From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Nov 27 01:41:52 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gAR6fqp10905; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 01:41:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 01:41:52 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200211270641.gAR6fqp10905@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 #151 TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Nov 2002 01:42:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 151 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Blocking Ring Voltage (Jay Hennigan) Re: Blocking Ring Voltage (Rich Campbell) Re: Olde Farte Week (John Higdon) Re: Wireless Carriers Unite With Message: Don't Single Out (John Higdon) Re: Wireless Carriers Unite With Message: Don't Single Out (Steven Sobol) Re: Wireless Carriers Unite With Message: Don't Single Out (John Higdon) Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender (John Higdon) Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender (Ed Ellers) Treo Tweak Promises Turbo Access (Monty Solomon) Re: Need Help Finding Certain Phone (Mike) Re: Consumer Fraud Alert; Voicemail Users Beware (Dave Phelps) Last Laugh! Telemarketer Phun (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: Jay Hennigan Subject: Re: Blocking Ring Voltage Organization: Disgruntled Postal Workers Against Gun Control Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 21:13:18 GMT On 24 Nov 2002 15:51:49 -0800, Lincoln J. King-Cliby wrote: > At my house I have a Compaq Proliant 3000 server with a Compaq > RemoteInsight (management) board. The main appeal of the RIB for me is > that it can send pager alerts when things that aren't suposed to > happen happen, and since it is hardware-based with its own built in > battery backup it can catch almost any problems. Unfortunately, the > modem that it uses can also be used to remotely manage the system -- > which would be nice, but I want to connect it to my (single) > residental telephone line and it automatically answers on the first > ring (There isn't a way to disable this 'feature') Bizarre. You can't send it an "ATS0=0&W"? > Thus my question -- can anyone provide any ideas for how to build a > device that I can put between the server and the telephone jack that > will allow it to call out, but will keep any ringing voltages from > reaching the modem -- and won't affect the other phones in the house. On the board, look for a relatively large (physically) capacitor with a voltage rating of 200 or greater, probably about 0.5 microfarad or so connected near the line jack. Snip it out. Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Administration - jay@west.net NetLojix Communications, Inc. - http://www.netlojix.com/ WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 ------------------------------ From: Rich Campbell Subject: Re: Blocking Ring Voltage Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 21:50:38 GMT Simple, get a comshare device and hook it up so that the computer is on the modem port ... solved. Rich Lincoln J. King-Cliby wrote in message news:telecom22.145.6@telecom-digest.org: > Hello -- > At my house I have a Compaq Proliant 3000 server with a Compaq > RemoteInsight (management) board. The main appeal of the RIB for me is > that it can send pager alerts when things that aren't suposed to > happen happen, and since it is hardware-based with its own built in > battery backup it can catch almost any problems. Unfortunately, the > modem that it uses can also be used to remotely manage the system -- > which would be nice, but I want to connect it to my (single) > residental telephone line and it automatically answers on the first > ring (There isn't a way to disable this 'feature') > Thus my question -- can anyone provide any ideas for how to build a > device that I can put between the server and the telephone jack that > will allow it to call out, but will keep any ringing voltages from > reaching the modem -- and won't affect the other phones in the house. > I have several *adio*hac*s near by, and a coupple Frys within striking > distance. > Thanks, > Lincoln King-Cliby ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Olde Farte Week Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:04:57 -0800 In article , J Kelly wrote: > I loved the old C-64 and VIC-20. I always thought that poke of death > was an urban legend among Commodore users. And boy, do I ever > remember how hot the old 1541's would run. The beginnings of my company's business ran on VIC-20s (purchased in bulk from Toys-R-Us). Assembly-language programs were burned into eproms and run from the "game slot". In other words, we took over the whole machine. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Wireless Carriers Unite With Message: Don't Single Out Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:01:25 -0800 In article , johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: > How is California coming with LNP and thousands allocation? They're > the real way that you avoid new area codes, by not allocating zillions > of numbers to CLECs that won't use them. I don't know about "thousands allocaton", but number portability is quite common. Customers with SBC numbers can have that number served by any SS7-connected CLEC. It doesn't have to fall into any particular block or have any particular prefix to be portable. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol) Subject: Re: Wireless Carriers Unite With Message: Don't Single Out Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:06:32 -0000 Organization: JustThe.net LLC > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, that's what they did in Chicago, IL > you know. A handful of big, big businesses in downtown made such a > stink about the 312/773 split a few years ago, Ameritech decided to > let them (the handful of big businesses downtown) keep 312 and forced > the majority of the city to go with 773. Now you have to dial eleven > digits to get a call from one side of North Avenue to the other side. > But we mustn't be unfair and 'anti-consumer' to the First National > Bank and or big corporations downtown by asking them to change their > area code and reprint their stationary and reprogram their PBXs. PAT] It's SBC. I am quite surprised they didn't tell the big companies to go screw themselves along with the small fries. Steve Sobol, CTO JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH http://JustTheNetLLC.com/ 888.480.4NET (4638) A practicing member of the Geek Orthodox religion! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: SBC is a relatively new arrival in Chicago, IL. In those days, early to middle 1990's, Ameritech had Chicago (among other places); Southwestern Bell took over in Missouri and, well, south and westward. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Wireless Carriers Unite With Message: Don't Single Out Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:17:16 -0800 In article , Joseph wrote: > So, to make it convenient for a few people they're going to > inconvenience a whole lot of people to stave off for a couple of years > the *inevitable* that will indeed require them to dial 11 digits on > every call. With the number of area codes in the area odds are that > for many calls now they must dial 11 digits. This thing about saving > someone from dialing three or four extra digits is totally bogus. > They may save dialing the extra digits "for a few short years", but > eventually they're going to have to bite the bullet and have 11 digit > dialing whether they like the idea or not. I'm really surprised > things haven't reached crisis level yet with numbering in California. > People learn to deal with the extra digits and while they might not > like dialing the extra digits they get used to it. While we in the northern part of the state get eclipsed by SoCal, that exact situation is just about upon us. San Jose and its environs is currently encapsulated within 408. Several years ago, PacBell had an overlay prepared and scheduled. The code was to be 669. In an uproar, mainly fueled by the media and the press, the company was forced to back down. By reclaiming numbers from CLECs, and by going crazy with "informal" prefixes, the split was postponed. Now the piper's bill is coming due, and the split will be required soon. This time, however, to avoid the wrath of the San Jose Mercury News, the split will be geographical. The dividing line will pass right through the city of San Jose, and in fact pass right down the middle of one of the city's districts. Half the city will have to dial those dreaded 11 digits to reach the other half ... after they figure out where they are in relation to the person they are trying to reach. With the overlay, it would always be clear. You have to understand that in California, the media runs the show. If the news business doesn't like something, you can forget it. Overlays are the order of the day everywhere else because they make sense. But not in California, apparently. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:54:23 -0800 In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > Maybe it would be a good idea for the > RIAA to poll its members on whether or not military guys should be > deprived of their entertainment. If they studied their history rather > than their bottom line so much they might discover that many artists, > musicians, entertainers, others routinely and freely give of > themselves to help soldiers, etc. Consider how during the VietNam era, > World War II and many other conflicts the musicians and artists and > show people would go and give free shows on bases, etc. Probably RIAA > would not approve of that either. RIAA members don't sell MP3s. RIAA members are trying to keep customers from making their own, even from duly-purchased CDs. But ... customers WANT and (according to surveys) are willing to pay for authorized MP3s for use in computers and pocket players. No, customers definitely DON'T want "secure" files that become unplayable without a net connection (try playing those in the Gulf!). No, customers don't want files that won't play on another computer (computers fail) or won't play on a pocket player. But then, says the RIAA, who cares what customers want? Meanwhile, as Pat suggested in another post, the movie industry (you know, the one who initially proclaimed the DVD to be the instrument of their own death) is raking more money than it can count from DVD sales and rentals. In fact, the DVD has been the salvation of many films that were stinkers at the box. In addition, Hollywood has cashed in on the "film restoration" bandwagon, where new life has been breathed into films that were stagnant on the shelves. Even George Lucas discovered that by releasing his sacred Star Wars films in a timely manner on DVD, he made MORE money than by throwing a fit about how HE was the one controlling everything and that he would never release a film on video before HE was ready. Over the years, I have been an avid CD and DVD collector. I have thousands and thousands of CDs and about a thousand DVDs. However, I have stopped buying CDs. Why? I refuse to buy a crippled product that cannot be transported to my iPod, laptop, car player, or other convenient listening devices. Ironically, I can readily play my DVDs on my laptop; BMG says I'm no longer permitted to do that with CDs that I purchase. If you treat customers like criminals, ultimately those providing your revenue will throw up their hands and walk away. At that point, all the jack-booted copyright enforcement and all the copy-protection technology in the universe will not save your bacon. 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: John, when you talk about 'BMG' are you referring to the company in Indianapolis, IN which operates all the various 'clubs' for books, records, CDs, etc? Years ago, they also operated the 'RCA Victor Record Club', and the 'Talking Book Society' with audio books for visually handicapped people. When I volunteered my time at the Chicago Public Library with their radio reading service for visually handicapped people (CRIS Radio) I had a lot of trouble with getting them to give permission to use their audio books on the library radio station. Regarding Hollywood and DVD sales, I think it is Warner Brothers which now has some subsidiary set up to sell DVDs real cheap (for very old [like 1930-40's movies], slightly more on more recent films) and you are right; they are making a killing at it. Its not at all the death of the industry they predicted. The death of movie theatres, perhaps, but not the whole industry. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 19:42:41 -0500 PAT replied: "My point is still valid." See below. > If they will pillage and take away Navy laptop computers in their desparate > bid to get their precious files, what makes YOU think they won't resort to > the same tactics with your property? The RIAA didn't take any computers. The Navy took back *its own* computers. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is open to dispute. *If* the computers were the Navy's own property, then they had every right to them. But, in the previous issue of the Digest this morning, it was suggested that the computers were bought and paid for by the private money of the sailors who were disciplined, and NOT the Navy's property. I only know a few things from personal experience (civilian employment at Fort Riley, Kansas in 1999) but there were a lot of personal and private computers in the soldiers' barracks. And yes, there were also a lot of laptops around that were government property. Which computers precisely had the verbotin files? Files that should not have been on the internet to begin with if their rightful owners do not believe in sharing with other netters, but that is a moot point. Do you know? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 20:31:10 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Treo Tweak Promises Turbo Access By Richard Shim Staff Writer, CNET News.com Handspring is releasing a software upgrade in the United States that improves the e-mail and Web capabilities on its Treo devices, the company said Tuesday. The update allows people with Treo models 180, 180g and 270 using T-Mobile cellular service to access GPRS (General Packet Radio Service) networks, which should provide improved e-mail and Web access. The new version is available free on the Handspring Web site, and T-Mobile plans to make it available for download on its Web site. Handspring says it is working with Cingular to ensure that the update is compatible with that wireless carrier's GPRS network. The new software had already been made available to Treo owners in Europe and Asia. http://news.com.com/2100-1040-975400.html ------------------------------ From: littleboyblu87@yahoo.com (Mike) Subject: Re: Need Help Finding Certain Phone Date: 26 Nov 2002 19:28:57 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ littleboyblu87@yahoo.com (Mike) wrote in message news:: > I want to buy an cordless phone with an answering machine and a caller > ID. I want one that allows me to listen to answering machine messages > from the phone itself. For example, if I'm outside and someone calls > but I don't want to answer and they leave a message, I can hear that > message as it is being left just by pushing a button on the phone. > I saw one of these before but I'm having trouble finding them > now. I've been to bestbuy.com, circuitcity.com, and att.com but they > don't seem to have them. Or maybe that feature isn't listed on the > sites. I don't even know what that feature is called exactly. Does > anyone know? Does anyone know where I can find one of these phones? > Thanks. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have a phone just like that. Cordless > in the 900 megs range; answering machine in the base unit which is > totally digital, with two outgoing messages for different circumstances, > (messages have to be manually switched on or off; cannot change them > based on ringing cadence for example); CallerID in the handset along > with some speed dial and review of caller numbers; AND its handsfree > with a headset that plugs in the side of the wireless handset. Go out > in your backyard, wear the headset, sit down and take/receive calls. > What it WON'T do is allow playback of messages from the cordless > handset, but there is a way around that, sort of. Just as the answering > machine is starting to pick up, tap the button you use to turn on the > phone. Just don't speak. Sit there quietly, and you can listen as the > person speaks to the recorder. A friend of mine bought it for me at > Costco, in a town in Oregon where he goes now and then. The cost > was less than fifty dollars for the entire unit (digital answering > machine, caller-ID, cordless phone with headset. It will also announce > the time and date of messages. It is made by Uniden and is one of > their top of the line cordless phone units. A VERY good unit for less > than fifty dollars. I have it pick up on my distinctive ring line > only. Both the main number and distinctive ring-ring line sound the > bell of course, but the main number gets withdrawn and pulled away > after three rings and sent to my cell phone. The distinctive ring-ring > line gives a fourth ring to give me time to answer, then the Uniden > answering machine gets it. Naturally there are about 65,535 code > sequences so passers by can't 'cruise for dial tone' on my line. In > fact, I have a *second* Uniden cordless phone on the same line in > another room here, and they do not 'bump into each other' at all. > Neither of the Uniden cordless phones (either the fancy one from > Costco in Oregon) or the plain vanilla one I had before that has the > kind of range I would like. If out of my house, I can walk a half > block down the alley or to either corner (I am in the middle of the > block) and it stops working. I'd like to be able to walk entirely > around the block and still be able to use it. You get about a week > on one battery charge for standby time, less the more you talk of > course. If you set the phone down, you can use the base to locate > where you left the handset/headset part. > Except for that one glaring deficiency (being able to listen to > messages after the fact on the handset), it seems to do what you want > to do. PAT] Ummm ... I don't want to be able to playback messages from the handset. I want to be able to listen to them AS they are being left. There's a difference. I know these phones exist, a relative has one. I want a phone like this for my dad for Christmas. It must have this feature along with a caller id and digital answering machine. I've looked all over the place and I can't find anything about these types of phones. Doesn't anyone know anything? Thanks again. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please go back and read my second paragraph again. You do what you want to do by waiting until the very instant the answering machine picks up, then quickly and quietly bringing the handset into service. YOU MUST WAIT UNTIL THE MINUTE THE ANSWERING MACHINE PICKS UP, THEN CLICK AND GO IN ON THE LINE. Go in a fraction of a minute too soon, the answering machine won't pick up. Go a fraction of a minute too late; the answering machine has picked up and it excludes the handset. Have them enter the line at the same time, the unit gets a bit confused over what to do with the call and talks to both. That's not in the instruction book because the company (Uniden) did not plan for that. And it won't work each and every time. Sometimes in its confusion, it simply hangs up the line and won't speak at all. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Consumer Fraud Alert; Voicemail Users Beware Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 22:08:09 -0600 In article , monty@roscom.com says: > MORRISTOWN, N.J., Nov. 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Consumers are beginning > to see the effects of a new form of fraud on their telephone bills. "New" form of fraud? Hardly. Some reporter must have just recently heard about it. Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Last Laugh! Telemarketer Phun Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:43:02 -0800 I got hit with another home-based telemarketer machine yesterday. But this one is fun: you can call the number and with only few tries get in between calls. Once you are in, the machine squirts a burst of DTMF in your ear (the next victim). All you have to do at that point is to say "hello" and the machine delivers its spiel. It ultimately asks you to leave your name and phone number. I'll leave it to you what to say at that point. Then it hangs up. All you have to do is wait a few seconds and the cycle repeats. For your dining and dancing pleasure: 408 283-5258. 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: What about you, John? Did you say something crude and rude or possibly lewd? Or something sick? I couldn't resist and tried the number on receipt of your late evening message here. But it *was* late, and for me at least, it just rang open with no answer. Maybe they were closed for the night, and had put the dialer to bed also. Say, do you know or not if the company has an 800 number which attaches to that 408 version? I hate to impose on out-of-area readers here by telling them to spend their own five or ten cents to call it. But maybe tomorrow they won't get very many calls out because the machine will spend all its time arguing with bogus inbound calls. 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: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 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. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #151 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Nov 27 15:37:16 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gARKbG319633; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:37:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:37:16 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200211272037.gARKbG319633@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 #152 TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:36:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 152 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Feds, Integretel Settle Yet Another Porn/Misbilling Case (Danny Burstein) Fraud Case: Greed Bred Sloppiness (Monty Solomon) Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender (Ray Depew) Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender (Ron Chapman) Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender (Ed Ellers) Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender (John Higdon) Update Message - Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender (Ed Ellers) Students Learning to Evade Moves to Protect Media Files (Monty Solomon) Ad Firms Set Rules For Web Tracking Bugs (Monty Solomon) Sony Pictures Forms Lobby Group (Monty Solomon) Giant Communications Satellite Stranded in Space (Monty Solomon) Risk of Internet Collapse Rising (Monty Solomon) If TiVo Thinks You Are Gay, Here's How to Set It Straight (Monty Solomon) Re: Need Help Finding Certain Phone (Owain) Re: BASIC/FORTRAN/COBOL (Jim Van Nuland) Re: AIRWAVES FCC Database Search is Not Working? (Steven J. Sobol) 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: Feds, Integretel Settle Yet Another Porn/Misbilling Case Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:50:22 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Companies That Billed Consumers for Adult "Videotext" Internet Services Settle FTC Charges Integretel, Inc. and eBillit, Inc. Must Investigate Consumer Complaints About Unauthorized Billing; Will Release $1.6 Million in Previously Collected Funds [ snip ] Once the dialer software was downloaded, it disconnected the consumer's modem from its usual Internet service provider, dialed an international phone number to Madagascar and reconnected the modem to the Internet from some overseas location. The line subscribers then began incurring charges on their phone lines for the remote Internet connection at the rate of $3.99 per minute. In its complaint, the FTC alleged that although VIL's bills, which were mailed by the Integretel defendants, deceptively represented that the calls reconnecting consumers modems to the Internet terminated in Madagascar, in fact they were "short-stopped" in London or some other location. Thus, line subscribers were charged the rates to Madagascar at $3.99 per minute, compared to about $.08 per minute to London. rest at: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/11/integretel.htm _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:50:24 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Fraud Case: Greed Bred Sloppiness By Michelle Delio 02:00 AM Nov. 27, 2002 PT NEW YORK -- Unbridled greed proved the ultimate undoing of an identity theft crime ring that ripped off thousands of Americans, according to law enforcement officials. The criminals' repeated data downloads coupled with escalating consumer complaints eventually aroused curiosity at credit reporting agencies, leading to the arrest of three men who officials said were the primary perpetrators of the scam. But at least 20 other people may have been involved in the two-year swindle. http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,56593,00.html ------------------------------ From: rrd@ftc.agilent.com (Ray Depew) Subject: Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 18:06:23 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Agilent Technologies TELECOM Digest Editor asked: > The RIAA didn't take any computers. The Navy took back *its own* > computers. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is open to dispute. *If* the > computers were the Navy's own property, then they had every right to > them. But, in the previous issue of the Digest this morning, it was > suggested that the computers were bought and paid for by the private > money of the sailors who were disciplined, and NOT the Navy's property. > Do you know? PAT] I'm assuming that the Naval Academy and the Air Force Academy work the same way. Although I don't have personal experience with USNA, I have secondhand knowledge of USAFA's computer policy. Five or more years ago, USAFA began requiring every incoming freshman to buy a computer. Since this is the military we're talking about, it wasn't just "Buy a computer." It was "You're required to buy a computer. This is the computer you are required to buy. This is how much it will cost you." Then they issued the computer to the cadet and took the cost of it out of the cadet's paycheck every month for four years. If a cadet/middie drops out of the academy, he keeps the computer, the uniforms and all the other goodies that the government bought for him over the years (most of it with his own money), and then a few months later he receives a bill from Uncle Sam for tuition plus any outstanding obligations, like the computer loan. Technically, the Navy does own the middies' laptops, just like the bank owns your car and your house. But I don't think the laptops have a tag on them saying "Property of the US Navy". (I know that the USAFA cadets' laptops do NOT have a similar tag.) Regards Ray Depew father of a USAFA cadet ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 07:19:41 -0500 From: Ron Chapman Subject: Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender In article , John Higdon wrote: > Oh, you think simply not having contraband on your computer is some sort > of protection if the RIAA decides to target YOU? What are you going to > do for the several months (if not forever) that your computer is in the > hands of The Specialists? Remember, in the eyes of the RIAA EVERYONE is > guilty until proven innocent. Here's a funny thought: I'm *sure* the Business Software Alliance could go into the offices of the RIAA and find *some* piece of software that wasn't completely legit. I wonder how the RIAA would respond to having their own offices completely trashed and all their computers taken away? I think that Microsoft and the BSA are probably bigger than the RIAA. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 01:57:38 -0500 PAT, the TELECOM Digest Editor, noted: > John, when you talk about 'BMG' are you referring to the company in > Indianapolis, IN which operates all the various 'clubs' for books, > records, CDs, etc? Years ago, they also operated the 'RCA Victor > Record Club', and the 'Talking Book Society' with audio books for > visually handicapped people. BMG is the parent company of what used to be RCA Records. > Regarding Hollywood and DVD sales, I think it is Warner Brothers which now > has some subsidiary set up to sell DVDs real cheap (for very old [like > 1930-40's movies], slightly more on more recent films) and you are right; > they are making a killing at it." Warner is also the studio that took a leading role in getting DVD off the ground. ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:15:55 -0800 In article , > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > John, when you talk about 'BMG' are you referring to the company in > Indianapolis, IN which operates all the various 'clubs' for books, > records, CDs, etc? BMG runs record clubs and record labels. BMG has flat out declared that all CDs released under its banner (which includes many major labels) will be "copy protected". To those who can no longer play them on their equipment, the multi-national conglomerate says: "life is tough". I cancelled my membership with BMG's classical music club and refuse to even consider buying any CD sold by a BMG label. I will look for the music and download it first. This is how I, a customer, am treated for my loyalty and the spending of thousands and thousands of dollars with the club over the past fifteen years or so. > Regarding Hollywood and DVD sales, I think it is Warner Brothers which > now has some subsidiary set up to sell DVDs real cheap (for very old > [like 1930-40's movies], slightly more on more recent films) and you > are right; they are making a killing at it. Its not at all the death of > the industry they predicted. The death of movie theatres, perhaps, but > not the whole industry. PAT] Actually, Warner Brothers has been at the forefront of DVD. Their earliest releases at the introduction of DVDs were high-quality and produced taking advantage of DVD's salient features such as 16X9 enhancement and 5.1 audio. WB did an early release of one of its hit movies (The Matrix) against the advice of George Lucas, who claimed that they were shooting themselves in the foot. That DVD, one of the most popular DVDs ever produced, made vast sums of money for the studio, and it eclipsed the sales of Lucas' SW Episode I when he finally deigned to release it to DVD, well over a year after it had been in the theaters. The studios can be control freaks or they can go with the flow and make boatloads of money. It is their choice. Barry Margolin wrote: > No one is being "deprived of their entertainment". They're just > expected to buy CD's, just like anyone else. Oh, you mean the great new CDs that won't play in a computer? What kind of player should they buy? I used to buy CDs when the music could be transferred to my iPod. By making that action difficult (or impossible), there is no point in buying CDs anymore since they are useless to me. Now I look for downloads. 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: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:25:39 -0500 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The RIAA through an official spokesperson has issued a reply to the news this week about their 'raid on the Navy', and they say it is all a Big Lie spread by the newspapers. Ed Ellers has kindly passed it along to us here. PAT] The RIAA has put out a stinging reply that Monty posted: Read the entire response here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/35/28283.html Some excerpts are below: ---------------------------- Dear Mr. Orlowski: I have just read your story re: "RIAA orders US Navy to surrender." I am shocked by your factually inaccurate reporting. The RIAA has not, as you wrote, "mounted a daring raid on the US Navy." Your so-called reporting gives tabloid journalism a bad name! We did send letters to colleges and universities as stated in the original story that you seemed to base your story upon. Perhaps you misread this paragraph? Or perhaps the truth is less interesting than the facts? "Amanda Collins, a spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America, said yesterday that the Naval Academy was among the colleges and universities around the country that were sent two letters from entertainment industry and educational associations asking them to address Internet piracy and establish policies against it. "An Oct. 3 letter signed by four entertainment-based lobbying associations spelled out that Internet copyright infringement violates federal copyright laws." We take copyright infringement seriously but at no time did we demand that the Naval Academy confiscate computers nor were we aware of their actions until a REPORTER informed us. We work hand-in-hand with colleges and universities to address internet piracy. The characterization of what happened at the Naval Academy is flat-out wrong. Your rewriting of The Capital's story was a complete fabrication. I demand a retraction and I demand the story be taken down immediately. Thank you. Amy Weiss Senior VP, Communications Recording Industry Association of America 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW #300 Washington, DC 20036 -------------------------------- The Register has *not* taken down their original story -- it's still up at http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/28263.html, as is the original story from The Capital at http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/live/11_23-19/NAV. The latter quotes the October 3 letter as saying that "'Theft' is a harsh word, but that it is, pure and simple ... It is no different from walking into the campus bookstore and in a clandestine manner walking out with a textbook without paying for it." An interesting statement, considering that most copyright infringements are not criminal offenses. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:24:22 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Students Learning to Evade Moves to Protect Media Files By AMY HARMON As colleges across the country seek to stem the torrent of unauthorized digital media files flowing across their campus computer networks, students are devising increasingly sophisticated countermeasures to protect their free supply of copyrighted entertainment. Most colleges have no plans to emulate the Naval Academy, which last week confiscated computers from about 100 students who are suspected of having downloaded unauthorized copies of music and movie files. But many are imposing a combination of new technologies and new policies in an effort to rein in the rampant copying. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/27/technology/27SWAP.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Remember, for your privacy in reading NY Times articles, refer to user 'telecomdigest' and p/w 'telecomdigest'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 07:47:50 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Ad Firms Set Rules For Web Tracking Bugs By Stefanie Olsen Staff Writer, CNET News.com In a relatively late effort to promote consumer privacy, a coalition of Internet-advertising companies issued on Tuesday guidelines for Web sites that use tiny electronic tags to track visitors' surfing habits and gather other data. The Network Advertising Initiative, a group of eight Web advertising technology companies, including DoubleClick and 24/7 Media, set industry standards that require Webmasters to notify visitors when they use the surveillance tags, also known as Web bugs or beacons, and what they are used for. The rules also mandate that sites obtain a consumer's permission before using the technology to collect and share data that could identify that consumer. Web site operators use Web bugs -- fairly undetectable strings of code in the form of 1-by-1-pixel tags -- to track site usage, count the number of visitors to a page or monitor visitor behavior. Ad software companies often use the beacons in conjunction with cookies -- another, more apparent, monitoring tool -- to track the effectiveness of marketing campaigns or collect profiles on Web surfers, which they use to customize future promotions. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-975385.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 07:56:19 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Sony Pictures Forms Lobby Group By Evan Hansen Staff Writer, CNET News.com Sony Pictures Entertainment on Tuesday said it has formed a new lobbying organization as the company moves to adopt secure digital formats to distribute its stable of movies and entertainment products. The Digital Policy Group will be headed by Beth Berke, executive vice president of Sony Pictures. The lobbying group will represent the company in negotiations with legislators and regulators, review new technologies, and coordinate Sony Pictures' approach to digital technologies, both internally and with partners. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-975346.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:50:30 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Giant Communications Satellite Stranded in Space NewScientist.com news service A huge European telecommunications satellite is trapped in a useless orbit after the Russian rocket carrying it malfunctioned early on Tuesday. The ASTRA-1K satellite was launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, central Asia, using a Proton K rocket at 2304 GMT on Monday. The rocket's Block DM second stage engine fired once after launch placing the communications satellite in a temporary low Earth orbit at an altitude of 175 kilometres. The second stage system should have fired twice more to push the satellite into a geosynchronous orbit at 36,000 km altitude before separating from the satellite. But these final two firings did not take place. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993106 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:56:11 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Risk of Internet Collapse Rising Simulated attacks on key internet hubs have shown how vulnerable the worldwide network is to disruption by disaster or terrorist action. If an attack or disaster destroyed the major nodes of the internet, the network itself could begin to unravel, warn the scientists who carried out the simulations. The virtual attacks showed that the net would keep going in major cities, but outlying areas and smaller towns would gradually be cut off. The researchers warn that the net has become more vulnerable as it has become more commercialised and key net cables are concentrated in the hands of fewer organisations. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2514651.stm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:07:30 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: If TiVo Thinks You Are Gay, Here's How to Set It Straight What You Buy Affects Recommendations On Amazon.com, Too; Why the Cartoons? By JEFFREY ZASLOW Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1038261936872356908,00.html ------------------------------ From: spuorgelgoog@gowanhill.com (Owain) Subject: Re: Need Help Finding Certain Phone Date: 27 Nov 2002 09:33:06 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Mike wrote: > I want to buy an cordless phone with an answering machine and a caller > ID. I want one that allows me to listen to answering machine messages > from the phone itself. For example, if I'm outside and someone calls > but I don't want to answer and they leave a message, I can hear that > message as it is being left just by pushing a button on the phone. I bought one for a friend a few years ago -- it was a SouthWestern Bell model. It had a button that allowed the user to listen to the caller leaving their message without breaking into the call; the user could press another button to enter the call and cut off the answering machine if desired. I think this feature is often called 'call screening' or 'intercept' and a google search for: 'cordless telephone answering machine intercept' should bring results including http://www.newsearching.com/answering_machine/AT_T_Cordless_Phone_With_Answering_Machine_Caller_ID__2_4_GHz.html AT&T Cordless Phone With Answering Machine/ Caller ID, 2.4 GHz "Answering system features include 3-individual voice mailboxes, call screening/intercept..." http://www.outpost.com/product/3112650/ AT&T 9353 900 MHz Cordless Phone with Answering Machine - Black 900 MHz Cordless With Answering Machine: "The AT&T 9353 features an answering machine, remote access, and call screening." http://www.shopwireless.com/product.asp?2870 AT&T 9353 900 MHz Cordless Phone with Answering Machine Answering system features: 15 minute digital record time "3 voice mailboxes Call screening/intercept Variable speed playback Remote access" You will need to check specifically that you can listen to the call *through the handset* as the screening/intercept function. HTH Owain ------------------------------ From: Jim Van Nuland Subject: Re: BASIC/FORTRAN/COBOL Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 06:56:57 UTC Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link Joey Lindstrom wrote: > On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 02:06:29 -0500 (EST), editor@telecom-digest.org > wrote: >> By the way, >> BASIC = Beginner's All-Purpose Symbolic Instruction Code.) Does anyone >> here remember what COBOL and FORTRAN stood for? COmpletely BOtched Language. Told to me when I joined the IBM team building the first compiler, this about 1963. Jim Van Nuland, San Jose (California) Astronomical Association ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol) Subject: Re: AIRWAVES FCC Database Search is Not Working? Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:07:08 -0000 Organization: JustThe.net LLC 'Kuo, Yao (Y.H.)' asked: > Anything happening at AIRWAVES FCC Database Search ? It's > not working for past few days? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not just the past few days ... it has > been out of order for almost a year now. :( I don't know what I am > going to do with it. I cannot locate where the FCC put the database > and it would appear the format is quite different also. Maybe I will > be able to get to it sometime soon. PAT] Actually, this is on my To-Do list. I moderate rec.radio.broadcasting (gatewayed to the Airwaves mailing list) and have volunteered to work with PAT on an overhaul of Airwaves.com. I need to go to the store and buy a round tuit; once I get a round tuit I'll be able to get some work done on the site. Steve Sobol, CTO JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH http://JustTheNetLLC.com/ 888.480.4NET (4638) A practicing member of the Geek Orthodox religion! ------------------------------ 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: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 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. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #152 ****************************** Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:37:59 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200211280537.gAS5bxG05563@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 #153 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:38:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 153 Inside This Issue: Happy Thanksgiving Day, 2002 Re: Olde Farte Week (Scott Dorsey) Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender (John Higdon) Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender (Howard S Wharton) Mutter, Mutter (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Last Laugh! Parakeets (Gail M. Hall) Warner & DVD (Joey Lindstrom) Wall Street Journal (Joey Lindstrom) Another Net Domain System Attacked (Monty Solomon) Victoria's Secret Customers Exposed (Monty Solomon) Archive: Fresh Spam for Everyone (Monty Solomon) Cops Bust Massive ID Theft Ring (Monty Solomon) Re: Charter Cable Leak: Reporting it (J Kelly) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (Dave Close) Disc Update (Joey Lindstrom) 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: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Olde Farte Week Date: 27 Nov 2002 14:47:39 -0500 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) In article , John Higdon wrote: > In article , J Kelly > wrote: >> I loved the old C-64 and VIC-20. I always thought that poke of death >> was an urban legend among Commodore users. And boy, do I ever >> remember how hot the old 1541's would run. > The beginnings of my company's business ran on VIC-20s (purchased in > bulk from Toys-R-Us). Assembly-language programs were burned into eproms > and run from the "game slot". In other words, we took over the whole > machine. Did you by any chance make the display systems for the trains at Hartsfield Airport? Those were Vic-20-based. scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:23:17 -0800 In article , Amy Weiss, Senior Spin Doctor for the RIAA wrote: > Your rewriting of The Capital's story was a complete fabrication. I > demand a retraction and I demand the story be taken down immediately. Apparently, the RIAA is hypersensitive over being portrayed as the jack-booted thugs that they are. They don't hesitate to declare customers who make copies for their own personal use "criminals" and want to make sure that those same customers get the least possible enjoyment of the product they have purchased. But they don't want anyone to characterize the organization that way. This is not about fair compensation for composers and artists; this is about penalizing paying customers as a smoke screen to cover a desperate attempt to remain relevant in the distribution of music. The digital age threatens to make the cigar-smoking mogels in luxurious glass office buildings obsolete, allowing real musicians to reach audiences directly. The futile hope is that by crippling the technology, they can stave off the inevitable. Many artists do not consider the RIAA their friend, and for good reason. Ed Ellers writes: > The latter quotes the October 3 letter as saying that "'Theft' is a > harsh word, but that it is, pure and simple ... It is no different > from walking into the campus bookstore and in a clandestine manner > walking out with a textbook without paying for it." An interesting > statement, considering that most copyright infringements are not > criminal offenses. Ironically, if someone walked out with a CD from the campus bookstore without paying for it, the RIAA would not be concerned in the slightest. It isn't about theft; it is about survival for the recording industry middlemen. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Howard S Wharton Subject: Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 20:34:17 -0500 Organization: University at Buffalo I don't care for the RIAA, but if they were the Navy's computers, that is government property and can only be used for authorized government work. Unauthorized access, use, modification or data contained or in transit to or from this system constitutes a violation of Title 18, USC Sec. 1030 as well as state criminal and civil laws. Storing MP3's on said computers is a violation of the above law. Another reason is to prevent virus from entering the computer and affecting the network. Ask anyone who maintains computers and the network at any military base will tell you that. I am retired from the military. Howard S. Wharton Fire Safety Technician Occupational and Environmental Safety Services State University of New York at Buffalo [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh, if the computers *were indeed* goverment property, intended for government business, etc then I totally agree with you. I don't sympathize with the government, but I *do* agree you are correct. But the message I am getting here is the computers were the property of the individuals involved, even if they were on 'time-payments' from the government, etc. In other words, the guys had to buy them for their studies, etc. Then we are also beig told this may have been Annapolis, with stricter than usual rules for the military guys there. Then we are also being told in the last issue of the Digest, that RIAA *didn't really* say the things quoted in the news report. Pretty gray and muddy isn't it? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:43:15 -0700 Subject: Mutter, Mutter Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:10:02 EST, various posters wrote about RIAA. TELECOM Digest Editor noted in a response: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe it would be a good idea for the > RIAA to poll its members on whether or not military guys should be > deprived of their entertainment. If they studied their history rather > than their bottom line so much they might discover that many artists, > musicians, entertainers, others routinely and freely give of > themselves to help soldiers, etc. Consider how during the VietNam era, > World War II and many other conflicts the musicians and artists and > show people would go and give free shows on bases, etc. Probably RIAA > would not approve of that either. PAT] You're probably right, but it's an excellent idea. > break his heart to find out they don't have any, and his planned and > hoped for Armaggeon will have to be his own doing. He is just like > FDR was in 1940; just itching to get in a war, that hopefully he will > be able to blame on others. And here all along I thought your last name was "Townson". I never dreamed it was actually "Chamberlain". [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So now the Truth is known, eh? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Parakeets Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:59:47 -0500 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:14:08 -0700, in comp.dcom.telecom, you (Joey Lindstrom ) wrote: > Q: What do duct tape and The Force have in common? > A: Both have a light side and a dark side, and they bind the universe > together. > And if you haven't seen it, rent "Red Green's Duct Tape Forever" > soon. :-) You can see the Red Green show on PBS every week. I recommend it highly. It's funny without having to resort to obscenity. > Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring > joey@lairdsflooring.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Joey, you are very sick. I would expect > that sort of sickness from someone at Bell Sympatico or Hotmail but > hearing it from you absolutely shocks me. Tsk Tsk Tsk .... PAT] Anyone who likes Red Green is OK. :-) I've also watched the "Canadian Air Farce" a few times, and that is funny, too. ObTelecom: I wonder if Lily Tomlin's telephone operator character routines will be funny to people 50 years from now when no living person will remember what it was like to have living human telephone operators handling calls. I suppose comedians will still have telemarketers and voicemail menus to do routines about. Gail in Ohio USA ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:25:14 -0700 Subject: Warner & DVD Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:37:16 EST, John Higdon wrote: > Actually, Warner Brothers has been at the forefront of DVD. Their > earliest releases at the introduction of DVDs were high-quality and > produced taking advantage of DVD's salient features such as 16X9 > enhancement and 5.1 audio. Presumably, Warner put their best people on these projects. The recent release of "Babylon 5 - Season One" on DVD was, apparently, done by temps. First off, what the hell was the delay? B5's been available (well, about half of the series anyways) on VHS for years. Finally the DVD set comes out this month and it's got all kinds of problems. The opening "Warner Brothers" logo comes up in high quality, glorious 16x9 widescreen ... and then the main menu shrinks down to 4x3. And here's the fun part: the "jumpgate sequence" CGI effect that plays on this 4x3 display WAS REDUCED FROM 16x9, making it appear "squished". Then you start watching the shows, which were SHOT in 16x9 widescreen from the get-go ... and find that they haven't gotten it quite right. On my Sony widescreen, I get a letterboxed image inside a 4x3 display, which itself is "pillared" to fit my 16x9 display. If I hit "Zoom", it fills out horizontally just fine but the image is cropped vertically. DAGNABBIT! Beyond that, the quality of the video transfer ranges from "decent" to "godawful", often in the same scene. You'll be watching Sinclair talking to Garibaldi and it looks great, and then there's a cut to Ivanova walking in the room and suddenly it's all grainy. Or, better yet, in many areas it looks like they transfered from DAMAGED film stock -- there's rips and tears and burn marks and you name it, it's there. Yeah, they're leaders all right. :-) Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:35:31 -0700 Subject: Wall Street Journal Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:37:16 EST, Monty Solomon wrote: > What You Buy Affects Recommendations On Amazon.com, Too; Why the > Cartoons? > By JEFFREY ZASLOW > Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL > http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1038261936872356908,00.html Hey Monty, maybe we can skip the articles that require a $79 payment to read, huh? Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I dunno about this article and link. Please notice the two commas in the middle after the zero and the comma near the end after the 8 ...when I went to check that issue of the Digest in http://telecom-digest.org/TELECOM_Digest_Online I found that the underlying link broke off after '_email/0' and the rest of the link from ',,SB10.....' forward did not get included in the link. Clicking on what did appear as the link resulted in a 404 not found error. I asked Monty about this and he said the article came through okay on his end. I told him I use IEXPLORE and Opera and the article did not work okay there. He is going to review it. What I *think* happened, Joey (and you know I get in trouble for trying to think very much these days) is you wound up getting an offer to subscribe to the Journal rather than the actual article. Monty was amazed when I mentioned your complaint to him in email. Let's see if he has an answer sometime soon. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:59:37 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Another Net Domain System Attacked Assault on '.info' similar to last month's attack on DNS servers By Robert Lemos Nov. 25 - An Internet attack flooded domain name system provider UltraDNS with a deluge of data late last week, causing administrators to scramble to keep the servers that host .info and other domains up and running. The assault sent nearly 2 million requests per second to each device connecting the network to the Internet -- many times greater than normal -- during the four hours of peak activity that hit the company early Thursday morning, said Ben Petro, CEO of UltraDNS. http://www.msnbc.com/news/839842.asp ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 18:01:36 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Victoria's Secret Customers Exposed Glitch at Web site reveals who ordered what in some cases By Bob Sullivan MSNBC Nov. 27 - A glitch at the Victoria's Secret Web site allowed customers who purchased items there to view other customers' orders in some cases, MSNBC.com has learned. On Friday morning, part of the site was shut down while company officials investigated. Personal financial information, such as credit cards, were not exposed by the glitch - but details of customers' intimate purchases were. http://www.msnbc.com/news/840596.asp [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That was indeed an example of indecent exposure, wasn't it .... (poor attempt at humor). PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:04:15 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Archive: Fresh Spam for Everyone By Justin Jaffe 12:56 PM Nov. 27, 2002 PT Is your spouse dissatisfied with the size of your spam? A brand-new website has made several hundred thousand pieces of unsolicited commercial e-mail available for you to download today. Act now! After a quiet online debut last week, the Spam Archive is making quick strides toward becoming the largest public library of junk e-mail on the Internet. Paul Judge, director of research and development for CipherTrust, the e-mail security firm backing the project, says the site received roughly 5,000 forwarded messages a day during its first week. He predicts the archive will amass a corpus of 10 million unsolicited commercial e-mails over the next year. The archive's FTP site will begin to make its spam available, 10,000 at a time, starting Dec. 4. People have never been so excited to get junk e-mail. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,56624,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:21:55 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cops Bust Massive ID Theft Ring By Michelle Delio 11:09 AM Nov. 25, 2002 PT Federal prosecutors have arrested three men involved in what officials are calling the largest identity fraud case in American history. In a press conference on Monday, law enforcement officials described the inner workings of the scam, which they said ran for two years and resulted in thousands of people across the country collectively losing millions of dollars as their bank accounts were drained and credit cards maxed out with bogus charges. Losses due to the scam approach $3 million, said James Comey, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,56567,00.html ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: Charter Cable Leak: Reporting it Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 20:37:42 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 00:12:40 -0600, Dave Phelps wrote: > It seems most of the big service providers, whether it's phone, cable, > whatever, seem to really like to play dumb when discussing any service > issues. It doesn't surprise me at all that they don't acknowledge your > complaint, mostly because the answer centers don't have a clue of > what's going on. It is almost impossible to make contact with a group > that knows what's going on -- I don't think they even give those > people phones. I have good luck calling various Mediacom offices and asking for the "headend tech". They have on occasion asked who I am and why I need that person though. I always tell them, and they pass me through (broadcast engineer for one of the stations they are carrying). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:36:19 -0800 From: Dave Close Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California Mark J Cuccia writes: > YES, it WOULD be nice to have universal worldwide standards in > numbering and dialing. There already is a universal worldwide standard for numbering: + (cc) (ac) (local) (country code, area code, local number). There is no worldwide standard for how many digits should be in the (ac) or (local), or for what might preceed (or substitute for) the "+". What there ought to be is a convention that allows someone to dial /any/ call from /any/ location to the /same/ destination number with the same sequence of digits /after/ the "+", even if the call is within the same country. But within the NANP, we can't even get that rule accepted for the digits after the (cc), with some places requiring and others prohibiting the use of eleven digits. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 20:08:39 -0700 Subject: Disc Update Reply-To: joey@garynuman.info Forgot to mention - I'm down to just one disc order pending. That's our friend XXXX over in the UK: he has not yet responded to my request to send me a mailing address and a disc choice. But we can afford to give him time. If, after say a couple of weeks, we still can't reach him, then I'll just call the order cancelled (and tell you that I've done so) and credit your account. This time, I'm REALLY READY for the onslaught of orders that come at the end of the month. :-) / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom / / Another core-ingredient of UFO studies is the abduction by aliens. / Under hypnosis the abductees recollections all share the same / characteristics; long stretches of time unaccounted for, strange / bruises on the body, a suspicion of sexual violation. Is it just me or / does alien abduction sound amazingly like spring break? / -- Dennis Miller [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This latest note from Joey Lindstrom seems to indicate all disks ordered have been mailed (except the one going to the UK). Any of you who have sent a donation during October or November who do not have your CD of the archives by this weekend, *please* let me or Joey know. Joey says this is going to be an ongoing thing with a CD of the archives to-date at the time the order is received. Included with the archives on the CD will be a collection of old-time radio shows with a telecom theme, and will include Agnes Morehead in 'Sorry, Wrong Number'. I really am very grateful for the help so many of you provide me in keeping the Digest going on day after day, month after month and year after year. Thank you very much, and I wish all of you a very happy Thanksgiving Day holiday. 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: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 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. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #153 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Nov 28 20:15:11 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gAT1FBs21546; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:15:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:15:11 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200211290115.gAT1FBs21546@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 #154 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:14:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 154 Inside This Issue: Happy Thanksgiving Day To All! Wall Street Journal Online (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Complaints About Reading Stuff Here (Monty Solomon) Re: Wall Street Journal Online (Phil Earnhardt) Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender (Phil Earnhardt) Re: Warner & DVD (John Higdon) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (Joseph) TDMA and GSM Cell Phones (Howard Kelley) Pick-Six Fix Admitted as Giuliani Steps In (Monty Solomon) Mr. Watson, Come Here, You Look a Little Blurry (Monty Solomon) Got Paper? / Beth Israel Deaconess Copes With Computer (Monty Solomon) Logan Airport Tests Out New Iris-Scanning Technology (Monty Solomon) Re: Last Laugh! Parakeets (Paul Coxwell) Re: Victoria's Secret Customers Exposed (joe@obilivan.net) 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, 28 Nov 2002 12:53:54 -0700 Subject: Wall Street Journal Online Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:37:59 -0500 (EST), editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: >> http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1038261936872356908,00.html > Hey Monty, maybe we can skip the articles that require a $79 payment > to read, huh? > Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring > joey@lairdsflooring.com > Laird's Flooring > joey@lairdsflooring.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I dunno about this article and link. > Please notice the two commas in the middle after the zero and the > comma near the end after the 8 ...when I went to check that issue > of the Digest in http://telecom-digest.org/TELECOM_Digest_Online I > found that the underlying link broke off after '_email/0' and the > rest of the link from ',,SB10.....' forward did not get included in > the link. Clicking on what did appear as the link resulted in a > 404 not found error. I asked Monty about this and he said the article > came through okay on his end. I told him I use IEXPLORE and Opera and > the article did not work okay there. He is going to review it. > What I *think* happened, Joey (and you know I get in trouble for > trying to think very much these days) is you wound up getting an offer > to subscribe to the Journal rather than the actual article. Monty > was amazed when I mentioned your complaint to him in email. Let's > see if he has an answer sometime soon. PAT] Well Pat, try this: 1) Go to "http://online.wsj.com" (the root URL of the link Monty provided) or "http://www.wsj.com". Both take you to the same page. You'll be presented with a list of top stories 2) Click on a few of them. When I try this, I get directed to a page with the Wall Street Journal Online logo at the top, followed by "The page you requested is available only to subscribers". Below that is "Not a subscriber? Get the Online Journal for just $79 for a full year! Plus your first 2 weeks are FREE. Or, pay only $39 annually (if you are a print Journal or Barron's subscriber)." I'm then prompted to enter my username and password. Given the plethora of excellent news sites out there that do not require payment (or registration in most cases), WSJ can go piss up a rope for all I care. I've got better things to do with my $79. Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:26:22 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Re: Complaints About Reading Stuff Here [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Remember the story from Monty which appeared here a few issues ago about what guys can do if TiVo has diagnosed you as gay, and how to set the record straight? Monty has reviewed that further, and offers a corrected link from the Wall Street Journal below. The corrected link runs over a couple lines and I have not edited it. Monty will explain it further. PAT] It appears that the HREF on the web page is wrong. The software that converted it got confused by the two commas. It is currently: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1038261936872356908,00.html
and it should be: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1038261936872356908,00.html
Can you fix the HTML? The correct link was sent in the usenet and e-mail versions of the article. Thanks. Monty [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Let's see if that one works. No guarentees you won't have to pay $79 (ouch!) but maybe it will work. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pae@dimensional.com (Phil Earnhardt) Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal Date: 28 Nov 2002 17:33:33 -0700 Organization: Dimensional Communications In article , Joey Lindstrom wrote: >> http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1038261936872356908,00.html > Hey Monty, maybe we can skip the articles that require a $79 payment > to read, huh? Did you try the link? It link worked fine for me with no WSJ online account. The webserver didn't require a cookie. It even worked with lynx. > Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring phil ------------------------------ From: Phil Earnhardt Subject: Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 23:29:39 -0700 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:23:17 -0800, John Higdon wrote: > This is not about fair compensation for composers and artists; this is > about penalizing paying customers as a smoke screen to cover a desperate > attempt to remain relevant in the distribution of music. The digital age > threatens to make the cigar-smoking mogels in luxurious glass office > buildings obsolete, allowing real musicians to reach audiences directly. > The futile hope is that by crippling the technology, they can stave off > the inevitable. Throughout this discussion, I have never heard if any of those midshipmen happened to legally own the CDs (or LPs or cassettes or, just maybe, 8-track tapes) of the MP3 music that they allegedly downloaded. Would getting a digital copy of the music they already owned be a violation of the Honor Code? Does the RIAA recognize that owners of a particular recording in any of these formats is entitled to have -- or even download -- an MP3 version of that recording? > John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS phil ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Warner & DVD Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:12:19 -0800 In article , Joey Lindstrom wrote: > Beyond that, the quality of the video transfer ranges from "decent" to > "godawful", often in the same scene. You'll be watching Sinclair > talking to Garibaldi and it looks great, and then there's a cut to > Ivanova walking in the room and suddenly it's all grainy. Or, better > yet, in many areas it looks like they transfered from DAMAGED film > stock -- there's rips and tears and burn marks and you name it, it's > there. > Yeah, they're leaders all right. :-) All I can say is that the Warner Bros. DVD releases of major features are supurb on my setup, and they have been this way from the gitgo. While other companies were releasing non-anamorphic letterboxed transfers in two-channel surround (like 20th Century Fox, Miramax, and Polygram), WB was releasing anamorphic, 5.1 products. The only thing I fault WB for is their lack of DTS releases. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:03:56 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:36:19 -0800, Dave Close wrote: > There already is a universal worldwide standard for numbering: > + (cc) (ac) (local) > (country code, area code, local number). There is no worldwide > standard for how many digits should be in the (ac) or (local), or > for what might preceed (or substitute for) the "+". > What there ought to be is a convention that allows someone to dial > /any/ call from /any/ location to the /same/ destination number with > the same sequence of digits /after/ the "+", even if the call is > within the same country. But within the NANP, we can't even get that > rule accepted for the digits after the (cc), with some places > requiring and others prohibiting the use of eleven digits.ness of getting > dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without > dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke Funny I can input +cc/area code/number on my mobile and all calls go through no matter where they are :) Replies are seldom read. Please reply in the group ------------------------------ From: hkelley@yahoo.com (Howard Kelley) Subject: TDMA and GSM Cell Phones Date: 28 Nov 2002 13:47:23 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Is there such a thing as a cell phone capable of handling both TDMA and GSM accounts? Here is my issue: I travel abroad a great deal. I would like to use a single phone for both my domestic use (Cingular TDMA) and be able to switch to my European cell phone carrier when I am in Europe. I realize I will have two providers but I would like to use one telephone..even two numbers. Are there SIM chips that can make this happen? Or, am I forced to change to a U.S. carrier that has GSM service. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 14:57:37 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Pick-Six Fix Admitted as Giuliani Steps In By JOE DRAPE WHITE PLAINS, Nov. 20 - One is a college dropout turned computer ace; the other is the former mayor of New York and of late a well-paid symbol of integrity. But today the two shared the spotlight: Chris Harn for pleading guilty to fixing the Breeders' Cup pick six last month, Rudolph W. Giuliani for promising to come up with security to make horse racing's wagering systems impenetrable. In Federal District Court this morning, Harn stood before Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith and recited how as a senior programmer at Autotote, a company that processes horse racing wagers, he used his work computer to rig three sets of bets - including the $3 million Breeders' Cup pick-six payoff -- made on the accounts of two of his former Drexel University fraternity brothers, his co-defendants. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/sports/othersports/21RACI.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 18:08:54 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Mr. Watson, Come Here, You Look a Little Blurry By DAVID POGUE A MAN in New York makes a phone call. But instead of just holding a handset to his head, he watches a small screen on the phone. He and his wife, in Florida, see each other as they chat, thanks to a tiny camera on each phone. They don't only talk. They interact by gesturing and expressing themselves just as they would in person. They have arrived in the future: 1964. It was the 1964 World's Fair, to be precise, the first public demonstration of the AT&T Picturephone. The idea of adding video to the telephone seemed so obvious, plenty of people were certain it would replace the telephone. A few niche variations eventually arose, like expensive corporate teleconferencing gear and Internet cams that use PC's as intermediaries. But even after four decades, no videophone for household use over ordinary phone lines has caught on. The new Vialta Beamer (www.vialta.com) at least stands a chance, because of three shrewd decisions by its creators. First, they realized that we already have telephones with features and looks we like. Therefore, the Beamer adds only the screen: a handsome, 3.5-inch flat panel that floats in a clear acrylic panel. The Beamer screen is dark and easily ignored whenever you're not calling a fellow Beamer owner. Your phone remains your phone. The second breakthrough is the Beamer's simplicity. It goes between your phone and the wall jack, like an answering machine. (If you have an answering machine too, the Beamer goes between it and the phone.) There are no fees, accounts, activation steps or special numbers to dial. If you need one more thing to be grateful for on Thanksgiving, here's one: that someone, somewhere is still capable of designing a high-tech appliance no more challenging than a blender. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/28/technology/circuits/28stat.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 18:15:17 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Got paper? / Beth Israel Deaconess Copes With Massive Computer Beth Israel Deaconess copes with a massive computer crash By Anne Barnard, Globe Staff, 11/26/2002 Thirteen days ago, as his computer crunched the mountain of data he hoped would be his humble contribution to medical progress, the researcher -- he shall remain nameless -- got a phone call he'd never forget. It was Dr. John Halamka, the former emergency-room physician who runs Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center's gigantic computer network. He told the professor that his flood of numbers was overwhelming the system, threatening to freeze thousands of electronic medical records and grind the hospital's network to a halt. ''He said, `Oh, my God!' and pulled the plug out of the wall,'' Halamka said last week. It was too late. Somewhere in the web of copper wires and glass fibers that connects the hospital's two campuses and satellite offices, the data was stuck in an endless loop. Halamka's technicians shut down part of the network to contain it, but that created a cascade of new problems. The entire system crashed, freezing the massive stream of information -- prescriptions, lab tests, patient histories, Medicare bills -- that shoots through the hospital's electronic arteries every day, touching every aspect of care for hundreds of patients. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/330/science/Got_paper_+.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 18:17:42 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Logan Airport Tests Out New Iris-Scanning Technology By Jennifer Peter, Associated Press, 11/28/2002 15:16 BOSTON (AP) Employees' irises would become their identification badges under a new security system that Logan International Airport began testing last week. Logan, which has gained national recognition for its aggressive pursuit of new security measures since Sept. 11, is trying the iris recognition system on two entrances to secure areas of the airport, according to aviation direction Tom Kinton. In addition to using an access card and punching in a security code, a group of Massport employees participating in the pilot project will also have to look into a camera that will scan and verify their unique iris codes. http://www.boston.com/dailynews/332/region/Airport_tests_out_new_iris_sca:.shtml ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 06:02:34 EST Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Parakeets > ObTelecom: I wonder if Lily Tomlin's telephone operator character > routines will be funny to people 50 years from now when no living > person will remember what it was like to have living human telephone > operators handling calls. I suppose comedians will still have > telemarketers and voicemail menus to do routines about. There was a recent humorous commercial on local radio here in the U.K. which included somebody trying to reach a real live oeprator. It went something like this (as near as I recall it): "Thank you for calling. To be placed on hold and listen to a tinny version of Greensleeves, press 1. To speak to a customer service representative who has no interest in your problem, press 2. To speak to someone who is very friendly and understanding, but no help whatsoever, press 3. To be plunged into a telephonic abyss of silence, press 4. To be disconnected for no apparent reason, pre.... " How true! ------------------------------ From: joe@obilivan.net Subject: Re: Victoria's Secret Customers Exposed Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 16:37:35 GMT Organization: Cox Communications Sounds like fun! Monty Solomon wrote: > Glitch at Web site reveals who ordered what in some cases > By Bob Sullivan > MSNBC > Nov. 27 - A glitch at the Victoria's Secret Web site allowed customers > who purchased items there to view other customers' orders in some > cases, MSNBC.com has learned. On Friday morning, part of the site was > shut down while company officials investigated. Personal financial > information, such as credit cards, were not exposed by the glitch - > but details of customers' intimate purchases were. > http://www.msnbc.com/news/840596.asp > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That was indeed an example of indecent > exposure, wasn't it .... (poor attempt at humor). PAT] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am sure a good time was had by everyone at this visual orgy. And I hope all our USA readers today had wonderful feeding orgies at their Thanksgiving meals. I know I did. I went down to Coffeyville to my cousin's home with her husband and her mother (my aunt), another cousin and his wife and child were there, and a few other distant or twice/third removed relatives. Was it Oscar Wilde or maybe Emily Dickinson who stated, 'God gives us our relatives; thank God we can choose our friends.' Now, except for Christ Mass in just a month, its all over for another year. I am totally stuffed, and will not eat any more until at least midnight tonight when I wake up from slumber and go pick in the refrigerator. 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: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 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. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #154 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Nov 30 03:35:19 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gAU8ZJi18819; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 03:35:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 03:35:19 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200211300835.gAU8ZJi18819@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 #155 TELECOM Digest Sat, 30 Nov 2002 03:35:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 155 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Genuity Bankrupt: Agrees to be Sold to Level 3 (Monty Solomon) N11 vs. 11X Service Codes (Neal McLain) Re: Wall Street Journal (Al Iverson) Re: Wall Street Journal Online (Phil Earnhardt) Cellular Calls to Toll-Free Directory Assistance (Monty Solomon) EU Gives Official Leave to Work for Microsoft (Monty Solomon) EchoStar, Hughes to File Changes to Deal With FCC (Monty Solomon) New Gadgets May Spark Deregulation (Monty Solomon) Cross-Network Picture Messaging Starts in Finland (Monty Solomon) AOL and BSkyB Form Interactive TV Alliance in UK (Monty Solomon) Telefonica and Philips Seal Broadband Alliance (Monty Solomon) Nokia Delivers New Dual Band GSM & GAIT Handsets to Cingular (M. Solomon) TiVo Series2 Picked as Hot Holiday Family Gift (Monty Solomon) Massachusetts to Appeal Microsoft Settlement (Monty Solomon) NESN's Rate Hikes to Boost Cable TV Bills (Monty Solomon) The Spy Inside Your Home Computer (Monty Solomon) End of November: Digest Share Day (Patrick Townson) 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, 29 Nov 2002 00:28:17 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Genuity Bankrupt: Agrees to be Sold to Level 3 Deal planned after firm rises from Chap. 11 By Peter J. Howe, Globe Staff, 11/28/2002 Genuity Inc., the Woburn telecommunications services company whose corporate roots date to the earliest days of the Internet three decades ago, filed for bankruptcy protection yesterday as part of a planned $242 million sale to Level 3 Communications. In what Genuity chief executive Paul R. Gudonis called ''the best possible outcome for our creditors, our customers, and our employees,'' Level 3 would buy ''substantially all'' of Genuity after its expected emergence from Chapter 11 this winter. Genuity would operate as a Woburn-based Level 3 subsidiary focused on data services for businesses. Gudonis said it is not clear how many of Genuity's current 2,500 employees, about 1,400 of them based in Woburn, will remain after the merger into Level 3. Genuity has slashed 2,800 jobs in the last two years as its revenue has slipped amid a raging price war for Internet services. www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/332/business/Genuity_agrees_to_be_sold_Level_3+.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 20:27:44 -0600 From: Neal McLain Reply-To: nmclain@annsgarden.com Organization: Ann's Garden Subject: N11 vs. 11X Service Codes jdebert@garlic.com asked: > Why did Ma Bell switch from 11n numbers to n11 numbers for > services? Seems 11n makes more sense and would have allowed > n11 to be used for NPA's, etc. And Pat wrote: > I always thought 11x numbers were pretty much a GTE thing; the Bells > always tended to go with x11. At least that's the way I remember > it... Whereupon Mark Cuccia added: > ... it was the Panel (and later #1XB) cities that used the N11 > format for Service Codes. Step (SXS) cities tended to use 11X > service codes ... whether it was Bell or non-Bell ... And more precisely, it was in relatively small SxS (usually Strowger) offices serving fewer than 80,000 lines. Even though Automatic Electric had done most of the developmental work underlying the Strowger switching system, Western Electric adopted it for use in the Bell System. Back in the 50s, many mid-sized communities were served by Strowger offices configured for four- or five-digit numbers. Even after the introduction of DDD, and the accompanying seven-digit directory numbers (around 1953), local calls could still be dialed with only four or five digits: prepended dummy digits were absorbed. These offices typically used 11X service codes. I think the reason for this can be found in the way Strowger equipment works. Consider a hypothetical five-digit Strowger office. Such an office would be able to serve a maximum of 80,000 lines numbered 2-0000 through 9-9999 (or, in the switching equipment's internal numbering sequence, 2-1111 through 9-0000). Numbers beginning with 0 or 1 can't be used as line numbers: - Numbers beginning with 0 (such as 0-2345) can't be used because initial 0 is used for operator. - Numbers beginning with 1 (such as 1-2345) can't be used because of the possibility of a false preliminary pulse (a pulse generated by a user who accidentally depresses the switchhook momentarily before dialing). Strowger equipment (or, for that matter, any kind of rotary-dial-controlled switching equipment) can't tell the difference between a false preliminary pulse and deliberately-dialed 1, so, in order to prevent possible wrong numbers, initial 1 is not used for subscriber numbers. For such an office, the valid numbering ranges (again in the switching equipment's internal numbering sequence) would be: 2-1111 through 2-0000 3-1111 through 3-0000 4-1111 through 4-0000 5-1111 through 5-0000 6-1111 through 6-0000 7-1111 through 7-0000 8-1111 through 8-0000 9-1111 through 9-0000 Now suppose, for example, that 411 were used for directory assistance (or "information" as it was known back in the Strowger days). That one code would tie up 100 otherwise-valid numbers: 4-1111 through 4-1100. Using all possible N11 codes (211-911) would tie up 800 valid numbers, or one percent of the entire numbering capacity of the office. On the other hand, using 114 doesn't tie up any valid numbers, and it still solves the false-preliminary-pulse problem: - An initial 1 followed by *anything except* another 1 defaults to an error tone (or, through special wiring, it might be ignored, allowing the caller to reach the desired number anyway). In either case, a false preliminary pulse won't cause the caller to reach a wrong number. - An initial 1 followed by another 1 can be used for a service code because it's very unlikely that a caller would inadvertently press the switchhook twice. Hence, combinations 112 through 110 were used as service codes. - A false preliminary pulse followed by 11 (i.e., 111) defaults to an error tone, so that even a deliberate attempt to dial a service code after a false preliminary pulse won't reach a wrong number. Hempsted B. Miller, in his book TELEPHONE THEORY AND PRACTICE, Volume 3, "Automatic Switching and Auxiliary Equipment" (McGraw-Hill, 1933) describes just such an office. In his example: 111 Error tone 112 Error tone 113 Information desk 114 Repair desk 115 Error tone 116 Error tone 117 Test desk 118 Error tone 119 Revertive call switch 110 Toll desk (what we'd now call "long distance") The revertive call switch was used by party-line callers to call other numbers on the same party line. Various 119XX codes would ring back with a variety of ringing cadences and polarities, alternately ringing both the calling phone (which had to be hung up momentarily) and the called phone. But the revertive call switch also worked on single-party lines. Back in my college days in Ann Arbor, some of my friends and I (being typical nosy college students with nothing better to do than study) took it upon ourselves to document all 100 of Michigan Bell's 119XX codes. Believe it or not, I still have that document in my "telephone" file today, almost 50 years later. Nowadays, of course, 0 and 1 are the leading digits for intra-NANP toll calls (or to signal an upcoming NPA if you're in one of *those* states). But, as both jdebert and Mark Cuccia have pointed out, that wouldn't have precluded the use of 11X service codes today. Except that they'd be longer, probably 11XX (like today's Vertical Service Codes) or 11XXX. Or maybe even 111-XXXX! In any case, perhaps we should thank the Automatic Electric engineers that developed the Strowger switching system for reserving leading-digits 0 and 1, even though they reserved them for entirely different reasons. Footnote: Speaking of Vertical Service Codes, why did they get that name? Here's my theory (but it's just that, a theory). Most Strowger switches are configured so that the wipers move in two directions, vertically and radially (or, as it's sometimes called "up and around"). A call to, say, 113, requires three switches to move vertically, one for each digit. Three vertical motions. Get it? Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ From: Al Iverson Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal Organization: Not very Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:53:34 -0600 In article , pae@dimensional.com (Phil Earnhardt) wrote: > In article , Joey Lindstrom > wrote: >>> http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1038261936872356908,00.html >> Hey Monty, maybe we can skip the articles that require a $79 payment >> to read, huh? > Did you try the link? It link worked fine for me with no WSJ online > account. The webserver didn't require a cookie. It even worked with > lynx. It works now, but I recall that when it was first posted I tried to click on it and got the login and pay screen instead. I'm wondering if they blackout new stories for non-subscribers for a certain period of time. Al Iverson -- http://www.radparker.com -- Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA Support Minnesota Jazz -- Disclaimer: All of my opinions are mine alone. ------------------------------ From: Phil Earnhardt Subject: Re: Wall Street Journal Online Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:46:52 -0700 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 12:53:54 -0700, Joey Lindstrom wrote: >> http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1038261936872356908,00.html > Well Pat, try this: > 1) Go to "http://online.wsj.com" (the root URL of the link Monty > provided) or "http://www.wsj.com". Both take you to the same page. > You'll be presented with a list of top stories > 2) Click on a few of them. [SNIP] > Given the plethora of excellent news sites out there that do not > require payment (or registration in most cases), WSJ can go piss up a > rope for all I care. I've never heard that particular expression before. It may be the case that the above sequence will get you to a prompt asking for your credit card number. However, it would be a fallacy to presume that all WSJ journal articles require the premium service in order to view them. I have no idea on which articles are which, but apparently Monty does. I read the TELECOM Digest through Usenet News. I was able to read the story-in-question by clicking on the link provided by Monty in his posting. I did it when the original article was posted on Usenet and I just repeated the experiment. I was able to retrieve the freely retrieve the article. While I am a print subscriber to the Journal, I have never ever registered with the online service. > I've got better things to do with my $79. I believe that Pat's theory was correct: the article URL got munged in the batched version of the TELECOM Digest and the behavior of the website was to take you to the subscription page when presented with a broken URL. Joey: did you ever try the un-munged URL? AFAICT, the URLs that Monty provides from the WSJ require no fee to access. > Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring phil [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Seeing Joey's complaint was really shocking to me; so much so that I got a message to Monty an hour or so later, asking for an explanation. I do not like putting things here that require payment to read. Monty insisted it was not his doing; we tracked back over the original message as I got here here, found those two commas ,, etc. I asked Monty to look into it a bit more and send some explanation here, which he did. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:59:27 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cellular Calls to Toll-Free Directory Assistance I placed a call to toll-free directory assistance (1.800.555.1212) from my cellular phone during a time period when I shouldn't be charged. I assumed that there wouldn't be any charges for that call since all toll-free calls that I have placed during the off-peak time period have been free of all charges. When I got the invoice from the phone company, there was a charge of something like $1.99 for that call. I called Cingular to ask about it and they claimed that they charge for all calls to directory assistance. Even calls to toll-free directory assistance. This doesn't seem right to me. Who handles toll-free directory assistance from a cellular phone? Is it my selected long distance carrier? Is it possible that they intercept all calls to directory assistance and use their own provider? Has anyone here experienced similar charges calling toll-free directory assistance from cellular phones? Thanks, Monty [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Cingular Wireless has been very difficult to work with lately for me. The latest hassle began when Cingular decided to quit paying SWB a service fee for 'wide area service' on 620-870. It *had* been set up that calls to my cellular phone (and every other Cingular customer in Independence) was toll free via 620-870-last four. Cingular did not tell anyone they were going to stop that agreement with SWB, they just unilaterally did it as of November 1. I should have used that *change in contract terms by them* as an excuse to drop them and get a new cellular provider, but I didn't. I found out it had happened (no longer wide area and a toll charge now accessed) a couple days before Thanksgiving when I discovered a mystery call on my long distance bill for one minute at fourteen cents calling my cell number from my home line. I went over to their office Friday on Penn Street downtown and asked them about it. Yes, they said, 'corporate decided to change the deal with SWB Telco earlier this month. If you not want people who call you to have to pay toll, then we have to put you on a local, 620-330 number.' I waited around while the Cingular clerk here in town called customer service (or wherever she calls) and took *their* abuse with five to ten minutes of voicemail hell and holding waiting for *them* to answer her. Finally she got through, and got a new 330 local number (for cellphones here; all other phones in town are 331) and reprogrammed my phone. My voicemail, etc was just carried over to the new number automatically. I thought I would have to reprogram that, but I did not. However then I discovered my transfer on busy/no answer from my home phone to the cell phone no longer worked, of course. When SWB rang me three times, then withdrew the call, it started going to an intercept message, about 'number you dialed is not in service'. :( I then called SWB's business office (wherever it is now; it is no longer available on the corner of 6th and Maple downtown; all that is there in recent years is just the switches). SWB service rep takes my 'new' cellular number and informs me that as the spirit moves and they feel inspired, they will change the call forward on busy/no answer to the new number; but that I need not expect it until the middle of next week at the earliest. Then she proceeded to tell me about a 'new package of services' they have which will 'just cost' me the paltry sum of $3.25 per month if I want her to turn that on also. There will also be a $6 fee for changing the number on delayed call forwarding. So until the middle of next week sometime, or 'as the spirit moves them' I will have to set my answering machine back to three rings and pick up the calls here before SWB telco gets a chance to grab them away and send them for bogus treatment. All because the folks at Cingular decided to save money by no longer providing 'courtesy' wide area local calling for their customers here. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 21:06:39 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EU Gives Official Leave to Work For Microsoft - Nov 28, 2002 01:43 PM (Reuters) (Updates with comments by EC's Colasanti, paragraphs 3-4) By David Lawsky and Lisa Jucca BRUSSELS, Nov 28 (Reuters) - A European Commission official with knowledge about the EU executive's antitrust case against Microsoft Corp has been granted leave of absence to work for the firm from next Monday, Commission officials said on Thursday. The Commission, which is nearing the end of a long-running investigation of allegations that the U.S. software giant abused its dominance of the Windows operating system for personal computers, denied there was any potential conflict of interest. Information Society Director General Fabio Colasanti, the EU Commission top official who signed the leave of absence for head of unit Detlef Eckert, said he stood by his decision. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=30306776 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 21:21:16 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EchoStar, Hughes to File Changes to Deal With FCC - Nov 27, 2002 05:34 PM (Reuters) WASHINGTON, Nov 27 (Reuters) - EchoStar Communications Corp. (NASDAQ:DISH) and Hughes Electronics (NYSE:GMH) on Wednesday planned to file with federal communications regulators changes to their proposed combination in an effort to salvage their $19.3 billion deal but declined to disclose details. The top two satellite television providers are facing stiff opposition to their merger from the Federal Communications Commission and the U.S. Justice Department's antitrust division because of fears they would dominate the market and hurt competition. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=30298719 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 21:42:00 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: New Gadgets May Spark Deregulation NEW YORK (AP) _ It almost sounds too "Star Trek" to be possible: A multipurpose cell phone that also serves as an FM radio, walkie-talkie, garage door opener and TV remote control. And what if every time you made a call with that handset it increased the performance of other phones already in use _ instead of competing for airwaves with them? While such wireless wizardry remains a few years off, those days could be coming faster now, thanks to a rare confluence of technology breakthroughs and a rethinking of airwave regulation by the federal government. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=30145126 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 21:43:48 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cross-Network Picture Messaging Starts in Finland HELSINKI, Nov 25 (Reuters) - Consumers in Finland can now send and receive digital photos via their cellphones even if they do not belong to the same mobile phone operator, a move seen helping boost the popularity of picture messaging. Mobile phone maker Nokia (HELS:NOK1V) said on Monday customers of Finland's largest operator Sonera (HELS:SRA1V) and smaller rival Elisa Communications (HELS:ELIAV) could now use multimedia messaging services (MMS). Nokia said Finland was the first country to enable consumers to use MMS between different operators. Several more European carriers are expected to make similar services possible in coming months across Europe. MMS allows users to send pictures and sound clips to one another, and is seen by the telecoms industry as a key driver for getting consumers to buy new, more advanced mobile phones as well as a revenue generator for cash-strapped operators. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=30180288 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 22:42:41 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AOL and BSkyB Form Interactive TV Alliance in UK LONDON, Nov 26 (Reuters) - AOL Time Warner's (NYSE:AOL) UK Internet unit is joining forces with Rupert Murdoch's BSkyB (ISEL:BSY) to bring the online service to Britain's largest digital satellite service Sky Digital, the companies said on Tuesday. The alliance, the first time the media giants have worked together on interactive television programming, will seek to exploit the explosion in email and instant messaging communications. AOL's Internet unit is pushing for adaptation of its proprietary service to new media formats, including interactive television and mobile phones, as its core dial-up access business shows signs of slowing. Sky Digital is the leading digital cable outfit with six million paying subscribers, while AOL UK has two million paying subscribers, making it the biggest UK Internet service provider. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=30239390 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 22:44:04 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Telefonica and Philips Seal Broadband Alliance By Lucas van Grinsven AMSTERDAM, Nov 26 (Reuters) - Spain's number one telecoms operator Telefonica (MADRID:TEF) on Tuesday said it had signed a deal with Europe's biggest consumer electronics group Philips (AMS:PHG) to bring Internet content to home HiFi and TV sets. The link-up, initially for two years, would extend Telefonica's current offering of broadband Internet access for personal computers. With Philips it aims to offer multimedia services, digital television and games to a range of connected electronic devices in the home. The two companies will first launch products and services in the Spanish market, using Telefonica's Asynchronous Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) broadband access service, but they plan to enter the Latin American market later, a statement said. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=30239631 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 22:46:09 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Nokia Delivers New Dual Band GSM and GAIT Handsets to Cingular - Nokia Supports Cingular's GSM/GPRS Expansion With New Multi-Band And Multi-Network Phones - IRVING, Texas, Nov. 26 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Nokia (NYSE:NOK) today announced that shipments to Cingular Wireless of three new handsets designed to support the expansion of GSM/GPRS networks in the United States have begun. These deliveries include the Nokia 6340i phone, the world's first dual-band/tri-mode GAIT compliant handset and two new dual band GSM/GPRS products supporting GSM networks at both US frequencies (850/1900MHz), the Nokia 3590 and 6590 phones. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=30244869 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 22:47:39 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: TiVo Series2 Picked as Hot Holiday Family Gift Retailers, Top Consumer Magazines - Good Housekeeping, Maxim, InStyle - Recommend TiVo Series2 as Special Family Treat Under the Tree SAN JOSE, Calif., Nov. 26 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Leading retailers and some of the nation's largest consumer magazines are all pointing to TiVo as an early favorite to top the list of hot Holiday gift items. The TiVo Series2 DVR is easier than ever to use and install, and comes "future ready" for new home entertainment. TiVo lets you easily and simply record all of your favorite shows so you can watch them whenever you want without all the hassles of videotape. Almost 90 percent of current TiVo subscribers say they couldn't live without it. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=30244902 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:30:48 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Massachusetts to Appeal Microsoft Settlement BOSTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Massachusetts, one of nine U.S. states that have refused to sign Microsoft Corp.'s (NASDAQ:MSFT) antitrust settlement with the Justice Department, said on Friday it would appeal a federal judge's recent endorsement of the pact. State officials are facing a Monday deadline to decide whether to appeal the Nov. 1 ruling by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=30316688 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 00:30:28 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: NESN's Rate Hikes to Boost Cable TV Bills Majority-owner Red Sox looking to maximize sports network revenue By Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff, 11/26/2002 Cable television rates are going up again next year, and a hefty chunk of the increase can be traced to the Boston Red Sox. Just as the ball club is trying to squeeze more seats into Fenway Park to maximize ticket revenues, the team is also putting more games on its New England Sports Network and hiking subscriber fees. Local cable operators and NESN declined to comment on the exact size of this year's increase, but industry sources say the fee per subscriber is rising anywhere from 40 to 70 cents a month, depending on the cable system. At one smaller operator, sources say, the monthly fee is rising 46 percent to $2.20 per subscriber. NESN is fast becoming one of the most expensive channels on standard cable locally, and in the process becoming a highly lucrative source of revenue for the Red Sox and Boston Bruins. The Sox own approximately 80 percent of NESN, while the Bruins own the remainder. The New York Times Co., corporate parent of The Boston Globe, is a limited partner in the group owning the Red Sox. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/330/business/NESN_s_rate_hikes_to_boost_cable_TV_bills+.shtml [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My cable bill here in Independence will rise $1.50 per month starting January 1 according to an insert in the bill which came in the mail today. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 00:44:21 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Spy Inside Your Home Computer By Mark Ward BBC News Online technology correspondent Bond may be back, but spying never went away. The worrying truth is that secret agents could be lurking in your home computer and broadcasting personal information. Your home computer is a pretty dumb device that usually does what it is told. But with the right help this mute machine can become disturbingly "talkative". So-called "parasite programs" are logging what you do online and, like a nest of busy gossips, sharing the information with anyone who will pay to listen. As concern mounts over these sneaky tactics, privacy experts, cyber watchdogs and many concerned net users have started to compile lists of these programs. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/dot_life/2487651.stm ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Share Day for November Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 02:58:00 CST Its that time of the month again (the last day of the month and the first day of the new month) that I use to ask you to please, kindly remember TELECOM Digest and my expenses in getting this (mostly) spam free, reader-written moderated newsgroup out to you on a daily (often times several times daily) basis. As most of you know by now, a new 'deal' is underway: I now have the second edition of the CD for Telecom Archives available (my thanks for this to Joey Lindstrom) and unlike the first edition back in 1995, this time around it will be an ongoing to-date thing, along with old-time radio shows, including Agnes Morehead's famous radio presentation of 'Sorry, Wrong Number'. The CD includes about 80 megs of messages and special files from our archives (1981 to present time), and if you are connected to the internet when you look at it, dozens of links to other resources of interest. But you do not have to be on the net to use it; the CD itself has all the 22 years' worth of our files. In addition, with several old time radio shows with telephone themes, and Ms. Morehead in the *Suspense* radio drama production, I think you will want a copy of it for your library. You make a donation to the Digest in an amount of at least $25 (or more, as you find appropriate) and ask for your personal copy of the CD. Be sure to include the address where Joey should send your CD, and also specify if you want the Windows version or the *nix version. For fastest service, use PayPal such as the template at the bottom of the page: http://telecom-digest.org (look all the way at the bottom of the page, or on any PayPal template pay to 'Telecom Digest Editor'). If you prefer to send a check or money order or cash, make it to TELECOM Digest, Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 but be sure to include the same information about shipping address and style of CD requested. Happy holidays to all of you! I know you will want to continue your support of this Digest. 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: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 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. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #155 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Nov 30 15:06:44 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gAUK6ik13433; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 15:06:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 15:06:44 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200211302006.gAUK6ik13433@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 #156 TELECOM Digest Sat, 30 Nov 2002 15:07:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 156 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: N11 vs. 11X Service Codes (Mark J Cuccia) Re: TDMA and GSM Cell Phones (Joseph) Re: TDMA and GSM Cell Phones (Alan Burkitt-Gray) Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender (John Higdon) Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender (Howard S Wharton) Re: Radio Signals (Robert Bonomi) Number Read Back Service (Ryan Nichols) Share Day for November/December (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: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 10:01:01 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: N11 vs. 11X Service Codes I originally replied: > it was the Panel (and later #1XB) cities that used the N11 format > for Service Codes. Step (SXS) cities tended to use 11X service codes and Neal McLain replied: > more precisely, it was in relatively small SxS (usually Strowger) > offices serving fewer than 80,000 lines. Even though Automatic Electric > had done most of the developmental work underlying the Strowger > switching system, Western Electric adopted it for use in the > Bell System. (and then went into _excellent_ detail of generic numbering/dialing and switching/trunking situations in small and mid-size town locations using SxS switching). But even large cities which used Step-by-Step switching _ALSO_ used 11X service codes, well into the 1960's. Some of these towns/cities (usually independent telcos, and also _GTE_ held BC-Tel in British Columbia CANADA) continued using 11X codes into the 1970's and 80's even after Crossbar, ESS and possibly digital switching replaced SXS. (I'm also thinking of Centel in Tallahassee FL which still used 11X Codes into the 1970's and Lincoln NE Tel & Tel which IIRC still used 11X into the 1980's. BCTel also used 11X including 112+ instead of 1+ for sent-paid-DDD into the 1980's!) As for larger towns/cities with SxS offices. A multi-office city would have had to have special trunking if they used N11 codes for every special service depending on the existing numbering and dialing w/r/t switching and trunking, or else locate each N11 answering center in the vicinity of where the central office beginning with that same specific 'N' digit was located. Here in New Orleans, we were predominantly SXS for DECADES. The first #5XB office (Seabrook, 504-CHestnut-x) wasn't installed until circa 1959/60. Step offices were still around until the early 1980's when they were finally cut to 1AESS (except for the smaller CDO step offices in the outlying areas of the metro area, which were cut to digital remotes circa 1989/90). New Orleans used 11X codes for test and service codes until the early 1960's: - 113 for Information/Directory - 114 for Repair - 115 and 116 were for special assistance type operators (Conference, Marine, Mobile, etc) - 117 for Test Board - 118+X(1) for multi-party revertive/ringback - 119(1) for two-party revertive/ringback - 110 for the LD Operator In the early-to-mid 1960's, we changed over to: - 411 for Directory - a seven-digit number (870-1122) for Repair - special 87X codes from SXS offices for test/ANAC/Revertive(Ringback) The (already existing) '0' local operator took over the functions that customers previously dialed 115, 116 and 110 for. Actually, she still had to connect the customer with the Conference, Marine, Mobile, etc. special operator. And by the early 1960's, the '0' local operator was already placing outbound toll calls throughout the US and Canada herself, without having to pass the customer to a "dedicated" Long Distance outward operator. Customer dialed 'DDD' began from New Orleans circa 1962/63, using the "standard" (beginning in the 1960's esp. from Step offices) access of: 1+ NPA (if not your 'home' area code) + 7D or 2L-5N We never used 112+ to reach the local DDD/CAMA tandem. Note that the seven-digit number for Repair at that time was 870-1122, that it begins '87' which was for SXS offices to use for "test" functions as well. When calling from a STEP office (but not a #5XB or later ESS), the '0' and '1s' were absorbed at the '87' misc.code selector, thus you could "get by" (ONLY FROM a STEP office) with just '872' to call Repair! In the 1960's, there was only one central office switch in the New Orleans metro area beginning with '4', "HUnter-x", 48x. Calls to 48x-xxxx from another local SXS office outside of the "HUnter" office, trunked to the "HUnter" office just on the single digit '4'. The next dialed digit '8' would be "absorbed" by the "incoming selector" switch at the "HUnter" office. The next customer-dialed digit, the 'C' digit of the 48-X code, was now actually switched by the "HUnter" office's incoming selector switch. The reamining dialed digits, -xxxx, were all switched by each subsequent selector (and eventually final connector) switches within the "HUnter" office. But this means that _ALL_ calls to 411 from other Step offices in the metro area were routed through the "HUnter" office. The '4' trunked one to "HUnter", and then the '1' being dialed were switched at the incoming selector at "HUnter" over to Information (Directory). Also, it probably meant that there couldn't be a 481 prefix, since this too would actually route to Directory with the '8' being absorbed in "HUnter". The center where the Directory operators were located had to be trunked to from "HUnter" in these calls originating from other Step offices. I seem to think that Southern Bell / South Central Bell had a directory operator center in the vicinity of the "HUnter" office. When there were additional 4Nx central offices added in the metro area during the 1970's, such as the 43x Avondale new ESS ffice, the 44x ESS at Shrewsbury for the Westgate locality, the 45x ESS at Shrewsbury for the West Metairie locality, and the 46x new Briarwood ESS office in Kenner, all SXS offices in the metro area had to build new "Fourth Level Second Selector" switches within their own offices. From each SxS office, '4' would trunk to this 4th-Level Second Selector switch within the same building. Then the next digit would "trunk out" to the proper switch: 4-1 for Directory 4-3 for the Avondale ESS 4-4 for Shrewsbury ESS (intended for 44x Westgate customers) 4-5 for Shrewsbury ESS (intended for 45x West Metairie customers) 4-6 for Kenner Briarwood ESS 4-8 for the original "HUnter" SXS (which cut to ESS in the late 1970s) Now, each SXS office in the metro area could install direct trunks to the Directory Operator Center without having to have the calls switched via the "HUnter" office. There could be additional Directory Operator centers or they could have re-located the directory operator center location. We didn't have 911 at the time. If we did, _ALL_ calls to 911 from SXS offices would have had to pass thru the Franklin 94x office (dialed as "WHitehall"), since there were no other 9Nx offices/codes in the metro area (at that time). Dialing a '9' from a SXS office routed directly just on that digit, to Franklin (WHitehall, 94x). In the long run, this was inefficient trunking, but at that time, it did work. But 11X codes would have eliminated a lot of the inefficiencies that Step offices using N11 codes in small/mid-size cities had. Only the LARGEST Step cities if they had multiple office-code selectors for all office code digits dialed, or else directors/registers/ some form of "common contral" would have had the most efficient use of trunking with N11 codes. IMO, I think that AT&T / Bell Labs (in the 1960's) should have recommended that Panel/XB cities migrate to 11X codes rather than requiring SXS cities migrate to N11 codes, as mentioned earlier. However, would this have meant that 112+ would have become the DDD/CAMA/Toll access prefix from all SXS areas? (as well as possibly Panel/Crossbar areas which never really "needed" an "access" prefix for DDD?) I know that there were some SXS areas using 1+nxx(etc) for DDD _AND_ at the same time using 11X Service codes back in the 1960's/70's. There are two possible ways this could have been done, EITHER: [1] a "double headed trunk" which connected to BOTH the DDD/CAMA tandem AND had a connection to the misc.codes (11X) selector within the same office, where if the second digit after the initial '1' were another '1', the connection to the DDD/CAMA tandem would be "dropped" leaving the connection to the '11X' codes selector opened up; OR if the second digit were a 'N' ('2' thru '9', i.e., the customer intends DDD, 1+NNX-xxxx toll within their own NPA, or 1+NPA+NNX-xxxx toll outside of their own NPA), the connection to the '11X' codes selector would "drop" leaving the connection to the DDD/CAMA tandem open, and already having picked up the second customer dialed digit (first digit of 'foreign' NPA or first digit of office code within 'home' NPA) in its registers. OR, [2] where an initial dialed '1' goes to DDD/CAMA, and if the customer dials a second '1' followed by an 'X' digit, the call will route to Directory, Repair, LD-Operator, etc. _thru_ the DDD/CAMA toll switch acting as a "local area tandem". However, this use of '11x' going to DDD/CAMA as a tandem for mservice code functions would dis-allow the use of 11x for local office test functions (117 for Test Board unless it were a centralized test board via the DDD/CAMA tandem, or 118-X(1) and 119(1) for party-line ringback/revertive calling, dial-speed tests, etc, which usually were handled _within_ one's own central office). But most SXS areas adopted some _OTHER_ NN(x) or NX(x) range (such as the 87x range in New Orleans) for such misc. test and party-line functions when our SXS (and #5XB) offices abandoned 11X codes in the early-to-mid 1960's. 87(0-11)2(2) Repair Service 87-3-0 ANAC 'in' 87-3-2222222 ANAC 'out' 87-4(1) Two Party Revertive Ringback 87-5+(?) ANAC but "quoted" as a string of touchtones! 87-6 LOUD dialtone then SILENCE (would hold the line up a min) 87-7 Test Board 87-8-X(1) Multi-Party Revertive Ringback 87-9 Reorder with high tone (would hold the line up a minute) (The 876 holding the line up a minute ... In High School back in the 1970's, some students would drop their nickel into the payphone, COIN FIRST GROUND START, dial 876, hang up, and then walk aside for a while. The line of students waiting to use the payphone would each then drop in their nickel expecting dialtone, not get any since the line was "held up", and then all of them would leave thinking the phone was out of order. A minute or two later, the SXS c.o.switch would release the line, return ALL of the nickels on the "escrow plate", and then someone would collect them all up ... sneaky, but it worked! You COULD tell that this could happen to YOUR nickel, if you said something into the phone before dropping in a nickel to make a call, because you STILL had "sidetone" while the SXS switch "held the line up"; BTW, throughout Louisiana, it was still a nickel untimed for a local coin call until 1979 when it went up to a dime, then a quarter in 1983, and then COCOTs in the later 1980's+, and then the Telecom Act of 1996 'deregulation' of all payphones when BellSouth went up to 35-c now 50-c for local calls from its payphones). But the use of 11X codes instead of N11 codes, NANP-wide, WOULD have allowed N11 to instead be used as "special area codes" along the line of N00 codes (and the special area codes 888, 877, 866, etc., the generic form as NYY, where the second and third digits are identical) ... and there REALLY could be "POTS" (or special) office codes in the seven-digit part of the number, with 'N11'. And then _ALL_ special "local" test/service/ or "CLASS"/Vertical Service "control" codes could be extended to 11-XXX(X). There would be no need for two sets of instructions or footnotes, where '*XX' is the main quoted instruction and a footnote of 11-XX for rotary-dial / pulse-dial customers. All instructions would have simply quoted 11-X(X(X(X))) for such "special" functions. And I have NEVER really figured out WHY telco uses the name "vertical" for CLASS/Custom Calling/etc. functions! :-) Mark J. Cuccia mcuccia@tulane.edu New Orleans LA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: First, a hearty thank you to Mark Cuccia for still another good report on old style phone service and how things were done forty-plus years ago. My own contribution to the conversation about S x S switching systems is this: Long after Bell System had 'standardized' their method of dialing (back in the 1950-60's) with 2L and 5D (or in some early cases, 7D) and DDD was being implemented, we *still* could not direct dial into GTE territories (such as Fort Wayne, IN or Lafayette, IN) because of those towns 'odd' ways of dialing things (or so we thought). Fort Wayne had 'Anthony' with four digits following it, and Lafayette had five digit dialing but no exchange name that we could discern. Numbers in Lafayette would be such as 34567, and I assume the '3' was part of some prefix. Purdue University was the exception, where there were two ways of reaching them, from locally in Lafayette and West Lafayette. Dialing just '90' reached the Purdue operator but dialing '92' followed by five digits for the campus extension got you to that phone. Long distance callers still had to ask their local operator for 'Lafayette 90' and recite the extension number to the campus operator as '234567' or six digits. And your local operator did not dial anything; she just plugged in and waited until the distant operator answered 'Lafayette' then she gave the desired five digit number for you (or in the case of Purdue, '90' then when Purdue answered the other five digits.) Or sometimes the local operator would pass '92' plus five and Lafayette would dial it instead. Calling in reverse from there to Chicago, Lafayette did the same thing; plugged in, waited for Chicago to answer then asked for the seven digit desired number. And although Lafayette would later be in the 317 area code, at the time if you tried to call using 317+7D the call would fail to complete. The operator's routing book said to 'mark sense' the ticket as 317+151+ when she handed the call off to the Lafayette operator. Does anyone remember the those old 'mark-sense' codes the operators used in the early (and partially DDD) days? Regards high school and illicit money collections: In the pre-dial days the payphones were also coin first, followed by battery and wait for operator response to pass the number. 'Someone' left an old bent up coat hanger in the pay phone booth at school with a note written on the booth wall saying 'do you know how to use this?' Also written on the walls of the booth were the various juvenile obscenities for which kids are famous. And sure enough, kids would put their nickle in the box, and with luck have the coat hanger up the return chute and trip the escrow table the 'right' way and have the nickel back sometimes before the operator even answered. Other kids knew how to use a safety pin through the cloth cord and ground the phone the right way to get battery, knowing that battery meant the operator would be along in a minute or so to take the call. The main hassle with safety pin versus coat hanger was that tripping the ground to get battery merely got you at best a local (five cent) call. For a long distance call there still had to be additional coins deposited and the operator would listen for the 'ding' (five cent coin), the 'ding ding' ten cent coin or the 'dong' 25 cent quarter coin. If she did not hear those you did not get your call. That's where the coat hanger came in handy. If it was a smart operator, she knew she had to 'collect fast' immediatly on answer since some people would manage to retrieve the coins and cheat the company otherwise. But sometimes the operators screwed up also, collecting or returning in error. If the former she would offer 'the next call will be free' or if you insisted the nickel would be sent back in the mail. The other way -- improper return of coins, she would apologize and ask you -- plead -- with you 'please deposit the money again.' On the same topic, the first *dial* service in Whiting, Indiana was the Standard Oil Whiting Refinery. The phone system there, known as 'Stanotel' allowed three digit dialing around the refinery. Dial the single digit '7' got you a Chicago tie-line with dial tone. Dialing the single digit '8' got you the Stanotel network around the USA. But dialing '9' for a local call got you battery and then speaking to the local Whiting operator, while dialing '0' got you the operator at the refinery, which is where all incoming calls to 'Whiting 2111' (refinery main number) went for handling. I think the refinery had a Rolm PBX, the only one I have ever seen/heard of where '9' did not get you an outside dial tone but instead a wait to give your local number to the operator audibly. I think a few of the executives there like my grandpa (assistant superintendent) had 'private outside direct lines' as buttons on their phones. Grandpa had a five button phone on his desk, two buttons were refinery extensions; a third button was different; it got Chicago dial tone directly on using it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: TDMA and GSM Cell Phones Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 19:53:10 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On 28 Nov 2002 13:47:23 -0800, hkelley@yahoo.com (Howard Kelley) wrote: > Is there such a thing as a cell phone capable of handling both TDMA > and GSM accounts? Here is my issue: I travel abroad a great deal. I > would like to use a single phone for both my domestic use (Cingular > TDMA) and be able to switch to my European cell phone carrier when I > am in Europe. I realize I will have two providers but I would like to > use one telephone ... even two numbers. > Are there SIM chips that can make this happen? Or, am I forced to > change to a U.S. carrier that has GSM service. You can have some of that but not all of that. Cingular currently offers a GAIT (GAIT (GSM ANSI-136 Interoperability Team) a technology that enables GSM and TDMA networks to interoperate) model the Nokia 6340i that cingular uses so their customers can use both the IS-136 (TDMA) part of their network (the majority of their network) or GSM (Carolinas, some of Tennessee, California, Nevada & Washington state.) The GAIT phone works on GSM networks in both 1900 and 800 Mhz, IS-136 (TDMA) in 1900 and 800 Mhz and also in AMPS (analog 800) networks. To use your service anywhere else other than in the Americas you'll need a phone capable of at least 900 Mhz operation and preferably also able to use 1800 Mhz networks. Currently there is no handset that will do TDMA, AMPS and GSM in all four GSM frequencies (800, 900, 1800 & 1900.) If you need to use GSM in Europe with an US carrier such as T-Mobile or cingular it might be just as well that you purchase a GSM 900/1800 phone through eBay or some other online place just for use in Europe and just transfer the SIM card when you get on the plane (or off it.) That said cingular is the only IS-136 operator that is using true GAIT phones. AT&T is marketing a Siemens phone the S46 that will work on IS-136, GSM 900 (no 1800) and GSM 1900. It does not have AMPS so it is not a true GAIT phone, but that might work for you. AT&T markets this I believe as a "multi-network" plan. http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?id=84 Hope this helps. Also, keep in mind that AT&T is fairly new to the GSM scene and does not have a full set of roaming agreements in place so you should check to see whether the country you are planning to travel to has a roaming agreement with AT&T. AT&T at this point will not obtain unlock codes for their customers so if you want to opt for pre-paid overseas that is not an option at this time. Replies are seldom read. Please reply in the group ------------------------------ From: Burkitt-Gray Alan Subject: Re: TDMA and GSM Cell Phones Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:15:41 -0000 Howard Kelley asked: > Is there such a thing as a cell phone capable of handling both TDMA > and GSM accounts? ... Or, am I forced to change to a U.S. carrier that > has GSM service. Qualcomm and, I think, Samsung have recently announced a CDMA/GSM multi-standard phone, but I don't know of any TDMA/GSM phones. I'm afraid that, yes, in order to roam in Europe you'll need to be with a US GSM carrier (with a tri-band phone, that also works on the international 900 and 1800 MHz bands for GSM, as well as the 1900 MHz band used in North America). Alternatively you could, when in Europe, buy a pay-as-you go GSM phone for use on this side of the Atlantic. You'll need to shop around to ensure you can roam across European countries with it: different operators in Europe have different rules. For example Orange pay-as-you-go phones in the UK will work on Orange-afiliated networks in around 13 European countries (see http://www.orange.co.uk/cgi-bin/international/phone_start.pl?tariff=payg) -- and you can pick up a phone at any Orange shop or other dealer and have it working in minutes. You don't need a local address or anything like that. A Siemens A50 is on the market for GBP69.99 -- just over $100 -- on a pay-as-you-go deal. That will also mean that you'll get the benefits of low rates for calling numbers in Europe -- while a US phone company would probably add a hefty mark-up. The third choice is to rent a phone while you're here -- but that would mean you wouldn't know your number until you picked up the phone at the airport. And now that mobile phones are so common, rent-a-phone services are probably getting scarce and expensive. 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: John Higdon Subject: Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 19:50:55 -0800 In article , Phil Earnhardt wrote: > Throughout this discussion, I have never heard if any of those > midshipmen happened to legally own the CDs (or LPs or cassettes or, > just maybe, 8-track tapes) of the MP3 music that they allegedly > downloaded. Would getting a digital copy of the music they already > owned be a violation of the Honor Code? > Does the RIAA recognize that owners of a particular recording in any > of these formats is entitled to have -- or even download -- an MP3 > version of that recording? The RIAA does not regard "fair use" as legitimate. As far as I know, that organization regards the many gigabytes of MP3s on my hard drive as "pirated" music, yet not one byte came from anywhere other than my very own CD library. The RIAA wants no technology out there that it doesn't control. MP3 = bad. Technology that can be used by customers to their own advantage is a threat and must be eliminated. RIAA's dream digital technology is a file format that is serialized and can only be played on software that reports to and receives permission to play tunes from a mothership. The RIAA doesn't just want you to pay for your music, they want to control where, how, when, on what, how often, and for how long you can listen to it. It is known as "rights management", where the record company manages your rights. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Howard S Wharton Subject: Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:20:01 -0500 Organization: University at Buffalo Pat, Even if the Midshipmen own their own computers, they are connected to the military (government) network and the same rules apply. I also agree that it's seems to be a muddy issue regarding the story. Hope everyone had a Good Thanksgiving! Howard S. Wharton Fire Safety Technician Occupational and Environmental Safety Services State University of New York at Buffalo ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Radio Signals From: bonomi@c-ns (Robert Bonomi) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 04:12:56 GMT In article , Stanley McPherson wrote: > Is it possible in Pittsburgh to hear AM broadcasts from the West coast > of the U.S. with a standard radio? > Thank You. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, rarely, on occassion it is > possible. It is quite common to hear radio stations several hundred > miles away. It depends on the strength of the radio signal and > atmospheric conditions. Under very good conditions a very powerful > west coast station (let's say 50 K output on a clear channel) could > be heard in Pittsburgh. Although I have no interest in listening to > them, station WLS in Chicago can be heard late on a summer night > here in Independence, KS, over 700 miles away. But WLS meets the > 50 K/clear channel requirements. We also can hear a station in > Des Moines, Iowa the same way. Radio propogation is kind of a mystery > to say the least. PAT] The station in Des Moines is probably WHO-AM 1040, a 50kw 'international clear channel' station. Since sometime in the '50s, their slogan for their late-night broadcasts has been: "Coast to Coast. Border to border. And *THEN* some." They regularly have listeners from Alaska and Hawaii phoning the call-in line. And at least a few times a year, somebody will phone in who is receiving them in *Australia*. There is, as I recall, a 'window of opportunity' of about 1/2 hour each day, when conditions are right for reliable reception in part of AU. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Radios are amazing things, aren't they. I used to have a *very good* digitally tuned short wave radio which also had medium wave on it. Everything from below AM broadcasts (it started at 150 kc I think) and tuned up to around 30 Megs in different bands. It also tuned FM stations digitally. I dearly loved that radio. Then one day it got stolen, and that as 'they' say, was that. I think it cost me around $150-200 back in the middle 1980's. I had to put an antenna wire up in my apartment to get the best reception. Maybe some day I will get another one. I love scanning shortwave stations and DXing AM stations in the USA. My favorite station is KRPS in Pittsburg, Kansas at 89.9 FM, the classical music station from NPR at Pittsburg State University. Trouble is, Pittsburg is a *trip* from here, about 70-80 miles east, next to Joplin, MO and that distance is a bit far for most FM stations. I have a Bose radio/CD and when I put an external antenna on it I can get KPRS. They also have a repeater-translator at 102.7 FM in Bartlesville, OK but that one is run off the air by KIND the local station at 102.9. They also have a repeater in Iola, Kansas but that is farther away than even Joplin/Pittsburg, and the religion people here in town (91.9 FM American Family Association) run Iola away. And the PBS station in Tulsa is just to weak to come in here, and that is about 90 miles straight south. KPRS has a stereo signal, but I do not get stereo for it, just a mono signal, which seems to imply I am just getting 'wisps' of it that happen to get here. I know if I had a good rooftop antenna like many folks in town I could make the trip from Pittsburg quite easily. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nichols@cablenut.net (Ryan Nichols) Subject: Number Read Back Service Date: 28 Nov 2002 21:12:59 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I used to have a number that I could call to get the number I am dialing on with my butt set while I am working in a comm room. I have since lost that number; are there any others out there? I've thought about ust calling SWBell and GTE and requesting the information again. I'm needing one for AR and TX. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good luck getting it. Most telcos keep those numbers under tight security, and they change them every month or two as well, making it very hard to find a working one all the time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Share Day for November Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 02:58:00 CST Its that time of the month again (the last day of the month and the first day of the new month) that I use to ask you to please, kindly remember TELECOM Digest and my expenses in getting this (mostly) spam free, reader-written moderated newsgroup out to you on a daily (often times several times daily) basis. As most of you know by now, a new 'deal' is underway: I now have the second edition of the CD for Telecom Archives available (my thanks for this to Joey Lindstrom) and unlike the first edition back in 1995, this time around it will be an ongoing to-date thing, along with old-time radio shows, including Agnes Morehead's famous radio presentation of 'Sorry, Wrong Number'. The CD includes about 80 megs of messages and special files from our archives (1981 to present time), and if you are connected to the internet when you look at it, dozens of links to other resources of interest. But you do not have to be on the net to use it; the CD itself has all the 22 years' worth of our files. In addition, with several old time radio shows with telephone themes, and Ms. Morehead in the *Suspense* radio drama production, I think you will want a copy of it for your library. You make a donation to the Digest in an amount of at least $25 (or more, as you find appropriate) and ask for your personal copy of the CD. Be sure to include the address where Joey should send your CD, and also specify if you want the Windows version or the *nix version. For fastest service, use PayPal such as the template at the bottom of the page: http://telecom-digest.org (look all the way at the bottom of the page, or on any PayPal template pay to 'Telecom Digest Editor'). If you prefer to send a check or money order or cash, make it to TELECOM Digest, Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 but be sure to include the same information about shipping address and style of CD requested. Happy holidays to all of you! I know you will want to continue your support of this Digest. 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: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 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. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #156 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Dec 1 02:14:09 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gB17E9k12270; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 02:14:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 02:14:09 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212010714.gB17E9k12270@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 #157 TELECOM Digest Sun, 01 Dec 2002 02:14:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 157 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Visa, Mastercard Seen Foiling Rivals (my_name@is.invalid) Ravings (Joey Lindstrom) Re: BASIC/FORTRAN/COBOL (Barry F Margolius) Rural/Wireless Local Loop (Dana) Re: This is Why I Read Digest - was Re: What Auth Centers Do? (Schaffer) Re: 5ESS High and Wet Problems (jdeyo@bellsouth.net) Re: Cellular Calls to Toll-Free Directory Assistance (Steven J. Sobol) Re: EU Gives Official Leave to Work For Microsoft (Anthony E. Siegman) Re: Number Read Back Service (John Higdon) Share Day November/December (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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Visa, Mastercard Seen Foiling Rivals From: my_name@is.invalid Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 05:24:37 GMT In article , wrote: > In article , Thomas A. Horsley > wrote: > ...and even trying to disguise > their debit cards so merchants couldn't tell them from credit > cards. Just for curiosity, why should merchants be able to tell > the difference? As long as they get their money, why do they > care if the buyer uses a debit or a credit card? Because they > *DON'T* 'get their money', not all of it, that is. Card issuers > _charge_ those who accept cards for that 'convenience'. I speak > as a merchant who _accepts_ credit-cards for payment, and there is > a *significant* difference. The 'service charges' I have to pay on > a transaction against a debit card are nearly *DOUBLE* those I pay > for processing a real 'credit' card. > VISA also has another 'wrinkle', the 'corporate' charge-card. This > is a credit card that provides a number of 'enhanced' services to > the card-holder -- 'classification' of expenses, mgmt summaries, > etc. Unfortunately, the merchant who _accepts_ that card as payment > for his services, *pays* for those services for the customer. I pay > more than 30% _more_ for accepting a 'corporate' card than I do for > accepting a regular card. And there is *ABSOLUTELY*NO*WAY* to > determine in advance _which_ kind of a card it is. I don't know, > and _can't_find_out_ what this transaction is going to cost, until > *after* I've been charged for it. My clearinghouse has told me > this, and VISA _itself_ has confirmed it. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Anyway, who says they 'disguise' the > cards? My card says rather plainly on it, 'Commerce Bank Check > Card' although it does have a VISA logo on it, and the number > sequence is a usual VISA type number: twelve digits beginning > with '4'. > If the card is not present, as in telephone or mail-order sales, or > over the internet, for that matter, there is *NO*WAY* to determine > which kind of a card it is. I take telephone orders -- I found out > about this the "hard way". > Note: for "card not present" transactions, VISA _could_ claim that > =any= arbitrary transaction was a 'debit', or 'corporate' card, and > the *merchant* CANNOT verify whether they're telling the truth or > not. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But as a merchant, I am sure you > know quite well the costs involved in carrying your own paper > ... in fact very few stores attempt to maintain their own credit > departments any longer, much preferring to pass off the paperwork > and risks to large creditors like Visa. And regards debit cards, > would you rather have to collect on NSF checks all the time or have > a guarentee from Visa for >some fee per item? PAT] As a matter of fact, we *do* run our own credit department as well. We sell subscription-based services, so *everything* is on a credit basis of one form or another. At present credit-card transactions account for less than 5% of sales. Our 'internal' costs for processing credit-card transactions are virtually identical with those for 'payment by check'. *BEFORE* the credit-card processing charges are figured in. This is, in large part, due to the nature of our business, *and* to very sophisticated automation supporting the credit/billing process. It's interesting you should mention NSF checks -- we have had a *single* instance of that (last week, actually), in the last 5+ years. As to what I want, I want: 1) the ability to _know_ what my costs are, *in*advance*, on any given transaction. 2) the ability to "audit" the accuracy of those costs, as assigned by the Credit-Card issuer. 3) *IF* the card _issuer_ is going to charge me *more* for handling specific classes of their cards, I want to be able to pass that surcharge through to the card *holder*. "Surcharging" the *merchant* for handling debit-card transactions is disingenious, at best. The 'risk' to the card issuer on such transactions is *ZERO*. The issuer doesn't approve the transaction until _after_ they have actually withdrawn the money from the cardholder's account. They're _not_ 'advancing' the payment to the merchant, there is *no* 'cost of carry'. The reason for that additional charge is 'profiteering', pure and simple. Since the payment _from_ the card-holder is immediate, they don't have the chance to "get rich" off the finance charges imposed on any 'unpaid balance'. So, they have to make money on the transaction 'somewhere else'. Similarly with the 'corporate' cards. The issuer provides a 'nice' bundle of additional services to the cardholder. *Somebody* has to pay for those 'extras'. What is the benefit _to_the_merchant_ of those 'extras'?? Why should the _merchant_ who accepts the card get stuck with that 'extra' cost? If the cardholder wants those services, let the cardholder _pay_ for them. That *is* the 'fair' way to do things. I'm entirely willing to pay the 'base-level' transaction fees for processing credit cards. I object _violently_ to being forced, *involuntarily*, to pay for those "other" services, from which I derive *NO* benefit. Would you buy gasoline from a station that has an advertized price of $1.69/gal, but charged you $1.69/gal, or $2.29/gal, or $3.17/gal, *and* wouldn't tell you which price you were paying until AFTER you'd filled your tank? That is *EXACTLY* the situation with 'credit/corporate/debit' cards today. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One slight correction in what you say, regards debit cards. The merchant does not get his money, nor does the money come out of the card holder's account at the time approval is given, but rather, when the *actual document* or magnetic tape entry reaches the bank. Sales authorization is given based on what the account *looks like at the time of approval.* A sale could be approved because there is money in the account or the sale is under the daily limit for the customer. But before the merchant's paper gets to the office, some other merchant slides in with a check the customer wrote or gets his debit charges in first. He gets paid because there is actual money in the account to pay him. Now your paper shows up a few days later -- the account is devoid of money -- you still get paid since sales authorization guarenteed you your money. Now the bank is left holding the bag. I know you are probably saying why didn't the bank put a 'hold' on the money you had been guarenteed. In some cases they do, but usually they do not. It depends on the customer's relationship with the bank in many cases. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:10:09 -0700 Subject: Ravings Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:15:11 EST, phil wrote: >> Hey Monty, maybe we can skip the articles that require a $79 payment >> to read, huh? > Did you try the link? It link worked fine for me with no WSJ online > account. The webserver didn't require a cookie. It even worked with > lynx. I tried it three ways, including reading the URL off one computer and typing it into another (and given the chance of error, I did this no fewer than four times). Each time I got no story and an exhortation for cash. Similarly, when I went to WSJ's front page, every single "lead story" gave me the "this page is only for non-deadbeats, so pay up!" schtick. I'm not against paying for online content, providing that I feel it's worthwhile to me and it's something I can't get for free elsewhere. Indeed, I have a few such subscriptions, including one which will probably surprise nobody here: to the "Rush Limbaugh 24/7" site. :-) I don't demand that everything on the internet be free (though I think I'm in the minority on this one, at least as far as this forum is concerned). What I *AM* saying is that a $79 annual fee for a website that I might visit once or twice a year, and which otherwise really doesn't offer anything UNIQUE (at least to me - others will have different opinions), is simply a deal I'll take a pass on. Now, obviously something was wrong with the URL that Monty passed along to us, as Monty himself noted, and that's how I managed to stumble into page after page of demands for money. Although I've yet to actually see it (even the corrected URL doesn't work for me), I'll take Monty and others here at their word that this particular story CAN be viewed for free. What I would ask of Monty is that maybe in future he inform us of any restrictions a site may impose when posting a URL based on that site (ie: the way Pat jumps in and gives us a free username/password to use on NYTimes stories). Monty apparently didn't even know about this $79 fee, and I assumed he did, and thus "my bad" - I should have been a bit more civil in my response to him: Monty, I apologize for that, and please otherwise keep up the great work. Then John Higdon wrote: > Does the RIAA recognize that owners of a particular recording in any > of these formats is entitled to have -- or even download -- an MP3 > version of that recording? NOTE: I AM NOT A LAWYER That said, I've done some extensive reading on the subject. You would think that downloading an MP3 of a song you already own (say on CD or cassette or whatever) would constitute fair use, just as creating an MP3 from your own legally-purchased copy would be. But that's not the case. It is fair use for *YOU* to make an MP3 of YOUR copy, which is what makes these recent CD releases that don't function on a PC all the more reprehensible. It is *NOT*, however, fair use for someone else to make an MP3 of THEIR copy and give it to you, EVEN IF YOU OWN A COPY OF THE SONG. It's a really stupid distinction to make, but the distinction DOES exist. If you want the MP3 and remain in compliance with the law, then make it yourself - downloading it is a violation of copyright, both on your part and on the part of the person making it available for download. > All I can say is that the Warner Bros. DVD releases of major features > are supurb on my setup, and they have been this way from the gitgo. > While other companies were releasing non-anamorphic letterboxed > transfers in two-channel surround (like 20th Century Fox, Miramax, and > Polygram), WB was releasing anamorphic, 5.1 products. OK, yes, I'll give them that much credit. Still, they really fell down on the Babylon 5 release. Babylon 5 was the FIRST television series in broadcast history to be shot entirely in 16:9, because the series' creator, J. Michael Straczynski, recognized that widescreen was the display format of the future. He knew that sometime down the road, they'd be able to release Babylon 5 on home video in some sort of widescreen format (DVD's didn't yet exist) and people would be in for a real visual treat. And Warner blew it completely -- it's one of the poorest video transfers I've ever seen, and they didn't even get the 16:9 part right. This release should have been another jewel in Warner's crown. Instead, they should be embarrassed. > The only thing I fault WB for is their lack of DTS releases. I fault every studio on that. I own about 300 DVD's. Precisely two of them have a DTS track. One of them, Terminator 2, has both Dolby 5.1 and DTS, and you can switch between them. The difference is INCREDIBLE. Dolby 5.1 is nice and all, but DTS makes it sound like an old Victrola. :-) Then Pat wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am sure a good time was had by > everyone at this visual orgy. And I hope all our USA readers today > had wonderful feeding orgies at their Thanksgiving meals. I know I > did. I went down to Coffeyville to my cousin's home with her husband > and her mother (my aunt), another cousin and his wife and child were > there, and a few other distant or twice/third removed relatives. > Was it Oscar Wilde or maybe Emily Dickinson who stated, 'God gives us > our relatives; thank God we can choose our friends.' Now, except for > Christ Mass in just a month, its all over for another year. I am > totally stuffed, and will not eat any more until at least midnight > tonight when I wake up from slumber and go pick in the refrigerator. PAT] I recognize that this is off-topic, but can anyone here explain to me why Canada and the USA recognize the SAME holiday on different days? This year, Canadian Thanksgiving Day was Monday October 14th, whereas USA Thanksgiving Day fell on Thursday November 28th. What's up with that? Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And you have always celebrated New Year's Day on January 1; until about the sixteenth century most of Europe celebrated New Years on March 21 each year. Seriously. The New Year was considered to begin on the Spring Solstice rather than the first day of the first month after the start of the Winter Solstice. In other words, March 21 of any year was followed by March 22 the next year. But Canada from its founding always used January 1 as the date. And when you consider the calendar we both use, a Spring Solstice makes better sense; after all OCTober means 8, not '10' as we consider it; NOVember means 9, rather than the '11' we consider it; and I will give you a guess on what DECember means, like 10 maybe. So what happened in the numbering to the other two months? Well, January and February were part of *last year* until the calendar was tampered with, by Pope Gregory, I believe, i.e. the 'Gregorian' system of calendaring. But to answer your question, Americans chose to celebrate Thanksgiving (or the 'Day of Mourning' as certain Indian tribes phrased it) on the final Thursday in November when President Lincoln asked them to at the conclusion of the war between the states. Prior to that, it had been on various dates in October each year for a hundred years or so. Contrary to some opinions, the non-conforming Puritans held the first such event in the summer, while the conforming Puritans held one in the winter. Both conforming and non-conforming Puritans celebrated each other's feast days, although they did disagree on what date it should be observed but not enough to go without eating. (among other things they disagreed on.) Then when King Roosevelt the Second came into office he made it official here in the USA that the fourth (not necessarily the last) Thursday in November would be used for Thanksgiving, and it has been that way since sometime in the 1930's ... we also disagree (the Canadians and the USA) on Rememberance Day, which we used to call Decoration Day and for several years now have officially called Memorial Day. It *used* to be in the USA that Decoration Day was *always* on May 30. It could be a Wednesday or a Sunday or whenever, but it was always on May 30. Then when the USA Congress passed the 'Monday Holiday Act' (that was its official name), Memorial Day was shifted to the fourth Monday in May. Now it can happen anytime between May 23 and May 31. When is your Rememberance Day? Ditto with Veterans Day on a Monday in November. It used to be Armistace Day on November 11, which is the date on which the First War ended in 1918. Now it is variable, on a Monday in November. And Easter; that's a good one. The ancient Romans always held a big feast for the Goddess Oeaster to worship Her for the return of warm weather and another season of crops, etc. Goddess Oeaster made her appearance with the new moon at the start of the New Year each spring (remember March 21 as New Year's Day) and Julius (one of the Caesers) refined it so the pagan worship of the Goddess Oeaster always happened to fall more or less the same dates. In his corrections of the errors in Julius Caeser's calendar (the Julian system of calendaring) Pope Gregory declared that henceforth the more modern Anglicized Easter holiday would be celebrated by the church (after all, why should the pagans get all the fun?) as a religious day, and that it would in fact be celebrated at Mass on the first Sunday following the New Moon in the Spring Equinox or Solstice, meaning it will always happen between March 22 and April 15, which was about when Goddess Oeaster would appear each year centuries before. Finally, the Gregorian Reformation occurred in the USA in September, 1752. To look at a *very* strange calendar, on a Unix box do the command 'cal 9 1752' You will see that Wednesday, September 2, 1752 was immediatly followed the next day by Thursday, September 14, 1752. The twelve day gap had to be finally done in the USA to conform to Pope Gregory's new calendar. It would have been done 150 years earlier but the non-conforming Puritans raised such a stink. Is this enough calendar trivia for now? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barry F Margolius Subject: Re: BASIC/FORTRAN/COBOL Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 01:41:39 -0500 Jim Van Nuland wrote: > Joey Lindstrom wrote: >> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 02:06:29 -0500 (EST), editor@telecom-digest.org >> wrote: >>> By the way, >>> BASIC = Beginner's All-Purpose Symbolic Instruction Code.) Does anyone >>> here remember what COBOL and FORTRAN stood for? > COmpletely BOtched Language. Told to me when I joined the IBM team > building the first compiler, this about 1963. > Jim Van Nuland, San Jose (California) Astronomical Association FORmula TRANslation COmmon Business Oriented Language (I think) ------------------------------ From: Dana Subject: Rural/Wireless Local Loop Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 23:57:03 -0900 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Here is the deal. We have the phone company and cable company providing service to a business say three miles away. That is the end of the line for both the cable and phone company. Well there are about 30 families due east of the store, from one to ten miles away. Is there a way we can pool together and come up with a wireless/ microwave system that will tie us to the service at the business. Both the phone company and cable company have found it would be too expensive to lay cable, for so few people. So now we are looking at having the service provider provide service at the end of the line there, and we will chip in and buy some kind of radio/microwave radio that will connect the houses. Anyone have any ideas. ------------------------------ From: hes@hes01.unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E Schaffer) Subject: Re: This is Why I Read Digest - was Re: What Auth Centers Do? Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 21:54:07 UTC Organization: North Carolina State University In article , Lou Jahn wrote: > ... IBM's 1050 terminal ( a version of the selectric typewriter) > transmitted at 14.5 characters a second and had a parity check > bit. ASCII terminals (mostly teletypewriters) communicated at a slow > 10 characters per second with no parity check bits. Who would ever > rely on such an unsafe ASCII communications protocol. ... I leased a Teletype (Model 33 ASR) back then, from the telco -- and asked to have it set for even parity since I was using it as a remote data entry terminal to a computer. This was an unusual use, and an unusual request -- but it could be set to use even parity. When an odd parity character was received, it printed an error character (I don't remember what.) In article , Robert Dover wrote: > Ah, the 1620 - The CADET machine: Can't Add, Doesn't Even Try! It had > no arithmetic logic and did decimal arithmetic via a matrix. ... Yes -- it did table look-up to accomplish arithmetic. The tables were loaded into the regular memory -- and so one could alter the tables to do arithmetic using any base less than 10. It was a handy feature if one wanted to do octal arithmetic. henry schaffer hes@ncsu.edu ------------------------------ From: jdeyo@bellsouth.net Subject: Re: 5ESS High and Wet Problems Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 20:38:30 -0600 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: Big.Daddy@supernews.net Better late than never, right?! Yes, we have experienced it more frequently after moving to 5e15. On 18 Jul 2002 12:28:40 -0700, jherrmann@opticalsolutions.com (Jim H.) wrote: > We have been infrequently experiencing POTS lines not clearing from > the 5ESS High and Wet list thus requiring manual clearing. In > discussing with contacts in the telecom industry, others have seen > this problem also with their 5ESS. If you have experienced this > problem or have information, please respond. > Jim ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol) Subject: Re: Cellular Calls to Toll-Free Directory Assistance Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:05:24 -0000 Organization: JustThe.net LLC From 'Monty Solomon' : > I placed a call to toll-free directory assistance (1.800.555.1212) > from my cellular phone during a time period when I shouldn't be > charged. I assumed that there wouldn't be any charges for that call > since all toll-free calls that I have placed during the off-peak time > period have been free of all charges. > When I got the invoice from the phone company, there was a charge of > something like $1.99 for that call. I called Cingular to ask about it > and they claimed that they charge for all calls to directory > assistance. Even calls to toll-free directory assistance. I am experiencing the same thing and have escalated to my carrier's regional executive appeals department. My carrier is Verizon. They charge $1.25 plus airtime to directory calls. If I'm calling Verizon Wireless's own 411 Connect service, that's one thing -- it costs them money to provide the service and I don't expect them to eat the costs; but I got charged on a call to AT&T's 800-555-TELL. The $1.25 appeared on my bill as toll charges (as opposed to LD or airtime). I was told that the calls were charged due to the special routing that was required. Again, I can see this with Verizon's own service, but not with calls to an outside 800 number! > This doesn't seem right to me. > Who handles toll-free directory assistance from a cellular phone? Is > it my selected long distance carrier? It ought to be routed like any 800 call. I don't get charged for calls to my own toll-free number. I don't get charged for calling my bank to find out what my balance is. According to VZW customer service, I DO get charged if I call a service that provides horoscopes, movie listings, or an "adult" line (WTF? Do they have people calling every tollfree in existence?) What about Moviefone? 440-777-FILM is a free call from any phone line that is local to 440-777. Do I get charged for that too? I am going to get this policy *fixed*. I don't want to leave Verizon Wireless. In all other aspects of the service, they have treated me VERY well. *611 is always answered in 60-90 seconds (I've timed it, many times). They're quite helpful, and so are the people at my local store. I took advantage of a recent promo and now have exactly the calling package I need. And I don't want to have to give out my new phone number to everyone, *again.* But I also pay $104.99 per month for my calling plan. For ONE PHONE. And while the price is competitive with similar plans from other carriers (I talk a lot), it's still, in an absolute sense, a buttload of money for one person to be spending on one phone, so I don't expect VZW to nickel-and-dime me to death. I'm a low-maintenance customer, and I don't do stuff like roaming that would cost Verizon money, that they wouldn't be able to charge me for. > bogus treatment. All because the folks at Cingular decided to save > money by no longer providing 'courtesy' wide area local calling for > their customers here. PAT] Cingular == SBC. (Joint venture between SBC and BellSloth.) That should tell you everything you need to know. Steve Sobol, CTO JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH http://JustTheNetLLC.com/ 888.480.4NET (4638) A practicing member of the Geek Orthodox religion! ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: EU Gives Official Leave to Work For Microsoft Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 09:50:44 -0800 > By David Lawsky and Lisa Jucca > BRUSSELS, Nov 28 (Reuters) - A European Commission official > with knowledge about the EU executive's antitrust case against > Microsoft Corp has been granted leave of absence to work for the > firm from next Monday, Commission officials said on Thursday. > The Commission, which is nearing the end of a long-running > investigation of allegations that the U.S. software giant abused > its dominance of the Windows operating system for personal > computers, denied there was any potential conflict of interest. This has all the appearances of a really scummy deal -- and it may also indicate that as the European trans-national agencies in Brussels get bigger and acquire more and more influence, the kind of revolving-door industry-government sleaze that so pervades the U.S. may play a growing role in Europe also. "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton (1834-1902) "Dependence on advertising tends to corrupt. Total dependence on advertising corrupts totally." (today's equivalent) ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Number Read Back Service Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 12:42:48 -0800 In article , nichols@cablenut.net (Ryan Nichols) wrote: > I used to have a number that I could call to get the number I am > dialing on with my butt set while I am working in a comm room. I have > since lost that number; are there any others out there? I've thought > about ust calling SWBell and GTE and requesting the information > again. I'm needing one for AR and TX. Telco number readbacks became so unreliable and mutable that I finally set up my own several years ago for my own private use. It has two versions: one using an ordinary directory number to read back CID and one (using an 800 number) that reads back ANI. Very handy. I notice that the venerable PacBell readback number has finally bit the dust here as well, however. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good luck getting it. Most telcos keep > those numbers under tight security, and they change them every month > or two as well, making it very hard to find a working one all the > time. PAT] Telco readback numbers typically only serve a comaratively small area. The advantage of having my own is that they work from any phone, anywhere. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Share Day for November Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 02:58:00 CST Its that time of the month again (the last day of the month and the first day of the new month) that I use to ask you to please, kindly remember TELECOM Digest and my expenses in getting this (mostly) spam free, reader-written moderated newsgroup out to you on a daily (often times several times daily) basis. As most of you know by now, a new 'deal' is underway: I now have the second edition of the CD for Telecom Archives available (my thanks for this to Joey Lindstrom) and unlike the first edition back in 1995, this time around it will be an ongoing to-date thing, along with old-time radio shows, including Agnes Morehead's famous radio presentation of 'Sorry, Wrong Number'. The CD includes about 80 megs of messages and special files from our archives (1981 to present time), and if you are connected to the internet when you look at it, dozens of links to other resources of interest. But you do not have to be on the net to use it; the CD itself has all the 22 years' worth of our files. In addition, with several old time radio shows with telephone themes, and Ms. Morehead in the *Suspense* radio drama production, I think you will want a copy of it for your library. You make a donation to the Digest in an amount of at least $25 (or more, as you find appropriate) and ask for your personal copy of the CD. Be sure to include the address where Joey should send your CD, and also specify if you want the Windows version or the *nix version. For fastest service, use PayPal such as the template at the bottom of the page: http://telecom-digest.org (look all the way at the bottom of the page, or on any PayPal template pay to 'Telecom Digest Editor'). If you prefer to send a check or money order or cash, make it to TELECOM Digest, Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 but be sure to include the same information about shipping address and style of CD requested. Happy holidays to all of you! I know you will want to continue your support of this Digest. 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: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 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. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #157 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Dec 1 17:30:11 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gB1MUBo24937; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 17:30:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 17:30:11 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212012230.gB1MUBo24937@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 #158 TELECOM Digest Sun, 1 Dec 2002 17:30:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 158 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Anyone a Trimline Guru? (noel) "Grave Questions of Invasion of Privacy" (Monty Solomon) Needed Feature For Answering Machine? (Aaron Epstein) Nothing New in Telecom Scams (Jim Haynes) Is There a Dial Helper For When We Travel? (Gail M. Hall) Weird GTE Numbering in Lafayette (Neal McLain) Re: Number Read Back Service (Harbor Diver) Re: Number Read Back Service (Dave Phelps) Re: TDMA and GSM Cell Phones (Howard Kelley) Re: Ravings (Paul Coxwell) Re: N11 vs. 11X Service Codes (PaulCoxwell@aol.com) Re: Rural/Wireless Local Loop (Dominic Richens) Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender (Ron Chapman) New Website to Check (Heidiangeline@aol.com) Share Day for November/December (Patrick Townson) 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, 01 Dec 2002 11:59:52 -0600 From: noel Subject: Anyone a Trimline Guru? I've become interested in finding a few old trimline phones. Why? I don't know. A mental defect i suppose. Anyway, I know that in trimlines, there are rotary and touchtones. In the touchtones, there are those that require a transformer to light the buttons and those that do not. These seem to be identified as either round button (need transformer) or square button (not need). Now, my question concerns the early touchtones that required the transformer. Were all the early trimline touchtones handsets narrower than the rotary trimline handset ones? You know that the rotary trimline had a nice curved sides to accommodate the dial. I never had a TT trimline, but all the pictures of them that I see, they seem to be more square and less shapely than the rotary ones. Can someone clue me in on this? Thanks Noel ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 13:08:18 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: "Grave questions of invasion of privacy" Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, warns that the Total Information Awareness program threatens our basic rights -- and questions whether Adm. Poindexter is the right man to run it. Nov. 26, 2002 | President Bush signed the landmark Homeland Security Act into law Monday, setting in motion the most ambitious reorganization of the federal government in decades. Already, though, critics on both the right and the left are worried that measure will create a mechanism for unprecedented spying on U.S. citizens. One program in particular is emerging as a concern: the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness system. Privacy experts say the program will allow the government to routinely mine thousands of databases -- from drivers' licenses to bank statements to telephone records -- to compile dossiers with scant regard for people's innocence or guilt. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/11/26/nelson_speech/ ------------------------------ From: aaronep@pacbell.net (Aaron Epstein) Subject: Needed Feature For Answering Machine? Date: 30 Nov 2002 15:39:47 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I have a friend that I phone each day. He is always happy to hear from me. The problem is that he screens his calls and I have to listen to the complete outgoing message before I can say who I am and he then picks up the phone. Is there any answering machine available that would allow me, if I am given a code number, to say who I am without having to listen to the outgoing message? All replies welcomed! Aaron ------------------------------ Subject: Nothing New in Telecom Scams Reply-To: jhaynes@alumni.uark.edu Organization: University of Arkansas Alumni From: haynes@alumni.uark.edu (Jim Haynes) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 00:45:07 GMT Earlier this week I was in a library that has a lot of neat stuff, including the "Telegraph and Telephone Age" magazine going way back in time. I was reading issues from the early 1930s. A teenager had a reasonable enough imitation of a Western Union delivery boy's uniform. He fabricated telegrams and delivered them, collect. The story that got printed said he delivered one telegram with 90 cents due and the customer had only a ten dollar bill. So he offered to take the bill and bring back the change. Which he didn't. An executive of a corporation was traveling overseas. The crooks fabricated a cablegram from him to his company, instructing them to pay $800 on delivery of two packages he was having sent there. The packages were delivered and the company paid. They turned out to contain nothing but bottles of colored water. ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: Is There a Dial Helper For When We Travel? Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 23:14:38 -0500 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net I am getting to the point I find it hard to "dial" (press the number keys) fast enough to suit SBC Ameritech. Those 11-digit numbers are hard to remember. Sometimes I have to look back at a number when I'm only part way through and before I can dial (press) the next number, I am already getting the "your call did not go through" message. Here is the situation. We just got a prepaid calling card in the mail that would be handy to use when we travel because you can use it from any phone. The microscopic print does say there is a surcharge if used from a public phone, but sometimes a person just wants to call from a friend's house or something. Well, to use a calling card like this, we have to dial the toll-free number printed on the card (in very small print), then enter a PIN consisting of 11 digits. Then it says we will be prompted with instructions for dialing the number we want to call. So, since most phones don't come with a little screen where you can enter the numbers at your own pace and then hit Enter like on a computer, the question is this: Is there a dialer helper gizmo that a person could carry similar to a palm-sized address-phonebook sort of thing where a person could enter such numbers and then hold it up to the phone mouthpiece and press one or two buttons and have it beep the tones into the telephone for us. Has anyone thought about a smart phone card that can do the dialing for us if we just put in one or two numbers instead of the 11-digit told-free number plus the 11-digit PIN? How about a "card reader / number storer" that we could carry. We could have a smaller PIN with something like this so not just ANYONE could use it, but it would be easier for people like me to use than what they have now when you have to punch in all your own numbers and do it faster than we used to have to. One thing I really LIKE about the cell phones is the phone book built into the phone. If there were a gadget similar to the cell phone phonebook that could be used with a landline phone from anywhere, that would be nice. Gail in Ohio USA ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 22:45:19 -0600 From: Neal McLain Reply-To: nmclain@annsgarden.com Organization: Ann's Garden Subject: Weird GTE Numbering in Lafayette PAT wrote: > Long after Bell System had 'standardized' their method of > dialing (back in the 1950-60's) with 2L and 5D (or in some > early cases, 7D) and DDD was being implemented, we *still* > could not direct dial into GTE territories (such as Fort Wayne, > IN or Lafayette, IN) because of those towns 'odd' ways of > dialing things (or so we thought)... Lafayette had five digit > dialing but no exchange name that we could discern. It was even weirder than you describe. City numbers were a mixture of five- and six-digit (except for Purdue, which, as you note, was two digits). When my parents lived in Lafayette in the 50s, their number was 42-6737. After GTE switched to seven-digit numbers, their number became 742-6737, but the initial 7 was absorbed, so you could still dial it locally with just the six digits. But you still couldn't dial it directly from outside Lafayette; you had to call your local operator (Illinois Bell in my case) and ask for "Lafayette, Indiana 742-6737." I once asked the IBT operator for "Lafayette, Indiana 42-6737" to see what would happen. The Lafayette operator said it wasn't a valid number, so I said, SEVEN-42-6737 (emphasizing the SEVEN to be sure that the Lafayette operator heard me). No reaction to my emphatic SEVEN, but the call went through. On another occasion, I asked the IBT operator for "Lafayette, Indiana 317-742-6737" to see what would happen if I included the area code. She asked, "have you tried dialing it"? Well, no, lady ... I can't dial Lafayette. Silence. After a few moments of assorted clicks, pops, and muttering, the Lafayette operator came on the line, and the call went through. > Numbers in Lafayette would be such as 34567, and I assume the > '3' was part of some prefix. That would have been one of the five-digit numbers, and there was no prefix; just 3-4567. But after GTE switched to seven-digit numbers, 3-4567 would have become 743-4567. > Purdue University was the exception, where there were two ways > of reaching them, from locally in Lafayette and West Lafayette. > Dialing just '90' reached the Purdue operator but dialing '92' > followed by five digits for the campus extension got you > to that phone. And if you were calling from a campus extension, you dialed 0 for an outside line, and 1 for the campus operator! Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: University of Chicago had some weirdness like that also. Going back into the 1940-50's there was but a single 'switchboard' (of eight positions) to handle all incoming and outgoing calls, on the main number group MIDway 3-0800. Extension numbers ran from 2100 through 8899, or around that; about 6500 extensions. Then there were the dormitory switchboards, whose 'outside lines' were merely extensions on the campus board, plus they had a few lines on each dorm switchboard which were traditional 'outside lines'. The board was massivly overcrowded and congested with calls. They finally decided to break it up into pseudo-exchanges, by installing nine more operator positions. The orginal eight positions were moved against one wall, six new positions were put against the other wall and the 6000- 7000 series of extensions were terminated there. This was called the 'hospitals board' (the original was named the 'campus board'). The hospital board got the outside lines which were numbered MUseum-4-6100 up through 6199. The two new left over positions were pushed against a third wall, and had the 8000 series of extension numbers, and this was for the newly created Computation Center. (In the late 1950's this was all quite a mystery to most people.) That, roughly 500-600 extensions received the outside series of numbers NORmal-7-4700. All the extensions could dial each other of course, and people in the University of Chicago Hospitals complex or the Computation Center were expected to give their own assigned outside numbers for callers, respectivly, either 684-6100 or 667-4700, or the main campus which had the 2000-3000-4000 numbers were the old 643-0800 series. A desk at the back of the room was where the teletype machine was located; also the 'service assistant', and the clerk who posted the phone charges for each extension, etc. And there two people back there who maintained 'telepage', the overhead paging system for the hospitals and clinics area, which was a block west on 59th and Drexel Streets. 'Telepage' got incoming calls from anyone dialing the single digit '7'. Those two operators took incoming page messages, put them over the speakers and directed page recipients to dial whatever extension. Literally, 'telepage' *never* quit speaking; pages would go on a dozen at a time all day. Operators reported for work at intervals throughout the day and evening ... but it was phased out to just one person on duty overnight from midnight to 7 AM, when things begin getting 'phased in' again with an increased staff in the morning rush period. Sometime around 1965-70 Illinois Bell said let's get rid of this mess and offered UC a centrex to handle it all but they had to build a new central office which they asked UC to help pay for. They moved the phone room (formerly 5th floor in the admin building 5801 South Ellis Ave) over to the 1400 block of West 61st Street in the basement of a building called 'Center for Continuing Education' which was right across the alley from the new central office building Bell had constructed, and attached to the *old* CO building used for everyone else in the neighborhood; the one called 'Kenwood Bell' at 61st and Kenwood; I have talked about it before here. In the 1970's UC got rid of about 30 operators they had needed in the old phone room, and kept about a dozen ladies experienced in operating the little electronic consoles; that was all they needed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Harbor Diver Subject: Re: Number Read Back Service Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 04:05:11 -0500 Organization: Fugawi Marine Divers LLC - Boston, MA. - http://www.fugawi.net/ Today, Sat, 30 Nov 2002 12:42:48 -0800, Two Buddha read a post from John Higdon , and determined his interest in BURP. Where's my beer? Oh and: > In article , > nichols@cablenut.net (Ryan Nichols) wrote: >> I used to have a number that I could call to get the number I am >> dialing on with my butt set while I am working in a comm room. I have >> since lost that number; are there any others out there? I've thought >> about ust calling SWBell and GTE and requesting the information >> again. I'm needing one for AR and TX. > Telco number readbacks became so unreliable and mutable that I finally > set up my own several years ago for my own private use. It has two > versions: one using an ordinary directory number to read back CID and > one (using an 800 number) that reads back ANI. Very handy. > I notice that the venerable PacBell readback number has finally bit the > dust here as well, however. >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good luck getting it. Most telcos keep >> those numbers under tight security, and they change them every month >> or two as well, making it very hard to find a working one all the >> time. PAT] > Telco readback numbers typically only serve a comparatively small area. > The advantage of having my own is that they work from any phone, > anywhere. Including blocked numbers? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Read back numbers' ONLY tell about the phone presently being used. Usually you dial a number and the equipment tells you what number you are calling from. Dialing *67 or otherwise blocking your number would seem to defeat the purpose of calling the service to begin with wouldn't it? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Number Read Back Service Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 16:12:47 -0600 In article , nichols@cablenut.net says: > I used to have a number that I could call to get the number I am > dialing on with my butt set while I am working in a comm room. I have > since lost that number; are there any others out there? I've thought > about ust calling SWBell and GTE and requesting the information > again. I'm needing one for AR and TX. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good luck getting it. Most telcos keep > those numbers under tight security, and they change them every month > or two as well, making it very hard to find a working one all the > time. PAT] In my area (St Louis MO area), Ameritech used to change theirs every 3 or 4 months until they were bought by SBC. Since that purchase, (what, 3 years ago now?)the number hasn't changed. SBC's has been the same here since at least 1995 when I learned of it. Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: hkelley@yahoo.com (Howard Kelley) Subject: Re: TDMA and GSM Cell Phones Date: 30 Nov 2002 17:29:18 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Thanks gentlemen, for your excellent advice. Seems like my solution is to purchase a Euro phone and use pre-paid SIMS for each country I am traveling in to keep my costs undercontrol. I am looking at a Nokia 6310i for this kind of service but I assume there are other choices. Anyone with suggestions? Burkitt-Gray Alan wrote in message news:: > Howard Kelley asked: >> Is there such a thing as a cell phone capable of handling both TDMA >> and GSM accounts? ... Or, am I forced to change to a U.S. carrier that >> has GSM service. > Qualcomm and, I think, Samsung have recently announced a CDMA/GSM > multi-standard phone, but I don't know of any TDMA/GSM phones. > I'm afraid that, yes, in order to roam in Europe you'll need to be > with a US GSM carrier (with a tri-band phone, that also works on the > international 900 and 1800 MHz bands for GSM, as well as the 1900 MHz > band used in North America). Alternatively you could, when in Europe, > buy a pay-as-you go GSM phone for use on this side of the > Atlantic. You'll need to shop around to ensure you can roam across > European countries with it: different operators in Europe have > different rules. For example Orange pay-as-you-go phones in the UK > will work on Orange-afiliated networks in around 13 European countries > (see http://www.orange.co.uk/cgi-bin/international/phone_start.pl?tariff=payg) > -- and you can pick up a phone at any Orange shop or other dealer and > have it working in minutes. You don't need a local address or anything > like that. A Siemens A50 is on the market for GBP69.99 -- just over > $100 -- on a pay-as-you-go deal. > That will also mean that you'll get the benefits of low rates for calling > numbers in Europe -- while a US phone company would probably add a hefty > mark-up. > The third choice is to rent a phone while you're here -- but that > would mean you wouldn't know your number until you picked up the phone > at the airport. And now that mobile phones are so common, > rent-a-phone services are probably getting scarce and expensive. > 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: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 06:36:22 EST Subject: Re: Ravings > ... we also disagree (the > Canadians and the USA) on Rememberance Day, which we used to call > Decoration Day and for several years now have officially called > Memorial Day. It *used* to be in the USA that Decoration Day was > *always* on May 30. It could be a Wednesday or a Sunday or whenever, > but it was always on May 30. Then when the USA Congress passed the > 'Monday Holiday Act' (that was its official name), Memorial Day was > shifted to the fourth Monday in May. Now it can happen anytime between > May 23 and May 31. When is your Rememberance Day? Ditto with > Veterans Day on a Monday in November. It used to be Armistace Day on > November 11, which is the date on which the First War ended in > 1918. Now it is variable, on a Monday in November. Pat, Continuing somewhat off-topic, but when did the "Monday Holiday Act" come into effect? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sometime in the 1970's. It turned out that Decoration (Memorial) Day had occurred on a Wednesday, I think. Companies and schools *only* gave the day off; they did not round it into a three or four day weekend like now. Nevertheless, people would get off work on Tuesday night (maybe a bit early) then proceed to drive four hundred miles down an expressway to visit their friends or family, stay for several hours and several drinks, then proceed to drive back home in a drunken stupor down the same very crowded expressway. Eight hundred miles of driving, several drinks and what- ever else all in a 24 hour period. That particular Memorial Day was especially bloody; I do not remember how many people were killed or maimed or paralyzed for life; it was especially gruesome. Anyway, Congress came back in to session after their own 24 hour stint of driving hundreds of miles and partying and drinking and more driving back home; they said that's it ... they had a long bitter argument about which holidays to relocate to Monday. Labor Day is *always* on the first Monday in September since it was originated in 1890. The other two principal holidays in the summer are Memorial Day and Independence Day. They decided the latter had too much 'history and significance' to change from July 4, but the former -- well, people's memories are too short anyway, it did not matter, so it was changed to the fourth Monday in May each year (whatever date that happens to be, so it can 'swing' between May 23 and May 30 each year. They also combined Presidents Wasington and Lincoln into one birthday, also the second Monday in February, since that was a reasonable compromise between February 14 and February 21 around which time both of them were born, and instead of having a holiday for each of them (business owners were getting annoyed at all the time off employees were getting), they put them together on a combined ocassion called 'Presidents Day' instead of two holidays as they had previously. Veterans Day (nee Armistace Day) in November was changed from November 11 (static date but variable day) to the second Monday in November. It all happened sometime in the middle 1970's. Congressional thinking was if the guys can slip out of work a bit early on Friday, they'll have all night to drive to wherever, get into a drunken orgy the rest of the night and all day Saturday/Saturday night, spend early Sunday sobering up and be able to drive *leisurly* -- not like drunken, orgy-crazed crazy people Sunday afternoon and evening and get back to work on Monday without killing several other motorists on the way. It has reduced holiday car accidents by a large percentage. PAT] ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 06:36:26 EST Subject: Re: N11 vs. 11X Service Codes > (and then went into _excellent_ detail of generic numbering/dialing > and switching/trunking situations in small and mid-size town locations > using SxS switching). > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: First, a hearty thank you to Mark Cuccia > for still another good report on old style phone service and how > things were done forty-plus years ago. Yes, thanks to you all for taking the time to post this information. I'm always interested in the historical development of the telephone system, and these details are most welcome. Paul Coxwell Norfolk, England. ------------------------------ From: Dominic Richens Subject: Re: Rural/Wireless Local Loop Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 08:15:25 -0500 Organization: Nortel Dana wrote: > ... So now we are looking at > having the service provider provide service at the end of the line > there, and we will chip in and buy some kind of radio/microwave radio > that will connect the houses. Anyone have any ideas. A search on Google for "WiFi dish tin can" turns up a few solutions using custom antennas for WiFi (802.11b - PC to PC) that work over 10 miles. http://www.geocities.com/lincomatic/index.html http://www.wwc.edu/~frohro/Airport/Primestar/Primestar.html These both require a clear line of sight. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 08:43:26 -0500 From: Ron Chapman Subject: Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender In article , John Higdon wrote: > RIAA's dream digital technology is a file format that is serialized > and can only be played on software that reports to and receives > permission to play tunes from a mothership. Perhaps they failed to notice the reception we all gave DIVX. They're stupid enough to think that they can make it happen, despite the odds against them. ------------------------------ From: Heidiangeline@aol.com Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:38:58 EST Subject: A Web Page to Visit Please consider www.hilltechmolding.com for a weblink on your website. Any consideration would be greatly appreciated. Thanks and have a wonderful DAY! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I went over to look at your page and it is not something we use a lot of here. But I am sure there are some readers who might want to investigate plastic molded shapes for different styles of telepone covers, etc. Thanks for the opportunity to review it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Share Day for November Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 02:58:00 CST Its that time of the month again (the last day of the month and the first day of the new month) that I use to ask you to please, kindly remember TELECOM Digest and my expenses in getting this (mostly) spam free, reader-written moderated newsgroup out to you on a daily (often times several times daily) basis. As most of you know by now, a new 'deal' is underway: I now have the second edition of the CD for Telecom Archives available (my thanks for this to Joey Lindstrom) and unlike the first edition back in 1995, this time around it will be an ongoing to-date thing, along with old-time radio shows, including Agnes Morehead's famous radio presentation of 'Sorry, Wrong Number'. The CD includes about 80 megs of messages and special files from our archives (1981 to present time), and if you are connected to the internet when you look at it, dozens of links to other resources of interest. But you do not have to be on the net to use it; the CD itself has all the 22 years' worth of our files. In addition, with several old time radio shows with telephone themes, and Ms. Morehead in the *Suspense* radio drama production, I think you will want a copy of it for your library. You make a donation to the Digest in an amount of at least $25 (or more, as you find appropriate) and ask for your personal copy of the CD. Be sure to include the address where Joey should send your CD, and also specify if you want the Windows version or the *nix version. For fastest service, use PayPal such as the template at the bottom of the page: http://telecom-digest.org (look all the way at the bottom of the page, or on any PayPal template pay to 'Telecom Digest Editor'). If you prefer to send a check or money order or cash, make it to TELECOM Digest, Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 but be sure to include the same information about shipping address and style of CD requested. Happy holidays to all of you! I know you will want to continue your support of this Digest. 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: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 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. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #158 ****************************** From jessica@ms4.hinet.net Mon Dec 2 15:25:11 2002 Received: from mintaka.lcs.mit.edu (mintaka.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.36]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gB2KPAJ22611 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 15:25:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ms4.hinet.net (29.c167.ethome.net.tw [202.178.167.29]) by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB2KP6m3005634 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 15:25:08 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jessica@ms4.hinet.net) Message-Id: <200212022025.gB2KP6m3005634@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> From: Jessica@LCS.MIT.EDU Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?B?pEa40aSjplnBq6FBp0C52qSjvdK1fKFJ?= Date: 03 Dec 2002 04:25:08 +0800 Expiry-Date: 02 Sep 2002 02:13:41 +0800 X-YahooFilteredBulk: 61.63.18.125 X-Track: 209: 20 Received: from 61-63.18-host125.kbtelecom.net.tw (EHLO test) (61.63.18.125) Apparently-To: by mta119.mail.tpe.yahoo.com with SMTP; 07 Nov 2002 05: 05:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail pickup service by test with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 19: 51:43 +0800 Subject: =?big5?B?PLyvpPGmbrFks/g+NTCkuHYucy6k4r73q8Km063oISGr3b73rsm2oaRbpFukWyE=?= Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 19:49:58 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2002 11:51:43.0489 (UTC) FILETIME=[E04C8F10:01C2858A] X-YahooFilteredBulk: 61.63.18.125 X-Track: 162: 20 Return-Path: Received: from 61-63.18-host125.kbtelecom.net.tw (EHLO test) (61.63.18.125) by mta119.mail.tpe.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Nov 2002 18: 59:56 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail pickup service by test with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 14 Nov 2002 17: 54:02 +0800 Subject: =?big5?B?PLyvpPGmbrFks/g+qL619K37IadLpaK3fiG8frF3t07D0aRXr1qx2qWys8YhIQ==?= Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2002 17:53:29 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2002 09:54:02.0823 (UTC) FILETIME=[98B4AD70:01C28AFA] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_7ayRWBpN_xBZuwEHb_MM" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_7ayRWBpN_xBZuwEHb_MM Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ·Qª¾¹D²r¨k¦p¦ó¤ë¤J¦Ê¸U¶Ü???


     
 
¤@­Ó62·³½æÂû±Æªº¦Ñ±C±C¦Ñ¦~Âà¦æ¡A11­Ó¤ë«á¤ë¤J¶W¹L¤Q¸U¡C

¤@­Ó70¦~¦¸ªº¤k«Ä¤l°ªÂ¾²¦·~¡A½ñ¤JªÀ·|¡A¤@¦~4­Ó¤ë«á¤@¼Ë¤ë¤J¤Q´X¸U¡C

¥L­Ì¨S¦³­I´º¡A¨S¦³¸ê¥»¡A¨S¦³°ª¾Ç¾ú¡A¥u¬O¿ï¹ï¦æ·~¡A«o¯à¦³°ª¦¬¤J¡C

¦b¶Ç²Î¦æ·~¤¤¡A¦³¨S¦³¤u§@¥i¯à¦b¨â¦~¤º¦¬¤J¥Ñ3¸UÅÜ10¸U?

³o¤]³\¬O§A¤@¥Í¤@¦¸ªº¾÷·|¡A¤]³\¬O§A½¨­ªº¾÷·|¡C

¦pªG¦³¤@ºØ¦æ·~¥i¥HÅý§A§ó¦³®Ä²vªºÁÈ¿ú¡A§Aı±o¬O¤£¬O¥i¥H¸ÕµÛ¤F¸Ñ¬Ý¬Ý?

¡@
¤F¸Ñ¦¹¤@·s¥@¬ö·s¦æ·~

 
§A¤@©w­n¨Ó¤F¸Ñ! §ÚÅK©wÅý§Aº¡·N!
±zªº©m¦W¡G¡@
Ápµ¸¹q¸Ü¡G¡@
±zªº¦a§}¡G¡@
¹q¤l¶l¥ó«H½c¡G¡@
§Úı±o¡G¡@ «Ü¦³¿³½ì
ı±oÁÙ¤£¿ù
·Q¤F¸Ñ¦ý¬Ý¤£À´
  
 


      
       

------=_7ayRWBpN_xBZuwEHb_MM Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Horoscope.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Horoscope.txt" VGhpcyBhdHRhY2htZW50IGNvbnRhaW5zIHlvdXIgcGVyc29uYWwgaG9yb3Njb3BlIGZvciBU dWVzZGF5LCBEZWNlbWJlciAzcmQsIDIwMDIKCllvdSB3aWxsIGJ1eSBzb21lIGdyZWF0IHNv ZnR3YXJlLgo= ------=_7ayRWBpN_xBZuwEHb_MM-- From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Dec 2 16:41:22 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gB2LfMd24156; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:41:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:41:22 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212022141.gB2LfMd24156@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 #159 TELECOM Digest Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:15:12 EST Volume 22 : Issue 159 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #360, December 2, 2002 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: Rural/Wireless Local Loop ("Dana") Re: Rural/Wireless Local Loop (John R. Levine) Re: Rural/Wireless Local Loop (AES/newspost) Book Review: "IPSec: Securing VPNs", Carlton Davis (Rob Slade) Re: Number Read Back Service (jt) Re: Number Read Back Service (Herb Stein) Re: Number Read Back Service (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 10:17:21 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #360, December 2, 2002 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 360: December 2, 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: ** John Macdonald Joins AT&T Canada ** Cablecos Want Foreign Ownership Limits Lifted ** Rogers, Call-Net Comment on AT&T Petition ** City of Ottawa Prepares Broadband Strategy ** RCMP Raids Satellite Dealers ** Bell Dealers Sue Bell ** Videotron Before CRTC Today ** 222 Applicants Seek Broadband Cash ** DBRS Downgrades Three Cablecos ** Aliant Business Line Rates Approved ** MTS Intros 1XRTT ** Telus Mobility Offers Prepaid Features ** Ottawa Seeks Extended Local Calling ** ePhone Opens Canadian Operation ** Telecom Service -- Bad and Getting Worse ============================================================ JOHN MACDONALD JOINS AT&T CANADA: John A. MacDonald has joined AT&T Canada as President and Chief Operating Officer, replacing Harry Truderung. MacDonald was President and COO of Bell Canada in the late 1990s. CABLECOS WANT FOREIGN OWNERSHIP LIMITS LIFTED: On November 28, the Canadian Cable Television Association told the Commons Committee on Canadian Heritage that foreign ownership limits should apply only to broadcast content providers, not distribution companies. Cable TV executives say they are prepared to structurally separate their "content" and "carriage" businesses. ** Friends of Canadian Broadcasting told the committee that raising foreign ownership limits would not benefit consumers but would result in "a major payday" for the four families that own the four largest Canadian cable TV companies. ROGERS, CALL-NET COMMENT ON AT&T PETITION: Call-Net and Rogers Communications have submitted separate comments on AT&T's petition to Cabinet (see Telecom Update #347). Neither fully supports the petition, but both want Cabinet to strengthen competition. ** Rogers says the Price Cap regime increases ILEC profits: Bell Canada will benefit by $130 million over four years, and will use these profits to keep prices low in competitive areas such as satellite TV. ** Call-Net says Cabinet should direct the CRTC to actively promote competition in all decisions. Call-Net wants higher retail prices, more ILEC services available to competitors on a cost-plus basis, and competitor access to ILEC OSS systems. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/sf05987e.html CITY OF OTTAWA PREPARES BROADBAND STRATEGY: A draft Broadband Access Strategy for the City of Ottawa, released November 26, aims to make high-speed Internet service available to all city residents. The plan will be submitted to City Council in January, following six public consultation meetings. RCMP RAIDS SATELLITE DEALERS: On November 27, the RCMP raided seven satellite TV dealers in Saskatchewan, seizing equipment they say could be used to obtain illegal access to DirecTV, Dish Network, and Bell ExpressVu. Similar raids were conducted recently in Winnipeg and Montreal. ** Speaking to the International Institute of Communications last week, CRTC Chair Charles Dalfen called satellite piracy an "epidemic," with up to 700,000 illegal users in Canada. He plans to meet with industry reps shortly to explore potential courses of action. BELL DEALERS SUE BELL: The owners of 233 Bell-branded independent retail stores are suing Bell Canada for $80 million. The dealers say Bell Mobility illegally and unfairly uses its direct and Internet sales channels to offer customers deals that aren't made available through the independent stores. VIDEOTRON BEFORE CRTC TODAY: At a CRTC hearing today, Videotron must show cause why the Commission should not issue a mandatory order requiring it to abide by Broadcasting Decision 2002-255 and pay $10 million in fees it owes to sports broadcaster RDS. (See Telecom Update #353) 222 APPLICANTS SEEK BROADBAND CASH: Industry Canada has received 222 applications in Round 1 of the competition for funding to develop business plans for broadband infrastructure deployment in their communities. (See Telecom Update #348) DBRS DOWNGRADES THREE CABLECOS: Dominion Bond Rating Service has cut its ratings for three cable companies. The credit agency now rates Shaw as triple-B (low), Cogeco as double-B (high), and Videotron as double-B (low). Rogers Cable remains at double-B (high). ALIANT BUSINESS LINE RATES APPROVED: CRTC Telecom Order 2002- 443 approves Aliant's application for new single-line and multi-line business rates and contracts in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and PEI, effective immediately. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Orders/2002/o2002-443.htm MTS INTROS 1XRTT: Manitoba Telecom Services has launched higher-speed 1XRTT wireless service in Winnipeg. The company says the technology provides mobile data communications at 86 Kbps, and may provide 144 Kbps in future. TELUS MOBILITY OFFERS PREPAID FEATURES: Telus Mobility has introduced prepaid cards for various PCS features, including voice mail, text messaging, and wireless games. OTTAWA SEEKS EXTENDED LOCAL CALLING: The City of Ottawa has asked Bell Canada, "on a priority basis," to conduct an economic study to determine the cost of expanding local calling throughout all exchanges wholly or partly within Ottawa city limits. ePHONE OPENS CANADIAN OPERATION: ePhone Telecom, a Virginia- based company that provides Internet-based long distance has established a Canadian point of presence in Toronto, and begun offering prepaid calling services through Canadian dealers. TELECOM SERVICE - BAD AND GETTING WORSE: "Across Canada, business customers report a significant deterioration in everything from order accuracy to on-time delivery to sales rep knowledge and helpfulness. And it's going to get worse." Ian and Lis Angus explain why the service crisis exists and what business customers should do about it in the latest issue of Telemanagement. ** Also in this issue: an exclusive evaluation of the latest release of Nortel's IP-PBX, and an update on videoconferencing products and services. ** While supplies last, single copies of this special issue are available now for $75 each -- call 905-686-5050 ext 500 and charge to Visa, American Express, or Mastercard. A 10-issue subscription saves you 49% off the single-issue price -- go to the Telemanagement subscription page. ============================================================ 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: Dana Subject: Re: Rural/Wireless Local Loop Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 14:14:00 -0900 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com AES/newspost wrote in message news:siegman-A86E52.14204501122002@news.stanford.edu: > In article , > Dana wrote: >> Here is the deal. >> >> We have the phone company and cable company providing service to a >> business say three miles away. That is the end of the line for both the >> cable and phone company. Well there are about 30 families due east of >> the store, from one to ten miles away. >> Is there a way we can pool together and come up with a wireless/ >> microwave system that will tie us to the service at the business. Both >> the phone company and cable company have found it would be too >> expensive to lay cable, for so few people. So now we are looking at >> having the service provider provide service at the end of the line >> there, and we will chip in and buy some kind of radio/microwave radio >> that will connect the houses. Anyone have any ideas. > You might do a little looking into point to point optical (laser) links. > There are a bunch of startup companies in this field who are looking to > provide solutions for the "last mile" fiber optics problem, temporary > links or emergency communications between rooftops or skyscraper office > windows, and so on. The technology involved is actually quite simple, > especially at low data rates, with ranges from a few to perhaps 20 km > depending on the terrain, weather, required level of reliability, and > similar considerations. Thank you for the reply and the hint towards a company to look at. Yes I would be looking at a point to multipoint solution. Kind of like the LMDS or even AT&T project angel type of setup. The people in the area are paying around $60 a month for cellular service acting like a dial up service, I.E. unlimited local calls etc, they are also able to connect to the internet, but the speeds are very very slow, due to the type of coverage they have. They are on the very edge of system coverage, hence service is not quite the best they can have. I used to work in the wireless field, but where I am at now (Fairbanks) it is really small to have a lot of carriers. But I do know there are ways to give these guys better coverage then they are getting now. So what I want to do is show these people that they can pool together to help pay for the cost of extended reliable service into their area. John R. Levine wrote in message news:20021202043154.22126.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com ... >> Is there a way we can pool together and come up with a wireless/ >> microwave system that will tie us to the service at the business. > Depends what you want to do. There are point-to-point microwave > telephone repeaters intended for providing phone service in remote > points. I go to a summer camp on an island off the coast of New > Hampshire that uses them to get remote phone service from the mainland > 10 miles away. It has to be line of sight; I don't know how possible > it would be to daisy chain multiple units if you have a bunch of people > down the line. > For Internet data, you can go surprisingly long distances with WiFi > wireless and carefully aimed antennas, again needing line of sight. > You can definitely daisy chain those. >> Both the phone company and cable company have found it would be too >> expensive to lay cable, for so few people. > You might have a chat with your state public utililty commission. The > Universal Service Fund exists specifically to subsidize expensive rural > service like yours, and your telco should be able to take advantage of > it. Thanks John. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 2002 23:31:54 -0500 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Rural/Wireless Local Loop Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Is there a way we can pool together and come up with a wireless/ > microwave system that will tie us to the service at the business. Depends what you want to do. There are point-to-point microwave telephone repeaters intended for providing phone service in remote points. I go to a summer camp on an island off the coast of New Hampshire that uses them to get remote phone service from the mainland 10 miles away. It has to be line of sight; I don't know how possible it would be to daisy chain multiple units if you have a bunch of people down the line. For Internet data, you can go surprisingly long distances with WiFi wireless and carefully aimed antennas, again needing line of sight. You can definitely daisy chain those. > Both the phone company and cable company have found it would be too > expensive to lay cable, for so few people. You might have a chat with your state public utililty commission. The Universal Service Fund exists specifically to subsidize expensive rural service like yours, and your telco should be able to take advantage of it. 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: AES/newspost Subject: Re: Rural/Wireless Local Loop Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:20:45 -0800 In article , Dana wrote: > Here is the deal. > We have the phone company and cable company providing service to a > business say three miles away. That is the end of the line for both the > cable and phone company. Well there are about 30 families due east of > the store, from one to ten miles away. > Is there a way we can pool together and come up with a wireless/ > microwave system that will tie us to the service at the business. Both > the phone company and cable company have found it would be too > expensive to lay cable, for so few people. So now we are looking at > having the service provider provide service at the end of the line > there, and we will chip in and buy some kind of radio/microwave radio > that will connect the houses. Anyone have any ideas. You might do a little looking into point to point optical (laser) links. There are a bunch of startup companies in this field who are looking to provide solutions for the "last mile" fiber optics problem, temporary links or emergency communications between rooftops or skyscraper office windows, and so on. The technology involved is actually quite simple, especially at low data rates, with ranges from a few to perhaps 20 km depending on the terrain, weather, required level of reliability, and similar considerations. The company I know the most about is Terabeam (http://www.terabeam.com). They may not be of direct interest to you because they're focused on the higher priced, high data rate, shorter range end of the market, but you could Google on them and go from there. "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton (1834-1902) "Dependence on advertising tends to corrupt. Total dependence on advertising corrupts totally." (today's equivalent) ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 08:00:16 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "IPSec: Securing VPNs", Carlton Davis BKIPSECS.RVW 20021001 "IPSec: Securing VPNs", Carlton Davis, 2001, 0-07-212757-0, U$49.99/C$79.95/UK#36.99 %A Carlton Davis carlton@cs.mcgill.ca %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 2001 %G 0-07-212757-0 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$49.99/C$79.95/UK#36.99 800-565-5758 fax: 905-430-5020 %O http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0072127570/robsladesinterne %P 404 p. %T "IPSec: Securing VPNs" Chapter one is an overview of TCP/IP. The material is generally good, but does demonstrate a possible weakness of the book: we are provided with way too much information about a number of areas that are not relevant to IPSec. A similar overabundance of detail (and math) describes symmetric cryptography, in chapter two. Oddly, given the level of particulars in other areas, there is no analysis of the weakness of double DES (Data Encryption Standard). Operational specifics of the various AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) candidates are also included. The mathematical basis of asymmetric cryptography, in chapter three, is not explained as well as symmetric is. In dealing with hashes and message authentication codes, chapter four has lots of math and almost no other discussion. Chapter five provides extensive details about X.509 attribute fields, for digital certificates, and also has a bit of material on PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) and key recovery. The fields of LDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol) are outlined in chapter six. Chapter seven finally talks, very briefly, about IPSec architecture, repeating (from chapter one) the specifics of the IP header, and mentioning some of the components of IPSec. Chapters eight, nine, and ten concentrate of the header structure of AH (Authentication Header), ESP (Encapsulating Security Payload), and ISAKMP (Internet Security Association Key Management Protocol) packets, albeit chapter ten also covers a bit of the handshaking process. There is very little discussion of strengths and weaknesses. There are lots of details related to IKE (Internet Key Exchange) in chapter eleven, but surprisingly little information about what it does or how it works. The header structure and options for the compression function, IPComp, are given in chapter twelve. Chapter thirteen is supposed to talk about implementation, but has a fairly generic example of a VPN and some screen shots from a commercial product. Overall, the book contains lots of technical details, but very little in the way of explanation, discussion, or analysis. You would probably learn just as much about IPSec by reading the RFCs themselves. copyright Robert M. Slade, 2002 BKIPSECS.RVW 20021001 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com Find book info victoria.tc.ca/techrev/ or sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade/ Upcoming (ISC)^2 CISSP CBK review seminars (+1-888-333-4458): December 16, 2002 December 20, 2002 San Francisco, CA February 10, 2003 February 14, 2003 St. Louis, MO March 31, 2003 April 4, 2003 Indianapolis, IN ------------------------------ From: jt Subject: Re: Number Read Back Service Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 09:27:35 -0500 Organization: WorldCom Canada Ltd. News Reader Service Harbor Diver wrote in message news:telecom22.158.7@telecom-digest.org: > Digest Editor's Note: Good luck getting it. Most telcos keep >> Telco readback numbers typically only serve a comparatively small area. >> The advantage of having my own is that they work from any phone, >> anywhere. > Including blocked numbers? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Read back numbers' ONLY tell about the > phone presently being used. Usually you dial a number and the > equipment tells you what number you are calling from. Dialing *67 or > otherwise blocking your number would seem to defeat the purpose of > calling the service to begin with wouldn't it? PAT] I could see a use -- where a phone foreign (i.e. you do not control) to you has its number blocked in such a way as it cannot be un-blocked by a prefix (is this possible?). If you could call out on such a phone, you could then discover the number. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Phones that are 'hardwired' blocked, or blocked by default (as opposed to using *67 on a case by case basis) can be unblocked on the same case by case basis; I think *87 is how to do it, or maybe *82. Read your local phone directory info pages for specific details. Anyway, I do not think 'blocking' occurs at that point when dialing into a *TELCO SPONSORED/PROVIDED* read back number, which is the only kind you could use if you had no idea what the number was; by being on premises for one reason or another and dialing into the telco-provided service. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Herb Stein Subject: Re: Number Read Back Service Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 15:02:28 -0600 Harbor Diver wrote in message news:telecom22.158.7@telecom-digest.org: > Today, Sat, 30 Nov 2002 12:42:48 -0800, Two Buddha read a post from > John Higdon , and determined his interest in > BURP. Where's my beer? Oh and: >> In article , >> nichols@cablenut.net (Ryan Nichols) wrote: >>> I used to have a number that I could call to get the number I am >>> dialing on with my butt set while I am working in a comm room. I have >>> since lost that number; are there any others out there? I've thought >>> about ust calling SWBell and GTE and requesting the information >>> again. I'm needing one for AR and TX. >> Telco number readbacks became so unreliable and mutable that I finally >> set up my own several years ago for my own private use. It has two >> versions: one using an ordinary directory number to read back CID and >> one (using an 800 number) that reads back ANI. Very handy. >> I notice that the venerable PacBell readback number has finally bit the >> dust here as well, however. >>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good luck getting it. Most telcos keep >>> those numbers under tight security, and they change them every month >>> or two as well, making it very hard to find a working one all the >>> time. PAT] >> Telco readback numbers typically only serve a comparatively small area. >> The advantage of having my own is that they work from any phone, >> anywhere. > Including blocked numbers? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Read back numbers' ONLY tell about the > phone presently being used. Usually you dial a number and the > equipment tells you what number you are calling from. Dialing *67 or > otherwise blocking your number would seem to defeat the purpose of > calling the service to begin with wouldn't it? PAT] Here in St. Louis-land (Missouri) *67 does not interfere with the number announcement. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 952-4601 ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Number Read Back Service Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:53:26 -0800 In article , Harbor Diver wrote: >> Telco readback numbers typically only serve a comparatively small area. >> The advantage of having my own is that they work from any phone, >> anywhere. > Including blocked numbers? Yes. The 800 number does not pay any attention to "blocking" since it reads back ANI, not CNID. The line used for CNID readback has Privacy Manager, so to even get to the machine, one has to get past the PM sentry, which gives a one-touch option to release the blocking. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V22 #159 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Dec 2 17:16:51 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gB2MGpS25079; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:16:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:16:51 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212022216.gB2MGpS25079@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 #160 TELECOM Digest Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:15:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 160 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Internet Society Announces Ed Juskevicius as New Chairman (Anne Shroeder) Re: Needed Feature For Answering Machine? (Danny Burstein) Re: Needed Feature For Answering Machine? (John R. Levine) Re: Needed Feature For Answering Machine? (Joseph) Re: Needed Feature For Answering Machine? (Rich Greenberg) Re: Is There a Dial Helper For When We Travel? (ken) Re: Is There a Dial Helper For When We Travel? (Joseph) Re: Is There a Dial Helper For When We Travel? (Al Gillis) Re: Number Read Back Service (Clarence Dold) Re: "Grave Questions of Invasion of Privacy" (John Higdon) Re: Cellular Calls to Toll-Free Directory Assistance (Steven J. Sobol) Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender (JDS) Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender (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: Anne Shroeder - ISOC Subject: Internet Society Announces Ed Juskevicius as New Chairman Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:38:45 -0500 Internet Society Announces Ed Juskevicius from Nortel Networks as New Chairman of Advisory Council WASHINGTON, D.C. - December 2, 2002 - The Internet Society (ISOC) today announced that telecommunications industry veteran Ed Juskevicius is the new chairman of the Society's Advisory Council. The Advisory Council represents ISOC's organization members, which include representatives from academic, research, and international organizations; service/equipment suppliers, content providers, government, and public interest groups. "The Advisory Council is an important part of ISOC's structure and we are very fortunate to have someone of Ed's caliber chairing it. Ed has shown significant leadership within the council and we are looking forward to working with him in his new role," said Lynn St.Amour, ISOC CEO/President. Juskevicius -- currently senior manager, Technology and Standards, Nortel Networks -- has worked in the telecommunications industry since 1981, focusing on data communications products and standards for public carrier and private enterprise networks, including: ISDN, Frame Relay, ATM, xDSL and VoIP. His current interest areas include Security and Management aspects of networks and deployment of broadband Internet access technologies, as well as societal issues affecting how people use and benefit from the Internet - today and in the future. In discussing his new role with ISOC, he reminds us that we are still in the early days of Internet deployment and uptake, with much to be done before getting even 50% of humanity to benefit from the Net. "Living in North America, it is all too easy to forget that most of the world has yet to experience the Internet, and yet very few of us (in our western households) had Net access just 5 years ago." "As members of ISOC, we need to be aware of all the issues, not just the technologies, needed for the Net to fulfill its ultimate potential. This is ambitious and will be a lightening rod as some believe it's unrealistic to expect global Net access for all," according to Juskevicius. "As an Advisory Council, we need to continually ask ourselves 'What's next?' It is our mission is to explore issues impacting the Internet - such as education, public policy, standards, digital rights, privacy and security -- and recommend ways to resolve them. Given ISOC's strong base of organization members, and the caliber of the people on the Advisory Council, I am optimistic that we will help everyone to benefit from the Net," he explained. Contact: Julie Williams Phone: +703-326-9880, x111 ------------------------------ From: Danny Burstein Subject: Re: Needed Feature For Answering Machine? Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 22:34:38 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In aaronep@pacbell.net (Aaron Epstein) writes: > I have a friend that I phone each day. He is always happy to hear > from me. The problem is that he screens his calls and I have to > listen to the complete outgoing message before I can say who I am and he > then picks up the phone. > Is there any answering machine available that would allow me, if I am > given a code number, to say who I am without having to listen to the > outgoing message? well, the simplest thing would probably be to get your friend to change the outgoing message to something short and easy, like: good day. please leave your message. thank you or good day. you've reached [number]. please lv your msg. thank you. Alternatively, you might try hitting the " # #" or " * " key. Many (but certainly not all) answering machines use that as a break-through for this exact purpose. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 2002 21:15:25 -0500 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Needed Feature For Answering Machine? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Is there any answering machine available that would allow me, if I > am given a code number, to say who I am without having to listen to > the outgoing message? Many machines, particularly digital ones, will stop the outgoing message and start recording if you press *, #, or occasionally 0. Try it -- his machine may already do that. 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 Subject: Re: Needed Feature For Answering Machine? Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 18:49:15 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On 30 Nov 2002 15:39:47 -0800, aaronep@pacbell.net (Aaron Epstein) wrote: > I have a friend that I phone each day. He is always happy to hear > from me. The problem is that he screens his calls and I have to > listen to the complete outgoing message before I can say who I am and he > then picks up the phone. > Is there any answering machine available that would allow me, if I am > given a code number, to say who I am without having to listen to the > outgoing message? Most of the newer answering machines will let you press the star (*) or pound/hash/octothorpe (#) key to immediately go to message recording. If he's screening his calls he should be able to hear you leaving a message and newer machines will automatically cut out when he lifts the receiver to talk. Many people leave an instruction in their message at the beginning of their outgoing message letting people know if they want to leave a message immediately they can press the appropriate key. Replies are seldom read. Please reply in the group. ------------------------------ From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Needed Feature For Answering Machine? Date: 2 Dec 2002 10:10:35 -0500 Organization: Organized? Me? In article , Aaron Epstein wrote: > I have a friend that I phone each day. He is always happy to hear > from me. The problem is that he screens his calls and I have to > listen to the complete outgoing message before I can say who I am and he > then picks up the phone. > Is there any answering machine available that would allow me, if I am > given a code number, to say who I am without having to listen to the > outgoing message? Some (not all) answering machines will recognize a TT digit and stop the OGM and switch to incoming immediately. My panasonics use "*" See if your friends TAD has such a feature. 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: ken Subject: Re: Is There a Dial Helper For When We Travel? Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:32:51 -0000 Organization: ntlworld News Service Gail M. Hall wrote in message news:telecom22.158.5@telecom-digest.org: > I am getting to the point I find it hard to "dial" (press the number > keys) fast enough to suit SBC Ameritech. Those 11-digit numbers are > hard to remember. Sometimes I have to look back at a number when I'm > only part way through and before I can dial (press) the next number, I > am already getting the "your call did not go through" message. > Here is the situation. > We just got a prepaid calling card in the mail that would be handy to > use when we travel because you can use it from any phone. The > microscopic print does say there is a surcharge if used from a public > phone, but sometimes a person just wants to call from a friend's house > or something. > Well, to use a calling card like this, we have to dial the toll-free > number printed on the card (in very small print), then enter a PIN > consisting of 11 digits. Then it says we will be prompted with > instructions for dialing the number we want to call. > So, since most phones don't come with a little screen where you can > enter the numbers at your own pace and then hit Enter like on a > computer, the question is this: > Is there a dialer helper gizmo that a person could carry similar to a > palm-sized address-phonebook sort of thing where a person could enter > such numbers and then hold it up to the phone mouthpiece and press one > or two buttons and have it beep the tones into the telephone for us. There used to be such things. I had a "Texas Instruments Phone Dialer" about 10 years ago which I used for just this purpose. http://www.datamath.org/Personal/ProDialer.htm shows a similar one, and states that TI stopped making them after a few years. I believe some of the earlier pocket computers (Psion?) could also do this, but don't know if the facility is still available. > Has anyone thought about a smart phone card that can do the dialing > for us if we just put in one or two numbers instead of the 11-digit > told-free number plus the 11-digit PIN? How about a "card reader / > number storer" that we could carry. We could have a smaller PIN with > something like this so not just ANYONE could use it, but it would be > easier for people like me to use than what they have now when you have > to punch in all your own numbers and do it faster than we used to have > to. > One thing I really LIKE about the cell phones is the phone book built > into the phone. If there were a gadget similar to the cell phone > phonebook that could be used with a landline phone from anywhere, that > would be nice. I suspect that's what killed the demand for the dialers. I didn't need mine when I got a cell phone. ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Is There a Dial Helper For When We Travel? Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 18:58:35 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 23:14:38 -0500, Gail M. Hall wrote: > I am getting to the point I find it hard to "dial" (press the number > keys) fast enough to suit SBC Ameritech. Those 11-digit numbers are > hard to remember. Sometimes I have to look back at a number when I'm > only part way through and before I can dial (press) the next number, I > am already getting the "your call did not go through" message. > Here is the situation. > We just got a prepaid calling card in the mail that would be handy to > use when we travel because you can use it from any phone. The > microscopic print does say there is a surcharge if used from a public > phone, but sometimes a person just wants to call from a friend's house > or something. > Well, to use a calling card like this, we have to dial the toll-free > number printed on the card (in very small print), then enter a PIN > consisting of 11 digits. Then it says we will be prompted with > instructions for dialing the number we want to call. > So, since most phones don't come with a little screen where you can > enter the numbers at your own pace and then hit Enter like on a > computer, the question is this: > Is there a dialer helper gizmo that a person could carry similar to a > palm-sized address-phonebook sort of thing where a person could enter > such numbers and then hold it up to the phone mouthpiece and press one > or two buttons and have it beep the tones into the telephone for us. Such a device already exists. It's called a pocket tone dialer. The cheaper ones will only enter the tones as you punch them while holding to the transmitter end of the handset, but fancier ones will store strings of digits where you could enter a calling card PIN or bank account numbers, etc. Do a google search for "pocket tone dialer." One entry has one for ~$13 which will hold a 17 number string. There may be others that will hold longer strings. Replies are seldom read. Please reply in the group ------------------------------ From: Al Gillis Subject: Re: Is There a Dial Helper For When We Travel? Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:25:56 -0800 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Hi Gail ... Go see a Radio Shack (or perhaps Sharper Image or a Spencer store). Radio Shack used to have little dialer gizmos that you could store telephone numbers in and then, holding the things speaker up to the telephone handset, have the thing "squirt" out the number with the press of a button or two. You can probably program in the access number under one button (or name), the 11 digit PIN (under another button or name) and numbers for your most frequently called pals. Likely dialing would be easier and you could beat SBC at their own game! Al > Is there a dialer helper gizmo that a person could carry similar to a > palm-sized address-phonebook sort of thing where a person could enter > such numbers and then hold it up to the phone mouthpiece and press one > or two buttons and have it beep the tones into the telephone for us. > Has anyone thought about a smart phone card that can do the dialing > for us if we just put in one or two numbers instead of the 11-digit > told-free number plus the 11-digit PIN? How about a "card reader / > number storer" that we could carry. We could have a smaller PIN with > something like this so not just ANYONE could use it, but it would be > easier for people like me to use than what they have now when you have > to punch in all your own numbers and do it faster than we used to have > to. > One thing I really LIKE about the cell phones is the phone book built > into the phone. If there were a gadget similar to the cell phone > phonebook that could be used with a landline phone from anywhere, that > would be nice. ------------------------------ From: dold@72.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Number Read Back Service Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 04:59:48 UTC Organization: a2i network Harbor Diver wrote: > Today, Sat, 30 Nov 2002 12:42:48 -0800, Two Buddha read a post from > John Higdon , and determined his interest in > BURP. Where's my beer? Oh and: >> Telco readback numbers typically only serve a comparatively small area. >> The advantage of having my own is that they work from any phone, >> anywhere. > Including blocked numbers? A reminder of the difference between CID and ANI. It's easy to identify most common POTS lines in use in a home or small office by calling your own digital cell phone. This fails with any caller-ID-blocked number, and various PBX or other business schemes. That's why John has an 800 number that he's not sharing with us, that has real-time ANI feedback. The ANI should be difficult to block. I used to have a fax mailbox that supplied non-real-time ANI. The ANI was available the next day in a report. That was pretty handy, but a little slow for normal usage. ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: "Grave questions of invasion of privacy" Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:48:00 -0800 In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, warns that the Total > Information Awareness program threatens our basic rights -- and > questions whether Adm. Poindexter is the right man to run it. From what I understand, Poindexter was brought in for technical consulting. He will not be "running" anything. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol) Subject: Re: Cellular Calls to Toll-Free Directory Assistance Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 16:10:41 -0000 Organization: JustThe.net LLC Steven J. Sobol wrote:: > According to VZW customer service, I DO get charged if I call a > service that provides horoscopes, movie listings, or an "adult" line > (WTF? Do they have people calling every tollfree in existence?) Sorry about the self-followup -- that should read "Do they have people calling every tollfree in existence to determine whether or not the call should be charged the $1.25?" Steve Sobol, CTO JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH http://JustTheNetLLC.com/ 888.480.4NET (4638) A practicing member of the Geek Orthodox religion! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender From: JDS Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 17:22:34 GMT Downloading music isn't necessarily a crime. Under even the most limited interpretation of "fair use", ownership of a physical "official" medium gives an unlimited perpetual license to the personal enjoyment of its contents. It can be copied to a cassette or an MP3 player or ripped onto a computer, to be used in a car, a gym, or at a desk. Furthermore, CD ownership confers the right to download portions for use at the owner's convenience. If the midshipmen were using the Navy's network to distribute music to a large number of strangers, then the RIAA might have a case. But if the midshipmen were making otherwise acceptable use of the network, the onus is on the RIAA to first show probable cause and then to prove that the downloaders didn't have a license to the material they downloaded at the time they downloaded it. The best answer, in my opinion, is to stop buying recorded music and deprive the record companies of the funds they need to pursue their self- destructive, unjustifiable, and inconsistent legal theories. Most of the stuff they're selling is garbage anyway. ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 15:07:07 -0800 In article , Ron Chapman wrote: > Perhaps they failed to notice the reception we all gave DIVX. The DiVX backers still feel that the product failed due to inadequate marketing rather then informed public rejection. > They're stupid enough to think that they can make it happen, despite the > odds against them. The key to the implementation of any rights management scheme is the removal of alternatives. Even the DiVX people realized this when they tried to choke off unlimited-play DVD by getting studios to sign exclusive marketing contracts. Unfortunately for DiVX, it didn't take long for those studios to notice that the public grabbed up the DVDs and ignored the DiVX players and discs. Seems the public would rather pay four times the price of a DiVX disc to get features and the ability to play them as they pleased. Another problem was that the pedestrian DiVX players cost more than better-equipped standard DVD players. No one told the DiVX promoters what Gillette learned early on: give away the razor. This is something the RIAA and the record companies have yet to learn: give the public what it wants and there is no limit to the money you can make. I am beginning to realize that the RIAA actually believes its own nonsense about "piracy causing loss of sales". How about "not selling the product the public wants to buy" as a possibility for stagnant sales? 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: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 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. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #160 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Dec 3 01:37:10 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gB36bAV01095; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 01:37:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 01:37:10 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212030637.gB36bAV01095@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 #161 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Dec 2002 01:37:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 161 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cellular Disservice (Monty Solomon) The $19,450 Phone (Monty Solomon) California Firm to Settle Net Porn Scam (Monty Solomon) Nokia v Microsoft / The Fight for Digital Dominance (Monty Solomon) Smartphones and Handheld Computers/Computing's New Shape (Monty Solomon) Nokia: Can Transfer Calls to 3G Network (Monty Solomon) In Media Res (Monty Solomon) Sony Ericsson Sales Degenerating (Monty Solomon) 'Wi-Fi' Gives Cell Carriers Static (Monty Solomon) Study: Car Call Value Equals Crash Cost (Monty Solomon) Re: Visa, Mastercard Seen Foiling Rivals (Graeme Thomas) Re: Anyone a Trimline Guru? (Ed Ellers) Re: 011 From NANP (Dave Close) Business Line vs Residential Line (in Kentucky) (Bob Travis) 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: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 16:01:37 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cellular Disservice In Person by June W. Wulff Cellular Disservice I recently attempted to understand my cellphone plan. I should have left unwell enough alone. Mea cellular culpa. I thought I had a simple question about my new plan: Why the heck did I receive a bill for more than $500? Here's how I remember the conversation with a customer-sometimes-care representative (CSCR). Me: Good morning (mistake). I am an existing customer and just received a $500 bill. I think there's a mistake and would like some help. http://www.boston.com/globe/magazine/2002/1201/inperson.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 16:08:12 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The $19,450 Phone The $19,450 Phone By MARK LEVINE Although the Beverly Hills retail outlet of a newly christened company called Vertu is situated on a stretch of Rodeo Drive whose storefronts are occupied by Chanel, Cartier, Harry Winston, Bernini, Van Cleef & Arpels and Lladro, Vertu is, by design, concealed from the sights of window-shoppers. You can reach Vertu either through a rear alley or by walking straight through the Hugo Boss showroom, past the scrutinizing gaze of that store's nattily dressed sales crew, to the back entrance of the building, which is marked by an austere gray banner bearing nothing more than the name of the company and a logo that looks like an abstract rendering of a raptor's outstretched wings. Vertu is one flight up. It is generally open to the public by appointment only, and the hushed vacancy of its 3,500 square feet is broken only by the strains of ethereal New Age music. One corner of the room displays commissioned art from the British photographer Christopher Bucklow -- ghostly silhouettes of human figures that resemble vividly tinted M.R.I.'s. The art is not for sale. It does, however, prepare the visitor for an encounter with Vertu's specialized and highly self-conscious vocabulary of shopping. Initiates refer to the store as a 'client suite,' to the service that Vertu's product delivers as 'the experience' and to the product itself -- the world's first custom-built luxury cellphone -- as 'the instrument.' http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/01/magazine/01CELLPHONE.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 00:00:05 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: California Firm to Settle Net Porn Scam California Firm to Settle Net Porn Scam By REUTERS WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A California billing firm has agreed to give up $1.6 million to settle charges that it improperly billed thousands for Internet pornography, the Federal Trade Commission said on Tuesday. Privately held billing firm Integretel Inc. and its subsidiary eBillit prompted thousands of complaints in September 2000 after they placed charges of up to $4,000 on consumers' home telephone bills without their knowledge. Consumers incurred the charges after visiting a Web site run by U.K. firm Verity International Ltd. that offered pornographic movies, the FTC said. Visitors were instructed to download special software which unplugged their Internet connection and routed it through the African island nation of Madagascar at a rate of $3.99 per minute. Notification of the charge was buried in a series of 11 screens, said FTC attorney Lawrence Hodapp. Integretel placed charges averaging $127 each on consumers' long-distance phone bills, even if the person on the phone bill was not the one who downloaded the movies. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-tech-fraud.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 00:39:40 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Nokia v Microsoft/The Fight For Digital Dominance From The Economist print edition IT MAY look like a mobile telephone, but the Orange SPV, launched last month, is much more than that. With its colour screen, garish icons and musical ringtones, it resembles other handsets on the market. But it has one far more significant feature: the software inside, indicated by a familiar-looking four-coloured logo on its screen. For the SPV is the first "Windows-powered smartphone"-in other words, it runs software from Microsoft. It is the software giant's attempt to stake its claim in the new market created by the convergence of mobile phones and computers. It is no less than a declaration of war. The market for smartphones is still small. But it is growing fast, as new features are added to handsets, making them ever smarter. Of the 400m mobile phones that will be sold this year, around 16m will have built-in cameras. Nokia, the world's largest handset maker, expects to sell 50m-100m colour-screen handsets next year. A new report from Analysys, an industry consultancy, predicts that by 2007 nearly 300m Europeans will be carrying handsets with colour screens, cameras, music players, support for downloadable games, and other features that are now available only in the most advanced models. Such features are already common in Japan and South Korea, and they are starting to appear in Europe and America. These advanced handsets are, in effect, pocket computers-but they have emerged from the consumer-electronics industry rather than the world of computing. By putting new technologies, such as digital photography and electronic messaging, into consumers' hands in an easy-to-use form, the new handsets seem to be succeeding where the PC has failed. Mobile phones have a far broader appeal than PCs (see chart 1). The lone exception is North America, where PC ownership exceeds mobile-phone ownership. But even there phones are catching up. http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1454300 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 00:45:49 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Smartphones and Handheld Computers/Computing's New Shape From The Economist print edition "A COMPUTER on every desk and in every home." This was Microsoft's mission statement for many years, and it once sounded visionary and daring. But today it seems lacking in ambition. What about a computer in every pocket? Sure enough, Microsoft has recently amended its statement: its goal is now to "empower people through great software, anytime, any place on any device". Being chained to your desktop is out: mobility is in. The titan of the computer industry has set its sights on an entirely new market. It is not alone. This week Dell, the world's largest PC maker, launched its first handheld computers, which run Microsoft's Pocket PC software. HP and Palm, which also make handheld computers, have just unveiled new models, with far more emphasis on wireless networking and telephony. And in an even more portentous move, the SPV, the first device to run Microsoft's special version of Windows for mobile phones, has just been launched in Europe by Orange, a mobile operator. As the computer industry tries to cram PCs into pocket-sized devices, the mobile-phone industry has arrived at the same point-but from the opposite direction. The latest phones announced by Nokia, the world's largest handset maker, include one model with a folding keyboard aimed at business users, as well as a colourful phone that plays computer games. Digital cameras, already a popular feature of mobile phones in Japan, are starting to appear elsewhere. Colour screens are spreading fast. The latest phones have as much computing power as a desktop computer did ten years ago. http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=1454436 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 01:24:01 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Nokia: Can Transfer Calls to 3G Network - Nov 29, 2002 01:24 PM (AP Online) STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) _ Nokia Corp. said late Friday that it was able to transfer voice calls between a third-generation and second-generation mobile network, clearing a significant technological hurdle to the launch of the high-bandwidth 3G standard. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=30315793 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 01:29:19 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: In Media Res In Media Res By PAUL KRUGMAN This week Al Gore said the obvious. "The media is kind of weird these days on politics," he told The New York Observer, "and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party." The reaction from most journalists in the "liberal media" was embarrassed silence. I don't quite understand why, but there are some things that you're not supposed to say, precisely because they're so clearly true. The political agenda of Fox News, to take the most important example, is hardly obscure. Roger Ailes, the network's chairman, has been advising the Bush administration. Fox's Brit Hume even claimed credit for the midterm election. "It was because of our coverage that it happened," he told Don Imus. "People watch us and take their electoral cues from us. No one should doubt the influence of Fox News in these matters." (This remark may have been tongue in cheek, but imagine the reaction if the Democrats had won and Dan Rather, even jokingly, had later claimed credit.) But my purpose in today's column is not to bash Fox. I want to address a broader question: Will the economic interests of the media undermine objective news coverage? http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/29/opinion/29KRUG.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 01:57:24 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Sony Ericsson Sales Degenerating By Reuters Cell phone maker Sony Ericsson needs to bring out new products soon if it wants to halt a devastating sales decline, Gartner Dataquest said Tuesday as it published third-quarter handset sales statistics. The market researcher's numbers showed that Sony Ericsson, a joint venture between Swedish mobile equipment maker Ericsson and Japanese consumer electronics giant Sony sold only 5 million cell phones worldwide in the third quarter. This compares with more than 8.5 million sold by Ericsson and Sony before the merger, in the same quarter a year ago. The venture's market share dwindled to 4.8 percent from an estimated 8.8 percent. http://news.com.com/2100-1033-975326.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 01:59:09 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: 'Wi-Fi' Gives Cell Carriers Static Wireless firms' expensive bet looks increasingly risky By Jesse Drucker and Julia Angwin THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Nov. 29 - At first glance, software executive John Baron would seem to be a cellphone company's dream. He subscribes to the slow Internet browsing option on his cellphone, painfully pecking away on the dial pad to type in Web addresses. Lately, though, he has found a better way: When on the road, he uses Wi-Fi, the technology that gives him wireless access to the Internet on his laptop computer, at blazing speeds. "It's brilliant," he says. "The phone stuff is pretty clunky." ONCE VIEWED as little more than a toy for tech hobbyists, Wi-Fi - short for wireless fidelity - is starting to emerge as a serious force in the Internet business. Chip maker Intel Corp. is integrating it into new microprocessors it's building for laptop computers. Philips Electronics NV is planning to build it into remote controls and stereo systems. And Dell Computer Corp. is similarly seeding its PCs with Wi-Fi. Airports, hotels and Starbucks Corp. outlets are increasingly awash in Wi-Fi radio signals. http://www.msnbc.com/news/841222.asp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 01:05:55 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Study: Car Call Value Equals Crash Cost - Dec 2, 2002 12:20 AM (AP Online) WASHINGTON (AP) _ Researchers say increased cell phone use has led to more crashes caused by drivers on the phone, but the value people place on being able to call from the road roughly equals the accidents' cost. Opponents of banning cell phone usage by drivers have cited studies that showed the benefit of car calls outweighed the toll from such accidents _ medical bills and property damage, for example. Harvard researchers, drawing on previous research involving cell phones and government figures for auto accidents, says in a study there is a growing public health risk from the reliance on cell phones in cars. The number of cell phone subscribers has grown from 94 million in 2000 to more than 128 million. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=30334110 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 21:09:13 +0000 From: Graeme Thomas Subject: Re: Visa, Mastercard Seen Foiling Rivals In article , my_name@is.invalid writes: > I know you are probably saying why didn't the bank put a 'hold' on > the money you had been guarenteed. In some cases they do, but > usually they do not. It depends on the customer's relationship with > the bank in many cases. PAT] This 'hold' *is* supposed to happen. When the original transaction is performed, the authorization request is sent to the issuer. (Problem 1: if the transaction amount is below the merchant's floor limit, the transaction may not go online.) The transaction amount should be added to the blocked amount on the card account. Later, usually at the end of day, the financial request should be sent. (Problem 2: this may not be for the same amount as the auth request.) When the issuer receives the financial, it should deduct the amount of the transaction from the account, and deduct the amount of the corresponding auth request from the blocked amount. If this is done properly, then the bank is never left holding the bag. This, from the bank's point of view, is a Good Thing. It's slightly worse from the customer's point of view. The pay-at-pump petrol (gas) stations usually authorize a relatively large amount (often $60 or so in the UK), and then send in the financial for the smaller amount representing the fuel purchased. A delay in sending in the financial can harm your credit! Graeme Thomas ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Anyone a Trimline Guru? Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 02:16:19 -0500 noel wrote: > Anyway, I know that in trimlines, there are rotary and touchtones. In > the touchtones, there are those that require a transformer to light > the buttons and those that do not. These seem to be identified as > either round button (need transformer) or square button (not needed). That's right -- the square-button handset had LED lighting. There are at least three variants of the round-button version -- the first, called the 1220, had only ten buttons (like other early Touch-Tone phones) and a clear plastic (over dark gray) plate with the letters for each digit; the second version, the 2220, was the same but with 12 buttons; and the third (don't have the number) was a 2220 with a metal plate rather than plastic. The rotary handset was called the 220A. > Now, my question concerns the early touchtones that required the > transformer. Were all the early trimline touchtones handsets > narrower than the rotary trimline handset ones? No, they were the same size and shape, and were interchangeable. A little known fact is that the Trimlines were (at least in some cases) stocked as components rather than complete sets, so the installer would draw a Touch-Tone or rotary handset, a desk (AD1) or wall (AC1) base, a handset cord and a mounting cord (for desk sets) to suit each work order -- one job might call for a 220A handset, AD1 base, 7' handset cord and 7' mounting cord, all green, while the next might be for a 2220B handset, AC1 base and 14' handset cord, all white. This was practical because the Trimline had an early form of modular cords; with conventional sets the installer might have to take the phone apart to convert to longer cords if requested, but with the Trimline this wasn't necessary (something that no doubt convinced Western Electric to go to modular cords for all phones in the 1970s). The Trimline desk base even used a special five-wire mounting cord (the fifth wire was white) that could be hooked up at the connecting block or four-prong plug to work on single- or two-party lines, again without having to take the base apart to rewire it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 00:29:27 -0800 From: Dave Close Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World Date: 2 Dec 2002 00:21:30 -0800 Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California Joseph writes: > Funny I can input +cc/area code/number on my mobile and all calls go > through no matter where they are :) What company? You really can dial 61 2 xxxx xxxx and reach a number in Australia, not Minnesota? Do you mean you can actually dial 011 61 2 xxxx xxxx and get Australia? Then can you dial 011 1 612 xxx xxxx and get Minnesota? I didn't think so. Dialing +1 612 xxx xxxx means an actual dial string of 011 1 612 ... It shouldn't mean you ignore the + just because the call is NANP. That would mean that you can't always dial the same sequence everywhere. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ From: e_quip@hotmail.com (Bob Travis) Subject: Business Line vs Residential Line (in Kentucky) Date: 2 Dec 2002 02:46:36 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Here is a question, when I move soon the local phone company (Alltech) is a real stickler about making sure home businesses pay for a business listing. When I last lived in this community (ten years ago) I was really a full time employee of a company in another city in Kentucky, so I had a paystub to prove it and all I had to do was lie and say I commuted ninety miles to work every day. This time the worm has turned and I have no paystub and no way to prove I work outside the home; however, because a listed phone number did not generate any additional business for me, I am planning to go back to using an unlisted unpublished phone number. It doesn't seem fair to me that a very nonpublic business should have to pay for a business listing. I have a residential and a fax/modem line and I am sure I still use the phone less than a residential family with two teenaged sons and two teenaged daughters? I am thinking there has to be a way around this inanity without simply putting the phone in my mother-in-laws name (who will live with us). I want it in my name so I can use the expense as a tax deduction along with the money we pay for the expense of a home office. Along that line I suppose it could be argued why not have the additional deduction of paying for a business line. I am not sure if that would be a plus or not. All I do know is it would increase my monthly phone bill from around $150 to possibly $200, as it is now I will still have to pay an additional $100 per month or more just so my clients in nearby Louisville will not have to pay a long distance fee to call me. I am wondering whom I could ask about this kind of thing? ------------------------------ 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: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 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. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #161 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Dec 3 02:57:06 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gB37v6300240; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 02:57:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 02:57:06 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212030757.gB37v6300240@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 #162 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Dec 2002 02:57:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 162 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Anyone a Trimline Guru? (Tom Schmidt) Re: Ravings (Dominic Richens) Re: Ravings (John David Galt) Re: Ravings (Gary Novosielski) Re: Number Read Back Service (dold@72.usenet.us.com) Printer/Fax and Answering Machine: Problems (Alain Caillet) Holidays (Joey Lindstrom) Thanksgiving Schedule (was Re: Ravings) (Gordon S. Hlavenka) Re: Globalinx/Com Tech 21 Long Distance (Dave) Re: "Grave Questions of Invasion of Privacy" (Peter Dubuque) Re: Number Read Back Service (tonypo1@cox.net) Re: Number Read Back Service (Seth Theriault) Re: Number Read Back Service (John Higdon) Re: Is There a Dial Helper For When We Travel? (Stanley Cline) Re: Is There a Dial Helper For When We Travel? (Babu Mengelepouti) 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: Tom Schmidt From: Tom Schmidt Subject: Re: Anyone a Trimline Guru? Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 14:42:26 GMT noel wrote in message news:telecom22.158.1@telecom-digest.org: > I've become interested in finding a few old trimline phones. Why? I > don't know. A mental defect i suppose. Anyway, I know that in > trimlines, there are rotary and touchtones. In the touchtones, there > are those that require a transformer to light the buttons and those > that do not. These seem to be identified as either round button (need > transformer) or square button (not need). > Now, my question concerns the early touchtones that required the > transformer. Were all the early trimline touchtones handsets narrower > than the rotary trimline handset ones? You know that the rotary > trimline had a nice curved sides to accommodate the dial. I never had > a TT trimline, but all the pictures of them that I see, they seem to > be more square and less shapely than the rotary ones. Can someone clue > me in on this? > Thanks Noel By no means am I an expert but I'll have a go. Rotary dial Trimline phones were all wider then Touchtone version. WE designed a special rotary dial but I assume it could not be made as narrow as a Touchtone pad. Early Trimline phones has an incandescent bulb powered by a 6v transformer on the second pair. Later versions used an LED powered from the phone line. /Tom ------------------------------ From: Dominic Richens Subject: Re: Ravings Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 09:51:23 -0500 Organization: Nortel Joey Lindstrom wrote: > Now, obviously something was wrong with the URL that Monty passed > along to us, as Monty himself noted, and that's how I managed to > stumble into page after page of demands for money. Maybe the site is keying off some cookie (or lack thereof)? I actually have one of those NYTimes accounts ... maybe it sees that cookie and accepts it, or something similar? Try clearing all your cookies and try again? > I recognize that this is off-topic, but can anyone here explain to me > why Canada and the USA recognize the SAME holiday on different days? > This year, Canadian Thanksgiving Day was Monday October 14th, whereas > USA Thanksgiving Day fell on Thursday November 28th. What's up with > that? My take on it was that in the olden days (any date prior to 1967 for me) a big feast such as Thanksgiving needed to be held outside. By the end of November my picnic table has about a dozen centemeters of ice and snow on it, so that's out. Also, I always thought the shorter growing season up here meant we needed another month of praying before winter set it :-) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > ... tons of wonderful information squirrel away (thanks) but snipped. > PAT] ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Re: Ravings Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 09:51:31 -0800 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Our Esteemed Editor wrote: > people's memories are too short anyway, it did not matter, so it > was changed to the fourth Monday in May each year (whatever date > that happens to be, so it can 'swing' between May 23 and May 30 > each year. Nope, Memorial Day is the last Monday in May (one of May 25-31). > They also combined Presidents Wasington and Lincoln > into one birthday, also the second Monday in February, since that > was a reasonable compromise between February 14 and February 21 > around which time both of them were born, Presidents Day is the third Monday in February (15-21). The dates it replaced were Feb. 12 (Lincoln) and 22 (Washington). > holidays as they had previously. Veterans Day (nee Armistace Day) > in November was changed from November 11 (static date but variable > day) to the second Monday in November. Columbus Day was also changed to a Monday, though only federal civil service people get that day off anyway, AFAIK. > It all happened sometime in > the middle 1970's. Congressional thinking was if the guys can slip > out of work a bit early on Friday, they'll have all night to drive > to wherever, get into a drunken orgy the rest of the night and all > day Saturday/Saturday night, spend early Sunday sobering up and be > able to drive *leisurly* -- not like drunken, orgy-crazed crazy > people Sunday afternoon and evening and get back to work on Monday > without killing several other motorists on the way. It has reduced > holiday car accidents by a large percentage. PAT] Increased enforcement may deserve part of the credit for that. Still, it's an improvement for those of us who like to use the long weekends for travel. ------------------------------ From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Ravings Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 04:18:49 GMT [PAT] wrote: > Pope Gregory declared that henceforth the more modern Anglicized > Easter holiday would be celebrated by the church (after all, why should > the pagans get all the fun?) as a religious day, and that it would in > fact be celebrated at Mass on the first Sunday following the New Moon > in the Spring Equinox or Solstice, meaning it will always happen > between March 22 and April 15, which was about when Goddess Oeaster > would appear each year centuries before. I think you'll find that Easter falls on the first Sunday following the first *FULL* moon (not new moon) after the Spring equinox. ------------------------------ From: dold@72.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Number Read Back Service Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 06:19:35 UTC Organization: a2i network jt wrote: > I could see a use -- where a phone foreign (i.e. you do not control) > to you has its number blocked in such a way as it cannot be un-blocked > by a prefix (is this possible?). If you could call out on such a > phone, you could then discover the number. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Phones that are 'hardwired' blocked, > or blocked by default (as opposed to using *67 on a case by case > basis) can be unblocked on the same case by case basis; I think *87 > is how to do it, or maybe *82. Read your local phone directory info On the switches that we used ... darn, can't even remember the manufacturer, much less the model ... One of the options was to block CID, and not allow the user to bypass it on a call-by-call basis. This was a Centrex feature offered by my CLEC. I wonder if that would still work with the Privacy Manager, as John mentions his usage. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Alain Caillet From: Alain Caillet Subject: Printer/Fax and Answering Machine: Problems Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 14:08:43 -0500 All-in-One (AIO) HP printer 2210 set for automatic fax answering is supposed to eavesdrop on the incoming call answered by the telephone answering machine (TAM). If it detects fax tones on the line, it takes over the call. This action shuts off the TAM. My AIO does not seems to detect fax tones. I now it monitors the line because if the incoming fax call is answered on a phone, before the TAM answers, pressing 1,2,3 on the pad will switch the AIO to fax reception (as it is meant to do) I would like to hear from someone who had similar problems and how they were solved. Is it a problem of line ? AES Newspost wrote in message news:: > In article , Jay Hennigan > wrote: > In the bridged situation, however, is it not the case that when the > answering machine "picks up", the drop in voltage has already occurred > as a result of the answering machine's having answered? > So, although the fax, hearing the fax tone, can start taking in > electrons and trying to process them, it has no way to tell the > answering machine to stop playing it's annoying message (which may > screw up the fax transmission?). Jay, the TAM (telephone answering machine) indeed drop the DC voltage when it connects but when a phone or the fax connect, it drops again and thia is what tells the TAm to shut off Alain ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 11:00:57 -0700 Subject: Holidays Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com On Sun, 1 Dec 2002 02:14:09 -0500 (EST), editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > shifted to the fourth Monday in May. Now it can happen anytime between > May 23 and May 31. When is your Rememberance Day? Ditto with > Veterans Day on a Monday in November. It used to be Armistace Day on > November 11, which is the date on which the First War ended in > 1918. Now it is variable, on a Monday in November. Our "Remembrance Day" is the same day every year: November 11th, to coincide with the Armistice. It is NOT a statutory holiday, though. (But it should be.) We share many holidays in common, but there's a few differences. Major holidays include: New Year's Day - January 1st Heritage Day - February 18th this year, think it's 3rd Monday in Feb Good Friday - variable, same as yours Victoria Day - third Monday in May (named after Queen) St. Jean-Baptiste Day (Quebec only) - 4th Monday in June Canada Day - July 1st (equivalent to Independence Day) Civic Holiday(*) - first Monday in August Labour Day - first Monday in September Thanksgiving Day - second Monday in October Remembrance Day - November 11th (NOT a statutory holiday) Christmas Day - December 25th Boxing Day - December 26th (NOT a statutory holiday) (*) Now, this is all rather general and represents a mix of "federal" and "provincial" holidays - these can all vary province to province. "Heritage Day", for example, is called "Family Day" in Alberta, whereas the (optional) civic holiday in August is called, strangely, "Heritage Day". Some of them are not statutory: Remembrance Day and Boxing Day, for example. Many employers DO give Remembrance Day off (or an additional day at Christmas in lieu of), but it's not mandatory. Similarly, many employers offer a 4-day weekend for Good Friday and Easter Monday: only the former is, strictly speaking, a stat holiday. Some provinces and territories do NOT observe Victoria Day (Northwest Territories, Nunavut, New Brunswick, possibly others). Nova Scotia has a half-day holiday on Christmas Eve. It's all quite involved and perplexing. For more info, a good place to visit would be: http://www.info-galaxy.com/Holiday/Holidays_in_Canada/holidays_in_canada.html Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 13:33:04 -0600 From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc. Subject: Thanksgiving Schedule (was Re: Ravings) Joey Lindstrom wrote: > I recognize that this is off-topic, but can anyone here explain to me > why Canada and the USA recognize the SAME holiday on different days? > This year, Canadian Thanksgiving Day was Monday October 14th, whereas > USA Thanksgiving Day fell on Thursday November 28th. What's up with > that? Beats the heck out of me; the Pilgrims celebrated the first Thanksgiving on June 29, 1676. Gordon S. Hlavenka O- nospam@crashelex.com Burma! ------------------------------ From: philmont618j@yahoo.com (Dave) Subject: Re: Globalinx/Com Tech 21 Long Distance Date: 2 Dec 2002 11:30:19 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I got my billing in the mail two weeks ago and it came from them as well. Also, my calling card does not work and the customer service number give a system error message. Something is funny here. ------------------------------ From: Peter Dubuque Subject: Re: "Grave Questions of Invasion of Privacy" Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 23:18:49 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC John Higdon wrote: > In article , Monty Solomon > wrote: >> Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, warns that the Total >> Information Awareness program threatens our basic rights -- and >> questions whether Adm. Poindexter is the right man to run it. > From what I understand, Poindexter was brought in for technical > consulting. He will not be "running" anything. His job title is Director of the Information Awareness Office, which suggests that, in fact, he will. That man shouldn't be allowed within a thousand feet of any government building, never mind put in a position of responsibility or authority. The only way he can tell the difference between the Constitution and a wad of toilet paper is that he finds the Constitution to be fluffier and more absorbent. Peter F. Dubuque - peterd@panix.com - Enemy of Reason(TM) O- ------------------------------ From: tonypo1@cox.net Subject: Re: Number Read Back Service Organization: The Ace Tomatoe and Cement Company Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 22:37:01 GMT In article , no- spam@amadeus.kome.com says: > In article , Harbor Diver > wrote: >>> Telco readback numbers typically only serve a comparatively small area. >>> The advantage of having my own is that they work from any phone, >>> anywhere. >> Including blocked numbers? > Yes. The 800 number does not pay any attention to "blocking" since it > reads back ANI, not CNID. The line used for CNID readback has Privacy > Manager, so to even get to the machine, one has to get past the PM > sentry, which gives a one-touch option to release the blocking. Similar to Ureach, my USADatanet 800 service delivers realtime ANI as CNID when someone calls me via that service. Quite convenient but then I'm paying for the call and have a right to know who's calling. In article , jtaylor@spamkiller.hfx.andara.com says: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Phones that are 'hardwired' blocked, > or blocked by default (as opposed to using *67 on a case by case > basis) can be unblocked on the same case by case basis; I think *87 > is how to do it, or maybe *82. Read your local phone directory info > pages for specific details. Anyway, I do not think 'blocking' occurs > at that point when dialing into a *TELCO SPONSORED/PROVIDED* read > back number, which is the only kind you could use if you had no idea > what the number was; by being on premises for one reason or another > and dialing into the telco-provided service. PAT] In Verizon (New England Region) land it's *82 - which doesn't work from the G3i at the office. Punching 9+1182+number works some of the time, not all. I've got a spare trunk card, and four spare lines but admin hasn't given me the ok to unblock them and set the system up so that 9+ gets an outside line blocked, 8+ will get an unblocked line. To activate Anonymous Call Rejection here you dial *77, with *87 deactivating the service. Tony ------------------------------ From: slt@mail.utexas.edu (Seth Theriault) Subject: Re: Number Read Back Service Date: 2 Dec 2002 14:56:59 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ nichols@cablenut.net (Ryan Nichols) wrote in message : > I used to have a number that I could call to get the number I am > dialing on with my butt set while I am working in a comm room. I have > since lost that number; are there any others out there? I've thought > about ust calling SWBell and GTE and requesting the information > again. I'm needing one for AR and TX. Try this number: 1-800-222-0300 (press "1" for English). This is the customer service number for AT&T. It reads back your number back to verify that "you call is regarding ..." before offering choices. At least AT&T is good for something, even if it isn't long distance. Seth ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Number Read Back Service Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:50:38 -0800 In article , dold@72.usenet.us.com wrote: > That's why John has an 800 number that he's not sharing with us, that > has real-time ANI feedback. The ANI should be difficult to block. I > used to have a fax mailbox that supplied non-real-time ANI. The ANI > was available the next day in a report. That was pretty handy, but a > little slow for normal usage. Just to be clear, I'm not withholding the number to be a pill. It is just that I lack the resources the subsidize a public number readback line. The number is capped at four simultaneous calls, and the number is used for something else (as its "day job"). There is a back-door sequence that must be entered to coax the IVR into coughing up the number you are calling from. But it is a very effective and reliable readback. BTW, from time to time, inadvertent number readbacks appear that are associated with other services. AT&T may still have one that reads back the number you are calling from in association with some other service it provides. Memory fails as to what it was all about, but you could call in, get the number read back to you, and then just abandon the call. 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: Is There a Dial Helper For When We Travel? Date: 3 Dec 2002 01:49:12 GMT Organization: Roamer1 Communications - Dunwoody, GA, USA Reply-To: sc1-news@roamer1.org In article , ken wrote: > There used to be such things. I had a "Texas Instruments Phone > Dialer" about 10 years ago which I used for just this purpose. > http://www.datamath.org/Personal/ProDialer.htm shows a similar one, > and states that TI stopped making them after a few years. Mike Sandman still sells a tone dialer: http://www.sandman.com/autodial.html (very bottom of the page) RadioShack used to sell them (I bought one there a few years ago), but judging from their web site, they don't anymore. 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: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 17:19:33 -0800 From: Babu Mengelepouti Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Re: Is There a Dial Helper For When We Travel? Ah, nostalgia! The Radio Shack memory pocket tone dialer was a very popular item with phreaks in the early 1990s. You could replace the included xtal with a 6.5536MHz (or, if you were a purist, you could order through 2600 Magazine one of BernieS' custom-made 6.49MHz) xtal, and voila--you had an instant red box! Obviously, as a teen, I'd never have made such a thing... ;) Last year, citing poor sales, Radio Shack discontinued this item -- much to my disappointment. You might find a used one somewhere, but die-hard phreaks bought up most of the remaining inventory when they went on clearance. > From: Al Gillis > Subject: Re: Is There a Dial Helper For When We Travel? > Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:25:56 -0800 > Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com > Hi Gail ... > Go see a Radio Shack (or perhaps Sharper Image or a Spencer store). > Radio Shack used to have little dialer gizmos that you could store > telephone numbers in and then, holding the things speaker up to the > telephone handset, have the thing "squirt" out the number with the > press of a button or two. You can probably program in the access > number under one button (or name), the 11 digit PIN (under another > button or name) and numbers for your most frequently called pals. > Likely dialing would be easier and you could beat SBC at their own > game! > Al ------------------------------ 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: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 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. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #162 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Dec 3 15:36:57 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gB3KavP09792; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:36:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:36:57 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212032036.gB3KavP09792@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 #163 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:36:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 163 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Special Report: Press Coverage of Auto-ID Radio Freq Tags (Monty Solomon) Step by Steppin' (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Business Line vs Residential Line (in Kentucky) (Ed Ellers) Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender (David Clayton) Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender (John David Galt) West Virginia Joins in on Microsoft Suit (Monty Solomon) Japan's Cellphone Giant Casts a Paler Shadow (Monty Solomon) GAO Pushes Digital TV Deadline/Regulators Should Drop Analog (M Solomon) Unmunged URL's (Joey Lindstrom) Debit Cards (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Thanksgiving Schedule (was Re: Ravings) (Ed Ellers) 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, 2 Dec 2002 20:13:36 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Past Press Coverage of Auto-ID Radio Frequency Tags Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 14:30:37 -0500 From: newsletter@nocards.org Subject: Past press coverage of Auto-ID radio frequency tags We have all been wondering why more "regular consumers" have not heard about Auto-ID radio frequency identification and tracking technology. Why doesn't the whole world know about these plans to plant tiny tracking devices in the products we buy? It's not that the press hasn't been covering it -- they have, but as a tech story, not a consumer story. Here is a compendium of news stories from the last two years. Each of the references cited is an actual quote from the press. The quoted comments can be found verbatim at the websites listed. Much of the information cited in our overview article (http://www.nocards.org/AutoID/overview.shtml) came from these sources. ============================== The greatest technological revolution to shape the consumer goods industry since the appearance of the barcode has begun. Ironically, it couples a technology that has been around for decades--radio frequency identification -- with highly miniaturized computers that will enable products to be identified and tracked at any point along the supply chain. The new technological wave is a development of the Auto-ID Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which was established in 1999. [snip] "The fundamental problem in tracing and counting is identification," explains Kevin Ashton, director of the Auto-ID Center. "If we can't identify a thing, then we can't count or track it".... Ashton began championing the idea of embedding tiny wireless computers in nearly every product made. http://www.chaindrugreview.com/articles/tech_revolution.html ============================== The MIT-based Auto-ID Center [is] a consortium of academic and industry scientists seeking to replace bar codes with a system that tracks manufactured products with pervasive grids of readers in warehouses, trucks, stores, and the home. Once the infrastructure is operational, companies will be able to determine the whereabouts of all their products, all the time. http://www.rand.org/scitech/stpi/ourfuture/Internet/sec4_networked.html ============================== The ultimate goal is to put a radio tag on virtually every manufactured item, each tracked by a network of millions of readers in shops, factories, trucks, warehouses and homes. http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/schmidt0301.asp ============================== From the Auto-ID (MIT) website: Auto-ID technology will change the world by merging bits and atoms together to form one seamless network that interacts with the real world in real time. Physical objects will have embedded intelligence that will allow them to communicate with each other and with businesses and consumers. Auto-ID technology offers an automated, numeric system of smart objects that revolutionizes the way we manufacture, sell, and buy products. An Electronic Product Code (ePC) is embedded onto individual products and physical objects on memory chips known as "smart tags" that connect objects to the Internet. Auto-ID technology will allow the Internet to extend to everyday objects. Everything will be connected in a dynamic, automated supply chain that joins businesses and consumers together in a mutually beneficial relationship. http://www.autoidcenter.org/technology.asp Consumers, businesses, and products will interact in a dynamic cycle of computer bits and human atoms that will understand each other. Auto-ID technology will create order and balance in a chaotic world. http://www.autoidcenter.org/applications.asp Auto-ID technology and will forever change global business. Companies who understand what's coming will benefit dramatically. ============================== The ePC (electronic product code) is a numbering scheme that can provide unique ID for any physical object in the world -- each pack of cigarettes, can of soda, light bulb or package of razor blades has a separate ID number. http://www.retailsystemsreseller.com/archive/Nov01/Nov01_5.shtml ============================== The ePC code ... goes way beyond identifying products. The ePC assigns a unique number to every single item that rolls off a manufacturing line. (e.g. Every single bottle of soda would have its own unique ePC number) ... It is capable of uniquely numbering every item produced on the planet well into the future. http://www.eretailnews.com/Features/0105epc1.htm ============================== The creation of an algorithm for uniquely identifying a commercial product by its "smart" electronic tag marks a crucial step towards realizing a physically linked world; it provides the basic infrastructure needed to support advanced versions of global supply-chain management. http://www.nikkeibp.asiabiztech.com/nea/200104/inet_127161.html ============================== RFID tags are built into objects like food, clothes, drugs or auto-parts, and read by devices in the environment, e.g., in shelves, floors, doors. [snip] Electronic tags, when coupled to a reader network, allow continuous tracking and identification of physical resources. http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2001-11-21-c.html ============================== Tagged pill bottles in a medicine cabinet could allow doctors to monitor patient compliance with prescriptions, remotely. http://www.rand.org/scitech/stpi/ourfuture/Internet/sec4_networked.html ============================== The new system will be applied to almost any manufactured item, from foodstuffs to washing machines. Each product will in effect carry its own unique "messages" around with it in the form of an embedded chip. For example, a carton of spaghetti could "tell" a truck to deliver it, "tell" a shop that it had been bought, and then "tell" a microwave how to cook it. " 'Intelligent' and fully traceable products could become a low cost reality within the next few years," said Mr. Ashton (in early 2001) http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/2001/jan24/auto.html ============================== The cost of the embedded ID units has fallen dramatically over the past two years, making the implementation of the technology more practical and cost-effective than ever before. The chips, which cost $1 in 1998, have dropped to less than 5 cents each and are predicted to cost less than 1 cent by 2004. http://www.eyeforpharma.com/index.asp?news=2822 ============================== At the center of the Auto-ID system is the RF ID tag. [snip] The Auto-ID center's Ashton describes the tag as "somewhere between the size of a grain of sand and a speck of dust." http://www.internetweek.com/newslead01/lead111901.htm ============================== "We'll put a radio frequency ID tag on everything that moves in the North American supply chain," says Mr. Van Fleet [of International Paper]. He said anywhere from 2 percent to 7 percent of products are stolen or misplaced during distribution, and the new smart tags will let companies like his track them down on a per-item basis. [snip] Power Paper Ltd. of Israel is collaborating with International Paper to combine its flat, flexible battery with a microchip that can be put into interactive packages. International Paper estimates that more than 500 million smart packages will be used within three years to sell everything from French fries to electronics. Says Baruch Levanon, head of Power Paper, "Most of the technology for smart packages already exists. We just need to integrate it." http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/03/29/fp13s1-csm.shtml ============================== Tulsa, Oklahoma is the site of this summer's (2001) most innovative experiment in inventory management ... The Auto-ID Center is wiring the entire city with analog radio-frequency gear that can track packages equipped with microchips. The system will make it possible to track inventory as it moves from point to point across the city. "We're putting RFID [radio-frequency identification] chips on everything that moves." [snip] The Auto-ID Center's vision is for [product] identification numbers [to] be transmitted by RFID tags to a global network of receivers along the supply chain-at airports, seaports, highways, distribution centers, and retail stores. http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle?doc_id=IWK20010618S0001 ============================== ... the widespread implementation of RFID technology could mean a leap forward, owing to the ability of RFID tags to be read without actually being in view. Bar code labels, by comparison, must be seen in order to be scanned. http://209.35.212.232/news/2001/12_01/1226/last/news_main.htm ============================== P&G would know exactly when and what consumers are buying. http://www.e-moticart.com/cast/forum/principal.html ============================== Hitachi Europe is looking at the banknote market. The company's Information Systems Group has developed a smart tag chip called Minimum Meu, which measures 0.3mm square and is just 60 microns thick: about the thickness of a human hair. "A banknote is about 100 microns thick, so the chip could be put inside one," says Peter Jones, the company's pre-sales manager. Mass-production of the new chip will start within a year. It has "attracted a lot of interest and will be a very cost-effective solution," says Mr Jones. [snip] In China smart tags are being developed to identify people for tax and insurance purposes. http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT30414MGWC ============================== The European Central Bank is working with technology partners on a hush-hush project to embed radio frequency identification tags into the very fibers of euro bank notes by 2005. In theory, an RFID tag's ability to read and write information to a bank note could make it very difficult, for example, for kidnappers to ask for "unmarked" bills. Further, a tag would give governments and law enforcement agencies a means to literally "follow the money" in illegal transactions. The RFID allows money to carry its own history by recording information about where it has been. http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20011219S0016 ============================== Kevin Ashton, executive director of the Auto-ID Center, concedes there's a Brave New World feel to it all, but adds, "The dollar value of this opportunity, well ... there's so many zeros on the end of it that it's hard to make people believe you." http://www.mindfully.org/Food/The-Code.htm (originally at: http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2660904-9,00.html but the link has expired) ============================== Ashton acknowledges that consumers and businesses alike might be very uncomfortable with a system in which the police could find out detailed information about everything in a car's trunk without opening it. http://www.business2.com/articles/web/0,,15024,FF.html ============================== One of the greatest challenges facing the creators of such an infrastructure will be finding ways to allow consumers to opt in or out of the system as it becomes more pervasive. "It's not clear how that's going to happen," [says Sanjay E. Sarma, an MIT professor and co-director of the Auto-ID Center] "But it's important if companies want to prevent a public backlash against these systems." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21933 (originally at http://www.india-today.com/ctoday/20010616/marvels.html) ============================== "Any one piece of information" -- cell phone records, purchasing records, car location -- "is not that damning or intrusive. But if you put them together, you've got my life," [security researcher David] Holtzman said. "It's very hard to hide things when you have that level of analysis." Even if these uses aren't what retailers and manufacturers have in mind, technology has a way of creeping into other domains, Holtzman added. Transponders for driving through electronic tollbooths started as a convenience to drivers but now are used in combination with timing analysis to send out speeding tickets, for example. http://news.com.com/2100-1001-833379.html ============================== The United States Department of Defense and the United States Postal Service are among the 85 sponsor companies and organizations funding the Auto-ID research project. For a partial list of donors who have contributed a minimum of $300,000 to the project, see: www.autoidcenter.org/sponsors_companies.asp ============================== To keep tabs on Auto-ID, subscribe to Auto-ID's monthly newsletter at http://www.autoidcenter.o rg/MReport.asp ============================== Search engine advice: If you plan to run your own search on this technology, use the phrase "Auto-ID Center," not "Auto-ID." (The latter is a generic phrase for any contactless ID system, including barcodes). -------------------------------------------------- CASPIAN - Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering A national consumer organization opposing supermarket "loyalty" cards and other retail surveillance schemes since 1999 http://www.nocards.org We encourage you to duplicate and distribute this message to others. -------------------------------------------------- To subscribe to: CASPIAN Newsletter, just follow this link: http://www.nocards.org/cgi/mojo/mojo.cgi?f=s&l=cnews Click this link, or copy and paste the address into your browser. ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 10:02:22 -0700 Subject: Step by Steppin' Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 15:06:44 EST, Mark Cuccia wrote: > But even large cities which used Step-by-Step switching _ALSO_ used > 11X service codes, well into the 1960's. Some of these towns/cities > (usually independent telcos, and also _GTE_ held BC-Tel in British > Columbia CANADA) continued using 11X codes into the 1970's and 80's > even after Crossbar, ESS and possibly digital switching replaced > SXS. (I'm also thinking of Centel in Tallahassee FL which still used > 11X Codes into the 1970's and Lincoln NE Tel & Tel which IIRC still > used 11X into the 1980's. BCTel also used 11X including 112+ instead > of 1+ for sent-paid-DDD into the 1980's!) In 1974 (I remember the year cuz it was the year "Space: 1999" went on the air - as a 7 year old kid, I *LOVED* that show. I watch it now and it SUCKS, what was I thinking?), we moved from Calgary, Alberta to Bateman, Saskatchewan, a very small town in southern Saskatchewan, population about 40. It was large enough to have its own "central office" (just a little shed) and its own central office code, 306-269. About three months after moving there, SaskTel made a major service upgrade: we now had DDD. Previously, we had to dial "0" and ask the operator to complete our long-distance calls (and most calls from Bateman were to nearby Gravelbourg, some 18 miles away and a toll call, so we were dialing "0" most of the time). After DDD was introduced, we could dial "112", followed, if I'm not mistaken, either a 7-digit or 10-digit number. The former if within 306 (which covers all of Saskatchewan), the latter if elsewhere in the NANPA. I remember figuring out that I could get the long-distance trunk by picking up the phone, toggling the switch once, then waiting, then toggling it again, then waiting, then toggling it twice quickly. You'd hear this satisfying "clunk" sound from the receiver to indicate you were now about to call a long-distance number. You even got that then-characteristic "long distance whistle" on the line, even before you'd dialed the number. Presumably this was a step-by-step arrangement. The 306-269 part of the local number was not significant and was "absorbed" by the switching equipment. The final four digits were significant, and if I recall correctly, the 3xxx numbers were assigned "in town" and 4xxx numbers were assigned to surround farms. You needed only dial the 4-digit subscriber line number to reach anybody locally. We moved away from Saskatchewan a couple of years later, but I returned there in 1997 for the 75th anniversary (and, alas, closing) of the Bateman School. By now, the population of Bateman was a whopping 8. The post office had closed, the local garage had closed, the grain elevators had closed, and now the school was closing. The telephone shed was still there, but at some time in the intervening 20+ years, Bateman's 306-269 prefix code had been dropped, and everybody using it (including all the local farmers for miles around) had been switched over to 306-648 Gravelbourg, which at least had the benefit of making Gravelbourg a local call. And, DDD was now accomplished with "1", not "112" (followed by a mandatory 10 digits). If I try to dial any 1-306-269 number from Calgary now, I get an immediate fast-busy. Finally, all 7 digits of the number have to be dialed. If you dialed any three digits and they didn't begin with "1", "0", or "648", you got a fast-busy. Any idea why they'd do this? Amalgamate everyone from 269 into 648, then never reassign 269? It's not like Saskatchewan is facing a numbering shortage -- hell, that province loses population every year and they're a long way from facing a split or overlay. I can see why people in the area would want the phone company to make Gravelbourg a local call -- Gravelbourg is sorta the "business hub" of the area and it's where everybody goes for shopping, etc., but why phase out 269 at all? It's a pain in the ass for everybody and there's no real benefit I can see (other than reclaiming a CO code which they didn't really need to do). BTW, we Albertans tell people that the "official" slogan of Saskatchewan is "Would the last person out of Saskatchewan please turn out the lights?" :-) (A fair percentage of the people in this city are from Saskatchewan or have at least lived there) Here in Calgary, up until the early 1980's, you could dial local numbers by dialing only the last SIX digits. Our telco, then known as "A.G.T." (Alberta Government Telephones), had done some planning: all telephone numbers (up until then, at least) began with the digit "2", therefore "2" could be omitted when dialing a local call. This disappeared sometime around 1982 or 1983, and then around 1987ish they ran out of numbers beginning with "2" (mainly because they had not yet adopted the use of NXX prefixes - they were limited to NNX prefixes. They had every code from 220 through 299 with the exception of 222, 223, 224, and 227, which had been previously assigned to towns north of Calgary along the highway 2. A fifth prefix, 226, had also been assigned to the town of Olds, but then reclaimed -- Olds was re-assigned "556" and every customer in the town screamed about it. After that experience, AGT decided not to reclaim any more codes, and left 222, 223, 224, and 227 where they were). I was one of the first people to get one of these new "not-2" numbers, which IIRC was 569-0750. Man oh man, it was a *BITCH* to get a pizza or a taxi. NOBODY would believe me when I told them what my phone number was! One company, Mother's Pizza, flat out COULD NOT send me a pizza. The reason: they were on a computerized dispatching system which they'd had custom-made for them. It *INSISTED* on the leading digit "2" and wouldn't accept a "5", and thus wouldn't accept my order. They later fixed this, and shortly after that went bankrupt. :-) Today we now have three or four times as many prefixes as we did in 1987, with local numbers now starting with every allowable digit (2 through 9). I still get a few odd looks when I tell people my number (which starts with 313), as it's a Sprint Canada prefix and is therefore quite unusual. Things got a little confusing for long-time Calgarians last year, when Telus (and other telcos) began assigning numbers that began with the digit "4" within the city of Calgary. The city of Edmonton, about three hours north of here and the capital city of Alberta, had had a similar arrangement to Calgary's pre-80's: all local numbers had, for many years, begun with the digit "4". In 1999, the 403 (Alberta) area code was split, with Calgary retaining 403 and Edmonton moving to 780, so all of those "Edmonton numbers" were now available for re-use in Calgary. To their credit, Telus waited a good long time to let everyone get used to 780 before reassigning 403-4XX numbers in Calgary. Still, I know a few people who have these new numbers and they report that they do get wrong number calls from people trying to call Edmonton, and that they sometimes face disbelief when telling other Calgarians what their number is. :-) Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Wichita, Kansas took over the entire 316 area code a year or so ago; the rest of us -- all of southeastern and southwestern Kansas got moved into 620 which should last for a good long time. Here in our town, most people still give only the last four digits when referring to their phone number. The exchange 331 is presumed in speaking, although in dialing, all seven digits are required. Most people here do not know we actually have 330, 331, and 332 although 330 only applies to Montgomery County Sheriff and other county government (what there is of it) and cellular phones from Cingular Wireless/Cellular One/Alltel. 332 only applies to the phones at City Hall, local police, schools, city government, etc. Everyone else (i.e. all residents and business places) in town is 331. I am told some Cellular One phones are also on 332. SWB Telco says a 'few' numbers in 332 are reserved for 'when they have to use them' for wire line residences and businesses. No estimate when that will be. Our sister city, Coffeyville has been 251 since the 1950's when dial service started. Now I note that my cousin who lives in c-ville has a 252 number; that's mostly used in an expansion part of town out by the golf course. And apparently cell phones in c-ville are also 252. They were also in the habit of speaking in four digits, presuming the 251 part, although dialing all seven. Lately they still say four digits, but if the person is 252 they will correct the speaker. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Business Line vs Residential Line (in Kentucky) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 02:20:42 -0500 Bob Travis wrote: > It doesn't seem fair to me that a very nonpublic business should > have to pay for a business listing. You're not paying for a business listing -- you're paying for a telephone line for business use. It's been customary for a very long time to charge businesses more than residential customers, in order to make residential service more affordable. > I want it in my name so I can use the expense as a tax deduction > along with the money we pay for the expense of a home office. I don't think the IRS will allow a business deduction for a residential line, and ISTR reading somewhere that you can't even deduct a business line if it's the only line coming into a residence. ------------------------------ From: David Clayton Subject: Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 15:42:02 +1100 Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.net.au JDS contributed the following: > The best answer, in my opinion, is to stop buying recorded music and > deprive the record companies of the funds they need to pursue their > self-destructive, unjustifiable, and inconsistent legal theories. > Most of the stuff they're selling is garbage anyway. For many artists not signed up to major record companies you can bypass the companies entirely and purchase directly from the artist's web sites or from independent distributors. Not a big market yet, but hopefully it will grow and weaken the fanatical grip the "majors" have on recorded music all over the western world. 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: John David Galt Subject: Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 22:48:33 -0800 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society JDS wrote: > The best answer, in my opinion, is to stop buying recorded music and > deprive the record companies of the funds they need to pursue their self- > destructive, unjustifiable, and inconsistent legal theories. Most of the > stuff they're selling is garbage anyway. I agree. And more to the point, as Mariah Carey and others have pointed out, the actual artists see little or nothing from album purchases anyway -- the labels take pretty much everything. Thus the moral high ground that the record companies claim to be arguing from is phony from the get-go. (And quite a few new artists have taken to distributing their own material on the net rather than sell their souls to the record companies. Maybe the real purpose of RIAA's campaign against music-sharing sites is to make it impossible for artists to compete against them in this way.) ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: West Virginia Joins in on Microsoft Suit Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:49:02 -0500 - Dec 2, 2002 05:37 PM (AP Online) - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=30349595 ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Japan's Cellphone Giant Casts a Paler Shadow Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:53:16 -0500 By KEN BELSON TOKYO, Dec. 1 - On the face of it, Keiji Tachikawa should have been crowing. As competitors around the globe struggle to survive, Mr. Tachikawa, the president of NTT DoCoMo, was telling reporters how his company earned a profit in the six months through September. Sales were up, and DoCoMo, Japan's largest mobile phone carrier and second-largest company over all, said it expected to earn $1.5 billion for the full year. But Mr. Tachikawa's presentation on Nov. 7 was noticeably on edge, and for good reason. Three years after its i-mode Internet-enabled phones took the telecommunications industry by storm, DoCoMo is looking more and more like an ordinary company. Profit fell 95 percent from the comparable six months last year, and revenue grew just 1.9 percent - hardly the expected pace for a company that formerly could not supply phones fast enough to its clamorous customers. Mr. Tachikawa, who guided DoCoMo through its boom years but is now navigating rough waters, also reduced full-year forecasts. The causes are simple, yet overwhelming. More than 62 percent of Japanese have cellular phones, so finding new subscribers has turned into a costly battle with DoCoMo's rivals, KDDI and J-Phone. In a weak economy, consumers are increasingly reluctant to pay $400 for DoCoMo's fancy third-generation phones or spend $100 a month downloading bulky audio files. To compete, DoCoMo must cut prices, a humbling concession for a company whose products had always commanded a premium. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/02/business/worldbusiness/02DOCO.html ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: GAO Pushes Digital TV Deadline/Regulators Should Drop Analog Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 18:11:04 -0500 By Peter J. Howe, Globe Staff, 12/2/2002 With the US television industry making only sluggish progress in converting to digital formats including high-definition TV, a General Accounting Office study being released today suggests that federal regulators should mandate a deadline for cable operators to begin carrying digital channels instead of over-the-air analog channels. The study, commissioned by US Representative Edward J. Markey of Malden, the ranking Democrat on the House telecommunications subcommittee, also urges the Federal Communications Commission to consider a deadline for requiring television set makers to include components enabling cable and satellite TV subscribers to get digital channels directly. Five years ago, Congress directed the FCC to set a 2006 deadline for the nation's television broadcasters to shift from analog signals to digital formats that can deliver sharper pictures and CD-quality sound. The move would also free up thousands of analog TV frequencies for reuse by wireless telecommunications providers and public safety agencies. However, most officials doubt the 2006 deadline will be met because stations would not be required to shut off their analog signals until 85 percent of viewers in their markets own digital-ready television sets. Fewer than 1 percent of the 28 million sets sold in the United States last year included a digital TV tuner, according to the Consumer Electronics Association. In August, the FCC ordered that, by July 2007, all new TVs sold in the United States that have 13-inch or larger screens must have a digital tuner. The electronics association, however, has argued that this mandate could add $250 or more to the price of TV sets, although other industry groups say that added cost could eventually drop to under $20 as mass-production efficiencies develop. But the new study by the GAO, an arm of Congress, says a major unresolved issue is how to make digital signals more available for the roughly 80 percent of US homes that get TV from cable or satellite. Instead of requiring cable and satellite subscribers to use an over-the-air tuner to get digital signals, the GAO study said the FCC should consider requiring sales of TV sets that can get a digital signal directly from a cable line without requiring a set-top box, similar to today's cable-ready analog sets. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/336/business/GAO_pushes_digital_TV_deadline+.shtml ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 08:46:26 -0700 Subject: Unmunged URL's Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 03:35:19 -0500 (EST), Phil Earnhardt wrote: >> Given the plethora of excellent news sites out there that do not >> require payment (or registration in most cases), WSJ can go piss up a >> rope for all I care. > I've never heard that particular expression before. No? Must be cuz I'm from Soviet Canuckistan (to quote Pat Buchanan). :-) > I believe that PAT's theory was correct: the article URL got munged in > the batched version of the TELECOM Digest and the behavior of the > website was to take you to the subscription page when presented with a > broken URL. Joey: did you ever try the un-munged URL? Yes, several times Thursday and Friday, and they too did not work. HOWEVER, trying again this morning (using a BOOKMARKED URL that did not work last week), it works fine - I can now read the story. Very, very bizarre. Why this would work for most but not for some (I sent the original issue of the Digest to a couple of friends locally - they too could NOT read the article, with either URL) is beyond me. Maybe we live in a bad IP neighbourhood ... :-) (Well, that much is a GIVEN after all ... we're with Telus) Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 10:29:49 -0700 Subject: Debit Cards Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com On Sun, 1 Dec 2002 02:14:09 -0500 (EST), editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One slight correction in what you say, > regards debit cards. The merchant does not get his money, nor does the > money come out of the card holder's account at the time approval is > given, but rather, when the *actual document* or magnetic tape entry > reaches the bank. Sales authorization is given based on what the > account *looks like at the time of approval.* A sale could be approved > because there is money in the account or the sale is under the daily > limit for the customer. But before the merchant's paper gets to the > office, some other merchant slides in with a check the customer wrote > or gets his debit charges in first. He gets paid because there is > actual money in the account to pay him. Now your paper shows up a few > days later -- the account is devoid of money -- you still get paid > since sales authorization guarenteed you your money. Now the bank is > left holding the bag. I know you are probably saying why didn't the > bank put a 'hold' on the money you had been guarenteed. In some cases > they do, but usually they do not. It depends on the customer's > relationship with the bank in many cases. PAT] This isn't the case in Canada, at least as far as the CIBC (Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce) and TD Bank (Toronto Dominion) are concerned. All the banks co-own something called "Interac", which is a direct-payment system. It also allows people to withdraw money from another bank's machine (with an appropriate "Interac fee" added). If I buy something from a merchant with my Interac card (the same card used for all ATM banking), I must key in my PIN on a keypad. Once I successfully key in the PIN, and ok the transaction, the money is IMMEDIATELY debited from my account and credited to the merchant's account. There's no delay, the money goes POOF across the wires. I have personally made such a payment and been back at my computer within 5 minutes to check my online banking account, and seen the transaction there on my screen. Now, it's possible that this is just a hold, but it's an irreversible hold - I no longer have access to the money, and this whole thing is risk-free to the merchant (but they get hosed on fees -- that's another story). Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Thanksgiving Schedule (was Re: Ravings) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 03:04:08 -0500 Gordon S. Hlavenka wrote: > Beats the heck out of me; the Pilgrims celebrated the first > Thanksgiving on June 29, 1676. Some wag once claimed that the British celebrate Thanksgiving on the Fourth of July. :-) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Pilgrims, also known as the Puritans, did have Thanksgiving that day, midst their squabbles on various topics. Many felt they should not be idle like that and it would be better to have it when their work was finished, i.e. the harvest had been gathered, later in the fall, and they had one then also (in the fall) since they all enjoyed having good dinners. Their principal spat divided them in two camps: they were all on the outs with the Church of England of course, but the 'conforming Puritans' felt that change was best accomplished through the existing structure of the church, with its system of Bishops, etc. The 'non-conforming Puritans' felt it best to make each church (congregation) responsible for its own affairs, thus came the establishment of the Congregational Church in the USA. That did not stop them all from going to each other's dinners however, which they did all the time. Regards wags and British Thanksgiving and Fourth of July, I guess you know what certain Indian tribes in the USA call 'Thanksgiving Day'. They refer to it, quite appropriatly, as 'The Day of Mourning', along with Christopher Columbus as a devil. I mean, if visitors came to your home (land), you shared your dinner and possessions with them to be their friends, and they repaid you by killing your relatives and those of you that were allowed to live had all your land stolen and you were moved onto tiny, filthy substandard 'reservations' would you like that turn of events? 'Columbus Day' in the USA should rightly be termed the day that Europeans created a new level of arrogance when they landed on these shores. And its not like Thanksgiving Day even means everyone in America is 'thankful'. I do volunteer work for Salvation Army of Independence/ Montgomery County, and we *attempted* to see to it that everyone got a good dinner last Thursday, in cooperation with the Food Basket, one of our local charities. My kettle is located outside Marvin's Grocery Store on 10th and Myrtle Streets. I was standing there with my bell on Friday night. A woman came by and said "I gave money on Wednesday". I said to her "I am still standing here tonight, I guess you did not give enough." She gave me a sort of funny look, got in her purse and found a couple more dimes to put in the pot. I thanked her for her generosity, and she walked inside the store. 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: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 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. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #163 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Dec 3 17:48:19 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gB3MmJb12236; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 17:48:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 17:48:19 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212032248.gB3MmJb12236@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 #164 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Dec 2002 17:46:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 164 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Public Interest Registry Contract to Manage org Finalized (Anne Shroeder) Book Review: "XML Security", Blake Dournaee (Rob Slade) Re: Business Line vs Residential Line (in Kentucky) (Dave Garland) Re: Is There a Dial Helper For When We Travel? (Phil McKerracher) Re: Visa, Mastercard Seen Foiling Rivals (my_name@is.invalid) Re: Ravings (Robert Bonomi) Re: Number Read Back Service (Manny Olds) Re: Study: Car Call Value Equals Crash Cost (Phil Earnhardt) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (Joseph) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (Colum Mylod) Copyright (C) 2000, Me (Joey Lindstrom) Is Share Day Message Spam? (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: Anne Shroeder Subject: Public Interest Registry Contract to Manage .org Finalized Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:13:39 -0500 PUBLIC INTEREST REGISTRY CONTRACT TO MANAGE .ORG FINALIZED PIR promises open, responsible and global stewardship of domain, new services/benefits for noncommercial organizations. Reston, VA - December 3, 2002 - The Public Interest Registry (PIR) today announced the execution of its contract with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to operate the .ORG top-level domain. PIR will assume responsibility from the current registry operator, VeriSign, on January 1, 2003. We are pleased to be moving forward in our efforts to serve the worldwide .ORG community, said ISOC President/CEO Lynn St.Amour. PIR shares ISOC's vision of setting a new standard for registry services that will meet the unique interests of non-commercial organizations on the Internet. PIR board chairman David Maher explained that PIR will reinforce and build on .ORG's heritage as the home of non-commercial entities on the Internet through global educational outreach and enhanced services. PIR's goal is to provide open, responsible and global stewardship of .ORG. This will be done through educational support, feedback mechanisms, superior technology, new services for noncommercial registrants, and international outreach. The PIR board is composed of technologically savvy experts in a variety of areas from around the globe who share the vision for setting a new standard for registry services. They will guide the organization in the remainder of its staffing and administrative tasks through the transition and the first year of start-up. Board members include Gerry Baranano, Frode Greisen, Lawrence H. Landweber, Alan Levin, Andy Linton, David W. Maher and Marc Rotenberg. David Maher is the chairman, Andy Linton is the secretary and Alan Levin is the treasurer. Lynn St. Amour, ISOC President/CEO is an ex-officio non-voting representative to the PIR board. PIR will assume the role of registry operator for .ORG on January 1, 2003. In order to minimize disruption and make the transition as smooth as possible, all parties have agreed to a 25-day phase-in period during which back-end services will continue to be provided by VeriSign. This phase-in period was requested by VeriSign and will have no adverse financial impact on PIR. It will also allow registrars more time for testing and thus enhance the stability of the system. On January 25, 2003, the back-end technical services for the registry will be cutover from VeriSign to Afilias. PIR has a dedicated Web site - www.publicinterestregistry.org - to provide detailed information on the transition to the public. Special processes have been developed to ensure a smooth transition for domain name retailers (registrars); registrants should see only minimal differences. An extensive bid solicitation and evaluation process for the management of .ORG began in May of 2002. ISOC submitted its proposal on June 18, 2002. The ICANN Board voted to approve ISOC's proposal on October 14, 2002 and subsequently entered into contract negotiations. PIR was established by the Internet Society (ISOC) in October 2002 and has subcontracted with Dublin-based Afilias Limited for operational support. ABOUT PIR Public Interest Registry (PIR) is a not-for-profit corporation created to manage the .ORG registry. PIR's mission is to manage the .ORG domain in a way that supports the continuing evolution of the Internet as a research, education and communications infrastructure, and educates and empowers the noncommercial community to most effectively utilize the Internet. PIR was created by the Internet Society (ISOC). ISOC is a not-for-profit, open membership organization founded in 1991 and is dedicated to ensuring the open evolution, development and use of the Internet for the benefit of all people. It provides leadership in the management of Internet related standards, policy developments and education. PIR is based in Reston, Virginia. Further information can be found at www.publicinterestregistry.org. Contact: Julie Williams jwilliams@isoc.org 703-326-9880, x111 or 703-402-6715 ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 07:42:56 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "XML Security", Blake Dournaee BKXMLSCR.RVW 20021003 "XML Security", Blake Dournaee, 2002, 0-07-219399-9, U$59.99 %A Blake Dournaee %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 2002 %G 0-07-219399-9 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$59.99 800-565-5758 fax: 905-430-5020 %O http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0072193999/robsladesinterne %P 379 p. %T "XML Security" Chapter one is an outline of the book. The differences between symmetric and asymmetric cryptography are given in chapter two, which provides a good treatment of the basics, although there are odd additions of extraneous details. The XML primer, in chapter three, follows the all-too-common practice of describing syntax rather than function, but the explanation of document parts is useful. The syntax of XML digital signatures, and a brief mention of canonicalization, makes up chapter four. Part two of the introduction to signatures is in chapter five, which concentrates on canonicalization, but does not present this important concept clearly. Chapter six provides some examples, although neither the problems nor the solutions are defined well. The elements of XML encryption are listed in chapter seven. Chapter eight is a promotion for an RSA product. The elements of the XML key management specifications are given in chapter nine. While the syntax of various XML operations is provided properly, the book fails to provide the newcomer to the field with any understanding of the uses or limitations of the XML security provisions. copyright Robert M. Slade, 2002 BKXMLSCR.RVW 20021003 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com Find book info victoria.tc.ca/techrev/ or sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade/ Upcoming (ISC) CISSP CBK review seminars (+1-888-333-4458): December 16, 2002 December 20, 2002 San Francisco, CA February 10, 2003 February 14, 2003 St. Louis, MO March 31, 2003 April 4, 2003 Indianapolis, IN ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Business Line vs Residential Line (in Kentucky) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 02:25:28 -0600 Organization: Wizard Information It was a dark and stormy night when e_quip@hotmail.com (Bob Travis) wrote: > I want it in my name so I can use the expense as a tax deduction > along with the money we pay for the expense of a home office. It's hard to imagine that the phone company will object to another phone line for your residence. After all, you're online a lot, and don't want to miss calls. IANAL, but would suggest that if you're writing checks (on your business account) to cover it, it is unlikely that it will ever be questioned, regardless of whose name it is in. And if it is, the tax people will probably accept your explanation if it's obvious that you do indeed have a business (you're filing business or self-employment taxes). ------------------------------ From: phil@mckerracher.org (Phil McKerracher) Subject: Re: Is There a Dial Helper For When We Travel? Date: 3 Dec 2002 02:52:45 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Gail M. Hall wrote in message news:: > ...Is there a dialer helper gizmo that a person could carry similar to a > palm-sized address-phonebook sort of thing where a person could enter > such numbers and then hold it up to the phone mouthpiece and press one > or two buttons and have it beep the tones into the telephone for us. Yes, see http://www.psion.com/computers/ but note that they will be discontinued sometime soon. There is a speaker on the back that tone dials any number from the address book. It's quite sophisticated in that if you tell it where you are it will add the proper dialling codes as well as a configurable prefix for an "outside line". It also knows about time zones, summer time, sunrise and sunset etc. You can synchronise it with Outlook. I have one of the earlier models (a 3c). Phil McKerracher www.mckerracher.org ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Visa, Mastercard Seen Foiling Rivals From: my_name@is.invalid Organization: Not Much Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 11:41:55 GMT In article , wrote: > In article , > wrote: >> In article , Thomas A. Horsley >> wrote: >> ...and even trying to disguise >> their debit cards so merchants couldn't tell them from credit >> cards. Just for curiosity, why should merchants be able to tell >> the difference? As long as they get their money, why do they >> care if the buyer uses a debit or a credit card? Because they >> *DON'T* 'get their money', not all of it, that is. Card issuers >> _charge_ those who accept cards for that 'convenience'. I speak >> as a merchant who _accepts_ credit-cards for payment, and there is >> a *significant* difference. The 'service charges' I have to pay on >> a transaction against a debit card are nearly *DOUBLE* those I pay >> for processing a real 'credit' card. >> VISA also has another 'wrinkle', the 'corporate' charge-card. This >> is a credit card that provides a number of 'enhanced' services to >> the card-holder -- 'classification' of expenses, mgmt summaries, >> etc. Unfortunately, the merchant who _accepts_ that card as payment >> for his services, *pays* for those services for the customer. I pay >> more than 30% _more_ for accepting a 'corporate' card than I do for >> accepting a regular card. And there is *ABSOLUTELY*NO*WAY* to >> determine in advance _which_ kind of a card it is. I don't know, >> and _can't_find_out_ what this transaction is going to cost, until >> *after* I've been charged for it. My clearinghouse has told me >> this, and VISA _itself_ has confirmed it. >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Anyway, who says they 'disguise' the >> cards? My card says rather plainly on it, 'Commerce Bank Check >> Card' although it does have a VISA logo on it, and the number >> sequence is a usual VISA type number: twelve digits beginning >> with '4'. >> If the card is not present, as in telephone or mail-order sales, or >> over the internet, for that matter, there is *NO*WAY* to determine >> which kind of a card it is. I take telephone orders -- I found out >> about this the "hard way". >> Note: for "card not present" transactions, VISA _could_ claim that >> =any= arbitrary transaction was a 'debit', or 'corporate' card, and >> the *merchant* CANNOT verify whether they're telling the truth or >> not. >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But as a merchant, I am sure you >> know quite well the costs involved in carrying your own paper >> ... in fact very few stores attempt to maintain their own credit >> departments any longer, much preferring to pass off the paperwork >> and risks to large creditors like Visa. And regards debit cards, >> would you rather have to collect on NSF checks all the time or have >> a guarentee from Visa for >some fee per item? PAT] > > As a matter of fact, we *do* run our own credit department as well. > We sell subscription-based services, so *everything* is on a credit > basis of one form or another. At present credit-card transactions > account for less than 5% of sales. Our 'internal' costs for > processing credit-card transactions are virtually identical with those > for 'payment by check'. *BEFORE* the credit-card processing charges > are figured in. This is, in large part, due to the nature of our > business, *and* to very sophisticated automation supporting the > credit/billing process. > It's interesting you should mention NSF checks -- we have had a > *single* instance of that (last week, actually), in the last 5+ years. > As to what I want, I want: > 1) the ability to _know_ what my costs are, *in*advance*, on any given > transaction. > 2) the ability to "audit" the accuracy of those costs, as assigned by > the Credit-Card issuer. > 3) *IF* the card _issuer_ is going to charge me *more* for handling > specific classes of their cards, I want to be able to pass that > surcharge through to the card *holder*. > "Surcharging" the *merchant* for handling debit-card transactions is > disingenious, at best. The 'risk' to the card issuer on such > transactions is *ZERO*. The issuer doesn't approve the transaction > until _after_ they have actually withdrawn the money from the > cardholder's account. They're _not_ 'advancing' the payment to the > merchant, there is *no* 'cost of carry'. > The reason for that additional charge is 'profiteering', pure and > simple. Since the payment _from_ the card-holder is immediate, they > don't have the chance to "get rich" off the finance charges imposed on > any 'unpaid balance'. So, they have to make money on the transaction > 'somewhere else'. > Similarly with the 'corporate' cards. The issuer provides a 'nice' > bundle of additional services to the cardholder. *Somebody* has to > pay for those 'extras'. What is the benefit _to_the_merchant_ of > those 'extras'?? Why should the _merchant_ who accepts the card get > stuck with that 'extra' cost? If the cardholder wants those services, > let the cardholder _pay_ for them. That *is* the 'fair' way to do > things. > I'm entirely willing to pay the 'base-level' transaction fees for > processing credit cards. I object _violently_ to being forced, > *involuntarily*, to pay for those "other" services, from which I > derive *NO* benefit. > Would you buy gasoline from a station that has an advertized price of > $1.69/gal, but charged you $1.69/gal, or $2.29/gal, or $3.17/gal, > *and* wouldn't tell you which price you were paying until AFTER you'd > filled your tank? That is *EXACTLY* the situation with > 'credit/corporate/debit' cards today. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One slight correction in what you say, > regards debit cards. The merchant does not get his money, nor does the > money come out of the card holder's account at the time approval is > given, but rather, when the *actual document* or magnetic tape entry > reaches the bank. You, sir, know not that of which you speak. As far as _today's_ world goes. The Fed Reserve 'clearing' system is no longer a 'one run a night' batch network. It's all OLTP-based now. > Sales authorization is given based on what the > account *looks like at the time of approval.* A sale could be approved > because there is money in the account or the sale is under the daily > limit for the customer. But before the merchant's paper gets to the > office, some other merchant slides in with a check the customer wrote > or gets his debit charges in first. He gets paid because there is > actual money in the account to pay him. Now your paper shows up a few > days later -- the account is devoid of money -- you still get paid > since sales authorization guarenteed you your money. Now the bank is > left holding the bag. I know you are probably saying why didn't the > bank put a 'hold' on the money you had been guarenteed. In some cases > they do, but usually they do not. It depends on the customer's > relationship with the bank in many cases. PAT] I don't submit _any_ paper, or mag tape to my credit-card clearinghouse. It is 100% 'on-line' real-time transaction processing. I have processed a debit card transaction at 8PM local time, and the corresponding funds were *IN* _my_ merchant deposit account at 9AM the *next* day. Credit-card charges are available to me, i.e. in my deposit account, as of the beginning of the 3rd day after the transaction. 'Paperless' EFT transactions now get handled a _lot_ faster than even a few years ago. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Ravings Organization: Not Much From: bonomi@c-ns (Robert Bonomi) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 12:18:57 GMT In article , Gary Novosielski wrote: > [PAT] wrote: >> Pope Gregory declared that henceforth the more modern Anglicized >> Easter holiday would be celebrated by the church (after all, why should >> the pagans get all the fun?) as a religious day, and that it would in >> fact be celebrated at Mass on the first Sunday following the New Moon >> in the Spring Equinox or Solstice, meaning it will always happen >> between March 22 and April 15, which was about when Goddess Oeaster >> would appear each year centuries before. > I think you'll find that Easter falls on the first Sunday following the > first *FULL* moon (not new moon) after the Spring equinox. More-or-less correct, *EXCEPT* that the actual phase of the the satellite orbiting the Earth has _NOTHING_ to do with it. And the range of dates is March 22 through April 25. Not April 15. There is the 'astronomical' full moon, and the 'liturgical' one. Easter is based on the date of the 'liturgical' full moon. The issue, and solutions thereunto, _predates_ Pope Gregory by more than a _thousand_ years. "Way back when", somebody in the Church did a set of calculation of when the Full Moon 'should' occur. Those calculations remain the *official* means of determining when any/all of the "movable feasts", of which Easter is the best known, occur. The 'gotcha' is that those calculations _do_not_ precisely match the real world. The gory details of the mechanics: 1) take what _century_ it is, i.e., year/100, 2) 'reduce' that number, modulo a constant (19) 3) use -that- number to select one of 7 look-up tables, 4) use the low two digits of the year to index into that selected look-up table. 5) the date listed is 'Easter' for that year. This is a modified form -- established by Vitorius of Aquitania in 457 A.D. at the request of the then Pope -- of the methodology first established by the Observatory at Alexandria, in accord with the declarations of the Council of Nicea, in 325 A.D. Which was called, among other reasons, to 'reconcile' several *different* and incompatable methodologies used by various factions of the Church. The tables were modified in 1582, when Pope Gregory XIII 'corrected' the Julian Calendar. "Everything" was moved by 10 days, to bring the Equinox back to March 21. *BUT* it was determined that Easter was 3 days off, and thus the correction for Easter was only _7_ days. ------------------------------ From: Manny Olds Subject: Re: Number Read Back Service Date: 3 Dec 2002 14:05:43 GMT Organization: Persiflage Press Ryan Nichols wrote: > I used to have a number that I could call to get the number I am > dialing on with my butt set while I am working in a comm room. I have > since lost that number; are there any others out there? I've thought > about ust calling SWBell and GTE and requesting the information > again. I'm needing one for AR and TX. I just call my own cell phone when I want to find that out. It has caller ID enabled as part of the service. Is there some reason that won't work for calls out of your comm room? Manny Olds (oldsma@pobox.com) Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA > is excellent discipline for an author to feel that he must say all > he has say in the fewest possible words, or his reader is sure to > skip them; and in the plainest possible words, or his reader will > certainly misunderstand them." -- Ruskin ------------------------------ From: Phil Earnhardt Subject: Re: Study: Car Call Value Equals Crash Cost Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:00:14 -0700 On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 01:05:55 -0500, Monty Solomon wrote: > Opponents of banning cell phone usage by drivers have cited studies > that showed the benefit of car calls outweighed the toll from such > accidents _ medical bills and property damage, for example. That's interesting. Since cell phone users derive this alleged economic benefit from using their phones while driving, would they be willing to bear the economic burden of increased accidents on the road allegedly caused by those phones? Would cell phone users be willing to pay a $500 fee if they were using their cell phone at the time of an accident? How about a flat fee for each activated cell phone in the US? How about a a per-minute usage charge? Or maybe charging users whenever their connection is handed off to a new cell -- when they're moving? No matter what system would be chosen. I'm certain the cellular community would balk at any such charges. phil ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 10:49:45 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On 2 Dec 2002 00:21:30 -0800, Dave Close wrote: > Joseph writes: >> Funny I can input +cc/area code/number on my mobile and all calls go >> through no matter where they are :) > What company? You really can dial 61 2 xxxx xxxx and reach a number in > Australia, not Minnesota? Do you mean you can actually dial 011 61 2 > xxxx xxxx and get Australia? Then can you dial 011 1 612 xxx xxxx and > get Minnesota? I didn't think so. > Dialing +1 612 xxx xxxx means an actual dial string of 011 1 612 ... > It shouldn't mean you ignore the + just because the call is NANP. That > would mean that you can't always dial the same sequence everywhere. If you look at the original post it says "input +cc/area code/number" and that is literally what I enter and it will work to any area and from any area. I can dial +12063549999, 12063549999, 2063549999 or 3549999 and all will work. + followed by country code/area code/number will *always* work or at least it always will with GSM. I can *always* dial the same sequence everywhere if I know the country code and area code used. It makes for easy uniform dialing with less possible errors in dialing and not having to learn what the local dialing procedures and patterns are as the default +cc/ac/number will always work. Another standardization that is made with GSM. Unrelated, but it's also interesting that I can be roaming far from my home area and if I dial 7 digits I will connect to any number in my local 7 digit calling area. Replies are seldom read. Please reply in the group [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My Nokia 5165 phone does the same thing; dial only seven digits and the phone defaults to ten full digits. That's only the software in the phone doing that. Whatever is considered your 'home' area code is what the Nokia will plug in for the first three digits if it only recieves seven digits in dialing. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Colum Mylod Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 13:38:40 +0000 Organization: Me own Reply-To: cmylod-deleteme@bigfoot.com On 2 Dec 2002 00:21:30 -0800, Dave Close wrote: > Joseph writes: >> Funny I can input +cc/area code/number on my mobile and all calls go >> through no matter where they are :) > What company? You really can dial 61 2 xxxx xxxx and reach a number in > Australia, not Minnesota? Do you mean you can actually dial 011 61 2 > xxxx xxxx and get Australia? Then can you dial 011 1 612 xxx xxxx and > get Minnesota? I didn't think so. > Dialing +1 612 xxx xxxx means an actual dial string of 011 1 612 ... Not so. + tells the phone to send the number flagged as international format, not to substitute IDD prefix for the +. Otherwise world travellers would not be able to use their phone's stored numbers in NANP. For example in Europe 00 CC will not connect on a POTS line if in the same country as the CC specified but with a GSM handset +CC will connect ok. Headers spam-proofed. Use cmylod at bigfoot . com ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 13:34:56 -0700 Subject: Copyright (C) 2000, Me Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:16:51 EST, JDS wrote: > Downloading music isn't necessarily a crime. Under even the most > limited interpretation of "fair use", ownership of a physical > "official" medium gives an unlimited perpetual license to the personal > enjoyment of its contents. It can be copied to a cassette or an MP3 > player or ripped onto a computer, to be used in a car, a gym, or at a > desk. Furthermore, CD ownership confers the right to download > portions for use at the owner's convenience. That final sentence is, alas, incorrect - even though it shouldn't be. Under current fair use doctrine, it is legal for you to make a copy, for your own personal use and not to give away or sell or otherwise distribute, of YOUR OWN legally-purchased CD. It is *NOT* legal for you to download somebody else's MP3 of a song EVEN IF you do own a legally-purchased copy of the disc it came on. It's a fine distinction but there's no question that it exists. I'm just playin' devil's advocate. I agree completely with John Higdon's views on the RIAA - if they'd give the public what it WANTS, they'd make money hand over fist. Bottled-water companies make a mint selling a product that's freely available just about anywhere. Telling me that I can't download an MP3 version of a song I've already paid for is just plain ludicrous - nevertheless, they do have that right. What they CAN do and what they SHOULD do (with that right) are two different things. Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com ------------------------------ Subject: Is Share Day Message Spam Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 15:17:19 EST From: Name Blocked by Moderator [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This message came in over the weekend. I have deliberatly removed the name because I see no reason to possibly cause the person to receive hate mail or more spam, etc. My response follows. PAT] You write in comp.dcom.telecom, in article , > Its that time of the month again (the last day of the month and the > first day of the new month) that I use to ask you to please, kindly > remember TELECOM Digest and my expenses ... And in article : > Its that time of the month again (the last day of the month and the > first day of the new month) that I use to ask you to please, kindly > remember TELECOM Digest and my expenses ... And in article : > Its that time of the month again (the last day of the month and the > first day of the new month) that I use to ask you to please, kindly > remember TELECOM Digest and my expenses ... Would you please stop spamming your own newsgroup! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's the first time I have ever received a message quite like that. The message was signed; the person did not say to make it anonymous, but as I think about it now, maybe it is the consensus of many of you, so think that one of YOUR friends wrote it. In a make-believe world, I wish it was not necessary to 'spam my own newsgroup'. In the same make-believe world it would not be required for PBS Radio/TV to give commercials about themselves. I do not loan out my now considerable mailing list or allow people to copy from it. (Should I start?) I do not accept other than *very low key* advertising on the web site (no banner ads, no double-click pop up windows; no diagnosing what causes your personal pleasure to happen and focusing advertising messages at you accordingly. (Should I start?) No wholesale spamming in any newsgroup or e-journal under my control. (Should I start?) At the same time, I like to eat dinner at night, and have a warm house to live in. There is not enough time in a day, nor energy, to put out this Digest and maintain the web site AND work 8-10 hours per day at a 'regular' job. (Should I quit the Digest and work instead?) All the above are characteristics of this make-believe world. I thought (still think) a reasonable compromise is to take one or two days per month and run a single message in each of them discussing these things. The last day of the month and/or the first day of the next month is a good, reliable, steady time to do this. You get several hundred messages in a month's time -- about 50-60 issues of the Digest -- with all of about three or four 'reminder' messages. I do admit to writing one message each month, and using it on the three or four times cut and paste (on that last day/first day formula) on a repeating basis. If that is 'spamming my own newsgroup', then I must apologize. If you are still reading this Digest, then I assume you like to read it. I do not have it exclusively on a web page and then proceed to lock up your browser so you cannot leave without going through several screens of spam and advertising. But here in Real World, where I live, it is necessary to survive the best you can while attempting to be of service in the community as best you can. I would like to entertain a discussion here if anyone wants to have one. I am not saying I will do anything other than view the entire thing with some displeasure and lots of disdain, but I will view it and take suggestions. Bear in mind since my deseased brain took over my life now more than two years ago, I have not had any 'regular' full time employment; I get a small pittance from Uncle Sugar in the Social Security Disability Program (Title 2 money) to live on. Now the floor is yours, again. If the person who wrote the original message to me wants me to sign it, they can send email and say so, and I will. 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: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 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. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #164 ****************************** NOTE: A misnumbered issue follows, call it 164-A or 165-A and after this misnumbered issue will come the real 165. From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Dec 4 02:20:41 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gB47Kfb18034; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 02:20:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 02:20:41 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212040720.gB47Kfb18034@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 #164 (really 165, a misnumbered special issue) TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 Dec 2002 02:20:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 165 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Crescent Teams With IBM To Provide Electronic Messenger (Eworldwire) Re: Cell Phone Dialing, was 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ (John R. Levine) Re: Business Line vs Residential Line (in Kentucky) (Dave Garland) Re: Copyright (C) 2000, Me (Greg Hennessy) Re: Copyright (C) 2000, Me (SELLCOM Tech support) More Copyright Idiocy (Joey Lindstrom) Carrier Lookup (John Swein) Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender (John Higdon) What *is* a "Domain Name"? (AES/newspost) Re: Debit Cards (J Kelly) Allegiance Telecom - Los Angeles ... (Mike Vandemore) Last of the Ravings! (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: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 21:24:12 -0500 From: Eworldwire Subject: Crescent Teams With IBM To Provide Electronic Messenger Service Crescent Teams With IBM To Provide Secure Electronic Messenger Service To Health Care Industry Houston, TX/EWORLDWIRE/December 3, 2002 --- Crescent Communications Inc. (OTCBB:CCES), a leading application service provider (ASP), announced today that its BLUEGATE(TM) health care division has partnered with IBM® (NYSE:IBM) to integrate IBM Sametime® and BLUEGATE, the Crescent information technology solution for the health care industry. The offering will be called BLUEGATE Consult(TM), declares Crescent Chief Executive Officer Manfred Sternberg. Sametime - a proprietary and secure instant messaging, conferencing and meeting solution - is the most widely used product of its kind in the corporate world. BLUEGATE Consult provides stable and improved security features, allowing medical providers to communicate sensitive patient information electronically, instantly. BLUEGATE Consult is part of the more complete BLUEGATE solution that enables physicians to become more efficient by using sound, secure technology while meeting emerging requirements from the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). HIPAA, passed by U.S. Congress, mandates that the entire U.S. health care industry process all health care information, including billing and record storage, through a secure data interchange beginning on April 14, 2003. BLUEGATE provides a cost-effective, efficient way for hospitals, large clinics, regional laboratories and health plans to transmit confidential patient records, documents and other information across the Internet to physicians and patients. "Think about it: Why shouldn't the health care industry enjoy information technology at the level corporate America has for the last decade?" Sternberg asks. "Many large corporations have constructed complex networks to bring people together from different geographic locations, with important ideas and critical business information." "We're happy to see Crescent include a real-time collaboration product into its BLUEGATE health care solution," says David Pumpa, manager of IBM Worldwide Technology Partner Sales. "With IBM Sametime, doors will be opened to instantaneous, live communication. Between doctors, nurses and pharmacists, communications can be streamlined and improved dramatically with this tool." International Data Corp. (IDC), a Framingham, Mass., market-research firm, says that by the end of last year, 20 million people were using instant messaging in business. IDC predicts that figure will rise to 300 million by the end of 2005. "IM products are used by medical professionals in hospitals, clinics and trauma centers where real-time information flow can be critical," Robert Mahowald of IDC says. "In order to comply with HIPPA requirements, hospitals will look for secure messaging products in the near-term." With BLUEGATE Consult, physicians have another medium to consult efficiently with their colleagues. IBM Corp. is the world's largest information technology company, with 80 years of leadership in helping businesses innovate. IBM Software offers a wide range of middleware and operating systems for all types of computing platforms, allowing customers to take full advantage of the new era of e-business. Based in Houston, Crescent Communications provides a value added network (VAN) focused on small-business and enterprise-level market segments. Crescent builds industry-specific, end-to-end solutions for such vertical markets as medical, high-end graphics and printing, legal and financial. Using several regional and national carriers, Crescent offers wireless, digital subscriber line (DSL) and traditional communication technologies. Crescent delivers virtual private networks (VPNs), application and Web hosting services, as well as managed firewall services from its ATM core fiber backbone network. For more information, visit http://www.crescentb.com. Contained within are "forward-looking statements" consistent with the meaning of Section 27a of the Securities Acts of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, it can give no assurance that such expectations will prove correct. Following are trademarks or registered trademarks of International Business Machines Corporation in the United States and/or other Countries: IBM, Lotus Sametime and Lotus SmartSuite. HTML: http://www.eworldwire.com/wr/120302/crescentb.htm ONLINE NEWSROOM: http://www.eworldwire.com/profile/crescentb.htm LOGO: http://www.eworldwire.com/profile/crescentb.htm CONTACT: Ryan Bishop dLG Public Relations PHONE: 713.622.8818 EMAIL: ryanb@delagarza-pr.com Manfred Sternberg Crescent Communications PHONE: 713.682.7400 EMAIL: msternberg@crescentb.com URL: http://www.crescentb.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 ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Cell Phone Dialing, was 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ Date: 3 Dec 2002 21:40:02 -0500 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I can dial +12063549999, 12063549999, 2063549999 or 3549999 and all > will work. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My Nokia 5165 phone does the same > thing; dial only seven digits and the phone defaults to ten full > digits. That's only the software in the phone doing that. No, that's the cell carrier's switch interpreting 7D numbers as being in your own area code, just like POTS switches do. I also have a 5165 with service from Cingular, and although 7D calls work fine when I'm on my home system, they don't work when roaming. The phone just sends the digits you dial or that are retrieve from the phone book. GSM phones have a plus button that let you do consistent worldwide dialing, but North American AMPS, TDMA, and CDMA phones don'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 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Begging pardon ... when I got my *first* Nokia 5165 I was staying in Chicago, IL during the absolutely horrid winter of 2000-01. Mike Sandman got it turned on for me, in his suburban town located in area *630* for Roselle, IL. I programmed it with the seven digit number for Mike's office, 980-xxxx. When I moved here to Independence in December, 2001, I brought the phone along and used it frequently on the Greyhound/Jefferson Lines busses to get here. It got Mike okay *as speed dialed from the memory of the phone* (seven digits). When I got here, it continued to work *as programmed in memory with seven digits* even though AT&T has no specific service in Independence. (It always would roam off of Dobson Cell Towers in Liberty, Kansas; a 'Cellular One' operation). Mike found out that AT&T *absolutely hates* to give away anything, so they locked me on their tower as long as possible out of Tulsa (and once I got here in Indy) as long as they could. It was only when the signal got to be so awful and they could not hold it any longer they would pass it off to the nearest Cellular One outfit. This is quite beside the point, but once I switched to Cingular, the signal shot through the roof, literally, sitting in the same chair on my same back porch. Cingular had a large pile of cellular phones in their storefront window on Penn Street downtown here, so when I went in to see about getting my Nokia 5165 converted over to them (saving the expense of a new contract, etc) the lady took one look at it, clucked her tongue and said, "AT&T has their phones locked up with firmware inside. We cannot convert them to Cingular." Still having some memories of Chicago, IL in my mind, I thought maybe she was umm, lying to me. But a stop at Dobson's Cell One around the corner brought me the same answer. They also deal with Nokia 5165 by the truckful. Radio Shack up the street (he brokers Alltel but will turn on any phone he can and put them on Alltel) had the same answer. George, the company man from Alltel in the kiosk at Walmart Supercenter told me the same thing, with some choice words about AT&T and how they lock their cellular customers in and 'fix' the phone so no one else can 'use' it later. United States Cellular's agent downtown said the same thing: In all respects, it is Nokia 5165, but do not try to use it anywhere but AT&T. If you get rid of AT&T because you do not like them for some reason, you may as well throw the phone away. Just get used to having AT&T try to handle your call from a tower in Tulsa whenever possible, or get a half-baked signal using Dobson Cell One. That's how AT&T does it. Again, I am digressing ... all during the above paragraph as I stuggled with my AT&T service here in Independence, I *was* able to speed dial Mike's seven digit number, because the phone *thought* it was a 630 area phone. I finally got a new Cingular Wireless account with a new Nokia 5165. Seated side by side, I would see two identical phones, one with the 'extended area' screen from AT&T and the signal strengh barely moving. The Cingular phone on the other hand was always lively on its signal. I am certain they had to be going from the same tower, southeast of town in Liberty, Kansas, on Dobson Cell Towers. Mike had my AT&T account stopped (he called me one day and said would I please turn the old Nokia off for a minute; they want to kill it and can't as long as it is turned on). I turned it off, then back on to reregister the signal, and there wasn't any service on it any longer. Since I do not have reason to use AT&T that often any longer, and not willing to toss away a perfectly good phone, I had it put on AT&T 'Free to Go' prepaid service with a Wichita, Kansas 316 number for the calls now and then I do not want to have related to my own personal phone lines. No John, I am certain the Nokia 5165 allows seven digit dialing to what it considers its 'home area code'. You see when I first got here in Independence I kept the 630 number Mike had put on it to start with. It continued to do seven digit dialing to Mike's office all that time. I guess I mentioned how Cingular Wireless had all their local Independence customers on 620-870, a 'wide area toll free local calling' exchange at first. Then quite innocently they decided to kill the deal they had with Southwestern Bell for that exchange but only tell the customers who specifically asked about it. They moved me over to 620-330 (local Independence cellular service) last week but left it up to me to get SWB to reroute my call forwarding on busy/ no answer to the new number which *finally* took place just today. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Business Line vs Residential Line (in Kentucky) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 21:45:54 -0600 Organization: Wizard Information It was a dark and stormy night when Ed Ellers wrote: > ISTR reading somewhere that you can't even deduct a business line if > it's the only line coming into a residence. A quick google search yields many hits: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/biz/tax/20011022a.asp The IRS assumes that you will have a phone in your house anyway, so Zobel cautions that regular fees and charges don't count towards your deduction. But if you have a second line installed and use it only for business, 100 percent of these costs are deductible. http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/chi-0202010344feb01,0,993350.story 100 percent of some home-business expenses are deductible. For example, you can deduct all of your home-business telephone expenses. I have never seen any indication that the IRS cares how the phone is listed with the telco, so long as you can reasonably show that it is used for your business and not for personal use. ------------------------------ From: greg.hennessy@cox.net (Greg Hennessy) Subject: Re: Copyright (C) 2000, Me Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 23:35:05 +0000 (UTC) Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Reply-To: greg.hennessy@cox.net In article , Joey Lindstrom wrote: > That final sentence is, alas, incorrect - even though it shouldn't be. > Under current fair use doctrine, it is legal for you to make a copy, > for your own personal use and not to give away or sell or otherwise > distribute, of YOUR OWN legally-purchased CD. It is *NOT* legal for > you to download somebody else's MP3 of a song EVEN IF you do own a > legally-purchased copy of the disc it came on. What court has ruled upon this point? ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Copyright (C) 2000, Me Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 00:44:04 GMT I'm not sure you realized what you were doing but you have just given the copyright of your name and all of the messages in this thread to Bill Gates because of his registered trademark of Windows "Me". Please be prepared to move to Washington state and turn yourself in. - Sorry. Joey Lindstrom posted on that vast internet thingie: > On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:16:51 EST, JDS wrote: >> Downloading music isn't necessarily a crime. Under even the most >> limited interpretation of "fair use", ownership of a physical >> "official" medium gives an unlimited perpetual license to the personal >> enjoyment of its contents. It can be copied to a cassette or an MP3 >> player or ripped onto a computer, to be used in a car, a gym, or at a >> desk. Furthermore, CD ownership confers the right to download >> portions for use at the owner's convenience. > That final sentence is, alas, incorrect - even though it shouldn't be. > Under current fair use doctrine, it is legal for you to make a copy, > for your own personal use and not to give away or sell or otherwise > distribute, of YOUR OWN legally-purchased CD. It is *NOT* legal for > you to download somebody else's MP3 of a song EVEN IF you do own a > legally-purchased copy of the disc it came on. It's a fine distinction > but there's no question that it exists. > I'm just playin' devil's advocate. I agree completely with John > Higdon's views on the RIAA - if they'd give the public what it WANTS, > they'd make money hand over fist. Bottled-water companies make a mint > selling a product that's freely available just about anywhere. > Telling me that I can't download an MP3 version of a song I've already > paid for is just plain ludicrous - nevertheless, they do have that > right. What they CAN do and what they SHOULD do (with that right) are > two different things. > Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring > joey@lairdsflooring.com http://www.sellcom.com Discount multihandset cordless phones by Siemens, Vtech 5.8Ghz EnGenius NEW EP436 4line (the longest range), Panasonic, Twinhead notebooks, WatchGuard firewall, Okidata, Polycom! If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz you owe it to yourself. ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 14:38:39 -0700 Subject: More Copyright Idiocy Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com Finnish Taxi Drivers To Pay Royalties For Backseat Music Finland's Supreme Court has ruled taxi drivers must pay royalty fees if they play music in their car while a customer is in the backseat. The order even applies to the radio. http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_721008.html Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com ------------------------------ From: johnswein@yahoo.com (John Swein) Subject: Carrier Lookup Date: 3 Dec 2002 14:39:46 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Is there any way to find the name of a wireless carrier given a phone number? In the US? In the UK? Thanks! ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: RIAA Orders US Navy to Surrender Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 15:30:52 -0800 In article , David Clayton wrote: > For many artists not signed up to major record companies you can > bypass the companies entirely and purchase directly from the artist's > web sites or from independent distributors. > Not a big market yet, but hopefully it will grow and weaken the > fanatical grip the "majors" have on recorded music all over the > western world. This is exactly what scares the RIAA the most, and is the reason the organization is desperately trying to eliminate or cripple digital technology. It isn't copying that worries the record companies; it is the ultimate bypass that the web offers to budding artists ... who won't have to turn over the bulk of their earnings to the cigar-smoking gents in the plush offices anymore. If the RIAA revealed the true motivation behind its attack on web-distributed digital technology, the public would tell them where to put it ... and they know it. So instead, they harp on "copyright infringement" as the cause celebre, which, as we have seen in this very forum, comes off to many as a righteous quest. But time may be running out. More and more people are waking up to the real intent behind this War on Customers. Many artists are as well. In article , John David Galt wrote: > I agree. And more to the point, as Mariah Carey and others have > pointed out, the actual artists see little or nothing from album > purchases anyway -- the labels take pretty much everything. No less august figure than Billy Joel, on international television, suggested to his audience that they obtain one of his early albums (or at least copies of the songs thereon) "for free, if possible" since he would never see another dime from the album. You could have knocked me over with a feather when he said that; it was a very powerful statement. > Thus the moral high ground that the record companies claim to be > arguing from is phony from the get-go. (And quite a few new artists > have taken to distributing their own material on the net rather than > sell their souls to the record companies. Maybe the real purpose of > RIAA's campaign against music-sharing sites is to make it impossible > for artists to compete against them in this way.) Do you really think, maybe??? Give that man a cigar! 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, we have known for for quite a while now that this invention of Tim Berners-Lee would quite literally turn the world upside down. And, it has indeed done that. Its just too damn bad when he released the software code for 'the web' he did not tighten up the rules quite extensively. But then, back in the late 1980's and through the middle 1990's we were all sort of innocent weren't we? Tim B-L obviously had no desire to be known or thought of as a Hitler or some other dictator -- none of us did, but some of us chanced it a little to protect our products -- but just think of the entirely different net we would have today if the ground rules had been different. PAT] ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: What *is* a "Domain Name"? Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 15:39:41 -0800 Subject line gives the basic question: What is a "domain name"? -- as a practical matter and also legally and for intellectual property purposes? For example: Is a domain name a domain name only if it's registered? Are all domain names registered? If it's not registered, is it not a domain name? Can intranets have "effective internal domain names" that are not "real Internet-wide domain names"? Must you register a domain name to get it into domain name servers all around the internet? Are a domain name and a URL equivalent? In some URL like http://www.xxx.yyy.org/more.stuff/still.more.stuff" where "www.xxx.yyy.org " has been properly registered, is the domain name only the part up to the "org"? -- or more generally, does the domain name extend only up to the first single slash in any URL? Is any remaining stuff within successive slashes more properly referred to as a "page", within a "web site" or "domain"? Do all domain names start with "www"? Do they all have to end with a final ".xxx" that comes from a certain fixed list of terms, e.g. ".org", ".com", or "dot some country code"? My university (www.stanford.edu) seems to set up a lot of sites -- or pages? -- that have a syntax like "xxxx.stanford.edu", e.g. "bookstore.stanford.edu", "library.stanford.edu", etc. Do these have to be individually registered? Or can anyone who has a domain "www.yyy.zzz" automatically add things like "newstuff.yyy.zzz"? (Or is this maybe something Stanford is doing within its internal domain, and it's not visible to the outside world?) How far into this whole mess do intellectual property rights -- trademarks, copyrights -- extend? Do trademark and copyright concerns extend with equal force to an entire URL? Or only the domain name part of a URL? And I suppose what I might have asked first of all: Are there some good URLs -- or domains! -- where one can get understandable info on queries like these? "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton (1834-1902) "Dependence on advertising tends to corrupt. Total dependence on advertising corrupts totally." (today's equivalent) ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: Debit Cards Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 18:54:07 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com On Sun, 1 Dec 2002 02:14:09 -0500 (EST), editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One slight correction in what you say, >> regards debit cards. The merchant does not get his money, nor does the >> money come out of the card holder's account at the time approval is >> given, but rather, when the *actual document* or magnetic tape entry >> reaches the bank. If this is true, why can I buy something on my debit card, then 5 minutes later log into online banking and see the transaction on my account and that the money has been debited? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Because your bank places a hold on the funds. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mikev@datagenics.com (Mike Vandemore) Subject: Allegiance Telecom - Los Angeles ... Date: 3 Dec 2002 17:38:18 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Anyone have a recent experiences with Allegiance Telecom in general and the Los Angeles (North Hollywood) area in particular. Their pricing is very attractive and we are considering rolling voice / data into one T1 connection to get more internet bandwidth and save a few bucks. I saw some negative comments when I searched cdt newgroup history but then again who posts when everything is working great? Any comments would be appreciated. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Last of the Ravings Organization: Not Much From: editor@telecom-digest.org (TELECOM Digest Editor) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 00:00:00 EST This entire thread has been OT, but it has been fun to say the least. Either this query of mine will bring an end to the Ravings or else it will start them up again. > In article , Gary Novosielski > wrote: >> [PAT] wrote: >>> Pope Gregory declared that henceforth the more modern Anglicized >>> Easter holiday would be celebrated by the church (after all, why should >>> the pagans get all the fun?) as a religious day, and that it would in >>> fact be celebrated at Mass on the first Sunday following the New Moon >>> in the Spring Equinox or Solstice, meaning it will always happen >>> between March 22 and April 15, which was about when Goddess Oeaster >>> would appear each year centuries before. >> I think you'll find that Easter falls on the first Sunday following the >> first *FULL* moon (not new moon) after the Spring equinox. > More-or-less correct, *EXCEPT* that the actual phase of the the satellite > orbiting the Earth has _NOTHING_ to do with it. ... > "Way back when", somebody in the Church did a set of calculation of > when the Full Moon 'should' occur. Those calculations remain the > *official* means of determining when any/all of the "movable feasts", > of which Easter is the best known, occur. The 'gotcha' is that those > calculations _do_not_ precisely match the real world. > The gory details of the mechanics: (deleted) > This is a modified form -- established by Vitorius of Aquitania in 457 > A.D. at the request of the then Pope -- of the methodology first > established by the Observatory at Alexandria, in accord with the > declarations of the Council of Nicea, in 325 A.D. Which was called, > among other reasons, to 'reconcile' several *different* and > incompatable methodologies used by various factions of the Church. > The tables were modified in 1582, when Pope Gregory XIII 'corrected' > the Julian Calendar. "Everything" was moved by 10 days, to bring the > Equinox back to March 21. *BUT* it was determined that Easter was 3 > days off, and thus the correction for Easter was only _7_ days. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the one main purpose of the Council of Nicea (which brought together the bishops of the church) under Pope Saint Sylvester in 325 AD was to test the canonicity of the scriptures, in the format they were known at the time, and to ultimatly close the Canon against further rewrites, etc. I know there was much discussion about what was to be considered apocryphal in nature, and what was to be considered "God's Word". (What we are talking about is 'when was the Bible considered written?') I thought that was the purpose of Nicea, to establish that the Bible was 'written' in its present structure, and the Canon closed against any further rewrites in 325 AD, when the finished work had been debated sufficiently and handed over to Pope Saint Sylvester. I did not know the council had all that other administrivia in the process. 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: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 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. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #165 (Misnumbered special issue between 164/165) ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Dec 4 22:08:47 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gB538lx01471; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 22:08:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 22:08:47 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212050308.gB538lx01471@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 #165 TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 Dec 2002 21:09:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 165 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Number Read Back Service (dold@72.usenet.us.com) Re: Cell Phone Dialing, was 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ (Ed Ellers) Re: Cell Phone Dialing, was 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ (John R. Levine) Re: Cell Phone Dialing, was 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ (Joseph) Can We Measure Efficiency in SMS Protocols/Implementations? (A. Horowitz) Telemarketer Counter Script... (Darryl Smith) Re: What *is* a "Domain Name"? (Robert Bonomi) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (Phil McKerracher) Re: Cellular Calls and Other Distractions While Driving (Robert Cywinski) Thanksgiving (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Needed Feature For Answering Machine? (Aaron Epstein) Re: Step by Steppin' (Jim Haynes) 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: dold@72.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Number Read Back Service Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 05:18:18 UTC Organization: a2i network Manny Olds wrote: > I just call my own cell phone when I want to find that out. It has caller > ID enabled as part of the service. Is there some reason that won't work > for calls out of your comm room? Two reasons: The cell phone doesn't work in that location. Lines that don't present CID for various reasons, always present ANI. Maybe not the ANI you want, but an ANI. John Higdon wrote: > Just to be clear, I'm not withholding the number to be a pill. It is > just that I lack the resources the subsidize a public number readback I didn't mean you were being "cheap". There's a reason why all of those readback numbers keep getting shut off. Even if that 800 number terminates on your switch via direct access, it still costs some not-inconsequential amount per call, especially if you don't have payphones blocked. I miss the ANI-800 that I used to have, and I only "shared" that number with one person from this group. Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is almost impossible -- for I think what should be obvious reasons -- to print an 800 number in this Digest for people to use. Considering my own posture for example on spammers and toll free numbers, I'd be a fool to print my own 800 number here, as would John or most anyone else. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Cell Phone Dialing, was 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 02:40:19 -0500 John R. Levine wrote: > GSM phones have a plus button that let you do consistent worldwide > dialing, but North American AMPS, TDMA, and CDMA phones don't. The conventional GSM phones I've seen do + by having you hold down the 0 key until the + appears. PAT, the TELECOM Digest editor, replied: > No John, I am certain the Nokia 5165 allows seven digit dialing to > what it considers its 'home area code'. I expect it would. Another "phone" that does is the Handspring VisorPhone, and I suspect the Treo communicators do as well. My old Mitsubishi G75 had a feature to prepend your preferred area code, but you have to turn it off manually to dial neither outside your NPA or a vertical service code such as 611 (502611 doesn't work worth squat :-). ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 2002 11:20:18 -0500 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Cell Phone Dialing, was 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Begging pardon ... when I got my > *first* Nokia 5165 I was staying in Chicago, IL during the absolutely > horrid winter of 2000-01. Mike Sandman got it turned on for me, in > his suburban town located in area *630* for Roselle, IL. I wasn't clear -- home cellular system, not home area code. Most of my home cell system is in ac 315 although I'm in 607, and seven digit dialing to 607 works on the whole area. > It got Mike okay *as speed dialed from the memory of the > phone* (seven digits). Most peculiar. Mine doesn't do that. > AT&T has their phones locked up with firmware inside. We cannot > convert them to Cingular. She's right. Cingular phones don't work on AT&T either, different software. They're all programmed to use their preferred carrier if possible, even if there's a stronger signal from someone else. > No John, I am certain the Nokia 5165 allows seven digit dialing to > what it considers its 'home area code'. Honest, mine doesn't. Maybe it's AT&T software. 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 Subject: Re: Cell Phone Dialing, was 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 14:56:30 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On 3 Dec 2002 21:40:02 -0500, johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: >> I can dial +12063549999, 12063549999, 2063549999 or 3549999 and all >> will work. >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My Nokia 5165 phone does the same >> thing; dial only seven digits and the phone defaults to ten full >> digits. That's only the software in the phone doing that. > No, that's the cell carrier's switch interpreting 7D numbers as being > in your own area code, just like POTS switches do. I also have a 5165 > with service from Cingular, and although 7D calls work fine when I'm > on my home system, they don't work when roaming. The phone just sends > the digits you dial or that are retrieve from the phone book. I'm not sure whether this is a GSM "thing" or not, but I can be in Amsterdam with my SIM from my US T-Mobile account and put the SIM into a GSM 900/1800 phone and dial just seven digits and the call will complete to a local number in Seattle as if I was back in Seattle, Washington in the US. This seems to contradict that it is the "phone" that is storing the ability to do my local dialing procedure. I can also while overseas use "local rules" to dial local numbers there e.g. in Amsterdam I can dial 020-31 NX NXXXXX and calls will complete or I can always use the +31NX NXXXXXX to dial. Replies are seldom read. Please reply in the group ------------------------------ From: alanh_27@yahoo.com (Alan Horowitz) Subject: Can We Measure "efficiency" in SMS Protocols/Implementations? Date: 4 Dec 2002 02:45:22 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I guess you folks in North America view SMS as a dog, in Dr. Johnson's words, that is walking on its rear legs: it's so amusing, so not-part-of-the-main-gig of voice service of mobile comms, that we don't bother critically judging it. That is not true out here where the rubber meets the road of Asia. That includes places like Singapore that are nicer to live in, than North America; and places that are shit-hole Third World. First: how do we define "efficiency in useage of scarce resources" of SMS implementations? Bandwidth, transmit power (some sites need to be solar/windmill-powered), fone-battery power, time that a channel is tied up, etc. Second: where to read up on the issues? Third: who *is* the "most" efficient? specify your metric. ------------------------------ From: Darryl Smith Subject: Telemarketer Counter Script Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 23:13:16 +1100 Pat, Have a read of it. It is REALLY good Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au To: Applix List Subject: APPLIX-L Bothered by tele-marketers? Summary: they work from a script, so here's how you can de-rail them: http://www.xs4all.nl/~egbg/counterscript.html I practically fell out of my chair when I got to the toothpaste question! Dave Applix 1616 mailing list Applix-L@object-craft.com.au https://www.object-craft.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/applix-l ------------------------------ Subject: Re: What *is* a "Domain Name"? Organization: Not Much From: bonomi@c-ns (Robert Bonomi) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 12:33:00 GMT In article , AES/newspost wrote: > Subject line gives the basic question: What is a "domain name"? -- as > a practical matter and also legally and for intellectual property > purposes? A 'domain name' is something that can be looked up via 'DNS', the "Domain Name Service". > For example: > Is a domain name a domain name only if it's registered? If DNS admits it exists, it is a domain name. If not, it's not. > Are all domain names registered? At a minimum, it must be registered/recorded with the local DNS server. > If it's not registered, is it not a domain name? If DNS doesn't know about it, it's not usable. > Can intranets have "effective internal domain names" that are > not "real Internet-wide domain names"? Absolutely, although it is a BAD IDEA(tm) > Must you register a domain name to get it into domain name servers all > around the internet? Yes. > Are a domain name and a URL equivalent? NO. Some types of URL _may_ contain a domain-name as part of the locater. > In some URL like > http://www.xxx.yyy.org/more.stuff/still.more.stuff" > where "www.xxx.yyy.org " has been properly registered, is the domain > name only the part up to the "org"? -- or more generally, does the > domain name extend only up to the first single slash in any URL? NO. Format of the 'rest' of the URL depends *entirely* on the 'protocol' used. which may, or may not, include a domain name, either as part of a hostname, or otherwise. > Is any remaining stuff within successive slashes more properly referred > to as a "page", within a "web site" or "domain"? NO. everything after the ':' is the "path" to the resource. How the path is interpreted is dependant -totally- on the 'protocol' specified in the URL. > Do all domain names start with "www"? no. > Do they all have to end with a final ".xxx" that comes from a certain > fixed list of terms, e.g. ".org", ".com", or "dot some country code"? All _publicly_recognized_ domain names are part of a hierarchical system consisting of a LIMITED SET of 'top level domains'. There are, currently, 9 TLDs recognized, above and beyond the two-letter 'national', or 'country code' domains.' > My university (www.stanford.edu) seems to set up a lot of sites -- or > pages? -- that have a syntax like "xxxx.stanford.edu", e.g. > "bookstore.stanford.edu", "library.stanford.edu", etc. Do these have to > be individually registered? Or can anyone who has a domain > "www.yyy.zzz" automatically add things like "newstuff.yyy.zzz"? (Or is > this maybe something Stanford is doing within its internal domain, and > it's not visible to the outside world?) Posession of a domain (name) allows one to create _anything_ that falls _under_/_below_ that domain. If you 'own' "foo.bar", you can create "www.foo.bar", "baz.foo.bar", "info.foo.bar", etc., ad nauseum. All that is necessary is to put that information into _your_ DNS server -- the one the public consults to find out about 'anything' in the 'foo.bar' domain. > How far into this whole mess do intellectual property rights -- > trademarks, copyrights -- extend? Do trademark > and copyright concerns extend with equal force to an entire URL? Or > only the domain name part of a URL? A URL is -not- copyrightable. Does not meet the 'creative effort' requirement. A domain name is -not- copyrightable. Too 'small' to be considered a 'work'. Trademark _can_ apply to a domain name. Depends on the name. In some cases, there *might* be a trademark issue with regard to other elements of a URL 'path'. > And I suppose what I might have asked first of all: Are there some >good URLs -- or domains! -- where one can get understandable info > on queries like these? For domain names, You can find the gory 'mechanical' details in the documents that define the DNS system. RFC 1034, RFC 1035, RFC 1101, RFC 1591. direct pointer to non-technical discussion: For URLs, what they mean, how to contstruct/interpret, etc. see RFC 1736, RFC 1737, RFC 1738, RFC 1808, RFC 2368, RFC 2396 ALL existent RFCs are available at ------------------------------ From: phil@mckerracher.org (Phil McKerracher) Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World Date: 4 Dec 2002 04:32:40 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Mark J Cuccia wrote in message news:: > ....Should the US/Canada (NANP) adopt 00+ for (sent-paid) IDDD (alongside > 011+) _JUST_ to "conform" to Europe (and most rest of the world) ????? > Absolutely _NOT_, and here's why ... > ..."The decision of which prefix to employ for [station-sent-paid] direct > dialing and which to use for operator-assisted dialing was based on > minimizing mis-dialing...[long rant snipped] A complete red herring, in my opinion. The chances of accidentally reaching a valid international number and incurring significant cost as a result of a "bouncing zero" or other misdial are tiny. > ...WHY SHOULD _WE_ change? I'm not asking Europe or other parts of the > World to change to NANP procedures, but WHY MAKE US change or modify > anything?... Typical American xenophobia, if I may say so. > Europeans (and other 00+ contries) visiting the NANP are not going to be > calling back home with 011+ anyhow... This claim is frankly ludicrous. From experience, using 011+ is the *usual* situation. Most such calls are made from hotel rooms or mobile phones (at extortionate expense) because it's convenient and private and the calls are only short or are paid for by the company. Or, in the American branch office of a company they are made from a colleague's phone. Only frequent travellers and heavy callers bother with calling cards and the like. > ... MOST of the [American] public really does NOT make calls > outside of the NANP... True, but that's no excuse for making things hard for travellers. And of course, it means that a change to the IDD code would not bother most Americans. > ...Europeans are more likely to place calls between countries... True, which is why we have sorted out our IDD and regard "fortress America" with such amusement! > ...ALL LD carriers or telcos, PBXes, cellulars, etc. for > "non-restricted-against-Intl" customers, would have to load their > switches with 00+ as an IDDD access alternative... Tricky, I admit! :-) Phil McKerracher www.mckerracher.org ------------------------------ Subject: Cellular Calls and Other Distractions While Driving Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 09:41:07 -0500 From: Cywinski, Robert There isn't much, if any, hoopla about people eating or smoking while driving. Although these two activities don't require much thought. Has there ever been a study about that? It is not likely that a person will put down a cell phone while negotiating a turn or backing out of a parking space. Personally, I do. I politely say "hang on a minute" and toss the phone on the passenger seat. Last week I was nearly run down in a parking lot by a person who had just backed out of a space and had the phone in one hand and was attempting to complete the turn with the other. Unfortunately, we can't have laws for people with no common sense and that's what it comes down to. I find it disturbing that someone did a study to find that the benefit of saved lives due to the availability of cell phones outweighs the death and destruction caused by people on the phone. Although I might agree that a fine of $500 or so for causing an accident because of a cell phone is justified, would this really deter usage? I think not. But, who knows? The law says we have to wear seat belts and I don't agree with that. It is a common sense decision for me to do so to protect myself. A police officer can stop and cite me for not having it on. However, not wearing it does not affect my driving. So should there be a law about the cell phones? I think this would fall under "reckless driving" because that's what it is. Let the cellular community balk about that. Phil Earnhardt wrote about: Re: Study: Car Call Value Equals Crash Cost On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 01:05:55 -0500, Monty Solomon wrote: > Opponents of banning cell phone usage by drivers have cited studies > that showed the benefit of car calls outweighed the toll from such > accidents _ medical bills and property damage, for example. That's interesting. Since cell phone users derive this alleged economic benefit from using their phones while driving, would they be willing to bear the economic burden of increased accidents on the road allegedly caused by those phones? Would cell phone users be willing to pay a $500 fee if they were using their cell phone at the time of an accident? How about a flat fee for each activated cell phone in the US? How about a a per-minute usage charge? Or maybe charging users whenever their connection is handed off to a new cell -- when they're moving? No matter what system would be chosen. I'm certain the cellular community would balk at any such charges. ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:41:16 -0700 Subject: Thanksgiving Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:36:57 EST, editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > Regards wags and British Thanksgiving and Fourth of July, I guess you > know what certain Indian tribes in the USA call 'Thanksgiving Day'. > They refer to it, quite appropriatly, as 'The Day of Mourning', along > with Christopher Columbus as a devil. I mean, if visitors came to your > home (land), you shared your dinner and possessions with them to be > their friends, and they repaid you by killing your relatives and those > of you that were allowed to live had all your land stolen and you were > moved onto tiny, filthy substandard 'reservations' would you like that > turn of events? 'Columbus Day' in the USA should rightly be termed > the day that Europeans created a new level of arrogance when they > landed on these shores. Y'know, some of us don't subscribe to all of this white-bashing. As for the reservations, well, I can't speak for any US reservations, but there's a few around here -- in fact, the city of Calgary borders onto the T'suu T'ina Nation (formerly known as the Sarcee Reserve), and there's several others within a few hours' drive. Now, the whole idea behind reservations was to allow natives to continue living the way they had in the past. Any native who wished to do so COULD DO SO -- the land is excellent, wildlife is abundant. And none of them do. Yeah, ok, so it's our presence so close by that "corrupts" them. That must be it. Actually, the problem is that our government, in its compassion, pays all natives to live on the reserve -- and pays them quite well, in fact, to the point where many (not all of course) have pretty much lost much of their desire to work, either "for a living" in the white man's world or to work the land on the reservation. Why bother? The government cheque comes every month, and you can buy what you need -- including alcohol. The T'suu T'ina Nation is a "dry" reserve, yet has one of the highest alcoholism rates in the world. I am not going to apologize for Christopher Columbus or any acts perpetrated against the native population in the past. The only thing I or you or anyone can do is deal with the present and the future. We're HERE now. We're not going to pack up 300+ million "non-natives" from the US and Canada and move 'em all back to Europe, leaving the continent to the natives. No, that's not going to happen. The United States is (was?) the great "melting pot". We do our greatest kindness to natives by allowing them (their choice) the opportunity to join our society and prosper within it, or by allowing them to stay on their reserves and carve out a life there WITHOUT ASSISTANCE OR INTERFERENCE from the rest of us. > And its not like Thanksgiving Day even means everyone in America is > 'thankful'. I do volunteer work for Salvation Army of Independence/ > Montgomery County, and we *attempted* to see to it that everyone got a > good dinner last Thursday, in cooperation with the Food Basket, one > of our local charities. My kettle is located outside Marvin's Grocery > Store on 10th and Myrtle Streets. I was standing there with my bell > on Friday night. A woman came by and said "I gave money on Wednesday". > I said to her "I am still standing here tonight, I guess you did not > give enough." She gave me a sort of funny look, got in her purse and > found a couple more dimes to put in the pot. I thanked her for her > generosity, and she walked inside the store. PAT] Sorry Pat, but I'd have laughed in your face and walked past you. Let me ask you this: since she had already indicated to you that she had given money on Wednesday, what gave you the right to question the size of her donation? Did you first examine her financial records to determine what size of gift would be appropriate? Did you even find out how much money she HAD already given on Wednesday? Pat, nobody likes to be shamed into charity, and I for one have a strict policy: if any charity tries to SHAME me into giving, they don't get a dime from me. Those that stay away from that tactic, get my donations. Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your fourth paragraph tells where things are really at with you: 'Not going to apologize for Chris Columbus and others in that era.' Do you feel it has now been so long ago, everyone should just forget about it? I mean, the Europeans (of that day) just moved in and took over. The ancestors of the Europeans of that day are now referred to as Americans of course, but one thing continues to live on; their arrogance and feelings of superiority. In speaking with that lady, SHE initiated the conversation, "I gave money on Wednesday." I merely continued the conversation; I did not 'shame' her into giving more, nor did I question or ask the amount she had given. She could have initially walked on past (many folks do just that) or upon my response she could have resumed walking. I know nothing about what she had or had not given on 'Wednesday'. I was only attempting to speak in the context of the sign on my collection bucket: 'need knows no season'. Oddly, I have found 'my' most generous givers are the old bag ladies and the men who appear to be 'bums' and down on their luck. They'll take wads of bills and put them in the pot, and then apologize they can't do better ... :( Three or four of the guys who haul groceries out to the cars in the parking lot for shoppers at Marvins treat me very well; in addition to bringing me cups of coffee or sandwiches from the deli at Marvins, two or three times per night they will come past and drop loose change in the pot. I found out last night why they were doing that. Apparently the local store management reimburses the kids who chose to give their tip money (from shoppers) to the pot, or some part of the tip money. I guess also that as long as we are there (until December 24) the store management told the deli workers to provide us with food to eat. But I dunno ... it is getting *very cold* at night out there, and we had about three inches of snow today. PAT] ------------------------------ From: aaronep@pacbell.net (Aaron Epstein) Subject: Re: Needed Feature For Answering Machine? Date: 4 Dec 2002 10:05:15 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Thank you to all who took time to answer my query. I did try the posted the suggestiions as to punching in star and pound on the phone dial, but none of the suggestions worked. I'll therefore repeat the question: does anyone know of a specific phone answering machine that has the specific feature I posted? Best, Aaron ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Step by Steppin' Reply-To: jhaynes@alumni.uark.edu Organization: University of Arkansas Alumni From: haynes@alumni.uark.edu (Jim Haynes) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 18:28:11 GMT By the way, telecom history buffs might enjoy a Yahoo group I recently discovered: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/strowger The membership seems to be chiefly English; and apparently there are surplus stores there where hobbyists can pick up pieces of old telephone equipment and build SxS exchanges for their own amusement. ------------------------------ 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: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 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. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #165 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Dec 4 22:54:27 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gB53sR102517; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 22:54:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 22:54:27 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212050354.gB53sR102517@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 #166 TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 Dec 2002 22:54:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 166 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Carrier Lookup (Robert Woolley) Re: Carrier Lookup (tonypo1@cox.net) Re: Carrier Lookup (Joseph) Re: What *is* a Domain Name? (JDS) Number Read Back Service (No Spam) Vivokit Demo Campaign in mySql Database (dflores@wanadoo.nl) Re: California Firm to Settle Net Porn Scam (Larry & Wanda Finch) Re: Study: Car Call Value Equals Crash Cost (Larry & Wanda Finch) Samsung n300 (frankiec@octothorp.org) Re: Is Share Day Message Spam (Robert Dover) Re: Is Share Day Message Spam (Paul A Lee) Re: Is Share Day Message Spam (Gail M. Hall) Re: Is Share Day Message Spam (jt) 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 Woolley Subject: Re: Carrier Lookup Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 19:32:11 +0000 On 3 Dec 2002 14:39:46 -0800, johnswein@yahoo.com (John Swein) wrote: > Is there any way to find the name of a wireless carrier given a phone > number? In the US? In the UK? > Thanks! The UK has full number portabiliy. It is possible to find out which carrier the number was allocated to originally, but if it's been ported you can't find out. Rob. rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk ------------------------------ From: tonypo1@cox.net Subject: Re: Carrier Lookup Organization: The Ace Tomatoe and Cement Company Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 22:25:07 GMT In article , johnswein@yahoo.com says: > Is there any way to find the name of a wireless carrier given a phone > number? In the US? In the UK? > Thanks! Indeed there is - you can download a copy of NANPA's utilized database for your area or for the nation and it'll tell you who the carrier is. Tony ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Carrier Lookup Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 14:38:55 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On 3 Dec 2002 14:39:46 -0800, johnswein@yahoo.com (John Swein) wrote: > Is there any way to find the name of a wireless carrier given a phone > number? In the US? In the UK? In the US: http://www.nanpa.com Replies are seldom read. Please reply in the group ------------------------------ Subject: Re: What *is* a "Domain Name"? From: JDS Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 02:43:41 GMT Is this a homework question? > What is a "domain name"? Are a domain name and a URL equivalent? > In some URL like > http://www.xxx.yyy.org/more.stuff/still.more2.stuff2 The domain name is yyy.org. The whole thing is a URL. www.xxx are generally called "subdomains." Only "yyy.org" is registered. As part of the registration, Domain Name Servers are associated with the domain, and those Domain Name Servers store and serve the IP addresses for all the servers in the domain - mail, web, ftp, etc servers. > Is a domain name a domain name only if it's registered? unregisteredname987.com is a well-formed domain name which is not registered. But it's of theoretical interest only. No one can use a domain name for anything until it is registered and DNS is set up. > Can intranets have "effective internal domain names" that are > not "real Internet-wide domain names"? Yes. This technique is frequently used for subdomains. It would not be wise for a domain name, as it might lead to collisions or other failures. > Must you register a domain name to get it into domain name > servers all around the internet? Yes. > Is any remaining stuff within successive slashes more properly referred > to as a "page", within a "web site" or "domain"? A better term is "path." It is generally the filepath on the Web server. > Do all domain names start with "www"? No - for example, my.yahoo.com. ftp and telnet hosts are generally prefixed "ftp" and "telnet". > Do they all have to end with a final ".xxx" that comes from a certain > fixed list of terms, e.g. ".org", ".com", or "dot some country code"? Yes. .biz, .name, and others were recently added. Suffixes are a matter of some controversy. > How far into this whole mess do intellectual property rights -- > trademarks, copyrights -- extend? Do trademark and copyright concerns > extend with equal force to an entire URL? Or only the domain name part > of a URL? This is an area that is rapidly evolving. The Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act tried to resolve some issues in this. Read it. But there are many areas which are not yet - and probably never will be - cleared up completely. Outside of cyberspace, organizations can share a mark - Delta Air Lines, Delta Tool, and Delta Woodworking Machinery can coexist, for example. But there is exactly one delta.com. > And I suppose what I might have asked first of all: Are there some good > URLs -- or domains! -- where one can get understandable info on queries > like these? Probably. You could also take a course in this -- some of the best thought in this domain is going on at Stanford. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 16:11:10 -0500 From: No Spam Subject: Number Read Back Service John Higdon wrote: (stuff snipped) > Telco number readbacks became so unreliable and mutable that I finally > set up my own several years ago for my own private use. It has two > versions: one using an ordinary directory number to read back CID and > one (using an 800 number) that reads back ANI. Very handy. I'm sure John knows the difference, but one should be careful with carrier provided ANI vs. Calling Party Number. My employer has a service from a large carrier who shall remain nameless, and they insist that we are currently receiving ANI on our toll-free number (direct dedicated T1 with ANI and DNIS digits, NOT ani as cpn via POTS/CLASS), when in fact I have confirmed that they are transmitting CPN/CallerID as ANI instead of true ANI. For most people, interested in single POTS lines, this isn't a big deal, but from a large user perspective, can make a big difference. And John Higdon also wrote: > Telco readback numbers typically only serve a comparatively small area. > The advantage of having my own is that they work from any phone, > anywhere. to which And Harbor Diver responded: "Including blocked numbers?" Yes ... when using a toll-free number the 'owner' of the toll-free number (the recipient of the call) is paying for the call, therefore they have the right to know 'who' is calling them. JG Fenton My email address is valid. My opinions are my own, and not necessarily that of my employer. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 02:55:33 +0100 (GMT+01:00) From: dflores@wanadoo.nl Subject: Vivokit Demo Campaign in mySql Database Visit this site http://www.vivokit.com ------------------------------ From: Larry & Wanda Finch Subject: Re: California Firm to Settle Net Porn Scam Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 02:07:21 GMT So Integratel's still at it! I got them fined several thousand dollars over ten years ago with a complaint to the FCC, and that was only for redirecting long distance service from a pay phone. Larry Monty Solomon wrote: > California Firm to Settle Net Porn Scam > By REUTERS > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A California billing firm has agreed to give up > $1.6 million to settle charges that it improperly billed thousands for > Internet pornography, the Federal Trade Commission said on Tuesday. > Privately held billing firm Integretel Inc. and its subsidiary eBillit > prompted thousands of complaints in September 2000 after they placed > charges of up to $4,000 on consumers' home telephone bills without > their knowledge. > Consumers incurred the charges after visiting a Web site run by U.K. > firm Verity International Ltd. that offered pornographic movies, the > FTC said. > Visitors were instructed to download special software which unplugged > their Internet connection and routed it through the African island > nation of Madagascar at a rate of $3.99 per minute. Notification of > the charge was buried in a series of 11 screens, said FTC attorney > Lawrence Hodapp. > Integretel placed charges averaging $127 each on consumers' > long-distance phone bills, even if the person on the phone bill was > not the one who downloaded the movies. > http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-tech-fraud.html Larry Finch N 40 53' 47" W 74 03' 56" ------------------------------ From: Larry & Wanda Finch Subject: Re: Study: Car Call Value Equals Crash Cost Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 02:10:37 GMT Monty Solomon wrote: > - Dec 2, 2002 12:20 AM (AP Online) > WASHINGTON (AP) _ Researchers say increased cell phone use has led to > more crashes caused by drivers on the phone, but the value people > place on being able to call from the road roughly equals the > accidents' cost. > Opponents of banning cell phone usage by drivers have cited studies > that showed the benefit of car calls outweighed the toll from such > accidents _ medical bills and property damage, for example. > Harvard researchers, drawing on previous research involving cell > phones and government figures for auto accidents, says in a study > there is a growing public health risk from the reliance on cell phones > in cars. The number of cell phone subscribers has grown from 94 > million in 2000 to more than 128 million. > - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=30334110 If cell phones truly cause accidents, you would expect the accident rate to have soared over the past few years. Yet it hasn't. Perhaps it's certain drivers who cause accidents, and if they didn't have cell phones they would cause the accidents for a different reason. Larry Finch N 40 53' 47" W 74 03' 56" ------------------------------ From: frankiec@octothorp.org Subject: Samsung n300 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 14:54:55 -0500 I am trying to convert my Samsung n300 cdma phone from Sprint PCS to Verizon wireless. I have a helpful person looking in to converting this phone over at Verizon but Sprint isn't being helpful. I found one guy at Sprint that told me it should be an easy switch and then I got nowhere. I believe that my phone is unlocked. My contract was up with Sprint and the one helpful guy that I spoke with at Sprint told me that it should be unlocked, and that it was a matter of changing the prl. I would like to know where I can read up on this to become educated so that when I talk to these people I can know what I am talking about. For some more background ... I went in to the Vzw store and handed them my n300. This guy popped it in the firmware updater and tried to get it to flash to the firmware that they use for their n300s. He handed it back to me and told me that he needed the programing codes for it. So I called Sprint from the n300. As soon as the call went through Sprint wanted to update my firmware which they did while I waited on hold. This I thought was pretty interesting seeing as how I hadn't had it updated in a while and I had just dialed them from my handset last week. I then spoke with a Sprint customer service person who gave me this BS about how my handset was a PCS handset and that it wouldn't work on someone else's network. I left the store with out accomplishing anything. The n300 proceeded to work that day and in to the next morning. The next day I power cycled the phone and it came up not configured. It no longer knew it's phone number. Every call I tried to make the Sprint recording told me that my phone was not yet configured and I needed to call Sprint to have them configure it. Thanks for any help in advance. Frank ------------------------------ From: Robert Dover Subject: Re: Is Share Day Message Spam Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 09:44:57 -0600 Organization: Nortel Name Blocked by Moderator wrote: > Would you please stop spamming your own newsgroup! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... I would like to entertain a > discussion here... If your monthly post IS spam, I can handle it in return for the services received. ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Is Share Day Message Spam Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 18:46:01 -0500 An anonymous correspondent wrote (in part): > Would you please stop spamming your own newsgroup! I submit that the complainant does not understand the concept of "spam". Spam is advertising or solicitation that is excruciatingly redundant, promotes something that is of questionable or no value, and/or seeks to present its message to its recipient despite explicit or implicit rejection or avoidance of that message by the recipient. Our moderator's entreaty for consideration given in return for value received does not reasonably fit any of those categories. It is no more "redundant" than any of the other housekeeping messages and information, in that it is only repeated -- rather infrequently -- to those who repeatedly use the Digest. Those who repeatedly use the Digest must surely find it useful and valuable. Those who don't find it useful and valuable can avoid the "spam" by not availing themselves of the Digest. I have to wonder whether the complainant can tell the difference between a TV commercial and a telemarketing call -- as well as make other distinctions involving, say, anatomical features and excavations ... The "personal opinion" disclaimer _certainly_ applies to this missive. In fact, let's keep the company out of it. Paul A Lee Sr Telecom Engineer Camp Hill, PA 17011 ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: Re: Is Share Day Message Spam Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 01:19:02 -0500 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net The poster wrote: > Would you please stop spamming your own newsgroup! OK, so some kind of gliltch happened and the post on the last day of November and the first day of December got double posted, at least on my server. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's the first time I have ever > received a message quite like that. The message was signed; the > person did not say to make it anonymous, but as I think about it > now, maybe it is the consensus of many of you, so think that one > of YOUR friends wrote it. In a make-believe world, I wish it was > not necessary to 'spam my own newsgroup'. In the same make-believe > world it would not be required for PBS Radio/TV to give commercials > about themselves. I do not loan out my now considerable mailing list > or allow people to copy from it. (Should I start?) I do not accept > other than *very low key* advertising on the web site (no banner ads, > no double-click pop up windows; no diagnosing what causes your > personal pleasure to happen and focusing advertising messages at you > accordingly. (Should I start?) No wholesale spamming in any newsgroup > or e-journal under my control. (Should I start?) At the same time, I > like to eat dinner at night, and have a warm house to live in. There > is not enough time in a day, nor energy, to put out this Digest and > maintain the web site AND work 8-10 hours per day at a 'regular' > job. (Should I quit the Digest and work instead?) All the above are > characteristics of this make-believe world. I think it is reasonable for Pat to post the "begging" messages once or twice a month, or maybe even weekly (but I hope that's not necessary. BUT getting the message two days in a row is a bit much. How about doing it on the 1st and 15th of every month? That way the messages would be spread around more evenly and "occasional lurkers" might have a greater chance to see the messages. As for PBS, my problem with them is that they are getting WORSE than commercial channels! You can pretty much count on a series of commercials to be finished in two or three minutes, but those PBS betting messages go on for at least a half hour. Then they play the real program for maybe a half hour or 45 minutes. Then they do another half hour of begging. I have gotten to where I don't even tune in to PBS during "membership" week. I just renew my membership when the due date comes around because I like much of their programs (like Ken Burns productions, NOVA, etc. > I thought (still think) a reasonable compromise is to take one or two > days per month and run a single message in each of them discussing > these things. The last day of the month and/or the first day of the > next month is a good, reliable, steady time to do this. I'd rather see them spread out and posted on the 1st and 15th OR the 15th and last day of the month to spread out the message a little more. It will seem less like spam. I don't agree that this is spam at all. But even "good" advertising can get to be irritating if there is too much of it. I am convinced that you didn't intend to double post both of those messages. It happened, though, and maybe that is why this person got upset. Some list moderators put a "list signature" at the end of every message. Pat doesn't do that, at least not on the usenet version that I read. It wouldn't be unreasonable to put such a tag at the ends of at least some messages to remind people of the URLs and address for sending contributions. Another idea, Pat. How about doing what the advertisers do and have some entertainment in your messages? I don't know what it would be. This is a text group, so you can't show graphics of telephones flying through space and blowing each other up or speeding through mountains and through rivers and coming back out without a single spot on the phone surfaces. How about the Verizon Wireless ads where the guy is going all through the mountains and deserts and saying, "Can you hear me now? .... Good!" [Hey! Just kidding about the entertainment part] Gail in Ohio USA ------------------------------ From: jt Subject: Re: Is Share Day Message Spam Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 14:44:18 -0500 Organization: WorldCom Canada Ltd. News Reader Service "Name Blocked by Moderator" wrote in message news:telecom22.164.12@telecom-digest.org: Pat, take an expression from "soviet canuckstan" and tell him to piss up a rope. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The group of messages here is the total of what has been recieved to-date. We will see if there are any more arrive in the next day or two. 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: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 775-306-8390 Fax 3: 775-642-0603 Fax 4: 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. In addition, gifts fr