13-state region, SBC Yahoo! DSL delivers an unparalleled online experience, with new levels of personalization and ease-of-use, rich content, superior interactivity, and a bundle of valuable premium services. Paired with new "personalized speeds" and affordable pricing options that give customers one of the best values on the market, SBC Yahoo! DSL offers consumers what they want, when they want it. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28661747 ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-870-9697 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 530-309-7234 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org 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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and 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 twenty 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. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #35 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Sep 13 20:58:26 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g8E0wQq00729; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 20:58:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 20:58:26 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200209140058.g8E0wQq00729@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V22 #36 TELECOM Digest Fri, 13 Sep 2002 20:59:00 EDT Volume 22 : Issue 36 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson ATT System 85 Telephone System and Phones Available (Mark) Is This A Sprint Scam and What do I do About It? (Al Dykes) Cordless Phone: No Sound From Earpiece Speaker (Nataraj Dasgupta) Routing "Unknown Number" & LD Calls to Voice Mail/Ans Machine (PapaBear) Re: Straight or Twisted Telephone Cables (kadokev@chicagotribune.com) Telephone Directories on the Web (Robert Hoare) (Jeff S. Pickett) News Headlines of Interest (Monty Solomon) Avaya Cajun 880 (jabriol) Re: Looking For Prepaid Billing Softeware & IP Minutes (Joy Telecom) Re: And Now For Something Completely Different (Barry Margolin) Re: And Now For Something Completely Different (Ed Ellers) Re: FA: Turn Your Answering Machine Into a TeleZapper!! (John Higdon) Re: Dealing With SWB Business Office (Carl Moore) Re: How Can Someone Receive a Call From 555-XXXX? (Richard Haendel) Last Laugh! was Re: Know Your Alpha Bravo Charlies (David Wolff) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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 email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mark@beethoven.com (Mark) Subject: ATT System 85 Telephone System and Phones Available Date: 12 Sep 2002 05:33:48 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ The City of Fort Lauderdale will be auctioning its System 85 switch, remote and many telephones. For detailed information go to the City's Web site at www.ci.fort-lauderdale.fl.us and visit the purchasing department's page or contact me directly. ------------------------------ From: adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) Subject: Is This A Sprint Scam and What do I do About It? Date: 12 Sep 2002 11:42:02 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. I just got a smail mailing from Sprint thanking me for selecting Sprint PCS service with all the account number, start date, monthly cost and everything. I got a second letter asking me to authorize a credit check. I HAVE NEVER TALKED TO SPRINT AND AM VERY AWARE OF EVERYTHING I SIGN, AND SAY YES (OR NO TO). I never asked for this and I am not happy to see it. I can't figure out what to do about it. (FWIW I'm in New York City, have one old verizon POTS line in the house and am a happy Voicestream wireless customer. ) Any suggestions. Al Dykes adykes@panix.com ------------------------------ From: ndasgupt@bridgeport.edu (Nataraj Dasgupta) Subject: Cordless Phone: No Sound From Earpiece Speaker Date: 12 Sep 2002 09:06:01 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi all, Writing in as a last resort to find out how I can fix this phone. It's a Panasonic Cordless Speakerphone with both a base and handset dialing keypad. Has been working great until yesterday, when the handset fell and hit hard on the ground. When I press the 'TALK' button on the handset, all the LEDs on the phone light up as if it's working, I can even dial a number on the handset and turn on the speakerphone and it'll be working fine -- all the features on the handset works absolutely ok except the sound from the earpiece. There is NO dialtone on the earpiece. The mouthpiece works great too -- I put the handset on intercom, and you can hear anything you say over the mouthpiece over the base speaker. I opened the handset unit, and there are absolutely no broken parts, the LEDs light up fine, even the handset on-screen display works great, you can program and all -- just as if nothing happened, but there wouldn't be 'any' noise from the earpiece unit. Seems unfair to junk this phone just because the earpiece speaker part isn't working -- and every last programmable options, dialing, etc works fine, plus cost about a couple of hundred bucks. Any suggestions will be most helpful, Thanks in advance, Nataraj Dasgupta. ------------------------------ From: PapaBear Subject: Routing "Unknown Number" & LD to Voice Mail/Answering Machine? Organization: WEBUSENET.com Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:28:44 -0400 I would like to have an answering machine answer all "Unknown Number", "Private Number" and long distance calls. Is there any PC software that would do this? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: kadokev@chicagotribune.com Subject: Re: Straight or Twisted Telephone Cables Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 23:10:55 UTC In article , Tom Schmidt wrote: > xeondavis wrote in message > news:telecom22.31.1@telecom-digest.org: >> I have a basic question. I was just setting up the telephone system >> for my friend's office, and I discovered that almost all RJ11 >> telephone cables were wired twisted, not straight-thru. I know for >> CAT5 (RJ45), you can have a straight-thru or cross-over cable. But for >> telephone cables, why didn't they use a straight-thru cable? Any pros >> or cons? > Straight-thru vs crossover refers to something else. TIA 568 Category > rated cable is optimized for one-to-one wiring. That means the same > wire uses the same connector pin all the way through the network. Actually, telephone RJ11 cables are not "crossover" and are not twisted pair. They are usually flat straight (parallel, not twisted pair) cables, with the end connections wired as "rollover": 1 ==================== 4 2 ==================== 3 3 ==================== 2 4 ==================== 1 There is no CAT5 equivalent to a rollover cable, as "rolling" the cable violates the TIA 568 spec. Cisco does ship a pale blue flat "rollover" cable with RJ45 ends for use with the serial console connection on their equipment, but this cable is not CAT5, and only carries RS-232 signals. Kevin Kadow ------------------------------ From: Jeff S. Pickett Subject: Telephone Directories on the Web (Robert Hoare) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 23:00:42 -0700 The link for: "Telephone Directories on the Web (Robert Hoare) in the "Other Links" section on your website has changed from www.contractjobs.com to http://www.teldir.com/ Jeff S. Pickett [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I will change this entry sometime soon and readers may also wish to make note of the new address/location. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:08:56 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 9/13/02 Posted on Wed, Sep. 11, 2002 Details of new Comcast deal demanded By Akweli Parker Inquirer Staff Writer Consumer advocates and at least one large Internet provider, fearing Comcast Corp.'s growing influence over the Internet, are demanding that the Philadelphia-based company divulge details of a complex agreement it reached last month with AT&T Corp. and AOL Time Warner Inc. The Federal Communications Commission has made public reams of documents related to Comcast's pending $53.1 billion purchase of AT&T's cable division, AT&T Broadband. But Comcast so far has kept secret parts of last month's related three-way deal with AT&T and AOL Time Warner. The consumer advocates are up in arms because they say the agreement could shut competitors out of the high-speed Internet market, reducing consumers' choices, and limiting Internet content. And they say it shows the kind of anticompetitive muscle Comcast could flex once it buys AT&T Broadband and becomes the undisputed king of cable, with 22 million subscribers nationwide. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/business/4046780.htm Where art thou Stuckists? Intel reveals share denial PC scheme By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco Posted: 11/09/2002 at 09:02 GMT It was a schizophrenic Intel that faced the world at its Developer Conference in San Jose yesterday. In the morning keynote it touted its new multimedia "adaptor" platform, with glossy lifestyle videos explaining how our "digital media experience" would become "more convenient". In the afternoon it explained why it was embedding digital certificates into the hardware - and a spokesman from VeriSign Inc., which is partnering with Intel in this great adventure, could hardly believe his luck. On Thursday, when most of the press will have departed, it will host a session discussing a variety of share-denial technologies being funded by, or developed in, Intel's labs. These include our old favorite CPRM - incorporated into DVD-Audio players from Panasonic (DMR-E20) and Pioneer (DVR-3000) - along with DTCP (Digital Transmission Content Protection, which encrypts air to ground, or cable transmissions over FireWire) and HDCP (High Bandwith Digital Content Protection), which encrypts the display transmissions from your computer to your monitor. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/27065.html ------------------------------ From: jabriol@navegalia.com (jabriol) Subject: Avaya Cajun 880 Date: 13 Sep 2002 09:52:02 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ All, I've been working with the following equipment, The Avaya P/880 multiservice switch. And what I have been trying to do is have the supervisor board test the ports of my module boards. Any ideas or suggestions? I know I can do this with software. But I also know that software is not accurate with a hardware failure. Therefore What I normally do, is set up my PC NIC card and ping each port to locate any problems . I have no problem when I check for problems with stack switches like the cajun P3XXX series. ------------------------------ From: Joy Telecom Subject: Re: Looking For Prepaid Billing Software & IP Minutes Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:06:58 -0300 Organization: Bell Sympatico Let me know if you can provide or help. Best regards, Mahbub Hussain Joy Telecom Canada Ltd. 881 Jane Street #204 A (Jane Park Plaza) Toronto,Ontario M6N 4Y8/Canada Tel:416-762-0094 Fax:416-762-9586 E-mail: mahbub@on.aibn.com or joytelecom@msn.com ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: And Now For Something Completely Different Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 19:33:13 GMT In article , Joey Lindstrom wrote: > I've seen several worthwhile things advertised in spam. Lately it's > Norton Systemworks - ok, some of you might not like it but a lot of > people do, and it's hard to argue that it's not a "legitimate" product > (as opposed to the make money fast, viagra, and Nigerian scam emails > that litter our inboxes). But regardless of how worthwhile the > product, be it Norton Systemworks or educational courses, the fact > remains: it's spam. We didn't ask for it, it's commercial, and it's > email. This is strictly true. However, if UCE were of the quality and quantity of advertising that's sent by bulk snail mail e.g. catalogs), I suspect that it wouldn't be considered a serious problem. People are most bothered by the facts that they get so much of it (so it's hard to ignore) and it's almost all advertising stuff that's either illegal, immoral, or just utter crap. If I got 1 or 2 spams a day and they were mostly for worthwhile things, I'd consider it analogous to TV commercials -- it would be nice if they didn't interrupt the real programs, but they're not so bad that they need to be outlawed. Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: And Now For Something Completely Different Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:10:37 -0400 Joey Lindstrom wrote: > BTW, for what it's worth, I've sent several copies of these Norton > Systemworks spams to the good folks at Symantec, informing them of what's > going on and suggesting they crack down on the sellers. I haven't had so > much as an acknowledgement, never mind a thank-you, and the spams keep > coming. Given Symantec's silence, I am left with no choice but to assume > Symantec is either in league with the spammers or has at least given them > their tacit approval. Or, alternatively, the spammers have bought SystemWorks from distributors (as retail stores do), leaving Symantec no way to control how they advertise the product. (Of course, some of the spammers could be selling pirate copies, too.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Let's address Joey's comment 'Given Symantec's silence, I am left with no choice ....' the dear folks at Proctor and Gamble are not and never have been involved in devil worship, despite the sun and moon symbols on their packages. Despite that, P&G thinks enough of popular opinion that they spend almost a million dollars each year sending out hundreds of thousands of denial letters (paying for postage and the staff to address the letters) to the folks (mostly very ignorant unsophisticat