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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #166 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Dec 6 14:07:08 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gB6J78q28778; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 14:07:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 14:07:08 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212061907.gB6J78q28778@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 #167 TELECOM Digest Fri, 6 Dec 2002 14:07:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 167 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telephone Speech Study at Upenn (David Miller) Ten TLD's (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Number Read Back Service (Stanley Cline) Re: Is There a Dial Helper For When We Travel? (Jim Van Nuland) Re: Court to Decide Kazaa's U.S. Liability (Trance1500) Re: Samsung n300 (Justin Time) Re: Study: Car Call Value Equals Crash Cost (dold@47.usenet.us.com) Re: Study: Car Call Value Equals Crash Cost (Phil Earnhardt) Re: Carrier Lookup (dold@85.usenet.us.com) Re: Carrier Lookup (Linc Madison) Re: Cross Connect Bay Solution in Telcos? (PStreicher) FCC Ready to Roll Back Limits on Media Consolidation (Monty Solomon) FCC Deadline Looms For Digital TV (Monty Solomon) Tower Records Site Exposes Data (Monty Solomon) Tech Titans Launch Wi-Fi Company (Monty Solomon) Price Is Limiting Demand for Broadband (Monty Solomon) Digital Robber Barons? (Monty Solomon) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: damiller@ldc.upenn.edu (David Miller) Subject: Telephone Speech Study at Upenn Date: 5 Dec 2002 14:06:04 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Greetings, The Linguistic Data Consortium at the University of Pennsylvania (www.ldc.upenn.edu) needs participants for FISHER, a new telephone speech study to be conducted in the Early Winter 2002-2003. In contrast to prior regional studies (Switchboard), FISHER will be national (North America). The FISHER project will be undertaken to support linguistic research, technology development and education. All calls will be recorded for these purposes. Particpant Identities will be kept strictly confidential and not released with the data. FISHER participants will take part in 1 to 3 telephone calls talking to other participants on suggested topics for ten minutes. FISHER topics can be found at the URL below: http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/Projects/EARS/Fisher/topics.html A robot operator will initiate all calls. Particpants need only answer their phones at the time they specify during the registration process. Participants will be compensated $10 per call. In addition, for each call made, participants will be eligble for 1 chance at (3) $1000.00 lottery prizes. To register for this study please see the following page: http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/Projects/EARS/Fisher/intro.html or call 1 800 380 PENN, to register and for more information Sincerely, Dr. David Miller FISHER Project Manager ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 14:12:51 -0700 From: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Ten TLD's Reply-To: joey@garynuman.info On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 22:08:47 -0500 (EST), Robert Bonomi wrote: > 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.' Nine now, ten very soon. For your viewing pleasure, they are: .com (for "commercial" sites) .net (for network infrastucture sites, now used by anyone) .org (for mostly non-profit organizations, now used by anyone) .aero (http://www.nic.aero) .info (http://www.nic.info) .biz (http://www.nic.biz) .museum (http://www.nic.museum) .name (http://www.nic.name) .coop (http://www.nic.coop) And ... coming soon: .pro (http://www.nic.pro) Note to John Higdon: better start updating your spam-filter, there's a whole new TLD a-comin' ... :-) Joey Lindstrom joey@garynuman.info ------------------------------ From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: Number Read Back Service Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:19:25 -0500 Organization: Roamer1 Communications - Dunwoody, GA, USA Reply-To: sc1-news@roamer1.org On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 22:37:01 GMT, tonypo1@cox.net wrote: > Similar to Ureach, my USADatanet 800 service delivers realtime ANI as > CNID when someone calls me via that service. Quite convenient but then ...as does Kall 8. :) Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune ------------------------------ From: Jim Van Nuland Subject: Re: Is There a Dial Helper For When We Travel? Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 03:50:40 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link Gail M. Hall wrote: > 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 I copied the tiny print onto another card, using nice BIG numbers. Jim Van Nuland, San Jose (California) Astronomical Association ------------------------------ From: Trance1500@hotmail.com (Trance1500) Subject: Re: Court to Decide Kazaa's U.S. liability Date: 5 Dec 2002 22:14:36 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Monty Solomon wrote in message news:: > By John Borland > Staff Writer, CNET News.com > November 24, 2002, 6:00 AM PT > If a judge says Sharman can be sued in the United States, Kazaa will > get sucked into the same legal maelstrom that has grabbed Napster, > Aimster, Audio Galaxy, Grokster and Morpheus, closing some of the > popular services and threatening the existence of the others. The > Kazaa case is the biggest yet in the recent copyright wars that have > been testing the international reach of U.S. courts. > http://news.com.com/2100-1023-971086.html It's all about the money, my friend. Money is the only the that the "artists" care about. They don't give a care about the fans, but they sure care about their own wallets. They don't even care about the music the produce and are only concerned with who will pay how much for it. ------------------------------ From: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: Samsung n300 Date: 6 Dec 2002 06:59:06 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ frankiec@octothorp.org wrote in message news:: > 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 Unlocking the phone (removing the carrier/network information) is only a part of the problem in the North American Cellular Network. Another piece of the puzzle in moving phones from one compatible network to another is the ESN or electronic serial number of the phone. Most carriers buy their phones in bulk from the manufacturers and as such get blocks of ESNs assigned to them. The ESN not only provides a unique serial number id for the phone, it also identifies the manufacturer and model. Carriers enter the serial number ranges from "their" phones into the computers controlling the network for the purpose of fraud prevention. In order to register a "foreign" phone on the network, the databases for the entire network have to be modified to include your phone's ESN which is outside the range of their phones. So, the ESN has to be in the system, and the carrier information must also match. If the ESN is not in the system, the carrier information is checked for a roaming agreement, and if not present the phone call is blocked. That is a very simplified explination of how a carrier handles calls from cellular instruments. But as far as your question about getting your phone moved from Sprint to Verizon, it is possible, but with a lot of cooperation from both carriers. Sprint has to provide the programming codes to "unlock" their codes and Verizon has to be willing to add your phone's ESN to their fraud protection systems. For the most part, it is a matter of pushing some buttons, both on the phone and a computer - but the maintenance of "foreign" ESNs is an ongoing expense VZW may not want to undertake. Moving to a GSM phone using a SIM (Subscriber Information Module) card doesn't really make it any easier. In this instance you have to unlock the carrier codes and then get a SIM from the new carrier. It is the codes required to lock and unlock the phone that are the problem. Most of the codes to program a phone are easily researched and located on the Internet, lock and unlock codes may require a new PROM chip as some phone chips cannot be altered after they have been burned in at the factory. As the phone works and is not stolen, selling it on E-Bay or something similar may be the only way to recoup some of the cost of buying a new phone from VZW. Rodgers Platt ------------------------------ From: dold@47.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Study: Car Call Value Equals Crash Cost Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 05:35:25 UTC Organization: a2i network Larry & Wanda Finch wrote: > 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. The portion of the study that I heard quoted indicated that 26,000 people died last year as a result of an accident while someone was on a cell phone. But if morons are the ones that can't drive and talk at the same time, is it merely conjecture that 25,000 of those accidents would have occurred anyway? AM radios were banned while driving in the early part of the last century. Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And television sets are still banned from use in automobiles, at least in the front seat. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Phil Earnhardt Subject: Re: Study: Car Call Value Equals Crash Cost Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 22:34:32 -0700 On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 02:10:37 GMT, Larry & Wanda Finch wrote: > If cell phones truly cause accidents, you would expect the accident > rate to have soared over the past few years. If nothing else material had been altered in the safety of automobiles, that would be a valid assertion. However, several statistically significant changes have happened in the last ten years: o Compliance with seat belt laws is significantly higher. I believe the numbers have gone from 39% in the early 1990s to approximately 75% today. o Driver-side air bags have gone from an optional luxury to mandatory. Many vehicles now also have passenger bags and side bags. o While not in all vehicles, anti-lock braking systems is now available as an option in most lines. o Consumers have been paying attention to government vehicle safety reports and are selecting vehicles that get good grades in these crash simulations. This has in turn caused manufacturers to design their vehicles so they will score well in those tests. When in a collision, modern vehicles will, on average, protect you better than older designs. o States are creating more stringent standards for DUI. The feds are mandating a .08 level for DUI; states that keep a more lax standard may risk getting federal highway dollars. o Programs like the "#DUI" where cell phone callers can rapidly alert cops to drunk drivers help remove these folk from the road more quickly. I do appreciate the irony of this point. > 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. We don't know what statistical methodology went into the Harvard study. One fondly hopes they found a way to create a valid correlation between the use of cell phones in an automobile and the less safe behavior. What I would like to see is the delta in the numbers between regular cell phone users and hands free cell phone users. Antecdotally, I do not mind hands free users (I suspect I don't even notice many of them). If hands free usage is found to be significantly safer than handheld usage, I would like to see hands free use mandated. > Larry Finch > N 40 53' 47" > W 74 03' 56" Phil [About a minute north of the 40th parallel.] ------------------------------ From: dold@85.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Carrier Lookup Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 05:38:32 UTC Organization: a2i network 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, cellular numbers aren't portable, so the assigned carrier is almost certainly the current carrier. http://www.nanpa.com/nanp1/AllCodes.zip ALLCODES.MDB if you have Access, or some program that can read Access.mdb files. http://www.nanpa.com/number_resource_info/co_code_assignments.html for flat ASCII files by state, I think. CA 707 953 AS 6010 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC. SANTA ROSA CNCRCADOCM3 Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA. ------------------------------ From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Carrier Lookup Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 02:24:54 -0800 Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com On 3 Dec 2002, 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, we don't *YET* have number portability for wireless, but it is supposed to be on the horizon in the near future. In the meantime, the full URL for listings of prefix assignments on the NANPA site is with your choice of tab-delimited text, Excel, or Access format. Of course, you have to download at least a multi-state region and then sift through all the NXX's (not just wireless) to find the one you're interested in. Also, you have to contend with wireless assignments of less than a full NXX. For example, 361-645-1xxx, -2xxx, -3xxx, and -8xxx are landlines, but -4xxx are wireless. However, most wireless assignments are still by full prefixes. Once full number portability comes to wireless carriers, there will be no easy way to find out the carrier for a given number, just as there is no easy way to tell now with landlines. For example, 415-552-xxxx started out life as a Pacific Bell line, but now it could be any CLEC serving San Francisco. Pacific Bell is still a better bet than all other players combined, but far from a sure thing. Stickier yet, there is talk of full portability between wireless and landline carriers. Thus, you won't even be able to tell much of anything about a given phone number. That will also provide a problem for cold-calling telemarketers, since every call to a wireless phone is subject to $500 in civil damages under 47 USC 227. As for the UK, a previous response indicated that they already have full portability of wireless numbers, leaving no easy way to tell the carrier. For obvious reasons (separate area code ranges), the UK does not and will not have portability between wireless and landline carriers. www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California ------------------------------ From: pstreicher@aol.com (PStreicher) Date: 05 Dec 2002 14:10:19 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Cross Connect Bay Solution in Telcos? How is a Titan 5500 going to solve the ccb jumper mess? Can you expand on your solution? Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:31:03 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Ready to Roll Back Limits on Media Consolidation FAIR-L Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting Media analysis, critiques and activism ACTION ALERT: FCC Ready to Roll Back Limits on Media Consolidation December 5, 2002 A range of media scholars and public interest, media and community groups from across the country have joined FAIR in issuing a Call for Media Democracy in response to the FCC's current "review" of the rules that govern big media. FAIR encourages everyone concerned with this issue to act now. Some suggestions of how you can take action to strengthen media diversity are included below. http://www.fair.org/activism/fcc-call-action.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:49:39 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Deadline Looms For Digital TV By Jim Hu Staff Writer, CNET News.com December 5, 2002, 1:41 PM PT Friday will mark the final day for public comment on a Federal Communications Commission proposal that requires digital TV sets to implement anti-piracy technology. If the FCC approves the proposal, TV manufacturers will be required to install technologies to prevent illicit distribution of digital broadcasts. Digital broadcast signals would be encoded with a "broadcast flag" indicating that TV shows may not be broadcast freely. The proposed rule has stirred up heated debate between technology companies and the entertainment industry. Many consumer-electronics and PC manufacturers oppose the regulation, claiming it would limit consumers' use of recorded content. But entertainment companies, which have pushed hardest for the requirement, say it would help fight piracy and unwarranted distribution of their content on the Internet. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-976273.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:40:00 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Tower Records Site Exposes Data By Declan McCullagh Staff Writer, CNET News.com December 5, 2002, 1:17 PM PT A security hole on Tower Records' Web site exposed data on millions of U.S. and U.K. customers until it was closed late Wednesday. The glitch allowed anyone to peruse Tower Records' Web site to view its database of customer orders dating from 1996 through this week, including home and e-mail addresses, phone numbers and what music or video products were purchased. More than 3 million such records were exposed. http://news.com.com/2100-1017-976271.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 19:04:15 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Tech Titans Launch Wi-Fi Company By Richard Shim Staff Writer, CNET News.com December 5, 2002, 12:37 PM PT Intel, IBM and AT&T have officially thrown their combined weight behind the effort to create a nationwide network of public "hot spots" that would give people wireless broadband Internet access from just about anywhere. As expected, Intel Capital, along with Big Blue, AT&T and investors Apax Partners and 3i, announced the creation of Cometa Networks -- formerly known as Project Rainbow -- a new company focused on deploying hot spots throughout the United States. Hot spots are public areas where people can access the Internet using products based on 802.11b, or Wi-Fi, a wireless networking standard with a range of about 300 feet from a network's access points, or radio transmitters. http://news.com.com/2100-1033-976225.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 21:39:24 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Price Is Limiting Demand for Broadband By SIMON ROMERO Remember all the talk about the broadband revolution? It is turning out to be a slow evolution, at best. Only about 15 percent of American households currently subscribe to broadband service - or fast Internet access - despite the fact that 70 percent of households have the technical option of doing so. And analysts do not expect the majority of homes to have broadband access anytime for at least five years. That means any company, whether America Online or any other Internet business, cannot expect to base a mass-market business on broadband anytime soon. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/05/technology/05BROA.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 09:27:56 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Digital Robber Barons? By PAUL KRUGMAN Bad metaphors make bad policy. Everyone talks about the "information highway." But in economic terms the telecommunications network resembles not a highway but the railroad industry of the robber-baron era -- that is, before it faced effective competition from trucking. And railroads eventually faced tough regulation, for good reason: they had a lot of market power, and often abused it. Yet the people making choices today about the future of the Internet -- above all Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission -- seem unaware of this history. They are full of enthusiasm for the wonders of deregulation, dismissive of concerns about market power. And meanwhile tomorrow's robber barons are fortifying their castles. Until recently, the Internet seemed the very embodiment of the free-market ideal -- a place where thousands of service providers competed, where anyone could visit any site. And the tech sector was a fertile breeding ground for libertarian ideology, with many techies asserting that they needed neither help nor regulation from Washington. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/06/opinion/06KRUG.html ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #167 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Dec 7 01:35:23 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gB76ZNH09972; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 01:35:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 01:35:23 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212070635.gB76ZNH09972@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 #168 TELECOM Digest Sat, 7 Dec 2002 01:35:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 168 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Being Online Without a Hard Drive (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Ten TLD's (John Higdon) TiVo Tries to Change the Channel (Monty Solomon) Off-topic, but... (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Is Share Day Message Spam (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Is Share Day Message Spam (Anonymous by Request) Changing to ECG Long Distance (Ian) Re: Last Laugh! The Ultimate Phone Spam?! (PStreicher) WebCam: A Sight for Sore Eyes (TELECOM Digest Editor) Listening In on My Home Phone Line (mark) 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, 6 Dec 2002 14:58:23 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Being Online Without a Hard Drive Let's say your hard drive has crashed, or somehow gotten wiped out, formatted mysteriously or whatever. Does that mean you cannot get on line or do other work with computer until you get the problem fixed? No, not any more ... :) I received a gift from my California friend which cures that sort of problem. It is called *KNOPPIX* which is an entire *nix-based operating system on a CD. Seriously ... what you have to do is change your BIOS around a little as needed. Make sure it is set to boot *first* from the CD, *then* from the hard drive. I think most people have it that way anyway. But if you don't you may want to make that adjustment. Then your hard drive could be in pieces on your work bench for example, and you WILL be able to get on the net. Or, when you grow weary of using Windows (I cannot imagine why anyone would dislike such a fine product) -- snicker! -- what you do is pop your knoppix CD in the drive, let it boot up, and presto, an almost entire x-windows/linux thing. The best part seems to be if your hard drive is *not* demolished, but actually there and working; you will notice how part of the boot up process of the knoppix CD is to mount your existing file storage areas (like the hard drive for example) and you can use many of your 'regular' files as though they were *nix in their nature. One disadvantage is you have to have sufficient swap space on your computer to make it work correctly. Without sufficent space on the computer, things do get cluttered and it tends to run a little slower than I would like. You do get a lot or most of the x-windows features however. When you boot this knoppix CD, the first thing it does is goes through your computer and takes an 'inventory' of everything on your system; where to find the sound card for example, where to find your modem or DSL or cable connection, etc, then it configures itself accordingly. Another drawback is that nothing remains static. Whatever configur- ations you first give it on logging in to start using it have to be done every time you log in using it. I am trying to figure out a way to load it all from the CD onto my drive F so I can keep the configurations I want on a permanent basis. 'Drive F' = a Fujifilm USB drive about the size of my finger which has a male USB connector on the end, and plugs into a USB socket. Mine has a 'mere' 64 MB of storage space, and the power on the line is enough to power it and keep it going. They come in sizes from 16 MB up to 512 MB all about the size of your finger, they weigh about an ounce and can be clipped in your shirt pocket and carried around from one computer to another. When I first received mine and plugged it into the USB hub (hub looks like an extension cord; one end plugs in the socket on the back of the computer, the other end terminates in a multiple number of USB female sockets; you plug your various USB devices in there). Anyway, when I got it, I immediatly plugged it into the hub, the Windows XP machine gave its little beep and flashed a message on the screen saying "external storage device 'for pat' is ready to use." 'for pat' is the name that my friend gave it when he plugged it in his Apple Mac to test it out. When I go to 'my computer' here, I see a similar file folder, which I have since renamed 'USB Storage'. Click on that file, and there you are, ready to store/delete, whatever. Anyway, what I am trying to do is 'copy E to F' (that is to say move the contents of the CD over to the Fujifilm (fits in your shirt pocket storage device). You can copy it over there with room to spare, but the catch is you have to be already booted up (in Windows for example) to get in there and use it. And that sort of maneuver not only defeats the purpose of the Knoppix CD, it also confuses the hell out of the computer, having Windows trying to run Knoppix. If you try to load the computer from drive F by telling the BIOS to look in there (F) and load if possible, it won't do that either. So if I can figure out how to keep a few configs stored there which I can autoload somehow from F after I have loaded the Knoppix CD that will save some time and allow me to use it instead of Windows, period. My brain desease however is not allowing me to get that far up in my thinking. The nice thing about the Fujifilm storage device however is I can unplug it from the XP hub and carry it over to my 98 laptop and load it with programs which I then cart back over to the XP and use. Ditto, my old Windows 95 which has a convenient USB port on the back side of it. The 98 requires a 'driver' to be installed to use it, but supposedly the Windows 95 does not. Anyway, do take a look at Knoppix. You can find it using Google search I understand, or get someone to burn a copy of it for you if you do not have a way to download it and burn it yourself. Knoppix is a great Christ Mass gift from my friend, and so was the Fujifilm 64 MB 'pen' which I can carry in my pocket. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Ten TLD's Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 11:40:52 -0800 In article , Joey Lindstrom wrote: > And ... coming soon: > .pro (http://www.nic.pro) > Note to John Higdon: better start updating your spam-filter, there's a > whole new TLD a-comin' ... :-) You forgot .kids, which is to be free of any adult material. But I don't need to update my spam filter. It is an "opt-in" system that considers non-listed TLDs to be bogus. As time goes by, my original assessment of the issue appears to be correct. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 08:41:10 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: TiVo Tries to Change the Channel Losing market share, TiVo shifts from a go-it-alone strategy to a licensing model. Is that enough? By Eric Hellweg, CNN/Money Contributing Columnist SAN FRANCISCO (CNN/Money) - Need a jolt to wake you from your post-Thanksgiving haze? How about this: The world's leading seller of personal video recorders (PVRs), those nifty set-top boxes that allow users to pause live TV and record shows on a hard drive, isn't TiVo, the brand that's synonymous with the technology. In fact, it's EchoStar's Dish Network, a satellite television provider. http://money.cnn.com/2002/12/03/technology/techinvestor/hellweg/index.htm ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:49:19 -0700 Subject: Off-topic, but ... Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com ... I just can't leave this without replying. For those who do not wish to read any continuation of the "Thanksgiving" thread, please skip to the next message. On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 22:08:47 EST, editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > [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. Let me ask you two questions, Pat. 1) Why should I apologize for any of those people? I wasn't here. They're not related to me either directly or indirectly (well, maybe WAY, WAY back in the ol' family tree). My paternal great-grandparents (both sides) emigrated to Canada from Sweden in the early 1900's. My mother emigrated to Canada in 1965 from England. We had nothing to do with any of these events. And even if my relatives came over on the Mayflower, *THEY* are the "perpetrators". Not me, not my family. Forget about these things? No. Continue to feel guilty about them? Hell no. Why should *I* apologize on behalf of the "perpetrators"? They had their chance to do so. 2) When do the hatred and hard feelings end, Pat? Look at the lunacy going on in, say, Northern Ireland right now. You've got two religious groups doing battle on an almost daily basis over a tiff that started centuries ago. One side attacks the other. The attacked side retaliates the next day. WHEN DOES IT END? When we've destroyed each other? Or can we come together at some point, forgive past transgressions, and agree to build a new future together? BTW, I feel the same way about this "slavery reparations" argument that comes up from time to time. Nobody living today ever benefited from slavery, and nobody living today ever was victimized by it (note: when I say "slavery", I'm talking about the legal institution of slavery, and leaving out isolated criminal incidents that have happened since emancipation). Why should those who never benefited have to pay reparations to those who were never harmed? Yes, slavery was A Bad Thing, but again - how long are we going to be angry at each other? Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've worked my family tree back to 1635 on my father's side of the family; the *original* Townsends here in the USA came from England around that time. One of the Townsend bunch migrated from Long Island, NY down to the Carolinas, then through the Appalachin Mountains into Georgia by sometime in the 1800's, then to Blairsville, GA in the late 1800's; then via Tulsa, Indian Territory and Tahlequah, Indian Territory (later Oklahoma) then into Coffeyville, KS at the start of the 20th century. On my mother's side, I have traced the Mahans back to 1840 when they came from Ireland. I agree with you that at some point the hostilities should come to an end. Maybe the hostility will end when Dubya and his cronies get off their arrogance kick regarding the middle east; in other words, no time soon. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 09:37:07 -0700 Subject: Re: Is Share Day Message Spam Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 22:54:27 EST, Paul A Lee wrote: > 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. We could start (yet again) a whole argument on the "definition of spam". Suffice it to say that I don't agree with your definition: the value of what the spam promotes doesn't enter into it. I get lots of spam pushing anti-virus products (well-established, well-known ones) -- it's still spam. It also doesn't have to be redundant: even one such message is still spam. What I think we CAN agree on is that spam is "unsolicited". We didn't ask for it, and we probably don't want it. > Our moderator's entreaty for consideration given in return for value > received does not reasonably fit any of those categories. More to the point, I don't believe Pat's entreaties qualify as "unsolicited". I would argue the points that: 1) If you receive this via the Telecom Digest mailing list, you have explicitly signed up to receive a service -- "value received", indubitably. 2) If you receive this via the (moderated) newsgroup, you do so knowing that SOMEBODY is doing the work of moderating the group and thus has some measure of control over what's going on, and that by participating you agree to that control. Now, most of us own television sets. We don't seem to have too much of a problem with the idea that we can stick a pair of rabbit ears on the TV and watch "free" TV, but we have to "pay" for it by watching commercials. Pat's monthly messages are this forum's "commercials", and they're far, far less instrusive (even with a double-post). That said, I love some of the other suggestions put forward (hey Pat, pay attention! heh heh!). IE: Post the commercial ONCE each on the 1st and 15th, and then maybe stick a single line as part of the regular "signature", something like this: "To support the Telecom Digest, please visit http://www.someurl.com" (which of course would be a page outlining, in more detail, exactly what Pat does for us and why he needs our support, and of course showing the way to make a donation.) jt wrote: > Pat, take an expression from "soviet canuckstan" and tell him to > piss up a rope. I used that in a self-depracating way (the Soviet Canuckistan bit), but the simple fact of the matter is that Pat Buchanan was absolutely right. What most people ('specially north of the border) didn't understand is that he wasn't referring to Canadians, but to the Canadian government -- which is indeed a de-facto dictatorship and does not respond to the will of the people. As for "piss up a rope", be thankful I'm not British, or I might "take the piss". :-) Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well. the USA government is the same kind of de-facto dictatorship, which does not (lately at least) respond to the will of the American people. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Name Withheld by Poster's Request Subject: Re: Is Share Day Message Spam Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:52:17 -0500 Pat, Your posts are not SPAM. I agree with others that it might be more effective for you to post in the middle of the month and at the end. Please take the following part of this message as personal, and don't post it. If your willing to do a little work, there is a way to leverage your reputation with the readers so you can earn a little income. I suggested this to you about five years ago, and you clearly didn't understand what I meant (I wasn't as clear about the idea then as I will be today), and flamed me in the newsgroup, so I've been quiet ever since. Perhaps you should examine the idea again. You can set up a web site that is a portal. This would be a virtual tradeshow exhibition hall for all telecom equiment, supplies, software, etc. -- all that stuff you've got years and years of experience with. So when someone says "i need an xxxx" they can go to your portal and find the manufacturers. I view this as being similar to a Trade Show exhibit hall, in that if you want something in particular, you can find a number of manufacturers. And if you just want to browse and see what's new, you can do that also. You can either charge companies to be listed there, or charge by clickthrough. You'll know the categories based on the questions that often come up in this and related NGs. I don't believe that this is "selling the telecom archives mailing list." You may also set up a page on the "virtual tradeshow" portal to gather names and interests from volunteers. This would be an "OPT-IN" service that does not use the telecom archives mailing list. You'd be creating a NEW mailing list (not the telecom archives list) that you could then sell. On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 14:44:18 -0500, in comp.dcom.telecom you wrote: > "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 Editor's Note: The person who wrote this message is not the same person whose message I put in anonymously originally. This person who wrote this latest suggestion (about an Exhibit Hall sort of thing with the Digest as part of it) makes an interesting suggestion. I would like to hear more about it. The *only* way I would consider it would be if the telecom mailing list and anything to do with the 'trade show exhibition hall' were kept <---------> this far apart from each other. If someone would like to set up such a web site (it could *NOT* be done on massis.lcs.mit.edu -- that would be Very Naughty --) I would like to hear about it. Links on that 'virtual tradeshow' page could link over here, and the other way around. But one serious problem would be, how much courtesy do *I* have to give the trade show people? If some vendor started something that was really a rip off, do I have to stay quiet about it here on the Digest? Many of you may remember, but some of you do not remember when Microsoft was a sponsor here a number of years ago. Those of you who do remember thought it was a bum deal, and that I would be marching to a new tune as of that day. As a matter of fact I did not entertain any messages here denouncing Microsoft for over a year. And the money *they* paid me enabled me to live in the style to which I am (or was) accustomed for a year or so. I am *not* saying Microsoft is/was a 'ripoff', and I still do not say much about them, but the messages I printed about them in those days did leave me feeling a little squeamish at times. Then many of you will remember how, for years, I had ITU as a sponsor here, then we had that series of messages about ICANN and ITU got ticked and pulled out. Robert Shaw of ITU was the ICANN booster who did that dirty deed, but I have no hard feelings about it. I wonder just how long this 'virtual trade show/exhibition hall thing would last? If anyone wants to try and start it and serve as the 'manager' of the Exhibition Hall, then do so and keep me posted on it. But, I do have Mike Sandman for the 'I want to buy XXXX' purposes; Judith Oppenheimer for advice on toll- free issues, etc. Now days, my de-facto 'sponsor' is Uncle Sugar, of course, compliments of the nearly three months I spent comatose during the brain aneurysm and the year or so afterward I spent in therapy and rehabilitation. Uncle Sugar lets *anyone* sass him; he just does not pay attention, and even I know where to draw the line on giving him a *really* hard time. And for whatever bad things we can say about him, at least he does not spam the net, and he enables me to sit around at my computer all day doing things like http://weatherforecast.n3.net , http://friends-of-indy.n3.net , http://telecom-digest.org/fixclock/ and similar for my own amusement. Let's give some serious thought to the exhibition hall idea. And as for you, anonymous poster who requested name witheld, I *am* sorry you felt very put-upon several years ago and remained silent since then. Really, I am. I do not even remember the spat we had back then. All is forgiven, okay? PAT] ------------------------------ From: ian@jardine.net (Ian) Subject: Changing to ECG Long Distance Date: 6 Dec 2002 13:34:15 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ After much research I have just changed to ecglongdistance for my LD Tolls and International calls using Global Crossing in my area. The switch seems to be going well. Though Verizon just told me my existing LD carrier etc will charge $15.00 in total to change my 2 phones. Also ecglds website says my new LD calls in NA will cost 3.9 Cents whereas the email I just got says it will be 4.9 Cents. A confusing error???? ------------------------------ From: pstreicher@aol.com (PStreicher) Date: 05 Dec 2002 14:17:25 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Last Laugh! The Ultimate Phone Spam?! Let me tell you that I've been a subscriber to the Florida Dept. of Agriculture's 'No Solicitation' list for several years now. It's a small $5 a year fee and after the first year I think I only receive maybe a half dozen calls a year now if that. Most of those are from one or two of the same charities or a firefighter group. Charitites are exempt. It's been great. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 17:00:08 -0500 (EST) From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: WebCam: A Sight for Sore Eyes Mike Sandman recently referred me to a most unusual site on the net that I want to tell you about, and ask for some suggestions on the software. Mike has some baby birds which you can view if you go to his website for his online catalog http://www.sandman.com and follow the prompts to see the baby birds. Anyway, in the conversation he told me about this weird site called 'CameraWare' which appears to be entirely sexual and very explicit in nature. They do have a category on there for folks who want to do *other things* (besides sex all the time) but I saw no one in that section. Look at Google or some other engine under 'cameraware' as one word to find it. You get two downloads from them: one is the input mode which takes whatever image you give it and puts it on the net 24 hours per day at no charge. The software is free, putting it on the net is free. Where they get you is on the ability to *look at other guys on cam*. For that, you have to have a 'license' for various amounts of time. Presently they are giving a promotion where you get to peek for free :) for 15 minutes at a time. And the system is loaded all the time, hundreds of people showing off and probably several thousand other folks looking. It is a lot of fun, but not if you are easily offended. And they give you cookies to keep track of who is looking at what, etc. I keep it all on my Fujifilm drive F and bogus login names, etc so it can be abolished in a minute if I decide I don't want it around. When I say showing off, I mean NOTHING is left to the imagination. I think the address is http://cameraware.com but check the search engines to be certain of that. What I would like to know is if there is any freeware video sending/ receiving software around? I would like to use that technique myself to show people watching around my yard, etc, but frankly I would be embarrassed to use a service like cameraware; even with a page to get direct to your show, folks would wind up going through all that other stuff, and I have a reputation to keep up, you know. :) If I could fix it to be commercial free and license free, just a way to focus a cam on something and let people look at a web page to see the picture. Supposedly there are hacks out there on cameraware set up by hackers, etc, but I cannot find them. Any ideas? And only for your own research of course, check out http://cameraware.com PAT ------------------------------ From: hulloverlover@hotmail.com (mark) Subject: Listening In on My Home Phone Line Date: 6 Dec 2002 16:15:24 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi, I need to listen to my home phone line through my computer.Is it possible? I dont need to record just listen. I hope you can help me, your advice may help prevent me losing everything I have. Thank you, a novice, mark hulloverlover@hotmail.com ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #168 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Dec 7 17:09:53 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gB7M9rM25712; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 17:09:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 17:09:53 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212072209.gB7M9rM25712@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 #169 TELECOM Digest Sat, 7 Dec 2002 17:10:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 169 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Listening In on My Home Phone Line (www.vonage-referral.com) Re: Listening In on My Home Phone Line (joe@obilivan.net) Re: Listening In on My Home Phone Line (Harbor Diver) Re: Off-topic, but ... (Ron Bean) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (PaulCoxwell@aol.com) Re: Ten TLD's (Ron Bean) Re: Ten TLD's (Robert Bonomi) Re: Changing to ECG Long Distance (John R. Levine) Re: Changing to ECG Long Distance (Ian) Last Laugh! Internet Spammer Getting Taste of Own Medicine (John Meissen) 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, 07 Dec 2002 16:16:48 GMT From: dan@vonage-promotion.com.com Subject: Re: Listening In on My Home Phone Line Organization: Optimum Online Are you looking at "listening" live or "recording"? Dan http://www.vonage-referral.com mark wrote in message news:telecom22.168.10@telecom-digest.org: > Hi, > I need to listen to my home phone line through my computer.Is it > possible? I dont need to record just listen. > I hope you can help me, your advice may help prevent me losing > everything I have. > Thank you, a novice, > mark > hulloverlover@hotmail.com ------------------------------ From: joe@obilivan.net Subject: Re: Listening In on My Home Phone Line Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 16:36:02 GMT Organization: Cox Communications If it's that important, hire a pro rather than try to get free, often useless advice, on the internet. mark wrote: > Hi, > I need to listen to my home phone line through my computer.Is it > possible? I dont need to record just listen. > I hope you can help me, your advice may help prevent me losing > everything I have. > Thank you, a novice, > mark > hulloverlover@hotmail.com ------------------------------ From: Harbor Diver Subject: Re: Listening In on My Home Phone Line Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 07:15:37 -0500 Organization: Fugawi Marine Divers LLC - Boston, MA. Today, 6 Dec 2002 16:15:24 -0800, Two Buddha read a post from hulloverlover@hotmail.com (mark) , and determined his interest in BURP. Where's my beer? Oh and: > I need to listen to my home phone line through my computer.Is it > possible? I dont need to record just listen. > I hope you can help me, your advice may help prevent me losing > everything I have. > Thank you, a novice, If you can listen, you can record. We know this. :) That's why you want your computer to do it. We know this too. :) Marriage counselors work better than snooping, and aren't illegal. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 08:02:18 -0600 From: Ron Bean Subject: Re: Off-topic, but ... Joey Lindstrom writes: > ... I just can't leave this without replying. For those who do not > wish to read any continuation of the "Thanksgiving" thread, please > skip to the next message. OK ... > 2) When do the hatred and hard feelings end, Pat? Look at the lunacy > going on in, say, Northern Ireland right now. You've got two > religious groups doing battle on an almost daily basis over a tiff > that started centuries ago. One side attacks the other. The attacked > side retaliates the next day. WHEN DOES IT END? When we've destroyed > each other? Or can we come together at some point, forgive past > transgressions, and agree to build a new future together? One theory is that it ends when you have a legal system that's *perceived* to be neutral (both the courts, and the cops on the street). You shoot someone, you go to jail, regardless of which side you're on. Eventually all the hard-core loonies are in jail, and everyone else gets on with their lives. It doesn't work if the legal system is *perceived* to be biased (eg, cops hassling one side but not the other). That just creates more hard core loonies ... I don't know how many times in history this has actually been accomplished -- South Africa is the only one that comes to mind. The other possibility, of one side finally destroying the other, has happened any number of times. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you very much! You said it better that I could. Our perceptions of the justice system make all the difference in the world. America -- or the USA, let's say -- does not have a very good reputation in that way. PAT] ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 16:07:29 EST Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World > 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 ... >> 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. Xenophobia? I think that's an unjust accusation. Mark was just making the very reasonable point that there is no real need for North America to go to the trouble and expense of adopting the 00 IDDD prefix just to "conform" with Europe and some other parts of the world. The 011 code has served adequately for many years and there is simply no need to change it. >> ... 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. Is it "making it hard" for travelers to expect them to dial 011 instead of 00 for an international call? Anyone who can't take care of that small difference when visiting the U.S.A. is going to have a hard time coping with more mundane, and possibly risky situations, such as learning who has priority at a 4-way stop sign. (Maybe America should do away with those useful devices as well, just because Europe doesn't use them and they might confuse visitors?) I'd bet that 90% of people in the U.K. (and many other European countries) do not know their own country code in any case. Those people are going to have to check what they need to dial to call home anyway, so it makes little difference if they have to remember 011 44 instead of 00 44, or whatever. And for those Europeans who *do* make international calls on a regular basis, don't forget that 00 has been in widespread use for only a few years. Europeans managed quite well with the variety of IDDD prefixes that were used previously: 19, 07, 010, etc. If they managed to learn to use 00, why will they have trouble using 011 in America? What if some sleepy traveler does accidentally start to dial 00+ anyhow? He'll just get connected to the local Telco operator and realize that he's dialed the wrong number -- No charge. >> ...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! I'd say it's more like Fortress Europe. The authorities here aren't content with dictating that everywhere from Finland to Greece and from Ireland to Austria use the same standards, they now feel that America should be "pulled into line" as well. If anyone is going to change, it could be argued that 011 was established as an IDDD prefix standard (an international standard, let's add!) long before 00 gained popularity and that therefore Europe should adopt 011. The point is, however, that if America and Europe use different IDDD access codes, it really doesn't matter that much. Now, should *we* change to 911, or should America switch to 999? Or maybe 112? ;) Paul Coxwell Norfolk, England. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 07:56:43 -0600 From: Ron Bean Subject: Re: Ten TLD's Joey Lindstrom writes: > Nine now, ten very soon. For your viewing pleasure, they are: > .com (for "commercial" sites) > .net (for network infrastucture sites, now used by anyone) > .org (for mostly non-profit organizations, now used by anyone) > .aero (http://www.nic.aero) > .info (http://www.nic.info) > .biz (http://www.nic.biz) > .museum (http://www.nic.museum) > .name (http://www.nic.name) > .coop (http://www.nic.coop) > And ... coming soon: > .pro (http://www.nic.pro) What about .gov and .mil? (do they still use .mil?) And can anyone explain to me why most ISPs are .com and not .net? ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Ten TLD's Organization: Not Much From: bonomi@c-ns (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 12:15:48 GMT In article , Joey Lindstrom wrote: > On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 22:08:47 -0500 (EST), Robert Bonomi wrote: >> 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.' > Nine now, ten very soon. For your viewing pleasure, they are: Arghh! I forgot about the 'controlled availability' NIC handled TLDs, (aero, museum, coop) It's _twelve_ currently, with a whole sh*tload of others 'proposed' but only '.pro' has been approved. > .com (for "commercial" sites) > .net (for network infrastucture sites, now used by anyone) > .org (for mostly non-profit organizations, now used by anyone) > .aero (http://www.nic.aero) > .info (http://www.nic.info) > .biz (http://www.nic.biz) > .museum (http://www.nic.museum) > .name (http://www.nic.name) > .coop (http://www.nic.coop) .gov (U.S. government) .mil (U.S. miliatary) .int (international 'treaty' organizations) > And ... coming soon: > .pro (http://www.nic.pro) > Note to John Higdon: better start updating your spam-filter, there's a > whole new TLD a-comin' ... :-) > Joey Lindstrom > joey@garynuman.info In article , John Higdon wrote: > In article , Joey Lindstrom > wrote: >> And ... coming soon: >> .pro (http://www.nic.pro) >> Note to John Higdon: better start updating your spam-filter, there's a >> whole new TLD a-comin' ... :-) > You forgot .kids, which is to be free of any adult material. '.kids' is proposed only, one of several _hundred_ TLD names that havn't gotten any farther than the initial proposal stage. > don't need to update my spam filter. It is an "opt-in" system that > considers non-listed TLDs to be bogus. > As time goes by, my original assessment of the issue appears to be > correct. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 2002 02:02:06 -0500 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Changing to ECG Long Distance Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Though Verizon just told me my existing LD carrier etc will charge > $15.00 in total to change my 2 phones. That's ridiculous. I've never heard of an LD carrier with a termination fee. Verizon themselves may charge you $5/line to switch LD carriers. > Also ecglds website says my new LD calls in NA will cost 3.9 Cents > whereas the email I just got says it will be 4.9 Cents. A confusing > error???? They seem to have two plans. The "residential" plan is 3.9 cpm with a $1.99 monthly fee, the "small business" plan is 4.9 cpm with no fee. You have to make over 200 minutes/month of calls for the 3.9 cpm plan to be cheaper, and 200 minutes is more than most people make. 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: ian@jardine.net (Ian) Subject: Re: Changing to ECG Long Distance Date: 7 Dec 2002 06:40:20 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I am awaiting ecg's reply to my request to straighten this out. Right now the confirmation of service email from ecg said I would be charge 4.9 Cents PLUS the $1.99 Fee. I am sure all will be fine eventually. Verizon stated that the $15.00 would be because I had two lines and covered AT&T's charges as well. Verizon had to make the switch of carriers for me and they did so immediately upon my request:) ------------------------------ From: jmeissen@shell1.aracnet.com (John Meissen) Subject: Last Laugh! Internet Spammer Getting Taste of Own Medicine Date: 7 Dec 2002 06:32:38 GMT Organization: Aracnet Internet West Bloomfield bulk e-mailer Alan Ralsky, who just may be the world's biggest sender of Internet spam, is getting a taste of his own medicine. He says he's been inundated with ads, catalogs and brochures delivered by the U.S. Postal Service to his brand-new $740,000 home. http://www.freep.com/money/tech/mwend6_20021206.htm [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good work, guys! Let's keep them coming in to Mr. Ralsky. 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #169 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Dec 8 16:26:06 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gB8LQ6j20017; Sun, 8 Dec 2002 16:26:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 16:26:06 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212082126.gB8LQ6j20017@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 #170 TELECOM Digest Sun, 8 Dec 2002 16:26:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 170 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Avaya Voice Announcement Over Lan Mngr Software Release (David De Trolio) Re: Is Share Day Message Spam (Hank Karl) Re: Business Line vs Residential Line (in Kentucky) (Gary Novosielski) Re: Ten TLD's (s falke) Re: Ten TLD's (AES/newspost) Re: Ten TLD's (SELLCOM Tech support) Re: Ten TLD's (Garrett Wollman) Re: Ten TLD's (Neal McLain) Re: Ten TLD's (Walt Howard) Re: Ten TLD's (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Ten TLD's (Linc Madison) Re: Tech Titans Launch Wi-Fi Company (Tom Betz) Re: WebCam: A Sight for Sore Eyes (davidgo@excite.com) Re: Changing to ECG Long Distance (Linc Madison) How Good is Your Phone Directory's Area Code Map? (Linc Madison) High-Speed Wireless Internet Network Is Planned (Monty Solomon) Re: Off-topic, but ... (Jim) 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: David De Trolio From: David De Trolio Subject: Avaya Voice Announcement Over Lan Manager Software Release Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 23:36:09 -0500 We received the software above when we installed our new MultiVantage dual S8700 servers and new announcement board this Fall. I just installed the software Friday night, and not matter what I try or do, the software will connect to my main S8700 server over my LAN, but doe snot see or find the board. I also checked the ReadMe file and went through all the possible problems and made sure I was hitting the correct port and card, all is fine. Any assistance or tips are appreciated. We have installed four S8300 units with a G700 blade in them off our S8700's, and so far they are working well. As usual, there are patches and upgrades, both the S8700 and the S8300 are going to a load 2.0 with two hundred plus fixes according to information I have found. It is FAR better then the horrible R300 product which we were going to use for our small office solution. Thanks again ... Dave ------------------------------ From: Hank Karl Subject: Re: Is Share Day Message Spam Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 23:35:25 -0500 On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:52:17 -0500, in comp.dcom.telecom TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The person who wrote this message is > not the same person whose message I put in anonymously originally. This > person who wrote this latest suggestion (about an Exhibit Hall sort of > thing with the Digest as part of it) makes an interesting suggestion. I > would like to hear more about it. The *only* way I would consider it > would be if the telecom mailing list and anything to do with the 'trade > show exhibition hall' were kept <---------> this far apart from each > other. If someone would like to set up such a web site (it could *NOT* > be done on massis.lcs.mit.edu -- that would be Very Naughty --) I would > like to hear about it. Links on that 'virtual tradeshow' page could link > over here, and the other way around. Hi Pat, You'd probably only need one or two links from Telecom Digest, (and an occasional mention in the NG). > But one serious problem would be, how much courtesy do *I* have to > give the trade show people? If some vendor started something that > was really a rip off, do I have to stay quiet about it here on the > Digest? As a long-time reader, I doubt you would be able to stay quiet about any rip-offs. :-) And that may lose you an "exhibitor" or two. But it would increase the value of the "exhibit hall", which means that you'll get more "exibitors" or be able to charge each "exhibitor" more, or both. On the other hand, if you were to endorse one or two products at the expense of all others, it may alienate the other "exhibitors". A simple statement on the "exhibit hall" that these are paid listings, and you neither endorse them or evaluate them in depth would be appropriate (if its true, of course). I would expect you to use your experience and expertise to create an easy to navigate set of web pages, and to categorize things appropriately. For a counter-example, Yahoo doesn't do a great job of categorizeing Telecom. The ease-of-finding-what-you-want (especially when you don't know exactly what its called) is some of the value you would add. > Many of you may remember, but some of you do not remember when > Microsoft was a sponsor here a number of years ago. Those of you who > do remember thought it was a bum deal, and that I would be marching > to a new tune as of that day. As a matter of fact I did not > entertain any messages here denouncing Microsoft for over a > year. And the money *they* paid me enabled me to live in the style > to which I am (or was) accustomed for a year or so. > I am *not* saying Microsoft is/was a 'ripoff', and I still do not > say much about them, but the messages I printed about them in those > days did leave me feeling a little squeamish at times. Then many of > you will remember how, for years, I had ITU as a sponsor here, then > we had that series of messages about ICANN and ITU got ticked and > pulled out. Robert Shaw of ITU was the ICANN booster who did that > dirty deed, but I have no hard feelings about it. I wonder just how > long this 'virtual trade show/exhibition hall thing would last? If > anyone wants to try and start it and serve as the 'manager' of the > Exhibition Hall, then do so and keep me posted on it. But, I do have > Mike Sandman for the 'I want to buy XXXX' purposes; Judith > Oppenheimer for advice on toll-free issues, etc. I suggest a low fee and a lot of subscribers, so that you're not dependent on any one company. Also, the more companies and categories you have, the more valuable your site becomes because people will find what they are looking for. > Now days, my de-facto 'sponsor' is Uncle Sugar, of course, compliments > of the nearly three months I spent comatose during the brain aneurysm > and the year or so afterward I spent in therapy and rehabilitation. > Uncle Sugar lets *anyone* sass him; he just does not pay attention, > and even I know where to draw the line on giving him a *really* hard > time. And for whatever bad things we can say about him, at least he > does not spam the net, and he enables me to sit around at my computer > all day doing things like http://weatherforecast.n3.net , > http://friends-of-indy.n3.net , http://telecom-digest.org/fixclock/ > and similar for my own amusement. > Let's give some serious thought to the exhibition hall idea. And as > for you, anonymous poster who requested name witheld, I *am* sorry you > felt very put-upon several years ago and remained silent since > then. Really, I am. I do not even remember the spat we had back then. > All is forgiven, okay? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Business Line vs Residential Line (in Kentucky) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 04:38:04 GMT Ed Ellers wrote in message news:telecom22.163.3@telecom-digest.org: > 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. I think they'll let you deduct it if it is used exclusively for business purposes, such as might be the case in a home office. Therefore, they would be *especially* suspicious it if it were the only line coming in, because they would have to buy your presumption that you *never* made any personal calls whatsoever. They don't really care what you pay for it or what the phone company calls it, they care how it's actually used. In either case, you can deduct business phone calls if you document them, but the cost of the line itself is what's at issue. ------------------------------ From: s falke Subject: Re: Ten TLD's Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 22:17:37 GMT > And ... coming soon: > .pro (http://www.nic.pro) Isn't that misspelled? Thought surely it was http://www.nic.porn s falke ------------------------------ From: AES/newspost Subject: Re: Ten TLD's Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 15:14:44 -0800 In article , Ron Bean wrote: > Joey Lindstrom writes: >> Nine now, ten very soon. For your viewing pleasure, they are: >> .com (for "commercial" sites) >> .net (for network infrastucture sites, now used by anyone) >> .org (for mostly non-profit organizations, now used by anyone) >> .aero (http://www.nic.aero) >> .info (http://www.nic.info) >> .biz (http://www.nic.biz) >> .museum (http://www.nic.museum) >> .name (http://www.nic.name) >> .coop (http://www.nic.coop) >> And ... coming soon: >> .pro (http://www.nic.pro) > What about .gov and .mil? (do they still use .mil?) > And can anyone explain to me why most ISPs are .com and not .net? Where's .edu ? "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: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Ten TLD's Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 02:20:46 GMT Ron Bean posted on that vast internet thingie: > What about .gov and .mil? (do they still use .mil?) We still get occasional "mil"speck spam ... >And can anyone explain to me why most ISPs are .com and not .net? Don't worry it is nothing to do with "com"unism. It may be that it is because they are commercial businesses and thusly decided to protect themselves by renting different domain names. It may well have started like this: "Hey, I got our system up and running and we already have users." "Great, but our website says "whatever".com instead of "whatever".net." "I thought that was what you wanted. I could change it." "No, that's alright." Then across town ... "Hey, Bill, "whatever" is using .com instead of .net. We need to get with the 20th century ..." And as they say, the rest is history. Steve at SELLCOM 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: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: Ten TLD's Date: 8 Dec 2002 02:26:53 GMT Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Ron Bean wrote: > And can anyone explain to me why most ISPs are .com and not .net? Because most of their potential customers are morons who don't/won't/can't understand the difference. -- Garrett A. Wollman | [G]enes make enzymes, and enzymes control the rates of wollman@lcs.mit.edu | chemical processes. Genes do not make ``novelty- Opinions not those of| seeking'' or any other complex and overt behavior. MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Our three ISPs here in Independence are all '.net's. (1) terraworld.net, [independent] (2) hit.net [Horizon Internet Technologies; the Radio Shack guy here in town] and (3) sbcglobal.net [our friends the telephone company]. ISPs here don't have any morons for customers. In fact, there is some city ordinance which forbids morons from taking up residence here. They're not wanted in town. :). The other day, a note in the postal mail said that terraworld now is offering its own brand of DSL service, and they recently started a telco to compete with SWB as well. The only .com we have in town is amazon.com, which is not a carrier like the other three. We also have an '.edu' here: Independence Community College, and the schools and city government all use '.us' addresses. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 20:22:16 -0600 From: Neal McLain Reply-To: nmclain@annsgarden.com Organization: Ann's Garden Subject: RE: Ten TLDs Joey Lindstrom wrote: > Subject: Ten TLD's > Nine now, ten very soon. For your viewing pleasure, they are: > [...] > .coop (http://www.nic.coop) And a domain name for ICANN would be . Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ From: howard@build1.ee.ualberta.ca (Walt Howard) Subject: Re: Ten TLD's Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 05:51:54 UTC Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article , Ron Bean wrote: > What about .gov and .mil? (do they still use .mil?) Yes, they still use .mil, but Milnet is separate from the commercial Internet and the gateways are limited in number. > And can anyone explain to me why most ISPs are .com and not .net? Here's an opinion: When management of the domain name system was handed over to Network Solutions, Inc (now part of Verisign), they were more interested in making money than maintaining the vision of the people who had originally set up DNS, so they opened .net and .org up to everyone and encouraged large outfits to register names in all three zones - they got more fees that way than by keeping network providers in .net, noncommercial outfits in .org, and non-network commercial firms in .com. Too many ISPs understand money better than they understand networking (or sometimes their customers are like that), and they went for .com so their salescritters wouldn't have to explain to customers what .net meant. Walt Howard /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign InterNet: whoward@ieee.org \ / No HTML in mail or news! BellNet: +1 780 492 7262 / \ ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 22:52:37 -0700 Subject: Re: Ten TLD's Reply-To: joey@garynuman.info Since my original posting, there've been a few replies here plus I got this one in private email. Since the writer didn't choose to post it to this forum, I must assume that the writer values privacy so I won't identify who wrote it. The points made are valid, though. ==================BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE================== You forgot a few: .arpa (used for infrastructure stuff, no more email addresses I know of) .edu (schools of various sorts, www.educause.edu) .gov (now US Fed'l government, others grandfathered, www.nic.gov) .int (international treaty organizations, apply to IANA with treaty in hand) .mil (US military, www.nic.mil) > Nine now, ten very soon. For your viewing pleasure, they are: > .com (for "commercial" sites) > .net (for network infrastucture sites, now used by anyone) > .org (for mostly non-profit organizations, now used by anyone) > .aero (http://www.nic.aero) > .info (http://www.nic.info) > .biz (http://www.nic.biz) > .museum (http://www.nic.museum) > .name (http://www.nic.name) > .coop (http://www.nic.coop) >And ... coming soon: > .pro (http://www.nic.pro) ===================END FORWARDED MESSAGE=================== Absolutely correct. I was thinking in terms of "publicly available" ones only, but failed to make that clear: my bad. Upon further reflection, though, an .edu address is probably easier to obtain than .museum, .coop, .aero or .pro., so I shouldn't have even tried to make that distinction. Plus, while I was aware of the existence of these extra five: 1) I had thought .arpa to be completely phased out and thus no longer really in existence. If I'm mistaken, then again: my bad. :-) 2) I dunno, I had kinda lumped .int into my mind as sorta like ccTLD's. Again upon further reflection, I guess it's more along the lines of .gov than any ccTLD, so point taken. So, the above list (fifteen TLD's) account, to the best of my knowledge, the range of TLD's outside of ccTLD's. Aside to John Higdon. .kids doesn't exist. If you're going to be paranoid, at least have the grace to be paranoid about the real world. :-) / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom / / I got a chain letter by fax. It's very simple. You just fax a dollar / bill to everybody on the list. / --Steven Wright [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And don't forget '.us' as one in somewhat infrequent use. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Ten TLD's Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 00:13:47 -0800 Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com In article , Robert Bonomi wrote: > .int (international 'treaty' organizations) Very small nit-pick: it's any international organization, not just international 'treaty' organizations. For example, is not a 'treaty' organization at all, although it is telecom-related. In the same thread, in article , Ron Bean wrote: > And can anyone explain to me why most ISPs are .com and not .net? Simple. Type any word or name into most web browsers and hit 'enter'. If you type aslkjdflkasdflj, they will try: http://aslkjdflkasdflj http://aslkjdflkasdflj.com http://www.aslkjdflkasdflj.com in that order. They will never try dot-net, with or without the www prefix, unless they also do a search engine dip and come up with that site and not the dot-com version of the name. Anyway, most ISPs I know of are *both* .com and .net of the same name (e.g., earthlink.net and earthlink.com). www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: Tech Titans Launch Wi-Fi Company Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 00:23:16 UTC Organization: XOme Quoth Monty Solomon in news:telecom22.167.15@telecom- digest.org: > Intel, IBM and AT&T have officially thrown their combined weight > behind the effort to create a nationwide network of public "hot spots" > that would give people wireless broadband Internet access from just > about anywhere. A day late and a dollar short. By the time this gets up and running, true 3G (not that "2.5G" crap) will provide all the bandwidth mobile users will need at reasonable all-you-can- eat prices. ------------------------------ From: davidgo@excite.com Subject: Re: WebCam: A Sight for Sore Eyes Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 00:10:49 GMT Pat-- You can use Netmeeting to show your camera to any (only one at a time) person. Are you familiar with Netmeeting? It is part of all the Windows programs (even XP, although it is hidden) and has audio and video chat as well as the ability to transfer files and share the desktop for helping fix problems. Let me know if you want to experiment with Netmeeting. David TELCOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your note about net meeting. I do know how to use it, although I do not have much interest in it. Yahoo is superior in that you can use video in a meeting room with several watching at once. If only one is watching and you both have DSL (or any high speed broadband) then the two of you can use what Yahoo calls 'super cam' or 'turbo cam' (not sure of the exact name) but you get real time movement of arms, legs other body parts, etc. Not just 'jerk motions' every eight or ten seconds. What I really want is software that can take in images from my cam, and put them back out on my web page, enabling any number of viewers. I will install the cam in my back yard by my weather station ( http://weatherforecast.n3.net ) so people can view the weather conditions. I *could* do this with cameraware.com but there is no way to do a redirect (in a frame for example) TO MY PAGE ONLY (thus bypassing all the rauchy stuff elsewhere on the site.) I have tried, but the outbound pages at cameraware are written in some exceptionally tricky javascripts. I cannot get around them ... that I know of. But thanks for the hint on metmeeting. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Changing to ECG Long Distance Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 23:54:15 -0800 Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com In article , Ian wrote: > Verizon stated that the $15.00 would be because I had two lines and > covered AT&T's charges as well. Verizon had to make the switch of > carriers for me and they did so immediately upon my request:) That doesn't address the real question. Is Verizon telling you that AT&T (your old carrier) is charging you (or charging Verizon) a fee for your switch to ECG (your new carrier)? If Verizon is in any way suggesting that AT&T will bill you a fee for the change, they are lying to you. If Verizon is in any way suggesting that they are charging you a fee because AT&T charges them a fee for your change, they are lying to you. Verizon will charge you a fee because they have to have someone change the setting on your account, and that involves actual human labor. I don't really know how much human labor, whether or not $7 to $8 is a reasonable charge per line, but at least some work is performed. If you have two lines, and you are changing both the inter-LATA and intra-LATA carrier, then $15 is about what Verizon will charge you to switch, but that doesn't "cover" *ANY* "AT&T charges" at all. Depending on the terms under which you signed up, your new carrier may or may not reimburse you the charge from Verizon to change carriers. My most recent carrier change did not reimburse me, but their rates are low enough I think I'll be net ahead in a couple of months, tops. www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California ------------------------------ From: Linc Madison Subject: How Good is Your Phone Directory's Area Code Map? Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 00:27:45 -0800 Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com I'd like to ask the readers of this forum to help me with a little informal, non-scientific survey on a subject near and dear to my heart. Specifically, I'd like to know what U.S. and Canadian readers think of the quality of the area code map printed in the front of your local phone book. (Readers from other parts of the world, I'd be interested to know if your directories have similar maps, or only lists of cities and towns.) Is it current? Is it accurate? If you choose to participate in this survey, please include the following information: * city, state/province, and cover date of the directory (e.g., Foo-barre, IN, September 2002) * dominant LEC(s) in the directory's service area (e.g., 80% SBC/Ameritech, 20% Verizon/GTE) * publisher of the directory (especially if it's not the dominant LEC) I'm particularly interested to hear how well the smaller players compare to the big boys. You can, of course, use my own map on my web site as a reference point for accuracy :-) www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 10:21:37 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: High-Speed Wireless Internet Network Is Planned By JOHN MARKOFF SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 5 - The wireless technology known as WiFi, which allows users of personal and hand-held computers to connect to the Internet at high speed without cables, got a significant stamp of approval today when AT&T, I.B.M. and Intel announced a new company to create a nationwide network. The unruly technology, which has largely been a playground for hackers, hobbyists and high-technology start-ups, is already sprouting mushroomlike in coffee shops, bookstores, airports, hotels, homes, businesses and even a few parks. The new company, Cometa Networks, has set ambitious goals for itself: to deploy more than 20,000 wireless access points by the end of 2004, placing an cable-less high-speed Internet connection within either a five-minute walk in urban areas or a five-minute drive in suburban communities. Executives from the technology companies and the two investment firms, Apax Partners and 3i, that joined to create the network said they would begin offering their service through cellular and wired telephone companies, D.S.L. and cable Internet service providers and other Internet retailers some time in 2003. The service is intended to let subscribers pop open their laptops and have a seamless high-speed wireless extension of their personal or corporate Internet services -- initially in the 50 largest metropolitan areas -- without having to give credit card numbers or enter additional information, as is generally the case now. Connections would generally be at least the speed of a typical home broadband connection. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/06/technology/06WIRE.html ------------------------------ From: Jim Subject: Re: Off-topic, but ... Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 13:24:06 -0500 Joey Lindstrom wrote: > ... I just can't leave this without replying. For those who do not > wish to read any continuation of the "Thanksgiving" thread, please > skip to the next message. > On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 22:08:47 EST, editor@telecom-digest.org > wrote: >> [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. > Let me ask you two questions, Pat. > 1) Why should I apologize for any of those people? I wasn't here. > They're not related to me either directly or indirectly (well, maybe > WAY, WAY back in the ol' family tree). My paternal > great-grandparents (both sides) emigrated to Canada from Sweden in > the early 1900's. My mother emigrated to Canada in 1965 from > England. We had nothing to do with any of these events. And even if > my relatives came over on the Mayflower, *THEY* are the > "perpetrators". Not me, not my family. Forget about these things? > No. Continue to feel guilty about them? Hell no. Why should *I* > apologize on behalf of the "perpetrators"? They had their chance to > do so. > 2) When do the hatred and hard feelings end, Pat? Look at the lunacy > going on in, say, Northern Ireland right now. You've got two > religious groups doing battle on an almost daily basis over a tiff > that started centuries ago. One side attacks the other. The attacked > side retaliates the next day. WHEN DOES IT END? When we've destroyed > each other? Or can we come together at some point, forgive past > transgressions, and agree to build a new future together? > BTW, I feel the same way about this "slavery reparations" argument > that comes up from time to time. Nobody living today ever benefited > from slavery, and nobody living today ever was victimized by it (note: > when I say "slavery", I'm talking about the legal institution of > slavery, and leaving out isolated criminal incidents that have > happened since emancipation). Why should those who never benefited > have to pay reparations to those who were never harmed? Yes, slavery > was A Bad Thing, but again - how long are we going to be angry at > each other? > Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring > joey@lairdsflooring.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've worked my family tree back to 1635 > on my father's side of the family; the *original* Townsends here in > the USA came from England around that time. One of the Townsend bunch > migrated from Long Island, NY down to the Carolinas, then through the > Appalachin Mountains into Georgia by sometime in the 1800's, then to > Blairsville, GA in the late 1800's; then via Tulsa, Indian Territory > and Tahlequah, Indian Territory (later Oklahoma) then into Coffeyville, > KS at the start of the 20th century. On my mother's side, I have traced > the Mahans back to 1840 when they came from Ireland. I agree with you > that at some point the hostilities should come to an end. Maybe the > hostility will end when Dubya and his cronies get off their arrogance > kick regarding the middle east; in other words, no time soon. PAT] Yeah everyone knows that Middle East violence is caused by President Bush, and no violence existed before he took office. Appeasing thugs has always worked so well throughout history as well. Tracing family trees is fun, but what happened long before any of us were born is hardly reason to feel guilty for world history. Should we hang ourselves with shame if our ancestors were part of the Roman Empire in its imperial days too? Should you feel guilty, and maybe even owe me reparations, if your cave man ancestors attacked my family's ancient cave? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It isn't *quite* that simple. You make several good points, but, although there has been violence in the middle east over the years, it seems to me it is exaberated by the United States. We can do nothing about Al-Quaida or Mr. Sodomy Insane, but we do not have to egg them on, inviting them to cause trouble. The USA should mind its business and stay out of troublesome situations like the middle east. Why does the USA have to stick its nose into things and then act so offended when someone retaliates. I mean, with the way the USA is *always* getting into things, it was only going to be a matter of time before one of those guys pushed back. When is the last time you ever saw Switzerland get into a war? Why did the attack on WTC and the Pentagon cause so much consternation? If you foolishly mix up a bunch of volitile chemicals as Bush II, Clinton, Ray Gun, Bush I have all done with their arrogance over the years, why don't you expect an explosion now and then? I mean, the whole Bush family; what a hot team! And Clinton was a liar/sex maniac from the start also. Look at Bush II and the 'Christians' who hang on his every word. He has no more use for them than Clinton did for gay guys. Just another block of voters to be lied to and hopefully appeased. But the 'Christians' keep egging on Bush, hoping he will provide the Armaggeon they keep hoping for and praying about. Regards the Indians we had started talking about; this was not just a simple genocide; the earliest Americans literally wiped out the entire nation. I don't see what good apologies would do either at this late date, but I would like to see more modern-day Americans mortified and embarassed by what happened; not just naming baseball and football teams after Indians. But as long as the United States government stays on its arrogant and foolish ways; I see no hope. Imagine this scenario: five hundred years from now, when the USA has long been forgotten about except in history books as 'that nation whose arrogance and foolishness and pride caused it to be defeated in a major conflagration with the east 498 years ago .... ' the newspapers (or whatever the media in that day happens to be) announces a sports team playing in Bhagdad, called the 'Bhagdad Americans', who will be competing in baseball against the 'Cairo Yankees'. What's the difference when we now have a team called the 'Cleveland Indians'? The oldest civilizations in the world lasted a few hundred years before they were detroyed. How long did the Roman empire last? How long does the 'American Empire' get before it also is gone? We've been around over two hundred years already, so our time is beginning to run short. And around two or three hundred years into the Roman Empire, *they* were pretty arrogant also and expected to be around forever. A hymn we sang in church today was 'Turn Back Oh Man, Forswear Thy Foolish Ways'. And our government, regretably, knows all about foolishness and arrogance. So President Bush (or Dubya for short), here is an Editor's Note just for you: Al-Quaida is gonna get you if you don't can the balogna pretty quick now. Watch and see. My Sunday Sermon has already ran overtime for today. Bye until tomorrow, everyone. 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #170 ****************************** NOTE: ISSUES 171 AND 172 MAILED OUT OF ORDER. 172 Appears next then 171 APPEARS AFTER THAT. From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Dec 9 16:29:26 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gB9LTQM18018; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:29:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:29:26 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212092129.gB9LTQM18018@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 #172 TELECOM Digest Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:30:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 172 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #361, December 9, 2002 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: How Good is Your Phone Directory's Area Code Map? (Neal McLain) Re: Changing to ECG Long Distance (Ian) SL-1 Incoming Cot Call Routing (Rich) .us (Joey Lindstrom) MAP (Mobile Application Part) v3 (M Pires) Re: WebCam: A Sight for Sore Eyes (J Kelly) Re: WebCam: A Sight for Sore Eyes (MrDan) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (Phil McKerracher) Wi-Fi Internet Access Is Hot, But Profit Potential Is Tepid (M. Solomon) Fliers Will Soon Be Able to Go Online on Board (Monty Solomon) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 10:17:02 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #361, December 9, 2002 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 361: December 9, 2002 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: ** BELL CANADA: http://www.bell.ca ** CISCO SYSTEMS CANADA: http://www.cisco.com/ca/letstalk ** CYGCOM INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES: http://www.cygcom.com ** ERICSSON CANADA: http://www.ericsson.ca ** JUNIPER NETWORKS: http://www.juniper.net ** PRIMUS CANADA: http://www.primustel.ca ** Q9 NETWORKS: http://www.Q9.com ** TELUS: http://www.telus.com ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Microcell Misses Debt Payment ** GT Cuts Staff by One-Third ** BCE Sued Over Excel, Teleglobe ** RIM Intros Two New BlackBerries ** Report Questions BCE Accounting ** CGI Bids to Acquire Cognicase ** Bell Broke Winback Rules, CRTC Says ** CRTC Seeks Comment on Payphone Access ** CRTC Clarifies Scope of CDNA Proceeding ** Videotron Hearing Adjourned ** Cable Modems for Third-Party Internet Access ** Text Messaging Doubles in Eight Months ** Shaw to Cut Capital Spending 50% ** Telus to Provide CPC Operator Service ** Randy Benson Leaves Call-Net ** Certicom Losses Narrow ** Video Conferencing's New Look ============================================================ MICROCELL MISSES DEBT PAYMENT: Microcell Telecom missed an interest payment on its debt December 2. It must now pay within 30 days to avoid default. The cellco says it is continuing refinancing discussions with its banks and lenders. ** Dominion Bond Rating Service has reduced Microcell's debt rating to "D" -- its lowest. GT CUTS STAFF BY ONE-THIRD: On December 5, Group Telecom laid off 250 employees, more than a third of its staff. GT says integration with its new owner, 360networks, may result in further cuts. BCE SUED OVER EXCEL, TELEGLOBE: Dallas-based VarTec Telecom, which bought multi-level marketer Excel Communications for US$250 million from BCE in April, is now suing to get its money back. VarTec says BCE's decision to pull support from Excel's former parent, Teleglobe, violated promises it made during negotiations. ** BCE says VarTec's claim is "without merit or foundation" and promises "to vigorously defend its position." RIM INTROS TWO NEW BLACKBERRIES: Research In Motion has introduced BlackBerry e-mail/phone devices that work on iDEN (Mike in Canada) and 1XRTT networks. REPORT QUESTIONS BCE ACCOUNTING: Under Canadian accounting rules, BCE has earned $10.77 billion since 1999, with very large year-to-year swings. A new report by Mark Rosen of Accountability Research says that using U.S. rules for the same period would change that to a $1.25 billion loss. ** Rosen criticizes the non-standard "baseline earnings" measure BCE often reports. By excluding one-time costs and gains, it puts BCE's earnings since 1999 at $4.36 billion, but with much less year-to-year volatility. CGI BIDS TO ACQUIRE COGNICASE: CGI Group has offered to buy Cognicase, another Montreal-based IT services outsourcer, for $313 million. Cognicase has formed a committee to consider the offer, which its CEO says does not reflect the company's value. BELL BROKE WINBACK RULES, CRTC SAYS: In a sharp reprimand, the CRTC says Bell Canada violated regulations that require a 90-day waiting period before a telco tries to win back a local customer who has switched to a competitor. Bell argued that the ban did not include the time before the actual switch took place; the CRTC says it begins when the telco is informed of the customer's decision, and continues until 90 days after the switch is completed. ** Bell has 60 days to spell out the measures it will take to prevent further violations. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2002/dt2002-73.htm CRTC SEEKS COMMENT ON PAYPHONE ACCESS: In Public Notice 2002- 6, the CRTC asks for comment on consumer reliance on public payphones, how quickly telcos are withdrawing them from service, and whether payphones should be more accessible to the deaf. Interested parties must register by December 19, but those who simply want to submit a written comment have until May 1 to do so. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Notices/2002/pt2002-6.htm CRTC CLARIFIES SCOPE OF CDNA PROCEEDING: In Decision 2002-75, the CRTC says that the CDNA proceeding may consider variable markups and compensation to competitors providing wholesale services, as well as all other topics challenged by Telus in November. (See Telecom Update #344, 351) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2002/dt2002-75.htm VIDEOTRON HEARING ADJOURNED: On the request of Videotron and sports broadcaster RDS, the CRTC adjourned last Monday's public hearing because the parties said they were nearing agreement on the payments Videotron owes RDS. If the two don't agree by January 13, the hearing will reconvene. (See Telecom Update #360) ** Separately, the Federal Court of Appeal has granted Videotron's parent company, Quebecor Media, permission to appeal the CRTC's original order directing Videotron to pay the outstanding amounts to RDS (Broadcasting Decision 2002-255). No date has been set for the appeal. CABLE MODEMS FOR THIRD-PARTY INTERNET ACCESS: In Telecom Public Notice 2002-7, the CRTC expresses its preliminary view that ISPs who wish to provide high-speed Internet service over cable TV facilities should use DOCSIS 1.1-compliant cable modems certified by CableLabs and tested by the cable carrier in question. To comment, notify the CRTC by January 10. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Notices/2002/pt2002-7.htm TEXT MESSAGING DOUBLES IN EIGHT MONTHS: The Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association says that Canadians sent more than 20 million wireless text messages in November, double the level in April, when inter-carrier messaging was introduced. SHAW TO CUT CAPITAL SPENDING 50%: CEO Jim Shaw told Shaw Communications' annual meeting December 4 that the cableco plans $335 million in capital spending next year, down from $683 million in 2002. Shaw expects to sell U.S. cable assets this month; it plans no telephony venture in the next five years. TELUS TO PROVIDE CPC OPERATOR SERVICE: Telus expects to gain $1.2 million in revenue from a new three-year agreement to provide operator services for Canada Payphone Corp. ** CPC reports $3.1 million revenue and a $5.0 million loss for the year ending September 30. RANDY BENSON LEAVES CALL-NET: Call-Net CEO Randy Benson has resigned, effective December 31. No replacement has been announced. (See Telecom Update #231) CERTICOM LOSSES NARROW: Mississauga-based Certicom, which makes wireless security products, had a US$1.7 million loss in the three months ended October 31, compared to a $22.8 million loss a year ago. Revenue declined 4% to $2.6 million; operating expenses fell 68%. VIDEO CONFERENCING'S NEW LOOK: In Telemanagement #200, John Riddell reports on new technology and services that make video conferencing more accessible and affordable. Also in the current issue: ** The Slow Advent of IP Centrex ** Eight Questions on IP Telephony ** High-Speed Internet: The Two-Way Satellite Option 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. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 06:39:44 -0600 From: Neal McLain Reply-To: nmclain@annsgarden.com Organization: Ann's Garden Subject: Re: How Good is Your Phone Directory's Area Code Map? Linc Madison wrote: > I'd like to ask the readers of this forum to help me with a little > informal, non-scientific survey on a subject near and dear to my > heart ... Here in Northern Utah, we have three telephone directories: ======= QWEST =========== Qwest's area-code map in the Ogden/North Davis [Utah] directory for 2002-2003 is amazingly accurate. A few recent codes are missing (e.g., 325, 432, 575, 689), but most of these haven't implemented anyway. Requested info: > city, state/province, and cover date of the directory (e.g.... Ogden, Utah: "QwestDex Ogden/North Davis." Cover date: "Use through June 2003." > dominant LEC(s) in the directory's service area > (e.g., 80% SBC/Ameritech, 20% Verizon/GTE) Qwest is dominant ILEC, at 100% as far as I know. CLECS listed in the Qwest directory: AT&T (residential and business) Electric Lightwave (business only) Integra Telecom (business only) Ionex (residential-vs.-business not specified) McLeodUSA (residential and business) Mpower Communications (business only) 1-800-RECONEX (residential-vs.-business not specified) PAC WEST Telecom Inc. (business only) Tel West Communications LLC (residential and business) > publisher of the directory (especially if it's not the dominant > LEC) QuestDex, Copyright 2002 Quest Communications International, Inc. ======= PHONE DIRECTORIES COMPANY =========== This directory includes an area-code map provided by MapQuest. It's not as accurate as Qwest's, but acceptable for most purposes. Specific errors I noted: Several codes are missing; e.g. 325, 385, 424, 432, 475, 575, 667, 709, 780, 959 (but, curiously, 689 *is* shown). 867 is missing from the main map, although a sliver of it is shown on the Alaska inset. 902 is identified as Nova Scotia only. 917 is identified as Manhattan only. Requested info: > city, state/province, and cover date of the directory (e.g.... Ogden, Utah: "Mt. Ogden Phone Directory." Cover date: "2002-2003." > dominant LEC(s) in the directory's service area > (e.g., 80% SBC/Ameritech, 20% Verizon/GTE) See Qwest, above. > publisher of the directory (especially if it's not the dominant > LEC) Directory: Copyright 2003 (sic) Phone Directories Co., Inc. Area Code map: Copyright 2002 MAPQUEST. ======= TRANSWESTERN PUBLISHING =========== This directory includes a 1999 area-code map provided by Aegis Publishing; it's the least accurate of the three. Specific errors I noted: 424 is shown as an overlay, rather than a split. 867 isn't shown on the map at all; in an accompanying list, it's identified only as "NT", ignoring the other two territories. Many recent codes are missing; e.g.: 229, 239, 260, 262, 269, 289, 321, 325, 337, 347, 385, 386, 432, 445, 470, 475, 478, 479, 563, 571, 574, 575, 585, 620, 631, 641, 646, 647, 667, 682, 682, 687, 689, 731, 754, 763, 772, 835, 859, 863, 865, 878, 928, 936, 939, 952, 959, 971, 979, 980, 984, 989 (and probably more, but I lost count). Requested info: > city, state/province, and cover date of the directory (e.g.... Ogden, Utah: "Northern Utah Regional Telephone Directory." Cover date: "Use thru September 2003." > dominant LEC(s) in the directory's service area > (e.g., 80% SBC/Ameritech, 20% Verizon/GTE) See Qwest, above. > publisher of the directory (especially if it's not the dominant > LEC) Directory: TransWestern Publishing (no copyright notice). Area Code map: Copyright 1999 Aegis Publishing Group, Newport, RI. Linc: If you'll provide a mailing address, I'll send copies of these maps to you. Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ From: ian@jardine.net (Ian) Subject: Re: Changing to ECG Long Distance Date: 9 Dec 2002 09:53:38 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I do have two lines and Verizon told me Fees would Total $15.00 inlcuding AT&T charges. The changeover of carrier was done by Verizon, while I was on the phone with them. It took 5 minutes:) ------------------------------ From: rgpnyc@yahoo.com (Rich) Subject: SL-1 Incoming Cot Call Routing Date: 9 Dec 2002 10:59:42 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I have been trying to figure this one out, but have been unable to find a solution. Currently our system handles incoming calls via T1 and outgoing calls via several cots. The problem that I have is that when someone places a call, the number that shows and registers in the caller ID is the cot number and not the actual DN. There has been several occassions where a prank call has been placed and the individual calls back the cot number. The cot number is setup to route to the attendant. I hav been trying to change this for the last two days. Is there a way to route to a partuicular DN or a RAN route? Your help is greatly appreciated! thanks. ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 13:02:54 -0700 Subject: .us Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 16:26:06 EST, editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And don't forget '.us' as one in > somewhat infrequent use. PAT] Ah, but .us is like .ca, .uk, etc.: a ccTLD, and we were only speaking of non-ccTLD's. Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com ------------------------------ From: MIGUEL.PIRES@PORTUGALMAIL.PT (M Pires) Subject: MAP (Mobile Application Part) v3 Date: 9 Dec 2002 06:15:47 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi everyone! I couldn't find any info related with this on any of the FAQs so if I am repeating something please apologize and kindly redirect me to the appropriate site. My question is related to the Mobile Application Part, application context 3. What I want to know is, what advantages are there in migrating to MAP v3? Does it have anything to do with GPRS? Does GPRS need MAP v3? What new functionalities are available with MAP v3?? Thank you very much! ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: WebCam: A Sight for Sore Eyes Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 08:53:31 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 00:10:49 GMT, TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > What I really > want is software that can take in images from my cam, and put them > back out on my web page, enabling any number of viewers. Check out this one. http://www.visiongs.com/ I've used it a bit and it seems pretty good. There is a free personal version available. ------------------------------ From: mr-dan@iname.com (MrDan) Subject: Re: WebCam: A Sight for Sore Eyes Date: 9 Dec 2002 01:23:22 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ > I *could* do this with cameraware.com but there is no way to do a > redirect (in a frame for example) TO MY PAGE ONLY (thus bypassing > all the rauchy stuff elsewhere on the site.) I have tried, but the > outbound pages at cameraware are written in some exceptionally tricky > javascripts. I cannot get around them ... that I know of. CameraWare allows you to setup a PRIVATE camera and a PRIVATE applet to view it. This allows you to eliminate all of the adult materials. See: http://www.cameraware.com/webmasters/webmasters.html#privatecam Dan E. ------------------------------ From: phil@mckerracher.org (Phil McKerracher) Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World Date: 9 Dec 2002 03:33:26 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ PaulCoxwell@aol.com wrote in message news:: >> 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 ... >>> 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. > Xenophobia? I think that's an unjust accusation. OK, wrong word I agree. It's not a fear of foreigners it's indifference. Call it arrogance. > Is it "making it hard" for travelers to expect them to dial 011 > instead of 00 for an international call? Yes, it's a pain. At one stage I was travelling regularly between the UK, US and Oz and remembering which country was 011, 0011 or 010 was very confusing. I'm still not sure which was which. It's not always easy to discover the correct code. And it's unnecessary. > ...going to have a > hard time coping with more mundane, and possibly risky situations, > such as learning who has priority at a 4-way stop sign... Exactly! Another unnecessary, expensive and in this case dangerous difference. > America should do away with those useful devices as well, just because > Europe doesn't use them and they might confuse visitors?... Well, no, the general idea when standardizing is that you keep the good bits and throw out the bad. In fact, I believe this principle is enshrined in law in the EEC harmonization arena. > ... I'd bet that 90% of people in the U.K. (and many other European > countries) do not know their own country code in any case ... Hmm. Is there money on offer here? :-) > If anyone is going to change, it could be argued that 011 was > established as an IDDD prefix standard (an international standard, > let's add!) long before 00 gained popularity and that therefore Europe > should adopt 011. I don't follow the bit about it being an international standard, but I've got no problem whatever with adopting any particular code. We've already changed IDD and emergency numbers in the UK (and just about every other number as well!). I imagine there are practical reasons for the choice of 00 over 011, and I admit that it's quite possible that these same practical reasons prevent the Merkins doing the opposite change. But that's not what the original rant was about. Phil McKerracher www.mckerracher.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 03:14:04 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Wi-Fi Internet Access Is Hot, But Profit Potential Is Tepid By BARNABY J. FEDER With the Wi-Fi wireless Internet access standard becoming a bandwagon that even big players like AT&T, I.B.M. and Intel are joining, equipment companies big and small are hoping to ride along. But many industry analysts say it could be hard to make money in Wi-Fi, which is unlikely to represent more than a tiny fraction of the overall telecommunications equipment market for at least several years. Many of the early leaders in Wi-Fi are obscure companies like Proxim, Buffalo, Linksys and Dlink. And those that do not sell gear directly to consumers must rely on selling to Wi-Fi service providers that are themselves start-ups still trying to find their way, companies like Boingo Wireless, HereUAre Communications, FatPort and Surf and Sip. The service providers set up "hot spots" at places like airport lounges or Starbucks coffee shops, where anyone with a laptop computer or other device equipped for Wi-Fi can go online. While analysts hesitate to predict that any of these companies will survive to become widely recognized brands like Netscape, the resemblance to the Internet craze of the 1990's has been widely noted. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/09/technology/09WIFI.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 03:18:54 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Fliers Will Soon Be Able to Go Online on Board By MATTHEW L. WALD WASHINGTON - THE Internet, pervasive wherever planes land, is now penetrating higher altitudes as well. The other ubiquitous communications tool of travelers, the cellphone, might follow in the cabin with some technical changes, but not immediately. On Jan. 15 Lufthansa will begin offering Internet connections on a single Boeing 747-400, the latest model, that flies daily between Dulles International Airport and Frankfurt. It will offer the same service in its Senator lounges in New York, Frankfurt and Düsseldorf. The Internet system on the Lufthansa plane uses the most technologically advanced communications system aloft, satellite connection, already common on corporate jets. It employs an antenna on the top of the plane; the type of satellite dish common on the ground would not be practical, because it would have to be repointed as the plane moved. The antenna can be steered electronically, and over the Atlantic it can refocus from one satellite over North America to another over Europe without interrupting a download, according to Connexion by Boeing, the Boeing subsidiary that built the system. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/08/travel/08rep.html ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #172 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Dec 9 22:45:03 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gBA3j3k25069; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 22:45:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 22:45:03 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212100345.gBA3j3k25069@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 #171 TELECOM Digest Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:04:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 171 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson All CD Orders Mailed, Accounted For (TELECOM Digest Editor) EFF Rejects Broadcast Flag; Urges FCC to Stop Hollywood (Monty Solomon) Need Canadian LD Company; Need to Call Canada-Only 800 Number (Mark) Re: Number Read Back Service (KevinM) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (Owain) Re: Tech Titans Launch Wi-Fi Company (John Higdon) Re: Ten TLD's (blank no spam) "dot kids", was Re: Ten TLD's (Danny Burstein) Re: Carrier Lookup (Robert Woolley) Cingular Reveals Incoming Blocked Numbers (Monty Solomon) Satellite is Dishing Out Competition to Cable (Monty Solomon) Wal-Mart Backs Away From DMCA Claim (Monty Solomon) Cordless - HELP (Shahrukh) Re: How Good is Your Phone Directory's Area Code Map? (Paul Coxwell) Open Application Platform (Christoph) 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, 9 Dec 2002 01:00:52 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: All CD Orders Mailed, Accounted For All orders for the Telecom Archives CD received as of Friday, 12/6 have been transmitted to Joey, and have been mailed out as of Sunday, 12/8. There may be one exception, that of Mr. Quinn in Springfield, VA which I screwed up in transmitting to Joey, and that has also been handled on a rush basis as of earlier Sunday night. So if you ordered it with Paypal Friday 12/6 or earlier and have not yet received it (by Tuesday or Wednesday 12/9 - 12/10 at the latest in the US Mail) then PLEASE LET ME KNOW IN EMAIL RIGHT AWAY. You, Mr. Quinn, should have yours 'soon' around that time (frown with apologies for my bad!). Remember, anyone who ordered one prior to this past Friday via PayPal should have it in the next day or three. If you ordered it in US Mail with a check, all of those were transmitted to Joey as they came in, and my box was empty on this past Friday. Unless the snail mail was in the past several days or the PayPal thing was since Friday, you *should* have your CD by now or around Tuesday or Wednesday at latest. TELL ME OR JOEY IF YOU DO NOT FOR SOME REASON. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:49:04 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EFF Rejects Broadcast Flag ; Urges FCC to Stop Hollywood from http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/HDTV/20021209_eff_bpdg_pr.html Electronic Frontier Foundation Rejects Broadcast Flag Urges FCC to Stop Hollywood from Dominating Technology San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on Friday rejected Hollywood's "Broadcast Flag" proposal, advising the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to set aside Hollywood's latest bid to undermine fair use and stymie innovation. EFF filed comments with the FCC opposing the Broadcast Flag proposal because the proposal would give Hollywood unwarranted control over the development of digital television (DTV) and related technologies to the detriment of creators and consumers of the technologies. "A broadcast flag mandate is an ineffective solution to a non-existent problem," explained EFF in its comments on the proposed rulemaking submitted to the FCC. "At the same time, any broadcast flag mandate will impose genuine and substantial costs on consumers and innovators. It would raise the cost of DTV devices while reducing the value that they represent to consumers. It would stifle innovation in DTV and general-purpose technologies. It would abridge the First Amendment freedoms of software authors. All of this,in the end, will impede, rather than encourage, the transition to DTV." The Broadcast Flag -- a signal to be added to all DTV broadcasts -- is a critical weapon in Hollywood's arsenal aimed at strangling innovation and fair use. In the "Content Protection Status Report," the entertainment industry sets out a roadmap for giving entertainment companies control over the design of general-purpose computers, over analog-to-digital converters, and over the Internet itself. The FCC initiated the Broadcast Flag proceedings last summer after receiving a letter from Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, author of the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA). The CBDTPA is a sweeping proposal that would require technologists to seek permission from entertainment companies prior to making new technologies available to the public. Industry observers have described the Broadcast Flag as a "mini-CBDTPA." EFF has led the effort to educate the public about the Broadcast Flag, attending every meeting of the Motion Picture Association of America's Broadcast Protection Discussion Group and popularizing relevant issues on the "Consensus at Lawyerpoint" weblog. Links: For this release: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/HDTV/20021209_eff_bpdg_pr.html EFF comments to FCC on Broadcast Flag proposal: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/HDTV/20021206_fcc_comments.html Consensus at Lawyerpoint weblog: http://bpdg.blogs.eff.org/ GNU Radio: http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/gnuradio.html EFF "Intellectual Property - Video - HDTV/BPDG/Digital Television/Digital Cable" archive: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/HDTV/ About EFF: The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading civil liberties organization working to protect rights in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF actively encourages and challenges industry and government to support free expression and privacy online. EFF is a member-supported organization and maintains one of the most linked-to websites in the world at http://www.eff.org/ Contact: Cory Doctorow Outreach Coordinator Electronic Frontier Foundation cory@eff.org +1 415 436-9333 x106 (office) Seth Schoen Staff Technologist Electronic Frontier Foundation schoen@eff.org +1 415 436-9333 x107 Fred von Lohmann Senior Intellectual Property Attorney Electronic Frontier Foundation fred@eff.org +1 415 436-9333 x123 (office) ------------------------------ From: nanoburst@yahoo.com (Mark) Subject: Need Canada LD Company; I Need to Call Canada-Only 800 Number Date: 9 Dec 2002 09:31:15 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I'm in the U.S., and I want to be able to dial a Canadian toll-free number that is only accessible if dialed from within Canada. And unfortunately the company that I'd like to call doesn't have a non-toll-free number that I can use instead, so it's the toll-free number or nothing. The simplest solution that I can think of is for me to subscribe to a Canadian long-distance provider that I can use by first calling into their dial-up access number, and then dialing the number that I want to reach. As long as the long distance company's switch is a Canadian area code, my call to the Canadian toll-free number should go through. So, I'm looking for any long-distance company on whose network my call would originate from a Canadian area code. I would prefer that this company's dial-up access numbers themselves also be non-toll-free, but this is not crucial. Some companies that provide the long-distance service that I seek require, unfortunately, that their users also sign-up for residential long distance from this company, too. But this is something that I'm not willing to do, even if, by chance, the provider in question provides residential service in California. (For an approximation of what kind of service I'm looking for, see http://www.accuchat.com , which I use within the U.S.) Another possible solution would be for me to use a Canadian phone card (of the type that you buy in convenience stores). However, most of those use toll-free numbers for access and I'd guess that many such cards generate calls that originate from U.S. area codes, which wouldn't work. But a Canadian phone card with non-toll-free local access numbers in a Canadian area code would probably work for me. And since I'm in California (far from all Canadian convenience stores), I'd like to be able to have a phone card shipped to me (unless I can locate a company that, like AccuChat, doesn't need to put a physical card in my hand to allow me access, but rather performs direct billing to my credit card). (It's possible that some of what I wrote above is simply wrong, in which case please set me straight.) Anyone have suggestions for me? Mark Berkeley, California [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In about 99 percent of the instances of toll free numbers these days, there is no actual termination of a phone instrument and wire pair exclusively for 800 service. In most cases the number *upon which 800 calls are terminated* is a dialable ten digit number like all other numbers. In a switch somewhere, the 800 number is terminated, and programmed to dial out to the ten digit number. Your message said the receiver has no other phone service 'except for the 800 number' and while that could possibly be correct, as stated above, in about 99 percent of the instances of toll free numbers these days it is not correct. The switch may look at the calling number, and if it is a USA area code then refuse to handle it further. That seems to be the problem you are having. Won't the company (or person) involved tell you what the ten-digit number is? That would be an infinitly better/easier way to deal with your problem, by simply dialing the 'real' number instead of trying to find a company to allow what you are asking. Is this to be a one or two time call, or is it to be an ongoing thing where the charges to call the ten digit Canadian number would mount up after awhile? PAT] ------------------------------ From: kmclinden@yahoo.com (KevinM) Subject: Re: Number Read Back Service Date: 8 Dec 2002 11:47:41 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Stanley Cline wrote in message news:: > On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 22:37:01 GMT, tonypo1@cox.net wrote: >> Similar to Ureach, my USADatanet 800 service delivers realtime ANI as >> CNID when someone calls me via that service. Quite convenient but then > ...as does Kall 8. :) > Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ A good way to find these numbers is to do a Google search on the term "ANAC" - telco term for Automatic Announcement Channel. ------------------------------ From: spuorgelgoog@gowanhill.com (Owain) Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World Date: 8 Dec 2002 12:54:36 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ PaulCoxwell@aol.com wrote: > Now, should *we* change to 911, or should America switch to 999? Or > maybe 112? ;) Perhaps we should wait for those parts of America which still don't have 911 to catch up to that point first. Owain ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Tech Titans Launch Wi-Fi Company Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 14:07:52 -0800 In article , Tom Betz wrote: > By the time this gets up and running, true 3G (not that "2.5G" crap) will > provide all the bandwidth mobile users will need at reasonable all-you-can- > eat prices. "All the bandwidth mobile users will need?" I find that rather presumptuous on its face. As far as "all-you-can-eat" prices are concerned, when I see the cellular companies EVER offering such a thing, I'll believe it. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: Ten TLD's Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 23:09:04 GMT John Higdon wrote: > You forgot .kids, which is to be free of any adult material. But I > don't need to update my spam filter. It is an "opt-in" system that > considers non-listed TLDs to be bogus. Odd that no one has corrected this ... it's .kids.us which means it isn't a "new" TLD but just a 2nd level part of .us see http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/12/04/national1647EST0739.DTL Ari at usa dot net ------------------------------ From: danny burstein Subject: dot kids, was: Re: Ten TLD's Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 23:51:01 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In Joey Lindstrom writes: > Aside to John Higdon. .kids doesn't exist. If you're going to be > paranoid, at least have the grace to be paranoid about the real world. > :-) Some other posters made similar comments about ".kids". However, the current President Bush made a big deal of signing the "dot kids implementation" legislation last week. I'm not absolutely sure whether this is actually a ".kids" tld, but it looks like it. My hesitancy is from the following comment in the press release: "Dot Kids will be part of the U.S. country domain on the Internet." The rest of the release, as well as the video coverage I saw and the news stories I read, make it sound like ".kids" is the tld. So I dunno. For further details: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021204-1.html Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: Robert Woolley Subject: Re: Carrier Lookup Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 00:28:59 +0000 On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 02:24:54 -0800, Linc Madison wrote: > As for the UK, a previous response indicated that they already have > full portability of wireless numbers, leaving no easy way to tell the > carrier. For obvious reasons (separate area code ranges), the UK does > not and will not have portability between wireless and landline > carriers. The lack of wireless/landline is more to do with the vastly differing charge rates involved. Rob rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 00:15:12 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cingular Reveals Incoming Blocked Numbers Cingular Wireless recently changed the format of their monthly phone bills. One of the changes is that the incoming phone number now appears on the bill for each incoming call. This is a nice feature, except that incoming blocked numbers are also appearing on the bill. This means that my blocked numbers are probably showing up on someone else's Cingular Wireless bill. Has anyone else here noticed this behavior? How is the Cingular switch getting access to the blocked incoming phone number? Is it legal for them to acquire and then disseminate blocked phone numbers? Thanks. Monty ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 02:10:00 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Satellite is Dishing Out Competition to Cable CONSUMER BEAT By Bruce Mohl, 12/8/2002 Furious about AT&T Broadband's plan to hike cable TV rates 7.8 percent in January, Bert Gay of Jamaica Plain says the company is a monopoly run amok. "I have no other option for cable service other than AT&T," Gay said. "Where are the legislators and regulatory watchdogs? I urge all AT&T subscribers dissatisfied with this pattern of behavior to contact the city of Boston, the state attorney general's office, and their own legislators." What about calling DirecTV? AT&T may be facing limited competition from RCN Corp. and municipal cable systems, but satellite operators like DirecTV and Dish Network are offering consumers a real choice. The satellite companies can't match AT&T's ability to bundle telecommunication services, but they have siphoned video-oriented customers away from cable by generally offering more value, better sound, a better picture, and a much better track record for holding the line on price increases. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/342/business/Satellite_is_dishing_out_competition_to_cable+.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 02:38:50 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Wal-Mart Backs Away From DMCA Claim By Declan McCullagh Staff Writer, CNET News.com December 5, 2002, 5:31 PM PT Wal-Mart said on Thursday that it would not pursue copyright claims against a bargain-shopping site that posted details about "Black Friday" sales. In a closely watched move, the mega-retailer invoked the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) last month to force FatWallet.com to delete a list of products and prices scheduled to appear in Black Friday advertisements. Wal-Mart then sent a special DMCA subpoena to FatWallet asking for the identity of the person who posted the details on the site. Black Friday is the day after Thanksgiving each year when retailers, legend has it, go "in the black" and start to make money. But after a law clinic at the University of California at Berkeley stepped in and said it would represent FatWallet and fight the subpoena, Wal-Mart backed down. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-976296.html ------------------------------ From: europeshahrukh@hotmail.com (Shahrukh) Subject: Cordless - HELP Date: 8 Dec 2002 23:42:25 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I want a pair of a very small cordless ear phone (which can be placed inside the ear, so that nobody can see it) and a very small cordless mic (which can remain hidden behind my shirt) , which can communicate to another unit or another pair of the same equipment. Is it available. If so, from where can I get it ?? Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 17:35:17 EST Subject: Re: How Good is Your Phone Directory's Area Code Map? > I'd like to ask the readers of this forum to help me with a little > informal, non-scientific survey on a subject near and dear to my > heart. Specifically, I'd like to know what U.S. and Canadian readers > think of the quality of the area code map printed in the front of your > local phone book. (Readers from other parts of the world, I'd be > interested to know if your directories have similar maps, or only > lists of cities and towns.) Is it current? Is it accurate? > If you choose to participate in this survey, please include the > following information: > * city, state/province, and cover date of the directory (e.g., > Foo-barre, IN, September 2002) > * dominant LEC(s) in the directory's service area (e.g., 80% > SBC/Ameritech, 20% Verizon/GTE) > * publisher of the directory (especially if it's not the dominant LEC) > I'm particularly interested to hear how well the smaller players > compare to the big boys. The U.K. directories issued by British Telecom do not have maps, but all contain a complete alphabetical list of exchanges along with their area codes. Mine happens to be the April 2002 issue for Norwich & North Norfolk, although the format is the same throughout the country. Except for some small cable services in a couple of towns, local loops in this area are almost exclusively serviced by BT. The code listings are kept up to date well, and the BT phone books generally incoporate any upcoming changes, giving the transitional and mandatory dialing dates when known at publication. The directories also include a comprehensive list of international country codes, although they've stopped including selected city/area codes for overseas calls now. We have a separate BT-published book available for a small charge which includes the main alphabetical exchange list and a reverse look up by area code and prefix. This one includes selected overseas area codes. Although the national section is good, the international part tends to be rather patchy on details and is sometimes slow to be updated. It also contains one or two errors in some cases. Paul Coxwell Norfolk, U.K. ------------------------------ From: christoph@baikalplan.de (Christoph) Subject: Open Application Platform Date: 8 Dec 2002 11:33:40 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi! Does anybody know what an "Open Application platform" in terms of telecommunication is. Where I could I possibly find information on this? Any advice would be very welcome. ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #171 ****************************** NOTE: Issue 172 delivered out of order. It appears ahead of 171 in this archives. From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Dec 10 15:04:52 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gBAK4qR15477; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:04:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:04:52 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212102004.gBAK4qR15477@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 #173 TELECOM Digest Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:04:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 173 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Mobile Phone Market Rebounding in 2002 - Study (Monty Solomon) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (Linc Madison) Re: Carrier Lookup (Linc Madison) Re: Cingular Reveals Incoming Blocked Numbers (Linc Madison) Re: Cingular Reveals Incoming Blocked Numbers (John Higdon) Re: Cingular Reveals Incoming Blocked Numbers (Paul A Lee) Re: Cingular Reveals Incoming Blocked Numbers (VP) Re: Wal-Mart Backs Away From DMCA Claim (John Higdon) For Sale - Quintum Gateways (Trevor McGregor) Anti-Telemarketer Script; Results (Darryl Smith) Telemarketing Satisfaction (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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 18:19:20 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Mobile Phone Market Rebounding in 2002 - Study - Dec 9, 2002 11:27 AM (Reuters) FRAMINGHAM, Mass., Dec 9 (Reuters) - After suffering from its worst year ever in 2001, the worldwide mobile phone market is expected to show a 1.8 percent increase in shipments, to 391 million, in 2002, a study said on Monday. Looking further ahead, shipments are projected to increase to 606 million in 2006, for a compound annual growth rate of 9.5 percent, according to technology consulting and research firm IDC. The study said customers who buy phones to replace old ones will drive much of that growth, although modest growth will come from first-time buyers in newer markets like India and China. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=30453016 ------------------------------ From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:23:19 -0800 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises In article , Phil McKerracher wrote: > OK, [xenophobia is the] wrong word I agree. It's not a fear of > foreigners it's indifference. Call it arrogance. Yes, but it's not *American* arrogance in this particular instance. It is arrogance on the part of the rest of the world. In establishing the "standards," the CCITT/ITU was openly hostile to anything American. They intentionally wrote "standards" which ignored American needs, and then accused the U.S. of being "arrogant." Not so in this case. The entire history of the CCITT/ITU shows its arrogant hostility towards the United States. For example, because we had the gall to have our telephone networks operated by privately held companies instead of the government-run post office, we weren't even given a vote on many issues! >> Is it "making it hard" for travelers to expect them to dial 011 >> instead of 00 for an international call? > Yes, it's a pain. At one stage I was travelling regularly between the > UK, US and Oz and remembering which country was 011, 0011 or 010 was > very confusing. I'm still not sure which was which. It's not always > easy to discover the correct code. And it's unnecessary. Yes, it *IS* easy to discover the correct code, in the U.S. at least. Every little town that has IDDD (which is 99+% of the country) has a page in the phone book with instructions on international calling. >> hard time coping with more mundane, and possibly risky situations, >> such as learning who has priority at a 4-way stop sign ... > Exactly! Another unnecessary, expensive and in this case dangerous > difference. No, it isn't "unnecessary," nor is it "expensive," nor is it "dangerous"! Changing our four-way stops to traffic circles -- *THAT* would be unnecessary, expensive, and extremely dangerous!! If you want a situation that is truly dangerous, take a look at the traditional traffic circles in France. By law, traffic *entering* the traffic circle had right-of-way over traffic *in* or *exiting* the traffic circle. That's a recipe for wrecks and gridlock. France is in the process of changing to the international standard, that traffic entering the circle must yield to traffic already in the circle, but the mess will take years to work out, as each circle has to be re-signed individually. For that matter, when is the U.K. going to change over to the international standard that says that you drive on the right side of the road? That is a difference that is "unnecessary, expensive, and dangerous." How many accidents are caused every year by people from right-drive countries in driving left-drive countries, or vice-versa? >> If anyone is going to change, it could be argued that 011 was >> established as an IDDD prefix standard (an international standard, >> let's add!) long before 00 gained popularity and that therefore >> Europe should adopt 011. > I don't follow the bit about it being an international standard, United States, Canada, Bahamas, Jamaica, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Dominican Republic, Dominica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Montserrat -- 19 countries and separate territories in all. I'd call that "international," but Europe seems to view it as simply "America." > but I've got no problem whatever with adopting any particular code. > We've already changed IDD and emergency numbers in the UK (and just > about every other number as well!). I imagine there are practical > reasons for the choice of 00 over 011, and I admit that it's quite > possible that these same practical reasons prevent the Merkins doing > the opposite change. But that's not what the original rant was about. It would be absurd for the UK to change IDDD codes to 011, due to the conflict with 0113 through 0119 domestic area codes. You would be able to dial anywhere in the NANP, Africa, Greenland, Aruba, and the Faeroe Islands. All other calls would be intercepted with a recording saying something like, "For Reading, press 1. For China, press 2." However, it's not exactly sensible to argue that North America should change to 00 just because of some johnny-come-lately "international standard." In any case, if you want to talk about American arrogance in rejecting a legitimate international standard, let's talk about the Metric System, especially since we felt a bizarre compulsion to invent our own fluid ounce and gallon. (One gallon is approximately 3.875 liters, that being 128 fluid ounces of exactly 29.5735 ml each.) We even have two versions of the inch for different applications. (By law, the United States adopted the Metric System over 200 years ago, but common practice hasn't quite caught up.) ------------------------------ From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Carrier Lookup Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:32:14 -0800 Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com In article , Robert Woolley wrote: > On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 02:24:54 -0800, Linc Madison > wrote: >> As for the UK, a previous response indicated that they already have >> full portability of wireless numbers, leaving no easy way to tell the >> carrier. For obvious reasons (separate area code ranges), the UK does >> not and will not have portability between wireless and landline >> carriers. > The lack of wireless/landline is more to do with the vastly differing > charge rates involved. Are all calls to cellular area codes charged at exactly the same rates? I thought there were differences, in which case, one might get a phone from the carrier with the lowest cost for calls from a landline to the mobile, and then switch the service to the carrier with the lowest cost for outgoing calls from the mobile. www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California ------------------------------ From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Cingular Reveals Incoming Blocked Numbers Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:42:43 -0800 Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > [Bills from Cingular Wireless now show the phone number on incoming > calls, even if Caller ID was blocked on the call.] > How is the Cingular switch getting access to the blocked incoming > phone number? > Is it legal for them to acquire and then disseminate blocked > phone numbers? Your caller ID information is sent with every call, unless there is a glitch in the transmission path resulting in dropped data. Making a call with caller ID "blocked" just means that a "privacy flag" is set, indicating that the caller ID data should not be displayed. When you call a toll-free number, the owner of the number gets to see it on their monthly bill, even if caller ID was "blocked" on that call. The rationale is that the toll-free owner is paying for the call, so they have the right to know what they paid for. That logic gets a little bit blurry with a cellphone, especially with things like "unlimited nights and weekends." However, I doubt that they did anything outright illegal in releasing that information. If you're really concerned about it, you could always write to the FCC and/or to Cingular, suggesting that the bill just show "Private number" (or some such) on calls with caller ID blocked. www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Cingular Reveals Incoming Blocked Numbers Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 13:23:10 -0800 In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > This is a nice feature, except that incoming blocked numbers are also > appearing on the bill. This means that my blocked numbers are > probably showing up on someone else's Cingular Wireless bill. I think that anyone paying for a call (the cellular phone user) has a right to know who is running up his bill. > Has anyone else here noticed this behavior? No, but now that you mention it, I'll compliment my carrier (Cingular) for providing it. > How is the Cingular switch getting access to the blocked incoming > phone number? All Caller-ID is transmitted, blocked or not. It has to be for the other CLASS features to work. If the privacy flag is sent, by agreement the destination switch shows "private number" or whatever. > Is it legal for them to acquire and then disseminate blocked > phone numbers? Yep, as long as they don't display it on the phone. Wireless carriers operate under a different set of rules than landline carriers. For one thing, customers pay for all calls, incoming or outgoing. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Cingular Reveals Incoming Blocked Numbers Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:04:40 -0500 Monty Solomon wrote (in part: > Cingular Wireless recently changed the format of their monthly > phone bills. > One of the changes is that the incoming phone number now appears on > the bill for each incoming call. > This is a nice feature, except that incoming blocked numbers are also > appearing on the bill. This means that my blocked numbers are > probably showing up on someone else's Cingular Wireless bill. > How is the Cingular switch getting access to the blocked incoming > phone number? > Is it legal for them to acquire and then disseminate blocked > phone numbers? The calling party's number is always sent with the call. If the privacy flag is set, it's the end office switch that blocks sending the CPN to the destination phone. With a wireless subscriber -- as with an '8YY' ("toll-free") number -- as the call's destination, the called party gets billed for the call, or a portion of it. In that case, it seems only fair that the calling party be identified to someone who will be billed for the call. Maybe a better way for Cingular to handle it would be similar to the way some switches do anonymous call rejection, giving the calling party the choice of being rejected or unblocking CPID. Paul A Lee Voice: +1 717 730-8355 Sr Telecom Engineer [Voice & Transmission] Fax: +1 717 975-3789 Rite Aid Corporation, Telecomm, 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But that does not work in all cases, at least with Cingular, and I doubt any cellular phone. If you *dial direct* into my Cingular phone, I get the number displayed on my screen unless you did *67, in which case I do not get it on the phone but I do get the number on the monthly bill. If, however, you dialed my home number and your call got 'delay-forwarded' (after three rings, busy or no answer) to the cell phone, I see *my own number* on the display. SWB says the call came from 'me' going to me. Cingular of course just hands out what they are given. PAT] ------------------------------ From: VP Subject: Re: Cingular Reveals Incoming Blocked Numbers Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 02:25:08 -0500 Monty Solomon wrote: > Cingular Wireless recently changed the format of their monthly > phone bills. > One of the changes is that the incoming phone number now appears on > the bill for each incoming call. > This is a nice feature, except that incoming blocked numbers are also > appearing on the bill. This means that my blocked numbers are > probably showing up on someone else's Cingular Wireless bill. > Has anyone else here noticed this behavior? > How is the Cingular switch getting access to the blocked incoming > phone number? > Is it legal for them to acquire and then disseminate blocked > phone numbers? When a private number makes a call, the caller id info is still sent by the originating switch (along with ani which isn't blocked). The private number is sent along with a privacy indicator which is what the terminating switch uses to cause the caller id unit to display "private." The actual number is held in the incoming line history block. This is how, for example you can use "customer originated trace" on a blocked number. When a private number calls a Cingular cell phone, at the time of the call, the phone actually says "private." Therefore the Cingular cell switch is interpreting the privacy indicator correctly. I noticed this phenomenon over one year ago and battled Cingular for many months over it. It got me nowhere ... I finally gave up. However, after some additional time passed it seemed to correct itself and the private numbers no longer showed up on the detailed bill. Instead, when a private number called, my OWN cell phone number showed up in the detailed bill at the date and time of the call rather than the private number.I haven't checked my itemized calls in a while. I'll have to make a note to look when I get my next bill to see if it's happening again. I wish you great success in attempting to find someone at Cingular who can not only grasp the concept of this problem let alone fix it !!! Vic ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Wal-Mart Backs Away From DMCA Claim Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 13:26:59 -0800 In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > But after a law clinic at the University of California at Berkeley > stepped in and said it would represent FatWallet and fight the > subpoena, Wal-Mart backed down. I think the DMCA is going to inspire a lot of "huff-n-puff" legal action. The Big Boys will try to intimidate little guys with threats of legal action (and they may actually file some) hoping for instant cave-in. The moment a small fry appears to have some legal resources of his own, the bully will run off. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: trevormcgregor@hotmail.com (Trevor McGregor) Subject: For Sale - Quintum Gateways Date: 9 Dec 2002 14:10:43 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ If interested, please email me at trevormcgregor@hotmail.com ------------------------------ From: Darryl Smith Subject: Anti-Telemarketer Script ... Results Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 08:42:01 +1100 Patrick, I finally got a chance to use the telemarketer script that I forwarded to you a few weeks ago and found that it really works ... (http://www.xs4all.nl/~egbg/counterscript.html) I had some poor girl who had just finished year 12 high school ring me up as a telemarketer ... She had to be 17 or 18. Her name name was Jordie (Yes, that is the right spelling), who has been working as a telemarketer for some Melbourne company for one week -- and will be going overseas in a week before starting university. She got my number from the white pages. This one was definitely too trusting and was going to give me her home phone number in Melbourne ... The only reason she didn't was that I didn't have the full script with me, and she hung up on me when I refused to answer her questions if she gave me her number. I could tell that she did actually want to give me her number. I almost felt guilty after that... But it was fun. Darryl [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Some of those people are not very smart and you really should not take advantage of them. Well, 'smart' is not the right word, they are smart many times at that age, but without a lot of common sense or survival ability. We have a telemarketing firm here in Independence in the Arco Corporate Center at 9th and Laurel Streets. Almost exclusively very young people working there, and with a huge employee staff turn over. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 09:24:06 -0700 Subject: Telemarketing Satisfaction Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com We've had lots of discussions here about the joys of telemarketing ... about getting that phone call in the middle of dinner, telling you how you are a man of distinction and fine taste, and would you therefore like to buy some grotty wallet? (with apologies to Douglas Adams.) I got a call last week from someone representing the CIBC, or Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, of which I am already a customer: a chequing account, a Visa, and an "Entourage" American Express card. I was in the middle of a long distance call at the time and ... well, the call quickly degenerated into an actual shouting match, something I'd never experienced before with a telemarketer. I'll now paste in the entire email that I sent to CIBC Customer Service immediately after the call. Boy, it felt good to write it. :-) (Certain private information is redacted). ========== I am a CIBC customer, both chequing and two credit cards (Visa, Entourage). My name is Joey Lindstrom, and my telephone number is 403-XXX-XXXX. (More info to verify my identify at the end of this message) About 5 minutes ago (7:45pm MST, Tuesday December 3rd 2002), I received a phone call from a girl who identified herself as representing CIBC. She wanted to inform me of some new free credit card benefit, since I was such a good customer. I value my privacy. Before letting her start her pitch, I attempted to stop her by saying that I do not accept telemarketing calls. I sure hope you recorded this call, because her reaction was quite amazing. She actually began arguing with me, raising her voice. I tried FOUR TIMES to say "please add my number to your DO NOT CALL list", and she interrupted each time. Finally, after much arguing (about whether or not this was a telemarketing call - she actually told me I was jumping to conclusions), I managed to get those ten words out uninterrupted. She practically spit it back at me, saying "well! Then you should have said 'no' when you filled out..." and I didn't catch the rest of her sentence because I hung up on her. This is unacceptable. This woman was rude and VERY aggressive towards me. I happen to have been on a long distance call when she interrupted me with her call. She - and therefore CIBC - has no right at all to my personal time, in my home and on my phone line. I have a right to privacy and I have a (CRTC-guaranteed) right to be placed on your "Do Not Call" list upon request - a request she did her best to thwart (and I'm convinced she has not honoured that request). Yes, I'm a "good customer". I've got $13,500 worth of credit on my CIBC credit cards so obviously you must agree with that assessment. But I'm telling you now that I am going to change from "good customer" to "former customer" unless I get some satisfaction here. And to get that satisfaction, you need to do the following: 1) Assure me that you will never again attempt to contact me by telephone unless it is in order to straighten out some problem with one of my accounts (ie: payment overdue, suspected fraud, overdrawn, things of that nature). I DO NOT WANT any telemarketing calls. Ever. Don't put me on a list that expires in three years. "Ever" is what I mean. And let's not split hairs: offering me a "free benefit" is still telemarketing. Don't agree? Ask the CRTC. Regardless, *I* consider it telemarketing and I don't want those calls from you anymore. If you want to offer me any more "free benefits", stick the offer in my statement envelope as usual. 2) Review this incident with the girl who placed the call to me. Her behaviour was ridiculous and put you in a very bad light. Inform me of what action, if any, is taken. Your response will help me decide whether or not to keep my CIBC accounts. ===== I didn't really expect any kind of positive response other than "oh, we're so sorry, we'll make sure it never happens again". I just figured that the more negative feedback that a "reputable" company like the CIBC gets in regards to telemarketing, the better -- maybe one day they'll realize just how offensive people find it, and it'll convince them to change their ways. I did get a pretty good response, which I present for your enjoyment and/or amusement. With any luck, I've cost this girl her job. (Note the 11-digit phone number she gives for the CMA. When did we switch to 8-digit local dialing?) ===== From: Credit Card Services To: Date: 12/10/2002 07:49 AM Subject: telemarketing call from CIBC Credit Card Services (KMM280V30042L0KM) Hello Mr. Lindstrom, Thank you for your email regarding your unfortunate recent experience. We regret to learn of the difficulties you have encountered relative to your credit card account and sincerely apologize for the inconvenience caused to you by our inappropriate handling of this matter. We expect our personnel to conduct themselves in a courteous and professional manner at all times. Please be assured this is not indicative of the high level of service we are committed to providing. We can fully appreciate your frustration with regard to this phone call. We trust you will permit us another opportunity to demonstrate that we are indeed capable of providing the high level of service our cardholders have grown accustomed to. As a small token of our apology, we have credited your entourage account with $30 in entourage earnings. We have requested that your name be removed from any and all telemarketing lists we have. While it can take 2-4 months to be sure your name is removed from all of our lists, we have put a 'rush' on this request so it will be handled on a priority basis. To remove your name from other lists, you may want to contact the Canadian Marketing Association, at 416-3941-2362. We would be glad to follow up with the individual you spoke with, both to ensure they understand that their behaviour was unacceptable and to ensure they're not treating other customers the way you were treated. Unfortunately, without more detail on the offer we may not be able to be certain who you were speaking to. We're looking into who's marketing to our Select and entourage customers and hope to determine who you spoke with that way. Please be assured we take this very seriously and the individual will be advised accordingly. Your business is important to us, and we thank you for bringing this situation to our attention. Sincerely, Suzanne Credit Card Services ===== I'll tell ya, a good dose of righteous indignation can be most gratifying. :-) Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #173 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Dec 10 16:39:40 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gBALdeq17946; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:39:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:39:40 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212102139.gBALdeq17946@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 #174 TELECOM Digest Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:40:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 174 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Court Rules Internet Case Can be Heard in Australia (Monty Solomon) Change to British Directory Assistance (Paul Coxwell) Re: 911 Availability (was 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ ) (Paul Coxwell) VoIP Billing Software For Sale (Ree) Re: Fliers Will Soon Be Able to Go Online on Board (Gene S. Berkowitz) Re: Business Line vs Residential Line (in Kentucky) (John David Galt) Re: How Good is Your Phone Directory's Area Code Map? (John David Galt) Re: MAP (Mobile Application Part) Versions (Holmespundit) Re: Open Application Platform (Holmespundit) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (Paul Coxwell) Greetings and a Question (Name Withheld by Moderator) cidaemon.exe Gobbles up Cycles (Patrick Townson) Avaya IP Office 406 Issues (This Old Man) Portable ATM's an Invitation to Fraud? (Chris N. Acuma) Its Running Now (Re: dot kids, was Re: Ten TLD's) (Daniel J McDonald) 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, 10 Dec 2002 01:29:06 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Court Rules Internet Case Can be Heard in Australia - Dec 9, 2002 09:07 PM (Reuters) CANBERRA, Dec 10 (Reuters) - Australia's highest court ruled on Tuesday that a defamation case sparked by a story on a U.S Web site could be heard in Australia, opening a legal minefield for web publishers over which libel laws they must follow. The landmark ruling that an article published by Dow Jones & Co (NYSE:DJ) was subject to Australian law -- because it was downloaded in Australia -- is being watched by media firms as it could set a precedent over where Internet publication occurs. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=30464648 ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 04:59:41 EST Subject: Change to British Directory Assistance The times are a-changing for British directory assistance, or "directory enquiries" as the service is more commonly called in this country. The full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/2560817.stm ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 05:15:51 EST Subject: Re: 911 Availability (was 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World) >> Now, should *we* change to 911, or should America switch to 999? Or >> maybe 112? ;) > Perhaps we should wait for those parts of America which still don't > have 911 to catch up to that point first. Good point Owain. I know that when I was in Georgia a few years ago that many rural counties in the state didn't have 911. How much of America is still waiting for 911 service these days? ------------------------------ From: capricorn75@softhome.net (Ree) Subject: VoIP Billing Software For Sale Date: 10 Dec 2002 02:57:50 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ We offer Billing Software for: Call Accounting, Post-paid Billing, Prepaid Billing Prepaid Calling Card Operation and Inter-gateway Settlement You'll appreciate the price and simplicity of using! Do not hesitate to contact us at capricorn75@softhome.net ------------------------------ From: Gene S. Berkowitz Subject: Re: Fliers Will Soon Be Able to Go Online on Board Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 00:12:04 -0500 Organization: Applied Entropy In article , monty@roscom.com says: > By MATTHEW L. WALD > WASHINGTON - THE Internet, pervasive wherever planes land, is now > penetrating higher altitudes as well. The other ubiquitous > communications tool of travelers, the cellphone, might follow in the > cabin with some technical changes, but not immediately. On Jan. 15 > Lufthansa will begin offering Internet connections on a single Boeing > 747-400, the latest model, that flies daily between Dulles > International Airport and Frankfurt. It will offer the same service in > its Senator lounges in New York, Frankfurt and Düsseldorf. > The Internet system on the Lufthansa plane uses the most > technologically advanced communications system aloft, satellite > connection, already common on corporate jets. It employs an antenna on > the top of the plane; the type of satellite dish common on the ground > would not be practical, because it would have to be repointed as the > plane moved. The antenna can be steered electronically, and over the > Atlantic it can refocus from one satellite over North America to > another over Europe without interrupting a download, according to > Connexion by Boeing, the Boeing subsidiary that built the system. > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/08/travel/08rep.html Interestingly, there is no mention in the article of IrDA, which was the original medium for the "Connexion" between your laptop and the aircraft. Instead, it looks like wired ethernet. Harumph. I saw a Boeing mockup at the Paris air show; there was an IR transceiver staring down on the tray table, which made perfect sense, as practically every laptop has IrDA capability (though it is almost always disabled by default). Gene ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Re: Business Line vs Residential Line (in Kentucky) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 22:30:28 -0800 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society > Bob Travis wrote: >> It doesn't seem fair to me that a very nonpublic business should >> have to pay for a business listing. Ed Ellers wrote: > 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. Actually there is a good reason for this practice: most of the cost of providing telephone service is physical plant, whose size is determined by peak usage. Peak usage occurs during the business day and consists almost entirely of calls to or from businesses. Thus both weekday daytime calls and business lines have always cost more, to pay for the new facilities they make necessary. It's not a "soak the rich" scheme. >> 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. Correct, except that if you track the specific charges for which your home business is responsible, you can deduct those charges. Typically only long distance calls are deducted this way if the line is used for other things. (I'm a tax professional in my other life.) ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Re: How Good is Your Phone Directory's Area Code Map? Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:36:51 -0800 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Linc Madison wrote: > If you choose to participate in this survey, please include the > following information: > * city, state/province, and cover date of the directory (e.g., > Foo-barre, IN, September 2002) Sacramento, CA, March 2002. > * dominant LEC(s) in the directory's service area (e.g., 80% > SBC/Ameritech, 20% Verizon/GTE) 90% SBC/Pacific Bell, 10% SureWest/Roseville Telephone. > * publisher of the directory (especially if it's not the dominant LEC) SBC/Pacific Bell. I'd give this map a C-. Most of the codes for the western US are shown correctly, however the boundaries are very sloppily drawn, so there's no way to determine the code for a particular town near a boundary. The map doesn't cover the northern 2/3 of Canada, so 780 and 867 don't exist on it (nor does BC's recent overlay). And for the eastern US, several states are broken out as insets but it doesn't make them any more readable. They include a separate map showing California's LATAs which is somewhat more accurate; the boundaries aren't quite as sloppy, and it correctly says what area codes are in each LATA (except possibly the case of Dixon). But it doesn't make clear that the high-desert (Verizon) LATA exists. I'd rate both maps about equal to the ones on areacode-info.com. AC-I draws the boundaries better, but it also shows lots of area codes that don't exist and may never exist. SBC at least avoids doing that. ------------------------------ From: Holmespundit Organization: Holmespun Solutions, LLC Subject: Re: MAP (Mobile Application Part) Versions Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 09:51:57 -0500 > M Pires wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> Can someone please redirect me to some sort of reference on the >> differences between the MAP (Mobile Application Part) versions. By >> versions I mean MAP v1,v2 and v3. ETSI standards are not clear on >> these. Web references are preferred. >> Thank you! Holmespundit wrote to comp.dcom.telecom: >> M Pires wrote: >> My question is related to the Mobile Application Part, application >> context 3. What I want to know is, what advantages are there in >> migrating to MAP v3? Does it have anything to do with GPRS? Does GPRS >> need MAP v3? What new functionalities are available with MAP v3?? That is an interesting question, and I would like to know if its answer is documented somewhere. I suggest that you put it to the fine people at ETSI.org. They have been very helpful to me in the past. If you do then please let us know what they say. I would suggest that you clarify what your interest in MAP is. What role do you play in the network? What does "v3" mean to you? That might make answering your question easier. You might start by obtaining a copy of the GSM MAP specification to which you are considering an upgrade. For example, ETSI document ts_100974v070900p.pdf contains ETSI TS 100 974 V7.9.0 (2001-09) Technical Specification Digital cellular telecommunications system (Phase 2+); Mobile Application Part (MAP) Specification (3GPP TS 09.02 version 7.9.0 Release 1998). Annex E Change History, at the end of the document, might provide you with some insight into the functional improvements that were made. For example, "s26 98-0413 09.02 6.0.0 A124 R97 F SMS interworking with GPRS 6.1.0" and "s26 98-0413 09.02 6.0.0 A124 2 R97 C Modification of Insert Subscriber Data and Delete Subscriber Data Procedures for GPRS 6.1.0" BGH Holmespun Solutions, LLC www.holmespun.biz ------------------------------ From: Holmespundit Organization: Holmespun Solutions, LLC Subject: Re: Open Application Platform Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 08:19:59 -0500 You might take a look at http://www.openss7.org/. Christoph wrote: > Does anybody know what an "Open Application platform" in terms of > telecommunication is. Where I could I possibly find information on > this? BGH Holmespun Solutions, LLC www.holmespun.biz ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 06:45:35 EST Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World >> Is it "making it hard" for travelers to expect them to dial 011 >> instead of 00 for an international call? > Yes, it's a pain. O.K., it might make for some slip-ups, especially when someone has just stepped off the plane after a long, tiring flight, but I guess I just don't see the different IDDD prefixes as really being *that* much of a problem. > At one stage I was travelling regularly between the > UK, US and Oz and remembering which country was 011, 0011 or 010 was > very confusing. I'm still not sure which was which. U.S. = 011 Australia = 0011 U.K. = 010 (now 00) > It's not always easy to discover the correct code. And it's > unnecessary. I concede on that point. If the IDDD code isn't shown, somebody might be left with calling the local operator as the only way to find out. That wouldn't be a problem between countries sharing a language and where the number to dial for an operator is either obvious or clearly posted (e.g. U.S.A. & U.K.), but might be much more of a problem in other cases. This is clearly an instance where it pays to make inquiries *before* leaving home, although one can never cater for everything, of course. > ...going to have a >> hard time coping with more mundane, and possibly risky situations, >> such as learning who has priority at a 4-way stop sign... > Exactly! Another unnecessary, expensive and in this case dangerous > difference. True ... As American road markings and signage are far superior to those in the U.K./Europe (and probably elsewhere too), I think this is a case where the "rest of the world" would do well to adopt U.S. standards and practices. But that's another story, and I know of a least some fellow Brits who would disagree with me. >> If anyone is going to change, it could be argued that 011 was >> established as an IDDD prefix standard (an international standard, >> let's add!) long before 00 gained popularity and that therefore Europe >> should adopt 011. > I don't follow the bit about it being an international standard, but > I've got no problem whatever with adopting any particular code. We've Possibly not enshrined in ITU standards (I don't know), but an accepted standard in practically all countries within the NANP: U.S.A., Canada, Bermuda, Bahamas, Dominica, Virgin Islands (U.S. *and* British), Dominican Republic, etc. > already changed IDD and emergency numbers in the UK (and just about > every other number as well!). I imagine there are practical reasons > for the choice of 00 over 011, and I admit that it's quite possible > that these same practical reasons prevent the Merkins doing the > opposite change. But that's not what the original rant was about. I think that's the root of the problem. Adopting any sort of common standard means that somebody, somewhere has to change. It's a case of whether the cost and upheaval of the changes is worth it for the proposed advantages of adopting a common standard. It also depends on how efficiently changes can be carried out: I submit the fiasco over the number changes in London as an excellent example of how *not* to do it! As an aside, in the U.K. it would have been possible to adopt 011 as in IDDD prefix without any great difficulty had it been implemented a few years ago. Now that we have area codes of the form 011n, it would be much harder, of course. ------------------------------ From: Name Withheld by Moderator Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 08:05:41 -0500 Subject: Greetings and a Question Hi Patrick, It's been a long long time. My fault, just been so busy the past few years that I faded away from the Digest. I suppose I should start reading again. I've gone from networks back to telecom manager for about 40 offices in my company. Hope you're doing well. My question involves a personal matter. Recently my girlfriend received a message on her answering machine from an unknown caller (the caller ID said private, indicating the caller did a *67). The caller said she had been sleeping with me. My girlfriend and I have had some drama in our lives lately and she knew better. The telephone company says there's nothing they can do and that they can't trace calls like this. The police department said that since there was no threat or harassment that they couldn't get involved. My dusty knowledge from years back makes me think that this is a crime and a federal matter. Just wondering if there's anything you think we can do. I promise, no more questions like this. It's just that with your broad knowledge base, I thought you might have a helpful suggestion. Take care of yourself and I promise I'm going to start reading again. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If the calling party had attempted to make a business arrangement out of it (i.e. you pay me X dollars, or do X activity, otherwise I will relate this to your girl friend) that would have been a crime. If a reasonable person thought this was the implication, it might have been a crime as well. If the calling party was attempting to disrupt or wreak havoc on your domestic life, this might also have been a crime. Maybe an attorney midst our ranks can comment further. Telco is trying very hard to stay out of these things in recent years, by offering services such as privacy manager and 'blocked number blocking' (the extent to which those services work as well as they should/could is open to much debate) so that the recipient of such calls has recourse to the caller, for filing suit or otherwise demanding some accountability. From reading your message, I take it the caller did 'nothing' other than make a rather rude, obscene phone call to your girl friend. Probably still a crime, but ... ... in view of the fact that police right now are attempting to find ways to circumvent Posse Comitatus (federal laws against it) in order to legally get the military involved in south-central Los Angeles which this past week exceeded Washington, DC as our Nation's murder and drug Capitol of the World, I think it is rather unrealistic to expect them to be of much help. I wish I had an 'in-house' criminal attorney here to whom questions like yours could be posed. Maybe one will answer anyway. I for one am *sorry* to think this incident may have harmed your personal life. :( What you might start by doing is having girl friend give you a tape of the message if such exists, and you listen to it over and over; see if any clues can be found in the voice patterns, the disconnect at the end of it, etc. Any 'special' words, or phraseology or accents, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 00:36:05 -0800 From: Patrick Townson Subject: An Example of a Cycle Gobbler: cidaemon.exe Organization: Ixian Systems, Inc. Late Monday night I had a bit of commotion here. The Windows XP computer got very slow and sluggish, then eventually came to a complete halt. All the programs said 'not responding'. I would restart/reboot, get a couple minutes of work (sometimes not even that much) and the problem would occur again; everything would get quite slow, then grint to a halt. I was pretty sure I had a bunch of unwanted processes running in the background. My west coast friend helped walk me through it, and indeed we found that was the case. It had gotten so bad that even the three-fingered solution (control-alt-delete) would not respond without taking a minute or two to do so. My friend found that by doing 'taskmgr' at the 'run' prompt, (which did grudginly work after a minute or so of stalling) something called 'cidaemon.exe' was taking up a huge amount of CPU. We found out it was set to run automatically and was gobbling all the cycles it could find. Using the System Administration feature in 'my computer' we were able to shut it off and only run on request. It took Windows a few seconds to shut it down also, but once it was off, the computer went back to its normal speed. He then wrote the following note for the net, anyone who has this kind of slowdown problem might find it useful. > I've entered the following into my notes file. Forwarded FYI. > Annoyances.org - re: cidaemon.exe and explorer.exe (cidaemon.exe is the > name of the Indexing Service under Windows XP, and, as under previous > versions of Windows, sometimes consumes all CPU cycles; the service can > be disabled without any negative consequences) > http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/winxp/r1035522334 PAT ------------------------------ From: This Old Man Subject: Avaya IP Office 406 Issues Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:57:11 GMT Hello, We just got a new IP Office 406 system in our office in San Jose, CA. I'm in IT and will help manage the system. We have complete support from a local VAR for one year, however this is the first implementation for IP Office so they are learning, too. So far our major issues are: 1) Dial-by-name directory not delivered from Avaya. Our VAR said Avaya said maybe next week it will be ready. 2) Programming DSS buttons crashes the system. Our VAR said Avaya said this is a known problem and they are working on it. What we are trying to accomplish is, for example, I want to be able to answer the phone of my assistants extension and I want it to actually ring on my phone. On our old NEC system it was an appearance light on the phone. Our VAR said I had to use DSS, but 1) the phone does not actually ring - the line only flashes, and 2) it crashes the system, or actually the digital card, the VAR said. 3) We have to reboot the system when we want to add extensions and update other settings. So far, the "Merge" option has not worked for us. 4) The 4412D+ handsets are nice but they do not fit well into the cradle, and sometimes leave the phone off-hook! We have 3 30-port D-term modules and two analog modules. We also have Voicemail Pro with Phone Manager Lite. If there is other information I can provide please let me know. If there is another forum or website I should also be looking at, I'd appreciate that information, too. Thanks again, *TOM ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 21:54:07 MST From: acuma@aztec.asu.edu (Chris N Acuma) Subject: Portable ATM's an Invitation to Fraud? I WENT TO THE TEMPE FESTIVAL OF THE ARTS THIS WEEK WHICH IS A 3 DAY ARTS FESTIVAL AND STREET FAIR THAT PUT ON IN DOWNTOWN TEMPE WHICH IS ATTENDED BY ABOUT 100,000 PEOPLE. I NOTICED MAYBE 30 PORTABLE ATM MACHINES THAT HAD BEEN MOVED TO THE STREETS OF DOWNTOWN TEMPE TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO WITH DRAW MONEY FROM THEIR BANKS AND SPEND AT THE FAIR. I INSPECTED THE ATM'S AND NOTICED THAT THEY HAD ALL HAD WHAT APPEARED TO BE CORDS TO SUPPLY THEM WITH 120 VOLTS OF POWER BUT I COULD NOT SEE ANY WIRES THAT APPEARED TO BE TELEPHONE WIRES TO ALLOW THE ATM'S TO CALL THEIR COMPUTERS AND VERIFY THE ACCOUNT BALANCES BEFORE HANDING OUT CASH. I SUSPECT THE ATM'S ARE EQUIPPED WITH EITHER CELL PHONES OR SOME OTHER FORM OF RADIO GEAR TO ALLOW THEM TO VERIFY BANK BALANCES. FIRST DOES ANYBODY KNOW HOW THESE PORTABLE ATM TALK TO THEIR REMOTE COMPUTERS? AND SECOND IF THEY USE RADIO WAVES I SUSPECT THATS AN OPEN INVITATION FOR FRAUD. ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? CHRIS "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." -- Noah Webster ------------------------------ Subject: It Has Started: Re: dot kids, was Re: Ten TLD's Organization: io.com From: djmcdona@io.com (Daniel J McDonald) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:26:04 -0600 In article , danny burstein wrote: > In Joey Lindstrom > writes: >> Aside to John Higdon. .kids doesn't exist. If you're going to be >> paranoid, at least have the grace to be paranoid about the real world. >> :-) > Some other posters made similar comments about ".kids". However, the > current President Bush made a big deal of signing the "dot kids > implementation" legislation last week. > I'm not absolutely sure whether this is actually a ".kids" tld, but it > looks like it. My hesitancy is from the following comment in the press > release: > "Dot Kids will be part of the U.S. country domain > on the Internet." I read an article that made it sound like Bush got fed up with ICAAN not giving him a TLD, so he created kids.us Fortunately, there is whois to give us the definitive word: [mcdonalddj@mcdonalddj-lnx mcdonalddj]$ whois kids.us Domain Name: KIDS.US Domain ID: D656961-US Sponsoring Registrar: REGISTRY REGISTRAR Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited Domain Status: inactive Registrant ID: NEUSTAR Registrant Name: NEUSTAR Registrant Address1: Loudoun Tech Center Registrant Address2: 45980 Center Oak Plaza Registrant City: Sterling Registrant State/Province: VA Registrant Postal Code: 20166 Registrant Country: United States Registrant Country Code: US Registrant Phone Number: +1.5714345757 Registrant Facsimile Number: +1.5714345758 Registrant Email: support@neustar.us Registrant Application Purpose: P1 Registrant Nexus Category: C21 Created by Registrar: REGISTRY REGISTRAR Last Updated by Registrar: REGISTRY REGISTRAR Domain Registration Date: Thu Apr 18 16:19:39 GMT 2002 Domain Expiration Date: Tue Apr 17 23:59:59 GMT 2007 Domain Last Updated Date: Thu Apr 18 16:19:46 GMT 2002 So, Someone has kids.us registered, and apparently has done so with the intent of being a registrar, and that someone is in Sterling, VA, right down the street from the capitol. Daniel J McDonald CCIE # 2495, CNX Visit my website: http://www.austinnetworkdesign.com ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #174 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Dec 11 18:38:10 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gBBNcAe19569; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:38:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:38:10 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212112338.gBBNcAe19569@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 #175 TELECOM Digest Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:38:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 175 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson The Farce of National Branding (John Higdon) Listing in Areacode-Info.com & Telecom Digest (Daniel Baker) Re: Cordless - HELP (Scott Dorsey) Re: Listening In on My Home Phone Line (Scott Dorsey) Re: Wal-Mart Backs Away From DMCA Claim (Ron Chapman) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (Richard D G Cox) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (Paul Coxwell) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (John R. Levine) Cell Socket (Carol Farrar) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Higdon Subject: The Farce of National Branding Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:27:52 -0800 Today, SBC announced that it is tossing the name "Pacific Bell" and "PacBell". Anyone with a pulse could see this coming, but what is annoying is the SBC perpetuation of the myth of "branding". Brands used to mean something. Companies were founded, they created products, and they identified them as unique with brand names. Today, as a general rule, products are created and manufactured in nameless, faceless foreign labs and factories and sold in bulk to a marketing company, which puts its brand on it. This shows up all the time. My sister was amused that she bought a washer and a dryer from two ostensibly unrelated companies. Imagine her surprise (and delight, actually) to discover that they matched perfectly. In fact, were it not for the different brand names, one would instantly presume that they were purchased as a matched set. Drive up the San Francisco peninsula sometime and you will see dozens of hotels near the airport. Then drive up two months later, and you will discover that the names of the hotels have been shuffled, as if the signs had magnetic backings and could changed like refrigerator magnets. What on earth could a brand name mean if next month the Crowne Plaza hotel sports a Sheraton logo? Brand names today are meaningless. Marketing types may think that the public puts stock in brands, but more and more people are waking up to the insignificance of brand names. When SBC runs a spot that talks about how it built the local telephone network, we all laugh. The network was built by the old AT&T, and then modernized by a California company, Pacific Telesis. SBC simply handed over cash for a going business. It built nothing. I do not credit Texans for doing anything in California, unless it would be for our current state budget deficit after cleaning our clock with energy scams. Pacific Bell, when it was owned by Pacific Telesis, a California company based right here in San Francisco, built the new Giants stadium with private money. As the major contributor, the company properly named the facility "PacBell Park". The name of the park is about to be changed to "SBC Park" (how catchy!). San Francisco loses yet another bit of history and landmark identification; SBC perpetuates its worthless and meaningless "national brand name". Even a spokeperson for SBC admitted on the radio today that "SBC", since the spinoff of Southwestern Bell Corporation, does not actually stand for anything. It is simply the stock exchange symbol. All we do in this country anymore is shuffle money. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Daniel Baker Subject: Listing in areacode-info.com and TELECOM Digest Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:29:25 -0600 Do you have an e-mail address for who controls/approves the data shown on www.areacode-info.com ? I'd like to suggest a website: www.telephoneservicedirectory.com that could be listed under Sites: Support & Directory Services and probably other places. The sites description is: U.S. Directories of: Local Telephone Service Providers (Local Exchange Carriers) AND Contractors who Add / Repair Inside Wiring & Jacks. I also have some advertising banners available at www.telephoneservicedirectory.com/banners.htm Dan Baker ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Cordless - HELP Date: 10 Dec 2002 15:43:24 -0500 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) Shahrukh wrote: > I want a pair of a very small cordless ear phone (which can be placed > inside the ear, so that nobody can see it) and a very small cordless > mic (which can remain hidden behind my shirt) , which can communicate > to another unit or another pair of the same equipment. > Is it available. If so, from where can I get it ?? Sure, Vega can sell you a kit. So can Lectrosonics. So can a lot of the police communications guys. scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Listening In on My Home Phone Line Date: 10 Dec 2002 15:55:16 -0500 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) mark wrote: > I need to listen to my home phone line through my computer.Is it > possible? I dont need to record just listen. Why do you want to use a computer then? scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:30:48 -0500 From: Ron Chapman Subject: Re: Wal-Mart Backs Away From DMCA Claim In article , John Higdon wrote: >> But after a law clinic at the University of California at Berkeley >> stepped in and said it would represent FatWallet and fight the >> subpoena, Wal-Mart backed down. > I think the DMCA is going to inspire a lot of "huff-n-puff" legal > action. The Big Boys will try to intimidate little guys with threats > of legal action (and they may actually file some) hoping for instant > cave-in. The moment a small fry appears to have some legal resources > of his own, the bully will run off. The DMCA has provisions specifically to discourage this type of behavior, does it not? It *appears* that Wal Mart may have acted in haste, and that FatWallet could -- I say could -- have quite a fine time throwing these anti-frivolous provisions of the DMCA right back at Wal Mart. And given Wal Marts very large pockets and visibility in the retailing industry, FatWallet could end up very rich AND very famous for nipping that particular problem right in the bud. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 22:02:22 GMT From: Richard D G Cox Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World Reply-To: nospam@numbering.com Organization: Mandarin Technology Limited On Tuesday, 10 Dec 2002 at 01:23:19 (UT), Linc Madison wrote > it *IS* easy to discover the correct code, in the U.S. at least. To discover it: yes, easy ... to implement it: can be more difficult. Particularly when dealing with auto-dialling equipment. Look at the efforts that Microsoft had to put into getting accurate dialing-rule tables loaded into the more recent versions of its "Windows" products! >> I don't follow the bit about it being an international standard, > United States, Canada, Bahamas, Jamaica, Bermuda, British Virgin > Islands, Dominican Republic, Dominica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, > Montserrat -- 19 countries and separate territories in all. I'd call > that "international," but Europe seems to view it as simply "America." Understandable, only if you consider the wild mishmash of international prefix codes that USED to prevail across the world. A consensus did emerge, and many countries - EVEN INCLUDING the UK! - agreed to throw away their proprietary prefixes and implement the proposed standard prefix. Only a few countries disagreed. The 19 countries that Linc listed comprised most of them. > It would be absurd for the UK to change IDDD codes to 011, due to the > conflict with 0113 through 0119 domestic area codes. You would be able > to dial anywhere in the NANP, Africa, Greenland, Aruba, and the Faeroe > Islands. All other calls would be intercepted with a recording saying > something like, "For Reading, press 1. For China, press 2." Well, when 00 was proposed, the UK had many (both "internal" and E.164) codes that began with "00": such as 0066 for chatlines, 0073 for Paging, 0092 for Oxford, 0073 for Orpington, 0042 for Ogmore Valley and 0001 for Dublin. We had to change all those: and, as always happens, it takes time to change and "sterilise" the old ranges ("sterilise" is the word we phone-numbering people use for curing callers of their habits of calling their regular numbers as they were before the changeover ;-)) Now to nit-pick ... there is no problem in the UK with Reading, as ALL numbers in Reading are in the formats (0)118 3xx xxxx/(0)118 9nx xxxx (where n#9) so as, according to WTNG - +83 and +89 are "Unassigned", there cannot possibly be any conflict. I would have thought that Linc (of all people) would have known that, and so would have chosen a more appropriate example to quote - such as Leeds/Belgium (0113-2);-)) Also, there has never been a UK number range 0119, nor is there any scope to create one under what passes for UK current numbering policy! But there is one overriding reason for having standardisation and that is the increasing use of the Internet. Web pages more commonly show people complete numbers to dial, and for that they have to include the international prefix. In other words, it is more important for people to be able to GIVE their OWN numbers in a format that can be dialled universally, than to avoid changing formats when you (physcially) visit a different country. A "good" example of this occurred a few years ago - the time when the dial-a-porn trade was advertising phoney phone numbers which suggested that calls would route to Guyana (the callers were certainly CHARGED at the rate for calls to Guyana). In most cases the people running the scam expected their calls to come from the USA, and so numbers were advertised on the webpages in the form "011 592 5xxxxx" - which was, to say the least, unhelpful for callers outside the NANPA. People in the UK saw webpages with these numbers, and started calling the numbers exactly as shown -- unaware that this was not exactly the providers' intention -- and so a small block of phone numbers serving the Beeston area of Nottingham started to receive some very odd phone calls ... at even odder hours of the day -- and night! Richard D G Cox Penarth, UK (+4429) ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:20:27 EST Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World > The entire history of the CCITT/ITU shows its arrogant hostility > towards the United States. For example, because we had the gall to have > our telephone networks operated by privately held companies instead of > the government-run post office, we weren't even given a vote on many > issues! Linc, It's not just the ITU/CCITT that shows hostility toward America either. I'm afraid that many institutions in this part of the world somehow seem to feel that it is their right, maybe even their duty, to show the "arrogant Americans" the error of their ways and put them on the right road toward adopting "world" standards. (What they really mean is "European standards" or course -- Not the same thing.) The fact that whatever it is has been working quite satisfactorily in the U.S. for decades and that Americans see no need to change doesn't seem to occur to them. > Changing our four-way stops to traffic circles -- *THAT* would be > unnecessary, expensive, and extremely dangerous!! Well said, Sir! I've never understood the British passion here for installing traffic circles ("roundabouts") all over the place. We have big ones, small ones, some that are just a small bump in the road, and some stretches of road where there is one of these tortuous systems every 200 yards or so. Totally unnecessary, and one of things that makes driving in the States a pleasure. > If you want a situation that is truly dangerous, take a look at the > traditional traffic circles in France. By law, traffic *entering* the > traffic circle had right-of-way over traffic *in* or *exiting* the > traffic circle. That's a recipe for wrecks and gridlock. France is in > the process of changing to the international standard, that traffic > entering the circle must yield to traffic already in the circle, but > the mess will take years to work out, as each circle has to be >re-signed individually. They seem to have just about finished now. Last time I was there I saw none of the old-style circles. To emphasize the priority rules, all the new junctions have yield signs at each road, reinforced by "Vous n'avez pas la priorite" signs below. But you still find places in towns where traffic emerging from a tiny side alley on your right has priority, even though you are on a main thoroughfare. > System, especially since we felt a bizarre compulsion to invent our own > fluid ounce and gallon. (One gallon is approximately 3.875 liters, that > being 128 fluid ounces of exactly 29.5735 ml each.) The U.S. gallon is actually the old British gallon from several centuries ago (I forget the exact date). I believe one of our distant monarchs decreed that the new Imperial gallon (4.546 liters) should become accepted measurement in England (something to do with measuring wine, IIRC) and it has been so firmly established ever since that most Brits assume that the U.S gallon was of American origin (in the same way as they regard terms such as "gotten" as being American "corruptions", when in fact it was in Britain in which they fell out of use). ------------------------------ Date: 10 Dec 2002 17:03:26 -0500 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> It's not always easy to discover the correct code. And it's >> unnecessary. When I'm away from home, I never direct dial long distance calls. I always use some kind of calling card. In North America, that means that I call an 800 number to get to the calling card system. Other places, it invariably means that I call some country-specific code, usually an 0800 number or something like that. Except in the rare cases where I'm using a local phone card to make the call (which I think I did once or twice in France), the international dialing prefix is irrelevant. 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 ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: Carol Farrar Subject: Cell Socket Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:11:47 -0500 I saw you talking about cell socket on the news groups and I have a couple of questions. One is that I bought one because it creates a dial tone. I wanted to be able to order movies off my Dish TV box with it. Won't do that. Also will make my plain phone ring but not my portable phone. Do you know why? Thanks, Carol [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Part of that is *intended* behavior. The Cell Socket (which Mike Sandman does *NOT* sell [he had planned on it but decided against it, not liking the company's terms]) is intended to allow the use of a 'regular' land line telephone in place of the cellular phone, while keeping the cellular phone charged and ready to go. It does not very well pass along tone signals to do other jobs, such as bank-by-phone, etc. With much patience it can be done sometimes. Usually the voicemail thing at the other end (DISH movie order lines, etc) times out before you can get Cell Socket to obey. I have gotten Cell Socket to pass through modem tones for a computer, but v-e-r-y slowly ... how's 110 or 300 baud sound? :( You can do computers with cellular phones or DISH or bank-by-phone with cellular (but using an actual cellular phone and its keypad). For computers, you seem to need a PCMCIA 'slot' on the computer with a specially built PCMCIA card to go in it, (the usual little credit card type thing, with a tiny antenna on the end which looks off into space and finds a cell tower it talks to. Even that only gets you real slow service (like 19.2 or with luck, 33.8 and cut offs now and then and computer freeze ups), but it will work. Cell Socket on the other hand won't work with any of those things. (I had tried just plugging a modular cord from a modem into the Cell Socket, letting the modem listen to the dial tone and proceed from there. That sometimes got me the 110 baud I mentioned). What the Cell Socket WILL do: Basically it acts like a 'handsfree' car adapter; it keeps the cell phone battery charged, let's you plug a 'real' telephone into it, (or a headset, or a speaker phone, or ??) and make calls at your leisure sitting elsehwere and not having to hold the cellular phone to your ear. In fact, when you pop the Nokia 5100 series phone in the Cell Socket, the phone display changes to say 'handsfree mode', and you see the battery charge icon shooting up and down as the battery charges. If you let the phone plug into the external antenna on the Cell Socket, you do get better coverage range and better 'sounding' conversation. Very smart guys have learned how to adapt Cell Socket to work as an 'external line' on a PBX; for example, where '9' gets you an outside line, '7' or '8' gets you the dialtone from the cell socket for example. Now wherever you have an extension on your PBX you can use the cell phone via Cell Socket. What else the Cell Socket WILL do: Any benefits you would get from using your cell phone are available to you. No one uses all of those three thousand minutes of overnight use. Very few people get totally free long distance (as most cell phones give). Most people are not in a position to sit hanging out their window with the phone angled a certain way to get decent reception. With Cell Socket and an external 5/8 wave antenna and three radials on it (Mike DOES sell the antenna for the 5100 series Nokia phones; [ http://www.sandman.com ]) you set the antenna in the best spot; then use the landline phone by your comfortable chair to make calls. Cell Socket does make dialtone, to guide you in making your outgoing call seem 'more natural' as you found out. (Cellphones are about the only type of telecommunication device for phone calls which does NOT 'make dialtone' normally.) You also noted that using Cell Socket, the new external phone does the ringing, instead of the cellphone. Personally, to me that is sort of a classy feature, especially if the phone you are using has a 'side ringer' which outputs a neat audible, like for example the old-style chimes that Bell System used twenty or thirty years ago. Where my Cell Socket sits with the antenna (in my bedroom) I cannot hear the cellphone itself ringing in my computer area. I *can* hear the bell on the phone I use instead. To each his own, I guess. I do not like to watch DISH pay per view movies (rip offs!) but I do like having my long distance bill being almost zero each month. Its too bad Mike's supplier of the Cell Socket had to be so cheap and difficult for Mike to work with. 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #175 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Dec 12 00:04:24 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gBC54OL27169; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 00:04:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 00:04:24 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212120504.gBC54OL27169@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 #176 TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Dec 2002 00:04:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 176 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Verizon Wireless Sees Q4 Performance Similar to Q3 (Monty Solomon) PluggedIn: Holiday Deadlines Loom For Deals on Cell Phone (Monty Solomon) Wired News: Kiddie Cell Phones: Hot New Toy? (Monty Solomon) Apple's QuickTime Phones Japan (Monty Solomon) AOL Poised to Announce New Cable Deals (Monty Solomon) Raided Firm's Software Checks Out (Monty Solomon) New Tools for Domestic Spying, and Qualms (Monty Solomon) Door Opens For Second News Corp DirecTV Bid (Monty Solomon) Internet Filters Block Many Useful Sites, Study Finds (Monty Solomon) Call Waiting Prison and Telemarketers (Gail M. Hall) Re: Business Line vs Residential Line (in Kentucky) (OT) Re: 911 Available (was 011+ NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World) (Ed Ellers) Re: Avaya IP Office 406 Issues (Rich Campbell) Business Directory Has Been Quiet (David B. Horvath, CCP) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:59:24 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Verizon Wireless Sees Q4 Performance Similar to Q3 ORLANDO, Fla., Dec 10 (Reuters) - Verizon Wireless, the largest U.S. wireless telephone services company, said on Tuesday it expects to fare the same or slightly better in the current quarter than in the third quarter. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=30475030 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 18:01:20 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: PluggedIn: Holiday Deadlines Loom for Deal on Cell Phones By Yukari Iwatani CHICAGO, Dec 10 (Reuters) - Consumers in the market for a new cell phone may want to size up special holiday offers before many of them expire in the new year. This holiday season new phones, more minutes and more features, such as color screens, games and ring tones, are selling at prices not available six months ago. Consumers are also benefiting from increased competition in the wireless industry as companies vie to sign up new clients amid an industrywide slowdown in customer growth. Wireless operators are hoping they can jump-start demand for fancier phones and new types of services by offering discounts to create buzz among consumers who tend to choose phones according to basic calling features and pricing. The deals may be enticing -- even for those who are not in the market for a new phone. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=30473296 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 18:30:25 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Wired News: Kiddie Cell Phones: Hot New Toy? By Elisa Batista 02:00 AM Dec. 10, 2002 PT Dear Santa: Forget Mattel, and bring on Nokia. As some parents already know, the hot item on many 8- to 12-year-olds' wish lists this holiday season isn't Barbie or a Hot Wheels car, but a cell phone. If a child in this age group doesn't already own a cell phone -- 21 percent of them do, according to research by SpectraCom -- he or she is likely part of the great majority pestering mom and dad for one. As Robert Butterworth, a Los Angeles psychologist, put it: "Board games have become bored games for kids. http://wired.com/news/holidays/0,1882,56784,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 01:54:20 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Apple's QuickTime Phones Japan By Stefanie Olsen Staff Writer, CNET News.com December 10, 2002, 5:49 PM PT Apple's QuickTime is poised to make headway as an audio and video delivery platform for mobile phones in Japan, with new standards-compatible software on its way and a fresh endorsement by leading wireless carrier NTT DoCoMo. In coming weeks, Apple will introduce a new version of its multimedia delivery system, QuickTime 6, with support for 3GPP, or 3rd Generation Partnership Project--telecommunications standards for mobile systems. 3GPP is built on the MPEG-4 standard for the delivery of digital audio and video to PCs, set-top boxes and wireless devices. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-976829.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 01:56:37 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AOL Poised to Announce New Cable Deals By Jim Hu Staff Writer, CNET News.com December 10, 2002, 12:11 PM PT AOL Time Warner Chief Executive Richard Parsons said the media giant is "close" to announcing new deals with cable companies to offer America Online on broadband networks. Parsons, speaking at the UBS Warburg Media Week Conference in New York, would not name which companies AOL Time Warner is negotiating with, but added that a deal could solidify within the month. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-976749.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 01:58:51 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Raided Firm's Software Checks Out By Michelle Delio 02:00 AM Dec. 10, 2002 PT Software designed by Ptech, a Massachusetts technology firm U.S. federal agents suspect might be linked to terrorist groups, does not appear to threaten national security. Federal agents raided the company's Quincy offices early Friday morning. Officials are investigating allegations that investors in the company also finance terrorist organizations. News of the raid sparked concerns that Ptech's software could have been engineered to allow attackers access to classified national-security data. The Army and Air Force, Congress, the White House, the Federal Aviation Administration and the FBI use the company's knowledge-management software. Initial reports indicate that Ptech's software was not engineered to allow attackers easy access to government databases. But security experts warned that while Ptech products might be safe, the raids highlight the need to secure systems from internal as well as external threats. http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,56777,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 02:03:44 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: New Tools for Domestic Spying, and Qualms New Tools for Domestic Spying, and Qualms By MICHAEL MOSS and FORD FESSENDEN When the Federal Bureau of Investigation grew concerned this spring that terrorists might attack using scuba gear, it set out to identify every person who had taken diving lessons in the previous three years. Hundreds of dive shops and organizations gladly turned over their records, giving agents contact information for several million people. "It certainly made sense to help them out," said Alison Matherly, marketing manager for the National Association of Underwater Instructors Worldwide. "We're all in this together." But just as the effort was wrapping up in July, the F.B.I. ran into a two-man revolt. The owners of the Reef Seekers Dive Company in Beverly Hills, Calif., balked at turning over the records of their clients, who include Tom Cruise and Tommy Lee Jones -- even when officials came back with a subpoena asking for "any and all documents and other records relating to all noncertified divers and referrals from July 1, 1999, through July 16, 2002." Faced with defending the request before a judge, the prosecutor handling the matter notified Reef Seekers' lawyer that he was withdrawing the subpoena. The company's records stayed put. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/10/national/10PRIV.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:28:15 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Door Opens For Second News Corp DirecTV Bid By Sophie Hares SYDNEY, Dec 11 (Reuters) - After a year on the sidelines, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp Ltd is tipped to make a second tilt at Hughes Electronics Corp's (NYSE:GMH) DirecTV and finally grab the missing piece of its global satellite empire. With few rivals wielding the financial clout to throw up fresh offers after the collapse of EchoStar Communication Corp's (NASDAQ:DISH) $18 billion bid, News Corp could bide its time to hammer out a deal from Hughes' parent General Motors Corp (NYSE:GM). But funding any deal for control of the top U.S. satellite TV service without jeopardizing its credit ratings is likely to be a major challenge for News Corp, said analysts on Wednesday. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=30484971 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:33:16 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Internet Filters Block Many Useful Sites, Study Finds Internet Filters Block Many Useful Sites, Study Finds By JOHN SCHWARTZ Teenagers who look to the Internet for health information as part of their "wired generation" birthright are blocked from many useful sites by antipornography filters that federal law requires in school and library computers, a new study has found. The filtering programs tend to block references to sex and sex-related terms, like "safe sex," "condoms," "abortion," "jock itch," "gay" and "lesbian." Although the software can be adjusted to allow access to most health-related Web sites, many schools and libraries ratchet up the software's barriers to highest settings, the report said. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/11/technology/11FILT.html ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: Call Waiting Prison and Telemarketers Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 18:17:14 -0500 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 09:24:06 -0700, in comp.dcom.telecom, message ID , Joey Lindstrom wrote: > I got a call last week from someone representing the CIBC, or Canadian > Imperial Bank of Commerce, of which I am already a customer: a > chequing account, a Visa, and an "Entourage" American Express card. I > was in the middle of a long distance call at the time and ... well, > the call quickly degenerated into an actual shouting match, something > I'd never experienced before with a telemarketer. I'll now paste in > the entire email that I sent to CIBC Customer Service immediately > after the call. Boy, it felt good to write it. :-) What is it about Call Waiting that seems to trap people into interrupting EVERY CALL to deal with that other person??!!!! Can't you punch a key or something to cause the Call Waiting beeps to stop and give the caller a busy signal so it would let you go on with your long-distance calls uninterrupted? I've been on the paying end of long-distance calls, and INVARIABLY if that other call beep comes in I get the "Oh, there's another call coming in. I'll be right back." I've even been on the non-paying end of the long-distance call, and the same thing happens. The caller, paying for the minutes I am on hold, is so trapped by that Call Waiting feature they seem to have no choice! If a call, even a local call is so important to you and you don't want to interrupt it, then DON'T answer the other call if you have Call Waiting! If your phone company provides a way to turn OFF Call Waiting while you are ON a call, then use it when you are on an important call. I agree with Joey that the bank's telemarketer did not handle this call well at all. Any sales person should know not to argue with a customer. I suspect that the bank's sales caller does not actually work for the bank but more likely works for some contractor that the bank has hired to make marketing calls. I think a real bank sales person would not have let things deteriorate so quickly. S/He could have offered to call again at a more convenient time or offered to send information in the mail about the offer. That's what our local KeyBank people do. On the other hand, I think Joey should have said to her politely and firmly that he was on another "important" call at the moment and not mentioned the "no call" request at that moment. The idea is to disconnect from the sales rep *as soon as possible* and GET BACK to your interrupted call. AFTER you are done with your long-distance call or important call, *then* you can contact your bank and talk to your own branch representative or manager and tell them what you need. It might involve adding a "Do Not Call" request to your information. Remember, too, that there are scammers out there who pretend to be from your bank or phone company but really are not. So I would not want to get mad at the bank or my phone company if they are victims of a scam along with me. I've NEVER had Call Waiting and don't miss it AT ALL! I hope Joey has not done too much damage to his reputation by sending off that angry e-mail! I think he would have been better off to talk to a local bank manager or representative that he KNOWS actually works for the bank and tell them what happened. Then he can ask who in authority at the bank he can write to (on paper with his own signature) to tell what happened and ask for the change in the call/no-call request. E-mail is not very secure. Giving out too much personal information in e-mail is risky. That's why I think sending a paper letter would be better. I agree with Joey about wanting to be called about problems with my current accounts, questions about possible fraud, etc. But I might not want to be called about yet another credit card. Let's get some good ideas going about how to handle Call Waiting. If a person pays for Call Waiting, then how about also having "Voice mail" at the phone company that will pick up the call if the beep is ignored. Let's stop being prisoners of that Call Waiting beep! Gail in Ohio USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oftentimes, call waiting can be suspended by using *70 at the start of your outgoing call, or on incoming calls by doing flashhook *70 in mid-call. If you wait until a call waiting signal *then* do flashhook the result will be you then get the new call. So do it early on on incoming calls, as soon as you detect the call is important and you do not want another call to be dumped on you. Voicemail is NOT available on 620-331 for whatever reason, but I cheat a little, by having it on my cell phone (620-330) along with 'transfer on busy/no answer' on my main number. So if I either do *70 or forget to do that and let my phone continue ringing with a call waiting, in any event after three rings the call will be transferred to my cell phone for four or five more rings, then off to voicemail on the cell phone. My cell phone also has call-waiting, which may be a bit of an overkill for me, but the same thing happens there if I do not take an incoming call after four or five rings; off to voicemail. There is also a thing called 'distinctive ring call-waiting' which is a short double beep-beein instead of the usual 'longer' beep. I agree with Gail that Joey *should have* handled the call differently but some telemarketers are so ignorant the only thing they understand is a rough bark. I had some calls a couple days ago like that. The calls tripped the privacy manager condition, and 'pressing 1' to hear the callers name got me some telemarketer's name and number. I chose to respond by 'pressing 3' to have a pre-recorded message delivered to the caller saying 'I do not take telemarketing calls, please remove this number from your list'. I then hang up, and within about one minute more or less the phone rang again. It was Privacy Manager calling again, with the same person this time recording their 'name' as 'I am not selling anything'. I figured what the heck, let's see what the lady is doing if not selling anything. It turned out she was 'taking a survey of long distance carriers' and offering a free month of her carrier. After damning her to hell I slammed the phone down again. I have to admit for all its shortcomings, Privacy Manager does help a little. Instead of getting several calls each day now I only get one or two per week. PAT] ------------------------------ From: OT Subject: Re: Business Line vs Residential Line (in Kentucky) Organization: WEBUSENET.com Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:07:44 -0500 Back to your local phone company, They consider it a business line if you list it in the yellow pages or advertise it in anyway (billboard, business, or anything that a business would normally do to let their customers know the number.) Bob Travis wrote in message news:telecom22.161.14@telecom-digest.org: > 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. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: 911 Availability (was 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 22:42:37 -0500 wrote: > I know that when I was in Georgia a few years ago that many rural counties > in the state didn't have 911. > How much of America is still waiting for 911 service these days? Dunno, but if they have any kind of electronic switching, I'd bet that 911 calls go straight through to the LEC operator, who should know how to transfer them to police, fire or EMS services. I found that that was the case when my neighborhood was cut over to a 1A ESS twenty years ago, several years before 911 came in. ------------------------------ From: Rich Campbell Subject: Re: Avaya IP Office 406 Issues Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 04:11:19 GMT All I can say is WOW! And you are going to install this? Rich This Old Man wrote in message news:telecom22.174.13@telecom-digest.org: > Hello, > We just got a new IP Office 406 system in our office in San Jose, > CA. I'm in IT and will help manage the system. We have complete > support from a local VAR for one year, however this is the first > implementation for IP Office so they are learning, too. > So far our major issues are: > 1) Dial-by-name directory not delivered from Avaya. Our VAR said Avaya > said maybe next week it will be ready. > 2) Programming DSS buttons crashes the system. Our VAR said Avaya said > this is a known problem and they are working on it. What we are trying > to accomplish is, for example, I want to be able to answer the phone > of my assistants extension and I want it to actually ring on my phone. > On our old NEC system it was an appearance light on the phone. Our > VAR said I had to use DSS, but 1) the phone does not actually ring - > the line only flashes, and 2) it crashes the system, or actually the > digital card, the VAR said. > 3) We have to reboot the system when we want to add extensions and > update other settings. So far, the "Merge" option has not worked for > us. > 4) The 4412D+ handsets are nice but they do not fit well into the > cradle, and sometimes leave the phone off-hook! > We have 3 30-port D-term modules and two analog modules. We also have > Voicemail Pro with Phone Manager Lite. > If there is other information I can provide please let me know. If > there is another forum or website I should also be looking at, I'd > appreciate that information, too. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:08:44 EST From: dhorvath@cobs.com (David B. Horvath, CCP) Subject: Business Directory Has Been Quiet There haven't been many entries for the business directory recently. Here are a few: The first one provides web and email marketing services: Find out more about our advanced Interactive web presence capabilities, Interactive E-mail Marketing and our traditional advertising and marketing services. Call 800-993-8622 or 717-569-8826 Ext. 24 for more information or click on the links below. LMI Advertising Website The second worries about your health and are nice enough not to telemarket: We dislike receiving annoying telemarketing calls too. So we have provided you with our 800 number so you can call us, and please call us to place an order or if you have any questions about this life changing product. Call today (800)339-6392 The third one is a big name: Omaha Steaks are an impressive gift! And your satisfaction is 100% GUARANTEED, so you can be sure every gift you send will be perfect and appreciated! And don't forget, Omaha Steaks will send 12 beefy, quarter- pound Burgers absolutely FREE to every shipping address in your order. Simply select your FREE Burgers at checkout. For fastest service use any link in this e-mail to shop online or call toll-free 1-800-960-8400 (please ask for your selection numbers)! The funny thing about the Omaha Steaks email I received was that it looked like it wasn't ready to be sent out: PUBLISHER: PLEASE WRAP PERMISSION VERBIAGE AND OPT-OUT INSTRUCTIONS TO BOTH THE TEXT AND HTML VERSIONS. PLEASE USE THE WHITE SPACE PROVIDED FOR DISCLOSURE COPY WITHIN THE HTML (OR WRITE THE COPY IN WHITE FONT AGAINST THE GREEN BACKGROUND). SEED: miker@osmail.com TO THE TEST LIST AND TO RECEIVE THE ACTUAL. APPROVAL PRIOR TO DEPLOY IS MANDATORY! Lastly, please provide circ counts and day of deployment PRIOR to any distribution. Subject Line: Get 12 free Burgers + Save up to 50% Email Copy: (actual message appeared here) A fourth entry for the directory is another email marketing firm: Do you have an on-line business or product that just hasn't taken off like you thought it would? Targeted e-mail is the most POWERFUL method of marketing on the internet today! Now, what are you waiting for? Give it a try. At these rates, you've got nothing to lose except repeat visitors and customers! CONTACT "MAIL-PUSHERS" FOR AVAILABILITY AT, {{888}{8-4-6-7-2-6-6}}-call now! {{716}{8-1-2-2-1-4-4}}-customer care! {{253}{6-6-0-1-2-3-5}}-fax! LIVE Advocate,s Are On Stand By From 9:00am to 12:am Midnight To Take Your Call!! David [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is anyone still playing this 'pollute their 800 number' game? I have sort of gotten bored by it and while it used to be highly effective with small time, petty spammers, I am not sure anyone is paying attention any longer. Continue playing it longer if you wish, and be sure to use the black sheet of paper taped as a mobius loop on their fax number if you are in the 253-660 local calling area, with *67 first in the dialing, of course. 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #176 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Dec 12 00:57:19 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gBC5vJc29057; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 00:57:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 00:57:19 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212120557.gBC5vJc29057@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 #177 TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Dec 2002 00:57:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 177 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telemarketing Satisfaction (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Cingular Reveals Incoming Blocked Numbers (Monty Solomon) George Gilder: Why I Trust Ken Lay (Monty Solomon) Re: Portable ATM's an Invitation to Fraud? (H.E. Taylor) Re: Study: Car Call Value Equals Crash Cost (Bob Goudreau) Re: Study: Car Call Value Equals Crash Cost (Henry E Schaffer) Re: It Has Started: Re: dot kids, was Re: Ten TLD's (smith2@tecnet1) Re: Ten TLD's (Henry E Schaffer) Re: Portable ATM's an Invitation to Fraud? (David B. Horvath, CCP) Re: Portable ATM's an Invitation to Fraud? (David Clayton) Re: Court Rules Internet Case Can be Heard in Australia (David Clayton) Re: Listing in areacode-info.com and TELECOM Digest (John Higdon) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (Mark J Cuccia) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (David Clayton) Re: SL-1 Incoming Cot Call Routing (David Clayton) Nextel Targets Industrial Sector With Two New Motorola (Monty Solomon) Re: The Farce of National Branding (George Mitchell) Re: Court Rules Internet Case Can be Heard in Australia (Peters Mark) 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: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol) Subject: Re: Telemarketing Satisfaction Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 22:07:15 -0000 Organization: JustThe.net LLC From 'Joey Lindstrom' : > We have requested that your name be removed from any and all > telemarketing lists we have. While it can take 2-4 months to be sure > your name is removed from all of our lists, we have put a 'rush' on > this request so it will be handled on a priority basis. To remove your > name from other lists, you may want to contact the Canadian Marketing > Association, at 416-3941-2362. Not bad overall, but this bull from large businesses that it'll take months to remove you is ridiculous. I'd follow up with a letter that says "thanks for attempting to expedite my removal, but X weeks is plenty, and any calls received after X weeks will generate complaints to the CRTC." Where X is a number of your choosing - I'd say 2-4 would be reasonable. Actually, 1-2 should be enough. 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! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:44:26 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Re: Cingular Reveals Incoming Blocked Numbers This kind of behavior is expected when calling 800, 888, 877 and 866 toll-free numbers, but is not expected when calling a cellular phone. Many times you don't even know that you are calling a cell phone. Monty ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:58:18 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: George Gilder: Why I Trust Ken Lay George Gilder: Why I Trust Ken Lay - Dec 23, 2002 12:00 AM (Forbes Magazine) Why I trust the most disgraced chief executive more than I do the most reputable public servant. Why do I trust Gary Winnick and Jeffrey Skilling -- nefarious former chief executives of notoriously bankrupt companies -- more than I trust Senator John McCain of vaunted valor in prison camps or David Broder of Pulitzer fame or Senator Joseph Lieberman of famously flinty integrity? Why do I trust Kenneth Lay of Enron and Bernard Ebbers of WorldCom more than I trust Justices William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia, the stalwart intellectual leaders of a nominally conservative Supreme Court, or even George W. Bush, that most trusted of Presidents? Why do I trust General Electric chief emeritus Jack Welch or AT&T Chief Michael Armstrong more than I trust the entire scientific and environmental coverage in the New York Times and all the venerable editors of the increasingly political Scientific American ? Why do I trust Martha Stewart and ImClone 's Sam Waksal far more than I trust the crusading journalist James B. Stewart or New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, trustbuster deluxe, as they righteously seek to banish moneylenders, marketmakers and conflicts of interest from the temples of Wall Street? - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=30476712 ------------------------------ From: H.E. Taylor Subject: Re: Portable ATM's an Invitation to Fraud? Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 05:28:08 GMT Organization: MTS Internet In article , Chris N Acuma wrote: > [shouting elided] There have been a flurry of ATM fraud cases in Canada lately, with some relatively large numbers appearing. In at least some of these cases, the technique has been to put up bogus machines to capture card data and PIN. Why bother with intercepting radio when you can do that? http://cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2002/12/03/atm021203 het "There are some among us who live in rooms of experience we can never enter." -John Steinbeck Energy Alternatives: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/energy.html H.E. Taylor http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:49:16 PST From: Bob Goudreau Reply-To: BobGoudreau@nc.rr.com Subject: Re: Study: Car Call Value Equals Crash Cost dold@47.usenet.us.com wrote: > Larry & Wanda Finch wrote: >> 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. > The portion of the study that I heard quoted indicated that 26,000 > people died last year as a result of an accident while someone was on > a cell phone. If that's truly what the study claimed, and the numbers are limited to the United States only, then it is certainly a crock of nonsense. The *total* number of annual road deaths in the US last year was around 42,000, a level which has held at roughly the same level for quite a few years. Of course, the population rises every year, so the true figure of interest is the number of deaths per distance driven. This number has been slowly but steadily falling for many years, and is now at a level of (IIRC) ~1.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Curiously, this is almost exactly the same rate as found in the United Kingdom, which I understand has laws banning the use of handheld mobiles while driving. So if the skyrocketing use of mobile phones in general, and handheld mobiles in particular, has really added a significant level of danger to driving the in the US, then one would expect to see a noticeable trend in the road death statistics. And yet we don't seem to see such a trend. To those who point out that road and cars are safer now than they were a decade ago, I agree -- but so what? The same could be said in 1992 with respect to the road and cars of 1982. The secular trend of the curve in the fatality rate graph is still not noticeably different than it was back then. (Of course, the rate of decline is still itself declining, as the overall death rate approaches, but will never reach, zero.) Phil Earnhardt wrote: > What I would like to see is the delta in the numbers between regular > cell phone users and hands free cell phone users. Antecdotally, I do > not mind hands free users (I suspect I don't even notice many of > them). If hands free usage is found to be significantly safer than > handheld usage, I would like to see hands free use mandated. Anecdotally, a lot of people (including various national and state legislatures) seem to feel the same way. Surprisingly, however, the first major study of mobile phone usage while driving, conducted several years ago by the University of Toronto, actually found *no difference* between the accident rates of hands-free and hand-held users! Bob Goudreau Cary, NC ------------------------------ From: hes@hes01.unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E Schaffer) Subject: Re: Study: Car Call Value Equals Crash Cost Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 21:28:53 +0000 (UTC) Organization: North Carolina State University In article , > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And television sets are still banned > from use in automobiles, at least in the front seat. PAT] Could that be the explanation for the well known phenomenon that *many* accidents happen in the back seat of an automobile? :-) --henry schaffer hes@ncsu.edu ------------------------------ From: Date: Wed, 11 Dec 02 09:41:57 EDT Subject: Re: It Has Started: Re: dot kids, was Re: Ten TLD's > From the Neustar support site: OVERVIEW The .US top-level domain (usTLD) was established in 1985 as the official country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for the United States. It is administered by NeuStar. The expanded second-level .US domain launched on April 24, 2002, enabling companies, nonprofits, government entities and individuals to establish unique, memorable American addresses online. STRUCTURE The existing .US structure is a locality-based hierarchy modeled on the geography of the United States. Most usTLD branches in the locality space are overseen by delegated managers (also known as "delegees" or "locality delegees"). This existing hierarchical design provides structure, name uniqueness and a geographic reference point for registrants. NeuStar maintains and enhances this locality-based structure even as it administers the expanded second-level .US domain. Please contact us with questions at (1-888) 415-0365 or (202) 533-2721, or via email at support.us@neustar.us. (C)2001-2002 NeuStar, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Policies. Privacy Policy. Comments about this website? Please e-mail: web@neustar.us. ------------------------------ From: hes@hes01.unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E Schaffer) Subject: Re: Ten TLD's Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:49:11 UTC Organization: North Carolina State University In article , Pat wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And don't forget '.us' as one in > somewhat infrequent use. PAT] There really has been a rush to use .com - someone mentioned that it is the default used by some browsers - and the general public seems to be convinced that it is necessary. This has been so much so that the State of North Carolina changed its web site from: http://www.state.nc.us/ to http://www.ncgov.com/ in order to fit in with what the general public expects. (They keep the old URL and redirect hits to it to the new one.) henry schaffer hes@ncsu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:08:38 EST From: dhorvath@cobs.com (David B. Horvath, CCP) Subject: Re: Portable ATM's an Invitation to Fraud? On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 21:54:07 MST, acuma@aztec.asu.edu (Chris N Acuma) posted: > SUSPECT THE ATM'S ARE EQUIPPED WITH EITHER CELL PHONES OR SOME OTHER > FORM OF RADIO GEAR TO ALLOW THEM TO VERIFY BANK BALANCES. FIRST > DOES ANYBODY KNOW HOW THESE PORTABLE ATM TALK TO THEIR REMOTE > COMPUTERS? Cellular - most often CDPD (Cellular Data Packet and I forget what the last D stands for). Essentially they use TCP/IP over cellular. The last time I worked with it you could get connection speeds up to 19.2 Kbps which is much more than enough for an ATM transaction. > AND SECOND IF THEY USE RADIO WAVES I SUSPECT THATS AN OPEN > INVITATION FOR FRAUD. ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? One word: encryption. And it isn't just a simple "here's my password, where's my data" transaction, there is significant handshaking and protocols that have to be used. In another life I worked for an ATM network; I worked on back-office software (billing and settlement) but I did get exposure to the ATM handling part. There are two different kinds of fraud that I envision in this situation: stealing account numbers and PIN or convincing the machine to give currency without deducting it from an account. The first would involve monitoring the traffic for that machine, but remember that the traffic is encrypted and PIN is never sent in the clear (it is encrypted before being put into the packet being sent; the packet itself is encrypted). The second would involve taking over the cellular traffic (overriding the local tower), pretending to be the bank, and figuring out the instructions that say "spit out X dollar bills" (not easy, and besides, those portable machines don't hold much cash). ONE NOTE: please do not use ALL CAPS. It is hard to read and is interpreted as being "shouts". David B. Horvath, CCP Consultant, Author, International Lecturer, Adjunct Professor Board Member: ICCP Educational Foundation, ICCP Test Council, and Philadelphia Association of Systems Administrators ------------------------------ From: David Clayton Subject: Re: Portable ATM's an Invitation to Fraud? Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:22:43 +1100 Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.net.au acuma@aztec.asu.edu (Chris N Acuma) contributed the following: > AND SECOND IF THEY USE RADIO WAVES I SUSPECT THATS AN OPEN INVITATION > FOR FRAUD. ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? Here in Australia we've recently had a spate of ATM fraud where machines were equipped with "skimmers" to record the card's mag stripe data and they also stole you PIN by having "pinhole" cameras mounted above the keypads. Once the crook has both of these, it's then "party time" with your funds. Also in some ATM locations where you need to swipe a card to gain entrance to a secure room have been hit in a similar way, but the publicity now has people on the lookout for any strange "additions" to the card swipe equipment and arrests have been made. If "portable" ATM's become common, it is possible that people won't be familiar with this equipment and the "skimming" fraud may have more opportunity to occur as a result of this. Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ------------------------------ From: David Clayton Subject: Re: Court Rules Internet Case Can be Heard in Australia Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:22:44 +1100 Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.net.au Monty Solomon contributed the following: > - Dec 9, 2002 09:07 PM (Reuters) > CANBERRA, Dec 10 (Reuters) - Australia's highest court ruled on > Tuesday that a defamation case sparked by a story on a U.S Web site > could be heard in Australia, opening a legal minefield for web > publishers over which libel laws they must follow. > The landmark ruling that an article published by Dow Jones & Co > (NYSE:DJ) was subject to Australian law -- because it was downloaded > in Australia -- is being watched by media firms as it could set a > precedent over where Internet publication occurs. The basis of the decision (I believe) was that because the article was available in a location where the person had a reputation that could be damaged, the case must be heard in that jurisdiction. Some people have "scaremongered" that anyone publishing on the 'net will now have to take into account the defamation laws *all* around the world, but in reality this decision should only make it necessary to take into account the laws where any defamation could actually occur. - see, it's not as bad as first thought...... :-( Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Listing in Areacode-Info.com and TELECOM Digest Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:16:52 -0800 In article , Daniel Baker wrote: > The sites description is: U.S. Directories of: Local Telephone Service > Providers (Local Exchange Carriers) AND Contractors who Add / Repair > Inside Wiring & Jacks. > I also have some advertising banners available at > www.telephoneservicedirectory.com/banners.htm I dutifully entered my area code and prefix to get a listing of local providers serving my area. It responded with: "There are No Listings of Advertisers who serve the 408 Area Code and 264 Prefix. You might see if there is another Prefix being used in your immediate area (see suggestions on entry form)." Excuse me. 408/264 (historical ANdrews 4) is THE flagship exchange of the Pacific Telephone ... er ... Pacific Bell ... uh ... SBC SJ12 central office. it dates back to the mid-fifties. If that web site cannot give any information for that area code/prefix combo, it isn't worth much. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:50:47 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World John Levine wrote: > When I'm away from home, I never direct dial long distance calls. > I always use some kind of calling card. > In North America, that means that I call an 800 number to get to the > calling card system. Other places, it invariably means that I call > some country-specific code, usually an 0800 number or something like > that. Except in the rare cases where I'm using a local phone card to > make the call (which I think I did once or twice in France), the > international dialing prefix is irrelevant. EXACTLY !!! This is something that many of the replies "conveniently" have ignored, or "downplayed". Why should ANYONE who doesn't actually *LIVE* here in the NANP (for any period of time) even *CARE* what our (sent-paid toll) IDDD or intra-NANP access digits/prefixes even *ARE*!? If you are not at your home telephone (or your OWN cellular phone), and you need to make toll calls, whether in the same country code or to a different country code, if you are calling from a pay/coin/public phone, or your PBX at work (for NON work-related toll calls), or a motel/hotel/ hospital room, most would be more likely to use their calling card, pre-paid card, etc., even if this also means "home country direct" access. You'll dial whatever the toll-free number happens to be, to access the platform of the carrier of your choice. Even the "domestic sent-paid toll" prefix, whether it is '0+', '1+' or anything else, shouldn't matter to you if you aren't at the phone line that YOU are paying for! Of course, it might happen to be that the toll-free number "itself" has to first be prefixed with a 0 or 1, as in the 1+800/888/etc. in the NANP, or in many other countries, the '0' before the 800 (but always written as a block, 0800-), that prefix being the same as a "toll-indicating/accepting" or "out-of-home-area- code" access prefix. Even a UIFN number might be your "home country direct" access number, but the carrier issuing you the card/account will inform you of the access numbers including ALL needed digits, to use FROM the country you are visiting ... i.e., you might be using a UIFN number as 00800+etc. from one country, and it could be the "same" UIFN home-country direct number from the NANP but as 011+800-etc. If you are buying a "prepaid" type of card for placing calls, even if you have to dial a "prefix" to indicate that you are then dialing a toll-free number to access the card platform, the instructions that come with the card will indicate what is to be dialed. You don't really have to "know" what that the sent-paid toll prefix might happen to be the access digit(s) for placing calls to toll-free numbers. And, if your "host" *PERMITS* you to place domestic calls or international calls "sent-paid" to HIS (or her) line at home (or from work, if the PBX or individual work lines are "unrestricted"), then that is *THEIR* choice, and they would probably tell you to dial 011+ before the country-code/etc. if calling from the NANP. And then, if you choose to carry your own wireless phone with you on your overseas travels, you probably have an international calling and roaming plan. And as has been mentioned here several times, many GSM phones have a way for you to indicate a "PLUS" (+) symbol as part of entering/keying your destination dial-string, a leading '+' symbol tells the phone OR the cellular switch that the keyed destination number digits are strictly in the full worldwide format. You don't even have to "know" what the IDDD access prefix happens to be from the calling country you are in/visiting! NOBODY should be "expecting" that the NANP "adopt" in parallel, or worse completely change over, to 00+ for IDDD sent-paid (or even special billing). If you don't "pay" for that line, then it is NONE of your business WHAT codes happen to be used! (Of course, most of us ARE "telephone geeks" who are INTERESTED in what different countries of the world might use, but it should only be simply a matter of interest and curiousity, and NOT to demand that we must change). Actually, "special billing" services, traditionally from the NANP dialed as 0+ (for intra-NANP domestic, where the area code / ten-digit NANP number does *not* begin with '0' or'1') or 01+ (for IDDD, and since you can't call intra-NANP this way, the country code does *NOT* begin with '0' or '1') ... it is BETTER these days for one to place ALL card or special billing calls NOT as 0+/01+, but rather via a 1-800/888/etc. "dialup" to the carrier's platform -- for the CARRIER of YOUR choice, preferably the carrier who issued you the card which you probably have a savings/discount plan for! Even when using 101-XXXX+ 'CIC' codes for indicating your carrier on 0+/01+ dialing, you still can expect routing/service AND billing/rate/ charging "surprises". Using the toll-free access numbers indicated by your carrier on the back of your card to access their card/operator menu platform, you are probably "better off" with all of the private payphones, PBX operator "services" (hotels/motels/hospitals/etc), and even cellular systems trying to route you to who THEY want to route you to (and bill you thru) on traditionally dialed 0+/01+. That's one of the reasons why AT&T is most certainly marketing 1-800-CALL-ATT for using the AT&T calling card when away from your home phone and placing "toll" calls, originating from the US and Canada ... (Hopefully, one makes certain to LISTEN to the branding/prompting/menu/etc when using 1-800- type dial-ups, due to the SLEAZE operator entities who want you to "fat-finger" dial, but that's another story!) Mark J. Cuccia New Orleans LA ------------------------------ From: David Clayton Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:22:41 +1100 Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.net.au Linc Madison contributed the following: > For that matter, when is the U.K. going to change over to the > international standard that says that you drive on the right side of > the road? That is a difference that is "unnecessary, expensive, and > dangerous." How many accidents are caused every year by people from > right-drive countries in driving left-drive countries, or vice-versa? I believe that there is going to be a trial where bus and truck traffic in the UK will start using the RHS of the roads and if proved successful, cars will follow at a later time. :-) Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ------------------------------ From: David Clayton Subject: Re: SL-1 Incoming Cot Call Routing Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:22:42 +1100 Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.net.au rgpnyc@yahoo.com (Rich) contributed the following: > I have been trying to figure this one out, but have been unable to > find a solution. > Currently our system handles incoming calls via T1 and outgoing calls > via several cots. The problem that I have is that when someone places > a call, the number that shows and registers in the caller ID is the > cot number and not the actual DN. There has been several occassions > where a prank call has been placed and the individual calls back the > cot number. The cot number is setup to route to the attendant. I have > been trying to change this for the last two days. Is there a way to > route to a partuicular DN or a RAN route? If someone using your PBX is making "prank" calls then why wouldn't you want to be told about them by letting your attendant answer them? You should then make a note of the outgoing COT and investigate the SMDR records to find out who in your organisation is abusing the telephone system. BTW, I believe you can route individual COTS to DN's on a SL-1, but I can't remember how it is done, (I think I've seen it done for incoming Fax numbers). Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:56:20 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Nextel Targets Industrial Sector With Two New Motorola Nextel Targets the Industrial Sector with Two New Motorola Handsets That Adhere to Military Standards for Durability - Dec 11, 2002 12:13 PM (BusinessWire) RESTON, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 11, 2002--Nextel Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ:NXTL) today unveiled two new phones, the Motorola i35s and the GPS-enabled Motorola i58sr. Both handsets have been designed with a focus on durability in order to meet the needs of customers in industrial sectors such as construction and public safety. In addition, both models offer non-slip rubber grips, and adhere to Military Standards 810 C/D/E for resistance to dust, shock and vibration, for additional protection in harsh working environments. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=30496192 ------------------------------ From: George Mitchell Subject: Re: The Farce of National Branding Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:59:44 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com John Higdon wrote: > Brands used to mean something. Companies were founded, they created > products, and they identified them as unique with brand names. Today, > as a general rule, products are created and manufactured in nameless, > faceless foreign labs and factories and sold in bulk to a marketing > company, which puts its brand on it. Certainly more true than it used to be, but there are still some brands that mean something. The only example that comes to mind, offhand, is Hershey. What I've noticed lately is a correlation between a company buying the rights to name a sports arena, followed within a couple of years by severe financial trouble at the company ... -- George Mitchell (obfuscated email address) ------------------------------ From: PETERS MARK Subject: Re: Court Rules Internet Case Can be Heard in Australia Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:27:55 -0600 The entertainment industry wants cases involving file sharing with a non-US firm held in California court under US laws. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > - Dec 9, 2002 09:07 PM (Reuters) > CANBERRA, Dec 10 (Reuters) - Australia's highest court ruled on > Tuesday that a defamation case sparked by a story on a U.S Web site > could be heard in Australia, opening a legal minefield for web > publishers over which libel laws they must follow. > The landmark ruling that an article published by Dow Jones & Co > (NYSE:DJ) was subject to Australian law -- because it was downloaded > in Australia -- is being watched by media firms as it could set a > precedent over where Internet publication occurs. > - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=30464648 ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #177 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Dec 12 02:40:35 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gBC7eZ203413; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 02:40:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 02:40:35 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212120740.gBC7eZ203413@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 #178 TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Dec 2002 02:40:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 178 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Replay it Again, Sam (Monty Solomon) Denmark Bills Users for Downloads (Monty Solomon) Helping Phone Line Quality in BFE (news082702@mallet.mailshell.com) Adding Voicemail to Norstar+ Compact ICS (BHAX) Re: Off-topic, but ... (KimBrennan) Re: Call Waiting Prison and Telemarketers (John R. Levine) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (Joseph) Re: The Farce of National Branding (John Higdon) Southwestern Bell Phone Magazine From 1926 (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: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 01:19:35 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Replay it Again, Sam Personal video recorders already have Hollywood running scared. Now Microsoft is pushing a new computer that will make trading TV shows as easy as using ... Napster. By Farhad Manjoo Dec. 9, 2002 | "Like Mr. Ed," says Craig Newmark, "I never speak until I have something to say." It's a crisp fall morning in San Francisco, and Newmark, sipping coffee at his neighborhood cafe, is in the middle of a long discussion of the ethics involved in watching television. He's invoked TV's talking horse to explain his fight with TV's fat cats: He's suing the media companies whose executives have been calling people like him -- people who use personal video recorders, or PVRs, such as TiVo and ReplayTV -- "thieves." But Newmark, the founder of Craig's List, one of the most popular community sites on the Web, wants to talk about more than just television. He prefers to focus on "fairness," a concept that is dear to him, and that he says ought to be at the heart of not only TV but the distribution of all art. Having been indirectly accused by entertainment industry executives and attorneys of "copyright infringement" simply for using his beloved ReplayTV, Newmark has had reason, unlike many Americans, to think about whether the way he watches TV is "fair." Is he being unfair if he sets his ReplayTV to record an episode of "The West Wing," one of his favorite shows, so he can watch it later? Is Newmark "stealing" from David Letterman -- "my TV pal" -- if he sets his Replay to skip the ads on "The Late Show"? And are artists really going hungry, and is Newmark really killing an industry, if, once in a while, he transfers some of the shows he records on his ReplayTV to his notebook computer, so he can watch TV while he's traveling? http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/12/09/pvr/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 00:19:57 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Denmark Bills Users for Downloads By Peter Rojas 02:00 AM Dec. 11, 2002 PT A group affiliated with the Danish music, film and software industries has been sending out invoices to users of peer-to-peer file-sharing networks like Kazaa and eDonkey, demanding payment for downloaded copies of songs, movies or video games. Earlier this year, AntiPiratGruppen (Anti-Piracy Group) began tracking the activities of Danish users of file-sharing networks, and then contacting the appropriate Internet service providers demanding users' names and addresses. Late last month, with contact information in hand, the group began mailing out invoices, charging $8 per album, $25 per movie and $40 per video game that appeared in a user's shared folder. The group threatened invoice recipients with legal action should the sum demanded remain unpaid. http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,56717,00.html ------------------------------ Subject: Helping Phone Line Quality in BFE From: news082702@mallet.mailshell.com Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:00:00 GMT I hope someone can point me in the right direction for getting useful advice on this matter. My girlfriend lives on a farm several miles out of town, near Punxsutawney, PA. For several years, we've tried at various times to get her internet service at her home. Invariably, we can never get any modems to handshake on her phoneline. I suspect its poor line quality, but not being a phone line expert, I'm not entirely sure. We've tried a wide variety of modems (none of them WinModems), and have tried various baud rates as well, thinking slower speeds might accomodate a connection. Sadly, that had no effect. We've tried to connect to remote modems both local to the area as well as long distance (both via 800 toll free, and via toll calls). This didn't seem to make any difference either. We've also tried a "line filter" (I think that's the name for it) that was gotten at a local Radio Shack and goes inline between the computer and the wall jack. Consistently, when trying to dial out, the other end will answer, and then the modems will squeal and chirp back and forth at each other until the connection attempt times out, never able to establish a proper handshake. We've had the phone company out to the residence and they did some stuff to the phone box on the outside of her house, but it didn't seem to make any difference. Unfortunately, $$$ prevent her from trying one of the satellite-only based internet access services that have come around in the past several years. So ... I'm wondering two things: 1) Is there anything we can do at her end to try and improve phone line conditions so the connection will succeed? 2) Is there something we can say to the phone company that will convince them to do something to improve the line conditions? Your assistance is appreciated!!! ------------------------------ From: BHAX Subject: Adding Voicemail to Norstar+ Compact ICS Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 00:03:47 GMT I have a Norstar+ Compact ICS that I want to add voicemail to. Is the NVM 4.0 just an upgrade card or is it a seperate system? Thanks, BHAX ------------------------------ From: kimbrennan@aol.comfrtz.com (KimBrennan) Date: 11 Dec 2002 22:53:24 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Off-Topic, But ... Our esteemed moderator scribes: > The oldest civilizations in the world lasted a few hundred years before > they were detroyed. How long did the Roman empire last? The Romans managed to migrate out of Rome itself and into Byzantium. In that sense the "Roman" empire lasted for nearly 1800 years (300 BC to around 1500AD). The Chinese empire lasted for longer. There were several changes at the top, but since the real power in China was the local governors, the changes at the top at little influence on most of the populace. But your point is well taken. The Western Roman Empire got arrogant and then overrun. The Eastern Roman Empire, on the other paw learned out to accomodate itself to its neighbors (much to the consternation of later Western European rulers). The danger that the US faces is internal. The last few years have seen people give up many if not all of their rights to privacy and freedom of expression. The laws clamping down on the Internet (returning to topic) are just one level of that loss. "I'm sorry, all my money is tied up in currency." W.C.Fields ------------------------------ Date: 12 Dec 2002 00:17:19 -0500 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Call Waiting Prison and Telemarketers Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I've NEVER had Call Waiting and don't miss it AT ALL! On one of my lines I have forward-on-busy to voice mail, which gets rid of telemarketers pretty well. It's only $3.95/mo. But on my other line I have a wonderful feature that I refer to as Call Defer. If someone tries to call me while I'm already on the phone, Call Defer automatically activates and alerts the caller via a special intermittent tone that they'll be able to enjoy my full and uninterrupted attention if they call back later. Remarkably, this feature is provided by my phone company at no charge. Perhaps if we tell more people about it, they'll get the hint. 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: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 21:57:06 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 22:02:22 GMT, Richard D G Cox wrote: > But there is one overriding reason for having standardisation and that > is the increasing use of the Internet. Web pages more commonly show > people complete numbers to dial, and for that they have to include the > international prefix. In other words, it is more important for people > to be able to GIVE their OWN numbers in a format that can be dialled > universally, than to avoid changing formats when you (physcially) > visit a different country. But there is *already* a way to show numbers without any confusion. Write numbers in the format that the ITU recommends i.e. +country code area code number e.g. +44 20 7654 3210 or +31 20 654 3210. If people are educated that + means put your international access code before the number there would be no ambiguity at all. I'd bet that most people in Europe and even in the UK know what this means. North Americans probably wouldn't know, but writing a number as +1 311 555 2368 would probably not confuse North Americans as they'd probably think that someone just "meant" to write it as 1-311-555-2368 which is an acceptable way to write the number. Replies are seldom read. Please reply in the group ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: The Farce of National Branding Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:04:38 -0800 In article , George Mitchell wrote: > Certainly more true than it used to be, but there are still some brands > that mean something. The only example that comes to mind, offhand, is > Hershey. Even Hershey bought up a bunch of national brands that have no more distinction in that they are now merely part of the Hershey conglomerate. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 02:07:30 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Southwestern Bell Telephone Magazine From 1926 From our Archives, an interesting article which first appeared in the Digest on August 18, 1993. This was an industry magazine from SWB Telephone Company in 1926. I hope you enjoy it. PAT To: comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET Path: cats.ucsc.edu!haynes From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Telephony in 1926, Part 1 of ??? Date: 18 Aug 1993 06:19:46 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Lines: 200 Message-Id: <24shm2INNhg9@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> Nntp-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu Status: RO Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz I was recently given a copy of the Southwestern Bell employee magazine "Southwestern Telephone News", issue of October 1926, which was Volume 13, No. 10 and hence must have started publication about 1913. This article will be a summary of the contents; perhaps I'll type in or review particular articles later. The front cover shows a cable splicer hanging from a strand as he splices an underground cable to an aerial cable in Dallas. Repeated several times througout the issue is, "New Long Distance rates and practices went into effect on October 1st. Pamphlets giving full information on these changes are available for all employees. Study the rates carefully so that you can answer the questions of subscribers." I remember this attitude, that all employees should be prepared to represent the company to the public, was later embodied in a slogan, "To the public _you_ are the telephone company," that was constantly presented to employees. On page 2 is a photograph of sheep with their heads in the grass, and an amusig caption: "Sheep (Eating) In July, our explanation that the folks in the frontspiece were stacking wheat brought a protest from Kansas that they were not stacking but were shocking wheat. This time we take no chances. Grazing, as we remember, is the right term, but we are not sheepherders. (Texas panhandle, please note.)" The first article is a bio of Charles P. Cooper, former president of Ohio Bell who was just elected vice-president of AT&T. Next there are five pages with pictures reporting on a Telephone Pioneers meeting in New York City. Among other activities they visited AT&T headquarters, Bell Labs, and New York Telephone headquarters and were greeted by executives of those companies. The highlight was an address by Thomas A. Watson, who told of his experiences as a colleague of Alexander Graham Bell. This was followed by a demonstration of talking movies, including one depicting the invention of the telephone and narrated by Watson. Then there is an article "Efficient and Courteous" by an anonymous "counterman". He tells of receiving a letter of commendation from a customer. Even though he had had to turn down the customer's request for service he had fully explained why there was a shortage of facilities in the customer's area, and the problems of the company in extending its lines. Then the medical director of AT&T writes to those who have just returned from vacations, urging them to use their spare time during the week as a "vacation all year." He suggests they get out of doors, do the essential chores, of course, but do something recreational. " ... forget as far as possible that you ever worked for the Telephone Company." The telephone exhibit at the Philadelphia Sesquicentennial Exposition is described, with a reminder that the telephone was first exhibited at the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia 50 years earlier. The 1926 exhibit includes a showing of motion pictures, two of which are talking. One of these features Thomas A. Watson [and is presumably the same film that was shown to the Pioneers]; and the other "contrasts the noisy operating room and crude apparatus of the eighties, when boys were operators, with the central office of the present." I guess in those days AT&T stock was marketed through telephone offices, as there is an article about how an AT&T rights offering was handled. There are accounts of company employees persuading the public to buy stock, and also of people who threw away the rights documents, not realizing they had monetary value. There's a short item about telephone operators assisting when there was an explosion at a high school, and another showing the first installation of a P.A. system in a school, with switching so that music or voice can be had in any combination of rooms. Then there is the second part of an article reprinted from _Telephony_ by an operator, Manta J. Elder, about her experiences. There were annual floods when the Marais-des-Cygnes overran its banks near Ottawa, Kansas. Many operators lived across the river from the telephone office and had to cross the river in canoes and stay at the office so they would be available. Also severe winters when the streets were impassable to vehicles and the company sent horses to the residence of each operator to bring them to work. Sleet storms in February took lines down, so things were very quiet at the switchboard until service was restored; and then everybody wanted to use the telephone. She tells of working the last day at an old switchboard before cutover to a new one in a new office. "The next day I went by the old office, and my feet naturally led me up the old stairway. If I had known that I should see the salvaging force at their work, I would never had have the courage to enter the old room. The board was already sadly wrecked. It seemed to me that I was looking upon something almost human, which was being made to suffer after years of patient and loving service to a public which now gives it no thought. "As I walked on toward my home, I fell to thinking of the many and varied messages that had been carried through that old public servant. The first news of special interest to all people handled through its channels was the news of Admiral Dewey's victory at Manila Bay, which occurred about three weeks after the installation of the board. "Service began on this old switchboard June 13, 1898, and except for one hour during President McKinley's funeral, until December, 1915, it was a living part of the community it so faithfully served." She goes on to tell of the World War, and of the influenza epidemic. Says that in earlier times the telephone operators often complained that they were not appreciated by the public, but at the time of writing most people are truly appreciative of their services. A little of the history of the company, which was originally the Kansas City Telephone company, called the "Home" Company; at the time of abandonment of the old switchboard the "Home" and "Bell" companies were consolidated under the name of "The Kansas Telephone Company", in the spring of 1915. On January 1, 1926, the company was transferred to Southwestern Bell. Then there are three pages of managerial personnel changes, with some portraits. Then an article about formation of the Charles S. Gleed chapter of Telephone Pioneers in Kansas City, and an article about the switchboard in St. Louis being extremely busy in the aftermath of the St. Louis Cardinals winning the National League pennant. A page of short items: Clemenceau quoted on the need for technical experts to be aware of matters outside the scope of their expertise; a comment on the article by "a counterman"; an article about the recent AT&T stock issue; and a repeat of the item about new long distance rates and practices. Four pages with pictures about Bell Telephone Laboratores, and some unrelated pictures of employees enjoying their summer vacations. Two pages about Texas beginning a new billing method: instead of billing all customers on the same day of the month they will spread the billing dates throughout the month to smooth out the workload. Two pages about handling mail in the headquarters mail room, the need for good addresses, and the problem of customers sending cash in the mail when paying their bills; an average of $15 a day is found in the mail room when the supervisor has to open inadequately addressed mail. Then a rather technical article, with schematic diagram, of a circuit to simplify cutting phantom transpositions. (When a phantom circuit is added to two existing circuits it is necessary to alter the way the wires are transposed on the poles. This must be done without interrupting service on the exiting circuits any longer than necessary.) Two pages of service records, including portraits of seven men who have worked a total of 185 years. One page about the "first annual" Watermelon Festival in Hope, AR. An article about keeping score on collection work; teams get points for minimizing the need to communicate with subscribers to get them to pay their bills. Photographs of the new Norman, OK office, and an open house for visitors. Suggestions for Halloween costumes (illustrations) and two pages of illustrations of ladies' fashion suggestions. A page of cartoons by "Stack", with a Halloween theme. Three pages telling where every construction crew is working and what jobs they are working on. Some photos, including a cable splicer and his helper with what appears to be a push cart containing their tools and supplies. A page with a map of the company's territory, showing the locations of all lost-time accidents for the year. Four pages of social news: parties, retirements, contests won, other activities. "Anyone at St. Louis Toll who wants a thrill, should let Miss Hogan take them riding in her Ford. She misses other cars by a fender." A page "What I Did Today" containing stories by operators of how they assisted the public. A page of poetry written by telephone people. Inside back cover, a list of the principal management officers of the company and their titles. Back cover, an AT&T advertisement. This one shows operators being delivered to their office in a truck in a howling blizzard; and the text tells how people take the telephone for granted, how different life would be without it, and how 300,000 telephone people work to maintain dependable service. haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@cats.bitnet "Ya can talk all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!" "No it aint! But ya gotta know the territory!" Meredith Willson: "The Music Man" ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #178 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Dec 12 15:52:10 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gBCKqAH19868; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:52:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:52:10 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212122052.gBCKqAH19868@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 #179 TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:52:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 179 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Vulnerability Report For Linksys Devices (Monty Solomon) Quick Prosecutions in Horse Racing Scam (Monty Solomon) Re: The Farce of National Branding (Paul Coxwell) Re: Portable ATM's an Invitation to Fraud? (Scott Dorsey) Determining Cell Phone System Coverage (Rick Wessman) Re: Call Waiting Prison and Telemarketers (Gordon S. Hlavenka) Ravings, was Re: Call Waiting Prison and Telemarketers (Joey Lindstrom) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of the World (Paul Coxwell) Re: George Gilder: Why I Trust ... (Dale Neiburg) NEC VOIP is Making a Good Impression (pbxman101@yahoo.com) Re: Ten TLD's (Ron Bean) Re: Study: Car Call Value Equals Crash Cost (Alan Burkitt-Gray) Re: Study: Car Call Value Equals Crash Cost (Paul Coxwell) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 03:56:01 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Vulnerability Report For Linksys Devices CORE Security Technologies Vulnerability Report For Linksys Devices Many Linksys' network appliances have a remote administration and configuration interface via HTTP, either from the local network, or, if it's enabled, from any host across the internet. The implementation of the embedded HTTP server presents several different exploitable vulnerabilities, some of them allow an unauthorized user to gain control of the appliance, some let an attacker reboot it, and some are of an unknown severity. http://www.corest.com/common/showdoc.php?idx=263&idxseccion=10 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 08:53:31 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Quick Prosecutions in Horse Racing Scam Quick Prosecutions in Horse Racing Scam By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (AP) -- With one guilty plea Wednesday and another expected, the prosecution of three college buddies is ending less than two months after suspicions were raised by a $3 million payoff at the Breeders' Cup. Glen DaSilva, a technology management consultant from New York, admitted in federal court Wednesday that he had made about $200,000 through two conspiracies: one that used bet-processing computers to alter wagers and one that duplicated other horse players' winning tickets. The three former fraternity brothers charged in the scheme were caught, DaSilva's lawyer said, because, ``These guys are amateurs. They're really not cut out for a life of crime.'' http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-RAC-Betting-Probe.html ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:08:56 EST Subject: Re: The Farce of National Branding > Brand names today are meaningless. Marketing types may think that the > public puts stock in brands, but more and more people are waking up to > the insignificance of brand names. When SBC runs a spot that talks > about how it built the local telephone network, we all laugh. The > network was built by the old AT&T, and then modernized by a California > company, Pacific Telesis. SBC simply handed over cash for a going > business. It built nothing. I do not credit Texans for doing anything > in California, unless it would be for our current state budget deficit > after cleaning our clock with energy scams. The same thing is happening here. I've seen references along the lines of how BT (British Telecom) "built and developed" the STD network in the 1960s. It must have been quite an achievement for them, seeing as BT didn't exist back then! Even the well-known London landmark, the Post Office Tower, was renamed the BT Tower. Paul Coxwell, Norfolk, U.K. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well that is similar also to here in the USA where Sprint bought United Telephone Company (or the other way around, who knows) then promptly declared they had 'more than a century of experience in telecommunications. United *did* have more than a century at being a telco, in the northern part of Kansas in many/most non-Bell areas, such as Junction City. Of course, Sprint did not bother to explain that little 'technicality' when they began their 'more than a century' advertising. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Portable ATM's an Invitation to Fraud? Date: 12 Dec 2002 13:29:30 -0500 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) Chris N Acuma wrote: > I SUSPECT THE ATM'S ARE EQUIPPED WITH EITHER CELL PHONES OR SOME OTHER > FORM OF RADIO GEAR TO ALLOW THEM TO VERIFY BANK BALANCES. > FIRST DOES ANYBODY KNOW HOW THESE PORTABLE ATM TALK TO THEIR REMOTE > COMPUTERS? > AND SECOND IF THEY USE RADIO WAVES I SUSPECT THATS AN OPEN INVITATION > FOR FRAUD. ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? These systems do indeed use standard modems operating over cellphones, with triple DES encryption, just like the normal modems used for wireline ATM machines. So, intercepting communications won't buy you any more than just tapping into the phone line of a wireline ATM, which is pretty much nothing. They are pretty secure. Unfortunately every time I have seen them used at festivals they had all sorts of mechanical problems, since the money dispensing mechanisms weren't really intended to withstand the kind of vibration that putting them on the road produces. scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ Subject: Determining Cell Phone System Coverage From: Rick Wessman Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, CA Date: 20 Mar 2002 08:26:10 -0500 We live near Rochester, NY and currently use Sprint PCS. The coverage is spotty, especially in more rural areas. We would like to switch to another service, but would like to make sure (at least as much as possible) that the coverage will be better. Is there some resource that lists the towers used by the various services? I'm hoping that that will help to tell us how good a service's coverage is. Thanks, Rick ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:03:11 -0600 From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc. Subject: Re: Call Waiting Prison and Telemarketers Gail M. Hall wrote: > What is it about Call Waiting that seems to trap people into interrupting > EVERY CALL to deal with that other person??!!!! > If a call, even a local call is so important to you and you don't want > to interrupt it, then DON'T answer the other call if you have Call > Waiting! I can solve this problem with two words: "Busy signal" Any time Call Waiting kicks in on any call, it's obnoxious. Why should I pay extra to be annoyed? So I don't. If I'm on the phone when you call, you'll get a busy signal. An old-school, deprecated, luddite busy signal. If you need to take emergency calls, get a pager or voicemail. Call waiting is a pox on society. Gordon S. Hlavenka O- nospam@crashelex.com Burma! ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:29:13 -0700 Subject: Ravings, was Re: Call Waiting Prison and Telemarketers Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com Gail M. Hall wrote: > What is it about Call Waiting that seems to trap people into interrupting > EVERY CALL to deal with that other person??!!!! > Can't you punch a key or something to cause the Call Waiting beeps to > stop and give the caller a busy signal so it would let you go on with > your long-distance calls uninterrupted? No. Yes, if you've initiated the call, there's a code you can punch in at the beginning of the call to turn off call-waiting. In this case, I had received the call. Any incoming calls would get ring incoming calls via call-waiting (ie: when a call is already in progress) so I didn't know who was calling -- but I WAS expecting one important call. My intention was to quickly take that call and inform them I'd call back, then resume my long-distance call (which my friend was paying for -- from the UK, in fact). > I've been on the paying end of long-distance calls, and INVARIABLY if > that other call beep comes in I get the "Oh, there's another call > coming in. I'll be right back." > I've even been on the non-paying end of the long-distance call, and > the same thing happens. The caller, paying for the minutes I am on > hold, is so trapped by that Call Waiting feature they seem to have no > choice! And what's the problem with waiting 30 seconds or less while someone informs their second caller that they'll call back? That's called courtesy, as opposed to just ignoring the caller and letting them assume I'm not at home and/or am ignoring them. > I agree with Joey that the bank's telemarketer did not handle this > call well at all. Any sales person should know not to argue with a > customer. Further, this girl initiated the arguing. > I suspect that the bank's sales caller does not actually work for the > bank but more likely works for some contractor that the bank has hired > to make marketing calls. I think a real bank sales person would not > have let things deteriorate so quickly. S/He could have offered to > call again at a more convenient time or offered to send information in > the mail about the offer. That's what our local KeyBank people do. Normally I would agree with you. However, I frequently call the CIBC's 1-800 number to do telephone banking and/or to make inquiries, and inevitably, at the conclusion of the call, when I'm done and am saying goodbye, the droid at the other end tries to get me to hang on the line while they sell me some new service. In other words, their regular phone staff are also trained to telemarket, so it would seem to me to be highly unlikely that the CIBC, having invested time and money into training THESE people to telemarket, would then choose to outsource their cold-calling telemarketing. But, of course, this is just speculation. > On the other hand, I think Joey should have said to her politely and > firmly that he was on another "important" call at the moment and not > mentioned the "no call" request at that moment. The idea is to > disconnect from the sales rep *as soon as possible* and GET BACK to > your interrupted call. I was both polite and firm when I interrupted her sales pitch with the words "I do not accept telemarketing calls. Please add me to your do not call list". The problem was that I could only ever get halfway through that statement before she would interrupt, in an almost shrieking tone, to deny she was a telemarketer. I remained both polite and firm throughout the call. Every time an opening presented, I began to repeat the entire phrase "I do not accept telemarketing calls. Please add me to your do not call list". Most people would have got the message: I am not responding to anything you say in your defence, I'm repeating my same line over and over -- it's USELESS to argue with me. This girl didn't figure that out. As to telling her I was on another important call, I see your point but I stand on principle: what I was doing at the moment her call came in is immaterial. Her call was not welcome and would profit neither her nor CIBC, and it wouldn't have mattered if I had just been sitting there staring at the phone or in the middle of the biggest business deal of the century or furiously masturbating. I shouldn't have to make excuses to put off somebody that I wouldn't talk to even if I didn't have an excuse. Come to think of it, that would be a REALLY funny thing to say to a telemarketer. "Sorry, can't talk, I'm masturbating". ROFLMAO! > Remember, too, that there are scammers out there who pretend to be > from your bank or phone company but really are not. So I would not > want to get mad at the bank or my phone company if they are victims of > a scam along with me. This girl had information that, presumably, only my bank should have had. > I hope Joey has not done too much damage to his reputation by sending > off that angry e-mail! I think he would have been better off to talk > to a local bank manager or representative that he KNOWS actually works > for the bank and tell them what happened. Then he can ask who in > authority at the bank he can write to (on paper with his own > signature) to tell what happened and ask for the change in the > call/no-call request. I have a better reputation with the CIBC than I probably do here. :-) And really, most people's dealings with their bank nowadays (for those who live in big cities that is - this wouldn't include folks like Pat who actually SEE their banker once in a while) is quite impersonal. When I call CIBC telebanking, I'm talking to someone in Montreal - a place that would take me about three and a half days of non-stop driving to visit (I'm in Calgary, a few hours north of Montana). The emailed reply I got from them came from a woman even further away, in Nova Scotia. I opened my bank account at my then-local branch 17 years ago -- I have since set foot in the place EXACTLY ONCE. Interestingly, it was to update the signature on my signature card -- it had changed a bit over the years and that caused a cheque I wrote to be dishonoured. So in terms of "my reputation" ... exactly who am I trying to impress? At worst, there mightb be a notation in a file somewhere saying that I'm a loud-mouth troublemaker, but for the most part I'm just another number in the system. If I were Pat, and had to deal with my banker IN PERSON on a regular basis, I might be more worried about "my reputation" vis-a-vis my relationship with the bank - certainly I'd have been a bit more diplomatic. I've found, though, that when dealing with a massive bureaucracy, it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. Being diplomatic, and using phrases like "I am deeply concerned" rather than "I'm fed up!" or "I'm pissed off!" tends to (and I'm paraphrasing George Carlin here) squeeze the life out of your language, making it dry and sterile and thus IGNORABLE. You may disagree, but my experience shows this to be true. > E-mail is not very secure. Giving out too much personal information > in e-mail is risky. That's why I think sending a paper letter would > be better. What I sent were the last 4-digits of each of my two credit cards, to confirm that I was who I said I was. I agree: email is insecure. Then Pat wrote: > I agree with Gail that Joey *should have* handled the call differently > but some telemarketers are so ignorant the only thing they understand > is a rough bark. As I said earlier, I never actually raised my voice or got weird with her. I just kept repeating my phrase like a mantra. Sorry I didn't make that more clear. > I had some calls a couple days ago like that. The > calls tripped the privacy manager condition, and 'pressing 1' to hear > the callers name got me some telemarketer's name and number. I chose > to respond by 'pressing 3' to have a pre-recorded message delivered to > the caller saying 'I do not take telemarketing calls, please remove > this number from your list'. I then hang up, and within about one > minute more or less the phone rang again. It was Privacy Manager > calling again, with the same person this time recording their 'name' > as 'I am not selling anything'. I figured what the heck, let's see > what the lady is doing if not selling anything. It turned out she > was 'taking a survey of long distance carriers' and offering a free > month of her carrier. After damning her to hell I slammed the phone > down again. Yeah, this is their latest trick. Even the door-to-door people are doing it. At the office I work at, we have a "no soliciting" sign on the door. Often, I see them walk up, see the sign, and carry on PAST our door. But a few just waltz right in. I usually stop them, with a SMILE, and say "sorry, we're not interested, and we have a 'no soliciting' sign there on the door" and I point towards it. It's not at eye-level so it can be missed, and often I'll get a "oh, I'm terribly sorry, I didn't see the sign" response and everything's cool. But sometimes I get the hot-shot who figures he can make the sale despite the roadblocks he faces, and that is their latest trick: to claim that they're not "soliciting". Why they bother, I have no idea: I've already made it clear that I'm absolutely not interested in whatever it is he's selling, and now he's pissed me off. Yeah, that's a good way to persuade people. :-) Anyways, what I do now is this: the very moment they claim they're not soliciting, I say "hang on a sec", reach behind me, and pull out a pre-printed page, and hand it to them. They read the following text: Definition Of "Soliciting" -------------------------- 1) To seek to obtain - by persuasion, entreaty, or formal application - trade or charity. 2) To petition persistently; importune. 3) To entice or incite to evil or illegal action. 4) To approach or accost (a person) with an offer of sexual services. If you are here for any of these purposes, we are not interested, thanks. I've handed out eight of these so far in the last year. Seven of them just sorta shrugged and walked out (and all seven of them took the sheet with them). An eighth guy, with enlarged testicles, again started the denial line about how he wasn't actually selling anything, he was just here to inform me of this, that, and the other. I interrupted him and said "Yeah, but look at #2. You're petitioning me persistently, and you've importuned me". I half expected him to ask me to define "importune" cuz he looked kinda puzzled. Then I guess he finally realized that even if he won the argument, he'd lost the war. He turned around and walked out the door. :-) Don't get me wrong: politeness works most of the time. It's the rat-bastards who won't take no for an answer that require stronger measures. :-) Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The bank I use, although a branch of a larger operation -- Commerce Bank, N.A. really is a small town sort of operation. But next door to it is an even smaller bank, 'First National Bank of Independence'. They have six full time employees, which includes the branch of the bank in Elk City, Kansas. My branch bank, Commerce Bank, has seven or eight full time employees. It is not uncommon for people to stand around at the teller's line talking to the two ladies on duty there. They report to the cashier; she in turn reports to the manager as does the customer service person. I would *never* want to do business again with a giant bank like First National Bank of Chicago. I am *so glad* I got out of that town. Regards shaking off persistent solicitors: Just like in Chicago, the Jehovah Witness people here are persistent solicitors. An aquaintence of mine locally here has used that sexual innuendo line on the Jehovah people when they come to call. 'Pardon me, you wil have to excuse me; I am busy right now fu----- my wife.' (or masturbating, or getting fu---- by my boyfriend, etc). The first couple times the Witnesses heard that excuse, they apparently looked sort of askance. I guess it does not phase them any longer. I guess all it got my friend was a reputation as some sort of dreadful pervert and all the more in need of being converted/'saved'. In small towns you know, everyone talks to other people; even the Witnesses tell others in their church, etc, and their other friends. PAT] ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:09:10 EST Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World > Understandable, only if you consider the wild mishmash of > international prefix codes that USED to prevail across the world. A > consensus did emerge, and many countries - EVEN INCLUDING the UK! - > agreed to throw away their proprietary prefixes and implement the > proposed standard prefix. Only a few countries disagreed. The 19 > countries that Linc listed comprised most of them. Maybe I've missed an issue of the Digest somewhere, as I don't remember seeing such a post from Linc. ???? Still, 19 was used by France and its colonies/followers. 19 might seem an odd choice to telephone "outsiders," but was quite logical by French standards at it fitted into their other 1x service codes (operator, directory, emergency). > Now to nit-pick ... there is no problem in the UK with Reading, as ALL > numbers in Reading are in the formats (0)118 3xx xxxx/(0)118 9nx xxxx > (where n#9) so as, according to WTNG - +83 and +89 are "Unassigned", > there cannot possibly be any conflict. I would have thought that Linc > (of all people) would have known that, and so would have chosen a more > appropriate example to quote - such as Leeds/Belgium (0113-2);-)) Reading numbers may at present be limited to 3xx and 9xx, but the whole point of expanding the local numbers to 7-digits was to increase capacity for the future. That means that within a few years we almost certainly *will* see other Reading prefixes. > Also, there has never been a UK number range 0119, nor is there any > scope to create one under what passes for UK current numbering policy! 0119 is a spare code at present, but there's no reason why it couldn't be adopted when the next growing city is forced to migrate to 7-digit numbering. All the codes 0113 thru 0118 have been allocated, so I wouldn't be surprised to see 0119 used in the not-too-dustant future. As for "what passes for UK current numbering policy," I agree with your sentiments entirely. The mess that's been made of the network in the last few years is just incredible! > But there is one overriding reason for having standardisation and that > is the increasing use of the Internet. Web pages more commonly show > people complete numbers to dial, and for that they have to include the > international prefix. In other words, it is more important for people I take your point Richard, but there is already an accepted practice to indicate international numbers. You used it yourself at the bottom of your post (+44 29). > A "good" example of this occurred a few years ago - the time when the > dial-a-porn trade was advertising phoney phone numbers which suggested > that calls would route to Guyana (the callers were certainly CHARGED > at the rate for calls to Guyana). In most cases the people running > the scam expected their calls to come from the USA, and so numbers > were advertised on the webpages in the form "011 592 5xxxxx" - which > was, to say the least, unhelpful for callers outside the NANPA. > People in the UK saw webpages with these numbers, and started calling > the numbers exactly as shown -- unaware that this was not exactly the > providers' intention -- and so a small block of phone numbers serving > the Beeston area of Nottingham started to receive some very odd phone > calls ... at even odder hours of the day -- and night! I'd say that this was very unfortunate for the people in Nottingham who were disturbed by the calls, but I don't believe that national and international telephone networks should be forced into expensive and unnecessary changes just because a few sleaze merchants can't be bothered to advertise their number properly. Come to think of it, if so many people in the U.K. know that the IDDD prefix is now 00, why did so many dial 011 592 in the belief that they were calling Guyana? Better yet, how about the ITU commiting itself to ridding the world of this garbage once and for all? (Yes, different subject, I know!) Paul Coxwell Norfolk, U.K. ------------------------------ From: Dale Neiburg Subject: Re: George Gilder: Why I Trust Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:59:51 -0500 In TD V22 #177 was written: > George Gilder: Why I Trust Ken Lay > - Dec 23, 2002 12:00 AM (Forbes Magazine) > Why I trust the most disgraced chief executive more than I > do the most reputable public servant. I dunno ... but, George, I just **happen** to have some prime waterfront real estate in South Carolina, available at a sacrifice price if you act fast! ------------------------------ From: pbxman101@yahoo.com Subject: NEC VOIP is Making a Good Impression Reply-To: jcowing101@yahoo.com Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:34:29 GMT TELEPHONY/CTI VoIP shifts balance of power. New contact center technology introduces a different legacy... [more] A study in telephony evolution. A growing student body with an expanding campus complex demands converged IP telephony system. As the vice president for information systems and business services at St. Petersburg College in southwest Florida, Conferlete Carney is actively involved in the school's evolution. Since 1927, the two-year junior college has grown into a full-fledged, four-year academic institution, serving more than 17,000 students from 10 sites in the Tampa Bay area. Yet, the college's migration to four-year status is not the only evolutionary process Carney has witnessed. The college has begun a four-phase program to move from its traditional time-division multiplexing (TDM)-based telephony system into voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), an environment that delivers voice, data and video communications over a single converged network. "Our decision," Carney says, "was based on the physical layout of our 10 campuses, a major expansion at our Seminole site, the education-specific features that voice over IP can deliver and analyzing the management costs of using just one network to handle both voice and data traffic. We wanted to avoid further TDM investment." The move to VoIP was motivated by a significant reduction in the time and money spent in adding, removing and changing phone numbers. "Just the simplification of managing the voice network is enough reason to go to IP telephony. In a converged environment, a telephone can be plugged into the network anywhere on campus and keep the same phone number," explains Carney. The VoIP network also increases the school's capacity to handle future voice and data traffic, and facilitates several advanced applications it plans to integrate into its network. For example, unified messaging can deliver messages through multiple media simultaneously, including wireless, e-mail and traditional voice mail. Through another application-E911-campus security personnel are instantly notified, and can conference into the call whenever someone on campus calls a local 911 agency. Campus security then works with local police, fire and other emergency services so that an incident is addressed promptly and correctly. When evaluating each VoIP vendor, Carney and his staff weighed the interoperability factor, whether the VoIP platform would be able to operate reliably on the college's data network, comprised primarily of both Cisco and Extreme Networks routers and switches. "We surmised that NEC's VoIP products were engineered to work in an open environment, which enables them to work successfully in virtually any infrastructure." St. Petersburg College started the upgrade process by installing NEC's NEAX 2400 IPXs at three of its 10 sites, first deploying in strategic locations, such as remote offices and satellite facilities. Other locations are still using traditional circuit-switched telephony until the evolution is complete next year. "The IPXs are unique in that they allow us to deploy both VoIP and TDM telephony, in any combination, where we need it," Carney says. "As we bring more of our campus toward this converged environment, the IPXs enable us to deliver more VoIP without disrupting the network." The next challenge was the migration of some 2,000 legacy telephones into IP telephony instruments, capable of handling both existing and future needs. "With some VoIP telephones costing in the neighborhood of $700 per unit, a total replacement of our instruments was economically unrealistic," says Jeff Rohrs, telecommunications manager at the college. "NEC provided us with IP adapters that plug into each phone, providing the IP connection for each unit, and they work just as well in TDM environments." When it completes its evolution, St. Petersburg College will have a total VoIP network with IP telephones, soft phones that are installed on desktop and laptop computers, and wireless converged devices that deliver both voice and data connectivity enterprise-wide-without disrupting the current communications system. For more information from NEC: www.rsleads.com/212cn-256 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:14:51 -0600 From: Ron Bean Subject: Re: Ten TLD's hes@hes01.unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E Schaffer) writes: > There really has been a rush to use .com - someone mentioned that it > is the default used by some browsers - and the general public seems to > be convinced that it is necessary. Maybe we need to start some new 2nd-level domains: .gov.com .org.com .edu.com etc ... Just kidding (I think) ... ------------------------------ From: Alan Burkitt-Gray Subject: Re: Study: Car Call Value Equals Crash Cost Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:16:01 -0000 Bob Goudreau wrote: "~1.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Curiously, this is almost exactly the same rate as found in the United Kingdom, which I understand has laws banning the use of handheld mobiles while driving." No, we don't. Often suggested, but never implemented. Alan B-G Alan Burkitt-Gray Editor, Global Telecoms Business Euromoney Institutional Investor plc, Nestor House, Playhouse Yard, London EC4V 5EX, UK tel +44 20 7779 8518 fax +44 20 7779 8492 e-mail aburkitt@euromoneyplc.com www.globaltelecomsbusiness.com ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:09:01 EST Subject: Re: Study: Car Call Value Equals Crash Cost > traveled. Curiously, this is almost exactly the same rate as found in > the United Kingdom, which I understand has laws banning the use of > handheld mobiles while driving. There have been proposals to make such use illegal here, but so far as I am aware there is no actual law against it as yet. Personally, I don't think we need such a law. We already have laws relating to "driving without due care and attention," which could be applied if someone was clearly paying more attention to his phone than the road. It comes down to a matter of common sense: Use the mobile phone only when road conditions mean that you can do so safely. Paul Coxwell, Norfolk, U.K. ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #179 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Dec 13 00:36:02 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gBD5a2701086; Fri, 13 Dec 2002 00:36:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 00:36:02 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212130536.gBD5a2701086@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 #180 TELECOM Digest Fri, 13 Dec 2002 00:36:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 180 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Local Phone Service Inquiry by Reporter (Barbara Correa) In a Roundabout Way (Joey Lindstrom) WiFi Publication For Hotspot Owners (A Nicholas) Re: Avaya IP Office 406 Issues (This Old Man) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (PaulCoxwell@aol.com) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (Richard D G Cox) Re: The Farce of National Branding (Barry Margolin) Re: The Farce of National Branding (Steven J. Sobol) Re: The Farce of National Branding (Reed) 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: barbara.correa@dailynews.com (Barbara Correa) Subject: Local Phone Service Inquiry by Reporter Date: 12 Dec 2002 16:15:15 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I'm a reporter with the Los Angeles Daily News. I'm writing a story about consumer telecom issues and where people can look for the best deals in wireless and land line phone service. I'm looking for Southern Californians to talk to about all kinds of phone service, saw your message and thought you might be a good source. Give me a call at 818.713.3634 or I can call if you send your number. I am on a deadline, so sooner is better. Thanks, Barbara Correa (barbara.correa@dailynews.com) ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:31:37 -0700 Subject: In a Roundabout Way Reply-To: joey@lairdsflooring.com PaulCoxwell@aol.com wrote, saying: >> Changing our four-way stops to traffic circles -- *THAT* would be >> unnecessary, expensive, and extremely dangerous!! > Well said, Sir! I've never understood the British passion here for > installing traffic circles ("roundabouts") all over the place. We > have big ones, small ones, some that are just a small bump in the > road, and some stretches of road where there is one of these tortuous > systems every 200 yards or so. Totally unnecessary, and one of things > that makes driving in the States a pleasure. I disagree, and I live in Canada -- for the most part, our road system is set up like the American system. Over the course of, roughly, 1975 through 1995, the last of our traffic circles were phased out. But in the last couple of years, the City of Calgary has installed two new ones, in Mackenzie Towne and Garrison Woods. In both cases, they've improved the flow of traffic. The one in Mackenzie Towne has five roads leading into it, which would have made a "regular" intersection rather difficult. The one in Garrison Woods used to be a three-way stop until they rebuilt it. I drive through this one about 3 or 4 times a week. There's another route I could take that doesn't pass through the roundabout, but it take about a minute longer. Whether or not a roundabout is on my route doesn't enter into my consideration of whether or not to take that route. Consider that if the UK didn't use roundabouts, but instead used two-way stops, four-way stops, or traffic lights to control traffic at all of the intersections you describe (ie: "every 200 yards or so"), traffic would move much, much slower. Y'ever tried to make a left hand turn (or a right-hand turn in the UK) onto a busy street from a quiet side street on a two-way stop? You can wait for several minutes! I don't have the numbers handy to back this up, but I seem to recall a study done a few years back that purported to "prove" (I know, I know, probably too strong a statement) that traffic circles are far more efficient at handling traffic than any of the three situations I just spelled out. About the only thing that works better is a full-blown cloverleaf, which is reserved for MAJOR roads as they're major wasters of space. Consider that in the UK, unless traffic is very heavy, you can generally get from point A to point B without ever having to stop your car and wait at some stupid red light -- even though there's no traffic crossing. You just keep moving -- sure, much more slowly as you move through the roundabout, but at least you're STILL MOVING. Yes, in rush hour, they can clog up pretty good -- but no worse than a two-way stop, four-way stop, or traffic light intersection would, and very likely not nearly as badly (my grammar teacher is twisting in his grave). I submit to you that you probably find driving in North America far more pleasurable because of a road system designed for motorized, or at least mechanized, vehicle traffic -- as opposed to much of Great Britain (particularly London) which is still, to this day, laid out around footpaths and cartpaths. In much of North America (and especially here in Calgary, a Western Canadian city that's only been here since just before the advent of the automobile), a high premium is placed on building roads that continue STRAIGHT for as long as possible, with as few bends, curves, and whatnots as possible. Try building such a road in London -- you can't get, as you say, 200 yards without bumping into a building. Also, North American roads are considerably wider than British roads, which all by itself gives you a certain feeling of "comfort" that you just don't get driving in the UK (except maybe on the M1, which is tres wide, but I'm referring to average city streets). North American drivers have trouble with roundabouts cuz they're not used to them. But I've seen both in extensive action and I've even driven through a few roundabouts in my day (ie: in the UK), and I find them far, far preferable to this "let's put up a stop sign every 200 yards" approach favoured in North America. I'm tired of stopping behind the pinhead at the red light who, in an effort to prove to the rest of us cretins that he is "safer" than we are, stops 6 meters back of the stop line and thus fails to trip the road sensor -- meaning we all sit there for eons staring at a red light that will never change (at least until someone walks up to his window and tells him to stop being such a freaking reject). :-) I still haven't quite mastered the right-of-way rules for a multi-lane roundabout tho ... :-) Joey Lindstrom - Laird's Flooring joey@lairdsflooring.com ------------------------------ From: riverwlk@ntsource.com (A Nicholas) Subject: WiFi Publication For Hotspot Owners Date: 12 Dec 2002 12:39:42 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ You can get more details on how to manage 2nd generation Hot Spots at http://www.busdevcenter.com/The%20Hottest%20Spot.htm ------------------------------ From: This Old Man Subject: Re: Avaya IP Office 406 Issues Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 21:05:19 GMT It's done. Dial-by-name is coming next week and Avaya promised to RMA the 24 defective handsets out of the 90 delivered. *TOM Rich Campbell wrote in message news:telecom22.176.13@telecom-digest.org... > All I can say is WOW! And you are going to install this? > Rich >> We just got a new IP Office 406 system in our office in San Jose, >> CA. I'm in IT and will help manage the system. We have complete >> support from a local VAR for one year, however this is the first >> implementation for IP Office so they are learning, too. >> So far our major issues are: >> 2) Programming DSS buttons crashes the system. Our VAR said Avaya said >> this is a known problem and they are working on it. What we are trying >> to accomplish is, for example, I want to be able to answer the phone >> of my assistants extension and I want it to actually ring on my phone. >> On our old NEC system it was an appearance light on the phone. Our >> VAR said I had to use DSS, but 1) the phone does not actually ring - >> the line only flashes, and 2) it crashes the system, or actually the >> digital card, the VAR said. >> 3) We have to reboot the system when we want to add extensions and >> update other settings. So far, the "Merge" option has not worked for >> us. >> 4) The 4412D+ handsets are nice but they do not fit well into the >> cradle, and sometimes leave the phone off-hook! >> We have 3 30-port D-term modules and two analog modules. We also have >> Voicemail Pro with Phone Manager Lite. >> If there is other information I can provide please let me know. If >> there is another forum or website I should also be looking at, I'd >> appreciate that information, too. ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:00:37 EST Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World >> Understandable, only if you consider the wild mishmash of >> international prefix codes that USED to prevail across the world. A >> consensus did emerge, and many countries - EVEN INCLUDING the UK! - >> agreed to throw away their proprietary prefixes and implement the >> proposed standard prefix. Only a few countries disagreed. The 19 >> countries that Linc listed comprised most of them. > Maybe I've missed an issue of the Digest somewhere, as I don't remember > seeing such a post from Linc. ???? > Still, 19 was used by France and its colonies/followers. 19 might seem an Oops! I've just re-read that and realized that you were referring to the 19 (quantity) countries using 011, not a list of countries using 19 as their IDDD prefix. Sorry! So obsessed with IDDD prefixes, that I'm seeing them everywhere ;) Paul Coxwell Norfolk, U.K. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 22:06:43 GMT From: Richard D G Cox Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World Reply-To: nospam@numbering.com Organization: Mandarin Technology Limited On 12 Dec 2002 14:09 (UT), PaulCoxwell@aol.com wrote to TELECOM Digest: >> The 19 countries that Linc listed comprised most of them. > Maybe I've missed an issue of the Digest somewhere, > as I don't remember seeing such a post from Linc. ???? It was TELECOM Digest V22 #173; I've mailed you a copy! > Reading numbers may at present be limited to 3xx and 9xx, but the > whole point of expanding the local numbers to 7-digits was to increase > capacity for the future. That means that within a few years we almost > certainly *will* see other Reading prefixes. No chance -- unless there is political interference! The growth in demand for numbers in the UK stemmed from the arrival of multiple competing operators, each wanting their own local ranges, and there is now very little real growth of significance. >> Also, there has never been a UK number range 0119, nor is there any >> scope to create one under what passes for UK current numbering policy! > 0119 is a spare code at present, but there's no reason why it couldn't > be adopted when the next growing city is forced to migrate to 7-digit > numbering. There is a very good reason why it couldn't - please read what I wrote: "nor is there any scope to create one under ... current numbering policy" The present policy is that when any growing city has to provide for more local numbers than a six-digit scheme will accomodate, it will change to an EIGHT digit scheme, with a regional, rather than local, area code of the for 02X or possibly 03X. There will be NO more new codes under 01. > As for "what passes for UK current numbering policy," I agree with > your sentiments entirely. The mess that's been made of the network > in the last few years is just incredible! Almost all the changes in the last few years have been to correct the havoc that had previously been wreaked by a very misguided individual; now we have a thought-through policy, which obviously is restricted in implementation to particular parts of the country: but provided we follow it we should end up with a stable and well-understood scheme; indeed, one as well-understood and easy to use as the NPA-NXX scheme in manner way it was *originally* introduced in World Zone One. With an added bonus that WE have consistent dialling plans, and they don't! But then I would say that, wouldn't I? ;-0)) > already an accepted practice to indicate international numbers There is already an accepted METHOD to indicate international numbers, but I would not call it an accepted practice until such time as the average user (such as is often referred to in here as "Joe-Sixpack") is in the habit of using the +CCC notation. Until then we have to assume (and if you look at advertisements that have an international audience, you will see that THEY also assume) that the average user knows NOTHING about + anything, and if they're going to be making any phone calls they'll want to see the number they have to call in the exact format that they will have to dial it, digit by digit. Sometimes we who work in, or close to, the technology industries, take for granted far too much about the level of understanding of others outside those industries: both about the technology and how it is meant to affect them. I'm conscious that I also tend to make this mistake from time to time, and then I have to stop and explain things clearly. > I'd say that this was very unfortunate for the people in Nottingham > who were disturbed by the calls, but I don't believe that national > and international telephone networks should be forced into expensive > and unnecessary changes just because a few sleaze merchants can't be > bothered to advertise their number properly. It isn't just the sleaze merchants ... the problem of advertising domestic numbers across international borders is well established. It contributed to the reason why, for example, Eire (the Republic of Ireland), uses 1800 and not 0800 as in the UK and Northern Ireland. One of they KEY objectives of anyone designing a telephone numbering plan, is to minimise the impact of misdialling which, statistically, is bound to happen. > Come to think of it, if so many people in the U.K. know that the > IDDD prefix is now 00, why did so many dial 011 592 in the belief > that they were calling Guyana? I don't believe that many people in the UK know that the IDD prefix is "00" -- hence the number that fall for "scam" numbers like 00683, and 00690, which are short enough to look like domestic numbers. People only find out their mistake when their phone bill arrives! But in the case I was quoting, they didn't know they were calling Guyana. They didn't know where they were calling. All they knew was that the web page said that to hear various erotic material, they had to dial 011 592 5xxxxx. And that's exactly what they did. > Better yet, how about the ITU committing itself to ridding the > world of this garbage once and for all? Until recently, the ITU actually *protected* such schemes because of the revenue they brought to their various "members" - even though they contravene the official recommendations by having numbers route calls to countries other than those to which the ITU allocated the country code used -- and the ITU "Nairobi Convention" in particular has been used as grounds to bring legal cases to stop operators from protecting their customer base by blocking access to the fraudulent number ranges. Only in the last year or so have I seen letters from the ITU that attempt to point out the hidden dangers of such schemes. Hopefully one day they will start to take a more ethical position. Richard D G Cox Penarth, UK (+4429) ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: The Farce of National Branding Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 22:21:26 GMT In article , wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well that is similar also to here in > the USA where Sprint bought United Telephone Company (or the other > way around, who knows) then promptly declared they had 'more than a > century of experience in telecommunications. This is also similar to my own company's marketing. Here's a quote from one of our annual reports: When the Internet was first conceived, we were there, helping to make it happen. In fact, we built and operated some of the first components, the packet switches and routers. We sent the world's first e-mail. However, the company named Genuity didn't exist in the 70's when this was all happening. The company the above quote is talking about is Bolt, Beranek, and Newman (BBN). BBN was acquired by GTE 4-5 years ago, and then Genuity was spun off as a public company 2 years ago when GTE merged with Bell Atlantic to form Verizon. At first glance, it seems like there's direct continuity that makes our claim reasonable. However, the part of GTE that was spun off was just the group that runs the network and sells Internet-related services. They kept the R&D division that used to be called BBN Systems and Technology; it's now the BBN Technologies division of Verizon. If any group has legitimate claim to having "sent the world's first e-mail", it's them, since all that early work was a big ARPA R&D contract that BBN won. And as for "the packet switches and routers", that was probably BBN Communications, which was sold by BBN 6 or 7 years ago (to Lightstream, I think). I don't think we have any advanced R&D or electrical engineering positions in the current company. Almost no one who authored any RFC's is employed by Genuity. I think Craig Partridge was probably the most prolific BBN'er in that respect (his name is on 27 RFC's). He was in BBN S&T when we spun off; I don't know offhand if he's still there, but I know he doesn't work for Genuity. Basically, if a company can find any link to claims like this, no matter how tenuous, they feel justified in using it to bolster their reputation. It's not like most consumers are going to check the claims. And even if someone does dispute them, they can probably legitimize it by pointing out that due to reorganizations and employee mobility between divisions, there's some overlap between us and the original Internet designers. Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol) Subject: Re: The Farce of National Branding Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 02:11:20 -0000 Organization: JustThe.net LLC From 'John Higdon' : > Today, SBC announced that it is tossing the name "Pacific Bell" and > "PacBell". Anyone with a pulse could see this coming, but what is > annoying is the SBC perpetuation of the myth of "branding". On the radio I heard that SBC Ameritech is now known as SBC. > Brands used to mean something. In this case I don't think it matters. SBC took the original companies and turned them into crap, and everyone knows it was SBC that did it. I don't know about Pacbell, but Ameritech was fair-to-middling in the Customer Service department before "We don't give a rat's ass about anyone" SBC moved in. > Brand names today are meaningless. I disagree. > company, Pacific Telesis. SBC simply handed over cash for a going > business. So SBC lies; this is nothing new. If you were interested you might be able to get them into trouble for false advertising. > The name of the park is about to be changed to "SBC Park" (how > catchy!). San Francisco loses yet another bit of history and landmark > identification; SBC perpetuates its worthless and meaningless > "national brand name". Wasn't Candlestick Park renamed 3Com Park? How is that any better? 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: Reed Subject: Re: The Farce of National Branding Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 20:09:27 -0700 Organization: None Whatsoever George Mitchell wrote: > John Higdon wrote: >> Brands used to mean something. Companies were founded, they created >> products, and they identified them as unique with brand names. Today, >> as a general rule, products are created and manufactured in nameless, >> faceless foreign labs and factories and sold in bulk to a marketing >> company, which puts its brand on it. > Certainly more true than it used to be, but there are still some brands > that mean something. The only example that comes to mind, offhand, is > Hershey. > What I've noticed lately is a correlation between a company buying the > rights to name a sports arena, followed within a couple of years by > severe financial trouble at the company ... > -- George Mitchell (obfuscated email address) Re Hershey, their own brand may be OK, but they recently bought a previously family owned, successful hard candy company, here in Colorado (Jolly Rancher) then closed the plant, fired all the employees, moved production to Canada, but still sell under the Jolly Rancher name. Sad ... reed ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #180 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Dec 13 01:06:11 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gBD66BV02016; Fri, 13 Dec 2002 01:06:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 01:06:11 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212130606.gBD66BV02016@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 #181 TELECOM Digest Fri, 13 Dec 2002 01:06:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 181 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Big Brother and Another Overblown Privacy Scare (Monty Solomon) Satellite TV Firm May Nix Web Services (Monty Solomon) The Wi-Fi Boom (Monty Solomon) TiVo System to Offer Home Music, PC Pictures (Monty Solomon) Anti-Spam Countermeasures (Monty Solomon) Re: Ravings, was Re: Call Waiting Prison and Telemarketers (Gail M. Hall) Re: NEC VOIP is Making a Good Impression (Rich Campbell) Re: Listing in Areacode-Info.com and TELECOM Digest (Greg Andrews) Re: Determining Cell Phone System Coverage (Joseph) Success Against Telemarketers in Small Claims Court (John R. Covert) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 22:47:19 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Big Brother and Another Overblown Privacy Scare D.C. Dispatch | December 10, 2002 Legal Affairs John Poindexter has no more power to compile a computer dossier on you than I do. by Stuart Taylor Jr. Editorial writers and other guardians of privacy have had a field day with the reports that former Reagan National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter has come back as a cross between Dr. Strangelove and Big Brother. Poindexter is watching you, or soon will be, his detractors suggest, as they lovingly detail his 1990 convictions (later reversed on appeal) for his lies to Congress about the Iran-Contra affair. The Web site for Poindexter's "Total Information Awareness" program at the Pentagon foolishly fans such fears, featuring the slogan "Scientia Est Potentia"-Knowledge Is Power-complete with an ominous, all-seeing eye atop a pyramid. Poindexter is "getting the 'data-mining' power to snoop on every public and private act of every American," hyperventilated William Safire of The New York Times, in a November 14 column that helped touch off a frenzy of similar stuff. The Homeland Security Act, claimed Safire, would put Poindexter in control of a vast government database, containing "every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit ... complaints from nosy neighbors to the FBI," and much more. Blather, nonsense, piffle, and flapdoodle. Poindexter has no more (and probably less) power to compile a computer dossier on you than I do. He has no more power to invade your privacy than the Pentagon procurement officer for a new machine gun has to shoot you with it. He might like to create a grand central database in which to fish through billions of transactions and other records for clues on possible terrorists. But he got no such authority from the homeland security bill and -- given his Iran-Contra baggage -- he never will get it. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/taylor2002-12-10.htm ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Satellite TV Firm May Nix Web Services Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 20:49:30 -0500 By Ben Charny Staff Writer, CNET News.com December 12, 2002, 1:51 PM PT Satellite-television company Hughes Electronics on Friday will "clarify" its future plans for residential satellite-based Web services, following a published report indicating those services might be discontinued, a company representative said. The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Hughes is revisiting plans to let its 11 million DirecTV subscribers use the satellite network for Web services, after a proposed merger with rival EchoStar unraveled this week. Hughes may now curtail the reach of a $1.8 billion plan, dubbed Spaceway, to provide broadband Web services over a satellite network rather than telephone or cable networks, the newspaper said. Spaceway had always been designed primarily for businesses, but Hughes hoped to spin out a residential service to increase its revenue. http://news.com.com/2100-1033-977119.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 22:26:15 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Wi-Fi Boom By ADAM BAER ON a brisk autumn day in Portland, Ore., Paul van Veen was soaking up some sun as he logged on to the Internet -- from a spot in bustling Pioneer Courthouse Square. Mr. van Veen was looking for a job, and he was surfing the Web over a free wireless connection. These days, Pioneer Courthouse Square is but one of some 140 public spots across Portland with free Internet access using a high-speed wireless technology known as Wi-Fi. The network of such Wi-Fi "hot spots" throughout the city was developed by Personal Telco, a grass-roots, nonprofit group devoted to blanketing the city with free access points. Portland and Personal Telco are just part of a growing national trend. There are community groups promoting public Wi-Fi access in nearly every large American city, from NYCwireless, which "unwired" Bryant Park and Tompkins Square Park in Manhattan, to KC Wireless in the Kansas City area. They have been joined by independent cafes and restaurants, apartment houses and community centers across the country that view free, easy access to the Internet as a draw for customers. At the same time, subscription services and pay-as-you-go Wi-Fi hot spots are springing up in cafes, bookstores, hotels and airports, put in by companies like T-Mobile and smaller, start-up competitors like Boingo Wireless and Wayport. Last week, Cometa Networks, a new company backed by Intel, AT&T and I.B.M., said it planned to put a network of thousands of wireless access points across a huge swath of the nation by 2004. The result is a growing array of options for Wi-Fi users and the emergence of a mobile wireless culture that spans business travelers, teachers and students, people relaxing in coffee shops and even moviegoers waiting for the show. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/12/technology/circuits/12wifi.html ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: TiVo System to Offer Home Music, PC Pictures Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:23:11 -0500 NEW YORK, Dec 12 (Reuters) - TiVo Inc. (NASDAQ:TIVO) said on Thursday its television recording system will soon be able to play digital music and show pictures stored in personal computers. Data stored in file formats such as MP3 and JPEG will appear on the television that is connected to the TiVo set-top box, company Chief Executive Michael Ramsey told investors at a Credit Suisse First Boston Conference. The company will likely charge an additional fee for the premium service, which will be launched in January at the Consumer Electronics Association's CES conference in Las Vegas, he said. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?symbols=NASDAQ:TIVO&story=30529049 ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Anti-Spam Countermeasures Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:27:22 -0500 Anti-Spam Countermeasures Arik Hesseldahl, 12.12.02, 10:00 AM ET NEW YORK - The next time you check your e-mail and want to curse the lowlife responsible for all that unwanted commercial e-mail -- aka spam -- you might start cursing into a mirror. Hate the sender all you want, the sad fact is that you may very well be the person ultimately responsible for the spam you receive by giving your address out to various Web sites, posting it to newsgroups or mailing lists, or otherwise exposing it in places where anyone can find it. It's pretty common these days to use a decoy account. Use one account on a free service like Microsoft's (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) Hotmail or Yahoo! (nasdaq: YHOO - news - people ) to give out to Web sites and mailing lists, while keeping your "real" e-mail account -- that is, the one you want your friends and family to actually use -- a secret given only to trusted people. That works to a point. But it means keeping track of more than a single e-mail account, which can present its own set of organizational challenges. But a Web service called Spamex gives you a new weapon: A disposable e-mail address. The minute spammers get their grubby little paws on it, you can turn it off so that the next time they try to spam you, the message bounces back as though your address was never there. http://www.forbes.com/2002/12/12/cx_ah_1212tentech.html ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: Re: Ravings, was Re: Call Waiting Prison and Telemarketers Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:52:52 -0500 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:29:13 -0700, in comp.dcom.telecom message , you wrote: Actually, the ">>" is Pat's text. >> I had some calls a couple days ago like that. The >> calls tripped the privacy manager condition, and 'pressing 1' to hear >> the callers name got me some telemarketer's name and number. I chose >> to respond by 'pressing 3' to have a pre-recorded message delivered to >> the caller saying 'I do not take telemarketing calls, please remove >> this number from your list'. I then hang up, and within about one >> minute more or less the phone rang again. It was Privacy Manager >> calling again, with the same person this time recording their 'name' >> as 'I am not selling anything'. I figured what the heck, let's see >> what the lady is doing if not selling anything. It turned out she >> was 'taking a survey of long distance carriers' and offering a free >> month of her carrier. After damning her to hell I slammed the phone >> down again. > Yeah, this is their latest trick. Even the door-to-door people are > doing it. At the office I work at, we have a "no soliciting" sign on > the door. Often, I see them walk up, see the sign, and carry on PAST > our door. But a few just waltz right in. I usually stop them, with a > SMILE, and say "sorry, we're not interested, and we have a 'no > soliciting' sign there on the door" and I point towards it. It's not > at eye-level so it can be missed, and often I'll get a "oh, I'm > terribly sorry, I didn't see the sign" response and everything's cool. > But sometimes I get the hot-shot who figures he can make the sale > despite the roadblocks he faces, and that is their latest trick: to > claim that they're not "soliciting". Why they bother, I have no idea: > I've already made it clear that I'm absolutely not interested in > whatever it is he's selling, and now he's pissed me off. Yeah, that's > a good way to persuade people. :-) > Anyways, what I do now is this: the very moment they claim they're not > soliciting, I say "hang on a sec", reach behind me, and pull out a > pre-printed page, and hand it to them. They read the following text: > Definition Of "Soliciting" > -------------------------- > 1) To seek to obtain - by persuasion, entreaty, or formal application > - trade or charity. > 2) To petition persistently; importune. > 3) To entice or incite to evil or illegal action. > 4) To approach or accost (a person) with an offer of sexual services. > If you are here for any of these purposes, we are not interested, > thanks. Not bad! If I had more patience, I would pull something like that on the telemarketers. :-) > I've handed out eight of these so far in the last year. Seven of > them just sorta shrugged and walked out (and all seven of them took > the sheet with them). An eighth guy, with enlarged testicles, again > started the denial line about how he wasn't actually selling > anything, he was just here to inform me of this, that, and the other. > I interrupted him and said "Yeah, but look at #2. You're petitioning > me persistently, and you've importuned me". I half expected him to > ask me to define "importune" cuz he looked kinda puzzled. Then I > guess he finally realized that even if he won the argument, he'd lost > the war. He turned around and walked out the door. :-) So far we are lucky that we don't have many house-to-house salespeople here, mainly people soliciting for charity or religions. But I expect a recent Supreme Court decision may change that. The JWs were told they would have to "register" in some town, which I have forgotten the name of, and apparently the court said that was in infringement of freedom of speech. > Don't get me wrong: politeness works most of the time. It's the > rat-bastards who won't take no for an answer that require stronger > measures. :-) I agree. I am not as polite with telemarketers as I used to be. I think I may check into the cost comparisons of "voice mail on busy" as an alternative to Call Waiting for the person I was talking about who always gets the other call, even when I'm paying for the call. For a while I thought Voice Mail on my wireless phone would be a Good Idea. But now I am having strong second thoughts. I am seriously thinking of having Voice Mail turned off and just be more careful about checking my home phone answering machine when I'm away for more than a day or so. I found out I get minutes deducted for each call that I don't answer that goes to Voice Mail, whether or not they leave a message. It could be a real problem if someone decided to leave a long message or if that phone number got found by telemarketers. Joey talked about the "droids" who always try to sell a service even when the caller is calling about an existing service. Many phone companies are doing the same thing now. They say they are reducing the sales staff and having the customer service people do more selling. I think that will backfire on them unless they are also told to back off quickly when customers decline to hear their pitch. I don't know how long it will last, but the few times I have talked with Verizon Wireless reps, they have not tried to pitch other services to me. SBC/Ameritech has a policy now of asking their reps to try to pitch other services to customers. Gail in Ohio USA ------------------------------ From: Rich Campbell Subject: Re: NEC VOIP is Making a Good Impression Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 23:53:41 GMT I don't think it's that unique ... and the networking will by proprietary rather than using an open protocal like QSIG. Rich wrote in message news:telecom22.179.10@telecom-digest.org: > TELEPHONY/CTI > VoIP shifts balance of power. > New contact center technology introduces a different legacy... [more] > A study in telephony evolution. > A growing student body with an expanding campus complex demands > converged IP telephony system. > As the vice president for information systems and business services at > St. Petersburg College in southwest Florida, Conferlete Carney is > actively involved in the school's evolution. Since 1927, the two-year > junior college has grown into a full-fledged, four-year academic > institution, serving more than 17,000 students from 10 sites in the > Tampa Bay area. > Yet, the college's migration to four-year status is not the only > evolutionary process Carney has witnessed. The college has begun a > four-phase program to move from its traditional time-division > multiplexing (TDM)-based telephony system into voice over Internet > protocol (VoIP), an environment that delivers voice, data and video > communications over a single converged network. > "Our decision," Carney says, "was based on the physical layout of our > 10 campuses, a major expansion at our Seminole site, the > education-specific features that voice over IP can deliver and > analyzing the management costs of using just one network to handle > both voice and data traffic. We wanted to avoid further TDM > investment." > The move to VoIP was motivated by a significant reduction in the time > and money spent in adding, removing and changing phone numbers. "Just > the simplification of managing the voice network is enough reason to > go to IP telephony. In a converged environment, a telephone can be > plugged into the network anywhere on campus and keep the same phone > number," explains Carney. > The VoIP network also increases the school's capacity to handle future > voice and data traffic, and facilitates several advanced applications > it plans to integrate into its network. For example, unified messaging > can deliver messages through multiple media simultaneously, including > wireless, e-mail and traditional voice mail. > Through another application-E911-campus security personnel are > instantly notified, and can conference into the call whenever someone > on campus calls a local 911 agency. Campus security then works with > local police, fire and other emergency services so that an incident is > addressed promptly and correctly. > When evaluating each VoIP vendor, Carney and his staff weighed the > interoperability factor, whether the VoIP platform would be able to > operate reliably on the college's data network, comprised primarily of > both Cisco and Extreme Networks routers and switches. "We surmised > that NEC's VoIP products were engineered to work in an open > environment, which enables them to work successfully in virtually any > infrastructure." > St. Petersburg College started the upgrade process by installing NEC's > NEAX 2400 IPXs at three of its 10 sites, first deploying in strategic > locations, such as remote offices and satellite facilities. Other > locations are still using traditional circuit-switched telephony until > the evolution is complete next year. > "The IPXs are unique in that they allow us to deploy both VoIP and TDM > telephony, in any combination, where we need it," Carney says. "As we > bring more of our campus toward this converged environment, the IPXs > enable us to deliver more VoIP without disrupting the network." > The next challenge was the migration of some 2,000 legacy telephones > into IP telephony instruments, capable of handling both existing and > future needs. "With some VoIP telephones costing in the neighborhood > of $700 per unit, a total replacement of our instruments was > economically unrealistic," says Jeff Rohrs, telecommunications manager > at the college. "NEC provided us with IP adapters that plug into each > phone, providing the IP connection for each unit, and they work just > as well in TDM environments." > When it completes its evolution, St. Petersburg College will have a > total VoIP network with IP telephones, soft phones that are installed > on desktop and laptop computers, and wireless converged devices that > deliver both voice and data connectivity enterprise-wide-without > disrupting the current communications system. > For more information from NEC: > www.rsleads.com/212cn-256 ------------------------------ From: gerg@panix.com (Greg Andrews) Subject: Re: Listing in Areacode-Info.com and TELECOM Digest Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 00:45:20 UTC Organization: I have a map of the United States that's actual size John Higdon writes: > Excuse me. 408/264 (historical ANdrews 4) is THE flagship exchange of > the Pacific Telephone ... er ... Pacific Bell ... uh ... SBC SJ12 > central office. it dates back to the mid-fifties. If that web site > cannot give any information for that area code/prefix combo, it isn't > worth much. Wasn't it 415/264 before 1959? ::::::::::::: Greg Andrews ::::: gerg@panix.com ::::::::::::: I have a map of the United States that's actual size. -- Steven Wright ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: Determining Cell Phone System Coverage Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:45:14 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On 12 Dec 2002 08:26:10 -0500, Rick Wessman wrote: > We live near Rochester, NY and currently use Sprint PCS. The coverage > is spotty, especially in more rural areas. We would like to switch to > another service, but would like to make sure (at least as much as > possible) that the coverage will be better. > Is there some resource that lists the towers used by the various > services? I'm hoping that that will help to tell us how good a > service's coverage is. http://www.berkana.com/tower.html shows various towers, but not all. Some are listed by a past name. Some are probably on tower aggregators so they may not be listed. As far as gauging mobile reception where you are advice from people about cities or towns won't be very useful to you. If you have near neighbors and they have mobile service asking them would be the prudent thing to do. If they have good service you might ask them if they could come over to your house and you could observe how good or bad the service is. Keep in mind that mobile service is very dependent on location location location! If you have lots of terrestrial objects whether they be buildings or hills it will ultimately affect what kind of coverage you get. Mobile phone service is essentially radio service and is subject to the same types of limitations as radio is. If coverage is spotty with Sprint it may also be spotty with other carriers, but not necessarily. It's pretty much trial and error to find who does (if anyone) cover your area well. If you happen to be in the "shade" you may be out of luck entirely. Replies are seldom read. Please reply in the group ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:03:41 -0500 (EST) From: John R. Covert Subject: Success Against Telemarketers in Small Claims Court I've been doing pretty well against telemarketers here in Massachusetts. So far this year, the court has awarded me $2000 (plus $113.66 in court costs and interest) in three separate cases, $500 in January (which has been paid along with its costs and interest) and $1500 three weeks ago. In addition, since 1999, I have settled four other claims prior to the court dates for payments of $200, $269, $500 and $500. Here are the small claims filings for the recent cases: Plaintiff's Claim. The defendant owes $1500 plus $19.00 court costs for the following reason: On 8 July 2002 at 2:56:39 pm, defendant initiated a telephone call to my residential telephone line, 978 2xx-xxxx, using a pre-recorded voice to deliver a commercial message without my prior express consent. This is a violation of 47 USC 227(b)(1)(B). 47 USC 227(b)(3)(B) provides for a private right of action to receive $500 damages for each such violation. The court may increase the amount of the award to $1500 "if the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this subsection." /s/ 27 July 2002 The clerk-magistrate awarded $500 (plus costs and interest), and in this case the defendant has appealed to a Small Claims judge (paying $129 to do so). My response to the appeal may be read at http://soapbox.covert.org/Pleading9-Dec-2002.txt -- it would be most triumphant if the appeals court judge _increases_ the award to $1500. And the other recent case: Plaintiff's Claim: Defendant owes $1000 plus $19 court costs for the following reasons: On 24 Oct 2001 at 14:20 I received a telemarketing call for XYZ on my home telephone number, 978 2xx-xxxx. At that time I asked to be put on the "do not call" list. On 11 Dec 2001 at 10:32 I received another telemarketing call for XYZ from the same call center as before, and on 5 July 2002 at 10:45 I received a third call. A person who receives more than one telephone call within twelve months is permitted by 47 USC 227 (c)(5) to bring a private right of action for $500 for each such violation to an appropriate court. /s/ 27 July 2002 In this case I named both the Massachusetts company XYZ and their contracted telemarketing call center in Kentucky as defendants. The court awarded $1000 plus costs, $500 from XYZ and $500 from the call center. They have not appealed, and both have until 20 December to pay, or must appear at a payment hearing in March, or be subject to arrest. I doubt I'll be able to collect the out-of-state award, but after the March hearing I might turn the court documents over to a Kentucky lawyer on a contingency basis, if I can find one willing. I have three or four other cases that I am considering filing, pending the results of the Mortgage Company's appeal. /john ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #181 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Dec 13 16:15:15 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gBDLFFY20665; Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:15:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:15:15 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212132115.gBDLFFY20665@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 #182 TELECOM Digest Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:14:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 182 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: Essentials of Data Communications, David Stamper (Rob Slade) Re: In a Roundabout Way (Paul Coxwell) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (Paul Cox) Re: The Farce of National Branding (John R. Levine) Re: The Farce of National Branding (Craig Partridge) Re: The Farce of National Branding (John Higdon) Re: Anti-Spam Countermeasures (Barry Margolin) Re: Portable ATM's an Invitation to Fraud? (Patrick T.) Adding Voicemail to Norstar+ Compact ICS (BHAX) MCI Continues Customer Ripoffs! (Michelle Spangler) 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: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 08:03:07 -0800 Subject: Book Review: Essentials of Data Communications, David Stamper BKESDTCM.RVW 20020628 "Essentials of Data Communications", David Stamper, 1997, 0-8053-7736-0, U$83.00 %A David Stamper %C P.O. Box 520, 26 Prince Andrew Place, Don Mills, Ontario M3C 2T8 %D 1997 %G 0-8053-7736-0 %I Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. %O U$83.00 416-447-5101 fax: 416-443-0948 %O http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805377360/robsladesinterne %P 366 p. + diskette %T "Essentials of Data Communications" There are many good, even classic, general telecommunications texts. To be strictly fair, I should note only those published at the same time as, or earlier than, the one I'm reviewing. Even with that proviso, I can still say that Tanenbaum's "Computer Networks" (cf. BKCMPNWK.RVW), Stallings' "Data and Computer Communications" (cf. BKDTCMCM.RVW), and Minoli's "Telecommunications Technology Handbook" (cf. BKTLTCHB.RVW) all far exceed Stamper's work. Even McNamara's venerable "Technical Aspects of Data Communications" (cf. BKTCHDCM.RVW) (from 1988) presents a superior picture of basic communications technology. Stamper does try to cover the fundamentals, but even his introduction, in chapter one, is a confusing mix of foundational concepts and irrelevant (and outdated) examples and applications. Chapter two, on the physical and data layers, is reasonable but limited. The discussion of networking, in chapter three, starts off much the same, but soon wanders into trivia. Chapter four, ostensibly about LANs, contains a number of topics (such as backup) that have nothing to do with communications at all, and chapter five seems to be an attempt to duplicate the same material. Chapters six to nine show some awareness of basic concepts of networking and internetworking, but hidden in a confused mass of verbiage and extraneous detail. Some simplistic thoughts on security and data communications applications finish the book in chapter ten. This work is noted to be an "integrated text and software package" on the basis of some slide shows included on the accompanying disk. The slide shows basically reproduce some illustrations included in the book (or, one might say, the book reprints all of the slides). The figures are as non-illuminating as all too many objects of the type. However, when the "computer based training" tries to improve matters with animations, the results are even worse. Where the graphics are simply incomprehensible (unless you already know what is going on), the animations sometimes present material in erroneous ways, seeming to present incorrect ideas and concepts. This book is stated to be a course text. Why anyone would choose it over other available works is beyond my comprehension. copyright Robert M. Slade, 2002 BKESDTCM.RVW 20020628 ====================== 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: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 07:22:54 EST Subject: Re: In a Roundabout Way > I disagree, and I live in Canada -- for the most part, our road system > is set up like the American system. Over the course of, roughly, 1975 > through 1995, the last of our traffic circles were phased out. But in > the last couple of years, the City of Calgary has installed two new > ones, in Mackenzie Towne and Garrison Woods. In both cases, they've > improved the flow of traffic. The one in Mackenzie Towne has five > Consider that if the UK didn't use roundabouts, but instead used > two-way stops, four-way stops, or traffic lights to control traffic > at all of the intersections you describe (ie: "every 200 yards or > so"), traffic would move much, much slower. Y'ever tried to make a > left hand turn (or a right-hand turn in the UK) onto a busy street > from a quiet side street on a two-way stop? You can wait for several > minutes! Well, I have no experience of Canadian traffic circles, or those mentioned in Massachusetts -- Most of my driving in the U.S. has been in the South and Mid-West. Maybe where they *are* used in North America the layout is better than here. > Yes, in rush hour, they can clog up pretty good -- but no worse than a > two-way stop, four-way stop, or traffic light intersection would, and > very likely not nearly as badly (my grammar teacher is twisting in his > grave). The idea of keeping traffic flowing sounds good, and quite probably works in some places where traffic isn't too heavy and is reasonably balanced from each road. Unfortunately, there are many places here where that isn't the case. There are many "roundabouts" on the ring road of my nearest big city (Norwich). If you try entering one of these from a side road during busy periods, you can sit there for several minutes while a continuous stream of traffic pours in from the ring road on your right. You have to either hope that some kind person will slow down to let you out or you have to see a gap you think is big enough and go for it, hoping that those approaching will slow down. These are multi-lane roundabouts, by the way, and the resulting game of "find the correct lane" as traffic goes around results in many near misses, minor bumps, and frayed tempers. Traffic lights, if suitably timed/sensed, might hold up the main flow of traffic for a short period, but would allow everybody a chance and would eliminate the problems I've mentioned. The problem is that in many relatively quiet surburban streets they've also installed dozens of "mini-roundabouts." These are places where a simple 2-way stop, or better yet an American/Canadian-style 4-way stop would be much better. > I submit to you that you probably find driving in North America far > more pleasurable because of a road system designed for motorized, or > at least mechanized, vehicle traffic -- as opposed to much of Great > Britain (particularly London) which is still, to this day, laid out > around footpaths and cartpaths. In much of North America (and Most certainly. The whole layout and design on North American roads makes for more relaxed driving. Easier vision at intersections, wider roads, logical signs instead of the inconsistent mish-mash of British & Continental signs we have here, and so on. I like the other touches, small but which make for keeping traffic moving:- Right turns on red and switching lights to flashing red & amber at night in quiet areas, for example. The lower traffic density certainly helps as well! Paul Coxwell, Norfolk, U.K. ------------------------------ From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 07:22:57 EST Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World >> Reading numbers may at present be limited to 3xx and 9xx, but the >> whole point of expanding the local numbers to 7-digits was to increase >> capacity for the future. That means that within a few years we almost >> certainly *will* see other Reading prefixes. > No chance -- unless there is political interference! The growth in > demand for numbers in the UK stemmed from the arrival of multiple > competing operators, each wanting their own local ranges, and there is > now very little real growth of significance. >>> Also, there has never been a UK number range 0119, nor is there any >>> scope to create one under what passes for UK current numbering policy! >> 0119 is a spare code at present, but there's no reason why it couldn't >> be adopted when the next growing city is forced to migrate to 7-digit >> numbering. > There is a very good reason why it couldn't - please read what I > wrote: "nor is there any scope to create one under ... current > numbering policy" > The present policy is that when any growing city has to provide for > more local numbers than a six-digit scheme will accomodate, it will > change to an EIGHT digit scheme, with a regional, rather than local, > area code of the for 02X or possibly 03X. There will be NO more new > codes under 01. O.K., I stand corrected. I was looking at it from a purely practical/technical point of view. I have to confess that I've not followed the policy behind the renumbering all that closely in recent years (quite some time since I left BT). > Almost all the changes in the last few years have been to correct the > havoc that had previously been wreaked by a very misguided individual; > now we have a thought-through policy, which obviously is restricted in > implementation to particular parts of the country: but provided we > follow it we should end up with a stable and well-understood scheme; > indeed, one as well-understood and easy to use as the NPA-NXX scheme > in manner way it was *originally* introduced in World Zone One. With I agree that at least the new numbering scheme (07xx=mobile, 08xx=free/low-rate, 09=premium etc.) for codes will be a vast improvement on the situation which existed previously. I still believe that there are some things which could have been handled better in this "grand plan" though. Re the policy that when places outgrow 6-digit numbering plans they'll go straight to 8 digits with 02x or 03x codes, when did this policy come into effect exactly? If this was to be the policy for future expansion, then why were Reading, Bristol, Nottingham, et al moved to 7-digit numbering with 011n codes instead of going straight to 8-digit local numbers? In general though, I agree that the mess that has been made of changes over the last few years is only now starting to be put straight. The hastily rushed split of London into 071 and 081 without thinking about what would then need to be done a little farther down the track is an excellent example of the lack of planning. > It isn't just the sleaze merchants ... the problem of advertising > domestic numbers across international borders is well established. It > contributed to the reason why, for example, Eire (the Republic of > Ireland), uses 1800 and not 0800 as in the UK and Northern Ireland. Maybe, but another practical reason is that when Ireland introduced toll-free numbers they were already using 080 as a kludge for dialing into Northern Ireland. Now that 048 is used for that purpose, I wonder whether they will re-organize to the "common" standard? That would involve a major upheaval to Irish codes. > One of they KEY objectives of anyone designing a telephone numbering > plan, is to minimise the impact of misdialling which, statistically, > is bound to happen. Which brings us back to one of the key points made some time ago as to the reason why the U.S. adopted 01+ and 011+ as special and sent-paid IDDD codes. > But in the case I was quoting, they didn't know they were calling > Guyana. They didn't know where they were calling. All they knew was > that the web page said that to hear various erotic material, they had > to dial 011 592 5xxxxx. And that's exactly what they did. Fair enough if they weren't told where the call terminated, I suppose. But I don't see that that's any sort of valid argument for the NANP to switch to 00+ for international dialing. > Hopefully one day they will start to take a more ethical position. We can live in hope, but I'm not holding my breath! Paul Coxwell, Norfolk, U.K. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 2002 08:34:54 -0500 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: The Farce of National Branding Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well that is similar also to here in > the USA where Sprint bought United Telephone Company (or the other > way around, who knows) then promptly declared they had 'more than a > century of experience in telecommunications. That particular campaign was more honest than it might seem. United Tel really did buy Sprint, but then they adopted Sprint's name. I presume that was because Sprint was a heavily advertised brand name in the competitive long distance market where customers can switch easily, while United was only used for local service where there was no competition at all. But regardless of the name, the surviving company was United which was (and is) a century old ILEC with a decent service reputation. 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: craigp@world.std.com (Craig Partridge) Subject: Re: The Farce of National Branding Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:52:07 GMT Barry Margolin writes: > Almost no one who authored any RFC's is employed by Genuity. I think > Craig Partridge was probably the most prolific BBN'er in that respect > (his name is on 27 RFC's). He was in BBN S&T when we spun off; I > don't know offhand if he's still there, but I know he doesn't work for > Genuity. Hi Barry: Thanks for the plug! I think most prolific BBN'er for RFCs was Alex McKenzie, who retired a while back. He has 61 RFCs to his credit. Two small details to add to your story: * We actually still have the router expertise at BBN. We sold the product side, but not the research side. So we team with vendors to help develop innovative new router (and encrypter) technology. We like to say we're the leading router R&D center not affiliated with a single vendor. * I believe that Genuity officially holds the BBN incorporation documents. When Genuity was spun off from GTE just before the Verizon merger, Genuity wanted a retirement and benefits plan in place. Apparently retirement and benefits plans are tied to corporations and the easiest way to give Genuity a set of plans was to give it BBN as a shell company, and reincorporate BBN S&T as a Verizon-owned entity (with Verizon's retirement and benefit plans). Thanks! Craig Partridge Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: The Farce of National Branding Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 07:48:54 -0800 In article , sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol) wrote: >> Brand names today are meaningless. > I disagree. Can you give some examples? Other than toothpaste and mouthwash, give me some names of companies that show a direct lineage to their roots, and still develop and manufacture their own products. There are very few. > So SBC lies; this is nothing new. If you were interested you might be > able to get them into trouble for false advertising. It is more than a matter of lying. It is the co-opting of a century of customer and community good will under false pretenses. I seriously doubt that any sort of legal case could be made for that. >> The name of the park is about to be changed to "SBC Park" (how >> catchy!). San Francisco loses yet another bit of history and landmark >> identification; SBC perpetuates its worthless and meaningless >> "national brand name". > Wasn't Candlestick Park renamed 3Com Park? How is that any better? Not a comparable situation by any means. The Giants stadium was built with private money, a substantial portion of which came from PacBell when it was owned by Pacific Telesis, a California corporation based in San Francisco. For that substantial contribution to the community in making the stadium possible in the first place, PacBell (not SBC) was awarded the right to name the park through the year 2020. Candlestick Park (as it is named now) simply sold the rights to the name to the highest bidder long after the stadium was built, as stadiums do around the country these days. That contract with 3Com has since run out, and San Franciscans have decided, at least for now, to keep the original name of the facility intact. 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 Proctor & Gamble, and Lever Brothers, and Sears, Roebuck (now the 'Roebuck' part of the name has been removed) to name a few old standbys ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Countermeasures Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:08:45 GMT In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > Hate the sender all you want, the sad fact is that you may very well > be the person ultimately responsible for the spam you receive by > giving your address out to various Web sites, posting it to newsgroups > or mailing lists, or otherwise exposing it in places where anyone can > find it. So now we blame the victims? I've been online for over twenty years, and post prolifically to Usenet, and as a result I'm on just about every spammer's list multiple times (I've had lots of addresses over the years, and many of them forward to my current address). I get over 100 spams a day. But I still refuse to munge my address. > It's pretty common these days to use a decoy account. Use one account > on a free service like Microsoft's (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) > Hotmail or Yahoo! (nasdaq: YHOO - news - people ) to give out to Web > sites and mailing lists, while keeping your "real" e-mail account -- > that is, the one you want your friends and family to actually use -- a > secret given only to trusted people. And what about people who want to reply to my Usenet postings? How do they learn this "secret"? That's why I refuse to use a fake address. What's the point of having return addresses in Usenet headers if everyone's just going to put useless addresses there. Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Barry is quite correct about decoy names. Look how long I have been on the net ... and all the addresses in circulation for this Digest alone over the years, many of them still in service through forwarding, etc as a convenience to readers. My answer is to use various things like an obstacle course to rid the spam as best I can. Even with SpamAssassin and other tools, I still have to take a *large* scoop shovel and manually remove several loads of that manure each day. Would you believe just the other day I got some spam which had been overlooked by the various removal tools using an *old* (is 1989 old enough?) address for me at cs-bu.edu ... I could not resist the temptation to make mock of the sender: I wrote him back and said, "I bet whoever you bought that massive list of ten million email addresses from told you they were all current." PAT] ------------------------------ From: Patrick t. Subject: Re: Portable ATM's an Invitation to Fraud? Reply-To: same.as.above@attbi.com Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 19:02:30 GMT On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 21:54:07 MST, acuma@aztec.asu.edu (Chris N Acuma) wrote: Most all of these devices, pos, atm, smart card terminals can be purchased to operate on cdpd (cellular data packet delivery). No big thing really. Just a little more pricey for the owner of the terminal. They are no more prone to risk than anything else in that world. > I WENT TO THE TEMPE FESTIVAL OF THE ARTS THIS WEEK WHICH IS A 3 DAY > ARTS FESTIVAL AND STREET FAIR THAT PUT ON IN DOWNTOWN TEMPE WHICH IS > ATTENDED BY ABOUT 100,000 PEOPLE. > I NOTICED MAYBE 30 PORTABLE ATM MACHINES THAT HAD BEEN MOVED TO THE > STREETS OF DOWNTOWN TEMPE TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO WITH DRAW MONEY FROM > THEIR BANKS AND SPEND AT THE FAIR. > AND SECOND IF THEY USE RADIO WAVES I SUSPECT THATS AN OPEN INVITATION > FOR FRAUD. ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? > CHRIS [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Commerce Bank and First National Bank of Independence both did that same thing during our Neewollah Festival the last part of October. (Neewollah is Halloween spelled backward, and this annual festival here attracts the entire county and people from all over Kansas and many other places; about 10,000 visitors each day for the ten days or so of the fest.) The two banks set up ATM machines a few blocks down the street from their usual locations outside the bank. They operated them with cellular phones. PAT] ------------------------------ From: BHAX Subject: Adding Voicemail to Norstar+ Compact ICS Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 20:02:49 GMT I have a norstar+ compact ICS that I want to add voicemail too. Is the NVM 4.0 just an upgrade card or is it a seperate system? Thanks, BHAX ------------------------------ From: Michelle Spangler Subject: MCI Once Again Ripping Off Customers Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 00:23:06 -0600 MCI telephone service - charged for local toll calls when local calls were still being billed by local phone company - need a refund - paid $120 and still demanding more money. I enrolled with MCI for about six months with their Local Toll Call program for $29.95 a month and never received such service. I ignorantly paid for about four months after several calls to MCI customer service (to no avail) as the representative would just redo my account to reflect the same program and again another month went by that my local toll calls were still on my local phone company's billing statement and MCI gets another $29.95 for doing absolutely nothing. Finally I switched to another company after receiving a "nasty gram" from MCI in the mail every 3 weeks and at least 3 phone calls per week demanding payment of 2 months service that I did not receive nor did I ever receive but graciously handed MCI over about $120.00 for absolutely nothing! Now after being with the other company for about four months and a 3 way call between my local company and MCI to make them aware that they were not my company of choice as I have received several letters thanking me 1 day for my patronage to MCI and the next week another demand for services not rendered. Go figure. With all the problems MCI World Com is encountering about fraud and misinformation and definitely mis-Communication with their customer base you would think MCI would be grateful for my "donation" for services never rendered and leave me alone with my new best friend, another long distance carrier, that does their job and I get satisfaction knowing my bills accurately reflect the services I have chosen and receive. I have written to MCI twice to their headquarters in Iowa and received a lovely postcard saying "Sorry but we can't help you". Surprise!! Where else can I turn to resolve this issue with a very misrepresenting company that is constantly harrassing the consumer for money owed to them for services they do not even attempt to give their customers? Is the FCC listening to me because MCI obviously cannot hear anything but "Cha-ching". Michelle S. in Manning, S.C. mspangler@cmhosp.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, we know MCI is a bunch of very brazen thieves. We've know that for over thirty years about them, from the time in the 1960's when they ripped off AT&T and Illinois Bell. When they were forced into bankrupty a few months ago I sort of hoped that would be the end of them; but no such luck I guess. Anyone have any solutions/suggestions for Ms. Spangler? 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #182 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Dec 14 13:23:32 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gBEINWJ15585; Sat, 14 Dec 2002 13:23:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 13:23:32 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212141823.gBEINWJ15585@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 #183 TELECOM Digest Sat, 14 Dec 2002 13:24:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 183 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Farce of National Branding (Justin Time) Re: The Farce of National Branding (Garrett Wollman) Re: The Farce of National Branding (Ron Chapman) Re: The Farce of National Branding (Steven J. Sobol) Re: The Farce of National Branding (Paul A Lee) Re: The Farce of National Branding (Gail M. Hall) Re: The Farce of National Branding (Michael A. Chance) Re: Anti-Spam Countermeasures (Phil Earnhardt) Re: Anti-Spam Countermeasures (Paul Wallich) Re: Anti-Spam Countermeasures (John Higdon) Re: Anti-Spam Countermeasures (Chris Kantarjiev) Re: Anti-Spam Countermeasures (Mark Crispin) Re: Adding Voicemail to Norstar+ Compact ICS (Brian Cox) 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: a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) Subject: Re: The Farce of National Branding Date: 13 Dec 2002 13:44:29 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Barry Margolin wrote in message news:: > In article , > wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well that is similar also to here in >> the USA where Sprint bought United Telephone Company (or the other >> way around, who knows) then promptly declared they had 'more than a >> century of experience in telecommunications. > This is also similar to my own company's marketing. Here's a quote from > one of our annual reports: > When the Internet was first conceived, we were there, helping to make > it happen. In fact, we built and operated some of the first components, > the packet switches and routers. We sent the world's first e-mail. > However, the company named Genuity didn't exist in the 70's when this was > all happening. The company the above quote is talking about is Bolt, > Beranek, and Newman (BBN). BBN was acquired by GTE 4-5 years ago, and then > Genuity was spun off as a public company 2 years ago when GTE merged with > Bell Atlantic to form Verizon. Recently United Airlines has started a new marketing campaign proudly crowing they have been providing service for over 70 years. This is another of those claims by a company that didn't exist back then. United was formed through the merger of several smaller carriers back in the late 50's or early 60's. Now if they can include the history of the predecessors, then maybe their history will reach back that far, but as a company, United didn't exist until the 7 smaller airline companies merged to form a "United" company. Rodgers Platt ------------------------------ From: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: The Farce of National Branding Date: 13 Dec 2002 23:32:13 GMT Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , John Higdon wrote: > in San Francisco. For that substantial contribution to the community > in making the stadium possible in the first place, PacBell (not SBC) > was awarded the right to name the park through the year 2020. You make it sound like the naming rights were given to Pac*Tel out of the goodness of the builders' hearts. It would be considered gross malfeasance if the naming rights were not assigned contractually in exchange for some sort of consideration (i.e., sold). They paid for the naming rights, and the money was used to finance construction, a straightforward commercial transaction. In any case, it is customary for legal documents creating a relationship of this sort to name parties in the form 'Pacific Telesis, its successors and assigns'. SBC is unquestionably the legal successor or assign of Pacific Telesis. (Without a lot of costly legal work, it would be difficult to tell precisely which. In most utility mergers I've heard about, the old corporation continues to live on, as a paper tiger, for reasons which I suspect have to do with state licensing laws.) -- Garrett A. Wollman | [G]enes make enzymes, and enzymes control the rates of wollman@lcs.mit.edu | chemical processes. Genes do not make ``novelty- Opinions not those of| seeking'' or any other complex and overt behavior. MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 20:17:53 -0500 From: Ron Chapman Subject: Re: The Farce of National Branding In article , John Higdon wrote: >>> Brand names today are meaningless. >> I disagree. > Can you give some examples? Other than toothpaste and mouthwash, give > me some names of companies that show a direct lineage to their roots, > and still develop and manufacture their own products. There are very > few. Xerox? Unless you want to say that they are really Haloid; however, Haloid simply changed their name to something brand new to reflect the brand new thing they had gotten into. There was no acquisition or co-opting of anything or anyone else. And yes, they still manufacture their own products. Design them all, too. From scratch. Coca-Cola? Hardly a farce. John, you do live in a world where that is by far the rule, but wander outside your front yard a little and see that the telecom industry *is* the exception by being the leader in this co-opting and diluting of brand. ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol) Subject: Re: The Farce of National Branding Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 23:09:30 -0000 Organization: JustThe.net LLC John Higdon wrote: > In article , sjsobol@JustThe.net > (Steven J. Sobol) wrote: >>> Brand names today are meaningless. >> I disagree. > Can you give some examples? Other than toothpaste and mouthwash, give > me some names of companies that show a direct lineage to their roots, > and still develop and manufacture their own products. There are very > few. JustThe.net ;) Ok, seriously. Let me think. Any of the Big Three auto companies, and yes, I AM including DaimlerChrysler. In that case, there are two such names. I'm sure I can come up with some others. > Not a comparable situation by any means. The Giants stadium was built > with private money, a substantial portion of which came from PacBell > when it was owned by Pacific Telesis, a California corporation based > in San Francisco. For that substantial contribution to the community > in making the stadium possible in the first place, PacBell (not SBC) > was awarded the right to name the park through the year 2020. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What about Proctor & Gamble, and > Lever Brothers, and Sears, Roebuck (now the 'Roebuck' part of the > name has been removed) to name a few old standbys ... PAT] Unilever NV may or may not be the same company as Lever Bros. 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: Whatever happened to the old Montgomery Ward Company? I know they filed bankruptcy several years ago, but what are they know as now, if anything? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: The Farce of National Branding Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 00:27:39 -0500 In TELECOM Digest V22 #182, John Higdon wrote (in part): > Can you give some examples? Other than toothpaste and > mouthwash, give me some names of companies that show a direct > lineage to their roots, and still develop and manufacture > their own products. There are very few. First, I've read more from John that I agree with than that I disagree with. That said -- Let's see ... Concentrating on U.S. brands and firms that are close to 100 years old or older, excepting companies whose principal business has fundamentally changed in that time (such as Wells-Fargo), and leaving out toothpaste and mouthwash, the following come to mind: Chevrolet, Ford, Chrysler, Mack, Harley-Davidson, Goodyear, Boeing, Caterpillar, John Deere, Briggs & Stratton. Quaker Oats (PepsiCo), Kellogg, Campbell Soup, Tastykake, Wrigley, Coca-Cola, Pepsi Cola (PepsiCo), Hershey, Del Monte, Heinz, Nabisco (part of Kraft), Kraft (part of Philip Morris), Philip Morris, Dole, Hormel, Anheuser-Busch, Adolph Coors, McCormick. Arm & Hammer (Church & Dwight), Ivory (Procter & Gamble), Clorox, Ball (jars & cans), R.J. Reynolds, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Bausch & Lomb, Kleenex (Kimberly-Clark), Gillette, Levi Strauss, Fruit of the Loom A&P (The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company), Kroger, Walgreen's, Macy's, Sears. Kodak, DuPont, Sherwin-Williams, Corning, American Standard, Maytag, General Electric, Emerson Electric, NCR (National Cash Register), Pitney Bowes, Diebold, Scotch Brand (3M - Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing), Steelcase, Smith & Wesson, Remington Arms, Steinway & Sons, Sealy, Simmons. McGraw-Hill, Hallmark, Dun & Bradstreet, The New York Times. There are probably five times this many companies, and 50 times as many brands that have a direct history of 100 years or more. If I only have to look for a 50-year history, the lists would probably grow by a factor of ten. If I look worldwide, probably another factor of ten. There's a lot of business history and heritage out there. Many people don't care much about it, so it doesn't get a lot of notice. As in family circles, the outlandish arrangements and behaviors get far more attention than the more conservative ones. Paul A Lee *palee*at*dca*dot*net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Don't forget Chicago Tribune Company, around since 1847, although the Chicago Tribune (newspaper) is just one of their companies now for many years. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: Re: The Farce of National Branding Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 04:12:56 -0500 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 02:11:20 -0000, in comp.dcom.telecom message , you wrote: > From 'John Higdon' : >> Today, SBC announced that it is tossing the name "Pacific Bell" and >> "PacBell". Anyone with a pulse could see this coming, but what is >> annoying is the SBC perpetuation of the myth of "branding". > On the radio I heard that SBC Ameritech is now known as SBC. As I see the "SBC" getting bigger on their bills and envelopes compared to the word "Ameritech," I am pretty sure that day is coming. BUT until they tell us to make the checks out to "SBC" instead of "Ameritech," they will be "Ameritech" to me. As for "brand name," I think the sound of the word "Ameritech" is a LOT more descriptive than some initials "SBC" which still brings back memories of "southern." When Ohio Bell, Michigan Bell, Illinois Bell, etc., all came under one "roof," the company had the idea of maybe expanding around the country. They picked a name that reflected that idea. It had a "national" sound to it. I think if they keep any name, it ought to be the one with the message "America" in it. >> Brands used to mean something. > In this case I don't think it matters. SBC took the original companies > and turned them into crap, and everyone knows it was SBC that did it. > I don't know about Pacbell, but Ameritech was fair-to-middling in the > Customer Service department before "We don't give a rat's ass about > anyone" SBC moved in. Ameritech was already in trouble with the PUCO before SBC took them over. >> Brand names today are meaningless. > I disagree. Eventually SBC may have to change its name to something more meaningful. >> company, Pacific Telesis. SBC simply handed over cash for a going >> business. > So SBC lies; this is nothing new. If you were interested you might be > able to get them into trouble for false advertising. >> The name of the park is about to be changed to "SBC Park" (how >> catchy!). San Francisco loses yet another bit of history and landmark >> identification; SBC perpetuates its worthless and meaningless >> "national brand name". > Wasn't Candlestick Park renamed 3Com Park? How is that any better? I wonder how long Jacobs Field will keep its name. (That's Cleveland's baseball stadium.) When Mr. Jacobs is long gone and they need new money for repairs or remodeling, they will probably give it a new name the same way they did that college downtown whose name I can't remember since they stopped calling it Dyke College. > 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! Have mercy, O Geeks! Have mercy on us non-hexadecimalites! Gail in NE Ohio USA ------------------------------ From: Michael A. Chance Subject: Re: The Farce of National Branding Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 13:50:57 GMT In article , John Higdon says: > The network was built by the old AT&T, and then modernized by a > California company, Pacific Telesis. Except that "California company" was created out of whole cloth by a federal judge as part of the break-up of AT&T. > SBC simply handed over cash for a going business. It may have been a "going business" at the time, but several Wall Street analysts had Pacific Telesis as being about 18 months away from bankruptcy at the time of the merger with SBC. It still had a very bloated management structure, with the corporate culture to match (remember, this was the company that spawned "Dilbert"), and they were getting fined by the CPUC for missing performance targets on a regular basis. No matter what else you say about SBC, they turned all those things around, and, in the process, hired several hundred additional people in the repair centers and customer service centers. > It built nothing. So the extensive DSL capability simply appeared out of thin air? Michael Chance In article , Steven J. Sobol says... > SBC took the original companies and turned them into crap, and > everyone knows it was SBC that did it. I don't know about Pacbell, > but Ameritech was fair-to-middling in the Customer Service > department before "We don't give a rat's ass about anyone" SBC moved > in. I think that you'd get a different story from the state PUCs in Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and especially Illinois. Prior to the merger with SBC, they were all rating Ameritech's service as "fair to poor", with millions of dollars in fines being assessed each month. Customer service still isn't perfect, but, under SBC's management, they're a lot closer to meeting those performance targets each month. It's recently come out that Ameritech was in a lot worse shape than Notabaert and company let on during the "due diligence" portion of the merger process, and that SBC has had to spend huge amounts to straighten out that part of the company in the last couple of years. Michael Chance ------------------------------ From: Phil Earnhardt Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Countermeasures Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 23:59:17 -0700 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:27:22 -0500, Monty Solomon wrote: > Hate the sender all you want, the sad fact is that you may very well > be the person ultimately responsible for the spam you receive by > giving your address out to various Web sites, posting it to newsgroups > or mailing lists, or otherwise exposing it in places where anyone can > find it. What utter nonsense. AFAICT, the greatest feature of the Internet is the ability to create virtual communities. A critical means of creating those communities is the ability to communicate via e-mail. Any sort of obfuscation fo e-mail addresses is an impediment to the free communication on the Internet. And this leads to one of the great ironies: spammers, who often claim that they have the right to Free Speech on the Internet, have performed possibly-irreparable damage to true free speech and discussion over e-mail on the Internet. > http://www.forbes.com/2002/12/12/cx_ah_1212tentech.html I'm saddened by these pieces in reputable magazines that launch up disinformation to the public. Recently, the Wall Street Journal had a front-page article claiming that spamming for some items was OK while spamming for others isn't. Apparently, the writer never ever heard of The Ebert Pledge ( which you can see at http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/boulder.shtml ). It also mis-labeled opt-in e-mails as spam. All in all, the article muddled clearly-understood definitions and concepts. And this was from a newspaper that typically has thoroughly-researched and well-written articles on a vast variety of business topics. The battle for spam is being fought in the media right now. phil ------------------------------ From: Paul Wallich Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Countermeasures Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:08:43 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > Anti-Spam Countermeasures > Arik Hesseldahl, 12.12.02, 10:00 AM ET > NEW YORK - The next time you check your e-mail and want to curse the > lowlife responsible for all that unwanted commercial e-mail -- aka > spam -- you might start cursing into a mirror. > Hate the sender all you want, the sad fact is that you may very well > be the person ultimately responsible for the spam you receive by > giving your address out to various Web sites, posting it to newsgroups > or mailing lists, or otherwise exposing it in places where anyone can > find it. This kind of crap kicks my blood pressure right up. How about "The next time a crazed sniper takes a shot at you, if you survive, you might want to consider that you were ultimately responsible for your brush with death: you were the one who stopped at a service station for fill your gas tank, drove to the mall, went to school or otherwise gave the gunner a chance to get you in his sights." The response to attacks on people and property should be to do something about miscreants, not to tell all the law-abiding people to lock themselves up out of harm's way. [snip] > But a Web service called Spamex gives you a new weapon: A disposable > e-mail address. The minute spammers get their grubby little paws on it, > you can turn it off so that the next time they try to spam you, the > message bounces back as though your address was never there. > ttp://www.forbes.com/2002/12/12/cx_ah_1212tentech.html This is a really a perfect example of the market at work -- the same class of people who take no decisive action against spammers, and may even feed them information, can now sell you tools to "protect" yourself. paul ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Countermeasures Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:24:23 -0800 In article , Barry Margolin wrote: > I've been online for over twenty years, and post prolifically to > Usenet, and as a result I'm on just about every spammer's list > multiple times (I've had lots of addresses over the years, and many of > them forward to my current address). I get over 100 spams a day. But > I still refuse to munge my address. This appears to be regulation fare for those who have been on the net for any period of time. I've probably got two dozen or so addresses that all point to my one emailbox. If it were not for the fact that I use very aggressive spam filtering, I would have at least 100 spams a day, and have had that many and more per day in the past. > And what about people who want to reply to my Usenet postings? How do > they learn this "secret"? That's why I refuse to use a fake address. > What's the point of having return addresses in Usenet headers if > everyone's just going to put useless addresses there. Some of my most lucrative projects have come from folks who saw a posting and sent email as a result. I would never munge my email address, although I do use one that is not attractive to address harvesters. The only side effect that has occurred relates to occasional accusations from folks who declare that my email address is invalid without ever trying it. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 14:10:47 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Kantarjiev Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Countermeasures > It's pretty common these days to use a decoy account. Use one > account on a free service like Microsoft's (nasdaq: MSFT - news - > people ) Hotmail or Yahoo! (nasdaq: YHOO - news - people ) to give > out to Web sites and mailing lists, while keeping your "real" e-mail > account -- that is, the one you want your friends and family to > actually use -- a secret given only to trusted people. What nonsense. This is analogous to saying I should rent a post office box in a neighboring town so I don't get junk mail at home, and when my PO box gets full, I should rent another one. Or, that I should move when the junk mail load to my house gets too heavy. Bah. chris ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Countermeasures Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:06:27 -0800 Organization: Networks and Distributed Computing On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Barry Margolin wrote: > So now we blame the victims? Why not. It's the standard cop-out used to justify inaction. "It's her fault that she got raped because she was dressed that way." > I've been online for over twenty years, and post prolifically to > Usenet, and as a result I'm on just about every spammer's list > multiple times (I've had lots of addresses over the years, and many of > them forward to my current address). I get over 100 spams a day. But > I still refuse to munge my address. All you need to do to get on spammers' lists is to publish an RFC. I regularly got spams addressed to email addresses on systems which haven't existed for well over a decade, but which were on old RFCs. Stanford was very kind to have MX records and forwardings for these old addresses, but I ended up asking them to delete them. > And what about people who want to reply to my Usenet postings? How do > they learn this "secret"? That's why I refuse to use a fake address. > What's the point of having return addresses in Usenet headers if > everyone's just going to put useless addresses there. Exactly right. And if you publish RFCs, your email is going to become public knowledge anyway. Then there's the spammers who run dictionary attacks on a server. My ISP gave me a free email account on their server, even though I run my own email server. Within a couple of hours of it being opened, the first spams had arrived. However, there is something to the argument that we are in some way responsible. In the old days, we very much resented the governing authority held over us by first ARPA, then DCA, and finally NSFnet. We said that what we wanted was anarchy. We were severely punished for this impudence by being given the very thing that we demanded. Anarchy does not result in the peaceful, primitive communism of fantasy. Anarchy results in warlords, walled cities, and frequently-plundered villages. The situation will continue to deteriorate until we are granted an effective governing authority with enforcement power. When that wonderful day finally comes, we will once again resent the stupid laws that the governing authority will inevitably hold over us. And, at least for a while, we will resent it with pleasure and joy, for we will no longer need to deal with walls, or fear being plundered by warlords. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. ------------------------------ From: Brian Cox Subject: Re: Adding Voicemail to Norstar+ Compact ICS Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:36:39 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises The NVM 4.0 is a separate unit from the phone system. As you have a CICS I would recommend a Startalk Flash instead as it is less costly. Its capacity is 48 mailboxes and 4 ports when fully expanded which should be more than enough in your case. Brian Cox J & J Communications 770-795-5462 or 888-552-6665 http://www.jandjcommunications.com Please check our web site for Avaya & Norstar quick reference guides. BHAX wrote in message news:telecom22.182.9@telecom-digest.org: > I have a norstar+ compact ICS that I want to add voicemail too. Is the > NVM 4.0 just an upgrade card or is it a seperate system? > Thanks, > BHAX ------------------------------ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #183 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Dec 14 15:07:22 2002 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id gBEK7M618006; Sat, 14 Dec 2002 15:07:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 15:07:22 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200212142007.gBEK7M618006@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 #184 TELECOM Digest Sat, 14 Dec 2002 15:06:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 184 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Call Waiting Prison and Telemarketers (Paul Coxwell) Re: Call Waiting Prison and Telemarketers (Linc Madison) Re: Listing in Areacode-Info.com and TELECOM Digest (John Higdon) Re: Being Online Without a Hard Drive (Name Withheld on Request) Soho PBX With Unified Messaging Including Voicemail Boxes (Tom Williams) Best Kid Safe Software Filter? (Rudy) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (Richard D G Cox) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (Linc Madison) Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Court Rules Internet Case Can be Heard in Australia (Linc Madison) Re: Determining Cell Phone System Coverage (Linc Madison) Re: MCI Once Again Ripping Off Customers (Steven J. Sobol) Re: George Gilder: Why I Trust (Linc Madison) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: PaulCoxwell@aol.com Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 07:22:39 EST Subject: Re: Call Waiting Prison and Telemarketers >> What is it about Call Waiting that seems to trap people into interrupting >> EVERY CALL to deal with that other person??!!!! >> If a call, even a local call is so important to you and you don't want >> to interrupt it, then DON'T answer the other call if you have Call >> Waiting! > I can solve this problem with two words: "Busy signal" > Any time Call Waiting kicks in on any call, it's obnoxious. Why > should I pay extra to be annoyed? So I don't. If I'm on the phone > when you call, you'll get a busy signal. An old-school, deprecated, > luddite busy signal. I heartily agree with Gordon. I can see the advantages of call waiting in some situations, maybe teenagers on the phone for two hours at a time or something like that, but in general I don't like the system. Do you take a second incoming call or not? If you ignore the new caller, chances are that when he gets around to calling back you'll get an offended-sounding "Why didn't you answer my call? Didn't you hear the call-waiting beeps?" Take the second call and you risk offending the first person. Even if you intend to just tell the new caller that you'll return his call when you're done, it's easy to end up taking longer than you plan and have the original call held for a while. And if you only ever intend to answer the second call with a "I'll call back when I'm free," what's the point? Let the second call get a busy signal and he'll try again in a few minutes anyway. A busy signal gets my vote every time. Paul Coxwell, Norfolk, U.K. ------------------------------ From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Call Waiting Prison and Telemarketers Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 19:01:40 -0800 Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com In article , Gordon S. Hlavenka wrote: > I can solve this problem with two words: "Busy signal" > Any time Call Waiting kicks in on any call, it's obnoxious. Why > should I pay extra to be annoyed? So I don't. If I'm on the phone > when you call, you'll get a busy signal. An old-school, deprecated, > luddite busy signal. > If you need to take emergency calls, get a pager or voicemail. Call > waiting is a pox on society. Pagers and voicemail are poxes on society. Call Waiting is a godsend. I was visiting my parents for Thanksgiving, and my mother was telling the story of how she came to have Call Waiting. It was about 1975. My brother and I were both in junior high. Our house was quite near the elementary school and the high school, but some distance from the junior high school. We had gone to some after-school activity, with instructions to call home for a ride when we were done. Mom was on the phone, though, chatting away with a friend, oblivious to the passing time. My brother and I called and got a busy signal. We waited a few minutes and tried again. We kept trying for the better part of an hour. We finally gave up and walked home. Mom was flabbergasted when we walked in the door, and she only then realized that her conversation (which was still going) had blocked her from receiving an important call. Without Call Waiting, she had no way to know that we were trying to reach her. Voicemail would have been useless in that situation, even if it had been available, because she wouldn't've known that she had a message until after she hung up -- and in most cases not until she picked up the phone again later and heard the stutter dialtone. Suggesting that my mother carry a pager is not viable. As my mother said, about the most isolated you can be in modern society is to be on the phone without Call Waiting. Of course, I'm very happy to have Cancel Call Waiting, especially now that my switch allows me to do it in the middle of a call. Where my parents now live, they can't get CCW, because they are victims ("customers") of the Great Telephone Experiment, d.b.a. Verizon. On my switch, I can dial *70 (or 1170) on an outgoing call. I can also flash in the middle of a call (as long as there isn't a call waiting) and dial *70, returning me to my conversation as soon as I get the confirmation tone. All is as it should be, except for the pesky little detail that I have to wait until the confirmation tone is done before I dial any further digits. If I dial *70-555-0123 instead of *70W-555-0123, my call may fail. www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I agree completely with Linc. Our call waiting tone here is *only* heard by the person who has it on the line (the other party gets a very short loss in voice *if* the other end is speaking; nothing if he himself is doing the speaking) and ours works just like Linc suggests: *70 before beginning a call you originate, or flashhook *70 during a call you receive if you wish to do it. It is indeed a godsend, and used liberally in a proper way, there is no reason to be offensive to anyone. Of course, if you use it too often, telco may wonder why you bothered to buy the feature at all. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Listing in Areacode-Info.com and TELECOM Digest Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 08:04:02 -0800 In article , gerg@panix.com (Greg Andrews) wrote: > John Higdon writes: >> Excuse me. 408/264 (historical ANdrews 4) is THE flagship exchange of >> the Pacific Telephone ... er ... Pacific Bell ... uh ... SBC SJ12 >> central office. it dates back to the mid-fifties. If that web site >> cannot give any information for that area code/prefix combo, it isn't >> worth much. > Wasn't it 415/264 before 1959? Yes, it was. Which means that the ANdrews 4 exchange has existed from the creation of the 408 area code, in which it remains even today. By the way, allow me to correct a minor error: the central office is SJ14, not SJ12. I'm always confusing the ANdrews office with the ALpine office! John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:28:07 CST From: Name Withheld on Request Subject: Re: Being Online Without a Hard Drive Hi Pat, If you chose to post this on the 'net _PLEASE_ delete my real email adddress first. I've had the same email adx for over two years and _no_ spam. I like it that way. I sympathize with your situation, but you have to have your name out there and there is no alternative. Please don't post my email adx on the net. I saw your message ( below ) and felt I needed to comment. I am doing the same thing here, but I use a different CD distribution. I'm using something called the Sentry Firewall CD-ROM (www.SentryFirewall.com) which is amaziningly freely available on the 'net. This is a complete Linux OS on a CD, and when it boots it completely bypasses whatever is on the hard drive. They anticipated your problem with configuration. The CD naturally has none of your personal email names, passwords, dialup numbers or any of the other stuff you need to connect. Instead, they use a floppy disk which is read in after the Linux OS boots. This provides all you need to get connected. However, I found this tedious on a laptop. I too have a USB "disk drive" device. Mine is called a "DiskOnKey", but it works the same. In fact there are several different brands of similar devices available now. I wanted to use mine as a substitute for the floppy drive, but there is a problem. Your ( and my ) PC BIOS doesn't know how to deal with a USB disk drive. It can deal with USB keyboards, and USB mice, but not USB disks. Thus, _you cannot boot from a USB disk_. Period. Can't be done unless you know how to rewrite a BIOS, burn a chip and install it in your computer. Thus, your stradegy of moving everything to the Fuji device (FujiDisk?) won't work. You need to boot the CD to get going, and then read the setup information from the FujiDisk. As implied from your message, the KNOPPIX CD doesn't know how to do this. As it happens, neither did the Sentry CD. But, since Sentry is a Linux OS, open system, and they encourage users to adapt and adopt their system to your requirements, modifing the Sentry disk was possible. Not easy, but possible. What I had to do was to recompile the Linux kernel on the Sentry disk to "find" the USB disk _after_ it booted, and then tell the application what to do with the info found there. Fortunately, Linux allows you to define the boot process and insert your own configuration as you wish. The result is a bootable CD with a complete Linux system, and a USB disk with all my personal ID (email name, ISP, passwords, dialups etc.) on the USB disk. Since the CD has no personal information on it, I can leave it in the machine. As long as I take the USB disk with me, no one can get my personal ID. And, since I formatted the USB disk with a Linux filesystem, you can't even read it on a Windows machine. I also modified the boot process to give the user a choice of which OS to boot. (Linux is clever). So, even with the Linux CD in the machine, I can tell it to ignore the CD and boot the normal Windows from the hard drive. Thus, leaving the CD in the machine is totally transparent. I don't know if the KNOPPIX CD can be arranged this way. If not, I suggest that you take a look at the Sentry CD. It at least already has the floppy disk configuration system, and if you find this works for you, I can give you further guidance if you want to use the USB disk instead. Pat, you're doing a great job. Keep up the good work. > Let's say your hard drive has crashed, or somehow gotten wiped out, > formatted mysteriously or whatever. Does that mean you cannot get on > line or do other work with computer until you get the problem fixed? > No, not any more ... :) I received a gift from my California friend > which cures that sort of problem. It is called *KNOPPIX* which is an > entire *nix-based operating system on a CD. Seriously ... what you > have to do is change your BIOS around a little as needed. Make sure it > is set to boot *first* from the CD, *then* from the hard drive. I > think most people have it that way anyway. But if you don't you may > want to make that adjustment. Then your hard drive could be in pieces > on your work bench for example, and you WILL be able to get on the > net. > Or, when you grow weary of using Windows (I cannot imagine why anyone > would dislike such a fine product) -- snicker! -- what you do is pop > your knoppix CD in the drive, let it boot up, and presto, an almost > entire x-windows/linux thing. The best part seems to be if your hard > drive is *not* demolished, but actually there and working; you will > notice how part of the boot up process of the knoppix CD is to mount > your existing file storage areas (like the hard drive for example) and > you can use many of your 'regular' files as though they were *nix in > their nature. > One disadvantage is you have to have sufficient swap space on your > computer to make it work correctly. Without sufficent space on the > computer, things do get cluttered and it tends to run a little slower > than I would like. You do get a lot or most of the x-windows features > however. When you boot this knoppix CD, the first thing it does is > goes through your computer and takes an 'inventory' of everything > on your system; where to find the sound card for example, where to > find your modem or DSL or cable connection, etc, then it configures > itself accordingly. > Another drawback is that nothing remains static. Whatever configur- > ations you first give it on logging in to start using it have to be > done every time you log in using it. I am trying to figure out a way > to load it all from the CD onto my drive F so I can keep the > configurations I want on a permanent basis. > 'Drive F' = a Fujifilm USB drive about the size of my finger which has > a male USB connector on the end, and plugs into a USB socket. Mine has > a 'mere' 64 MB of storage space, and the power on the line is enough > to power it and keep it going. They come in sizes from 16 MB up to 512 MB > all about the size of your finger, they weigh about an ounce and can > be clipped in your shirt pocket and carried around from one computer > to another. When I first received mine and plugged it into the USB hub > (hub looks like an extension cord; one end plugs in the socket on the > back of the computer, the other end terminates in a multiple number of > USB female sockets; you plug your various USB devices in there). Anyway, > when I got it, I immediatly plugged it into the hub, the Windows XP > machine gave its little beep and flashed a message on the screen > saying "external storage device 'for pat' is ready to use." 'for pat' > is the name that my friend gave it when he plugged it in his Apple Mac > to test it out. When I go to 'my computer' here, I see a similar file > folder, which I have since renamed 'USB Storage'. Click on that file, > and there you are, ready to store/delete, whatever. > Anyway, what I am trying to do is 'copy E to F' (that is to say > move the contents of the CD over to the Fujifilm (fits in your shirt > pocket storage device). You can copy it over there with room to spare, > but the catch is you have to be already booted up (in Windows for > example) to get in there and use it. And that sort of maneuver not > only defeats the purpose of the Knoppix CD, it also confuses the hell > out of the computer, having Windows trying to run Knoppix. If you try > to load the computer from drive F by telling the BIOS to look in there > (F) and load if possible, it won't do that either. So if I can figure > out how to keep a few configs stored there which I can autoload > somehow from F after I have loaded the Knoppix CD that will save some > time and allow me to use it instead of Windows, period. My brain > desease however is not allowing me to get that far up in my thinking. > The nice thing about the Fujifilm storage device however is I can > unplug it from the XP hub and carry it over to my 98 laptop and > load it with programs which I then cart back over to the XP and > use. Ditto, my old Windows 95 which has a convenient USB port on > the back side of it. The 98 requires a 'driver' to be installed to > use it, but supposedly the Windows 95 does not. > Anyway, do take a look at Knoppix. You can find it using Google > search I understand, or get someone to burn a copy of it for you if > you do not have a way to download it and burn it yourself. Knoppix > is a great Christ Mass gift from my friend, and so was the Fujifilm > 64 MB 'pen' which I can carry in my pocket. ------------------------------ From: dejausenet@yahoo.com (Tom Williams) Subject: Soho PBX With Unified Messaging Including Different vm Boxes Date: 13 Dec 2002 12:04:48 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Would like to have a small pbx for my home based businesses (want to have multiple businesses with separate vm boxes, each possessing unified messaging capabilities (fax on demand, paging, etc) would like to run off one toll free incoming line. Appreciate suggestions, whether best to run off home PC (with occassional brief power outages) or offsite by 3rd party. If 3rd party, appreciate suggestions of reliable firms that are affordable for a small business. Please cc email any postings here. Tom [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oooh, how I wish I still had my Melco PBX which I used for a few years in Chicago. It was ideal for a small business application. Two incoming/outgoing ports by dialing 9, up to 12 extensions (numbered 21 through 32) with incoming calls defaulting to extension 21 (which also served as '0'), 'call forwarding' between extensions (and extension 21 [which was also '0'] for incoming calls could be forwarded as well to answering machines, etc), a 'do not disturb' mode on each extension, other features, including call waiting and a paging mode by dialing (I think) '4'. I was told several years ago that Melco went out of the telephone PBX business. :( Does anyone make little devices like that anymore that you simply hook into your incoming line(s) and configure in a 'star' format around your house? PAT] ------------------------------ From: coconut1@flex.com (Rudy) Subject: Best Kid Safe Software Filter? Date: 13 Dec 2002 13:59:51 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ A while back I checked out many of the kid safe (kidsafe and kid-safe) internet filtering software for Internet Explorer. Some are very large and complex, and costly. And after the Trial install/uninstall, most leave remnants of themselves hanging around my system. What's the latest, best (ie., cleanest, simplest [kiss], reasonably priced) out there these days? Thanks in advance! ...Concerned Parent [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No matter how well-intentioned any sort of kid-safe filtering program is, it invariably makes mistakes in its choices of what to eliminate. Nothing, IMO (look, no 'H' in there; that's because I do not give humble opinions) takes the place of a good parent who keeps his/her eyes constantly on what a child is doing with a computer in the kid's private space, like a bedroom. With your child, the best place for the computer is in a family room or other area where parents come and go all the time and are prone to asking questions about what the child is doing; who is that he is chatting with, etc. A computer should be a family investment, not a child's curiosity toy ... if a child is afraid that something he sees or reads on the computer is likely to bring mom or dad into the area and slap him silly, he won't be as likely to see or read that material. And education for children is very important also. Let them know a few things, as age appropriate, about your own values, and how you wish to teach those values to the children. Let them know that just as in real life, walking down the street for example, they are going to see and read things on the net which are not part of your values or life style. For example, no matter how hard you try, your children are going to eventually have a school assignment to learn about USA gover- ment and the White House. They are NOT going to learn about the White House by reviewing http://whitehouse.com for example. That's where a parent has to explain something about personal values. You might want to look at http://internet-history.org and click on the pages dealing with challenges to read about this topic more. Buy any kind of kid-safe software you like and can afford. Also look at the possibility of an email account for the child in the newly planned .kids domain or the .kids.us domain which is already around. But whichever way you go, be prepared for the challenge of a lifetime in bringing the child up in this new era we now live in. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 22:17:31 GMT From: Richard D G Cox Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World Reply-To: nospam@numbering.com Organization: Mandarin Technology Limited On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:22 PaulCoxwell@aol.com wrote: > Re the policy that when places outgrow 6-digit numbering plans > they'll go straight to 8 digits with 02x or 03x codes, when did > this policy come into effect exactly? In terms of implementation, 22nd April 2000. > If this was to be the policy for future expansion, then why were > Reading, Bristol, Nottingham, et al moved to 7-digit numbering > with 011n codes instead of going straight to 8-digit local numbers? Because they were implemented under the old, now discredited, policy. > Maybe, but another practical reason is that when Ireland > introduced toll-free numbers they were already using 080 > as a kludge for dialing into Northern Ireland. While they appeared to be using 080 for that purpose, they were only using those parts of the number space that corresponded to the code as dialled from within the UK. And as the prefix "00" was not used in the UK for inland calls (it was the prefix for international calls from 16 April 1995) then similarly the prefix 0800 was never required for dialling into Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland! The technique of treating level "0" in a different manner is fairly common: for example, within New Zealand "09" is the code for Auckland, but no Auckland numbers begin with a "0": so this does not conflict with their concurrent use of 0900 for premium-rate/audiotex services. > Now that 048 is used for that purpose, I wonder whether they will > re-organize to the "common" standard? That would involve a major > upheaval to Irish codes. Everything else in the RoI is "standard" (well, unless you believe 011 to be standard - but that was where we came in!): a while back they introduced "00" for International (it used to be "16") and "0" has always been the prefix for their geographic/mobile codes. What some would consider NON-standard in the RoI are the access codes for non-geographic (shared cost and premium rate) services: for which, like Freefone, suitable 1xxx codes have been assigned. I would be surprised if the Irish regulator ComReg decided to change the existing arrangements, which were very clearly chosen to avoid any conflict or confusion with numbers in the UK's scheme which are advertised on Press, Radio and TV with overlapping footprints. Since "080" is no longer used to call Northen Ireland, ComReg has designated that access code for Fixed Line Mailbox Services, in which each individual customer subscriber number has a directly associated mailbox number: this means that to reach such a mailbox a caller from within the Republic would dial "08" before the customer's number, and a caller from outside would dial +353 80 and the customers' number. Richard D G Cox Penarth, UK ------------------------------ From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 17:29:41 -0800 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises In article , Mark J Cuccia wrote: > John Levine wrote: >> [In North America, when away from home, dial international calls >> using 1-800-xxx-xxxx and a calling card, rather than 011+ or 01+] > EXACTLY !!! > This is something that many of the replies "conveniently" have > ignored, or "downplayed". > Why should ANYONE who doesn't actually *LIVE* here in the NANP (for > any period of time) even *CARE* what our (sent-paid toll) IDDD or > intra-NANP access digits/prefixes even *ARE*!? A little devil's advocacy here: The vast majority of all international calls I have placed while travelling outside the NANP (whether calling back to the U.S. or calling a third country), I have placed as sent-paid calls from payphones, dialing direct. Most countries have far more reasonable coin sent-paid rates for international calls than the rates prevalent in the U.S. I quite enjoyed being able to make a transatlantic call for less than a dime [USD$0.10], even if the call was limited to a few seconds. It was still enough time to say, "Hi, Mom, I'm fine. Bye." Also, if UIFN ever really takes off, then we might see many more visitors to the NANP wanting to dial +800, even from payphones. However, I have never had any difficulty finding out or remembering the appropriate code to dial, whether it was 00, 010, 0011, or whatever. Indeed, as to the difficulty of finding such information, it's prominently featured in every tourist guide book I've seen in many years. Each book has a little section on practical matters, telling you such things as how to change money, how to find a doctor or pharmacist, how best to mail things home (from postcards to packages), and how to dial the telephone. If you're going to travel in a foreign country, you do have to make *some* effort to learn the particulars, and I see nothing wrong with that. Indeed, that is part of the *point* of going to a foreign country. Personally, I don't travel overseas without a guide book and a phrase book (if English is not the primary language). In particular, if you're a foreign visitor in the U.S., not knowing the IDDD prefix is the *LEAST* of your worries if you want to phone home. Of much greater importance is the matter of how to spot the trustworthy phone cards from the scams. There are plenty of deals like $0.01/minute to anywhere in the world [tiny print: maximum call duration 3 minutes; $9.99 connection fee applies per call; some countries excluded]. Of course, that assumes that the card (or better yet, the card issuer) hasn't already expired before you buy it. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 011+ From NANP vs. 00+ From Most of World Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 16:41:03 GMT >> 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. With T-mobile (GSM service), one actually dials the plus symbol (on most phones by holding down the zero). After the plus comes country code, area code, number. I can dial +1212xxx-yyyy to get to NYC, or +612 xxxx xxxx to get to Australia. To get to Minnesota, I dial +1612 xxx-yyyy. (Or, from within the US, I can dial just 1612xxxyyyy or even just 612xxxyyyy.) > I concede on that point. If the IDDD code isn't shown, somebody might > be left with calling the local operator as the only way to find out. > That wouldn't be a problem between countries sharing a language and > where the number to dial for an operator is either obvious or clearly > posted (e.g. U.S.A. & U.K.), but might be much more of a problem in > other cases. This is clearly an instance where it pays to make > inquiries *before* leaving home, although one can never cater for > everything, of course. But once again, the US is a problem, because it's VERY hard to get an actual operator. And even if you do get an operator, it might be the WRONG operator. Dial 0? Dial 00? Dial 00, then listen to the prompt, then dial 0 again?? Yes. That's what you do to get an operator here. -Joel ------------------------------ From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Court Rules Internet Case Can be Heard in Australia Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 18:33:22 -0800 Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com The problem isn't so much a libel case in Australia, as a libel case in a country where, for instance, truth is no defense against libel. In the entire civilized world (including both the US and Australia), we take that protection for granted, but there are many countries where it isn't so, especially if the defamation is against a government official or agency. Turkey's entrance into the EU is currently stalled because of (among many issues) legal provisions that allow criminal prosecution for criticizing the government, even if the criticism is accurate, and that's one of the milder examples. (It is also a crime in Turkey to advocate the peaceful political separation of the Kurdish region from the rest of the country, or even to broadcast in the Kurdish language, irrespective of what you say. It's going to be a very LONG time before Turkey joins the EU, Dubya's ham-handed pressure notwithstanding.) In any case, the Australian court made an egregious error in this case. It is entirely unreasonable to hold that merely because someone viewed a web page in a particular jurisdiction, that such viewing constitutes "publication" in any sense of the word. The pre-Internet analogy would be to try someone for defamation in Australia because a magazine published in New Jersey was carried by a passenger on an airplane to Australia, where someone read it and took umbrage. Even if you take the analogy of a person in Australia ordering a magazine from New Jersey, that still doesn't make the magazine "published" in Australia. Publication in a particular jurisdiction *MUST* be held to be an intentional act in that jurisdiction. In no way did Dow Jones "publish" in Australia. At most, they delivered goods and/or services, published in New Jersey, to an address which they may not even have had any way of knowing was in Australia. Dow Jones doubtless has some sort of physical presence in Australia, and probably even in Victoria. However, smaller Internet publishers should be concerned about the possibility of having some other jurisdiction apply its laws to you. A cornerstone of the judicial system is the notion that a case must be tried either in the place where the alleged wrong occurred, or in the defendant's jurisdiction. If it is held that the act of having someone view your web page constitutes publication in the jurisdiction of viewing, then any random person could compel you to travel halfway across the planet to defend yourself against a lawsuit. That's frightening even if it's Australia, but much moreso with a number of other countries. www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California ------------------------------ From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Determining Cell Phone System Coverage Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 18:40:06 -0800 Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]] In article , Rick Wessman wrote: > We live near Rochester, NY and currently use Sprint PCS. The coverage > is spotty, especially in more rural areas. We would like to switch to > another service, but would like to make sure (at least as much as > possible) that the coverage will be better. > Is there some resource that lists the towers used by the various > services? I'm hoping that that will help to tell us how good a > service's coverage is. No, nor will there ever be such a resource. The cellular companies guard that data as proprietary -- after all, if you knew where the holes were, you might switch to another carrier! (umm, yeah) There are some web sites that compile user reports of dead zones, though, and the cellular companies can't do anything to stop that. Try a search on Google for "cellular dead zones". www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@JustThe.net (Steven J. Sobol) Subject: Re: MCI Once Again Ripping Off Customers Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 23:04:58 -0000 Organization: JustThe.net LLC > From 'Michelle Spangler' : > I have written to MCI twice to their headquarters in Iowa and received > a lovely postcard saying "Sorry but we can't help you". Surprise!! (a) Worldcom's headquarters are in Mississippi; (b) File a complaint with your state Public Utilities or Public Service commission. 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: Linc Madison Subject: Re: George Gilder: Why I Trust Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 18:45:01 -0800 Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com In article , Dale Neiburg wrote: > In TD V22 #177 was written: >> George Gilder: Why I Trust Ken Lay >> - Dec 23, 2002 12:00 AM (Forbes Magazine) >> Why I trust the most disgraced chief executive more than I >> do the most reputable public servant. > I dunno ... but, George, I just **happen** to have some prime > waterfront real estate in South Carolina, available at a sacrifice > price if you act fast! Sorry, I'm only interested in beachfront property in North Dakota. Anyway, why should I trust an article that claims to have been written a week and a half in the future? Beyond that, my reactio