From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Mar 18 13:44:52 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h2IIiqx19339; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:44:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:44:52 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200303181844.h2IIiqx19339@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 #351 TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:45:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 351 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Intuit's TurboTax at Center of Anti-Piracy Flap (Mike Riddle) Re: Intuit's TurboTax at Center of Anti-Piracy Flap (John Higdon) Radios, was Re: Tungsten W ? Can It Be Unlocked? (Danny Burstein) Can't Find a Source For This Kind of Switch (Jean Gagnon) Spectrum for All (Monty Solomon) Smilow v. S.W. Bell Mobile Sys., Inc. (Monty Solomon) Information Process Patents in the U.S. and Europe: Policy (Monty Solomon) Just How Open Must an Open Network be For an Open Network to be (M Solomon) Connection Discrepancies: Unmasking Further Layers of the Digital(Solomon) The Processed Book (Monty Solomon) Draft Bush Executive Order on Classified National Security (Monty Solomon) Re: EarthLink Introduces Unlimited Voice Broadband (tonypo1@cox.net) Re: EarthLink Introduces Unlimited Voice Broadband (John R. Levine) Re: Last Laugh! was Re: President Bush Signs National No Call List (Thomas) Monitoring and Managing Genset (Marijan Preprotic) Re: Skimming the Cream (Jim Van Nuland) 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: Mike Riddle Reply-To: mriddle%spamers.die@ivgate.omahug.org Organization: Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish & Short Subject: Re: Intuit's TurboTax at Center of Anti-Piracy Flap Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:28:57 GMT joe@obilivan.net wrote: > As a CPA who has more than passing knowledge of the subject, a very > small percentage of households are involved with more than one > personal tax return ... presuming the couple are married. If there > are unrelated persons in the household, then there is often more than > one return per household. But, does the TurboTax software license > permit multiple returns on one copy of the software in such > circumstances? TurboTax allows more than one return per license; in fact, they encourage it from time to time. Mom and Pop may file a joint return. Kids file if they have college funds or part-time jobs. Grandmother asks for help. In the not-too-distant past it was not unusual for us to prepare four or five returns, all for immediate family and a couple of elderly relatives who needed help. Turbotax has not released any data to support their conclusory allegation that software theft is a real problem. One would think that in light of all the criticism they would do so, instead of blaming a technically literate minority who understand what the software is really doing. Mike Riddle /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign mriddle@spamfree.papillion.ne.us \ / Respect for open standards "To Reply Remove the Obvious" X No HTML/RTF in email / \ No M$ Word docs in email ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Intuit's TurboTax at Center of Anti-Piracy Flap Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:54:22 -0800 In article , joe@obilivan.net wrote: > I think your logic is more likely in the "BS" category than their's. > A vast majority of people who use TurboTax prepare one federal return > per software license. Yes, that's probably the norm. There are also families that have many returns, more than you might imagine. > As a CPA who has more than passing knowledge of the subject, a very > small percentage of households are involved with more than one > personal tax return ... presuming the couple are married. I'm not sure how being a CPA makes you such an authority on families and software utilization, but I can tell you that I personally know many families that file multiple returns. > But, does the TurboTax software license > permit multiple returns on one copy of the software in such > circumstances? A question you might have investigated before telling me I was full of BS. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Danny Burstein Subject: Radios, was Re: Tungsten W ? Can It Be Unlocked? Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:23:06 +0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In a_user2000@yahoo.com (Justin Time) writes: > Trying to use an unlocked Tungesten W on Sprint would be like trying > to tune an AM radio to receive FM. Different transmission protocols. Cough, cough. Bad analogy. You can, indeed, receive and listen to (standard FM broadcast) signals using an AM radio provided, of course, that your unit can tune to the frequencies. You won't get the wideband fm fidelity, but you'll certainly have adequate and reasonably clear audio. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: jeannot@gmavt.net (Jean Gagnon) Subject: Can't Find a Source For This Kind of Switch Date: 18 Mar 2003 06:14:12 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I am bringing a second phone line to my house. I do NOT want to change all my phones in the house, but I want them to automatically connect to any line that rings. However after a call, the system (switch) should always revert to the same line, because I want to make all my outgoing calls from the same line. The other solutions like 2-line phones, call waiting, etc ... are unacceptable. These are my parameters. It looks hopeless from here, but I can't believe I'm the first guy with that problem. Thanks, guys! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Radio Shack has some autoswitches which serve two lines but default to a single line for outgoing calls. I forget the part number off hand. Another solution might be to get a 'virtual second line' from your telco (it is sometimes called 'distinctive ringing'). Telco gives you a second line, aliased to the first line. You have only one line for outgoing call purposes, but incoming calls can be dialed on either number. You get a regular ring or a ring-ring line, depending on what was dialed by the caller, so you can detirmine what answer-phrase is appropriate. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Spectrum for All Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:11:06 -0500 By Lawrence Lessig Why sell wireless spectrum to the highest bidder? Maybe the FCC should offer it up for free, columnist Lawrence Lessig suggests, redefining it as a form of public property-with minimum regulations. A generation from now, when policy types look back to the first decade of the 21st Century, there is no doubt they will think of a "Powell" as one of the most important policy makers of our time. But I'm betting it will be Michael, not Colin, Powell. I'm a big fan of the balance and wisdom of the Secretary of State. Yet the more I see of his son, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, the more convinced I am that Michael Powell could shepherd us to perhaps the most important policy change to affect the technology industry, and hence the economy, in 50 years. Just as the former Soviets remember their Chairman Mikhail (Gorbachev) as the father of their latest revolution, so too, will we remember our Chairman Michael (Powell) as the father of the most important revolution that technology could begin-and for a similarly brilliant strategic reason. ... http://www.cioinsight.com/article2/0,3959,932615,00.asp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:39:00 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Smilow v. S.W. Bell Mobile Sys., Inc. SMILOW v. S.W. BELL MOBILE SYS., INC. (03/07/03 - No. 02-1760) A decision decertifying a class action brought by and on behalf of wireless phone customers for breach of contract is reversed, as claims of most class members are too small to vindicate individually, and common issues of law and fact predominate. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/021760.html http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1760.01A ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:47:19 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Information Process Patents in the U.S. and Europe Information process patents in the U.S. and Europe: Policy avoidance and policy divergence by Brian Kahin Abstract Patents on software and business methods appear to have a pivotal position in today's economy, yet they have remained a policy backwater in which scope of patentable subject matter has expanded without legislative input. This is changing as Europe struggles with patent reform. A push by the European Commission to validate and promote software patents has been opposed by many companies and professionals, and especially the open source community. In this process, it has become clear that Europe opposes the broad non-technical patents on business methods that are now available in the U.S., signaling a major rift in international standards of patentability. Recent hearings held by competition agencies in the U.S. show severe problems of overpatenting that extend beyond software to much of the ICT sector. These problems have been ignored by the Commission, which despite a pro forma effort to address economic issues, clearly feels more comfortable framing the issue in legal terms. In outlining what a properly developed policy framework would look like, the paper stresses the need to understand why software is different from other technologies, why the disclosure function of the patent system is failing, the build-up of risk and uncertainty and its effect on industry structure, and the international political economy of information process patents. http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_3/kahin/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:50:47 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Just How Open Must an Open Network be For an Open Network to Be by Jonathan Sallet Abstract In 2003, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will decide in multiple contexts the extent to which governmental action should be used to maintain the "openness" of telecommunications and Internet networks. At the same time, the European Union will put into effect its new, comprehensive Access Directive. 2003 may, therefore, be a critical year for the future of governmental policy towards the "openness" of next-generation networks. This paper argues that the debate between "open" and "closed" networks has been insufficiently precise and, therefore, has failed to bring to policy makers' attention critical factors of decision. That is because the choice between "open" and "closed" networks is not binary; rather it consists of different policy bases operating from different perspectives on the network. Arguments for or against governmental opening of a network can be premised on a variety of disciplinary regimes that include, for example, engineering principles, economic theory, social philosophy and legal analysis. Often ignored is the plain fact that these disciplines do not always line up with each other. This will be critical to understand if in the future policy makers are asked to weigh claims of economic theory -- say the need to encourage investment -- against claims of social philosophy -- say the value of free speech and experimentation. Nor do contentions necessarily operate at the same perspective. From a user's perspective, the network can include the activities of an end user, competitive network provider, an independent content/software provider, or the network owner itself. Thus a claim of an end user's "right" to access content through a network may shed little light on the claim of a competitive network provider to use that same network. This paper demonstrates the interplay of the policy bases and network perspectives with four examples: Access to Regional Bell Operating Company (RBOC) networks; access to U.S. cable networks; the European perspective as demonstrated in the Access Directive; and, the architecture of the Internet itself. Along the way, the paper also notes, as an aspect of future analysis, the extent to which the Internet as an "idea" influenced public policy in a manner that departed from normal interest-group politics. The paper posits, as an example, a decisional template that could be employed, for each perspective on the network, to distinguish between policy disciplines. The paper concludes by noting those circumstances that reinforce the continuing importance of the "open/closed" network question. The goal of this paper is not to advocate for any particular policy outcome. It is, rather, to demonstrate that current policy analysis would benefit from applying greater analytical precision to the question of whether - and why - governments should act to open next-generation networks. Finally, the paper includes an addendum reviewing regulatory activity in February 2003. http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_3/sallet/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:53:01 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Connection Discrepancies: Unmasking Further Layers Connection discrepancies: Unmasking further layers of the digital divide by Elizabeth Davison and Shelia R. Cotten In assessing the integration of the Internet into society, scholars have documented that certain sectors of the population are disadvantaged by their lack of access to computer resources. The disadvantaged have traditionally included the less educated, non-whites, females, the elderly and lower income people. Scholars are now beginning to address differences in Internet experiences among Internet users, but most studies fail to account for the type of connection people use to access the Internet. The purpose of this study is to expand the level of information surrounding Internet connections. This study finds that (1) most Internet data sources fail to ask questions about types of Internet connections; (2) broadband users experience the Internet differently; and, (3) in determining who is likely to spend more time online, the type of connection is more important than other digital divide demographics such as education, race or gender. Subsequently, those engaged in the exploration of our Internet society should start controlling for how Internet users connect to the World Wide Web. http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_3/davison/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:54:38 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Processed Book by Joseph J. Esposito The "processed book" is about content, not technology, and contrasts with the "primal book"; the latter is the book we all know and revere: written by a single author and viewed as the embodiment of the thought of a single individual. The processed book, on the other hand, is what happens to the book when it is put into a computerized, networked environment. To process a book is more than simply building links to it; it also includes a modification of the act of creation, which tends to encourage the absorption of the book into a network of applications, including but not restricted to commentary. Such a book typically has at least five aspects: as self-referencing text; as portal; as platform; as machine component; and, as network node. An interesting aspect of such processing is that the author's relationship to his or her work may be undermined or compromised; indeed, it is possible that author attribution in the networked world may go the way of copyright. The processed book, in other words, is the response to romantic notions of authorship and books. It is not a matter of choice (as one can still write an imitation, for example, of a Victorian novel today) but an inevitable outcome of inherent characteristics of digital media. http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_3/esposito/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:03:36 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Draft Bush Executive Order on Classified National Security FAS Note: The following is a draft Bush Administration revision of Executive Order (EO) 12958 on national security information policy. When finalized, the new executive order will define information classification and declassification policy. This draft document was circulated among executive branch agencies for comment in March 2003. http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/drafteo.html ------------------------------ From: tonypo1@cox.net Subject: Re: EarthLink Introduces Unlimited Voice Broadband Organization: The Ace Tomatoe and Cement Company Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:35:55 GMT In article , joe@obilivan.net says: > Vonage seems like a great idea for the first line, too, for anyone who > already has broadband, lives in an area where they can keep their > present number (local number portability) and if they make many toll > calls. With the inclusion of caller id and voice mail, that is quite > an attractive package. > Any idea whether they hammer the account with FCC access charges, and > the usual such surcharges? > Seems like this concept could eventually wipe out TPC (The Phone > Company ;-) Nah -- the cable companies like Cox will put them out of business due to bandwidth caps. Total allowed daily download is 2GB on Cox's network. I'm pretty sure my regular usage plus a Vonage phone would blow that away. While I'm on the subject -- apparently Cox has some capacity problems with it's switch in this area. Frequent reports of all circuits busy and inability to complete calls to other Cox customers have been reported. Tony ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 2003 11:02:27 -0500 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: EarthLink Introduces Unlimited Voice Broadband Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Vonage seems like a great idea for the first line, too, for anyone who > already has broadband, lives in an area where they can keep their > present number (local number portability) and if they make many toll > calls. With the inclusion of caller id and voice mail, that is quite > an attractive package. I like my Vonage phone, but it's not a good choice for your only phone line. If you don't mind losing the ability to call 911 (calling the POTS number of your local police department is not the same thing), and it's OK with you if your phone drops dead when your power fails or your cable service screws up or your ISP has a route flap and loses contact with Vonage's ISP in New Jersey, I suppose you might want to use it as your only phone. On the other hand, if you find that quality of service adequate, you can probably find a cell phone package for $40/mo with more minutes than you'll use, and your cell phone has a battery so it'll be more reliable. > Any idea whether they hammer the account with FCC access charges, > and the usual such surcharges? No, they fall through the cracks. Access charges are a crock that should have gone away 20 years ago (they're really part of your regular monthly service charge but telcos like to blame them on the government even though they get 100% of the money) but Vonage users get a free ride when calls to or receiving calls from high cost areas supported by USF. If VoIP is as successful as it looks like it will be, I presume we'll see the USF adjusted so it's fairly assessed on all phone users since all phone users benefit from 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: Julian Thomas Subject: Re: Last Laugh! was Re: President Bush Signs National No Call List Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:50:26 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In , on 03/13/03 at 05:48 PM, Richard D G Cox may have used oatmeal boxes, old string, and new, used, and recycled electrons to say (at least in part): >>> Telemarketers say the registry will devastate their business. >> Their point being? > That the only reason they're telemarketers is that there's nothing else > they can do? They can buy a "do it yourself" spamming kit. Julian Thomas: jt . jt-mj @ net http://jt-mj.net remove letter a for email (or switch . and @) In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State! Boardmember of POSSI.org - Phoenix OS/2 Society, Inc http://www.possi.org "Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are." ------------------------------ From: Marijan Preprotic Subject: Monitoring and Managing Genset Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:46:11 +0100 Organization: Ye 'Ol Disorganized NNTPCache groupie Does anybody know, is there some company that have more then 100 (20 at least) diesel generators, and they (at least 10 at different locations) all have remote monitoring and managing (remote test, start stop functions, reset functions...) via LAN and (or) modem connections from one or more operation and maintainence centers. Thanks, Marijan ------------------------------ From: Jim Van Nuland Subject: Re: Skimming the Cream Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:36:08 UTC Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link joe@obilivan.net wrote: > John, > Surely you jest in your wonderment about SBC. You know that Pacific > Sell has never been a price leader. They are counting on the stupid > to sign up. Well ... sometimes ... I switched to SBC long-distance just yesterday. No minimum or monthly fixed fee, 10 cents/minute 24/7/anywhere. I told her that SBC has to get much more competitive on the cents/minute, as I intend to use a prepaid calling card at 3.2 cents/min for most of my calls. She enthusiastically commented that her daughter is using one of those. So I have cheap LD, and SBC is helping. I'm rid of the $1.95/month from Vartec (Dime Line). And no more separate Vartec bill. Jim Van Nuland, San Jose (California) Astronomical Association ------------------------------ 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. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #351 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Mar 18 22:36:11 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h2J3aBo21653; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:36:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:36:11 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200303190336.h2J3aBo21653@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 #352 TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:35:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 352 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Intuit's TurboTax at Center of Anti-Piracy Flap (north end of horsey) Re: Intuit's TurboTax at Center of Anti-Piracy Flap (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: Intuit's TurboTax at Center of Anti-Piracy Flap (John Higdon) Re: Skimming the Cream (Rich Greenberg) Re: Can't Find a Source For This Kind of Switch (Paul A Lee) Re: EarthLink Introduces EarthLink Unlimited Voice Broadband (Mark Atwood) Re: EarthLink Introduces EarthLink Unlimited Voice Broadband (J Kelly) Re: Screen Machine (Joey Lindstrom) Blowing Away the Cap (Joey Lindstrom) A New Communications Paradigm: Earthphone From Five Star Tel (Eworldwire) Assessing Reliability of Phone Services (Gail M. Hall) PluggedIn: Going to a Hotspot? Take a PC and Wireless Card (Monty Solomon) Inmarsat Deploys Extra Satellite in Middle East (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: the north end of the horsey Subject: Re: Intuit's TurboTax at Center of Anti-Piracy Flap Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:03:49 -0500 Organization: NETPLEX Internet Services - http://www.ntplx.net/ On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:43:47 GMT, joe@obilivan.net wrote: > As a CPA who has more than passing knowledge of the subject, a very > small percentage of households are involved with more than one > personal tax return This is either a troll or an ignorant CPA. 1. A competent CPA would know that sometimes married couples file separatly -- that's two returns. 2. Common sense says that most kids tax returns (ie minors over 13) are so simple, they can file 1040-EZ without a CPA. I wouldn't buy TurboTax for a 1040-EZ. But if I had to fill out one (or all) of my kids tax returns, and I had turbotax, I would use it. 3. I'm not an expert, but I seem to recall that there are some reasons to file tax returns for children under 13. 4. TurboTax is bought by those with middle-class incomes. The poor don't have computers, the rich have accountants. I suspect that those who only file 1040EZ don't buy Turbotax; i suspect that its generally bought only by those who file a more complicated set of forms. So, to generalize, I bet that Turbotax has a high percentage of customers who are middle class, with kids and/or aging parents. They may also have siblings (or in-laws) who need their help with taxes. I suspect that the amount of piracy is very, very small, and that people are legitimately using turbotax, and preparing multiple returns. IMO, when Intuit realizes that the rate of piracy is significantly less than they stated, they may price turbotax on a per-return scheme. > ... presuming the couple are married. If there > are unrelated persons in the household, then there is often more than > one return per household. But, does the TurboTax software license > permit multiple returns on one copy of the software in such > circumstances? RTFM ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Intuit's TurboTax at Center of Anti-Piracy Flap Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:41:21 GMT On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:43:47 GMT, joe@obilivan.net posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: > I think your logic is more likely in the "BS" category than their's. > A vast majority of people who use TurboTax prepare one federal return > per software license. > As a CPA who has more than passing knowledge of the subject, a very > small percentage of households are involved with more than one > personal tax return ... presuming the couple are married. If there > are unrelated persons in the household, then there is often more than > one return per household. But, does the TurboTax software license > permit multiple returns on one copy of the software in such > circumstances? I am sure most people who buy/license TurboTax indeed use it only for a single return. There is no such limitation in the license agreement, though. The 2001 agreement said it could be used on a single computer; you could make one backup for your personal use; it can't be given, rented, resold, etc., and that "You may not use the Software to prepare tax returns, schedules or worksheets on a professional basis (i.e., for a preparer's or other fee)." There is no other limitation on using it to prepare multiple tax returns on your own machine (i.e., on a nonprofessional, unpaid basis). In fact, the software allows you to save multiple tax return files, under different names. If it were intended to allow preparation of only one return, Intuit would not have included this option -- and, of course, the program would be much less attractive to those who do need to prepare multiple returns for family members. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA (delete NOSPAM from address to mail me) ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Intuit's TurboTax at Center of Anti-Piracy Flap Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:17:13 -0800 In article , Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber) wrote: > And that is exactly what I did. I used my bought-and-registered copy > of TurboTax to prepare my personal tax return and those of my two > dependent children. If I am now to believe that I twice pirated > Intuit's software I will certainly find another program to use next > year. Just from the responses in this thread to the matter of preparing multiple returns, it would appear that a significant number of those "extra" returns that were filed by Intuit customers were within a household or family. Unless it explicitly says in bold letters somewhere on the box or in the program itself "For the preparation of one return only!", Intuit might want to consider that a three returns filed for every one program copy sold ratio might have a non-nefarious cause. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Skimming the Cream Date: 18 Mar 2003 14:24:54 -0500 Organization: Organized? Me? In article , Jim Van Nuland wrote: > I switched to SBC long-distance just yesterday. No minimum or > monthly fixed fee, 10 cents/minute 24/7/anywhere. I told her that SBC > has to get much more competitive on the cents/minute, as I intend to > use a prepaid calling card at 3.2 cents/min for most of my calls. She > enthusiastically commented that her daughter is using one of those. If you don't plan to use the SBC LD, just switch to NO PIC and avoid part of the fees disguised as taxes. SBC will still hit you, but with less. It also protects you from a visitor making LD calls without your knowledge. 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: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Can't Find a Source For This Kind of Switch Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:40:35 -0500 In TELECOM Digest V22 #351, jeannot@gmavt.net (Jean Gagnon) wrote (in part): > I am bringing a second phone line to my house. I do NOT want to change > all my phones in the house, but I want them to automatically connect > to any line that rings. However after a call, the system (switch) > should always revert to the same line, because I want to make all my > outgoing calls from the same line. Can you run a cable pair to each phone location? A Panasonic KX-T30810 might do the job. I have a KX-T61610 at home, and it definitely will. You can plug a hybrid set or a 2500 set into each station port. You can program the system to hunt the lines for outgoing calls and/or exclude any line(s) from outgoing calls, all with dial '9' access. You can also program each line to ring an incoming call to any/all available stations, or only some stations, or only one station. You will need one KX-T display phone for programming. The KX-T30810 and KX-T61610 won't handle caller ID internally, but they should pass the CID data through to a caller ID phone on a station port, as long as the call is coming in on a line that is programmed to ring through to the station with the CID phone. You should be able to get a used, refurbished KX-T30810 for under $300. Add another $100 for the display phone. Find a dealer at http://www.telecom-mart.com or http://www.thewwbn.com. 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: Why wouldn't distinctive ringing from telco do the same job a lot cheaper, with no cables to run or special phones to buy? He'd have the two numbers he wants, with all outgoing calls being forced onto one default line. If he wanted caller-ID or call waiting or other special features he could get them all. People could dial in on either number and the ringing cadence would tell him which line they were on. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Atwood Subject: Re: EarthLink Introduces EarthLink Unlimited Voice Broadband Date: 18 Mar 2003 12:53:31 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) writes: > As far as I know, Vonage is the only VoIP vendor that gives you a real > phone number, without which you might as well use the free voice chat > provided by AOL's AIM and other chat programs. Packet8 does as well. (I have Packet8 service. It works well.) Mark Atwood | Well done is better than well said. mra@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~mra ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: EarthLink Introduces EarthLink Unlimited Voice Broadband Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:26:55 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Reply-To: jkelly@newsguy.com On 16 Mar 2003 17:55:49 -0500, johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: >>> EarthLink Becomes First Major Nationwide ISP to Deploy Full-Scale >>> Voice-over-IP Solution to End-Users >> Also see http://www.vonage.com for a similar service that isn't tied >> to an ISP. > It's not a similar service, it's the exact same thing. Earthlink is > reselling Vonage. > As far as I know, Vonage is the only VoIP vendor that gives you a real > phone number, see also: http://www.iconnecthere.com/Nonmembers/services/receive.asp Been thinking of trying them for outgoing. Would try Vonage but they have no numbers in Iowa. If they ever add Cedar Rapids I'll give them a try, gotta be better than Qworst. J Kelly remove _YourPants_ to reply by email. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are no numbers in Kansas either, but I have thought about it otherwise for outgoing calls. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:04:33 -0700 Subject: Re: Screen Machine Reply-To: joey@telussucks.info On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:44:43 -0500 (EST), Ray Normandeau wrote: > Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:03:39 PST > From: Ray Normandeau
Subject: Screen Machine > > >DON'T NOT POST my email address. So why didn't you post his email address, Pat? He specifically told you to. :-) -- Joey Lindstrom -- Telus Sucks http://www.telussucks.info ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:11:05 -0700 Subject: Blowing Away the Cap Reply-To: joey@telussucks.info On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:44:52 -0500 (EST), tonypo1@cox.net wrote: > Nah -- the cable companies like Cox will put them out of business due to > bandwidth caps. Total allowed daily download is 2GB on Cox's network. > I'm pretty sure my regular usage plus a Vonage phone would blow that > away. I don't know the exact specs on Vonage's service, but typically a voice-over-IP setup utilizes compression. Therefore, again without any knowledge of the specs, I would HIGHLY doubt you could beat the 2 gig cap even if you used your Vonage phone 24 hours a day. -- Joey Lindstrom -- Telus Sucks http://www.telussucks.info [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Would that two gig cap be *only* for the Vonage useage, or combined with all his other work of uploads and downloads? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:28:42 -0500 From: Eworldwire Subject: A New Communications Paradigm: Earthphone(TM) From Five Star Telecom SAN FRANCISCO/ EWORLDWIRE /March 18, 2003 --- Today Five Star Telecom took the wraps off its 'earthphone(TM)' Internet Telephony solution, so named because the use of 9-digit phone numbers allows these devices to be used anywhere in the world to both make and receive calls. The ability to receive calls from any location is thought to be unique, as is the ability to deliver crystal clear reception over dialup. Earthphones(TM) not only enable free, high fidelity telephony over the Internet, but also offer 'anytime, almost anywhere' functionality. 'Almost' indicates the need for an Internet connection, which is rapidly become semi-ubiquitous via the rapid installation of Wi-Fi hot spots. If Wi-Fi access is free then so are the calls. Thus, the new communication paradigm is a combination of totally free telephony over the Net (the early promise of Internet telephony) with similar reachability to that of cellular (no location dependency). In addition, earthphones work over dial-up connections, can pass through corporate firewalls, and connect to PBXs. The latter feature is enabled when one or more earthphones are connected to the trunk lines. This allows mobile workers to talk to colleagues and interconnect offices and conference rooms, again calls are free; they can also break out to the public network and make calls at local or national rates. In the US the term Lata (Local Access and Transport Area) is used to describe the geographic area handled by the local phone company. Outside that area toll charges begin; calls made inside the Lata are not metered. Since earthphone enables a de facto global Lata the company has registered the name Global Local Lata (TM). Sy Richardson, President and founder: "Earthphones have a unique 9-digit code. To call another party, once you launch the application, you simply pick up the phone -- dial tone is established immediately -- and dial nine digits. Nothing could be simpler; you use regular phones the same way but now the calls are free. There is no service charge, no need to enter IDs and account numbers." Earthphones are small hardware boxes that weigh in at a mere 3oz/84g and as illustrated, they connect to a USB port on the PC, and are used with regular analog phones. Both attachments are powered via the USB port. The PC powers the hardware earthphone box and phone. Boxes also connect to the PBX, enabling mobile workers to connect to the PSTN. The same phone can also be employed for regular telephony. Hearing is believing. Bill Brady, Director of Business Development: "Historically Internet Telephony has been associated with poor quality and even loss of signal. This is no longer the case; the technologies employed by earthphones result in call quality as good as that of the public network and that is far superior to cellular. It has to be heard to be believed." Visitors to the site (www.fivestartel.com) can watch and listen to a video and also by listening to recordings made to and from Australia, California, India, Israel, the Netherlands and Pakistan. Please contact: Sy Richardson (President) EMAIL: sy.richardson@fivestartel.com PHONE: 415.328.9900 Jill McAuliff (Media Relations) EMAIL: jill.mcauliff@fivestartel.com PHONE: 415.331.5231 with questions or to set up a demonstration or interview. HTML: http://www.eworldwire.com/wr/031803/fivestartelecom.htm ONLINE NEWSROOM: http://www.eworldwire.com/profile/fivestartelecom.htm LOGO: http://www.eworldwire.com/profile/fivestartelecom.htm CONTACT: Sy Richardson (President) EMAIL: sy.richardson@fivestartel.com PHONE: 415.328.9900 Jill McAuliff (Media Relations) EMAIL: jill.mcauliff@fivestartel.com PHONE: 415.331.5231 URL: http://www.fivestartel.com Copyright 2003 Eworldwire, All rights reserved. Press Relase Distribution By EWORLDWIRE http://www.eworldwire.com (973)252-6800. ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: Assessing Reliability of Phone Services Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:38:48 -0500 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net Spring will soon be here, and that means T-storms, whether you mean thunder storms or tornados. And this year brings the possibility of terrorist attacks. Some people are going whole hog for wireless and have converted away from wired phone service to wireless altogether. But I am wondering about something. Don't those wireless phone services need electricity from the power companies to operate? Or do those towers have some self-contained power supply that will continue to function if the power goes out. I can clearly remember times when we lost power from the power company, and that includes some periods of up to 3 and 4 days at a time, although that doesn't happen every year. Usually the electricity comes on within 24 hours. I can also remember a few times when we lost phone service from our wire line. It might be a day or two before it got fixed, but the instances are much fewer. When we lost electricity for those 4 days a few years ago, we still had our phone service and our gas service, so we could talk to people and cook our food at home. I haven't had a wireless phone for long enough to test it when our power is out. So I don't know if it works or not. In another thread people have talked about phone service via computer and the fact it needs electricity to operate. Also, it's not set up to pass along location information to 911 centers. Even from a laptop on battery power, you won't have power for more than a couple hours. Same with a wireless phone. My battery has to be charged after talking on it for 2 or 3 hours. I can charge it from the automobile "cigarette lighter" connection, and that could work if our power goes out. But would we get a signal from the wireless service? I have thought about getting a cordless phone, but as I understand it, they require electricity from the wall. In a power outage, I would still have to have a regular telephone. These are issues we don't see in the advertisements at all. So how are those wireless phone transmitters powered? Do they have backup power available when disaster cuts off the electricity from the power company? Gail in Ohio USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:14:18 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: PluggedIn: Going to a Hotspot? Take a PC and Wireless Card By Caroline Humer NEW YORK, March 18 (Reuters) - The key to getting into a hotspot isn't knowing the right people, it's having the right equipment: a notebook computer, a wireless networking card and a credit card. So-called "hotspots" are popping up around the world, allowing computer users to log onto the high-speed Internet through wireless network access points in public parks, cafes and hotels. That means you can check e-mail or get the latest headlines from a comfy lounge chair in the hotel lobby or while sipping a cappuccino. Sound like something only the most-wired computer users can figure out? It's not. ... - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=32458766 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:15:23 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Inmarsat Deploys Extra Satellite in Middle East WASHINGTON, March 18 (Reuters) - Global satellite communications company Inmarsat said on Tuesday it has deployed a fifth satellite to the Middle East region to handle the expected increased demand from the news media and aid agencies as a war in Iraq looms. News organizations are one of the biggest users of the company's Global Area Network, which allows television networks like ABC, the BBC, NBC and CNN to connect videophones and run live broadcasts from the field. ... - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=32460813 ------------------------------ 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. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #352 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Mar 19 14:40:20 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h2JJeKF26775; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:40:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:40:20 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200303191940.h2JJeKF26775@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 #353 TELECOM Digest Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:40:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 353 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Malignant Text Ambushes Europe Cell Phones (Monty Solomon) Cellular Carriers Under Siege (Monty Solomon) Telecom & Telephony Advertisers find Value in Bundled Packages (Don) Re: Assessing Reliability of Phone Services (John Higdon) Re: Blowing Away the Cap (John R. Levine) Re: Intuit's TurboTax at Center of Anti-Piracy Flap (joe@obilivan.net) Re: EarthLink Introduces Unlimited Voice Broadband (No Name) Re: Can't Find a Source For This Kind of Switch (Rich Campbell) Miniature RJ11 Jack (Davidoff0707) GETS (and "Telco X" Customer Service) (John R. Covert) Re: Skimming the Cream (John Higdon) Telecom Student Hoping For Some Assistance (C Chambers) Thank You (CGoodlife@aol.com) 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: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Malignant Text Ambushes Europe Cell Phones Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:47:42 -0500 By Ben Charny Staff Writer, CNET News.com NEW ORLEANS -- A short text message is spelling death for cell phones in Europe. The wireless e-mail, among the one billion sent each day on the continent, can freeze or completely disable two cell phones made by German handset maker Siemens, spokesman Jacob Rice said here on Tuesday. The e-mails contain a single word, taken from the phone's language menu, surrounded by quote marks and preceded by an asterisk, such as "*English" or "*Deutsch," Siemens said. Opening the short-text message on a Siemens 35 series cell completely disables it, Rice said. Siemens 45 series phones are less affected and can be resuscitated after about two minutes of work, Rice said. Both phones are sold only in Europe. The phones are not the victim of a denial of service attack, as suggested by some participating in an e-mail string on Bugtraq, a popular security e-mail list, Rice said. ... http://news.com.com/2100-1039-993197.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This sounds to me a lot like a condition which used to (still does? I don't think so) occur on computers with email. Someone could send you a piece of email with certain words in the text, quoted a certain way, and it would cause your computer to do some ugly things. This was back in the 'early days' of computer hacking, and sending text from one computer to another, either telnetting or otherwise connecting from one computer to a 'socket' or 'port' on another computer over the net would cause this to happen if certain strings of words were transmitted and quoted a certain way. Whatever took place exactly is way in my distant memory. I dislike sounding so vague on this but I just do not remember details. I guess it had never occurred to the computer experts that such a thing would happen, which is how people took advantage of it. It was one of those 'security through obscurity' things which used to be how computers and the internet operated many years ago. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cellular Carriers Under Siege Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:58:26 -0500 SPECIAL REPORT: THE SQUEEZE ON WIRELESS As more rivals, such as Wi-Fi outfits, ISPs, and even radio broadcasters, encroach on their turf, the wireless providers may need to merge. Ron Lachman, a venture capitalist in Chicago, is one of the more intense users of mobile communications you'll find anywhere. He subscribes to wireless services from Palm, AT&T Wireless (AWE ), and Sprint PCS (PCS). But he says he does 98% of his wireless e-mailing and instant messaging via Wi-Fi, a wireless method of connecting to the Internet via a laptop. When traveling, he picks hotels that offer Wi-Fi connections or connects via T-Mobile's Wi-Fi service, a network of Wi-Fi hotspots around the country. He finds Wi-Fi faster and cheaper to use than a cell phone. In fact, "if money were more of an object for me, I'd cancel one of my [cell-phone] subscriptions," he says. The mass of people without Lachman's deep pockets could come to the same conclusion, too. Trying to make consumers think twice before renewing their cell-phone contracts, companies are storming the gates of the nation's wireless carriers with alternative technologies and services. TIME OF WEAKNESS. The threat comes at a time when the wireless carriers are vulnerable after years of pell-mell expansion. The Big Six -- Verizon Wireless, Cingular, AT&T Wireless, Sprint PCS, Nextel (NXTL , and T-Mobile -- have billions in debt. Their revenue growth has slowed to 20% annually from the triple-digit pace of the mid-1990s, delaying sustained profitability for some to 2004 or 2005 -- a decade or so after they started in the business. Now, the carriers find themselves under attack in every cellular market, from data transmission to voice calls. The rivals range from Wi-Fi providers and radio broadcasters to Internet service providers (ISPs). If that weren't enough, proposed legislation that would let customers keep their phone numbers no matter which carrier they move to threatens to further intensify wireless competition -- and worsen the industry's losses. ... http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2003/tc20030318_0236_tc106.htm ------------------------------ From: dpanek@altara.com (Don) Subject: Telecom & Telephony Advertisers Find Value in Bundled Packages Date: 19 Mar 2003 08:10:56 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ New Jersey - March 17, 2003 - During times of economic downturns and consolidation, telecom companies are pulling back the reigns on marketing and advertising. While marketshare is still important, many companies are finding it a challenge to maintain as much marketing and advertising exposure as possible, yet conserve precious dollars. Fortunately there is a solution available that delivers long term consistent advertising and exposure at prices that will make the most fraugal of CFOs sigh with relief. www.telephonyworld.com, a leading telecommunication resource site published by New Jersey based Creative Design Concepts has created a "total telecom marketing package" that has been successfully providing advertisers of all sizes with a bundled annual advertising package for a whole lot less than the cost of a single ad elsewhere. The telephonyworld site caters to nearly 2000 unique visitors daily who primarily come to the site to research solutions and make decisions on purchasing. The site's content and buyer's guides cover the spectrum of telecom solutions from voicemail, IP Telephony, wireless, call centers and all in between. The complete marketing package has been available for a while and was conceived after developing over 300 relationships with vendors all over the world. Chief editor Don Panek said, "after talking to so many marketing people managing dwindling budgets, we decided to give them some real value by bundling key advertising vehicles that would normally be separate ad buys". For the low annual price of $1995, vendors are getting a full page microsite in the buyer's guide, unlimited news and press release disemination which is also immediately displayed on the GOOGLE news site, and best of all qualified leads from the telephonyworld RFP system. RFP leads are sent via e-mail directly to the advertisers so they can bid on opportunities. Currently the site pulls in about 6 to 10 new RFPs per week averaging $10K to $25K. This translates into hundreds of thousands of impressions delivered to taregeted prospects. Frequency in advertising is very important, yet when cutting costs, the first thing that companies scale back on is usually advertising frequency. The telephonyworld marketing package solves this by giving advertisers exposure 24x7 for a whole year to highly targeted traffic for one price. Over the last two months telephonywolrd has signed more that 12 new telecom vendors to the program who have recognized the benefits and are taking advantage of the qualified leads and exposure. Companies interested in taking advantage of the program can get details and order securely on-line at http://www.telephonyworld.com/submit/listing.htm About TelephonyWorld.com Since 1998 telephonyworld has been providing telecommunication and telephony content to millions of visitors. The site has over 40,000 registered members and serves almost 2000 daily visitors. Community features include discussion groups, buyer's guides and plenty of news, tutorials, content and more. About Creative Design Concepts Creative Design Concepts publishes on-line communities that make a difference. Current properties include TelephonyWorld.com, CRMdirectory.com, and TabletComputing.com. The company is planning to launch 5 more technology sites this year, creating a highly active community of over 300,000 members. For more info contact Don Panek at donp@cdconline.com or 732-432-0375 ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Assessing Reliability of Phone Services Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:07:19 -0800 In article , Gail M. Hall wrote: > Don't those wireless phone services need electricity from the power > companies to operate? Or do those towers have some self-contained power > supply that will continue to function if the power goes out. Just like the regular phone company, the systems operate on floating batteries with generator backup. No big deal. > I can also remember a few times when we lost phone service from our wire > line. It might be a day or two before it got fixed, but the instances > are much fewer. You don't have that problem with a wireless phone. No wires to fall down. > I haven't had a wireless phone for long enough to test it when our power > is out. So I don't know if it works or not. Of course it does. > Same with a wireless phone. My battery has to be charged after talking > on it for 2 or 3 hours. I can charge it from the automobile "cigarette > lighter" connection, and that could work if our power goes out. But > would we get a signal from the wireless service? Yes, you would. > So how are those wireless phone transmitters powered? Do they have > backup power available when disaster cuts off the electricity from the > power company? How many times do you have to ask the question? The answer is "yes" each time. Just like I have backup power at my home in the event of utility power failure. Of course, power goes off here more than anywhere else in the country, so backup power is a big thing here. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Blowing Away the Cap Date: 19 Mar 2003 02:18:32 -0500 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> Nah -- the cable companies like Cox will put them out of business due to >> bandwidth caps. Total allowed daily download is 2GB on Cox's network. >> I'm pretty sure my regular usage plus a Vonage phone would blow that >> away. POTS phones are 8KB/sec, Vonage does some compression, so let's guess 5 KB/second. That's 18MB/hour. If you're on the phone five hours a day, which is a lot for anyone, that's only 90 MB out of the 2GB quota. 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: joe@obilivan.net Subject: Re: Intuit's TurboTax at Center of Anti-Piracy Flap Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:12:49 GMT Organization: Cox Communications John Higdon wrote: >> As a CPA who has more than passing knowledge of the subject, a very >> small percentage of households are involved with more than one >> personal tax return ... presuming the couple are married. > I'm not sure how being a CPA makes you such an authority on families and > software utilization, but I can tell you that I personally know many > families that file multiple returns. Only have more than passing knowledge about tax returns. Did I imply that I am an expert on how families use software? My knowledge is based on those who have accountants, enrolled agents, or tax attorneys prepare their returns. There is lots of professional literature on who does what with tax returns. ------------------------------ From: No Name Subject: Re: EarthLink Introduces Unlimited Voice Broadband Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:38:20 GMT Organization: Cox Communications On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:35:55 GMT, tonypo1@cox.net wrote: > While I'm on the subject -- apparently Cox has some capacity problems > with it's switch in this area. Frequent reports of all circuits busy and > inability to complete calls to other Cox customers have been reported. My problem (East prov) with Cox tel, is more than usual number of phone rings, no one there. Also a lot of disconnects half way through the conversation. Seems to have improved a bit since I complained to cox about my slow internet. With all my complaining, I got a total of 9 days credit. ------------------------------ From: Rich Campbell Subject: Re: Can't Find a Source For This Kind of Switch Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:51:50 GMT Simple. Get some 2 line KSU-less phones and order the second line as ground start. You will be able to answer the ringing line but not make out going calls on it. Paul A Lee wrote in message news:telecom22.352.5@telecom-digest.org... > In TELECOM Digest V22 #351, jeannot@gmavt.net (Jean Gagnon) wrote (in part): >> I am bringing a second phone line to my house. I do NOT want to change >> all my phones in the house, but I want them to automatically connect >> to any line that rings. However after a call, the system (switch) >> should always revert to the same line, because I want to make all my >> outgoing calls from the same line. > Can you run a cable pair to each phone location? > A Panasonic KX-T30810 might do the job. I have a KX-T61610 at home, and it > definitely will. > You can plug a hybrid set or a 2500 set into each station port. You > can program the system to hunt the lines for outgoing calls and/or > exclude any line(s) from outgoing calls, all with dial '9' access. You > can also program each line to ring an incoming call to any/all > available stations, or only some stations, or only one station. > You will need one KX-T display phone for programming. > The KX-T30810 and KX-T61610 won't handle caller ID internally, but > they should pass the CID data through to a caller ID phone on a > station port, as long as the call is coming in on a line that is > programmed to ring through to the station with the CID phone. > You should be able to get a used, refurbished KX-T30810 for under > $300. Add another $100 for the display phone. > Find a dealer at http://www.telecom-mart.com or http://www.thewwbn.com. > 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 Doh ... you don't want to change out all your phones. Sorry ignore my last post. You'll need a phone system that has at least 1 analog port then. Jean Gagnon wrote in message news:telecom22.351.4@telecom-digest.org: > I am bringing a second phone line to my house. I do NOT want to change > all my phones in the house, but I want them to automatically connect > to any line that rings. However after a call, the system (switch) > should always revert to the same line, because I want to make all my > outgoing calls from the same line. > The other solutions like 2-line phones, call waiting, etc ... are > unacceptable. These are my parameters. > It looks hopeless from here, but I can't believe I'm the first guy > with that problem. > Thanks, guys! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Radio Shack has some autoswitches which > serve two lines but default to a single line for outgoing calls. I > forget the part number off hand. Another solution might be to get a > 'virtual second line' from your telco (it is sometimes called > 'distinctive ringing'). Telco gives you a second line, aliased to the > first line. You have only one line for outgoing call purposes, but > incoming calls can be dialed on either number. You get a regular ring > or a ring-ring line, depending on what was dialed by the caller, so > you can detirmine what answer-phrase is appropriate. PAT] ------------------------------ From: davidoff0707@aol.com (Davidoff0707) Date: 19 Mar 2003 14:54:20 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Miniature RJ11 Jack I am looking for an ultra small miniature (micro) RJ 11 jack for a portable and size restricted application. The x-jack on PCMCIA modems looks promising, however I need some type of an analogue to that version. What can you recommend, and where can it be purchased (www, tel#, etc). Thanks in advance. -David Davidoff ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:58:59 EST From: John R. Covert Subject: GETS (and "Telco X" Customer Service) Customer Service is so bad these days at so many companies, that I do not wish to single out "Telco X" by their real name. Original email: Shouldn't [Telco X] be routing 1-710-627-GETS to its proper destination, as other carriers do? /john Reply: Dear John, Yes if you dial the number properly, then it should connect to the proper destination. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further inquiries. Sincerely, Customer Service Got me hackles up with that reply: Customer Service, You wrote: >Yes if you dial the number properly, then it should connect to the >proper destination. What do you mean by "dial the number properly"? I'm not sure whether you were trying to insult me or not. But here is what I did. I picked up the phone. I dialed 1 7 1 0 6 2 7 4 3 8 7 . Is that dialing it properly? When I call that number from my cellphone, or from other phones, I am connected to the Government Emergency Telephone System. But from my [Telco X] phone, I am not connected. I think I have dialled it properly. At this time of National Emergency, I think it is important that [Telco X] be able to complete calls to this number. I also think that you should be more careful about what you write when you answer a question from a customer. Regards/john [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: John is quite correct of course. Customer service is horrible at many telcos these days. And depending on your authority to use a/c 710 for calls during these times we are in (I do not know about John, have never made inquiry and do not wish to second- guess him) you should be able to access 710 from *any phone, anywhere, anytime*. Curious about whether or not it would work correctly from here in Independence, I tried it. It didn't even ring first. The call set up instantly, gave a slight tone, then a recorded message said 'please enter your pin'. Of course I have no PIN (they do not give them out to Usenet moderators!) so I could not go further. But it seems to work, and rather promptly at that. Thats from 620-331, Southwestern Bell, John. It seems rather shocking to me that any telco would not have that properly configured. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Skimming the Cream Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:00:06 -0800 In article , richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) wrote: > If you don't plan to use the SBC LD, just switch to NO PIC and avoid > part of the fees disguised as taxes. SBC will still hit you, but with > less. It also protects you from a visitor making LD calls without > your knowledge. The only gotcha with that is that "no PIC" cannot be "locked" against PIC change. In other words, you do run the risk of being slammed from "no carrier" to MCI as your PIC. 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: Begging pardon, John. *My* 'local' business office of Southwestern Bell in Fort Worth, Texas says that No PIC can be locked like anything else. The only hassle for me is that since the Kansas Commission allows them to charge for no PIC to make up for lost money otherwise on default dialing, they charge $4.00 per month for it here in Kansas. $4.00 per month for doing nothing, or nothing per month for doing something, and what most people do is nothing pro-active, and let their one plus go to Southwestern Bell at some outrageous amount per call-minute. Maybe telco does not allow for No PIC to be locked in California however. Makes sense to me! After all, it is TPC and their antics. PAT] ------------------------------ From: C Chambers Subject: Telecom Student Hoping for Some Assistance Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 02:26:35 GMT I am a Telecommunications student and I am wanting to put together a website for telecommunications info. I am wanting to set up something that has things from basic wiring to terms, etc. I know that there are quite a few websites out there, this is mainly a project to pass the time. I am hoping that I can get some assistance with some links that might be useful for the site. Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are welcome to take the links from our web site for your own. Just go to http://telecom-digest.org and begin copying over to your new site. From there you can click over to the page of 'useful links' and begin using them. I regard all my work on the web site and this Digest as open source, and invite you or anyone to learn from it. Obviously if you use *my exact words* and my .gifs and .jpg things I would like some credit. PAT] ------------------------------ From: CGoodlife@aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:32:12 EST Subject: Thank You I have been a subscriber and have enjoyed your newsletter for some time. I JUST read the notice at the bottom about helping to support your efforts, and will be sending a contribution out to you this week. As an aside, I am employed by Qwest Communications out of our Philadelphia sales office. Would be happy to field any specific questions about the company that come your way, as long as certain anonymity can be maintained if the questions run along "corporate", instead of service/technology lines. I only offer this as your readers seem more interested in hard facts and real application than the garbage I read in other newsletters. Thank you again for your newsletter! Chris [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are quite welcome, Chris. My idea, twenty-five years ago when I started 'Telecom Topics' then later took over TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom, was to make it possible -- and fun -- for everyone who wanted to do so to know 'everything there was to know about The Telephone Company'. When I started, there was (for all practical intents) only one Telephone Company for most people, and we have come a long ways from that point. I'll be the first to admit that I am not the finest moderator/editor to be found on Internet; there are many others who are better. Nor do I stick to 'just the facts' all the time as Jack Webb in his deadpan role as 'Sergeant Joe Friday' would admonish those he interviewed. I tend to digress a great deal these days, in part because of my brain desease which has caused much neurlogical damage and in the early days of my brain aneurysm a very distasteful -- really quite horrible -- experience I had with the 'authorities' when I was unable (like being at the tail end of a three month coma) to defend myself at all. So many of the long-time people here have accused me of 'left wing crap' and many others have accused me of 'right wing extremism' when as a matter of fact I try to be libert- arian in my beliefs and attempt to be consistent in my, well, -- digressions -- as I speak on non-telecom-related topics, such as now. So when someone like you comes along and says 'the check is in the mail' to Post Office Box 50, Independence, KS 67301-0050, or suggests that they visited the web site or used any PayPal template to make a credit card donation to 'editor@telecom-digest.org' I really feel like a few people 'out there' appreciate my efforts. I will admit however that Jon Solomon (my predecessor here years ago) probably could have made a better choice. 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. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #353 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Mar 19 23:37:21 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h2K4bKK29890; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:37:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:37:21 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200303200437.h2K4bKK29890@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 #354 TELECOM Digest Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:37:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 354 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson SAC 710 (GETS) Not Working From Some Phones/Telcos/etc (Mark J Cuccia) Re: Assessing Reliability of Phone Services (Jack Adams) Re: Assessing Reliability of Phone Services (Bob Goudreau) Re: Intuit's TurboTax at Center of Anti-Piracy Flap (John Higdon) Re: Intuit's TurboTax at Center of Anti-Piracy Flap (Larry & Wanda Finch) Siemens 8825 Call Waiting and Voicemail Features? (Rich Heimlich) Re: Can't Find a Source For This Kind of Switch (Paul A Lee) DSL Filter Question (Rich Greenberg) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:06:19 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: SAC 710 (GETS) Not Working From Some Phones/Telcos/etc Pat replied to John Covert, regarding "Telco-X" not routing to the GETS platform on 710-NCS-GETS: > John is quite correct of course. Customer service is horrible at many > telcos these days. It's not just telcos. It's any/every utility, government services, and most "private" businesses dealing with the general public as well. These days, you get LOUSY customer service at ALL of these! :( > And depending on your authority to use a/c 710 for calls during these > times we are in (I do not know about John, have never made inquiry and > do not wish to second-guess him) you should be able to access 710 from > *any phone, anywhere, anytime*. Curious about whether or not it would > work correctly from here in Independence, I tried it. It didn't even > ring first. The call set up instantly, gave a slight tone, then a > recorded message said 'please enter your pin'. Of course I have no PIN > (they do not give them out to Usenet moderators!) so I could not go > further. But it seems to work, and rather promptly at that. Thats from > 620-331, Southwestern Bell, John. It seems rather shocking to me that > any telco would not have that properly configured. Well, it all depends, considering the state of telcos these days. Even though Neustar-NANPA, Telcordia-TRA, the US Federal Government's OMNCS-GETS, and so forth have attempted to alert all segments of the telephone industry in the US, the rest-of-the-NANP, and even the rest-of-the-world, about the existance of +1-710, there will *ALWAYS* be things that (unfortunately) slip through the cracks. First, for routing to the GETS platform, and then throughout the (conterminous) US, only AT&T, MCI-Worldcom, and US-Sprint-LD have the actual "whistles and bells" of non-blocking routing and alternate routing (above and beyond what is 'normal') capabilities that is the very *purpose* of GETS. If you are inter-LATA-PIC'd to someone *other* than AT&T, MCI-Worldcom, or US-Sprint-LD, your "straight" 1+/0+ calls to 710-anything will most likely fail in that LD carrier's toll-switch translations, and you will either get some kind of recording from that LD carrier, or SS7'd back to a recording from your local telco. However, it "could" happen that this "other" LD carrier has arrangements with AT&T/MCI/Sprint to hand-over such calls to them. Where your landline phone is inter-LATA-PIC'd to someone "else", your best choice is to dial 101-0288+ for AT&T, 101-0222+ for MCI, or 101-0333+ for Sprint, before dialing 1+/0+ 710-anything. Your local telco's switch will thus route the call to AT&T/MCI/Sprint directly or via the LATA access tandem if necessary. You might be in a situation where 101-XXXX+ "CAC" dialing won't work, either for 1+ (and 011+) sent-paid type calls only, or for ALL calls. Or you might be in a situation where 710 doesn't work. GETS has three "carrier specific" 800/888 type numbers, one is for AT&T, one is for MCI, the third for Sprint, which more-or-less do the same thing that dialing 1-710-NCS-GETS does. Wireless carriers in the US are "supposed" to be able to handle 710 calls, and are encouraged to LEARN about it, by both industry groups (USTA, NECA, Telcordia, Neustar/NANPA, ATIS, etc.) and government/ regulatory/etc. But again, things "fall thru the cracks". In some cases, it isn't that the wireless carrier doesn't have 710 loaded into the MTSO translations ... it's that you frequently can't dial 101-XXXX+ on most wireless these days (at least not for 1+/011+ type calls, and maybe not even for 0+/01+ type calls as well). And if your wireless carrier doesn't route to AT&T/MCI/ Sprint for inter-LATA, and doesn't have special translations to specifically route 710 to AT&T or MCI or Sprint, then most likely you are unfortuantely 'SOL' on trying to reach any 710 number. The US Fed Govt's OMNCS-GETS organization *IS* aware of such situations. Then there are CLECs, as well as small independent telcos ... they may or may not really know about 710 or how to properly hand the call over to AT&T/MCI/Sprint. OMNCS-GETS in VA/DC *IS* aware of such, and is trying to use industry support groups alert all segments of the telco industry about 710. There are COCOT payphones as well. And we all know how customer UN-friendly these can be. These days, since COCOT owners are able to register through clearinghouses to get their "pound of flesh" on 800/etc. and 0+ special billed calls placed from their phones (i.e., billed to card, billed collect which really includes 800/888/etc, billed 3rd pty, and such), more and more (though still not all) COCOTs are recognizing 888, 877, and 866 (and even future but not yet in service 855, 844, 833, 822) toll free SACs and as coin-FREE to the calling end-user. The Fed. Govt's OMNCS-GETS and the payphone industry groups are trying to alert the COCOT "industry" that 1+ calls to 710 are *FREE*, should be routed to AT&T/MCI/Sprint despite what the chips have as default, or what the default PIC is, and that the COCOT owner will get "compensation" for the "use of 'their' phone". In other words, 1+ to 710 (at least for 1-710-NCS-GETS) is to be treated JUST like 800/888/877/etc. And then there are PBXes. 1+ calls to 710 (at least 710-NCS-GETS) are supposed to be FREE. I know that our PBX here at work, for toll-calls billed to company toll codes, does NOT 'block' NPA codes dialed up front anymore, except for 900. I can dial 9+1+ten-digits (NXX-NXX-xxxx), and if the NPA-NXX office code is truly LOCAL or FREE (including 800-NXX, 888-NXX, etc), then the call goes thru. If the NPA-NXX code is toll, or not yet assigned, then I am returned a "stutter dialtone" from the PBX to key in my company-toll-auth-code. If I were to use 900-NXX, I get a re-order (fast busy) right away after 9-1-900-nxx-xxxx. I tried 9-1-710-NCS-GETS, and instead of routing to the GETS platform, or else routing to the vacant code recording of the non-AT&T/MCI/Sprint toll carrier our PBX defaults directly to, I got a stutter dialtone for me to enter my company toll-code (NOT a "GETS" auth code though). I didn't key in my toll-code, but why should I if our PBX is SUPPOSED to treat (9)-1-710-NCS-GETS as "FREE". And even if I did key in my toll auth code, would I even get to the GETS "platform" anyhow? I tend to doubt it. And, I am unable to use 101-XXXX+ "CAC" codes to force the call to AT&T/MCI/ Sprint. AND ... then there's Canada! When the GETS concept was first being impelemented in the mid-1990s, the (at the time) Bellcore NANPA "Information Letter" explained that all telcos and providers in the US and Canada were to open up 710 as a valid (and free) special area code in switch translations. I know that in discussions here in the Digest in Feb/March 1996, there was an ongoing thread about 710-NCS-GETS, and several from *overseas* countries posted things about trying +1-710-NCS-GETS and getting through to either a live "GETS assistance operator", or else the automated GETS platform! Thus, I would have expected Canada, our "good neighbor" to the north, and integral part of the NANP (even moreso than the NANP-Caribbean!), would have simply opened up SAC 710 in the local central offices as well as in the toll switches, and routed calls southbound to AT&T/MCI/or Sprint. Of course, I could "understand" that many wireless carriers, most CLECs, and a lot of new generation payphones, as well as smaller or mid-size Canadian competitive LD carriers, might not know about 710, or not route it properly. Well only recently, I found out from my friends in Toronto, that Bell Canada (incumbent) LEC landline central offices reject dialing 1+/0+ calls to 710. However, one of my Toronto friends also has a second line with Sprint-Canada (Call-Net) CLEC (of course PIC'd to Sprint-Canada-CLEC) has no problem reaching 1+710-NCS-GETS. The call is routed to the GETS tone/platform! From the CLEC and competitive Canadian LD carrier! I inquired as to WHY SAC 710 (after over eight years and especially since 9/11/2001) is being blocked at most (if not all) Bell and Telus local c.o.switches! (although it works from Sprint-Canada-CLEC landlines in Toronto ON). I was told that in 1994, when the US Fed Govt's OMNCS-GETS organization was implementing GETS, they wanted the Canadian telco industry to be "fully integrated" into all of the GETS "whistles and bells" of "extra-ordinary alternate and non-blocking routing and call completion", just like US-based AT&T/MCI/Sprint would be doing. HOWEVER, there would be little-to-no-compensation to the Canadian telco industry for their work and involvement in such a project!!! (I have *NO* idea as to if/how the US telco industry has been compensated for the actual implementation and call routing procedures of GETS, though... but I do know that calls to 710 are handled "like" 800/888/etc. type calls, so carriers do get revenue and COCOT owners are also compensated for allowing such calls, "as if" it were just like 800/888/etc. from "their" phones or networks). Since the Canadian telco industry was not going to be reimbersed for their (requested/demanded) "integral" part of all (US-based) GETS 'whistles and bells' special alternate routings, they more or less told the GETS group to "forget it", that they weren't 'required' to open up the 710 SAC in their networks at all! Now since 9/11/2001, both the US Fed Govt OMNCS-GETS and the Canadian telco industry (and Canadian Govt/regulatory) are beginning to come to a compromise. It could be that 710 will be opened up in "all" Canadian telco switches and tandems, but the "full GETS integration" of extra- ordinary routings (as practised in the US) will not be implemented. Rather, it will be handled more like "POTS" calls, or how 710 (and POTS) calls from OVERSEAS are routed to the US... simply *RECOGNIZE* (+1)-710- and route the call southbound to the US from Canada, similar to how most overseas foreign countries route +1-710- to US Gateways. There are still issues to be hammered out, such as compensation for per-call rates (a-la- 800/888/etc.) for both carriers/networks/telcos, AND payphone owners (COCOTS now exist in Canada too, for several years now), special routings/translations to "force" the call southbound, but ONLY to AT&T/MCI/Sprint (since Canada can also send southbound traffic to Qwest, Global Crossing, etc, who don't have GETS capabilities), and such. Also, since there *ARE* three Carrier-specific 800/888 type numbers to reach the GETS platform (one toll-free nmbr for AT&T, one for Sprint, one for MCI) that work throughout the US *AND* work originating from Canada, there might be some in the Canadian telco industry who question WHY there also needs to be this 'unique' 710 code and 710-NCS-GETS number to reach the GETS platform ... Maybe the 710-NCS-GETS number has special treatments WITHIN the LEC and initial set-up routing TO the GETS platform, which an 800/888 type number might not have... of course, once one reaches the GETS platform and has keyed in (or quoted to a live GETS opr) their GETS account number, routing FROM the platform throughout the (conterminous) US will ahve the special treatments ... Anyhow ... while we would *EXPECT* that 710 (or at least 710-NCS-GETS) to be available from 99.9% of phones in the US (and Canada), there are ALWAYS going to be obstacles of one kind or another, due to the competitive and lackadaisical, or just CONFUSED nature of today's telco industry, especially when it comes to CLECs, wireless, PBXes, payphones, small town and rural independents, etc. and possibly even larger BOC and independent incumbent LECs/telcos! :( At least there are those three specific carrier-specific 800/888 type numbers, dialable from throughout both the US *AND* Canada, to reach the GETS platform, in case one is unable to dial 1+710-NCS-GETS, which MOST "unusual" or "nonstandard" origination situations SHOULD be able to handle. (I tend to doubt that OMNCS-GETS would want GETS to be available from a prison-inmate payphone! Most do NOT allow access to 800/888/etc and I doubt any would allow 1+ calling to SAC 710! :-) Mark J. Cuccia mcuccia@tulane.edu New Orleans LA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mark, in your (as usual) good and very encyclopedic reply to John above, you neglected to account for the former 809 area and all those places. What happens there, any ideas? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jack Adams Subject: Re: Assessing Reliability of Phone Services Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:57:09 -0500 Organization: Lucent Technologies Gail M. Hall wrote in message news:telecom22.352.11@telecom-digest.org: -----8======== > So how are those wireless phone transmitters powered? Do they have > backup power available when disaster cuts off the electricity from the > power company? > Gail in Ohio USA Base Stations (Those little CEV (controlled environment vault) huts you see near the towers) for Cellular Systems provide the RAN (Radio Access Network) that makes your cellular phone mobile. Most of the base stations that I have seen are all provided with battery backup capability that typically will run the base station for quite a while (Typically engineered for 8 hours on battery). Your cellular phone will continue to work during all but the most prolonged of commercial power outages. In fact, during very long power outages, mobile power (telco trucks) are used on these remotes (including wireline remote switching modules and DSL terminals) to recharge the batteries during sustained (multi day) power outages that can occur during these disasters. Of course your normal (Central Office powered) telephone will continue to operate since the source of its power is backed up by sophisticated diesel or gas turbine (newer) powered generators. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:22:07 PST From: Bob Goudreau Reply-To: BobGoudreau@nc.rr.com Subject: Re: Assessing Reliability of Phone Services John Higdon wrote: > In article , Gail M. Hall wrote: >> Don't those wireless phone services need electricity from the power >> companies to operate? Or do those towers have some self-contained power >> supply that will continue to function if the power goes out. > Just like the regular phone company, the systems operate on floating > batteries with generator backup. No big deal. No big deal ... until the batteries and/or generator conk out. We had a major ice storm here in central North Carolina in December. Some of the hardest-hit customers were without power for a week. Fortunately, my home was down for only 23 hours, though many surrounding neighborhoods were down even longer due to overhead (vs. underground) power lines. When the power in my neighborhood went down that morning, I immediately checked my wireless service (Sprint PCS). At first, all was well; the usual 5 bars of antenna strength. But about three hours later, service suddenly ceased -- no signal at all, even the analog (AMPS) fallback. My presumption is that the delayed Sprint outage corresponded with the loss of power to their nearby cell sites, followed eventually by exhaustion of battery or generator fuel. We (and zillions of other people) quickly gravitated to the limited areas of the metro region that still had power (or quickly got it back) later that day, and I observed that my service was fine in those places. (I kept calling our wireline home phone to see if the answering machine would pick up in order to test if power had been restored). After a dark and chilly night spent at home, power returned the next morning. Not long after, so did my Sprint signal and service. My BellSouth wireline was functional the entire time, thanks to the fact that I live in a neighborhood with buried utility lines. Other people weren't always so lucky; ice-laden trees can bring down overhead phone lines as well as electricity lines. (Of course, the unluckiest folks are the ones who live in neighborhoods with overhead sewage lines; those *really* cause a mess when they fall down :-)). Bob Goudreau Cary, NC ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Intuit's TurboTax at Center of Anti-Piracy Flap Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:29:42 -0800 In article , joe@obilivan.net wrote: > Only have more than passing knowledge about tax returns. Did I imply > that I am an expert on how families use software? You are the one who introduced the claim about being a CPA. If you did not intend it to be a statement of authority regarding the topic at hand (software and its use by licensees), the intent was not obvious. > My knowledge is based on those who have accountants, enrolled agents, > or tax attorneys prepare their returns. There is lots of professional > literature on who does what with tax returns. Obviously, my personal observation is at odds with those theories. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Larry & Wanda Finch Subject: Re: Intuit's TurboTax at Center of Anti-Piracy Flap Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:22:51 GMT joe@obilivan.net wrote: > Michael D. Sullivan wrote: >> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:50:48 -0500, Monty Solomon posted the following >> to comp.dcom.telecom: >>> According to Intuit, the Internal Revenue Service said it received >>> 15 million tax returns prepared with desktop versions of TurboTax >>> during the 2001 tax filing season. Meanwhile, Intuit sold 5.5 million >>> desktop copies of TurboTax. >> The conclusion that they are being ripped off by 2/3 of the return >> filers is BS. A paying user of a single licensed copy of TurboTax can >> file multiple returns. For example, husband and wife filing separate >> returns, instead of jointly, and also filing returns for children over >> 13. One can also use TurboTax to prepare your aged parents' return, >> your dumb brother's, etc. You can't use the standard version to >> prepare returns for others commercially. In other words, it is >> entirely to be expected that considerably more returns would be filed >> with TT than the number of copies licensed or "sold." That's not to >> deny that there undoubtedly is piracy, but it's not 2/3 by a long >> shot. > I think your logic is more likely in the "BS" category than their's. > A vast majority of people who use TurboTax prepare one federal return > per software license. > As a CPA who has more than passing knowledge of the subject, a very > small percentage of households are involved with more than one > personal tax return ... presuming the couple are married. If there > are unrelated persons in the household, then there is often more than > one return per household. But, does the TurboTax software license > permit multiple returns on one copy of the software in such > circumstances? I seriously doubt that only a small percentage are involved with one return. My children all have UTMA/UGMA accounts; that means 3 returns (1 joint, 2 for the kids). I suspect that most married Turbotax users face similar situations; folks who don't have enough money to shelter money for their kids are unlikely to use (or need) a tax program. Larry Finch N 40° 53' 47" W 74° 03' 56" ------------------------------ From: Rich Heimlich Subject: Siemens 8825 Call Waiting and Voicemail Features? Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:47:31 -0500 Reply-To: agrajag@comcast.net I JUST bought the Siemens 8825 system after trying to replace my 18 year-old DuoFone that was just fine but lacked new features. I tried AT&T and GE and both were a fiasco of crap. I probably should have researched longer as I could find no middle ground between $80 2-line phones and $300 2-lines phones like this one. Anyway, I'm setting things up a couple of items are coming to mind: First, I'm with Verizon in NJ and we have Caller-ID and Call Waiting/Caller-ID, etc. The manual mentions this whole option of Advanced Call Waiting features like Send to Voicemail, Call Back, Please Hold and 3 Way Call. These sound like features from the phone company but the manual isn't clear. I can't see how the phone can provide such features and a call to Verizon has gotten a "Huh?" reply. Anyone know if these are out of reach to me? Second, I have voicemail with Verizon (it comes with their new Freedom flat-rate plan) and like it. I have gotten the phone to work with it by disabling the voicemail in the phone but have I acted too quickly? Does typical phone system voicemail exceed what I get with this or should I tell the phone company to just enable it in case the phone is busy and use the phones voicemail? Third, I can set a speed dial number to the Mail button for Verizon voicemail. Can I also insert a pause in that and then send my passcode? Lastly, the cordless satellite phone is pretty much extra for me. I really just wanted a SOLID home business-level phone but I'm wondering if I can just sit this next to the base and, if I'm on a call and need to move around, quickly switch over and start walking around or is it more convoluted than that? *** RTH *** [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Generally those 'advanced features' you talked about are set up sort of like speed dialing numbers to the various telco features. For instance, I had a two phones like that once, and one of the buttons was 'do not disturb'. In setting up the phones and programming I found out that meant I could _dial_ *70 before a call and telco would suspend call-waiting (return a busy to a caller or forward them direct to voice mail). The object of this 'do not disturb' button was to speed dial *70 first. So I could go off hook, press the 'do not disturb' button then dial the remainder of the dialing string. I also had a button called 'check voice mail' and it was programmable (by me) with the number I dialed to reach voice mail. I think you may find all those buttons do is function as speed dials for whatever you would otherwise dial to use the telco feature. 'Call Back' I *think* refers to speed dialing *66 or *69 or whatever number telco assigns to have you call back to the last person who called you (which is all telco stores in its scratchpad memory anyway). PAT] ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Can't Find a Source For This Kind of Switch Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:13:47 -0500 In TELECOM Digest V22 #352, I wrote (in part): > In TELECOM Digest V22 #351, jeannot@gmavt.net (Jean Gagnon) wrote > (in part): >> I am bringing a second phone line to my house. I do NOT want >> to change all my phones in the house, but I want them to >> automatically connect to any line that rings. However after a >> call, the system (switch) should always revert to the same line, >> because I want to make all my outgoing calls from the same line. ... > A Panasonic KX-T30810 might do the job. I have a KX-T61610 at > home, and it definitely will. To which our esteemed editor noted (in part): > Why wouldn't distinctive ringing from telco do the same job a lot > cheaper, with no cables to run or special phones to buy? ... > People could dial in on either number and the ringing cadence would > tell him which line they were on. Because Jean specifically stated, "I do NOT want to change all my phones in the house, but I want them to automatically connect to any line that rings." And, maybe he's fortunate enough to have home runs or enough prewire pairs to his current phones. On the KX-T, you can use whatever kind of "standard" [2500] set (except the _one_ KX-T hybrid phone required for programming) on _any_ of the station ports. And, you can program each of the lines ("trunks") to ring at any (idle) station(s) and answer the call that is ringing in at a station, because the call will "automatically connect" when the ringing station station is answered. Only some two-line phones will do that. On others, you have to key up the ringing line. There are undoubtedly several ways to accomplish what Jean is looking to do. I simply presented one alternative that, based on personal, daily experience over time, would do just as he asked. 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: Your solution certainly was a good one if Jean already has two (or more) *lines* into his house. I was thinking more in terms of a person having *one line* but several phones in his house. Either way would work, I guess. PAT] ------------------------------ From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: DSL Filter Question Date: 19 Mar 2003 20:40:34 -0500 Organization: Organized? Me? I am installing DSL and have a question that thier "help" desk wasn't sure of. This guy didn't even seem to know what a 2 line jack was. I am not sure if I can use the filters I was sent. The EXCELSUS Z-BLOCKER model Z-D25OP2J is marked as being a "Dual DSL filter". Its a small box with a short wire with a modular plug on one end, and 2 modular jacks on the other end, one marked for a phone, and the other for the DSL modem. Does this mean it contains 2 filters and will filter both line 1 and line 2 of a 2 line jack, or is the "dual" just that it has 2 jacks, one filtered and one not, and the filter is on line 1? If only one line is filtered, can I get a similar filter that filters line 2? My DSL is on line 2 of a 2 line jack. Is it possible to get a filter with wire pigtails that I can mount inside the wall box? I do not see such filters listed. If available, I would like to buy 2-3 such filters. I am going to replace the wall jack with a dual jack. One will be wired line1+line2, and the other will have line 2 only, wired to the line 1 position. This will let me connect the DSL modem, which insists on being a line 1 device. I will use the inline filters for 2 other 2 line devices. 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 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You NEVER want to put a filter on the line used for the modem/DSL. On the other hand you always want to filter everything else downstream on the same line such as phones or answering machines, etc. A filter on the DSL line with slow you down to a very slow speed. Other phones anywhere on the same pair must be filtered in order to make them usable at all. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 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. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #354 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Mar 20 00:56:38 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h2K5ubp01218; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:56:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:56:38 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200303200556.h2K5ubp01218@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 #355 TELECOM Digest Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:57:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 355 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Federal Agencies Lax With SSNs (Monty Solomon) GPS Satellite Network Goes to War (Monty Solomon) Surveillance Nation (Monty Solomon) Three Wireless Flavors In One (Eric Friedebach) Miscellaneous Pat-isms (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Malignant Text Ambushes Europe Cell Phones (Dave Garland) Re: Assessing Reliability of Phone Service (tonypo1@cox.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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:59:58 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Federal Agencies Lax With SSNs http://www.politechbot.com/p-04561.html Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:35:41 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh Subject: FC: Privacy villain of the week: Federal agencies lax with SSNs Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:57:39 -0500 From: J Plummer Subject: NCP: Privacy Villain of the Week: Federal Agencies Lax with SSNs Privacy Villain of the Week: Federal Agencies Lax with SSNs A report out this month reveals something shocking but sadly not altogether unexpected - federal agencies are incredibly lax when it comes to protecting the integrity of your Social Security numbers. The report was requested by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and issued by the Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General(OIG), after being compiled by the OIGs of 15 different federal agencies. The findings were shocking: = All but one of the 15 agencies participating in the study lacked adequate security controls over private contractors' access to and use of SSNs. = One agency had allowed contractor employees access to its database, including SSNs, before their background checks were completed. = Another didn't ensure contractors couldn't access databases after they stopped working for the agency. = Private contractors keeping personal identification information in unlocked cabinets, in storage rooms, and on desktops after working hours. = One agency didn't even know exactly which contractors had access to SSNs. = Nine agencies had inadequate controls over SSNs stored on computers. = Two federal agencies even had poor controls over non-Government and/or non-contractor access to SSNs. The lessons to be drawn from this debacle are eveident. Federal agencies have no financial incentive to respect the privacy of citizens -- their continued existence and growing budgets are virtually assured. At least when a business treats sensitive consumer data so shoddily, they face the prospect of consumer backlash and attendant financial hurt or ruin. Efforts should be made to bar the federal government from using the SSN as an identifier for anything but Social Security accounts. (At least one such effort is underway in the Congress right now. And perhaps even more importantly, efforts such as those by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators to create mandatory government databases of fingerprints or other biometric identifiers should be resisted. Such databases would retain all the problems we see now with loss of privacy and identity fraud, with the potential for even more ruinous consequences, such as faked fingerprints planted at a crime scene. The revealing report of the IG shows that trusting the government to protect your privacy is a fool's game. And the negligent agencies have revealed themselves as Privacy Villains. By James Plummer The Privacy Villain of the Week and Privacy Hero of the Month are projects of the National Consumer Coalition's Privacy Group. Privacy Villain audio features now available from FCF News on Demand. For more information on the NCC Privacy Group, see www.nccprivacy.org or contact James Plummer at 202-467-5809 or via email. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:20:41 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: GPS Satellite Network Goes to War By Alan Boyle MSNBC March 19 - The Global Positioning System started out decades ago as a satellite-based network for military location and navigation, but in the past few years it's spawned a host of civilian applications - including high-tech direction-finders for automobiles and hikers. Now GPS is going to war again, raising questions about what happens on the homefront. ... http://www.msnbc.com/news/887551.asp ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Surveillance Nation Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:30:58 -0500 Webcams, tracking devices, and interlinked databases are leading to the elimination of unmonitored public space. Are we prepared for the consequences of the intelligence-gathering network we're unintentionally building? By Dan Farmer and Charles C. Mann April 2003 Route 9 is an old two-lane highway that cuts across Massachusetts from Boston in the east to Pittsfield in the west. Near the small city of Northampton, the highway crosses the wide Connecticut River. The Calvin Coolidge Memorial Bridge, named after the president who once served as Northampton's mayor, is a major regional traffic link. When the state began a long-delayed and still-ongoing reconstruction of the bridge in the summer of 2001, traffic jams stretched for kilometers into the bucolic New England countryside. In a project aimed at alleviating drivers' frustration, the University of Massachusetts Transportation Center, located in nearby Amherst, installed eight shoe-size digital surveillance cameras along the roads leading to the bridge. Six are mounted on utility poles and the roofs of local businesses. Made by Axis Communications in Sweden, they are connected to dial-up modems and transmit images of the roadway before them to a Web page, which commuters can check for congestion before tackling the road. According to Dan Dulaski, the system's technical manager, running the entire webcam system-power, phone, and Internet fees-costs just $600 a month. The other two cameras in the Coolidge Bridge project are a little less routine. Built by Computer Recognition Systems in Wokingham, England, with high-quality lenses and fast shutter speeds (1/10,000 second), they are designed to photograph every car and truck that passes by. Located eight kilometers apart, at the ends of the zone of maximum traffic congestion, the two cameras send vehicle images to attached computers, which use special character-recognition software to decipher vehicle license plates. The license data go to a server at the company's U.S. office in Cambridge, MA, about 130 kilometers away. As each license plate passes the second camera, the server ascertains the time difference between the two readings. The average of the travel durations of all successfully matched vehicles defines the likely travel time for crossing the bridge at any given moment, and that information is posted on the traffic watch Web page. To local residents, the traffic data are helpful, even vital: police use the information to plan emergency routes. But as the computers calculate traffic flow, they are also making a record of all cars that cross the bridge-when they do so, their average speed, and (depending on lighting and weather conditions) how many people are in each car. ... http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/farmer0403.asp [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just as an example, a software program I have here called 'WebCam Watcher' offers in excess of two thousand cameras in various parts of the world which you can view with a click of a mouse. Add your own cams to the total repertoire if you wish. That two thousand mentioned above are the non-pornographic ones, things like busy street intersections (four alone at Times Square in New York), a few in the Los Angeles area including Santa Monica pier, etc. Cams are all over the place for you to look at. If you want the pornographic ones, then WebCam watcher offers a few thousand of those also. I have previously mentioned http://www.cameraware.com which is 99.44 percent pure porn, with thousands of cameras running online at one time and I have already mentioned the Porn Worm Harvestor (http://thumbgal.com) which gladly works its way around the net gathering up all the porn camera images it can find, etc. It would indeed seem that cameras are where the action is at this year, as Monty mentions. With all three of these, WebCam Watcher, Cameraware and the porn worm harvestor you could not possibly begin to see all the cam images available just on the net alone. And cameras are cheap: fifty dollars gets you a rather decent little thing which plugs right in to modern computers which recognize them immediatly and eagerly set them up for you to use, without any hassle (or very few hassles) at all. KABcam is a nice little easy to install/use bit of software to run at your own site. Everyone, it seems, is getting into cameras. Good idea or bad? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Eric Friedebach Subject: Three Wireless Flavors In One Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:56:17 -0600 Organization: Purity Of Essence/Plant Operational Error Reply-To: Eric Friedebach Arik Hesseldahl, 03.19.03, Forbes.com NEW YORK - With all the wireless devices on the market, there still isn't one that is flexible enough to work in all the wireless environments you might find yourself in. Such a device would not only be a mobile phone that could travel anywhere in the world, but it would also manage all your personal data like a PDA, work on Wi-Fi wireless networks for Internet access and also be able to connect to other devices as needed via Bluetooth. It's possible to combine all three types of wireless connectivity into a single device, but usually it means buying a device that is both a phone and a PDA with Bluetooth, then adding a Wi-Fi card. Chipmaker Texas Instruments says it has built up a chipset that would form the basis of just such a handheld, and it has been showing off a concept device it calls WANDA at the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet trade show in New Orleans this week. http://www.forbes.com/2003/03/19/cx_ah_0319tentech.html Eric Friedebach ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:28:35 -0700 Subject: Miscellaneous Pat-isms Reply-To: joey@telussucks.info On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:40:20 EST, editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This sounds to me a lot like a > condition which used to (still does? I don't think so) occur on > computers with email. Someone could send you a piece of email with > certain words in the text, quoted a certain way, and it would cause > your computer to do some ugly things. This was back in the 'early > days' of computer hacking, and sending text from one computer to > another, either telnetting or otherwise connecting from one computer > to a 'socket' or 'port' on another computer over the net would cause > this to happen if certain strings of words were transmitted and quoted > a certain way. Whatever took place exactly is way in my distant > memory. I dislike sounding so vague on this but I just do not remember > details. I guess it had never occurred to the computer experts that > such a thing would happen, which is how people took advantage of > it. It was one of those 'security through obscurity' things which used > to be how computers and the internet operated many years ago. PAT] I'll use this to segue to another FidoNet bit of fun: the "mail bomb". When setting up your "mailer" (most FidoNet-style bulletin boards used a separate "front end" for actually exchanging mail -- if a user called in, the "front end" would exit to an errorlevel, and your batchfile would trap that errorlevel, load the BBS, and allow the user to login), you could easily configure it however you liked -- any sysop name, any BBS name, any node number. There was also no caller-ID back in those days, so a prankster could easily masquerade as anybody else, or simply pick an unused node number and start sending mail to people. Later, they added a few security features, like passwords and a database dip to the nodelist, but even those folks running more-advanced software like that frequently did not implement these extra features. Now, tie that in with what somebody else (sorry, forgot who it was) said about compressed mail. By default, there were only two "standard" ways of transmitting mail (be it "netmail" or "echomail"), and that was either in plain text, or compressed with the "ARC" archiver. HOWEVER, if any two sysops wished to use another compression program, for mail between those two systems, they were free to do so. Indeed, when I was playing Net Echo Coordinator, I made sure my system could send and receive all the various compression formats ... ARC, ARJ, ZOO, LZH, LHA, RAR, and that danged upstart ZIP. :-) There were freely-available programs that you could run instead of ARC, which would "sniff" the file you were unpacking (the suffix wouldn't tell you, because the suffix was always two letters and a number, with the letters being the first two letters of the current day of the week), then call the correct program to perform the decompression. The RAR archiver is what really made mailbombs practical and effective. :-) It introduced something called "solid mode", which basically means that if you have a whole whack of ".txt" files and you compress them together, RAR will treat the entire pile of ".txt" files as one big ".txt" file. That just refers to how it handles things internally - to the user, they're still separate files. But it made a big difference in how well RAR could compress data. Now, putting these two ideas together ... You could create a 100 kilobyte netmail message, addressed to some sysop you didn't like, filled with nothing but "space" characters. Then you duplicate this message thousands of times, to the point where unpacking them will cost about 100 megabytes of disk space. Back then, hardly ANYBODY had that much disk space. :-) You compress 'em all up with RAR. RAR compresses the first file down to 1 or 2 kilobytes, max. RAR then realizes that each of the other files are EXACT DUPLICATES of the first file, and then DOES NOT STORE the additional files. It just stores a "pointer" back to the first file. Result: you can transmit, in 2K, a "mail bomb" that will cripple most of the bulletin boards of that era. Once those systems ran out of space, things would screw up big-time. :-) As Ed Whalen, host of the world famous "Stampede Wrestling" used to say, it would be "a malfunction at the junction". :-) Now, *I* never did anything this nasty to anybody, but I know folks that did ... :-) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: John is quite correct of course. Customer > service is horrible at many telcos these days. And depending on your > authority to use a/c 710 for calls during these times we are in (I do > not know about John, have never made inquiry and do not wish to second- > guess him) you should be able to access 710 from *any phone, anywhere, > anytime*. Curious about whether or not it would work correctly from here > in Independence, I tried it. It didn't even ring first. The call set > up instantly, gave a slight tone, then a recorded message said 'please > enter your pin'. Of course I have no PIN (they do not give them out to > Usenet moderators!) so I could not go further. But it seems to work, > and rather promptly at that. Thats from 620-331, Southwestern Bell, John. > It seems rather shocking to me that any telco would not have that > properly configured. PAT] I tried it from my line at the office here in Calgary, AB, Canada. Using dialtone provided by CLEC Sprint Canada, also Sprint Canada LD service. I never heard a ringtone - what I heard was a soft beep, then silence, then a recorded announcement saying "please stay on the line, an operator will be with you shortly". I'm surprised it went through at all from Canada. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Begging pardon, John. *My* 'local' > business office of Southwestern Bell in Fort Worth, Texas says that No > PIC can be locked like anything else. The only hassle for me is that > since the Kansas Commission allows them to charge for no PIC to make > up for lost money otherwise on default dialing, they charge $4.00 per > month for it here in Kansas. $4.00 per month for doing nothing, or > nothing per month for doing something, and what most people do is > nothing pro-active, and let their one plus go to Southwestern Bell at > some outrageous amount per call-minute. Maybe telco does not allow for > No PIC to be locked in California however. Makes sense to me! After > all, it is TPC and their antics. PAT] I've recently gone off Sprint Canada as my local dialtone provider, at least for my home line (they're pretty good for business lines though). They advertise themselves as being cheaper than the ILEC, and they are ... marginally ... but they also now charge a $2.95 "System Access Fee", which makes them MORE expensive than Telus. In an effort to avoid this fee, I switched to another LD carrier. The fee did not disappear. I called them to complain, and they said they'd be happy to get rid of the fee ... but cautioned me that my "low basic rate" was conditional upon also having Sprint Canada as my LD carrier, and that if I removed it, my "low basic rate" would go up by a whopping $10 per month. Complete rip-off, and false advertising to boot. Telus also charges a $2.95 fee but (and I really hate defending these people, given my email address and all) it's only there if you've got their LD service, and if you choose to switch to another provider *OR* select no carrier, the fee comes off. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are quite welcome, Chris. My idea, > twenty-five years ago when I started 'Telecom Topics' then later took > over TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom, was to make it possible -- > and fun -- for everyone who wanted to do so to know 'everything there > was to know about The Telephone Company'. When I started, there was > (for all practical intents) only one Telephone Company for most people, > and we have come a long ways from that point. I'll be the first to > admit that I am not the finest moderator/editor to be found on Internet; > there are many others who are better. Yeah, there are. :-) Seriously, there's *ALWAYS* somebody "better", but the question is: "are you good enough?", and the answer is "yes, quite". > Nor do I stick to 'just the facts' all the time as Jack Webb in his > deadpan role as 'Sergeant Joe Friday' would admonish those he > interviewed. BTW, have you seen the new "Dragnet", starring Ed "Al Bundy" O'Neill as Friday? It's actually VERY good, but a LOT more graphic than Jack Webb's shows (either one of 'em) ever were. -- Joey Lindstrom -- Telus Sucks http://www.telussucks.info [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I hardly ever watch television, so no, I have not seen it. Now and again I watch 'TVLand' and its old re-runs of Barney Miller, 'I Love Lucy', and 'The Brady Bunch' but that's about all. Time-Warner sold out the local system to Cable One as of January 1, but the same two people (a woman and her husband) run it that used to work for Time-Warner. They're in the same building downtown where it always was; they just painted a new sign on the front door. The woman works in the office; her husband drives around town in a newly repainted truck repairing the wires, etc. When he drives down my street, he still looks very suspiciously at my DISH antenna, but after the time when he pulled up and and told me he would give me three months for free of premium HBO shows, etc if I would sign a form authorizing his son to climb on my roof and take away the DISH stuff, he has had nothing more to say except the day during the winter when ice and strong winds got my cable line mixed up in a tree branch in my back yard and he had to get it all untangled. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Malignant Text Ambushes Europe Cell Phones Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:00:44 -0600 Organization: Wizard Information It was a dark and stormy night when Pat wrote: > This sounds to me a lot like a > condition which used to (still does? I don't think so) occur on > computers with email. Someone could send you a piece of email with > certain words in the text, quoted a certain way And still does, with some html-enabled mail programs. In the old days, a (fairly harmless) equivalent was to tell the BBS caller that he could activate the secret sysop menu by typing +++ATH (doing so would cause his modem to think it had received a command to hang up). [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh yes, the old +++ATH joke. The last time I saw that one, it was some fool on Compuserve who was telling everyone it was a 'secret way' to get the time clock to turn off. That was back when CIS customers were mostly on plans for a certain number of hours per month, etc. You bet the clock turned off ... as you were dumped from the chat group you were in. PAT ------------------------------ From: tonypo1@cox.net Subject: Re: Assessing Reliability of Phone Services Organization: The Ace Tomatoe and Cement Company Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:44:10 GMT In article , bobgoudreau@nc.rr.com says: > No big deal ... until the batteries and/or generator conk out. > We had a major ice storm here in central North Carolina in December. > Some of the hardest-hit customers were without power for a week. > Fortunately, my home was down for only 23 hours, though many surrounding > neighborhoods were down even longer due to overhead (vs. underground) > power lines. My power comes in underground, while the telephone lines are aerial. > We (and zillions of other people) quickly gravitated to the limited > areas of the metro region that still had power (or quickly got it back) > later that day, and I observed that my service was fine in those places. > (I kept calling our wireline home phone to see if the answering machine > would pick up in order to test if power had been restored). After a > dark and chilly night spent at home, power returned the next morning. > Not long after, so did my Sprint signal and service. > > My BellSouth wireline was functional the entire time, thanks to the > fact that I live in a neighborhood with buried utility lines. Other > people weren't always so lucky; ice-laden trees can bring down overhead > phone lines as well as electricity lines. (Of course, the unluckiest > folks are the ones who live in neighborhoods with overhead sewage lines; > those *really* cause a mess when they fall down :-)). My phone service ALWAYS works. Only when the outside plant guys screw up and steal my pair do I lose phone service. But power is terrible. It goes out for 5-10 hours at a stretch every couple of weeks. And it's just my block. Walking down the street you find that Narragansett Electric has decided to do maintenance. Yeah, right. I've never seen so much corrosion in a manhole. Tony ------------------------------ 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. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #355 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Mar 20 12:58:27 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h2KHwQp04620; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:58:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:58:27 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200303201758.h2KHwQp04620@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 #356 TELECOM Digest Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:58:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 356 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: SAC 710 (GETS) Not Working in Some Cases (Mark J Cuccia) American Samoa Phone Update (Mark J. Cuccia) U.S. TV Networks Jump in as War in Iraq Starts (Monty Solomon) Verizon Sets 10 Million Lines For Hi-Speed Web Upgrade (Monty Solomon) Bad Customer Service (was 710) (John David Galt) Re: Proxim Tsunami MP.11 Product Family (scott) Re: DSL Filter Question (Tom Schmidt) AT&T WS Service Getting Worse in California? (rb) Re: Screen Machine (Ray Normandeau) Re: Assessing Reliability of Phone Services (Charles Cryderman) 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, 20 Mar 2003 00:33:57 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: SAC 710 (GETS) Not Working in Some Cases Pat replied to my previous post: > reply to John above, you neglected to account for the former 809 area > and all those places. What happens there, any ideas? I have no idea ... if the (incumbent landline) telcos in the (non-US) NANP-Caribbean have done what they "should", then they have opened up NANP SAC-NPA 710 in their translations, and route the call to the US mainland via AT&T or MCI or Sprint. I would assume that the *US* parts of the NANP-Caribbean, at least the incumbent landline telcos (VeriZon-GTE-PRTel NPAs 787 now overlaid with 939; VITelco in the US Virgin Islands NPA 340), have been properly instructed by the US Government, AT&T, MCI, Sprint, and VeriZon (GTE), and possibly representative from industry forums of ATIS (INC, NIIF, etc) to program it in their switches and how to route 710 to the US mainland. Similarly, I would expect GTE-now-VeriZon Hawaiian Telco (NPA 808) to have properly loaded 710 into their switches and hand the calls over to AT&T/MCI/Sprint ... I would expect AT&T-Alascom and GCI-Alaska, as well as MOST (if not all) of the (incumbent landline) local telcos in 907 Alaska to have done the proper translations and routings with SAC 710. GTE-now-VeriZon in Saipan/Mariana Islands (NPA 670), Guam Tel Authority (NPA 671), and American Samoa Telco (Country Code +684; next year to become NPA 684 within Country Code +1/NANP) -- I would expect too that AT&T, MCI, Sprint, VeriZon (GTE/Hawaii), the US Federal Government, and possibly representative from industry forums of ATIS (INC, NIIF, etc) have instructed them to load NANP SAC-NPA 710 into translations and route it via AT&T/MCI/Sprint to the mainland US. That covers all "non-conterminous" US locations of the NANP, in the Caribbean and the Pacific ... As I mentioned in the earlier post, many "overseas/international" locations do recognize +1-710- in their networks and gateways, and route such dialed calls originating from their countries to the US, just as any other "POTS" call to +1 in the US (or even Canada) would be routed. These overseas points of origination which route +1-710 to the US do NOT form an "integral" part of GETS specialized extraordinary routings and call treatments though ... It is quite possible that not every country or country code in the world which has dial service to +1 NANP/US necessarily even recognizes +1-710 though. I don't have a list of which countries do and which do not allow calls to +1-710. I have only seen vague references to statements that "more than 100 countries worldwide" will complete dialed calls to +1-710. Whether the Dominican Republic and the various (former) British entities (Cable and Wireless) allow basic routed calls to NPA 710 all depends on prior negotiations between the island governments/telcos (C&W mostly), and the various US/NANP entities (telco and government). I don't know if the alternative "carrier specific" 800/888 numbers can be dialed as such from the (non-US) NANP Caribbean -- if not, then 1-800-USA-ATT-1 (1-800-872-2881) for AT&T-USA-Direct from the non-US NANP Caribbean will work to route to a US-mainland-based AT&T OSPS card/opr. platform. At this platform, the calling party should be able to dial (1)-710-NCS-GETS, or one of the 800/888 numbers. I don't know if Sprint and MCI's 800- dialups for Card/Opr services from overseas will allow completion to SAC 710 or any (US-based) 800/888 numbers though. The incumbent landline telco (there are CLECs and competitive wireless as well) in the Dominican Republic (retained NPA 809) is CoDeTel, a long-time subsidiary of GTE-now-VeriZon. I tend to think that GTE/VeriZon has seen to it that SAC NPA 710 works properly from their operations in the Dominican Republic. Cable and Wireless is the dominant provider in the (former) British NANP-Caribbean, basically English speaking. That would lead me to believe that (at least) C&W has opened up SAC-NPA 710 to be dialable form their NANP-Caribbean (but not US) locations. Of course, this *is* speculation. I have never seen any formal list of which countries/country-codes are presently able to dial to the NANP (US) for +1-710, and which countries and country codes still haven't. MJC ------------------------------ From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: American Samoa Phone Update Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:50:00 CST On Monday 3 March 2003, I wrote that there was a telco industry teleconference regarding American Samoa joining the NANP, changing from Country Code +684, to Area Code 684 as part of Country Code +1; i.e., +684 changes to +1-684 > It was decided that *TENTATIVELY*, American Samoa will become part of > the NANP effective Saturday 2-October-2004. This will actually start > a permissive period of dialing (for those carriers which allow dual > dialability though), where American Samoa will be dialable as *BOTH* > +684 (as it is presently) as well as optionally as +1-684 (NANP method). > Six months later, on Saturday 2-April-2005, American Samoa is supposed > to become dialed *ONLY* as a NANP location +1-684, and Telcos and LD > Carriers are "supposed" to stop routing calls to American Samoa if one > still dials as "country code" +684, and instead are supposed to begin > routing such calls dialed the old way as +684 to an "intercept" > recording of some kind, informing one that American Samoa now is > supposed to ONLY be dialed as a part of the NANP +1-684 (area code 684 > within the NANP). This "intercept" period is "supposed" to last at least > *TWO* years, ending on Monday 2-April-2007, when +684 is supposed to be > fully reclaimed by the ITU for ultimate re-assignment to another > (Pacific region) country/territory/location, if necessary. > The "test number" hasn't been determined as of now. > Neustar-NANPA is supposed to issue a Planning Letter issued regarding > this, to be issued no later than Monday 24-March-2003 at their website > under page: > http://www.nanpa.com/planning_letters/planning_letters_2003.html The test number was identified today, Thursday 20 March 2003, being: +1-684-633-0001 It is already working NOW, it *CAN* be dialed, but at this time, ONLY as +684-633-0001 (i.e., 00-684-633-0001 from "most" of the world, 01(1)-684-633-0001 from the NANP), where one is dialing a call to COUNTRY code +684, since American Samoa is not yet actually part of the NANP. It is giving an announcement that one has reached the test number for 684, American Samoa! However, it returns BILLING/ANSWER supervision! :( (more on that futher down) But this will migrate over to +1-684-633-0001, as part of the NANP, and will eventually be dialable as such when telcos and carriers both in the NANP and throughout the world, begin to open up +1-684 in their translations and routings. The official date for permissive dialing of both methods (new/ultimate +1-684 as well as old/to be obsolete +684) begins Sat-2-October-2004 (over a year from now), and mandatory dialing of the NANP-ONLY numbering/ dialing (+1-684 ONLY) is supposed to start Sat-2-April-2005, six months after permissive/parallel dialing starts. I don't know if it would have been possible for American Samoa to have activated a test number that could ONLY have been dialable as +1-684-nxx-xxxx and rejected if dialed as +684-nxx-xxxx during any time prior to mandatory use of +1-684. Yes, the recorded validation/greeting announcement on (+1)+684-633-0001 does return answer/billing supervision. But this MIGHT be because American Samoa Telecom wants to have AT&T (and possibly other carriers?) open up forward voicepath -- this announcement is on a local voicemail platform, and American Samoa Telecom probably wants one to LEAVE a msg after the announcment, as to where one is calling from, what carriers (if known) were used, etc. AT&T (and some other carriers?) usually does NOT allow forward voicepath (except in a few specific rare instances) until the distant end has returned answer/billing supervision (known as toll-fraud control, to prevent one from tone-signaling to trick the network on call connections not yet in a billing state, or to prevent one from relaying messages on such calls not yet in billing). The American Samoa Telecom announcement on (+1)+684-633-0001 is quite informative and detailed, explaining the distance/location of American Samoa in the south Pacific, w/r/t Hawaii's location, and the fact that American Samoa is the only territory south of the Equator which flies the American Flag as an American territory. More information regarding American Samoa's migration to the NANP next year, +684 changing to +1-684, can be found from NANPA's website, www.nanpa.com -- or from my earlier post to TELECOM Digest on Monday 3-March-2003. Mark J. Cuccia mccucia@tulane.edu New Orleans LA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:53:15 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: U.S. TV Networks Jump in as War in Iraq Starts By Ben Berkowitz LOS ANGELES, March 19 (Reuters) - U.S. television networks fought a battle on Wednesday night to be first with news of war as the long-awaited U.S. campaign to oust Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq began. NBC said it was first on air with Tom Brokaw broadcasting news of the first explosions at 9:32 p.m. EST, followed by former CNN Gulf War correspondent Peter Arnett on MSNBC at 9:34 p.m. CNN had preliminary reports at 9:36 p.m., while CNN and Fox both went with firmer news of the attacks at 9:39 p.m. Data for ABC and CBS was not immediately available. But CBS News anchor Dan Rather might have won the evening's medal for most colorful phrasing when he declared "Good morning Baghdad" as the sunrise bombing started. After breaking into regular programming to report the first U.S. bombing in the war, the coverage was pulled back as people realized that Wednesday's attack was not the start of the main military thrust. By 8 p.m. PST (11 p.m. EST), CBS, ABC and Fox affiliates on the West Coast had gone back to regularly scheduled programming, while NBC stayed with war coverage. The networks, which have been primed for weeks for the start of a conflict, went to a mix of footage of Baghdad and reports from correspondents embedded with military units in the field as news first trickled in around 9:30 p.m ET. Almost immediately, the networks, both broadcast and cable, began jockeying for position in the race to claim first reporting on the news of the war. "We know the president is going to come on at 10:15 (p.m. EST), so the war effectively is underway," Brokaw, anchoring NBC's covering on both the main broadcast network and cable channel MSNBC, said. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=32488248 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder how Bush would like it if some foreign power unilateraly decided that he was an 'evil dictator' and set about in the air and on the land dislodging him from power. What an immoral and insane thing Bush is doing! Bush referring to Damn Sam as an 'evil' terrorist dictator? Mister Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. The USA has plenty of room for terrorist evil dictators *they like*. I expect the Iraqi people to form an alliance with North Korea and end it all sometime soon. Goodbye, United Nations, it was nice knowing you. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:54:36 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Verizon Sets 10 Million Lines For Hi-Speed Web Upgrade NEW YORK, March 19 (Reuters) - Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE:VZ) will upgrade 10 million telephone lines to carry high-speed Internet services in suburban and rural markets, the nation's largest telephone company said on Wednesday, adding it would weigh transmitting services with fiber-optics cables and wireless technology. By the end of the year, more high-speed services will be available on 46 million lines, or 80 percent of the company's telephone lines. New technology will allow it to reach customers who live farther away from central equipment. ... - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=32483896 ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Bad Customer Service (was 710) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:47:10 -0800 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society > PAT replied to John Covert: >> John is quite correct of course. Customer service is horrible at many >> telcos these days. Mark J Cuccia wrote: > It's not just telcos. It's any/every utility, government services, and > most "private" businesses dealing with the general public as well. > These days, you get LOUSY customer service at ALL of these! :( This is important to me, too. I'd like to hear about any phone companies serving California that are exceptions; I'd switch like a shot! In particular, I hate having to wait on hold for long periods of time before I can report a problem with a company's service. I realize it is expensive and maybe impractical for them to hire enough operators to have all calls go directly to human beings; but why don't any companies at least use some of the cheap alternatives that avoid the need to hold, such as accepting voice mail or e-mail? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The reason most do not, I think, is because most people will not use them instead of holding to talk to a real person. If customers cannnot get through to a human as desired, many will just abandon the call and try again later. It may be an unrealistic expectation by folks -- to get instant or even slightly delayed -- response by a human, but that is how people are. PAT] ------------------------------ From: scott_broome@heatco.co.uk (scott) Subject: Re: Proxim Tsunami MP.11 Product Family Date: 20 Mar 2003 03:28:34 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Does anyone know where I can purchase these units in the UK?. And also has anyone any experience of using them they might like to share?. Scott Monty Solomon wrote in message news:: > Based on 802.11b and Proxim's Wireless Outdoor Router Protocol Delivering > 20-40% Faster Performance > SUNNYVALE, Calif., Feb. 18 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Proxim > Corporation (Nasdaq: PROX), a leading provider of high-performance > wireless local area networking (WLAN) and wireless wide area > networking (WWAN) products, today announced the Tsunami MP.11, a new > family of economical wireless outdoor point-to-multipoint solutions > enabling campus connectivity, security and surveillance, and > residential last-mile access. > The Tsunami MP.11 product family includes two subscriber units - > an Enterprise Subscriber Unit for businesses and a Residential > Subscriber Unit for homes. The product family also includes the > Tsunami MP.11 Base Station Unit, which can connect up to 100 > Subscriber Units of either type. > The Tsunami MP.11 base station, when paired with the Enterprise > Subscriber Unit, offers a reliable 11 Mbps solution customized for > businesses, campuses, schools, hospitals and other enterprises needing > WAN connectivity. When paired with the Residential Subscriber Unit, it > becomes the ideal residential last mile access system. The Tsunami > MP.11 products are targeted to provide value- oriented connectivity > for customers not requiring additional carrier-class features provided > by Proxim's Tsunami MP and Tsunami MP Active Interference Rejection > (A.I.R.) products. Tsunami MP.11 can be used in conjunction with > Proxim's carrier-class Tsunami point-to-point and multipoint products > that offer speeds up to 960 Mbps total capacity for large-scale > deployments. > http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-18-2003/0001892817&EDATE= ------------------------------ Reply-To: Tom Schmidt From: Tom Schmidt Subject: Re: DSL Filter Question Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:58:51 GMT Rich Greenberg wrote in message news:telecom22.354.8@telecom-digest.org: > I am installing DSL and have a question that thier "help" desk wasn't > sure of. This guy didn't even seem to know what a 2 line jack was. > I am not sure if I can use the filters I was sent. The EXCELSUS > Z-BLOCKER model Z-D25OP2J is marked as being a "Dual DSL filter". > Its a small box with a short wire with a modular plug on one end, > and 2 modular jacks on the other end, one marked for a phone, and the > other for the DSL modem. > Does this mean it contains 2 filters and will filter both line 1 and > line 2 of a 2 line jack, or is the "dual" just that it has 2 jacks, one > filtered and one not, and the filter is on line 1? If only one line is > filtered, can I get a similar filter that filters line 2? > My DSL is on line 2 of a 2 line jack. Is it possible to get a filter > with wire pigtails that I can mount inside the wall box? I do not see > such filters listed. If available, I would like to buy 2-3 such filters. > I am going to replace the wall jack with a dual jack. One will be wired > line1+line2, and the other will have line 2 only, wired to the line 1 > position. This will let me connect the DSL modem, which insists on > being a line 1 device. I will use the inline filters for 2 other 2 line > devices. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You NEVER want to put a filter on the > line used for the modem/DSL. On the other hand you always want to > filter everything else downstream on the same line such as phones or > answering machines, etc. A filter on the DSL line with slow you down > to a very slow speed. Other phones anywhere on the same pair must be > filtered in order to make them usable at all. PAT] 2-line filters are designed to address your problem where DSL is on line 2 rather then 1. I assume a 2-line filter is a pass though on line 1 and the filter is on line 2. I've never actually used on so I don't know. Another option that may be more convienient is to use a POTS/DSL splitter. This connects close to the Telco NID. It eliminates the need to install microfilters at each phone. The down side is it requires a dedicated run from the splitter to the DSL modem. http://www.corningcablesystems.com/web/library/litindex.nsf/$ALL/COP-67-EN/$ FILE/COP-67-EN.pdf /Tom ------------------------------ From: ron1200@excite.com (rb) Subject: AT&T WS Service Getting Worse in California? Date: 20 Mar 2003 06:46:37 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Is it just me, or has AT&T wireless (TDMA) service in Northern California deteriorated quite a lot in the last week or so? -Ron ------------------------------ From: rayta@msn.com (Ray Normandeau) Subject: Re: Screen Machine Date: 20 Mar 2003 06:48:57 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Joey Lindstrom wrote in message news:: > On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:44:43 -0500 (EST), Ray Normandeau wrote: >> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:03:39 PST >> From: Ray Normandeau
> Subject: Screen Machine >> DON'T NOT POST my email address. > So why didn't you post his email address, Pat? He specifically told I am a stickler for good grammar and I write for a couple of newspapers. But I do some of my proofreading after publication. Anyhow, strangely enuff, my own original message does not show up in the NG via Google. Email above invalid. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well it was posted in Usenet. I post via newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu, news.alt.net, and other sites. I examine the postings afterward via kc.sbcglobal.net, news.terraworld.net, iecc.com, and it was in all those sites. It also was in my own version of Usenet news, http://telecom-digest.org/TELECOM_Digest_Online, where the last couple months with a couple thousand messages are stored. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Charles Cryderman Subject: Re: Assessing Reliability of Phone Services Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:48:07 -0500 In TD V22 #352 Gail from Ohio asked: > Spring will soon be here, and that means T-storms, whether you mean > thunder storms or tornados. And this year brings the possibility of > terrorist attacks. Some people are going whole hog for wireless and > have converted away from wired phone service to wireless > altogether. But I am wondering about something. Don't those wireless > phone services need electricity from the power companies to operate? > Or do those towers have some self-contained power supply that will > continue to function if the power goes out. Well Dear Gail, all of these sites will have a minimum of 8 hours of battery back. They all should as well have a generator on site hooked to the UPS (uninterrupted power system). If properly managed, with a 250 gallon supply of fuel for the generator, could keep the site on the air for nearly 30 days. Back when I was stationed at the Frankfurt DCS site in the early eighties, we did some testing and analysis and found that in the event of commercial power failure we could continue to operate for about 4 weeks. This is back when the Army was still using analog radios and multiplex equipment that were very power hungry. What we did was run the batteries dang near dead. We then run on the generators until the batteries were at full power then go back on them and kill the generator. But again this all depends on the maintenance team and their attention to detail. The batteries must be checked and maintained at peak levels as well as the generator. We had one maintenance guy in Frankfurt that like to pencil-whip the readings and damn near trashed our big 250 Kw German and the Army Tactical Field generator we had on site. The local German power company had a scheduled outage and when the power went down neither system came up. Talk about having a bad day. Chip Cryderman ------------------------------ 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. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #356 ****************************** From Scott.A@sjcomms.co.uk Fri Mar 21 06:38:22 2003 Received: from mintaka.lcs.mit.edu (mintaka.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.36]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2LBcLw08601 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 06:38:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from server.nbv.ch ([81.201.194.89]) by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu (8.12.8/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h2LBc9UA067006 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 06:38:20 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from Scott.A@sjcomms.co.uk) Received: from vserv1.vsnet.com.br (SRV1 [213.29.0.20]) by server.nbv.ch with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2655.55) id G8MF48ZH; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:58:11 +0100 Message-ID: <00000b430201$00007dc5$0000687d@mx2.africaonline.co.zw> To: From: "Gina Hampton" Subject: 15 Cents Per Minute on Long Distance Conferencing 10194 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:51:01 -2000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
click here to be removed from future mailings.
Long Distance Conference C= alls
Only 15 Cents Per Min.
We offer an extr= emely easy to use conferencing service that only costs a fraction of what most companies charge. No set-up fees or contracts.
Stream Call Anyw= here Over The Web For
Only $.05 cents Per Minute.
Click Here For More Info
From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Mar 21 17:10:30 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h2LMAUV11399; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:10:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:10:30 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200303212210.h2LMAUV11399@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 #357 TELECOM Digest Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:10:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 357 Inside This Issue: Have a Happy Start of Spring! Re: DSL Filter Question (Joey Lindstrom) Re: DSL Filter Question (Rich Greenberg) Re: GETS (and "Telco X" Customer Service) (John R. Covert) Military Phones in the Gulf (Pete Romfh) Vodafone Network Solution (Wole Isaac) Cisco to Acquire Linksys for $500 Million in Stock (Monty Solomon) Television Scores Big Hit in Iraq War (Monty Solomon) Roaming charges: Wireless Trendspotting (Monty Solomon) Re: Malignant Text Ambushes Europe Cell Phones (Rich Greenberg) Siemens Gigaset 8825 Report (Rich Heimlich) Re: U.S. TV Networks Jump in as War in Iraq Starts (IERaider) Re: Inmarsat Deploys Extra Satellite in Middle East (Shalom Septimus) Sodomy Insane (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: Joey Lindstrom Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:15:08 -0700 Subject: Re: DSL Filter Question Reply-To: joey@telussucks.info On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:37:21 -0500 (EST), Rich Greenberg wrote: > I am installing DSL and have a question that thier "help" desk wasn't > sure of. This guy didn't even seem to know what a 2 line jack was. > I am not sure if I can use the filters I was sent. The EXCELSUS > Z-BLOCKER model Z-D25OP2J is marked as being a "Dual DSL filter". > Its a small box with a short wire with a modular plug on one end, > and 2 modular jacks on the other end, one marked for a phone, and the > other for the DSL modem. > Does this mean it contains 2 filters and will filter both line 1 and > line 2 of a 2 line jack, or is the "dual" just that it has 2 jacks, one > filtered and one not, and the filter is on line 1? If only one line is > filtered, can I get a similar filter that filters line 2? It's the latter. For filtering line two, you could re-wire the jack that you plug into the "input" end so that "line 2" comes in on the "line 1" wire pair. You'd then need to reverse this on the output. The filter is only designed for a one-line "residential" sorta setup, but you can work around it. > My DSL is on line 2 of a 2 line jack. Is it possible to get a filter > with wire pigtails that I can mount inside the wall box? I do not see > such filters listed. If available, I would like to buy 2-3 such filters. > I am going to replace the wall jack with a dual jack. One will be wired > line1+line2, and the other will have line 2 only, wired to the line 1 > position. This will let me connect the DSL modem, which insists on > being a line 1 device. I will use the inline filters for 2 other 2 line > devices. > 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 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You NEVER want to put a filter on the > line used for the modem/DSL. On the other hand you always want to > filter everything else downstream on the same line such as phones or > answering machines, etc. A filter on the DSL line with slow you down > to a very slow speed. Other phones anywhere on the same pair must be > filtered in order to make them usable at all. PAT] OK, I think I'm getting a bit confused here but it SOUNDS like the two of you are talking about two different things. Here in Calgary, my ISP now handles this filtering issue differently than they did at the start. Today, you buy a "self-install kit", which basically means you get the DSL modem (pre-programmed and ready to go) along with several "filters" which you plug in to each jack in the house (all designed for use as "line 1"). You plug the DSL modem into an *UNFILTERED* line, as Pat says. Result: DSL modem and telephones don't interfere with each other. But what they used to do, and what it SOUNDS like Rick has, is install something called a "POTS Splitter" at the demarc. They take the incoming (from telco) wire pire, run it into this POTS Splitter, and then there are TWO pairs of wires coming out. One, the "telephone" out, you connect to your wiring block where the incoming line used to go. The other, you connect directly to the wiring run TO THE JACK THAT WILL BE USED FOR DSL. This jack will not have dial-tone on it. The result is a better, cleaner solution that pretty much works the same way, but usually requires a tech to come out to your house to install. Since the self-install kit requires no such visit, that's the way they're going now. (My POTS splitters also have modular jack outputs, but not a modular jack input -- otherwise, it sounds just like what Rich has). -- Joey Lindstrom -- Telus Sucks http://www.telussucks.info ------------------------------ From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: DSL Filter Question Date: 21 Mar 2003 07:40:44 -0500 Organization: Organized? Me? In article , Tom Schmidt wrote: > Rich Greenberg wrote in message > news:telecom22.354.8@telecom-digest.org: >> I am not sure if I can use the filters I was sent. The EXCELSUS >> Z-BLOCKER model Z-D25OP2J is marked as being a "Dual DSL filter". >> Its a small box with a short wire with a modular plug on one end, >> and 2 modular jacks on the other end, one marked for a phone, and the >> other for the DSL modem. I have since found out that yes, this does filter both lines. The manufacturer's web site is www.excelsus-tech.com, and a note to the support address brought a quick answer and a .pdf of the data sheet. > Another option that may be more convienient is to use a POTS/DSL > splitter. This connects close to the Telco NID. It eliminates the > need to install microfilters at each phone. The down side is it > requires a dedicated run from the splitter to the DSL modem. > http://www.corningcablesystems.com/web/library/litindex.nsf/$ALL/COP-67-EN/$ > FILE/COP-67-EN.pdf I took a look at this device and its WAY overkill. What I would really like to get is a little box with 4 leads that I could punch down on my home 66-block. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:57:40 EST From: "John R. Covert" Subject: Re: GETS (and "Telco X" Customer Service) BTW, I called up the VP of Customer Service at "Telco X" yesterday morning. By 6pm the GETS routing problem was fixed! So even though the typical frontline customer service rep is useless, when you get a real problem to the right person, it can be fixed. /john ------------------------------ From: Pete Romfh Subject: Military phones in the Gulf Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 22:41:09 -0600 Organization: Not Organized We have a debate raging though our office. One group says that the phone systems being used in the command centers are Cisco. The other camp says they saw Avaya phones on various newscasts. Does anyone know firmly what types of PBX's and stations the military is using in their operations centers in the Gulf? A lot of political weight rides on the answer because the Cisco supporters say, "They're reliable enough for our combat troops to rely on". Pete Romfh, Telecom Geek & Amateur Gourmet. promfh at texas dot net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 22:32:24 PST From: WOLE ISAAC Subject: Vodafone Network Solution Dear Sir, Please permit me to express my heart to you. I am in posession of a GSM Vodafone Handset MN-1, but ever since I bought it, it has being giving lots problems. I have tried using different lines with it, but no improvement. The latest version of the problem is the Network problem, it states NO NETWORK on the screen. With this, I am unable to receive or make call with the handset. And is not up to 2 Months that I bought it. Kindly assist in the solution to the problem of the handset. Even some of the technicians here in Nigeria I took it to said they have no software solution to the handset. I look forward to solution from you, hence, my making contact with you. Hope to hear from you soon. My GSM phone number is: 234 80 23457791 Yours Faithfully, Wole Ogundalu. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Can *anyone* help our Nigerian reader with this problem? *Please* write direct to him, but a copy of your reply to the Digest would be appreciated. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 03:57:26 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cisco to Acquire Linksys For $500 Million in Stock Cisco to acquire Linksys for $500 mln in stock - Mar 20, 2003 08:37 AM (Reuters) - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=32493210 SAN JOSE, Calif., March 20 (Reuters) - Cisco Systems Inc. (NASDAQ:CSCO), the No. 1 maker of equipment that directs Internet traffic, said on Thursday it will buy privately held Linksys Group, a provider of home networking products, for about $500 million in stock, its third deal announced so far this year. The San Jose, California-based company said it expects the deal to close in the fourth quarter of Cisco's 2003 fiscal year. Copyright 2003, Reuters News Service ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 04:01:11 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Television Scores Big Hit in Iraq War By Merissa Marr, European media correspondent LONDON, March 20 (Reuters) - Television celebrated its own victory in America's assault on Iraq on Thursday as the world scrambled to tune into images of war, featuring everything from gas-mask clad presenters to patriotic Iraqi songs. Television networks from Australia to America cleared their schedules to pump out footage of the United States pounding targets across Iraq, with many turning to round-the-clock coverage and dropping advertising from their channels. "This is very much a visual story right now so people are turning to television for their news," said Robert Boyle, head of Price Waterhouse Coopers' European media team. Television coverage ranged from the Hollywood-like drama of U.S. reporting to scenes on Iraqi television of sword-carrying locals singing "Long live Iraq and may God save Saddam". In Kuwait, stations kept viewers informed on when to expect the next round of Iraqi-fired Scud missiles, interrupting broadcasts with emergency sirens. And in China, state channel CCTV, which normally vigorously vets its broadcasts, took the unusual move of showing President George W. Bush's address live. Aside from the sheer drama of images of war, television was expected to benefit from more detailed reporting than in previous conflicts, greater interactivity with the Internet, and high-tech gadgets beaming the latest pictures from front lines. While the first Gulf War in 1991 reshaped the television map, this war was once again expected to highlight its primary role in covering world-changing events. ... - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=32503195 ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Roaming Charges: Wireless Trendspotting Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:23:23 -0500 Excerpt from IBM developerWorks technology, Issue 11 - 2003 Mar 20 WIRELESS ZONE | Trendspotting http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/wireless/?ca=dnt-411 ::: Roaming charges: Wireless trendspotting ::: After some careful observation, Larry is ready to reveal his seven predictions for wireless technology's development trends. See what the near future will mean for the work we're doing. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/wi-roam8.html?ca=dnt-411 ------------------------------ From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Malignant Text Ambushes Europe Cell Phones Date: 20 Mar 2003 14:31:41 -0500 Organization: Organized? Me? In article , Dave Garland wrote: > And still does, with some html-enabled mail programs. In the old days, > a (fairly harmless) equivalent was to tell the BBS caller that he > could activate the secret sysop menu by typing +++ATH (doing so would > cause his modem to think it had received a command to hang up). A few years ago while I was still on Netcom, their modem bank was not set to ignore "+++", and if I programmed it to send the "+++" to me, the modem would go into command mode and would be dead from the outside until someone reset it. I tried to explain it to their so called support and they did not get it. Simple to do from unix, just enter "echo +++" going slowly enough that I didn't trigger my own modem, then enter. 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: Rich Heimlich Subject: Siemens Gigaset 8825 Report Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:20:12 -0500 Reply-To: agrajag@comcast.net Pros: Awesome array of features. Very clean look. Decent audio sound. Cons: Many features are just not fully functional The Bottom Line: It might work for some but if you have Verizon it won't work and many features do not work regardless of your phone company. Buyer beware. I bought the 8825 after wanting to find a decent 2-line phone and failing with the typical Staples and OfficeMax level of phones (all at about $70). What I wanted was a solid corded business phone with excellent features. The cordless handset, for me, is an extra that would have been nice but not needed. So, I setup the 8825 and I'm just blown away by all the fantastic features and the ability to set seemingly endless parameters to get the phone just the way I like it. I then get a few calls and the trouble starts. On the plus side, everyone thought I sounded great and they sounded perfectly fine to me as well. But the first bad problem is well known. I couldn't get the various volumes on the phone to a level I liked. Nothing was loud enough with the possible exception of the ringer and handset volume. The speaker was so low at level 9 that I had to struggle to hear it in a quiet home office. The headset volume was also low. Then I ran into a surprising user interface flaw. I went to delete all the caller ID entries at once and could find no way to do it but to delete them all one at a time with the Delete button. I then called support and was told there was a way to do it but it required roughly 10-15 button presses traversing the menu system to do it! Are they kidding? All of my past and current CallerID phones have this ability and they're all cheaper units. I then got my first call-waiting call and the sound it made on the line was entirely unacceptable. All previous phones I've owned kept this sound very light and hardly noticeable. On this unit, the system virtually locks out the sound of the other party for a moment resulting in a very awkward moment for both the other party and the caller. Worse, after the tone, my volume mysteriously rose several levels making it very difficult for me to finish the call (I had to hold the phone away from my ear). While on my first calls I also noticed that once in a while the other party would say, "What was that?" followed by the volume rising again mysteriously for NO reason as no one was calling to trigger callerID. When I asked what the party thought they heard they each said it sounded like I slipped and hit a button on the phone. I hadn't touched anything. I use Verizon and like their standard voicemail service. It's not great but it does work and allows for taking messages when I'm on the phone and such. This phone claims to work just fine with that once you setup the Mail button to call the Verizon voicemail number. I did that and tried it out. Sure enough it worked. The light came on, I hit the button and it dialed Verizon and got my messages. I later, with the help of customer service, found out how to add pauses to numbers (oddly, the minus volume button) and got it to enter my passcode. Finally something working great with the phone. But that didn't last long. I was on the line with someone when another caller called in. I let them go to voicemail but they apparently left no message as when I completed my call, the Mail light didn't go on. So I was surprised when I went to dial my next call to hear the stutter tone on the line telling me I had a message. Sure enough I did have a message and the phone missed it. Further testing showed that, without fail, if I am on the line and a message is left, this phone will not catch it. Not good. All the other phones in the house, tested on the same line had no trouble seeing these messages so it's not the phone line (as support suggested). I then figured that I'd try out the built-in answering system and found it to be lacking. The sound quality of the recording is very poor compared to all other options I've used. My own last name didn't even come out right. Worse, the unit refused to record my entire short message. No matter what I tried, it would back up and cut off the "you" in the "thank you" part of my message. I finally had to resort to saying "thank you 't'" making a final short sound, which got cut off to leave my intended message intact. Just leaving blank space after the recording had no effect. The end result is that I'm now sitting here with a $300 phone that has fantastic advanced features but cannot work with one of the biggest telephone companies and would result in me not knowing about important messages and annoying customers and I on the phone with clicks and eerie volume rises. Calls to customer service almost all ended with "Oh, just do a system reset and everything will work". Yeah, okay. Tried, and as I was already certain of, it had no impact except to start me setting up everything again. I am so impressed with the feature set and options that I kept trying to talk myself into keeping the phone. I took the first one back and picked up a replacement hoping for a defective first unit. No luck. The second phone worked exactly like the first. I will keep an eye on Siemens for the future. Perhaps their next version of this phone will address these issues but for now, if you have Verizon, I would avoid this phone at all costs. Recommended: No! *** RTH *** ------------------------------ From: IERaider@yahoo.com (IERaider) Subject: Re: U.S. TV Networks Jump in as War in Iraq Starts Date: 21 Mar 2003 10:25:13 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder how Bush would like it if some > foreign power unilateraly decided that he was an 'evil dictator' and > set about in the air and on the land dislodging him from power. What > an immoral and insane thing Bush is doing! Bush referring to Damn Sam > as an 'evil' terrorist dictator? Mister Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. The USA > has plenty of room for terrorist evil dictators *they like*. I expect > the Iraqi people to form an alliance with North Korea and end it all > sometime soon. Goodbye, United Nations, it was nice knowing you. PAT] Re: Can you tell me the last time President Bush gassed 250,000 of his own people? We are going to eliminate a dictator that has, over 30 years, caused the deaths of nearly 2 million men and women, sons and daughters. OPEN YOUR EYES!!! IDIOT!!! [TELEOCOM Digest Idiot's Note: I try to follow the news very closely, but I honestly do not remember ever reading (which I assume is all you did, unless you know the man or one of his close associates personally) of the deaths of 250,000 persons, either en-masse or serially as a result of gas, with the exception being of one Adolph Hitler. Nor do I know of the deaths of 'nearly two million men and women, sons and daughters over a thirty year period'. I mean, I know some of you do not like Saddam, and neither do I. But you do not do your cause any good by making up stories about his governorship of Iraq. Can you quote some reliable source where you read these statistics? And since when did such horrible deaths and mistreatment ever mean anything to the United States? There have been a lot of dictators in office over the years the USA has ignored when it was convenient to do so. But it seems whenever there is someone the president does not like for *whatever* reason, it always becomes quite convenient to place the reasons for his righteous anger on things like mistreatment of the citizens, or how "our troops died for your right to live in America and vote", etc. Try to be more original, okay? Instead, why not talk about the things that matter in this country, like oil production and political power, and how Dubya and his two daughters will not go to fight as long as there are tuff young guys they can send to do it instead. Oh, I know my beloved deseased brain has pretty much left me out of the loop, so I probably don't have any idea what I am talking about. I never do. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Shalom Septimus Subject: Re: Inmarsat Deploys Extra Satellite in Middle East Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:40:26 -0500 Reply-To: druggist@pobox.com On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:15:23 -0500, Monty Solomon wrote: > WASHINGTON, March 18 (Reuters) - Global satellite communications > company Inmarsat said on Tuesday it has deployed a fifth satellite to > the Middle East region to handle the expected increased demand from > the news media and aid agencies as a war in Iraq looms. Have they announced what the "country code" will be for this bird? I know they already use +871 through +874 for the ones they already have. (I can't seem to get through to www.inmarsat.org right now.) Shalom use Reply-To:, From: is a spamtrap and is seldom read. ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:13:51 -0700 Subject: Sodomy Insane Reply-To: joey@telussucks.info On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:58:27 -0500 (EST), editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder how Bush would like it if some > foreign power unilateraly decided that he was an 'evil dictator' and > set about in the air and on the land dislodging him from power. What > an immoral and insane thing Bush is doing! Bush referring to Damn Sam > as an 'evil' terrorist dictator? Mister Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. The USA > has plenty of room for terrorist evil dictators *they like*. I expect > the Iraqi people to form an alliance with North Korea and end it all > sometime soon. Goodbye, United Nations, it was nice knowing you. PAT] George W. Bush didn't murder his way to the top. George W. Bush doesn't continue to murder to stay on top. George W. Bush doesn't commit military atrocities against his own people. George W. Bush doesn't torture and "disappear" prisoners. George W. Bush has yet to claim Canada or Mexico for the USA. The United Nations has been revealed for what it is. A wishy-washy organization that hasn't the balls to actually follow through on its many, many resolutions against Iraq. Good riddance. Sincerely, A Canadian utterly ashamed at his own government's stance in this thing. -- Joey Lindstrom -- Telus Sucks http://www.telussucks.info [TELECOM Idiot's Left-Wing Idiodicy: As I said to the other correspondent in this issue who told me about all the poor people who had been given gas, if YOU did not personally see these things happen, would you please quote a reliable source or report AT THE TIME IT DID HAPPEN who can give other than an urban-legend type account of it? Otherwise I may have to lodge a complaint with the authorities about how gaseous you have become in recent weeks (gag, gag!) And the United Nations is such a wishy-washy organization that even President Dubya does not bother to follow them, does he? Here is a war-limerick, compliments of Steven Botts George Bush took a look at Saddam, stepped back, then said "Hell and Goddamn! If the U.N. won't stop him, I'll smack him and bop him, And if that won't do it, then BLAM, BLAM!" "Jesus is better than Allah!" screamed George, "And Saddam better follow!" "By God, if he will not get Saved, Then sure as Hell, he's gonna be paved. And next, we'll take on Hezbollah." Said Saddam to his country, "Don't cry, We'll have nuclear weapons by and by, You just have to have patience, Till we can buy them from agents When we give North Korea a try." Whatever you do, don't insult King Dubya by telling him he is parading naked on the White House lawn. That's almost as bad as accusing someone of being mentally ill; having dillusions of grandeur. 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. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #357 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Mar 21 22:58:50 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h2M3wnx13115; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:58:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:58:50 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200303220358.h2M3wnx13115@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 #358 TELECOM Digest Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:59:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 358 Inside This Issue: Happy First Day of Spring! ReplayTV maker Sonicblue to File For Bankruptcy (Monty Solomon) Re: Postamble and Variable Length Packets (Robert Bonomi) Re: DSL Filter Question (Robert Bonomi) Re: Telecom Student Hoping for Some Assistance (Herb Stein) Re: Military Phones in the Gulf (Paul A Lee) Re: Sodomy Insane (Joey Lindstrom) More Words About Sodomy Insane (cbkiteflyer@yahoo.com) 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, 21 Mar 2003 18:48:45 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: ReplayTV Maker Sonicblue to File For Bankruptcy SANTA CLARA, Calif., March 21 (Reuters) - Consumer electronics maker Sonicblue Inc.(NASDAQ:SBLU) said on Friday it plans to file for bankruptcy and that it signed deals to sell the assets of its main product lines for $52.5 million. Sonicblue said it agreed to sell its Rio unit, which made the first mainstream device to play music in the popular MP3 format, and its ReplayTV digital video recorder unit to D&M Holdings (TOKYO:6735) of Japan for $40 million, plus the assumption of about $5 million in liabilities. D&M is the parent company of established audio equipment makers Denon Ltd. and Marantz Japan Inc. The company plans to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the northern district of California, San Jose division. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=32515095 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Postamble and Variable Length Packets Organization: Not Much From: bonomi@c-ns (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 01:21:04 GMT In article , Swami wrote: > Hi, > I have a couple of questions related to multiple access at the > physical layer: > 1. Do you know of any protocol/commercial product/research on variable > length packets (I mean completely variable, and not, say, one among a > set of lengths) for multiple access? There is an additional constraint > that we do not know the packet length until after we have transmitted > all the bytes. So this would mean that the datalink layer will not be > able to place the length field in front. IP protocol supports variable-length "trailer" packets, _if_ enabled on the interface. It _does_ require the length of the trailer at the beginning of the trailer, however. As for your 'problem' of not knowing the length, untill after _transmission_ the cure for that is *trivial*. You _buffer_ the data until the full packet of data has been accumulated. Then, you *DO* know the actual byte count, and can insert it into the header. This is 'no brainer' stuff. and the way _all_ traditional 'variable length' packet systems work. There is no reason _not_ to buffer -- the receiving system can't do _anything_ with *any* part of the data until the _entire_ packet has been received. > 2. Is there any protocol/product/research papers on sending a > postamble at the physical layer level (I mean the decision is taken by > the software/hardware closest to the point of transmission)? This is > mainly to solve the peroblem mentioned above. If you also happen to > know of any other means to solve the above problem, do let me know. > Any links/pointers on this topic would be of immense help. > Thanks and Regards, > Swami. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: DSL Filter Question Organization: Not Much From: bonomi@c-ns (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 01:32:52 GMT In article , Rich Greenberg wrote: > I am installing DSL and have a question that thier "help" desk wasn't > sure of. This guy didn't even seem to know what a 2 line jack was. > I am not sure if I can use the filters I was sent. The EXCELSUS > Z-BLOCKER model Z-D25OP2J is marked as being a "Dual DSL filter". > Its a small box with a short wire with a modular plug on one end, > and 2 modular jacks on the other end, one marked for a phone, and the > other for the DSL modem. > Does this mean it contains 2 filters and will filter both line 1 and > line 2 of a 2 line jack, NO. > or is the "dual" just that it has 2 jacks, one filtered and one not, > and the filter is on line 1? If only one line is filtered, can I > get a similar filter that filters line 2? It is a single-line (phone line) filter. The 'phone' jack is filtered, the 'dsl' jack is not. > My DSL is on line 2 of a 2 line jack. Is it possible to get a filter > with wire pigtails that I can mount inside the wall box? I do not see > such filters listed. If available, I would like to buy 2-3 such filters. Use a 'two line' *splitter*, from Radio Shack, e.g., in _front_ of the DSL filter. it has _separate_ jacks for 'line 1', and 'line 2'. Then you plug the DSL filter into the 'line 2' jack. and the DSL modem into the DSL jack _there_, with your phone in the 'phone' jack. > I am going to replace the wall jack with a dual jack. One will be wired > line1+line2, and the other will have line 2 only, wired to the line 1 > position. This will let me connect the DSL modem, which insists on > being a line 1 device. I will use the inline filters for 2 other 2 line > devices. This works, too. Recommend, for completeness, that you make the 'other' jack have 'line 2' on pair 1, *and* 'line 1' on pair 2. ------------------------------ From: Herb Stein Subject: Re: Telecom Student Hoping for Some Assistance Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:34:34 -0600 C Chambers wrote in message news:telecom22.353.12@telecom-digest.org: > I am a Telecommunications student and I am wanting to put together a > website for telecommunications info. I am wanting to set up something > that has things from basic wiring to terms, etc. I know that there > are quite a few websites out there, this is mainly a project to pass > the time. I am hoping that I can get some assistance with some links > that might be useful for the site. > Thanks. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are welcome to take the links from > our web site for your own. Just go to http://telecom-digest.org and > begin copying over to your new site. From there you can click over to > the page of 'useful links' and begin using them. I regard all my work > on the web site and this Digest as open source, and invite you or > anyone to learn from it. Obviously if you use *my exact words* and > my .gifs and .jpg things I would like some credit. PAT] Not that I have anything either, But it is free. -- Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 952-4601 ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Military Phones in the Gulf Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:46:37 -0500 In TELECOM Digest V22 #357, Pete Romfh wrote (in part): > Does anyone know firmly what types of PBX's and stations the military > is using in their operations centers in the Gulf? So far, I have caught several definite glimpses of Avaya 8410D or 8411D sets (or their MILspec or TEMPEST cousins) in news reports coming from on board US Navy vessels. As for reliability out in the desert, I'd bet that whose silicon is INside doesn't matter much if you can't keep out the silicon that's OUTside ... Paul A Lee Voice: +1 717 730-8355 Sr Telecom Engineer [Voice & Transmission] Fax: +1 717 975-3789 Rite Aid Corporation, Telecomm, 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:53:26 -0700 Subject: Re: Sodomy Insane Reply-To: joey@telussucks.info On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:10:30 EST, editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > [TELECOM Idiot's Left-Wing Idiodicy: As I said to the other correspondent > in this issue who told me about all the poor people who had been given > gas, if YOU did not personally see these things happen, would you please > quote a reliable source or report AT THE TIME IT DID HAPPEN who can > give other than an urban-legend type account of it? I didn't personally witness the Holocaust, either, but that doesn't mean I don't believe it happened. Although I cannot speak for that other person's claim (250,000 people gassed), much of Saddam's butchery is WELL DOCUMENTED, by multiple sources, to the point where I don't think the onus should be on us to "prove" Saddam is a bad guy. The onus is on you to prove that he is not. As for the USA having left brutal dictators in power in the past, but now suddenly Hussein is a problem ... well, you're the one who keeps saying Bush is mentally ill. Yeah, he's mentally ill: he's the first US president to realize that leaving these guys in power just ain't acceptable anymore. Mark my words -- history is going to look at George W. Bush as one of the greatest leaders in the history of the world. (Reagan, too) -- Joey Lindstrom -- Telus Sucks http://www.telussucks.info [TELECOM Digest Editor's Right Wing Rant: Well, you certainly skirted the issue totally didn't you ... I did not ask you to 'prove' anything; simply to document in one or more instances, about these things you say happened. You say it is 'well documented by multiple sources' would you PLEASE give one or more such sources? Regarding the generic 'Holocuast', not being a personal aquaintence of Mr. A. Hitler and being too young to remember it personally, I could not document that either, but I have read many books and articles and heard countless speakers who attested to it and I believe it also. I believe Hitler did gas Jews and gay people and selected others who he didn't like. All I asked you to do in this case was present the documents of one or more your 'multiple sources'. There is no such thing as 'one holocaust fits all' you know. But oh no, you evaded my question totally, tossed in the generic 'Holocaust' to add a bit of guilt to it for me, and pronounced that the onus was not on you to prove anything. Take it easy on a old brain-deseased man, would you please? Or does an answer like that work okay on others you quarrel with, i.e. that "it is so common, they should know, and you are not going to tell them if they don't know." Oh well, someone else DID answer the question of providing documents in the next message of this issue, so let's see what he has to say. If you *must* reply to this, try to keep it down to 2-3 K of text, would you please? I have to edit it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:57:30 CST From: cbkiteflyer@yahoo.com Subject: More Words About Sodomy Insane and Mr. Bush Pat wrote: > [TELECOM Idiot's Left-Wing Idiodicy: As I said to the other correspondent > in this issue who told me about all the poor people who had been given > gas, if YOU did not personally see these things happen, would you please > quote a reliable source or report AT THE TIME IT DID HAPPEN who can > give other than an urban-legend type account of it? Pat, Are you denying that gassing took place at all, or are you simply challenging the numbers? Anyway, here ya go: http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemkurd.html There's about 5 articles to choose from. Good enough for you? As far as Mister Pot and Mr. Kettle, when it comes to a choice between freeing oppressed people by getting rid of a murderous thug and being labeled a hypocrite, I'll take the label any day. The excuse of "Why pick on me? You let everybody else get away with it?" doesn't even work in grade school, much less geopolitics. Or are you saying it's OK as long as we eliminate ALL the tyrants? No? Didn't think so. Sincerely, -- Clive Dawson [Right Wing Editor's Rant: I am not denying anything or reducing the numbers, etc. I am simply trying to be intellectually honest enough to say I do not know. Bear in mind, I had a brain aneurysm on November 29, 1999, became comatose that same evening and came out of the coma sometime in February, 2000. Then I was in an 'intense therapy' program at Kansas Rehabilitation Hospital for another month, in Topeka. Then after a five or six month saga where I only wish I could have been lucky enough to be subject to Mr. Hussein's alleged gas attacks, I went to a nursing facility for more long-term therapy. For a year or so now, I have been back at the Digest, trying to tell my ass from my elbow as my (doctor's evaluated) permanent brain desease controls much of my life. So pardon me if I am not as current on news of the day as I was in early 1999. I will look at your phrusa.org site and see if it deals in factual evidence or just urban legend. Thank you for the hint on this. Joey was unwilling to even do that much. Freeing an oppressed people you say?? That's rich ... what about all the people in South Africa and China and Cuba, and Guatemala and other places who need a touch of Dubya's helping hand? Oh, but do their dictator bosses have oil we need to survive, or have they openly mocked the style of fundamentalist Christianity Bush pretends to have when he chats with his buddies Dobson, Farwell, Pat Robertson and others? No, I didn't think so. That 'oppressed people' routine and all those alleged gassings are sort of a convenient excuse aren't they? I'll see what phruasa.org has to say about it. Again, thanks for taking pity on a tired, old, brain-deseased man. If I don't appear here with any more issues .. well you'll know it was just Dubya doing his thing: declaring me a threat to national security and taking me away with no lawyer or chance to speak. 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. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #358 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Mar 23 02:07:05 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h2N774418841; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 02:07:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 02:07:05 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200303230707.h2N774418841@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 #359 TELECOM Digest Sun, 23 Mar 2003 02:07:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 359 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Postamble and Variable Length Packets (Darryl Smith) Re: DSL Filter Question (John R. Levine) Re: Military Phones in the Gulf (tonypo1@cox.net) Internet Services and PABX (Sanjeev Maniks) Fax Recovery (lucky) Unsolicited Faxes (Jeff Brewster) Re: DHCP Router With NAT Passthrough?? (CBoone@Earthlink.Net) Telecom Digest Archives CD - Shipping Delays (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Sodomy Insane (Steven J. Sobol) You Are Right and Joey Lindstrom et al. Are Wrong (R.G. Levin) Is an Illegal War a High Crime and Misdemeanor? (Patrick Townson) Re: More Words About Sodomy Insane and Mr. Bush (joe@obilivan.net) Re: More Words About Sodomy Insane and Mr. Bush (3yeadqp02@sneakemail.com) 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: Darryl Smith Subject: Re: Postamble and Variable Length Packets Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 15:11:03 +1100 The X-25 and AX25 protocols do not send any data about the length of the packet ever. The only way that you know that the packet has ended is that a FLAG character is sent at the end of the packet, and you then count back two bytes for the CRC. The AX25 specification states that the maximum payload is 256 bytes, but there is no such actual limitation apart from some not being able to received by some implementations. Many people have implemented it with quite large packets. Papers on the use of AX25 and its structre can be found on www.tapr.org, and there are about 20 years of conference proceedings available from TAPR -- including one about 17 years ago on sending code inside packets (which sun tried to patent in the mid-1990's with Java) and a 1990 paper on MACA which became the major building block to 802.11. 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 ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: DSL Filter Question Date: 21 Mar 2003 23:40:00 -0500 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> My DSL is on line 2 of a 2 line jack. Is it possible to get a filter >> with wire pigtails that I can mount inside the wall box? I do not see >> such filters listed. If available, I would like to buy 2-3 such filters. Yes. Radio Shack has surface mount wall jacks with the DSL filter inside. It's wired on line 1, but with some tweezing you should be able to move it to line 2. If you have flush mount wall jacks I'd just get an in-line filter and plug that in front of your phone. 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: tonypo1@cox.net Subject: Re: Military Phones in the Gulf Organization: The Ace Tomatoe and Cement Company Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 05:08:38 GMT In article , palee@riteaid.com says: > In TELECOM Digest V22 #357, Pete Romfh wrote > (in part): >> Does anyone know firmly what types of PBX's and stations the military >> is using in their operations centers in the Gulf? > So far, I have caught several definite glimpses of Avaya 8410D or > 8411D sets (or their MILspec or TEMPEST cousins) in news reports > coming from on board US Navy vessels. Ick, ick, ick. That was one of Lucent's bad series of phones. I admin'd a G3i with a mixture of 7406D's, 8410D's and various models of 2500 sets with and without hold, message lights, etc. The 8410D's broke down quite a bit more than the 7406D's did. And the hands free on the 8410D sounded tinny. Only good phones they made were the 74xx and 6xxx series stuff. The 8xxx series is cheap garbage. Tony ------------------------------ From: Sanjeev Maniks Subject: Internet Services and PABX Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:27:26 -0700 Hiya, I'd like to use the existing telephone extensions at a small motel to provide Internet Services to each of the (20) rooms. They have a Nortel Nextas MX-1 PABX - I have found little information about this product on the web. Further I'd like use the existing billing system on the PABX to monitor Internet usage. The Internet Access will be provided via the wireless medium (IEEE 802.11 standard). I've very limited experience on PABXs, and would appreciate any ideas/pointers. Thanks, Sanjeev "Perfection is reached not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." A.Saint-Exupery ------------------------------ From: lucky" Subject: Fax Recovery Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 07:39:41 UTC Organization: Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG I am recording all phone calls, voice and fax, on my pc. So I have a .wav file also for every fax received or transmitted with the external stand-alone analogue fax machine. There is a way to decode these .wav file into the original image? Simply send 'sound' to modem seem do not work. I think a 'softmodem' that analyze and decode wave stream may be a solution. Suggestions? Regards. lucky lu Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG ------------------------------ From: jeffbrewster@hotmail.com (Jeff Brewster) Subject: Unsolicited Faxes Date: 22 Mar 2003 12:50:42 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi everyone, I know this has probably been discussed a lot, but I can't really find any info for my situation. To start, I do not, nor have ever owned a fax machine. Last July I moved into my new apartment and shortly after having my phone connected (Verizon, live in NY), I started receiving fax calls. Sometimes they come with caller ID info (if that's the case, I try to look up the company/individual to find their business number and call them to remove me), but usually the calls come up as "Out of Area" or "Private Caller". The calls come all day long, sometimes at 2 or 3 in the morning also (last night I received a call at 3:53am). What exactly can I do to stop this nonsense? Especially with the blocked numbers? The calls drive me nuts. They fill up my voicemail box with annoying beeping messages, and at least once a week they call early enough to wake me up. Any info you guys can provide will be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Jeff [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The easy way out might be by having telco change the number. I think it would be quite rare if you wound up getting two 'sour' numbers in a row. If you have only had the number since last July, how important is it that you keep the same number? PAT] ------------------------------ From: CBoone@Earthlink.Net Subject: Re: DHCP Router With NAT Passthrough?? Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 04:23:14 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Well I thank those who replied direct. BUT none of the group postings were really helpful. I dont have time to put together a 486 firewall with Linux, etc. I WOULD like to see if something SMALL like a router/firewall for what I NEED is out there already. Please reply IF YOU DO KNOW of such a router. I have never used IPsec. I know VPN is not what I am looking for; its almost like NAT but reversed (9 123.456.789.xxx IPs on the WAN is translated to 192.168 internal addresses; hope that explains it better, and the 10th is used as the gateway IP). CBoone@Earthlink.Net wrote: > I have a T1 with a ATT managed Cisco router at the office, have 10 > static IPs on it ... ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 22:02:35 -0700 Subject: Telecom Digest Archives CD - Shipping Delays Reply-To: joey@garynuman.info For those of you who are expecting Telecom Digest Archives CD's in the mail, and/or those who plan to make a contribution to the Telecom Digest sometime in the near future and will be getting one of these CD's as a thank-you: please be advised that these discs are shipped from Canada (not Kansas), and that I'm encountering some shipping delays lately. With the heightened security surrounding the conflict in Iraq and the increased risk of terrorism, I'm told that EVERYTHING that Canada Post hands over to USPS is being searched. This is causing delays -- usually, 6-9 business days is normal. Lately, 3-4 weeks has been closer to the mark. I recently shipped a pair of hard drives to each of two individuals in the USA, one in Minnesota and one in New York state. Both took 3 weeks. Similarly, a single CD I mailed to a fellow in Texas also took 3 weeks. More recently, I shipped two boxes of DVD-R discs to a lady in Pennsylvania. These were separate boxes, mind you. Both took 27 days, and arrived on the same day. ALL of these people reported that their shipments had been opened and examined by Customs officials. So, when your CD takes a while to arrive, please be patient and PLEASE don't dump all over Pat. It's Dubya's fault, after all. :-) / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom / I went to the cinema, and the prices were: Adults $5.00, children $2.50. / So I said, "Give me two boys and a girl." / --Steven Wright ------------------------------ From: Steven J. Sobol Subject: Re: Sodomy Insane Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 04:05:55 -0000 Organization: JustThe.net LLC > From Joey Lindstrom (joey@telussucks.info): > As for the USA having left brutal dictators in power in the past, but > now suddenly Hussein is a problem ... well, you're the one who keeps > saying Bush is mentally ill. Yeah, he's mentally ill: he's the first > US president to realize that leaving these guys in power just ain't > acceptable anymore. > Mark my words -- history is going to look at George W. Bush as one of > the greatest leaders in the history of the world. (Reagan, too) Um, getting rid of Saddam is the correct move, and it's something Daddy should have done in '91. However, George W. Bush is still a flaming moron. Don't give him more credit than he is due. You live in Canada. Consider yourself lucky. Steve Sobol/CTO/JustThe.net LLC/Mentor On The Lake (Cleveland), OH/888.480.4NET "This country has a strong ethical foundation, but... I hesitate to say that erosion has set in, but it is clear that more and more of what we are is being built on sand and not on that foundation." - G. Waleed Kavalec, in SPAM-L ------------------------------ Date: 21 Mar 2003 20:20:34 -0800 From: R.G. Levin Subject: You Are Right and Joey Lindstrom et al. Are Wrong Hiya Pat: Subject line says it all, brain anueryism notwithstanding! The "holier than thou" attitude in this country is obviously prevalent from the lowliest beaurocratic "torpedo," the policeman, to the leader of the junta in Washington! I'm afraid the emperor has no clothes, but many folks are too blind to see this (or possibly are under hypnosis!) Obviously your brain still works better than Joey Lindstrom's! Robert G. Levin [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I feel certain you helped Joey have a fine weekend when he wakes up Sunday morning and goes to check mail and sees how you took his name in vain in this letter. You, and Steve Sobol in the message before this one. I guess my one, really major proplem with this whole Iraq mess in the past week has been the utter arrogance the USA has displayed for such a long time now toward other countries with different ideas, and their total disregard for what the U.N. wants to do. The USA also seems to have total contempt for the ideas of the World Court, Interpol, etc. But if USA wants someone extradited, all hell breaks lose if the other country does not cooperate. The real problem seems to be the attitude of the USA president that somehow *he* has a monopoly on truth, justice and fairness. No one else, in his opinion and the opinion of many citizens can quite do things as well, or perfectly as he can. Here is an example, from a recent press conference: A question came up, have Iraqi troops surrendered 'yet'? Bush was not quite sure of the answer but one of his advisors pointed out that in fact many of the troops were 'fighting back' and that in fact a number of civilians had recently joined in the fighting against the USA troops. With fire in his eyes, Bush observed, "they wouldn't dare, would they? Any Iraqi citizen who harms some of our troops will be punished; brought to trial when *we* have finished this war!" No one, it seems, has any right to object to what Bush is doing over there. Just stand there and take your punishment, along with one of the little propoganda food packages the soldiers hand you as they go along, provided you did not 'fight back' or stand up for your country (Iraq). No one has a right to support their country, it seems, unless Bush has decided its okay. Arrogance! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Patrick Townson Subject: Fw: Is an Illegal War a High Crime and Misdemeanor? Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:38:28 -0600 Found a couple days ago in another newsgroup. ----- Original Message ----- From: Newsgroups: alt.religion.unitarian-univ Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 1:55 PM Subject: Is an illegal war a high crime and misdemeanor? > Evidently, getting caught in a perjury trap was enough of a high > crime to get Clinton impeached. How does bombing Baghdad back to > Mesopotamian times without a congressional declaration of war > compare? > Greg Shenaut [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Greg, best not call attention to Dubya's mental illness and his obvious desire to please the fundamentalist Christians who voted him in (barely) as he now appeases them by helping to hasten Armageddon which they have wanted for so long. PAT] ------------------------------ From: joe@obilivan.net Subject: Re: More Words About Sodomy Insane and Mr. Bush Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 06:58:00 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications Perhaps this Usenet group should be renamed. cbkiteflyer@yahoo.com wrote: > Pat wrote: >> [TELECOM Idiot's Left-Wing Idiodicy: As I said to the other correspondent >> in this issue who told me about all the poor people who had been given >> gas, if YOU did not personally see these things happen, would you please >> quote a reliable source or report AT THE TIME IT DID HAPPEN who can >> give other than an urban-legend type account of it? > Pat, > Are you denying that gassing took place at all, or are you simply > challenging the numbers? Anyway, here ya go: > http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemkurd.html > There's about 5 articles to choose from. Good enough for you? > As far as Mister Pot and Mr. Kettle, when it comes to a choice > between freeing oppressed people by getting rid of a murderous thug > and being labeled a hypocrite, I'll take the label any day. > The excuse of "Why pick on me? You let everybody else get away with > it?" doesn't even work in grade school, much less geopolitics. > Or are you saying it's OK as long as we eliminate ALL the tyrants? > No? Didn't think so. > Sincerely, > -- Clive Dawson > [Right Wing Editor's Rant: I am not denying anything or reducing the > numbers, etc. I am simply trying to be intellectually honest enough to > say I do not know. Bear in mind, I had a brain aneurysm on November > 29, 1999, became comatose that same evening and came out of the coma > sometime in February, 2000. Then I was in an 'intense therapy' program > at Kansas Rehabilitation Hospital for another month, in Topeka. Then > after a five or six month saga where I only wish I could have been > lucky enough to be subject to Mr. Hussein's alleged gas attacks, I > went to a nursing facility for more long-term therapy. For a year or > so now, I have been back at the Digest, trying to tell my ass from my > elbow as my (doctor's evaluated) permanent brain desease controls much > of my life. So pardon me if I am not as current on news of the day as > I was in early 1999. I will look at your phrusa.org site and see if it > deals in factual evidence or just urban legend. Thank you for the hint > on this. Joey was unwilling to even do that much. > Freeing an oppressed people you say?? That's rich ... what about all > the people in South Africa and China and Cuba, and Guatemala and > other places who need a touch of Dubya's helping hand? Oh, but do > their dictator bosses have oil we need to survive, or have they > openly mocked the style of fundamentalist Christianity Bush pretends > to have when he chats with his buddies Dobson, Farwell, Pat Robertson > and others? No, I didn't think so. That 'oppressed people' routine and > all those alleged gassings are sort of a convenient excuse aren't > they? I'll see what phruasa.org has to say about it. Again, thanks for > taking pity on a tired, old, brain-deseased man. If I don't appear > here with any more issues .. well you'll know it was just Dubya doing > his thing: declaring me a threat to national security and taking me > away with no lawyer or chance to speak. PAT] ------------------------------ From: 3yeadqp02@sneakemail.com Subject: Re: More Words About Sodomy Insane and Mr. Bush Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:39:44 +0200 ~ To reply by e-mail, insert "Telecom Digest" in the subject line ~ On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:57:30 CST, in comp.dcom.telecom Pat wrote: > Freeing an oppressed people you say?? That's rich ... what about all > the people in South Africa Ahem ... Pat, I know you've been ill and all, but I'm sure even you must have noticed that the "oppressor" in South Africa was offically "abolished" in the early 1990's ... the ANC has been The Government here for quite some years and now offically there aren't any more oppressed people .... The "poor people" are now "free to vote in a democracy" - never mind that by and large they're no better off now - ... but that is, as they say, really a whole different show :-)) > other places who need a touch of Dubya's helping hand? Oh, but do > their dictator bosses have oil we need to survive, or have they Shucks, we (well officially at least) have no dictators .. or oil either for that matter ... pity ... Cheers, Frank R [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes siree, there are no more oppressed people in South Africa. Haven't been for years. The fact that AIDS in Africa (in general) and South Africa (particularly) is at a level worse than it ever has been anywhere else is a mere coincidence. The fact that violent crimes of a sexual nature are rampant in South Africa is just a coincidence also. The fact that the government they have there is more corrupt than anything Damn Sam could produce is just happenstance also. No, South Africa is a model of good government, isn't it, Nelson and his wife Winnie be damned. At one point 30-35 years ago I seriously considered migrating to South Africa to live. Now that place gives me the total creeps. Nope, the only evil dictator in the world is Sodomy Insane (he's Moslem, you know) and Dubya has detirmined he must be eliminated, no matter what the cost to our nation, the UN or the rest of the world. By God, if he won't get Saved, he'll sure as Hell get paved. George can explain it to you better than I can. 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. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #359 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Mar 23 20:46:46 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h2O1kkI23142; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:46:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:46:46 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200303240146.h2O1kkI23142@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 #360 TELECOM Digest Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:46:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 360 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson BellSouth, Area Plus, Calling to Independent Telcos (Mark J Cuccia) Re: Unsolicited Faxes (joe@obilivan.net) Re: Unsolicited Faxes (3yeadqp02@sneakemail.com) Re: DSL Filter Question (Rich Greenberg) Wireless Hits the (Hot) Spot (Monty Solomon) Re: More Words About Sodomy Insane and Mr. Bush (Dave Phelps) protestwarrior.com (Joey Lindstrom) Yeah, I'm Wrong (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: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:25:13 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: BellSouth, Area Plus, Calling to Independent Telcos I subscribe to an optional calling plan from BellSouth called "Area Plus". In Fall 1996, "Area Plus" was an enhanced option to LOS (Local Optional Service), the LOS giving me highly discounted calling within 40 miles of my ratecenter and wirecenter and also within my LATA, though not necessarily everything in my LATA depending on the size of my LATA. There were two "rings" outside of the basic untimed unlimited local calling area. The first "ring" was "capped" with unlimited calling for the LOS monthly fee. The outer "ring" was "uncapped" with the billing clock always ticking but the rates were highly discounted. The 1996 "Area Plus" option basically gave me unlimited calling throughout *BOTH* "rings" of LOS, for a fixed monthly fee. Then, in Summer 1998, BellSouth extended the unlimited (for a (higher) fixed monthly fee) optional Area Plus to cover the ENTIRE LATA! Now, I get the following letter transcribed below from BellSouth, which now says that Area Plus customers (I don't know what the intent is for LOS customers, since I haven't been an 'LOS' customer, only an Area Plus customer, since Fall 1996), may see changes regarding the plan if you call *INDEPENDENT Telco* ratecenters/wirecenters/ NPA-NXX codes within your LATA-wide Area Plus calling area. I assume this also applies to NPA-NXX codes serving CLECs and wireless customers who are also in those independent ratecenters. I wonder if this is just a Louisiana thing, or if BellSouth is doing this in other states of its nine-state region. (Southern Bell: NC, SC, GA, FL ; South Central Bell: KY, TN, AL, MS, LA). BTW, when the La.PSC and South Central Bell (and the independent LECs) in Louisiana worked out the original 'LOS' plan in 1990/91, both Bell and independent telco areas each offered respective LOS for comparable charges. However, I don't think that any independent telco has ever offered "unlimited" Area Plus type calling. Anyhow, here is the letter I received, transcribed below. I do have some further questions/comments which follow: ----------- March 20, 2003 Effective April 23, 2003, customers subscribing to BellSouth Area Plus service may experience a change in the way calls dialed or forwarded into certain Independent Company (ICO) exchanges are billed. Beginning April 23, 2003, if you have substantial calling to the exchanges listed in this notice, you may see additional usage charges on your bill. The first 1,000 minutes each month of calling to the involved exchanges will continue to be included in your service at no additional charge. Usage in excess of 1,000 minutes per month will be billed at 8-cents per minute. Call description information will appear on the bill for calls that exceed the 1,000 minute allowance. [BOLD] This billing will apply only for calls to the exchanges listed in this notice that are not part of your basic local calling area.[/BOLD] Exchanges included in your basic local calling area are shown on the Customer Guide pages in the front of your BellSouth telephone directory. [BOLD] There will be no billing change for calling into BellSouth exchanges or for calling into ICO exchanges in your basic local calling area. Area Plus service plan customers will continue to call on an unlimited basis into BellSouth exchanges and basic local area ICO exchanges.[/BOLD] This billing change is expected to affect less than 2-per-cent of current BellSouth Area Plus service plan customers. Please check the enclosed list to see if you place frequent calls to someone in the listed locations. As guidance, calling to listed locations that are not included in your basic local calling area must total almost 17 hours per month for you to be impacted by this change. High call volume into exchanges subject to the 1,000 minute threshold may be the result of dial-up access to the Internet. To avoid additional charges, you should contact your Internet Service Provider (ISP) to see if a basic local calling area access number is available. If such a number is not available, you may want to consider switching to another provider. Also, there may be a better plan that meets all of your long distance calling needs. When choosing long distance service, you should consider all long distance calling -- within your calling zone, intra-state, and inter-state -- to obtain the most cost effective plan. If you receive a bill prior to September 1, 2003, with significant usage charges that are the result of this billing change, you may call the number listed below to have the charges removed. Should you have questions concerning this change, please call your BellSouth representative at 1-888-757-6500. Thank you, BellSouth NEW ORLEANS CALLING ZONE -- INDEPENDENT COMPANY EXCHANGE NAMES GALLIANO GARYVILLE GOLDEN MEADOW GRAND ISLE LAROSE LEEVILLE RESERVE TELEPHONE NUMBER PREFIXES FOR EXCHANGES LISTED ABOVE AREA CODE: 985 PREFIXES (First 3-digits of telephone number): 325, 396, 475, 479, 535, 536, 632, 672, 693. 724, 742, 787, 798, 820 ----------- Garyville and Reserve LA ratecenters are the "Reserve Telephone Company". LaRose, Golden Meadow, Galliano, Leeville (Lafourche Parish), Grand Isle are "LATELCO, the Lafourche Telephone Company". Note that while it doesn't apply to my originating ratecenter/wirecenter, there *ARE* instances in Louisiana of EAS (local) between adjacent or nearby Bell and independent telco ratecenters. And there are also instances of in-TER-LATA EAS (local) both pre-existing as well as "new" post-divestiture, both intra-state and even in-TER-state! But even that doesn't apply to my originating location. But with ratecenter consolidation occurring, does anyone know of specific situations where a traditionally "Bell-incumbent" ratecenter and a traditionally "independent-incumbent" ratecenter have been consolidated? When that occurs, can the independent telco extend to being a "CLEC" in the traditional Bell area, and vice versa, can the "Bell" extend to be a "CLEC" in the traditional independent area? Or do they usually respect each others' traditional territory? Ratecenter consoliation has been happening much more frequently over the past several years (starting late 1990s), to both conserve numbering/code assignments, as well as for "efficiency" of paperwork and database maintenance and operations. But I don't know if a Bell and an independent telco ratecenter have actually yet consolidated? I hope that this "first step" at poking holes into the Area Plus plan will be the ONLY step, and that calls to EAS-ratecenter-based wireless and CLEC prefixes won't be next. And with portability, how does one really know that the call is going to a CLEC. Also, this coming November, there is SUPPOSED to FINALLY be porting between cellular and landline (but within the same ratecenter). I'm hoping that this "first attempt" at tearing down Area Plus will become "moot" if hopefully the PSC can order BellSouth to expand base-rate EAS (local) between New Orleans and the Reserve Telco ratecenters, as well as between New Orleans and the Latelco ratecenters. Also, with some of the (basic) EAS/local enhancements over the past three years in Louisiana, which are for "all" customers, included "new" EAS between BellSouth and independent telco ratecenters. While the New Orleans Metro ratecenter had an expanded (basic) local/EAS calling area put into place in early 1991, it didn't extend as far as Reserve Telco and Latelco. But if it did, it might have been difficult or impossible for BellSouth to tamper with the previously existing Area Plus service plan tariff. Hopefully, there can be precedent to even consolidate adjacent/nearby ratecenters of BOTH Bell and the independents with each other! :) Mark J. Cuccia New Orleans LA mcuccia@tulane.edu ------------------------------ From: joe@obilivan.net Subject: Re: Unsolicited Faxes Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:07:04 GMT Organization: Cox Communications One solution is to add Privacy Manager to the line. None of those out-of-area calls will get through. Verizon markets the feature under a different name, but they have it in most areas now. Jeff Brewster wrote: > Hi everyone, > I know this has probably been discussed a lot, but I can't really find > any info for my situation. To start, I do not, nor have ever owned a > fax machine. Last July I moved into my new apartment and shortly > after having my phone connected (Verizon, live in NY), I started > receiving fax calls. Sometimes they come with caller ID info (if > that's the case, I try to look up the company/individual to find their > business number and call them to remove me), but usually the calls > come up as "Out of Area" or "Private Caller". The calls come all day > long, sometimes at 2 or 3 in the morning also (last night I received a > call at 3:53am). > What exactly can I do to stop this nonsense? Especially with the > blocked numbers? The calls drive me nuts. They fill up my voicemail > box with annoying beeping messages, and at least once a week they call > early enough to wake me up. Any info you guys can provide will be > greatly appreciated! > Thanks, > Jeff > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The easy way out might be by having > telco change the number. I think it would be quite rare if you wound > up getting two 'sour' numbers in a row. If you have only had the number > since last July, how important is it that you keep the same number? > PAT] ------------------------------ From: 3yeadqp02@sneakemail.com Subject: Re: Unsolicited Faxes Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:13:12 +0200 ~ To reply by e-mail, insert "Telecom Digest" in the subject line ~ On 22 Mar 2003 ,(Jeff Brewster) wrote: > any info for my situation. To start, I do not, nor have ever owned a > fax machine. Last July I moved into my new apartment and shortly > What exactly can I do to stop this nonsense? Especially with the > blocked numbers? The calls drive me nuts. They fill up my voicemail You obviously have a PC -- are you using a modem with dial-up ??? If so, the simple solution would be to allow the PC to pick up a few of these faxes - might get you enough information to find out the sender's details. There are enough free / demo fax software packages around that it needn't cost you anything. Of course if you're not using a dial up, that makes life teeny bit more complicated, but considering that a fax modem needn't be the latest and greatest form, you might be able to pick one up somewhere for next to nothing ... *ANY* fax capable modem should be adequate ... > box with annoying beeping messages, and at least once a week they call > early enough to wake me up. Any info you guys can provide will be > greatly appreciated! Come to think of it, do these calls come at more or less "definite times" ?? If you know anybody with a fax machine/modem, perhaps foward calls to that number during one of those times - assuming you have call forwarding available, that is. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The easy way out might be by having > telco change the number. I think it would be quite rare if you wound Shucks Pat, lets not give up so easily !!! Anyway, that doesn't really *solve* the problem -- just shunts it of to the next poor so-and-so who gets that number ... [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've told here a couple times in the past about the aberrant fax machine at First National Bank of Chicago which (due to misprogrammed speed dialing) was placing calls to a family in Germany during (Germany's) overnight hours and how the family frantically complained to Bundespost who in turn leaned sort of hard on AT&T who in turn leaned sort of hard on Illinois Bell who in turn breathed heavily on First National Bank when polite requests to correct the situation fell on deaf ears because ... (well you know how bureacracies and customer service departments pay no attention to anyone until *their* supervisor comes along on a warpath, hell-raising scene, which is what had to happen at FNB-Chicago.) You should have also mentioned to him that 'Call Blocker' might be a solution (*60 in most locations). You can often times 'block last call recieved' whether you know the number or not. PAT] ------------------------------ From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: DSL Filter Question Date: 23 Mar 2003 16:09:55 -0500 Organization: Organized? Me? In article , Robert Bonomi wrote: > In article , Rich Greenberg > wrote: >> I am not sure if I can use the filters I was sent. The EXCELSUS >> Z-BLOCKER model Z-D25OP2J is marked as being a "Dual DSL filter". >> Its a small box with a short wire with a modular plug on one end, >> and 2 modular jacks on the other end, one marked for a phone, and the >> other for the DSL modem. >> Does this mean it contains 2 filters and will filter both line 1 and >> line 2 of a 2 line jack, > NO. >> or is the "dual" just that it has 2 jacks, one filtered and one not, >> and the filter is on line 1? If only one line is filtered, can I >> get a similar filter that filters line 2? > It is a single-line (phone line) filter. The 'phone' jack is filtered, > the 'dsl' jack is not. Sorry Robert, but you are wrong. I went to the manufacturers web site (www.excelsus-tech.com) and found the specs for that model number. It does indeed contain 2 filters, so both line 1 and line 2 out of the "phone" jack are filtered. You are correct that the "DSL" jack is line 1 and line 2 and is not filtered. 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 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But YOU DO NOT WANT any filters on the DSL 'side' of a line, ever. It has to be wide open to push the stuff out at high speed. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 02:42:47 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Wireless Hits the (Hot) Spot As Apple launches its next generation of 'Wi-Fi' products, the computer maker is confident it can adapt to potential compatibility issues By David Zeiler: The Mac Experience Sooner or later, you'll go wireless. Since 1999 Apple has sold a technology it calls "Airport" allowing Mac users to connect to a network via a base station that broadcasts a signal to any Mac equipped with a $99 Airport card. All current Mac models include a slot for such a card. As long as the Mac remains within the 300-foot range of the base station, which itself can be plugged into an Internet connection, that Mac can connect to printers or other Macs on the network as well as surf the Net. The very same technology exists for Windows users, and its use is spreading rapidly. As more and more people experience the freedom of wireless computing with a laptop, they're finding they don't want to live without it. According to a February report from Instat/MDR of Scottsdale, Ariz., shipments of wireless equipment to home users in 2002 grew by 160 percent over the previous year. http://www.sunspot.net/technology/custom/pluggedin/bal-mac032003,0,5290226.column ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: More Words About Sodomy Insane and Mr. Bush Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:55:37 -0600 Organization: www.tippenring.com So things in South Africa aren't as good as the US. What do you want us to do about it? That is their problem. Iraq is our problem because of the instability Hussein introduces in the area. We don't trust him to stay in his own borders. Additionally, he has failed to uphold his end of an agreement for 12 years. If that agreement isn't enforced, everyone will think they can get away with it. If South Africa wants the US to get involved more than we already are, then they need to realistically threaten or attack our allies, start killing their own people, etc. In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to 3yeadqp02@sneakemail.com: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes siree, there are no more oppressed > people in South Africa. Haven't been for years. The fact that AIDS in > Africa (in general) and South Africa (particularly) is at a level > worse than it ever has been anywhere else is a mere coincidence. The > fact that violent crimes of a sexual nature are rampant in South Africa > is just a coincidence also. The fact that the government they have > there is more corrupt than anything Damn Sam could produce is just > happenstance also. No, South Africa is a model of good government, isn't > it, Nelson and his wife Winnie be damned. At one point 30-35 years ago > I seriously considered migrating to South Africa to live. Now that > place gives me the total creeps. Nope, the only evil dictator in the > world is Sodomy Insane (he's Moslem, you know) and Dubya has detirmined > he must be eliminated, no matter what the cost to our nation, the UN > or the rest of the world. By God, if he won't get Saved, he'll sure as > Hell get paved. George can explain it to you better than I can. PAT] Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What you said in your first three lines is what I would like to see everywhere. The USA should mind its own business all the time, unless *directly attacked* Whether or not 9/11/01 qualified as an 'attack' or rather as I say 'mass murder' will have to be decided. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 02:37:37 -0700 Subject: protestwarrior.com Reply-To: joey@garynuman.info From the "Our Mission" page of www.protestwarrior.com (which is a laugh-riot website, well worth viewing). "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -- John Stuart Mill War IS an ugly thing, but as long as nations and leaders exist that detest freedom, sometimes it is the only way to secure a lasting peace. Most leftist anti-war protesters and pundits don't understand this. They state that this use of force is always unnecessary -- that war, ANY war, is never good. Some of them, born into the luxury of American freedom, believe that liberty can exist passively, that somehow the world's natural state will always settle into utopian harmony. Others, in an attempt to absolve themselves from the unearned guilt they harbor living in a nation of prosperity and wealth, try to buy morality on the cheap by pronouncing themselves for the 'good'. To them, the derivation of the 'good' is based on a simple, yet peculiar standard: the powerful and competent are wicked, while the feeble and impotent are innocent - regardless of the context. That is why they defend Iraq instead of America, and the Palestinian "resistance" instead of Israel. These leftists usually carry the loudest megaphones. And left unchallenged, their voices are heard disproportionately, demoralizing our troops, and emboldening dictators around the world -- dictators who dream of the day the "Great Satan" disappears from the face of the earth. However, their self-righteous messages go silent quickly when the truth of history and reality is thrown back in their face, as I experienced myself. It's time to turn up the juice on OUR megaphones, as we will never keep our supreme values of liberty and justice without the will to fight for them. -Kfir Alfia (kfir@protestwarrior.com) / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom / / I had taken a partner once before- but, damnation, no matter how / many times you get your fingers burned, you have to trust people. / Otherwise you are a hermit in a cave, sleeping with one eye open. / There wasn't anyway to be safe; just being alive was deadly / dangerous.. fatal. In the end. / -- Daniel Boone Davis, "The Door Into Summer" / (Robert Heinlein) ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 01:21:51 -0700 Subject: Yeah, I'm Wrong Reply-To: joey@garynuman.info KILLFILE ALERT: I'm about to speak on the Iraq issue. Feel free to skip. Do not feel free to whinge about whether or not it's off-topic. We live in extraordinary times and are experiencing extraordinary events. The views and opinions of people that we have come to know and respect IN THIS FORUM are of great interest to many. If that does not describe you, please skip these messages, but please also relax about it -- this topic will eventually go away. Pat: you said I wimped out by not providing links to stories detailing Saddam's atrocities -- a man who has killed (directly or through his military) more people than the US military has in its entire history. Well, sorry, but I guess I made a mistake in assuming you'd actually RESEARCHED an issue that you profess such strong feelings about and make such sweeping statements about, and that you were actually up on current events. I understand your reasons for NOT having been able to stay current, but c'mon ... before saying such outrageous things like George W. Bush is mentally ill, couldn't you have done us a favour and done a BIT of looking around to see what the stink was about? (Where's your link to the medical story that gives details of Dubya's mental illness?) Oh, but wait. If "Dubya" is in favour of something, then it's axiomatic: it must be bad, and any reaction against it must be good. It sure feels good, anyways. The problem is that the facts don't support it. Not that that ever matters to liberals. You want some links? I'll give you links. Let's start with this one: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030321-023627-5923r The interesting part of this story is towards the bottom and is easily missed. Remember all those "human shield" peaceniks that went to Iraq to try to prevent the bombing? Well, some of them turned up in Jordan recently: ----- A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head." ----- The other assertion that you and others continually make is that the average Iraqi on the street supports Saddam and is anti-American. Yes, I can understand why you might believe that, after having watched so many carefully-orchestrated anti-USA protest marches through the streets of Baghdad (but ask any reporter how quickly the signs come down and the marchers disappear once the cameras are shut off). (An aside: where is *YOUR* link to the story that asserts average, unarmed Iraqi citizens are literally fighting the invading soldiers? Hmmm?) But it's not the truth, Pat. Here is truth (from a left-wing newspaper, too): http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,919627,00.html Another argument against this conflict is that the UN hasn't authorized it. Well, excuse me. Maybe the US should ask for Iceland's permission while they're at it. The Security Council's job is to stop monsters like Hussein (and/or whoever would presume to be the next Hitler). They have failed every single time they've had such an opportunity. But the Security Council, and the UN in general, are not a higher authority, and the US does not require their "permission" to do this. The UN is not sovereign. To Robert G. Levin - gee, I'd love to debate you, but you've given me no facts to debate you on. "You Are Right and Joey Lindstrom et al. Are Wrong" - hey, it sounds right, it *FEELS* right, so therefore it *MUST* be right, huh? Levin, you are an intellectual lightweight. If you're going to say that I'm wrong, then back it up. You make yourself look like a six-year-old. To Pat re: your crosspost from another newsgroup about whether Dubya's actions rise to the level of a high crime and/or misdemeanor, and thus impeachable. By a vote of 296-133 (70%) in the House and 77-23 (77%) in the Senate, Congress authorized President Bush to use the United States armed forces ¢ as he determines to be necessary and appropriate ¢ to protect the nation ¢ against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. ¢ The war resolution gives the President the power to decide if and when to take military action against Iraq, with or without the consent of the United Nations Security Council. So if you're going to impeach the "dictator" Bush, you better impeach the democratically-elected congress-critters who authorized him to do what he's doing. Good luck. To Steven J. Sobol: I do consider myself lucky that I live in Canada, for the most part. I am still proudly Canadian, but that pride is tarnished today. Our Prime Minister, a man whose dictatorial powers DWARF Bush's and are almost on a par with Hussein's, has chosen to side with France and Germany on this one. Jean Chretien, a man who speaks out of both sides of his mouth, has defied the majority of Canadians by not only refusing to involve Canada in this directly, but even refused a compromise that would've seen Canadian troops heading to Afghanistan, there to relieve American troops that could then be redeployed to Iraq. For this, I'm lucky? Idon't think so. This is going to hurt Canada's relationship with the USA quite badly, and it's a damned shame because the average man/woman on the streets of Canada *SUPPORTS* the USA. Yes, "Daddy" should have rid the world of Saddam in '91, but I blame the Democrats in Congress for that one. They knew they couldn't win in '92 unless they could somehow reign in HW's victory, and they did just that. As for Dubya being a flaming moron, c'mon: let's see some facts to support it. Don't confuse his stilted speaking style and his various "Bushisms" for low intelligence. The man is VERY intelligent, and he has surrounded himself with some very intelligent people - Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, just to name a few. And y'ever notice how he never gets any credit for having two black people, one of which is a black woman, in such high positions in his cabinet? No credit at all ... but people will call him a racist bastard at any opportunity. (Either that, or they'll call Powell and Rice traitors to the black cause.) That said, I cringed when, during his announcement that the war was underway, he actually said "nuculer". To paraphrase Dennis Miller, "I don't think you should be allowed to VOTE on this shit until you learn how to PRONOUNCE it". :-) / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom / / "Don't argue with superior beings." / --Everything I Need To Know I Learned From Babylon 5 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Didn't I say in a note yesterday that when Joey woke up Sunday morning, checked the mail and news how he would be furious to read the responses from people who had crossed him and disagreed with him? Was I correct? I spent some time yesterday reading the commentaries in phrusa.org and found them very interesting. Generally I trust the thoughts of Physicians for Human Rights. Saddam really is a pretty awful character, which I did not totally disagree with before but having my memory refreshed with some specific facts was good. What still puzzles me a little is the *timing* on the whole thing. And why, with so many years of abuse by Saddam, Bush thought we had to act on it *right this minute* without doing a few things first: He could have prepared a sort of 'fact sheet' giving references, something like was done for me here a couple days ago with the phrusa references and lots of others. He could have used this 'fact sheet' thing to declare a state of national emergency and stated *why* immediate action was required. He could have been a better commuicator. I think also it would have been appropriate to set a sort of absolutely final deadline where the UN was concerned and made it plain he was going to continue without them after that point. When the inspectors asked for a bit more time -- hey, as many years as it has been going on, why not give them a month more if needed, and make it plain -- without any questions -- that the USA would continue at that point. As has been pointed out here in recent days, the man is an absolute idiot, which is putting it mildly. And he does have a reputation (undeserved in my opinion) of following along with whatever the most fundamentalist Christians expect of him, and you know many of them are looking forward to the Armageddon which they feel is due any day. So Bush associates with those people and gets a bit dirty also. Who can be blamed for thinking it is a strange coincidence that all these things happen so quickly? That's how I feel, that it is most peculiar to say the least. And the general arrogance of the USA does not help any either, the feelings so prevalent that 'my country is always right' and 'God Bless America' and all that stuff. I would like to see how President Carter (if he was still in office, or back for a second term) would have handled it. I am sure it would have been an improvement. If Bush had even said something like "I am sorry it has come to this point" ... but there has never been a humble word come out of his mouth that I know of. 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. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #360 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Mar 25 01:12:45 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h2P6CiK03803; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 01:12:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 01:12:45 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200303250612.h2P6CiK03803@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 #361 TELECOM Digest Tue, 25 Mar 2003 01:12:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 361 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #375, March 24, 2003 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: BellSouth, Independent LECs, etc. (Mark J Cuccia) Two Line Telephones (Tim) Wanted: Colorado: Unwanted Computers and Parts (Joseph) MobiSys 2003, First International Conference Mobile Systems (Alex Walker) Re: DHCP Router With NAT Passthrough?? (Robert Bonomi) Circuit Court Upholds Anti Junk Fax Law (Josh Collens) Re: Unsolicited Faxes (Jeff Brewster) Last Laugh! Art Brothers and Pole Line Construction (Al Gillis) 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, 24 Mar 2003 10:21:37 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #375, March 24, 2003 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 375: March 24, 2003 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: ** Bell, Axia Settle SuperNet Dispute ** Price Cap Approvals Produce Customer Rebates ** SaskTel Says Shaw Fees Are Discriminatory ** Videotron, Unions Reach Agreement ** Microcell Restructuring Approved ** Bell Sells Toronto.com Stake ** Nortel Meeting to Vote on Reverse Split ** CRTC to Review PIC Rates ** CRTC Urges Action on Broadcast Theft ** Cisco Buying Linksys ** Telus Mobility Expands Atlantic 1X Coverage ** Minacs Appoints COO ** AirIQ Acquires Vehicle Location Patents ** A Clarification on Nexxia ** New Options for Wireless LAN Security ============================================================ BELL, AXIA SETTLE SUPERNET DISPUTE: Bell West will take over construction of the rural portion of Alberta's SuperNet, previously subcontracted to Axia NetMedia, as part of a settlement of the companies' two-month-old dispute. Axia is still under contract with the Alberta government to manage and operate the network. (See Telecom Update #372) ** Calgary-based Platinum Communications says it has established the first high-speed link to Alberta schools from SuperNet, connecting five schools in Chinook. PRICE CAP APPROVALS PRODUCE CUSTOMER REBATES: The CRTC has approved most of the price changes filed by Aliant, Bell Canada, MTS, SaskTel, and Telus to comply with new price cap rules, retroactive to June 1, 2002. Changes include reductions in DNA and Megalink rates: the telcos must issue rebates to affected customers. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2003/dt2003-14.htm http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2003/dt2003-15.htm http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2003/dt2003-16.htm http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2003/dt2003-17.htm http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2003/dt2003-18.htm ** The CRTC has not yet ruled on the telcos' request for a two-month extension on the deadline for their 2003 price cap filings. (See Telecom Update #374) SASKTEL SAYS SHAW FEES ARE DISCRIMINATORY: SaskTel has complained to the CRTC that Shaw has unduly disadvantaged the telco's TV distribution service by demanding that it pay more to carry pay-per-view channels than Shaw charges others. VIDEOTRON, UNIONS REACH AGREEMENT: Videotron has reached a tentative agreement with unions representing 2,200 workers who have been on strike for 10 months. The agreement will now be voted on by the cableco's unionized employees. MICROCELL RESTRUCTURING APPROVED: Microcell Telecom has emerged from bankruptcy protection, following approval of its restructuring plan by creditors and the Quebec Superior Court. The creditors now own 99.9% of Microcell. (See Telecom Update #364) BELL SELLS TORONTO.COM STAKE: Bell Sympatico has sold its 50% share of the city site Toronto.com to its partner, Torstar. The partnership was established five years ago as part of Bell's push into the Web content business. NORTEL MEETING TO VOTE ON REVERSE SPLIT: On April 24, Nortel shareholders will be asked to authorize a stock consolidation, at a ratio to be selected by the Board within the next year, of between five to 10 old shares to one new share. (see Telecom Update #351) ** Nortel's Board is recommending against shareholder proposals to phase out stock options and to penalize executive pay for poor performance. CRTC TO REVIEW PIC RATES: Responding to an application by Primus Canada, the CRTC has launched a review of the charges paid by competitive long distance providers to incumbent telcos for database changes when a customer chooses a different long distance carrier. The current rates have not been reviewed in over five years. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Notices/2003/pt2003-2.htm CRTC URGES ACTION ON BROADCAST THEFT: On March 20, the CRTC hosted a broadcasting industry meeting on theft of satellite and cable TV signals. The participants agreed to report at least annually on efforts to eliminate signal piracy, and the Commission agreed to review overall progress in its annual Broadcasting Monitoring Report. ** Following the meeting, CRTC Chairman Charles Dalfen called on government departments and agencies to intensify their efforts to combat broadcast piracy. CISCO BUYING LINKSYS: Cisco Systems has agreed to buy Linksys, which makes wired and wireless networking equipment for homes and home offices, for US$500 million in stock. TELUS MOBILITY EXPANDS ATLANTIC 1X COVERAGE: Telus Mobility's 1X higher-speed wireless data service now reaches an additional 500,000 residents of the four Atlantic provinces through activation of its reciprocal roaming agreement with Aliant Mobility. MINACS APPOINTS COO: Call centre outsourcer Minacs Worldwide has appointed Bob Cariglia, previously a VP with Freightliner Truck, as Chief Operations Officer, effective April 1. AIRIQ ACQUIRES VEHICLE LOCATION PATENTS: AirIQ, which provides vehicle tracking services, has acquired full ownership of a series of patents for the use of wireless location in vehicle recovery. The Pickering, Ontario-based company previously owned 50% of the patents. A CLARIFICATION ON NEXXIA: Last week's item on Bell Nexxia being folded back into Bell Canada may have caused some confusion. Although Nexxia will no longer be a separate corporation, it will continue as a distinct group within Bell to serve national customers. NEW OPTIONS FOR WIRELESS LAN SECURITY: In the last year, wireless LANs have proliferated in organizations across Canada -- and most are wide open to hackers and eavesdroppers. The March issue of Telemanagement features an in-depth report on the security measures you should be implementing now and preparing for in the near future. Also in this issue: ** "Deploying Wi-Fi in the Real World" ** "Telecommuting Tools for Tight Budgets" ** "Instant Messaging Gains a Foothold in Business" To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 800-263-4415 ext 500 or go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html. ============================================================ 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: join-telecom_update@nova.sparklist.com To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to: leave-telecom_update@nova.sparklist.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 2003 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, 24 Mar 2003 05:36:20 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: BellSouth, Independent LECs, etc. In my recent post on the changes to Area Plus service plan customers, at least in Louisiana, with BellSouth changing the way calls to (non-EAS) independent telco ratecenters will now be classified, I wrote (towards the very endof my post): > Also, with some of the (basic) EAS/local enhancements over the past > three years in Louisiana, which are for "all" customers, included > "new" EAS between BellSouth and independent telco ratecenters. While > the New Orleans Metro ratecenter had an expanded (basic) local/EAS > calling area put into place in early 1991, it didn't extend as far as > Reserve Telco and Latelco. The year listed for the expansion of EAS (local) w/r/t the New Orleans Metro ratecenter was _2001_, and NOT 1991 !! I 'mis-typed', and skewed it by ten years! :( During 1999 and 2000, the Louisiana state legislature and BellSouth (along with the incumbent independent local telcos throughout the state) had an agreement on a change (a streamlining) in the way telco (and utility) property would be taxed. It resulted in a savings to the telcos. And these savings were to be passed on to the customers, either in (one-time) "rebates", or overall rate reductions, OR (as it was agreed to), in the expansion or enhancement of BASIC plan EAS/local calling areas throughout various parts of the state. The increased EAS/local calling areas began taking effect starting in LATE 2000 and throughout 2001, and continued into Summer 2002. Some of the later EAS expansions were not even listed on the original "short list" of ratecenter pairs to become local to each other! :) The La.PSC website has a page listing these, with links to click to more detailed .pdf files on each siuation: "Expanded Local Calling Area Service" http://www.lpsc.org/HeadlinesTeleExpLocalCallArea.htm The last items on this PSC list was for July 2002. However, I found yet another EAS/local enhancement, from the BellSouth website, to take effect this year (in either April or May, I don't remember offhand). And this more recent enhancement was also not on the original "short list" of proposed EAS enhancements from back in 2000. The enhancements agreement was to allow complete local/free "parish-wide" calling (Louisiana doesn't use the term 'county', but rather 'parish'). However, I can find situations where there really is NOT yet complete and full local/free calling throughout certain specific parishes ... Some of it is even intra-LATA, not the more difficult-to-approve-for-EAS inter- LATA. But it usually is where there is an independent telco involved. Lafourche Telco (LATELCO)'s ratecenter of Grand Isle LA is actually within Jefferson Parish, not Lafourche Parish. It is only reachable by road by driving down Louisiana State Hwy.#1 through Lafourche Parish, but the town of Grand Isle is jurisdictionally part of Jefferson Parish. The *remainder* of Jefferson Parish does have full and complete EAS within "itself", especially since the 2001 enhancements. However, unless one subscribes to the *optional* enhanced plans of LOS or Area Plus, it would still be an intra-LATA toll call to call between Grand Isle and the rest of Jefferson Parish. And since Grand Isle is Latelco rather than BellSouth, I wonder what this means for "high call volume" customers on LOS or Area Plus who live in the "rest of" (BellSouth parts of) Jefferson Parish who call Grand Isle ?? Telco wirecenter and ratecenter boundaries don't necessarily neatly follow political jurisdictinoally boundaries! For the most part, these expansions of BASIC Local/EAS, as well as the optional LOS and Area Plus service plans, benefit the more rural customers, who previously have had rather limited local calling areas, in some cases, ONLY within their own ratecenter! And where they can now call anything/everything in their own parish "locally" (although this is still not yet 100% realized), it has helped when they need to call "POTS" numbers of the courthouse or other parish services which were previously a toll call. Customers in the larger towns and cities already have rather large EAS or local calling areas. However, with the always increasing "flight to the suburbs/exurbs" and new "bedroom communities", expanded local/EAS calling as well as the optional LOS and Area Plus can help the "city" customers who need to call friends/relatives/etc. who have now relocated to the suburbs/exurbs, where such calling had previously been toll. Anyhow, I would hope that the La.PSC will look into making further EAS/local calling situations available for ALL customers in a given area, especially between ratecenters which have traditionally been served by different incumbent LECs ... i.e., one Bell, the other independent, OR between different adjacent independent telcos ratecenters. This would eliminate, or at least "reduce" the possibility of LOS and Area Plus customers having to deal with this recently announced new 'restriction' that I discussed in my previous post. And now that BASIC local/EAS in various parts of the state has been expanded further over the past two+ years, I *REALLY* think that it is about time for Bell/incumbents and the La.PSC to start working on signficant *RATECENTER CONSOLIDATION" efforts throughout the state. In the long run, such consolidation will help ease the use of NXX c.o.codes and numbering in general, because there will be fewer (although larger) ratecenters for *potential* CLECs (and wireless providers) in their need for 'initial' office codes for potential customers and service. And it also "streamlines" paperwork and administrative database management in such documents as Tariff filings, the LERG/RDBS/BIRRDS/etc., the front pages of local telephone books on local calling, bill inserts, and so forth. Mark J. Cuccia mcuccia@tulane.edu New Orleans LA ------------------------------ From: rtoshow@yahoo.com (Tim) Subject: Two Line Telephones Date: 24 Mar 2003 20:28:29 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ One of many items that I have on eBay. Here is a link to my auctions: http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&include=0&userid=skyline_sales&sort=3&rows=25&since=-1&rd=1 Just copy & paste that in your browser. If it doesn't work, go to www.ebay.com and do a search by seller. seller id: skyline_sales Good luck ! ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Wanted: Colorado: Unwanted Computers and Parts Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:58:35 GMT Colorado - Denver area Looking for unwanted computers, monitors, parts, software, network equipment, any speed, condition or age.WOrking or not, complete or not. Units will be recycled out into the community. Will pick up! Any number of units. Doorstop computers are fine! Also will take any unwanted software. So contact us and clear out those doorstops you have gathering dust in the basement! We can handle things even Goodwill won't take. These days, it's getting to be a lot. If security is an issue, we will remove all data from hard drives according to Dept. of Defense standards before removal. It is not my intent to disrupt but to ask for things people do not need anymore. Thank You! ->Posted by Ozum (http://ozinsight.com/) ->All-in-one yEnc newsreader, scanner and freeware autoposter. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:14:07 -0800 From: Alex Walker Reply-To: alex@usenix.org, alex@usenix.org Organization: USENIX Subject: MobiSys 2003, The First International Conference on Mobile Systems MobiSys 2003 May 5-8, 2003 - San Francisco, CA, USA http://www.usenix.org/mobisys03 http://www.sigmobile.org/mobisys/2003 Register by April 14, 2003 and SAVE! The First International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services (MobiSys 2003) is a new forum for presenting the best cutting-edge research on supporting, enabling, and coping with mobility in systems software, applications, and services. Just added: "How Should We Evaluate Systems Contributions to Ubicomp?" Because ubicomp systems always have a human in the loop, some of the traditional criteria by which classical systems work has been evaluated are not easily applied to ubicomp. This panel will take a hard look at evaluation criteria, including metrics, tactics, and possible new collaborations. Our panelists are academic researchers and industry practitioners who have architected, designed, implemented, and deployed mobile or ubiquitous computing systems to actual users. * Presentations, tutorials, demo & poster sessions, and BOFs will cover the latest innovations in many important areas, including: -security -location management -application support -mobile architectures -sensor networks -energy management -analysis of mobile networks -application mobility -systems techniques for solving mobility problems The conference will begin with a full day of technical tutorials on: *Programming Wireless Sensor/Effector Networks of TinyOS Motes - David Culler and members of the TinyOS team *An Intro to Wearable Computing - Bradley Rhodes and Thad Starner *Mobile Networking - Thomas F. La Porta *802.11 Wireless Network Security - Bernard Aboba and Dan Simon, Microsoft * Keynote: Bob Brodersen of the Berkeley Wireless Research Center and the University of California at Berkeley MobiSys 2003 is jointly sponsored by the USENIX Association and ACM SIGMOBILE in cooperation with ACM SIGOPS ------------------------------ Subject: Re: DHCP Router With NAT Passthrough?? Organization: Not Much From: bonomi@c-ns (Robert Bonomi) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:29:04 GMT A cisco PIX 505, at about US$400 will do everything you need, and then some. There _is_ a non-trivial learning-curve on setup/configuration. In article , wrote: > Well I thank those who replied direct. BUT none of the group > postings were really helpful. I dont have time to put together a > 486 firewall with Linux, etc. I WOULD like to see if something SMALL > like a router/firewall for what I NEED is out there already. > Please reply IF YOU DO KNOW of such a router. I have never used > IPsec. I know VPN is not what I am looking for; its almost like > NAT but reversed (9 123.456.789.xxx IPs on the WAN is translated to > 92.168 internal addresses; hope that explains it better, and the > 10th is used as the gateway IP). > CBoone@Earthlink.Net wrote: >> I have a T1 with a ATT managed Cisco router at the office, have 10 >> static IPs on it ... ------------------------------ From: Josh Collens Subject: Circuit Court Upholds Anti Junk Fax Law Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:01:51 -0500 Great News: The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a law that requires fax machine operators to opt-in before receiving fax advertising. From privacy.org: "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has upheld the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991 against a First Amendment challenge. In the case, Missouri v. American Blast Fax, junk fax company Fax.com and Wal-Mart argued that the law violated the First Amendment because it imposes fines upon companies that send fax advertisements without the consent of the recipient. The case is the latest court victory for opt-in privacy laws." http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/022705P.pdf ------------------------------ From: jeffbrewster@hotmail.com (Jeff Brewster) Subject: Re: Unsolicited Faxes Date: 23 Mar 2003 21:54:39 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ 3yeadqp02@sneakemail.com wrote in message news:: > You obviously have a PC -- are you using a modem with dial-up ??? If > so, the simple solution would be to allow the PC to pick up a few of > these faxes - might get you enough information to find out the > sender's details. There are enough free / demo fax software packages > around that it needn't cost you anything. Of course if you're not > using a dial up, that makes life teeny bit more complicated, but > considering that a fax modem needn't be the latest and greatest form, > you might be able to pick one up somewhere for next to nothing ... > *ANY* fax capable modem should be adequate. Yes, I have a PC, but I have a cable modem and don't even have/care to have a regular modem anymore (home networking is way too nice :-)) > Come to think of it, do these calls come at more or less "definite > times" ?? If you know anybody with a fax machine/modem, perhaps > foward calls to that number during one of those times - assuming you > have call forwarding available, that is. The calls come at random times, everyday of the week. Since I work 9-5, I check my caller ID/voicemail when I get home and always have multiple calls scattered throughout the day. >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The easy way out might be by having >> telco change the number. I think it would be quite rare if you wound > Shucks Pat, lets not give up so easily !!! Anyway, that doesn't > really *solve* the problem -- just shunts it of to the next poor > so-and-so who gets that number ... I think this solution is pretty easy also, but I don't feel it should be my responsibility to change when someone else is violating my privacy :-) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've told here a couple times in the > past about the aberrant fax machine at First National Bank of Chicago > which (due to misprogrammed speed dialing) was placing calls to a > family in Germany during (Germany's) overnight hours and how the > family frantically complained to Bundespost who in turn leaned sort > of hard on AT&T who in turn leaned sort of hard on Illinois Bell who > in turn breathed heavily on First National Bank when polite requests > to correct the situation fell on deaf ears because ... (well you know > how bureacracies and customer service departments pay no attention to > anyone until *their* supervisor comes along on a warpath, hell-raising > scene, which is what had to happen at FNB-Chicago.) > You should have also mentioned to him that 'Call Blocker' might be a > solution (*60 in most locations). You can often times 'block last > call recieved' whether you know the number or not. PAT] I am curious about a *60-type feature. I am going to give Verizon a call tomorrow and see if they have any information. The Privacy Manager feature they have sounds best, and wouldn't be too big of a deal because the only "Out of Area" or "Private Caller" calls that I receive that AREN'T faxes/telemarketers are one of my roommates calling from work (the PBX at our office blocks outgoing caller ID). Thank you for the replies, and if anyone else has anything else to add or a similar experience, please say so! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: *60 has helped me a lot. I don't worry any longer (or as much) about unwanted calls. At the conclusion of the (usually telemarketing, sometimes nuisance, repeated wrong number) call, I just punch *60 #01# and that's the last I hear of them. *60 seems to have better luck at killing telemarketers more than privacy manager or similar. *60 (pause) #01# adds 'the last call received, whether or not the number is known' to the blocked call list. It cannot seem to catch all cell phones, or Direct-Inward-Dial type numbers (for instance, our local city government here in Independence uses DID behind a centrex on the 620-332 exchange, and it won't catch those, but who wants to block them anyway? [Everyone else in town is on 620-331]). An interesting thing about *60 service: To find out whether or not a given number is 'blockable' or not, try adding it (being sure to then remove the block afterward if you do not actually want it blocked). You dial *60, listen to the menu given, then enter the desired number. Telco has to 'ping' the number (quite literally) to see what sort of system it is, etc. If the responding exchange answers the ping promptly enough then a recorded message tells you 'the number has been added to your blocked call list.' If the responding exchange does not answer the ping quickly enough, or answers it negatively, then the recorded message tells you 'the number you wish to block cannot be blocked *right now*; try again in a few minutes'. I haven't yet met a telemarketer who couldn't be pinged and banished. Its a great backup or alternative to some old 'do not call' list, ditto with unwanted fax calls. I just let the fax machines/telemarketers then squabble with telco about it, forever if they want as long as they leave me alone. You can only hold about ten blocked numbers at one time, so you have to now and then clean out the list, removing the oldest entries. By the way, having it read off the directory of blocked numbers to you is not a *back door* way to get numbers which called you with *67. For those, the directory read-out calls it a 'private number'. But if you *think* you know what the number was which called you and attempt to add/delete it by entering the number (rather than #01) Call Blocker will confirm it if it was on your list. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Al Gillis Subject: Last Laugh! Art Brothers and Pole Line Construction Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:31:55 -0800 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: An unkind, but sort of funny story about two different nationalities. After reading the story, go back and substitute whatever nationalities you want. In the story, these are used for illustritive purposes only. PAT] I'm sure most of the old timers here have heard of Art Brothers of Beehive Telephone company fame. Well, here a little story my wife found and it has Art written all over it! Sorry for the "Un-PC"ness but I thought it was funny! Enjoy! There was a Utah phone company that had several miles of pole line to install. They wanted to hire only one crew to do this work. The boss looked over the best two bids and was having a hard time deciding which crew should get the job. The construction foreman suggested they have a "bake-off" between the Irish crew and the Polish crew. So the boss and the foreman met with both teams and said: "Here's what we'll do. Each team will install poles out on the new state highway for a day. The team that installs the most poles gets the job." So both teams headed right out and went to work. At the end of the shift, the Irish guys came back and the foreman asked them how many they had installed. They said that it was tough going, but they'd put in twelve. A little later, the Polish guys came back and they were totally exhausted. The foreman said, "Well, how many poles did you guys install?" The team leader wiped his brow and sighed, "We got three in." The foreman gasped, "Three? Why, those Irish guys put in twelve!" "Yeah," said the Polish leader, "but you should see how much they left sticking out of the ground!" ------------------------------ 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. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #361 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Mar 25 03:25:16 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h2P8PF705006; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 03:25:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 03:25:16 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200303250825.h2P8PF705006@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 #362 TELECOM Digest Tue, 25 Mar 2003 03:25:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 362 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Limitations Doom HP's Digital Media Receiver (Mike Hasemann) Re: Military Phones in the Gulf (Paul A Lee) Re: Siemens 8825 Call Waiting and Voicemail Features (SELLCOM Tech Support) Liability For Public Internet Access (Bright) Climate of Intimidation (Monty Solomon) Re: BellSouth, Area Plus, Calling to Independent Telcos (joe@obilivan.net) Re: Yeah, I'm Wrong (Josh Collens) Re: More Words About Sodomy Insane and Mr. Bush (Josh Collens) Re: Protestwarrior (Charles Cryderman) Re: U.S. TV Networks Jump in as War in Iraq Starts (Ed Ellers) Re: Yeah, I'm Wrong (George Hand) Last Laugh! Mr. Ed (was Re: Remembrances of Fidonet) (Gordon S. Hlavenka) 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: netdeveloper_1@yahoo.com (Mike Hasemann) Subject: Re: Limitations Doom HP's Digital Media Receiver Date: 24 Mar 2003 05:43:39 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ What's wrong with that? To me, this is the perfect product -- and one I've been looking to find for quite some time. Its a true jukebox and the beauty of it is, you can access the same songs from more than one location in the house. As for the tv, what else would you like to view the songs from? As far as I'm concerned, a tv is perfect -- its cheap. And I love that I can connect the thing to my stereo. I've already got all my cd's burned to one of my hard drives (80Gig drive) and have been using windows media player as the jukebox software. To be able to connect something to my stereo (as opposed to my computer speakers) is a deal. What more could you ask for? Monty Solomon wrote in message news:: > By Mike Langberg > Mercury News > Hewlett-Packard's new Digital Media Receiver at $299 is a noble > attempt to create a new type of consumer product but delivers so > little value that I'm convinced we'll all look back in a year or two > and marvel at how the company had the courage to ship such a thing. > The DMR (www.hp.com/go/digitalmediareceiver) is one of the first > entrants in an emerging field I call 'home entertainment networking' > -- devices that move music, pictures and ultimately video from a > personal computer to televisions and stereo systems elsewhere in the > house. > There's an obvious need for home entertainment networking, as more > and more people assemble huge collections of digital pictures and > songs on their PC's hard drive. No one wants to listen to music only > in front of a PC, or force family and friends to gather around a > computer monitor to look at snapshots from last summer's vacation. > The problem is that it's not yet possible to make such a device easy > to use, versatile and inexpensive. You only get two out of three: > easy to use and inexpensive, but not versatile; or easy to use and > versatile, but too costly. > HP took the first route, opting for easy to use and inexpensive -- > ending up with a box that has significant limitations. > The DMR, which reached store shelves early this month and is also > available direct from HP (www.hpshopping.com), resembles a small > cable-TV converter and must be set up near a television set. > http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/5328842.htm ------------------------------ From: Paul A Lee Subject: Re: Military Phones in the Gulf Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:20:34 -0500 In TELECOM Digest V22 #359, tonypo1@cox.net wrote (in part): > In article , palee@riteaid.com > says: >> So far, I have caught several definite glimpses of Avaya 8410D or >> 8411D sets (or their MILspec or TEMPEST cousins) in news reports >> coming from on board US Navy vessels. >> Ick, ick, ick. That was one of Lucent's bad series of phones. I > admin'd a G3i with a mixture of 7406D's, 8410D's and various models > of 2500 sets with and without hold, message lights, etc. > The 8410D's broke down quite a bit more than the 7406D's did. And the > hands free on the 8410D sounded tinny. > Only good phones they made were the 74xx and 6xxx series stuff. > The 8xxx series is cheap garbage. I've heard good things about the 64xx sets, but I haven't used them. I've had a couple hundred 8410D and 8410B sets for over six years and have not had any remarkable problems with them. All but one or two replacements have been necessitated by someone spilling something into the phone. For a time, I saw a higher rate failures on the replacement 8410D sets we were sent under the maintenance agreement from AT&T/Lucent/Avaya. I have the impression that there were at least three design levels, and that the earliest and the latest are the strongest. The speakerphone on the 8410D could sound hollow, if you did not optimize the mic after moving the phone. Once optimized, the speakerphone on an 8410D could perform admirably, even when some voices were coming from 10 feet away. As for the 7400 series, my most vivid recollections include: - the R type handset -- top heavy, clumsy, and pointy enough to actually hurt if you happened to bump your chin with it - the "Chiclet" feature keys -- virtually no tactile feedback made it easy to drop a call or double key - the flimsy plastic key and face overlay that would wear through with anything more than modest use - the oozing adhesive that held the overlay on, making it almost impossible to insert or remove a desi strip, once the set had been used much It's interesting how two people can have such different perspectives, without either of them necessarily being wrong. Paul A Lee Voice: +1 717 730-8355 Sr Telecom Engineer [Voice & Transmission] Fax: +1 717 975-3789 Rite Aid Corporation, Telecomm, 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Siemens 8825 Call Waiting and Voicemail Features? Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:34:59 -0500 Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Rich Heimlich posted on that vast internet thingie: > Second, I have voicemail with Verizon (it comes with their new Freedom > flat-rate plan) and like it. I have gotten the phone to work with it > by disabling the voicemail in the phone but have I acted too quickly? > Does typical phone system voicemail exceed what I get with this or > should I tell the phone company to just enable it in case the phone is > busy and use the phones voicemail? You should be able to use both. The telco voicemail will only work if your line is busy or if your phone is disconnected or power failure whatever. If you just purchased an 8825 there is a $50 rebate. 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: brightwell_151@yahoo.co.uk (Bright) Subject: Liability For Public Internet Access Date: 24 Mar 2003 04:28:19 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello folks, If my company provides a facility for external partners to connect to the Inetner (suitablly firewalled away from our internal services) what liability are we opening ourselves up for and how do we mitigate it. Clearly, we don't have much control over the PC being used ... it may be riddled with virus/worms and may go on to attack another site using our Internet connection. This isn't quite the same as an Internet cafe (which can at least control the state of the PC as they manage it), but I guess it is pretty similar to the service that many hotels provide ... does anybody know what they do to mitigate a potential PR hit (or even legal action) from another site who have been attacked from their internet connection? Or, taking it a stage further, it is similar to the liability faced by ISPs. Now... ISPs get you to sign an agreement that you won't misbehave and potentially they can disconnect any sites that contravene this agreement, however, does this cover them? (What if the damage has already been done? ... is the agreement sufficient to transfer the liability to the user) ... do they have to have a special insurance to cover for such eventualities. Note: We don't plan to provide this service to the public ... only to visiting representatives of partner companies so we don't really expect malicious activity, however, a malignant virus/worm is a possibility. Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I posed this question to the fellow who operates our local ISP here in Indy. He said a couple times they have had someone come along who wanted to (his term) 'play games with other computers and networks on the internet' but that every new user they acquired definitly had a period of 'probation' until the person could be trusted. He has a couple of 'young whippersnappers' on his staff manning a 'help desk' type environment who know *just exactly* how to deal with troublesome users. Although they take new users without a lot of questions at first, the two whippersnappers get a note from the office each day of new users, and they literally just camp on the account, monitoring it closely for a couple days. He said to me, "if the new user is too stupid to make trouble, that's good. We don't have to watch them only a couple hours, observe what they are going to do on line; write their email letters, use the various net look-up services, check out a few pages, etc. Its the smart ones we have to spend a bit more time on. If they get a new account here and don't have to call us once or twice to learn how to login, don't ask us to how to set up their web sites, and just in general know more than is good for them ... those, we watch a bit longer, a full day or two." He said their contract with users allows service monitoring as the ISP finds appropriate, etc. He concluded saying "the really bad guys prefer to hide under rocks; they think we won't see them or maybe they think we are the dumb ones. If there is the slightest hint that one of the smarter users is bad or is going to go sour, (after all, the dumb users *don't know how to hack* so they're not going to be a problem) then one of the whippersnappers will cut the guy off so fast and place his account on hold. When the user then gets an email note telling him to visit us in the office (or in the case of out of town users) telling him to 'review our TOS closely, sign it and fax it back to us with a copy of his picture ID or driver's license showing his correct street address, telephone number, etc' that seems to get rid of the troublesome users who could cause trouble for the company. None of those guys wants attention given to him; they would prefer we did not know for sure who they were or where they were at. Some of the troublesome users don't even bother to respond to our inquiry letter or fax back legible copies of their ID cards, etc, but the ones who do know that we know who they are, and that we run things here; they do not. In the signed letter the 'smarter users' are required to sign and fax back with their ID, etc, they promise to obey TOS and to release the ISP from any liability as well as assume legal responsibility for all possible hassles. He said underage users (and most of the really brilliant users are younger kids) have to have a parent submit ID and a signed TOS. In the signed TOS the user promises not to spam, not to hack, not to phreak, not to be a nuisance to other users, etc. Until they respond positively to the letter telling them to print out the TOS, sign it, submit it with valid ID -- or visit them in the office -- then they stay off the ISP. At 6 PM or 4 AM, there will be a young whippersnapper watching them for the first couple days. He said to me in conclusion he only wished all his users were old grandmothers learning how to write/use email, etc for the first time but it just is not realistic. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:38:37 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Climate of Intimidation With the nation at war and terror fears rising, Attorney General John Ashcroft and his allies are pressing for more checks on civil liberties. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Tim Grieve March 24, 2003 | As the United States marches toward Baghdad and braces for terrorist reprisals back home, Attorney General John Ashcroft may see in America's orange-alert fears and us-against-them attitude a target of opportunity he cannot resist. The man who pushed the USA PATRIOT Act through a terrified Congress in the days after Sept. 11 may be planning a new assault on civil liberties in the wake of the war on Iraq. In February, the Center for Public Integrity uncovered a confidential Justice Department draft of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. The legislation picks up where the PATRIOT Act left off -- more wiretaps and secret searches, government access to credit reports and other personal records, a database of DNA samples, and provisions allowing the attorney general to revoke the U.S. citizenship of anyone who provides assistance to a group the government considers a "terrorist" organization. The draft drew a barrage of criticism from across the political spectrum. The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights called it a "Department of Justice wish list" that would "endanger core civil liberties," while William Safire denounced it as both an "assault" and an "abomination." Although the 120-page draft had the detailed look of a proposal ready for congressional consideration, the Justice Department quickly downplayed it as merely the brainstorming of low-level staff. When pressed about the proposed security measure at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this month, Ashcroft offered a strange response. ... http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/liberties/ ------------------------------ From: joe@obilivan.net Subject: Re: BellSouth, Area Plus, Calling to Independent Telcos Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 05:30:07 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications If you had internet phone service ala Vonage.com, you could toss such a letter in the trash. Mark J Cuccia wrote: > March 20, 2003 > Effective April 23, 2003, customers subscribing to BellSouth Area Plus > service may experience a change in the way calls dialed or forwarded > into certain Independent Company (ICO) exchanges are billed. > Beginning April 23, 2003, if you have substantial calling to the > exchanges listed in this notice, you may see additional usage charges > on your bill. The first 1,000 minutes each month of calling to the > involved exchanges will continue to be included in your service at no > additional charge. Usage in excess of 1,000 minutes per month will be > billed at 8-cents per minute. Call description information will appear > on the bill for calls that exceed the 1,000 minute allowance. > [BOLD] This billing will apply only for calls to the exchanges listed > in this notice that are not part of your basic local calling > area.[/BOLD] Exchanges included in your basic local calling area are > shown on the Customer Guide pages in the front of your BellSouth > telephone directory. > [BOLD] There will be no billing change for calling into BellSouth > exchanges or for calling into ICO exchanges in your basic local > calling area. Area Plus service plan customers will continue to call > on an unlimited basis into BellSouth exchanges and basic local area > ICO exchanges.[/BOLD] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But my question is, using Vonage or a similar internet phone arrangment, who pays for calls that have to go off net. Until everyone gets internet (let alone internet phone service) and vonage (and similar) get located in every central office) there will be phone calls that someone has to pay telco for. Who is going to pay for those? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Josh Collens Subject: Re: Yeah, I'm Wrong Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:08:15 -0500 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What still puzzles me a little is the > *timing* on the whole thing. And why, with so many years of abuse by > Saddam, Bush thought we had to act on it *right this minute* without > doing a few things first: Nothing has been simply *right this minute* The crawl to war has been taking place for over a year and every opportunity has been afforded to Iraq to disarm. Clearly it did not. Sept 11 was a big wake up call about just how far the people who hate America are willing to go and why they must be stopped first. Fortunately we now have a President who received the message and is taking option rather than kicking the can down the street again. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why should Iraq have to be the ones to disarm? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Josh Collens Subject: Re: More Words About Sodomy Insane and Mr. Bush Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:58:13 -0500 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What you said in your first three > lines is what I would like to see everywhere. The USA should mind > its own business all the time, unless *directly attacked* Whether or > not 9/11/01 qualified as an 'attack' or rather as I say 'mass murder' > will have to be decided. PAT] Unfortunately, isolationism has been tried throughout USA's history, and each time it turned out to be a huge sorry regret, including allowing Germany's Nazis to violate its Versailles peace treaty conditions in the 1930s. The 1991 Gulf War cease-fire came with a short list of conditions, and none have been met by Iraq. Seventeen UN resolutions have come and gone, with no achieved results. Inspections have shown to be ineffective, and the inspectors cannot even explain how Iraq could have possibly fired the missiles which it "didn't have." The only reason why inspectors went back to Iraq was because of the threat of force, the only thing that Hussein can comprehend. The U.S. should not or can not rely on the restraint or sanity of a brutal tyrant who has already engaged in mass torture, killings, and invading other countries. ------------------------------ From: Charles Cryderman Subject: Re: protestwarrior Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:33:31 -0500 Pat, In TD V22 #360 you asked "why now". Well sir, I think the "why now" has much to do with the ways the world is at this point in time. We need to now work at securing the safety of US citizens. With Sodomy in power, no mater where we went with the war on terrorism would never end and cost more in terms of dollars spent and lives lost. The French know that we are on the hit list for every extremist group out there. They know that we'd fight in the streets of downtown America before they'd be targeted. What they aren't looking at is: to an extremist they as well as you and I are the evil that needs to be taken care of. We're just number one. I would loved to have had the Iraq issue resolved within the UN. But France made sure that would never happen, by promising to veto anything that had to do with force. Yes, the inspectors could have used more time but with the French having decided that no force is to be used, more time for the inspectors would have done nothing but made Sodomy find more hiding places and he is very good at that. Now in an earlier issue of TD to mentioned the fact that the President pulled out of the "World Court" One thing I have noticed about the debate about this body was the fact that no one ever talks about the fact that had the USA signed it would have been a violation of the Constitution. Now, I have not read it myself, but from what I have been able to find out about it, as well as some commentator's statements, the treaty does not have the same protections as is guaranteed by the Constitution for the accused. No member of our government can do anything to lessen that and had Bush went ahead with it there would most likely had been a challenge to it in the courts, which I see would be a waste of time and money. Now I must say that you are the best Moderator on the net and I hope you live forever so as the TD will continue to be the best place for honest communications about communications. Thanks for that Pat. Chip Cryderman [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your commentary. I have often thought that *honest, complete* communications would solve most all of the world's ills. The trouble, time and time again, is that people *do not understand* what the other person is really saying. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: U.S. TV Networks Jump in as War in Iraq Starts Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:14:52 -0500 PAT, the TELECOM Digest Editor, noted: > I wonder how Bush would like it if some foreign power unilateraly decided > that he was an 'evil dictator' and set about in the air and on the land > dislodging him from power. President Bush was duly elected under our Constitution, and his powers are constrained by that Constitution. Saddam Hussein was elected by no one, and answers to no one but himself. Big difference. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What makes you think Sodomy wasn't put in office by some standards which were/are acceptable to the Iraqi people? After all, Queen Elizabeth was not elected by anyone, was she? But her being in the position she is in is acceptable to the British people. How well do you *really know* what the Iraqi people want? PAT] ------------------------------ From: George Hand Subject: Re: Yeah, I'm Wrong Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:41:37 -0500 Organization: Mountain Cablevision So Joey Lindstrom calls himself "a proud Canadian" and then trashes our Prime Minister? His dictatorial powers dwarf Bush's? Chretien can't lock POW's up in dog cages in the Carribean sun and deny them access to lawyers. He doesn't hold them for over a year without charges ... in Canada we have rules about the treatment of prisoners and no-one, not even the Prime Minister, can ignore them! Lindstrom doesn't speak for all Canadians ... a lot of them are glad that we are keeping out of this dirty little business! Most of the time that the UN Security Council passes resolutions condemming dicators, they are vetoed by guess who? The good ol'USA! All 18 resolutions calling upon Israel to pull back to it's original borders and stop building new settlements in the occupied terrotories have be vetoed by the US ... enough said? If you want to know what tyrants do elsewhere in the Middle East, try going to www.guardian.co.uk and doing a search for "Rachel's e-mails". They were the e-mails from the woman killed by an Israeli bulldozer while trying to stop the demolition of Palestinian houses ... it makes chilling reading ... so when is the US going to invade Israel to rid the world of another psychopath? (Just so there is no misunderstanding, that is sarcasm). Dubya may be intelligent under that Texan hick exterior but he's not bright enough to realize that he needs a coherent foreign policy and that he needs to talk to the rest of the world with respect. A couple of month's ago, NATO invoked a clause in its constitution which said that an attack on any member of NATO is an attack on all members and offered the US any aid it needed. What did the US do? It ignored it! That's why France and Germany said they would veto any resolutions calling for war, they were p***ed off at being treated like they didn't matter. Yes, I know France isn't a member of NATO, but they are members of the EU with Germany and there is a closeness between both countries. If you want help from your friends, don't insult them and then expect that they will jump to your aid ... first rule of diplomacy! Second rule is treat them well when they come to call, don't dump them in an office with some secretary to entertain them and pretend to be too busy to see them. Third rule: don't call, go and visit! You'll learn a lot about the problems they face and then maybe you'll understand when they have to say no for their own political survival! I'm sure that tomorrow morning, when he reads this, he'll be apopletic! Tough, Lindstrom, everyone's entitled to their opinion and I'm exercising mine democratic right to mine! My proof is on the net, I'm not going to search out the links for Lindstrom, I'm sure he can figure out how to use Google! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You said 99 percent of what I am thinking. Almost my entire problem with the Iraq thing lately has been the total arrogance of Bush toward not only Saddam, but the people who could be friends of the USA. He literally dumps on everyone all the time, and does not care. You bend over backward for your friends, they will do the same for you. I mean, look at how the prisoners are being held in Guantanomo Bay and elsewhere by Bush, not allowed to have any contact or communication with the outside world, not even allowed to have lawyers. Is that really what the United States has become? Bush has got such nerve, really. The Canadian Prime Minister is right to keep his mouth shut and stay out of it even though Joey is 'so ashamed' of him. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:05:26 -0600 From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Reply-To: nospam@crashelex.com Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc. Subject: Last Laugh! Mr. Ed (was Re: Remembrances of FidoNet) Jack wrote: > "A host is a host from coast to coast > & no one will talk to a host that's close > Unless the host (that isn't close) > is busy, hung or dead" > (Which, for those never exposed to "classic" American television, is a > takeoff on the theme song for "Mister Ed", a show about a talking > horse. I'm surprised Hollywood hasn't tried to make that one into a > full length feature movie yet!) Imagine my surprise when I was reading an anthology recently and ran across a story called "Dr. Atwood and Mr. Ed" by Walter Brooks. It is unquestionably the inspiration for the TV series. I don't know when the stroy was written, but the anthology was copyrighted in 1948. Gordon S. Hlavenka www.crashelex.com nospam@crashelex.com Grammar and spelling flames welcome. Yes, that's really my email address. Don't change it. ------------------------------ 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. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #362 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Mar 25 15:39:00 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h2PKd0Y08872; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:39:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:39:00 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200303252039.h2PKd0Y08872@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 #363 TELECOM Digest Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:39:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 363 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson So Long, SonicBlue (Monty Solomon) Re: DHCP Router With NAT Passthrough?? (Clarence Dold Re: Unsolicited Faxes (3yeadqp02@sneakemail.com) VoIP Billing Software for Sale (Ree) Re: Communication Between PABX (foo) War Causing Inmarsat Network Congestion? (t-sphere) The Absolutely Last Day of This (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Yeah, I'm Wrong (Steve Michelson) Re: Yeah, I'm Wrong (Peter Dubuque) Re: Yeah, I'm Wrong (Richie Kennedy) Re: Yeah, I'm Wrong (John Higdon) Re: Yeah, I'm Wrong (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Yeah, I'm Wrong (Robert Levin) Re: protestwarrior (John Higdon) In an Effort to End This Thread ... (Joey Lindstrom) In an Effort to Repair my Computers ... (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, 25 Mar 2003 01:33:26 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: So Long, SonicBlue - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=32547401 ------------------------------ From: dold@99.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: DHCP Router With NAT Passthrough?? Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 07:08:19 UTC Organization: a2i network CBoone@earthlink.net wrote: > Well I thank those who replied direct. BUT none of the group > postings were really helpful. I dont have time to put together a > 486 firewall with Linux, etc. I WOULD like to see if something SMALL > like a router/firewall for what I NEED is out there already. If you didn't like any of the solutions, it may be that you haven't decribed your problem very well. You've presented what you want as the solution, but it may not be the solution that is actually needed, or even workable. There is probably very little that is needed in networking that isn't available pretty cheaply today. I offered a solution that mapped external IP addresses to internal NAT addresses. When I didn't hear anything from you, I assumed that it was a workable solution for you. What are you really trying to accomplish? ------------------------------ From: 3yeadqp02@sneakemail.com Subject: Re: Unsolicited Faxes Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:54:00 +0200 ~ To reply by e-mail, include "Telecom Digest" in the subject line ~ On 23 Mar 2003 21:54:39 -0800, you , jeffbrewster@hotmail.com (Jeff Brewster), wrote: > Yes, I have a PC, but I have a cable modem and don't even have/care to > have a regular modem anymore (home networking is way too nice :-)) I was really only suggesting for a day or so - just long enough to catch a fax or two .... > I am curious about a *60-type feature. I am going to give Verizon a If I was aware of this, I would have suggested it -- but I was looking at it from my own perspective, and that's not an option that we have here (Cape Town, South Africa) In fact I'd never heard of it until this thread !! (It does sound like the solution to your problem though) For myself, if/when fax machines start calling our voice numbers, I simply reroute to the PC monitoring for faxes (we have a small 6 x 16 pabx in the house, which of course makes life much simpler !!!!) Which brings me to a "way back when" thought -- when I was just a wee lad, I remember my (late) father being very proud of the fact that we had a radio in just about every room in the house -- I wonder what he'd say about my setup today -- phones everywhere except the bathrooms, one of them being a DECT cordless that "lives" in my pocket, a cell router linked into the system, (well, within the next few days anyway), three cells phones in the house, TV's in most rooms, several PC's in various rooms, all networked together. Of course part of the reason for all of this is because we (myself and the mrs) both work from home, but even then, it hardly seems exceptional .... how the world has changed in the past several decades !!!! Cheers, Frank R [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Those poor, oppressed people in South Africa! I wonder if The Telephone Company could be induced to send over troops of telephone workers to fight there for the rights of the citizens not to be tortured by telemarketers and aberrant fax machines and to have *60 and Privacy Manager on request. As President Roosevelt once said, every African is entitled to a cell router and a PBX in their home. That was humour, Frank; a bit of sarcasm to start of this day. PAT] ------------------------------ From: capricorn75@softhome.net (Ree) Subject: VoIP Billing Software for Sale Date: 25 Mar 2003 04:21:01 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Dear Sirs!!! I have a wide range of VoIP billing Software at a low price. Newest releases. It offers: Call Accounting, Post-paid Billing, Prepaid Billing Prepaid Calling Card Operation Inter-gateway Settlement Internet access, web design, web hosting, e-commerce services Web interface for Customers, Sales Agents, and Customer Service Representatives. And much more. Feel free to mail me: capricorn75@softhome.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: capricorn75@softhome.net sends me this message almost daily. Normally I pitch it in the trash almost daily, but lately he has toned it down somewhat, so it is time to reward him by printing it ONE TIME ONLY since he eliminated the 'sale prices' and most of the exclamation marks (!) this time around. Starting tomorrow I will trash it again. PAT] ------------------------------ From: di00enad@ing.hj.se (foo) Subject: Re: Communication Between PABX Date: 25 Mar 2003 07:13:01 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ > It would help if you told us the make and model of PBX on either side of > the link. It is a BusinessPhone 150 at one side and a C4T1E1 PCI-card at the other side. ------------------------------ From: danopunkt@yahoo.com (t-sphere) Subject: War Causing Inmarsat Network Congestion? Date: 25 Mar 2003 01:31:20 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ My users in the Gulf region are reporting problems connecting to the Inmarsat network. Error messages are: "Call spacing too short"; or "Error 14C2H." They are all using TT-3080A M4 Messengers with service provided by Stratos. Has anyone heard that the Inmarsat network is being overloaded by use associated with the war? (Media, NGOs, military, etc.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:14:01 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: The Absolutely Last Day of This This thread (under its various names, 'Yeah, I am Wrong", "Sodomy Insane", other names, etc) absolutely has to come to an end today. It is getting way out of control. It does not really belong here (although that has never stopped me in the past), but it is getting ridiculously off of topic. The rest of the messages in this issue are the Last Words on the Topic by our readers. Psst, don't tell anyone, but after I send out this issue of the Digest, if *one or two more only* arrive which crossed in the mail with this FINAL issue, I will probably print them as a kindness to the guys who worked them up and mailed them in. (I honestly hope none show up however.) PAT ------------------------------ From: Steve Michelson Subject: Re: Yeah, I'm Wrong Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 07:06:22 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Pat, I don't want to get drawn into this political discussion, but I want to point out that Bush did prepare a fact sheet. Two, actually over the past few months. Very sobering reading. They should be on the white house web site, if you want to try to find them. They detail the attrocities of the Saddam regime over the years. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Didn't I say in a note yesterday that > when Joey woke up Sunday morning, checked the mail and news how he > would be furious to read the responses from people who had crossed him > and disagreed with him? Was I correct? > I spent some time yesterday reading the commentaries in phrusa.org and > found them very interesting. Generally I trust the thoughts of Physicians > for Human Rights. Saddam really is a pretty awful character, which I > did not totally disagree with before but having my memory refreshed > with some specific facts was good. > What still puzzles me a little is the *timing* on the whole thing. And > why, with so many years of abuse by Saddam, Bush thought we had to act > on it *right this minute* without doing a few things first: He could > have prepared a sort of 'fact sheet' giving references, something like > was done for me here a couple days ago with the phrusa references and > lots of others. He could have used this 'fact sheet' thing to declare > a state of national emergency and stated *why* immediate action was > required. He could have been a better commuicator. I think also it > would have been appropriate to set a sort of absolutely final deadline > where the UN was concerned and made it plain he was going to continue > without them after that point. When the inspectors asked for a bit > more time -- hey, as many years as it has been going on, why not give > them a month more if needed, and make it plain -- without any questions -- > that the USA would continue at that point. As has been pointed out > here in recent days, the man is an absolute idiot, which is putting it > mildly. And he does have a reputation (undeserved in my opinion) of > following along with whatever the most fundamentalist Christians > expect of him, and you know many of them are looking forward to the > Armageddon which they feel is due any day. So Bush associates with > those people and gets a bit dirty also. Who can be blamed for thinking > it is a strange coincidence that all these things happen so quickly? > That's how I feel, that it is most peculiar to say the least. And the > general arrogance of the USA does not help any either, the feelings so > prevalent that 'my country is always right' and 'God Bless America' > and all that stuff. I would like to see how President Carter (if he > was still in office, or back for a second term) would have handled it. > I am sure it would have been an improvement. If Bush had even said > something like "I am sorry it has come to this point" ... but there > has never been a humble word come out of his mouth that I know of. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter Dubuque Subject: Re: Yeah, I'm Wrong Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:09:42 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Josh Collens wrote: > Nothing has been simply *right this minute* The crawl to war has been > taking place for over a year and every opportunity has been afforded > to Iraq to disarm. Clearly it did not. Sept 11 was a big wake up call > about just how far the people who hate America are willing to go and > why they must be stopped first. Fortunately we now have a President > who received the message and is taking option rather than kicking the > can down the street again. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why should Iraq have to be the ones to > disarm? PAT] Tony Blair sums it up: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,916790,00.html Peter F. Dubuque - peterd@panix.com - Enemy of Reason(TM) O- ------------------------------ From: Richie Kennedy Subject: Re: Yeah, I'm Wrong Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:38:17 -0000 Organization: route56.com Josh Collens wrote in news:telecom22.362.7 @telecom-digest.org: > Nothing has been simply *right this minute* The crawl to war has been > taking place for over a year and every opportunity has been afforded > to Iraq to disarm. Clearly it did not. Sept 11 was a big wake up call > about just how far the people who hate America are willing to go and > why they must be stopped first. Fortunately we now have a President > who received the message and is taking option rather than kicking the > can down the street again. To which the moderator noted in response: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why should Iraq have to be the ones to > disarm? PAT] I would think it was because he was ordered to do so as a result of the cease-fire in the '91 Gulf War. The agreement called for 90 days, we gave him 12 years. With that, the cease fire is null and void, and officially, we NEVER ceased hostilities with Iraq. An Observation: The American Legion's qualifications for membership currently allows anyone who has seved in the 5 branches since 8/2/1990 to become a member. Richie Kennedy route56@route56.com · www.route56.com "If you don't look ahead, nobody will...." ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Yeah, I'm Wrong Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:25:16 -0800 In article , Josh Collens wrote: > Nothing has been simply *right this minute* The crawl to war has been > taking place for over a year and every opportunity has been afforded > to Iraq to disarm. Clearly it did not. Sept 11 was a big wake up call > about just how far the people who hate America are willing to go and > why they must be stopped first. Fortunately we now have a President > who received the message and is taking option rather than kicking the > can down the street again. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why should Iraq have to be the ones to > disarm? PAT] Iraq has shown in numerous incidents over the past decade plus that it doesn't know how to properly play with its toys. More importantly, Iraq has shown that it is not deterred by the concept of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). Many people believe (with good evidence) that Iraq would not hesitate to use any arrow in its quiver without the slightest hesitation, even if it meant a massive retaliation. Remember, Saddam has repeatedly shown no regard or concern for his own people, whom he would sacrifice in an instant if it meant his own survival. If Iraq had been the "other" superpower rather than the USSR, we would probably have had nuclear armageddon long ago. Nations that would not hesitate to use any weapon regardless of the consequences are considered very dangerous by the world community at large. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:51:46 -0700 Subject: Re: Yeah, I'm Wrong Reply-To: joey@telussucks.info On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 03:25:16 EST, George Hand wrote: > So Joey Lindstrom calls himself "a proud Canadian" and then trashes > our Prime Minister? His dictatorial powers dwarf Bush's? Chretien > can't lock POW's up in dog cages in the Carribean sun and deny them > access to lawyers. He doesn't hold them for over a year without > charges ... in Canada we have rules about the treatment of prisoners > and no-one, not even the Prime Minister, can ignore them! He could and he would, if he found it expedient to do so. I'm not going to get into Chretien's record with you in this forum, but believe me, it's a lot sorrier than Bush's. Bottom line: any new law that Chretien wants, Chretien gets. The Canadian parliament votes on party lines pretty much exclusively, with penalties for opposing your party pretty severe. This happens less frequently in the USA and in fact such voting is viewed critically as being too "partisan". Bush can't have a Republican Senator who votes against him immediately expelled from the Republican Party. > Lindstrom doesn't speak for all Canadians ... a lot of them are glad > that we are keeping out of this dirty little business! I do not claim to speak for ALL Canadians -- nobody could or should. But the folks you're talking about weren't at the Saddledome last night, apparently. Last week, a bunch of buffoons in Montreal booed the Star Spangled Banner before a hockey game between the Montreal Canadiens and (iirc) the New York Islanders. Hey, express your opinion all you want, but that's just plain offensive. So, last night, when the Calgary Flames hosted the Phoenix Coyotes, that same anthem received a very, very loud ovation from the opening notes, which got louder and louder as the anthem progressed to conclusion. Lots of wet eyes in the building, lemme tell ya. But hey, we're just a bunch of rednecks, right? Our opinions aren't "enlightened" like liberal opinions, therefore they're irrelevant. (And we're the intolerant ones?) > Tough, Lindstrom, > everyone's entitled to their opinion and I'm exercising mine > democratic right to mine! My proof is on the net, I'm not going to > search out the links for Lindstrom, I'm sure he can figure out how to > use Google! h... when did I ever say, or even infer, that you weren't entitled to your own opinion? I happen to disagree with it, on the basis of a better understanding of the history involved (and I base this upon what you've said, much of which shows a definite lack of such understanding), but I defend your right to it. Because unlike Iraqis, we have that right. The Iraqis will be gaining that right shortly. -- Joey Lindstrom -- Telus Sucks http://www.telussucks.info ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:56:11 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Levin Subject: Re: Yeah, I'm Wrong Joey Lindstrom: You must feel a little bit threatened by my previous posting, to say the least, otherwise you wouldn't be throwing such a tantrum! I do not wish to acknowledge the ridiculously blinded, hypnotized, and mindlessly obedient attitude which you manifest towards the moronic "Christian" theocrat occupying our White House any further than to simply point out several rather obvious fallacies to the "weapons of mass destruction" excuse that the junta is proffering as the bullshit "reason" behind this invasion of Iraq. Firstly, it is apparently acceptable for the United States and several other countries (such as France and India and China) to possess, test, etc. the ultimate WMD, the A-bomb, and yet it is NOT acceptable to the junta for other countries to allegedly possess the same technology. Rather arrogant attitude, huh? Secondly, in the history of humans on this planet, only one country has ever actually USED these ultimate weapons of mass destruction against civilians (or anyone, for that matter,) and of course once again that country is ... the good old US of A. So far there is ABSOLUTELY no proof whatsoever of Iraq having such devices, but if they WERE to have them, it is NOT OUR BUSINESS! As for the use of poison gas against the Kurds, the use of poison gas during the twentieth century is not unique to the legal government of Iraq, but ... guess what ... the good old USA has used it in the past as well! Same with the Germans, Herr Lindstrom! In fact, the USA has the largest stockpile of poison and nerve gases in the world, stored I believe in either Oregon or Idaho in a large underground facility. Why is it OK for the USA to have something and yet not OK for another country to have the same thing? I wonder how we'd react if some dipshit halfway across the world suddenly decided that he didn't like the way WE run OUR country and decided therefore to invade us and force THEIR customs on us! Just because we don't approve of a foreign government or with their lawful head of state, does not mean that we have ANY right to invade them and force our brand of "democracy" or "Christianity" or anything else up their asses or down their throats. I don't know what sort of bullshit they teach you Canadians, but here in the USA we were taught (at one time, anyway) to stand up to bullies, and to think for ourselves. At this time in history it would seem as though the United States government, in all of it's terrible might and arrogance, is the biggest bully around! Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even when theirs is wrong, kid! By the way, Lindstrom, you appear even MORE of an intellectual lightweight than I for wishing to "debate" someone who makes himself "look like a six year old!" Frankly, I don't have time for you goddamn beer swilling Canadian slobs anyhow, you guys are STILL groveling little lickspittles to your English lords and masters, you really don't have much of a national identity (just try to name an item of Canadian cuisine, for instance -- beer doesn't count) and frankly I wouldn't walk across the street to spit on ANY of you if your TOQUE was on fire! Until next we meet, I shall remain as always Yours With Great Disdain, Robert G. Levin P.S.: How do can you tell when a politician is lying? Whenever you see his lips move! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well! As they say on Yahoo Messenger, ':O' (or a big round moon-like shocked face with a wide-open mouth and big round unbelieving eyes). I guess you put Joey in his place. Too bad he gets no chance to answer back publicly in this forum since I arbitarily decided to close the thread as of this issue. I should have printed your message last night when it arrived here, in order to give Joey a chance to wind up and expel his venom in this FINAL issue on the thread. Oh well, we will all get over it, the war will eventually end and we can without regret get back to talking about the latest Telephone Company policies and practices. And Mr. Levin, *you* say Joey is the bigot around here? PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: protestwarrior Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:48:53 -0800 In article , Charles Cryderman wrote: > I would loved to have had the Iraq issue resolved within the UN. But > France made sure that would never happen, by promising to veto > anything that had to do with force. Yes, the inspectors could have > used more time but with the French having decided that no force is to > be used, more time for the inspectors would have done nothing but made > Sodomy find more hiding places and he is very good at that. It is absolutely astounding how many people fail to see that by declaring "force" to be off the table of remedies, the ultimate use of force is assured. If Saddam Hussein had been convinced that the UN would present a united front, using force if necessary, to enforce the provisions of its resolutions, the chances of seeing his compliance would have been greatly increased. France, by promising that it would veto any use of force, signalled the Iraqi government that it had nothing to fear from the UN, and that it had no incentive to comply with its resolutions. One could almost sense the increase in the boldness of the Iraqi government with each pronoucement from the French ambassador. I hear people frequently utter the phrase, "the inspections were working; the inspectors should have been given more time." By what measure were the inspections "working"? Blix himself admitted that they had found no proscribed weapons. What the team did "find" were those marginal weapons that the regime spoon-fed the inspectors to prolong the process ... which could literally have gone on forever, or until money ran out and the nations involved got tired of playing the game. What is happening right now is something that would have happened sooner or later. The timing may be bad, and the US ends up being the heavy, but ultimately the Saddam regime would have had to have been defused by someone. 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, you are prolly correct; events like this are always very sad for me, and I still say it is too bad that Bush and many Americans have to be so damn arrogant about it all. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:42:05 -0700 Subject: In an Effort to End This Thread ... Reply-To: joey@telussucks.info ... can we at least agree on one important issue? There are a lot of very heated opinions being expressed, on a topic that is not generally accepted to be anything to do with telecom. The one important issue is this: regardless of which side of the issue you're on, and regardless of how much of an idiot you think people on the other side are, let's try to understand that EACH OF US FIRMLY BELIEVES, STRONGLY, THAT WHAT WE ARE ARGUING FOR IS MORALLY "RIGHT". I feel sure that I can speak for Pat: he feels that this invasion is "wrong" and morally indefensible, and argues for another path that would be more "right". I (and I speak only for myself and those I've spoken to and emailed directly on this) also feel quite strongly that I am arguing for actions that are morally "right", and that to FAIL to have taken this military action would have been "wrong" and morally indefensible. That's why we're getting so heated here. We feel we're "right", and therefore the other side must be "wrong" and maybe even veering toward "evil" - after all, they're arguing for actions opposite to what we feel is "right". I believe Pat feels he's "right". I know I feel I'm "right". What we disagree on is how best to accomplish what's "right". We're not likely going to convince each other of our view of how to do that, so can we just agree to disagree, and agree that however misguided we may feel the other person is, they are doing so from what they HONESTLY BELIEVE is a position of "doing the right thing", and get back to Telecom-related issues? -- Joey Lindstrom -- Telus Sucks http://www.telussucks.info [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are also right, Joey. You do have some unfinished business from this issue (see message from Mr. Levin), but I trust you know how to use private email and will use it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:32:49 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: In an Effort to Repair my Computers ... I would like to ask mdickens to contact me *once again, please* with a valid email address. Its not YOUR fault, it is mine. Somehow in the rush of war messages, etc your reply 'Remember Me' (a non-war related; computer-fixing related) message got shoveled out with the spam by accident early today. Notice how I was up at 3 this morning with the last issue prior to this one going out? That's when it happened. Sorry. 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. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #363 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Mar 27 02:39:52 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h2R7dqs17062; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:39:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:39:52 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200303270739.h2R7dqs17062@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 #364 TELECOM Digest Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:40:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 364 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Why the Dogs of Cyberwar Stay Leashed (Monty Solomon) PayPal Tightens Transaction Reins (Monty Solomon) English Al-Jazeera Website Hacked (Monty Solomon) CDT Releases New Report on Origins of Spam (Monty Solomon) Policy Post 9.08: New CDT Report Shows How Spammers Can Get ID (M Solomon) FTC's National Telemarketing Do Not Call Web Site to Launch (Monty Solomon) Satellite Phones Make A Comeback For War (Monty Solomon) Microsoft Limits E-Mail to Fight Spam (Monty Solomon) Join computerrepair.com (Gabe Miano) Do all PBXs Have the Same CDR/SMDR Port? (hiral) What Flavor CO do I Have? (Mike O'Dorney) Vonage Line (joe@obilivan.net) Re: Fax Recovery (nde_plume@hotmail.com) Re: War Causing Inmarsat Network Congestion? (Ian Okey) Long Distance Liability (Jim Langridge) Revision G For Antennae Tower Implementation (waveinspector) Dialogic and WAV Prompts (Clint Lord) Re: Unsolicited Faxes (3yeadqp02@sneakemail.com) Last Laugh! was Re: VoIP Billing Software for Sale (John P. Marshall) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. WE DO NOT PERMIT NAME/EMAIL ADDRESS HARVESTING FROM THIS JOURNAL. 'SALTED' EMAIL ADDRESSES APPEAR HEREIN TO VERIFY THIS. YOU GET SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT IF YOU GET CAUGHT SPAMMING OR SENDING VIRUSES. DON'T DO IT. See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:54:42 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Why the Dogs of Cyberwar Stay Leashed The United States could try out its much-hyped "cyberwarfare" capabilities in Iraq ... but it would probably be illegal. By Mark Rasch Mar 24, 2003 As the U.S. and U.K. campaign to "shock and awe" the Iraqi leadership and population continues, as "bunker buster" bombs hit the Iraqi Presidential palaces and coalition forces attempt to disrupt the command and control of the Iraqi military, one widely-reported offensive capability is nowhere in sight: the United States has not yet officially used the tools of cyberwarfare. The U.S. military has reportedly developed impressive offensive cyberwar capabilities, including the ability to use microwave or other electronic impulses to disrupt or destroy electronic components. If this is true, why have we not yet seen an all out cyberwar? ... http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/149 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:04:34 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: PayPal Tightens Transaction Reins http://go.hotwired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,58208,00.html/wn_ascii New rules at PayPal dictate what users can and can't purchase using the online payment service. Fruit in X-rated shapes is OK, but mountain lion parts are not. By Christopher Null. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:08:07 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: English Al-Jazeera Website Hacked http://go.hotwired.com/news/politics/0,1283,58200,00.html/wn_ascii Arab satellite TV network Al-Jazeera launched an English-language website Monday. On Tuesday, its Web host says it was hit with a denial- of-service attack, but an Al-Jazeera representative blames the problem on unexpectedly high traffic. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:26:47 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: CDT Releases New Report on Origins of Spam From: CDT Info Subject: CDT Headline: CDT Releases New Report on Origins of Spam Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:45:39 -0500 CDT has released a new report based on a six month project entitled "Why Am I Getting All This Spam?" The results offer Internet users insights about what online behavior results in the most unsolicited commercial email and also debunk some of the myths about spam. March 19, 2003 Why Am I Getting All This Spam?" HTML version: http://www.cdt.org/speech/spam/030319spamreport.shtml Why Am I Getting All This Spam?" Acrobat version: http://www.cdt.org/speech/spam/030319spamreport.pdf More on Spam: http://www.cdt.org/speech/spam/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:27:47 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Policy Post 9.08: New CDT Report Shows How Spammers Can Get From: CDT Info Subject: Policy Post 9.08: New CDT Report Shows How Spammers Can Get Your E-Mail Address Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:13:15 -0500 CDT POLICY POST Volume 9, Number 8, March 19, 2003 A Briefing On Public Policy Issues Affecting Civil Liberties Online from The Center For Democracy and Technology Contents: (1) New CDT Report Shows How Spammers Can Get Your E-Mail Address (2) Spam "Harvesters" Target Web Sites, Newsgroups (3) Privacy Policies and Exercising Choice Can Help Users Limit Spam (4) Tips for Avoiding Spam http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_9.08.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:25:54 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FTC's National Telemarketing Do Not Call Web Site to Launch on From: CDT Info Subject: CDT Headline: FTC's National Telemarketing Do Not Call Web Site to Launch on July 1 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:06:50 -0500 FTC's National Telemarketing Do Not Call Web Site to Launch on July 1 The Federal Trade Commission has announced that the Web site allowing consumers to put their telephone numbers on the national registry to stop telemarketing calls will launch in July. The FTC will also have a toll free number to call. The FTC expects overwhelming demand for the project and is therefore rolling out the toll free number beginning on the west coast and heading east throughout the summer. March 26, 2003 The FTC The National "Do Not Call" Registry Page http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/donotcall/index.html Comments of CDT and others to FTC supporting "Do Not Call" list [pdf] March 28, 2002 http://www.cdt.org/privacy/020328cpg-dnc-comments.pdf CDT comments to FCC on "Do Not Call" December 9, 2002 http://www.cdt.org/privacy/021209cdt.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:46:03 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Satellite Phones Make A Comeback For War Satellite Phones Make A Comeback For War - Mar 25, 2003 10:00 AM (Forbes.com) - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=32565784 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:47:24 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Microsoft Limits E-Mail to Fight Spam REDMOND, Wash. (AP) -- To cut down on junk e-mail, Microsoft Corp. is capping the number of e-mails that users of its free Hotmail service can send each day. By limiting to 100 the number of messages that could be sent in a 24-hour period, Microsoft's MSN division hopes to stop people from using its service to send the unsolicited messages, known as spam. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=32572257 ------------------------------ From: gabemiano@hotmail.com (Gabe Miano) Subject: Join Computerrepair.com Date: 26 Mar 2003 14:22:31 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ We are building a "portal" for computer service providers, network engineers and technical consultants. Already about 70 companies a day are searching for service providers, and we've only been online for about a week. It would definitely be smart to sign on early. It does not cost anything, and any addtional exposure for your business is a good thing. You register at computerrepair.com describing your services, coverage area, rates and so on. When companies look for computer service providers they may contact you for service or repair. You have nothing to lose and the domain is one that gets a lot of traffic for obvious reasons. Take a look at it. It takes about 10 minutes to complete the sign on process. Also please tell your friends. Our goal is to get national coverage by August 2003. http://www.computerrepair.com/ No Downside - All Upside ------------------------------ From: hiralvalia@yahoo.com (hiral) Subject: Do All PBXs Have the Same CDR/SMDR Port? Date: 26 Mar 2003 21:41:46 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I would be thankful if someone can tell me whether all PBXs have the same CDR/SMDR port: in terms of the connector, pin-configurations, etc. also, is the cable that connects the PBX to a computer's serial port easily available? Thank you, Hiral ------------------------------ From: modorney@aol.com (Mike O'Dorney) Subject: What Flavor CO do I Have? Date: 26 Mar 2003 13:24:41 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ How do I tell what type of Central Office (DMS100, etc.) a phone number has? Is there a service, like www.dslreports.com, that tells the type of CO? ------------------------------ From: joe@obilivan.net Subject: Vonage Line Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:58:23 -0800 Organization: Cox Communications Got my Vonage service up and running last Friday. Sounds as good as any wireline connection. And, since I already had a router it was out of the box plug-and-play. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There were two messages about Vonage here recently. One of them (Vongage?) had you buying the instrument then paying a monthly fee. The other one just had you buy the instrument the nothing further. Which one was that? PAT] ------------------------------ From: nde_plume@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Fax Recovery Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:43:27 -0500 Organization: Bell Sympatico On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 07:39:41 UTC, lucky" wrote: > I am recording all phone calls, voice and fax, on my pc. > So I have a .wav file also for every fax received or transmitted with > the external stand-alone analogue fax machine. There is a way to > decode these .wav file into the original image? Simply send 'sound' > to modem seem do not work. I think a 'softmodem' that analyze and > decode wave stream may be a solution. Suggestions? Use a modem and software to receive faxes, it would be easier to setup and operate. And it'll probably even take less space to storing files compared to using the .wav files. > Regards. > lucky lu ------------------------------ From: ian_okey@hotmail.com (Ian Okey) Subject: Re: War Causing Inmarsat Network Congestion? Date: 26 Mar 2003 00:38:12 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ danopunkt@yahoo.com (t-sphere) wrote in message news:: > My users in the Gulf region are reporting problems connecting to the > Inmarsat network. Error messages are: "Call spacing too short"; or > "Error 14C2H." They are all using TT-3080A M4 Messengers with service > provided by Stratos. Has anyone heard that the Inmarsat network is > being overloaded by use associated with the war? (Media, NGOs, > military, etc.) Are you using the old IOR or the new 5th region IND-W that Inmarsat have put into service to provide extra capacity. With all the broadcasters around it is hardly surprising that there is some congestion. Ian ------------------------------ From: Jim Langridge Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:48:41 -0500 Subject: Long Distance Liability Hello Pat, Here's one for the Digest. Maybe someone out there can answer. While going over long distance bills for the past year, I found accounts being billed and paid that should have been cancelled when the office they were associated with moved. When I contacted LD carrier, they said they had never been informed to close the accounts. Since the phone lines/numbers associated with the accounts were no longer active most the charges were small monthly charges, except for one. One of the numbers had been re-activated/re-assigned by a different LEC. The LD carrier was still providing service to that number. The residence to which that number is assigned makes about $2-3K worth of phone calls per month to Switzerland and the Philippines. I have asked the LD carrier to credit us for the roughly $30K we have paid in the past year since the calls were not made by anyone associated with my company. They refused, saying that my company was still responsible for all the charges up to the time I asked them to terminate the account. I know this is more a legal question than a technical one. Shouldn't the LD carrier credit us for the long distance and go after the John Doe who has the telephone number assigned to him now? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well yeah, they should go after him, but they are lazy. Don't you have some notes around there dealing with the call that was made to the carrier requesting cancellation? Make copies of them for the carrier as your proof. Also, do you still have *any* working accounts with that carrier? You should *put a hold on all accounts payable to the company as of NOW*. Hopefully you have enough due them on other accounts that you will be able to recover your $30 K in a month or two or three before the carrier gets too suspicious and cuts you off. If they complain (and they will) hold to the posture that you paid in advance for service on disconnected lines. PAT] ------------------------------ From: saintpb@eudoramail.com (waveinspector) Subject: Revision G for Antennae Tower Implementation Date: 26 Mar 2003 06:45:46 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Please, actually I want to configure a tower to support various kind of data links with several antennas but it should be implemented with only one tower. Anyone have experience with this kind of situation? What are the standards to build a tower for this use? Anyone have a guide or info? ------------------------------ From: Clint Lord Subject: Dialogic and WAV prompts Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:20:37 -0700 Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/ We are running Dialogic D/240SC T1 cards and using Visual Voice 5.0 Pro to control the card. Everything is working great, except for on certain machines we can't play WAV prompts. We setup the machines exactly the same (software wise) and we've even swapped Dialogic cards from one machine to the other. It seems like it has something to do with the particular machine setup, but we can't seem to figure it out. Is there some special Windows or hardware level setup that enables the Dialogic cards to play wav files? A couple interesting notes: 1. It plays vox files with no problem and the IVR's work great and 2. I acts like it's playing the wav file, but you hear nothing through the handset. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Clint Lord ------------------------------ From: 3yeadqp02@sneakemail.com Subject: Re: Unsolicited Faxes Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:07:53 +0200 ~ To reply by e-mail, include "Telecom Digest" in the subject line ~ On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:54:00 +0200, in comp.dcom.telecom Pat wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Those poor, oppressed people in South > Africa! I wonder if The Telephone Company could be induced to send > over troops of telephone workers to fight there for the rights of the Well shucks Pat, most of the people here would welcome it with open arms -- there's this common delusion that "The American Phone Systems would be Heaven to deal with" ..... I'm waiting with glee to see what happens when they have to deal with alternate calling plans, slamming etc etc ... (I've been reading here for a long while now - seen what happens with your telco's). > citizens not to be tortured by telemarketers and aberrant fax machines Oddly enough we don't really have a major telemarketer problem (yet) ... wayward faxes are another story - for eg: I recently had faxes from somebody in Namibia who wanted a booking confirmed at some or other establishement in Cape Town, and was sending to my number which most definitely isn't connected to that establishment (and in fact I couldn't even find it in the local directory) ... went on for days, with the sender getting more and more frantic at the lack of response to her faxes ... and I wasn't about to waste a long distance call to correct her. Remember that I receive faxes on an old PC, so there's no consideration of paper wastage either ... > and to have *60 and Privacy Manager on request. Yes please .... soon please :-)) > As President Roosevelt > once said, every African is entitled to a cell router and a PBX in Actually, I suppose I should admit that the setup I described is common only to a fairly narrow "band" of society in this country, and there are still vast numbers without landline phones, but it's certainly not unusual amongst the technologically enabled worldwide. (And I should add that *many* of those local landlineless people have cellphones -- very often the seemingly most unlikely, low-income people walk around with a modern mobile in their pockets) Talking of junk faxes -- I may have mentioned that I have been dabbling with something called Snappy Fax (www.snappysoftware.com) ($19-95 or so to purchase) as a replacement for my beloved but aging and increasingly "left behind" Bitfax ... Snappy is a nice package anyway, but I was delighted to find that it has the facility to handle "annoying faxes" by simply hanging up on them the moment it gets the "signature" from the sending fax machine ... not the telco caller-id, but the "sender id" that appears on the very top of the fax. It's the *principle* that tickles me, even if it isn't going to solve the world's problems. > a bit of sarcasm to start of this day. Yes Pat, I've noticed ... you're starting to become your acerbic old self that you used to be .... :-)) (But don't change -- I kinda like it, even if I don't always agree with you!) Cheers, Frank R ------------------------------ From: John P. Marshall Subject: Last Laugh! was Re: VoIP Billing Software for Sale Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:34:44 -0500 Organization: I.S. Associates, Inc. FYI, the billing software he sells "at a low price" is pirated. Ree wrote in message news:telecom22.363.4@telecom-digest.org: > Dear Sirs!!! > I have a wide range of VoIP billing Software at a low price. Newest > releases. It offers: > Call Accounting, > Post-paid Billing, > Prepaid Billing > Prepaid Calling Card Operation > Inter-gateway Settlement > Internet access, web design, web hosting, e-commerce services > Web interface for Customers, Sales Agents, and Customer Service > Representatives. > And much more. > Feel free to mail me: capricorn75@softhome.net > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: capricorn75@softhome.net sends me this > message almost daily. Normally I pitch it in the trash almost daily, > but lately he has toned it down somewhat, so it is time to reward him > by printing it ONE TIME ONLY since he eliminated the 'sale prices' and > most of the exclamation marks (!) this time around. Starting tomorrow > I will trash it again. PAT] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why doesn't that surprise me at all? PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 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. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ****************************** End of TELECOM Digest V22 #364 From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Mar 27 22:44:36 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h2S3iZk22315; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:44:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:44:36 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200303280344.h2S3iZk22315@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 #365 TELECOM Digest Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:45:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 365 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: English Al-Jazeera Website Hacked (Linc Madison) EPIC Alert 10.06 (Monty Solomon) America Online Launches The Morning After on AOL Television (Monty Solomon) Re: What Flavor CO do I Have? (Jack) Re: What Flavor CO do I Have? (burris) Re: What Flavor CO do I Have? (Joseph) Re: What Flavor CO do I Have? (J Kelly) Re: U.S. TV Networks Jump in as War in Iraq Starts (Ed Ellers) Re: Do All PBXs Have the Same CDR/SMDR Port? (kietlak) Re: Do All PBXs Have the Same CDR/SMDR Port? (Carl Navarro) Re: Vonage Line (John R. Levine) New Scam? (John Higdon) Panasonic KX-TG1000N - Turn Off Ringer (Tavish Muldoon) USRobotics Conference Link (Brian Denuyl) Re: Revision G for Antennae Tower Implementation (J Kelly) Re: More Words on Sodomy Insane and Bush (cbkiteflyer@yahoo.com) 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: Linc Madison Subject: Re: English Al-Jazeera Website Hacked Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:33:47 -0800 Organization: LincMad.com Consulting Reply-To: Telecom@LincMad.com In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > http://go.hotwired.com/news/politics/0,1283,58200,00.html/wn_ascii > Arab satellite TV network Al-Jazeera launched an English-language > website Monday. On Tuesday, its Web host says it was hit with a > denial-of-service attack, but an Al-Jazeera representative blames > the problem on unexpectedly high traffic. The nauseatingly jingoistic dreck that was placed on the Al-Jazeera web site by an admitted hacker, was not "unexpectedly high traffic," nor was it merely "denial of service." I also saw signs that the hacker(s) hijacked the DNS for the aljazeera.net domain. Both www.aljazeera.net and english.aljazeera.net currently point to placeholder pages; the latter says "This Page has Been Taken Over By Saimoon Bhuiyan." That's not the "Freedom 2003" idiots that hacked it in the first place, but I'm not sure that it's Al-Jazeera, either. The placeholder page for www.aljazeera.net says it is the "Future Home of a Dotster Registered Domain," which I find suspicious. Here, both www. and english.aljazeera.net point to 216.34.94.186, which is owned by Cable and Wireless / Exodus. That address is also listed in SPEWS, , because the host has some rather unsavory spammy customers. That one single IP address is also listed in the Spamhaus Block List (SBL) because of the spam outfit email-list.us. A check of other blocklists shows about 20 lists that block that IP address, including ORDB, NJABL, OSRELAY, OSDUL, OSSOCKS, OSPROXY, SPAMCOP, RSL, MONKEYSUPL, MONKEYSFORMMAIL, DSBLLIST, DSBLUNCONFIRMED, DSBLMULTI, DEVNUL, SSFABEL, OPM, INTERSIL, IPWHOIS, ABL, JIPPG-ABUSE, JIPPG-DUL, NOMOREFUNN, BRAINERD, ASSHOLES, SORBS, DRBL-WORK-CROCO, and BSPQUERY. If Al-Jazeera jumped to a new provider, they didn't do their homework first. If you can pull up the real Al-Jazeera web sites from where you are, please check the actual IP address you're reaching (using "nslookup" or similar) and see if it matches 216.34.94.186. www dot LincMad dot com / Telecom at LincMad dot com Linc Madison * San Francisco, California ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:55:42 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EPIC Alert 10.06 ======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 10.06 March 26, 2003 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_10.06.html ======================================================================= Table of Contents ======================================================================= [1] PATRIOT Act Secrecy Challenged; DoD Appeals EPIC FOIA Victory [2] EPIC Testifies at European Parliament on Air Travel Privacy [3] Senate Wants Answers on Controversial Air Security System [4] EPIC Launches FOIA Gallery; Issues Privacy Report on WHOIS [5] Data Industry Initiates Anti-Privacy Credit Campaign [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC Bookstore: The Naked Society [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_10.06.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:34:33 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: America Online Launches The Morning After on AOL Television America Online Launches The Morning After on AOL Television with Exclusive Video from 'The Bachelor' -- Enhanced for AOL for Broadband Users - Mar 27, 2003 03:03 PM (BusinessWire) NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 27, 2003-- Weekly Video Offers Exclusive, Firsthand Interviews with the Bachelorettes the Morning After Each New Episode New Feature Kicks Off Today at AOL Keyword: The Morning After America Online, Inc., the world's leading interactive services company, has launched a new The Morning After(TM) feature on AOL(R) Television. The new feature will break exclusive interviews with the bachelorettes of the hit reality series "The Bachelor" every Thursday -- the morning after each new weekly episode. The interviews were taped after the program's weekly rose ceremony and only AOL members, including those using the AOL for Broadband service, will have access to this special, exclusive footage. The new program will be available at AOL Keyword: The Morning After. ... - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=32612614 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:48:37 -0500 From: Jack Subject: Re: What Flavor CO do I Have? On 26 Mar 2003 13:24:41 -0800, modorney@aol.com (Mike O'Dorney) wrote: > How do I tell what type of Central Office (DMS100, etc.) a phone > number has? Is there a service, like www.dslreports.com, that tells > the type of CO? Try the page at http://www.telcodata.us/ - it gives this information for many (but not all) exchanges. Try doing a lookup by area code and exchange, then in the "Misc" column, click on "See Detailed information about this switch." You can also look up a switch directly if you know the CLLI code, but most users will find it more convenient to simply look up by area code and exchange. This is more likely to work if you are looking up an exchange served by a major phone company, and not so likely if it's a small independent, CLEC, or wireless company. Jack ------------------------------ From: burris Subject: Re: What Flavor CO do I Have? Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:17:33 -0500 Post your NPA-NXX and I will give you a list of features that your CO has. Mike O'Dorney wrote: > How do I tell what type of Central Office (DMS100, etc.) a phone > number has? Is there a service, like www.dslreports.com, that tells > the type of CO? ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: What Flavor CO do I Have? Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:57:49 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On 26 Mar 2003 13:24:41 -0800, modorney@aol.com (Mike O'Dorney) wrote: > How do I tell what type of Central Office (DMS100, etc.) a phone > number has? Is there a service, like www.dslreports.com, that tells > the type of CO? Who's your telco? Qwest (formerly USWest) has a web page that tells you the location of the CO as well as the type of equipment that's in the CO as well as when the current switching equipment went on line. Replies are seldom read. Please reply in the group. ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: What Flavor CO do I Have? Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:15:13 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Reply-To: jkelly@newsguy.com On 26 Mar 2003 13:24:41 -0800, modorney@aol.com (Mike O'Dorney) wrote: > How do I tell what type of Central Office (DMS100, etc.) a phone > number has? Is there a service, like www.dslreports.com, that tells > the type of CO? Look at www.telcodata.us . ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: U.S. TV Networks Jump in as War in Iraq Starts Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:42:25 -0500 PAT, the TELECOM Digest Editor, noted: > What makes you think Sodomy wasn't put in office by some standards which > were/are acceptable to the Iraqi people? The known facts, which are that he basically got where he is by the point of a gun. > After all, Queen Elizabeth was not elected by anyone, was she? But her > being in the position she is in is acceptable to the British people. The British monarch is not the head of the government -- the Prime Minister is, and s/he is elected by the House of Commons, which *is* elected by the people of the United Kingdom. > How well do you *really know* what the Iraqi people want? That's the whole point -- we don't know, because Saddam won't allow the sort of free elections that would reveal the truth. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You contradict yourself in the same article. You close by saying 'we dont know, because Saddam, etc.' but you began your reply by saying 'the known facts are that he got into office with the point of a gun.' Now do we, or don't we know? Or is it more convenient to say he 'took office at the point of a gun'? If you will recall, in 1776 a group of British patriots overthrew the British government here in America to start the United States. I am sure there were many British people who did not care for that either. And please do not make a subjective decision and say 'oh, but that was different'. Everything is different, everything is the same. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kietlak Subject: Re: Do All PBXs Have the Same CDR/SMDR Port? Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:43:51 +0100 Organization: news.onet.pl > I would be thankful if someone can tell me whether all PBXs have the > same CDR/SMDR port: in terms of the connector, pin-configurations, > etc. No. kietlak ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: Do All PBXs Have the Same CDR/SMDR Port? Reply-To: cnavarro@wcnet.org Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:11:47 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Northeast Ohio On 26 Mar 2003 21:41:46 -0800, hiralvalia@yahoo.com (hiral) wrote: > I would be thankful if someone can tell me whether all PBXs have the > same CDR/SMDR port: in terms of the connector, pin-configurations, > etc. also, is the cable that connects the PBX to a computer's serial > port easily available? What would you guess? Sometimes between each manufacturer the port is the same style ... Carl Navarro ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Vonage Line Date: 27 Mar 2003 09:56:06 -0500 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There were two messages about Vonage > here recently. One of them (Vongage?) had you buying the instrument > then paying a monthly fee. The other one just had you buy the > instrument the nothing further. Which one was that? PAT] There's a signup fee of $30, then $40/mo for unlimited outgoing in North America, or $26 for unlimited in your local area (defined as some nearby area codes) and 500 minutes elsewhere, 3.9 cpm for excess minutes. Incoming calls and 800 calls are always free. The signup kit includes a Cisco ATA 186 which costs about $150 to buy. If you need a router, they'll sell you one of those too, cheap. Calls outside the US and Canada cost what they cost, fairly low rates listed on their web site. There's a 14 day trial period during which you can return the kit and owe nothing, otherwise there's a $40 termination fee. I presume they want the ATA back if you quit but their terms of service neglect to say that. It's programmed only to work on Vonage's system with passwords that appear impossible to reset. If you're referred by an existing subscriber like, say, me, both the new and old subscriber get a one-time $40 credit. The referrals work by e-mail address, the old sub tells Vonage to send a friend an invitation message, if the friend signs up they get the credit. 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: John Higdon Subject: New Scam? Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:19:18 -0800 I am now getting calls (with an 800 CID) that sound as though they are from a predictive dialer. After a pregant pause, a recorded voice says, "Oh, I'm sorry. I have the wrong number. Goodby." I'm told by my friends who don't have Privacy Manager that they sometimes receive calls such as these without any CID. I can't imagine what is going on here. Fax number harvesters just disconnect when they get a human voice (and besides, at some point, folks are actually going to go after fax spammers since the law is now on their side). I suspect that the device is recording how the line is answered, but other than to determine business lines from residential ones, it is anyone's guess what the entity behind this device is trying to achieve. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: tmuldoon@spliced.com (Tavish Muldoon) Subject: Panasonic KX-TG1000N - Turn Off Ringer Date: 27 Mar 2003 07:19:04 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, I have a Panasonic 2.4 ghz phone, a base station and 2 phones. I can turn off the ringer on the phones -- but not the base station. Since I bought these phones used there is no manual. Any idea how I turn off/on the ringer to this base station? Any help? Thanks, Tmuld ------------------------------ From: Brian Denuyl Subject: USRobotics Conference Link Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:59:04 -0500 I have two USRobotics conference link speakerphones (CS1055) and neither has the adapter box to connect the phone line and power the thing. Does anyone know the pinouts of the connector on the bottom? Thanks! ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: Revision G for Antennae Tower Implementation Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:14:27 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Reply-To: jkelly@newsguy.com On 26 Mar 2003 06:45:46 -0800, saintpb@eudoramail.com (waveinspector) wrote: > Please, actually I want to configure a tower to support various kind > of data links with several antennas but it should be implemented with > only one tower. > Anyone have experience with this kind of situation? What are the > standards to build a tower for this use? Anyone have a guide or info? I don't understand the question. Are you asking about building a tower (the structure itself) or how to do the data links? Be more specific. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:49:20 CST From: cbkiteflyer@yahoo.com Subject: Re: More Words on Sodomy Insane and Bush Pat wrote: > How well do you *really know* what the Iraqi people want? PAT] You're right ... We don't really know. Why don't we try to ask several hundred thousand of them? Oh, I'm sorry, we can't. It seems Saddam has had them all killed. Pat, this is getting silly. With all due respect to your fine skills as the TD moderator, and with sympathy for the health problems that you have suffered, it's pointless to debate this with you until you have the opportunity to get back up to speed on some of the basic facts surrounding the issues; facts that are commonly acknowledged by folks on both sides of the debate, but which you don't seem to be aware of. One of these facts is that Saddam is responsible for the deaths of more Muslims than any other person in modern history. People accuse Bush of being a cowboy and lacking in diplomatic skills. They ask what right does the US have to interfere with what's going on in another country. In fact, what we are witnessing is a re-writing of some of the "time-honored rules of diplomacy" which were put in place by the Europeans and evolved over hundreds of years. One of these rules is that it is nobody else's business what happens behind the "sovereign" borders of a country. This is what has let brutal dictators and tyrants flourish. In short, just because Bush can be ARROGANT and RUDE, does not necessarily mean he's WRONG. (Unless you subscribe to the liberal point of view where "image" and "style" and "PC" are everything.) I'm sure you are aware of the saying "The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." I think Bush realizes that brutality and repression is not just the private business of a "sovereign" nation. It is a *human* issue that should concern all of us. This goes much further than the Manifest Destiny of the 19th century where the main goal was to bring civilization to the "backward heathens". And it's not a question of conquering or colonizing these nations. Why do you think the first and biggest debate which preceeds each of these actions is always "How are we going to get out? What's our exit strategy" It's because we are NOT interested in staying in, we are interested in making it possible for the people to have an opportunity for self-government. Then we leave, as we did in Germany and Japan, probably the two closest models of what our intention with Iraq is. Both of these countries went on to become thriving members of the world community. You asked: > Freeing an oppressed people you say?? That's rich ... what about > all the people in South Africa and China and Cuba, and Guatemala and > other places who need a touch of Dubya's helping hand? Guess what? Maybe this is their wakeup call. The best we can hope for is that they will clean up their acts. The second best scenario is that their own population will be inspired to throw the rascals out. Finally, since you and others seem so convinced that this is "ALL ABOUT OIL" (one of the most popular of the current liberal cliches along with "TAX CUTS FOR THE -- all together now -- RICH!") here's a challenge: Give us your best prediction as to what will happen with the oil situation in Iraq after this is over which will prove you were right. My prediction is that Iraq's oil will remain Iraq's oil for them to produce and sell as they please. If you've got a different prediction, let's have it. Quick, you don't have too much time ...! As far as Sodomy's weapons of mass destruction go, the one thing that is certain is that the US will look for them and either find some or not. Either way, there's gonna be one helluva giant "I TOLD YOU SO" launched by one side or the other. Cheers, Clive Dawson [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know, if you are trying to cause me to have another heart attack, you are doing a damn good job! Their oil will remain their oil but my prediction is Saddam or his predecessors will place a 'war surcharge' on sales to the USA and USA sympathizers and force us to buy it through some third party. Either they will refuse to sell it to us at all or make it prohibitively expensive. Why, it may even come to the point that Bush will declare war (again!) on the Iraqi people and take the oil by force whether they like it or not. Did you notice how the very first thing the troops did when they arrived was deploy soldiers to guard the oil wells, of which there are about two thousand in Bagdhad alone? Maybe Saddam will try to strike a deal with the USA. "You need oil to survive, I need nuclear weapons to survive'; let's help each other out." And Bush may decide to go along with it. As I said earlier this week, this thread is supposed to be closed. 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. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #365 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Mar 28 01:56:49 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h2S6une24618; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:56:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:56:49 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200303280656.h2S6une24618@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 #366 TELECOM Digest Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:57:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 366 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: What Flavor CO do I Have? (John Higdon) Time to Charge for Online Magazines Including People (Monty Solomon) Wider-Fi (Monty Solomon) Hughes to Get Bids From Cablevision, Others - Sources (Monty Solomon) Re: T-Mobile GSM: Jammed by AT&T?? (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: English Al-Jazeera Website Hacked (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: English Al-Jazeera Website Hacked (Henry) FINAL Words on Sodomy Insane and Bush and TV Networks (Michael D. Sullivan) 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: Re: What Flavor CO do I Have? Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:09:00 -0800 In article , Jack wrote: > This is more likely to work if you are looking up an exchange served > by a major phone company, and not so likely if it's a small > independent, CLEC, or wireless company. Being intimately familiar with the ILEC hardware in this LATA, I put the site to the test. It is a pretty cute site that managed to correctly identify each NPA/exchange with its appropriate CO. Unfortunately, however, the site's weakest feature is its identification of CO switch type. On a number of inquiries, the link didn't even produce another page. Other queries returned flat-out wrong answers e.g. claiming a 5ESS was a DMS-100, etc. In all fairness, this could be a "stale data" problem rather than a hard-core error. What was surprising was its moderate accuracy with data regarding CLECs. I looked up a number of them (including mine) and found reasonably correct material. What errors existed were understandable from a standpoint of knowing the inner workings of the entities listed. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:07:13 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Time to Charge For Online Magazines Including People NEW YORK, March 27 (Reuters) - Time Inc., owned by AOL Time Warner (NYSE:AOL) said on Thursday it would charge for the online editions of 14 of its magazines starting with People and Entertainment Weekly on Monday. People and Entertainment Weekly's Internet editions will be out of bounds to readers except to America Online members, subscribers to the specific magazines, or people who buy the newsstand edition. In the following weeks, magazines such as Teen People, Real Simple and In Style will follow the same route. ... - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=32623660 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My goodness, that's going to be a real loss to the rest of the internet, isn't it. Note my sarcastic answer. I wonder how they will detirmine who the 'newstand purchasers' of their trashy magazines are for the purpose of giving them admission to the websites. Our local PBS radio station, KRPS at 88.9 FM is in the midst of a fund raising drive; they are trying to raise 89 thousand dollars to stay on the air for another year or so. This message from Monty Solomon, along with the almost endless chatter about money on KRPS reminds me it is about time to have a share day here; maybe over the weekend or the start of next week. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:04:49 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Wider-Fi A little-known standard called Wi-Fi turned into the hottest technology of the year and shook the wireless industry to its core. Now its successors hope to leave Wi-Fi in the dust. That sound you hear, that incessant tapping on laptops at the corner cafe, the local park and the airport lounge, is music to the ears of the beleaguered tech industry. Wi-Fi, the magical wireless link that lets all those tappers blast data short distances at 200 times the speed of a dial-up modem for no extra cost, has turned into the only bright note punctuating Silicon Valley's indigo mood. Only three years old, Wi-Fi, a once-obscure wireless standard with the ungainly real name of IEEE 802.11, went supernova last year, selling 18 million connections -- one of the fastest adoption rates of any consumer technology in history. Tens of thousands of Wi-Fi "hotspots" have sprouted around the country. Some McDonald's now offer a free link with the purchase of a combo meal. In March, Intel kicked off a $300 million-plus marketing blitz for a new brand, Centrino, that packages together a new laptop microprocessor with a Wi-Fi receiver. Now it looks like history may repeat itself. In January the industry group that spawned Wi-Fi released a new standard that may put the old one to shame. It extends the wireless range of Wi-Fi from roughly 300 feet to several miles and lets signals bounce around obstacles and penetrate walls; it also fixes security flaws and adds high-quality phone calls. This new standard is dubbed 802.16a by the Institute of Electrical Electronics Engineers , which disdains catchy names. Some are calling it Wi-Max, but a better tag might be Wider-Fi. Meanwhile, a rival group at IEEE is working on 802.20--a kind of Mobile-Fi that promises speedy links in cars and trains traveling at speeds that can exceed 120 miles an hour. ... - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=32622361 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:08:08 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Hughes to Get Bids From Cablevision, Others - Sources By Jeffrey Goldfarb NEW YORK, March 27 (Reuters) - Cablevision Systems Corp. (NYSE:CVC) is expected to throw its hat in the ring for DirecTV as one of four suitors planning to submit a bid by Friday to take over at least part of General Motors Corp.'s (NYSE:GM) satellite TV business, according to people familiar with the situation. Also expected to bid are Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. (AUS:NCP), John Malone-led Liberty Media Corp. (NYSE:L) and local telephone provider SBC Communications Inc. (NYSE:SBC), these people said on Thursday. However, a deal between Liberty and News Corp. announced on Thursday evening cast some doubt on whether Malone would proceed with an offer. The four companies will outline their offers -- which are likely to include the tax consequences and structural aspects -- for DirecTV's parent Hughes Electronics Corp. (NYSE:GMH) and will provide actual dollar figures next week, they added. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=33624434 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: T-Mobile GSM: Jammed by AT&T?? Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:15:52 GMT >> If I understand correctly, AT&T is rolling out a GSM service as well. >> T-Mobile claims that AT&T is using abnormally high signal levels, >> which cause T-Mobile phones to be unstable or totally unusable in the >> affected area. > Someone handed you a load of horse hockey on that one. If AT&T or any No one knows why, but the AT&T signals clearly affect T-Mobile's signals. This has been demonstrated over and over again. In fact, one way people have tracked AT&T's trials has been by following T-mobile problems. > several times a day to make the service perform correctly. Also every > mobile device that I know of that accesses a GSM network has the > ability to manually choose a network. You don't need to get another > phone though there are differences between phones in how they do in > regard to how well they handle weak RF. From what it sounds like in > your situation you are in a marginal reception area and that's part of > the reason you're having difficulty holding a T-Mobile signal. Whatever the reason, some phones do well when T-Mobile and AT&T are in the same area, and some do not. I know this from personal experience. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: English Al-Jazeera Website Hacked Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 04:35:52 GMT On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:33:47 -0800, Linc Madison posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: > In article , Monty Solomon > wrote: > Both www.aljazeera.net and english.aljazeera.net currently point to > placeholder pages; the latter says "This Page has Been Taken Over By > Saimoon Bhuiyan." That's not the "Freedom 2003" idiots that hacked it > in the first place, but I'm not sure that it's Al-Jazeera, either. The > placeholder page for www.aljazeera.net says it is the "Future Home of > a Dotster Registered Domain," which I find suspicious. > Here, both www. and english.aljazeera.net point to 216.34.94.186, > which is owned by Cable and Wireless / Exodus. [stuff about spam deleted] > If Al-Jazeera jumped to a new provider, they didn't do their homework > first. > If you can pull up the real Al-Jazeera web sites from where you are, > please check the actual IP address you're reaching (using "nslookup" or > similar) and see if it matches 216.34.94.186. I pulled up english.aljzeera.net and it resolved to 213.30.180.219. Even though I called up the English page, the Arabic page was displayed. It didn't appear to be hacked -- but of course I couldn't read it. The DNS record was just updated: 27-Mar-2003 23:31:41 EST. The IP is from a block assigned to ATT Global in France. This fits with the announcement that al-jazeera was moving to a new server located in Europe. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA (delete NOSPAM from address to mail me) ------------------------------ From: henry999@eircom.net (Henry) Subject: Re: English Al-Jazeera Website Hacked Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:32:10 +0200 Organization: Elisa Internet customer Linc Madison wrote: > If you can pull up the real Al-Jazeera web sites from where you are, > please check the actual IP address you're reaching (using "nslookup" or > similar) and see if it matches 216.34.94.186. It's Friday morning, about 0530 GMT. The page english.aljazeera.net loads but it is entirely in Arabic. The IP resolves to 213.30.180.219. Whois, last updated six and a half hours ago (Thursday, 17:51 EST) finds no match for that IP. cheers, Henry ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: FINAL Words on Sodomy Insane and Bush and TV Networks Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:39:08 GMT This has really degenerated. Response to rampant nonsense follows. I know everyone wants to end this thread and Pat says it will be closed, so I will not follow up in the interest of getting back to telecom issues. Nevertheless, I need to get this off my chest, and hope Pat is willing to post this as one last gasp. On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:49:20 CST, cbkiteflyer@yahoo.com posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: [snip] > Pat, this is getting silly. With all due respect to your fine skills > as the TD moderator, and with sympathy for the health problems that > you have suffered, it's pointless to debate this with you until you > have the opportunity to get back up to speed on some of the basic > facts surrounding the issues; facts that are commonly acknowledged by > folks on both sides of the debate, but which you don't seem to be > aware of. One of these facts is that Saddam is responsible for the > deaths of more Muslims than any other person in modern history. Most of them some time ago, I believe. After that, we had Gulf War I. And then Bush I stopped and let Saddam go on ruling his country. Since then there have not been massive slaughters, have there? And recently? I thought not. He's actually been lying pretty low. So why now? Sure, the guy's evil. So are most dictators. Lots of them are our "friends." The PRC has been responsible for a huge number of innocent deaths over the years. Have we intervened? No, we've rewarded their steps toward openness to US investment and trade. Nor did we intervene in Rwanda when massive evil was done. The US has never taken on the role of avenging innocent deaths worldwide by forcing regime change. While we should, unquestionably, put great pressure on other nations that are "evil" to clean up their act and protect human rights, there are good reasons for the US not to take on the role of more-or-less-unilaterally acting as a world police department with respect to what happens within a given country's borders. > People accuse Bush of being a cowboy and lacking in diplomatic skills. > They ask what right does the US have to interfere with what's going on > in another country. In fact, what we are witnessing is a re-writing > of some of the "time-honored rules of diplomacy" which were put in > place by the Europeans and evolved over hundreds of years. One of > these rules is that it is nobody else's business what happens behind > the "sovereign" borders of a country. This is what has let brutal > dictators and tyrants flourish. Simply put, we have no more right to interfere with what's going on within the borders of another country militarily than Hitler did. When one country sends its armed forces into another to intervene in "internal affairs," without that country having attacked another, that is a hostile act known as invasion, or war. It is contrary to not just the time honored rules of diplomacy, but to stable international relations and the interest of peace. The only time a nation should militarily intervene in the internal affairs of another is when there is an international consensus that this is necessary in the interest of peace. That is the very reason the US advocated creation of the League of Nations after WWI and the United Nations after WWII. The Bush II doctrine of preemptive war is contrary to the interests of world peace and stability because it knows no limits -- it is characterized by throwing off the constraint of needing consensus and allowing unilateral action indistinguishable from an unprovoked act of war. It is the war of the jungle -- whoever has the biggest armed forces can do whatever it wants to a country without defenders. Under this doctrine, China, for example, is free to invade South Korea, Taiwan, or India simply because it says that those countries are harboring evildoers of one sort or another from China's perspective. India is free to attack Pakistan without becoming an outcast because Pakistan has WMD and has mistreated Hindu minorities. > In short, just because Bush can be ARROGANT and RUDE, does not > necessarily mean he's WRONG. (Unless you subscribe to the liberal > point of view where "image" and "style" and "PC" are everything.) Bush sure is arrogant and rude. He's also a goddamn idiot who lets the deluded warmongers Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz make war on a country that had NOT taken hostile action against the US or its allies, even though its leadership is unquestionably despicable and evil. And he does this even though world opinion, including that of many of our closest allies, is decidedly against doing so. His "arrogance" and "rudeness" will have consequences that will haunt us for many, many years. > I'm sure you are aware of the saying "The only thing required for evil > to triumph is for good men to do nothing." I think Bush realizes that > brutality and repression is not just the private business of a > "sovereign" nation. It is a *human* issue that should concern all of > us. This goes much further than the Manifest Destiny of the 19th > century where the main goal was to bring civilization to the "backward > heathens". The main goal of Manifest Destiny was not to bring civilization to the backward heathens (presumably you mean the American Indians). It was to wipe them out (or, failing that, herd them onto reservations) and steal their land and resources and permit our population to expand into the space cleared -- and, of course, create immense business and graft opportunites (railroad land grants, in the short term). If you are comparing the Bush II doctrine to Manifest Destiny, you are probably right -- this goes well beyond it. And that's not a compliment. Bush II doesn't give two s--ts about brutality and repression. His buddy Ashcroft has shown that domestically, and Bush's continued tolerance of innumerable brutal and repressive regimes worldwide shows it internationally. It really offends me to hear Bush II cast his role in moral terms. I agree that "the only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." (I believe that was Churchill.) That philosophy does not amount to a mandate to invade every country one views as evil. There are plenty of other ways to counter evil. Most of them involve building international consensus. > And it's not a question of conquering or colonizing these nations. > Why do you think the first and biggest debate which preceeds each of > these actions is always "How are we going to get out? What's our exit > strategy" It's because we are NOT interested in staying in, we are > interested in making it possible for the people to have an opportunity > for self-government. Then we leave, as we did in Germany and Japan, > probably the two closest models of what our intention with Iraq is. > Both of these countries went on to become thriving members of the > world community. And what is our exit strategy in Iraq? In Afghanistan? In the "War on Terrorism"? As to the latter, I believe the Bush II answer is -- it will end when there is no more (state-sponsored?) terrorism. Simply put, there is no exit strategy. Say we off Saddam and his principal cronies. Is that the end? Or do we stay in Iraq until there are no evil, repressive dudes left and there are no al-Qaeda or other known terrorist sympathizers left? If the population resents our presence and acts accordingly does that mean that we stay until they have heeled under? Sort of like the Israelis in their occupied territories? Great exit strategy. > TELECOM Digest Editor noted: >> Freeing an oppressed people you say?? That's rich ... what about >> all the people in South Africa and China and Cuba, and Guatemala and >> other places who need a touch of Dubya's helping hand? Then you replied: > Guess what? Maybe this is their wakeup call. The best we can hope > for is that they will clean up their acts. The second best scenario > is that their own population will be inspired to throw the rascals > out. But I thought you said the Bush II doctrine obliged us to kick out all oppressive regimes. Why wait for things to get so bad that the locals throw them out? We didn't wait for that in Iraq. (Oh, wait, those other repressive regimes don't have lots of oil; the best they can do is cigars and diamonds, so forget it....) > Finally, since you and others seem so convinced that this is "ALL > ABOUT OIL" (one of the most popular of the current liberal cliches > along with "TAX CUTS FOR THE -- all together now -- RICH!") here's a > challenge: Give us your best prediction as to what will happen with > the oil situation in Iraq after this is over which will prove you were > right. My prediction is that Iraq's oil will remain Iraq's oil for > them to produce and sell as they please. If you've got a different > prediction, let's have it. Quick, you don't have too much time ...! Frankly, I don't think this is all about oil, although that is one motivating factor. I agree that once we have implanted a puppet regime that is sufficiently subservient, the oil will remain Iraq's to do with as they please, and US contractors and wholesalers will be pleased to assist the puppet regime. Imperialism has advanced a lot since the 1800s; we no longer need to have ExxonMobil or its equivalent OWN the wells. As long as the oil is sold into the world market (and it will be), ExxonMobil will get all it wants. And Halliburton will be happy to operate the wells as a contractor. And Bechtel will build new wells for their "owner," Iraq. > As far as Sodomy's weapons of mass destruction go, the one thing that > is certain is that the US will look for them and either find some or > not. Either way, there's gonna be one helluva giant "I TOLD YOU SO" > launched by one side or the other. Oh, the US will find them, whether they are there or not. Just like the Chicago Police will find drugs or weapons when they do a raid, whether they are there beforehand or not. The US has tremendous credibility. Just look at all the good tips they gave to the UN inspectors about where to look. I'm sure that the international community will accept our findings as completely unbiased. On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:42:25 -0500, Ed Ellers posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: > PAT, the TELECOM Digest Editor, noted: >> What makes you think Sodomy wasn't put in office by some standards which >> were/are acceptable to the Iraqi people? > The known facts, which are that he basically got where he is by the > point of a gun. And our strongman got where he is by the point of a 5-4 Supreme Court. Bush II actually lost the popular vote -- the first resident of the White House to have done so. He wasn't put in office by the American people. I agree that Saddam Hussein wasn't put in office by the Iraqi people; he was put there by supporting the overthrow of the illegitimate King and then supplanting the dictator he helped into office. Nobody has ever had any claim to be the legitimate leader chosen by the Iraqi people, unlike in the US (but Bush ain't the one chosen). >> After all, Queen Elizabeth was not elected by anyone, was she? But her >> being in the position she is in is acceptable to the British people. As a technical matter, while the British monarch is not elected, it's not inevitably predetermined who the monarch will be. The monarch is determined in accordance with laws enacted by Parliament (to which the Royal assent is given), and Parliament has changed those laws (known as Acts of Succession) on numerous occasions with the specific intention of enthroning one or another chosen individual and keeping out another. This has proven to be much better than the former method, namely changing the succession through military action. > The British monarch is not the head of the government -- the Prime > Minister is, and s/he is elected by the House of Commons, which *is* > elected by the people of the United Kingdom. Minor disagreement: I believe the Prime Minister is chosen by the party holding the majority in the House of Commons, in accordance with party rules. The Labor Party, for example, has an electoral system for selecting the Party Leader (i.e., Prime Minister if the party holds a majority in the Commons) that is not strictly based on MPs' votes -- unions and other affiliated organizations get votes as well. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA (delete NOSPAM from address to mail me) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Now, we are finished? By the by, Attorney Sullivan, a good conclusion to this, ummm, 'thread'. 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. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #366 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Mar 28 20:52:47 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h2T1qk129638; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:52:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:52:47 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200303290152.h2T1qk129638@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 #367 TELECOM Digest Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:53:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 367 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Do All PBXs Have the Same CDR/SMDR Port? (David Clayton) Use a Firewall, Go to Jail ?? (Jack) Use a Firewall, Go to Jail (Monty Solomon) Re: New Scam? (Zed**3) Re: New Scam? (Rich Greenberg) Re: New Scam? (Daryl R Gibson) Re: War Causing Inmarsat Network Congestion? (t-sphere) New Link For Your Consideration (hot telecom) Re: T-Mobile GSM: Jammed by AT&T?? (Joseph) Re: Panasonic KX-TG1000N - Turn Off Ringer (Rich Greenberg) March 2003 Web Server Survey (Monty Solomon) Wireless Video Comes Stateside (Eric Friedebach) Re: Unsolicited Faxes (SELLCOM Tech Support) Re: U.S. TV Networks Jump in as War in Iraq Starts (David Wolff) Re: Why the Dogs of Cyberwar Stay Leashed (David Clayton) Re: FINAL Words on Sodomy Insane and Bush and TV Networks (John Higdon) Re: FINAL Words on Sodomy Insane and Bush and TV Networks (Dan W. Johnson) Letters From Baghdad (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: David Clayton Subject: Re: Do All PBXs Have the Same CDR/SMDR Port? Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:45:48 +1100 Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.net.au hiralvalia@yahoo.com (hiral) contributed the following: > I would be thankful if someone can tell me whether all PBXs have the > same CDR/SMDR port: in terms of the connector, pin-configurations, > etc. also, is the cable that connects the PBX to a computer's serial > port easily available? In my experience *most* PBX's do have a serial port for this, or you can get an additional one for the purpose, (usually at an exorbitant cost). The cabling can vary because some PBX's manufacturers didn't (still don't?) understand serial data comms that well, (the Nortel range of 10 years ago immediately spring to mind, I hope that they are better at it these day ...). Sometimes it is a "standard" serial cable, other times you have to purchase a proprietary cable. 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: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:18:44 -0500 From: Jack Subject: Use a Firewall, Go to Jail??? I'm trying to figure out if this is sensationalism, or a very real threat. This news item appeared yesterday on BroadbandReports.Com: Use a Firewall, Go to Jail Bills twist the DMCA into another odd shape Massachusetts, Texas, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alaska, Tennessee, and Colorado are all preparing to consider bills that would extend the reach of the DMCA in such a way that could ban the possession, sale, or use of technologies that "conceal from a communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication". This would in effect criminalize technologies such as firewalls and NAT. Even encrypted email, which obscures the "To" line of the email from your ISP via encryption, could be included under the various legislations' vague language. This item was found at: http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/27104 And it links to a site at: http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ (Scroll down to the March 26, 2003 entry) I look at this and I think, this can't be right -- it has to be a case of sensationalizing the news. This may be bad legislation, but it can't be that bad (or stupid), can it? I mean, after all, who doesn't use a firewall of some kind these days? What next, will they outlaw hard drives? Please tell me that this is not as bad as it sounds! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes it can be, and is true. Dubya and his agents want everyone to be out in the public view where they can be seen. Its part of the war on terrorism, you know, and how the brave American patriots are sacrificing for the Good of Our Country. Just like having your private parts groped in airport security lines and red tags denying you the right to travel freely. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:36:25 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Use a Firewall, Go to Jail http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000336.html March 26, 2003 Use a Firewall, Go to Jail The states of Massachusetts and Texas are preparing to consider bills that apparently are intended to extend the national Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (TX bill; MA bill) The bills are obviously related to each other somehow, since they are textually similar. Here is one example of the far-reaching harmful effects of these bills. Both bills would flatly ban the possession, sale, or use of technologies that "conceal from a communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication". Your ISP is a communication service provider, so anything that concealed the origin or destination of any communication from your ISP would be illegal -- with no exceptions. If you send or receive your email via an encrypted connection, you're in violation, because the "To" and "From" lines of the emails are concealed from your ISP by encryption. (The encryption conceals the destinations of outgoing messages, and the sources of incoming messages.) Worse yet, Network Address Translation (NAT), a technology widely used for enterprise security, operates by translating the "from" and "to" fields of Internet packets, thereby concealing the source or destination of each packet, and hence violating these bills. Most security "firewalls" use NAT, so if you use a firewall, you're in violation. If you have a home DSL router, or if you use the "Internet Connection Sharing" feature of your favorite operating system product, you're in violation because these connection sharing technologies use NAT. Most operating system products (including every version of Windows introduced in the last five years, and virtually all versions of Linux) would also apparently be banned, because they support connection sharing via NAT. And this is just one example of the problems with these bills. Yikes. UPDATE (6:35 PM): It's worse than I thought. Similar bills are on the table in South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alaska, Tennessee, and Colorado. UPDATE (March 28, 9:00 AM): Clarified the paragraph above about encrypted email, to eliminate an ambiguity. Posted by Edward W. Felten at 01:04 PM [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Dubya is afraid you may be going to send notes of sympathy to the Iraqi people and he wants his people to be able to read all your email. ------------------------------ From: gc@radix.net (Zed**3) Subject: Re: New Scam? Date: 28 Mar 2003 19:39:26 GMT Organization: Spontaneous In article , John Higdon wrote: > I am now getting calls (with an 800 CID) that sound as though they are > from a predictive dialer. After a pregant pause, a recorded voice > says, "Oh, I'm sorry. I have the wrong number. Goodby." I'm told by my > friends who don't have Privacy Manager that they sometimes receive > calls such as these without any CID. > I can't imagine what is going on here. Fax number harvesters just > disconnect when they get a human voice (and besides, at some point, > folks are actually going to go after fax spammers since the law is now > on their side). I suspect that the device is recording how the line is > answered, but other than to determine business lines from residential > ones, it is anyone's guess what the entity behind this device is > trying to achieve. What time of day do you get these calls? I have voice mail (telco provided) on my home phone. When I get home late a night there are frequently one or two recorded messages from telemarketers waiting for me. That is, my voice mail recorded a recorded sales pitch. It always gives an 800 number to call. These come at random times during the day, when working people are not likely to be home (e.g., 9:23am, 11:30am,...). Here is my hypothesis for what you are hearing (if these calls come during the day): These telemarketing systems are actually looking for voice mail / message recorders for their sales pitch. If they get a human, they hang up. Why? The response rate is probably quite low, but, as with spam, it is cheap compared to hiring people to make the calls and so a low reponse rate can still be profitable. ------------------------------ From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: New Scam? Date: 28 Mar 2003 11:32:42 -0500 Organization: Organized? Me? In article , John Higdon wrote: > I am now getting calls (with an 800 CID) that sound as though they are > from a predictive dialer. After a pregant pause, a recorded voice > says, "Oh, I'm sorry. I have the wrong number. Goodby." I'm told by my > friends who don't have Privacy Manager that they sometimes receive > calls such as these without any CID. I suspect they are looking for answering machines to leave recorded pitches on. 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: Daryl R Gibson Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:05:51 -0700 Subject: Re: New Scam? On 27 Mar 2003 at 22:44, John Higdon wrote: > I am now getting calls (with an 800 CID) that sound as though they are > from a predictive dialer. After a pregant pause, a recorded voice > says, "Oh, I'm sorry. I have the wrong number. Goodby." I'm told by my > friends who don't have Privacy Manager that they sometimes receive > calls such as these without any CID. Most likely, it's a robotic telemarketer which looks for answering machines. A Wall Street Journal story a few months ago mentioned these things. If a human answers, it hangs up. If an answering machine answers, it plays a sales pitch. Daryl ---------------------------------------------------------------- "As you ramble through life, brother, no matter what your goal, keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not upon the hole" --Dr. Murray Banks, quoting a menu ---------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.drgibson.com http://www.salesstar.com Personal Motivation and Positive Attitude ------------------------------ From: danopunkt@yahoo.com (t-sphere) Subject: Re: War Causing Inmarsat Network Congestion? Date: 27 Mar 2003 23:09:53 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ ian_okey@hotmail.com (Ian Okey) wrote in message news:: > danopunkt@yahoo.com (t-sphere) wrote in message > news:: >> My users in the Gulf region are reporting problems connecting to the >> Inmarsat network. Error messages are: "Call spacing too short"; or >> "Error 14C2H." They are all using TT-3080A M4 Messengers with service >> provided by Stratos. Has anyone heard that the Inmarsat network is >> being overloaded by use associated with the war? (Media, NGOs, >> military, etc.) > Are you using the old IOR or the new 5th region IND-W that Inmarsat > have put into service to provide extra capacity. With all the > broadcasters around it is hardly surprising that there is some > congestion. > Ian I've told my users to try finding the IOR-W bird, but haven't heard back from them yet. I'm wondering what times of day Inmarsat has the most and least traffic. It's possible my users could transmit during off-hours. Do you know if these statistics are available? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 06:31:51 EST From: hot telecom Subject: New Link For Your Consideration Please consider the following for inclusion in your list: www.hottelecom.com. Hot Telecom, offers the lowest price, highest quality telecommunication reports and consulting to the international telecommunication community. It presently offer telecom market analysis for the following countries and region: South America (to come in the next 2 weeks) Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Ecuador Paraguay Peru Uruguay Venezuela The next regions and countries to be published will be South-East Asia in April 2003 and North-East Asia in May 2003. China and India will also be part of the April reports. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Regards, Isabelle Paradis General Manager hot telecom t: +1 514 270 1636 f: +1 514 270 0006 e: paradis@hottelecom.com w: www.hottelecom.com ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: T-Mobile GSM: Jammed by AT&T?? Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:37:40 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: joeofseattle@yahoo.com On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:15:52 GMT, joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: > No one knows why, but the AT&T signals clearly affect T-Mobile's > signals. This has been demonstrated over and over again. In fact, > one way people have tracked AT&T's trials has been by following > T-mobile problems. > Whatever the reason, some phones do well when T-Mobile and AT&T are in > the same area, and some do not. I know this from personal experience. But it's *not* a T-Mobile or AT&T problem. It's a problem with the specific phones most notably Samsungs and some Ericssons. It's not a problem for Nokia or Motorola handsets at all. Replies are seldom read. Please reply in the group. ------------------------------ From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Panasonic KX-TG1000N - Turn Off Ringer Date: 28 Mar 2003 11:31:06 -0500 Organization: Organized? Me? In article , Tavish Muldoon wrote: > Hello, > I have a Panasonic 2.4 ghz phone, a base station and 2 phones. I can > turn off the ringer on the phones -- but not the base station. > Since I bought these phones used there is no manual. > Any idea how I turn off/on the ringer to this base station? Open it up and cut (or splice a switch in) the wire to the ringer. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:40:41 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: March 2003 Web Server Survey http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/03/ ------------------------------ From: Eric Friedebach Subject: Wireless Video Comes Stateside Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:00:49 -0600 Organization: Purity Of Essence/Plant Operational Error Reply-To: Eric Friedebach Arik Hesseldahl, 03.28.03, Forbes.com NEW YORK - Just when you've gotten the hang of text messaging by wireless phone, a new kind of wireless phone messaging -- complete with digital photos -- comes along. Taking messaging another step forward, T-Mobile this week announced what it says is the first-of-its-kind video messaging service for mobile phones in the United States. The unit of Germany's Deutsche Telekom has launched a service that lets its customers send 10-second video clips to any e-mail address. Its service requires a video-capable phone, and T-Mobile has one in mind it would like to sell you: Nokia's 3650. The phone is eye-catching, with its rounded dial-pad and the lens on the back of its earpiece. T-Mobile is offering it for $200 after a rebate. Eventually, T-Mobile plans to support the service on more phones. http://www.forbes.com/2003/03/28/cx_ah_0328tentech.html Eric Friedebach ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Unsolicited Faxes Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:16:15 -0500 Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com jeffbrewster@hotmail.com (Jeff Brewster) posted on that vast internet thingie: > I know this has probably been discussed a lot, but I can't really find > any info for my situation. To start, I do not, nor have ever owned a > fax machine. Last July I moved into my new apartment and shortly > after having my phone connected (Verizon, live in NY), I started > receiving fax calls. Sounds like you inherited someone elses FAX number. Other than hooking up a FAX number and then contacting the FAX senders the best option might be to request/demand a new number from the phone company. 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: dwolffxx@panix.com (David Wolff) Subject: Re: U.S. TV Networks Jump in as War in Iraq Starts Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 06:47:28 UTC Organization: Public Access Networks Corp. In article , Ed Ellers wrote: > PAT, the TELECOM Digest Editor, noted: >> What makes you think Sodomy wasn't put in office by some standards which >> were/are acceptable to the Iraqi people? > The known facts, which are that he basically got where he is by the > point of a gun. >> After all, Queen Elizabeth was not elected by anyone, was she? But her >> being in the position she is in is acceptable to the British people. > The British monarch is not the head of the government -- the Prime Minister > is, and s/he is elected by the House of Commons, which *is* elected by the > people of the United Kingdom. >> How well do you *really know* what the Iraqi people want? > That's the whole point -- we don't know, because Saddam won't allow the sort > of free elections that would reveal the truth. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You contradict yourself in the same > article. You close by saying 'we dont know, because Saddam, etc.' but > you began your reply by saying 'the known facts are that he got into > office with the point of a gun.' Now do we, or don't we know? Or is > it more convenient to say he 'took office at the point of a gun'? If > you will recall, in 1776 a group of British patriots overthrew the > British government here in America to start the United States. I am > sure there were many British people who did not care for that either. > And please do not make a subjective decision and say 'oh, but that was > different'. Everything is different, everything is the same. PAT] No it's not. We know that " ... he basically got where he is by the point of a gun" because, at the Baath party convention, he accused about a third of the Baath party officials of being enemies of the state and had his killers lead them out and execute them. We know *that* because he videotaped the process and distributed copies of the tape to make sure that everyone in the country knew that he would not hesitate to kill anybody and everybody who got in his way. Using nerve gas on your own citizens when they revolt also leads me to suspect that that's not what the people of Iraq wanted. Well, not the 50,000 or so who died. I guess they don't complain much any more. The American revolution did not involve deliberate massacres of civilians or mass executions, by either side. (Well, the Brits may have killed some civilian rioters just before the big event, but it wasn't a policy of terrorizing their own citizens.) Thanks -- David (Remove "xx" to reply.) ------------------------------ From: David Clayton Subject: Re: Why the Dogs of Cyberwar Stay Leashed Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:45:46 +1100 Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.net.au Monty Solomon contributed the following: > The United States could try out its much-hyped "cyberwarfare" > capabilities in Iraq ... but it would probably be illegal. > By Mark Rasch Mar 24, 2003 > The U.S. military has reportedly developed impressive offensive > cyberwar capabilities, including the ability to use microwave or other > electronic impulses to disrupt or destroy electronic components. If > this is true, why have we not yet seen an all out cyberwar? Possibly because the "enemy" isn't that sophisticated and if they used 'em, then the "on the spot" journalists would have the arse blown out of their equipment? 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: FINAL Words on Sodomy Insane and Bush and TV Networks Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:20:57 -0800 In article , Michael D. Sullivan wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Now, we are finished? By the by, Attorney > Sullivan, a good conclusion to this, ummm, 'thread'. PAT] Except for the fact that "Attorney Sullivan" in his lengthy screed seems to have conveniently neglected the unanimously-passed UN resolutions in play on the world stage while pontificating on the president's lack of justification to invoke military action. With regard to Sullivan's obligatory and gratuitous reference to Hitler (which should in and of itself end the thread instantly): he neglected to state which League of Nations resolutions (if any) the Nazi leader was enforcing. If we are going to make comparisons, let us make them legitimate, no? I would say that the arguments on both sides of this discussion have been myopic to say the least. The reality now is that we are there, and any retreat short of accomplishing our stated objective would be most detrimental to this country's future. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: panoptes@iquest.net (Daniel W. Johnson) Subject: Re: FINAL Words on Sodomy Insane and Bush and TV Networks Date: 28 Mar 2003 12:55:22 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Michael D. Sullivan wrote in message news:: > And our strongman got where he is by the point of a 5-4 Supreme Court. > Bush II actually lost the popular vote -- the first resident of the > White House to have done so. What reference are you using, and what numbers does it have for Benjamin Harrison (1888), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), and John Quincy Adams (1824)? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:53:34 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Letters From Baghdad Putting a Human Face on the Horrors of the US-Led War in Iraq A very nice fellow who is a resident of Baghdad was regularly writing to Internet readers and had been for several months. A few days ago, his daily email things quit arriving, and those of us who read his words are wondering if he is okay or not. It has us a little bit worried, to say the least. He is not a 'journalist' or newspaper reporter; just a regular person who had the misfortune to be a resident of Baghdad, Iraq, once Bush went on his hissy fit. Toward the end of his daily 'columns' his blog was being picked up and distributed by Google. We hope he is okay, but just out of commission for awhile; as you may have heard, the USA chose to completely wreck the Iraqi phone system a couple days ago; the entire five story telephone exchange building in Baghdad was deliberatly bombed out of existence. As Raed Jarrar (his name) inquired in one column recently, 'is the way to liberate Iraq supposed to be by bombing the hell out of all of us? Yes, Raed, I guess so, at least Dubya has told us so. You can read his most recent (and older, archived) blogs on the net at http://dear_raed.blogspot.com. I began reading his columns back around the time of the *PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS* in Irag on September 22. You can email him directly at raidjarrar@yahoo.com or his friend salampax@nme.com . I sure hope the USA-led 'liberation' did not kill him and his friends. :( But it does have me worried. I've never known an *actual person* in that part of the world before. It leaves me feeling very sad tonight. :( Patrick Townson ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 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. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V22 #367 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Mar 29 14:11:09 2003 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h2TJB8Q04445; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:11:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:11:09 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200303291911.h2TJB8Q04445@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 #368 TELECOM Digest Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:11:00 EST Volume 22 : Issue 368 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson U.S. Lifts FBI Criminal Database Checks (Monty Solomon) Wireless Mushrooms (Monty Solomon) Here's a New Headset With a Split Personality (Monty Solomon) A Spam Fighter's Work is Never Done (Monty Solomon) Transient Microsoft Passport Security Vulnerability (Monty Solomon) Re: Use a Firewall, Go to Jail??? (John Higdon) Re: Use a Firewall, Go to Jail??? (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: Use a Firewall, Go to Jail??? (Dave Phelps) Update on $1.25 Charge to call 800-555-Tell from Verizon Wireless (S Sobol) Smart Term Macros (VP) Iraqi Oil (Ross McMicken) Re: FINAL Words on Sodomy Insane and Bush and TV Networks (Mike Sullivan) Re: FINAL Words on Sodomy Insane and Bush and (Raymond D. Mereniuk) For Sure This Time! FINAL Words on Sodomy Insane and Bush (Greg Wilson) 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, 29 Mar 2003 09:39:49 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: U.S. Lifts FBI Criminal Database Checks http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.65.html#subj4 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:15:30 +1100 (EST) From: Peets Subject: U.S. Lifts FBI Criminal Database Checks The Justice Department has lifted a requirement that is supposed to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of information about criminals and crime victims before it is added to the National Crime Information Center database, which includes data about terrorists, fugitives, warrants, people missing, gang members, and stolen vehicles, guns, and boats. Records are queried increasingly by the nation's law enforcement agencies to help decide whether to monitor, detain or arrest someone. The records are [supposedly] inaccessible to the public, and police have been prosecuted in U.S. courts for misusing the system to find, for example, personal information about girlfriends or former spouses. [RISKS has noted at least two such cases resulting in deaths of the identified persons.] Officials said the change, which immediately drew criticism from civil-liberties advocates, is necessary to ensure investigators have access to information that can't be confirmed but could take on new significance later, FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said. [...] Critics have noted complaints for years about wrong information in the computer files that disrupted the lives of innocent citizens, and the FBI has acknowledged problems. In one case, a Phoenix resident was arrested for minor traffic violations that had been quashed weeks earlier; in another, a civilian was misidentified as a Navy deserter. [Source: Ted Bridis, AP, 25 Mar 2003; PGN-ed] http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=542&u=/ap/20030325/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fbi_database_4&printer=1 The AP story can also be found here http://news.lycos.com/news/story.asp?section=Politics&storyId=686431 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:53:35 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Wireless Mushrooms http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.65.html#subj6 Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:52:47 -0500 From: brian-h seborg Subject: Wireless mushrooms Many articles have covered wireless security issues from a technical perspective including the weaknesses in WEP, the fixes to WEP (fast-packet keying), and recommendations for securing a wireless network (802.1x, suppress SSID broadcast, etc.), and I suspect that we in the technical community have a pretty clear understanding that tried and true network security solutions like SSL, SSH, firewalls, IPSec, two-factor authentication, etc. can be brought to bear to secure wireless networks in the same way we have used them to secure Internet and dial-up connections for years. The question is, do non-technical users have any knowledge of these things? My own experience is that the answer is "no." ISPs, especially those offering DSL and high-speed cable modems aren't doing much if anything to make up for this deficit even though they are now delivering wireless routers to customer's homes. I have noticed that in the last month three more access points have popped up in my neighborhood. Of the five I can see, only one has WEP turned on and all are broadcasting their SSIDs (making them visible to even a novice). As I drive around in my car, I can easily connect to four of these access points. Further, when I checked to see if I can connect to the default administrative port, I can do so on all but the WEP protected one, and on three, I see they have not reset the default admin password, meaning I could, if I were a bad guy, reconfigure their router either rendering it useless (until they re-initialize it), or opening it to the Internet. The fact that insecure access points are springing up like mushrooms makes it likely that we will begin to see a rash of hacked home users unless the high-speed Internet providers wake up and begin providing guidance to their customers about how to properly secure their wireless routers. In the case where Internet providers are supplying the wireless gear, it would seem prudent that they would supply each device with a default safe configuration (random SSID, SSID broadcast suppressed, random admin username, random admin password, etc.). Unfortunately, like usual, appropriate measures are unlikely to be taken until security breaches begin to get noticed and customers begin to complain. In the meantime, as good neighbors, we might consider performing a high-tech neighborhood watch informing neighbors that their home networks are insecure. :-) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:00:17 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Here's a New Headset With a Split Personality By WALTER S. MOSSBERG Lots of people carry multiple electronic gadgets, but two popular examples, wireless phones and portable music players, often clash. Using one usually means disconnecting the other. Take, for example, the case of someone listening to music on a portable player when his cellphone rings. If he hears the call at all, and the chances are slim, he would have to scramble to turn off the music, yank off the headphones and answer the call. And what if that person uses a hands-free headset for his cellphone? The scenario gets even more complicated -- stop music, pull headphones off, search for phone, insert hands-free earpiece into the ear, and finally answer the call. Now, a nine-week-old company called Skullcandy (www.skullcandy.com) has created a seemingly simple way to use both devices in harmony. Their $29.95 product, the Portable LINK, looks like a basic set of headphones with two plugs at the end of its cord -- one for the cellphone and the other for the music player. A small microphone is built into the cord for hands-free talking. The LINK is supposed to work by playing the phone's ringing sound through the headphones on top of the music that is playing. After hearing the ring, you answer the call by either pressing the small function button on the headphone cord, or by setting your phone to auto-answer mode, which requires no button pressing. You can talk over the music, or turn the music volume down with a knob on the headphone cord. But does it really work? http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/solution-20030326.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have observed the same behavior with my cell phone (Cingular, Nokia 5165) and a small (credit card size and only a bit thicker than a credit card) digital tuning FM receiver I got from Radio Shack, The radio fits in my shirt pocket; the phone is clipped on my belt. Through the radio earphones, if the phone 'rings' I hear a distinct loud hum in the earphones for the several seconds the cell carrier is signaling me to answer the phone, but once I answer the phone -- even if I leave the earphone covering my free ear and playing music -- the hum goes away. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:21:45 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: A Spam Fighter's Work is Never Done Suresh Ramasubramanian's job is to stop junk e-mail from ever getting to your in box. But for every spammer he blocks, a dozen more rise up. By Michelle Delio March 27, 2003 | It was the end of another 12-hour day filled with hostility, deception and confusion, and an exhausted Suresh Ramasubramanian, a systems administrator at a Hong Kong ISP, was finally getting ready to head home. On his way out the door he happened to take one last look at the network status and noticed that a mail bomb -- a flood of incoming spam messages -- had just begun. Ramasubramanian realized he probably wouldn't be getting any sleep that night. He spent the next eight hours struggling to block the spam attack and contain the damage. The huge volumes of mail the spammer was sending -- several hundred thousand messages at a time from different Internet protocol (IP) addresses at the rate of 20,000 every 10 minutes -- was clogging his servers and seriously slowing down mail service to his legitimate users. Stopping a spam surge usually isn't rocket science; skilled workers can trace and trap a spam flood within a few minutes by determining what IP address the spam is coming from and then blocking access to the spammed servers from that IP address. Unfortunately, expert spammers can also switch IP addresses as quickly as the blocks are applied. Ramasubramanian wasn't surprised to see that each time he located the IP address the spammer was spewing from and blocked it, the spammer quickly jumped to another IP address. http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/03/27/spam_fighter/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:01:05 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Transient Microsoft Passport Security Vulnerability http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.65.html#subj11 Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:05:18 -0500 From: "James Van Bokkelen" Subject: Transient Microsoft Passport security vulnerability When a laptop arrived last week with a sacrificial Windows XP Home Edition installed on it, we combined curiosity with a testing opportunity, and analyzed its network traffic with our NetIntercept tool. After using UDP-based protocols to locate resources, and HTTP and HTTP over SSL to register itself, the WinXP installer asked if we wanted to create a .NET Passport account. We agreed. After an initial exchange with host nexus.passport.com using HTTP over SSL, subsequent HTTP connections used normal HTTP on port 80. We were quite surprised by several POST commands to register.msnia.passport.net. Each contained plaintext answers to the previous screen's questions. All the critical data necessary to hijack the .NET passport was exposed: name, birthday, ZIP, gender, occupation, password and secret question/answer. A more detailed analysis can be found at http://www.sandstorm.net/passport This took place on the morning of 14 Mar 2003. Microsoft was informed as soon as we made our way through the obfuscation protecting the proper channels, and they assured us the problem was being worked on. Testing on 17 Mar led us to believe it was fixed, and Microsoft confirmed this later in the day. They told us the problem had been introduced as part of routine web site maintenance earlier in the week. Because it didn't involve customer software, they didn't plan to issue a security bulletin. The risks associated with maintaining systems are well known; I expect an enormous number of people have studied that particular set of transactions since the Passport roll-out. However, any others who looked during the period of vulnerability apparently didn't inform Microsoft. Presumably we won't hear more unless a rash of identity theft generates publicity. Although I've been involved with the Internet for years, I had avoided using my credit card over the net until this month. Given current tools, I'll feel compelled to read the page source before I do so again. ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Use a Firewall, Go to Jail??? Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:01:01 -0800 In article , Jack wrote: > Massachusetts, Texas, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alaska, > Tennessee, and Colorado are all preparing to consider bills that would > extend the reach of the DMCA in such a way that could ban the > possession, sale, or use of technologies that "conceal from a > communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or > destination of any communication". What business is it of your ISP what the origin or destination might be of your communications? > I look at this and I think, this can't be right -- it has to be a case > of sensationalizing the news. This may be bad legislation, but it > can't be that bad (or stupid), can it? I mean, after all, who doesn't > use a firewall of some kind these days? What next, will they outlaw > hard drives? Please tell me that this is not as bad as it sounds! Who cares? I'd like to see them try to enforce it. The use of a VPN (common technology that isn't going away just because of stupid legislators) makes any such law moot. John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS +1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Use a Firewall, Go to Jail Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:00:59 GMT On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:36:25 -0500, Monty Solomon posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: > http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000336.html > March 26, 2003 > Use a Firewall, Go to Jail > The states of Massachusetts and Texas are preparing to consider bills > that apparently are intended to extend the national Digital > Millennium Copyright Act. (TX bill; MA bill) The bills are obviously > related to each other somehow, since they are textually similar. > Here is one example of the far-reaching harmful effects of these > bills. Both bills would flatly ban the possession, sale, or use of > technologies that "conceal from a communication service provider ... > the existence or place of origin or destination of any > communication". Your ISP is a communication service provider, so > anything that concealed the origin or destination of any > communication from your ISP would be illegal -- with no exceptions. Despite all of the scare talk in the postings on freedom-to-tinker.com and dslreports.com regarding these bills, the bills themselves don't support the concerns expressed. Both bills bar concealment etc. only if done with intent to steal service or otherwise defraud the provider. If your provider permits only one device to be connected without an extra payment, it would be fraud, and thus prohibited, to use a router to evade that payment requirement. However, nothing in either bill (in their present form, as represented in the links from the above site) would bar the typical DSL customer from installing a NAT router, using Windows ICS, etc. Nor would either bill make it illegal to send encrypted email, mung your address in the "from" line, or anything else that doesn't defraud the provider. > If you send or receive your email via an encrypted connection, you're > in violation, because the "To" and "From" lines of the emails are > concealed from your ISP by encryption. (The encryption conceals the > destinations of outgoing messages, and the sources of incoming > messages.) > Worse yet, Network Address Translation (NAT), a technology widely > used for enterprise security, operates by translating the "from" and > "to" fields of Internet packets, thereby concealing the source or > destination of each packet, and hence violating these bills. Most > security "firewalls" use NAT, so if you use a firewall, you're in > violation. > If you have a home DSL router, or if you use the "Internet Connection > Sharing" feature of your favorite operating system product, you're in > violation because these connection sharing technologies use NAT. Most > operating system products (including every version of Windows > introduced in the last five years, and virtually all versions of > Linux) would also apparently be banned, because they support > connection sharing via NAT. > And this is just one example of the problems with these bills. Yikes. > UPDATE (6:35 PM): It's worse than I thought. Similar bills are on the > table in South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alaska, Tennessee, and > Colorado. > UPDATE (March 28, 9:00 AM): Clarified the paragraph above about > encrypted email, to eliminate an ambiguity. > Posted by Edward W. Felten at 01:04 PM Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA (delete NOSPAM from address to mail me) ------------------------------ From: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Use a Firewall, Go to Jail??? Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:32:53 -0600 Organization: www.tippenring.com In article , unspammable-4729 @workbench.net says: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes it can be, and is true. Dubya and > his agents want everyone to be out in the public view where they can > be seen. Its part of the war on terrorism, you know, and how the brave > American patriots are sacrificing for the Good of Our Country. Just > like having your private parts groped in airport security lines and > red tags denying you the right to travel freely. PAT] Give me a break, Pat. Is 'Dubya' involved in everything that you perceive as bad? These are *state* laws. 'Dubya' is just the Prez. Why would he possibly care what goofy laws the states are trying to pass? Do you think the state legislators really need help drafting stupid legislation? Read through your own state laws sometime. I'm sure you'll find some of them quite entertaining -- and they were written without Dubya's help. Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: Steven J. Sobol Subject: Update on $1 Charge to Call 800-555-Tell From Verizon Wireless Phone Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:57:36 -0000 Organization: JustThe.net LLC [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This header arrived here without any text included. I *assume* Steve was either asking for an update on the topic from readers, or attempting to make an update. Please re-submit the comment or inquiry. Thanks. PAT] Steve Sobol/CTO/JustThe.net LLC/Mentor On The Lake (Cleveland), OH/888.480.4NET "This country has a strong ethical foundation, but... I hesitate to say that erosion has set in, but it is clear that more and more of what we are is being built on sand and not on that foundation." - G. Waleed Kavalec, in SPAM-L ------------------------------ From: VP Subject: Smart Term Macros Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 05:32:33 -0500 Is anyone out there in Telecom Digest Land familiar with the macro programming language used by the Smart Term Terminal program. I'm in need of a relatively simple program, however not being familiar with the programming language I could use an assist. I tried for two days to get it to work, but was only partially successful. If anyone can help, please email me at victor@snet.net I will be truly greatful !!! Thanks !!!! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:29:11 -0600 From: Ross McMicken Subject: Iraqi Oil [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know, if you are trying to cause me to have another heart attack, you are doing a damn good job! Their oil will remain their oil but my prediction is Saddam or his predecessors will place a 'war surcharge' on sales to the USA and USA sympathizers and force us to buy it through some third party. Either they will refuse to sell it to us at all or make it prohibitively expensive. Why, it may even come to the point that Bush will declare war (again!) on the Iraqi people and take the oil by force whether they like it or not. Did you notice how the very first thing the troops did when they arrived was deploy soldiers to guard the oil wells, of which there are about two thousand in Bagdhad alone? Maybe Saddam will try to strike a deal with the USA. "You need oil to survive, I need nuclear weapons to survive'; let's help each other out." And Bush may decide to go along with it. As I said earlier this week, this thread is supposed to be closed. PAT] Pat, one country alone cannot place a war surcharge on oil. Oil is a commodity, with prices determined by the market place. If Iraq withholds oil the price will rise, but Iraq will get no revenue. If they refuse to sell to us at all, we'll buy oil elsewhere. It really is that simple. There are no oil wells in Baghdad. Iraq's big fields are in the North and Southeast. Of course the oil fields in the South are guarded by US/British troops. Given Saddam's propensity for destroying wells, it would be remiss not to prevent such destruction. Ross McMIcken ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: FINAL Words on Sodomy Insane and Bush and TV Networks Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:32:43 GMT On 28 Mar 2003 12:55:22 -0800, Daniel W. Johnson posted the following to comp.dcom.telecom: > Michael D. Sullivan wrote in message > news:: >> And our strongman got where he is by the point of a 5-4 Supreme Court. >> Bush II actually lost the popular vote -- the first resident of the >> White House to have done so. > What reference are you using, and what numbers does it have for > Benjamin Harrison (1888), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), and John Quincy > Adams (1824)? I erred. I should have said "the first resident of the White House in modern times to have done so." > In article , Michael D. Sullivan > wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Now, we are finished? By the by, Attorney >> Sullivan, a good conclusion to this, ummm, 'thread'. PAT] > Except for the fact that "Attorney Sullivan" in his lengthy screed > seems to have conveniently neglected the unanimously-passed UN > resolutions in play on the world stage while pontificating on the > president's lack of justification to invoke military action. The UN is responsible for enforcing UN resolutions. The US is not. The UN chose not to enforce via invasion. We violated the clear consensus of the Security Council when we invaded. It's noteworthy that Bush II said a few weeks back that he wanted the Security Council to vote our resolution up or down, no matter what. When it appeared that we not only would be vetoed by at least three members, but would be voted down by a majority, he decided to invade. I don't call that enforcement of UN resolutions. I call that unilateral hostile action. > With regard to Sullivan's obligatory and gratuitous reference to > Hitler (which should in and of itself end the thread instantly): he > neglected to state which League of Nations resolutions (if any) the > Nazi leader was enforcing. If we are going to make comparisons, let us > make them legitimate, no? (I was kind of hoping that the gratuitous reference to Hitler would end the thread, in accordance with "Godwin's law," but I wasn't really "comparing" Bush to Hitler, as you well know.) I didn't suggest that Hitler was enforcing anything other than his own claims (e.g., the Sudetenland, the Germans in Poland). Bush II is _claiming_ to enforce UN resolutions, but (a) the UN resolutions pointedly don't authorize us to enforce them, (b) the UN chose to enforce them through inspections instead of invasion, and (c) there isn't any UN resolution regarding regime change in Iraq. > I would say that the arguments on both sides of this discussion have > been myopic to say the least. The reality now is that we are there, > and any retreat short of accomplishing our stated objective would be > most detrimental to this country's future. If accomplishing the stated objective (which one? WMD, regime change, or the global eradication of terrorism?) involves a drawn-out war that expands to other countries, wrecks national economies worldwide, and results in the institution of US-hating fundamentalist Islamic regimes throughout the middle east, I think that stopping short of that would indeed be better for our country's future. Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA (delete NOSPAM from address to mail me) [Moderator Hitler's Note: I *do intend* to end this thread pretty quick now. I know I said that a few days ago, and I meant it then, but this time I mean it even more. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Raymond D. Mereniuk Organization: FBN Technical Services Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:03:34 -0700 Subject: Re: FINAL Words on Sodomy Insane and Bush and panoptes@iquest.net (Daniel W. Johnson) wrote: >> And our strongman got where he is by the point of a 5-4 Supreme Court. >> Bush II actually lost the popular vote -- the first resident of the >> White House to have done so. > What reference are you using, and what numbers does it have for > Benjamin Harrison (1888), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), and John Quincy > Adams (1824)? In addition, isn't the system intended to work this way? Isn't the idea to allow the voters in low population states some protection from voting tends in high population states? Even Al Gore has given up beating this drum. He lost fair and square by the rules. I imagine if he would have accepted the loss from the very beginning he would still be a candidate in 2004. No one likes a whining loser. ------------------------------ From: Greg Wilson Subject: This Time for Sure: Re: FINAL Words on Sodomy Insane and Bush and TV Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:29:12 -0500 Michael D. Sullivan quoted a reader: >> Pat, this is getting silly. With all due respect to your fine skills >> as the TD moderator, and with sympathy for the health problems that >> you have suffered, it's pointless to debate this with you until you >> have the opportunity to get back up to speed on some of the basic >> facts surrounding the issues; facts that are commonly acknowledged by >> folks on both sides of the debate, but which you don't seem to be >> aware of. One of these facts is that Saddam is responsible for the >>